Twelth boost to business

The Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland (they should have a blog page on the front) has published a report suggesting that the Twelth of July celbrations can boost local and tourist businesses, suggesting that “businesses in one town netted a total of

  • Millie

    WF

    ‘Unionists accepted the right of nationalist Ireland to self-government. They accepted the compromise of partitioning the island rather than opposing home rule for the whole island. Nationalists, unfortunately, refused to accept this compromise and continued to try to force unionists into a self-governing state against their will. With violence.’

    But since a self-governing state is exactly what unionists ended up with, their objections to home rule were disingenous. Or was it perhaps that the maintainance of Protestant privilege would have been unsustainable in an all-Ireland state?

  • willowfield

    Millie

    But since a self-governing state is exactly what unionists ended up with, their objections to home rule were disingenous.

    There’s an irony in the fact that NI ended up being self-governing, but the point remains. Unionists accepted the right of nationalist Ireland to self-government (i.e. governing themselves outside the UK).

  • maca

    CG
    “Yip. But, prior to going to Scotland they were in Ulster.”

    So why are they called Ulster Scots if they just came home? 😉
    Just making the point that I don’t think it’s an entirely accurate statement (with my limited knollidge of the subject). Was it not just a particular area that they colonised in Scotland? Was it the exact same folks who came back during the plantation? Just probing…

  • George

    Davidbrew,
    it wasn’t my eulogy, it was my Taoiseach’s.

    The difference between Kevin Barry and Cahill, Begley and the rest is that Barry was a soldier in the Irish army, endorsed by the legitimate parliament of the Irish Republic, Dail Eireann.

    Your failure to distinguish between the two is just another sign of your anti-Irish prejudice and your inability to accept that it is the people of Ireland and the people of Ireland alone who will determine their fate.

    You seem to think a Westminster edict (Government of Ireland Act 1920) holds more democratic weight in Ireland than an edict from Dail Eireann, the legitimate, democratically elected parliament of my country.

    Your views are to me as subversive as Begley’s because like his buddies, democracy only interests you when you are in control of it.

    If the democratic will of the people is intrinsically opposed to yours, you just ignore the democratic process and instead advocate “executing” the legitimate soldiers of my country.

    You are no more than an apologist for future terrorism that your views condone should the time come when the people of Ireland north and south vote for unification.

  • willowfield

    Still think putting 200,000 people on the dole will improve the economy, George?

  • George

    They already are on the dole Willowfield.

    Definition of dole: someone living off money received from the state.

    I just recommend we get these people to do something productive and beneficial for the region with their time.

    Anyway, it’s not not only the economists who are on my side. As you pointed out the UK government also agrees with me and is slowly taking action. A 15% cut in public sector numbers by 2008. That’s a good start.

  • willowfield

    They already are on the dole Willowfield.

    They’re not.

    Definition of dole: someone living off money received from the state.

    That’s not the definition.

    I just recommend we get these people to do something productive and beneficial for the region with their time.

    Putting them on the dole will have quite the opposite effect.

    Anyway, it’s not not only the economists who are on my side. As you pointed out the UK government also agrees with me and is slowly taking action. A 15% cut in public sector numbers by 2008. That’s a good start.

    The government isn’t proposing to sack 200,000 people. And the cut in public sector employees is part of the government’s UK-wide plan to spend less money. While it might not effect the UK-wide economy, since there may be enough jobs to soak up the extra unemployed, in NI the private sector is too weak to offer alternative jobs, therefore it will be bad for the economy.

  • davidbrew

    “You are no more than an apologist for future terrorism”
    George

    -as opposed to your infinitely superior position of being an apologist for past and present terrorism!!
    Don’t go all precious because you’re uncomfortable with the unbroken line of evil and bigotry which created your state and continues to the present day. There is no moral difference between Barry the soldier killer, Cahill the police killer, and Begley the civilian killer. No doubt they’re all comparing notes in Hades as we speak.

  • George

    Willowfield,
    we all know you can’t sack public sector workers so I would be advocating natural wastage.

    Davidbrew,
    you present your lies as evidential truths but there is no truth in what you say.

    Your refusal to accept Dail Eireann as my legitimate parliament makes you no better than the other shower who don’t accept my parliament.

    Answer me this, if the majority of people north and south voted that Dail Eireann was their legitimate parliament, would you accept it? Yes or no.

    If no, I am now not surprised you enjoy justifying burning other countries’ flags.

  • George

    Davidbrew,
    if you think honouring our war dead is apologism for terror, you really should look at your view of Ireland.

    I’ve thought this for a while, namely that there is a strain of unionism (size of which I don’t know) that not only refuses to accept the Irish minority within Northern Ireland but also refuses to accept the legitimacy of the Irish state in any way shape or form.

    Your rabid attitude towards Kevin Barry, who was a member of the Irish Army during the War of Independence, strongly indicates that you are a member of this supremacist club.

    If so, you are an enemy of democracy.

  • George

    As Erskine Childers once said: Kevin Barry “was doing precisely what Englishmen would be doing under the same circumstances and under the same provocation.”

    But then again, we were expected roll over and allow ourselves be kicked in the head one more time Davidbrew.

    I, as an Irish citizen owe a huge debt to those who won my freedom, and a very small part was paid when we gave him a state funeral.

    But you seem to think that we have to look at every part of our past through the prism of Northern Ireland. We have gone beyond that and are able to look at the past in its own terms.

    That is why we can look forward to the future, we have buried the past.

  • Congal Claen

    Hi Maca,

  • maca

    CG
    What do you think of the French Resistence during WW2. Terrorists or freedom fighters?
    Just trying to understand your view.

    The whole thing, for me, centers around the definitions of terrorist* vs freedom fighter.
    You might think there is no comparison between the French Resistence and the old IRA, yet for many of us(or me at least) they are much the same, freedom fighters who fought for independence.

    Or “terrist” as George W would say, because we won’t need a third R … to defend America againt evil. Nucificate them all!

  • willowfield

    Don’t think terrorist and freedom fighter are mutually exclusive. You could be a terrorist fighting for “freedom”, or you could be a terrorist fighting for something else. Equally, a “freedom fighter” may not employ terrorism.

  • willowfield

    For me, terrorism is a method which can be employed for many different ends, of which “freedom” is only one.

  • maca

    But there is a huge difference in the terms Willowfield, even if they are not mutually exclusive.
    French Resistence – your opinion?
    Old IRA – your opinion. If different, can I ask why?

  • Davros

    I don’t think one can “legitimise” acts done because one approves of the goals of the wrong-doer(s).

    So if the resistance in France during WWI had for example horribly and cruelly murdered a group of dog-breeders at dinner in a hotel it would STILL be an abominable evil .

  • Davros

    WWII, sorry

  • willowfield

    Agree with Davros.

    You should judge violence on whether it is just or not – both the cause and the method.

    There may be a just cause, but the methods used may be unjust.

    I can’t think of too many instances when terrorism (if we mean targeting of civilians in oder to cause maximum death and destruction for political gain) is justified: things would have to be pretty desperate.

  • maca

    I also agree with Davros there.
    But that can also be applied to any legitimate army in any ‘legitimate conflict’.
    But you’re moving away from the point. I don’t remember the French Resistence or the old IRA targeting groups of civilians “in order to cause maximum death and destruction”.
    (although my memory does need refreshing on the whole Anglo-Irish war period)

    How do you define terrorism* then, when the methods or the cause is unjust? Or the cause is just but the method unjust?
    Again, French Resistence – terrorist or freedom fighters? Or does it depend which side you are on?

    *how to draw a definition rather than what is that definition

  • willowfield

    How do you define terrorism* then, when the methods or the cause is unjust? Or the cause is just but the method unjust?

    I’ve just said that terrorism *is* the method.

    Again, French Resistence – terrorist or freedom fighters? Or does it depend which side you are on?

    I’ve just said terrorist and freedom fighter are not mutually exclusive, so your question doesn’t make sense. And, no, it doesn’t matter what side you are on.

  • maca

    WF
    “I’ve just said that terrorism *is* the method.”

    I think I see where you are going. It should be judged on both the cause and method but if the method is unjust you would class it as terrorism*.

    “I’ve just said terrorist and freedom fighter are not mutually exclusive, so your question doesn’t make sense.”

    Yes I know but surely they are labelled one or the other? Any history book will call them freedom fighters. I am just asking what you call them, judge them on both cause and methods if you must.

    And it certainly matters what side you are on. I think Iraq has shown us that.

  • maca

    Btw the * indicated a note should have been added, which due to clumsy fingers was ommitted.

    *I know what you are saying about ‘terrorism being the method’ but it’s more than that. Legitimate armies by this definition use terrorism but this label is never applied to them.

    But “terrorist” is a label which gets applied to particular groups, and generally it IS one or the other, terrorist OR freedom fighter.

  • Congal Claen

    Hi Maca,

  • Davros

    Hmmm- someone within a movement that is otherwise fighting a legitimate war may still commit an act of terrorism. That person has ceased to be a freedom fighter and becomes a terrorist. Assuming the movement disassociates itself with the specific incident then the movement is not itself terrorist.

    That is why I would say that SF struggle. When Gerry Adams wearing his SF hat – or any other SF politician – refuses to condemn many atrocities then he blurs the line between his party being a legitimate political party of resistance rather than a terrorist front.

    That’s not to say that Many/Most SF members and their supporters are terrorist supporters.

  • willowfield

    maca

    Yes I know but surely they are labelled one or the other?

    Not by me.

    Any history book will call them freedom fighters. I am just asking what you call them, judge them on both cause and methods if you must.

    I call them French Resistance.

    And it certainly matters what side you are on.

    Not to me it doesn’t.

  • maca

    CG
    Thanks but there’s an important issue within your post. Old Ra vs New. I gather from the fact that you concentrated on the current IRA that you see no difference between the old IRA and the current crop?

    It can be also questioned whether democracy truly existed after the turn of the century. To many people the old IRA were like the French resistence. You probably don’t understand or agree with that comparison?

    The rebels in 1916 are often called terrorists by some unionists. However, innocent civilians were shot in the streets by the British Army during the Easter Rising. Based on the previous posts should we conclude that the British Army then were also terrorists? I mean it’s not just one indicent. Take into account many of the actions by the Black and Tans and soon enough we have Willowfields definition of terrorism.
    Just trying to stimulate a bit of discussion 😉

    Davros
    “someone within a movement that is otherwise fighting a legitimate war may still commit an act of terrorism. That person has ceased to be a freedom fighter and becomes a terrorist”

    Now we’ll have to get into the discussion of what is a legitimate war and specifics of what actually constitutes a terrorist act in a time of war.

  • maca

    Gimme a break Willow. I’m trying to have a good discussion, don’t chicken out on me now. 😉

  • Davros

    Not with me mate 🙂 I’m off for my siesta!

  • maca

    Enjoy Dav!

  • Congal Claen

    Hi Maca,

    “However, innocent civilians were shot in the streets by the British Army during the Easter Rising”

    Almost certainly Maca. Innocent civilians will always be casualties in war. However, deliberately targetting them is a different matter all together. That’s why there is a hoohaa over Bloody Sunday. If it was a deliberate act then it would be considered out of order, and rightly so. But this is the very type of action the Ra, old and present day, deliberately engaged in. And then SF have the nerve to complain about it…