Unification?

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

I didn't say it was a perfect republic. No republic, or any other political system, is perfect. But it's as good as any other republic, and a hell of a lot better than many.

No, there is no religious bigotry where I love. Racism, yes. Just like in any other country on the planet.

Well as a person of no faith then I think you are luck where you live. Try getting your child if you are in my position in to a catholic school. Then tell me there is no religious bigotry.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

'And then, and only then, can they be considered a normal society and fit to join with any other state'


You lump a community of nearly a million people into the above and don't see it as bigoted ?

Just like the Irish are a feckless drunken bunch of louts or African people have a lower I.Q ?

But NI society is NOT like any other society. It can't even have a normal democracy, it has to have a special format so that both communities get guaranteed representation. Religion is a mark of tribal allegiance there, not the private affair it is here, and someone who decides to change denomination is considered a traitor to their community. That is NOT normal, and it is NOT bigoted to state what is reality

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

Well as a person of no faith then I think you are luck where you live. Try getting your child if you are in my position in to a catholic school. Then tell me there is no religious bigotry.

That is not bigotry. That is a stupid law. Bigotry is to do with attitudes of the public and the public doesn't care what religion you are.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

How could it have been avoided ?

well, for one example, the rampant inequality we saw in the north could have been avoided by opposing partition.

Crooked Jack

Richard wrote: »

You've emboldened "a group with a certain equality between its members". That is an archaic definition (as you have posted).

Frozen wanted to play pedant with dictionary definitions, I was playing him at his own game

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

But NI society is NOT like any other society. It can't even have a normal democracy, it has to have a special format so that both communities get guaranteed representation. Religion is a mark of tribal allegiance there, not the private affair it is here, and someone who decides to change denomination is considered a traitor to their community. That is NOT normal, and it is NOT bigoted to state what is reality

To stigmatize a whole community with the actions of a minority is bigoted .

And you are naïve to believe religion doesn't matter down here . Just recently an acting principle got a huge award after it was found that a nun an the interview panel did everything possible short of asking straight out what were her views on homosexuality.

So far the RCC has given up less schools than the fingers on your hands . They have immunity from discrimination laws, blasphemy is in the constitution , Baptism is a necessity to get into the school that should be yours by right . And as late as the late 80's a woman was fired for having an affair with a married man .

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well, for one example, the rampant inequality we saw in the north could have been avoided by opposing partition.

This is my problem - you keep saying this - what I am asking is how could we have opposed partition ?

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

Anyway, setting the equality thing aside what sort of republic excludes 1.8m of its people. I await the typical free stater me fein response from you

"Certain" seems like open term to me. Do you consider free stater an insult? Seriously? Where did you read that, "republican cliches for dummies?"

Also the 1.8 million in NI aren't our people stop being silly.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

This is my problem - you keep saying this - what I am asking is how could we have opposed partition ?

By doing almost anything over the past 90 years other than the spineless blind eye turning of consecutive governments

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

"Certain" seems like open term to me.

Also the 1.8 million in NI aren't our people stop being silly.

I await the typical free stater me fein response from you


I could play bingo with your posts

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

To stigmatize a whole community with the actions of a minority is bigoted .

And you are naïve to believe religion doesn't matter down here . Just recently an acting principle got a huge award after it was found that a nun an the interview panel did everything possible short of asking straight out what were her views on homosexuality.

So far the RCC has given up less schools than the fingers on your hands . They have immunity from discrimination laws, blasphemy is in the constitution , Baptism is a necessity to get into the school that should be yours by right . And as late as the late 80's a woman was fired for having an affair with a married man .

Not if the actions of the minority create an atmosphere in a place. It doesn't mean all the people are bigots. It means the society is bigoted.

I didn't say that religion doesn't matter here. It's not a big deal. You have occasional examples, and outdated laws. But, as I said, the people don't care what religion you are. And it's the people's attitude that determine what kind of society we have. Our laws have to catch up with the reality.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

I await the typical free stater me fein response from you


I could play bingo with your posts

Ow poo you posted while I was editing. I'll post it again for you.

Do you consider free stater an insult? Seriously? Where did you read that, "republican cliches for dummies?"

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

By doing almost anything over the past 90 years other than the spineless blind eye turning of consecutive governments

I am sorry this is just meaningless , can you give specifics ?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

That is not bigotry. That is a stupid law. Bigotry is to do with attitudes of the public and the public doesn't care what religion you are.

Rubbish. This issue, experienced unfortunately by Redbishop, has been raised on quite a few occasions in the past so why doesn't public pressure force a change here, if you claim the public doesn't care what religion you are.

Godge

Crooked Jack wrote: »

republic
rɪˈpʌblɪk/Submit
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
archaic
a group with a certain equality between its members.
"the community of scholars and the republic of learning"

Anyway, setting the equality thing aside what sort of republic excludes 1.8m of its people. I await the typical free stater me fein response from you

Did you miss the word "archaic" before the bit in bold? That definition no longer applies.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Rubbish. This issue, experienced unfortunately by Redbishop, has been raised on quite a few occasions in the past so why doesn't public pressure force a change here, if you claim the public doesn't care what religion you are.

The other side of not caring what religion you are is not bothering to demand change, unfortunately.

Crooked Jack

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Ow poo you posted while I was editing. I'll post it again for you.

Do you consider free stater an insult? Seriously? Where did you read that, "republican cliches for dummies?"

No, much like partitionist it's a descriptive term, referring to people who think Ireland ends just north of Dundalk

Crooked Jack

Godge wrote: »

Did you miss the word "archaic" before the bit in bold? That definition no longer applies.

Did you miss my post explaining why I used it. Here it is again

"Frozen wanted to play pedant with dictionary definitions, I was playing him at his own game"

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Not if the actions of the minority create an atmosphere in a place. It doesn't mean all the people are bigots. It means the society is bigoted.

I didn't say that religion doesn't matter here. It's not a big deal. You have occasional examples, and outdated laws. But, as I said, the people don't care what religion you are. And it's the people's attitude that determine what kind of society we have. Our laws have to catch up with the reality.

Now I know your are joking , If the powers that be in any society are sectarian that society are sectarian . The RCC operate in a sectarian way and always have done - the only reason you don't notice is you are part of the majority.And because it is an overwhelming majority we have gotten away with it.

But not any more hopefully. Get some of the older Protestants talking and really find out how cold a house this was for them in the early days and how their numbers have dwindled as a result.

katydid

marienbad wrote: »

Now I know your are joking , If the powers that be in any society are sectarian that society are sectarian . The RCC operate in a sectarian way and always have done - the only reason you don't notice is you are part of the majority.And because it is an overwhelming majority we have gotten away with it.

But not any more hopefully. Get some of the older Protestants talking and really find out how cold a house this was for them in the early days and how their numbers have dwindled as a result.

Nope. Sectarian attitudes come from the public. I am not part of the majority. I am someone who left the RCC and became a member of the CofI. If I did that in NI, I would be rejected and condemned by my community - here on one gives a damn. It's certainly not a cold house for Protestants today, that's for sure.

You don't need to tell me about problems regarding religion, but in my experience they are mainly from lack of thought and consideration. Not from deliberate bigotry.

Iwasfrozen

Crooked Jack wrote: »

No, much like partitionist it's a descriptive term, referring to people who think Ireland ends just north of Dundalk

Ireland the state does. Ireland the island doesn't but that's another issue.

Deal with reality as it is not how you want it and for Yahew's sake stop using retarded republican cliches like "free stater"

which by the way means far more than you're pretending to think.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The other side of not caring what religion you are is not bothering to demand change, unfortunately.

Do you mean this in a uniquely Irish context? Because I'd hardly consider that non-religious people would be usually associated with being opposed to change.

marienbad

katydid wrote: »

Nope. Sectarian attitudes come from the public. I am not part of the majority. I am someone who left the RCC and became a member of the CofI. If I did that in NI, I would be rejected and condemned by my community - here on one gives a damn. It's certainly not a cold house for Protestants today, that's for sure.

You don't need to tell me about problems regarding religion, but in my experience they are mainly from lack of thought and consideration. Not from deliberate bigotry.

The forms of power in any society are a reflection of the public .

Are you aware that a major influence ( but not the only influence)on the recent growth of the Gaelscoileanna is to maintain a 'certain' definition of Irishness ? I will try to find the link when I get a chance .

And as for protestants today - how many are left ? Schools closing left right and centre , They are more atheists than protestants at this stage .

Anyway this is just another sidetrack - what ever merit your views might have is obliterated by your generalisations.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Do you mean this in a uniquely Irish context? Because I'd hardly consider that non-religious people would be usually associated with being opposed to change.

Not uniquely Irish, that's for sure.

I don't understand your last point. I'm not talking about non-religious people, I'm talking about at least nominally religious people.

Crooked Jack

marienbad wrote: »

I am sorry this is just meaningless , can you give specifics ?

well, for a start an issue like partition should have been decided by referendum, not a Dail vote, there's how it could have been opposed right from the off.
From basically the end of the civil war until 1998 the southern government basically ignored the plight of their citizens in the north. If you want a specific example the pogroms of 1969 is one. The southern government should have forced the issue then and gotten America, the UN, basically any international peacekeepers involved, whatever it took, from lobbying to massing troops at the border near friendly areas.

eire4

katydid wrote: »

That is not bigotry. That is a stupid law. Bigotry is to do with attitudes of the public and the public doesn't care what religion you are.

I don't know about the legal side of things in regards to Redbishop's situation but there is bigotry and discrimination directed toward those in Ireland who are not of any mainstream religious group by some people in the general public. Just like there is plenty of bigotry and discrimination in our country directed towards those in the travelling community. Or organisations like the Iona Institute who are not exactly well know for their tolerance towards some groups in Irish society who's lifestyle they do not approve of.

katydid

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well, for a start an issue like partition should have been decided by referendum, not a Dail vote, there's how it could have been opposed right from the off.
From basically the end of the civil war until 1998 the southern government basically ignored the plight of their citizens in the north. If you want a specific example the pogroms of 1969 is one. The southern government should have forced the issue then and gotten America, the UN, basically any international peacekeepers involved, whatever it took, from lobbying to massing troops at the border near friendly areas.

Firstly, there was no referendum, but it was nearly a hundred yeas ago, so what's done is done.

Secondly, how do you suggest the government of this state could have done anything for the nationalists of NI? It's a foreign jurisdiction. The people were free to move down here, but if they live in a foreign jurisdiction there's not much a foreign government can do. How could they have "forced the issue"? And why on earth would the US have become involved.

You live in a fantasy world.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

Not uniquely Irish, that's for sure.

I don't understand your last point. I'm not talking about non-religious people, I'm talking about at least nominally religious people.

Ok then, why would 'nominally religious' people not be bothered to demand change?

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

I don't know about the legal side of things in regards to Redbishop's situation but there is bigotry and discrimination directed toward those in Ireland who are not of any mainstream religious group by some people in the general public. Just like there is plenty of bigotry and discrimination in our country directed towards those in the travelling community. Or organisations like the Iona Institute who are not exactly well know for their tolerance towards some groups in Irish society who's lifestyle they do not approve of.

There will always be some members of the general public who will be bigoted. But most people aren't, and there's no connection between people's private belief and their community identity or political opinions like there is in NI. That is the major difference.

marienbad

Crooked Jack wrote: »

well, for a start an issue like partition should have been decided by referendum, not a Dail vote, there's how it could have been opposed right from the off.
From basically the end of the civil war until 1998 the southern government basically ignored the plight of their citizens in the north. If you want a specific example the pogroms of 1969 is one. The southern government should have forced the issue then and gotten America, the UN, basically any international peacekeepers involved, whatever it took, from lobbying to massing troops at the border near friendly areas.

Again what does any of this actually mean - what should have been done is irrelevant . What could the Republic have done to force the British to do other than they did ?

And as for ignoring the plight of citizens in the north - again I ask what could have been done ? Are you forgetting how impoverished this country was until the mid 60's ?

As for 1969 , how exactly should the Republic have gotten America, the UN ,The EU involved ? It was raised persistently with every American president, It was raised at the UN and the EU, It was brought before every court possible , we even broke ranks with nearly every other democracy and refused to boycott Argentina during the Falklands War. And if you read Douglas Hurd's biography during his time as Foreign Secretary he said the Irish government campaign caused persistent problems for them around the world and the EU in particular . ( I think it was Hurd ) And Jack Lynch as far as I recall did locate field hospitals on the border

What else do you suggest ?
-

eire4

katydid wrote: »

There will always be some members of the general public who will be bigoted. But most people aren't, and there's no connection between people's private belief and their community identity or political opinions like there is in NI. That is the major difference.

But the majority of the 1.8 million who live in the north are bigots is that what your saying?


You can try to box things however you like but bigotry is sadly all too alive and well in Ireland as the travelling community as mentioned above know only too well.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

But the majority of the 1.8 million who live in the north are bigots is that what your saying?


You can try to box things however you like but bigotry is sadly all too alive and well in Ireland as the travelling community as mentioned above know only too well.

Nooo....there's a culture of religious bigotry in NI that you don't find anywhere else. Certainly not here.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

Again what does any of this actually mean - what should have been done is irrelevant . What could the Republic have done to force the British to do other than they did ?

And as for ignoring the plight of citizens in the north - again I ask what could have been done ? Are you forgetting how impoverished this country was until the mid 60's ?

As for 1969 , how exactly should the Republic have gotten America, the UN ,The EU involved ? It was raised persistently with every American president, It was raised at the UN and the EU, It was brought before every court possible , we even broke ranks with nearly every other democracy and refused to boycott Argentina during the Falklands War. And if you read Douglas Hurd's biography during his time as Foreign Secretary he said the Irish government campaign caused persistent problems for them around the world and the EU in particular . ( I think it was Hurd ) And Jack Lynch as far as I recall did locate field hospitals on the border

What else do you suggest ?
-

Let me ask you this as a sincere question; how many times was the British Ambassador asked to leave?
After Bloody Sunday, the dogs on the streets knew what actually happened, southern republicans took to the streets in protests and burned the British Embassy...who was beaten of the streets and who was brutalised?
During the hunger strikes when again southern Ireland knew what was happening was wrong, who where beaten of the streets by Irish security forces?
And in Derry when a community was surrounded and there was NO IRA who welshed on protecting Irish people who desperately needed protection?

There is a difference between being a coward and assisting an oppressive regime. Successive Irish governments succeeded in being both.

marienbad

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let me ask you this as a sincere question; how many times was the British Ambassador asked to leave?
After Bloody Sunday, the dogs on the streets knew what actually happened, southern republicans took to the streets in protests and burned the British Embassy...who was beaten of the streets and who was brutalised?
During the hunger strikes when again southern Ireland knew what was happening was wrong, who where beaten of the streets by Irish security forces?
And in Derry when a community was surrounded and there was NO IRA who welshed on protecting Irish people who desperately needed protection?

There is a difference between being a coward and assisting an oppressive regime. Successive Irish governments succeeded in being both.

It really depends on what you think was the best approach , expelling the ambassador is just tokenism , Britain couldn't give a fcuk - it is not like we are the USA or Germany .

As for burning the embassy , the Garda looked on and let it happen !

If you mean by assisting an oppressive regime you are referring to Garda efforts to combat the IRA then we must just disagree - they were kidnapping innocent people, robbing banks and post offices and killing Gardai , what did you expect them to do ?

Again though you immediately gravitate to 1969 and onwards , so I ask waht do you think could have been done differently from the 20's until the late 60's ?

eire4

katydid wrote: »

Nooo....there's a culture of religious bigotry in NI that you don't find anywhere else. Certainly not here.

You yourself said "Sectarian attitudes come from the public". If that is the case and there is this "culture of religious bigotry" in the north then it sounds like your saying the majority of those in the north are bigots.


If though now your saying that the majority in the north are not bigots then whats the big deal as you yourself have said "There will always be some members of the general public who will be bigoted."




Either your saying the majority of the 1.8 million in the north are bigots or not you cannot have it both ways and still try and claim bigotry is such a massive problem in the north.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

Let me ask you this as a sincere question; how many times was the British Ambassador asked to leave?
After Bloody Sunday, the dogs on the streets knew what actually happened, southern republicans took to the streets in protests and burned the British Embassy...who was beaten of the streets and who was brutalised?
During the hunger strikes when again southern Ireland knew what was happening was wrong, who where beaten of the streets by Irish security forces?
And in Derry when a community was surrounded and there was NO IRA who welshed on protecting Irish people who desperately needed protection?

There is a difference between being a coward and assisting an oppressive regime. Successive Irish governments succeeded in being both.

Why would the British Ambassador have been asked to leave? What a bizarre suggestion.

We know all about Bloody Sunday etc. etc.; that doesn't answer the question of HOW the Irish government could have intervened in the affairs of another jurisdiction?

Why would the Irish government have done anything about riots on the streets about the hunger strikes? The hunger strikes had nothing to do with us, they were a bunch of terrorists in Northern Ireland who threw their toys out of the pram, and it backfired on them. Not our problem. People were entitled to protest and our security forces were entitled to make sure they did so in a safe manner.

You're all talk, but with very little answers when pushed.

katydid

eire4 wrote: »

You yourself said "Sectarian attitudes come from the public". If that is the case and there is this "culture of religious bigotry" in the north then it sounds like your saying the majority of those in the north are bigots.


If though now your saying that the majority in the north are not bigots then whats the big deal as you yourself have said "There will always be some members of the general public who will be bigoted."




Either your saying the majority of the 1.8 million in the north are bigots or not you cannot have it both ways and still try and claim bigotry is such a massive problem in the north.

You don't need the majority to be bigoted to have a culture of bigotry. All you need is for the bigotry to be so ingrained and strong on the part of a vocal minority. The strong divisions in NI, and the linking of religion to politics make it bigoted in a way that is present in very few parts of the Western world.
And which certainly doesn't exist here, for all our faults.

The question remains, why would we want to take on that particular malaise?

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The hunger strikes had nothing to do with us, they were a bunch of terrorists in Northern Ireland who threw their toys out of the pram, and it backfired on them. Not our problem.

Fascinating how you continue to engage in the dichotomy of expressing support for the violence of Easter 1916 & the War of Independence in past threads but show a complete inability to understand why there might be grounds for similar in the North or the considerable support there was for it.

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

You don't need the majority to be bigoted to have a culture of bigotry. All you need is for the bigotry to be so ingrained and strong on the part of a vocal minority. The strong divisions in NI, and the linking of religion to politics make it bigoted in a way that is present in very few parts of the Western world.
And which certainly doesn't exist here, for all our faults.

The question remains, why would we want to take on that particular malaise?

It might seem on the surface that bigotry is not common here but it still exists.
There is whether we like it or not Religious, social, racial, sexual and political bigotry here as in other places. We might see the north as more deep seated in bigotry than us but bigotry is bigotry and denying there is no culture of it in the republic is burying your head in the sand.

Happyman42

marienbad wrote: »

It really depends on what you think was the best approach , expelling the ambassador is just tokenism , Britain couldn't give a fcuk - it is not like we are the USA or Germany .

As for burning the embassy , the Garda looked on and let it happen !

If you mean by assisting an oppressive regime you are referring to Garda efforts to combat the IRA then we must just disagree - they were kidnapping innocent people, robbing banks and post offices and killing Gardai , what did you expect them to do ?

Again though you immediately gravitate to 1969 and onwards , so I ask waht do you think could have been done differently from the 20's until the late 60's ?

katydid wrote: »

Why would the British Ambassador have been asked to leave? What a bizarre suggestion.

We know all about Bloody Sunday etc. etc.; that doesn't answer the question of HOW the Irish government could have intervened in the affairs of another jurisdiction?

Why would the Irish government have done anything about riots on the streets about the hunger strikes? The hunger strikes had nothing to do with us, they were a bunch of terrorists in Northern Ireland who threw their toys out of the pram, and it backfired on them. Not our problem. People were entitled to protest and our security forces were entitled to make sure they did so in a safe manner.

You're all talk, but with very little answers when pushed.

What you are missing is what it would have meant to Irish people and other people around the world.

Symbolic yes, but symbolic of the Irish government fulfilling what was their constitutional role. The protection of ALL Irish people, without fear or favour. And it could have been done without showing a scintilla of support for groups like the IRA, in fact, imo they (the Irish Gov.) created a vacuum of inaction that was filled by the IRA. Look what happened in the Bogside and you will see an IRA reluctant to get involved.
What Katydid refers to as 'riots' about hunger strikes and Bloody Sunday on southern Irish streets where expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon.
The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.
Had they held to a trenchant position the world would have come to a judgement of Britain's activity much much sooner than it did. The world now knows, because of the efforts of a few just exactly what Britain was doing during those years...including contemporary Britons and it's government and they have partly apologised for it, as they should.

katydid

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are missing is what it would have meant to Irish people and other people around the world.

Symbolic yes, but symbolic of the Irish government fulfilling what was their constitutional role. The protection of ALL Irish people, without fear or favour. And it could have been done without showing a scintilla of support for groups like the IRA, in fact, imo they (the Irish Gov.) created a vacuum of inaction that was filled by the IRA. Look what happened in the Bogside and you will see an IRA reluctant to get involved.
What Katydid refers to as 'riots' about hunger strikes and Bloody Sunday on southern Irish streets where expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon.
The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.
Had they held to a trenchant position the world would have come to a judgement of Britain's activity much much sooner than it did. The world now knows, because of the efforts of a few just exactly what Britain was doing during those years...including contemporary Britons and it's government and they have partly apologised for it, as they should.

You STILL haven't answered the question.

I'll try one more time. WHAT should the Irish government have done? Specifics.

"expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon."

What, who are you talking about?

katydid

Redbishop wrote: »

It might seem on the surface that bigotry is not common here but it still exists.
There is whether we like it or not Religious, social, racial, sexual and political bigotry here as in other places. We might see the north as more deep seated in bigotry than us but bigotry is bigotry and denying there is no culture of it in the republic is burying your head in the sand.

Of course it exists. I've said so several times. The same kind of bigotry you find in every society on the planet. Have you read what I wrote at all? I have stressed, several times, that the bigotry in NI is much deeper and is unique in that religion and politics are linked.
My point - again - is that we have enough problems without bringing that unique and disturbing phenomenon into our society.

Redbishop

katydid wrote: »

Of course it exists. I've said so several times. The same kind of bigotry you find in every society on the planet. Have you read what I wrote at all? I have stressed, several times, that the bigotry in NI is much deeper and is unique in that religion and politics are linked.
My point - again - is that we have enough problems without bringing that unique and disturbing phenomenon into our society.

I think you miss my point. Religion and politics are linked here too and the catholic church still holds sway over too many govt policies, its changing now a bit but not enough or fast enough. We are still being ruled by political and religious bigots.

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Fascinating how you continue to engage in the dichotomy of expressing support for the violence of Easter 1916 & the War of Independence in past threads but show a complete inability to understand why there might be grounds for similar in the North or the considerable support there was for it.

There is no dichotomy. There is no comparison between events at the beginning of the last century and the so-called "Troubles" in its last quarter. The Easter Rising and the War of Independence were not terrorist campaigns; the participants did not deliberately target civilians and terrorise them in order to achieve a political end. Sure, civilians were caught in the violence, and some renegades targeted them outside of the norm, but terror was not the modus operandi of the then IRA.

Apart from a short period at the end of the sixties, when the IRA could be considered in some way to be acting in the interest of the nationalist community, and protecting them, they were terrorists, whose sole aim was to inflict violence and to bring about their political goals by fear and terror. In the seventies and eighties and nineties, there was absolutely no excuse for their existence, not to mind their despicable actions.

Happyman42

katydid wrote: »

You STILL haven't answered the question.

I'll try one more time. WHAT should the Irish government have done? Specifics.

"expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon."

What, who are you talking about?

Going to watch the rugby now...I suggest you read Tim Pat Coogan's book Ireland in the Twentieth Century, particularly the transcripts of a shamefully timid Jack Lynch's phonecalls to Heath. Look at what was said at the FF ard fheis 3 weeks after Bloody Sunday (Sweet F.A.) and then come back to me when we have the same amount of actual knowledge of the events, not makey up stuff that you seem to be relying on.

RED L4 0TH

katydid wrote: »

The Easter Rising and the War of Independence were not terrorist campaigns; the participants did not deliberately target civilians and terrorise them in order to achieve a political end. Sure, civilians were caught in the violence, and some renegades targeted them outside of the norm, but terror was not the modus operandi of the then IRA.

Hmmm. You've criticised the post 1969 IRA for having no mandate and ignoring the political process, exactly the same charge that could be levelled at the 1916 insurgents.

whose sole aim was to inflict violence and to bring about their political goals by fear and terror.

You mean the tactics the 1919-1921 IRA could also be accused of having engaged in?

https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/good-old-ira-sf-publ-dept-1985.pdf

http://comeheretome.com/tag/the-good-old-ira/

Godge

Happyman42 wrote: »

What you are missing is what it would have meant to Irish people and other people around the world.

Symbolic yes, but symbolic of the Irish government fulfilling what was their constitutional role. The protection of ALL Irish people, without fear or favour. And it could have been done without showing a scintilla of support for groups like the IRA, in fact, imo they (the Irish Gov.) created a vacuum of inaction that was filled by the IRA. Look what happened in the Bogside and you will see an IRA reluctant to get involved.
What Katydid refers to as 'riots' about hunger strikes and Bloody Sunday on southern Irish streets where expressions of IRISH people asking their government to PROTECT those who where having their human rights trampled upon.
The Irish Government chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route and they stand forever indicted for that. They too have blood on their hands.
Had they held to a trenchant position the world would have come to a judgement of Britain's activity much much sooner than it did. The world now knows, because of the efforts of a few just exactly what Britain was doing during those years...including contemporary Britons and it's government and they have partly apologised for it, as they should.

It is only YOUR opinion that the Irish government had a constitutional role to fulfil.

It is also only YOUR opinion that they chose the lazy, cowardly and uncaring route.

There is a huge disconnect on these boards between those who hold an extreme nationalist position and the general poster from the South. It is seen in the partitionist, West Brit and other insults freely thrown around. It doesn't augur well for a meeting of minds outside of here.

Saintleger

eire4 wrote: »

OK first off steady on with the loaded tone of the question.


It is not about being superior its about bringing the most democratic possible government to the people of Ireland. Right now our governmental structure is very centralized power wise and this is not good for developing a system of government that can serve and be as responsive as possible to the needs of the people in different parts of our country.
For instance local government in Ireland is a joke. We really have almost no real effective local government in Ireland. In fact over the years our local government bodies have lost power. The trend has been to turn decision making power over to non elected professionals appointed by the central government. Thus this makes them more resonsive to pressures from the central government rather then to the local area they manage.


In fact the Council of Europe has criticised Ireland for its lack of real and meaningful local government. They issued a report noting the weak constitional protection for local government and pointing out the very meagre authorty the local bodies have and how little they actually manage and that the control and administrative control of local bodies by the central government is very high.

Definitely wasn't my intention to post a loaded question. I do how ever believe that government's can be quantifiable, for instance the people in Cuba and North Korea get a very raw deal because of their lack of democracy. In the instance of the Republic of Ireland I think the people get the government they deserve.

No government is perfect but economy and job wise they certainly seem to be heading in the right direction, growth outstripping any other EU country at the minute.

As for the local government being ineffective I can honestly say I know little about the LG system in the south. Here in the North my particular local government is incompetent. We were suppose to get a bridge between the north and South, and they managed to underestimate the expense by 7 million thus loosing all the EU, UK and ROI money put forward for the project, they bought a huge piece of land in Newry city centre before the property crash, never followed through with the planned development and now they can't shift it. Then they spend money on things that aren't need solely because there's money which must be used up by a certain date or it goes back to central funds. I would honestly be happy if my local government was disbanded.

Saintleger

Ok lets say there was a vote tomorrow North of the boarder and by some miricale there was a majority of people who wanted to join a United Ireland what do you honestly think the response of the Unionist Community would be?

I think it was Happyman42 who stated that Britain would be happy to wave us off and I agree with that, However you would still have a significant proportion of people who feel British and will never envision wanting to give it up.

Look what's happening in Eastern Ukraine, País Vasco, Catalonia. Regardless of what country the people of theses countries belong to many have very clear ideas of who they are (in relation to nationalist identity).

Would those who see a United Ireland as inevitable and essential feel that it would be necessary to protect Unionist's right to hold a British passport, pledge loyalty to their queen? I'm just curious how they feel we would be the exception of the rule when it comes to countries taking in people who clearly don't identify with that countries identity?

katydid

RED L4 0TH wrote: »

Hmmm. You've criticised the post 1969 IRA for having no mandate and ignoring the political process, exactly the same charge that could be levelled at the 1916 insurgents.



You mean the tactics the 1919-1921 IRA could also be accused of having engaged in?

https://cedarlounge.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/good-old-ira-sf-publ-dept-1985.pdf

http://comeheretome.com/tag/the-good-old-ira/

The rebels of 1916 didn't have a mandate at the time, but they got one two years later.

Remind me again when the IRA got a mandate?