Friday, September 22, 2006
Feeney attacks CRC over preconditions for a ‘shared future’
“For nationalists, a shared future means committing to full engagement in a state with which they have never felt comfortable and some have dedicated their lives to replacing. For unionists, the hard part of sharing will be making political arrangements with previously violent enemies who have deeply traumatised friends and relations and coming to terms with the Irish dimension to the six counties.”
Chris Donnelly @ 11:28 PM
Poor old brian feeney,once again bleating about problems but never really trying to come up with solutions then again if the problems were sorted he would be no longer needed by the media and then how he would he spout about his victim mentality.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 06:56 AM.... and they don’t want a Feeney about the place ...
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:08 AMI’m no fan of Feeney but he is dead right about the fact that the CRC do norhing other than provide window-dressing for the government.
I attended an event this week at which Duncan Morrow was guest speaker. Not knowing much about the work of the CRC and never having met Morrow, I went along with an open mind.
I then listened dumbstruck as Morrow delivered the most patronising, twee and insulting sermon to my working-class community in the hall.Having cleared just been parachuted in from Planet Cherryvalley, the gist of Duncan’s message was that we should all stop being Silly Billys and learn to be nice to our neighbours from ‘the other side’.
I was really embarrassed for Morrow because within the room was a range of church and community activists who had worked long and hard all summer to keep the lid on tensions at the local interface. The efforts of these unpaid volunteers were reciprocated, I might add, by their counterparts on ‘the other side’ to borrow Duncan’s parlane.
To then compound the situation Morrow could provide no details of practical work or projects undertaken by the CRC in our area.
Real , hard work done on the ground?
Evidently this was alien territory (in more ways than one) for Dunc and his ilk living in their middle-class ivory towers.
Who funds the CRC and what do they get for their money?
Maybe they do do some good work somewhere but Morrow was an appalling ambassador for the CRC at this event.Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:14 AMThe central problem facing unionism is its inherent sectarianism, which no unionist politician has ever confronted because it’s the basis of their political creed. Brian Feeney
That more or less hits the nail on the head and connects with Albert’s account of Morrow’s complete failure to engage with working class people. Sectarianism was essential to, was the bedrock of Unionism not merely to suppress the Nationalist community, but more importantly to create a false conciousness in the Unionist working class to prevent any natural economic alliance between them and their fellow workers on the Nationalist side. We have seen this again and again as the Orange card was played at every sign of workers’ militancy against economic repression.
To men of Morrow’s class it is only but natural to maintain this essential division and any attempts by both sections of the working class divide uniting to solve common problems must make him very nervous indeed.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:47 AMBrian Feeney is going backwards with every spiteful article he writes.
He is a nationalist political dinosaur with nothing of future value to say and simply wants to drag up every injustice - real and imagined - so that each and every northern unionist can get down on bended knee and beg his forgiveness.
I really dont see why the Irish News gives a column for such a view point which was clearly better placed in equally prehistoric and now thankfully extinct Daily Ireland.
I could repute every paragraph but they are all well run arguments.
The gist of what Morrow was saying, I assume, was that Nationalists were being asked to support a state they had traditionally opposed the very existence of and unionists were being asked to run the state now with the very people they had to date been defending the state against.
The latters campaign was one of orchestrated violence against its economic fabric and anyone who served the forces of law and order - whether it be the judiciary, police or civilians who worked for them.
That the entire nationalist community faced the same onslaught from the unionists is a a laughable notion and could only be articulated by someone as bitter and spiteful as Feeney.
The overwhelming majority of the onslaught on nationalists was from the loyalist paramilitary community who nobody is asking nationalists to share power with at all.
I think Feeney has totally lost the plot.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:48 AMJohn East Belfast,
When will they be putting up the memorial to remember the Belfast pogroms where a quarter of your city’s Catholic population were forced from their homes?It would seem like the type of thing a mature state would do.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 10:19 AMJohn,
I note your use of the ‘nationalist’ community as your description of choice in every reference you make to the non-unionist community.This is in stark contrast to your convenient distinction between loyalists and unionists in a pitiful attempt to distance your community from the brutal sectarian campaign that emanated from that community and is indeed still manifesting itself in acts such as the brutal murder of Michael McIlveen.
Wise up!!!
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 10:29 AMthis loyalist/unionist division of labour really wo works wonders! and as for the british themselves… wow they are not even in the picture..
maybe we “nationalists” should starr referring to the pan - british alliance… believe me john when it is put in those terms then the overall effect of last 80 years on the catholic community has been intense…
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 11:19 AMdub: maybe we “nationalists” should starr referring to the pan - british alliance...
Or nationalists and unionists could work together and refer to the ‘pan-terrorist’ alliance. After all, the terrorist groups mostly left each other alone and concentrated on bombing and shooting people who never wanted anything to do with their shite.
dub: believe me john when it is put in those terms...
Additional perspectives do shed a bit of light on matters, don’t they? (is that a mixed metaphor?)
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 11:28 AMI see that Morrow has replied to Feeney’s criticsm in a letter in today’s Irish News.I note that Morrow lenghty and meandering missive entirely fails to explain why his original article referred only to violence inflicted on unionists by nationalists and not vice versa as well.
One-nil to Feeney on that one.
It’s been a bad week for Morrow given the account of his inept and patronising performance at a Talk earlier this week.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 11:48 AMAnother attempt by Brian Feeney to outstare his own belly-button.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 12:31 PMFeeney is dead on.
I think this attitude from the unionist/loyalist community he describes is the reason for the failure of the GFA. Nationalists saw it as final recognition of their aspirations and identity and republicans saw it as a way to work non violently toward their goals.
The unionist community expected nationalists to finally behave as “good wee prods” and accept their place as queen’s subjects. Unionists still believe that “it was a good wee Ulster” until them’uns acted up.
To the Brits the GFA was simply Honest Tony finally getting the stupid micks to stop fighting.
This difference in interpretation of what the GFA meant was, IMO, the underlying reason for its collapse-not some republican James Bond in Stormont.
In my opinion the only way to give recognition to the identities and aspirations of both communities in through full joint authority.
As for the cheap attacks from people like John East Belfast on Brian Feeney all I can say is that most of the time Feeney articulates my views better that I could. Keep up the good work Brian!!
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 12:34 PMapart from the lack of refereeing here on this thread I came up with a blinder last night that dovetials into this whole discussion:
What is more important behaviour or attitudes?
seems to me that behaviour can be modified, mistakes can be learnt from, thus supporting my idea that the journey for republicanism is one of caterpillar to Butterfly.
That journey is not yet complete.
However on the opposing side, one can say “where is the change in attitude?”. There isn’t: Paisley the head , has had the same appalling attitudes for 50 years,
What Feeney does is highlight this sectarianism and make his point.
Now what Unionist readers are objecting to is Feeney’s delivery, ie. his resentful attitude causes them concerns,
And I agree that Feeney needs to make his points better,
because he is not communicating the message that unionists need to confront their sectarian attitudes.
If he’s simply writing for a nationalist audience, its equally hopeless, because we already know.
It takes a super-human to face down Paisley, and get him to focus on his setarian attitudes, not republican behaviours. No-one has ever succeeded here. Amazing !Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 01:38 PMoh and just to add
behaviours can change ie decomissioning ,
no-one thought this would happen.
Changing attitudes is so much harder !!!
You’ve got to really want to change, and there is no evidence of this in the DUP.Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 01:42 PM“the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which stood by as the British army and RUC violated human rights on a daily basis,”
what kind of serious and balanced commentator would think let alone write something like that.
That piece of hysterical nonsense says it all about FeeneyGeorge
“When will they be putting up the memorial to remember the Belfast pogroms where a quarter of your city’s Catholic population were forced from their homes?”
For the record when i was saying goodbye as an 8 year old, in 1971, to my two Catholic best friends, who were leaving East Belfast, I was that weekend loading up my grandfathers furniture from the family home on the Springfield Road as he was coming in the opposite direction.
austin
“I note your use of the ‘nationalist’ community as your description of choice in every reference you make to the non-unionist community.”
I was only reflecting Feeney’s stance - nowhere does he talk about republicanism and constitutional nationalism.
I am more than happy to draw the distinction but Feeney didnt - once again that says it all.
ie he totally ignores when condemning the entire British and Unionist apparatus the fact that one of the most deadly and ruthless terrorist organisations of the 20th Century was waging an onslaught - not even on his radar.
heck
“As for the cheap attacks from people like John East Belfast on Brian Feeney..”
nothing cheap about it - I read his article and got even angrier than the last one I read - he is going backwards.
The PIRA campaign was proactive and aggressive - it wasnt a reaction - and if it was about civil rights it should have ended at least 25 years before it did.
Morrow is probably aiming his speech at Republicans and Unionists - they are the biggest part of each community.
The former were at war in their minds and the latter were resisting.The nationalist community are not being asked to share power with anyone who was waging war against them as the PUP and UDP are not given a mandate by the unionists.
The daily human rights abuses by the State are a figment of Feeney’s blinkered imaginationSF are therefore the distinction is appropriate.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:33 PMAgain, it’s important to play the ball not the man here.
The full article degenerates towards the end, but I think Feeney is on to something here - deliberately or otherwise.
The point (probably not the one he’s trying to make, as he’s really having a go at the CRC for being “unionist") is perhaps this:
a) the vast majority of people in NI are of one “side” or other, even if they don’t perceive themselves to be; and
b) partly as a result of this division, we have a sectarian poison in our society that won’t be solved by nice guys talking to each other.The CRC can do much good work, but frankly until we end social segregation and politics based on sectarianism, they’ll be fighting a losing battle with people waiting to catch them out at every turn. And none of that is healthy.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 03:59 PM“That the entire nationalist community faced the same onslaught from the unionists is a a laughable notion and could only be articulated by someone as bitter and spiteful as Feeney.”
As usual, JEB ignores the reality, i.e. that the loyalist paramilitaries with the active support of the British security forces and the blessing of the unionist political parties ran a terrorist campaign against the nationalist community he likes to blame. I guess JEB wishes the Irish/Catholic/nationalist community had just allowed the murder campaign to run on as long as the death squads found targets.
FACT: in it’s “terror campaign” (as JEB lijkes to call it) the PIRA killed some 516 civilians, 30% of all those killed by the PIRA.
FACT: In its campaign, the loyalist paramilitaries killed 873 civilians, more than 85% of those killed by the loyalist thugs. Of those 873, 715 were murdered because they were Catholic or the thugs though they were Catholic.
So, it’s obvious that JEB is seriously distorting the facts in his commentary—which, of course, makes most of the rest of his opinions questionable, if not outright false.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:02 PM‘The PIRA campaign was proactive and aggressive - it wasnt a reaction - and if it was about civil rights it should have ended at least 25 years before it did. ‘
JEB-Does this mean that you view the loyalist’s campaign as reactive?
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:21 PMEvery week it’s the same old Feeney…
“Ever since the north failed as a political entity in 1972, the British administration which took over”
Northern Ireland still exists as in 1972 a part of the United Kingdom, that’s the kind of “failure” I can live with it.
“So we had the Fair Employment Act, the Fair Employment Agency which made no difference to discrimination”
So, is discrimination today exactly as it was prior to the various FEAs and FEA? If not,what has caused the improvement? Can’t have been the Unionists, as Brian informs us on a weekly basis they are to a man and woman sectarian to the core.
“Then of course the CRC wasn’t meant to DO anything about improving community relations. Like SACHR and the FEA and the other quangos, its function is just to BE there so that the British can point to it and claim they’re doing something.”
Outside NI and certain circles within both the ROI and Irish America, no one for the last 20 years has given a toss what the “British” (I think he actually means the “British Government” here) did here, does he seriously believe that the UK government keeps such organisations running for PR purposes? If he had said they were a way to keep professional do-gooders and busy-bodies out of our collective hair, then he’d have been closer to the truth.
“So there you have it. Apparently, in this mindset, violence was all one way. Unionists, despite being traumatised, will have to make political arrangements with “previously violent enemies”.
All nationalists have to do is engage fully in the state. Dead easy. Obviously none of their friends or relations were victims of violence from unionist sources, paramilitary or official, or a combination of both. “No, in my opinion Morrow was highlighting the most important factor which is presently influencing Unionist and nationalist behaviour. It suits Feeney to constantly claim that Unionist reluctance to deal with SF is solely based on sectarian reasons; the fact that the particular party in question is the political wing of a terrorist organisation which waged war against their country and their community in NI for almost three decades is conveniently swept under the carpet. They have a right to feel traumatised at being expected to make deals with people who up to recently were trying to murder their kith and kin.
“Unionist politicians have all clean hands.”
Where exactly did Morrow say that?“Unlike the horrible nationalists who carried out all the violence.”
Where exactly did Morrow say that?“The sentence should read: “For unionists, the hard part of sharing will be treating nationalists as equals with as much right to run the affairs of this place as unionists and accepting that unionists no longer own the north.” “
Classic Feeneyism. Complains about sectarian stereotyping of nationalists and then employs exactly the same lazy prejudice in describing all Unionists.
“Yet we’re supposed to believe that the sectarian bigots who dominate councils are suddenly going to treat nationalists as equals in a partnership administration at Stormont with more at stake than emptying the bins and burying the dead”“Dominate councils”?
All councils in NI are dominated by Unionist bigots?
According to Brian, yes and those exact same “bigots” will now be keeping the “croppies down” up at Stormont just like they’ve always done.
Two inconvenient facts: whatever they might think of their nationalist counterparts, if the DUP ever enter an administration again, it will be under the terms of the Belfast Agreement; if nationalists had felt that the terms of this agreement did not give them safeguards from future discrimination, then the majority wouldn’t have signed it. They didn’t sign an agreement which said that the average redneck in Ahoghill must no longer hate RCs/SF/the Irish.Second fact conveniently ignored by SF lapdogs such as Feeney, no one is forcing nationalists back up to Stormont. If they don’t trust the Unionists, then come up with an alternative plan and see which one the electorate prefers. It’s called democracy.
“The NIO has been compelled to deal with discrimination and policing.”
Who/what “compelled” them?
Bob McGowan
“So, it’s obvious that JEB is seriously distorting the facts in his commentary—which, of course, makes most of the rest of his opinions questionable, if not outright false.”An opinion is only an opinion it can’t be “wrong” or “false”.
Propaganda delivered as a “fact” can be “questionable” or “false”.From reading previous of your commnets on here, your opinion seems to be that the various attrocities carried out by the IRA were of little significance, not a terror campaign.
You however provide no evidence ( I presume haven’t spoken to the relatives of victims from La Mon, Enniskillen, Warrington etc?) to support your claim.Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:41 PMTrue it is difficult to deal with Feeney’s weekly spite-fest without appearing to play the man - see what I mean? A problem with his anger-blurred type of writing is that fails to provoke thought, only reaction. He’s very Daily Mail that way.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 04:46 PMFeeney is a well-spoken, educated, besuited bigot. He is bitter against the CRC and Morrow in particular because he applied for the job of CRC chair and was beaten to it by the same D Morrow.
Understand the above facts about him and it puts his writing in perspective. Why the Irish News puts up with him is beyond me. Notice how he puts on the mister nice guy act when on the BBC because he knows he wouldn’t get away with his usual hate-filled bile.Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 05:42 PMMorrow is Chief Executive of the CRC. Eammon McCartan is chair.
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 06:53 PMAs another poster has already said the fact remains that Morrow has entirely failed to explain why his original article referred only to violence inflicted on unionists by nationalists and not vice versa as well.
It not only betrays Morrow’s own mindset but confirms a complete absence of compassion for the nationalist victims of unionist violence since 1966 to date.
How can nationalists have confidence in Morrow after this?
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 07:04 PMcome on webmaster surely this playing of the ball(Brian Feeney) is unacceptable.
I agree with Feeney more often that not and I object to this hate filled bile against him.
The same level of hate is directed against Danny Morrison when he is linked.
These sort of comments would be unnacceptable if directed against Lindy McDowell who is as pro unionist as Feeney is pro nationalist
Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 09:41 PMwell said Heck-Why has Mick not intervened?
I have yet to see anyone on this thread (or indeed Duncan Morrow in his letter of response) deal with the specific issue in question-why did Morrow’s original statement mention only the violence inflicted against the unionist community by nationalist without acknowledging the violence visited upon nationalists by unionist paramilitaries?
Moreover how can the CX of the Community Relations Council continue in the role having made a clear distinction in favour of the unionist community?Posted by on Sep 23, 2006 @ 10:09 PM
