Foreign workers – the wrong type of Catholics, according to Sinn Fein MLA…
CATHOLIC workers from outside Northern Ireland should not be counted as Catholics, according to Sinn Fein’s Martina Anderson, since it apparently gives a false impression of the number of nationalists in employment. Whether this counts as racism, xenophobia or sectarianism I’ll leave it to the debate below, but it’s certainly clear that for this MLA, immigrants are not the right type of Catholics, since they are not (she assumes) Irish nationalists. I think this is pretty insulting to immigrant workers and many employers (and I’m sure that more than a handful of republicans and nationalists will take umbrage), but what is her solution? Since it would probably be silly or illegal to ask foreign Catholics to tick the ‘other’ religious box on their job application, as she suggests, what is her alternative? Should people seeking employment tick a box stating their political persuasion? And how would that help lessen discrimination, rather than increase it? It’s rare that Sinn Fein MLAs exhibit such a narrow view of the world these days, but – at a time when you could barely slip a cigarette paper between the employment gap separating the two main traditions in Northern Ireland – this is the kind of atavistic thinking you would be lucky to hear from the BNP these days. UPDATE: The Equality Commission and the DUP’s Gregory Campbell has weighed in (see below fold).Anderson said: “They should be categorised as having a background of ‘other’. Employers do not perceive migrant workers as belonging to the local nationalist or unionist communities and this is artificially inflating the Catholic/nationalist representation in the workforce, the bulk of whom are from Catholic countries. The same situation has arisen within the internal tracking systems of the PSNI making it difficult to track the true numbers of Catholics/nationalist applying or being appointed locally.”
So many assumptions, where does one start?
It’s bad enough having to reveal your religious identity when applying for a job here, but you should at least be allowed to express what that actually is. To have another religious identity imposed is bad enough, but for it to be regarded as meaningless is more than insulting.
Since Anderson really wants to know the number of Irish nationalists in the workforce, the only real alternative is to ask jobseekers to reveal their political beliefs on application forms.
Can anyone really see this ever happening?
UPDATE from the News Letter:
DUP MP Gregory Campbell said Sinn Fein was trying to obscure the true picture.
“If you take this issue of categorisation to its logical conclusion, it would mean that everyone not born here would have to be described as ‘others’ or ‘outsiders’ – it’s ludicrous.
“If people are coming to work here, they are part of the Northern Ireland community so you don’t continue to categorise them as outsiders or ‘others’ as this can make the situation worse.”
He said Sinn Fein had a problem with what the figures were showing.
“The figures show an emerging pattern which is Protestant under-representation in the workforce and this is a smokescreen to try and divert attention from the real issue, which is to address that under-representation which I and others have been highlighting for years now.”
Meanwhile, in the Irish News, Bob Collins, chief commissioner of the Equality Commission said any alteration would require legislative change.
However, he said new methods are under consideration.
“The data contained in the monitoring report is an accurate account of the returns given by all registered employers under the terms of the current legislation,” he said.
Now, now, Ratzinger fan. Always room for civility in ecumenical dialogue.
So, Sammy, do Anglicans call the host the Blessed Sacrament too? Who blesses it? I thought you guys didn’t go in for all that jiggery pokery. Or is it inherently blessed? And if so, at what point in the bread making process does it become blessed? Mixing? Adding of water? Baking? Or is the flour itself blessed?
Confusing.
middle-class ****:Always room for civility in ecumenical dialogue.
The best form of ecumenical dialogue of which I am aware, is praying for the unity of the Church at Mass.
So, Sammy, do Anglicans call the host the Blessed Sacrament too?
It all depends on the Anglican. The whole point of Anglicanism is diversity.
The Catechism of the Church of Ireland states that baptism and the Eucharist are the two sacraments and there are sacramental ministries of confirmation, holy matrimony, ordination, absolution and healing.
You might be interested in – http://www.cccdub.ie/dean/cofi/apck/protcath.html – not very theologically robust but it communicates the general idea behind the Church of Ireland quite well. Remember also that the C of I is, in general, really quite Protestant by the standards of world Anglicanism.
Who blesses it?
The priest, when he or she does the magic bits, er… sorry, presides over the Eucharistic Assembly at the celebration of Holy Communion. Who else?
Obviously attending mass, believing in God, taking communion or giving confession don’t make you catholic.
Shouting “Up the Ra” and hatin’ brit dirty brit bastards is what it’s all about.
boo hoo hoo 800 years of persecution
Sammy perhaps Martina would be in favour of doing away with the term Protestant and inserting the thousands of denominations in every application form to ensure that a Methodist doesn’t discriminate against Anglicans or Baptists,or that a Presbyterian doesn’t discriminate against free Presbyterians or non subscribing Presbyterians.
On second thoughts Martina “has lost the run of herself”
I hope not.
I’m all in favour of discriminating against Presbyterians!
“I’m all in favour of discriminating against Presbyterians!”
thought you might be you tractarian Puseyite
:0). I hope you choke on the caviar and vintage port that your sort live on , having filched the hard earned monies of the starving blackmouths to maintain your privileged ascendancy lifestyle.
Honestly, it’s Episcopalians like you that make me almost tolerate the Methodists….
still, we’ll have the last laugh on the day of judgment, though the secession synod Presbyterians will have a few squeakybum moments trying to explain their well-intetnioned but unwise departure from proper dogma- and as for the burghers, well..let’s pray for them.
Naturally the non-subscribers will be shown the door.
And people think sectarianism is just about Prods and taigs. WE haven;t even started on the real fight. Remember Orr!
wow…i wonder if that fat ginger king knew the problems he was gonna cause by feeding his carnal desires !
you tractarian Puseyite :0)
Puseyites tend to be more against the ‘ordination’ of women than Sammy Morse.
Remmember Orr whatt?
Darth,
Been digging. Do we remember this literalist loony?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orr_(theologian)
Or this rolled up trousered one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Orr_(poet);
Jaffa
thought you might be you tractarian Puseyite
Ah, now, pace Ratzo Fan, Pusey was fine for his time and place, but I’d be more a Westcottite or Keble-ite than anything else, being a firm supporter of women at the altar and men in bed. Or in modern terms, even a Tutuite.
Methodists are only lapsed Anglicans anyway and they’ll come back into the fold some day.
I’m sure that, come the day of judgement, God will forgive the Prodiban their sins, but he may have to wall you all off into a special section of heaven so you aren’t disturbed by the thought the rest of us are up there too…
I think Darth was talking about the latter James Orr, Jaffa.
actually I was talking about William Orr, United Irishman executively murdered by the Protestant Ascendancy in 1796 who went to the gallows at Carrickfergus with the declaration “I die in the true faith of a Presbyterian” and hence radicalised the community to such an extent that we turned out in 1798 as a result the Episcopalians learnewd a painful lesson about not antagonising us…..
..oops. too much eggnog
William was of course klled in 1797
“Ahem….”
“Most of the United Irish leadership and ideologues were born into Church of Ireland families; they became deists after 1790. This small part of the population – about 15% – included Wolfe Tone, Lord Edward Fitzgerald, Napper Tandy and Robert Emmet. While the United Irish had declared themselves to be non-sectarian from 1791, there were other liberal Protestants in the Irish Parliament who were also anti-sectarian and sought a more democratic franchise, such as Henry Grattan and John Curran.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_United_Irishmen
Jaffa / Liberachi / Up the NSPCI!
darth
Shouldn’t a true Orangeman be on the other side?!
You lot get rather scary when you start talking like this. It’s lucky youse have fenians to unite you.
Happy Christmas one and all.
MCT,
Quite right. We should be devoting ourselves to the more important questions – like who are the true inheritors of the executive authority of the first dail and which is the real Oglaigh na hEireann.
Merry Christmas yer arse!
Sammy Morse,
“Methodists are only lapsed Anglicans anyway and they’ll come back into the fold some day. ”
No Sammy there are far worse craetures out there than that. There are Independent Methodists. They are not likely to rejoin you lot; I know I married one.
“Most of the United Irish leadership and ideologues were born into Church of Ireland families;”
now liberachi, the treehugging nambypambies referred to would never have achieved anyhting had they not tapped into the resentment of the population which was at the rough end of the times. In the north, this meant a significant input from presbyterians in my area at least, as well as Donegal, Londonderry, Antrim and Down.
” Shouldn’t a true Orangeman be on the other side?!”
Actually , not necessarily gonzo. Take Drew Nelson, Cof I Grand secretary, had a family tradition of service in the yeomanry at the time. David Hume, Executive Officer, is a descendant of United men in Larne, and has done an enormous amount of work to revive the memory of James Orr the weaver poet referred to above.
On my mother’s side I’m connected to Henry Joy McCracken, and I have no problem with saying that the aims of the united men were progressive, which is why most of the survuving leaders became supporters of Pitt’s Union in later years, seeing in it the breaking of the Protestant ascendancy. Many Orange leaders bitterly opposed the Union. They were wrong, and if Orangeism hadn’t changed from 1798 it would have deservedly died out.
Orangeism has evolved to meet the challenges of the times- I would never have backed the leadership in the campaign to prevent the disestablishment of Sammy’s Church in the 19th century- and the Orange leadership learned from that mistake never to count us as makeweights in the reformed community
In 1898, when local nationalists attempted to “adopt” united irish heroine Betsy Gray into the campaign for Home Rule the descendants of the unitd men- now all staunch Unionists- would not hear of it.
“It’s lucky youse have fenians to unite you.
”
Amen!!!!
:0)
.. and even though Cromwell was unfortunately not sympathetic to God’s own people (us), he still had the right idea about Christmas-BAN IT
Darth,
Was Henry Joy McCracken and indeed were some of the other leaders Unitarians? I once heard Paisley claim that but have not heard it elsewhere.
McCracken wasn’t actually much of a believer himself, but many of the leaders were certainly “new licht”- less adherent to the Westminster Confession
Thanks for that darth. I would wish you a Happy Christmas but in view of your previous post maybe you would rather be wished a Dour Christmas or none at all.
darth
I must admit to being terribly fascinated but not awfully well read on all of this, so thanks for your considered answer despite my somewhat facetious question.
I would be interested in finding literature that delves into how many Presbyterian families of Scottish descent once aligned themselves with Irish republicans, but evolved into the staunchest defenders of the Crown.
Regardless, does the experience of past treatment by the Crown not illustrate how conditional the loyalty of Northern Ireland’s current unionists actually is? What puzzles me is the unwavering loyalty of people like yourself to a State that consistently shows little understanding of or sympathy towards them.
If unionism’s loyalty is conditional, why do you remain so?
Will Tony Blair count, Martina?