What did Bobby Sands die for?

Mike 1972

Nehaxak wrote: »

It does, my Irish brother.

Someone should tell Michael Mc Dowell

Bottle_of_Smoke

The old blurring geography with nationality argument still alive and well I see

Nehaxak

CeiteachAFC wrote: »

How so? The actions, family, culture all dictate what some one is. Trust me, i ain't Irish.

Lies !

lugha

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

The old blurring geography with nationality argument still alive and well I see

At one level the silly attempts by some to assign the label of Irish to those who don’t chose it is on a par with childish school yard antics.

But on another it is more telling. It reveals the truth that for all their insincere platitudes about unionists playing their part in a united Ireland, the reality is that for many on the ‘green’ side, there is an utter intolerance of any notion of identity that does not mirror their own narrow outlook.

Unionists will be welcome in a UI, but only after they give up their own foolish, confused notions of identity and adapt the “correct” identity of Irish nationalism.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Completely agree with you there on independance, as to where the border would be who knows.

For fifty years the British had done nothing final about "the Irish question". O Connell and Parnell haden't ensured Irish independence. Then there were a series of agreements but they weren't binding since the House of Lords ( which represented more the overlord and toffs) kept vetoing it. Eventually time ran out for the Lords since they couldn't veto it more than three times. But then a war intervened and that became the excuse.

Now put all the above in today's terms. Is it any good for the people of Palestine to say to them "ah sure in about fifty or sixty years you should have independence we just aren't sure where the border will be then" .
Israel moved the agreed border consistently and it isn't much use to the natives to tell them their grandchildren might be independent when their children are starving, contracting diseases and being shelled by IDF today ...Is it?

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

At one level the silly attempts by some to assign the label of Irish to those who don’t chose it is on a par with childish school yard antics.

Yeah it isn't as if a black person born black can't insist he isn't black is it?
Mind you he would still be black.

But on another it is more telling. It reveals the truth that for all their insincere platitudes about unionists playing their part in a united Ireland, the reality is that for many on the ‘green’ side, there is an utter intolerance of any notion of identity that does not mirror their own narrow outlook.

Even Ian Paisley admits he is Irish. Being a self loathing Irishman isn't very progressive now is it? THe "green" element are just saying that these people are Irish and will be treated as such under irish law and have inalienable rights i.e. rights guaranteed by the irish constitution which the holders of those rights can't give away even if they deny them. for example the right to life of the unborn is in the Irish constitution. the British have abortion. Would the Christian element of Unionists think the ban on abortion is a good thing? Or would they prefer the British way on abortion? i don't think so!

The point is that are Irish under the Irish constitution but they can also claim to be British as well. The Irish constitution allows for that.

Unionists will be welcome in a UI, but only after they give up their own foolish, confused notions of identity and adapt the “correct” identity of Irish nationalism.

So you are telling unionists that they have to have abortion? The point is that are Irish under the Irish constitution but they can also claim to be British as well. The Irish constitution allows for that.

lugha

ISAW wrote: »

Yeah it isn't as if a black person born black can't insist he isn't black is it?
Mind you he would still be black.

By the same reasoning can a nationalist born in NI, a British jurisdiction, deny that they are British citizen / subject? Do you consider the possibility afforded under GFA for the people of NI to assert their own identity to be a bit daft then?

ISAW wrote: »

Even Ian Paisley admits he is Irish. Being a self loathing Irishman isn't very progressive now is it?

Ian Paisley asserts Irish as been part of own identity just as Martin McGuinness (presumably?) chooses not to assert British as part of his. Is the latter denying his Britishness any more sensible that say Sammy Wilson denying his Irishness?

And I must make a list of all of the silly phrases that some of those that line up on the republican side come out with. Self-loathing Irishman, occupation, West-Brit, collusion etc. :rolleyes:

ISAW wrote: »

THe "green" element are just saying that these people are Irish and will be treated as such under irish law and have inalienable rights i.e. rights guaranteed by the irish constitution which the holders of those rights can't give away even if they deny them.

No they are not. Those that engage in this nonsense never make this point. Their argument is simply that if you are born in Ireland, you are Irish. Their thinking is more in line with the afore-mentioned IP and the DUP with their “Barbara Brown” nonsense. I wonder would all of those that peddle this line be in favour of repealing the law that denied automatic Irish citizenship to children born here to all non-nationals?

ISAW wrote: »

For example the right to life of the unborn is in the Irish constitution. the British have abortion. Would the Christian element of Unionists think the ban on abortion is a good thing? Or would they prefer the British way on abortion? i don't think so!

I am not sure what our preposterous, head-in-the-sand, export solution to abortion has got to do with anything?
Only the most tunnel-vision types in either community in Ireland would insist that their state does is better in every respect than the other.

getz

if any of you have ever lived in the likes of france,belgium,ect,you will find they are very much the same booring countries,when you come over to britain its like walking into one big lunatic asylum, ireland is very much the same,despite goverment attempts to force a artificial culture on them,yes you are british ,

Nodin

getz wrote: »

if any of you have ever lived in the likes of france,belgium,ect,you will find they are very much the same booring countries,when you come over to britain its like walking into one big lunatic asylum, ireland is very much the same,despite goverment attempts to force a artificial culture on them,yes you are british ,

What?

Mayo Exile

getz wrote: »

the likes of france,belgium,ect,you will find they are very much the same booring countries

You wouldn't be very popular in Flanders for saying that France and Belgium are similar! Wallonia (French speaking area) maybe.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

For fifty years the British had done nothing final about "the Irish question". O Connell and Parnell haden't ensured Irish independence. Then there were a series of agreements but they weren't binding since the House of Lords ( which represented more the overlord and toffs) kept vetoing it. Eventually time ran out for the Lords since they couldn't veto it more than three times. But then a war intervened and that became the excuse.

Now put all the above in today's terms. Is it any good for the people of Palestine to say to them "ah sure in about fifty or sixty years you should have independence we just aren't sure where the border will be then" .
Israel moved the agreed border consistently and it isn't much use to the natives to tell them their grandchildren might be independent when their children are starving, contracting diseases and being shelled by IDF today ...Is it?

Hello Isaw , what happeneded in the 19th century need not happen in the 20th 0r 21st, Things change ,people change, Governments change.

Israel and Ireland not really comparible in my opinion

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

By the same reasoning can a nationalist born in NI,

Nationalism is a political belief. Irish is people born in ireland.
An Irishman could in fact probably be against the irish having their own country and want to be under British American russian French or any other rule.
But it would not stop him being Irish!

a British jurisdiction, deny that they are British citizen / subject? Do you consider the possibility afforded under GFA for the people of NI to assert their own identity to be a bit daft then?

No! British law does not allow for someone born in Britian to assert they are British. However Irish law does allow for anyone born in Ireland to assert they are Iriah and British law allows somewhat for people born in N Ireland to assert they are British.
Being boen in N Ireland might not entitle one to Britiah citizenship but it may at the same time guarantee Irish citizenship which in turn gives rights as a European citizen that the same person would not get in Britain.

Ian Paisley asserts Irish as been part of own identity just as Martin McGuinness (presumably?) chooses not to assert British as part of his.

You presume too much! Paisley and Mc Guiness ( Martin and the OUP one ) are Irish. Two of the three say they are British citizens.

Is the latter denying his Britishness any more sensible that say Sammy Wilson denying his Irishness?

If someone from Scotland said they were British but not scottish you think that isn't strange?

I wonder would all of those that peddle this line be in favour of repealing the law that denied automatic Irish citizenship to children born here to all non-nationals?

WRONG! It didn't!

And the law which restrictied but dint deny it came about why????
Because of a Chinese woman moving to Blfast from Wales to give birth and then moving back to Wales wher as an Irish citizen the chuild had rights as a European citizen. The British didn't want theis law to apply to N Ireland under the GFA!

I am not sure what our preposterous, head-in-the-sand, export solution to abortion has got to do with anything?

Who is "our"?
does Ian Paisley and do unionists want abortion whichy British law hgas or want no aborion which irish law has?

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Hello Isaw , what happeneded in the 19th century need not happen in the 20th 0r 21st, Things change ,people change, Governments change.

Israel and Ireland not really comparible in my opinion

Indeed governments change. they changed right throught the nineteenth cwentury and NOTHING happened for Ireland. then in the twentieth century they faced a revolution and the South became independent. In the north however goivernments changed and nothing happened again for 70 years!
Wake up!

CrankyCod

ISAW wrote: »

For fifty years the British had done nothing final about "the Irish question". O Connell and Parnell haden't ensured Irish independence. Then there were a series of agreements but they weren't binding since the House of Lords ( which represented more the overlord and toffs) kept vetoing it. Eventually time ran out for the Lords since they couldn't veto it more than three times. But then a war intervened and that became the excuse.

Now put all the above in today's terms. Is it any good for the people of Palestine to say to them "ah sure in about fifty or sixty years you should have independence we just aren't sure where the border will be then" .
Israel moved the agreed border consistently and it isn't much use to the natives to tell them their grandchildren might be independent when their children are starving, contracting diseases and being shelled by IDF today ...Is it?

If 50 years delay meant that people would not have died in the Rising, War of Independence, Civil War and so-called Troubles then it would have been worth the wait. By the way nobody in Ireland was starving or being shelled before 1916, the country was never so peaceful,

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed governments change. they changed right throught the nineteenth cwentury and NOTHING happened for Ireland. then in the twentieth century they faced a revolution and the South became independent. In the north however goivernments changed and nothing happened again for 70 years!
Wake up!

Fully awake Isaw , are you saying then that change and/or independance can only come about through violence (a) as a general rule (b) and Ireland in particular ?

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Indeed governments change. they changed right throught the nineteenth cwentury and NOTHING happened for Ireland. then in the twentieth century they faced a revolution and the South became independent. In the north however goivernments changed and nothing happened again for 70 years!
Wake up!

Would have happened anyway - home rule was only suspended due to WW1

ISAW

CrankyCod wrote: »

If 50 years delay meant that people would not have died in the Rising, War of Independence, Civil War and so-called Troubles then it would have been worth the wait. By the way nobody in Ireland was starving or being shelled before 1916, the country was never so peaceful,

The thing is that people were dying in any case. just as they are dying in Palestine. Telling them to wait isn't saving innocent civilians and children from dying. It "what if no one died" is great if no one is dying or being exploited. By the way if slaves didn't die in the Us but they still had slavery would that be okay?

ISAW

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Would have happened anyway - home rule was only suspended due to WW1

That is a "what if." It dint happen anyway because the Republicans got fed up of unfulfilled promises.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Fully awake Isaw , are you saying then that change and/or independance can only come about through violence (a) as a general rule (b) and Ireland in particular ?

No Im saying they tell you one thing and then don't do anything. that is a fact! And they then intervene to suit the militarists and corporate concerns. fact.

What countries got independence as a general rule?
Obviously some did but is it a general rule?
the point about Ireland as something different is a "what if" .

lugha

ISAW wrote: »

Irish is people born in Ireland.

Irish law does allow for anyone born in Ireland to assert they are Irish

Well here’s a pickle! If being Irish is an immutable characteristic determined at birth as you say, then where is the sense in having a law that allows people to assert their Irishness? Is this not a bit like womb-less Stan-the-man in The Life of Brian asserting his right to have babies? :P

Of course there isn’t any confusion really. Irish in a political sense is not the same as Irish in a geographical sense. You can appeal to the latter to assert that anyone born on the island of Ireland is Irish, just as you could taunt a euro-sceptic by insisting that they were European. But it would be a bit childish and intolerant, not to mention somewhat against the spirit of the GFA.
Yes, you can argue that it is curious that some unionists dogmatically insist that they are not Irish but outsiders looking on might think it equally curious that nationalists born in a British jurisdiction and engage with it to an extent up to and including contesting seats at Westminster would dogmatically deny that they are British.
Most of us here understand why they do that, just as we understand why some of our friends who were born in England insist that they are not English. Alas, somewhat fewer of us want to understand that the unionists adapt a similar train of thought.
All of this is of very little consequence of course, we all have far greater problems at the moment. But for me, it is a telling indication that many on the nationalist side can be every bit as intolerant and bigoted as their fellow “Irish” unionists have shown themselves to be in the past.

ISAW wrote: »

No abortion which Irish law has?

We do have abortion. We just rather like the smugness that is afforded by being able to declare that it doesn’t happen on our turf.

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

Well here’s a pickle! If being Irish is an immutable characteristic determined at birth as you say, then where is the sense in having a law that allows people to assert their Irishness? :

Irish without Irish people is meaningless.
the law of asserting Irishness isnt in the constitution. that is considered a duty. the law about being British as well if someone chooses is in the GFA. they arent allowed to asser t Irishness it is automatic! it is what is called an "inanielable" right. Thepoint is that they cant remove the right that is so granted.

Of course there isn’t any confusion really. Irish in a political sense is not the same as Irish in a geographical sense. You can appeal to the latter to assert that anyone born on the island of Ireland is Irish, just as you could taunt a euro-sceptic by insisting that they were European.

no you couldn't! European is a geographic entity of which the EU is onloy a part. Ther is no "european" passport in the sense of coming under a federal EU State. "EU citizenship" is only inferred by virtue of being a citizen of an EU state in the first place.

But it would be a bit childish and intolerant, not to mention somewhat against the spirit of the GFA.

Not at all! Someone can claim they are a British citizen but that has nothing to do with them being Irish in the first place. Just as a Scot can say they are British. It does not stop them being scottish does it?

Yes, you can argue that it is curious that some unionists dogmatically insist that they are not Irish but outsiders looking on might think it equally curious that nationalists born in a British jurisdiction and engage with it to an extent up to and including contesting seats at Westminster would dogmatically deny that they are British.

What outsiders might think in whatever deluded state they are in is beside the point. The Irish constitution regards then as Irish and people born in Irreland who dont come from the bationalist tradition accept that they are irish even if they are not citizens of the Republic.

Most of us here understand why they do that, just as we understand why some of
our friends who were born in England insist that they are not English. Alas, somewhat fewer of us want to understand that the unionists adapt a similar train of thought.

this is comparing apples and Oranges! some people born in england are not english by english law but the law in Ireland was all people born there are irish. even those born in the separate jurisdiction in the north. english law states that you never got Eto be English just by being born there. But i am saying more i stated "born and bred".

All of this is of very little consequence of course, we all have far greater problems at the moment.

Well then why are you posting and not shutting up about what you claim not to care about?

But for me, it is a telling indication that many on the nationalist side can be every bit as intolerant and bigoted as their fellow “Irish” unionists have shown themselves to be in the past.

It is a question of reason and fact. Is a Scottish man from Scotland born and bred ther and who might say his is British.... is that man Scottish?

We do have abortion. We just rather like the smugness that is afforded by being able to declare that it doesn’t happen on our turf.

Nonsense! that's like saying we have legal brothels and the fact that they exist in Amsterdam is proof of that since Irish people use dutch brothels.

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

No Im saying they tell you one thing and then don't do anything. that is a fact! And they then intervene to suit the militarists and corporate concerns. fact.

What countries got independence as a general rule?
Obviously some did but is it a general rule?
the point about Ireland as something different is a "what if" .

Well for a start the whole of the British Empire, most with little or no violence.

KeithAFC

The Irish constitution regards then as Irish

I don't follow the Irish constituion. The Republic does not rule me and it has no right to dictate to me what nationality i am.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

Not at all! Someone can claim they are a British citizen but that has nothing to do with them being Irish in the first place. Just as a Scot can say they are British. It does not stop them being scottish does it?

I just somehow doubt you'd be so fervent on insisting to a Scottish or Welsh republican they are British because they're born in Britain.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ISAW wrote: »

That is a "what if." It dint happen anyway because the Republicans got fed up of unfulfilled promises.

It is a 'what if' but if you look at the history of a desire for Irish independence in Ireland and the decline of the British empire in the 20th century I think you'd find it difficult to deny Irish independence would have come about regardless of 1916

marienbad

ISAW wrote: »

Irish without Irish people is meaningless.
the law of asserting Irishness isnt in the constitution. that is considered a duty. the law about being British as well if someone chooses is in the GFA. they arent allowed to asser t Irishness it is automatic! it is what is called an "inanielable" right. Thepoint is that they cant remove the right that is so granted.



no you couldn't! European is a geographic entity of which the EU is onloy a part. Ther is no "european" passport in the sense of coming under a federal EU State. "EU citizenship" is only inferred by virtue of being a citizen of an EU state in the first place.



Not at all! Someone can claim they are a British citizen but that has nothing to do with them being Irish in the first place. Just as a Scot can say they are British. It does not stop them being scottish does it?



What outsiders might think in whatever deluded state they are in is beside the point. The Irish constitution regards then as Irish and people born in Irreland who dont come from the bationalist tradition accept that they are irish even if they are not citizens of the Republic.



this is comparing apples and Oranges! some people born in england are not english by english law but the law in Ireland was all people born there are irish. even those born in the separate jurisdiction in the north. english law states that you never got Eto be English just by being born there. But i am saying more i stated "born and bred".



Well then why are you posting and not shutting up about what you claim not to care about?



It is a question of reason and fact. Is a Scottish man from Scotland born and bred ther and who might say his is British.... is that man Scottish?



Nonsense! that's like saying we have legal brothels and the fact that they exist in Amsterdam is proof of that since Irish people use dutch brothels.

ISAW , are you saying because the Irish Constitution says all people born on this island are Irish , then they are and that's it ?

On a separate issue, I dont follow your reasoning at all on abortion, what has that got to do with anything ?

lugha

ISAW wrote: »

it is what is called an "inalienable" right. The point is that they cant remove the right that is so granted. .

So unionists must be Irish because the constitution in another state, one to which they give no allegiance, says that they are? Even the unionists who do call themselves Irish, and I suspect many of them do, do not do so on the basis of anything the Irish constitution does or does not say.

So would I all of a sudden become British if Westminster passed a law saying all Irish people were not to be declared subjects of the crown?

ISAW wrote: »

no you couldn't! European is a geographic entity of which the EU is onloy a part. Ther is no "european" passport in the sense of coming under a federal EU State. "EU citizenship" is only inferred by virtue of being a citizen of an EU state in the first place.

I never mentioned the EU, I said Europe.

ISAW wrote: »

Just as a Scot can say they are British. It does not stop them being scottish does it?

Again I say, it is no different to a nationalist born in a British jurisdiction from denying that they are British. And I have no problem with them doing that. The issue here is that many nationalists are happy to avail of this mechanism to assert their own identity, but insist on dictating to unionists how they must define themselves. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

ISAW wrote: »

The Irish constitution regards then as Irish and people born in Irreland who dont come from the bationalist tradition accept that they are irish even if they are not citizens of the Republic.

Some of them plainly do not!

ISAW wrote: »

Well then why are you posting and not shutting up about what you claim not to care about?

Oh but I care a great deal about exposing the nationalist myth that all the intolerance and bigotry is on one side only.

ISAW wrote: »

It is a question of reason and fact.

No it isn’t. It is about intolerance an bigotry. It gets trotted out with far too much regularity and far too much zeal to be dismissed as a trivial obsession by pedantic types.

ISAW

marienbad wrote: »

Well for a start the whole of the British Empire, most with little or no violence.

Care to list them?
Violence in India, Palestine, Rhodesia, Aden, Egypt, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, etc. Most of the places with an Imperial fingerprint are ridden with violence as far as I can see. And please don't give me the "that's because things were better under Britain and the savages can't run the place themselves" jive.

ISAW

lugha wrote: »

So unionists must be Irish because the constitution in another state, one to which they give no allegiance, says that they are?

Indeed if you go to France or Germany and claim that you are a slave of someone else the law of that land does not allow you to reject your human rights.

Even the unionists who do call themselves Irish, and I suspect many of them do, do not do so on the basis of anything the Irish constitution does or does not say.

I am pointing out the binding law of a recognised state. they might not disagree with abortion on the baiss that the Irish constitution rejects abortion but they still disagree with abortion and think it is wrong. I'm just pointing out the fact is that the irish constitution enshrines this belief and British law rejects it.

So would I all of a sudden become British if Westminster passed a law saying all Irish people were not to be declared subjects of the crown?

Under British law yes! and if Britain invaded Ireland and put the boot in ( as they did in the past in Ireland and elsewhere) that wold be the de facto case ( and the de jure case under British law)

I never mentioned the EU, I said Europe.

so care to explain to me what a "European" is by your reckoning?

Again I say, it is no different to a nationalist born in a British jurisdiction from denying that they are British. And I have no problem with them doing that. The issue here is that many nationalists are happy to avail of this mechanism to assert their own identity, but insist on dictating to unionists how they must define themselves. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

Look we are discussing if RIRA or whatever got their way and the Irish constitution applied to ALL of Ireland. Under that state people in the North could claim to be British but the Iriah constitution would be the law of the land and under that they would be Irish and derive rights from being Irish. That is the fact of the matter. Just as today under British juristiction they operate under a British legal system.

Some of them plainly do not!

Again as I pointed out it is ionalienable. If the British withdrew and the constitutional juristiction applied to the Noirth they could still call themselves British and derive rights under British law but they would be Irish under the Irish constitution and have inalienable rights derived from it. the constitution does not provide for people who wish to reject citizenship or reject their own human rights. they might not care to exercise those right but that is a different matter.

Oh but I care a great deal about exposing the nationalist myth that all the intolerance and bigotry is on one side only.

Where did I calim itt was? What I stated was that ther eis convincing evidence that Loyalist paralimilatarists were sectarian and that the PIRA for example were not to such an extent.

No it isn’t. It is about intolerance an bigotry. It gets trotted out with far too much regularity and far too much zeal to be dismissed as a trivial obsession by pedantic types.

Yes it is! nice dodge! could you stop evading the question?
Is a Scottish man from Scotland born and bred there and who might say his is British.... is that man Scottish? can he suddenly stop being Scottish just by saying he is British?

Mike 1972

A lot of nonsense being spouted about what people born in Ireland can "asset"

I was born in Ireland and theres no law* anywhere that says I cant assert that Im bloody Napoleon the sixteenth if I feel so inclined

* Bar possibly the mental health act