Poor Alex

Sand

Father Alex Reid, one of the "independant" witnesses appointed by persons unknown (actually it was SFIRA) to tell us they cant tell us what they saw, where the saw it or when they saw it but they definitly saw it, announced his determinatation to beat Jonathan Woodgates record for own goals per appearance.

Firstly he joined up last Wenesday with his partner in crime Rev. Harold Good at a meeting in South Belfast, designed to reassure grassroots Unionist support that the IRA had indeed decomissioned its armoury. He got into an argument with William Frazer, who lost his father, two uncles and two cousins who were all murdered by the South Armagh IRA. William Frazer now capaigns for FAIR, which represents victims of the IRA in South Armagh. I think its clear from the website, and indeed his argument with Reid, that William Frazer is deeply angered by the murders of his family - which is to be expected. Reid was seemingly rattled by the accusations Frazer threw at him, asking why Protestants should believe a Redemptionist priest from Clonard monastary where "weapons were fired and where priests at funerals had spoken of IRA heroes".

Reid then went into Provo mode, arguing that the IRA only fighting the British occupier, that it was completely against their philosophy to ever attack a member of the unionist or Protestant community. This did nothing to calm Frazer (did nothing to disperse the claims about the Provo sympathies of Clonard monastary either tbh), who said that the two churchmen were putting the IRA on a pedestal for giving up their weapons and forgetting they had killed 1,800 people.

Reid then announced he was going to do some straight talking, and slowly built up a rant - dodging challenges from members of audience whose interruptions could have saved him - which reached its peak when Reid announced that Unionists treated Catholics like the Nazis treated Jews, that his audience came from a community that should be absolutely ashamed of itself, and the unionist community was in the same category as the Nazis. Frazer (who had done his best to interrupt Reid with questions about massacres and the butchering of Protestants in South Armagh - I assume he was referring to incidents like Kingsmills) at this point left the meeting and refused to return. Interestingly, Frazer in his role as a campaigner was asked for his reaction to the supposed IRA decommisioning by the BBC and remarked it was more important the mindset was gone. Fr. Reid's attitude will not have reassured him.

Normally when a public figure has made a hamse of a public appearance this is where youd stop to give an opinion, but wait theres more.

Father Reid also gave an interview to Hearts and Minds in Northern Ireland where he argued that SFIRA had not carried out the Northern bank raid, because the leadership had told him they did not and because bank robberies for profit were against the whole philosophy of the IRA. Well, theres no convictions yet you might say, and priests are supposed to see the best in people even if it seems helplessly naive at times.

But wait theres still more, he then went on to excuse punishment attacks by SFIRA, saying that there is no acceptable law enforcement alternative in NI other than taking kids up an alleyway and beating them with iron bars before shooting them Padre Pio style - one must assume Reid appreciates the religious nature of the local vigilantes.

So basically, Reid has completely sacrificed his claim to be an independant witness. Effectively, he would believe anything SFIRA tell him so as a witness hes not worth listening to. Also, he seems to regard unionists/protestants as Nazis, and believes that Stormont rounded up Catholics, made them wear yellow stars, committed genocide using death camps, and probably invaded Poland. And that they as a community should be ashamed of themselves. SFIRA on the other hand were whiter than white and never committed any wrong.

Hes scored a series of shocking own goals, seemingly doing his best to singlehandly undermine any prospect of speedy Unionist engagement in the aftermath of SFIRAs apparent decommissioning. The reaction of the main Unionist politicians was fairly predictableYou would think he would have learned from the Presidents feck up a while back. Calling people Nazis isnt going to win them over. Saying what a bunch of great guys SFIRA are isnt going to portray you as being objective in relation to them and their actions/intentions. The DUP initially questioned Reid and Goods independance and were shouted down. With Reid at least, theyre now going to have an absolute field day. Frazer has given his side of the story on that FAIR website, and I can imagine people, especially Unionists, are going to be more sympathetic to Frazer than to Reid - though Frazers claims that he listened until Reid called unionists Nazis goes against the reported version of events. He was involved in an argument with Reid prior to that.

For people who need to be convinced that some unknown amount of weapons - apparently in line with estimates with an unknown margin of error/tolerance, somewhere between 1 and infinity - were decommissioned it seems its all up to Rev. Harold Good, who whilst seeming to be a very decent man is not going to be edified in the eyes of doubters by his association with Fr. Reid.

walshb

The bottom line is that the weapons have been verified as gone, by two witnesses...one from either side. When will the Unionists be happy???, I say never because it has got nothing to do with weapons or paramilitaries. It has everything to do with pure hatred of Irish people, deep rooted hatred. No matter what, the Unionists will not want to share power. That's where the own goal is as far as I'm concerned. I'm not a big Sinn Fein supporter, to be honest I think the bank raid, Colombia 3, McCartney murder have discredited them a hell of a lot and the fact that Adams and McGuinness stood by them thru this says it all really, that The IRA and Sinn Fein are two sides of the same coin.

However, terrible as it may sound, had the IRA not existed and not fought for equal rights in Ireland, we would never be where we are today. Catholics would still be very much 2nd class citizens, they probably would still be unable to vote, or unable to have their bins collected. That's how bad it was
The only thing now is that the vast majority of people, myself include firmly believe that there is absolute no need for the IRA or the Loyalist paramilitaries to exist and until they are banished forever, there will never be a chance for peace. We live in a democracy and that should mean no terrorism and peace and harmony for every citizen...people are plain fed up at the moment. Frazer lost loved ones as did many many people up the North, here in the Republic and across the ater. We can't forget that, but we have to move on and engage in dialogue...there is no other way...people have to put the past behind them and move on positively without ever the threat of a return to violence. As for Reid's comments about the Nazi's being like the Unionists, however much he felt this was the case, he still should not have said it...it does not apply to every single Unionist or Protestant. And we all know how merciful and compassionate the Catholic church have been thru the yrs, do we NOT!!!!!

A Dub in Glasgo

Use of the quotes is rather telling on the motives of the original post

Fr Alex is without doubt a Republican.
I doubt that he would support violence though just like the late Cardinal O Fiach was a Republican who wouldnt either.

He's no different to others who demand transparent evidence when statements are made that in his view are unhelpfull to the peace process as he see's it.

That said, it's clear he has not got the same degree in spin or pc ism's as most politicians do.
I wouldnt hold that against him,just because he's not afraid to put his foot in it by saying what he thinks in public as opposed to thinking it in private like a two faced politician might.

He probably recognised that his recent straight talking from his perspective was a step too far in terms of its lack of helpfullness though.

By the way from seeing the reports on this on BBC NI last night some unionists at the meeting where he made the nazi reference didnt leave and actually enjoyed the meeting for its frankness.
I'd like to have been there too, to be honest.

Sponge Bob

Sand wrote:

Father Alex Reid, one of the "independant" witnesses appointed by persons unknown (actually it was SFIRA) to tell us they cant tell us what they saw, where the saw it or when they saw it but they definitly saw it, announced his determinatation to beat Jonathan Woodgates record for own goals per appearance.

Firstly he joined up last Wenesday with his partner in crime Rev. Harold Good at a meeting in South Belfast, designed to reassure grassroots Unionist support that the IRA had indeed decomissioned its armoury. He got into an argument with William Frazer, who lost his father, two uncles and two cousins who were all murdered by the South Armagh IRA. William Frazer now capaigns for FAIR, which represents victims of the IRA in South Armagh. I think its clear from the website, and indeed his argument with Reid, that William Frazer is deeply angered by the murders of his family - which is to be expected. Reid was seemingly rattled by the accusations Frazer threw at him, asking why Protestants should believe a Redemptionist priest from Clonard monastary where "weapons were fired and where priests at funerals had spoken of IRA heroes".

Reid then went into Provo mode, arguing that the IRA only fighting the British occupier, that it was completely against their philosophy to ever attack a member of the unionist or Protestant community. This did nothing to calm Frazer (did nothing to disperse the claims about the Provo sympathies of Clonard monastary either tbh), who said that the two churchmen were putting the IRA on a pedestal for giving up their weapons and forgetting they had killed 1,800 people.

Reid then announced he was going to do some straight talking, and slowly built up a rant - dodging challenges from members of audience whose interruptions could have saved him - which reached its peak when Reid announced that Unionists treated Catholics like the Nazis treated Jews, that his audience came from a community that should be absolutely ashamed of itself, and the unionist community was in the same category as the Nazis. Frazer (who had done his best to interrupt Reid with questions about massacres and the butchering of Protestants in South Armagh - I assume he was referring to incidents like Kingsmills) at this point left the meeting and refused to return. Interestingly, Frazer in his role as a campaigner was asked for his reaction to the supposed IRA decommisioning by the BBC and remarked it was more important the mindset was gone. Fr. Reid's attitude will not have reassured him.

Normally when a public figure has made a hamse of a public appearance this is where youd stop to give an opinion, but wait theres more.

Father Reid also gave an interview to Hearts and Minds in Northern Ireland where he argued that SFIRA had not carried out the Northern bank raid, because the leadership had told him they did not and because bank robberies for profit were against the whole philosophy of the IRA. Well, theres no convictions yet you might say, and priests are supposed to see the best in people even if it seems helplessly naive at times.

But wait theres still more, he then went on to excuse punishment attacks by SFIRA, saying that there is no acceptable law enforcement alternative in NI other than taking kids up an alleyway and beating them with iron bars before shooting them Padre Pio style - one must assume Reid appreciates the religious nature of the local vigilantes.

So basically, Reid has completely sacrificed his claim to be an independant witness. Effectively, he would believe anything SFIRA tell him so as a witness hes not worth listening to. Also, he seems to regard unionists/protestants as Nazis, and believes that Stormont rounded up Catholics, made them wear yellow stars, committed genocide using death camps, and probably invaded Poland. And that they as a community should be ashamed of themselves. SFIRA on the other hand were whiter than white and never committed any wrong.

Hes scored a series of shocking own goals, seemingly doing his best to singlehandly undermine any prospect of speedy Unionist engagement in the aftermath of SFIRAs apparent decommissioning. The reaction of the main Unionist politicians was fairly predictableYou would think he would have learned from the Presidents feck up a while back. Calling people Nazis isnt going to win them over. Saying what a bunch of great guys SFIRA are isnt going to portray you as being objective in relation to them and their actions/intentions. The DUP initially questioned Reid and Goods independance and were shouted down. With Reid at least, theyre now going to have an absolute field day. Frazer has given his side of the story on that FAIR website, and I can imagine people, especially Unionists, are going to be more sympathetic to Frazer than to Reid - though Frazers claims that he listened until Reid called unionists Nazis goes against the reported version of events. He was involved in an argument with Reid prior to that.

For people who need to be convinced that some unknown amount of weapons - apparently in line with estimates with an unknown margin of error/tolerance, somewhere between 1 and infinity - were decommissioned it seems its all up to Rev. Harold Good, who whilst seeming to be a very decent man is not going to be edified in the eyes of doubters by his association with Fr. Reid.

Is there a point to the bit I quoted above or is it all normal negative naysaying unionist **** ????

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

You know, who the hell cares what people, who have other motives, think. The fact of the matter is the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning have decreed that the IRA has decommissioned. that is good enough for me and it should be good enough for all the democrats as that is what the majority of people on this island agreed. Obviously some people will never be happy :rolleyes:

The 2 clergy men present was an additional requirement and a bonus.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

A Dub in Glasgo

On what basis?

There was never any requirement for additional witnesses to decommissioning. The people agreed on the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning to decide. Even with this bonus of this witnessing, you do not trust the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning? Why?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Doctor Benway

Guys - it's ALEC Reid, not Alex.

A Dub in Glasgo

If you trust the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning, what does it matter that some folk will try and smear one of the witnesses? It is an irrelevance, a red-herring, a smokescreen. It is pretty clear that the OP does not believe the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

daveirl

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

I'd say though that you were probably unaware of him to a large extent, because any one that is familiar with him would know how close he is to the Republican movement and how instrumental he was in the background to the peace process-Most people in NI would know of and be aware of his republican beliefs.

So when this story broke I felt sorry for the man having been goaded into saying that Unionists were like Nazis by a man who claims nothing bad ever happened to Catholics. So I felt really sorry for a guy who was supposed to be independent and had been ruined by one stupid statement.

I think thats probably the right attitude to have because as I said he's only human,he has his beliefs,he doesnt condone violence-he's like a lot of people who rather than condone it, understands it and trys to be pragmatic in the background to end it.Albeit with a sloppy approach to getting his message across about this.But then like I said he's not had the benefit of the experts presentation polish.

But to find out then what he thought of punishment beatings, Northern Bank robbery etc, has totally thrown me for six. If he trusts the IRA on the Northern Bank how the hell am I supposed to take his word that he believes that they got rid of all their weapons.

You don't ,there was a protestant minister standing beside him, you can take his if you want.They both agree.

BTW Sand, excellent summing up of the whole thing.

I would qualify that by saying it's an opinion piece.
Sands summing up is from a perspective and most of it is an opinion and some would read it (having experience of his views on this topic from posts on this board) as a loaded opinion ie not neutral but skewed to an already formed opinion.
Others have equal entitlements to form a different opinion based on their different perspective.

As Regards Fr Alex's views on the Northern robbery,I understand that he has conceded that individuals in the IRA may have been involved but that it is his understanding that the robbery in its manner and timing would be against the ethos of the IRA.
Thats irrespective of what senior members of the Republican movement may have been aware of its planning.
Fr Alex is entitled to form a view and to be frank he's as entitled to require exacting evidence rather than what is there at present before forming a conclusive view.

Sand

this has damaged the transparency of the process for a section of people in the North.

Well there is no transparency or verifiability tbh. Were simply asked to take the word of a man like Reid, who has been shown to be completely unobjective when it comes to the Provos. Harold Good seems like a decent sort, but again he was appointed by SFIRA so that makes it difficult for him to appear independant. The commission refuses to even mention the margin of error that it works within when it says the numbers it apparently saw were within tolerance of estimates, its so afraid of embarrassing or upsetting SFIRA. Its hard to champion the commissions independance when it is so clearly in thrall to the wishes of the group it is apparently observing.

The governments stated consistently that decommissioning had to be a transparent proccess, but it hasnt been. All that has been sacrificed to save the blushes of SFIRA. There is not a single shred of proof beyond people like Reid saying "I saw something, somewhere, at some point in time, as the appointee of people I cannot mention that has convinced me decomissioing has occured". Even if Reid word was cast iron to Unionists and he wasnt an out and out provo himself, it would still be only his word. The most honest men can be tricked. SFIRA have been careful not to leave a single shred of independant verification. And thats why its so hard to sway Unionists when they consider the Provos history of pathological deceit, so Reids outbursts are all the more harmful because they undermine Good by his association with the man.

I doubt that he would support violence though just like the late Cardinal O Fiach was a Republican who wouldnt either.

Maybe he simply justifies it and venerates violent men instead. Hes a firm supporter of the peace proccess I agree, but Ive yet to ever hear of him criticising SFIRA, he doesnt even believe they attacked non-military targets apparently. For a representitive of the supposed Prince of Peace, hes fairly willing to champion terrorists.

Use of the quotes is rather telling on the motives of the original post

And.....

Who was I supposed to quote, Gerry Adams?

However, terrible as it may sound, had the IRA not existed and not fought for equal rights in Ireland, we would never be where we are today. Catholics would still be very much 2nd class citizens, they probably would still be unable to vote, or unable to have their bins collected. That's how bad it was

Thats mistaken actually, though a common deceit spread by SFIRA, the majority of discriminatory practices were either reformed or in the process of being reformed in the late 60s and very early 70s in the hey day of the civil rights marches, and there is no reason to think that politics could not rectify remaining issues. The Provos kicked off in the big way in the early-mid 70s, after which the pace of reform withered as the major concern in NI became terrorism, not civil rights. SFIRA are not, and never have been, interested in civil rights. They have only ever been interested in uniting Ireland by force, regardless of how many must be murdered.

I say never because it has got nothing to do with weapons or paramilitaries. It has everything to do with pure hatred of Irish people, deep rooted hatred.

The Unionists have more right to feel there is a deep unreasoning hatred of them from Provos when supposed peaceful moderates like Reid are calling them Nazis and saying they should be ashamed of themselves, and blatantly whitewashing wrongs committed by SFIRA. What must the really dangerous hardmen think?

The unreasoning aspect of that hatred is all the more clear when you consider what Frazer noted on his website - the Unionists are by and large proud of their efforts in both world wars, that it was the Republicans who were colluding with the *actual* Nazis, and Reid shouldnt be throwing too many stones when his Catholic Church's less than valiant relationship with the *actual* Nazis is remembered.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Maybe he simply justifies it and venerates violent men instead. Hes a firm supporter of the peace proccess I agree, but Ive yet to ever hear of him criticising SFIRA, he doesnt even believe they attacked non-military targets apparently. For a representitive of the supposed Prince of Peace, hes fairly willing to champion terrorists.

In fairness thats more of a maybe and your conclusion rather than a fact.
What he believes they did and what he believes in are two different things.
Given the role that he plays-openly criticising Republicans would be counter productive to that role of shall we say directing Republicans more on the path that they are going in now than in the one that they were on.

Your use of the description "championing" is an exact example of where you are expressing an opinion which would be at odds with mine ie that he has a role and that in that role theres no need to be openly shouting at the pulpit Wrong Wrong Wrong .

He may well be saying those kind of things in private cognisant of an effective method of persuasion.
Ergo I think to say he is championing violence simply because he doesnt do what you want him to do in public ie condemn it is a rash judgement to make.

You must remember that softly softly catchey wormy.I see a different perspective to what he's about and I see his flaws in the as you put it yourself the right haims he has made of his presentation to the other side of the fence.
He'd have done well to have not done that-but then he was poked into some straight talking I suppose like we all can be(and without the training that others undergo toavoid that) .However it hasn't deflected from the main thrust of his purpose from what I can see and that is to direct Republicans further on the path that they are going.

breandan

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

So the fact that he (rightly or wrongly) believes the IRA on one issue means that he must be lying on the other, is that what your saying?
If that is your view then if I was Fr Reid I wouldnt worry to much about what you think as you obviously have an agenda anyways and what he says would only be falling on deaf ears.

TomF

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition. My own wife is from Belfast and has her own stories of bigotry and mistreatment toward herself and her family and friends by many in the majority population. It is maddening to hear of nothing but IRA wrong-doings when we all know that the support for the IRA was a response to violence done to Catholics by unionists (small initial), and that the IRA would never have flourished as it did if there was not much injustice being done. We really need an extended period, I think, of media treatment of exactly what happened to Catholics in the North, with no ersatz attempt at "balanced coverage" by listing a tit-for-tat of IRA outrages to counteract any hurt feelings because of listed unionist bigotry and obstruction of the normal advance of Catholics in that society. Perhaps it would not hurt to get into the same kind of history of the lower 26 counties, too. I know that Protestants pulled-out of places like Bandon and Co. Cavan during the Troubles and after partition, but within living memory in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Protestant shop owners still posted help wanted notices with the note that no Catholic need apply. Fr. Reid went too far in comparing Unionists to Nazis, but he was fairly heated by that time and he reached for the first comparison he could think of. (We are used, on this board, to the laughable characterisation of U.S. figures and institutions as "fascist" so Fr. Reid's comment shouldn't a total shock to us.)

DublinWriter

walshb wrote:

When will the Unionists be happy???

NEVER! NEVER! NEVER!

Seriously, I think Unionists would be happier with the IRA still around because at present they've lost their 'bogeyman' and don't have an excuse to crow anymore.

Sand

Given the role that he plays-openly criticising Republicans would be counter productive to that role of shall we say directing Republicans more on the path that they are going in now than in the one that they were on.

Hes one of the few who *can* criticise the Provos and be actually listened to. Hes quite clearly a die hard Provo in his politics, so if he were to say "Yes, punishment beatings are reprehensible. The PSNI, however imperfect, are a better alternative to vigilantes and people should go to them" theres a decent chance it might actually be noted. Wouldnt change overnight, but it would maybe open a debate in the Provo mindset. Whereas if anyone else criticises SFIRA its water of a ducks back. The governments wouldnt be listened to, unionists would never ever be listened to, police would never be listened to. The McCartneys are being attacked in their own homes for criticiing SFIRA.

An example is Sponge Bobs wonderful contribution....

Is there a point to the bit I quoted above or is it all normal negative naysaying unionist **** ????

Provos completely ignore external opinion, so its doubly dissapointing when supposed Christian leaders like Reid, who has deep roots with the Provos, cant find it in his heart to actually urge people not to support punishment beatings. And his comments on punishment beatings were in the present tense, that there *is* no alternative to them. This only reinforces the SFIRA line after incidents like the McCartney murder.

Your use of the description "championing" is an exact example of where you are expressing an opinion which would be at odds with mine ie that he has a role and that in that role theres no need to be openly shouting at the pulpit Wrong Wrong Wrong .

I dont think his defence of SFIRA as being whiter than white sounded like an act. The unionist were Nazis, SFIRA were the reluctant warriors forced to fight by these Nazi bastards, but honourably restricting themselves to only fighting the British occupier, they never attacked the unionist community. If thats not championing SFIRA, I dont know what is...

And again, in his role he is one of the few who can criticise. If people like him dont even restrain themselves from supporting SFIRAs line, then SFIRA will go through the entire proccess without any criticism they do not instinctively reject. Have the Provos ever listened to say Trimble, and said - Hmmm, the mans got a point there. Or is it simply "Ah, shure they hate us. Those stuck up prods dont want to share power with poor old Catholics".

You must remember that softly softly catchey wormy.

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons. If you try be nice to SFIRA theyll exploit you. Stick is far more effective with them than carrot.

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition. My own wife is from Belfast and has her own stories of bigotry and mistreatment toward herself and her family and friends by many in the majority population.

Really? I thought it was a stupid and wild exaggeration of reality. The Nazis were the Nazis. They worked pretty damn hard at building a reputation of premeditated inhumane evil on a scale ( Stalin & Pol Pot maybe?) rarely if ever matched. Stormont were just run of the mill bigots.

We really need an extended period, I think, of media treatment of exactly what happened to Catholics in the North, with no ersatz attempt at "balanced coverage" by listing a tit-for-tat of IRA outrages to counteract any hurt feelings because of listed unionist bigotry and obstruction of the normal advance of Catholics in that society. Perhaps it would not hurt to get into the same kind of history of the lower 26 counties, too. I know that Protestants pulled-out of places like Bandon and Co. Cavan during the Troubles and after partition, but within living memory in Roscrea, Co. Tipperary, Protestant shop owners still posted help wanted notices with the note that no Catholic need apply.

Youre right. Theres a book that seems to be exactly what youre looking for called "I Met Murder on the Way". You can get it in bookshops for 13.95 Euro, or you can write to the author Alan Stanley, Aimhirgin, Co Carlow and he will mail it to you, which is rather decent.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Cork

Sand wrote:

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons. If you try be nice to SFIRA theyll exploit you. Stick is far more effective with them than carrot.

The governments did turn a blind eye to provo criminality. But I hope the Assets Recovery Agancy and Criminal Assets Bureau will be given all the resources they require to track down the proceeds of provo criminality.

Alex Reid was right to apologise. But his credabillity as an eye wittness has been pretty much damaged.


Fr Reid believes IRA denials about Belfast bank heist. He is entitled to his views. He is at odds with the vast majority of Irish people on this one - but again he is entitled to his beliefs.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Hes one of the few who *can* criticise the Provos and be actually listened to.

In private.Doing so in public would be counter productive.

Hes quite clearly a die hard Provo in his politics,

How do you reach that conclusion without pointing to where he condones violence.I've already said why it's obvious to me that he wouldnt state his distaste for it in public.It would be damaging to the role he wants.

so if he were to say "Yes, punishment beatings are reprehensible. The PSNI, however imperfect, are a better alternative to vigilantes and people should go to them" theres a decent chance it might actually be noted.

Perhaps it would be noted if he did so.
However again the idea is to use influence in private and it is clear that thats working.
On the other hand its not clear that he is a provo ie that he condones violence.

Wouldnt change overnight, but it would maybe open a debate in the Provo mindset. Whereas if anyone else criticises SFIRA its water of a ducks back. The governments wouldnt be listened to, unionists would never ever be listened to, police would never be listened to.

You clearly have no sense of pragmatism have you? oh you do, actually except you are applying it in a one sided fashion.You expect Fr Reid to be pragmatic towards unionists and yet not be pragmatic in his dealings with the provo's.According to you he shouldnt be outspoken to unionists-he shouldnt speak his mind in public to them yet you demand a different approach to his public words to Republicans...

Again to be frank with you he has a role-I dont think your perception of Republicanism and your avowed hatrid of it would allow you to make allowances for what would and what wouldnt make it easier for Fr Reid to make the contribution that he is making.

The McCartneys are being attacked in their own homes for criticiing SFIRA.

Whats that got to do with Fr Reids role in the peace process?? His public quiet on the IRA as opposed his private campaign of persuasion for them to end their activities is bearing fruit.

Provos completely ignore external opinion, so its doubly dissapointing when supposed Christian leaders like Reid, who has deep roots with the Provos, cant find it in his heart to actually urge people not to support punishment beatings. And his comments on punishment beatings were in the present tense, that there *is* no alternative to them. This only reinforces the SFIRA line after incidents like the McCartney murder.

see my earlier reply, you are continuing to ignore the practical reality of what gets results.
You are ignoring it in favour of an apparent approach that just makes die hards more diehard.

I dont think his defence of SFIRA as being whiter than white sounded like an act.

He is a Republican-he does have republican views.That does not extend to murder.His private background role doesnt permit being unpragmatic in the way you want him to be.

The unionist were Nazis, SFIRA were the reluctant warriors forced to fight by these Nazi bastards, but honourably restricting themselves to only fighting the British occupier, they never attacked the unionist community. If thats not championing SFIRA, I dont know what is...

Have you never ever said anything out of turn or gone too far in a discussion? If you say no I simply wont believe you-sorry.
As regards his over hyperbolised attack on how the unionists behaved towards catholics for decades-theres plenty of anecdotal evidence for him or any Republican to have that view.
Grant it, it's only changing slowly and it would have changed a lot sooner due to EU member ship and the pervasiveness of the media these days if the IRA had copped on decades earlier that only an extreme element agreed with their methods.

And again, in his role he is one of the few who can criticise. If people like him dont even restrain themselves from supporting SFIRAs line, then SFIRA will go through the entire proccess without any criticism they do not instinctively reject. Have the Provos ever listened to say Trimble, and said - Hmmm, the mans got a point there. Or is it simply "Ah, shure they hate us. Those stuck up prods dont want to share power with poor old Catholics".

I wont repeat what I've said already about Fr Reids role.
As regards who the provo's listen to...I would have thought the very point you are trying to make there underlines the reason why FR Reid should continue to perform his background role in the way he is and not to be doing and saying the stuff you are urging.
His role is clearly delivering a lot more goods than what you are proposing.The latter has a very bad track record as opposed to the former.

The proccess doenst bear that out. We had 10 years of this crap until the McCartney murder, the bank robbery and the sudden use of the stick over the carrot on SFIRA. Within months we get SFIRAs surrender of its right to murder and its weapons.

Ah but the pervasiveness of the media and the success of the Gardaí,the CAB and its NI equivalent is what will deal with that.

Really? I thought it was a stupid and wild exaggeration of reality. The Nazis were the Nazis. They worked pretty damn hard at building a reputation of premeditated inhumane evil on a scale ( Stalin & Pol Pot maybe?) rarely if ever matched. Stormont were just run of the mill bigots.

Again I'll have to ask you have you ever made a faux pax in conversation or argument with anybody? Because if you say you havent I simply wont believe you.
Everybody has gone too far at some point.
Fr Reid has backtracked from that statement and as I said before he's not got the polish that the experienced politicians have when public speaking and knowing what not to say and to say.

LordSutch

TomF wrote:

I thought Fr. Reid was right on the money in his comments about the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland over the years, especially since partition.

As a Protestant person living in the South, I would like to give my perspective on Father Alec Reids' regretable comments!

Firstly, this the 60th anniversary of the defeat of the Nazi's by the allied nations of the world (excluding Southern ireland) and it is in this light that the Nazi comparrison was so distastefull to the very people that faught the Nazi's in the Second World War! and lets not forget that Belfast was hammered by the Luftwaffe on a regular basis and as a result thousands were killed without even going to fight on the Continent!
Admittedly there were tens of thousands Irish people from both sides of the border & religious divide who faught in both the Great War (1914-1918) and the Second world War and I can assure you Tom "None of them are or were Nazi's" So I say "Shame on Father Reid and indeed the Irish President" for using such utterly ignorant language! and as for Tom's message that I quote, well there are always two sides to the argument about the North and I can assure you Tom, Nazi's do not come into the equation.
By the way Tom: In 1921 20% of the Population here in the South was Protestant, but by 1975 Protestants made up only 2.5% of the population (due mainly to the insistance by the Roman Catholic Church + State that "Mixed Marriages" must result in Roman Catholic off-spring (by law)!
No wonder the Unionist/Prods feel a little edgy up North .......

Cork

ArthurF wrote:

"Shame on Father Reid and indeed the Irish President" for using such utterly ignorant language!

He and She apologised.

When is an apology not enough?

Maybe NI needs a forum like a Truth and reconcilliation Committee to discuss issues like past wrongs?

Sand

In private.Doing so in public would be counter productive.

Actually in public might be far more productive. On punishment beatings for example, in private SFIRA would take the view that the "community" has empowered them to beat people up. In public, people from the community might get a chance to air their own views. In the aftermath of McCartneys murder Maskey was lectured about "the community" fearing men in balaclavas far more than they feared the PSNI.

Reid could have either A) Limited his comments on punishment beatings to saying he did not support them, or Said something along the lines of what I said before, they theyre reprehensible and the PSNI is the way forward in terms of policing. Instead he chose option C) Support SFIRAs position that punishment beatings are a regrettable necessity. Publically. Which is very counter-productive when pressure should be applied to bring SFIRA into accepting the law.

You clearly have no sense of pragmatism have you? oh you do, actually except you are applying it in a one sided fashion.You expect Fr Reid to be pragmatic towards unionists and yet not be pragmatic in his dealings with the provo's.According to you he shouldnt be outspoken to unionists-he shouldnt speak his mind in public to them yet you demand a different approach to his public words to Republicans...

See above. Reid could have chosen A) in his public comments. He didnt have to choose option if it meant SFIRA would be back bombing the next day. Which they wont be.

Your definition of pragmatism seems to be keeping from upsetting SFIRA. My definition of pragmatism is keeping clearly in our sights where we want to the process to go and never easing the pressure until we reach it. Acceptable policing is where we need to be, and if after 11 years its still taboo for a central figure in the peace proccess to come out and say that punishment beatings are no longer jutifiable, and that the PSNI should be supported then how far has the proccess actually come? He certainly did not have to choose option C).

And I like how you claim hes speaking his mind to protestants. Well come back to that.

Again to be frank with you he has a role-I dont think your perception of Republicanism and your avowed hatrid of it would allow you to make allowances for what would and what wouldnt make it easier for Fr Reid to make the contribution that he is making.

A tipping point has been reached with the Provos imo. Endorsement of the PSNI is an inevitability. SFIRA have surrendered their violent mandate and their weapons ( cant be verified of course, but theres too much smoke for there to be no fire). Reid is not helping, publicly or privately by reinforcing SFIRAs old guard position on policing. He didnt have to reinforce it. He could simply have taken a view that he didnt support punishment beatings. Gerry Adams has claimed this himself in the past, though its harder to believe from the leader of the balaclaved boys doing it than from an apparently independant priest.

As I said above, movement on policing is going to come, its inevitable that communities are sick of McCartney style killings and assaults and intimidation. But dealing in private with SFIRA cuts out the community. Raising even the mildest criticism of the "unacceptable policing" mantra in public, Reid could help open a debate where people could speak openly and tell SFIRA "Yeah, cheers for beating our kids in the past, but no need for it anymore" or whatever formula of words is required to save SFIRAs blushes this time around. Reid, a well respected figure, instead made it *harder* for anyone else to stand up and say punishment beatings were unjustifiable.

Now, where in the above is my perception of how Reid could or could not have helped without compromising himself in error?

Have you never ever said anything out of turn or gone too far in a discussion? If you say no I simply wont believe you-sorry.

Again I'll have to ask you have you ever made a faux pax in conversation or argument with anybody? Because if you say you havent I simply wont believe you.
Everybody has gone too far at some point.
Fr Reid has backtracked from that statement and as I said before he's not got the polish that the experienced politicians have when public speaking and knowing what not to say and to say.

Earlier you said he was speaking his mind. He himself said he was going to do some straight talking and then launched into a rant that built up to the Nazi jibes, twice. Along with other insults.

Now its a faux pas. Just slipped out. His iron cast support for SFIRA must have just slipped out as well. Along with his justification for punishment beatings. I think youre right on both counts. He was speaking his mind, he does believe this stuff. I think youre also right on the faux pas, not that he said something he didnt believe but that he let slip out what he really believes.

Either way, it demonstrates that he is not an independant witness, and it doesnt help Good that he was viewed as being acceptable to the same people who selected Reid.

His role is clearly delivering a lot more goods than what you are proposing.The latter has a very bad track record as opposed to the former.

So SFIRA should go through the proccess without any criticism they might listen to? They should never be challenged on their justifications for, oh say punishment beatings, for example without being able to say "Shure thats unionist ****e!!!" They should be allowed to believe that if they commit murder, its not a crime? If a bank is robbed its only wrong if the Army Council doesnt get its cut?

And as I said before we had 10 years of lies, crap and excuses right up to SFIRA refusing to sign up to a deal that would ask it not to engage in criminality, and then when the sticks came out early this year suddenly they found it in their hearts to decommission and surrender their right to murder? The record of appeasing SFIRA is not littered with too many successes, other than destroying the moderate centerground in Northern Ireland that originally forged the peace proccess before being sacrificed in the name of "pragmatic" side deals with extremists.

Flex

ArthurF wrote:

By the way Tom: In 1921 20% of the Population here in the South was Protestant, but by 1975 Protestants made up only 2.5% of the population (due mainly to the insistance by the Roman Catholic Church + State that "Mixed Marriages" must result in Roman Catholic off-spring (by law)!
No wonder the Unionist/Prods feel a little edgy up North .......

Bull****!!! The protestant population was no more than 8% in the Free State and experienced its sharpest decline between 1910-1920, while ireland was still under British rule!!!!!and had been declining since the late 19th century. And the vatican passed tha law on mixed marriages, and it was practiced by catholics all over the world, not just in ireland. 20% my ass. :rolleyes:

I agree with what TomF posted btw

ratboy

his comments have put away all credibility he did have, no matter how good a man he is and i think he's a good man but wholly inequipped to deal with the pressures of public persona.

Sand

Sand wrote:

Actually in public might be far more productive. On punishment beatings for example, in private SFIRA would take the view that the "community" has empowered them to beat people up. In public, people from the community might get a chance to air their own views. In the aftermath of McCartneys murder Maskey was lectured about "the community" fearing men in balaclavas far more than they feared the PSNI.

You must be misunderstanding me.
Fr Reid =no public condemnations of Republicans =more influence with them=progress to todays position.

Reid could have either A) Limited his comments on punishment beatings to saying he did not support them, or Said something along the lines of what I said before, they theyre reprehensible and the PSNI is the way forward in terms of policing. Instead he chose option C) Support SFIRAs position that punishment beatings are a regrettable necessity. Publically. Which is very counter-productive when pressure should be applied to bring SFIRA into accepting the law.

As above.
I dont see the worry on not having the law applied to criminality.It's being increasingly applied as a certain farmer in the louth Armagh area is finding out with respect to his property portfolio.
Thats being done whilst not jepordising Fr Reids influence as he's not connected to it.

Your definition of pragmatism seems to be keeping from upsetting SFIRA. My definition of pragmatism is keeping clearly in our sights where we want to the process to go and never easing the pressure until we reach it. Acceptable policing is where we need to be, and if after 11 years its still taboo for a central figure in the peace proccess to come out and say that punishment beatings are no longer jutifiable, and that the PSNI should be supported then how far has the proccess actually come? He certainly did not have to choose option C).

Well pragmatism depends on the situation and in Fr Reids, it would be unpragmatic to be shouting down Republicans in public whilst trying to talk them down a certain road in private.It just wouldnt wash.
The rights and wrongs of that are a different subject entirely.
We are talking exclusively here about Fr Reids purpose and position.

And I like how you claim hes speaking his mind to protestants. Well come back to that.

Didnt a prominent member of FAIR and a protestant walk out of the meeting that he accused them of being nazis...
You should know thats what I meant.

A tipping point has been reached with the Provos imo. Endorsement of the PSNI is an inevitability. SFIRA have surrendered their violent mandate and their weapons ( cant be verified of course, but theres too much smoke for there to be no fire). Reid is not helping, publicly or privately by reinforcing SFIRAs old guard position on policing. He didnt have to reinforce it. He could simply have taken a view that he didnt support punishment beatings. Gerry Adams has claimed this himself in the past, though its harder to believe from the leader of the balaclaved boys doing it than from an apparently independant priest.

With respect here you go again with crafty suggestions as to what Fr Reid should be doing that would directly result in alienating him from Republicans and demolish his influence with them, an influence that is working.

As I said above, movement on policing is going to come, its inevitable that communities are sick of McCartney style killings and assaults and intimidation. But dealing in private with SFIRA cuts out the community. Raising even the mildest criticism of the "unacceptable policing" mantra in public, Reid could help open a debate where people could speak openly and tell SFIRA "Yeah, cheers for beating our kids in the past, but no need for it anymore" or whatever formula of words is required to save SFIRAs blushes this time around. Reid, a well respected figure, instead made it *harder* for anyone else to stand up and say punishment beatings were unjustifiable.

The problem with that sir is you are refusing to recognise the reality that hundreds of thousands of people in NI are well aware of these punishment beatings and McCartney and yet still vote SF.
Ergo your position vis vis Republicans being shown the door doesnt hold water.

The only consolation i can offer you is that the law is and will continue to be rigourously applied to the criminality associated with them.

Now, where in the above is my perception of how Reid could or could not have helped without compromising himself in error?

To be frank its wreaking in crafty suggestions as to how to compromise Fr Reids influence unnecessarilly with Republicans.I've already stated that above.

Earlier you said he was speaking his mind. He himself said he was going to do some straight talking and then launched into a rant that built up to the Nazi jibes, twice. Along with other insults.

Now its a faux pas. Just slipped out.

Erm its both speaking his mind and a faux pax-the two concepts are marryable you know.

His iron cast support for SFIRA must have just slipped out as well. Along with his justification for punishment beatings.

Hang on a second where did he say that he agree's with punishment beatings? Exactly where has he said they are the way to go?
If you are to take that approach to what is just analysis then,we may as well say the pope agreed with the nazis because he understood why some people were in the Hitler youth.

I think youre right on both counts. He was speaking his mind, he does believe this stuff. I think youre also right on the faux pas, not that he said something he didnt believe but that he let slip out what he really believes.

Certainly.
I'd imagine though that he did not have the cop on to realise the implication of the analogy.
Polished Gerry would never say something like that.
He may well think it though.

Either way, it demonstrates that he is not an independant witness, and it doesnt help Good that he was viewed as being acceptable to the same people who selected Reid.

Good is a true unionist and protestant.No one was under any illusion as to his Unionist credentials or in Fr Reids republican credentials.
I dont see your point here.Fr Reid making nazi faux pax's does not a liar of Harold Good make.

So SFIRA should go through the proccess without any criticism they might listen to? They should never be challenged on their justifications for, oh say punishment beatings, for example without being able to say "Shure thats unionist ****e!!!" They should be allowed to believe that if they commit murder, its not a crime? If a bank is robbed its only wrong if the Army Council doesnt get its cut?

Eh wheres this coming from? I'm only talking about Fr Reids role.
How are you extending that to every and anyone else?

And as I said before we had 10 years of lies, crap and excuses right up to SFIRA refusing to sign up to a deal that would ask it not to engage in criminality, and then when the sticks came out early this year suddenly they found it in their hearts to decommission and surrender their right to murder? The record of appeasing SFIRA is not littered with too many successes, other than destroying the moderate centerground in Northern Ireland that originally forged the peace proccess before being sacrificed in the name of "pragmatic" side deals with extremists.

Thats another Rant Sand and has nothing whatsoever to do with Fr Reid.
At the start of this post I explained that pragmatism in relation to FR Reids role ie Fr Reid being pragmatic in his lack of public denouncing of republicans has nothing whatsoever either to do with what evreybody and anybody else does.
Whats important is that Fr Reid is getting results.
It's up to the authorities to deal with the criminality issues and as I said they have every intention of doing exactly that.

hill16

Fr Reid was spot on calling Loyalists Nazis.Loyalists are sectarian and have strong links to C18 and the BNP in England.

ratboy

Nazis is too strong a term, they don't organise mass killings of nationalists.