The SF Conundrum

My name is URL

No doubt that by now you all know about Martin Ferris' idiotic decision to meet the 2 men that killed Jerry McCabe upon their release from prison

Gerry Adams stated that the men had expressed their 'deep regret and apologised' for the hurt and grief caused to the families of Garda McCabe and Garda Ben O'Sullivan

On this same day, Adams condemned the lenient sentences handed to the killers of republican Harry Holland. One of them, Stephen McKee was sentenced to 12 years

Why do SF feel the need to keep up appearances with the people carrying out these atrocities?

Can they not see the damage it does to the party as a whole?

And how can a party which still openly supports murderers and other criminals even be constitutionally allowed to hold seats of power amongst our government?

slavetothegrind

10 years for the killing of a garda. ( it was murder but legally it was difficult to prove due to the retarded nature of our legal system)
Pathetic.

Ferris and his so called republicans are cowardly scum hiding behind a flag.

Those two should never have been let out.

Sand

Whats surprising about it?

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater who got what was coming to him, and the men who killed him are heroes who should be honoured by every true Irish man and woman.

Provo voters seem to agree with that.

Dont be surprised if the killers of McCabe turn up as "activists" or even as electoral candidates. There is a real constituency out there for murderers.

Fratton Fred

Does it matter to SF? They're like marmite, love em or hate em. Those that hate them will never vote for them and those that love them follow them with blind acceptance that they can do no wrong.

This won't lose them any votes, just credability.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's a few good little pieces about the SF conundrum in the Village at the mo.

mikemac

Sand wrote: »

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater

Having worked in NI I could never understand why people used that term.

"Going shopping in the Free State over the weekend?"
"Eh, you and me weren't alive when it ceased to exist."

I just don't get it

Not aimed at you Sand

Joey the lips

This is being exhausted in after hours at the moment. Needless to day my favorate quote was

"No matter what you say about martin ferris he has always stood by his principles"

Born a republician, Raised a republician, Will die a republician


I have a nice respect for the mans principles.

weepee

I was not surprised at Ferris meeting the two being released from prison, really.

SF make no bones about they're link to IRA activists, that isnt going to change.

PS: A lot of Northern nationalist refer to the lower 26 counties as 'The Free State'.

After all, they were abandoned by the Treaty of 1921.

Knee Grow Plz

Sand wrote: »

Whats surprising about it?

The Provo position has always been that McCabe was a freestater who got what was coming to him, and the men who killed him are heroes who should be honoured by every true Irish man and woman.

Provo voters seem to agree with that.

Dont be surprised if the killers of McCabe turn up as "activists" or even as electoral candidates. There is a real constituency out there for murderers.

I read it as more of a "Ahhh for fuks sake how teh fuk are we going to PR this mess"

Rather than a call to arms.

Firetrap

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what Sinn Féin stands for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

Knee Grow Plz

Firetrap wrote: »

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what political parties stand for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

I agree.

My name is URL

Firetrap wrote: »

It's good that things like this happen from time to time. It's a reminder to people of just what Sinn Féin stands for. They can attempt to airbrush their image all they want and wheel out shiny young candidates at elections but these old die-hards go and spoil it all every time :rolleyes:

Exactly my thoughts.

I honestly was beginning to think that SF were on the verge of turning over a new leaf

They undid any progress they've made by showing their old colors today

Flamed Diving

You can polish a turd...

marco murphy

My name is URL wrote: »

Exactly my thoughts.

I honestly was beginning to think that SF were on the verge of turning over a new leaf

They undid any progress they've made by showing their old colors today

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

weepee

What is it the Sinn Fein stands for then ?

I think they are running two agenda's.

One North.

One South.

Tho in the North, there is very little alternative to vote for, with an All Ireland agenda,
so they're pretty much secure on they're vote.

My name is URL

Perestroika wrote: »

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

No, he collected two cop-killers

2 scumbags that tarnish what Republicanism stands for

Flamed Diving

Perestroika wrote: »

Wow, the fact that Martin Ferris collected two members of the Republican Movement has had a huge effect on your views of Sinn Fein.

Doesn't affect my view of SF in the slightest.

A Dub in Glasgo

Nor mine

Liam Byrne

Nor mine, really.

OK, it's PROOF of mine, but it doesn't change it.

nesf

Politics is tribal, personally I find it reprehensible that he met them but I can see why they needed to be met by a major SF figure for the sake of part of the base.

turgon

weepee wrote: »

A lot of Northern nationalist refer to the lower 26 counties as 'The Free State'.
After all, they were abandoned by the Treaty of 1921.

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

DoireNod

turgon wrote: »

The Treaty was 88 years ago, I would hazard a guess that 98% of the nationalist you talk about weren't around then to be abandoned. But I suppose their position depends on them clinging to the past as if it were the present.

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it. You can't deny that things which happen now will have an impact, however directly or indirectly, on future generations - just as partition effectively abandoned the Irish people in the North at the time and all the generations since.

djpbarry

DoireNod wrote: »

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it. You can't deny that things which happen now will have an impact, however directly or indirectly, on future generations...

Of course. But if in 80 years’ time, somebody in this country bases their vote in a general election on the fact that they (dis)agree with the content of the Lisbon Treaty, then that person will deservedly earn the title of ‘Idiot’.

DoireNod

djpbarry wrote: »

Of course. But if in 80 years’ time, somebody in this country bases their vote in a general election on the fact that they (dis)agree with the content of the Lisbon Treaty, then that person will deservedly earn the title of ‘Idiot’.

Fair enough, but the Lisbon Treaty and Irish independence is slightly different. I mean, the way it is currently and looking at history, people in the North can't help be feel aggrieved at the fact they were 'sold out' or whatever. It doesn't help that nearly all consequent governments since 1921 have effectively abandoned the independence issue.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

It doesn't help that nearly all consequent governments since 1921 have effectively abandoned the independence issue.

What ?????

The current government (for all its flaws) managed to give the people of the north "the right to self-determination".

If that's abandoning, I'm off looking for another word that describes what they've done to the rest of us.......

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

Just because they weren't around when it came into effect, doesn't mean they aren't affected by it.

No doubt. However saying "we" "abandoned" "them" is being fallacious. I never voted for partition. Although saying that were I given the choice I would have voted for it.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ?????

The current government (for all its flaws) managed to give the people of the north "the right to self-determination".

If that's abandoning, I'm off looking for another word that describes what they've done to the rest of us.......

When was that right given? 1999? Almost a century after partition? At any rate, the seemingly noble act of giving the Irish people of the North the 'right to self-determination' is a mere token gesture and it was done under duress, rather than as an active and positive pursuit by the Irish Government. Can I remind you of the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution, which effectively gave up the Irish Government's rightful(IMO) assertion to Irish soil?

By the way, I'm curious - do you think all those Irish people from the North, who died before the Belfast Agreement, not really Irish then?

turgon wrote: »

No doubt. However saying "we" "abandoned" "them" is being fallacious. I never voted for partition. Although saying that were I given the choice I would have voted for it.

It's 'fallacious' to a degree, but not completely unfounded. Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

At any rate, the seemingly noble act of giving the Irish people of the North the 'right to self-determination' is a mere token gesture and it was done under duress.....

You left out the "(IMO)" on that part.... :rolleyes:

DoireNod wrote: »

Can I remind you of the amendment of articles two and three of the constitution, which effectively gave up the Irish Government's rightful(IMO) assertion to Irish soil?

You don't need to. I voted that way. And so for you to suggest that I voted lightly and "under duress" is extremely insulting.

It's MY vote, not yours. You have no right to dictate how I use it, and you definitely don't have to remind me.

DoireNod wrote: »

By the way, I'm curious - do you think all those Irish people from the North, who died before the Belfast Agreement, not really Irish then?

Muddying the waters, I see. No, I don't. Just the same as I view Irish people living elsewhere in the world, so quit the crap, please, and quit trying to imply that my views are somehow more "objectionable" than you already seem to think that they are - it's tiring and irritating and will make me stop contributing.

DoireNod wrote: »

Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

I can't speak for turgon, but I can say that when people were offered the GFA in order to stop the murder and violence, they voted to stop the murder and violence.

And they could easily have voted the other way for the same reason.

A fellow Irish person living over a border is a lot more acceptable to me than a dead one buried on the same soil.

Mind you, you could replace the word Irish with "innocent", and I'd say the same.

So after all the extremists started calling the shots, I would have voted for ANYTHING that would have stopped that and create the first steps for a normal, democratic society.

Ironically, if the terrorists hadn't been blowing up innocent people, then I wouldn't have had to vote to relinquish Articles 2 & 3.....I guess that means the reign of terror backfired.

Now we move FORWARD.....

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

It's 'fallacious' to a degree, but not completely unfounded. Out of interest, why would you have voted for partition?

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You don't need to. I voted that way. And so for you to suggest that I voted lightly and "under duress" is extremely insulting.

It's MY vote, not yours. You have no right to dictate how I use it, and you definitely don't have to remind me.

Since you're misunderstanding me, I'll clarify. By under duress, I meant that the Irish Government and the British Government were effectively forced to the table. I wouldn't tell you how to vote, but I think that giving up the right to Irish land, almost a century after the Declaration of Independence and the introduction of the constitution is a bit of a joke. Although, I suppose it the Irish government had already abandoned that right, just unofficially.

Muddying the waters, I see. No, I don't. Just the same as I view Irish people living elsewhere in the world, so quit the crap, please, and quit trying to imply that my views are somehow more "objectionable" than you already seem to think that they are - it's tiring and irritating and will make me stop contributing.

Simple question. I implied nothing and I wouldn't say it's muddying the waters. If you find it irritating that I can ask a reasonable question, that's your problem. I don't brand your discussion as 'crap', so I find it unfortunate that you feel the need to candidly disregard my questions.

I can't speak for turgon, but I can say that when people were offered the GFA in order to stop the murder and violence, they voted to stop the murder and violence.

I do understand that, but turgon was speaking about 1921, I believe.

So after all the extremists started calling the shots, I would have voted for ANYTHING that would have stopped that and create the first steps for a normal, democratic society.

We could get philosophical here. Who's to say that a democratic society is 'normal' or even that it's right or the best form of government? We'll leave that to another day in another thread though

Ironically, if the terrorists hadn't been blowing up innocent people, then I wouldn't have had to vote to relinquish Articles 2 & 3.....I guess that means the reign of terror backfired.

If 'terrorists' hadn't blown up 'innocent' people in the early 20th century, you wouldn't have an 'independent' Irish state either, but fair enough, I see where you're coming from. By the way, what's with the 'reign of terror' rhetoric?

Now we move FORWARD.....

How do you propose that we move forward?

turgon wrote: »

By voting for partition, I meant I would have voted Yes to the Anglo-Irish Treaty in 1921. As would have any pragmatist. The idealists voted No.

I see. I'm torn on the subject to be completely honest!

turgon

DoireNod wrote: »

I see. I'm torn on the subject to be completely honest!

Even though this isn't history, I believe voting yes was the only way. It was an ok solution and the alternative was another war. I rank war as a worse thing than partition.