Belfast Disturbances

lurleen lumpkin

downcow wrote: »

Haha. Imagine have a culture that’s different from mine lol

Tell us a bit about your culture.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wht do you mean by 'allowing social isolation'?

That in a UI if we were to allow the current practices of communities on both sides in NI to continue the practices of exclusion, of isolation and of defining themselves against the other to continue.
That we will be making the hard task of nation building, even harder.

There are communities and enclaves within NI where being of the opposite side can quickly mean that you are targeted.
Communities see themselves as set apart and even self policing.
That needs to be addressed, it won't be down by decree or force.
It needs buy in and it needs trust.

caveat emptor

Tyrone212 wrote: »

400 years later not much has changed.

UVF orders removal of Catholic families from Carrickfergus housing estate in '21st century form of ethnic cleansing'

The UVF has ordered the removal of Catholic families from a housing estate in Carrickfergus in what has been termed a "form of 21st century ethnic cleansing".

The terror gang was behind attacks on three homes in the Woodburn estate in which they believed Catholics have been staying. Sources say the attacks were based purely on rumours about the occupants or people linked to them.

Windows at properties on Cherry Walk and Glenfield Walk were smashed late last Wednesday night. The home of a pensioner on Pinewood Avenue, who only moved into the bungalow last month, was also targeted. Some of the occupants are understood to have since fled the area.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uvf-orders-removal-of-catholic-families-from-carrickfergus-housing-estate-in-21st-century-form-of-ethnic-cleansing-40297946.html

It was disgraceful then and it's disgraceful now. In any normal society they'd be found and locked up.

Kermit.de.frog

Tyrone212 wrote: »

400 years later not much has changed.

UVF orders removal of Catholic families from Carrickfergus housing estate in '21st century form of ethnic cleansing'

The UVF has ordered the removal of Catholic families from a housing estate in Carrickfergus in what has been termed a "form of 21st century ethnic cleansing".

The terror gang was behind attacks on three homes in the Woodburn estate in which they believed Catholics have been staying. Sources say the attacks were based purely on rumours about the occupants or people linked to them.

Windows at properties on Cherry Walk and Glenfield Walk were smashed late last Wednesday night. The home of a pensioner on Pinewood Avenue, who only moved into the bungalow last month, was also targeted. Some of the occupants are understood to have since fled the area.

https://m.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uvf-orders-removal-of-catholic-families-from-carrickfergus-housing-estate-in-21st-century-form-of-ethnic-cleansing-40297946.html

A good chunk of unionist/Loyalist 'culture' is inherently supremacist and when you mix that with paranoia it's a dangerous cocktail.

Stories like this are not completely out of the ordinary so they don't make the news.

downcow

BluePlanet wrote: »

But it's not a culture.
Your marching bands thing is just coat-trailing exercise in sectarian triumphalism with a heavy dose of intimidation.

Do you think the same of bands in Roi?

RandomViewer

downcow wrote: »

I agree completely. This is exactly what Arlene said ie there are more polish speakers in ni than Irish speakers do a polish language act is more required than an Irish one

Poles send their kids to Gaelscoils, a large percentage of second generation Polish speak at least three languages

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

That in a UI we allow the current practices of communities on both sides in NI to continue the practices of exclusion, of isolation and of defining themselves against the other.
That we will be making the hard task of nation building, even harder.

There are communities and enclaves within NI where being of the opposite side can quickly mean that you are targeted.
Communities see themselves as set apart and even self policing.
That needs to be addressed, it won't be down by decree or force.
It needs buy in and it needs trust.

You cannot do it by insisting they are integrated. Which is what you seem to be saying.

You penalise triumphalism and bigotry from wherever it comes. The rest will look after itself. You can't insist people take on cultural pursuits they have no interest or attachment to.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You cannot do it by insisting they are integrated. Which is what you seem to be saying.

You penalise triumphalism and bigotry from wherever it comes. The rest will look after itself. You can't insist people take on cultural pursuits they have no interest or attachment to.

Where have I said that?
Just so I can go back re-read it and address it properly.

I don't think I have, your inference is not at what I thought I'd said in any of my posts.

Sunny Disposition

caveat emptor wrote: »

It was disgraceful then and it's disgraceful now. In any normal society they'd be found and locked up.

It’s their culture, both sides are as bad as each other-repeat endlessly...

Tyrone212

cameramonkey wrote: »

If you marry a catholic are you allowed to be in the OO?

"The Orange Order is a conservative unionist organisation, with links to Ulster loyalism. ... As a strict Protestant society, it does not accept non-Protestants as members unless they convert and adhere to the principles of Orangeism, nor does it accept Protestants married to Catholics."

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

Where have I said that?
Just so I can go back re-read it and address it properly.

I don't think I have, your inference is not at what I thought I'd said in any of my posts.

You have said we have to integrate have you not?

No we don't. All we have to do is ensure that respectful observance and practice of culture is not inhibited. If those practicing it do not want to integrate...so be it. If somebody else is not interested in that culture - so be that too.
I am not interested in certain aspects of Irish culture, doesn't make me feel insecure, inferior or less Irish.

McMurphy

downcow wrote: »

Haha. Imagine have a culture that’s different from mine lol
The old Irish Republican arrogance. Do the morris dancers in Cornwall and the pipers in Scotland piss you off.

Do either pipers in Scotland, or Morris dancers in Cornwall hold sectarian parades where effigies and flags are often burned, and do either prevent anyone joining their group based on not only your religion, but the religion of a spouse?

I mean it's one thing the orange order banning Catholics from joining, but a ban on current members marrying Catholics is just plain bigotry and sectarian.

Also, from memory, didn't the orange order protest at Downing Street about a proposed lifting of the ban on those in line to the throne marrying a Catholic too?

Great bunch of lads those Orangemen.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You have said we have to integrate have you not?

No we don't. All we have to do is ensure that respectful observance and practice of culture is not inhibited. If those practicing it do not want to integrate...so be it. If somebody else is not interested in that culture - so be that too.
I am not interested in certain aspects of Irish culture, doesn't make me feel insecure, inferior or less Irish.

But that is integration Francie?
I don't want you to take up OO membership or learn the sash, I don't want to learn them either.

But acceptance and tolerance are forms of integration.
As is addressing the efforts made by communities to remain entirely homogeneous.
Like when they burn out newcomers, or attack GAA fields.
Why would you be opposed to addressing that?

You are assigning far more to "integration" than I actually meant.
It seems a very loaded term for you.
Letting folk march whilst both sides carry on with keeping ourselves to our own will only perpetuate the attitudes that lead our issues with the "other".

As I'd said in earlier post, which you quoted but even to have ignored in rush to find issue with "integration"

banie01 wrote: »

The basis of any UI has to be amity, shared culture and cultural exchange and tolerance.
Of course flag burning and triumphalism on either side has no part in that other than to be called out for fostering hatred.
It's a marathon, not a sprint and if there is ever a border poll that puts forward a preference for a UI?

downcow

downcow wrote: »

I agree completely. This is exactly what Arlene said ie there are more polish speakers in ni than Irish speakers do a polish language act is more required than an Irish one

Polish flags are also burned on bonfires so I don't think your community will support a Polish Language Act any time soon.

caveat emptor

McMurphy wrote: »

Do either pipers in Scotland, or Morris dancers in Cornwall hold sectarian parades where effigies and flags are often burned, and do either prevent anyone joining their group based on not only your religion, but the religion of a spouse?

I mean it's one thing the orange order banning Catholics from joining, but a ban on current members marrying Catholics is just plain bigotry and sectarian.

Also, from memory, didn't the orange order protest at Downing Street about a proposed lifting of the ban on those in line to the throne marrying a Catholic too?

Great bunch of lads those Orangemen.

Yeah I wouldn't be agains marching bands per se. I just don't think it's very good and wouldn't really appeal to the wider community in Ireland.

I think they could put a bit more effort into and get better before they go for a whole island tour.

Some serious competition out there. They have a small talent pool given the exclusionary admission rules. Probably best to temper expectations of how successful it would be outside of the north.

https://twitter.com/BraemarMedia/status/1032897952296194048?s=20
https://youtu.be/J5UFrDKAdvo

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

But that is integration Francie?
I don't want you to take up OO membership or learn the sash, I don't want to learn them either.

But acceptance and tolerance are forms of integration.
As is addressing the efforts made by communities to remain entirely homogeneous.
Like when they burn out newcomers, or attack GAA fields.
Why would you be opposed to addressing that?

That is a crime...you address it by penalising the crime.

You are assigning far more to "integration" than I actually meant.
It seems a very loaded term for you.
Letting folk march whilst both sides carry on with keeping ourselves to our own will only perpetuate the attitudes that lead our issues with the "other".

As I'd said in earlier post, which you quoted but even to have ignored in rush to find issue with "integration"

So what are you proposing?

I don't understand what you are saying, can you be clear?

RandomViewer

Getting the notion that Downcow's version of a UI wouldn't look out of place in the Antebellum South,
Calling their movement PUL immediately made it a sectarian sect,

Titzon Toast

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sunday-life/news/uvf-orders-removal-of-catholic-families-from-carrickfergus-housing-estate-in-21st-century-form-of-ethnic-cleansing-40297946.html

Great bunch of lads...

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is a crime...you address it by penalising the crime.



So what are you proposing?

I don't understand what you are saying, can you be clear?

Francie, I don't know what your problem is?
Of course you address it by prosecution, but for something to be prosecuted?
It has to be called out, made known reported or any of numerous other synonyms.

But my points and feelings regarding my posts are all fairly clear.
You seem to have issue how I phrased my position and are making inferences that even after I explain my position...
Still aren't what I said.

One of us appears to have a problem with language, and with the use of the word integration.
It could well be me, having read back my posts in context however, I still don't see it.
To save dragging this thread topic, I'll leave our exchange with a pin in it because despite your not grasping my agreeing with you when you said,

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No we don't. All we have to do is ensure that respectful observance and practice of culture is not inhibited. If those practicing it do not want to integrate...so be it. If somebody else is not interested in that culture - so be that too.

and explaining that I believe affording that tolerance is a form of integration.
We seem to be speaking at cross purposes.

PokeHerKing

banie01 wrote: »

But that is integration Francie?
I don't want you to take up OO membership or learn the sash, I don't want to learn them either.

But acceptance and tolerance are forms of integration.
As is addressing the efforts made by communities to remain entirely homogeneous.
Like when they burn out newcomers, or attack GAA fields.
Why would you be opposed to addressing that?

You are assigning far more to "integration" than I actually meant.
It seems a very loaded term for you.
Letting folk march whilst both sides carry on with keeping ourselves to our own will only perpetuate the attitudes that lead our issues with the "other".

As I'd said in earlier post, which you quoted but even to have ignored in rush to find issue with "integration"

This hands across divides $hits is fairytale stuff. If a UI happened the Protestants would have good reason to be fearful of it. Human nature would dictate that they would be targeted and they would become the marginalised group as Catholics have been for a century up there.

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

Francie, I don't know what your problem is?
Of course you address it by prosecution, but for something to be prosecuted?
It has to be called out, made known reported or any of numerous other synonyms.

But my points and feelings regarding my posts are all fairly clear.
You seem to have issue how I phrased my position and are making inferences that even after I explain my position...
Still aren't what I said.

One of us appears to have a problem with language, and with the use of the word integration.
It could well be me, having read back my posts in context however, I still don't see it.
To save dragging this thread topic, I'll leave our exchange with a pin in it because despite your not grasping my agreeing with you when you said,



and explaining that I believe affording that tolerance is a form of integration.
We seem to be speaking at cross purposes.

Fair enough.

I was reacting to you saying we HAD to integrate. Which to me means coming together and embracing and partaking in each others cultures. What I mean is tolerance for each others cultures, which is not necessarily embracing it.

banie01

PokeHerKing wrote: »

This hands across divides $hits is fairytale stuff. If a UI happened the Protestants would have good reason to be fearful of it. Human nature would dictate that they would be targeted and they would become the marginalised group as Catholics have been for a century up there.

Attitudes like the one you express are a huge part of what is likely driving fear on the Protestant side.
Imagine being PUL and reading what you posted.

I agree that human nature drives excess and often the worst atrocities come after a victory is won.
But a UI doesn't need to be approached that way, we don't need to win, nor rub it in Prod faces.
We build a nation on conciliation, cooperation and hope.
We ensure that it's not "us" the 26, the Catholics or the republicans that win.
Rather it's the 32, Ireland as a whole, Ireland with a significant portion of dual national citizens of whom a large proportion identify as British.
We ensure that their traditions and their cultural heritage are both protected and respected.
We address directly any instances of hate or sectarian crime with appropriate legal action whichever side undertakes it.
We as a Nation ensure that the minority have a voice and a role in government.

It isn't about hands across the divide lala land shíte, it's about building relationships between people and communities that allow both sides to see the other as people, rather than targets or enemies.

wicklowstevo

banie01 wrote: »

Francie, I don't know what your problem is?
Of course you address it by prosecution, but for something to be prosecuted?
It has to be called out, made known reported or any of numerous other synonyms.

But my points and feelings regarding my posts are all fairly clear.
You seem to have issue how I phrased my position and are making inferences that even after I explain my position...
Still aren't what I said.

One of us appears to have a problem with language, and with the use of the word integration.
It could well be me, having read back my posts in context however, I still don't see it.
To save dragging this thread topic, I'll leave our exchange with a pin in it because despite your not grasping my agreeing with you when you said,



and explaining that I believe affording that tolerance is a form of integration.
We seem to be speaking at cross purposes.

best not to engage with posters like this only feeds into the online army idea of the party

PokeHerKing

banie01 wrote: »

Attitudes like the one you express are a huge part of what is likely driving fear on the Protestant side.
Imagine being PUL and reading what you posted.

I agree that human nature drives excess and often the worst atrocities come after a victory is won.
But a UI doesn't need to be approached that way, we don't need to win, nor rub it in Prod faces.
We build a nation on conciliation, cooperation and hope.
We ensure that it's not "us" the 26, the Catholics or the republicans that win.
Rather it's the 32, Ireland as a whole, Ireland with a significant portion of dual national citizens of whom a large proportion identify as British.
We ensure that their traditions and their cultural heritage are both protected and respected.
We address directly any instances of hate or sectarian crime with appropriate legal action whichever side undertakes it.
We as a Nation ensure that the minority have a voice and a role in government.

It isn't about hands across the divide lala land shíte, it's about building relationships between people and communities that allow both sides to see the other as people, rather than targets or enemies.

Its pure lala land im afraid. You're arguing against 1000s of years of human evolution and history. We know how it would go and so do the "PUL" community.

They know it better than anyone given their treatment of Catholics over the past century. The worst of their community would also ensure it, given they'd react to a UI with violence anyway.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fair enough.

I was reacting to you saying we HAD to integrate. Which to me means coming together and embracing and partaking in each others cultures. What I mean is tolerance for each others cultures, which is not necessarily embracing it.

Not at all Francie and that was probably my fault tbf.
Sometimes integration is just affording the other side that bit of respect and tolerance that allows them to celebrate their culture without lording it over anyone.

We don't need to embrace loyalism, they certainly don't need to embrace the Nationalist tradition.
But IMO at least, both sides need to afford the same degree of respect that they expect to be afforded.

Rather than ramping tensions a walk in the others shows and an effort to understand their perspective is what's needed at times.

There are aspects of Loyalism I find abhorrent, and no doubt the Loyalist community can say vice versa.
I have had enough of the bombast and fight, and I'd say a whole host of us over 40 are of the same opinion.
We lived it, we know what a return to violence means for both sides and I'd rather let the OO march on uncontentious routes, join our Paddy's Day parades or even parade on the 12th in Belfast if it postponed a return to violence.

There are things worth fighting over, for both sides.
I'd rather hubris wasn't one of them, that we found common ground where we can and at least tried to compromise where we can't find that ground.

I'd very much rather that if there is ever a return to violence?
That it's not driven by Nationalists, and that we are the voice of reason.

FrancieBrady

banie01 wrote: »

Not at all Francie and that was probably my fault tbf.
Sometimes integration is just affording the other side that bit of respect and tolerance that allows them to celebrate their culture without lording it over anyone.

We don't need to embrace loyalism, they certainly don't need to embrace the Nationalist tradition.
But IMO at least, both sides need to afford the same degree of respect that they expect to be afforded.

Rather than ramping tensions a walk in the others shows and an effort to understand their perspective is what's needed at times.

There are aspects of Loyalism I find abhorrent, and no doubt the Loyalist community can say vice versa.
I have had enough of the bombast and fight, and I'd say a whole host of us over 40 are of the same opinion.
We lived it, we know what a return to violence means for both sides and I'd rather let the OO march on uncontentious routes, join our Paddy's Day parades or even parade on the 12th in Belfast if it postponed a return to violence.

There are things worth fighting over, for both sides.
I'd rather hubris wasn't one of them, that we found common ground where we can and at least tried to compromise where we can't find that ground.

I'd very much rather that if there is ever a return to violence?
That it's not driven by Nationalists, and that we are the voice of reason.

It begins with honesty, not silence and appeasement. If you are going to call out lack of respect and lack of tolerance then you have to do it without favour.

Case in point the lack of a callout by Irish government of unionist lack of tolerance and failure to ensure parity of esteem, yet 'integrating' them and applauding them at party conferences and such. Silence is approval if that is how it rolls.
We can see how that is repaid at the moment and during Brexit.

There is no similar fear in calling out nationalist failures or perception of failure.

banie01

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It begins with honesty, not silence and appeasement. If you are going to call out lack of respect and lack of tolerance then you have to do it without favour.

Case in point the lack of a callout by Irish government of unionist lack of tolerance and failure to ensure parity of esteem, yet 'integrating' them and applauding them at party conferences and such. Silence is approval if that is how it rolls.
We can see how that is repaid at the moment and during Brexit.

There is no similar fear in calling out nationalist failures or perception of failure.

Perhaps you should take those points up with the Govt Francie.
I'm not a member of it nor actually even a voter for any current member of it

20silkcut

PokeHerKing wrote: »

Its pure lala land im afraid. You're arguing against 1000s of years of human evolution and history. We know how it would go and so do the "PUL" community.

They know it better than anyone given their treatment of Catholics over the past century. The worst of their community would also ensure it, given they'd react to a UI with violence anyway.

In most of human history these matters are resolved by one side dislodging the other and making refugees of the losers and taking their land and property and distributing it among the winners.
The problem with the North is this process was never completed.

downcow

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A good chunk of unionist/Loyalist 'culture' is inherently supremacist and when you mix that with paranoia it's a dangerous cocktail.

Stories like this are not completely out of the ordinary so they don't make the news.

Do you guys really think this is only happening on one side???

downcow

RandomViewer wrote: »

Poles send their kids to Gaelscoils, a large percentage of second generation Polish speak at least three languages

Sure gaels send their children to English speaking schools.
Can you not see the hypocrisy of your position?