Monday, March 31, 2008
Speaking truth unto power gets awkward…
A free press is not exactly a prerequisite for a free society, but it’s absence is (or should be) extremely worrying. In all of the comment in the MSN last week, this aspect of the climbdown of the Andersonstown News after pressure was applied over an article the paper published from its erstwhile columnist/humourist, Squinter seemed largely to be missed. It’s all the more puzzling since Gerry Adams is sitting on the fourth safest majority in the House of Commons with a whopping 68.6 per cent of the popular vote. On Thursday Alex Maskey expressed the hope that the paper’s response to his party’s concerns should be an end to the matter. Over at the Guardian, I’ve argued that there that both reflects badly on his paper and raises questions about just how ready Sinn Fein is to live with the vigorous scrutiny of a courageous and free press.
Mick Fealty @ 09:17 AM
You might mean the military side. But people often mean the collective entity. Or nowadays, just the political end. For example, Alasdair McDonnel of the SDLP will use it this way, as will Trimble. As will former members of the Provos, both the political and military end. E.g. RSF people or people from eirigi or whatever.
So it’s clear what you mean. But equally what others mean too when they refer to it.
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 01:13 PM>>As will former members of the Provos, both the political and military end.<<
I know I am leaving myself opoen to accusations of pettiness, however I truly have never, ever heard anyone fron SF referring to themselves as Provos. So if you can show me an example or two of this I will happilly concede. And next time I will bewilder people when speaking of the Provos by reassuring them that I mean IRA provos and not SF Provos or any other kind of Provos.
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 01:21 PM“When I say that SF receive massive amount of electoral support from West Belfast, all sane people know what I mean. “
Electorism is a disease. How take the Vatican, a restricted poll, you can’t leave until it’s done
you get a quick pat-down, and a puff of smoke, nobody is going to do a Squinter on the Holy Father,
crime in the Vatican is also down! We won’t count the banking stuff.
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 01:44 PMNevin
Would you agree that they are two of the PRM ‘wings’ and that they are ‘governed’ by the PRM AC, Steve? I understand there’s an extensive interchange of personnel. Don’t forget the organised crime and civic justice wings ...
I’ll quote Jonathon Powell. This seems accurate to me:
And yet it wasn’t as simple as the unionist claim that the two organisations were one and the same. In the early days I, like the unionists, would talk about the IRA/Sinn Féin in one breath. But the two organisations were different. There wasn’t a complete overlap in their membership and their political imperatives were not the same. Some in the physical force republican movement were not politically subtle and some in Sinn Féin were not engaged in physical violence
But you know, knock yourself out with the conspiracy theories if it makes you happy.
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 01:48 PMIRA regattas are not a display of Big Brother No1’s naval power, unless..
The International Rowing Association
was apparently faresighted enough to skip the provisional stage.
Your search - “provisional International Rowing Association” - did not match any documents.Suggestions:
Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
Try different keywords.
Try more general keywords.
I research my posts to da Slug:o))
G.
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 01:52 PMSTEVE
And willowfield while I know its part of the psychosis of unionism, Sinn Fein and the Provisional IRA are not one and the same so again prince is perfectly accurate saying the Provos didn’t stand because they didn’t, end of.
Maybe PIRA and PSF are not one and the same (I never said that they were), but they are part of the PRM and PSF stood in the election.
PRINCE
I made no such claim Willow. Perpetuating it by trying to get me to explain the obvious won’t work.
You did. Hence the discussion.
As you are fond of asking others to retract ‘scurrilous lies’ I would be neglectful if I didn’t insist on the same. please make my apology a massive one please!
I haven’t told any lies, so I have nothing to retract, and nothing to apologise for.
I have never, ever in my puff hear of SF describing themselves as Provos, never, the IRA have that nickname all to themselves. When I say that SF receive massive amount of electoral support from West Belfast, all sane people know what I mean. You are treading on the Willow’s territory by claiming that I could have meant anything other.
I have never claimed that you meant that there was support for any organisation other than PSF (although, by extension, it could be argued that support for PSF translates into support for the other wing of the PRM: PIRA – but I accept that things aren’t as straightforward).
I take it now that you accept that PSF don’t have a massive majority of the electorate?
Posted by on Apr 03, 2008 @ 04:31 PMWillow
>>You did. Hence the discussion.<<
Aye, I did mention to Garibaldy that our futile conversation would give you pleasure, enjoy your semi!
>>I haven’t told any lies, so I have nothing to retract, and nothing to apologise for.<<
Really? well I think you have, and tried to excuse yirsel on the flimsiest of technicalities. Anyhow my reason for pursuing it was to highlight your pathetic blustering and demands of others to do the same for you. I’ll not hold my breath waiting for an apology mind.
>>I take it now that you accept that PSF don’t have a massive majority of the electorate?<<
I stand by my claim that SF enjoy massive support amongst the electorate of West Belfast. perhaps you claim otherwise, but that claim is not worth a dod a keek in the general view of things.
>>Maybe PIRA and PSF are not one and the same (I never said that they were), but they are part of the PRM and PSF stood in the election.<<
Please show me a ballot paper or electoral list that shows PSF(sic) stood in the recent election?
Posted by on Apr 04, 2008 @ 03:18 AMPRINCE
Really?
Yes.
well I think you have, and tried to excuse yirsel on the flimsiest of technicalities.
Well, you’re wrong. And, in any case, I don’t believe that you really do think that I told any lies.
I stand by my claim that SF enjoy massive support amongst the electorate of West Belfast.
That wasn’t your claim: your claim was that they a “massive majority” of the ELECTORATE voted for them.
Please show me a ballot paper or electoral list that shows PSF(sic) stood in the recent election?
No worries - I’ll do that when you show me a ballot paper or electoral list that shows that the Tories stood in the recent election.
Posted by on Apr 04, 2008 @ 06:02 AMPE,
To cut a long story short, and as you know, no organisation likes to refer to itself with a prefix. So when the dissidents left Sinn Fein and the IRA to form the Provisionals in 1969-70, both groups referred to themselves as Sinn Fein, and it was the media that came up with the term Official Sinn Fein. As I said earlier, it was however the Provos themselves who came up with the term the Provisional Army Council.
If you look through the propaganda organs of both organisations from the 1970s, you will see occasional references by each organisation referring to itself as Official or Provisional, but once Sinn Fein became Sinn Fein The Workers’ Party, the Provisionals largely stopped using the term of themeselves as a means of claiming republican legitimacy. In the same way that supporters of the Real IRA refer to it as the IRA, and their former comrades as the Provisionals.
If you want the proof, you can look it up for yourself next time you are in Belfast as little of it is online. However, you could check out this link at CAIN which references Provisional Sinn Fein
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/othelem/organ/sorgan.htm#sf
and you could also note the sources where it cites Peter Taylor’s Provos: The IRA and Sinn Fein. The book and TV show were made with cooperation from the Provos, and discussed PSF policy as well as military stuff. Inherent in that is a recognition that both were part of the Provisional movement.
So it could be we are all making it up. Or it could be that the people you talk to take it to mean the military end only, while others take it to mean both.
Posted by on Apr 04, 2008 @ 11:12 AMGaribaldy
What a pile of shite! Are you of the opinion that I know so little of the Republican movement that I need a schoolboy type lecture?
Just because opponents use the term Provos in a disparaging way does not make it a legitimate term for SF. No more if I called Rangers the Huns, or the OO Orangies. Now show me where SF refer to themselves as Provos or gie’s peace. SF are not commonly known as the Provos. Btw I refer you to your opening remark about needless pedantry, far from killing it, you have fed some loon’s silly obsession.
Willow Liar
>>...... I don’t believe that you really do think that I told any lies.<<
Did you or did you not state that I claimed the Provos had massive electoral support in West Belfast, or words to that effect? Considering that I did not this is construed as a lie in anyone’s language, no matter how unimportant. Your failure to retract the claim only serves to highlight something I’d have preferred to move on from. As I’ve told you in the past when you have apologised to me we all make an arse of ourselves from time to time, no need to crucify others over it.
>>PE - I stand by my claim that SF enjoy massive support amongst the electorate of West Belfast.
WL - That wasn’t your claim: your claim was that they a “massive majority” of the ELECTORATE voted for them.<<
Would one not follow the other though, ie my original claim makes a certainty of my following claim. What another pathetic attempt at mindless pedantry, you really are becoming a bore. Still you don’t not think around 70% makes a massive majority Willow?
>>No worries - I’ll do that when you show me a ballot paper or electoral list that shows that the Tories stood in the recent election.<<
Why should I? Where have I claimed the Tories have stood in West Belfast? Put up or shut up, show me where PSF(sic) have stood in any recent election in West Belfast. Any further prevarication will tell us all we need to know of your spurious and ultimately sad claims.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2008 @ 01:10 PMPE,
Frankly, your posts on the Famine and on other issues repeatedly show you don’t know as much as you think you do. Go away and read the stuff I suggested from say 1970 to 1977, tell me you find no references to people from PSF referring to the Provisional Movement, then I might take you seriously. I enjoy discussing things with you civilly (as happened with the famine) but if you’re going to swear and effectively accuse me of talking in bad faith and making things up, when you haven’t checked the originals, then I won’t bother.
Posted by on Apr 05, 2008 @ 08:44 PMGaribaldy
>>Frankly, your posts on the Famine and on other issues repeatedly show you don’t know as much as you think you do.<<
Big statement, very big. I’ll have to watch my step in such esteemed company.
Your needless lecture was irrelevant to the subject in hand, in fact I believed that you were patronising me, your follow up has only confirmed that, insulting as well actually. As far as swearing at you, gie’s peace! Does writing shite cause you such distress? Jeezo, stop being so precious.
Now do SF refer to themselves as the Provos or not? You claimed they do, that is the subject at hand, yes? Being historically part of the provisional movement, or provisional wing is irrelevant, and demanding that I check originals gets me where exactly?
Posted by on Apr 05, 2008 @ 09:15 PMBack to basics.
Garibaldy, perhaps I accord you with having a smidgeon of an idea concerning partisan politics, which is why I left some things unstated. Certainly you do not accord me with having a smidgeon of knowledge regarding the IRA, thus the convoluted lecture on what is common knowledge.
So to get to the heart of the matter, Willow was seeking to denigrate, disparage if you like the credentials of the largest nationalist party in the six counties. Calling SF ‘the Provos’ harks back to a tried and trusted and largley failed Unionist campaign(remember SF/IRA speak)still used here on occasion by die hards. Said campaign seeks to undermine the legitimacy of SF by equating them with the IRA. Thus SF are not really a political party, just a mouthpiece propaganda material for the IRA etc. I really didn’t believe that it was necessary to relate this as I assumed you would be aware of this. In fact I’m positive you are aware of this, thus leaving it previously unstated. Nevertheless, subsequent events have led to the need for clarity.
The fact that the born again IRA used the term ‘provisional’ to distinguish themselves from the old or ‘official’ IRA is neither here nor there when it comes to labelling SF as the Provos. I repeat this is a tag/nickname used by all and sundry for the IRA. Just because political opponents wish to use this in an attempt to smear or undermine SF, does not legitimise it. SF do not and would not accept that this is a fit and proper name for them.
I asked you to show me evidence of your claim that SF sometimes referred to themselves as such. Instead I received a lecture on stuff which is pretty much common knowledge. I have yet to view anything that backs your point, which I have already stated if viewed I would be happy to concede. Now forgive my frustration from earlier, perhaps you might understand it now that I have been crystal.
Willow has already noted his enjoyment in you having me jump through these needless hoops.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2008 @ 06:24 AMPE,
I wasn’t intending to come across as patronising. You’ll see I said “as you know” in comment 84 but it’s possible others might be reading who don’t know the details. I had meant to take the frankly sentence out of the last post, but had forgotten.
I said that members of PSF refer to themselves as the Provos, you said that they didn’t. On the basis that you had never heard anyone from PSF refer to the party as the Provos, only the military wing.
I have had conversations with people I know in PSF refer to the Provos and mean the party. However, without taping such a conversation and putting it on the net, then the evidence I can offer comes from the period when they frequently called themselves that in public statements. Which is the significance of the originals. It’s proof that they have used the term of themselves, even if they don’t do it publicly any more. In the same way that the PIRA only ever calls itself the IRA, and hasn’t referred to the Provisional Army Council of the IRA formally in years.
So in short, formally I agree that the party does not refer to itself as the Provos. But then again, formally neither does the military wing, yet you are happy to accept that its members and supporters describe it as the Provos.
So what we’re arguing over is the way people talk about them in social and informal settings. The reason I’m coming across as irritable is that because you are effectively telling me that because you have never heard anyone refer to them as the Provos then I must be making stuff up. Which is a little hard to take as most people don’t like being called liars, and because it takes your experience as a visitor to NI to be more authentic than that of those who grew up and live here. Which strikes me as patronising and insulting, even if it wasn’t intended to be.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2008 @ 06:46 AMPE,
We’ve both been posting when our tempers are a little short, but no offence intended on either side and no harm done I hope. I starting writing my last before your last appeared. We’ll have to agree to disagree on whether the naming of the new military organisation as the Provisionals has any importance for what we call the allied political organisation. What we can agree on is that in this day and age the party itself would not use the term Provisional.
On Willowfield’s point, you’re totally right on the substantive point about the overwhelming support the party has among those who vote in west Belfast. He’s in the wrong on that substantive point. Whatever about some unionists, I have absolutely no problem recognising the legitimacy of their mandate, so if I refer to PSF it’s not an attempt to deny that.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2008 @ 06:59 AM>>We’ve both been posting when our tempers are a little short, but no offence intended on either side and no harm done I hope.<<
Agreed!
>>...on the substantive point…<<
Now if only you had listened to me in the first place(or yourself for that matter :)) Pedantry is Willows obsession. I wouldn’t blame him for having a laugh at my expense, suppose it gets me back for ripping the piss in the latter part of this thread.
Posted by on Apr 06, 2008 @ 07:56 AMPRINCE EOGHAN
Now show me where SF refer to themselves as Provos or gie’s peace. SF are not commonly known as the Provos.
Just because PSF themselves don’t refer to themselves as PSF, doesn’t mean that it is not entirely legitimate or reasonable for others so to refer to them. The Provos have no more right to appropriate the name “Sinn Féin” for themselves as to RSF, 32SC, the Workers [sic] Party, or even FG or FF. In fact, if we are to attribute the name to the party which has deviated least from the 2nd Dáil, then RSF get the name.
>>...... I don’t believe that you really do think that I told any lies.<<
Did you or did you not state that I claimed the Provos had massive electoral support in West Belfast, or words to that effect?YOU stated that they had the support of a “massive majority” of the ELECTORATE. I pointed out that they got support from less than half of the electorate at the last election.
Considering that I did not this is construed as a lie in anyone’s language, no matter how unimportant.
This doesn’t make sense. Nothing I have said is untrue. All I did was take issue with your claim about PSF having support from a “massive majority” of the ELECTORATE.
Your failure to retract the claim only serves to highlight something I’d have preferred to move on from.
What “claim”??
Please retract your accusation that I have lied. I don’t lie.
Would one not follow the other though, ie my original claim makes a certainty of my following claim.
Not necessarily: we do not know what proportion of non-voters support PSF.
Still you don’t not think around 70% makes a massive majority Willow?
It’s arguable whether you could say “massive”, but it’s certainly a very large majority (of voters).
>>No worries - I’ll do that when you show me a ballot paper or electoral list that shows that the Tories stood in the recent election.<<
Why should I?Because you’re arguing that you can’t refer to parties by any name other than the “official” name by which they prefer to be known. By the same token, we should never refer to the Tories (or, indeed the “Stoops”, or the “DUPes”, or the “Blueshirts”, etc.
Where have I claimed the Tories have stood in West Belfast?
Nowhere. Why do you ask?
Put up or shut up, show me where PSF(sic) have stood in any recent election in West Belfast.
Um, they’ve stood in them all since the early 80s!
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 08:57 AMWillow
It doesnt matter if your name is on the roles if you don’t vote you arent part of the electorate
Participation is the point, if you don’t participate you arent part of the electorate
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 12:48 PM>>Please retract your accusation that I have lied. I don’t lie.<<
Please retract your claim that I retract my many points stating the obvious that you lied!
For the last time I did not make any claims electorally concerning the Provos, you claim I did, this is untrue. An untruth that you have persisted in, thus it is now established as a lie. That in effect, unless rectified with a grovelling apology and a bit of feet kissing makes you a big fat LIAR!
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 03:57 PMSTEVE
It doesnt matter if your name is on the roles if you don’t vote you arent part of the electorate
Wrong. You’re part of the electorate if you’re on the electoral register. You can then choose whether or not to vote, but if you don’t vote it doesn’t mean you’re not part of the electorate.
PRINCE
Please retract your claim that I retract my many points stating the obvious that you lied!
Claim? I asked you to retract your accusations: I didn’t make any claim.
For the last time I did not make any claims electorally concerning the Provos, you claim I did, this is untrue.
Zzzzzzzzz
You know perfectly well that I was referring to Provisional Sinn Féin - or as you choose to refer to them “Sinn Féin”. And, even if you didn’t initially, it couldn’t have been made clearer in the subsequent discussion, and intervention by Garibaldy. Clearly you didn’t read my last post on the issue, but let me restate it: “Just because PSF themselves don’t refer to themselves as PSF, doesn’t mean that it is not entirely legitimate or reasonable for others so to refer to them. The Provos have no more right to appropriate the name “Sinn Féin” for themselves as to RSF, 32SC, the Workers [sic] Party, or even FG or FF. In fact, if we are to attribute the name to the party which has deviated least from the 2nd Dáil, then RSF get the name.”
Faux ignorance about to whom I was referring doesn’t alter the reality that you claimed they had a massive majority of the ELECTORATE, when they don’t.
An untruth that you have persisted in, thus it is now established as a lie.
I told no untruth and no lie - as you know. This faux ignorance about what I meant is silly.
That in effect, unless rectified with a grovelling apology and a bit of feet kissing makes you a big fat LIAR!
It doesn’t.
Now, stop playing dumb, and retract the accusation.
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 04:07 PM>>Now, stop playing dumb, and retract the accusation.<<
How dare you call be dumb, ya big fat lying dumbo!
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 04:18 PMWillow
Wrong again and as usual
Democracy is a participation sport if you don’t vote then you aren’t playing and you arent on the team, you are just another spectator in the stands and your name doesn’t go on the team roster.
Perhaps sports analogies will work on you
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 04:49 PMRetract the accusation, Prince.
Posted by on Apr 07, 2008 @ 08:33 PMSteve
‘It doesnt matter if your name is on the roles if you don’t vote you arent part of the electorate’Maybe in ‘Steve-World’, but in the real world your definition of electorate is just plain wrong.
From Wikipedia
Electorate may refer to:* A constituency, the group of people entitled to vote in an election.
* An electoral district, the geographic area of a particular election.
* The dominion of an Elector in the Holy Roman Empire.
From Collins
‘all the people in an area or country who have the right to vote in an election’Princeton Wordnet
‘the body of enfranchised citizens; those qualified to vote’Posted by on Apr 08, 2008 @ 02:15 AM
