Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Hall burning and the failure of civil society…
There’s a piece in to today’s Irish News about the police investigation into comments left on Slugger on one of the more recent threads on what increasingly looks like a campaign against property owned by the Orange Order. A spokesman for the Order said: “We are surprised that a website with such a good reputation allowed its space to be used by people supporting and encouraging the attacks and actually singling out a property to be targeted”. It seems to me there are two questions raised by this issue.
Slugger has a good reputation because we actively encourage people from all sides of the debate to engage in full muscular political debate. Our bloggers (right across the political piste) tend towards the factual rather than the gossipy. And generally the standard of debate is high compared to similarly popular sites in Britain and the States. Such pluralism has to allow for a considerable discomfort zone.
The only way that kind of freedom can be practically sustained is by not pre-moderating comments. This is a priniciple adopted by individual blogs and large media groups alike. The priniciple is that a comment stays unless there is a specific reason for it to be removed. Commenters are asked to ‘play the ball, and not the man’, which generally helps focus minds on content, and away from personal badinage.
The comment concerned was removed once it had been brought to our attention. The police investigation will no doubt decide what the best way to proceed. It may have been serious, or a badly failed attempt at dark online humour. Either way, it flags up something that seems to have gone unnoticed by some on the wilder shore of the Internet Commentariat. The law is closing in on the licence to say ‘whatever you damned well please’.
As a recent ruling on a Sheffield Wednesday fan site suggests, if some commenters think egregious remarks only put the site owner in jeopardy, they may have to think again.
This is all difficult territory. One of the great things about the net is that it gives a voice to people who otherwise might remain voiceless in the mainstream media. Indeed have no problem with the thought of going to court to defend someone a point of priniciple. But anyone using their annonymity to make scurillous attacks on others should beware that such anonymity is a severely limited commodity in the face of the law.
That said, there is also the issue we were trying to cover under ‘hostile fire’: this campaign against property belonging to the Orange Order and other Loyal Institutions. What’s most disturbing is that is more and more indicative of a low level persecution of a minority population, every bit as disturbing as the targetting of GAA grounds in the 1990s.
At its best Northern Irish civil society (Catholic and Protestant) is impressive in action. Whether it be in the mutual support support mechanisms of Credit Unions, the youth and vigour of sports clubs, the care with which they see one another into and out of life, or the impressive levels of voluntary overseas aid.
But, in the background, there is something nasty going on. Orange Halls, particularly in rural areas, are also centres around which otherwise often isolated Protestant families congregate. In Protestant majority areas, their ecumenism often extends to inclusion of Catholics on the roster of those renting its space.
Certainly this campaign is mostly (with some spectacular exceptions like the near demolition of a hall in Pomeroy) low level, and unlikely to be being encouraged by local majority populations. Sinn Fein councillor Dessie Ward has rightly suggested it is being conducted by people who wish to drag us all back to the past.
But that this ‘campaign’ (that no one will own up to running it doesn’t mean doesn’t exist) has continued virtually unabated for three years now is an indictment, not of the Orange Order, but of the lack of solidarity with those minority Protestant populations.
Whatever the strong feelings many have about the Orange Order; that is nothing short of a disgrace.
Mick Fealty @ 09:14 AM
I have placed my response to this on the other thread from Sunday:
http://sluggerotoole.com/index.php/weblog/comments/to-blog-or-not-to-blog/P175/
If you want to talk the matter over some more with me in person I can make myself available at your seminar this evening, after taking the usual anti-surveillance procedures of course…
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:31 AMWhat’s most disturbing is that is more and more indicative of a low level persecution of a minority population, every bit as disturbing as the targetting of GAA grounds in the 1990s.
Mick
The attacks on the GAA in the 90s were not limited to property.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:37 AMWell said mick fealty. I’m off to the shop now to buy Irish news. It’s definitely in it? I hope this isn’t a wind up to get me to exercise?
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:41 AMThis just in: police are investigating reports of an explosion, believed to be the sound of Chris Donnelly exploding. Or possibly the SF blogging committee imploding. More as the IP logs are cross-referenced.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:42 AMBut that this ‘campaign’ (that no one will own up to running it doesn’t mean doesn’t exist)
Correct. The nature of this campaign if it exists makes it unlikely that the perpetrators would own up as they would likely be jailed.
has continued virtually unabated for three years now is an indictment, not of the Orange Order, but of the lack of solidarity with those minority Protestant populations.
Whose lack of solidarity? What do you mean here?
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:50 AMWhose lack of solidarity?
I would suggest a “sin” of omission rather than a “sin” of commission, Briso.
I haven’t seen any offer of help from minority representatives in repairing any damage caused, for example. It may happen, but if it does, it’s not well publicised.
I have seen it reported that help is offered from both sides to the other in some cases of churches being attacked but not for Orange halls.Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 10:58 AMIs there also an element of the traditional newspapers enjoying the discomfort of slugger.
I thought the OO spokesman was unfair to slugger too.As for the campaign against OO halls. In some parts yes. In other parts, just disorganised and naked sectarianism that finds expression this way sometimes. But of course people will still argue that sectarianism of this type does not exist.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:07 AMI would suggest a “sin” of omission rather than a “sin” of commission, Briso.
Ooookayyyy....
I haven’t seen any offer of help from minority representatives in repairing any damage caused, for example. It may happen, but if it does, it’s not well publicised.
I have seen it reported that help is offered from both sides to the other in some cases of churches being attacked but not for Orange halls.Oh, but that’s not what Mick said. He said that the fact the campaign “has continued virtually unabated for three years now is an indictment, not of the Orange Order, but of the lack of solidarity with those minority Protestant populations.” He’s not talking about helping to clear up after. He’s talking about the fact they are happening. I just want to know what and who he means. He can’t mean the perpetrators as that would be a truism. “The fact that the perpetrators of this campaign are continuing to perpetrate this campaign is an indictment, not of the victim, but of the perpetrators.” That would be a bit of a silly, obvious statement.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:08 AMhelloooo, arent you forgetting the many atrocities planned and carried out from these same halls which resulted in the murders of many innocent catholics. halls can be rebuilt, the lives taken by orangemen and their supporters cant
the best thing to do is to tumble the lot of them and build inter-community youth clubs in their place, where children can be taught tolerance rather than the bigotry theyre taught in their current formPosted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:10 AMarent you forgetting the many atrocities planned and carried out from these same halls which resulted in the murders of many innocent catholics.
I hope you have shared your information with the PSNI.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:15 AMBrownlow, if your family are to be subject to embarrassment, then they have you to blame for it...you ought to have thought about that before spilling forth what you did, and then leaving Mick fealty to take the rap? Is micks house to be searched to gain access to his computer.
You opened your big fat gob and mick fell in to the hole. Now you don’t want to stand over what you say? They weren’t your views but everybody elses.
Disgraceful!
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:17 AMO yeah, you can best be described as a troll.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:18 AM“I thought the OO spokesman was unfair to slugger too.”
Garibaldy, I’ve raised the spokesman’s quote with an OO representative and suggested that it should be reconsidered.
I also suggested that someone from the OO leadership could post a more appropriate response on this thread.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 11:54 AMSlugger no more “allowed its space to be used” to promote sectarianism than the Council does when someone scrawls sectarian graffiti on its property, or the Post Office when someone sends a threat in the mail, or Talkback when a caller makes an unexpected comment.
Yes, we could stop all this by knocking all council property down, ending the postal service and banning phone-in shows, but is that what people really want?
Slugger is a medium, not the message. The difference between Slugger and the Order is that Slugger took action as soon as it became aware of the complaint, something the Irish News omits to mention.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 12:10 PMSo if I mentioned here that you were sacked from the Alliance Party for drunk driving, you wouldn’t want it taken down?
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 12:32 PMGuys. I am not in the least criticising the Orange here, simply trying to put what we do on Slugger into the wider context of what happens in net discourse.
We don’t have a legal defence if we don’t respond quickly. But we would not have a discussion space if we premoderate everything that goes up first.
BH,
I hope there will be some space to talk some of these issues through today, without getting too thoroughly bogged down in them.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 12:34 PMThree years, Mick?
“Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland Secretary Drew Nelson said: “In the first 20 years of the Troubles, which were some of the worst, there were only four arson attacks on Orange Halls.
“After the formation of residents’ groups across the Province in 1989, the figures just took off.
“Our records show almost 250 arson attacks since then.” News Letter 19 July 2006
Perhaps some folks think that the Athboy strategy and its related attacks should not have been discontinued.
The isolated Church of the Immaculate Conception in Glenshesk, Ballycastle, was attacked in 2006 a few days after an attack on a nearby Orange Hall.
The sacristy window was broken and flammable liquid poured in and then set alight.
The sacristy area of the Church of the Immaculate Conception was extensively damaged in the attack.
SDLP assembly member Sean Farren described the attack as outrageous.
“My first reaction is to condemn this in the strongest possible way,” he said.
In many communities (of all persuasions and none), the PSNI appeared to maintain a low profile and the paramilitary godfathers ruled the roost.
What are the odds on more police stations being sold off to developers and the PSNI ‘retreating’ to barracks in (a few) large towns?
Everywhere that I have visited throughout Northern Ireland during the past several months, people have told me that they want the yoke of paramilitarism removed from their backs; they want deprivation and disadvantage addressed, and they want illegal weapons removed from society and decommissioned — they were very clear about that and they were also clear that they want criminality, violence and terrorism to be removed from society. There is a new political dispensation.
These are fine words from Margaret Ritchie. I’m concerned that the Executive and the NIO won’t translate them into sustained action.
Margaret Ritchie for the Ministry of Justice?
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 12:41 PM“arent you forgetting the many atrocities planned and carried out from these same halls”
Is this GAA premises named after murderers where funds were raised to support Repulican terrorists you are referring to here?
Log in your own eye on yeah!
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 01:35 PM“We are surprised that a website with such a good reputation allowed its space to be used by people supporting and encouraging the attacks and actually singling out a property to be targeted”.
Mick, apologies for the initial doubt over the comments, as it seemed a bit of wind-up at one point.
But, in all seriousness you, of all bloggers, have fought hard to bring this issue to the fore and after having read the Irish News column the ignorance of the concerned Cllr knows no bounds.
Now it is understandable why you posted the links if it is true that a challenge to Slugger over its take on the OO is anyway deemed as lop-sided.
At times you would just like to say would you ever get over yourself to such people but your comments in the paper pretty much sum up in no uncertain terms the current concern that you have with the attacks, which indeed have been well document on Slugger.
The Cllr is just bizarre!
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 02:06 PM“Slugger no more “allowed its space to be used” to promote sectarianism than the Council does when someone scrawls sectarian graffiti on its property, or the Post Office when someone sends a threat in the mail, or Talkback when a caller makes an unexpected comment.”
Nail...Head…
How can Slugger be responsible for the comments of an individual who in no way represents the views of Mick, Gonzo and the rest of them? As long as they responsibly maintain the site, making it clear that such comments are not tolerated and will be removed, and do so promptly in the case of such comments, they do their bit. It just remains for commenters to examine their own consciences. And possibly their IP addresses.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 03:55 PMThere is a “live defence” for people blurting out libellous stuff on TV and radio (a defence for the broadcaster, that is). Does that apply to the net as well? It ought to.
“Right to free speech” my arse. This country is a f***ing police state.Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 04:15 PMAs noted above the comment is available via a google cache search under the site name and ‘Brownlow House’. While it clearly breaks Slugger rules there is nothing in the slightest illegal about it.
I know Mick is trying to turn this into a larger why don’t the Taigs feel more sorry for the poor OO debate but we need to understand this is kicking off from load of nonsense around one stupid comment before we start trying to extract massive levels of angst from the fenians for that fine up-standing body of men who certainly didn’t cause us any grief at all ever.
It’s not a lack of solidarity for isolated Protestants, Mick. It’s not really caring one jot about anything bad that happens to the OO after that whole Drumcree thing that had nothing to do with them and lots more.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 04:26 PMMick,
Just to expand on my point. If you look <a >this blog from Pete</a>
“Sinn Fein assembly member Martina Anderson said “an anti-community element” was most likely to blame for the attack.” [not an anti-Sinn Féin element? - Ed]
You try and extrapolate attacks and indifference of them on minority Protestant communities. Maybe they are just attacks on the Orders? Not ike they haven’t been involved in things that might make some hostile to them.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 04:52 PMAn almost note perfect example of smug, complacent, intolerance from Frank Sinistra.
It is not the rights of “isolated Protestants” that Frankie et al dismiss - that after all would make them bigots. It is just the institutions and social networks that sustain many isolated Protestant communities that they hate. Do you understand?
How far would you push the attitude of “not really caring one jot about anything bad that happens to the OO”? From this logic it appears that many on here treat attacks on the OO with an indifference that borders on implicit approval.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 05:03 PMToken Dissent,
Deal with the argument.
Only Orange Halls have been being attacked, not churches, not political offices, not shops, not homes, not people.
Only the Orange Order.
As Pete noted when there was an attempt to expand an attack on a SF office into something broader, maybe it just some people despise the Orange Order.
Now if that’s the truth, that’s the problem that has to be dealt with. How do you alter the attackers attitudes to the Orange Order. If you are identifying the wrong issue, which I believe Mick is, you can’t deal with it.
That needs sorted first, the attacks may be being perceived as an attack on a broader community but as the attacks aren’t broadly based it is just as likely there is a more specific issue - perceptions of the OO in society and how a small minority may react to them.
Perceptions of the reasoning aren’t necessarily true.
Posted by on Oct 30, 2007 @ 05:11 PM
