It’s All Mary McAleese’s Fault: Frazer

Today’s Newsletter contains a headline accusation from Willie Frazer that Mary McAleese and Fr. Alex Reid were to blame for Saturday’s riot in Dublin. Not adverse from using inflammatory language himself, apparently Mr. Frazer sees a link between comments attributed to both individuals and the events of Saturday in Dublin. He does not, however, say whether or not he believes his own usage of extreme language played any part in provoking the riot.

  • slug

    Chris Donnelly who last month was blogging from a great moral height on how receptive republicans were to unionist viewpoints.

  • The Beach Tree

    slug

    ball, not man.

    And don’t shoot the messanger.

  • elfinto

    It’s clear that Frazer is working hand in hand with the DUP. No coincidence that Paisley had been levelling both barrels at McAleese recently. With the demise of Paul Berry there is a vacancy for a DUP right-wing firebrand in County Aramgh.

    Intially the DUP distanced itself from Love Ulster (perhaps due to the paramilitary connection) but now they are openly working together. Thus Donaldson & co were present at the Dublin stunt.

    Are the reactionary elements in Dublin going to collude with this agenda by attacking the President? I hope so because I think they will get more than they bargained for. Ordinary people in the south have absolutely no time for Paisley and his bigotry.

  • The Dubliner

    “Are the reactionary elements in Dublin going to collude with this agenda by attacking the President?” – elfinto

    The answer to that question is yes.

  • slug

    Regarding the Nazi comments of Father Reid and The Irish President. I dismissed these comments at the time as being in the realm of the absurd but also as telling us something about the way nationalists view unionists.

    I don’t agree with Frazer that these Nazi comments caused the riots. But I would think it possible that the Nazi comments and the riots have a common cause.

  • heck

    Unionists are using these comments because they want to be offended.

    I suggest they look up the word hyperbole in the dictionary

  • alfredo

    nonsense – it was the securocrats who were behind it all, firstly suggesting the march to the dup and then using their agents in rsf to stir up trouble – anyone with an ounce of brains can see that – the securocrats are everwhere comrades, working tirelessly to frustrate sinn fein!

  • The Dubliner

    “I don’t agree with Frazer that these Nazi comments caused the riots. But I would think it possible that the Nazi comments and the riots have a common cause. ” – Slug

    They sure do: the sectarian bigotry of that supremacist organisation known as the Orange Order.

    Although it’s interesting to hear Unionists demand that Republicans build bridges to them, whilst Unionists are busy burning them on the other side.

    How does the Unionist community expect members of the Orange order to build bridges when its members will be barred from membership if they dare attend the wedding of a Catholic friend, for example? Is that bridge building or bridge burning?

    The answer is that Unionists use the demand that Nationalist build bridges to them solely as a means of censoring Nationalist criticism of the unmitigated and unreconstructed bigotry of Unionism itself.

  • The Dubliner

    Mary McAleese comment shows that nothing offends like the simple truth. They fit the Orange Order perfectly. Here is what she actually said:

    “They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things.”

  • Somehow, I just can’t picture Mary McAleese and Alec Reid in Burberry baseball caps and Celtic tops, swigging cans of Strongbow and lugging slabs of concrete at the Gardai, clutching looted Adidas tops in the other hand…..still it’s a rather amusing image…

  • slug

    Dubliner

    “They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics.” [Dubliner’s quote]

    She wasn’t talking about Orangemen – you added that. She just says “people in Northern Ireland”. I assume she leaves Catholics out of that. And if this is the quote its even worse than I remembered. Its not that the unionists are like the Nazis, its that the Nazis are like the unionists. And Dubliner thinks this is the simple truth. Dublin rule grows less attractive by the day.

  • Brian Boru

    Slug the term “people” does not mean she was referring to 100% of Protestants. The Unionist media coverage of her comments was the worst possible interpretation of her remarks. She apologised afterwards. Obviously she was referring to some Unionists, not all. But you wouldn’t think that reading the Unionist press saying she called Protestants Nazis. She also mentioned “people” in South Africa in relation to Aparteid. Should whites in SA be offended by that too? Was she calling all whites in SA racists? Of course not.

  • Brian Boru

    That slug1 12.09AM is me, Brian Boru.

  • Why

    Did you know that frazers website contains a link in which paisley gives a speech naming one of the mc reavey brothers (consequently murdered) as the killer in knigsmill, Even though the police gave a statement refuting the mc reaveys had any involvement in such things. Mr frazer having been asked many times to remove it continues to have it on his site.

    Why.

  • Cahal

    “Dublin rule grows less attractive by the day”

    Ahh, that old line. You’d think that half a million unionists were about to vote for a united ireland right before the riots and have now changed their minds.

    Not likely.

    The vast majority of unionists will never vote for a UI so why bother trying to persuade them.

    The small minority who would probably even consider the idea are unlikely to be perturbed in the slightest by the actions of an insignificant group of rioters.

  • Frasier needs a new publicity flack.

    He didn’t attract more than a phone booth full of RSF fanatics and even the lumpenproletariat passed up the loyalists in order to beat the piss out of the Garda.

    Tom Cruise fired his sister after the Oprah romp, so maybe his sis can punch up Willie’s coverage.

    Worse yet, the artifice of these regularly contrived events now bores the rest of the world rigid.

    Irish Times 26 Feb 06

    Riots low on list of priorities for internatinal press
    “Despite the shockwaves generated at a national level by events on Dublin’s streets last weekend, the disturbances generated few ripples in the international media.

    Compared to the rioting in the Muslim world over the Muhammad cartoons, the number of casualties – 14 people injured – was relatively low and clearly insufficient to persuade the world’s press that this was a major news story.”

    It starts with the predictable article in the Gardian and ends with a 400 word teaser in the Calgary Hearld.

    Christ, ya bombed in Alberta.

  • The Dubliner & Slug
    That’s a misquote and snip of the Presidents words.
    Firstly she said “for example, of Catholics”, in context it makes a difference.
    And secondly if you read the full quote the peoople of Dublin should be just as offended for being called racist.

  • Tochais Siorai

    Good man, Willie. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    TS

  • slug

    When saying that the Nazis are “the same as” “people in NI”, the Irish President perhaps should have clarified exactly who. It has left me wondering.

  • Galadriel

    hehe, you gotta love nationalists – even after the weekends events they still manage to make it all about themselves and try to reinforce their tried old “Most Oppressed people on Earth” myth.

    “They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics.”

    They should be both sides of the divide in NI, there are some nasty, bigoted catholics just as there are some nasty bigoted prods

  • “slug7”
    a misquote again…
    “They [the Nazis] gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics.”

    Mary’s unfortunate error was giving an example.
    And yes you’re right “there are some nasty, bigoted catholics just as there are some nasty bigoted prods”

  • slug

    Maca: I think the Irish President’s mistake was to bring NI into Holocaust day. Fair enough, she blurted it out before she realised and we could all do that. Just like Fr Reid. But these slips are possibly all the more revealing because they reveal something underneath.

  • Thank you for clarifying that Maca, I was doing me nut in reading the misquotes.

    McAlees might just as easily have said “for example, of Protestants” and she would have been just as right…

  • TAFKABO

    This weekends events have certainly produced some profound difficulties for our nationalist and republican friends.
    They have been faced with their own intolerance and predjudices and they are desperate to interpret things in a way that puts them back in the victims seat.

    It’s not going to work.
    What happens the if there are a coupe of hundred loyalists on a rampage and they are told that it is just a minor skirmish, nothing to get excited about?

    Every utterance of Paisley is attacked for fueling the flames of hatred, yet so many people in the republic think they can call Unionists Nazis or claim every Orangeman is a bigot, and not expect these words to help create a situation in which riots occur?

    People have spent a lot of time and effort in demonising Unionists.
    It’s a bit rich now when we hear them condemning the riots.

    If you want to prevent further riots like this, the answer is not in drafting in more police, it’s in facing down your own inherrant predjudices and accepting that Orangemen and Unionists are ordinary people, not monsters.

  • fair_deal

    From fair_deal

    “Even though the police gave a statement refuting the mc reaveys had any involvement in such things”

    The claims against the McReaveys are based on intelligence documents from immediately after the incidents so it had not been picked out of the sky but based on official documents (although it is now commonly accepted the quality of intelligence at that time was not good). The RUC response to the statements of Paisley made under parliamentary privilege was to reject them, one can only presume on later intelligence received about the attack.

    I must ask how a nationalist/republican is happy to use police intelligence when it clears a nationalist but when it accuses republican groups based on intelligence we get calls of securocrat conspiracy?

    Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.

    On slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?

  • “They have been faced with their own intolerance and predjudices”

    I disagree slug9, those rioters were certainly not representative of my point of view, and I would hazzard a guess that they were entirely unrepresentative of majority Irish republicanism. I may not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.

  • TAFKABO

    OK.

    I accept what you say about you not having those predjudices, but I meant in the general sense of the nation as a whole.There is an undercurrent of anti unionist sectarian hatred within Ireland, and within Irish republicanism.
    I don’t accept that Irish repulicanism is happy to allow unionists to have a voice, despite what you say about defending my right to speak, it’s painfully obvious that since this march was announced Republicans have done their utmost to deflect attention from what it is about and spread lies and distortions.
    People like Gerry Adams talk about letting the march go unhindred, as if they are granting people a favour, when the truth is that they have no right whatsover to deny the marchers the right to state their case.
    You talk about defending my right to speak, but since saturday we have numerous republicans in Slugger defending the rioters right to prevent me from speaking.
    Are you telling me that the Republican voices in Slugger are not representative?

    A broadly pro republican media was complicit in helping to spread the lies and rumours about the march being a triumphalst excercise which would have seen the bombers of Dublin eulogised on the march.

  • TAFKABO,

    “Are you telling me that the Republican voices in Slugger are not representative? ”

    You’re god damned right I am, look at the real republican voices FF, FG, PD, Labour, SIPTU and see what they’re saying, Gerry Adams speaking for majority republicanism!? puurrrlleeaasssee!

    Don’t confuse me disagreeing fundamentally with Unionists on the constitutional position of part of what I consider my country, and my vigerous argument against that position with any sort of personal animosity to you because you are a Protestant (sectarian animosity). I dislike the Orange Order and I think any group who welcomes support from such a fundamentally sectarian organisation are doing themselves no favours. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a right to protest and speak in our nations capital, but I also reserve the right to question and ridicule anyone for their publically expressed views. That’s the nature of democracy, and I for one am disgusted that a handfull of thugs pissed all over the ideals which the founders of the state fought and died for.

  • fair_deal

    From fair deal

    Is the SDLP unrepresentative too?

    Seems the SDLP have went with blame the bgioted prods not the rioters line too and the PD Leader Harney’s comments seem to be walking a fine line too

    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/26340
    http://www.newsletter.co.uk/story/26312

  • Why

    The Beech Tree

    Well then why is Willy happy to perpetrate to the world that the Reaveys carried out the murder of 10 innocent protestant workmen when the PSNI has stated that it had no reason to suspect Reaveys of any crime, let alone of masterminding one of the worst atrocities of the Troubles. But Willy defiantly continues to carry the allegation through a link to Paisley’s speech on his website, despite repeated demands by the police for it to be removed.

    Even the sole survivor of Kingsmill (Alan Black) stated that he knew the Reaveys were innocent the very day Paisley made his speech.
    Willy is threading on very thin ice with such antics I’m afraid.

    Why.

  • There’s a difference between criticizing the parade, and condoning the riots that ensued… don’t lose sight of that.

  • Why

    That last comment by Why was to Fair deal.

    If these other victims groups carry such statements as Willys and name people for murder would that not be illegal.

  • The Beach Tree

    The recent comments attributed to me on this page were not from myself.

    – The Beach Tree

  • smcgiff

    ‘If you want to prevent further riots like this, the answer is not in drafting in more police, it’s in facing down your own inherrant predjudices and accepting that Orangemen and Unionists are ordinary people, not monsters.’

    Best ever sentence I’ve seen in Slugger. Youse lot are all prejudiced, while we’re just trying to get on with it.

  • fair_deal

    From fair deal to buckfast

    Both clearly imply the organisers wanted trouble so it is trying to apportion some blame on the organisers despite the organisers co-operating fully at every stage with the RoI Authorities and complying with the requests of the Garda.The Councillor also described the event as “antagonistic” an implication it was looking for trouble. Ms Harney implies the same “Those that sought to stop them have played right into their hands.”

    Also for Ms Harney’s other comments the OO weren’t involved in organising the parade neither were collarettes worn. So why does she even mention them? Is it not perpetuating the media nonsense about who was involved in the parade and its motivations that appeared in advance of the parade and have been used as justification by contirbutors on here?

    I would also point out that the SDLP’s attack was not only about the parade but targetted at individuals, Danny Kenney and Willie Frazer. It should also be noted that Newry Council has previously been found guilty of political and religious discrimination against FAIR.

    So these comments I believe fail your subtle distinction test.

  • fair_deal

    From fair deal to why

    “why is Willy happy to perpetrate to the world that the Reaveys carried out the murder of 10 innocent protestant workmen”

    FAIR has leaked intelligence documents saying they were responsible, that is what the claim is based on.

    I also asked two questions and a comment about how what FAIR does is no different thatn a number of ther vicitms groups which you chose to ignore, maybe you would kindly respond this time.

    “I must ask how a nationalist/republican is happy to use police intelligence when it clears a nationalist but when it accuses republican groups based on intelligence we get calls of securocrat conspiracy?

    Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.

    On slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”

  • fair_deal,

    I agree fully with Mary Harneys comments re the OO, it is a bigoted and sectarian organisation. I don’t see why it should worry about comments like that, it seems pretty proud to be Protestant only, fair enough, it’s their club. The victims groups gladly accept support from the OO, I’ve said before that it is pretty risky, and probably does their cause more harm than good. Again I fully support their right to make their case, and utterly condemn those who stopped them.

    Using loyalist bands is indeed antagonistic, but that’s not to say that it deserved a violent reaction, again, it’s their right to parade in our city centre, and I would like to see their rights upheld.

    Just because I disagree with a lot of what you might stand for, I can’t and don’t want to stop you expressing your opinions and convictions. And again, I reserve the right to ridicule where I see fit. Willie Frazer with his comments about McAleese exposes himself as a fool. That doesn’t mean that his case isn’t valid, and indeed some terrible things happened to him, and that he shouldn’t have the right to demonstrate in Dublin. However please don’t expect that anyone should turn overly PC and not say anything about the organisers of the parade, just because the idiots came out to play on the day.

  • Slug
    “I think the Irish President’s mistake was to bring NI into Holocaust day.”

    I don’t agree. She was making a very good point about how intolerance and hatred can often be transmitted to children, NI was one of several examples she gave. It was a very valid point she was making. People should read the whole quote rather than taking a snippet of it.

    “…I think you’re absolutely right. And that’s a very important point worth remembering. The Nazis didn’t invent anti-Semitism, they used anti-Semitism, they built on anti-Semitism but they didn’t invent it.
    It was, for generations, for centuries, an element of the lived lives of many people who, on the surface, lived very good lives, I mean many of
    them would have regarded themselves, for example, as very good Christians.
    But they gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews, in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmit it to their children, an
    irrational outrageous hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children, an irrational outrageous hatred of
    those who have different colour, and all of those thing, all of those hatreds in the wrong circumstance, on a street in Dublin, they can outcrop as I have seen and heard, of a little child from Somalia being pelted with rotten eggs. They can outcrop in a knife being taken in a fight and someone from Eastern Europe being knifed to death. It’s a toxin you see, it’s a poison, and it can be in weak and diluted form, but even in that
    weak and diluted form, it’s still capable of surviving long enough for a Nazi-type era to come along, and to force it into concentrated form, and in concentrated form you get Auschwitz, you get Birkenau, you get Darfur, you get Rwanda. That’s what you get when you don’t stop the toxin.”

  • Realist

    I have to say that I find the all to predictable tactic of “playing the man”, used by the Chucky Towers Internet Spin Battalion when faced with something uncomfortable to their myopic worldview to be rather amusing.

    They can batter Wee Willie into the ground all they like, he probably deserves it.

    But the Chuckys know that’s not really the issue that’s been laid squarely at their door.

  • fair_deal

    From fair deal to buckfast

    You are misrepresenting my point. I did not say harney should or should not have called the OO bigoted and sectarian I was not demanding a PC opinion from her.

    It was her false labelling of the parade as an Orange Order event when it wasn’t and her claim that the organisers had wanted trouble is what I clearly objected to. Those that have tried to justify the violence have made similar claims. The condemnation of violence seems flawed if not false when the subsidiary comments back up the inaccurate claims of the apologists of the violence.

    Why is a flute band automatically antagonistic? An all-sweeping comment and caricature of bands.

    The parade its aims and its organisers are one issue. The riots a seperate one. However, when a discussion on the riots gets shifted to the parade then it is an attempt to apportion some blame to the organisers. Organisers who co-operated fully with the RoI authorities and complied with the instructions of the Garda.

  • Realist,

    Was I not playing the ball when I referred to the rioters as “idiots”? Sorry about that, oh wait, you didn’t care because they are idiots…

  • fair_deal

    “Why is a flute band automatically antagonistic? An all-sweeping comment and caricature of bands.”

    I never said this, I said a loyalist band is antagonist, just as is a republican band, however no republican bands were involved in this parade, so I didn’t mention them.

    It wouldn’t have been the first time Mary Harney was wrong on something.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Fair Deal
    Re the McReavey case

    “Victim groups naming people they believe are culpable for crimes is nothing new or unusual. British-Irish Rights Watch regularly submit reports naming names as do nationalist victims group. Whether it is a wise tactic or not FAIR’s practice in this case is no different than others.
    On Slugger itself Nationalist commentators have been naming a number of murdered UDR men as responsible for a series of attacks in south Armagh and the republic to justify the riots in Dublin. If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”

    Hmmm. Right, setting aside all the rights and wrongs of the thing and looking solely at the facts that are beyond dispute.

    On one hand there are a number of deceased UDR men from south Armagh – the notorious Glenanne gang, for example – who have been posthumously accused by victims’ groups of involvement in large numbers of murders, including the Dublin and Monaghan bombings. Result – the good names of the deceased are called into question, maybe rightly, maybe wrongly, we can’t know for certain. Either way, the men in question are no longer with us, so are past caring. All that’s at stake are the feelings of their families.

    On the other hand, in the aftermath of the Kingsmill massacre Ian Paisley uses parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey as the architect of the atrocity. Paisley’s “evidence” is instantly rejected by Alan Black, the sole survivor of the massacre, who immediately goes to the Reavey’s house to publicly stand with them and affirm their innocence. The security forces dossier that is leaked to Paisley is indeed discredited many years later. But to no avail. Result – a joint police/UVF/UDR unit attacks the Reavey family home and massacres three of the Reavey brothers. (Though not, in a gruesome irony, Eugene himself.)

    So, Fair Deal, you ask what’s the difference? Well, I could mention that the dead UDR men are quite possibly guilty of the things they are accused of, whereas all the Reavey brothers were absolutely and without a shadow of a doubt innocent, but I won’t even get into that.

    “If it is an acceptable tactic for slugger commentators why is it unacceptable for FAIR?”

    Same reason you can’t libel the dead. What’s the difference? Three corpses, that’s the difference.

    I can’t believe I have to point out this distinction – I can’t believe you’re incapable of seeing it yourself.

    – Billy Pilgrim

  • piebald

    to fair_deal from piebald

    The FAIR parade ( as ye don’t want to call it a march ) was designed to cause a breach of the peace and succeeded in its aims.

    If this was not an orange order parade why were the participants wearing orange lilys ?

    In Humphries v. Connor (1864) a policeman
    removed an Orange lily from a woman walking in a Catholic area on the basis that it
    would lead to a breach of the peace.

    Similarily if victims of violence had come to Dublin without the loyalist bands and symbols and participated in a dignified way there may have been a less hostile reception.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Something I was wondering about though, in this black week for Irish nationalism, was how our unionist brothers and sisters felt about the actions of the Gardai on Saturday? It seems like the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive. Donaldson, Copeland and a bunch of marchers interviewed on RTE were all effusive in their praise, if not of the preparation, at least of the courage and resolve with which Gardai dealt with the sectarian scum involved in the rioting.

    Maybe I’m clutching at straws here, in the hope of finding something positive in a shameful episode, (I now know how most unionists must have felt as they looked on in horror at Drumcree/Harryville/Carnmoney/Holy Cross/“Vatican Square”/the Septemer riots etc.) but how do unionists feel about this suggestion: that Saturday was in fact an example of the Irish state’s willingness to put itself in harm’s way to protect Protestants from the northeast?

    I mean, if you think about it, O’Connell Street on Saturday was kind of the anti-Burntollet. You had a contentious march which came under an attempted attack from the lowest, most sectarian, most fascistic collection of beasts that their sectarian bloc could come up with. (As at Burntollet.) The police on hand – who are not from the same sectarian bloc as the marchers (as at Burntollet) face a choice. Do they side with their own tribe – even the worst scum in that tribe – or do they face down that fascist element and side with the rights of the marchers?

    At Burntollet we know what choice the police made. On O’Connell Street on Saturday the Gardai made the opposite choice – the right choice. The result was that on Saturday night there were fourteen Gardai in hospital but the Protestant who had come down from the northeast returned home without a single scratch between them. The only tragedy was that the march was not allowed to go ahead as planned, but hopefully it may yet be rescheduled.

    But I hope some unionists might ponder that point. Clearly there cannot be any pretence that unionists, or even northerners, have a monopoly on virulent, vicious sectarianism, and clearly unionist fears of the Republic have more substance than I for one would have been prepared to accept last Friday. But there were fourteen Guards in hospital on Saturday night who had been bricked and stoned and punched and gouged and trampled set fire to, all in the purpose of protecting a crowd of northern Protestants.

    Is there a problem within the Irish nation of residual anti-Protestant sectarianism? Yes, a problem greater than had previously been imagined. But is the Irish state serious about tackling that problem? I would tentatively suggest that Saturday’s events give a positive answer to this.

    Unionists?

    – Billy Pilgrim

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Piebald

    You’re missing the point. It shouldn’t matter whether an Orange march or any other kind of march is intended to be provocative. The fact is that such marches in Dublin are a test of Irish pluralism and a test of Irish democracy. Whatever the merits or demerits of the march itself, the fact is that that test was failed on Saturday.

    Passing the test means being able to deal with things that make your blood boil. Being able to count to ten and walk on by.

    I know all about the Orange Order and all it stands for, and I only wish my Protestant neighbours would walk away from it en masse, but I have to deal with the reality that that’s not going to happen any time soon. Therefore the reality is that Ireland won’t be the nation we want it to be until an Orange march, with pipes and banners and anything else not proscribed by law, can pass off in Dublin without anyone batting an eyelid.

    After Saturday I have to admit that we aren’t as close to that situation as I had previously hoped.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    That last post was from Billy Pilgrim

  • Billy, your 4:29

    Great post, but I disagree about failing the democracy test, the crowd of plebs certainly did not represent majority feeling.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    PopeBuckfast

    I certainly wouldn’t suggest that the animals who were out on Saturday represent the majority. I wouldn’t suggest that they represent one per cent of the population. However, the fact is that a group of people had been given sanction to march in Dublin on Saturday by the Minister for Justice and the Garda Siochana. That means the Irish state gave democratic sanction to the march, yet that democratic sanction was thwarted by a fascistic element.

    So the point is that it’s not enough for the 99 per cent majority to point the finger at the minority, blame them and go back to sleep. That’s what unionism has been doing for years and I’ve been castigating them for it for years. Now the same challenge faces Irish democracy. It’s a test of Irish democracy that the fascists be faced down. They are a tiny minority but they won on Saturday. They won and Irish democracy lost. The challenge to Irish democracy is to ensure it isn’t allowed to happen again.

    – Billy Pilgrim

  • Brian Boru

    There is actually very little sectarianism in the South. But in a city of 1.2 million, a tiny % can equate to the 1000 or so that turned out to cause trouble.

    1 way we should react to this is by going ahead with the 1916 march in April, in order to deny the terrorists the right to claim to be the true successors of those freedom fighters.

  • Why

    If you really want to have an insight into the love ulster group why not pop over to thier website.
    “Quote: From a moderator:After his splinter site was hacked……… YA COULDNT LEAVE A UNIONIST SITE ALONE, YOU HAD TO FUK WITH IT…

    WELL DONE LOOKS LIKE THE FENIANS GOT THEIR WAY AGAIN

    U WANT ULSTER1 GONE, ITS GONE
    FUKIN. SMELLY FENIA.NS

    YA SHUD BE SHOT AT DAWN

  • Brian Boru

    TAFKABO7 at 05:01 is actually me, Brian Boru.

  • piebald

    from piebald –

    fine sentiments from both Brian Boru and Billy Pilgrim but the reality is that Orange Order parades in contentious areas have always caused trouble and always will – 200 years ago or 200 years from now. It is a large part of their raison d’etre.

    The naivety and bad planning of the Authorities in this whole fiasco was staggering but not unprecedented.

  • Jill Robinson

    “the reality is that Orange Order parades in contentious areas have always caused trouble and always will – 200 years ago or 200 years from now.”

    Good grief, 200 years. You old pessimist you.

    You do realize that some of won’t be around to prove you wrong, don’t you? 🙂

  • fair_deal

    Billy Pilgrim

    “Ian Paisley uses parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey as the architect of the atrocity. Paisley’s “evidence” is instantly rejected by Alan Black, the sole survivor of the massacre, who immediately goes to the Reavey’s house to publicly stand with them and affirm their innocence. The security forces dossier that is leaked to Paisley is indeed discredited many years later. But to no avail. Result – a joint police/UVF/UDR unit attacks the Reavey family home and massacres three of the Reavey brothers.”

    I am afraid your timeline and Paisley’s role is all wrong. Paisley use of the files and naming of Reavey was decades after the attack. Paisley had named no one publicly when members of the reavey family were murdered. The files do not claim Mr Reavey was present during the massacre. The fortunate survivor of the attack Mr Black can only identify those present at the time of the shooting not the possible planners but his belief in the innocence of Mr reavey is of significant note.

    “Either way, the men in question are no longer with us, so are past caring. All that’s at stake are the feelings of their families.”

    Oh that’s all right then I am sure it will help the families grief to have relatives portrayed as mass murderers. Also naming names by BIRW and nationalist groups has never been restricted to those already dead by BIRW. Also some of those named as members of the Glenanne gang are still alive so “they are all dead” doesn’t wash.

    The dublin and monaghan claims are based on one uncorroborated statement from a person who says they were part of the gang hardly irrefutable. Sean Callaghan says Pat Finucane was an IRA man and met him at IRA meetings but this claim is rejected by his family, republicans and the police.

    The new evidence used to clear Eugene Reavey’s name was a statement from the police and I notice you sidestepped/ignored the question, if the police’s word is good enough to clear a nationalist accused of something why is it not good enough when it says a republican group is responsible for something?

    “Garda protection”

    Yes the officers in Dublin did offer protection to those involved in the Love Ulster Parade and that included putting themselves in significant danger. The fact the rioters won on the day is no reflection on officers on the ground but a failure of intelligence and planning. It is also a break from their past history when they failed to protect other parades.

    Piebald

    “The FAIR parade ( as ye don’t want to call it a march ) was designed to cause a breach of the peace and succeeded in its aims.”

    Simply repeating it doesn’t make it so. What evidence have you to support this claim? Other than it was “Ulster Prods asking to walk in Dublin they must be looking for trouble.”

    Love Ulster has held parades in Belfast, London and the attemtped one in Dublin. If they were out for trouble they could have made life much more difficult for the Garda before the parade and on the day itself. Since the announcement of the Dublin parade it has co-operated fully with the RoI authorities and their requests in advance and on the day.

    A 1864 legal case is what u offer in defence!?! PLEASE! In 1864 kids were being shoved up chimneys. You are suggesting that Catholic attitudes towards Protestants and their symbols haven’t moved on in 142 years. If that claim is true then we do have serious problems.

    However, it does explain your comment that “Similarily if victims of violence had come to Dublin without the loyalist bands and symbols and participated in a dignified way there may have been a less hostile reception.” aka Ulster Prods do as your told or else. Again the orange lilies instead of collarettes was a gesture to Dubliners and you take offence at that!

    “If this was not an orange order parade why were the participants wearing orange lilys ?”

    Eyes roll, I do wish you could speak slowly in type to help people understand. You don’t have to be a member of the Orange Order to wear an Orange lily. Also organisers had asked any member of the Loyal Orders not to wear collarettes as a gesture of good will, a gesture utterly ignored in the demonisation of the parade and its motives.

    “fine sentiments from both Brian Boru and Billy Pilgrim but the reality is that Orange Order parades in contentious areas have always caused trouble and always will – 200 years ago or 200 years from now. It is a large part of their raison d’etre.”

    Why

    I noticed you haven’t replied to my questions?
    “They are my stereotype they are I tell you!”
    Maybe after 200 years nationalists might accept another community lives on this island expresses itself in different ways and tolerate it rather than attack it.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Fair Deal

    “I am afraid your timeline and Paisley’s role is all wrong. Paisley use of the files and naming of Reavey was decades after the attack. Paisley had named no one publicly when members of the Reavey family were murdered.”

    Actually, I think you’ll find (if you happen to have a copy of Hansard handy) that Paisley first used parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey in 1976, after Kingsmill but before the Reavey family massacre. Check it out.

    “Oh that’s all right then I am sure it will help the families grief to have relatives portrayed as mass murderers.”

    No, that’s not what I’m saying, and you know it. If anyone has defamed the dead, then that is wrong, but it’s clearly different from defaming the living in a way that puts lives at risk. The Reavey family case clearly meets this criteria.
    Though you’re right to point out that some members of the Glenanne gang are still alive, and that the evidence against them might not be enough for a court. However, the three Reavey brothers are not alive, and the “evidence” against them was zero. I’m not downplaying families’ grief, but the living MUST take precedence over the dead.

    “The new evidence used to clear Eugene Reavey’s name was a statement from the police and I notice you sidestepped/ignored the question, if the police’s word is good enough to clear a nationalist accused of something why is it not good enough when it says a republican group is responsible for something?”

    There was no “new evidence”. The police statement was not “new evidence”, it was the retraction of the only “evidence” there ever was. A police file on Eugene Reavey, leaked through the DUP spy ring within the RUC, was the only “evidence” there EVER was against Reavey, and it was enough to spark a massacre. So this isn’t an issue of blindly believing whatever the police say, just because it suits. This is a case where the ONLY agency who made any allegation, withdrew that allegation. There was suspicion against the Reaveys ONLY because the RUC pointed the finger. The RUC later admitted it was wrong. No leap of faith in anyone required.

    “Yes the officers in Dublin did offer protection to those involved in the Love Ulster Parade and that included putting themselves in significant danger. The fact the rioters won on the day is no reflection on officers on the ground but a failure of intelligence and planning. It is also a break from their past history when they failed to protect other parades.”

    Name one.

  • Why

    Sorry FD you would need to ask a Nationalist/Republican those questions you want answered.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Brian Boru

    “There is actually very little sectarianism in the South. But in a city of 1.2 million, a tiny % can equate to the 1000 or so that turned out to cause trouble. 1 way we should react to this is by going ahead with the 1916 march in April, in order to deny the terrorists the right to claim to be the true successors of those freedom fighters.”

    Hmmm. Having lived in the south for many years, and more revealingly, having lived with southerners in the north for several years, I’d say that there is a prevalence of certain attitudes and mindsets that are not sectarian as such, but which might be interpreted as such, if one were of a mind to do so.

    What do I mean by that? Hmmm. I suppose there are certain realities which partition has given rise to. I have found that the people within the nationalist community with the most old-fashioned, unrealistic and strident views are southerners who have moved up. For example, a northern nationalist will see a union jack or an orange march in Belfast city centre and, while not thrilled about it, will not blow a gasket either. Northerners can’t afford to. If we were to go crazy every time we saw some outward manifestation of the other tradition, it would be exhausting. A southerner though – not being used to such sights – is far more likely to get upset. Southerners never have to come to terms with the realities of living in a divided society. The border has allowed the creation of quite a cosy republican consensus in the south, but not on the island. The north remains a sort of quarantine zone, where the sectarian problems of the island have been sectioned and, as far as possible, put aside. So to say that sectarianism is uncommon in the south is a half-truth. It’s easy to be tolerant and non-sectarian from a distance. It’s easy to convince yourself that you aren’t sectarian when there isn’t even the perception of a threat. But what if things weren’t so secure? What if problems were closer to home? Is southern sectarianism absent, or merely unnecessary at the moment?

    I happen to agree that there is precious little sectarianism in the south, but there is also a cosiness of which most people are zealously protective. That cosiness consists of things like not having to look at union jacks, and an old-fashioned, boy’s own anti-British jingoism. I think that attempts to upset that cosiness might bring out an ugly side that most people still refuse to believe exists. Maybe I’m wrong, I dunno. (Though I do know this – we Irish have a self-congratulatory streak to us.)

    Of course sectarianism is more common in the north – it’s very hard to ignore the realities of living in a divided society, no matter how much you might wish to – but I would suggest that discourse on the issue of sectarianism is far more sophisticated and imaginative and advanced in the north, simply because it HAS to be. I was talking to a friend who was on O’Connell Street on Saturday reporting, and he told me some of the things that were being said – blood curdling sectarianism. I’ve witnessed rioting in the north in Armagh, Portadown, Kilkeel and Belfast, and frankly I have to say, we have a better class of sectarian knuckle-dragger in the north.

    So rather than doing what unionism does and denying the problem, you should treat it with the utmost seriousness. The fact is that when Irish citizens opposed to the Republican consensus of the south tried to march in the capital, there was rioting. Surely this has a significance greater than the numbers involved?

  • Biffo

    Billy Pilgrim

    “Actually, I think you’ll find (if you happen to have a copy of Hansard handy) that Paisley first used parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey in 1976, after Kingsmill but before the Reavey family massacre. Check it out.”

    Your information is wrong on that one. The 6 members of the Reavey and O’Dowd familys were massacred on the day before the Kingsmill massacre.

  • Billy
    “there is also a cosiness of which most people are zealously protective”

    And rightly so, why shouldn’t we be?

    “That cosiness consists of things like not having to look at union jacks”

    ? I don’t think too many of us give a shit. Or do all those Southerners close their eys when on weekend trips to London or Belfast?

    “I think that attempts to upset that cosiness might bring out an ugly side that most people still refuse to believe exists.”

    You may be right. Of course we want to protect what we have, we kinda like what we have, especially when we see what you have 🙂

  • fair_deal

    Billy Pilgrim

    “Paisley first used parliamentary privilege to name Eugene Reavey in 1976, after Kingsmill but before the Reavey family massacre. Check it out.”

    Oh dear Billy,I did check it out and it is now clear you do not know what you are talking about. Members of the Reavey family were murdered BEFORE the Kingsmill massacre. So your claim of Kingsmill followed by Paisley naming followed by reavey family murders is IMPOSSIBLE.

    I have checked it out Hansard is not available online for 1976. All interent references mention Paisley’s use of parliamentary privilege in 1999 including on the Pat Finucane centre website.

    Can you provide any source to support your claim of Paisley using parliamentary privilege in 1976?

    “Name one.”

    Easy there were three in one year. 1931 is the key year Loyal Order parades were attacked in Leitrim and Cavan.
    Baileboro – OO Cavan Twelfth parade (The Protestant minister who spoke from the platform was kidnapped by republicans and held for a number of days)
    Newtongore – OO Leitrim Twelfth parade
    Cootehill – Black Parade – The IRA took over the entire town.

    The OO approached Cosgrave about the matter and the failure to get adequate protection and he informed them he sympathised but said he could not guarantee the safety of future parades. Thereafter all Twelfth parades and nearly all other parades in Cavan Leitrim and Monaghan ceased.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Maca

    “there is also a cosiness of which most people are zealously protective”

    And rightly so, why shouldn’t we be?

    Nothing to do with should. It’s more a question of what price ye might be willing to pay for reunification. I would suggest there would be those south of the border for whom the answer would be: nothing. Others would disagree.

    “That cosiness consists of things like not having to look at union jacks”

    “I don’t think too many of us give a shit. Or do all those Southerners close their eys when on weekend trips to London or Belfast?”

    Ah now Maca, you know what I mean. I’m talking about not having to look at union jacks in Ireland. Hence, for example, their absence from flagpoles outside hotels in the south. And I have already testified to the annoyance of several southerners of my acquaintance when passing Belfast city hall, for example.

    “I think that attempts to upset that cosiness might bring out an ugly side that most people still refuse to believe exists.”

    You may be right. Of course we want to protect what we have, we kinda like what we have, especially when we see what you have 🙂

    In the north we live with the reality of two traditions on this island. It’s not easy and it’s not pretty but we live with it and attempt to deal with it. The border allows people in the south to live safely in denial. It might be easy to patronise from the security of the Republic, but I guess after Saturday it’ll be a little harder.

  • Biffo

    Billy Pilgrim

    “I now know how most unionists must have felt as they looked on in horror at Drumcree/Harryville/Carnmoney/Holy Cross/“Vatican Square”/the Septemer riots etc”

    I see your point here.

    But you forget that a significant number of mainstream unionists blame the police when loyalist scumbags riot.

    I haven’t heard elected representatives in the south accusing the gardaí of being heavyhanded and provoking the trouble – which is what would have happened if the violence had occured on the Newtownards Road.

    You have have to understand that many within mainstream unionism have a mirror mentality to those in Republican Sinn Féin.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Fair Deal

    Oops. I’m happy to acknowledge that I was mistaken in the details of the Reavey case. Undoubtedly I’ve confused the details of some other cases with it. That’ll teach me to go by my hazy memory rather than nail details down.

    (Very embarrassed.)

    Oh, and thanks for the details re. 1931. Very interesting stuff. Not something I was aware of. Point taken.

  • Billy Pilgrim

    Biffo

    You may have a point but I also think you’re missing the important issue. We shouldn’t be looking for excuses or distinctions to explain why this wasn’t as bad as X, Y or Z. (Even if it wasn’t.)

    Frankly, in all the instances I have named, unionist politicians compounded the shame caused in the first place. We – those of us who are of Ireland and for Ireland – need to hold ourselves to higher standards than the other tradition on the island appears to. If we don’t then how can we ever flatter ourselves that we have anything to offer them?

  • Brian Boru

    “Maybe after 200 years nationalists might accept another community lives on this island expresses itself in different ways and tolerate it rather than attack it.”

    In the south we already accept you. Unfortunately a tiny minority does not. We should have planned better for dealing with that minority. Dublin City Council was trying to bring in tougher security measures for marches in 2001/2 but civil-liberties groups shot it down. Maybe this will wake them up.

    Of course, accepting your differences does not mean we have to share your political beliefs, which I admit we certainly do not.

  • Niall

    To Fair Deal,

    I am from Whitecross and know both the Reavey’s and Willie Frazer. The Kingsmill massacre did happen after the murders of the Reavey and O’Dowd families probably and unforgiveably in retaliation.

    I am absolutely certain that Eugene Reavey had nothing to do with the Kingsmills massacre or anything else for that matter. He was grieving after losing two of his brothers for heavens sake.

    Ian Paisley also named other men from the Whitecross area who had nothing to do with the massacre. Paisley is a political coward and always has been. Why does he not say these things openly instead of hiding behind parliament privelege.

    As for Willie, his whole personal story is full of inaccuracies. Their house was never attacked during his fathers wake. Willie has never played gaelic football for Whitecross let alone captain the u13 team. He did attend Ballymoyer primary school and probably played football there.

    I think that Willie is fully entitled to have a victims site exclusively for victims of IRA violence but he should not slander the name and indeed put at risk innocent men like Eugene Reavey who was a victim himself

  • fair_deal

    Brian Boru

    “accepting your differences does not mean we have to share your political beliefs, which I admit we certainly do not.”

    Never asked you too.

    Billy Pilgrim

    Retraction accepted. Happy to have been able to have made you more aware with the other information.

    Why6

    Terrible for Willie to accuse Eugene Reavey but ok to accuse Willie Frazer of lots of things. Hmm interesting.

  • Niall

    I was’nt aware that I had accused Willie of anything apart from being liberal with the truth which is different than accusing someone of mass murder.

  • fair_deal

    Why6

    You were accusing him of being a liar. I fully accept that the accusations against Mr Reavey are much more serious but you were still throwing about accusations.

    Intelligence documents now in the public domain are the source of the allegations against Mr Reavey and others, what are your sources in the public domain?

  • Niall

    As blogged on this thread previously I am almost certain that the police have said that these intelligence documents were basically bullshit and that Eugene Reavey was not in their line of enquiries for Kingmills

    Regarding Willie, I have no sources in the public domain but if you think his house was attacked during his fathers wake, would it not have been reported to the police and records kept.

    I have been a member of Whitecross football club and played from I was 10 until I retired and I can tell you now that Willie never played for us.

  • piebald

    Fair Deal

    “You are suggesting that Catholic attitudes towards Protestants and their symbols haven’t moved on in 142 years. If that claim is true then we do have serious problems.”

    Attitudes to Orange symbols won’t change when those symbols still signify ascendant attitudes.

    Of course we have serious problems and the political vacuum at present is not helping.

    “aka Ulster Prods do as your told or else.”

    no – just cop on to yourselves

    Again the orange lilies instead of collarettes was a gesture to Dubliners and you take offence at that!”

    An Orange Lily has nothing to do with Protestantism but is worn in support of the Orange Order.

    A bit like the British soldiers wearing berets instead of helmets – lovely

    The Lambeg drum was also a nice touch.

    Pity a Mobile Arch could not have been assembled eh ?

    piebald

  • Baluba

    There is a correlation between Orange Order marches and violence. This was no surprise.

    Interesting that the wee fella who chucked the wheelbarrow at the Gardaí was Polish and some others who were arrested were Lithuanian. Do we assume from this that they’ve become radicalised Irish Republicans, or did they just take the opportunity to get stuck into the peelers as people do in riots the world over?

    Me thinks the latter.

    I wish the march had gone ahead. It would have been more than amusing to see that tiny band of eejits walking down O’Connell street. How many was there? 100? 150?

    A successful exercise in provocation as is their great skill.

  • Baluba

    whatever is goin wrong with the site. the above post was made by baluba not brian boru2 or whatever that jazz means.

  • Billy
    “I’m talking about not having to look at union jacks in Ireland.”

    Again I don’t see the problem there. Perhaps you knew a few people who might have a problem, I don’t.

    “The border allows people in the south to live safely in denial”

    In denial of what Billy, can you clarify? In denial that another tradition exists? In denial that there are scum bags in Ireland too?

  • elfinto

    ‘fair deal’

    Ballistic reports which were covered up by the RUC for 30 years substantiate John Weir’s claims about the killing of the Reaveys’s by a UDR/RUC/UVF gang. Weir’s statements are credible.

    The facts of the Miami Showband Massacre which took place in the same area 5 months previous are indisputable and speak for themselves.

    elfinto

  • Jill Robinson

    Piebald posted: “The Lambeg drum was also a nice touch.”

    Could be because it’s a boys’ thing, but has it occurred to anybody that drums (of themselves) could be part of the problem?

    After all, why did armies use the damn things? To stir up the troops as they marched into battle, get the ol’ patriotic blood up. Blood-curdling war cries helped too.

    So what function have military drums got in peace time? Except to stir things up.

    Maybe time to take the drum out of Ulster politics?