Playing fast and loose with the law PSNI drive republicans out of Belfast
The BBC and UTV place the number of people attending éirígí’s banned protest against ‘Armed Forces Day’ in Belfast between 50 and 100. From the footage that seems about right. What seems strange is the police claiming they prevented the protest as it became an ‘illegal parade’ in Castle St when protestors stepped on the road – a technically correct interpretation of the law on parades and protests. However, what the PSNI failed to mention is roadworks on Castle Street at the point they intervened mean footpaths on both sides of the road are closed and pedestrians are directed to walk on the road. Seems the PSNI have played outside the spirit of legislation to get a result and made éirígí’s points on the nature of the north for them.
Update: éirígí’s own version and direct link to the UTV report.
Dread Cthulhu,
You insist on being disingenuous. Good luck to you. I’ve nothing more to add on the issue. It would be pointless, given your position.
But speaking of the OO, I note with relief that membership of the loyalist orders has plummeted owing to an increasing secularization. Long may the trend continue until finally everybody can have a peaceful summer in Northern Ireland!
Big Maggie: “You insist on being disingenuous.”
No, I simply insist on not being as completely wall-eyed in my biases as you are. If it is permissible to someone’s peaceful right to the public road, then it is permissible to deny *anyone’s* peaceful right to the public road. I freely admit that I prefer to err in favor of civil rights, but that doesn’t make my arguments disingenuous.
You have stated, in essence, that the one group of partisans (eirigi) should have free and unfettered access to the public road and that other group of partisans (the OO) shouldn’t. You sole fig-leaf of a rationale is that the folks on Garvaghy road have been “offended enough,” whilst the folks on Castle Street not so much. If it is permissible to deny the OO the public street, it is permissible to deny eirigi the same right. If it is not permissible to deny eirigi the public street, then the OO should be allowed to march.
The problem with your argument is that your arguments have no basis in either logic or law.
As for the OO, I suspect it has as much to do with the general decline in fraternal orders — locally, Elk and Mason lodges here have been imploding — the next generation have other interests and greater access to entertainments.
Dread Cthulhu,
This has become a tiresome debate—as it becomes each and every year.
Tiresome because the OO wish to annoy their neighbours in the manner they always have. But they can’t get their way now as they could in the past. Good. May their membership wither and die off.
They either wish for a peaceful summer or they wish to continue marching where they’re not welcome. They can’t have both.
And that’s all I have to say on the matter. Over and out.
Dread
on whos civil rights do you wish to err upon?
Paul: “on whos civil rights do you wish to err upon? ”
I’m a grand believer in freedom, Paul. This has to be paired, obviously, with responsibility.
The mark of a civilized democracy is that it is safe to hold unpopular beliefs, as the OO and eirigi would appear to do. However, there are those who are playing favorites, wanting “their” side the right to the road whilst denying it to the other. Me, I believe that they both have the right to the road… but, if we’re going to ban one, we should ban all.
Given them the right to march, make sure that they understand the responsibilities that accompany those rights (including proper prior planning and permitting, marshaling, etc.,) and hang them from the highest yardarm, bureaucratically speaking, if they demonstrate they cannot exercise those rights in a responsible fashion and maintain control over their event.
Big Maggie: I’m referring to Unionists’ discourtesy in his case and others, such as Bairbre de Brún. I don’t believe Barbara Brown is the name on her birth cert.
That wasn’t one of the scenarios I outlined in 2.15, and it wasn’t one of your examples from 2.14 or 2.18.
What’s your next case – Ian Óg?
Reader,
“That wasn’t one of the scenarios I outlined in 2.15, and it wasn’t one of your examples from 2.14 or 2.18.”
No idea what you mean by this. I was alluding to Unionist discourtesy towards the Irish language coupled with a recurring reluctance to use the Irish form of certain peoples’ names.