Slugger O'Toole

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

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

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

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

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

Mick,
On a point of order similar to FJH’s on the other related blog. This is meant to be a blog for unionists only. On the other blog the contrary discipline was fairly closely adhered to and it should probably be adhered to here as well.

Go to comment

Ringland makes a long but carefully argued case. It is well worth reading but then well worth disagreeing with him where one does so. Therein lies the centrality of the point.

Ringland states: “Those who simply wave a flag should be challenged on the paucity of their arguments” However, he is waving a flag himself and Platform for Change His and theirs is a legitimate position but it is just as much a “flag” and its supporters “flag wave” just as much for it as do the flag wavers of other groups.

Ringland quotes Alan McBride: “would also blame the sectarian society that created their mindsets.”. McBride is entitled to his view (he has paid a very heavy price through no fault of his own which entitles him to speak). However, the idea that society is to blame is by no means universally accepted. Most people here feel we have absolutely nothing to apologise for regarding the Troubles. McBride is entitled to his position but I observe that I know no other victims who agree with him and most of society sides with them and against McBride.

Ringland in common with many Liberal Dissidents goes on to discuss the concept of us all bearing some responsibility at least for the context of the Troubles. This highly nebulous and ill defined concept has also been rejected by most here in Northern Ireland. The enthusiasm some have for this borders on a sort of Blood Libel against Northern Ireland’s citizens (no disrespect to Alias) and is as nonsensical as the original blood libel against the Jews.

This statement from Ringland is interesting:
“The idea that those on the ‘other’ side all felt the same way about conflict and wanted the same things was a nonsense but nonetheless a ‘reality’ in too many unchallenged minds.”

The idea that is was a reality in many minds is also a nonsense. Indeed despite the caveats there is the clear implication that Ringland thinks this is how we all thought but is too clever to admit it.

However, on the middle class Ringland (like many in the middle class) is totally flawed. The uninvolved but still “defining” middle class. Those the ones who did their professional jobs for all without fear or favour (like I have no doubt Ringland). Those who provided employment despite their shops and businesses being destroyed or boycotted? The vast majority of the middle class just like the vast majority of the working class bear absolutely no responsibility, guilt etc. and should hold their heads high over what they did and did not do during the Troubles.

Quoting the comments from the Dali Lama is simply bizarre: in the Southern USA there have been racist murders of blacks by whites: almost all of both sides in such cases are not merely Christian but Protestants. In addition the Dali Lama seems unaware of the religious make up of Croatia during its war with Serbia. Religion here was a lazy shorthand for ethnicity and a man as clever as Trevor Ringland should not perpetuate the quite dishonest fiction that this was a religious conflict. The fact that the Dali Lama said it simply shows that he (the Dali Lama) did not know what he was talking about on this issue.

The proposals are flawed which is unsurprising proceeding as they do from a position so utterly flawed.

Ringland is a lawyer and must know that international standards of law require prosecution of criminals where possible yet such seems to receive little comment in the proposals.

Ringland refers to the Leveson Enquiry but fails to point out that alongside that enquiry there have been arrests and there may very well be prosecutions. Again whataboutery is important and appropriate: whatabout Steven Lawrence; whatabout Jennifer Cardy. Does Ringland think their murderers should have been prosecuted after all those years? If no why not and if yes then why are the other dead different. International law says they are not.

Ringland asks for a group of unelected people who look suspiciously like “Liberal Dissidents” to draft a statement: No they have no mandate to do that and if we asked them to do it we or our elected representatives would have to vote to accept or reject it; annoying thing this democracy lark.

Then more worryingly it suggests that this unelected group have a say on the continuance or otherwise of the legal process which is completely unacceptable in a democracy and comes back to my comments above about international standards of law as well as Steven Lawrence and Jennifer Cardy.

Ringland suggests a “Statement of Wrongs” However, that is a form of collective guilt: a concept rejected in law and morality. Individuals may state they did wrong; groups of individuals did wrong. However, collective guilt is unacceptable. Even with terrorists this is the case. All in the IRA have done wrong. However, the IRA murderer is more culpable than the person who only hid guns or was only a member. Law recognises those distinctions: Ringland’s proposals specifically nullify it.

Ringland goes on to suggest a promise or commitment be made in schools etc. Such a suggestion in a school sounds like a Liberal dissident form of Orwellian double speak and totalitarianism. What if I do not want my child involved in such a thing?

Ringland concludes by quoting a Polish Jewish lady on the holocaust. However, his proposals are almost the precise opposite of what she says and what most Jews demanded after the holocaust namely: The prosecution without fear or favour of the criminals and not handing over the guilt of the past to the next generation. Almost the opposite of Ringland’s proposals.

Ringland is of course entitled to say whatever he wants as is Platform for Change. However, it must be remembered that these sorts of proposals have been put to the people of Northern Ireland time after time in various guises and on each occasion have been rejected by the population and by our elected representatives. As such leaving aside their other flaws they should not and must not be implemented.

Go to comment

JR,
I could equally demand that my child learns Ulster Scots or is taught creationism. I can do that but only if a pay for it myself either outside school or else in a private school.

Education is about vastly more than learning Irish or playing certain team games with a resonance for some members of the nationalist community. Both of those are entirely valid activities but why should the state make special provision for them and why should you be allowed to demand that a school provide such provision.

Go to comment

RyanAdams,
Fine if you want your children to play it send them to rugby in the evenings or weekends. Personally I would rather mine did not. I too pay my taxes and do not want my children playing rugby (or GAA for that matter). However, yet again the red herring of sport is the obsession in the blog. Sport is simply not the most important part of the curriculum and there is no need to play a team game associated rightly or wrongly with one section of the community. Keep party or percieved party games out of school.

Go to comment

Mr. Ulster,
I am sorry for your problems.

It is unlikely to be any one person’s fault. The simple fact is that your wife’s problem demonstrates the foolishness of the current system. We simply do not have enough people doing specialist procedures such as she needs. That means that patients sit about waiting, taking up beds, getting no better, costing money.

The solution is to have more procedures and more things done. The way to pay for that is to have less small hospitals capable of very little save keeping patients till they are moved for the procedure. It may even be having less beds but getting people through the system at a sensible speed. This is what patients, staff and relatives all want. The problem is every time anyone proposes rationalisation of how we do things one has shroud waving and complaints that whichever small hospital must be kept open come what may.

I hope all goes well for you and her.

Go to comment