McCann, Donaldson, Farrell and the SAS
I have blogged previously about the attempt by Sinn Fein MLA Jennifer McCann to have an event to commemorate / celebrate Mairead Farrell under the disguise of International Women’s Day. Jeffrey Donaldson has proposed an event at Stormont to honour the SAS. On the DUP website he criticises the planned SF event and says of the planned DUP event: “However it is right and proper that we should celebrate and commemorate our armed forces who stood against terrorists such as Farrell. Many of these men and women gave their life to defend our democratic rights and oppose those who sought to take our rights away. I personally was inspired by our soldiers who stood against terrorism to the extent where I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment.
This initial event will be an opportunity to pay tribute to those SAS men and women who protected Northern Ireland from the evil hands of terrorists. But, over the coming months the DUP will be seeking to invite other representatives of the armed forces to Stormont where we can make presentations to former soldiers in admiration of their sacrifice for our Province.”
Dr. Paisley himself led a party delegation to see the speaker in order to try to stop the planned SF event which is now (according to the BBC) to be considered by the commission which runs events at Stormont.
Somewhat surprisingly, however, in the Belfast Telegraph it has been suggested that Jeffrey Donaldson will not proceed with his plan if SF calls off the Farrell celebration. This seems extremely foolish from the former UDR man as he could easily be perceived to be equating SF’s celebration of a convicted terrorist with that of an event to thank those who helped prevent terrorism. This possibility of some sort of “tit for tat” event and “tit for tat” withdrawal of events seems degrading to the memory and sacrifice of the security forces in their attempts to stop terrorists.
the SAS was not part of a legitimate democratic state: on the contrary, it was an instrument of an illegitimate terror state at least in relation to the citizens of nIreland
the SAS was not part of a legitimate democratic state: on the contrary, it was an instrument of an illegitimate terror state at least in relation to the citizens of nIreland
You’re just being silly now – I suspect there’s little point in arguing with you.
Just for the record, though: the UK was and is a legitimate and democratic state, as evidenced, for example, by its membership and leading role in many international organisations, the condition for membership of which is adherence to international democratic norms, etc.
LOL Willowfield
You are saying because other people percieve you to be a legitimate democratic state then you are one? I am sure the Chinese appreciate your point of view
nIreland arguably could be called a legitimate democratic state for perhaps a year or two but before that has never been or could even be argued that it was a democratic state
You are saying because other people percieve you to be a legitimate democratic state then you are one?
First, I am not a state, and therefore do not claim to be a “legitimate democratic state”: I am an individual human being.
Second, the UK is a legitimate democratic state because it adheres to democratic norms, and is formally recognised as such by the international community precisely because it adheres to those norms.
The USSR under Stalin, in contrast, was not recognised as a legitimate, democratic state and did not adhere to democratic norms.
I am sure the Chinese appreciate your point of view
Chinese appreciation or otherwise of my view is irrelevant.
nIreland arguably could be called a legitimate democratic state for perhaps a year or two but before that has never been or could even be argued that it was a democratic state
And your evidence for this wild assertion? (You’re not too hot at this are you?)
Steve to sum it up in 3 easy steps
1) read my post of 12.04am
2)then have a look at the relevant international laws
3) learn how to bake humble pie and eat large portions of it
As you put it yourself “You are saying because other people percieve you to be a legitimate democratic state then you are one?” – the reverse is equally true – NI doesn’t become illegitimate simply because you keep repeating the assertion ad infinitum…
nIreland arguably could be called a legitimate democratic state for perhaps a year or two but before that has never been or could even be argued that it was a democratic state
And your evidence for this wild assertion? (You’re not too hot at this are you?)
Posted by willowfield on Feb 27, 2008 @ 04:38 PM
The Northern State was made possible by trying to get the maximum number of protestants included in as much land as possible to create a viable entity where the protestant majority could control, or try and control. Nothing to do with democracy.
Anyway the English, Scots and Welsh want to get rid of you, just look at the Torygraph blogs, many say they have nothing in common with northern unionists, so if real democracy were to happen, I think the Brits would gladly vote to get rid of you lot tomorrow, given the chance. Even worse for you, they call you a bunch of Irish paddies, the worst insult possible for you. Not the paddy part of course.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/aug/21/northernireland.northernireland1
From its very creation after losing the island wide referendum nIreland has been nothing but the bastard child wet dream of protestant supremacists.
Who even now are trying to throw their dummy out of the pram because they have to be treated as equals to those nasty Taigs or do you deny the existence of the TUV
Willowfield, I suppose the poor gullible natives in Ulster invited the London Companies over to plant this country. Who gave the King/Queen of England any right to seize this country? That is what I mean by illegal occupation. As the English have always done – anything they covet, they steal by force of arms.
HEY JUDE
The Northern State was made possible by trying to get the maximum number of protestants included in as much land as possible to create a viable entity where the protestant majority could control, or try and control. Nothing to do with democracy.
Actually, that’s everything to do with democracy: it’s called self-determination … no different to what Irish nationalists wanted (trying to get the maximum number of Catholics included in as much land as possible to create a viable entity where the Catholic majority could control).
Anyway the English, Scots and Welsh want to get rid of you …
Even if that were true, it’s completely irrelevant: it doesn’t make Mairead Farrell’s attempted mass murder any less ghastly, and doesn’t make her a hero.
PANCHO’S HORSE
Who gave the King/Queen of England any right to seize this country?
The Pope.
That is what I mean by illegal occupation.
There was no “illegal occupation”. Northern Ireland has always been lawfully part of the UK.
Who gave the Pope the right? And do you ever wonder what was there before the ‘UK’? Northern Ireland, as you fondly call it, is not a country. It is a bit of a country. It is the largest bit of Ireland that the ‘British’ could safely hold and in doing so, the spoilt pets of mammy mainland sold out their brethren in the other three counties just as they will do again if the going gets tough. Hope YOU don’t live in Taigland – west of the Bann.
“Actually, that’s everything to do with democracy: it’s called self-determination … no different to what Irish nationalists wanted (trying to get the maximum number of Catholics included in as much land as possible to create a viable entity where the Catholic majority could control).”
Well, except that all 26 counties of what became the free state overwhelming supported independence. At the time of partition (and to this day) Fermanagh and Tyrone had nationalist majorities, the county councils voted for inclusion in the free state, and the orange authorities promptly abolished the councils and replaced it with puppet councils. And for about 50 years Derry city council, with a 75-80% nationalist majority, somehow managed to return unionist majorities on the council thanks to some nifty gerrymandering. If that is a defition of democracy and self-determination, perhaps that earlier reference to China was appropriate after all.
PANCHO
Who gave the Pope the right?
I guess all the believers in Christendom.
And do you ever wonder what was there before the ‘UK’?
No: I know what was there so I don’t wonder about it.
Northern Ireland, as you fondly call it, is not a country. It is a bit of a country.
And?
It is the largest bit of Ireland that the ‘British’ could safely hold and in doing so, the spoilt pets of mammy mainland sold out their brethren in the other three counties just as they will do again if the going gets tough. Hope YOU don’t live in Taigland – west of the Bann.
And the relevance of this is?
Take it this indicates you’ve conceded that you were talking nonsense?
DOCTOR
Well, except that all 26 counties of what became the free state overwhelming supported independence. At the time of partition (and to this day) Fermanagh and Tyrone had nationalist majorities, the county councils voted for inclusion in the free state, and the orange authorities promptly abolished the councils and replaced it with puppet councils.
So you accept that, in principle, partition was an exercise in democracy: you just disagree with the actual boundaries agreed upon? Me too.
What exactly would be your boundaries? If the boundaries accurately reflected demographics, “Northern Ireland” would consist of Antrim along with north county Derry, North Armagh, and North Down. I really wouldn’t have a problem with that because I doubt it would be able to sustain itself for long in such a truncated state.
Some amazing insights from Pancho and Steve – I’m impressed and humbled by their sheer logic.
Getting back to an earlier point you made you made Pancho about anyone who terrorises people being called terrorists, would you consider ASBOs out there as terrorists? Maybe some Alan Partridge Terrier-ists?!
I think Peter Brown covered my earlier points more coherently and articulate than i ever could. The centre of your arguments tend to depend on the denial of the Northern Ireland state; and when you build your argument about that basic fallacy then your in an uphill struggle.
But hey Panch – lets just debate the plantation of Ulster better than dealig with the 21st century and basic concepts of law and politics.
Some amazing insights from Pancho and Steve – I’m impressed and humbled by their sheer logic.
Getting back to an earlier point you made you made Pancho about anyone who terrorises people being called terrorists, would you considering ASBOs out there as terrorists? Ma
DOCTOR
What exactly would be your boundaries?
Whatever facilitated the largest number of people in total, either side of the border, while creating two contiguous jurisdictions.
If the boundaries accurately reflected demographics, “Northern Ireland” would consist of Antrim along with north county Derry, North Armagh, and North Down.
Most of county Down, apart from the very south would have been included – same with Armagh, plus most of Londonderry, and parts of Fermanagh and Tyrone.
Based on the location of Fermanagh, and to a lesser extent Tyrone, there would have to be some pretty creative map-drawing to ensure any part of it that remained Northern Irish was contiguous to the redrawn borders and not totally surrounded by the republic. Again in the case of Fermanagh, I’m not sure if there are readily identifiable unionist/nationalist areas that could be easily hived off, unlike Armagh, Down, and Derry.
Anyway, that is just our bit of alternative history speculation. However, our conversation does address the issue of the legitimacy of the state of Northern Ireland. Ignited, questioning the legitimacy of Northern Ireland is not a “basic fallacy” when there are serious questions to be answered about how that state was set up and what tactics were used to ensure the status quo. When unionist politicians constantly talk about the “people” of Northern Ireland preferring an entity called Northern Ireland linked to Britain, it only refers to one community while conveniently ignoring the wishes of a very large minority with very different beliefs. In large swathes of this “state”, the majority opinion is very much contrary to a unionist ethos. I honestly would find it hard to argue that a truncated Northern Ireland with an overwhelming unionist/protestant population should not be allowed to make its own choice about national allegiances. That’s not the Northern Ireland we have; instead we have one where Newry, Crossmaglen, Derry, and a host of other places are packed into a “country” to which they feel no allegience.
Willowfield,
“I’m afraid the above makes no sense to me. What about a reference to Omagh??”
The Omagh bombing and the SAS? I find it difficult to believe you have never come across the claim that this involved the SAS.
“With the rather significant difference between the two being that the SAS was and is a lawful and legitimate unit of the legitimate armed forces of a democratic and legitimate state; whereas the PIRA was an illegal and illegitimate terrorist organisation.”
Democracy is the bludgeoning of the minority by the majority, whether by unionists in the past and the present or by nationalists in their fantasy 50 +1 future. The whole point of a constitutional republic (which has been, sadly, lost along the way by most, especially those who claim most strenuously that they are “republican”) is that mob rule does not stamp on the rights of the minority.
By your logic a group who proposes a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing becomes a democratic, legitimate entity once the last body of the offending ethnic group has been thrown into the sea.
In a twisted sort of way you are giving credence to the most base ethno nationalists b1gots that have ever commented here.
DM
“Wilde Rover – the term was used for want of a better one. Perhaps ‘local militia commander’ would suit you better.”
Local militia commander would suit me better than insurgent because it reflects the fact that the individual you are referring to is engaged in legitimate resistance to an illegal occupation of his land by foreign armies.
“Semantics aside, the point remains.”
What is your point? You say the link I provided only has “according to reports.” Then you state what you imagine they were “more likely” to be doing.
What leads you to believe that the reports are unbelievable and what you believe is “more likely” is what really took place? Or is that just wishful thinking on your part?
What I said/supposed has as much basis in fact as what the report you linked to claimed. The point I’m making is you can no more back up your version of events than i can mine. Both versions of events are pretty much unsubstantiated – although of course in my defence there is a historical precedent for the SAS undertaking undercover operations to attack/kill terrorists/inurgents/whoever.
Doctor
Based on the location of Fermanagh, and to a lesser extent Tyrone, there would have to be some pretty creative map-drawing to ensure any part of it that remained Northern Irish was contiguous to the redrawn borders and not totally surrounded by the republic. Again in the case of Fermanagh, I’m not sure if there are readily identifiable unionist/nationalist areas that could be easily hived off, unlike Armagh, Down, and Derry.
Possibly, although south Tyrone/Clogher Valley, which is contiguous to both Armagh and Fermanagh, would have been a unionist-majority area.
However, our conversation does address the issue of the legitimacy of the state of Northern Ireland.
Indeed: you have conceded its legitimacy in principle.
Wilde Rover
The Omagh bombing and the SAS? I find it difficult to believe you have never come across the claim that this involved the SAS.
You think the SAS bombed Omagh? I suppose you think Prince Philip killed Princess Diana, too?
A car bomb in a market town: sounds like just the job for the SAS!
“With the rather significant difference between the two being that the SAS was and is a lawful and legitimate unit of the legitimate armed forces of a democratic and legitimate state; whereas the PIRA was an illegal and illegitimate terrorist organisation.”
Democracy is the bludgeoning of the minority by the majority…
So you don’t support democracy? What’s your alternative?
The whole point of a constitutional republic (which has been, sadly, lost along the way by most, especially those who claim most strenuously that they are “republican”) is that mob rule does not stamp on the rights of the minority.
The problem, though, is that even constitutional republics have to have borders.
By your logic a group who proposes a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing becomes a democratic, legitimate entity once the last body of the offending ethnic group has been thrown into the sea.
That’s not my logic at all. I haven’t promoted any kind of argument that could lead a rational person to that conclusion. You’re just being silly: clearly floundering in this argument.
In a twisted sort of way you are giving credence to the most base ethno nationalists b1gots that have ever commented here.
I’m not giving credence to bigots of any sort: far from it: hence my clear opposition and condemnation of ethno-nationalist groups such as PIRA (see above).
lads relax, we can take comfort from the fact that the irish ideal of freedom and irish nationalism as a whole has a level of worldwide support that unionism is no doubt very envious of (they won’t however admit to this), and those relics of britains colonial past will just have to content themselves with this knowledge…..nobody cheers for the schoolyard bully in a fight !
Willowfield, as a democrat, will you accept a vote of 50%+1 for re-unification?
As a supporter of the Belfast Agreement, how could I do otherwise?
Will you accept such a vote against “reunification” (as you put it)?
Willowfield, i never voted for the Good Friday Agreement so don’t feel it necessary for me to accept anything, it’s comforting to note that you as a good democrat will happily acquiesce once a vote of 50%+1 has been reached.
So you don’t accept or recognise the democratically-expressed will of the people who voted for the Belfast Agreement?
DM
“Both versions of events are pretty much unsubstantiated – although of course in my defence there is a historical precedent for the SAS undertaking undercover operations to attack/kill terrorists/inurgents/whoever.”
So they were there to kill the people who were opposed to their being there?
That’s a bit rich. It’s not as if they were there “to protect the unionist majority” in southern Iraq.
Willowfield,
“You think the SAS bombed Omagh?”
Actually, my bad. MI5, according to David Shayler.
“I suppose you think Prince Philip killed Princess Diana, too?”
I know nothing about that, and frankly I don’t care.
“So you don’t support democracy? What’s your alternative?”
A constitutional republic. You know, the reason why the electorate of the Republic of Ireland has to at least have referenda on important matters in Europe (even though they have to vote again if they get the answer wrong) and the British electorate is told to shut their traps.
“The problem, though, is that even constitutional republics have to have borders.”
Point taken.
“You’re just being silly: clearly floundering in this argument.”
Again, point taken. Wandering far from the argument.
A constitutional republic.
A constitutional republic is an alternative to democracy? Right.
You know, the reason why the electorate of the Republic of Ireland has to at least have referenda on important matters in Europe (even though they have to vote again if they get the answer wrong) and the British electorate is told to shut their traps.
So if the UK had a constitution and referendums, etc., your objections to NI would disappear? That’s an interesting view.
Well Wilde Rover you’ll note that I said that opens up a whole other can of worms, chief amongst which would be the legality of the occupation of Iraq.
What we were discussing was whether or not the SAS were going to blow up a marketplace full of civilians; I was presenting you with an alternative possibility which is, to my mind, more probable – I deliberately refrained from commenting on the legitimacy of said alternative because that’s a whole other argument in itself.
Willowfield :
I would hardly support something that i declined to approve?
I only accept the things i like contained therein.
I’m glad you accept the entirety the document and voted accordingly particularly The All-Ireland dimension.
Paul
I would hardly support something that i declined to approve?
I didn’t ask you about support: I asked did you not accept or recognise the will of the people?
Why did you not answer the question?
Willowfield
I do recognise the will of the people.
Willowfield
So based on your contention that nIreland is a legitimate state then if small enclaves of nIreland voted in the majority to leave nIreland then you would support their right to ?
It doesn’t follow that recognising somewhere as a legitimate state means that “small enclaves” should necessarily be permitted to secede.
Nonetheless, should people living along the border change their minds and decide they wished to replace the Belfast Agreement and go for repartition instead, I would indeed support that outcome: it would be self-determination in practice. I don’t think there’s much chance of that happening, though.
To clarify,
The above should read:
(even though they have to vote again if they get the answer “wrong”)
willowfield,
If British subjects were to decide to dump their monarchy and adopt a written constitution that would safeguard the rights of all citizens and ensure their liberty I would have no remaining objections.
As for the border, it wouldn’t matter to me where you drew a line across the island.
As it should be remembered, the issue of the “lost counties” was not really a factor when the Treaty was up for debate.
The oath was the deciding matter.
DM,
Admittedly, you did refrain from clouding the issue.
I accept the possibility that the link may not be accurate.
However, could I suggest that on the issue of the thread, specifically the dreaded commemorations, there really are no high horses for anyone.
Wilde Rover
If British subjects were to decide to dump their monarchy and adopt a written constitution that would safeguard the rights of all citizens and ensure their liberty I would have no remaining objections.
Strangely obscure position to hold, but fair enough, I guess.
What rights under the current constitutional arrangements, by the way, do you think are not safeguarded, and in what ways are people’s liberties not ensured?
“Indeed: you have conceded its legitimacy in principle.”
I have conceded the theoretical principle of the type of state I outlined in a previous post. One where there exists an overwhelming majority for a particular viewpoint within clearly defined borders. Northern Ireland in the real world doesn’t fit that criteria, where huge chunks of land were incorporated for no good reason apart from a land grab and against the wishes of the locals. Where “democracy” was subverted to uphold the values of one particular viewpoint.
I’m also not sure why small areas don’t necessarily have the right to secede from a state. From a nationalist standpoint, that’s pretty much what unionists did in the north. So why can’t areas in the north in turn secede.
Willowfield,
“Strangely obscure position to hold, but fair enough, I guess.”
The idea of liberty is strangely obscure?
“What rights under the current constitutional arrangements, by the way, do you think are not safeguarded, and in what ways are people’s liberties not ensured?”
The way things are going, all of them.
I’m also not sure why small areas don’t necessarily have the right to secede from a state.
I should think, generally, they do, but in many cases it would be impracticable.
From a nationalist standpoint, that’s pretty much what unionists did in the north.
And from a unionist standpoint, it’s what nationalists did in the south.
So why can’t areas in the north in turn secede.
The main reason is that they don’t want to.
Wilde Rover
The idea of liberty is strangely obscure?
Not at all.
The idea that one objects to Northern Ireland merely because it does not have a codified constitution is strangely obscure. I’ve never come across anyone whose sole objection comes down merely to such an obscure point.
The way things are going, all of them.
I’m afraid that answer is entirely uninstructive.
Perhaps you could explain how “all” rights are not safeguarded in the UK, and in what ways people’s liberties are not ensured?
Willowfield, do you accept that this island was seized by superior English imperialism and is still partly held thus against the wishes of the majority of this country? And none of your mercurial chameleon-like non answers that you trot out when you’re flummoxed.
Willowfield, do you accept that this island was seized by superior English imperialism and is still partly held thus against the wishes of the majority of this country?
“Seized by superior English imperialism” … what does that mean? Ireland was assigned to the (Norman) King of England in the 12th century, and until 1801 was recognised as part of the English (and later British) king’s domains. After 1801 it formed part of a single United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and, after 1949, part of it ceased to be under any kind of British jurisdiction, while the remainder stayed part of the UK. That is the legal position.
I’d say virtually all territories were at one time “seized” by a ruler, so what is the point and/or relevance of your question?
As for do I “accept” that Ireland “is still partly held thus against the wishes of the majority of this country”: no, I don’t think I do. The Republic of Ireland is an independent, sovereigh state, whereas Northern Ireland is part of the UK by virtue of the wishes of its inhabitants.
Naw, I still have trouble with ‘assigned’ and ‘recognised’ and ‘formed’ and ’1949′ and ‘legal, but you’re trying. Our beef is that our country was stolen from us by the superior English forces, we were beaten, and the defeat and theft still annoys us. See – another point of view!
“Who gave the King/Queen of England any right to seize this country? That is what I mean by illegal occupation.” Interesting Pancho, by that same token do you consider the United States, Australia, and Canada to also be under illegal occupation? When do we draw the line on when land was taken? Are the Highlands of Scotland under occupation from evil Irish land stealing immigrants? I always felt the whole “Orangies should fuck off home since my great great great great great great great great great grandpa was here before theirs was” is a bit odd.
Ah never mind, I just missed your last post, kinda sums it up a bit better.
Pancho
… I still have trouble with ‘assigned’ and ‘recognised’ and ‘formed’ and ‘1949’ and ‘legal …
Why?
Our beef is that our country was stolen from us by the superior English forces, we were beaten, and the defeat and theft still annoys us. See – another point of view!
Strange view. Who is “we”? Were you around in the 12th century? I think you need to develop a more sophisticated understanding of history.
I see you’re back to the brain withering one word put downs. Who ‘assigned’ Ireland to the Norman/English/German King? Is it still the Pope? Who recognised Ireland as the King’s posession etc.,etc. And even though I wasn’t here in the 12th century, my ancestors were. Unless I happen to be the illegitimate result of an English rape and pillage somewhere along the line.Theft means taking what doesn’t belong to you. Did Ireland belong to the King of England? Is that sophisticated enough for you? And I think you have to refer to a nation state if you’re talking about conquest and colonisation – which Ireland WAS.
Who ‘assigned’ Ireland to the Norman/English/German King? Is it still the Pope?
Of course: you can’t change history.
Who recognised Ireland as the King’s posession etc.,etc.
Everyone.
And even though I wasn’t here in the 12th century, my ancestors were.
How do you know? And so what?
Theft means taking what doesn’t belong to you. Did Ireland belong to the King of England?
I’ve already told you that the Pope gave authority of Ireland to Henry II.
And I think you have to refer to a nation state if you’re talking about conquest and colonisation – which Ireland WAS.
Ireland wasn’t a nation state in the 12th century!
Willowfield
Lets make it easy for you
A nation bel;ongs to its people
The nation of Ireland voted by referendum for independance
The fact that a small violent mob did not agree with this referendum does not confer on them the right to ignore the result
Ergo nIreland is an illegitimate state born out of british imperialism and terrorist activities of its minority citizens
If in your opinion it is right and proper that a minority of citizens using violence and implied violence can create a new entity then it only follows that a minority of the this new entity have the right by dint of violence and implied violence to destroy this same entity
By your acceptance of the right of unionists to form nIreland you have also legitimized any and all attempts of republicans to destroy it
It should have said
By your acceptance of the right of unionists to form nIreland by non-democratic means you have also legitimized any and all attempts of republicans to destroy it by non-democratic means