Are beacons the answer?

Belfast City Council is pioneering a plan that could lead to the ‘traditional’ 11th Night bonfires being replaced with large beacons. Nationalists remain sceptical of the plan because of the significant council-funding already committed to the project (£90,000). The Fire Service are reporting no major incidents on what is normally their busiest night of the year, though as Fair Deal has posted above, an Orange Hall was destroyed in a sectarian arson attack in Lavin. Another disturbing development is the breaking story (on Good Morning Ulster) this morning that at least one bonfire in north Antrim(at Ahoghill)- and possibly more in Ballymena- witnessed banners and/ or flags mocking the sectarian murder of Michael McIlveen. Beacons may solve the environmental problems associated with 11th Night bonfires, but can we expect further initiatives aimed at removing the sectarian toxins from this annual event?

  • TAFKABO

    Stephen.

    I didn’t say references to Catholicism, I said references to God.
    Any reference to God in the constitution is incompatible with secularism.
    And that is what makes Ireland different from France.

  • Stephen Copeland

    TAFKABO,

    … it is not Catholicism I have a problem with, it’s the idea of Church and State having such a close reationship.

    Did you smile as you typed that? I certainly smiled as I read it. You want NI to stay in the UK because you don’t like close church/state relationships (and its not an anti-catholic thing, apparently) …

    Are you in any way aware of the extremely close church-state relationships in the UK? Who, for instance is head of the C of E? Who ‘appoints’ bishops? What religion must the head of state be?

    I can see why you got out of the place! I just cannot understand why you think the south is worse.

  • Stephen Copeland

    TAFKABO,

    I didn’t say references to Catholicism, I said references to God.

    Honestly, you’re coming over as a drowning man. You use curses to discribe your extreme aversion to a UI, and apparently its all because the southern Constitution mentions god in its preamble!

  • kensei

    “I didn’t say references to Catholicism, I said references to God.
    Any reference to God in the constitution is incompatible with secularism.
    And that is what makes Ireland different from France.”

    Similar problems with living in the US then?

  • TAFKABO

    Stephen.

    The conversation has gone off on tangents, as conversations do.
    The issue of secularism has arisen, but if you want to fool yourself that my only difficulties are with this particular aspect, then go ahead.

    My problems are with a range of issues, secualrism is probably the least of them.
    It ought to be clear that my biggest problems are with an openly hostile majority that contrive to find any aspect of my existance offensive.

    I don’t particularly care for the religious aspects of the the UK either, I am on record here as saying I would like a secular British Republic.
    But, when the head of the UK takes communion with others of a different faith, there isn’t an outcry from the established church.

  • TAFKABO

    Yes Kensai, I would have the same problems, probably more so, with the protestant fundamentalists running the USA at the moment.

  • kensei

    “It ought to be clear that my biggest problems are with an openly hostile majority that contrive to find any aspect of my existance offensive.”

    No they don’t. They only find the offensive parts offensive. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    So hypothetically, would you have had a problem living in the US in an era previous to this, say the 60’s? It’s the same Constitution.

  • TAFKABO

    Kensai.

    I’m not being asked to consider reunification with the US.

    Since I have made clear the secualr issue is but one problem, I think the point you are trying to prove is moot.
    But I’m going to play along.
    Yes, I’d have problems livng in such an openly racist place as the US in the Sixties and earler.

    No they don’t. They only find the offensive parts offensive. How many times do I have to repeat this?

    You needn’t have repeated it at all, I answered the point by explaining that there was an issue with who decided what exactly was offensive, and given the track record of Irish republicans, what exactly they would find offensive.
    History tells me that they find anything and everything offensive.
    A victims march became cause for offense on the flimsiest pretext of someones name maybe being on a banner (it wasn’t).

  • kensei

    “I’m not being asked to consider reunification with the US.

    Since I have made clear the secualr issue is but one problem, I think the point you are trying to prove is moot.”

    I don’t. I am happy for you to ant to be in the Union, but don’t qualify it on problems that don’t exist.

    “But I’m going to play along.
    Yes, I’d have problems livng in such an openly racist place as the US in the Sixties and earler.”

    Seventies or Eighties? The Constitution and references to God clearly aren’t the problem though, just as they aren’t with Ireland.

    “You needn’t have repeated it at all, I answered the point by explaining that there was an issue with who decided what exactly was offensive, and given the track record of Irish republicans, what exactly they would find offensive.
    History tells me that they find anything and everything offensive.”

    In your head. Fortunately, reality is a differnet experience.

    “A victims march became cause for offense on the flimsiest pretext of someones name maybe being on a banner (it wasn’t).”

    So, let me get this straight. It is unfair to tar all loyalists with the same brushg based on repeated actions of sectarianism such as burning flags with offensive slogans or effegies of Nationalists over a number of years, but ok to condemn the entire Irish State based on the actionms of a few morons that were widely condemned, in a march that was adequately protected by state forces?

    Hooray for consistent positions!

  • TAFKABO

    Kensai.

    I have said that my problem wasn’t so much with the few who perpetrated the violence as the reaction from the majority before and after the violence.I think the clear hostile build up in the media and elswhere, set the tone for the violence and enabled the riots.
    This, to me, is an indication that a violent minorty waging a violent campaign against unionists in a united ireland would be either largely ignored or excused away in an Irish Republic.

    Your own increasingly hostile tone to me on this thread is another indication of what happens when Unionists say uncomfortable things.

    Sure, I’ve already been found guilty of sectariansim, stick the boot in why don’t you?

  • kensei

    “I have said that my problem wasn’t so much with the few who perpetrated the violence as the reaction from the majority before and after the violence.I think the clear hostile build up in the media and elswhere, set the tone for the violence and enabled the riots.”

    What reaction before? the one where all mainstream Republicans said under no circumstrance whasoever rise to the bait? Do not engage in violence of any sort?

    What reaction after? The prevalent one that completely condemned the attacks and said it brought shame on Ireland? There was the minority view that bringing a load of loyalists bands to Dublin wasn’t a good idea. It was minority,a nd you get that in democracy.

    “This, to me, is an indication that a violent minorty waging a violent campaign against unionists in a united ireland would be either largely ignored or excused away in an Irish Republic.”

    No, because it was excused in this instance. How much less so, in a new state where everyone would be hyper, hyper sensitive. And, chances are the DUP or UUP could be a major coalition partner in government? Would they ignore it? I’d reckojn the British Government could raise the issue too, because if I was a Unionist it would be one of the things I’d insist on when we came to negotiate the new arrangements.

    In a United Ireland, you aren’t complete powerless as you are here.

    “Your own increasingly hostile tone to me on this thread is another indication of what happens when Unionists say uncomfortable things.

    Sure, I’ve already been found guilty of sectariansim, stick the boot in why don’t you? ”

    Increasingly hostile tone? I have been telling you you have talking out of your bum since the start. Anyway, you get treated exactly like everyone else, a slightly inferior equal.

    Uncomfortable truths? What uncomfortable truths? You have made a number of claims that haven’t been backed up with any evidence, and you’ve ignored the inconsistencies in your position when they have been brought to light.

    As I said, I’m perfectly happy for you to support the Union, but don’t predicate it on false statements about the Republic.

  • kensei

    Bah. Should be “wasn’t excuse din this instance”

  • TAFKABO

    What reaction before? the one where all mainstream Republicans said under no circumstrance whasoever rise to the bait? Do not engage in violence of any sort?

    Yup, the people who repeated time after time that this victims march was clearly baiting people, but they shouldn’t react to the bait.
    It helped to create a hostile reaction and poison the atmosphere.By speaking as if it was perfectly reasonable to react with violebnce, but suggest they refrain from doing so, they still fostered the idea that meeting the march with violence was somehow a natural reaction.

    What reaction after? The prevalent one that completely condemned the attacks and said it brought shame on Ireland? There was the minority view that bringing a load of loyalists bands to Dublin wasn’t a good idea. It was minority,a nd you get that in democracy.

    Mostly all the commens which condemned the violence and then went on to add, but…..

    No, because it was excused in this instance. How much less so, in a new state where everyone would be hyper, hyper sensitive. And, chances are the DUP or UUP could be a major coalition partner in government? Would they ignore it? I’d reckojn the British Government could raise the issue too, because if I was a Unionist it would be one of the things I’d insist on when we came to negotiate the new arrangements.

    I don’t accept your assurances.It’s easy for you to make them, but like I say again and again.it doesn’t take very much for it suddenly to be our fault as we provoked or baited the reaction against us.

    In a United Ireland, you aren’t complete powerless as you are here.

    What’s the point in offering me something I don’t want in exchange for something I do?
    The Ireland on offer isn’t one I want.
    Offer me what the United Irishmen envisioned and I might take another look.

    Increasingly hostile tone? I have been telling you you have talking out of your bum since the start. Anyway, you get treated exactly like everyone else, a slightly inferior equal.

    lol, Fair enough

    Uncomfortable truths? What uncomfortable truths? You have made a number of claims that haven’t been backed up with any evidence, and you’ve ignored the inconsistencies in your position when they have been brought to light.

    What inconsistencies?

    As I said, I’m perfectly happy for you to support the Union, but don’t predicate it on false statements about the Republic.

    Which false statements have I made about the Republic exactly?