A dublin orange parade?

poeticseraphim

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Howya. No, I wasn't aware of it tbh.



Yep.



I'm not sure if sovereignty would be compromised by joining the commonwealth. Can a country not remain a republic in the commonwealth?



On a unification with Britain platform? None.
As partners in an UI government? Take your pick.



Oh for sure, goes without saying.



It's only a viable economic entity because the UK underwrites it. I've said it before that I believe there will be no unification without a considerable economic dividend for NI. In the current climate that is some time off imo.

We cannot have a monarch....it is the basis of republicanism...which is the basis of our constitution...we the people are sovreign...

The queen is the monarch of the entire commonwealth..it is unconstitutional...in many parts of the constitution too

Scofflaw

criticalcritic wrote:

Republicans will be out in force to make sure it never happens and those who promote it are chased back down the holes they come from.

'Unionism/Loyalism' is nothing a but an umbrella for hateful religious fanatics who stupidily equate Protestantism with Britishness which makes no sense.

The Orange Order is an Irish version of the KKK and should not be tolerated anywhere on these shores no matter how much 'normalisation" is pushed down our throats

British occupation is fundementally wrong and so are those who facilitate it

No Orange marches in Dublin or Belfast or Donegal or anywhere

Brits out Now

Banned for a week. Next example of this rubbish earns a permaban. The rest of the trench warriors - put down the handbags and take a deep breath.

moderately,
Scofflaw

golden lane

"brits out"............."no surrender".............that is not the basis for a united ireland....they are the slogans of warring parties.....the basis for mistrust......

Fenian Army

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are? They're back?

They never left, just went out of sight

Happyman42

getzls wrote: »

By that question i think you maybe need to tell me what i think about it!

I'm interested, what did you people see happening on the streets of the Republic in the aftermath, it's my contention that there is a fundamental lack of understanding in Unionism of what republicanism means to an Irishman/woman, the same lack that has allowed them to request an OO parade in Dublin.

poeticseraphim

Happyman42 wrote: »

Are? They're back?

They have permanent garrisons there ..operation Banner was replaced with operation Helvetic..it's about 3000 troops i think


They never left completely as i understand it...just that operation Banner went to operation Helvetic

Rascasse

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Hi

Joining the common wealth is illegal under the Irish constitution.

Could you show me where in the constitution this is mentioned. I searched it for commonwealth (no results) and treaty (all results are about the EU - free movement of people of goods and citizens etc).

Happyman42

poeticseraphim wrote: »

They have permanent garrisons there ..operation Banner was replaced with operation Helvetic..it's about 3000 troops i think


They never left completely as i understand it...just that operation Banner went to operation Helvetic

They've been recalled to barracks, they aren't protecting anybody at the minute.

Rascasse

Rascasse wrote: »

Could you show me where in the constitution this is mentioned. I searched it for commonwealth (no results) and treaty (all results are about the EU - free movement of people of goods and citizens etc).

Please ignore, I see now others have called you out on this point. I've nothing to add.

golden lane

did we not have a good friday agreement.........the basis of a non violent future....

surely nobody want to go back to the troubles of the past.....but i am not so sure......and by people that will be safe in their beds.....

getzls

Happyman42 wrote: »

I'm interested, what did you people see happening on the streets of the Republic in the aftermath, it's my contention that there is a fundamental lack of understanding in Unionism of what republicanism means to an Irishman/woman, the same lack that has allowed them to request an OO parade in Dublin.

I have little interest in the OO. as most Unionist have. How many members? 60,000? Why are Republicans so obsessed about the OO?

junder

Fenian Army wrote: »

junder wrote: »

Semantics aside, really want is the problem with a small local Irish orange lodge parading in thier own local city

Because the OO is a nasty organization, and people like wee Willie will try to stir things up... Its the OOs own fault, everyone pictures the bigots trying to march down gervaghy road, the OO are the personification for Irish people of the sectarian injustice we have suffered over the years in the Orange State. Of course they are not liked. With good reason.

IIRC you are from Belfast, you know yourself the nasty side I'm referring to... bands (not necessarily the OO but its the same vein of bigotry) have a nasty habit of stopping and having a nice sing song outside churches.. (Saint Matthews)

Would you like a republican colour parade going down your street?

And sinn fein are the personification of the republican murder machine that butchered my community, but hey One of thier commander in chief is deputy first minister, we have to deal with that, so again why is it such a problem that a small 'Irish' orange lodge parades in thier own capital city?

Scofflaw

junder and Fenian Army both banned for a day. Trench warfare is not discussion.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Happyman42

getzls wrote: »

I have little interest in the OO. as most Unionist have. How many members? 60,000? Why are Republicans so obsessed about the OO?

I'm not particularly obbsessed, but I am interested when they want to parade in Dublin. Because I think the same kind of triumphalism will be on display as we seen when the leader of the UUP David Trimble and Ian Paisley marched down the Garvaghy road. They seemed very interested in the OO that day.

poeticseraphim

Rascasse wrote: »

Could you show me where in the constitution this is mentioned. I searched it for commonwealth (no results) and treaty (all results are about the EU - free movement of people of goods and citizens etc).

Hi

No it would not because the Irish constitution is complex. And the history regarding the common wealth and what it technically is. To become a republic Ireland had to leave the common wealth given the rules at the time. Whilst the common wealth has republics within it now the British monarch isstill head. The Republic of Ireland act repeals and abolishes any function a British monarch has in connection with Ireland.

Whether the London declaration could cover it i don't know....it was written in response to the Indian constitution not the Irish one.

What officalised Ireland's leaving the Commonwealth was the rules of the commonwealth at the time and the laws of the constitution....

There was never a treaty..Ireland had not participated in the Commonwealth for years due to republican ideals..the Irish Republic act officialized it.


Anyway it would never fly here Irish people would hate it.
Infact i suspect there would be huge riots. It is deeply unpopular as an idea. Even when raised it is met with deep offense. And i would find it offensive.

Chuck Stone

poeticseraphim wrote: »

But for the most part they have done a good job.

They murdered people. Half of their victims were Catholic/Nationalist civilians. How can you call that a good job and expect to be taken seriously?

poeticseraphim

Rascasse wrote: »

Please ignore, I see now others have called you out on this point. I've nothing to add.

sorry i did not see where they did...anyway ..i have explained it as best i could as above..

It depends on how you read the rules of the commonwealth and the role of the monarch.

The Irish republic act was meant to end any role a British monarch .it broke the rules of the common wealth....

Whether or not the london declaration could cover the Irish constitution i don't know..

Anyway it is a redundant discussion...

It is just not ever going to happen...

poeticseraphim

Chuck Stone wrote: »

They murdered people. Half of their victims were Catholic/Nationalist civilians. How can you call that a good job and expect to be taken seriously?

I stipulated with the exception of some tragic events..which should be dealt with lawfully

Do you honestly think the army should NOT have gone in when they did?

Chuck Stone

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I stipulated with the exception of some tragic events..which should be dealt with lawfully

A 50% civilian kill count is not indicative of 'exceptional tragic events' - more like a deliberate attempt to suppress a certain section of the population.

Do you honestly think the army should NOT have gone in when they did?

Let's see - the RUC/B-Specials ('B-special needs' would be more descriptive) or the BA?....

That's like offering me a choice between cancer or AIDS; I'd much rather not have either disease in the first place.

poeticseraphim

Chuck Stone wrote: »

A 50% civilian kill count is not indicative of 'exceptional tragic events' - more like a deliberate attempt to suppress a certain section of the population.



Let's see - the RUC/B-Specials ('B-special needs' would be more descriptive) or the BA?....

That's like offering me a choice between cancer or AIDS. I'd much rather not have either disease in the first place.

Ok can we use less offensive terms?

What would you have done to stop radicals in the two communities destroying each other then?

what is your alternative???

What realistically could have been done? How in those circumstances would the peace have been kept?
UN Peacekeepers?

Chuck Stone

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Ok can we use less offensive terms?

I have no qualms being 'offensive' when describing people who were the equivalent of a state backed KKK up north.

What would you have done to stop radicals in the two communities destroying each other then?

Before Bloody Sunday there was a vibrant civil rights movement that was non-sectarian - you're asking me questions about how to deal with after-the-fact failures which is meaningless.

what is your alternative???

Respect minorities.

How in those circumstances would the peace have been kept?
UN Peacekeepers?

Yes.

Remember that Catholics were seeking civil rights, not a united Ireland, before the British gave hard-liners a damn good excuse to see that British rule was the core problem.

Cú Giobach

whitelines wrote: »

It's amazing so many proud Irish Nationalists stayed in Northern Ireland following partition, especially given how cruelly they were treated (apparently). Indeed, they didn't only stay, they actually expanded as a population group. Some of these people could have literally walked to freedom, but chose instead to stay under The British Crown. In fact, quite a few actually moved from The Republic to Northern Ireland down the years. Come to think of it, hundreds of thousands actually moved to England and brought their children up as little Englishmen and women, rather than stay in Ireland and help to develop the nation they claimed to love and which had been under The English heel for centuries.

Strange people The Irish.

Your use of the word "apparently" shows you don't think they were treated badly, and if people weren't actually treated badly (only claiming they were) then they wouldn't have a reason to move, therefore there would be nothing strange about not moving.
Your use of that one word shows this post to be irrational, you cannot believe Irish people are strange for the reasons you give, but you can believe they are liars.

Amusingly your bit about Irish people moving to Britain (then and now) clearly shows something, that is the issue was with London control in Ireland not a problem with Britain or the people of that country.

Happyman42

@poeticseraphim you may know something about the constitution but you know nothing of the everyday during the conflict. To suggest that the British soldier did a large amount of good is false and frankly offensive. You need to accept that they killed a large amount of nationalists right through the conflict but more importantly you also need to research how they conducted themselves during every long day of the conflict. The reason these threads see frequent bannings and closures is that people, either for provocative or ignorant reasons, say things like you have been doing. The British army would love to see their presence here as a benign influence and they have always had a PR machine that does it's best to put out that message and still have.
That you have swallowed that PR does nothing for your argument.
Before the nationalists started to win their human rights it was British soldiers who where forcing Orange marches along routes where they where not wanted. That is a very recent and vivd memory.

whitelines

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Your use of the word "apparently" shows you don't think they were treated badly, and if people weren't actually treated badly (only claiming they were) then they wouldn't have a reason to move, therefore there would be nothing strange about not moving.
Your use of that one word shows this post to be irrational, you cannot believe Irish people are strange for the reasons you give, but you can believe they are liars.

Amusingly your bit about Irish people moving to Britain (then and now) clearly shows something, that is the issue was with London control in Ireland not a problem with Britain or the people of that country.

You're reading far too much into the word 'apparently', but I respect your right to do so.

As for your second point, I maintain that it is bizarre for Irish Nationalists to move to England rather than building their own nation up, given the fact that England had ruled Ireland for centuries. I suspect any literate outsider would also see this as very strange. Again, I fully respect your right to your own world view, however strange it seems to me.

Pedant

Promoting an organisation that encourages sectarianism is hardly the best method of improving cross-community relations. Anyway, the Protestant and Catholic communities in the Republic get on far better with each other than in Northern Ireland and division is rarely ever seen, if ever. Promoting the Orange Order in the Republic would only upset the balance and create divisions were none exist at present.

Absolam

I think forbidding any Irish citizens from parading/marching in Dublin is something we should be cautious of... yes an Orange Order parade will offend some people. But what's next? Will we forbid Muslims from holding public meetings? Will we stop the Gay Pride March? Will we ban the Zombie Walk? Citizens have a right to freedom of assembly and expression. That occasionally offends other citizens, who also have the right to assemble and express themselves if they want. That's the price of democracy. And we stop paying the price, we stop being a democracy. I wouldn't attend an Orange Parade; I don't like what they stand for and I've no interest in seeing them. But if they're citizens, they've the same rights as everyone else, and I wouldn't like to see a day where the pensioners are forbidden to march to the Dail because someone doesn't like what they're saying.

This is not about Northern Ireland; it's about the Republic of Ireland and how we behave.

Happyman42

Absolam wrote: »

I think forbidding any Irish citizens from parading/marching in Dublin is something we should be cautious of... yes an Orange Order parade will offend some people. But what's next? Will we forbid Muslims from holding public meetings? Will we stop the Gay Pride March? Will we ban the Zombie Walk? Citizens have a right to freedom of assembly and expression. That occasionally offends other citizens, who also have the right to assemble and express themselves if they want. That's the price of democracy. And we stop paying the price, we stop being a democracy. I wouldn't attend an Orange Parade; I don't like what they stand for and I've no interest in seeing them. But if they're citizens, they've the same rights as everyone else, and I wouldn't like to see a day where the pensioners are forbidden to march to the Dail because someone doesn't like what they're saying.

I wouldn't be in favour of banning one either, but I think the OO have to face some facts here and start to be a responsible organisation. And that takes some soul searching about who they are, what they represent and most importantly, how they are percieved. Because it is that perception that will illicit the reponse. And that perception is based on undeniable truth. This organisation exists to celebrate a victory that ensured domination and suppression of the indigenous race for centuries. That will never be acceptable. By all means celebrate your culture but accept that some elements (in the case of the OO all of it) are divisive and provocative.
If after all that they still want to march then the responsibility for what happens lies with them, I'm afraid.

golden lane

Happyman42 wrote: »

I wouldn't be in favour of banning one either, but I think the OO have to face some facts here and start to be a responsible organisation. And that takes some soul searching about who they are, what they represent and most importantly, how they are percieved. Because it is that perception that will illicit the reponse. And that perception is based on undeniable truth. This organisation exists to celebrate a victory that ensured domination and suppression of the indigenous race for centuries. That will never be acceptable. By all means celebrate your culture but accept that some elements (in the case of the OO all of it) are divisive and provocative.
If after all that they still want to march then the responsibility for what happens lies with them, I'm afraid.

agreed...

Cú Giobach

whitelines wrote: »

You're reading far too much into the word 'apparently', but I respect your right to do so.

As for your second point, I maintain that it is bizarre for Irish Nationalists to move to England rather than building their own nation up, given the fact that England had ruled Ireland for centuries. I suspect any literate outsider would also see this as very strange. Again, I fully respect your right to your own world view, however strange it seems to me.

Economic migration is the largest mover of people on the planet, to find it bizarre that Irish people engage in this world-wide phenomenon is in itself a touch bizarre, don't you think? You must be utterly befuddled by the current migrations of people to the EU or areas of economic growth world-wide.
If you find it odd we don't hold more of a grudge and consequently don't want to live in England then that's a nice compliment, Go raibh míle maith agat a cara. I'm sure you would do the same most people would, we Irish aren't particularly special.

If you think the Irish people as a whole prioritise political ideals over the day to day necessities of life you mustn't know us very well. Like all people, putting a roof over the heads of and feeding our families tends to trump such things, except of course for the minority such as you find in all countries.


Finally, the Irish people did build Ireland up.

poeticseraphim

Happyman42 wrote: »

@poeticseraphim you may know something about the constitution but you know nothing of the everyday during the conflict. To suggest that the British soldier did a large amount of good is false and frankly offensive. You need to accept that they killed a large amount of nationalists right through the conflict but more importantly you also need to research how they conducted themselves during every long day of the conflict. The reason these threads see frequent bannings and closures is that people, either for provocative or ignorant reasons, say things like you have been doing. The British army would love to see their presence here as a benign influence and they have always had a PR machine that does it's best to put out that message and still have.
That you have swallowed that PR does nothing for your argument.
Before the nationalists started to win their human rights it was British soldiers who where forcing Orange marches along routes where they where not wanted. That is a very recent and vivd memory.

I accept that know little of the everyday ins and outs of the conflict as those in the north would have experienced it.I only can tell you as it was reported from the 90's onwards in the Irish media.

I think nationalists also need to consider opening their minds to the possibility of another point of view though.

An Army merely carries out orders. At that time a march was politically assured and perhaps politically necessary in negotiating. Their presence ensured it happened ...without the OO getting killed. The OO would have enforced themselves otherwise. Which might have been worse.

As to how the Army conducted themselves....lessons were learnt they always took their lead from Westminster and i wonder with administration change did behavouir change too.

From their point of view they were in a hostile envoirment charged with on the one hand fighting violent radicals and enforcing British Govt rule and trying to protect both communities ...even the one with radicals against them. It must have been difficult to distinguish who to defend yourself against and who to protect. And an Army is always going to protect itself and it's Govt first.

It was the situation it was Westminster policy and yes it WAS radicals from both communities and violence on both communities.

At first when the Army came people praised it on both sides because it was out and out war on the streets between the two communities and people did not want to slide back into that. I accept they acted unilaterally in fighting the IRA and not loyalists. But that is not the same as saying they should not have fought nationalists and that in doingso they did not save lives in n both communities.

An army does not make policy decisions, they carry them out. And to be honest i do truly believe they did a lot of wrong however without them it would have been a lot bloodier.

As i said i think both sides of the community in the North are firmly entrenched in the idea that they are right that they have an unbiased perception.

To be honest it is a side effect of the paranoia resulting in a nation being held hostage to the whims of extremists, violent radicals and perhaps both Govts over the years. There is a sense of theirs being the only legitimate victimhood on both sides which is a ridiculous concept anyway.

What about all the British soldiers who were killed over there? What about the two killed in a terrorits attack about a year or so ago?? And how do you expect an Army should react to that kind of attack on it's soldiers???

It's as if you believe the nationalists were always angels, well thats not true. Their behavouir (yes even the civilians) would have put British soldiers lives at risk regularly as would the Unionist.

Their mission was to counter terrorism and public order operations that were coming from the nationalist community. It was the nationalist stance that put them in opposition with the army as much as the British army's stance. The Pira waged a guerilla war campaign against th British Army from 1970 to 1997...what about that? I believe it could defeat the IRA but stopped it winning through violence which is a good thing. I do believe it it reduced the death toll considerably during the closing years of the conflict.

During the start of the conflict their opperations may have been aimed dispportionally at the IRA rather than loyalist forces. But this is GOVT policy to use the British Army in a positional and biased way rather than a neutral one.

In the end they did provide circumstances in which politics could happen. Northern Ireland would have had substantially more death tolls without them. However there could have been less had they acted to counter both sides of attacks equally from the begining. And had they acted differently in public order operations.

I don't excuse murder from any agency. I don't think anyone does.

It is true i did not experience the troubles but i cant say that i agree with either view of those who did. As i have said it is so emotive neither seem able to accept their side had culpabilty in it or to accept the possibility of another view.

I hope i have expressed this respectfully to all sides. That is my intent considering it is so sensitive. I don't wish to legitimize any wrong doing nor illegitimize anyone's suffering. And i fully accept that my view is fallible but i suspect that many people are so firmly held by emotion on the subject that any deviation from their view would be dismissed as fundamentally flawed or just immoral. The perception of irreconcilable differences or a fundamental flaw in the other from the start prevents a genuine dialogue. They suspect facts are being manipulated instead of ' i just see this differently' . Yes i accept a lot of it is because i was not there.

flutered

for centerys the nationalist community was the equivelent to a bit of cat schit on the shoe of the orange order, bloody sunday was when the tide began to turn, people could take no more, how many on here knew what it was, and in some cases is still like to be a catholic in n.i.,

Happyman42

poeticseraphim wrote: »

An Army merely carries out orders. At that time a march was politically assured and perhaps politically necessary in negotiating. Their presence ensured it happened ...without the OO getting killed. The OO would have enforced themselves otherwise. Which might have been worse.

In terms of the OO, here is where you are quite wrong. The British did something in relation to the OO and marches that was wholly wrong by any notion of responsible and democratic governance and we must never allow that to be lost in politically correct revisionism. They took a side, they shored up suppression and triumphant domination that exacerbated the problem, not eased it or saved lives. It took a long time to make them see that.
It would be wrong if the same kind of surrender to political correctness allows this organisation, in it's present make-up, to march in Dublin. Because, to allow this march to go ahead, you have to take a side, you are saying that you agree with triumphing suppression and domination. There is little or no middle ground here. That is why no nationalist or repubican could ever be a member of the OO, it is a contradication in terms. The OO, just like the IRA, has to become a thing of history, remember it as part of who you are by all means, but it's function as a organisation is and should be redundant and it's members have to realise that.
The rest of your post is highly contentious as well but this is not the thread to debate it.

poeticseraphim

Happyman42 wrote: »

In terms of the OO, here is where you are quite wrong. The British did something in relation to the OO and marches that was wholly wrong by any notion of responsible and democratic governance and we must never allow that to be lost in politically correct revisionism. They took a side, they shored up suppression and triumphant domination that exacerbated the problem, not eased it or saved lives. It took a long time to make them see that.
It would be wrong if the same kind of surrender to political correctness allows this organisation, in it's present make-up, to march in Dublin. Because, to allow this march to go ahead, you have to take a side, you are saying that you agree with triumphing suppression and domination. There is little or no middle ground here. That is why no nationalist or repubican could ever be a member of the OO, it is a contradication in terms. The OO, just like the IRA, has to become a thing of history, remember it as part of who you are by all means, but it's function as a organisation is and should be redundant and it's members have to realise that.
The rest of your post is highly contentious as well but this is not the thread to debate it.

Your rhetoric is your opinion.

And it is clear that it is biased and entrenched and so there is no reasoning with you.

You insist only your side is correct.

As a proud Irish person in the republic i disagree with you.

Allowing a march is not unreasonable .....infact not allowing it may be seen as unreasonable.

If we the Irish people have no objection well whats the problem??

I have no issue with them marching...i have issues with SOME of their members being biggots and what SOME of them did...but what has that got to do with OO in dublin?

I am a Dubliner if i am ok with it then why not?

And i am sorry but your take on the issue is totally dogmatic and indoctrined.

You talk sides ..you put everyone in opposition...thats not your right.....and its only YOUR perception.

An act does not automatically put someone onside that is BS ..NOW YOU are supressing the people of DUBLIN...its part of the SF mentality ..you can only be free by doing what i tell you

Sorry but i feel what you have said is incredibly oppressive and totally illogical ..to suggest that allowing someone to march or speak out is agreeing with themm or taking a side on past actions of theirs is a logical fallacy...

Where do you get off saying who we can have march in Dublin??? Supressing it simply on that basis is as bad as enforcing it...

You are simply driven by a revenge mindset and bitterness

whitelines

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Economic migration is the largest mover of people on the planet, to find it bizarre that Irish people engage in this world-wide phenomenon is in itself a touch bizarre, don't you think? You must be utterly befuddled by the current migrations of people to the EU or areas of economic growth world-wide.
If you find it odd we don't hold more of a grudge and consequently don't want to live in England then that's a nice compliment, Go raibh míle maith agat a cara. I'm sure you would do the same most people would, we Irish aren't particularly special.

If you think the Irish people as a whole prioritise political ideals over the day to day necessities of life you mustn't know us very well. Like all people, putting a roof over the heads of and feeding our families tends to trump such things, except of course for the minority such as you find in all countries.


Finally, the Irish people did build Ireland up.

First of all, can I take this opportunity to express my respect for your right to express your opinions on this forum, which I am sure will be given a full airing by the moderators without fear or favour, however absurd your thinking might appear to the outside world.

It's not the world wide phenomena of Irish migration which intrigues (or even interests) me, but rather Irish migration from The Irish Republic to The United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. It seems to me rather strange that those who screamed and fought for Irish freedom from The Crown would (having obtained it) avail themselves of the boat to The UK mainland. To paraphrase the old saying that mocked America's enemies, it seems rather like 'Brits out - and take me with you'. Again, to take things even further, it would seem to any rational outsider, that an Irish Nationalist moving to Northern Ireland from The Republic to live under The Crown and face hideous persecution takes hypocrisy to an unprecedented level.

I agree with you about The Irish putting financial concerns before their beliefs, the growth of The Irish population in Northern Ireland (under The Crown), makes this abundantly clear to any rational adult. 'Not keen on The Crown, but love the half crown' springs to mind.

Finally, The Irish people might have built Ireland up, but only the ones who actually stayed in Ireland and didn't move to 'cruel England' or 'The Orange Statelet'.

Once again, thank you for your input, it's been invaluable. We can all learn from each other and deepen our understanding of other peoples, providing we take the time and are prepared to countenance other world views, however other worldly they might appear.

Happyman42

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Your rhetoric is your opinion.

And it is clear that it is biased and entrenched and so there is no reasoning with you.

You insist only your side is correct.

As a proud Irish person in the republic i disagree with you.

Allowing a march is not unreasonable .....infact not allowing it may be seen as unreasonable.

If we the Irish people have no objection well whats the problem??

I have no issue with them marching...i have issues with SOME of their members being biggots and what SOME of them did...but what has that got to do with OO in dublin?

I am a Dubliner if i am ok with it then why not?

And i am sorry but your take on the issue is totally dogmatic and indoctrined.

You talk sides ..you put everyone in opposition...thats not your right.....and its only YOUR perception.

An act does not automatically put someone onside that is BS ..NOW YOU are supressing the people of DUBLIN...its part of the SF mentality ..you can only be free by doing what i tell you

Sorry but i feel what you have said is incredibly oppressive and totally illogical ..to suggest that allowing someone to march or speak out is agreeing with themm or taking a side on past actions of theirs is a logical fallacy...

Where do you get off saying who we can have march in Dublin??? Supressing it simply on that basis is as bad as enforcing it...

You are simply driven by a revenge mindset and bitterness

I made it very clear why I object to this march. Please deal with the points made and less of the patronising scolding please. You are the one who has had your lack of knowledge pointed out, several times and have also admitted to the same.

Happyman42

whitelines wrote: »

First of all, can I take this opportunity to express my respect for your right to express your opinions on this forum, which I am sure will be given a full airing by the moderators without fear or favour, however absurd your thinking might appear to the outside world.

It's not the world wide phenomena of Irish migration which intrigues (or even interests) me, but rather Irish migration from The Irish Republic to The United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. It seems to me rather strange that those who screamed and fought for Irish freedom from The Crown would (having obtained it) avail themselves of the boat to The UK mainland. To paraphrase the old saying that mocked America's enemies, it seems rather like 'Brits out - and take me with you'. Again, to take things even further, it would seem to any rational outsider, that an Irish Nationalist moving to Northern Ireland from The Republic to live under The Crown and face hideous persecution takes hypocrisy to an unprecedented level.

I agree with you about The Irish putting financial concerns before their beliefs, the growth of The Irish population in Northern Ireland (under The Crown), makes this abundantly clear to any rational adult. 'Not keen on The Crown, but love the half crown' springs to mind.

Finally, The Irish people might have built Ireland up, but only the ones who actually stayed in Ireland and didn't move to 'cruel England' or 'The Orange Statelet'.

Once again, thank you for your input, it's been invaluable. We can all learn from each other and deepen our understanding of other peoples, providing we take the time and are prepared to countenance other world views, however other worldly they might appear.

The answer is staring you straight in the face, you just haven't been able to see it. It stared at the British for long enough until they seen it too.
The Irish had no gripe with the British in their own country, never had. They did have a major problem with the British here though, and with their upholding and enforcing of discrimination and suppression in the North.
The British where made to see what they where doing, and eventually helped to ensure that that was put right.

poeticseraphim

Happyman42 wrote: »

I made it very clear why I object to this march. Please deal with the points made and less of the patronising scolding please. You are the one who has had your lack of knowledge pointed out, several times and have also admitted to the same.

I have dealt with the points made .

Your point is you want to take your perception as infallible

It is not .

You want the OO to pay for actions you feel it committed in the past forever.

Your ascertion that allowing a march to happen is agreeing with those actions or taking sides is a fallacy.

You say things like 'undeniable truths'

So you Orange men do you all see these marches as a celebration of dominion and suppression?

I don't....

Primarily because i am not supressed.

Not all Orange men see themselves and their organisation as you or want to be that in the future

That is your pereption of marches

Your arguement is that you don't want a march in memory of some battle and suppression. Yet you want to stop them marching forever in memory of your own suffering.

You want them to pay forever for the past.

Not all OO men are bigots i am sure and not all march in celebration of the Irish people and if they can show this then why not let them march?

Cú Giobach

whitelines wrote: »

First of all, can I take this opportunity to express my respect for your right to express your opinions on this forum, which I am sure will be given a full airing by the moderators without fear or favour, however absurd your thinking might appear to the outside world.

Sorry but you do not make up "the outside world". If you don't understand basic human behaviour that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't either.
By your negative reading of every single action of the Irish people mentioned in this little OT discussion it is obvious that you have a warped and negative view of Irish people and even when they act as humans all over the planet do, you think it odd or strange, education is the answer to that little problem.

It's not the world wide phenomena of Irish migration which intrigues (or even interests) me, but rather Irish migration from The Irish Republic to The United Kingdom including Northern Ireland. It seems to me rather strange that those who screamed and fought for Irish freedom from The Crown would (having obtained it) avail themselves of the boat to The UK mainland. To paraphrase the old saying that mocked America's enemies, it seems rather like 'Brits out - and take me with you'. Again, to take things even further, it would seem to any rational outsider, that an Irish Nationalist moving to Northern Ireland from The Republic to live under The Crown and face hideous persecution takes hypocrisy to an unprecedented level.

You have been told what the above implies, but you seem to be ignoring it, does it not suit your agenda?
The problem was with British misrule in Ireland, not an issue with British people or the country.

I agree with you about The Irish putting financial concerns before their beliefs, the growth of The Irish population in Northern Ireland (under The Crown), makes this abundantly clear to any rational adult. 'Not keen on The Crown, but love the half crown' springs to mind.

You think if Irish people stay in NI they are odd, if Irish people leave NI they are odd, if Irish people move to NI they are odd, if Irish people move to Britain they are odd, if Irish people leave the republic they are odd.
There is something odd here indeed and it is not the Irish people.

If you think we shouldn't, or are weird for living outside the 26 counties then all I can say is "god love you" maybe you should get out more and experience a bit of the wider world.

Finally, The Irish people might have built Ireland up, but only the ones who actually stayed in Ireland and didn't move to 'cruel England' or 'The Orange Statelet'.

Your powers of observation are astounding, thanks for sharing that gem.

Once again, thank you for your input, it's been invaluable. We can all learn from each other and deepen our understanding of other peoples, providing we take the time and are prepared to countenance other world views, however other worldly they might appear.

Your constantly repeated view is "Irish people are strange" even though the reasons you give for that view consist of normal species wide human behaviour. I think all people are normal, Irish, British, Unionist, Republican, who is the one that needs to do a bit of listening and learning about others?

Just to give you an idea how warped your view is, instead of saying "isn't it nice that Irish people have no problem living and working in England after their history" you say "Irish are odd because they don't seem to have a problem living in England", in normal society the holding of a grudge is considered negative and getting over it positive, do you live in such a society?

Oaklilly

Going through Dublin with union jacks would be an insult.

One word to an orange parde in Dublin: NO

They should atleast march with the flag of their own country, since they claim they are just a religious organization.

Happyman42

poeticseraphim wrote: »

I have dealt with the points made .

Your point is you want to take your perception as infallible

It is not .

You want the OO to pay for actions you feel it committed in the past forever.

Your ascertion that allowing a march to happen is agreeing with those actions or taking sides is a fallacy.

You say things like 'undeniable truths'

So you Orange men do you all see these marches as a celebration of dominion and suppression?

I don't....

Primarily because i am not supressed.

Not all Orange men see themselves and their organisation as you or want to be that in the future

That is your pereption of marches

Your arguement is that you don't want a march in memory of some battle and suppression. Yet you want to stop them marching forever in memory of your own suffering.

You want them to pay forever for the past.

Not all OO men are bigots i am sure and not all march in celebration of the Irish people and if they can show this then why not let them march?

No you have not dealt with the points. Instead you are trying to drag this into a 'them' and 'us' and I ain't going there. Here is the point I made, please address that.
'In terms of the OO, here is where you are quite wrong. The British did something in relation to the OO and marches that was wholly wrong by any notion of responsible and democratic governance and we must never allow that to be lost in politically correct revisionism. They took a side, they shored up suppression and triumphant domination that exacerbated the problem, not eased it or saved lives. It took a long time to make them see that.
It would be wrong if the same kind of surrender to political correctness allows this organisation, in it's present make-up, to march in Dublin. Because, to allow this march to go ahead, you have to take a side, you are saying that you agree with triumphing suppression and domination. There is little or no middle ground here. That is why no nationalist or repubican could ever be a member of the OO, it is a contradication in terms. The OO, just like the IRA, has to become a thing of history, remember it as part of who you are by all means, but it's function as a organisation is and should be redundant and it's members have to realise that.'

If my perception is wrong, please address HOW it is wrong on it's own terms.I couldn't care less what the OO do up North, for the time being, as long as they do not incite hate or enforce themselves on communities that don't want them and see them as provocative.
I DO care that they want to take their anachronistic triumphalist pursuits into the capital city of my country because of what that means and what they will make it mean.

flutered

i will add another two cents to this thread, the parades commission will not allow then to march down the garvahey road in the heartland of portadown, i wonder would the parades commission allow them to parade down o connell street the fenian and taighs capital.

Happyman42

flutered wrote: »

i will add another two cents to this thread, the parades commission will not allow then to march down the garvahey road in the heartland of portadown, i wonder would the parades commission allow them to parade down o connell street the fenian and taighs capital.

I do think the OO's continued arrogance and refusal to accept that they cannot march this route flies in the face of anything they have to say about modernising and moving away from crude triumphalism. It's a very confused organisation, because at it's heart is something rotten which they constantly try to cover.

whitelines

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Sorry but you do not make up "the outside world". If you don't understand basic human behaviour that doesn't mean the rest of the world doesn't either.
By your negative reading of every single action of the Irish people mentioned in this little OT discussion it is obvious that you have a warped and negative view of Irish people and even when they act as humans all over the planet do, you think it odd or strange, education is the answer to that little problem.

You have been told what the above implies, but you seem to be ignoring it, does it not suit your agenda?
The problem was with British misrule in Ireland, not an issue with British people or the country.


You think if Irish people stay in NI they are odd, if Irish people leave NI they are odd, if Irish people move to NI they are odd, if Irish people move to Britain they are odd, if Irish people leave the republic they are odd.
There is something odd here indeed and it is not the Irish people.

If you think we shouldn't, or are weird for living outside the 26 counties then all I can say is "god love you" maybe you should get out more and experience a bit of the wider world.


Your powers of observation are astounding, thanks for sharing that gem.

Your constantly repeated view is "Irish people are strange" even though the reasons you give for that view consist of normal species wide human behaviour. I think all people are normal, Irish, British, Unionist, Republican, who is the one that needs to do a bit of listening and learning about others?

Just to give you an idea how warped your view is, instead of saying "isn't it nice that Irish people have no problem living and working in England after their history" you say "Irish are odd because they don't seem to have a problem living in England", in normal society the holding of a grudge is considered negative and getting over it positive, do you live in such a society?

First of all, let me extend my thanks for your exhaustive comments, they are most appreciated, although they throw little light on what's being discussed.

You say:

The problem was with British misrule in Ireland, not an issue with British people or the country.

This doesn't appear to cover the issue being analysed in any way. In fact, it sounds like the sort of hilarious cliché someone like Gerry Adams or another Republican pseudo-intellectual ex-bar man might mouth. I'm afraid I went to school beyond the age of five, so it doesn't move me in the same way it might move some of The Irish.

You say:

If you think we shouldn't, or are weird for living outside the 26 counties then all I can say is "god love you

I'm afraid you've rather missed the point of my hypotheses. I never said it was weird for Irish Nationalists to live outside Ireland, only that it was ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme for them to choose to live in The UK - the nation that ruled them ruthlessly for 800 years and which they claim still occupies 6 Irish counties.

You say:

in normal society the holding of a grudge is considered negative and getting over it positive, do you live in such a society

This rather misses the point I'd say. It is the obvious lack of dignity that strikes me on behalf of those Irish Nationalists who choose to live in England. After all, didn't England rule The Irish with a rod of iron for 800 years, raping and killing The Irish? Don't Irish Nationalists blame England for the genocidal famine that emptied Ireland? Why then would the self same Irish Nationalists go crawling to England for employment? Bringing their children up as Englishmen?

Anyway, as you say, this is all off topic, so I'll leave it at that. Might I thank you once again for an authentic (if confused) Irish input?

opinionated3

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Happyman42 wrote: »

In terms of the OO, here is where you are quite wrong. The British did something in relation to the OO and marches that was wholly wrong by any notion of responsible and democratic governance and we must never allow that to be lost in politically correct revisionism. They took a side, they shored up suppression and triumphant domination that exacerbated the problem, not eased it or saved lives. It took a long time to make them see that.
It would be wrong if the same kind of surrender to political correctness allows this organisation, in it's present make-up, to march in Dublin. Because, to allow this march to go ahead, you have to take a side, you are saying that you agree with triumphing suppression and domination. There is little or no middle ground here. That is why no nationalist or repubican could ever be a member of the OO, it is a contradication in terms. The OO, just like the IRA, has to become a thing of history, remember it as part of who you are by all means, but it's function as a organisation is and should be redundant and it's members have to realise that.
The rest of your post is highly contentious as well but this is not the thread to debate it.

Your rhetoric is your opinion.

And it is clear that it is biased and entrenched and so there is no reasoning with you.

You insist only your side is correct.

As a proud Irish person in the republic i disagree with you.

Allowing a march is not unreasonable .....infact not allowing it may be seen as unreasonable.

If we the Irish people have no objection well whats the problem??

I have no issue with them marching...i have issues with SOME of their members being biggots and what SOME of them did...but what has that got to do with OO in dublin?

I am a Dubliner if i am ok with it then why not?

And i am sorry but your take on the issue is totally dogmatic and indoctrined.

You talk sides ..you put everyone in opposition...thats not your right.....and its only YOUR perception.

An act does not automatically put someone onside that is BS ..NOW YOU are supressing the people of DUBLIN...its part of the SF mentality ..you can only be free by doing what i tell you

Sorry but i feel what you have said is incredibly oppressive and totally illogical ..to suggest that allowing someone to march or speak out is agreeing with themm or taking a side on past actions of theirs is a logical fallacy...

Where do you get off saying who we can have march in Dublin??? Supressing it simply on that basis is as bad as enforcing it...

You are simply driven by a revenge mindset and bitterness

A Dubliner? With that sort of talk more like a west brit....

bear_hunter

whitelines wrote: »

Interesting thinking there. I've heard it said many times that Ulster's Catholics have far more in common with their Protestant friends and neighbours than with people in The ROI. There may be something in that, especially now 'the troubles' have ended. It would certainly help explain the collapse in support for Irish Unity amongst NI Catholics that's become so obvious.

if thats whaty you think , you dont know much about the UP community , the differences between them , their catholic neighbours and us down south is not just one of political aliegance to another state and constitution , unionists are a very different people psychologically and culturally , they have a calvinist mindset , nothing wrong with that but its a very different charechter than your typical irish persona

K-9

whitelines wrote: »

I never said it was weird for Irish Nationalists to live outside Ireland, only that it was ridiculous and hypocritical in the extreme for them to choose to live in The UK - the nation that ruled them ruthlessly for 800 years and which they claim still occupies 6 Irish counties.

You say:



This rather misses the point I'd say. It is the obvious lack of dignity that strikes me on behalf of those Irish Nationalists who choose to live in England. After all, didn't England rule The Irish with a rod of iron for 800 years, raping and killing The Irish? Don't Irish Nationalists blame England for the genocidal famine that emptied Ireland? Why then would the self same Irish Nationalists go crawling to England for employment? Bringing their children up as Englishmen?

opinionated3 wrote: »

A Dubliner? With that sort of talk more like a west brit....

More bans for posting utter nonsense. There have been several on thread mod warnings so nobody can act surprised.

tayto lover

When they signed the Good Friday Agreement they should not have formed a Parades Commission at all. They should just have banned ALL marches of any kind or persuasion. They belong in the past.

laoch na mona

no i really would not like to see an organisation like the orange order march in Dublin

to be honest i thought the speech was pointless, a representative of one pointless institution addressing another pointless institution

Chuck Stone

whitelines wrote: »

This rather misses the point I'd say. It is the obvious lack of dignity that strikes me on behalf of those Irish Nationalists who choose to live in England. After all, didn't England rule The Irish with a rod of iron for 800 years, raping and killing The Irish? Don't Irish Nationalists blame England for the genocidal famine that emptied Ireland? Why then would the self same Irish Nationalists go crawling to England for employment? Bringing their children up as Englishmen?

People in the south don't really consider themselves Irish Nationalists - just Irish. Also, people went to England to find work - something Irish people have been doing for generations and still are.

Why is this difficult for you to understand? The ancestors of people transported to the west Indies as slaves by the English went to England to find work.

If Irish people going to England to work 'lack dignity' (such bullshit) then what must you think of the ancestors of slaves going to England to work?

How very very strange..

poeticseraphim

opinionated3 wrote: »

A Dubliner? With that sort of talk more like a west brit....

Are you serious?

Yes i am a Dublin gal.....i tire of this....seriously different Irish people have different ideas.:)

I dislike being told HOW to be Irish.....it's so fake for one.

I want to be the nice Irish person with beautiful manners who can rise above it all...

Not the stereotype.....

I am not going to retaliate to something that is blatantly untrue...


Rising ...Rising ...Rising

Ah the moral superiority



Aaaaahhhhhh thats the stuff:P:P:P