should i be afraid?

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I'm curious about this...
Black people were able to go to the same schools,restaurants and washrooms as white people in 1960's Southern U.S states were they??
The KKK dominated society there ensured Black people had the same rights as white did they?
Elected sherrifs there applied the law equally to White as well as black did they?

At least get your facts straight if you are trying to make a point will you...

What are you trying to say? I think you're saying that Southern States in the US were "KKK dominated societies"?
If so, you are the one that needs to get your facts straight mate.
I think the arguement can be made that yes, the laws were enforced by the police in the US at the time. It's not a case where laws were enforced selectively. It was those laws that spawned the Civil Rights movement.
But don't take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

jman0

jman0 wrote:

What are you trying to say? I think you're saying that Southern States in the US were "KKK dominated societies"?
If so, you are the one that needs to get your facts straight mate.

I see and they werent then?
And the reason for Blacks not being allowed into white establishments was for??

It wasnt descrimination on a wide scale then? Elected Sherrifs were totally impartial?

Oh and do I detect by the use of the word "mate" there a touch of anger in your post? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't dare to test your posts Infallibility??
I beg to differ, this is a public forum.

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

Well i have news for you jbkenn: in the 26 counties we didn't have a referendum on the GFA, what we did have, was a referendum to amend articles 2 and 3 of the Irish Constition. There's a slight difference there, if you can notice it.

You'll have to spell it out for me. The GFA was the reason for the amendments to articles 2 and 3. Are you suggesting that some people voted for the amendments, but were opposed to the Agreement? That doesn't add up for me.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

I see and they werent then?
And the reason for Blacks not being allowed into white establishments was for??

It wasnt descrimination on a wide scale then? Elected Sherrifs were totally impartial?

Oh and do I detect by the use of the word "mate" there a touch of anger in your post? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't dare to test your posts Infallibility??
I beg to differ, this is a public forum.

I edited my post above
You need to familarize yourself with the US Civil Rights Movment, mate.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

I think the arguement can be made that yes, the laws were enforced by the police in the US at the time. It's not a case where laws were enforced selectively. It was those laws that spawned the Civil Rights movement.
But don't take my word for it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights_movement

Nice edit It makes your post half an hour later look a lot tamer and more in step with what I was saying.

And what happened if a Black guy's family went to the police back then and informed them that the KKK had just done a tarring and a feathering??
Do you think it was dealt with by an large as intensively as when a white person charged a black person with something?


While we are on the subject of the civil rights movement, it was largely a peacefull campaign wasnt it?
No widespread bombing and shooting to gain civil rights was there?

jman0

oscarBravo wrote:

You'll have to spell it out for me. The GFA was the reason for the amendments to articles 2 and 3. Are you suggesting that some people voted for the amendments, but were opposed to the Agreement? That doesn't add up for me.

From the CAIN website: http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/

Summary of Results in Northern Ireland
Electorate: 1,175,403
Turnout: 953,583
Turnout (percentage): 80.98%
Spoilt votes: 1,738
Total Valid Vote: 951,845

The question on the referendum ballot paper was:
Do you support the agreement reached in the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?
[Command Paper 3883 is the technical parliamentary term for the Belfast Agreement]

---

Summary of Results in the Republic or Ireland
Electorate: 2,753,127
Turnout: 1,545,395
Turnout (percentage): 56.1%
Spoilt votes: 17,064
Total Valid Vote: 1,528,331

The question on the referendum ballot paper was:
Do you approve of the proposal to amend the Constitution contained in the undermentioned Bill, the Nineteenth Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1998?

So you see, people in the Republic weren't voting on the GFA, they were voting on a proposal to change the constitution.
It's right there in black and white. The Unionist demand for change in the Irish Constitution pre-dates the GFA, this Unionist demand also found favorable voices in Fine Gael as well as certain media editorialists in the South.
And no, i'm not suggesting that, but i think it's still a possiblity. I believe some people voted against the amendments but were/are for the GFA. But this is a moot point.

While posters try to snipe at my posts, they (perhaps yourself) of course ignore the actual thrust of my orginal post which is: (addressing the SF bashers) What purpose is bashing SF to serve?
And what i think for people in the Republic, is that while some of them realize that politically disenfranchsing the majority of nationalists is not a good idea, i think this is the logical outcome of their efforts to demonize SF. Maybe they unwittingly think, it's just to hurt SF electorally, because FF is hemoraging voters to them...but the SF bashers are now in the same camp as Paisley, heading towards the same goal which in my opinion will lead to a resumption of violence.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

Nice edit It makes your post half an hour later look a lot tamer and more in step with what I was saying.

And what happened if a Black guy's family went to the police back then and informed them that the KKK had just done a tarring and a feathering??
Do you think it was dealt with by an large as intensively as when a white person charged a black person with something?


While we are on the subject of the civil rights movement, it was largely a peacefull campaign wasnt it?
No widespread bombing and shooting to gain civil rights was there?

?? more in step with what your saying?
No it doesn't. ANd by the way the reason the edited post appeared after your reply is because i'm also trying to work and hadn't refreshed the page to even see your post before i edited it, for chistssakes.

jman0

Earthman wrote:

And what happened if a Black guy's family went to the police back then and informed them that the KKK had just done a tarring and a feathering??
Do you think it was dealt with by an large as intensively as when a white person charged a black person with something?
While we are on the subject of the civil rights movement, it was largely a peacefull campaign wasnt it?
No widespread bombing and shooting to gain civil rights was there?

1, 2) Probably was not dealt with equally, same as today i personally believe.
3,4) US Federal goverment intervened to secure the rights of Blacks in the South. the British goverment intervened to help repress and oppress the Catholics in the North. Just a tad difference there.

But you know what Earthman, i thru answering your questions until you anwer mine about what your objectives are in bashing SF, what does it serve.

jman0

jman0 wrote:

So you see, people in the Republic weren't voting on the GFA, they were voting on a proposal to change the constitution.

Incorrect.

The change in the constitution that they were voting for contained the following:

The State may be bound by the British-Irish Agreement done at Belfast on the 10th day of April 1998 hereinafter called the agreement

Thats on page nine here for your perusal

jman0

jman0 wrote:

But you know what Earthman, i thru answering your questions until you anwer mine about what your objectives are in bashing SF, what does it serve.

where have I bashed Sinn Féin?
I ask awkward questions perhaps but I will ask questions of all parties as and when I see fit-I don't care wheter they like them or not, its how people deal with my questions I'm interested in

jman0

not gonna answer the question then, i see

You've withdrawn from the debate then with a misnomer

monument

true wrote:

What is so different in the last century that has changed in less then four years?

Nothing, it is equally true that five or six or seven or eight or ten years ago there was no excuse for a party in western Europe having a private illegial army. We are talking about progress for the future, that is why it was said "there is no excuse for a party in the 21st century Europe having a private illegial army."

Just up to ten years before the end of the last century – why?

What was so different between the 70s/80s and 90s?

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

So you see, people in the Republic weren't voting on the GFA, they were voting on a proposal to change the constitution.

[...]

And no, i'm not suggesting that, but i think it's still a possiblity. I believe some people voted against the amendments but were/are for the GFA. But this is a moot point.

I'm bewildered as to what your point is, frankly. The Agreement required that the Irish government amend the Irish constitution. Such amendment requires the approval of the people in referendum. The referendum was put to the people, and was overwhelmingly accepted. It's hard to see how that can be interpreted as anything but an endorsement of the Agreement.

jman0 wrote:

While posters try to snipe at my posts, they (perhaps yourself) of course ignore the actual thrust of my orginal post which is: (addressing the SF bashers) What purpose is bashing SF to serve?

What do you mean by "bashing"? Is it different from criticism? If so, in what way? If not, why should SF be exempted from criticism?

jman0 wrote:

And what i think for people in the Republic, is that while some of them realize that politically disenfranchsing the majority of nationalists is not a good idea, i think this is the logical outcome of their efforts to demonize SF.

SF are not demonised by their detractors, but by their association with an illegal army. When they have no connection whatsoever with terrorism or crime, I for one will be happy to judge them on their merits as a political party.

I'm pretty sure I'll still be criticising them then, mind you.

jman0 wrote:

Maybe they unwittingly think, it's just to hurt SF electorally, because FF is hemoraging voters to them...but the SF bashers are now in the same camp as Paisley, heading towards the same goal which in my opinion will lead to a resumption of violence.

Are you suggesting that we should continue to tacitly ignore SF's links with an illegal army and criminal activities? Maybe FF should take a page from that book: the threat of terrorism might keep some of those pesky tribunals at bay...

jman0

I see oscarBravo.
Maybe your intentionally misreading my posts.
But i've clearly made the assertion that the logical result of this (current round) of SF bashing is furthering the Unionist aim to exclude SF from politics.
And maybe unwittingly, people like yourself are lending your voice to this result.
I believe it will end with the return to violence.
You try to skirt around it with petty semantic games ie:

"What do you mean by "bashing"? Is it different from criticism? If so, in what way? If not, why should SF be exempted from criticism?"

ferfeck sake

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

I see oscarBravo.

I don't think you do.

jman0 wrote:

Maybe your intentionally misreading my posts.

Maybe you're not making them clear enough.

jman0 wrote:

But i've clearly made the assertion that the logical result of this (current round) of SF bashing is furthering the Unionist aim to exclude SF from politics.
And maybe unwittingly, people like yourself are lending your voice to this result.

I've made it clear that I believe SF are excluding themselves from politics. Maybe this is less so with the recent signs of a schism between SF and the IRA; time will tell. The fact that criticism of SF plays into Unionist hands is not a good enough reason for me not to criticise them.

jman0 wrote:

I believe it will end with the return to violence.

That's a sad reflection on the mentality of the people involved. If the only way to achieve your aims is through violence, then maybe your aims aren't worth achieving.

jman0 wrote:

You try to skirt around it with petty semantic games ie:

"What do you mean by "bashing"? Is it different from criticism? If so, in what way? If not, why should SF be exempted from criticism?"

Those are not "petty semantic games", those are "questions". The normal course of civilised discourse is for them to be followed by "answers".

jman0

oscarBravo wrote:

I I've made it clear that I believe SF are excluding themselves from politics.

Ridiculous. What this is, is called a political sound-bite, it's meaningless political spin.
How does a party "exclude themselves" from politics?
Ok, maybe you can say a party position of abstensionism might be "excluding themselves" but that's not what SF are doing in NI.
Rather, they are being denied their democratic rights their voters deserve in a democracy.

oscarBravo wrote:

If the only way to achieve your aims is through violence, then maybe your aims aren't worth achieving.

Croppie lie down eh?
So when a community of people are denied political representation, they shouldn't fight back? Tell that to the ANC.

The people calling for exclusion are giving IRA hardliners an easy win in the internal repbulican debate: "you see Gerry, we tried your way, peace, ceasefire, decommissioning, it didn't work. HMG and their Unionists hangers-on will never share power with Republicans there is no point in a ceasefire, they are denying our basic democratic rights, there is no other way now."

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

Ridiculous. What this is, is called a political sound-bite, it's meaningless political spin.
How does a party "exclude themselves" from politics?

Through their continued association with paramilitarism and criminality. Neither is consistent with democratic politics.

jman0 wrote:

Ok, maybe you can say a party position of abstensionism might be "excluding themselves" but that's not what SF are doing in NI.

That's not what I'm talking about - see above.

jman0 wrote:

Croppie lie down eh?
So when a community of people are denied political representation, they shouldn't fight back? Tell that to the ANC.

So the only way to achieve political representation is to bomb, murder and maim? Tell that to Ghandi.

Your post is completely typical of an inability to engage in reasoned debate. I said: "If the only way to achieve your aims is through violence, then maybe your aims aren't worth achieving." You evidently decided to ignore the first part of that sentence, and responded as if all I had said was "your aims aren't worth achieving." How about putting the same amount of energy into the first part of the sentence, and working towards non-violent ways of achieving your aims?

jman0 wrote:

The people calling for exclusion are giving IRA hardliners an easy win in the internal repbulican debate: "you see Gerry, we tried your way, peace, ceasefire, decommissioning, it didn't work. HMG and their Unionists hangers-on will never share power with Republicans there is no point in a ceasefire, they are denying our basic democratic rights, there is no other way now."

There will always be headcases who will find excuses to use violence to further their aims. In school, they're called bullies. In society, they're called thugs. Apparently in politics they're called freedom fighters and we're supposed to turn a blind eye to their activities in the hope that appeasement will make them go away.

I notice you managed to avoid answering my questions again. Any chance?

jman0

oscarBravo wrote:

Through their continued association with paramilitarism and criminality. Neither is consistent with democratic politics.?

More soundbites, got any orginal statements?
Question: despite all these tribunals ongoing and scandals involving politicians like Ray Burke, you don't seem to make the connection between their actions and criminality. That seems rather odd since you care so much about it.
Are FF consistant with "democratic politics"?
Both criminality and paramiltary activity are offenses under HMG's laws which can be prosecuted by HMG's authorities in HMG's courts, so too in the RoI.
If there are persons engaged in such behavior it is the responsibility of HMG or RoI to do tackle it, not SF's.
So if you happen to have information that SF elected representatives are engaged in criminal or paramilitary behavior than you should alert the proper authorities.
Instead you seem to advote punishing an electorate for what and unelected group (IRA) allegedly do.
Maybe you are even unaware that SF is an entirely legal political party, they are not a proscribed organization. To advocate politically disenfranchising the majority of Nationalists in NI is about as far from "democracy" that your going to get. Rather Orwellian that, denying democracy for a community in the name of "democracy", wtf.

"

oscarBravo wrote:

..working towards non-violent ways of achieving your aims?

Once upon a time there was a Civil Rights Association but they were generally brutalized by Unionist thugs including the police, so much for peaceful protest. I'll ignore the rest of your post because why should i answer your quetions when u don't answer mine. You still haven't answed what purpose is served by bashing SF.

oscarBravo

jman0 wrote:

Question: despite all these tribunals ongoing and scandals involving politicians like Ray Burke, you don't seem to make the connection between their actions and criminality. That seems rather odd since you care so much about it.
Are FF consistant with "democratic politics"?

Fianna Fáil were involved in the establishment of those tribunals. As a result of the work of the tribunals, two FF politicians have been jailed. Fianna Fáil don't have a private army. FF politicians are capable of describing the murder of a mother of ten as a crime.

They're no angels, but they are a lot closer to the ideal of democratic politics than SF.

jman0 wrote:

Both criminality and paramiltary activity are offenses under HMG's laws which can be prosecuted by HMG's authorities in HMG's courts, so too in the RoI.
If there are persons engaged in such behavior it is the responsibility of HMG or RoI to do tackle it, not SF's.
So if you happen to have information that SF elected representatives are engaged in criminal or paramilitary behavior than you should alert the proper authorities.

I don't recall suggesting that they were. My criticism of SF is their tacit support for such activities on the part of others.

jman0 wrote:

Instead you seem to advote punishing an electorate for what and unelected group (IRA) allegedly do.

Where have I advocated punishing anyone?

jman0 wrote:

Maybe you are even unaware that SF is an entirely legal political party, they are not a proscribed organization.

Again, my criticism centres on their tacit support of such an organisation.

jman0 wrote:

To advocate politically disenfranchising the majority of Nationalists in NI is about as far from "democracy" that your going to get. Rather Orwellian that, denying democracy for a community in the name of "democracy", wtf.

You'll have to point out where I advocated disenfranchising anyone.

jman0 wrote:

Once upon a time there was a Civil Rights Association but they were generally brutalized by Unionist thugs including the police, so much for peaceful protest.

Yeah, pacifist wimps like Ghandi and John Hume have never achieved anything.

jman0 wrote:

I'll ignore the rest of your post because why should i answer your quetions when u don't answer mine. You still haven't answed what purpose is served by bashing SF.

I can't answer your question until you clarify it. What do you mean by "bashing"?

Victor

Mad Cyril wrote:

Many mainstream political party's have youth wings. If you are going to accuse Sinn Féin of indoctrination then you are levelling a similar accusation against all other political party's with a youth movement.

Of course one needs to raise the point "what are they being indoctrinated in?", in Sinn Féin's case it is revolutionary republicanism, which is ambivalent to violence, not quite the same as SPD / LibDems / random political party indoctrination.

true

Quote : momument : "What is so different in the last century that has changed in less then four years?"

Quote, true "Nothing, it is equally true that five or six or seven or eight or ten years ago there was no excuse for a party in western Europe having a private illegial army. We are talking about progress for the future, that is why it was said "there is no excuse for a party in the 21st century Europe having a private illegial army.""

monument wrote:

Just up to ten years before the end of the last century – why?

What was so different between the 70s/80s and 90s?

You are missing the point , monument, We live now, and we are hoping to have peace and prosperity in the future. We cannot change the past. The point is, there is no excuse for a party in the todays Europe having a private illegial army."" Are you happy now ? I bet not. You need someone around who can abduct and kill a mother of ten shure that would not be a crime anyway, sez you.

N.B I believe illegial armies - from both sides - resulted in the unnecessary deaths of thousands in the sixties and seventies as well. I even condem the odd IRA murder and robbery / incident there was in the 40's through to the 60's.

FTA69

true wrote:

Perhaps Mrs McAleese would have been better off comparing the Hitler youth to Ogra Sinn Fein ? There are many parallels.

And what would these be a chara? You neglect to mention the fact that membership of the Hitler Youth was cumpolsory for all young people between the ages of 10 and 18 while membership of Ógra Shinn Féin is voluntary for all those over the age of 15. The Hitler Youth were also taught propagandist theories of racial segregation and supremacy in classes while Ógra workshops take the form of inclusive debate between Ógra members themselves or other political groups. There is no "curriculum" and we are free to voice whatever opinions we like. As opposed to the Hitler Youth we have our own independent publications and structures.

The Hitler Youth also recieved arms training and Ógra members do not.

Again, I ask you to provide examples of these parrallels or in the interests of decency withdraw your vulgar comparison.

FTA69

Also true, what basis have you for stating that Ógra Shinn Féin members are indoctrinated with a "hatred of prods"? There are many Protestant Republicans in all facets of Republicanism I would like to point out, and anti-sectarianism has often been a focus of Ógra Shinn Féin.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

There are many Protestant Republicans in all facets of Republicanism I would like to point out, and anti-sectarianism has often been a focus of Ógra Shinn Féin.

As someone brought up in East Belfast why have I never met any?

jbkenn

pogo&#324 wrote:

As someone brought up in East Belfast why have I never met any?

Cos, they are all down in "Free West Waterford" thats why.

jbkenn

true

Originally Posted by true
Perhaps Mrs McAleese would have been better off comparing the Hitler youth to Ogra Sinn Fein ?( rather than comparing the people of Northern Ireland who teach their kids to hate catholics with the Nazis hatred towards Jews) There are many parallels.

FTA69 wrote:

And what would these be a chara?
Again, I ask you to provide examples of these parrallels or in the interests of decency withdraw your vulgar comparison.

Where do I start (a chara).

One is the youth wing of Nazism and the other is the youth wing of Sinn Fein / IRA.

Nazism , the idology of Hitler Youth, started off in the early thirties with its slogan " a pistol in one hand and a ballot box in the other ". Now where did I hear something about a klashnikov in one hand and a ballot box in the other.


Both Nazis and Sinn Fein sometimes are not quite sure what is a crime. The abduction, torture and burial of a mother of ten on a beach ( until coastal erosion reveals her remains by accident decades later ) is not a crime in Sinn Feins book : I am sure Hitler Youth at some stage during WW2 would have done something similar.

The "people" of N.Ireland have been bombed by both Nazi forces and Sinn Fein / IRA. Many "people" from N. Ireland have died at the hands of both organisations.

Nazism teaches its adherants to hate certain groups eg Jews, Gypsies, Disabled etc
Sinn Fein also propogates the hatred of Unionists, Paisleyites, "Crown forces", Britain ( remember the slogan " burn everything British except their coal " ) etc

Nazism frightened the minority groups in Germany.
Sinn Fein / IRA frightens the minority groups in Ireland.

Hitler was a catholic, as was Mussolini. So are Ogra Sinn Fein. People from neither party or organisation has been excomunicated by the church, as far as I am aware. If Mrs McAleese wanted to compare anything, she should have acknowledged that there are good and bad catholics, just as there are good and bad protestants. While I acknowledge some Protestants raise their kids to hate Catholics, I would honestly say most do not. If they hate anybody ,they hate the people who killed their relatives and friends, and who disrupted the economy and tourist trade etc over the last 35 years.

Likewise I acknowledge there is pain on the other side as well.

FTA69

pogo&#324 wrote:

As someone brought up in East Belfast why have I never met any?

I personally know a Protestant Republican from the Short Strand. Also, Republicans are not really taken kindly to in East Belfast as you well know.

FTA69

One is the youth wing of Nazism and the other is the youth wing of Sinn Fein / IRA.

Ógra Shinn Féin is the youth wing of Sinn Féin alone. What is the point of your above statement? Labour Youth is the youth wing of Labour, Communist Youth is the youth wing of the Communist Party... Top marks on your observance of titles...

Both Nazis and Sinn Fein sometimes are not quite sure what is a crime. The abduction, torture and burial of a mother of ten on a beach

Your comparisons are entirely abstract, the Brits also committed "crimes" by extra-judicially killing unarmed people in different states. Are they comparable to the Hitler Youth?

The "people" of N.Ireland have been bombed by both Nazi forces and Sinn Fein / IRA. Many "people" from N. Ireland have died at the hands of both organisations

We are discussing Ógra Shinn Féin not the IRA, but in your eyes does the planting of a bomb make one comparable to Nazis? The brits used a few thousand of them to incinerate tens of thousands of people in Dresden, they must be Nazis as well. People in Ireland have also died at the hands of the brits, the brits therefore must be Nazis.

Sinn Fein also propogates the hatred of Unionists, Paisleyites, "Crown forces", Britain ( remember the slogan " burn everything British except their coal " ) etc

Sinn Féin teaches the "hatred" of nobody, we teach the opposition to occupying forces and a bigoted ideology. We do not single people out because of their nationality, skin colour or religion. You still have yet to provide examples of Ógra Shinn Féin teaching the "hatred of prods".

Sinn Fein / IRA frightens the minority groups in Ireland.

Like who? The immigrants and Travelling community we frequently stand up for? You are decending into farce now true.

Hitler was a catholic, as was Mussolini. So are Ogra Sinn Fein.

Ógra Shinn Féin is not a Catholic party, we are socialists of all religions (or non-religion) that supports the seperation between Church and State. Mussollini made Catholicism the official religion of Italy while Hitler abolished it all together in favour of the Reichkirche. The above has to be the most foolish suggestion yet. Is the Pope comparable to Hitler Youth because he was a Catholic?

People from neither party or organisation has been excomunicated by the church

Neglecting our history are we? Republicans were excommunicated during the Civil war.

If Mrs McAleese wanted to compare anything, she should have acknowledged that there are good and bad catholics, just as there are good and bad protestants.

Of course, but Catholic bigotry was not enforced through a stae system of discrimination, internment, collusion with death squads and gerrymandering. This whole debacle is simply as a result of Unionism's inability to acknowledge the reactionary position they held and continue to hold.

pogoń

FTA69 wrote:

I personally know a Protestant Republican from the Short Strand.

Interesting.

Is this a picture of where he lives?

http://www.cluanplace.co.uk/clpics.htm

Also, Republicans are not really taken kindly to in East Belfast as you well know.

Can't for the life of me imagine why.