About that Charter..
The UTV report on the launch of Sinn Féin’s Charter for Unionist Engagement provides some of the detail outlines of their strategy.. although I suspect that it was written in the expectation of a different result from last week’s Irish General Election.. Adds Charter available here [4.17Mb pdf file]ANYhoo.. according to the report
Sinn Fein`s new charter for unionist engagement outlined how the party would protect the rights of all sections of society in a united Ireland and sets out how it will engage unionists and other groups about its strategy.
The document, which was also launched by Stormont Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew and Foyle Assembly member Martina Anderson, vowed to:
:: Campaign for a new agreed Irish Constitution based on the separation of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary which would be endorsed by the people and also press for a charter of rights.
:: Decentralise decision-making to empower citizens and include minorities in the processes which impact on their lives.
:: Ensure all groups including those traditionally excluded from economic, social and political power are given equal rights and respect.
:: Make sure government delivers not only tolerance towards all religions, races and marginalised groups but eradicates sectarianism, racism and other forms of discrimination.
:: Guarantee a full separation between Church and state, with civil and religious liberty for all, everyone free to practice their faith and no religion having a preferential position in society.
:: Promote a national reconciliation process across Ireland.
Perhaps they should have launched that before the Irish General Election? [Perhaps not - Ed]
Adds According to the Charter, “the media” has responsibilities..
The Media
In a democratic society the role of a free press is essential. The media has a responsibility to reflect the diversity of society, to set a positive context for engagement on the basis of our common humanity and to work to end all forms of prejudice, stereotyping and the degradation of human beings.
Which I think we may have heard before..
“I acknowledge that republicans have contributed to this hurt”
From Gerry this is something positive isn’t it ?
A long way from 1983 I think it was when Gerry Adams said that a Bill of Rights had no place to play in what he called the republican struggle.
But really, could they not have done better than this on rights? A constitution based on the separation of powers (have they been reading Montesquieu or did their friends at the National Endowment for Democracy tell them this?) and to press for a charter of rights?
Not even a bill of rights then, never mind a court to enforce it? Weak, very weak. Blue skies thinking it isn’t – but nor is it grounded in reality.
Where is the leglislation outlawing making sectarian statements and actions a hate crime? Where is the integrated education? Where is commitment to end identity politics from their own party?
Slug
“It looks like its aimed at their own constituency “look how reasonable us ones are†rather than genuinely aimed at unionists.”
I’m inclined to agree with this. It’s like the Rabbi in Philip Roth’s “The Plot Against America”, who earns himself a high profile by backing a virulently anti-Semitic candidate for President. The main characters in the novel (a NY Jewish family) listen to him on the radio eulogising the anti-Semite and appealing to Jews to vote for him, and the son asks his father: “Does he really think any Jews are going to fall for this and vote for him?” The father replies: “He’s not there to win votes from the Jews: he’s koshering him for the goyim”.
It was much the same during the troubles when unionists “condemned” loyalist atrocities. Purely for a unionist audience. Frankly, SF have a long way to go to prove this isn’t the case here, and they haven’t made an encouraging start.
IJP
“All very good – but the real lesson from the Republic’s election was not a partitionist one, it was one that said “Stop talking motherhood and apple pie, and show us how you’ll do all of thisâ€. So, how does SF intend to do all of this?”
Spot on. The lesson from the election to Sinn Fein was: do your bloody homework! The time has passed when they can get away with amorphous, feel-good soundbites.
If they want to move on to the next level as a political movement, they need to spend the next five years doing all the unsexy, unglamorous donkey work. They need to set up a think tank employing (full time) a bunch of sympathetic academics – political scientists, philosophers, media experts, historians, literary experts and, of course, economists – and send them away for a few years to think through some fresh policies – fully explained, costed, with rebutting arguments anticipated, and with a strategy for presenting them included. And they need to understand that as of today, they are starting from a negative score in terms of credibility as a party that the southern electorate will trust their future to.
And it needs to be a wake-up call for them in the north too, where their dominance owes more than is usually acknowledged to SDLP’s patheticness. (If that’s a word…)
Add to that list: business leaders, educationalists, medical professionals, legal eagles, scientists, transport experts, environmentalists, trade unionists, actual unionists….
The list goes on. SF needs to be listening to people like this (and learning from hearing things they don’t like) and many others, if they really want to become a serious player island-wide.
The significance of last week’s bloody nose will depend on how they respond to it: deny, and keep doing the same things over and over; or know a wake-up call when you hear it, recognise what you’re doing wrong, and make the necessary hard choices?
You know.
If they really meant any of this they could start off by being honest and give up calling themselves republicans.
They aren’t republicans any longer, and yet this stuff is the same old tripe that is guaranteed to turn unionists off.
Grren, white and orange presentation, quotes from skinny Bobby Sands and the usual horsecrap about them being Irish Republicans.
It’s so pathetically predictable.
“Sinn Fein`s new charter for unionist engagement outlined how the party would protect the rights of all sections of society in a united Ireland”
So here we have it.
The same old nonsense, based on their ‘vision’ that things are going to end up in a united Ireland scenario.
It’s their tried and not-so-trusted tactic of saying ‘there’s going to be a united Ireland, so what sort of a united Ireland do you unionists want’.
These Provo Sinn Fein losers never get it do they?
Surely engaging with unionists (if it was to be genuine) should be on the basis of no preconceptions or preconditions.
The first question should be ‘what do you unionists want?’. As it is all unionists ever get asked is ‘what sort of a united Ireland do you want?’.
It’s this sort of unimiginative nonsense that ends up with large swathes of people ignoring them. 93% of the voters of the ROI ignored them last week and I’d say close to 100% of unionists will ignore this nonsense.
If now is the time for Provo Sinn Fein to be examining themselves, this unionist would advise them to drop this farce dressed up as ‘engaging unionists’ and come up with something realistic.
Maybe Chris Gaskin could draw something up for them.
‘The significance of last week’s bloody nose will depend on how they respond to it: deny, and keep doing the same things over and over; or know a wake-up call when you hear it, recognise what you’re doing wrong, and make the necessary hard choices?’
Billy:
Based on this supposed engagement claptrap it look as if they are going for option A – asking unionists for the nth time what sort of united Ireland they want.
It hasn’t worked to date and never will.
Long may Provo SF keep wheeling it out. It’s their time and effort that they are pissing away. If they ever thought about it they might do something sensible instead.
Alright Harpo. I’m not a SFer but I am a republican. No preconceptions, no preconditions, totally genuine. What do you personally want, and what do you think unionists generally want?
‘What do you personally want, and what do you think unionists generally want?’
Billy:
I want and I know that unionists want NI to remain in the UK. That’s all.
What is it that republicans never understand about this?
Someone earlier said that unionists should meet Provo Sinn Fein half way on this, but it never is half way. This idiotic repeat of every other PSF supposed approach to unionists contains the precondition that the ONLY scenario to be dealt with is some future united Ireland. It’s like asking turkeys how they want to be dressed up on the Christmas dinner table. Entering into the discussion means that you accept that you are going to be dying at Christmas time.
That’s why unionists never try to do any of this supposed engagement stuff with republicans. What would any republican say if one of the unionist parties came out with some fancy document called ‘engaging republicans’ and the first thing it contained was words to the effect ‘well, you’re going to be in the UK forever, so what sort of UK do you want?’. They would be laughed at, and rightly so. Republicans would never engage on such a basis since it would be against their core principles.
Unionists have enough sense not to come up with such horsecrap since it would be a non-starter for republicans. So why bother with it?
But why are unionists asked to engage on some basis that is against their core principles?
Provo Sinn Fein seem to be continuing in total clueless mode. I’m sure this has been developed over time, but wheeling such nonsense out on the back of the ass-kicking they took in the ROI election shows that they remain as clueless as ever.
If something hasn’t appealed to a group of people N times before why do the stupid Provos think it will appeal on time N+1?
I hear talk of the Provos having to adapt their policies to appeal to the people of the ROI who rejected them in this latest election. How about they try the same with unionists instead of trying the same old failed nonsense 1 more time?
Whatever Next
What, you think I’m suggesting that you are emotionally unhinged? As I’m not qualified, I wouldn’t dream of making such a diagnosis. I’ll let others make that judgement. You do seem to be consumed with anger, to the point of being incapable of even talking about anything else. I just hope you’re okay.
I see representatives of Protestant churches, Dawn Purvis and Roy Garland attended the launch amongst others and that looks like prominent Loyalist community worker Sammy Douglas in one of the photographs.
Seems others are open to engagement while the bulk of the Unionist political class goes through the same tired old motions.
Others will have to engage in dialogue addressing issues like ‘Peace walls’ while supposed leaders fight the old battles with the old rhetoric.
The door will be open for them when they think talking and listening to address major failings is a worthwhile pursuit.
In the meantime well done to those pioneers willing to engage and move forward on difficult issues.
I watched that “debate”.. Mr Adams spoke only in platitudes. No wonder people got turned off.
One thing that I heard (not on the debate) but by a S.F. commentator and also on this thread is that people have a right to housing.
Now now SF also want a new constitution; so just put that right in there. (Believe it or not, a Canadian government tried to change our constitution 20 years ago and had such a “right” included. What a sad, sorry tale but the people were too smart; next election that party was reduced from a majority of 176 seats in a house of 301 members to a total of 2 seats. No, I didn’t mistype, two seats).
So now fast forward to some short time after the new constitution is approved.
Scene: High Court.
A person who looks like they might live on the street is saying “Your Honour, it says in the constitution that I have a right to housing. I don’t have a house so I want you to order the government to give me one”.
Groan, Billy boy’s at it again with the real smooth stuff: “What, you think I’m suggesting that you are emotionally unhinged? As I’m not qualified, I wouldn’t dream of making such a diagnosis. I’ll let others make that judgement. You do seem to be consumed with anger, to the point of being incapable of even talking about anything else. I just hope you’re okay”. Boring, boring, boring – Billy, if you don’t want to be taken to task for the lazy, unimaginative smears you lob about, give up this unpleasant little habit. But otherwise, thanks again for the condescension – doled out with practised ease it would seem. But back to the point about Sinn Fein *every* Republican so far has ignored: they *claim* they want ‘reconciliation’ – so what are they actually going to do to reconcile the rest of us to the thing about them that puts the rest of us off them: their track record of having murdered so many people? And answers come there none, because Sinn Fein, as this empty document has all too neatly shown, no more want reconciliation than Southern voters want them.
Harpo
“I want and I know that unionists want NI to remain in the UK. That’s all.”
Right, but unionists share this place with almost as many people who want something else. Therefore there cannot be a “never” in the debate. As you said, no preconceptions and no preconditions. That surely must go for unionists too.
Now, you might say that if unionists just refuse to engage on this issue – fingers in ears and shout lalalalala – then there’s little the pro-unity argument can do about it (short of the demographic time bomb) and there’s a certain amount of truth in that. But the price for that you’ll be condemning your children to a second-rate future, in a divided society where people don’t discuss issues meaningfully with each other.
So I would put it to you and to unionism (and to republicanism) that the challenge for both traditions is to make this place work for the benefit of everyone, though we cannot know how it will affect either constitutional preference, and let the chips fall where they may.
What we can’t do is say: “We’ll eat grass, rather than risk moving forward to a future, the outcome of which we can’t guarantee”. We have to, both unionists and republicans, allow our children to make their own decisions and mistakes, not be hidebound by ours.
“What is it that republicans never understand about this?”
Republicans want Irish reunification, and they want it for reasons that are benign and objectively desirable. Can you, as a unionist, make an argument for the union that is benign and objectively desirable. Because I’ve got to say, I’ve never heard one.
“Someone earlier said that unionists should meet Provo Sinn Fein half way on this, but it never is half way.”
Unionism must meet republicanism halfway in making NI the best it can be, for the simple reason that we’re talking about the two halves of our society. NI is like a wagon, unionism and republicanism are like the oxen pulling it – neither will budge it without the help of the other. However, neither can guarantee which direction it’ll go in when it gets going. That’s the dilemma – go nowhere, stand still and waste away, or get moving into a future, the outcome of which can’t be guaranteed.
I choose the latter. You?
“This idiotic repeat of every other PSF supposed approach to unionists contains the precondition that the ONLY scenario to be dealt with is some future united Ireland.”
You’re right, it IS stupid to assume that a UI is inevitable, but it’s equally stupid to assume it’s impossible. It’s one possible outcome, that’s all. However, I think it is reasonable to ask unionists what their objections to an all-Ireland state are. Furthermore, it is something that has been going on for decades and has met with a degree of success – isn’t it the case that unionist attitudes towards the Republic have mellowed hugely over the years?
“It’s like asking turkeys how they want to be dressed up on the Christmas dinner table. Entering into the discussion means that you accept that you are going to be dying at Christmas time.”
What it is you fear about an all-Ireland state? When you look to the state to our south, what is it that would cause you to use such an analogy?
“Unionists have enough sense not to come up with such horsecrap since it would be a non-starter for republicans. So why bother with it?”
Unionists are the defending side, republicans are the challengers. The onus is on republicans to try and make the running.
“But why are unionists asked to engage on some basis that is against their core principles?”
Because that is the way it must be in a divided society. Both sides must ask the other to give some ground. How much each side gives depends on how the debate evolves.
“If something hasn’t appealed to a group of people N times before why do the stupid Provos think it will appeal on time N+1?”
Sinn Fein are not the issue. They are a footnote. Look at the election last week – that was Irish republicanism in action, and SF were made wee boys of. What did you see last week that made you afraid?
Whatever Next
I’m sorry you feel that way. I genuinely hope you get a handle on whatever it is that consumes you.
But if this is the way you want it, how about from now on you ignore my posts and I’ll ignore yours? Clearly I drive you to distraction, and I personally take no pleasure in listening to your insults.
Billy, billy, billy: patronise away – “I’m sorry you feel that way. I genuinely hope you get a handle on whatever it is that consumes you” [yawn] – you’re certainly giving everyone else the measure of you. But if you want to stop people picking you up on the snide stuff you lob about (you know, the stuff I’ve just quoted for example), then stop chucking the snide stuff about. It’s really very simple. Alternatively, Billy, stick to form and sneer away. And obviously comfort yourself with the thought that you’re [rolls eyes] driving anyone else on the planet to anything other than quite profound boredom.
But there we are folks – yet another Republican, on a thread about Sinn Fein’s ‘desire’ for ‘reconciliation’ who’ll talk about anything other than what exactly Sinn Fein might do to kick off any reconciliation. You know, by tackling dull, unhelpful, oldsville stuff like, ‘so what about them people you murdered then?’
Who did Sinn Fein murder?
I’m not an SF supporter WN. I don’t condone the IRA campaign. If you ever actually paid any attention to any of my posts rather than reacting like a bloody eejit, you’d know that.
The least you could do would be acknowledge that I’m not one of the people you castigate, with reference to the IRA campaign and SF. And that therefore your preposterous attempts to mug me have nothing to do with your IRA-related dementia.
Ah ‘dementia’ – you just can’t help it, can you Billy? ‘Oh no, I’d never tritely smear someone who disagrees with me by oh so lamely calling them “mad”‘. Seriously Billy, if you’re going to get all huffy about people taking you to task for name-calling, stop name calling. And yes, obviously enough I ‘castigate’ the IRA (what a surprise, what with, you know, that being what the vast majority of people did throughout the Troubles, and still being the position of an equally vast majority to their pointless, sordid crimes), but where have I said you were an IRA supporter? Another little invention Billy, tut tut. I’ve called you a ‘Republican’ certainly, but solely because that’s how you’ve described yourself previously. If you seemingly want to conflate the two stances, being a SFer and being a ‘Republican’, that’s up to you – I don’t.
EP – away and bother someone else. You and yourself are the only people on the planet still trying on that ‘SF aren’t the IRA, there’s no connection, let alone total overlap in leadership’ crap. For God’s sake, even Martin doesn’t anymore. Grow up.
WN
I see over on another thread another poster has described you as a “stalker”, in relation to me.
Seriously man, it’s not just me that’s a wee bit concerned for you.
Soupy
“A process like engagement will use such radical tools as ears and tongues.”
Yeah but perhaps first they could try engaging brains then they wouldn’t come out with this drivel
“Stop talking motherhood and apple pie, and show us how you’ll do all of thisâ€.
I like apple pie especially when made by my mother, I’ll invite the Shinners round to show ‘em how it’s done; but, she’s a Prod (ah! dun dun dun how awful – engagement time!)
Alas, I hope they will not feel bad about being ‘lectured’ by a Protestant woman on cooking successfully by using the right ingredients to make the political pie taste nice but most importantly of all – fit for public consumption.
SF must think Unionists have no memory,no intelligence,no brain.
We are forced by circumstance to accept them in the Executive level of Government.We are not likely to forget that they arrived there as a result of their vicious sectarian campaign of mass murder and destruction. Engagement and progress will come when Republicans accept responsibility for that squalid sectarian campaign and seek forgiveness from the law abiding Unionist community and all the families of victims Protestant and Roman Catholic. Unionists control the political agenda and will be in the majority in Northern ireland and in the UK for the foreseeable future. Propaganda schemes and stunt politics will not change the demographic or political reality. T.Ruth
If Sinn Fein are *genuinely* interested in reconciliation, then they need to address they thing that has left most people unreconciled to them – namely the fact that they murdered so many people.
Here we have an interesting question. How much guilt does an organisation bear, and when is it wiped out? And what is Sinn Féin? The answer is that it is a political party, which some people associate with the Provisional IRA. However, very few of its voters, or even its members, were in the PIRA, an infinitesimally small number, though quite a number of its candidates were, but by no means all. One was even in the RUC. Several are so young, they could not possibly have been involved in this conflict.
I think therefore the answer is that guilt is best assigned to individuals. Are we guilty of the bombing of Dresden, or the activities of Bomber Harris? If you are an angry German, looking to take out your aggression, you may wish to pin the blame on anyone who speaks English, but I can’t see that that is right.
IJP – “So, how does SF intend to do all of this?”
Well quite possibly Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams is Ireland’s very own Lovejoy – Ian McShane.
After all Sinn Fein are loveable rogues, who have Robin-Hooded the Northern Bank and obviously invested it in their own art-portfolio in order to build up a property portfolio for people who have ‘rights’ in the South.
Rights to houses, to rights to work, to rights not to work too.
Out on RTE, Gerry Adams as Lovejoy – watch him turn that 25 million into billions across Europe’s black antique markets, be prepared to be charmed out of your millions.
(Also starring Ferris as Tinker)
There seem to be two interpretations of the SF document – that there needs to be dialogue between unionists and republicans on internal (NI) matters and another that asks them what kind of united Ireland they want.
Unionists these days seem reasonably prepared to engage on the internal stuff, and even on cross-border issues on the basis of mutual benefit for north and south.
But this document seems to be about pointing them in the direction of a UI, which they will dismiss. They wouldn’t be unionists if they did engage on discussions that have the aim of a united Ireland.
As for the document, I’d say SF could learn from Bertie Ahern in how to positively engage with unionists on building a north-south political relationship (as well as a thing or two about elections in the Republic). To me, the leaflet doesn’t seem to demonstrate much real knowledge of how to engage the unionist mindset.
Belfast Gonzo
“They wouldn’t be unionists if they did engage on discussions that have the aim of a united Ireland.”
What about engaging in a discussion on how to improve the economy and society here to the benefit of everyone here, from which a united Ireland is one of a range of possible outcomes? (And from which the status quo is also a possible outcome.)
I detect a willingness among republicans to gamble – after all, the worst case scenario is that everyone’s lives improve. Do you think unionists are willing to gamble, to do their best to optimise conditions here even if there’s no guarantee it won’t lead to reunification?
It depends. Hospitals in border areas – yes. Joining the Euro – no. EU and Irish sponsored roads across the border – yes. Votes in the Senate – no.
I think unionists will simply pick and choose. A cost-benefit analysis, if you will, weighing up the potential economic benefits against the cost to the Union.
But this isn’t really what the document is about. Ahern seems to have a much better grasp of how to deal with unionists than SF. It’s a bit unquantifiable, but where SF is pushy and ambivalent, Ahern understands the need for plain speaking and appears open-handed. He doesn’t get unionist hackles up in the way this SF outreach programme has. He compromises on stuff SF wouldn’t dream of compromising on. He recognises that creating an all-Ireland economy that benefits north and south (ie the ‘mutual benefit’ approach that the DUP can work with) will break down barriers that SF only has in wet dreams.
Ahern is more likely to pave the way to a united Ireland than SF ever will. He is prepared to run with the ‘good neighbours with high hedges’ approach for as long as it takes to lovebomb unionists into a united Ireland, because Bertie is patient. And he has a small hedge trimmer.
Top tips for unionist engagement:
1. Tell them about 1798 and the patriot Prods! After all, they don’t know any Irish history and the best Prods are dead ones!
2. Get friendly! Find their little foibles (especially sexual ones)- then drop in a wee mention of the ‘Sunday World’ and watch ‘em cringe!
3. Take a tip from Gerry and patronise them, son. After all, they’ve been wrong for 700 years!
Gonzo
Ahern has a big advantage. It is easy to play “neighbours with high hedges” when you are already living in the Republic and don’t have to deal with most of our shit, day in, day out. It’s easy to compromise when you aren’t being directly affected. That’s a distance here Nationalism here cannot possibly manage. Similarly – Blair was a lot readier to compromise than Unionist politicians. And we’re constantly being told to take the hedges down here, by the by.
Several things should be borne in mind. Regardless of how poorly it is done, SF seem to be the only party at least attempting to break out of their own sectarian ghetto. Second, neither side here really understands the other. At all. So the fact that this isn’t instantly appealing isn’t exactly a shock. Third, if this is to have even minor success, it has to be the beginning of a process and not an end in itself. Just like the Southern elections, SF would have to listen, learn and reshape policy. Even Unionism picking and choosing as you say and actually dealing with SF would be a step forward.
Moreover, let’s be brutally honest here – SF are getting more stick for being the messenger than they are for the actual message. A quick glance at the posts here will tell you that. It’s perfectly understandable, but we should at least recognise it.
The document is somewhat New Labour, shall we say. But I’m unsure what it’s meant to be. As an outline of principles and position to kick off some discussion, it’s perfectly fine. But if it was meant to have more substance then it’s lacking.
Shinnerista is obviously an ultra-Unionist troll.
Billy
“Republicans want Irish reunification, and they want it for reasons that are benign and objectively desirable. Can you, as a unionist, make an argument for the union that is benign and objectively desirable. Because I’ve got to say, I’ve never heard one”
well here is a very small start
I actively hate your state,its connivance at the murder of my fellow protestants , its foundation in the murder/discrimination against my ancestors (which produced flight from the republic)
The union has ensured the survival of the reformed faith in hostile catholic republican ireland.
whats that you say? you don`t do it any more
What part of fuck off is unclear?
If the unionists are so sure this is a PR stunt why the feck don’t they use their heads and call their bluff? If it isn’t genuine they put a nal in the shinner coffin and if it is a genuine outreach all the better.
For too long Unionists have stuck their head in the sand and tried to pretend Republicans didn’t exist, baring them from speaking on TV and refusing to talk to them or give them the respect due to any elected represantative. But as usual Unionists knee jerk react and the Shinners look good again.
As Unionist after Unionist on this thread has explained – they were palpably insincere in this ‘outreach’ because there was nothing of substance to engage with. If you think Republicans ‘look good’ as a result of this empty stunt, well that’s up to you. I have no idea how long a journey it was for you to come that conclusion. If on the other hand you think that Republicans have been subject to an irrational, ‘knee jerk’ reaction, rather than been subject to well grounded obloquoy for their heinous past actions (you remember Pounder? *murdering* all those people whom it turns out they didn’t need to murder after all), well, now it all becomes a little bit clearer.
Either side comitted more than a few murders, no murder is justified. Are you Willie Frazer by any chance WN, or do you just go to the same spec savers to get the orange tinted glasses?
“Several things should be borne in mind. Regardless of how poorly it is done, SF seem to be the only party at least attempting to break out of their own sectarian ghetto.”
Firstly, you have coined the term sectarian ghetto and then related Sinn Fein to it.
Secondly, it seems they want to come out of it because they have to but they want to do it in a way that blurs the boundaries of political ideology with that of grounds of individual human rights/equality legislation, in an attempt to cleanse their terrible past flawed philosopy of violent republicanism through a high temperature rights-driven washing machine.
Pounder, if you really believe that ‘no murder is justified’, I’m not sure what the argument is. Can there be any doubt that, as a Provo leader for almost *three* decades, Martin McGuinness has a lengthy tally of murders to his name? No, there cannot reasonably be any doubt about this (unless you think he was a British agent all the way through, and was thus trying incrementally to wind down the Provos through a softly-murder-softly strategy – I don’t, fyi, think this). So, we’ve agreed that murder is wrong (hardly a big leap), and we’ve further agreed that Martin is directly responsible for a great many many murders. *I* say that he ought – what with murder being ‘wrong’ – to be finally held to account for those murders, instead of, as is currently being the case, him being rewarded (with ministerial office) for seemingly promising to hold off murdering any more people. Now what’s the issue between us? Martin is a murderer – Martin ought to be held to account for having snuffed out so many innocent lives. Since you too know that murder is murder and horribly, monstrously wrong, what exactly is your objection to holding a murderer to account for having killed quite so many people?
Now you Pounder may well say some variation along the lines of, ‘sure but other people . . .’ – and here you may or may not say that Paisley, for example, spurred on people to murder. If he did, hold him too to account for it: I hold no brief for Paisley, considering him to be a bigoted fool, who has done Unionism throughout the UK more damage than any man alive. But already we, you and I Pounder, can agree that Paisley *didn’t*, unlike Martin, directly murder people himself (either personally, or by directly commanding the organisation doing the killing). So sure, go after Paisley too, if the case can be made to stick. But whataboutery apropos Paisley can surely hardly deflect us from Martin and his catalogue of bloodshed, and what must be the inevitable moral response?
And that last aspect is the key to this. Cheerleaders for the current dispensation are convinced that Martin (in their eyes, rightly) has ‘gotten away with it’. He hasn’t and he won’t. His victims will have justice, and at some point all of us will see Martin McGuinness paying the price for having murdered so many innocent people.
If you have proof that Martin McGuinness pulled any triggers by all means get in contact with the local PSNI.
The past happened, it was shit, but we all have to get over it and move on. Maybe a South African style Truth Comission would help.
Bottom line is there is now a country of our own to run, and if we spend all day arguing who did what to who the place will fall apart.
[I'm going to skate past that, "if you have proof Martin murdered people, call the police" balls - you blushed as you typed it, and there's no point in poking any fun at you over it]
How will the place ‘fall apart’ if we act on the assumption that murder is wrong? The only sense the place will ‘fall apart’ is if the people who were previously murdering innocent men, women and children (Martin for example, though of course he was hardly the only one) go back to murdering them. Which means that we enjoy ‘peace’ purely through courtesy of murderers not being held to account for having murdered people. Which of course we do. Who with eyes to see can’t realise that that’s precisely the current dispensation? I’m simply making two points in response to it: (1.) it’s wrong & (2.) it won’t last. McGuinness and the other murderers are currently living on borrowed free time. Call me an optimist, but I really don’t believe that you can commit the unspeakable crimes McGuinness for one pertinent example* did and expect to get away with it, world with end.
*And drones, the reason why Martin is the most concentrated upon murderer is not because he’s the *only* murderer, but because, as deputy first minister, he’s the best rewarded murderer.
“he’s the best rewarded murderer.”
Well apparently he only draws the industrial wage you know, son, which must be disproportionate to his stressful workload.
Whatever Next – the whole point of the GFA and the Peace Process was to bring the violence to an end. Martin McGuiness played a crucial role (especially important given his pedigree)in bringing peace.
Sinn Fein seem to be making an effort to engage peacefully – surely that’s a good thing ?
“Firstly, you have coined the term sectarian ghetto and then related Sinn Fein to it.”
No, I related politics here to sectarian ghettoes. Goes for SF as much as anyone else. The point remains the same – no one attracts any votes outside of their own communities, and that is a Bad Thing.
“Secondly, it seems they want to come out of it because they have to but they want to do it in a way that blurs the boundaries of political ideology with that of grounds of individual human rights/equality legislation, in an attempt to cleanse their terrible past flawed philosopy of violent republicanism through a high temperature rights-driven washing machine.”
They want to come out of it because they want a United Ireland and think gaining Protestant votes will move them closer. It’s irrelevant; the fact is they at least have the wit to do that, and in many ways self interest is a more reliable influence than altruism.
Dewi, there are 2 basic positions here:
a.) forget about Martin’s past, otherwise he’ll start murdering people again;
or
b.) remember Martin’s past and seek to hold him to account for it.
You’re free to hold position A. I’m the last person in the world who, because I disagree with a position you adopt, am liable to start trying to get you to change your mind by planting bombs and murdering people. But I hope you’ll understand why I’m going to stick to position B. McGuinness shouldn’t have murdered those people – he will be held to account.
Where you this negitive towards David Ervine being elected an MLA, WN?
Leaving to one side your usage of negative (I’m not, I’m positive – optimistic as I said earlier – that McGuinness will be brought to account for his crimes), I was repelled by Ervine’s cynical, sanctimonious guff, and resigned from the UUP when Empey gave him the whip.
I was one of the “Unionists engaged” by this process and facilitated the involvment of others as well. I got an invite to attend the launch but the more I experienced of this process the less worthwhile it seemed so I didn’t go. I’d probably still engage again if an opportunity came up but that would be more in forlorn hope than expectation of something genuine and productive.
A key problem is that those tasked with this are working within a very tight framework. Beyond the soft language, talk of understanding and acknowledgement there was usually a strict recitiation of present SF policy/position. If the process is the people involved need to be given more freedom to discuss issues.
Additionally, a motivation seemed to be about ‘educating’ Unionists about the republican experience as well as engaging Unionists. The two are not easy bed fellows.
There is also an over-selling. A proportion who have engaged have not found it a positive experience but SF pretty much presents all the engagements as positive. People don’t appreciate misrepresentation.
As regards the Charter is there anything in it that SF couldn’t have said at the beginning of this process? From the description of the attendees there aren’t any new or surprising faces. From this Charter and event it is hard to identify where new or shifted thinking in SF has come about or what fresh relationships have been seriously developed.
Did you feed that back to SF though, fd? That would seem to be the most valuable part of the process for any party trying to “engage”.
Having only read the summary above, the fundamental problem with the Shinner’s so-called outreach is it only promises the generalities of equal citizenship (which, of course, should be open to everyone) and not how Unionist history, symbolism and, more importantly, culture would be protected in a UI. In particular, the “outreach” singularly fails to demonstrate how a UI would guarantee to Unionists the right to express their “Irish” identity (i.e Irish-British and/or vice versa or however they want to define it)on their own terms. In this sense the “outreach” fails to do any such thing as it merely continues the SF republican misconception/fantasy that Unionists will simply wake up one day and realise their Unionism was a delusion and that they were Nationalists all along. Until SF starts addressing Unionists as Unionists and actually show that a UI could be a “warm house” for Unionists, symbolically and in substance, they’re dreaming.
Gonzo
“I think unionists will simply pick and choose. A cost-benefit analysis, if you will, weighing up the potential economic benefits against the cost to the Union.”
I suppose that’s the game we’re in now. The challenge, I think, for unionism, is simply that there is such a wealth of areas in which an all-island approach makes sense, and conversely, rather a dearth of sensible partitionist policy areas. The crunch point will come when unionists feel they’ve been doing rather too much cross-border co-operating, and start retreating to bad policies simply for the sake of being partitionist. Then things will get very interesting among, for example, unionism’s business class.
“But this isn’t really what the document is about.”
Indeed. Let’s forget about SF for a moment and talk about a much more broad programme of engagement between the broad republican tradition in Ireland (with the Irish government at its apex, and parties like FF and FG its point men) and the unionist tradition. I agree that Ahern is much better at this than Adams will ever be – Kensei has a point when he argues that he enjoys a degree of distance which makes it easier, but perhaps that’s the way it has to be? Distance allows perspective – something we aren’t ususally blessed with here. But that doesn’t change the fact that its parties like FF and FG who are far more likely to succeed in breaking down barriers with unionism than SF is.
If FF and FG were to organise in the north, do you think there’d be a chance they could win support from a section of what is today the unionist community?
Barnshee
Your argument was neither benign nor objectively desirable. Did you even read my post?
“But that doesn’t change the fact that its parties like FF and FG who are far more likely to succeed in breaking down barriers with unionism than SF is.”
The fact remains that internal barriers need broken down too. All them walls about aren’t going to be taken down by either FF or FG.