The Ulster Covenant: A Warning from History

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Pretending there is no significance in stitching religious doctrine into State law is quite delusional. By 1946, there were only half the number of Protestants left in the country as there were in 1911.Oh, clearly I'm mistaken. Obviously, commitment to both Catholicism and revival of the Irish language have never been higher.

At what stage do you think people will actually be able to openly discuss our shared experience, or at least discuss how much of our experience is shared, without people feeling they need to fight a corner?

Fighting a corner?????

Openess means not ignoring the truth.

The was NO official policy of discriminating against protestants int he republic while there was a deeply rooted official system of discrimination in the North. They where allowed their religious freedoms and a separate education system here. Many Protestants rose, unfettered to the top in many of the republics jobs.
We were a Catholic state, that is undeniable, but many other countries hadn't separated their legislature from church either. We have done it though.
While Protestants left the Republic, there where many complex reasons for that, some left because they did indeed feel that their freedoms where compromised, but many left for the same reasons their fellow Catholic citizens left. Economic prosperity.
I know of no former colony that the British didn't leave in a mess, a mess that took years to normalise, there is no doubt that we struggled to establish a proper republic and still are, because our core problems havent been addressed....interference from a self interested belligerent foreign power.
That self interested power is now in the process of ridding itself of what has become a Unionist scourge. The Unionists will eventually have to deal with the inevitable.

James Longstreet.

Signed by patriots to defend Ulster from Rome rule and Dublin rule. Keep your powder dry boys.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

The was NO official policy of discriminating against protestants int he republic while there was a deeply rooted official system of discrimination in the North.

And we never persecuted the Jews, either, because we never let them in.

It might be necessary to acknowledge that Protestants in the South were never numerous enough to be a threat. But turning our eyes away from the effect of Roman Catholicism dominating the State is just displaying a profound lack of self-awareness. The other crowd were bigots, whereas we had firmly held beliefs.

In 1937, this new "Republic" adopted a constitution that recognised the Roman Catholic Church as having a "special position"; not by a wide margin, but it still has a significance that we can't just lightly pass over with some platitude about this not being intended to dismiss any other religion.

Happyman42 wrote: »

While Protestants left the Republic, there where many complex reasons for that, some left because they did indeed feel that their freedoms where compromised, but many left for the same reasons their fellow Catholic citizens left. Economic prosperity.

I'm not sure this is dealing with a reality that the Protestant population fell by half during a period when the Catholic population was static.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not dealing with it at all.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

And we never persecuted the Jews, either, because we never let them in.

It might be necessary to acknowledge that Protestants in the South were never numerous enough to be a threat. But turning our eyes away from the effect of Roman Catholicism dominating the State is just displaying a profound lack of self-awareness. The other crowd were bigots, whereas we had firmly held beliefs.

In 1937, this new "Republic" adopted a constitution that recognised the Roman Catholic Church as having a "special position"; not by a wide margin, but it still has a significance that we can't just lightly pass over with some platitude about this not being intended to dismiss any other religion.I'm not sure this is dealing with a reality that the Protestant population fell by half during a period when the Catholic population was static.

In fact, I'm pretty sure it's not dealing with it at all.

You could very easily prove your point by posting one piece of legislation or decree that is specifically anti Protestant or Unionist. Otherwise you are just indulging in the usual deflection. Deflection from the the significant and deadly abuses by those who signed the Covenant.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

You could very easily prove your point by posting one piece of legislation or decree that is specifically anti Protestant or Unionist.

Huh? I've already mentioned the now repealed Article 44, which asserted that the RC Church had a special position by comparison to other denominations. Articles 2 and 3 originally contained a claim over Northern Ireland, which was hardly Unionist-friendly; you may recall that a Unionist complaint was that Articles 2 and 3 gave a basis for the IRA to claim legitimacy. I could add that the Preamble to the Constitution excludes not only atheists and agnostics from its scope, but Unitarian Christians.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, to say nothing of those who haven't assessed the significance of the points being put to them.

A Dub in Glasgo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

. Articles 2 and 3 originally contained a claim over Northern Ireland, which was hardly Unionist-friendly; you may recall that a Unionist complaint was that Articles 2 and 3 gave a basis for the IRA to claim legitimacy.

The result of the 1918 election could hardly be described as being Unionist-friendly... deal with democracy

GCU Flexible Demeanour

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The result of the 1918 election could hardly be described as being Unionist-friendly... deal with democracy

I'm dealing with the points made here. For whatever reason, Happyman wanted an example of some legislative provision hostile to Unionists. If you don't like the line he has pursued, address your point to him.

Whatever about the 1918 election, which was less clear-cut than you may believe, I'm not at all contesting that actions in the Southern State were supported by a majority; sure, the Constitution wouldn't have been adopted without one. Can I suggest that little purpose is served by you refuting points that aren't being made.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Huh? I've already mentioned the now repealed Article 44, which asserted that the RC Church had a special position by comparison to other denominations. Articles 2 and 3 originally contained a claim over Northern Ireland, which was hardly Unionist-friendly; you may recall that a Unionist complaint was that Articles 2 and 3 gave a basis for the IRA to claim legitimacy. I could add that the Preamble to the Constitution excludes not only atheists and agnostics from its scope, but Unitarian Christians.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, to say nothing of those who haven't assessed the significance of the points being put to them.

You have been asked on a number of ocaisions to show that Protestants where 'specifically' discriminated against in a country with a Roman Catholic ethos. You haven't, all you have done is show that it was a country with a Roman Catholic ethos in which everybody had to live. Everybody, including Catholics and Protestants and Atheists etc.
You also ignore the fact that they and other religions where allowed to practice their faiths infettered, where allowed separate and distinct and funded schools and had many members who rose to the top of society.

There is no comparison to what a Roman Catholic had to contend with in the North, which is my point, despite your deflection.

A Dub in Glasgo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Whatever about the 1918 election, which was less clear-cut than you may believe, I'm not at all contesting that actions in the Southern State were supported by a majority; sure, the Constitution wouldn't have been adopted without one. Can I suggest that little purpose is served by you refuting points that aren't being made.

But you are contesting that the actions in the whole of Ireland were supported by the majority in the whole of Ireland. I hate to break it to you, but that is democracy.. deal with it.

This whole covenant reverence is an enemy to democracy

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Huh? I've already mentioned the now repealed Article 44, which asserted that the RC Church had a special position by comparison to other denominations. Articles 2 and 3 originally contained a claim over Northern Ireland, which was hardly Unionist-friendly; you may recall that a Unionist complaint was that Articles 2 and 3 gave a basis for the IRA to claim legitimacy. I could add that the Preamble to the Constitution excludes not only atheists and agnostics from its scope, but Unitarian Christians.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see, to say nothing of those who haven't assessed the significance of the points being put to them.

You have been asked on a number of ocaisions to show that Protestants where 'specifically' discriminated against in a country with a Roman Catholic ethos. You haven't, all you have done is show that it was a country with a Roman Catholic ethos in which everybody had to live. Everybody, including Catholics and Protestants and Atheists etc.
You also ignore the fact that they and other religions where allowed to practice their faiths infettered, where allowed separate and distinct and funded schools and had many members who rose to the top of society.

There is no comparison to what a Roman Catholic had to contend with in the North, which is my point, despite your deflection.

I am by no means an expert but Catholic churches and schools existed throughout the history of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the schools have always outperformed their state counterparts.

Furthermore, the upper echelons of the NI Civil Service has always had a representative blend although Catholics working there have often been dismissed as 'Castle Catholics'.

To flip your question around, can you point to any anti-Catholic legislation specific to Northern Ireland?

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

I am by no means an expert but Catholic churches and schools existed throughout the history of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the schools have always outperformed their state counterparts.

Furthermore, the upper echelons of the NI Civil Service has always had a representative blend although Catholics working there have often been dismissed as 'Castle Catholics'.

To flip your question around, can you point to any anti-Catholic legislation specific to Northern Ireland?

I suggest you find yourself a history of education in Northern Ireland and start with the activities of the United Education Committee Of Protestant Churches and how they faced down any legislation they felt threatened them.
Then have a look at why it was that the RUC never met it's mandated quota of having one third of it's force Catholic. See also how the South Africans envied the power Unionists gave themselves in The Special Powers Acts.
See also how Gerrymandering of ward boundaries effectively ghettoised the catholic communities and allowed the Unionists to rule. eg. by constantly redrawing ward boundaries 10,000 Catholics in Derry managed to have 8 councillors while 7,000 Protestants managed to have 12.

Then have a look at employment and the activities of The Ulster Protestant League. 'Sir' Basil Brooke (recipient of the Crown's imprimatur :rolleyes:) said in a speech:

'There were a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his place ... He would point out that the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere and were out with all their force and might to destroy the power and constitution of Ulster. There was a definite plot to overpower the vote of Unionists in the north. He would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, to employ Protestant lads and lassies.'

While the Grand Master of The Orange Order stated:

'When will the Protestant employers of Northern Ireland recognise their duty to their Protestant brothers and sisters and employ them to the exclusion of Roman Catholics?

Can you point to similar utterances from civil and political leaders in the South?
Can you even begin to imagine living in a society where people like this where your masters and held sway over you and your children?





You have a lot of reading to do, because the above is only the tip of an iceberg!

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

You have been asked on a number of ocaisions to show that Protestants where 'specifically' discriminated against in a country with a Roman Catholic ethos. You haven't, all you have done is show that it was a country with a Roman Catholic ethos in which everybody had to live. Everybody, including Catholics and Protestants and Atheists etc.

I cannot credit how someone cannot comprehend that forcing everyone to live under a Roman Catholic ethos by stitching it into the Constitution is an oppressive act. It's a perversion of the word "discrimination" to say it doesn't apply to a situation where one religion is empowered to force its beliefs on the whole community.

Even taking your perversion of the term, you don't seem to have digested that the Preamble to the Constitution actually excludes the outlook of atheists and Unitarian Christians, along with non-Christian denominations, from its scope.

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

But you are contesting that the actions in the whole of Ireland were supported by the majority in the whole of Ireland. I hate to break it to you, but that is democracy.. deal with it.

I'm not sure that I follow what point you are trying to make. What am I contesting? Where you under the impression that Sinn Fein obtained a majority of votes cast? Or that the only motive people had for voting Sinn Fein in 1918 was to express support for a Republic?

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

This whole covenant reverence is an enemy to democracy

Well, "democracy" in the sense that means "tyranny of the mob". I'm not sure if it's an enemy to liberty.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I cannot credit how someone cannot comprehend that forcing everyone to live under a Roman Catholic ethos by stitching it into the Constitution is an oppressive act.

I cannot comprehend how someone can contend that it was remotely similar to the situation in the North. Which IS the point.
The Unionists deliberately (and by refusing to take on board the recommendations of the Boundary Commission) cut off their Protestant brothers and sisters in Ulster in an effort to ensure the domination of the Protestant faith in what was left.
They then augmented that dominance to the exclusion of Catholics by a corrupt and bigotted wielding of power in all aspects of life. The Ulster Covenant was designed to sprcifically defend protestantism above and beyond loyalty to a Union with Britian.
There is no comparison or similarity to what happened in the south.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I am by no means an expert but Catholic churches and schools existed throughout the history of Northern Ireland. Indeed, the schools have always outperformed their state counterparts.

Furthermore, the upper echelons of the NI Civil Service has always had a representative blend although Catholics working there have often been dismissed as 'Castle Catholics'.

To flip your question around, can you point to any anti-Catholic legislation specific to Northern Ireland?

I suggest you find yourself a history of education in Northern Ireland and start with the activities of the United Education Committee Of Protestant Churches and how they faced down any legislation they felt threatened them.
Then have a look at why it was that the RUC never met it's mandated quota of having one third of it's force Catholic. See also how the South Africans envied the power Unionists gave themselves in The Special Powers Acts.
See also how Gerrymandering of ward boundaries effectively ghettoised the catholic communities and allowed the Unionists to rule. eg. by constantly redrawing ward boundaries 10,000 Catholics in Derry managed to have 8 councillors while 7,000 Protestants managed to have 12.

Then have a look at employment and the activities of The Ulster Protestant League. 'Sir' Basil Brooke (recipient of the Crown's imprimatur :rolleyes:) said in a speech:

'There were a great number of Protestants and Orangemen who employed Roman Catholics. He felt he could speak freely on this subject as he had not a Roman Catholic about his place ... He would point out that the Roman Catholics were endeavouring to get in everywhere and were out with all their force and might to destroy the power and constitution of Ulster. There was a definite plot to overpower the vote of Unionists in the north. He would appeal to Loyalists, therefore, to employ Protestant lads and lassies.'

While the Grand Master of The Orange Order stated:

'When will the Protestant employers of Northern Ireland recognise their duty to their Protestant brothers and sisters and employ them to the exclusion of Roman Catholics?

Can you point to similar utterances from civil and political leaders in the South?
Can you even begin to imagine living in a society where people like this where your masters and held sway over you and your children?





You have a lot of reading to do, because the above is only the tip of an iceberg!

I take that as a no.

You cannot highlight any legislation which discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland, making your previous four posts irrelevant.

Bringing South Africa in at this stage adds nothing.

The goalposts of this thread have shifted so often that it now has little to do with where it started.

karma_

If Ireland after partition was a 'cold house' for the Protestant population, today no one celebrates that fact, indeed most of us would be ashamed of that fact, and indeed have serious questions about the role the RCC had in Ireland.

As for the North, well the Protestant domination is lauded and celebrated and excused still, every year.

Terrontress

karma_ wrote: »

If Ireland after partition was a 'cold house' for the Protestant population, today no one celebrates that fact, indeed most of us would be ashamed of that fact, and indeed have serious questions about the role the RCC had in Ireland.

As for the North, well the Protestant domination is lauded and celebrated and excused still, every year.

I have seen both Orange marches and their Republican equivalent in Northern Ireland and the only difference I can see is the colour.

Their sashes, their drums and flutes, their band uniforms, the hangers on. The songs sound identical and they each hold up the traffic.

Both as bad as each other.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

I take that as a no.

You cannot highlight any legislation which discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland, making your previous four posts irrelevant.

Bringing South Africa in at this stage adds nothing.

The goalposts of this thread have shifted so often that it now has little to do with where it started.

Are you in some sort of denial???:eek:

karma_

Terrontress wrote: »

I have seen both Orange marches and their Republican equivalent in Northern Ireland and the only difference I can see is the colour.

Their sashes, their drums and flutes, their band uniforms, the hangers on. The songs sound identical and they each hold up the traffic.

Both as bad as each other.

I'd personally ban them all, however we have over 3000 Orange Order/Black Institution/Apprentice boys of Derry marches every summer, and that's a conservative estimate.

Terrontress

karma_ wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I have seen both Orange marches and their Republican equivalent in Northern Ireland and the only difference I can see is the colour.

Their sashes, their drums and flutes, their band uniforms, the hangers on. The songs sound identical and they each hold up the traffic.

Both as bad as each other.

I'd personally ban them all, however we have over 3000 Orange Order/Black Institution/Apprentice boys of Derry marches every summer, and that's a conservative estimate.

I don't care if they're orange, black or green. When the traffic is held up and you get teams of thugs swilling cans of Harp, throwing chip wrappers on the ground it's quite irrelevant as to what they believe in.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I take that as a no.

You cannot highlight any legislation which discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland, making your previous four posts irrelevant.

Bringing South Africa in at this stage adds nothing.

The goalposts of this thread have shifted so often that it now has little to do with where it started.

Are you in some sort of denial???:eek:

In denial about what?

I can't imagine life in the dystopia you portray nor the townships of South Africa.

Nor can I imagine life in the home of a very wealthy Irish family nor growing up with a lone parent nor any number of things.

I am getting little sense off you son.

You're flitting back and forth between the legislative, historical and conjecture.

There are elements of truth to what you're saying but I still cannot work out your position.

You seem to delight in use of overly-complicated words such as imprimatur but cannot differentiate between 'were' and 'where', a level of writing expected from 13 year olds.

I despair, I really do!

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

In denial about what?

I can't imagine life in the dystopia you portray nor the townships of South Africa.

Nor can I imagine life in the home of a very wealthy Irish family nor growing up with a lone parent nor any number of things.

I am getting little sense off you son.

You're flitting back and forth between the legislative, historical and conjecture.

There are elements of truth to what you're saying but I still cannot work out your position.

You seem to delight in use of overly-complicated words such as imprimatur but cannot differentiate between 'were' and 'where', a level of writing expected from 13 year olds.

I despair, I really do!

You use the word 'son' and then fall back on the default position of those who have run out of corners to hide; the winged protector of grammar and spelling. Excellent, carry on despairing. :rolleyes:

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

In denial about what?

I can't imagine life in the dystopia you portray nor the townships of South Africa.

Nor can I imagine life in the home of a very wealthy Irish family nor growing up with a lone parent nor any number of things.

I am getting little sense off you son.

You're flitting back and forth between the legislative, historical and conjecture.

There are elements of truth to what you're saying but I still cannot work out your position.

You seem to delight in use of overly-complicated words such as imprimatur but cannot differentiate between 'were' and 'where', a level of writing expected from 13 year olds.

I despair, I really do!

You use the word 'son' and then fall back on the default position of those who have run out of corners to hide; the winged protector of grammar and spelling. Excellent, carry on despairing. :rolleyes:

I think the word 'son' is a marvellous word when engaging in debate and I shall continue to use it unashamedly while I have air in my lungs! Indeed, my use on this occasion has confirmed to me that you have read at least some part of one of my posts. Until now it would appear that you hit the reply button followed by irrelevant stream-of-consciousness statements.

My position throughout this post has not changed son. I need nowhere to hide!

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

I think the word 'son' is a marvellous word when engaging in debate and I shall continue to use it unashamedly while I have air in my lungs! Indeed, my use on this occasion has confirmed to me that you have read at least some part of one of my posts. Until now it would appear that you hit the reply button followed by irrelevant stream-of-consciousness statements.

My position throughout this post has not changed son. I need nowhere to hide!

Could you now demonstrate how Unionist discrimination and bullying (ala the Ulster Covenant) compares with the the governing of the South.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I think the word 'son' is a marvellous word when engaging in debate and I shall continue to use it unashamedly while I have air in my lungs! Indeed, my use on this occasion has confirmed to me that you have read at least some part of one of my posts. Until now it would appear that you hit the reply button followed by irrelevant stream-of-consciousness statements.

My position throughout this post has not changed son. I need nowhere to hide!

Could you now demonstrate how Unionist discrimination and bullying (ala the Ulster Covenant) compares with the the governing of the South.

They do not compare at all. One was a petition signed by individuals in 1912.

The other was, is and continues to be a sovereign nation, dealing with the lives of its inhabitants. Many people who lived their entire lives in what became the Republic of Ireland signed the covenant.

I don't know what you think the Covenant was. It was not a form of government, it was not a basis to govern, it had nothing to do with religion.

As stated by me several pages back, the Covenant was a failure from the off as Northern Ireland had home rule with the Parliament of Northern Ireland nine years later!

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

They do not compare at all. One was a petition signed by individuals in 1912.

The other was, is and continues to be a sovereign nation, dealing with the lives of its inhabitants. Many people who lived their entire lives in what became the Republic of Ireland signed the covenant.

I don't know what you think the Covenant was. It was not a form of government, it was not a basis to govern, it had nothing to do with religion.

As stated by me several pages back, the Covenant was a failure from the off as Northern Ireland had home rule with the Parliament of Northern Ireland nine years later!

:rolleyes: The Ulster Covenant was an attempt to bully.

Now could you deal with the question and give us less of the deflecting semantics.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

I take that as a no.

You cannot highlight any legislation which discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland, making your previous four posts irrelevant.

..............

Gerrymandering, restriction of the vote....just because it didn't name catholics, theres no doubt as to who was targeted.

Happyman42

Nodin wrote: »

Gerrymandering, restriction of the vote....just because it didn't name catholics, theres no doubt as to who was targeted.

Apparently they are tiresome grammatical errors of history!

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I take that as a no.

You cannot highlight any legislation which discriminated against Catholics in Northern Ireland, making your previous four posts irrelevant.

..............

Gerrymandering, restriction of the vote....just because it didn't name catholics, theres no doubt as to who was targeted.

Fine so, as in the Republic, there was no sectarian legislation in Northern Ireland.

Sectarian practices yes, sectarian legislation no.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

They do not compare at all. One was a petition signed by individuals in 1912.

The other was, is and continues to be a sovereign nation, dealing with the lives of its inhabitants. Many people who lived their entire lives in what became the Republic of Ireland signed the covenant.

I don't know what you think the Covenant was. It was not a form of government, it was not a basis to govern, it had nothing to do with religion.

As stated by me several pages back, the Covenant was a failure from the off as Northern Ireland had home rule with the Parliament of Northern Ireland nine years later!

:rolleyes: The Ulster Covenant was an attempt to bully.

Now could you deal with the question and give us less of the deflecting semantics.

I don't doubt it was an attempt to bully.

But you can't compare that to a sovereign state.

The two are incomparable just as the concept of freedom and a rock are. To make a comparison there need to be similarities!

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

Fine so, as in the Republic, there was no sectarian legislation in Northern Ireland.

Sectarian practices yes, sectarian legislation no.

What do you think allowed and underpinned gerrymandering, did it or did it not have the force of law and legislation behind it's implementation?

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Fine so, as in the Republic, there was no sectarian legislation in Northern Ireland.

Sectarian practices yes, sectarian legislation no.

What do you think allowed and underpinned gerrymandering, did it or did it not have the force of law and legislation behind it's implementation?

Gerrymandering was not unique to Northern Ireland. It was also widespread south of the border and in Northern Ireland served to subjugate smaller Unionist parties as much as Nationalist parties.

Gerrymandering by those in power was equally legal North and South.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

Gerrymandering was not unique to Northern Ireland. It was also widespread south of the border and in Northern Ireland served to subjugate smaller Unionist parties as much as Nationalist parties.

Gerrymandering by those in power was equally legal North and South.

What exactly are you saying here?
That gerrymandering as practiced in Northern Ireland wasn't sectarian?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

What do you think allowed and underpinned gerrymandering, did it or did it not have the force of law and legislation behind it's implementation?

I can't grasp the continuing gap in comprehension.

I'm not contending, and I don't think anyone else is, that religion was not a strong factor in politics North or South, or even that gerrymandering wasn't used as a tool in Derry to enable Unionists to retain a majority of seats on the Council.

Nor can anyone contend that the Northern and Southern States were identical - as they each faced different realities. In the North, Catholics constituted a substantial minority; in the South (as I've already mentioned) Protestants were not numerous enough to constitute a threat. Gerrymandering, for religious reasons, simply wasn't a requirement. FWIW, it was used as a tool for party reasons - as in the famous Tullymander that backfired on Fine Gael/Labour.

What I'm contending is that the Southern State was an uncomfortable place for Protestants, which is evidenced by the number of Protestants falling sharply within a few decades of independence. I've satisfied your demand for examples of legislative acts that specifically related to Protestants, by reference to the Constitution stating that the Roman Catholic Church had a special provision.

Being so much of a minority, Protestants were never going to be such a threat as to require much action to suppress them. But, for what its worth, there were controversies in the South with a religious element - such as the Letitia Dunbar-Harrison case, the Fethard-on-Sea boycott, a few cases relating to the civil effect of the Ne Temere decree on the religious instruction of children of parents where only one was Catholic, Westmeath County Council passing a motion supporting the campaign by "Maria Duce" to amend the Constitution so that it contained an unambiguous statement, asserting Roman Catholicism to be the one true faith, rather than merely claiming it to have a special status.

All I'm suggesting, in my posts, is a need to acknowledge these realities, and not kid ourselves that this was all perfectly normal and nothing that any non-Catholic need find uncomfortable.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Gerrymandering was not unique to Northern Ireland. It was also widespread south of the border and in Northern Ireland served to subjugate smaller Unionist parties as much as Nationalist parties.

Gerrymandering by those in power was equally legal North and South.

What exactly are you saying here?
That gerrymandering as practiced in Northern Ireland wasn't sectarian?

Not specifically, no, although Nationalist parties representing Catholics were the biggest losers.

The Unionist party, an Orange and Protestant party, gerrymandered primarily to cling to power and smaller unionist parties were net losers in their setting of boundaries.

The legislation, bearing in mind you demanded legislation in this post, existed both sides of the border.

But this all had nothing to do with the Ulster Covenant!

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

Not specifically, no, although Nationalist parties representing Catholics were the biggest losers.

The Unionist party, an Orange and Protestant party, gerrymandered primarily to cling to power and smaller unionist parties were net losers in their setting of boundaries.

The legislation, bearing in mind you demanded legislation in this post, existed both sides of the border.

But this all had nothing to do with the Ulster Covenant!

...it does, however, rather undermine your earlier contentions here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81113153&postcount=21

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

Not specifically, no, although Nationalist parties representing Catholics were the biggest losers.

The Unionist party, an Orange and Protestant party, gerrymandered primarily to cling to power and smaller unionist parties were net losers in their setting of boundaries.

The legislation, bearing in mind you demanded legislation in this post, existed both sides of the border.

But this all had nothing to do with the Ulster Covenant!

...it does, however, rather undermine your earlier contentions here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=81113153&postcount=21

I don't really understand what you're getting at.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

I don't really understand what you're getting at.

....that the notion of the North somehow keeping the South in check is a bit of a nonsense.

Happyman42

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't grasp the continuing gap in comprehension.

I'm not contending, and I don't think anyone else is, that religion was not a strong factor in politics North or South, or even that gerrymandering wasn't used as a tool in Derry to enable Unionists to retain a majority of seats on the Council.

Nor can anyone contend that the Northern and Southern States were identical - as they each faced different realities. In the North, Catholics constituted a substantial minority; in the South (as I've already mentioned) Protestants were not numerous enough to constitute a threat. Gerrymandering, for religious reasons, simply wasn't a requirement. FWIW, it was used as a tool for party reasons - as in the famous Tullymander that backfired on Fine Gael/Labour.

What I'm contending is that the Southern State was an uncomfortable place for Protestants, which is evidenced by the number of Protestants falling sharply within a few decades of independence. I've satisfied your demand for examples of legislative acts that specifically related to Protestants, by reference to the Constitution stating that the Roman Catholic Church had a special provision.

Being so much of a minority, Protestants were never going to be such a threat as to require much action to suppress them. But, for what its worth, there were controversies in the South with a religious element - such as the Letitia Dunbar-Harrison case, the Fethard-on-Sea boycott, a few cases relating to the civil effect of the Ne Temere decree on the religious instruction of children of parents where only one was Catholic, Westmeath County Council passing a motion supporting the campaign by "Maria Duce" to amend the Constitution so that it contained an unambiguous statement, asserting Roman Catholicism to be the one true faith, rather than merely claiming it to have a special status.

All I'm suggesting, in my posts, is a need to acknowledge these realities, and not kid ourselves that this was all perfectly normal and nothing that any non-Catholic need find uncomfortable.

And I have acknowledged that. It was a state with a Roman Catholic ethos, however they didn't specifically target or discriminate against the Protestant faith.


p.s. It wasn't me who wrongly compared the treatment of Protestants in the South to how Catholics where treated in the North.
Unionism is a belligerent, bullying and hypocritical force in Irish politics, 'the Covenant' and the 'celebration' of it, just like July 12th and Orangeism, is that belligerence made manifest. They are still bullying or attempting to bully despite the fact that it has and will continue to fail.

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

Terrontress wrote: »

I don't really understand what you're getting at.

....that the notion of the North somehow keeping the South in check is a bit of a nonsense.

I didn't say that in a one-sided way at all. Each would have kept each other in tow. Absolute power corrupts. There were no meaningful checks or balances North or South.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

Not specifically, no, although Nationalist parties representing Catholics were the biggest losers.

Astonishingly naive to believe that the only impact of gerrymandering was the outcome of elections. :rolleyes:
Have you ever troubled your brain by finding out how gerrymandering actually worked in terms of housing for a Catholic or investigated what it's ultimate goal was?


And I was accused of having the grammar of a 13 yr old? At least I don't think like one!:rolleyes:

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

I didn't say that in a one-sided way at all. Each would have kept each other in tow. Absolute power corrupts. There were no meaningful checks or balances North or South.

....and again, that presumes that they wouldn't have essentially established 'fiefdoms' and let each other do as they would.

Terrontress

Nodin wrote: »

....and again, that presumes that they wouldn't have essentially established 'fiefdoms' and let each other do as they would.

True, they may well have chosen to go it alone in time.

I was talking about a unified parliament governing the entire island although would the new state governed from Dublin have given up Tyrone and Fermanagh so easily?

Who knows, it's all speculation.

Terrontress

Happyman42 wrote: »

Astonishingly naive to believe that the only impact of gerrymandering was the outcome of elections. :rolleyes:
Have you ever troubled your brain by finding out how gerrymandering actually worked in terms of housing for a Catholic or investigated what it's ultimate goal was?


And I was accused of having the grammar of a 13 yr old? At least I don't think like one!:rolleyes:

What has this to do with the Ulster Covenant?

I didn't accuse you of having the grammar of a 13 year old. I said you make mistakes in your grammar which a 13 year old would be expected not to make.

Nodin

Terrontress wrote: »

True, they may well have chosen to go it alone in time.

I was talking about a unified parliament governing the entire island although would the new state governed from Dublin have given up Tyrone and Fermanagh so easily?

Who knows, it's all speculation.

No, 'fiefdoms' within the state. Tacit agreement that x is free to do such and such while y can do whatever.

Happyman42

Terrontress wrote: »

What has this to do with the Ulster Covenant?

Ah, the old deflection trick again, when in a corner. You had plenty to say about it a few posts ago. Try educating yourself on the real history of Ireland before commenting because you are obviously just reguritating stuff you have been told by somebody with an agenda. Keith perhaps. Were Oh Where is Keith? :rolleyes:

K-9

I fail to see what gerymandering and grammar nazism has to do with the OP. Either discuss the topic in relation to current affairs and Politics or post in History & Heritage,

Denerick

To be honest I'm not all that interested in this discussion but once again the spurious reasoning of Republicans is all too apparant in this discussion. There is a lot of talk about 'the Irish people' and 'democracy', but the reality is that there are geographic entities, and most Unionists don't regard themselves as members of the 'Irish people' in the Republican sense.

Now for a little thought experiment. Suppose Germany decides that for historical reasons Denmark is a part of the German nation. Now when Denmark decides that the Danes are not Germans, but members of a different nation - the Swedes, say - who are the Germans to say that they are not, and what right do the Germans have to lay claim to Danish territories, with or without a significant German minority within Denmark who would like to join this greater Germany?

Personally I still think a united Irish in form or another is and was the solution to the Irish question but ultimately its more or less irrelevant nowadays and those who concern themselves overly about it should bear in mind that a disturbing number of Irish people follow the comings and goings of the royal family with baffling intensity, watch Eastenders, and support British football teams. I'm tempted to say that people should just get a life and chill out, its irrelevant at the end of the day.

woodoo

Denerick wrote: »

To be honest I'm not all that interested in this discussion but once again the spurious reasoning of Republicans is all too apparant in this discussion. There is a lot of talk about 'the Irish people' and 'democracy', but the reality is that there are geographic entities, and most Unionists don't regard themselves as members of the 'Irish people' in the Republican sense.

Now for a little thought experiment. Suppose Germany decides that for historical reasons Denmark is a part of the German nation. Now when Denmark decides that the Danes are not Germans, but members of a different nation - the Swedes, say - who are the Germans to say that they are not, and what right do the Germans have to lay claim to Danish territories, with or without a significant German minority within Denmark who would like to join this greater Germany?

Personally I still think a united Irish in form or another is and was the solution to the Irish question but ultimately its more or less irrelevant nowadays and those who concern themselves overly about it should bear in mind that a disturbing number of Irish people follow the comings and goings of the royal family with baffling intensity, watch Eastenders, and support British football teams. I'm tempted to say that people should just get a life and chill out, its irrelevant at the end of the day.

A more accurate comparison would be if Scotland left the union and the people of western Scotland, Glasgow Ayr etc decided to stay with the union. So now there is Scotland and Western Scotland. Could the people of Western Scotland really get away with claiming they are not at all Scottish. E.g.. we are not Scottish we are British.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Happyman42 wrote: »

And I have acknowledged that. It was a state with a Roman Catholic ethos, however they didn't specifically target or discriminate against the Protestant faith.

What I think you can say is they practiced a form of doublethink, where they saw no conflict between foisting their views on everyone and allowing adherents of minority religions to follow their own direction.

Happyman42 wrote: »

Unionism is a belligerent, bullying and hypocritical force in Irish politics, 'the Covenant' and the 'celebration' of it, just like July 12th and Orangeism, is that belligerence made manifest. They are still bullying or attempting to bully despite the fact that it has and will continue to fail.

This is my main problem with the views on this thread. It's like it's all black and white; Unionist are obviously bullies, walking around in bowler hats and the like. Whereas we're all sugar and spice.

You could equally say that Irish republicanism is a belligerent, bullying and hypocritical force in Irish politics. Look at the feck'n Constitution it drew up when it got the upper hand in the Southern State. Republican, how are ya. It took the Irish language and solemnly stuffed it down the throats of every English speaker, without particular caring what they thought. It established Roman Catholicism as the default value for religion. It made every individual freedom subject to public order, including freedom of speech.

Unionism and Republicanism (in the Irish sense - which, as we know, has nothing really to do with belief in a republic) are like a pair of evil twins, each using the other as an excuse for its own bigotry.

But if there's one thing you might think of taking away from this thread its that Irish Catholics cannot decide on behalf of Protestants whether or not Protestants should feel oppressed by the implementation of Catholic doctrine in the laws of the State. To do so is to repeat that wonderful story about the white family in Alabama inviting their black servant to tell visitors how he felt about Martin Luther King. "Oh," he'd say, looking back and forth between his employers and their guests "Them civil rights people going to make a whole lot of trouble for us ****."

Seriously, get a sense of proportion. Ian Paisley used to pride himself on making representations on behalf of any Catholic constituent who ever approached him. Would you accept his assessment of whether the Northern State was fair to Catholics?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Denerick wrote: »

Personally I still think a united Irish in form or another is and was the solution to the Irish question but ultimately its more or less irrelevant nowadays and those who concern themselves overly about it should bear in mind that a disturbing number of Irish people follow the comings and goings of the royal family with baffling intensity, watch Eastenders, and support British football teams. I'm tempted to say that people should just get a life and chill out, its irrelevant at the end of the day.

I think you're conclusion is right. In passing, there's a thread on AH at the moment:

If rejoining the UK meant jobs and an end to austerity, would you?

Support for rejoining the UK if it was in our economic interest is running at about 40%. Far from scientific - but I think it illustrates that the things we're talking about here are coming up in everyone's mind. People feel the Republic has failed, and are questioning what happens next.

For my own part, Irishness is really just a form of identity for me. I don't see political independence as necessary for its existence, any more than fans of One Direction need an independent State (although it might be good to confine them to one). It's hard to see what we ever did with our legislative independence - apart from stitching in a load of Catholic nonsense that we've since repented. We joined the EEC without much concern from many about the loss of scope for independent action.

Chilling out is a good suggestion. And when we're well chilled, it might be good to wonder if the history of the Irish Republic suggests, in any way, that the Covenanters had any basis for their contention that an independent State "would be disastrous to the material well-being of Ulster as well as of the whole of Ireland, subversive of our civil and religious freedom, destructive of our citizenship, and perilous to the unity of the Empire".