It’s All Mary McAleese’s Fault: Frazer
Today’s Newsletter contains a headline accusation from Willie Frazer that Mary McAleese and Fr. Alex Reid were to blame for Saturday’s riot in Dublin. Not adverse from using inflammatory language himself, apparently Mr. Frazer sees a link between comments attributed to both individuals and the events of Saturday in Dublin. He does not, however, say whether or not he believes his own usage of extreme language played any part in provoking the riot.
Chris Donnelly who last month was blogging from a great moral height on how receptive republicans were to unionist viewpoints.
slug
ball, not man.
And don’t shoot the messanger.
It’s clear that Frazer is working hand in hand with the DUP. No coincidence that Paisley had been levelling both barrels at McAleese recently. With the demise of Paul Berry there is a vacancy for a DUP right-wing firebrand in County Aramgh.
Intially the DUP distanced itself from Love Ulster (perhaps due to the paramilitary connection) but now they are openly working together. Thus Donaldson & co were present at the Dublin stunt.
Are the reactionary elements in Dublin going to collude with this agenda by attacking the President? I hope so because I think they will get more than they bargained for. Ordinary people in the south have absolutely no time for Paisley and his bigotry.
“Are the reactionary elements in Dublin going to collude with this agenda by attacking the President?” – elfinto
The answer to that question is yes.
Regarding the Nazi comments of Father Reid and The Irish President. I dismissed these comments at the time as being in the realm of the absurd but also as telling us something about the way nationalists view unionists.
I don’t agree with Frazer that these Nazi comments caused the riots. But I would think it possible that the Nazi comments and the riots have a common cause.
Unionists are using these comments because they want to be offended.
I suggest they look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary
nonsense – it was the securocrats who were behind it all, firstly suggesting the march to the dup and then using their agents in rsf to stir up trouble – anyone with an ounce of brains can see that – the securocrats are everwhere comrades, working tirelessly to frustrate sinn fein!
“I don’t agree with Frazer that these Nazi comments caused the riots. But I would think it possible that the Nazi comments and the riots have a common cause. ” – Slug
They sure do: the sectarian bigotry of that supremacist organisation known as the Orange Order.
Although it’s interesting to hear Unionists demand that Republicans build bridges to them, whilst Unionists are busy burning them on the other side.
How does the Unionist community expect members of the Orange order to build bridges when its members will be barred from membership if they dare attend the wedding of a Catholic friend, for example? Is that bridge building or bridge burning?
The answer is that Unionists use the demand that Nationalist build bridges to them solely as a means of censoring Nationalist criticism of the unmitigated and unreconstructed bigotry of Unionism itself.
Mary McAleese comment shows that nothing offends like the simple truth. They fit the Orange Order perfectly. Here is what she actually said:
“They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things.”
Somehow, I just can’t picture Mary McAleese and Alec Reid in Burberry baseball caps and Celtic tops, swigging cans of Strongbow and lugging slabs of concrete at the Gardai, clutching looted Adidas tops in the other hand…..still it’s a rather amusing image…
Dubliner
“They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics.” [Dubliner's quote]
She wasn’t talking about Orangemen – you added that. She just says “people in Northern Ireland”. I assume she leaves Catholics out of that. And if this is the quote its even worse than I remembered. Its not that the unionists are like the Nazis, its that the Nazis are like the unionists. And Dubliner thinks this is the simple truth. Dublin rule grows less attractive by the day.
Slug the term “people” does not mean she was referring to 100% of Protestants. The Unionist media coverage of her comments was the worst possible interpretation of her remarks. She apologised afterwards. Obviously she was referring to some Unionists, not all. But you wouldn’t think that reading the Unionist press saying she called Protestants Nazis. She also mentioned “people” in South Africa in relation to Aparteid. Should whites in SA be offended by that too? Was she calling all whites in SA racists? Of course not.
That slug1 12.09AM is me, Brian Boru.
Did you know that frazers website contains a link in which paisley gives a speech naming one of the mc reavey brothers (consequently murdered) as the killer in knigsmill, Even though the police gave a statement refuting the mc reaveys had any involvement in such things. Mr frazer having been asked many times to remove it continues to have it on his site.
Why.
“Dublin rule grows less attractive by the day”
Ahh, that old line. You’d think that half a million unionists were about to vote for a united ireland right before the riots and have now changed their minds.
Not likely.
The vast majority of unionists will never vote for a UI so why bother trying to persuade them.
The small minority who would probably even consider the idea are unlikely to be perturbed in the slightest by the actions of an insignificant group of rioters.
Frasier needs a new publicity flack.
He didn’t attract more than a phone booth full of RSF fanatics and even the lumpenproletariat passed up the loyalists in order to beat the piss out of the Garda.
Tom Cruise fired his sister after the Oprah romp, so maybe his sis can punch up Willie’s coverage.
Worse yet, the artifice of these regularly contrived events now bores the rest of the world rigid.
Irish Times 26 Feb 06
Riots low on list of priorities for internatinal press
“Despite the shockwaves generated at a national level by events on Dublin’s streets last weekend, the disturbances generated few ripples in the international media.
Compared to the rioting in the Muslim world over the Muhammad cartoons, the number of casualties – 14 people injured – was relatively low and clearly insufficient to persuade the world’s press that this was a major news story.”
It starts with the predictable article in the Gardian and ends with a 400 word teaser in the Calgary Hearld.
Christ, ya bombed in Alberta.
The Dubliner & Slug
That’s a misquote and snip of the Presidents words.
Firstly she said “for example, of Catholics”, in context it makes a difference.
And secondly if you read the full quote the peoople of Dublin should be just as offended for being called racist.
Good man, Willie. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
TS
When saying that the Nazis are “the same as” “people in NI”, the Irish President perhaps should have clarified exactly who. It has left me wondering.
hehe, you gotta love nationalists – even after the weekends events they still manage to make it all about themselves and try to reinforce their tried old “Most Oppressed people on Earth” myth.
“They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics.”
They should be both sides of the divide in NI, there are some nasty, bigoted catholics just as there are some nasty bigoted prods
“slug7″
a misquote again…
“They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics.”
Mary’s unfortunate error was giving an example.
And yes you’re right “there are some nasty, bigoted catholics just as there are some nasty bigoted prods”
Maca: I think the Irish President’s mistake was to bring NI into Holocaust day. Fair enough, she blurted it out before she realised and we could all do that. Just like Fr Reid. But these slips are possibly all the more revealing because they reveal something underneath.
Thank you for clarifying that Maca, I was doing me nut in reading the misquotes.
McAlees might just as easily have said “for example, of Protestants” and she would have been just as right…
This weekends events have certainly produced some profound difficulties for our nationalist and republican friends.
They have been faced with their own intolerance and predjudices and they are desperate to interpret things in a way that puts them back in the victims seat.
It’s not going to work.
What happens the if there are a coupe of hundred loyalists on a rampage and they are told that it is just a minor skirmish, nothing to get excited about?
Every utterance of Paisley is attacked for fueling the flames of hatred, yet so many people in the republic think they can call Unionists Nazis or claim every Orangeman is a bigot, and not expect these words to help create a situation in which riots occur?
People have spent a lot of time and effort in demonising Unionists.
It’s a bit rich now when we hear them condemning the riots.
If you want to prevent further riots like this, the answer is not in drafting in more police, it’s in facing down your own inherrant predjudices and accepting that Orangemen and Unionists are ordinary people, not monsters.
From fair_deal
“Even though the police gave a statement refuting the mc reaveys had any involvement in such things”
The claims against the McReaveys are based on intelligence documents from immediately after the incidents so it had not been picked out of the sky but based on official documents (although it is now commonly accepted the quality of intelligence at that time was not good). The RUC response to the statements of Paisley made under parliamentary privilege was to reject them, one can only presume on later intelligence received about the attack.
I must ask how a nationalist/republican is happy to use police intelligence when it clears a nationalist but when it accuses republican groups based on intelligence we get calls of securocrat conspiracy?
Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.
On slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?
“They have been faced with their own intolerance and predjudices”
I disagree slug9, those rioters were certainly not representative of my point of view, and I would hazzard a guess that they were entirely unrepresentative of majority Irish republicanism. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.
OK.
I accept what you say about you not having those predjudices, but I meant in the general sense of the nation as a whole.There is an undercurrent of anti unionist sectarian hatred within Ireland, and within Irish republicanism.
I don’t accept that Irish repulicanism is happy to allow unionists to have a voice, despite what you say about defending my right to speak, it’s painfully obvious that since this march was announced Republicans have done their utmost to deflect attention from what it is about and spread lies and distortions.
People like Gerry Adams talk about letting the march go unhindred, as if they are granting people a favour, when the truth is that they have no right whatsover to deny the marchers the right to state their case.
You talk about defending my right to speak, but since saturday we have numerous republicans in Slugger defending the rioters right to prevent me from speaking.
Are you telling me that the Republican voices in Slugger are not representative?
A broadly pro republican media was complicit in helping to spread the lies and rumours about the march being a triumphalst excercise which would have seen the bombers of Dublin eulogised on the march.
TAFKABO,
“Are you telling me that the Republican voices in Slugger are not representative? ”
You’re god damned right I am, look at the real republican voices FF, FG, PD, Labour, SIPTU and see what they’re saying, Gerry Adams speaking for majority republicanism!? puurrrlleeaasssee!
Don’t confuse me disagreeing fundamentally with Unionists on the constitutional position of part of what I consider my country, and my vigerous argument against that position with any sort of personal animosity to you because you are a Protestant (sectarian animosity). I dislike the Orange Order and I think any group who welcomes support from such a fundamentally sectarian organisation are doing themselves no favours. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a right to protest and speak in our nations capital, but I also reserve the right to question and ridicule anyone for their publically expressed views. That’s the nature of democracy, and I for one am disgusted that a handfull of thugs pissed all over the ideals which the founders of the state fought and died for.
From fair deal
Is the SDLP unrepresentative too?
Seems the SDLP have went with blame the bgioted prods not the rioters line too and the PD Leader Harney’s comments seem to be walking a fine line too
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/26340
http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/26312
The Beech Tree
Well then why is Willy happy to perpetrate to the world that the Reaveys carried out the murder of 10 innocent protestant workmen when the PSNI has stated that it had no reason to suspect Reaveys of any crime, let alone of masterminding one of the worst atrocities of the Troubles. But Willy defiantly continues to carry the allegation through a link to Paisley’s speech on his website, despite repeated demands by the police for it to be removed.
Even the sole survivor of Kingsmill (Alan Black) stated that he knew the Reaveys were innocent the very day Paisley made his speech.
Willy is threading on very thin ice with such antics I’m afraid.
Why.
There’s a difference between criticizing the parade, and condoning the riots that ensued… don’t lose sight of that.
That last comment by Why was to Fair deal.
If these other victims groups carry such statements as Willys and name people for murder would that not be illegal.
The recent comments attributed to me on this page were not from myself.
- The Beach Tree
‘If you want to prevent further riots like this, the answer is not in drafting in more police, it’s in facing down your own inherrant predjudices and accepting that Orangemen and Unionists are ordinary people, not monsters.’
Best ever sentence I’ve seen in Slugger. Youse lot are all prejudiced, while we’re just trying to get on with it.
From fair deal to buckfast
Both clearly imply the organisers wanted trouble so it is trying to apportion some blame on the organisers despite the organisers co-operating fully at every stage with the RoI Authorities and complying with the requests of the Garda.The Councillor also described the event as “antagonistic” an implication it was looking for trouble. Ms Harney implies the same “Those that sought to stop them have played right into their hands.”
Also for Ms Harney’s other comments the OO weren’t involved in organising the parade neither were collarettes worn. So why does she even mention them? Is it not perpetuating the media nonsense about who was involved in the parade and its motivations that appeared in advance of the parade and have been used as justification by contirbutors on here?
I would also point out that the SDLP’s attack was not only about the parade but targetted at individuals, Danny Kenney and Willie Frazer. It should also be noted that Newry Council has previously been found guilty of political and religious discrimination against FAIR.
So these comments I believe fail your subtle distinction test.
From fair deal to why
“why is Willy happy to perpetrate to the world that the Reaveys carried out the murder of 10 innocent protestant workmen”
FAIR has leaked intelligence documents saying they were responsible, that is what the claim is based on.
I also asked two questions and a comment about how what FAIR does is no different thatn a number of ther vicitms groups which you chose to ignore, maybe you would kindly respond this time.
“I must ask how a nationalist/republican is happy to use police intelligence when it clears a nationalist but when it accuses republican groups based on intelligence we get calls of securocrat conspiracy?
Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.
On slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”
fair_deal,
I agree fully with Mary Harneys comments re the OO, it is a bigoted and sectarian organisation. I don’t see why it should worry about comments like that, it seems pretty proud to be Protestant only, fair enough, it’s their club. The victims groups gladly accept support from the OO, I’ve said before that it is pretty risky, and probably does their cause more harm than good. Again I fully support their right to make their case, and utterly condemn those who stopped them.
Using loyalist bands is indeed antagonistic, but that’s not to say that it deserved a violent reaction, again, it’s their right to parade in our city centre, and I would like to see their rights upheld.
Just because I disagree with a lot of what you might stand for, I can’t and don’t want to stop you expressing your opinions and convictions. And again, I reserve the right to ridicule where I see fit. Willie Frazer with his comments about McAleese exposes himself as a fool. That doesn’t mean that his case isn’t valid, and indeed some terrible things happened to him, and that he shouldn’t have the right to demonstrate in Dublin. However please don’t expect that anyone should turn overly PC and not say anything about the organisers of the parade, just because the idiots came out to play on the day.
Slug
“I think the Irish President’s mistake was to bring NI into Holocaust day.”
I don’t agree. She was making a very good point about how intolerance and hatred can often be transmitted to children, NI was one of several examples she gave. It was a very valid point she was making. People should read the whole quote rather than taking a snippet of it.
“…I think you’re absolutely right. And that’s a very important point worth remembering. The Nazis didn’t invent anti-Semitism, they used anti-Semitism, they built on anti-Semitism but they didn’t invent it.
It was, for generations, for centuries, an element of the lived lives of many people who, on the surface, lived very good lives, I mean many of
them would have regarded themselves, for example, as very good Christians.
But they gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews, in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmit it to their children, an
irrational outrageous hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred of
those who have different colour, and all of those thing, all of those hatreds in the wrong circumstance, on a street in Dublin, they can outcrop as I have seen and heard, of a little child from Somalia being pelted with rotten eggs. They can outcrop in a knife being taken in a fight and someone from Eastern Europe being knifed to death. It’s a toxin you see, it’s a poison, and it can be in weak and diluted form, but even in that
weak and diluted form, it’s still capable of surviving long enough for a Nazi-type era to come along, and to force it into concentrated form, and in concentrated form you get Auschwitz, you get Birkenau, you get Darfur, you get Rwanda. That’s what you get when you don’t stop the toxin.”
I have to say that I find the all to predictable tactic of “playing the man”, used by the Chucky Towers Internet Spin Battalion when faced with something uncomfortable to their myopic worldview to be rather amusing.
They can batter Wee Willie into the ground all they like, he probably deserves it.
But the Chuckys know that’s not really the issue that’s been laid squarely at their door.
From fair deal to buckfast
You are misrepresenting my point. I did not say harney should or should not have called the OO bigoted and sectarian I was not demanding a PC opinion from her.
It was her false labelling of the parade as an Orange Order event when it wasn’t and her claim that the organisers had wanted trouble is what I clearly objected to. Those that have tried to justify the violence have made similar claims. The condemnation of violence seems flawed if not false when the subsidiary comments back up the inaccurate claims of the apologists of the violence.
Why is a flute band automatically antagonistic? An all-sweeping comment and caricature of bands.
The parade its aims and its organisers are one issue. The riots a seperate one. However, when a discussion on the riots gets shifted to the parade then it is an attempt to apportion some blame to the organisers. Organisers who co-operated fully with the RoI authorities and complied with the instructions of the Garda.
Realist,
Was I not playing the ball when I referred to the rioters as “idiots”? Sorry about that, oh wait, you didn’t care because they are idiots…
fair_deal
“Why is a flute band automatically antagonistic? An all-sweeping comment and caricature of bands.”
I never said this, I said a loyalist band is antagonist, just as is a republican band, however no republican bands were involved in this parade, so I didn’t mention them.
It wouldn’t have been the first time Mary Harney was wrong on something.
Fair Deal
Re the McReavey case
“Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.
On Slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”
Hmmm. Right, setting aside all the rights and wrongs of the thing and looking solely at the facts that are beyond dispute.
On one hand there are a number of deceased UDR men from south Armagh – the notorious Glenanne gang, for example – who have been posthumously accused by victims’ groups of involvement in large numbers of murders, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Result – the good names of the deceased are called into question, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, we can’t know for certain. Either way, the men in question are no longer with us, so are past caring. All that’s at stake are the feelings of their families.
On the other hand, in the aftermath of the Kingsmill massacre Ian Paisley uses parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey as the architect of the atrocity. Paisley’s “evidence” is instantly rejected by Alan Black, the sole survivor of the massacre, who immediately goes to the Reavey’s house to publicly stand with them and affirm their innocence. The security forces dossier that is leaked to Paisley is indeed discredited many years later. But to no avail. Result – a joint police/UVF/UDR unit attacks the Reavey family home and massacres three of the Reavey brothers. (Though not, in a gruesome irony, Eugene himself.)
So, Fair Deal, you ask what’s the difference? Well, I could mention that the dead UDR men are quite possibly guilty of the things they are accused of, whereas all the Reavey brothers were absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt innocent, but I won’t even get into that.
“If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”
Same reason you can’t libel the dead. What’s the difference? Three corpses, that’s the difference.
I can’t believe I have to point out this distinction – I can’t believe you’re incapable of seeing it yourself.
- Billy Pilgrim
to fair_deal from piebald
The FAIR parade ( as ye don’t want to call it a march ) was designed to cause a breach of the peace and succeeded in its aims.
If this was not an orange order parade why were the participants wearing orange lilys ?
In Humphries v. Connor (1864) a policeman
removed an Orange lily from a woman walking in a Catholic area on the basis that it
would lead to a breach of the peace.
Similarily if victims of violence had come to Dublin without the loyalist bands and symbols and participated in a dignified way there may have been a less hostile reception.
Something I was wondering about though, in this black week for Irish nationalism, was how our unionist brothers and sisters felt about the actions of the Gardai on Saturday? It seems like the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. Donaldson, Copeland and a bunch of marchers interviewed on RTE were all effusive in their praise, if not of the preparation, at least of the courage and resolve with which Gardai dealt with the sectarian scum involved in the rioting.
Maybe I’m clutching at straws here, in the hope of finding something positive in a shameful episode, (I now know how most unionists must have felt as they looked on in horror at Drumcree/Harryville/Carnmoney/Holy Cross/“Vatican Square”/the Septemer riots etc.) but how do unionists feel about this suggestion: that Saturday was in fact an example of the Irish state’s willingness to put itself in harm’s way to protect Protestants from the northeast?
I mean, if you think about it, O’Connell Street on Saturday was kind of the anti-Burntollet. You had a contentious march which came under an attempted attack from the lowest, most sectarian, most fascistic collection of beasts that their sectarian bloc could come up with. (As at Burntollet.) The police on hand – who are not from the same sectarian bloc as the marchers (as at Burntollet) face a choice. Do they side with their own tribe – even the worst scum in that tribe – or do they face down that fascist element and side with the rights of the marchers?
At Burntollet we know what choice the police made. On O’Connell Street on Saturday the Gardai made the opposite choice – the right choice. The result was that on Saturday night there were fourteen Gardai in hospital but the Protestant who had come down from the northeast returned home without a single scratch between them. The only tragedy was that the march was not allowed to go ahead as planned, but hopefully it may yet be rescheduled.
But I hope some unionists might ponder that point. Clearly there cannot be any pretence that unionists, or even northerners, have a monopoly on virulent, vicious sectarianism, and clearly unionist fears of the Republic have more substance than I for one would have been prepared to accept last Friday. But there were fourteen Guards in hospital on Saturday night who had been bricked and stoned and punched and gouged and trampled set fire to, all in the purpose of protecting a crowd of northern Protestants.
Is there a problem within the Irish nation of residual anti-Protestant sectarianism? Yes, a problem greater than had previously been imagined. But is the Irish state serious about tackling that problem? I would tentatively suggest that Saturday’s events give a positive answer to this.
Unionists?
- Billy Pilgrim
Piebald
You’re missing the point. It shouldn’t matter whether an Orange march or any other kind of march is intended to be provocative. The fact is that such marches in Dublin are a test of Irish pluralism and a test of Irish democracy. Whatever the merits or demerits of the march itself, the fact is that that test was failed on Saturday.
Passing the test means being able to deal with things that make your blood boil. Being able to count to ten and walk on by.
I know all about the Orange Order and all it stands for, and I only wish my Protestant neighbours would walk away from it en masse, but I have to deal with the reality that that’s not going to happen any time soon. Therefore the reality is that Ireland won’t be the nation we want it to be until an Orange march, with pipes and banners and anything else not proscribed by law, can pass off in Dublin without anyone batting an eyelid.
After Saturday I have to admit that we aren’t as close to that situation as I had previously hoped.
That last post was from Billy Pilgrim
Billy, your 4:29
Great post, but I disagree about failing the democracy test, the crowd of plebs certainly did not represent majority feeling.
PopeBuckfast
I certainly wouldn’t suggest that the animals who were out on Saturday represent the majority. I wouldn’t suggest that they represent one per cent of the population. However, the fact is that a group of people had been given sanction to march in Dublin on Saturday by the Minister for Justice and the Garda Siochana. That means the Irish state gave democratic sanction to the march, yet that democratic sanction was thwarted by a fascistic element.
So the point is that it’s not enough for the 99 per cent majority to point the finger at the minority, blame them and go back to sleep. That’s what unionism has been doing for years and I’ve been castigating them for it for years. Now the same challenge faces Irish democracy. It’s a test of Irish democracy that the fascists be faced down. They are a tiny minority but they won on Saturday. They won and Irish democracy lost. The challenge to Irish democracy is to ensure it isn’t allowed to happen again.
- Billy Pilgrim
There is actually very little sectarianism in the South. But in a city of 1.2 million, a tiny % can equate to the 1000 or so that turned out to cause trouble.
1 way we should react to this is by going ahead with the 1916 march in April, in order to deny the terrorists the right to claim to be the true successors of those freedom fighters.