[This is taken from A Note from the Next Door Neighbours, the monthly e-bulletin of Andy Pollak, Director of the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh and Dublin]
Billy Tate is one of the unsung heroes of cross-border and cross-community cooperation in Northern Ireland. This Ulster Unionist Party member and former soldier in the Royal Artillery is the principal of Belvoir Park Primary School, on the edge of an overwhelmingly Protestant working class housing estate in south-east Belfast. After trying hard – and failing – some years ago to attract a local Catholic school to twin with his school, he went south and forged a partnership with Scoil Mhuire National School in Howth, County Dublin, through the ICT-based Dissolving Boundaries project. Both schools have since been to Áras an Uachtaráin together to see President McAleese.
But that was not enough for this extraordinarily outward looking school principal. Belvoir Park has adopted an ‘international policy’, and has moved since 2004 from being a ‘single identity’ school in an estate once perceived as a ‘no go’ area for Catholics to one which boasts children from Nigeria, Poland, Lithuania, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India and South America.
Meanwhile Billy Tate’s outreach to the island of Ireland and its culture has continued. First he introduced Irish traditional music and dancing into the school. Then some of the children asked if they could try their hand at gaelic games. He turned for assistance to two visionary secondary principals, P.J. O’Grady of St Patrick’s College, Bearnageeha in Catholic north Belfast and Andy McMorran of Ashfield Boys High School in Protestant east Belfast, who had come together in a mould-breaking initiative to play hurling and shinty together (see below). GAA coaches from Tyrone and the Bredagh club in south Belfast coached the Belvoir Park children in gaelic football and hurling, and in their first hurling tournament they won one game and drew two.
“We see sport as a bridge-builder”, says Tate. “There is something profound about watching children in Rangers or Linfield shirts playing gaelic games, and it points to a new future in Northern Ireland for everyone.” He is pretty sure this is the first time that gaelic games have been played in a controlled (i.e. largely Protestant) primary school anywhere in Belfast, and probably in Northern Ireland. His hope is that it will begin to make the GAA “more accessible and welcoming to the Protestant community” and that Catholic schools will start to embrace his beloved rugby in the same spirit.
The GAA is already responding. Two years ago the first sporting contacts had been initiated between Ashfield High and St Patrick’s Bearnageeha. Last year this led, under the guidance of the Ulster Council’s community development manager, Ryan Feeney, to five boys from each school, plus five more from Corpus Christi College in Ballymurphy in Catholic west Belfast and the Boys Model School on the Protestant Crumlin Road, forming a squad which went to Inverness in Scotland to play in an under-16 shinty tournament there (for those not in the know, shinty is a close Scottish relation of hurling).
This month marked two more landmarks in this extraordinary experiment in peacebuilding through sport. On 3rd July a Scottish under-16 shinty team played a return match against the new cross-community team, Belfast Cúchullains, in front of an invited audience (including senior officials from the Ulster-Scots Agency and Ulster Unionist Party, SDLP and Sinn Fein politicians) on the playing fields of Stormont. On the 18th the team crossed the Atlantic to play challenge matches in New York and Washington, before going to Philadelphia for the GAA’s Intercontinental Youth Games, which bring teams together from North America, Britain, Europe and Ireland every year.
The Ulster Council has now started to formulate ambitious plans to have a cross-community hurling team in every large town in Northern Ireland and the three Southern border counties. Last autumn saw the then DUP Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Edwin Poots, visiting Newry for a McKenna Cup football match between Down and Donegal, and one of the North’s most senior Orangemen in Croke Park for the all-Ireland hurling final, both as guests of the GAA (I have been asked not to use the second man’s name, since he has been publicly vilified for his attendance – a remnant of the bad old Northern Ireland!). One wonders how long it will be before a courageous young man from the Shankill Road or the Newtownards Road (for the four pioneering schools in this initiative draw most of their pupils from Belfast’s working class heartlands) joins him on the pitch there. Not too long, I hope.
Andy Pollak
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
These are the accusations which you made against me and refused either to retract or back up (all on the “The Irish Language, a story of non-communication” thread:
Jul 07, 2008 @ 10:07 AM
“Yet I note how you would condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision.”
Jul 07, 2008 @ 01:26 PM
“You are obviously morally ambivalent on the question of the use of violence….”
Jul 07, 2008 @ 02:16 PM
“you are generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with your own.”
Jul 08, 2008 @ 11:18 AM
“According to you, then, State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime.”
These statements are all lies.
Incidentally, Concubhar, I had the misfortune of watching the Gaelic tv channel (TnaG?) on Saturday night … a misfortune not because it was broadcasting in Gaelic, but because it was broadcasting the dreadful film “Splash” with Tom Hanks … in English! (Not even any Gaelic subtitles – and all the ads bar one were in English with no subtitles!)
No wonder so many people say they have watched the channel … it broadcasts in English!
This is your 9:48pm post. An admission, it seems to me, that you watched Splash, followed by an attack on TG4.
Yet at 5:45pm you claim: So would I, but I don’t know of anyone who did that.
It seems to me that there’s some sort of dementia at work here. Which would explain your attempt at re running a debate which we’ve already had and in which your double standards have been shown clearly. I’m not going there. The record stands.
I have only pointed out to you to refrain from calling me dishonest because I am posting under my own name. You, on the other hand, are using a pseudonym. That places Slugger at risk while you carry on your libellous and ad hominem attacks.
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
Pal, your sophistry is too obvious.
You referred to “someone who watched Splash on TG4 in order to get some material to attack the Irish language station and, no doubt, the Irish language”.
I watched “Splash” – as I already said earlier! – but not “in order to get some material to attack the Irish language station and, no doubt, the Irish language”. I watched it because I was stuck in the in-laws’ and they happened upon it while flicking through all the crap on Sky.
So – incredibly – we have another example of your dishonesty in the above post!
clearly. I’m not going there. The record stands.
I have only pointed out to you to refrain from calling me dishonest because I am posting under my own name. You, on the other hand, are using a pseudonym. That places Slugger at risk while you carry on your libellous and ad hominem attacks.
As I said, you can’t libel someone with the truth. The truth is that you made unfounded allegations about me and refused either to back them up or withdraw them. That makes you a dishonest person.
It’s the truth, and you know it – you just lack the integrity to put your hands up and apologise.
This is a post of yours on which I based some of my assertions which you quote above:
“Dr Ard Macha
[Dr AM] So it was NOT okay to impose the partition of Ireland on the
Nationalist population – particularly those in the six Counties in 1921?
[WF] When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the
right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to
prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.
[Dr AM] It was the creation of an artifical Unionist majority in North
Eastern part of Ireland.
[WF]No, it wasn’t. Unionists WERE a majority in the north-eastern part of
Ireland. Go and examine the election results of the time.
[Dr AM] If a situation like this was imposed in any other country in the
world there would be armed resistance.
[WF] That’s an unprovable claim. If there were armed resistance it would be
wrong. Peoples’ right to self-determination must be upheld.
willowfield on March 4, 2004 12:54 PM
This clearly shows that you’re for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends. So I think that proves the point I was making. Now if you want to go to court and defend that against me, no problem. Post under your own name….go on, go for it! Be a man! Other wise a poster who posts while cowering behind a pseudonym has no integrity…..
I don’t care if you were stuck at your in laws and had to watch Splash. You watched it and then used it to launch your attack. Gee, if only I had a satellite linked to my computer which could track your every move because I could give a damn!
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
This clearly shows that you’re for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends.
It doesn’t show that, clearly or otherwise, and you have not even attempting to put forward an argument as to how it does.
So I think that proves the point I was making.
Quite the opposite: you have simply repeated previous misrepresentations of my views, not backed up by any evidence or even argument.
I don’t care if you were stuck at your in laws and had to watch Splash. You watched it and then used it to launch your attack.
Of course I watched it – but you alleged that the reason I watched it was in order to get material to attack the Gaelic language. That is untrue, and the fact that you repeat the allegation after I have made it abundantly clear why I watched the film, merely reinforces your dishonesty.
And I didn’t launch any attack on the Gaelic language, I launched an “attack” (as you put it) on your interpretation of statistics in respect of TG4. More dishonesty on your part in misrepresenting my posts.
Shame on you. Your dishonesty gets worse with every post.
My posts represented your views – you don’t agree with the representations even though they are the logical outcome of what you said. You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time. What’s dishonest about that? Isn’t that what you’re saying? How is anything I have said misrepresenting you?
You watched a TV film and then launched an attack. It’s simple. If it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, then in all probability it is a duck.
The fact is that my claims re the TG4 viewership are based on actual Nielsen figures in the south and the Millward Brown figures in the north. I, of course, can’t discount the possibility that large numbers of sad people were forced to watch English language films like Splash while held hostage by their in-laws. I apologise for overlooking this possibility….
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
My posts represented your views
No they don’t – that’s the whole point – you deliberately MISREPRESENTED my views and twisted them into very serious allegations.
- you don’t agree with the representations even though they are the logical outcome of what you said.
I don’t believe you are a stupid person, so I do not see how you can actually think that what you have quoted leads to the logical outcome of those horrid accusations. No intelligent person could argue that because somebody considers the threat of the use of violence in one set of circumstances to be just, therefore he must also believe that the threat of or actual use of violence in other set of circumstances must be just.
You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time. What’s dishonest about that?
I considered the threat of violence by unionists in 1914, given the particular circumstances pertaining at that time, to be just. It does not follow from that that I consider a threat, or actual use, of violence by unionists in other circumstances must be just. That’s poppycock. Sophistry at its worst.
I also consider the corresponding threat by nationalists to have been just. And I also consider many other threats of (and actual uses of) violence to have been just, and many more others not to have been so.
So how does that mean that I’m “for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends”? For a start, I wasn’t alive in 1914, so how could it have been for my ends? Secondly, assuming I would have been a unionist in 1914, how would the threat of nationalist violence have coincided with my ends?
Isn’t that what you’re saying?
No. I’ve said nothing of the sort. In fact, on the very thread in which you hurled your accusations against me, there was a long discussion about the very narrow and limited circumstances in which I believe violence to be just. I actually demonstrated the opposite of what you alleged – my starting point is that violence is wrong, and can only be justified in certain circumstances. I also categorically stated opposition to violence by “loyalists” in recent years (yet you alleged that I supported it) and opposition to violence in the event of a vote in favour of a “united Ireland” (yet you alleged the very opposite).
How is anything I have said misrepresenting you?
On Jul 07, 2008 @ 10:07 AM you said “Yet I note how you would condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision.”
- I never condoned anything of the sort and actually expressly stated the opposite view.
On Jul 07, 2008 @ 01:26 PM you said “You are obviously morally ambivalent on the question of the use of violence….”
- Yet I have clearly posted my position on violence, my general opposition to it, and the particular criteria which must apply in order for it to be justified.
On Jul 07, 2008 @ 02:16 PM you said “you are generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with your own.”
- Yet I never said or implied anything of the sort and, in fact, presented my position as quite the opposite.
On Jul 08, 2008 @ 11:18 AM you said “According to you, then, State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime.”
- Yet I never made any such claim or anything remotely like it.
I suggest that you now retract all these allegations.
You watched a TV film and then launched an attack. It’s simple. If it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, then in all probability it is a duck.
More sophistry:
1. I never denied watching a TV film – on the contrary, I expressly stated that I did so.
2. You alleged that the reason I watched it was to launch an attack on the Gaelic language.
3. That was not the reason that I watched it, as I have stated.
4. I didn’t launch an attack on the Gaelic language, I merely questioned your use of statistics based on my experience of TG4.
The fact is that my claims re the TG4 viewership are based on actual Nielsen figures in the south and the Millward Brown figures in the north.
I know they are: it’s not the figures I dispute – it’s your interpretation of them that I question.
I, of course, can’t discount the possibility that large numbers of sad people were forced to watch English language films like Splash while held hostage by their in-laws. I apologise for overlooking this possibility….
You admit, then, that many of those who answered that they had watched TG4 may have been watching English-language broadcasting and, therefore, it does not follow that all those who said they watched TG4 are fluent Gaelic-speakers?
You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time.
Complete lie. At no time did I ever approve of the use of violence in opposition to a “united Ireland” “in 1918 or at any other time”. My comments related solely to the threat of violence in 1913-14.
The comments made by you and quoted in my 7:26 post related to the period post the 1918 General Election in which an overwhelming majority of voters in Ireland voted for SF, a party which advocated a United Ireland. Thus, by your own logic, those who opposed the democratic will of the people by threat of force, which you appear to support, were as wrong as the IRA were in the more recent Troubles. So whether you say now that you’re for violence in 1913/14 but not in 1921 or 1918 is of no difference – it’s merely a question of timing.
As for your bizarre comment re television viewing, the Millward Brown figures clearly demonstrate that those who were watching TG4 in the north approved of and liked the Irish language programmes made in the north under the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, the body which commissioned the survey which was carried out by Millward Brown, a respected independent market research company. So I deduce from that they weren’t talking about the English language programmes on TG4. The survey makes that distinction.
[Of course there is the possibility that the same people compelled to watch the English language films on TG4 - and I can't imagine a fate worse than Splash on a Saturday night - may have been forced to register their approval of TG4 to market research surveyors who happened to phone during their incarceration. What are the chances?]
To willowfield – I wouldn’t waste too much time debating with this Con O L character. He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads – perhaps he could clarify again. He rejects the NI flag at GAA matches because of some of the groups which used it yet has no problem with the flag of Eire – used by SF PIRA. It says a lot about BBC NI that they have got him to do articles about Northern Ireland in the past. He says he doesn’t vote for ‘Sinn Fein’, but given his posts, who does he support? It seems he likes to criticise everyone but can’t take any criticism.
To Con O L – If you really want Unionists to take the Irish Language seriously, people like yourself should take a back seat. You do it a great disservice.
Coming from you, Peace and Justice, that’s great encouragement. Sinn Féin doesn’t need supporters when it has the likes of you to promote the reasons to vote for the party. Every word you utter is as good as a vote for SF. If I were a SF voter, I’d be delighted. When United Ireland comes, we’ll have you to thank for it!
I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your efforts…and whenever I entertain doubts about my support for the Irish language, I will think of your words and say, that’s the way to go. If Peace and Justice is on the other side, I’m doing the right thing!
‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’
What on earth does that mean??????????
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
The comments made by you and quoted in my 7:26 post related to the period post the 1918 General Election in which an overwhelming majority of voters in Ireland voted for SF, a party which advocated a United Ireland.
It doesn’t matter to when they related – I never said I approved of unionist violence in 1918, nor at any time, in fact. And I certainly neither said nor implied that I supported it “at any other time”. You deliberately misrepresented my views – and persisted in doing so, even after I made it clear to you that you were wrong.
Thus, by your own logic, those who opposed the democratic will of the people by threat of force, which you appear to support, were as wrong as the IRA were in the more recent Troubles.
That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. And I have made that clear in previous discussions, yet you deliberately ignore this and misrepresent my views. Shame on you.
You’re arguing that because I have said that the threat of violence in one set of particular circumstances is just therefore I support the actual use of violence in another set of circumstances. That is a logical fallacy. I don’t believe you lack the intelligence to understand this, so I ask myself – why are you being so dishonest? Do you lack self-confidence?
Now retract your allegations, please, or back them up:
When or how did I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”? Back up or retract.
When or how did I express “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”, given my long exposition on the morality of violence? Back up or retract.
When or how did I say that I was “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”? Back up or retract.
When did I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”?
You owe me a big apology. Be a man and have the integrity to apologise.
As for your bizarre comment re television viewing, the Millward Brown figures clearly demonstrate that those who were watching TG4 in the north approved of and liked the Irish language programmes made in the north under the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, the body which commissioned the survey which was carried out by Millward Brown, a respected independent market research company. So I deduce from that they weren’t talking about the English language programmes on TG4. The survey makes that distinction.
You didn’t make that clear.
I owe you nothing. What you’ve said in your previous posts makes it clear that you support the use of violence in particular circumstances. After that every objection you raise from the logical conclusions of reasonable people come to arising from your statements is pedantic.
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
The sophistry gets worse.
What you’ve said in your previous posts makes it clear that you support the use of violence in particular circumstances.
Of course I support it in particular circumstances! Other than pacifists, who doesn’t?
That is the whole point – I only accept that violence is justified in particular circumstances – and very clear and narrow ones, at that – yet you said that I:
- “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision” … despite the fact that I stated the OPPOSITE.
- expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence” – despite the fact that I set out a clear, moral position under which I only accept the use of violence in very particular circumstances (which you now acknowledge!);
- am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own” – despite the fact that I set out a clear, moral position under which I only accept the use of violence in very particular circumstances (which you now acknowledge!);
- say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime” – despite the fact that I expressed opposition to such death squads.
None of those are true. All are lies. Therefore you have a moral obligation to retract and apologise.
After that every objection you raise from the logical conclusions of reasonable people come to arising from your statements is pedantic.
I’m now beginning to think that perhaps you are stupid. There is no logic in your “reasoning” – you deduce that because I acknowledge the threat of violence in circumstance A is justified, therefore I support the use of violence in circumstances B, C and D. A total fallacy which you have failed to address.
You owe me an apology – you are deliberately misrepresenting my views and continuing to do so.
Now the ad hominem attack intensifies. I refuse to engage any further with you. You are nothing but a coward who hides behind a nom de plume to engage in trollery. And you support the use of violence for political ends. Your objections to this being pointed to you are pedantic.
To Con O L – can you clarify your attitude to Sinn Fein PIRA violence during the recent ‘Troubles’?
I am against all forms of violence. I am a complete pacifist. I regard violence by the IRA as illegitimate as violence by the British and Unionists.
Can you clarify your attitude to unionist violence? Or is your Peace and Justice nom de plume simply a false flag?
‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’
Again ask what the f**k does that mean P&J;?
Cnocubhair,
I think it is interesting that you, who has a pacifist have taken a stand againist all violence seem to draw the fire of a section of unionist commentators here.
It is an interesting take on pacifism itself, what would Gandhi do I wonders?
Frankly, I think your stringent defence of Irish has probably marked you out here.
I reminds me of a story a colleague told me about being asked to address an Alliance Party on reconcilation, representing Irish speakers, he himself disavowed violence. He was flanked at either side by a Loyalist ‘lifer’ and on the other by a Republican ‘lifer’.
He said to me that he walked away amazed by the experience (yet the same buck is a match for anyone) as he took more direct attacks that both of the others who had been involved in taking life.
Has not this thread long strayed from its subject matter and away from any value, its purpose now only to besmerch our cherished CLG?
You’re right of course, GGN. However the only reason I have prolonged my engagement here is to defend myself against a baseless charge of dishonesty levelled against me by the cowardly poster, WIlliowfield. I won’t take such a charge from anyone, especially when I am basing my stance, that WIllowfield supports violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with his own, on Willowfield’s own words. See the post at 7.26 on July 21st above. Also see post number 15.
He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence.
Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the
right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to
prevent such an imposition by force if necessary. Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance. That to me is no different to what the IRA did since 1970. He wants me to say, in effect, that some violence is better than others, the gangs he supports are better than the gangs he assumes wrongly I support.
And then he has a pop at the Irish language, just because he went to his in-laws and, listen to this, had to watch an English language film, Splash, on TG4 on Saturday night.
He’s a tulip alright. Sin é mo scéal…..
COL,
Bhál, tuigeann muid go rímhaith nach bhfuil go léir airgead ag TG4 fá láthair, fadhb le réiteach dar ndóigh!
Idir an dá linn beidh orainn amharc ar stuif as na hochtoidí agus mar sin.
COL,
Bhál, tuigeann muid go rímhaith nach bhfuil go léir airgead ag TG4 fá láthair, fadhb le réiteach dar ndóigh!
Idir an dá linn beidh orainn amharc ar stuif as na hochtoidí agus mar sin.
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
Now the ad hominem attack intensifies.
YOU’RE the one making serious, unfounded allegations against me and you complain about an “ad hominem attack”. You, sir, are the coward. It is cowardly to make accusations about people and then run away when asked to back them up or retract them. Shame on you.
And you support the use of violence for political ends. Your objections to this being pointed to you are pedantic.
It is naked sophistry to “deduce” that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances. You refuse even to address this basic failing in your “logic”: how revealing of your mindset.
I am against all forms of violence. I am a complete pacifist. I regard violence by the IRA as illegitimate as violence by the British and Unionists.
He legitimises PIRA and “loyalist” terrorism with this position. Also, by his logic, the apprehension by force of a suicide bomber is equally as illegitimate an act as the suicide bomb itself. The Soviet counter-offensive against the Nazis was equally as illegitimate as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. A ludicrous position.
… the only reason I have prolonged my engagement here is to defend myself against a baseless charge of dishonesty levelled against me by the cowardly poster, WIlliowfield.
Baseless??? I’ve quoted the dishonest statements that you have made, FFS! None of them is true and you have resorted to childish sophistry in a pathetic attempt to defend yourself.
WIllowfield supports violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with his own, on Willowfield’s own words.
Dirty, dirty lies – I have never said that. Shameful, disgraceful conduct.
See the post at 7.26 on July 21st above. Also see post number 15.
In neither post did I say that I “support violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”. You’re a liar. Clear for all to see.
He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.
And? Opposing violence in opposition to the democratic will means opposing nationalist, or any other, violence in opposition to the democratic will. No-one has the right to impose their will against the wishes of another people: that applies to nationalists as well. Nationalists aren’t immune from general principles of morality and democracy.
Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance.
Oh FFS, you know very well that unionists were an overwhelming majority in what became NI. This has been explained to you before. No-one’s arguing that the whole of Ireland should have been kept by force within the UK!
He wants me to say, in effect, that some violence is better than others, the gangs he supports are better than the gangs he assumes wrongly I support.
Lies.
And then he has a pop at the Irish language, just because he went to his in-laws and, listen to this, had to watch an English language film, Splash, on TG4 on Saturday night.
More lies. I never “had a go at the Irish language”.
Hang your head in shame, Concubhar the Dishonest. You haven’t an ounce of integrity.
GGN
I think it is interesting that you, who has a pacifist have taken a stand againist all violence seem to draw the fire of a section of unionist commentators here.
It’s his misrepresentation and accusations against me which have “drawn my fire” – nothing to do with his “pacifism”.
To Con O L – See my earlier posts on this topic i.e. “I don’t and never have supported any form of terrorism. It’s a pity that many of the Pan-Nationalist posters on Slugger can’t say the same.”
Con O L – “I am a complete pacifist.”
Is this another Joke of the Day?
RepublicanStones – “What on earth does that mean?” [‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’]
The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.
This is becoming Gothic in its absurdity.
Here you go again: These are your words: He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.
And? Opposing violence in opposition to the democratic will means opposing nationalist, or any other, violence in opposition to the democratic will. No-one has the right to impose their will against the wishes of another people: that applies to nationalists as well. Nationalists aren’t immune from general principles of morality and democracy.
neither are unionists – except between the hours of 0.01am and 12pm, when anything goes it seems as then they are free to oppose the majority will of the people, by force if they consider it necessary.
Correct me if I’m wrong but up to the Government of Ireland Act which was passed in 1921, Ireland was united in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland did NOT exist.
So then your response [in italics] to my statement: Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance.
Oh FFS, [don't get het up now, it's not good for you] you know very well that unionists were an overwhelming majority in what became NI. This has been explained to you before. No-one’s arguing that the whole of Ireland should have been kept by force within the UK!.
As I pointed out to you on a previous thread substantial areas of ‘what was to become NI’ voted SF or nationalist in 1918, including Derry, Belfast (Falls), South Down, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone Yet they were kept by ‘force’ within the UK. And, perhaps not surprisingly, it was these areas which became the hotbed of militant republicanism in later years. They will be glad to be able to rely on your rationale to resort to violence. And after all they believed that sooner or later that their violence would lead to United Ireland. Using your arguments precisely and in every detail.
I will leave it for others to judge whether you attacked the Irish language. I believe you did. You most certainly attacked TG4.
I am a pacifist, P&J;, but I believe your use of Peace and Justice as a nom de plume to be either ironic or hypocritical.
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
neither are unionists
Of course they’re not. I have never claimed that they are!
Correct me if I’m wrong but up to the Government of Ireland Act which was passed in 1921, Ireland was united in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland did NOT exist.
And?
As I pointed out to you on a previous thread substantial areas of ‘what was to become NI’ voted SF or nationalist in 1918, including Derry, Belfast (Falls), South Down, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone
Indeed – and I responded to you. Unlike you, I have the courtesy to respond when people engage in discussion.
Yet they were kept by ‘force’ within the UK.
The border was crudely drawn. But the issue about where the border should have been drawn is mere detail. It doesn’t alter the issue of principle.
(I also remember pointing out your hypocrisy in bemoaning the fact that some nationalists were included in NI against their will while at the same time advocating that even larger numbers of unionists – indeed, the entire unionist people – should have been included in an all-Ireland state against their will!)
And, perhaps not surprisingly, it was these areas which became the hotbed of militant republicanism in later years. They will be glad to be able to rely on your rationale to resort to violence.
It’s not “my rationale”: I merely subscribe to basic principles of ethics and democracy, handed down to us through centuries of philosophical thought. And under those principles of just war, the PIRA terror campaign cannot be justified. Sorry if that disappoints you – I know how you like to legitimise both it and the “loyalist” campaigns.
And after all they believed that sooner or later that their violence would lead to United Ireland. Using your arguments precisely and in every detail.
I have never argued that “believing that sooner or later violence would lead to a united Ireland (or anything else)” is a justification for violence. You’re lying again. Quite a preposterous claim.
I will leave it for others to judge whether you attacked the Irish language. I believe you did. You most certainly attacked TG4.
I attacked neither the Gaelic language nor TG4 (except for broadcasting a truly dreadful film). I “attacked” your interpretation of statistics relating to TG4.
Anyway, none of the above addresses your lies and sophistry. You still haven’t addressed your fallacious logic in “deducing” that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances. This appears to be your only “defence”. Completely ludicrous.
Whooooossshhh
And the thread gets frustrated by yet another Willowfield pedantic cat and mouse chase.
Holy fuck, it´s like spending six hours having teeth pulled at the dentist.
‘The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.’
Like what?
“‘The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.’”
Have to say that has me stumped also.
I would like examples of the ‘language of violence and division’.
“I would like examples of the ‘language of violence and division’
Pan Nationalist Front?
I only wish PJ would explain what he means when he uses this phrase.
As willowfield has said to the Con, “the PIRA terror campaign cannot be justified. Sorry if that disappoints you – I know how you like to legitimise .. it”. It’s a joke for the Con to say he’s a pacifist.
To Paul McMahon – I’ve already stated in an earlier post:
In the context of this discussion about the GAA, we get one Pan-Nationalist voice i.e. there is no need to change, it’s fine to glorify Sinn Fein PIRA death squad members, Unionists should be prepared to attend games in stadiums named after people who murdered their kith and kin etc.
Are the SDLP still afraid they will get physically attacked by the Sinn Fein PIRA gang? With a few exceptions, there has been one Pan-Nationalist Front when it comes to the GAA glorifying murderers.
“To Paul McMahon – I’ve already stated in an earlier post”
Sorry I wasn´t there for the explanation PJ, could you either re-state the definition or point me in the direction of the earlier post?
“Are the SDLP still afraid they will get physically attacked by the Sinn Fein PIRA gang”?
Can I take it from this that the SDLP are excluded from this PNF that you speak of?
Can I take it from this that the SDLP are excluded from this PNF that you speak of?
I think you can take it that P&J;believes any one who supports a GAA club, county, even the PSNI GAA footballers, in effect is supporting ‘terrorism’, murder etc….ad nauseam.
Explain your “logic”, Oh Dishonest One:
How does it follow that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances.
Oh Tiresome Troll
That’s not what I’m saying. You say, as far as I can decipher, that it was ok for unionists to resist by force the imposition of a United Ireland in 1913/14, 1918/1921 (delete as applicable). You say,as far as I can decipher, that’s ok because they were the majority in what was ‘to become NI’.
These are, I believe, the circumstances which you support political violence. Now it’s not hard to see how someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use. ie the IRA post 1970 and on.
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
That’s not what I’m saying.
Yes it is.
You say, as far as I can decipher, that it was ok for unionists to resist by force the imposition of a United Ireland in 1913/14, 1918/1921 (delete as applicable). You say,as far as I can decipher, that’s ok because they were the majority in what was ‘to become NI’.
First, that is not quite what I say. What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north, then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary.
Second, every people has the right to self-determination – that applies to unionists as much as it does to nationalists.
Third, self-determination can only be realised on a territorial basis – therefore unionist self-determination – just like nationalist self-determination can only happen in territory where unionists form the majority.
These are, I believe, the circumstances which you support political violence.
The circumstances in which I support any kind of violence, political or otherwise, have been set out clearly on the other thread. They equate to the principles of just war.
Now it’s not hard to see how someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use. ie the IRA post 1970 and on.
Absolute nonsense. The IRA post-1970 did not meet any of the criteria required to justify violence, in stark contrast to unionists in the early 20th century – in the event of an imposed all-Ireland state.
Now that I have – yet again – made clear my position – we STILL need to address your lies and accusations.
In fairness, I detect a retreat (albeit not admitted), from your original and subsequently oft-repeated allegations. You now say merely that “someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use” – that is a far cry from the allegations under challenge, namely:
- that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;
- that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;
- that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;
- that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.
Can we now have a retraction of these allegations, please?
There is no retraction. There is no retreat. This is where I stand. Unionist opposition to a United Ireland in 1913, 1918. 1921 or whenever would NEVER amount to a ‘just war’. Neither would the IRA’s campaign amount to a ‘just war’.
To Paul McMahon – Given that Sinn Fein PIRA and the SDLP both support the GAA glorifying Republican death squad members from the recent terrorist campaign, there’s clearly a Pan-Nationalist Front when it comes to the GAA. If one penny was spent by the Government on one stadium named after one member of the recent UVF/LVF/UDA there would be an outcry. The hypocrisy of the Pan-Nationalist Front knows no bounds.
OK Willow, at risk of justifying UFB’s 4.39 I’ll have a dig at some of the issues you raise but be warned. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go five pages dancing on the head of a pin so if you want debate no attempts at lengthy stilted bookishness or it’s adios from me.
“What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north, then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary”
OK, hypothetical scenario qualified by ‘only if necessary’, please give your opinions on some of the issues it raises for me:
““What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north”
Where was the imposition? Tell me why the democratic express will of the people should be defined by a minority populace as an imposition?
“Then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary”
“Terrorism” is a very promiscuous word but if one accepts the OED definition as:
“The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”
Then it sounds like “terrorism” to me, however, could you please expand as to how it would have been justified to use force – it sounds ambiguous on the principal of “terrorism” as opposed to it’s actual practice.
“Second, every people has the right to self-determination – that applies to unionists as much as it does to nationalists.
Third, self-determination can only be realised on a territorial basis – therefore unionist self-determination – just like nationalist self-determination can only happen in territory where unionists form the majority”
Hoe do you define the right of a people Willowfield?. To follow your train of thought is it then right for say…Muslims in Bradford to lobby and “resist” for self determination as THEY define it? Do Cornish nationalists have a right to accede from the Union?
In short Willow, what constitutes a “people”?
Third point – see question above + self determination. IMO this argument forwards the scenario that nationalists have the right to re-partition the six counties strictly along the lies of county nationalist-unionist majority. What say you?
Now remember Willow no smart arsery of obfuscation. If you want honest debate genuine answers to genuine questions please.
Concubhar Cadé mar ata an madadh go thug mé duit?
CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST
There is no retraction. There is no retreat.
Well, there should be, because you have made serious allegations against me, without foundation, and refused to back them up.
And there is a retreat, since you now say merely that “someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use”. That doesn’t even come close to your original allegations.
This is where I stand. Unionist opposition to a United Ireland in 1913, 1918. 1921 or whenever would NEVER amount to a ‘just war’. Neither would the IRA’s campaign amount to a ‘just war’.
Well, I agree with you on the latter point, but not on the former (and I note your failure to present a case). But the fact that you have a different point of view on the former (albeit one that you have failed to argue), does not in any way explain or justify the below-listed allegations.
- that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;
- that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;
- that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;
- that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.
Either back these allegations up with evidence and reasoning, or retract them. It’s quite simple – you’ve failed to back them up, so have the integrity to retract them.
So this PNF that you speak of only exists in the context of the GAA then TJ?
>>I have neither the time nor the inclination to go five pages dancing on the head of a pin so if you want debate no attempts at lengthy stilted bookishness or it’s adios from me.<<
Lol! You’d be better warning the tide not to come in. And in the words of a famous man part-time plonker, part-time great. Concubhar O Liathain I salute your courage, your strength, your indegafat…….ahhhh furget it! But haven’t you indulged the troll quite enough?
PAUL McMAHON
“Where was the imposition?”
Er, there was no imposition: NI was created. Hence violence would not have been justified. There was, however, a threat of imposition, therefore threat of violence (i.e. defence by force of self-determination) was justified.
“Tell me why the democratic express will of the people should be defined by a minority populace as an imposition?”
That makes no sense. Democratically-expressed will, by definition, means a majority.
“… however, could you please expand as to how it would have been justified to use force – it sounds ambiguous on the principal [sic] of “terrorism” as opposed to it’s [sic] actual practice.”
Every people has the right to self-determination. Implicitly, then, every people has the right to defend that right. So we have just cause.
We also have proper authority: the unionist people had voted overwhelmingly against an all-Ireland state and had elected representatives who properly made decisions on their behalf.
We also have right intention – the use of violence would have been justified only if its intention was to defend self-determination and no more (any use of such violence for, say, sectarian intimidation would not have been justified).
The “reasonable chance of success” theory is more difficult to assess, but the unionists at the time seemed to have the numbers and the organisation to give them such a chance.
Finally, proportionality – any use of violence would have had to have been proportionate to the ends sought.
“Hoe do you define the right of a people Willowfield?”
I don’t. The right to self-determination is not mine: it is a universally-accepted right.
“To follow your train of thought is it then right for say…Muslims in Bradford to lobby and “resist” for self determination as THEY define it?”
Muslims in Bradford do assert a right to self-determination, nor do they asser that they are a separate people.
“Do Cornish nationalists have a right to accede from the Union?”
Given that they achieve 0% of the vote, I’d have to say no!
“In short Willow, what constitutes a “people”?”
I’d say it was a collection of people with a common culture, heritage, etc., who consciously consider themselves to form part of a single people, bound together by said cultural bonds. I’m sure there are more elegant definitions.
“Third point – see question above + self determination. IMO this argument forwards the scenario that nationalists have the right to re-partition the six counties strictly along the lies of county nationalist-unionist majority. What say you?”
Since nationalists have consistently voted in opposition to repartition since 1921, and signed up in huge numbers to the GFA, I’d say “no”.
“Now remember Willow no smart arsery of obfuscation. If you want honest debate genuine answers to genuine questions please.”
It’s not me who engages in smart-arsery or obfuscation – you need to direct those accusations at Concubhar the Dishonest – the man who tells lies and makes outrageous accusations and refuses to back them up.
Naebdy can say you didn’t try Paul, better luck with the King Canute routine ;¬)
Some of the comments by a certain poster (certainly as mentioned) justifies ANY Republican dominated county in the north of Ireland to declare reintegration with the Republic! Going by the reasoning outlined.
Prionsa
As a liar yourself, I’m not surprised at you coming to Concubhar the Dishonest’s defence.
Also, I can’t post on the Healy thread for some reason. I notice you said TWICE that it was untrue that Celtic fans good-humouredly sang “Where were you on the Twelfth” and that Healy responded in kind. I asked you what your version of events was. I note that you failed to answer. Perhaps you could explain now?
Paul McMahon
I should, of course, add a further criterion, in that violence must only be used as a last resort.
Willowfield speaker of forked tongue and split brain
Incisive contribution there, Steve. You really put forward a convincing argument.
If you disagree with anything I say, you’re at liberty to argue. As ever, though, you demonstrate your inability to do so.