Monday, February 18, 2008
Enniskillen Bomb Plaque and the Equality Commission
The removal of the memorial in Enniskillen Fire Station to those murdered in the 1987 Poppy Day bombing was apparently prompted by a complaint from one member of staff. It was allegedly seen as a political emblem for having photographs of the one girl and ten pensioners murdered and the following words: “The innocents who lost their lives.” The removal of the tribute itself caused extremely widespread controversy. A new tribute to those murdered has now been put up in Enniskillen Fire Station according to the Impartial Reporter. This has not, however, satisfied Arlene Foster or Tom Elliott nor would it appear some of the relatives of those murdered.
One of the strangest aspects of this is that, according to Arlene Foster, the Fire Service did not seek any advice regarding the original tribute’s alleged offensiveness from the Equality Commission. A similar problem seems to have afflicted Banbridge Council with the unionist councillors seemingly panicking and removing plaques honouring the RUC and UDR, apparently before there was any evidence of a complaint having been made (except obviously by SF councillors).
Both these episodes seem to show that fear of possible censure by the Equality Commission is provoking actions which the Equality Commission might well not have demanded; a little like the assorted occasions on which fear of Health and Safety legislation is used as a reason to ban things which the real Health and Safety professionals would be unconcerned with.
Turgon @ 11:52 AM
0b101010
Regarding post 24, absolute nonsense. What the IRA did in Enniskillen was wrong, Republicans have admitted and accepted that. What I find incredulous is the tirade against the murder of innocent civilians perpetrated by the IRA but struck dumb when it is illustrated that those who remember fallen British Forces are simply one-sided, the genocide in Dresden and other massive losses of civilian life seems to be dismissed as ‘war’ CIVILIANS ARE CIVILIANS full stop.
And Unionists have the bare-faced cheek to talk about IRA ‘genocide’.
I do wonder at times if Remembrance Sunday is about about revering the day or giving you an opportunity to hang your heads in shame, to attone for the blessing you give on forces who have caused so many worldwide to suffer for so long.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 09:33 AMPaul - and all of that has what to with the issue at hand, exactly?
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 09:57 AMI at times wonder whether the republican MOPEfests at Bodenstown & Milltown are merely fronts for Gerry & Marty to give bad AIDS to the rest of the murdering scumbags.
Just saying, like…
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 10:16 AMDM was responding to Post 24 as i stated.
Gander from what i can gather it’s Unionists who indulge in that, IRA ‘genocide’???
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 10:21 AMExplains why the Beard went to Hughes’ funeral, Paul - Gerry’s always been partial to a bit of necrophilia…
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 10:52 AMPaul - seems to me post 24 was intended to mock the very whataboutery that you engage in with your post.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 10:53 AMDoctor
To sum up. I have no problem with this memorial plaque, or others. I do recognise the wider point however that they could, especially in a very immature society like the north of Ireland be used as a baton to beat people with. I think it would be interesting to know if say there was a bloody sunday plaque anywhere in Derry used by the emergency services.
Re-The Soviet Union, believe me there is barely a baw-hair in terms of evil intent between the war era Soviets and Nazi’s. Sure the Nazi’s win because we know all about their deeds, however a quick investigation would reveal that the Soviets were only just a lesser evil. And longer lasting btw!
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 12:34 PMDr Who,
“It seems to have escaped you that it was the IRA who carried out the atrocity, but with the amount of revisionism recently in republican circles, perhaps you are going to tell me that the “Bratish empearial farces” committed the act.”
It is clear that this attack on civilians was an act of terror, and there is no evidence to indicate that it was carried out by “Bratish empearial farces”
However, you seem to be espousing a form of counter-revisionism that would see the Omagh bombing as an act of terror committed solely by “dissidents” rather than agents of the state, and by extension the two British soldiers arrested in Basra in 2005 dressed as Arabs driving a car laden with explosives after shooting a policeman were merely temporarily insane.Unionism had no problem with revisionism when it meant republicans removing rose tinted glasses and the clearing of the Celtic mists, but it seems that it is exceedingly problematic when it comes to the dark underbelly of their precious Kingdom.
Of course it is said that one of the most horrifying things one can do is look into the deep recesses of ones own soul.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 12:49 PMPaul
“the genocide in Dresden and other massive losses of civilian life seems to be dismissed as ‘war’ CIVILIANS ARE CIVILIANS full stop.”
The high levels of civilian casualties during the massed bombing raids of the second world war (about 30,000 at Dresden alone) are exactly why the Geneva Conventions were subsequently improved by the application of Additional Protocols that made such attacks a breach of international humanitarian law. Until then, the Geneva Conventions were mainly concerned with the treatment of combatants, civilians were a side issue.
Prior to that point deliberate bombing of civilian targets was regarded as perfectly acceptable and was indeed the clear strategy of all sides in the conflict - hence the fire-bombing of London or the Hiroshima bomb. The Dresden bombing, a combined US/UK mission, was carried out according to the rules of war as they stood at the time: the attack was no different in intent and scale to numerous other attacks, it was an attack against a ‘defended town’, it had a clear military objective (a strike against german industry and transport infrastructure in support of the russian advance), civilian casualties were not regarded as excessive compared to the military advantage to be gained (complete destruction of the last remnants of german industry and no chance of equipping a counter-attack against the russians). None of this would be allowed after the GC/AP came into force (although I should add a slight qualifier about US forces inventing the category of ‘dual use’ so that they can continue to bomb civilian targets and claim that these were secretly military installations or served some specific military purpose).
In short, times change, and one tends to hope that they generally improve. Things that were considered acceptable in the past (just like slavery, torture, bigotry) are best left in the past.
On the wider issue of the plaque, it seems a curious thing to regard as some kind of political emblem. What kind of politics does it represent?
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 01:44 PMSevenmagpies
Interesting post.
May I ask you a question?
Am I correct in saying that the Nuremberg Tribunal was established to try Nazi war criminals on charges in relation to new crimes that were established only after the war (e.g. “war of aggression") and, therefore, are an example of the retrospective application of law?
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 01:51 PMWillowfield,
As far as I am aware, the notion of ‘crimes against peace’ and similar laws were already well understood before Nuremberg. The Tribunal simply ratified/incorporated existing treaties into a specific law. I don’t think any of the participants were in any doubt that invading other countries was regarded as a Bad Thing. iirc Russia had already been thrown out of the League of Nations for pursuing an ‘aggressive’ war against Finland.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 02:24 PMThanks ... it was a case of formalising customary law?
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 02:28 PMYes. I think I have come with a more succinct way to explain it compared to my previous attempt: the particular crimes were old, the specific laws were new.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 02:35 PMPrince Eoghan: “I do recognise the wider point however that they could, especially in a very immature society like the north of Ireland be used as a baton to beat people with.”
Mayhap, but so is the current “solution” of threatening bureaucratic (and, presumably, some flavor of legal) mayhem is likewise being used as a baton to beat people.
Ergo, it’s damned if you do and damned if you don’t. And this will descend into tit-for-tat sniping if allowed to continue.
I would posit out that the proper response, if the Republican goal is honestly a “parity of self-esteem”—the proper solution would be the addition of Republican symbols and attempt an environment of mutual tolerance, as opposed to creating a homogenous, acrimonious and sterile environment, purged of any sort of individual or group symbols.
But that’s just grown-up thinking. Not sure of an “immature” Northern Ireland.
Prince Eoghan: “Re-The Soviet Union, believe me there is barely a baw-hair in terms of evil intent between the war era Soviets and Nazi’s. Sure the Nazi’s win because we know all about their deeds, however a quick investigation would reveal that the Soviets were only just a lesser evil. And longer lasting btw! “
Actually, simply a bare knowledge of history is enough to reveal that—the purges, the Ukranian famine, Katyn Wood, etc. And, frankly, had Uncle Joe been friskier than his neighbor earlier, the alliances very well might have been different.
As for longer lasting… no need to gild the lily, PE. Of *course* the SU lasted longer that the Third Reich, what with, like, the war and all.
Posted by on Feb 20, 2008 @ 07:20 PM
