You couldn’t make it up..

An occasional series. If it’s not the Northern Ireland Executive’s Deputy First Minister, Sinn Féin’s Martin McGuinness, telling everyone of the importance of “Respect for authority..” [*ahem* – Ed] it’s Junior Minister, the DUP’s Ian Paisley jnr, emphasising the “importance of tolerance, acceptance and understanding in society..” Indeed.

, , , , ,

  • Joey

    Forgive me if I can pre-empt the predictable response from certain quarters:

    ‘Did Mr Guinness have respect for the people killed twenty to thirty years ago? Did he have respect for their lives and property?’ etc, etc.

    Prepare for the broken record to resume. Hopefully this might be nipped in the bud. It has nothing to do with the present or the future.

  • nmc

    Bollocks, I’m a nationalist and that’s so ridiculous I’m having problems not swearing. To have a revolution you need a revolutionary party, wha?

  • Nevin

    Community challenged to capitalise on opportunity

    Members of the community are being asked to come forward with ideas for improving community relations in Northern Ireland. The One Small Step Campaign, which was founded by senior figures from across society, has launched a public consultation with the objective of compiling 100 small steps towards a shared future for a book to be published next year.

    The process to collate the ideas began at an event hosted by MLAs Danny Kennedy and Naomi Long in Stormont’s Long Gallery today (November 26, 2007).

    Piddling for Peas

  • joeCanuck

    As you say Pete: indeed.

    What a hypocrite.

  • deezle beezle

    Joey,

    We are talking about somone who was a terrorist and destroyed lives along with the rule of law…..of course it makes a difference. The problem with this country is we have too many so called respecable politicians, from both sides of the coin. Smiling and moralising while trying to shove the old balaclava and kalashikov out of sight under the bed.
    Tell the Butcher of the bogsides victims that his hypocritical gobshiting has nothing to do with the present or future

  • Ahem

    Yeah Joey, how simply awful of people to bring up those tedious ole murders of Marty McG’s. Bad them. Boring them! *Everyone* – shush! Don’t be a nerd: mum’s the word!

  • lib2016

    The discipline shown by republicans in adjusting to changed times and helping to construct the Peace Process is in sharp contrast to the behaviour of a certain unionist party which destroyed ‘the centre ground’ by refusing to form an executive.

    Happily the electorate recognised who wanted to build a prosperous and peaceful future and who wanted to continue sulking.

    We’re your partners now, lads,like it or not. You would be better leaving the infantile jibes and namecalling behind and making peace with the electorate as befits a political party.

  • Ahem

    And do you know what piece of ‘Republican discipline’ I’ve been most impressed with recently? Twenty of them beating some poor sod to death in a barn over the border because three of them couldn’t take him one night in a pub. That’s real discipline for you. Thank God we have them – how did you put it? oh yeah – helping to construct the peace process. And if we didn’t have Marty McG in the excutive, do you what the worst of it would be? What *would* his robots here on Slugger find to do all day?

  • Nevin

    Anyone for ‘braised meat balls‘?

  • lib2016

    Despite a decade of loyalist violence Sinn Fein and their supporters kept their nerve and pushed on for a settlement which suited both sides.

    Since when did unionists care about a small time criminal in South Armagh or has the hypocrisy gone on for so long that some unionists actually believe this nonsense? As well dissolve the UK because a few squaddies get involved in rape and murder as dissolve Stormont on this pretext.

  • Deezle Beezle

    Lib,

    They only kept their nerve, because they had no other option. and as for an agreement that suited both sides
    A. that works both ways, and
    B. Does it really?

    Im not knocking the process. just unbelieving of the people who are moralising…..i mean it makes the Conservatives “Back to basics” Scandal of the early 90’s look positivley innocent.

    Fair play to Marty and Big Ian for the Pantomime, but, just cause they can sit and smile for a salary dosent mean that I for want to hear hypocrisy from either side.

  • harry

    Was Paul Quinn not showing repect?

  • lib2016

    Deezle Beezle,

    they only had no option if you believe that they had rejected violence. Obviously the bulk of their electoral support also believes that since they only started voting for Sinn Fein after the GFA.

    For the Agreement to work it has to offer something to both communities. I believe it does since unionists get stability and nationalists get shared acess to power.

    Whether that will be enough we’ll have to see.

  • ulsterexile

    lib,
    “they only had no option if you believe that they had rejected violence. Obviously the bulk of their electoral support also believes that since they only started voting for Sinn Fein after the GFA.”

    You can fool all of the people some of the Time…….

  • harry

    lib2016

    Since when did unionists care about a small time criminal in South Armagh or has the hypocrisy gone on.

    i am not a unionist, but i am from south armagh. but i care. i care. i care that assholes that have taken to adminisrating british rule here, can murder young people for disrepecing the local chief.

    and your flippant, off hand dismissal of Paul quinn’s life as that of a small time criminal is typical of what is wrong with sinn fein these days.

    dont upset our nice salaries in stormont for the likes of scum like paul quinn.

  • ulsterfan

    lib 2016

    “Sf pushed for a settlement which suited both sides” What nonsense. They took what was on offer from the Brits and Unionists.

  • Ahem

    I remain undecided as to who the best unionist wind-up merchant on Slugger is – LibNeverNever, or, RepublicanGroans? Both have their merits, but I think the Libster’s shading it at the moment. That pitch-perfect capture of the Republican mindset – ‘a small time criminal in South Armagh’: shure didn’t he need moiderising? – was priceless. Keep on keeping on, old son.

  • dewi

    What do people want MMc to say?
    Respect and civility are bad things?
    I think his words were very well put.

  • RepublicanStones

    someone call? ahem, unionists wind themselves up pretty good without us evil republicans coming along !

  • What armed conflict.

    As the old saying goes, ‘ If you can convince yourself what you are saying is true, then your half way there ‘ Or it could be a case of ‘ Bull Shit Baffles Brains ‘ Keep it up Martin, your fooling no one.

  • Pancho’s Horse

    I think it would be more becoming if unionists were a bit more mannerly and subdued in their criticisms of the natives. After all, they are guests in our country.

  • Turgon

    lib 2016
    “Since when did unionists care about a small time criminal in South Armagh or has the hypocrisy gone on. ”

    The casual way you dismiss Mr. Quinn’s life and untimely death has already been commented on by harry. It is of course axiomatic of your whole style on this web site and much the same way as you dismissed the life and untimely death of a 20 year old nurse some 20 years ago. For a man who self describes as a pacifist this is a fairly unusual position to say the least.

    You will no doubt reject and also (as an athesist) fail to understand this point but I do care lib. I care because I believe in the quote “Do not count as naught one for whom Christ scorned not to die). I care lib even about the people who died on hunger strike and those men who died at Loughgall. I even care lib about you, however much I despise your views. Such is the commandment of the One I follow. It is not easy, rest assured I would rather not care about you lib; but there it is. You cannot and no doubt will not accept such points. They offend against your whole world view. That is sadly your problem.

  • Turgon

    Turning back to the thread.

    In terms of McGuiness’s comments about respect. McGuiness is ploughing a similar sort of furrow to Adams with his “I knew there was no military solution” type rhetoric. In McGuiness’s case it is all a bit more down to earth and pratical. McGuiness ever seemed the pratical one; not for him the pseudo liberal pseudo intellectual stuff of Adams.

    What McGuiness is doing here is explaining that in the new dispensation people should respect authority especially as manifested by himself and his accolytes. This allows McGuiness to mascurade as a champion of law and order, opposing evil attacks on elderly people (unless of course they were at war memorials or were retired police officers). It is also about distancing himself and SF from the ongoing mafia activities of the IRA. Of course pronouncing that republicans had no part in the Quinn murder when pratically everyone and their dogs knows otherwise also helps.

    These two different types of statement allow SF to appear to be a democratic party whilst at the same time giving a nod and a wink to those who might accuse them of “going soft”. This allows the continued courting of the ex SDLP vote (which just might be looking a bit shaky post the Quinn murder) as well as keeping most of the traditional hardline supporters happy. It even helps with unionist engagement and the calculated saddness and regret when unionists will not accept such peace loving and law respecting types; with of course the implicit suggestion that it is hardly surprising that the IRA had to kill so many of them considering their unreasonable tendancy not to air brush the past and obediently pose as the aggressors reluctantly killed by the heroic volunteers.

  • dewi

    I ask again what should he have said? He could have added something about the Quinn killing perhaps – but surely it’s evidence of a commitment to a peaceful, law abiding future.

  • Ahem

    Leaving to one side whether McGuinness can ever display ‘commitment to a peaceful, law abiding future’ whilst refusing point blank to take any personal responsibility whatsoever for his truly evil crimes, your approach to ‘evidence’ is odd, to say the least, Dewi.

    What sort of ‘evidence’ is it that 20 forensically aware, evidently not especially brave killers, tortured, vilely, to death a young guy just for getting on the wrong side of some Republican hoods? Why are there still Republican hoods to get on the wrong side of, never mind this being the consequence for doing it?

    And this is the problem with Republicans on Slugger. They rant and whine about sundry past injustices, and they impute to Unionists of all shades and kinds, serried accusations of bad faith, sectarianism and collusion in what they plainly consider to be crimes (when done by others, not least murder). But name me one person killed by Unionists this year, last year, the year before that, etcetera and etcetera. Yet here – Quinn’s barbarous death – is still another murder carried out by Republicans (and, o sick and sorry apologists, parse them whatever way you will, that’s what they are and that’s what the manner of men who killed Quinn are proud to call themselves) and what do Slugger’s troupe of Provette posters do? Retreat into denial, irrelevance, outright fantasy, smearing counter-accusation and whataboutery that makes your eyes water (seriously, when you, and you know who you are, try this sort of sh*t on, do you even convince yourselves, as you certainly don’t convince anyone else?)

    So I repeat, one more young man has just been murdered. He was a working class northern catholic. His monstrously wrong killing is self-evidently a political and moral injustice. A disgrace indeed, a stain on the society that not merely tolerates it but excuses the scum who did it. And what do Republicans do here? Either ignore it, or try to tactically finesse this little embarrassment by opportunistically ranting about anything and everything other than this.

    Republicans stand as morally compromised as they do, not just because of their past actions (the murders, and the fellow-travelling excuses made for murderers) but because of their inaction in the present. The contrast between Unionism, even in the short period of this executive (no murders, not a one, not any way you cut it, so don’t, please, waste our time trying) and the grisly tally sheet of Republicanism is hideously instructive. And the all-too easy to predict howls of self-deceiving outrage there’d be from Republicans, were, somehow, the situation in fact the other way round, sadly tells us just how long the road to go is before Republicans finally face up to being morally responsible actors.

  • RepublicanStones

    ok ahem, so if a dup/uup voter murders someone, the whole party would be to blame?

  • joeCanuck

    It is not easy

    That has to be the understatement of the year, Turgon.
    I admire you and your philosophy although I couldn’t come anywhere close.

  • dewi

    Awkward because can’t see anybody’s name but what would the poster about three back like to see happen? I think a thorough police investigation into the Quinn killing both sides of the border will find the truth and catch the instigators. If that does not happen then agree there is some way to go.

  • joeCanuck

    I know (from family experience), Dewi, that the police have to move carefully and mashall all the evidence before making an arrest to maximise the opportunity for justice to happen.
    But given the high profile of this case and the number of people involved, I’m somewhat surprised that nobody yet has been brought in for questioning, let alone been charged.

  • Turgon

    joeCanuck,
    This is an aside irrelevant to the discussion but I will try to answer. I do not pretend to achieve it but one must try. It is not about what one wants to do. It is not about being morally superior, nor more holy, more Godly or anything at all like that. It is a grim act of will that I will be distressed by the suffering and death even of those I despise. The only thing that makes it easier is that I have to believe that Hell is so real, so terrible and so endless that if I am spared it I will look on with pity on anyone who is there.

    I always hope that actually my understanding of the bible is wrong and that hell is not what I believe it to be but I have to carry on beliveing what I do. At times fundamentalist Christianity is not much fun. Of course I believe that I was elected by God for salvation (if indeed I have been) through absolutely no merit of my own. When one remembers what I have been given and what I will avoid then I guess it becomes a bit easier to care that others might experience what I hope God will spare me from.

  • Ahem

    Again, as I’ve said elsewhere, the Unionist troll who does sterling, spoofing work under the name RepublicanGroans really isn’t on top of his game at the moment. Look, mucker, it’s all very well taking the p*ss out out of them, as morally obtuse. They are. We both know that. But when I’ve just made the point that a.) Unionists, by any defintion, haven’t murdered anyone during the period of this executive, whilst b.) Republicans plainly have, and c.) Slugger’s Republicans [aka the Biggest Bunch of Fantasists on the Entire World Wide Web, hereafter BBFEWWW], for all their vaunted concerned for the ‘peace process’/working class northern catholics (aka the victim)/fellow Irishmen ain’t saying anything, having, Groans, your character come out with some lame, entirely fictive* whataboutery really doesn’t cut it. Raise your game.

    *Fictive, you fool, because in the real world, Quinn is DEAD. Dead and killed by Republicans. Whereas, oddly enough, there’s no corpse you’re going to trail round and say, ‘look! whilst we’ve had this grand new dispensation of the executive! murdered by Unionists!’ And yes, you do know why you’re not saying that, because Unionists haven’t killed anyone.

    You, and the other casual apologists for murder, can keep refusing to face up to why it’s Republicans who are carrying on killing. The rest of us aren’t.

  • RepublicanStones

    you never answered the question ahem, so i’ll repeat it, if a DUP/UUP voter murders someone, is the whole party to blame?

  • Ahem

    Sure, why not? Okay? That dealt with – given that Republicans have murdered someone during the period of the Executive, do you want to turn your ‘mind’ to that, or would you prefer to talk about yet more weird and wonderful ‘what ifs?’ and whatabouteries?

  • Belfast Gonzo

    Pete – great spot!

    Now, given that Paisley Minor was “struck by the campaign’s emphasis on progress depending greatly on the responsibilities of each person to make a difference” perhaps one of our MLAs could ask him to list what he himself has been doing to increase tolerance, respect and understanding. Surely he wouldn’t be repulsed by such a query?

  • Danny O’Connor

    I see that lib2016 has stopped trying to defend thr tm’s and vt’s in the provo murder machine.What surprises me is that Lord Laird is the only politician with privilege who has sought to expose this ,and as for the eunuchs(those without the cohones)to differentiate between murder (Jeffrey)and corporate murder(Jeffrey)How will anyone ever take them seriously again?.How many salaries was was Paul Quinn’s life (or is anyone else’s life )worth.

  • Ahem

    It’s hellishly bad form to quote oneself, but here goes:

    One more young man has just been murdered. He was a working class northern catholic. His monstrously wrong killing is self-evidently a political and moral injustice. A disgrace indeed, a stain on the society that not merely tolerates it but excuses the scum who did it. And what do Republicans do here? Either ignore it, or try to tactically finesse this little embarrassment by opportunistically ranting about anything and everything other than this.

    And what has this thread seen? A woeful piece of whataboutery flown straight in from Irrelevantistan. And then silence – because Slugger’s Republicans can’t and won’t face up to what Republican murder (of working class northern catholics!) means. Pitiful, truly pitiful.

  • Jo

    While as far as I am concerned (and despite my instincts) the jury is still out on the Quinn killing, I have been appalled at Republican attitudes towards discussion of this tragedy, the abuse that is thrown at those who raise the issue and the contempt shown to the family concerned: “a falling out among criminals.”

    It’s a simple fact that those used to violence over a protracted period can’t really bring themeselves to settle disagreement by any other means. And no-one, not even in the heart of south Armagh, is immune from such “tantrums.”

    Have they learned nothing? It would seem not.

  • [i]If a DUP/UUP voter murders someone, is the whole party to blame?

    Posted by RepublicanStones on Nov 26, 2007 @ 11:45 PM[/i]

    They are if then go on to not only refuse to condem the murder but go on to try and brush the incident under the carpet. What part of murder is wrong does most of the Slugger population miss?

  • Ahem

    I don’t think most of the Slugger population miss it Pounder. Certainly not among the readers, our very own silent majority. But all too plainly, among our self-styled ‘Republicans’, there’s an absolute detrmination to go on not seeing certain agreeable murders as being in any way wrong. Be they of working class northern catholics or anyone else. So in that one sense, and that one sense alone, truly Provo Republicanism regards protestant, catholic and dissenter alike – equal opportunites murders all round.

  • lib2016

    Geez! You lot are still on about this. Why don’t some of you get a life or at least make an attempt to be consistent?

    First we get loads of threads about how smugglers are the worst sort of criminal, especially if they’re percieved as republican supporters. Then when it suits the party line the smuggling aspect suddenly gets overlooked although we stick with the denounciation of all things republican.

    The people who denounce me for not tearing my hair out like some ghoul over one more massacre in a world full of them then take part in the commemoration/celebrations of an army which has just played an illegal part in the death of over one million people. No paradox there?

    As for my pacifist beliefs? I marched against the war. Did you?

  • Turgon

    lib2016,
    You tell us to get a life. The irony is extremely rich. We are discussing a life here; indeed the ending of a life. A life which you dismissed in a single phrase. This life was taken by people who seem very likely to have been members of the republican movement. Yet we have leading members of the party you support, nay worship at the feet of, telling us republicans did not do it.

    You tell us to be consistent. Well I guess at least you are. You previously dismissed Marie Wilson’s life as casually as you have now done Paul Quinn’s. Your proclamation of pacifism is most interesting. You are willing to march against a war in a distant land fought by a government you claim no alligance to (incidentally I have major sympathies for opposing that war) yet not only do you show no inclination to march but you show no inclination to care in the slightest about deaths so much closer to home. Deaths which if people like you demanded long and loudly that the republican movement stop, lest they loose your support, you might concievably be able to affect.

    Also lib I think you are most fortunate that the laws of libel do not extend to the deceased. Was Mr. Quinn ever convicted of a crime? Even if he was did he deserve his fate? And lib even if he cannot sue and even if he was a criminal maybe, just maybe so close to his death you might remember the suggestion to “not speak ill of the dead.”

    You tell the rest of us to get a life and be consistent. Well can I suggest to you that you think, even transiently on having a little respect let alone compassion.

  • lib2016

    Turgon,

    I’m honest about my emotions rather than wallowing in false sentimentality. There is a difference.

    Moreover the deceased’s mother admitted that her son had smuggled and was ‘too ready with his hands’. Should she also be sued for libel?

    In South Armagh that’s what cute hooer’s do and they are respected for it. You mightn’t like it and I certainly don’t but that’s the way life is in these parts.

    You might also try and understand that I, like many nationalists, have a strong aversion to ‘shroud waving’. The whole nonsense of ‘we only wanted to commemorate the Somme’ has been used as a defence of sectarian murder and the most arrogant colonialism.

    The Troubles didn’t appear out of nowhere nor did they persist so long without a long list of grievances.

    Maybe in another generation and with support from Sinn Fein our commemorations could become mutually respected. At present you seem to feel that respect is a one-way street.

  • Ahem

    Easily the best pastiche of a Republican yet seen on Slugger. Paul Quinn, you “cute hooer”, take that! Any ‘real’ Republicans prepared to disassociate themselves from this sort of thing?

  • lib2016

    Ahem,

    Ah yes – I’m not ‘republican’ enough for you now after all those posts claiming that I was an apologist for republicans?

    Maybe you don’t know the connotations of the phrase ‘cute hooer’ but it is used most often about members of Fianna Fail (the Republican Party) and conveys a wry respect for their cuteness.

    Got to go now but I’ll probably be here tomorrow.

  • Ahem

    I think, on the basis of your habitually spacer replies, that if your brains were dynamite you could barely blow up a toddler, but that’s by the by. Thanks for revealing, by the by, that you have FA grasp of northern idiom and its origins. Somehow I suspected you weren’t a keen student of Lynn Doyle.

  • Turgon

    lib 2016,
    I see not a single attempt to answer a single point. You do not like “shroud waving”. What a convient way to explain your evident distain for another human being’s life and untimely death.

    Then we have “commeration of the Somme”. What on earth is that about? Oh yes, as I type I understand. That is about your views on the Enniskillen macassre. I doubt I need to remind anyone here about them.

    My respect is a one way street? Maybe just maybe you should read my previous post about my views on death. Then again we could not have you having to think that there are people in this world you really think death is sad, violent death terrible and murder absolutely terrible. That might be sentimentality might it not?

    Thankfully we have rationalists like you to rationalise away all these problems.

  • Belfast Gonzo

    I, like many nationalists, have a strong aversion to ‘shroud waving’.

    Eh? The only group on the planet who can give the British a run for the money in the commemoration of their war dead stakes are Irish republicans.

    Or did I dream that endless series of hunger strike marches, Edentubber memorials, Bodenstown speeches, remember 1916, marches for truth, justice, peace, love and so on and so on and so on?

    Jesus, if it wasn’t for the ‘shroud waving’, republicanism would barely be recognisable.

  • lib2016

    This is positively my last post on this subject. The Quinn boys died as a result of an argument over a march commemorating the Somme. But we don’t talk about unionist atrocities on this site, do we?

    As for endlessly commemorating ‘our glorious dead’, wearing Rangers or Celtic shirts or hanging up flags where they aren’t wanted? Doesn’t matter to me which side does it – it’s still nonsense.

    I don’t like barroom republicans anymore than coked up loyalists. They are both infinitely unappealing.

  • toecutter

    mr mc guinness is now a highly paid respected member of the british establishment .so he can talk like that.

    [play the ball – edited moderator]

  • Texas

    Celtic won!