The SF Conundrum

turgon

You are obviously not going to address the fact that hypothetical 32 country Ireland would not have been the same as the Free State.

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Irish Republicans just don't see the divides in the country as natural or positive.

If that true then why are they opposed to each and every EU Treaty; that would bring Ireland and the North closer together?

IIMII

mikemac wrote: »

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

It's just slagging most of the time. You should respond with something along the lines of 'Would ye listen to the brit!'. Sometimes you hear the term 'freestater' being used to describe someone with a partitionist mentality, given away frequently by using the term 'Northern Ireland' as if that area were a different country to the south. Used in that context, it's a reminder to the person being labelled a 'free stater' that the people in the south abandoned those in the north following in the treaty that led to the creation of the Free State. It's understandable that a sense of agrievement still exists

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

Irish Republicans just don't see the divides in the country as natural or positive. They work against the country rather than for it. It has encouraged sectarianism not cured it.

Ironic phrasing, Can'tseeme; I'd assume, given your stance, that you intended your "they" to refer to the divides, however it could also be viewed to equally apply to the "capital R" Republicans.

I don't see criminality, bombing or murder as "natural or positive", and I think those acts ALSO encouraged sectarianism not cured it.

So would I be welcomed in this hypothetical united Ireland created by these people ?

Given the abuse I've gotten for some of my views, I doubt it.

And since "people like me" get "West Brit" thrown at them as an insult, despite me being a 100% Irishman and having a slight preference for a united Ireland in the right circumstances, by agreement, led by the right people [ see your definition of the "small-r" version, I guess, except with an "it's up to themselves after I voted for the GFA" thrown in ], it begs the question how "equal" these Unionists would be and what insults would be thrown at them.

If I'm supposedly a "West Brit", with my neutral views, would they be "West West Brits" ?

Because if I can't voice a differing opinion here as it is, without being insulted, then god help them.

Liam Byrne

IIMII wrote: »

Sometimes you hear the term 'freestater' being used to describe someone with a partitionist mentality, given away frequently by using the term 'Northern Ireland' as if that area were a different country to the south.

Face facts - the reason they have that mentality is because IT IS a different country. There's no "partitionist mentality" required; I know I'll be flamed for that, but like others who have said things that aren't necessarily their views or preferences, it is a FACT.

I'd like lots of things to be true, it doesn't make them so.

IIMII wrote: »

Used in that context, it's a reminder to the person being labelled a 'free stater' that the people in the south abandoned those in the north following in the treaty that led to the creation of the Free State. It's understandable that a sense of agrievement still exists.

Despite the fact that very few people still alive "abandoned" anyone ?

And despite the fact that we signed a new treaty saying "stop killing each other and decide where ye want to belong, and we'll support that 100%".

Jaysus, if they still hold a grudge on that I can't see why they want to be part of the same country as us at all.

IIMII

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Face facts - the reason they have that mentality is because IT IS a different country. There's no "partitionist mentality" required; I know I'll be flamed for that, but like others who have said things that aren't necessarily their views or preferences, it is a FACT.

I'd like lots of things to be true, it doesn't make them so.

Live and let live, each to their own

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And despite the fact that we signed a new treaty saying "stop killing each other and decide where ye want to belong, and we'll support that 100%".

Erm, the agreement states that the counties of Antrim, Down, Armagh, Fermanagh, Tyrone and Derry can opt out of UK rule etc by referendum. Doesn't state that the status quo is maintained to the benefit of unionists. Whether you like it or not, the day will come when this country will be a single state. You have to let go and stop living in the past - you'll feel better if you let it all go

Liam Byrne

IIMII wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, the day will come when this country will be a single state.

If that's what's decided, great. You obviously haven't read where I've said this would be my preference, so less of the "whether you like it or not" please.

IIMII wrote: »

You have to let go and stop living in the past - you'll feel better if you let it all go

Kettle, pot:

IIMII wrote: »

Used in that context, it's a reminder to the person being labelled a 'free stater' that the people in the south abandoned those in the north following in the treaty that led to the creation of the Free State. It's understandable that a sense of agrievement still exists

IIMII

Grand so. I rest your case

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You know WELL that I was referring to the "acting on individual beliefs" aspect - I even said so. :rolleyes: TWICE.

If we're to believe Ferris was, then maybe we should believe that the shooter that day was.

Maybe both were. Maybe neither were. I don't know.

But I'd give kudos to anyone who recognised the POSSIBILITY that THAT ASPECT of both were EQUIVALENT.

Maybe you should have chosen a better example than Bloody Sunday then.

ardmacha

ardmacha: Firstly your judging the hypothetical united Ireland as merely an expansion of the current one. However I said one couldn't because "the Irish [current] state never exercised control over such a sizable population of unionists that they would amount to a large grouping." In our Ireland one can ignore protestants because they are such a small minority. However a large group of them, some 100s of thousands, up North would have been a different matter.

I didn't say anything which particularly implied that a United Ireland would be like the present one. In 1920 unionists had considerable ability to negotiate for arrangements that suited them, they just never tried, preferring to keep the colonial thing going in as big an area as possible.

There is not symmetry between the position of nationalists in NI and unionists in a UI. In a UI, unionists would be a significant minority. But
- they would be regional
- they would not be growing greatly in number nor in danger of taking over the whole state
- they are not like Sudetenland Germans, given the general evolution of opinion in Britain, people there would not be seeking to include them again in their State, provided that they were treated fairly.
- above all the underlying political principle of a democratic Ireland is that it should benefit its citizens, whatever their ancestry. Now of course politicians have deviated from this, and this include those who shout most about uniting Ireland. But it is a much more acceptable principle and one capable of enjoying widespread support than the ethnic colonial entity that is Northern Ireland.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Maybe you should have chosen a better example than Bloody Sunday then.

Why ? I said exactly what I was getting at in the post, but you chose to ignore it.

The "Republican Movement" refuse to believe that the shooter on that day acted on their own "initiative", demanding a full enquiry and explanation.

They're entitled to that view, and that stance. They could well be right.

But having taken that stance and demanded explanations, refusing to accept the possibility that it's an individual's own actions, they SHOULD be perfectly placed to understand anyone's scepticism re reassurances that OTHERS acted "individually".

But because it's "the other side", they - like you - refuse point-blank to recognise the parallel and the double-standards.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Why ? I said exactly what I was getting at in the post, but you chose to ignore it.

In your post, as I see it (since I wouldn't like to say what you were thinking), you have compared Martin Ferris' meeting of two criminals to the killing of fourteen innocent people by the British establishment. There is no comparison, even if you think that the 'aspect' of your comparison (being that one might act on his own beliefs?) has some credence. Martin Ferris did not shoot an innocent man, he met two men as they left prison after their sentence was served. The British Parachute regiment, supposedly a well disciplined group of soldiers, shot at innocent people at what was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration, with the clear intent to kill (otherwise why shoot?). Unless there was mutiny in the ranks, that was an officially sanctioned act. 27 people were shot and 14 died. So you'll have to forgive me for thinking that maybe you could have chosen a better example to support your claim.

The "Republican Movement" refuse to believe that the shooter on that day acted on their own "initiative", demanding a full enquiry and explanation.

They're entitled to that view, and that stance. They could well be right.

And rightly so. I agree.

But having taken that stance and demanded explanations, refusing to accept the possibility that it's an individual's own actions, they SHOULD be perfectly placed to understand anyone's scepticism re reassurances that OTHERS acted "individually".
But because it's "the other side", they - like you - refuse point-blank to recognise the parallel and the double-standards.

I don't think I've ever complained that people may believe that others (I'm assuming you mean Martin Ferris) may have acted individually, so you're wrong to say that I 'refuse point-blank' - I just don't think that the comparison of Martin Ferris and Bloody Sunday is a fair one at all. I could see your point if Martin Ferris had shot 27 people and killed 14 at a peaceful demonstration.

Can'tseeme

oscarBravo wrote: »

If the Republicans had accepted the monarchy...

Can you see the deep and fundamental flaw in your premise?

People have a right to prefer a Monarchy to a Republic. But the majority of people in Ireland wanted a Republic. I'm saying is there would have been room for Unionists to negotiate a settlement that would have suited their needs in Ireland had they not been so opposed to home rule.

turgon wrote: »

You are obviously not going to address the fact that hypothetical 32 country Ireland would not have been the same as the Free State.

It may not have been the same but I'm saying that I don't think Protestants would have suffered (as was being argued by Unionists) in a 32 county Irish Republic.

turgon wrote: »

If that true then why are they opposed to each and every EU Treaty; that would bring Ireland and the North closer together?

Eh? Which treaty would bring North and South closer together?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Ironic phrasing, Can'tseeme; I'd assume, given your stance, that you intended your "they" to refer to the divides, however it could also be viewed to equally apply to the "capital R" Republicans.

I don't see criminality, bombing or murder as "natural or positive", and I think those acts ALSO encouraged sectarianism not cured it.

So would I be welcomed in this hypothetical united Ireland created by these people ?

Given the abuse I've gotten for some of my views, I doubt it.

And since "people like me" get "West Brit" thrown at them as an insult, despite me being a 100% Irishman and having a slight preference for a united Ireland in the right circumstances, by agreement, led by the right people [ see your definition of the "small-r" version, I guess, except with an "it's up to themselves after I voted for the GFA" thrown in ], it begs the question how "equal" these Unionists would be and what insults would be thrown at them.

If I'm supposedly a "West Brit", with my neutral views, would they be "West West Brits" ?

Because if I can't voice a differing opinion here as it is, without being insulted, then god help them.

I think we need to move away from petty insults. Like calling Northerners "foreigners" or using terms like "West Brit". I'm as 100% Irish as you Liam and my personal view is that Ireland is for everyone on this island. Orange, Green, Black, White, Religious, Non-Religious.

Sorry about the grammar btw, it's obviously a sore point. I'm in work and sometimes have to quickly type my post without properly checking it over

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

The British Parachute regiment, supposedly a well disciplined group of soldiers, shot at innocent people at what was supposed to be a peaceful demonstration, with the clear intent to kill (otherwise why shoot?). Unless there was mutiny in the ranks, that was an officially sanctioned act. 27 people were shot and 14 died. So you'll have to forgive me for thinking that maybe you could have chosen a better example to support your claim.

How ironic, considering the case that we're discussing. Trained people shooting at someone indicates a "clear intent to kill", does it ? Pity you weren't the DPP in the McCabe case.

In relation to everything else that you said, you know WELL that THE ONLY parallel that I was drawing was the "acting off their own bat"; if we're to believe that Ferris did, then we should equally believe that the possiblity that the British soldiers did.

But from the phrasing in your post above, you are 100% determined not to give them the benefit of the doubt; that's fair enough - I'd be sceptical too; but the difference is that I'm sceptical of Ferris too. If you cannot give the British the benefit of the doubt - to the point where your definition declares "a clear intent to kill", I cannot for the life of me see how you defend Ferris or claim that the act in Adare was manslaughter.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

I don't think I've ever complained that people may believe that others (I'm assuming you mean Martin Ferris) may have acted individually, so you're wrong to say that I 'refuse point-blank' - I just don't think that the comparison of Martin Ferris and Bloody Sunday is a fair one at all. I could see your point if Martin Ferris had shot 27 people and killed 14 at a peaceful demonstration.

You've reversed the comparision. :rolleyes:

I'm not suggesting that you complain that people believe that Ferris - or the thugs involved - acted on their own.

I'm saying that if you refuse to allow people to believe that he/they DIDN'T, then you've no right to automatically believe that the Brit's DIDN'T.

Liam Byrne

Can'tseeme wrote: »

I'm as 100% Irish as you Liam and my personal view is that Ireland is for everyone on this island. Orange, Green, Black, White, Religious, Non-Religious.

PLUS the Gardai, bomb-victims, the disappeared, the innocent families, etc.

All I'm saying is that I have NO bias; ZERO. If an Irishman - or anyone else - kills an innocent fellow "Irishman" (or even one of "everyone on this Island") then he's lost my respect; and if someone supports someone who does that, then they do likewise.

If someone commits no crime, and doesn't support criminals, then I've absolutely no issue with their beliefs or hopes.

Liam Byrne

By the way, the following has been reported:

DoireNod wrote: »

In your post, as I see it (since I wouldn't like to say what you were thinking),

Maybe you wouldn't like to "guess", or to "interpret", or to whatever else, but since you haven't a clue what I was thinking (I tend to post what I'm thinking, so it's clear to everyone that doesn't have an agenda to misrepresent), then this is a fairly pathetic and snide way of implying that there was more to what I said than I posted.

Can'tseeme

Liam Byrne wrote: »

PLUS the Gardai, bomb-victims, the disappeared, the innocent families, etc.

All I'm saying is that I have NO bias; ZERO. If an Irishman - or anyone else - kills an innocent fellow "Irishman" (or even one of "everyone on this Island") then he's lost my respect; and if someone supports someone who does that, then they do likewise.

If someone commits no crime, and doesn't support criminals, then I've absolutely no issue with their beliefs or hopes.

All violence is wrong and Ireland has had a violent, bloody past. Lets hope those days are behind us.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

By the way, the following has been reported:



Maybe you wouldn't like to "guess", or to "interpret", or to whatever else, but since you haven't a clue what I was thinking (I tend to post what I'm thinking, so it's clear to everyone that doesn't have an agenda to misrepresent), then this is a fairly pathetic and snide way of implying that there was more to what I said than I posted.

Not at all. That's a bit of an overreaction. I wrote 'as I see it', so as to make it clear that I didn't know exactly what you were thinking. I don't know why you felt the need to report that and I hope that the moderators or whoever see that it's more of an overreaction on your part. I simply questioned the logic behind you comparing Martin Ferris' meeting of two convicted men to the events of Bloody Sunday, since I don't feel the comparison you made was a fair one.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

Not at all. That's a bit of an overreaction. I wrote 'as I see it', so as to make it clear that I didn't know exactly what you were thinking. I don't know why you felt the need to report that and I hope that the moderators or whoever see that it's more of an overreaction on your part. I simply questioned the logic behind you comparing Martin Ferris' meeting of two convicted men to the events of Bloody Sunday, since I don't feel the comparison you made was a fair one.

No. You said "since I wouldn't like to say what you were thinking"; you couldn't say what I'm thinking, because you haven't a clue.

oscarBravo

Honestly, I read it the way DoireNod explained it.

Liam Byrne

OK, fair enough. I'd read the "as I see it" as relating to the first bit, outside the brackets - and therefore it seemed like the bit inside the brackets was a snide attempt to suggest that I had something left unsaid.

If that wasn't intended, or wouldn't be construed by others, then fair enough.

The proper phrasing - so that nothing would be open to interpretation - would have been "since I wouldn't like to can't say what you were thinking".

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How ironic, considering the case that we're discussing. Trained people shooting at someone indicates a "clear intent to kill", does it ? Pity you weren't the DPP in the McCabe case.

Snide comment aside, I think it's fair to say that army personnel shooting bullets at civilians at a civil rights demonstration is an indication of their motive. Ask the civilians who were there on the day that witnessed the thing. That's the whole reason behind the Bloody Sunday Inquiry. Like I said, either there was mass mutiny or there was an order given - either way innocents were gunned down. I never said anything about the McCabe case. My confusion was with regard to you comparing these soldiers' actions on Bloody Sunday to Martin Ferris meeting two convicted men after their sentence. It really isn't a fair comparison.

In relation to everything else that you said, you know WELL that THE ONLY parallel that I was drawing was the "acting off their own bat"; if we're to believe that Ferris did, then we should equally believe that the possiblity that the British soldiers did.

Sure, but it's not the same kind of scenario. You could have used a better example, even a hypothetical one, to get your point across.

But from the phrasing in your post above, you are 100% determined not to give them the benefit of the doubt; that's fair enough - I'd be sceptical too; but the difference is that I'm sceptical of Ferris too. If you cannot give the British the benefit of the doubt - to the point where your definition declares "a clear intent to kill", I cannot for the life of me see how you defend Ferris or claim that the act in Adare was manslaughter.

In other threads, I've said that it is entirely possible that Ferris acted on his own, outside of his Sinn Féin duty, just as I said that it was entirely possible that there could have been 'mass mutiny' in the ranks of the British Parachute Regiment. Just because I don't make concrete assertions based on what I don't know doesn't mean I'm defending Ferris.
Also, at no point did I mention the death of Garda McCabe in my other posts. If you have a problem with the courts finding these men guilty of manslaughter, I suggest you make a point of addressing the matter and contact the judge and jury of the case.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm saying that if you refuse to allow people to believe that he/they DIDN'T, then you've no right to automatically believe that the Brit's DIDN'T.

I haven't said that the British didn't act outside their orders, but it's entirely possible that they did - in which case it would have been mass mutiny in the ranks - and I haven't refused to allow people to believe that Ferris didn't act of his own accord.

My problem has always been with your use of the two situations for comparison, since they're completely different scenarios. You have, it seems, been trying to say that since republicans and nationalists have a problem with the notion of British soldiers acting of their own accord on Bloody Sunday, that they are not allowed to dismiss Ferris' actions by saying that Ferris may have been acting of his own accord. Nonsense. Republicans and nationalists have a problem with the killing of 14 innocent people, regardless of whether there was an order given or not and they're completely entitled to suggest that Ferris may have acted individually, since he's not breaking any laws (none I'm aware of). I'll say it again. I could understand your point better if Martin Ferris had shot 27 people and killed 14 on his way to collecting the two men from prison.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

My problem has always been with your use of the two situations for comparison, since they're completely different scenarios. You have, it seems, been trying to say that since republicans and nationalists have a problem with the notion of British soldiers acting of their own accord on Bloody Sunday, that they are not allowed to dismiss Ferris' actions by saying that Ferris may have been acting of his own accord. Nonsense.

Selective "benefit of the doubt" undermines their stance, though.

DoireNod wrote: »

Republicans and nationalists have a problem with the killing of 14 innocent people

Obviously depends on which 14. And that's not snide - it's a fact. The usual answer (when it's the other way around) is a dismissive "there was a war on - things happen. Get over it", isn't it ?

DoireNod wrote: »

I could understand your point better if Martin Ferris had shot 27 people and killed 14 on his way to collecting the two men from prison.

Understandable; and I never suggested that that aspect of the comparison was valid; in fact, I DID make the exact comparision earlier - either in this thread or the related one - as to how SF/IRA would react if a Unionist MP collected two criminals / cop-killers from jail.

But the fact is that SF/IRA want us to believe and agree with THEIR opinion of things, giving the British ZERO benefit of the doubt, while expecting us to give them LOADS of benefit of the doubt.

That's the only point I was making, and it's valid.

DoireNod

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Selective "benefit of the doubt" undermines their stance, though.

It would undermine the stance of those who say that it's ok for republicans to kill indiscriminately but that it's not for the British. It doesn't undermine the stance of those seeking justice for the actions on Bloody Sunday.

Obviously depends on which 14. And that's not snide - it's a fact. The usual answer (when it's the other way around) is a dismissive "there was a war on - things happen. Get over it", isn't it ?

That's the usual answer from the militant republicans, not all republicans and nationalists. I don't think it depends on which 14 either. People from both sides of the conflict campaign for justice with regard to the Omagh Bombing in the same way that those campaign for justice with regard to Bloody Sunday.

Understandable; and I never suggested that that aspect of the comparison was valid; in fact, I DID make the exact comparision earlier - either in this thread or the related one - as to how SF/IRA would react if a Unionist MP collected two criminals / cop-killers from jail.

But the fact is that SF/IRA want us to believe and agree with THEIR opinion of things, giving the British ZERO benefit of the doubt, while expecting us to give them LOADS of benefit of the doubt.

That's the only point I was making, and it's valid.

Fair enough, if that's how you see it.

Liam Byrne

DoireNod wrote: »

It would undermine the stance of those who say that it's ok for republicans to kill indiscriminately but that it's not for the British. It doesn't undermine the stance of those seeking justice for the actions on Bloody Sunday.

100% agreed. Unfortunately, Ferris collecting the killers implies that he's "ok" with their actions.

DoireNod wrote: »

That's the usual answer from the militant republicans, not all republicans and nationalists. I don't think it depends on which 14 either. People from both sides of the conflict campaign for justice with regard to the Omagh Bombing in the same way that those campaign for justice with regard to Bloody Sunday.

A valid distinction. Unfortunately the only way for others to make the distinction is to judge by current actions, and believe me, that's difficult. I've no problem with people who have differing beliefs as long as they don't condone or excuse the indefensible, or - even if I dislike their stance - are consistent.

But SF's problem is that they appear to make no effort to weed out the militants; maybe that's in good faith, trying to drag the neanderthals along rather than risk them splitting, but when they DO split and commit crimes that are against the state (or - even though it has no legitimacy to me - the "Green Book") then they should cut them loose.

THEN we could begin to believe that SF are moving on.

DoireNod wrote: »

Fair enough, if that's how you see it.

It is.

PrivateEye

Sinn Fein have already peaked . Most likely these snapshots will prove more damaging to the younger Ferris, who has the potential to change things around a little for the party, rather than Roger Casement Ferris.

Sinn Feins core vote (a working class, unionised vote) has gone to parties and individual further left than them (The Socialist Party, PBPA, and independents like Ciaran Perry) Eirigi now pose a serious threat to Sinn Fein too (see the Sunday Tribunes fantastic write up on them yesterday for example)

While they were quick enough to try move away from socialist economics (Remember the corporate tax scandal!) they're not in such a hurry to sweep this kind of thing under the rug. They obviously think pictures with captions like 'OH AH __!' appeal to their vote, but in reality their vote was never so much a 'Chucky' vote as an angry class-based vote.

In the next election? O' Snodaigh in Ballyer hasn't a hope (The PBPA are great on the ground in that part of West Dublin, with two strong personalities) Crowe would be unlikely to get elected in Tallaght (More likely an SP seat even!) and a certain Northside council member is more likely to win there as an independent than whoever SF HQ choose.

Personally, I would've abandoned these two 'POWs' before my socialist position papers, but thats just me.

FlutterinBantam

Joey the lips wrote: »

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.

I respect a mans principles too but not if the murder of a Garda officer plays a part.

You see principles are all well and fine, but do we admire someone who, for instance, says it's fine to bomb and shoot everyone for"the cause"

What cause, what kind of a state would Martin Ferris want us to live in?

Martin Ferris purports to be a candidate to be in Govt. in the ROI doesn't he.

With principles like that how many would like him to be Minister for Justice??

Hmmmm ...........

weepee

I think you need to be careful here, as success as a 'freedom fighter' brings respectability.

Do forget, Sean Lemas was in the GPO during the Rising.