They’re off

The Whiterock parade is underway against the backdrop of disturbances at the Short Strand where a man was critically injured last night in a sectarian attack. LoveUlster has had a poster discussing a coordinated plan to ‘stretch’ the PSNI and others discuss the arrival of concerned Loyalists from outside the area (Shankill).

UPDATE: Violence spreads.

A comment from Love Ulster:

Okay one reason why every one doesnt know what time it starts at, is to help with the policing and the protests, when trouble starts around the city today the police will be stretched and will have to go investigate, when prods arrive on the shankill they will find out their info from word-of-mouth because not much can be trusted in these sites, so all in all, cannot wait, lol have a great day,

  • Dr Crippen

    loyalist,

    “I’m hurt”

    Following the bile you have spewed tonight I hope it’s not too trivial.

  • iluvni

    Just watched the Proms there.
    Had a laugh seeing the wee lad hold up the NI 1-0 England banner to the camera from outside the City Hall, raising good natured boos and jeers from the London audience…people waving their flags from all over the UK, having a good time, enjoying a traditional enjoyable famously British evening entertainment.
    Then we have those other great British subjects: our fellow countrymen, the ‘Loyalists’, dedicated to the Queen and country attacking our policemen and soldiers, kicking the heads off Catholics, ruining our Province and destroying any hopes that those in the rest of the UK will want us to remain in the UK. WHo could be bothered with them…and the rest of us with this bullshit carrying on all summer, every summer.

    Fools following fools. Sickening.

  • crat

    Where is Attwood?

    The PSNI should check gardens immediately. Young Alex may have been injured leaping behind a wall. (they should follow the trail of shoved aside female councillors)

  • Alan2

    Who gives a toss?
    Violence pays. Lesson learned Tony.

    The warning signs have been going off all week.
    What was the point in re-routing? To prevent a riot? Ha Ha it would be funny if it were not so serious.
    Very successful. NOT

  • Alan2

    What do you expect when you shaft the moderate who enter into discussions, try to reach accomodations and promote cultural aspects? Of course the extremists are going to get the upper hand when the moderates are seen to fail.

  • Wooden Spoon

    Jasus Alan2 will you read my above post what is your soloution.

  • Alan2

    I do not know what the solution is but it clearly is not the current one.

  • Alan2

    It was the same with Trimble. He put his neck on the line and got his head chopped off because the government and Nationalists did nothing to support his efforts.

  • Gonzo

    Am I right in thinking that Fred Cobain’s argument is that because republicans rioted at Ardoyne on July 12, it means that good-behaved loyalists deserved to march their preferred route?

    There is a certain pathetic logic to this – whoever presents the greatest threat today generally gets their way in the future. Maybe loyalism picked today to say “We can present a real threat to the State too”.

    Who knows.

  • bouncer

    the problem being that they have not presented a threat to the state

    Not even close to it

    The Provos only became a real threat when they bombed London.

    London honestly couldn’t give a piss what the orange order and paramilitaries do within the north

    Their exit strategy is ‘ cheerio’

  • Gonzo

    bouncer

    So is loyalism now in opposition to the State, becaus the State isn’t loyal enough?

    Is this loyalism’s way of saying to the State: “Don’t abandon us to the nasty Fenians?”

  • Dave

    It was all so predictable, the threat of violence is a weapon which can be used by all on the Northern Ireland political front.

    There will be the threat of violence if a parade walks a particular road and violence if the parade is stopped from walking a particular road.

    It seems to me that the Republicans “who put in all the hard work in over the years to make parades an issue and cause trouble have got their way. Lets just be clear on who is the agitator here.

    SF/IRA set out to put the people of Northern Ireland against each other, in this they have succeeded, now the man in the street will have to pay the price.

    There will be no Belfast agreement, no peace and no way back.

    The Republic of Ireland want the Six counties which make up Northern Ireland and the British government don’t.

    Isn’t it about time the people of Northern Ireland got rid of both parties and shaped their own future.

    Independence is a viable solution.

  • Keith M

    Dave “The Republic of Ireland want the Six counties which make up Northern Ireland and the British government don’t.”

    After 40 years of murder and mayhem? After last night’s news reports? We haven’t spent decades telling people we meet when abroad that our country is most certainly very different from Northern Ireland without heeding that message ourselves.

    If the people of N.I. cannot live together, I cannot see an independent country working. For me it’s either learning tolerance of your neighbours in N.I. or else re-partition. I prefer the former, but I genuinely think the latter must be given some serious consideration.

  • Baluba

    Re-partition!?!

  • Jo

    Interesting reporting of last nights violence on BBC Radio ths am, (yawn, good morning)

    The OO condemn the bruality of the police, Paisley condemns the Parades Comissiion…
    ..oh and there was a lot of rioting, bombing and shooting by Loyalist mobs. No word yet on the numbers of police/civilian casualties.

    So..the last bit was okay then..? Anyone want to take a guess on the actual and investment loss costs of that front page headlines?

    What a pack of bastards.

  • bertie

    I hesitate to comment here because I have not kept up to date with what has been happening as I have other things that have occupied my thoughts over the last few days and Slugger and Beano’s sites have been my only sources of information. At the same time I comment so much on here that no comment would seem significant (and I don’t mean by that that I think that anyone is waiting with baited breath to be enlightened by my analysis).

    I support the right to march. (Which will be enough in the eyes of some on here to make this my fault, if just being a unionist doesn’t do that already) I support the right to peaceful protest. I do not support the right to riot. I agree with those who say that this violence is enevitable. The appeasement of republian terrorism, including the Belfast Agreement has led to a dangerous demoralisation of many unionists, myself included. The disgust I feel at the prospect of an amnesty for the on-the-runs is deep.

    At the same time, enevitable does not mean excuseable. I do not excuse the rioting in any way and totally condemn it and hope (in vain, I know) that every last rioter has the full force of our totally inadequate law and Criminal Justice System turned on them.

    As I said, I support the right to march. I do not know the specific circumstance of this case, but I could see, in theory, myself being part of a protest against a ban. I can not see myself being a rioter but if I did I should expect to be dealt with. Even if just not actually rioting, I do not think that the police should have to put their safety above mine.

    Comrade

    “Meanwhile, there are plenty of alternatives for people to vote for. There’s Alliance, the NI Labour Party, socialists, conservatives, even the natural law party. A vote for any one of those is a vote against paramilitarism and tribalism.”

    I couldn’t vote for the Allince party or any party which supported the Belfast Agreement.

    Paul

    “As a Unionist(and Democrat), I don’t really care what methods the authorities use to clear these morons off the street.
    But this is yet another test that I’m afraid the PSNI are going to fail.”

    I would agree with this with the only possible calrification that (and again this is without really knowing the full facts), there may be a significant number of people who have not rioted and who came to protest peacefully. I also feel sorry for the police. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. so knowing that they will be criticised anyway, they should just do the right thing, taking sufficient regard for their own safety, regardless of how it will be interpreted.

    The glow from the Northern Ireland win has been wiped out by this and I’m really angry. I wish that I did not share nationality with terrorists, their supporters and appeasers, the rioters or Archie. However it doesn’t work like that.

    Where on earth do we go from here?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Alan2, loyalists and unionists have been rioting and using force in the way that they did last night for decades. Why are you trying to present this situation as being something to do with the appeasement of nationalists ? Historically, unionism and loyalism have always used force or the threat of force to get their way – how else do you think partition happened ? It’s been this way all the way through the years. Burntollet, UWC, Anglo Irish Agreement, Drumcree – loyalists have always, always used the threat of violence, or indeed the use of actual violence, to make their case.

    There is a serious problem here that needs to be addressed. But as far as I am concerned, people using revisionism in the way that you are to justify violence – let’s face it, that is what you are doing – are part of the problem.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “I couldn’t vote for the Allince party or any party which supported the Belfast Agreement.”

    Which is worse ? On one hand you’ve got the Agreement. On the other hand, you’ve got the parties who oppose the Agreement but appear to be stoking the violence and trouble which occurred last night. You’re saying that this is a hard choice ?

    Don’t give me this old codswallop about the violence being the result of nationalist appeasement. Are you trying to tell me that loyalists never rioted or used violence before the Agreement was signed ? The modern-day cycle of appeasement of violence from unionists started in 1921.

  • willowfield

    The riot has been used by “both sides” in NI as a political tool on many occasions in recent years, presumably in the belief that it will gain some kind of political outcome. Regarding parades, presumably the belief is that the violence will intimidate decision-makers into making a decision in favour of the “side” doing the rioting at that particular time.

    In my memory, throughout the Troubles, the riot was usually a nationalist tool. Since Drumcree, however, it seems to have become used as much by “loyalists” as by nationalists.

    The tolerance of rioting by politicians (both local and government) and the security forces is a scandal.

    The excuses made by politicians are nothing short of a disgrace.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “In my memory, throughout the Troubles, the riot was usually a nationalist tool.”

    Burntollet ?

    I agree with the rest of your post though. The government and the authorities now need to start publicly naming the politicians for stoking the violence.

  • Alan2

    “There is a serious problem here that needs to be addressed. But as far as I am concerned, people using revisionism in the way that you are to justify violence – let’s face it, that is what you are doing – are part of the problem.”

    Yeah and I am saying violence is NOT justifiable but that is the MESSAGE being sent out by Republicans, the British and Irish governments and indeed the Parades Commission. I condemn these riots outrightly. It is the hypocritical governments to condemn these riots when THEY are the ones sending out the message that violence pays, if you threaten to cause a riot in opposition to a parade you will get it banned. If you riot you are rewarded. If the paraders are organised and led by moderates who talk to residents, who go to the trouble of getting good marshalls and stewards and creating a family atmosphere with various cultural aspects, lambegs, ulster-scots, scottish & irish dancing etc…and it is all ignored.
    As far as I can see people are saying this violence was orchestrated largely by the UVF hijacking the protests. Why are the UVF who have been on ceasefire from the beginning now going Ape? These are the guys who heckled Paisley during the GFA referendum!

  • Alan2

    “Then attack our soldiers, while our soldiers die in Iraq

    We don’t recognise you as British, so find a home somewhere else. “

    You`d better send the Royal Irish back from Iraq then.

  • willowfield

    Comrade Stalin

    “In my memory, throughout the Troubles, the riot was usually a nationalist tool.”

    Burntollet ?

    Well, I’m bound to say that I don’t remember Burntollet as I was not born then. But, regardless, I stand by the point that rioting, throughout the Troubles, was USUALLY a nationalist tool.

  • bertie

    Comrade

    “Which is worse ? On one hand you’ve got the Agreement. On the other hand, you’ve got the parties who oppose the Agreement but appear to be stoking the violence and trouble which occurred last night. You’re saying that this is a hard choice ?”

    It’s no choice at all. I am not going to vote for anone who finds it in anyway acceptable nd actively endorsed and campaigned for an agreement that included release of terroists.

    “Don’t give me this old codswallop about the violence being the result of nationalist appeasement. Are you trying to tell me that loyalists never rioted or used violence before the Agreement was signed ?”

    I am not sure the degree to which you consider use of the term “codswallop” adds to the debate!

    Violence is an inevitable result of appeasement of republican terrorism. (I am disturbed by another example of terrorism being sanitised by the term “republican terroism” being so casually replaced by “nationalism”). Just on a matter of logic, the statement “A implies B” is not logically equivalent to “not A implies not B”.

    “The modern-day cycle of appeasement of violence from unionists started in 1921.”

    Not sure what this means. However even if I did, I do not bear any responsibilty for anything that “unionism” has done in 1921. Indeed I am only prepared to take responsibility for what I do and I do not ecpect any other unionist to have to take responsibility for my sins of ommission or commission

  • Comrade Stalin

    “Yeah and I am saying violence is NOT justifiable but that is the MESSAGE being sent out by Republicans,”

    You’re saying that violence as a concept is a republican innovation – which is totally wrong, it has historically been used in equal measure by both republicans and loyalists for decades. This is an attempt on your part to divert the blame and engage in revisionism. Why are you doing this ?

    You can’t on one hand try to shift the blame for riots, and on the other hand condemn them. The root cause of this rioting is paramilitary orchestration which is being apologized for by the Orange Order and Unionism.

    “If the paraders are organised and led by moderates who talk to residents, who go to the trouble of getting good marshalls and stewards and creating a family atmosphere with various cultural aspects, lambegs, ulster-scots, scottish & irish dancing etc…and it is all ignored.”

    The same arguments justify the existence of the IRA. If you want to make apologies for the idea that violence is a natural conclusion of refusing to give people want they want, go right ahead. I still say that you are part of the problem.

    “As far as I can see people are saying this violence was orchestrated largely by the UVF hijacking the protests.”

    This is rubbish too. The Orange Order and the two main unionist parties give the green light for rioting. As is characteristic within unionism, the paramilitaries did the actual organization – but the politicians were the ones who made it clear that it was justified.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “Violence is an inevitable result of appeasement of republican terrorism.”

    This opinion justifies the existence of loyalist paramilitarism, provided that it’s actions can be couched in terms of a response to republicanism. If you’re willing to justify the existence of loyalist paramilitarism in terms of a response to loyalist paramilitarism, then you are part of the problem as well.

    Violence is inevitable because politicians, leaders, and people on the ground like you make excuses for it.

  • bertie

    The blame for rioting rests primarily with the rioters.

    Saying that the rioting has been made inevitable does not reduce that blame one whit.

    In saying that the appeasement has made violence inevitable I am not saying that it made good people bad. Just that it harnessed the badness that was already there. I know that there are theories about mass hysteria etc. and how otherwise principled people can become monsters as part of a crowd. I remain to be convinced. Those who rioted did so because rioting was not sufficiently alien to their nature.

  • bertie

    Comrade

    My last post was written before sight of your last so there is going to be a bit of repetition.

    “”Violence is an inevitable result of appeasement of republican terrorism.”

    This opinion justifies the existence of loyalist paramilitarism, provided that it’s actions can be couched in terms of a response to republicanism.”

    I totally disagree. Saying that something is inevitable does not justify it. I may consider it inevitable that if you accidently nudge a thug in a pub and spill his pint, that he will deck you. that does not justify the decking.

    I do not accpt the legitimacy of the “loyalist” terrorists (again I reject the use of the euphemistic “paramilitarism”.

    “If you’re willing to justify the existence of loyalist paramilitarism in terms of a response to loyalist paramilitarism, then you are part of the problem as well.”

    Taking that you meant the second “loyalist” to be “republican”. I do not justify their existence. I feel the frustration that they seek to justify their actions and there existence by, but that is a different thing.

    “Violence is inevitable because politicians, leaders, and people on the ground like you make excuses for it.”

    I have repeatedly said that the violence is inexcuseable.

    If I thought that it was excuseable I would excuse it. I would not want the full force of the inadequate law response to come down upon it.

  • Alan2

    “You can’t on one hand try to shift the blame for riots, and on the other hand condemn them. The root cause of this rioting is paramilitary orchestration which is being apologized for by the Orange Order and Unionism.”

    The perpetrators and those ultimately responsible were the rioters themselves including the paramilitaries the root cause was the curbing of the right to freedom of assembly by the governments a right which is freely available in England and the Republic.

  • bertie

    BTW

    when discussing the issue of condemning “loyalist” terrorism/violence with fellow unionists, one of the difficulties we recognised was that we cannot say, terrorism/violence does not pay, all that we are left with is saying that it is wrong nevertheless and innocent people suffer as a result of it. This is a weak arguement for those whose moral base does not already lead them to reject the thuggery.

    It is unfortunately the only arguement that we have and I will continue to use it. I will not pretend that the job is not made more difficult by past appeasement

  • willowfield

    No, the “root cause” was the decision by those who organised the riots, to organise them.

  • Comrade Stalin

    I’m with Willowfield on this one. As soon as you start attributing a “root cause” to violence outside of the violent motivations of the rioters, then you are justifying violence in just the same way as Sinn Fein do.

    I’m not in favour of restrictions on any freedom of assembly; equally I’m not in favour of hate organizations parading that hate for all to see. There has to be a compromise where sensible people talk and agree. Since the Orange Order refuses to talk to either the residents or the Parades Commission, the default position is to rule against them, and that situation isn’t going to change until the Orange Order start taking responsibility for these problems and agree to engage in dialogue.

    Both the Orange Order and the residents along the routes of these restricted marches, also have to recognize that they are not going to get their own way *all* the time. If people keep talking about how violence is “inevitable” when people do not get their own way all the time, then the only thing that is truly is inevitable in this place is the inexorable slide into civil war.

  • Alan2

    “No, the “root cause” was the decision by those who organised the riots, to organise them.”

    No the responsibility lies with the rioters. The root cause is why they were rioting.

  • bertie

    Comrade

    “If people keep talking about how violence is “inevitable” when people do not get their own way all the time, then the only thing that is truly is inevitable in this place is the inexorable slide into civil war.”

    Does this mean that you are excusing the civil war? Applying the logic of what you are saying to me would draw me to this conculsion. However as I do not accept your logic, I will not take you to task for excusing the civil war if we do indeed slide into it.

    If I consider that appeasement of terrorism (inherently evil and a different thing than people not getting their own way all the time which isn’t [my example of the pub thug was to illusrate a slightly different point]) make violence inevitable should I not say so?

  • Alan2

    “If people keep talking about how violence is “inevitable” when people do not get their own way all the time, then the only thing that is truly is inevitable in this place is the inexorable slide into civil war.”

    I did not say it is inevitable. I said the government has set an example in that is rewards violence. Would you give a dog a snack if was to bite someone? Would you reward a child who behaves badly?

    The government needs to lok at the Parades Commission and see if it is achieving the aims it was created for (clearly it is not). Then they need to really sit down with politicians from all sides and settled the parades issue in a province wide manner. Parading is a major part of many peoples culture whilst also being contoversial in a handful of areas. It really should have been sorted out during the GFA discussions.

    The parading issue is the key and if it can be sorted out amicably the rest will follow.

  • Alan2

    A good starting point is this facet of “Nationalist areas”, “Loyalist areas”, “Catholic areas”, “Protestant areas” and “mixed areas”. What are they, how are they defined and does that mean someone from a different tradition in those areas has less freedoms and rights than others in those areas, do the rights of residents come before the rights to freedom of assembly etc, etc.

    That all needs to be discussed and agreed across the divide.

  • Comrade Stalin

    We are going to slide into civil war because we’ve got republicans on one hand, and loyalists on the other, both saying that violence is inevitable when they do not get their way. Since loyalists cannot get their way without republicans being refused theirs, and vice versa, you get two groups of people both backing themselves up with violence, and when that explodes you’ve got a civil war.

    The trouble is that describing a violent outcome to any set of circumstances without considering the background as being “inevitable” serves to justify it. It transfers responsibility for the riot away from the rioters.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Alan2,

    – if the government uniformly rewarded violence, then there would be a united Ireland. So I do not accept this thesis for a start. On the other hand, the government has made certain reforms and changes to attempt to satisfy the demands of a large proportion of the electorate here. Coincidentally, paramilitary organizations have claimed to be fighting for those same objectives, but is it inherently true to say that because an armed group claimed those for it’s own purposes that violence was appeased ? Is that where the problem really lies ?

    – The Parades Commission exists for one reason, which is to take the heat off the Northern Ireland Secretary and the PSNI Chief Constable for parade routing decisions, and it was created because Mo Mowlam appeased the loyalist threats during Drumcree 1997 and allowed them to have their way. Because the Orange Order refuse to meet it or recognize it, neither it nor any other quick solution to this particular problem can work. The problems can only be solved by dialogue, and in contrast with the honourable and constructive example set by the Apprentice Boys of Derry, the Orange Order refuse to step up to the mark in this respect. I am not in favour of granting anything to the Orange Order or any other organization while they continue to abrogate their responsibilities.

    – I am not in favour of a regional tribal carveup and all things assumed equal, people should be able to march whereever they like and say whatever they want, no restrictions. However nobody in this country supports that. As we saw in Ballymena, where dissident republicans quite deliberately staged a contentious march to raise tensions, unionists do not tolerate marches by people they don’t like through “their” neighbourhoods (and the Parades Commission put a stop to that too). Unionists do not believe in a universal right to march, so there is no point in pretending that they do.

    – given that everyone respects that no universal right to march under all circumstances exists, it is necessary that dialogue takes place so that people can hammer out a deal. A solution requires that unionists and marching organizations to take part in that dialogue – which they presently refuse to do. There are no rights without responsibilities, and marching organizations which refuse to engage in dialogue can expect, under the circumstances this country is in, to find their rights curtailed until they start behaving like adults.

  • bertie

    Comrade
    “The trouble is that describing a violent outcome to any set of circumstances without considering the background as being “inevitable” serves to justify it. It transfers responsibility for the riot away from the rioters. “

    herein lies the root of our disagreement and it may be down to a difference in interpretation of our terms.

    saying something is enevitable does not justify it. Although I accept that it can be interpreted in that way and thus can result in some feeling that they are so justified.

    The primary responsibility for the rioting lies squarely with the rioters and the inherently wrong actions of other people which have helped to create the scenario does not transfer any of that responsibility.

    If my saying that appeasement of terrorism makes violence enevitable, justifies that violence, then wouldn’t your saying that such statements make civil war inevitable a justification of waging such a war?

  • bertie

    I’m getting confused by the bumping posts. But is it enevitable when people are gripied by an issue [The use of the word inevitable was not intentional – in this case I think that bumping is also excusable ;)]

    Comrade

    I know that your last point was not addressed to me. However this has never stopped me before

    “if the government uniformly rewarded violence, then there would be a united Ireland.”

    the appeasement is uniorm it is just not absolute – yet.

    terrorism has been appeased by, amongst other things a)recognition of “all Ireland dimension”, not inherently evil in itself, but would only with us as a reward for murder, b) enforced powersharing again not inherently evil but again only with us a reward for murder c) release of terrorists – inherently evil and a reward for the murders that put them inside in the first place.

    ” am not in favour of a regional tribal carveup and all things assumed equal, people should be able to march whereever they like and say whatever they want, no restrictions. However nobody in this country supports that.”

    To a very large degree thi is my view. I do have exceptions about parades to glorify the holocaust, La Mon, Greysteel or “queerbashing”, but in general see clear distintions between what people should not do and what they should not be allowed to do. I beleive that OO parades shouls be allowed. I also want to see dialogue so that any genuine concerns (and there are some)can be resloved. At the same time I support anyone who does not want to have dialogue with SF members. Reports that I head about the involment and toleration of “loyalist” terrorists mystified me (and before I am accused of being mealy mouthed I condemn it)

    “There are no rights without responsibilities”
    The main responsibilities re rights is to uphold them and to apply them consistantly

  • micktvd

    Bertie says: Violence is an inevitable result of appeasement of republican terrorism.”

    Galloway says: terrorism is an inevitable result of US/UK policies in the Middle East.

    In neither case is the person justifying the violence, merely explaining it. Wheter they are right or not is another question.

  • Tim

    Did I see OO members taking pictures of the police with their mobile phone cameras? I guess that’s respect for law and order for you.

  • willowfield

    Alan2

    Me: “No, the “root cause” was the decision by those who organised the riots, to organise them.”

    You: No the responsibility lies with the rioters. The root cause is why they were rioting.

    And how does that remove responsibility from those who organised the riots?

  • willowfield

    We are going to slide into civil war because we’ve got republicans on one hand, and loyalists on the other, both saying that violence is inevitable when they do not get their way. Since loyalists cannot get their way without republicans being refused theirs, and vice versa, you get two groups of people both backing themselves up with violence, and when that explodes you’ve got a civil war.

    In essence, I agree with CS’s point here, although I would stop short of saying civil war is coming.

    The trouble is that describing a violent outcome to any set of circumstances without considering the background as being “inevitable” serves to justify it. It transfers responsibility for the riot away from the rioters.

    Agree with this, too, although it is a tradition in NI. The Provo campaign was “inevitable” because of discrimination; the loyalist campaign was “inevitable” because of the Provo campaign; the Ardoyne riot was “inevitable” because the Parades Commission allowed the parade; the loyalist riot was “inevitable” because the Parades Commission banned the parade.

    I also agree with Alan’s philosophical point that saying something is inevitable is not the same as justifying it. My point, however, is that by commenting on the inevitably of something, one is immediately watering down one’s condemnation, which should be total and unequivocal.

  • Comrade Stalin

    Tim, you may recall during one of the Drumcree disturbances when Ian Paisley said to PSNI officers “don’t come running to me when they put you out of your homes”.

    When the police take a stand against loyalist lawbreaking, Paisley won’t lift a finger to stop the backlash. Don’t expect any condemnation of photograph taking or other attempts to intimidate the police coming from unionism.

  • greg

    Television footage from yesterdays parade showed orangemen trying to rip down the gates at workman avenue

    How does that fit in with the ‘religious organisation’ tag ?

  • bertie

    Willowfield

    “My point, however, is that by commenting on the inevitably of something, one is immediately watering down one’s condemnation, which should be total and unequivocal.”

    This is pandering to wooly thinking (I’m not accusing you of having wooly thinking here, just pandering to it in others). The condemnation needs to be total and unequivocal, commenting on the inevitiability without the condemnation is probably where the problem lies. Also if you are a public figure commenting in the media, you run the risk of the media failing to report the condemnation if you have also given them another soundbite. In terms of lessening the inevitability of such violence, condemning the violence without reference to the frustration behind it (which does not excuse it), does not decrease that frustration and could indeed increase it. Thus you have re-enforced the motivation of those whose thuggery tolerance has won over whatever decency restraint that they may have had and have put some wobblers futher over to the danger line.

  • Tiny

    The rioting and the part played by the DUP leader was vintage Paisley, stoke up a row then clear off!

  • Tiny

    The rioting and the part played by the DUP leader was vintage Paisley, stoke up a row then clear off!

  • Alan2

    “Television footage from yesterdays parade showed orangemen trying to rip down the gates at workman avenue

    How does that fit in with the ‘religious organisation’ tag ?”

    It doesn`t. It was disgraceful and has certainly damaged the valiant efforts of moderate Orangemen who made this summer the most peaceful in recent memory, striving for family atmosphere and cultural events over the summer

    Comrade – I agree with many of your points. Tha Apprentice Boys are a good example to follow but apparently the Orange Order did have discussions, residents had 5 points of which the Order addressed 4 and the 5th was the route. It was the police not the residents who decided to recommend rerouting.

    I also agree that anyone should be free to assemble / march. I supported the right of the Republican parade in Ballymena to go ahead despite the hypocrisy coming from some Unionists who were opposed to that parade yet were trying to get the parade through Dunloy at the same time.

  • bertie

    I think that with the finer points we have been debating we are in danger of obscuring the concensus that there appears to be on this issue – nother case of heated agreement.

    It seems to me and I’m sure that I’ll be corrected if I’m wrong, that whatever we think per se about the OO, unionist politicians, unionists in general, the Belfast Agreement or anything else, there seems to be a consensus that :-

    the rioting was not in any way justified and that we would like to see the rioters subject the the full force of whatever the Criminal Justice System is capable of throwing at them

  • Tiny

    Does the Orange Order help or hinder the unionist cause, in other words can unionism afford it at this time?

  • lib2016

    My contention is that the economic and political cases for unionism are disappearing and we are left with the real core of what Norn Ireland was all about – Orange sectarianism.

  • Alan2

    And I contend that the British government has an agenda which it is following whilst totally ignoring Unionist opinion and we see the results on our streets. The case for genuine Unionism stands today just as it did in the beginning economically and politically or else the EU would not exist and that is without even considering culture and identity.

    Lib2016 – what was “Southern Ireland” all about?

  • Moderate Unionist

    Alan2
    I agree with you. The British government has an agenda which it is following whilst totally ignoring Unionist opinion.

    So what can you do about it?

  • Comrade Stalin

    Unionist opinion amounts to very little beyond “nationalists are getting too much”. In the zero-sum quagmire we have here, what else are the British supposed to do ?

    If unionists would simply engage constructively then perhaps they might find more sympathetic ears in the British and Irish governments.

  • lib2016

    De Valera was indeed forced to play the green card when he was trying to build a republic from the mess the British left behind them in the South. ‘One large farm with a brewery attached’ was one description! but there was always a lot more to Irish republicanism than that. The things which the South, like all democracies are still trying to define like freedom, equality and fairness.

    On the other hand Norn Ireland is based on defending privilege and was set up expressly to play the Orange card. I’m afraid that’s been trumped.

  • Moderate Unionist

    Comrade Stalin
    We tried that. We voted for the Belfast Agreement. Seven years latter we look like fools. The criminals(both sides)are out of jail, they control large sections of our community and HMG is happy to deal with them.

    We live in a gangster state funded by Westminster, we have no influence and no bargining power. Head down, make the best of it whilst it lasts.

  • lib2016

    The place was set up expressly to disenfranchise a large section of the population and you still refuse to deal with their representatives, or even shake their hands.

    It was your choice to end up without bargaining power or respect and only your community can win either back. Or you can continue to bury your heads in the sand and let the Paisleyites take over.

  • Comrade Stalin

    “We tried that. “

    No you didn’t. Unionism to date has refused to engage constructively, doctoring up hypocritical arguments about decommissioning and paramilitarism. The gangster state was created by unionism, the gangster organizations are tolerated and encouraged by unionist leaders as we have seen over the past few days. You can’t blame this nonsense on either republicans or the GFA. It’s been going on for decades and it’s time you confronted it head-on.

  • lib2016

    Or to put it the way one British poster on another site did – “Thirty years ago the troops went in to stop the Protestants attacking the Catholics, and they’re still haven’t learned!”

  • David

    In most countries in the world there is a written constitution. This is a set of fundamental laws that are difficult to change and that put certain, usually procedural, aspects of governence out of the reach of party politics.

    The UK does not possess a written constitution. It has, instead, made do with an ever diminishing set of customs and conventions.

    One consequence of this is that there is no limit on the British government’s discretion about what it can do in Northern Ireland. Because NI is so small it is very rare that a UK government needs any votes from here, so the UK government is entirely free to ignore the wishes of any and all of our elected politicians.

    In conjunction with this absolute constitutional freedom the UK government also has a complete lack of a “bottom line” or even much of a strategy about what happens here.

    When presented with decisions about NI issues the UK government has a very strong tendency to act in a short term pragmatic way by appeasing the side that creates the biggest threat of violence. This has not been a one way process of appeasing republicans as it has acted in favour of loyalists in this way too.

    Unfortunately this has been a big cause of the eclipse of the UUP and the decline of the SDLP. Why vote for moderates when the government seems only to listen to parties with the whiff of cordite (their own or anothers) about them?

    I do not agree with Bertie that the government’s actions have made violence “inevitable” (as violence is always a cynical free choice) but I would suggest that the weakness and tendency towards appeasement has created a major incentive on people to use or rationalise the use of violence.

    This is something that needs a major strategic re-think.

  • lib2016

    On the other hand one might comment that the Brits propped up the UUP long after it became clear that they couldn’t or woildn’t deliver.

    Sooner or later the undemocratic forces have to be faced down as they were at Drumcree or unionists begin to believe their own fantasies.

    Last night unionism showed the teagues who’s in charge by attacking their own communities. Are they planning a repeat tonight?

  • bertie

    What the f*** is hypothetical about the issues relating to decommissioning and “paramilitarism” (a euphemism for base thuggery. We’re all the murders hypothetical? Great I thought that they were really dead. One day people will talk about the concerns of the Ahoghill RCs about “loyalist” intimidation as hypothetical.

    On the separate issue re saying that appeasement has made this inevitable means we are excusing it, when unionists said that appeasement in the form of the AIA made incidents like Enniskillen more likely, we weren’t thought of as justifying it.

  • Comrade Stalin

    bertie, I said hypocritical, not hypothetical.

    Unionists were completely mistaken with the view that the IRA gave a rat’s ass about the AIA – it didn’t.

  • bertie

    Sorry Comrade

    I’m actually embarrassed now! (It’s the first time I actually regret a post)
    I’m so worked up that I misread and I’m also not putting my usual caution into making absolutely sure before sounding off at someone. [Being worked up is the reason but it doesn’t excuse it
    also it is entirely my own fault and no other unionist needs to shoulder any guilt by association ;)]

    The point still holds to a certain extent. Although, if I read you right, you are not saying that we don’t care about IRA terrorism but we don’t care about any other terrorism. Again there is nothing more that I can say that I haven’t said ad nauseum on the matter of “loyalist” terrorism.

    I think that the IRA were boosted by the AIA, not actually by anything specific in in, but by the fact that it happened as a response to terrorism. In that it was a boost for terrorism (even “loyalist” terrorism) world wide. In the same sence I was more opposed to it on those grounds than the specifics. (not saying that I didn’t have a problem with the specifics.)

  • Comrade Stalin

    I think we’re all a bit worked up at the minute.

    Read the “loveulster.com” forums for insights into unionism. It’s not just the content of the discussions, but the forum topics. For example, there’s a topic “How has Sinn Fein/IRA affected your life?” instead of “how has paramilitarism affected your life” – as if the only paramilitarism that is to be condemned is that emanating from nationalism.

  • David

    CS,

    I’d suggest that getting “insights” into unionism from LoveUlster (which even the DUP doesn’t support) is a bit like trying to get “insights” of nationalism from some of the crackpot “true Irish republican” outfits on the net. It is more a study of how many mental gymnastics some people can perform to justify the unjustifiable.

  • bertie

    Comrade
    cheers I interpret that as accepting my apology.

    The Love Ulster site has come significantly from victims experience and victims of IRA violence specifically. Therefore I think that the focus here is excusable (INLA victims inc, Darkly are also technically excluded). It is intresting that there is very little traffic on that section. An attempt to find out something about the suicide problemn has been ignored, most posters of all political persuasions, prefering to get stuck in on the other topics.

    Although, considering its genesis, I think the focus on republican terrorism understandable and legitimate I would be pushing for the condemnations of “loyalist” terrorism and an expression of solidarity with its victims to be a strong subtext.

    Whatever Love Ulster does or doesn’t do, it cannot be taken to be a comnprehensive exprssion of unionist opinion, not least because of the large no of non unionists on it.

    Being a unionist just means advocating the Union. Someone can be a unionist without feeling any sence of the social cohesion of the “unionst community”. It doesn’t even mean voting for a party with the word “unionist” in it. I once gave the Workers Party candidate my first preference in a council election. His stance was that although personnally he was a nationalist, he recognised the right of the people of NI to self determination and in the meantime he just wanted to make it a better NI. I was still a unionist when I voted for him (technically voting for a nationalist).

  • harry

    Hugh Orde has clearly blamed the orange order for the widespread violence yesterday.

    He talked about orangemen openly fratenising with masked paramilitaries during the trouble.

  • Cahal

    Best report of the day –

    “Mr Orde produced police film footage at his press conference showing Orange Order members confronting police with ceremonial swords”….RTE

    Way to go lads. The mask has slipped again.

  • Comrade Stalin

    We need to see that footage.

  • bertie

    Just saw it. I didn’t have my glasses but it looked like it should be capable of identifying them and being evidential

  • Slartibuckfast

    I’ll already been decommissioned from LU. I’ll have to try and re-arm tomorrow.

  • bertie

    Slart…

    What did you do??

  • Comrade Stalin

    Bertie, RTE earlier said that the footage wasn’t being released (but was shown to journalists) due to the fact that it could be used in court. Where did you see it ?

    Not surprised to hear people being silenced on LU. Loyalists sites generally tend not to tolerate dissent or criticism.

  • bertie

    I think that it was the BBC news . I just saw someone welding a sword. I’m not sure if this was the footage talked about.

    I am suprised about LU site there are alsorts on there. I am intregued enough to searh out his posts.

  • bbcreport

    The man with the sword and other extracts from the PSNI recordings are in this report

  • slartibuckfast

    Apparently the board is meant to be used for serious debate, Bertie. Well, they could have fooled me…and did.

  • bertie

    What did you do?

    There are Shinners on there, there have been UFF people on their and a slection of unionists and nationalists.

    I can’t imagine what you had to do to get banned!

  • Headmelter

    I’ve just heard the update on city beat and
    Ruth Patterson has REFUSED to condemn the rioters saying she thinks it is totally justifiable.

    She was the subject of a recent thread here on slugger.
    Would the same DUP supporters who defended her like to offer an opinion on her point of view tonight?

  • slartibuckfast

    I posted up a spoof loyalist paper I wrote which took the mick out off (if indded there was any mick in) in the Shankill Mirror Special Edition. They musn’t have taken to it too kindly.

    I actually got barred twice on the first day, before I got paranoid over them finding my address out.

  • bertie

    Headmelter

    I’m not really a DUP supporter and I don’t know much about the woman but I did make comments about how easy it was to make a prat of yourself on camera. I totally condemn any statement that says that the rioting was justified. Will I do?

  • BogExile

    I’LL TELL MY MA 2005

    I’ll tell my ma when I get in
    That I’ve just torched a wheelie bin
    I pushed it up to a peelers car
    Then went and robbed the local Spar
    It’s not handsome it’s not pretty
    It’s a stain on Belfast city
    But it makes me oh so cool
    Loads more fun than Primary school.

    Parents that let their children riot are CHILD ABUSERS

  • True Loyalist

    [Gowann away – ed Mod]

  • archie

    Very cultured response, true loyalist.

    You must be one of those guys from loyalist west Belfast who slipped through the education system.

    Keep up the good work.

    p.s.

    Was it you who interupted Dawson Baillie during his interview on Tuesday ?

  • archie

    ‘interrupted’ Sorry o cultured one..