Thursday, March 20, 2008
Normalisation and managing the message
You couldn’t have failed to notice the English Queen has just completed a three day trip to the six counties.
A visit that occurred in such a ‘normalised’ environment today’s event in Armagh was flagged weeks in advance.
The media assisted with normalisation of the visit by pretty much ignoring Republican protests. So far the Newsletter is the only outlet giving the protests any real coverage, though they’ve downplayed the combined numbers attending demonstrations organised by both éirígí and RSF. (éirígí note the normalisation did not extend to the people of Armagh)
UTV News chose to cover the protests by lumping them in a section including some hoax bomb alerts (like the Newsletter), showing only a small section of the crowd, ignoring the rest and relying on the connotations brought to mind by using the throwaway tag ‘dissident Republicans.’ The BBC just completely ignored the whole issue.
So it all seems so normal but that’s only possible by ignoring the truth, something many other groups also found a convenient tactic.
Mark McGregor @ 09:10 PM
Republican[throwing]Stones - “afraid not, im irish, we have no monarchy”.
If you live in Northern Ireland, then it’s part of the UK. So you do have a monarchy ... or maybe you still have your eyes closed and your ears covered.
I don’t intend to reply to you again on this thread as you are a sectarian bigot but ... Welcome to the real world ... and enjoy walking on British soil in Belfast while you make your quality videos!
Posted by on Mar 21, 2008 @ 10:36 PM‘If you live in Northern Ireland, then it’s part of the UK. So you do have a monarchy’
there is a Queen who sits on a throne in England, and has many people who claim to be loyal to her here in Ireland who are descended from the colonisation of this part of Ireland. I am not one of these grovellers. I expect you believe the people of the south americas had a king in the form of Charles III, and no doubt feel they too were incorrect to not grovel before the symbol of a country they had nothing to do with.
Oh and i think you’ll find your the one walking on Irish soil, as this is Ireland, an island......just like your beloved britain. unless you have shipped over huge amounts of ‘british’ soil (which is either scotch, welsh or english soil). which may suit you as i can imagine you living in a coffin waiting for the night time to come.
Posted by on Mar 22, 2008 @ 02:35 AM“PeaceandJustice”
“you are a sectarian bigot”
The words Pot, Kettle and Black leap immediately to mind. Coming from someone with your track record on “loyalist” terrorism, it’s just laughable.
It’s great that you’re so proud to be British. Presumably, then, you have no problem with the British govt which represents you signing the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, disbanding the B-Specials, UDR, RIR Home Batallions and RUC etc.
You may well feel British and good luck to you. I just wonder if you’re stupid enough to think that the British govt and people really view you as being as “British as Finchley”. To be fair, I don’t think that lie fools too many Unionists any more.
I’m glad that you enjoyed the Queen’s visit - always a good ploy to tickle the tummies of Unionists with a Royal visit while the UK govt gets on with the business of disengaging from NI.
As far as I’m concerned, the English Queen can come as often as possible if it keeps you happy.
Incidentally, the Irish President can come to the North as often as she likes. The UK govt appear very happy to let her do so and they make the rules, not you or any other Unionist.
If you don’t like it, you too could stage a pointless and ineffective protest. I’d bring a book if I were you as you’ll probably be very lonely.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 03:57 AMIt’s great that you’re so proud to be British. Presumably, then, you have no problem with the British govt which represents you signing the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Good Friday Agreement, disbanding the B-Specials, UDR, RIR Home Batallions and RUC etc.
Strange logic. Is it a necessary condition of pride in one’s nationality that one must never have any problem with government policy? Can, for example, the millions of Americans who have a problem with Bush’s Iraq policy, not also be proud to be American? Very strange logic indeed.
As far as I’m concerned, the English Queen can come as often as possible if it keeps you happy.
I ask again: why the reference to the “English Queen”?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 08:22 PMWillowfield
I was getting at the fact that the laughably named “PeaceandJustice” (as long as no-one mentions “loyalist” terrorists) childishly brags about NI being British soil and taunts Nationalists that we have to accept being under British rule whether we like it or not etc.
I was simply pointing out that it’s a double edged sword. There are plenty of Unionists posters on here who moan about the AIA, GFA, the disbandment of the UDR, RIR, RUC etc.
However, Unionists can do nothing about Westminster decisions that they don’t like. I certainly don’t think you are foolish enough to believe that the North is a big issue to the UK electorate or that there is a lot of interest or sympathy for the Unionist position.
Your analogy with the USA and Iraq is absolutely correct.
As a constitutional Nationalist, I accept the reality that we have to accept Westminster/UK rule as long as the majority in the North wish. I can disagree with decisions taken at Westminster but, unless a majority of MPs support my view, I can do nothing else.
I was merely pointing out to “PeaceandJustice”, in case he hadn’t noticed, that he and Unionists generally are equally powerless in Westminster. The UK govt is now working increasingly closely with the RoI govt and this govt in particular has made many decisions that didn’t go down well with Unionists.
If he doesn’t like it so what? He can indeed protest i.e USA and Iraq etc. However, the truth is that Unionists are just are powerless as Nationalists at Westminster. The UK govt will act in the best interests of the UK govt - not the North.
“PeaceandJustice” taunts constitutional Nationalists with the fact that we have no choice but to accept democratic decisions made by a majority in Westminster whether we like them or not.
That’s perfectly true. He doesn’t seem to realise that Unionists are in exactly the same impotent position. I just find it laughable when he comes on whining about something the UK govt have done (usually when it is of some benefit to Catholics/Nationalists) - after all, we’re all under Westminster rule and proud of it, aren’t we?
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 09:57 PMWillowfield,
The last time I called her Elizabeth Windsor it caused offence, this time I thought recognising she is English and a Queen might lead to less irrelevance in the discussion, I see I was wrong. I think I’ll just stick with my Republican instincts in future as trying to take others views into account was pointless.
Posted by on Mar 23, 2008 @ 10:29 PMMark
That doesn’t answer the question: why the reference to English Queen? I assume you understand that the kingdom of England ceased to exist 300 years ago?
Billy
You now make a not unreasonable point, but it wasn’t clear from the faulty logic in your previous post.
Posted by on Mar 24, 2008 @ 08:16 PM
