Slugger O'Toole

Latest posts from Turgon (see all)

Turgon has posted 697 times (3 in the last month).

Latest comments from Turgon (see all)

Turgon has commented 2,203 times (5 in the last month).

1. Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
   on 3 May 2012 at 4:49 pm

   SK,
   I think the republican line is farctionally more subtle (though no less flawed). From what is frequently stated here and elsewhere republicans claim that since the security forces claimed moral superiority over the IRA, then they (the security forces) had to abide by higher standards.

   In this perversly republicans are completely correct. Indeed the state must abide by higher standards. That is why Bloody Sunday was wrong: some soldiers did not abide by high standards; rather they killed innocent people – murder.

   In this case, however, along with those of the Loughgall “martyrs” etc. however, the security forces did abide by high standards. Those high standards do not, however, have to include the security force members putting themselves at excessive and overwhelming personal risk in order to try to stop the terrorists dying.

   On this occassion even by the standard republicans set for the security forces (a standard much higher than republicans set for the IRA – demonstrating their own hypocrisy) the security forces pass.

   Go to comment

2. Comment on “Given these circumstances we believe the soldiers used reasonable force.”
   on 3 May 2012 at 4:02 pm

   Firstly celebrating anyone’s death is not really decent or polite. These two terrorists who died were clearly loved by their families. Their families cannot be expected to be wholly rational about their loved ones deaths.

   However, republicans are asking society to believe that these people should not have been killed. Well, in the circumstances of their own actions they, the dead terrorists, have only themselves to blame.

   The recurrent republican fantasy asks us to believe that the republican “volunteers” were fighting “a war” and as such had the right to open fire on essentially anyone they wanted to.

   The same republican fantasy, however, also claims that the security forces were claiming moral superiority (something I agree with the republicans on). The problem then is that republicans claim that with the security forces claiming (in my view correctly) moral superiority then the security forces were required to arrest these terrorists.

   The simple fact is that these two heavily armed terrorists were “on active service” (aka committing crimes) and posed an immediate and direct threat to the security forces.

   Had the situation been the other way round and the terrorists surprised the SAS republicans would be happy to have the terrorists open fire first. However, they require a higher standard of the security forces. In this they are right and proper.

   However, in this case the security forces did act in a fashion of a higher standard than the terrorists. The SAS opened fire when the terrorists posed a threat to them (the SAS). When the terrorists stopped posing a threat they clearly stopped firing. Then when a terrorist looked like posing a threat again the SAS member shot him again.

   It is simply idiotic to expect the security forces to try to arrest armed terrorists who were clearly intending to go out and kill people and who would have opened fire as soon as they heard or saw the soldiers. Hence, the soldiers identifying themseleves would have put themselves, the soldiers, at great risk.

   The security forces should be held to a higher standard than terrorists but that standard does not mean the security forces deliberately putting their own lives at immediate excessive and extreme risk by making themselves the targets of armed terrorists.

   Whilst it is sad that anyone died here in the Troubles these two terrorists died due to their own illegal and immoral actions.

   Go to comment

3. Comment on The Brendan Smith case and the church’s strange relations with the power of law
   on 3 May 2012 at 11:31 am

   I am usually reticent about commenting on the Catholic Church. Clearly I profoundly disagree with it yet I recognise that is has a position of very high esteem in the lives of many people whom I know, respect and like. Furthermore having met a large number of priests I have never met one whom I did not like and respect.

   However, this defence by Brady is actually very weak. It is true that people sometimes viewed child abuse differently in the 1970s. The central difference was sadly children frequently were not believed. However, in these cases it seems that the investigatory group in which Brady was heavily involved did indeed believe the children.

   Furthermore in view of the way paedophile priests were moved it seems that very frequently very many of the allegations were believed. As such a defence of things were done differently then simply does not wash. Raping children has always been a serious criminal offence.

   Rather than report these rapes to the police the commission of which Brady was a central member made children take an oath to the highest authority (God) not to disclose what they had said: effectively banning them from speaking to the lawful authorities of the state.

   Furthermore these perverts were not even removed from involvement with children. They were moved to new places giving them new access to new children. That at a time when the Catholic church had no lack of priests.

   Brady may well have been a decent man trying to make the best of a disaster. However, he is still morally and legally culpable. In which parallel universe should he not have reported people whom he believed to be guilty of child rape? In which parallel universe should he not have taken absolutely all actions available to him as an individual to try to stop these rapists?

   Go to comment

4. Comment on Peter takes charge while Martin appeals to the British for help
   on 1 May 2012 at 12:02 pm

   BP,
   Firstly welcome and congratulations of your becoming a blogger: not that I regard it as a superior position but it is fun.

   Now on to attacking you in a vicious and personal fashion.

   I am unclear why Robinson is doing this. The Ulster Agricultural Society meeting there may well make good sense and I am sure the plane museum which I believe is already there are attractions. However, I am highly dubious that any form of “Intrepretative Centre” will be a tourist mecca. We need to understand that the grubby sectarian conflict visited on us by the assorted terrorists was just criminality. It is simply not that interesting to the outside world. Just as a centre explaining Eta’s campaign would be interesting to few apart from supporters of their terrorist campaign.

   I also suspect it is not that interesting to ordinary decent unionists and nationalists to see where the criminals were justly incarcarated and where a few chose to / were tricked into committing suicide.

   No matter what Peter Robinson or anyone else may say I doubt many normal people will want to go to this centre and as such whatever its exhibits, it will become a terrorist shrine as the exhibits lauding the security forces and decent people will be ignored and the emotive nonsense to the terrorist worshipers gets venerated.

   I do not really see where the political advantage to Robinson is. I very much doubt the potential DUP voting Catholic unionists (the unicorns to use the one phrase I have invented which has gained some currency) want to go to such a centre: I doubt any save the loyalist cheerleaders on the “prod” side will want to go. As such this option seems to gain little politically for Robinson.

   The strategy of simply stopping development of the shrine until the structure fell apart was doing pretty well for the DUP and had been maintained for a number years now. I would have thought another 15 years and the building would be so unsafe that it would have to be demolished.

   You could say Robinson’s move is about leadership (and you will note I have said many very complementary things about Robinson recently) but I am afraid on this one it looks more like a side deal Robinson has made with Sinn Fein as a quid pro quo for something else. If that is the case I am afraid it was a mistake.

   An alternative happier reading might be that Robinson is hoping there will be a backlash and that will stop the shrine again. This would allow him to say to SF that he had tried but that there is simply not the community support available to allow the process to go forward. I do hope this is his strategy as a centre whatever one might hope is very likely to become a shrine by default and that will damamge Robinsons and unionism: not fatally but unnecessarily and for little or no political gain.

   Go to comment

5. Comment on Farewell to Education for Reconciliation
   on 30 April 2012 at 1:22 pm

   This euology to this project is intersting. I have little doubt it was a well meaning project and I suspect few would be directly antagonistic to its aims – I certainly am not.

   However, it is especially interesting for the way in which a specific agenda has proceeded through schooling without it seems much democratic accountability.

   The initial aim of an individual (Aidan Clifford it seems) was due to what he saw as a “Moral imperative”. However, he simply did not have a mandate for this “moral imperative.” Yet Clifford’s “moral imperative” managed to gain EU funding. EU funding is under absolutely no direct democratic control and under little enough scrutiny. Furthermore after Clifford’s imperative to “the totality of people on these two islands” the project then got funded only for schools in Northern Ireland and certain parts of the RoI somewhat undermining the broad sweep of its lofty ideals.

   Andy Pollak does not enlighten us as to what explanation parents were given regarding their children’s involvement in this project nor indeed who the speakers etc. were (presumably they varied as it was a long term project).

   Pollak himself states:
   “If I had my way, I would make them a core element of the citizenship programmes in both jurisdictions, and I would make those citizenship programmes compulsory throughout the second level school cycle.”

   The problem there is that Andy Pollak has no elected mandate. Dear knows I have no time for the current (or previous education miniter at Stormont) but they have been elected and are answerable to a committee. For far too long assorted of our “elders and betters” have been able to organise schemes of their own devising and then get EU money (actually our tax money at the end of the day) to finance these pet projects without any real accountability.

   That money might have been used to improve school infrastructure, fund the NHS or all sorts of other projects. In a democracy the decisions taken with citizens money should be under electorally accountable control and scrutiny. However, in this case as with all EU funding the proximity to accountability is remote to say the least.

   Pollak goes on to state: “There is nothing more important in Ireland than working with the still open minds of children and young people “ Well maybe but others might argue the NHS is more important. However, if children are our future and other tired cliches the problem is again that the decision about these sorts of “citizenship education” classes is that they are intensly political and politicised.

   Furthermore at the end of the day children and their education are the responsibility of their parents. Pushing a politicalicised set of objectives on children against their parents wishes is not acceptable and is also likely to be utterly useless.

   Pollak goes on to describe this initiative as “Grass roots”. that is simply incorrect. It was clearly a top down initiative by a well meaning academic: the oppoosite of grass roots.

   The final sentence is simply a non sequitor. The ending of this programme is most unlikely to be the single thing that prevents a putative future return to violence. Such hyperbole does the programe no favours.

   Go to comment

6. Comment on Orange EU Funding: An Opportunity to Exercise Responsible Society
   on 21 April 2012 at 9:00 pm

   Of this island,
   I think you may slightly misunderstand the criticism (well mine anyhow).

   Of course you have biases: we all do. If you are academics (I do not doubt you) then you must be aware that current affairs, culture, politics, history, most things are open to interpretation and in commenting on them we all have our biases. You should not attempt to avoid your bias or avoid controversy. Rather you should embrace it. A huge advantage of slugger is instant and two way feedback in a manner impossible in journals and difficult to have with adequate reference etc. in conference debates etc.

   You will not foster cooperation and respect differences by subjugating your own views individually or collectively.

   Use of individual names or pseudonyms is a good idea.

   If I may speculate you seem to be a group of well meaning mainly nationalist minded or neutral (or very small u unionist) individuals. There is nothing there to be remotely ashamed of. Of course if you post anything non unionist the unionist commentators will jump on you. Pretending not to be nationalists (or whatever you are) will not endear you to unionists: actually it will earn our contempt. Only when you are comfortable in your own identity can you hope to promote mutual cooperation and respect for our assorted differences.

   Go to comment

7. Comment on Orange EU Funding: An Opportunity to Exercise Responsible Society
   on 21 April 2012 at 11:51 am

   Of this island,
   Firstly some nice man playing (though can one man play a committee?). It is very difficult to write by committee (if you have done any academic work you will know well). Slugger is not really academic (I mean that politely) but more journalistic in nature and journalism by committee is next to impossible.

   Might I suggest you have subsidiary names as well as “Of this Island” hence, making clear which of you has done a given piece yet taking collective ownership of it much the way scientific papers are written.

   As to remaining anonymous I would suggest you continue to do so for the mean time though I frequently consider dropping my anonymity.

   On a specific point you repeatedly used the terms Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland which are reasonably neutral: the addition of “six counties”, however, is a bit jarring if you want to avoid accusations of bias – maybe someone on the committee should have spotted that though it is a minor point.

   On the substance of the post it could read a little churlishly about unionists and their representatives: equally if you are as caustic about nationalists (and letsgetalongerists) in the future you will be on safer ground.

   Your comment about EU funding and oversight is very valid. EU funding frequently has poor oversight: it is pure whataboutery but a classic example is that when Michelle O’Neill tried to approve EU funding for a terrorist memorial in Crossmaglen it was not stopped by the EU.

   As such criticising EU oversight of its funding projects is entirely valid. However, as Drumlins Rock has pointed out the inference you draw from that genuine problem (EU oversight of its grants) is very poor. Orange halls are used for many things and frequently by both sides of the community. The fact that the OO is the lead in a project does not automatically make it exclusive any more than the fact that the GAA is the lead in a project makes it exclusive.

   The following two paragraphs should be linked and you should have made that clear:

   Chairman of the Orange Community Network, Drew Nelson, kept his cards close to his chest when he reflected that, “there is an imbalance of weak community infrastructure, low confidence and low levels of participation within the Protestant community, particularly in interface and Border areas.”

   The closest words to outreach are those of William McKeown, Grand Treasurer of the Lodge, who commented that the grant, “will equip the Protestant community with the ability to engage with the wider community and to encourage it to re-engage as equal partners as Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland move forward.”

   There is a huge problem of weak infrastructure, poor participation and lack of confidence in border Protestant communities: much of that due to the IRA’s murder campaign in those areas. In order to increase community participation, however, community confidence must be rebuilt and necessarily that will begin within border Protestant communities. Once that community confidence has been rebuilt then expecting engagement with the Catholic community is entirely reasonable.

   This is a mirror image of the same problem in overwhelmingly Protestant / unionist areas where the Catholic community does not feel able to take part: again building up the communities own self confidence is a vital prerequisite to expecting wider engagement.

   Despite you allegedly scholarly article the failure to recognise this basic point about community confidence and cohesion prior to expecting outreach fatally flaws your argument and I am afraid calls into question the validity of your academic pretensions.

   Go to comment

8. Comment on For Unionists Only: What would you relish in a United Ireland?
   on 20 April 2012 at 10:22 am

   carl marks,
   A comparison which is completely irrelevant. I contrasted living in a putative state (United Ireland) which I would not “relish” with one living in an actual state I would “relish” a great deal less. Equivalent valid comparisons out of which I chose a United Ireland incidentally.

   In reply you compared a political position with an illness. This is not a valid comparison. It is not even comparing apples with oranges: more comparing apples with paving stones.

   Go to comment

9. Comment on Sinn Fein’s idea of rapprochement “is a brick-cold exercise in reinvention, re-positioning and re-writing of the past”
   on 20 April 2012 at 9:32 am

   There is a genunine problem here for nationalists if indeed they really want to persuade unionists re a United Ireland. They cannot offer unionists anything much for a series of reasons: those below are far from exhaustive.

   Firstly because they do not know what unionists want outside remaining in the union. That is the problem: unionists are a disparate group with many different views; the unifying characteristic of unionists is a desire for the union. Hence, proposing the political opposite of that and then asking how to persuade a disparate group united by unionism of its political opposite is nigh on impossible.

   The next problem is that some nationalists then demand of unionists “What do you want to accept a united Ireland”. That is the wrong way round: it is not for us to tell you what we demand precisely because we are a group with disparate views and we want the union. To then denounce unionists for not “engaging” in helping remove obstacles to unity is not a valid position but a sign of frustration. Furthermore if a unionist is ever foolish enough to promote a shopping list of demands then that is seen as the beginings of a negootiating position where some of the shopping list will be discounted which makes the already unattractive United Ireland even less attractive. In addition that unionist only speaks for him / herself and, hence, their position cannot be generalised to other unionists.

   Finally and possibly most significantly nationalists cannot offer unionists anything in a putative United Ireland. In such a state the overwhelming majority of its citizens would be current citizens of the RoI and if the new state were a democracy then the citizens of the former RoI would legitamately have a veto over anything nationalists had offered unionists.

   This game of what would it take to get unionists to agree to a united Ireland is really an example of the impotent frustration of some nationalists that the dream of a United Ireland by 2016 or whatever (remember that) is a fantasy. However, we unionists did not propogate that delusion it was propograted by those politically closer to home for republicans at any rate.

   Go to comment

10. Comment on For Unionists Only: What would you relish in a United Ireland?
    on 20 April 2012 at 9:16 am

    carl marks,
    First of all this was meant to be a unionist only thread. You and Billy Pilgrim seem to have ignored that. Secondly please do not misrepresent my comments to make them the opposite of what I said: that is dishonest. Here is what I said “I am sure it would not be as bad as North Korea “ As such I was comparing a putative United Ireland to North Korea in a wholly favourable sense. It would be better than NK but that does not mean I would “relish” anything about it.

    Go to comment