Cross-community gaelic games take to the road

[This is taken from A Note from the Next Door Neighbours, the monthly e-bulletin of Andy Pollak, Director of the Centre for Cross Border Studies in Armagh and Dublin]

Billy Tate is one of the unsung heroes of cross-border and cross-community cooperation in Northern Ireland. This Ulster Unionist Party member and former soldier in the Royal Artillery is the principal of Belvoir Park Primary School, on the edge of an overwhelmingly Protestant working class housing estate in south-east Belfast. After trying hard – and failing – some years ago to attract a local Catholic school to twin with his school, he went south and forged a partnership with Scoil Mhuire National School in Howth, County Dublin, through the ICT-based Dissolving Boundaries project. Both schools have since been to Áras an Uachtaráin together to see President McAleese.

But that was not enough for this extraordinarily outward looking school principal. Belvoir Park has adopted an ‘international policy’, and has moved since 2004 from being a ‘single identity’ school in an estate once perceived as a ‘no go’ area for Catholics to one which boasts children from Nigeria, Poland, Lithuania, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India and South America.

Meanwhile Billy Tate’s outreach to the island of Ireland and its culture has continued. First he introduced Irish traditional music and dancing into the school. Then some of the children asked if they could try their hand at gaelic games. He turned for assistance to two visionary secondary principals, P.J. O’Grady of St Patrick’s College, Bearnageeha in Catholic north Belfast and Andy McMorran of Ashfield Boys High School in Protestant east Belfast, who had come together in a mould-breaking initiative to play hurling and shinty together (see below). GAA coaches from Tyrone and the Bredagh club in south Belfast coached the Belvoir Park children in gaelic football and hurling, and in their first hurling tournament they won one game and drew two.

“We see sport as a bridge-builder”, says Tate. “There is something profound about watching children in Rangers or Linfield shirts playing gaelic games, and it points to a new future in Northern Ireland for everyone.” He is pretty sure this is the first time that gaelic games have been played in a controlled (i.e. largely Protestant) primary school anywhere in Belfast, and probably in Northern Ireland. His hope is that it will begin to make the GAA “more accessible and welcoming to the Protestant community” and that Catholic schools will start to embrace his beloved rugby in the same spirit.

The GAA is already responding. Two years ago the first sporting contacts had been initiated between Ashfield High and St Patrick’s Bearnageeha. Last year this led, under the guidance of the Ulster Council’s community development manager, Ryan Feeney, to five boys from each school, plus five more from Corpus Christi College in Ballymurphy in Catholic west Belfast and the Boys Model School on the Protestant Crumlin Road, forming a squad which went to Inverness in Scotland to play in an under-16 shinty tournament there (for those not in the know, shinty is a close Scottish relation of hurling).

This month marked two more landmarks in this extraordinary experiment in peacebuilding through sport. On 3rd July a Scottish under-16 shinty team played a return match against the new cross-community team, Belfast Cúchullains, in front of an invited audience (including senior officials from the Ulster-Scots Agency and Ulster Unionist Party, SDLP and Sinn Fein politicians) on the playing fields of Stormont. On the 18th the team crossed the Atlantic to play challenge matches in New York and Washington, before going to Philadelphia for the GAA’s Intercontinental Youth Games, which bring teams together from North America, Britain, Europe and Ireland every year.

The Ulster Council has now started to formulate ambitious plans to have a cross-community hurling team in every large town in Northern Ireland and the three Southern border counties. Last autumn saw the then DUP Minister for Culture, Arts and Leisure, Edwin Poots, visiting Newry for a McKenna Cup football match between Down and Donegal, and one of the North’s most senior Orangemen in Croke Park for the all-Ireland hurling final, both as guests of the GAA (I have been asked not to use the second man’s name, since he has been publicly vilified for his attendance – a remnant of the bad old Northern Ireland!). One wonders how long it will be before a courageous young man from the Shankill Road or the Newtownards Road (for the four pioneering schools in this initiative draw most of their pupils from Belfast’s working class heartlands) joins him on the pitch there. Not too long, I hope.

Andy Pollak

  • willowfield

    These are the accusations which you made against me and refused either to retract or back up (all on the “The Irish Language, a story of non-communication” thread:

    Jul 07, 2008 @ 10:07 AM
    “Yet I note how you would condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision.”

    Jul 07, 2008 @ 01:26 PM
    “You are obviously morally ambivalent on the question of the use of violence….”

    Jul 07, 2008 @ 02:16 PM
    “you are generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with your own.”

    Jul 08, 2008 @ 11:18 AM
    “According to you, then, State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime.”

    These statements are all lies.

  • Incidentally, Concubhar, I had the misfortune of watching the Gaelic tv channel (TnaG?) on Saturday night … a misfortune not because it was broadcasting in Gaelic, but because it was broadcasting the dreadful film “Splash” with Tom Hanks … in English! (Not even any Gaelic subtitles – and all the ads bar one were in English with no subtitles!)

    No wonder so many people say they have watched the channel … it broadcasts in English!

    This is your 9:48pm post. An admission, it seems to me, that you watched Splash, followed by an attack on TG4.

    Yet at 5:45pm you claim: So would I, but I don’t know of anyone who did that.

    It seems to me that there’s some sort of dementia at work here. Which would explain your attempt at re running a debate which we’ve already had and in which your double standards have been shown clearly. I’m not going there. The record stands.

    I have only pointed out to you to refrain from calling me dishonest because I am posting under my own name. You, on the other hand, are using a pseudonym. That places Slugger at risk while you carry on your libellous and ad hominem attacks.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    Pal, your sophistry is too obvious.

    You referred to “someone who watched Splash on TG4 in order to get some material to attack the Irish language station and, no doubt, the Irish language”.

    I watched “Splash” – as I already said earlier! – but not “in order to get some material to attack the Irish language station and, no doubt, the Irish language”. I watched it because I was stuck in the in-laws’ and they happened upon it while flicking through all the crap on Sky.

    So – incredibly – we have another example of your dishonesty in the above post!

    clearly. I’m not going there. The record stands.

    I have only pointed out to you to refrain from calling me dishonest because I am posting under my own name. You, on the other hand, are using a pseudonym. That places Slugger at risk while you carry on your libellous and ad hominem attacks.

    As I said, you can’t libel someone with the truth. The truth is that you made unfounded allegations about me and refused either to back them up or withdraw them. That makes you a dishonest person.

    It’s the truth, and you know it – you just lack the integrity to put your hands up and apologise.

  • This is a post of yours on which I based some of my assertions which you quote above:

    “Dr Ard Macha

    [Dr AM] So it was NOT okay to impose the partition of Ireland on the
    Nationalist population – particularly those in the six Counties in 1921?

    [WF] When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the
    right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to
    prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.

    [Dr AM] It was the creation of an artifical Unionist majority in North
    Eastern part of Ireland.

    [WF]No, it wasn’t. Unionists WERE a majority in the north-eastern part of
    Ireland. Go and examine the election results of the time.

    [Dr AM] If a situation like this was imposed in any other country in the
    world there would be armed resistance.

    [WF] That’s an unprovable claim. If there were armed resistance it would be
    wrong. Peoples’ right to self-determination must be upheld.

    willowfield on March 4, 2004 12:54 PM

    This clearly shows that you’re for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends. So I think that proves the point I was making. Now if you want to go to court and defend that against me, no problem. Post under your own name….go on, go for it! Be a man! Other wise a poster who posts while cowering behind a pseudonym has no integrity…..

    I don’t care if you were stuck at your in laws and had to watch Splash. You watched it and then used it to launch your attack. Gee, if only I had a satellite linked to my computer which could track your every move because I could give a damn!

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    This clearly shows that you’re for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends.

    It doesn’t show that, clearly or otherwise, and you have not even attempting to put forward an argument as to how it does.

    So I think that proves the point I was making.

    Quite the opposite: you have simply repeated previous misrepresentations of my views, not backed up by any evidence or even argument.

    I don’t care if you were stuck at your in laws and had to watch Splash. You watched it and then used it to launch your attack.

    Of course I watched it – but you alleged that the reason I watched it was in order to get material to attack the Gaelic language. That is untrue, and the fact that you repeat the allegation after I have made it abundantly clear why I watched the film, merely reinforces your dishonesty.

    And I didn’t launch any attack on the Gaelic language, I launched an “attack” (as you put it) on your interpretation of statistics in respect of TG4. More dishonesty on your part in misrepresenting my posts.

    Shame on you. Your dishonesty gets worse with every post.

  • My posts represented your views – you don’t agree with the representations even though they are the logical outcome of what you said. You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time. What’s dishonest about that? Isn’t that what you’re saying? How is anything I have said misrepresenting you?

    You watched a TV film and then launched an attack. It’s simple. If it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, then in all probability it is a duck.

    The fact is that my claims re the TG4 viewership are based on actual Nielsen figures in the south and the Millward Brown figures in the north. I, of course, can’t discount the possibility that large numbers of sad people were forced to watch English language films like Splash while held hostage by their in-laws. I apologise for overlooking this possibility….

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    My posts represented your views

    No they don’t – that’s the whole point – you deliberately MISREPRESENTED my views and twisted them into very serious allegations.

    – you don’t agree with the representations even though they are the logical outcome of what you said.

    I don’t believe you are a stupid person, so I do not see how you can actually think that what you have quoted leads to the logical outcome of those horrid accusations. No intelligent person could argue that because somebody considers the threat of the use of violence in one set of circumstances to be just, therefore he must also believe that the threat of or actual use of violence in other set of circumstances must be just.

    You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time. What’s dishonest about that?

    I considered the threat of violence by unionists in 1914, given the particular circumstances pertaining at that time, to be just. It does not follow from that that I consider a threat, or actual use, of violence by unionists in other circumstances must be just. That’s poppycock. Sophistry at its worst.

    I also consider the corresponding threat by nationalists to have been just. And I also consider many other threats of (and actual uses of) violence to have been just, and many more others not to have been so.

    So how does that mean that I’m “for violence for political ends as long as it coincides with your ends”? For a start, I wasn’t alive in 1914, so how could it have been for my ends? Secondly, assuming I would have been a unionist in 1914, how would the threat of nationalist violence have coincided with my ends?

    Isn’t that what you’re saying?

    No. I’ve said nothing of the sort. In fact, on the very thread in which you hurled your accusations against me, there was a long discussion about the very narrow and limited circumstances in which I believe violence to be just. I actually demonstrated the opposite of what you alleged – my starting point is that violence is wrong, and can only be justified in certain circumstances. I also categorically stated opposition to violence by “loyalists” in recent years (yet you alleged that I supported it) and opposition to violence in the event of a vote in favour of a “united Ireland” (yet you alleged the very opposite).

    How is anything I have said misrepresenting you?

    On Jul 07, 2008 @ 10:07 AM you said “Yet I note how you would condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision.”
    – I never condoned anything of the sort and actually expressly stated the opposite view.

    On Jul 07, 2008 @ 01:26 PM you said “You are obviously morally ambivalent on the question of the use of violence….”
    – Yet I have clearly posted my position on violence, my general opposition to it, and the particular criteria which must apply in order for it to be justified.

    On Jul 07, 2008 @ 02:16 PM you said “you are generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with your own.”
    – Yet I never said or implied anything of the sort and, in fact, presented my position as quite the opposite.

    On Jul 08, 2008 @ 11:18 AM you said “According to you, then, State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime.”
    – Yet I never made any such claim or anything remotely like it.

    I suggest that you now retract all these allegations.

    You watched a TV film and then launched an attack. It’s simple. If it walks like a duck, it talks like a duck, then in all probability it is a duck.

    More sophistry:

    1. I never denied watching a TV film – on the contrary, I expressly stated that I did so.

    2. You alleged that the reason I watched it was to launch an attack on the Gaelic language.

    3. That was not the reason that I watched it, as I have stated.

    4. I didn’t launch an attack on the Gaelic language, I merely questioned your use of statistics based on my experience of TG4.

    The fact is that my claims re the TG4 viewership are based on actual Nielsen figures in the south and the Millward Brown figures in the north.

    I know they are: it’s not the figures I dispute – it’s your interpretation of them that I question.

    I, of course, can’t discount the possibility that large numbers of sad people were forced to watch English language films like Splash while held hostage by their in-laws. I apologise for overlooking this possibility….

    You admit, then, that many of those who answered that they had watched TG4 may have been watching English-language broadcasting and, therefore, it does not follow that all those who said they watched TG4 are fluent Gaelic-speakers?

  • willowfield

    You approve of the use of violence – or force – for political ends, the opposition to a United Ireland should a majority have wished to impose it in 1918 or any other time.

    Complete lie. At no time did I ever approve of the use of violence in opposition to a “united Ireland” “in 1918 or at any other time”. My comments related solely to the threat of violence in 1913-14.

  • The comments made by you and quoted in my 7:26 post related to the period post the 1918 General Election in which an overwhelming majority of voters in Ireland voted for SF, a party which advocated a United Ireland. Thus, by your own logic, those who opposed the democratic will of the people by threat of force, which you appear to support, were as wrong as the IRA were in the more recent Troubles. So whether you say now that you’re for violence in 1913/14 but not in 1921 or 1918 is of no difference – it’s merely a question of timing.

    As for your bizarre comment re television viewing, the Millward Brown figures clearly demonstrate that those who were watching TG4 in the north approved of and liked the Irish language programmes made in the north under the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, the body which commissioned the survey which was carried out by Millward Brown, a respected independent market research company. So I deduce from that they weren’t talking about the English language programmes on TG4. The survey makes that distinction.

    [Of course there is the possibility that the same people compelled to watch the English language films on TG4 – and I can’t imagine a fate worse than Splash on a Saturday night – may have been forced to register their approval of TG4 to market research surveyors who happened to phone during their incarceration. What are the chances?]

  • PeaceandJustice

    To willowfield – I wouldn’t waste too much time debating with this Con O L character. He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads – perhaps he could clarify again. He rejects the NI flag at GAA matches because of some of the groups which used it yet has no problem with the flag of Eire – used by SF PIRA. It says a lot about BBC NI that they have got him to do articles about Northern Ireland in the past. He says he doesn’t vote for ‘Sinn Fein’, but given his posts, who does he support? It seems he likes to criticise everyone but can’t take any criticism.

    To Con O L – If you really want Unionists to take the Irish Language seriously, people like yourself should take a back seat. You do it a great disservice.

  • Coming from you, Peace and Justice, that’s great encouragement. Sinn Féin doesn’t need supporters when it has the likes of you to promote the reasons to vote for the party. Every word you utter is as good as a vote for SF. If I were a SF voter, I’d be delighted. When United Ireland comes, we’ll have you to thank for it!

    I just wanted you to know how much I appreciate your efforts…and whenever I entertain doubts about my support for the Irish language, I will think of your words and say, that’s the way to go. If Peace and Justice is on the other side, I’m doing the right thing!

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’

    What on earth does that mean??????????

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    The comments made by you and quoted in my 7:26 post related to the period post the 1918 General Election in which an overwhelming majority of voters in Ireland voted for SF, a party which advocated a United Ireland.

    It doesn’t matter to when they related – I never said I approved of unionist violence in 1918, nor at any time, in fact. And I certainly neither said nor implied that I supported it “at any other time”. You deliberately misrepresented my views – and persisted in doing so, even after I made it clear to you that you were wrong.

    Thus, by your own logic, those who opposed the democratic will of the people by threat of force, which you appear to support, were as wrong as the IRA were in the more recent Troubles.

    That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. And I have made that clear in previous discussions, yet you deliberately ignore this and misrepresent my views. Shame on you.

    You’re arguing that because I have said that the threat of violence in one set of particular circumstances is just therefore I support the actual use of violence in another set of circumstances. That is a logical fallacy. I don’t believe you lack the intelligence to understand this, so I ask myself – why are you being so dishonest? Do you lack self-confidence?

    Now retract your allegations, please, or back them up:

    When or how did I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”? Back up or retract.

    When or how did I express “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”, given my long exposition on the morality of violence? Back up or retract.

    When or how did I say that I was “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”? Back up or retract.

    When did I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”?

    You owe me a big apology. Be a man and have the integrity to apologise.

    As for your bizarre comment re television viewing, the Millward Brown figures clearly demonstrate that those who were watching TG4 in the north approved of and liked the Irish language programmes made in the north under the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, the body which commissioned the survey which was carried out by Millward Brown, a respected independent market research company. So I deduce from that they weren’t talking about the English language programmes on TG4. The survey makes that distinction.

    You didn’t make that clear.

  • I owe you nothing. What you’ve said in your previous posts makes it clear that you support the use of violence in particular circumstances. After that every objection you raise from the logical conclusions of reasonable people come to arising from your statements is pedantic.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    The sophistry gets worse.

    What you’ve said in your previous posts makes it clear that you support the use of violence in particular circumstances.

    Of course I support it in particular circumstances! Other than pacifists, who doesn’t?

    That is the whole point – I only accept that violence is justified in particular circumstances – and very clear and narrow ones, at that – yet you said that I:

    – “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision” … despite the fact that I stated the OPPOSITE.

    – expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence” – despite the fact that I set out a clear, moral position under which I only accept the use of violence in very particular circumstances (which you now acknowledge!);

    – am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own” – despite the fact that I set out a clear, moral position under which I only accept the use of violence in very particular circumstances (which you now acknowledge!);

    – say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime” – despite the fact that I expressed opposition to such death squads.

    None of those are true. All are lies. Therefore you have a moral obligation to retract and apologise.

    After that every objection you raise from the logical conclusions of reasonable people come to arising from your statements is pedantic.

    I’m now beginning to think that perhaps you are stupid. There is no logic in your “reasoning” – you deduce that because I acknowledge the threat of violence in circumstance A is justified, therefore I support the use of violence in circumstances B, C and D. A total fallacy which you have failed to address.

    You owe me an apology – you are deliberately misrepresenting my views and continuing to do so.

  • Now the ad hominem attack intensifies. I refuse to engage any further with you. You are nothing but a coward who hides behind a nom de plume to engage in trollery. And you support the use of violence for political ends. Your objections to this being pointed to you are pedantic.

  • PeaceandJustice

    To Con O L – can you clarify your attitude to Sinn Fein PIRA violence during the recent ‘Troubles’?

  • I am against all forms of violence. I am a complete pacifist. I regard violence by the IRA as illegitimate as violence by the British and Unionists.

    Can you clarify your attitude to unionist violence? Or is your Peace and Justice nom de plume simply a false flag?

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’

    Again ask what the f**k does that mean P&J;?

  • ggn

    Cnocubhair,

    I think it is interesting that you, who has a pacifist have taken a stand againist all violence seem to draw the fire of a section of unionist commentators here.

    It is an interesting take on pacifism itself, what would Gandhi do I wonders?

    Frankly, I think your stringent defence of Irish has probably marked you out here.

    I reminds me of a story a colleague told me about being asked to address an Alliance Party on reconcilation, representing Irish speakers, he himself disavowed violence. He was flanked at either side by a Loyalist ‘lifer’ and on the other by a Republican ‘lifer’.

    He said to me that he walked away amazed by the experience (yet the same buck is a match for anyone) as he took more direct attacks that both of the others who had been involved in taking life.

    Has not this thread long strayed from its subject matter and away from any value, its purpose now only to besmerch our cherished CLG?

  • You’re right of course, GGN. However the only reason I have prolonged my engagement here is to defend myself against a baseless charge of dishonesty levelled against me by the cowardly poster, WIlliowfield. I won’t take such a charge from anyone, especially when I am basing my stance, that WIllowfield supports violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with his own, on Willowfield’s own words. See the post at 7.26 on July 21st above. Also see post number 15.
    He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence.

    Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the
    right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to
    prevent such an imposition by force if necessary. Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance. That to me is no different to what the IRA did since 1970. He wants me to say, in effect, that some violence is better than others, the gangs he supports are better than the gangs he assumes wrongly I support.

    And then he has a pop at the Irish language, just because he went to his in-laws and, listen to this, had to watch an English language film, Splash, on TG4 on Saturday night.

    He’s a tulip alright. Sin é mo scéal…..

  • ggn

    COL,

    Bhál, tuigeann muid go rímhaith nach bhfuil go léir airgead ag TG4 fá láthair, fadhb le réiteach dar ndóigh!

    Idir an dá linn beidh orainn amharc ar stuif as na hochtoidí agus mar sin.

  • ggn

    COL,

    Bhál, tuigeann muid go rímhaith nach bhfuil go léir airgead ag TG4 fá láthair, fadhb le réiteach dar ndóigh!

    Idir an dá linn beidh orainn amharc ar stuif as na hochtoidí agus mar sin.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    Now the ad hominem attack intensifies.

    YOU’RE the one making serious, unfounded allegations against me and you complain about an “ad hominem attack”. You, sir, are the coward. It is cowardly to make accusations about people and then run away when asked to back them up or retract them. Shame on you.

    And you support the use of violence for political ends. Your objections to this being pointed to you are pedantic.

    It is naked sophistry to “deduce” that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances. You refuse even to address this basic failing in your “logic”: how revealing of your mindset.

    I am against all forms of violence. I am a complete pacifist. I regard violence by the IRA as illegitimate as violence by the British and Unionists.

    He legitimises PIRA and “loyalist” terrorism with this position. Also, by his logic, the apprehension by force of a suicide bomber is equally as illegitimate an act as the suicide bomb itself. The Soviet counter-offensive against the Nazis was equally as illegitimate as the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union. A ludicrous position.

    … the only reason I have prolonged my engagement here is to defend myself against a baseless charge of dishonesty levelled against me by the cowardly poster, WIlliowfield.

    Baseless??? I’ve quoted the dishonest statements that you have made, FFS! None of them is true and you have resorted to childish sophistry in a pathetic attempt to defend yourself.

    WIllowfield supports violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with his own, on Willowfield’s own words.

    Dirty, dirty lies – I have never said that. Shameful, disgraceful conduct.

    See the post at 7.26 on July 21st above. Also see post number 15.

    In neither post did I say that I “support violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”. You’re a liar. Clear for all to see.

    He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.

    And? Opposing violence in opposition to the democratic will means opposing nationalist, or any other, violence in opposition to the democratic will. No-one has the right to impose their will against the wishes of another people: that applies to nationalists as well. Nationalists aren’t immune from general principles of morality and democracy.

    Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance.

    Oh FFS, you know very well that unionists were an overwhelming majority in what became NI. This has been explained to you before. No-one’s arguing that the whole of Ireland should have been kept by force within the UK!

    He wants me to say, in effect, that some violence is better than others, the gangs he supports are better than the gangs he assumes wrongly I support.

    Lies.

    And then he has a pop at the Irish language, just because he went to his in-laws and, listen to this, had to watch an English language film, Splash, on TG4 on Saturday night.

    More lies. I never “had a go at the Irish language”.

    Hang your head in shame, Concubhar the Dishonest. You haven’t an ounce of integrity.

    GGN

    I think it is interesting that you, who has a pacifist have taken a stand againist all violence seem to draw the fire of a section of unionist commentators here.

    It’s his misrepresentation and accusations against me which have “drawn my fire” – nothing to do with his “pacifism”.

  • PeaceandJustice

    To Con O L – See my earlier posts on this topic i.e. “I don’t and never have supported any form of terrorism. It’s a pity that many of the Pan-Nationalist posters on Slugger can’t say the same.”

    Con O L – “I am a complete pacifist.”
    Is this another Joke of the Day?

    RepublicanStones – “What on earth does that mean?” [‘He posts in the language of Sinn Fein PIRA yet says he didn’t support their death squads’]

    The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.

  • This is becoming Gothic in its absurdity.
    Here you go again: These are your words: He says for instance: That’s not my logic, since I do not support violence in opposition to the democratic will – quite the opposite: I oppose such violence. Yet in the post quoted above by me, he says: When nationalists refused compromise and insisted that they had the right to impose their will over the unionist people, it was necessary to prevent such an imposition by force if necessary.

    And? Opposing violence in opposition to the democratic will means opposing nationalist, or any other, violence in opposition to the democratic will. No-one has the right to impose their will against the wishes of another people: that applies to nationalists as well. Nationalists aren’t immune from general principles of morality and democracy.

    neither are unionists – except between the hours of 0.01am and 12pm, when anything goes it seems as then they are free to oppose the majority will of the people, by force if they consider it necessary.

    Correct me if I’m wrong but up to the Government of Ireland Act which was passed in 1921, Ireland was united in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland did NOT exist.

    So then your response [in italics] to my statement: Whether he’s talking here about 1918, 1921 or 1913/14, he’s talking about a time when the majority of people in Ireland favoured self determination – be it Home Rule or outright independence – and the only people in opposition were the unionists who used the threat of force and formed and armed a private paramilitary force to defend their undemocratic stance.

    Oh FFS, [don’t get het up now, it’s not good for you] you know very well that unionists were an overwhelming majority in what became NI. This has been explained to you before. No-one’s arguing that the whole of Ireland should have been kept by force within the UK!.

    As I pointed out to you on a previous thread substantial areas of ‘what was to become NI’ voted SF or nationalist in 1918, including Derry, Belfast (Falls), South Down, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone Yet they were kept by ‘force’ within the UK. And, perhaps not surprisingly, it was these areas which became the hotbed of militant republicanism in later years. They will be glad to be able to rely on your rationale to resort to violence. And after all they believed that sooner or later that their violence would lead to United Ireland. Using your arguments precisely and in every detail.

    I will leave it for others to judge whether you attacked the Irish language. I believe you did. You most certainly attacked TG4.

    I am a pacifist, P&J;, but I believe your use of Peace and Justice as a nom de plume to be either ironic or hypocritical.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    neither are unionists

    Of course they’re not. I have never claimed that they are!

    Correct me if I’m wrong but up to the Government of Ireland Act which was passed in 1921, Ireland was united in the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland did NOT exist.

    And?

    As I pointed out to you on a previous thread substantial areas of ‘what was to become NI’ voted SF or nationalist in 1918, including Derry, Belfast (Falls), South Down, Most of Fermanagh and Tyrone

    Indeed – and I responded to you. Unlike you, I have the courtesy to respond when people engage in discussion.

    Yet they were kept by ‘force’ within the UK.

    The border was crudely drawn. But the issue about where the border should have been drawn is mere detail. It doesn’t alter the issue of principle.

    (I also remember pointing out your hypocrisy in bemoaning the fact that some nationalists were included in NI against their will while at the same time advocating that even larger numbers of unionists – indeed, the entire unionist people – should have been included in an all-Ireland state against their will!)

    And, perhaps not surprisingly, it was these areas which became the hotbed of militant republicanism in later years. They will be glad to be able to rely on your rationale to resort to violence.

    It’s not “my rationale”: I merely subscribe to basic principles of ethics and democracy, handed down to us through centuries of philosophical thought. And under those principles of just war, the PIRA terror campaign cannot be justified. Sorry if that disappoints you – I know how you like to legitimise both it and the “loyalist” campaigns.

    And after all they believed that sooner or later that their violence would lead to United Ireland. Using your arguments precisely and in every detail.

    I have never argued that “believing that sooner or later violence would lead to a united Ireland (or anything else)” is a justification for violence. You’re lying again. Quite a preposterous claim.

    I will leave it for others to judge whether you attacked the Irish language. I believe you did. You most certainly attacked TG4.

    I attacked neither the Gaelic language nor TG4 (except for broadcasting a truly dreadful film). I “attacked” your interpretation of statistics relating to TG4.

    Anyway, none of the above addresses your lies and sophistry. You still haven’t addressed your fallacious logic in “deducing” that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances. This appears to be your only “defence”. Completely ludicrous.

  • UFB

    Whooooossshhh

    And the thread gets frustrated by yet another Willowfield pedantic cat and mouse chase.

    Holy fuck, it´s like spending six hours having teeth pulled at the dentist.

  • RepublicanStones

    ‘The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.’

    Like what?

  • ggn

    “‘The Con says he is a pacifist yet uses the language of violence and division.’”

    Have to say that has me stumped also.

    I would like examples of the ‘language of violence and division’.

  • Paul McMahon

    “I would like examples of the ‘language of violence and division’

    Pan Nationalist Front?

    I only wish PJ would explain what he means when he uses this phrase.

  • PeaceandJustice

    As willowfield has said to the Con, “the PIRA terror campaign cannot be justified. Sorry if that disappoints you – I know how you like to legitimise .. it”. It’s a joke for the Con to say he’s a pacifist.

    To Paul McMahon – I’ve already stated in an earlier post:
    In the context of this discussion about the GAA, we get one Pan-Nationalist voice i.e. there is no need to change, it’s fine to glorify Sinn Fein PIRA death squad members, Unionists should be prepared to attend games in stadiums named after people who murdered their kith and kin etc.

    Are the SDLP still afraid they will get physically attacked by the Sinn Fein PIRA gang? With a few exceptions, there has been one Pan-Nationalist Front when it comes to the GAA glorifying murderers.

  • Paul McMahon

    “To Paul McMahon – I’ve already stated in an earlier post”

    Sorry I wasn´t there for the explanation PJ, could you either re-state the definition or point me in the direction of the earlier post?

    “Are the SDLP still afraid they will get physically attacked by the Sinn Fein PIRA gang”?

    Can I take it from this that the SDLP are excluded from this PNF that you speak of?

  • Can I take it from this that the SDLP are excluded from this PNF that you speak of?

    I think you can take it that P&J;believes any one who supports a GAA club, county, even the PSNI GAA footballers, in effect is supporting ‘terrorism’, murder etc….ad nauseam.

  • willowfield

    Explain your “logic”, Oh Dishonest One:

    How does it follow that because one believes violence for political ends may be justified in certain particular circumstances one must therefore believe that it is justified in all circumstances.

  • Oh Tiresome Troll

    That’s not what I’m saying. You say, as far as I can decipher, that it was ok for unionists to resist by force the imposition of a United Ireland in 1913/14, 1918/1921 (delete as applicable). You say,as far as I can decipher, that’s ok because they were the majority in what was ‘to become NI’.

    These are, I believe, the circumstances which you support political violence. Now it’s not hard to see how someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use. ie the IRA post 1970 and on.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    That’s not what I’m saying.

    Yes it is.

    You say, as far as I can decipher, that it was ok for unionists to resist by force the imposition of a United Ireland in 1913/14, 1918/1921 (delete as applicable). You say,as far as I can decipher, that’s ok because they were the majority in what was ‘to become NI’.

    First, that is not quite what I say. What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north, then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary.

    Second, every people has the right to self-determination – that applies to unionists as much as it does to nationalists.

    Third, self-determination can only be realised on a territorial basis – therefore unionist self-determination – just like nationalist self-determination can only happen in territory where unionists form the majority.

    These are, I believe, the circumstances which you support political violence.

    The circumstances in which I support any kind of violence, political or otherwise, have been set out clearly on the other thread. They equate to the principles of just war.

    Now it’s not hard to see how someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use. ie the IRA post 1970 and on.

    Absolute nonsense. The IRA post-1970 did not meet any of the criteria required to justify violence, in stark contrast to unionists in the early 20th century – in the event of an imposed all-Ireland state.

    Now that I have – yet again – made clear my position – we STILL need to address your lies and accusations.

    In fairness, I detect a retreat (albeit not admitted), from your original and subsequently oft-repeated allegations. You now say merely that “someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use” – that is a far cry from the allegations under challenge, namely:

    – that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;

    – that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;

    – that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;

    – that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.

    Can we now have a retraction of these allegations, please?

  • There is no retraction. There is no retreat. This is where I stand. Unionist opposition to a United Ireland in 1913, 1918. 1921 or whenever would NEVER amount to a ‘just war’. Neither would the IRA’s campaign amount to a ‘just war’.

  • PeaceandJustice

    To Paul McMahon – Given that Sinn Fein PIRA and the SDLP both support the GAA glorifying Republican death squad members from the recent terrorist campaign, there’s clearly a Pan-Nationalist Front when it comes to the GAA. If one penny was spent by the Government on one stadium named after one member of the recent UVF/LVF/UDA there would be an outcry. The hypocrisy of the Pan-Nationalist Front knows no bounds.

  • Paul McMahon

    OK Willow, at risk of justifying UFB’s 4.39 I’ll have a dig at some of the issues you raise but be warned. I have neither the time nor the inclination to go five pages dancing on the head of a pin so if you want debate no attempts at lengthy stilted bookishness or it’s adios from me.

    “What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north, then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary”

    OK, hypothetical scenario qualified by ‘only if necessary’, please give your opinions on some of the issues it raises for me:

    ““What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north”

    Where was the imposition? Tell me why the democratic express will of the people should be defined by a minority populace as an imposition?

    “Then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary”

    “Terrorism” is a very promiscuous word but if one accepts the OED definition as:

    “The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons”

    Then it sounds like “terrorism” to me, however, could you please expand as to how it would have been justified to use force – it sounds ambiguous on the principal of “terrorism” as opposed to it’s actual practice.

    “Second, every people has the right to self-determination – that applies to unionists as much as it does to nationalists.

    Third, self-determination can only be realised on a territorial basis – therefore unionist self-determination – just like nationalist self-determination can only happen in territory where unionists form the majority”

    Hoe do you define the right of a people Willowfield?. To follow your train of thought is it then right for say…Muslims in Bradford to lobby and “resist” for self determination as THEY define it? Do Cornish nationalists have a right to accede from the Union?

    In short Willow, what constitutes a “people”?

    Third point – see question above + self determination. IMO this argument forwards the scenario that nationalists have the right to re-partition the six counties strictly along the lies of county nationalist-unionist majority. What say you?

    Now remember Willow no smart arsery of obfuscation. If you want honest debate genuine answers to genuine questions please.

    Concubhar Cadé mar ata an madadh go thug mé duit?

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    There is no retraction. There is no retreat.

    Well, there should be, because you have made serious allegations against me, without foundation, and refused to back them up.

    And there is a retreat, since you now say merely that “someone looking at this justification could adapt it for their own use”. That doesn’t even come close to your original allegations.

    This is where I stand. Unionist opposition to a United Ireland in 1913, 1918. 1921 or whenever would NEVER amount to a ‘just war’. Neither would the IRA’s campaign amount to a ‘just war’.

    Well, I agree with you on the latter point, but not on the former (and I note your failure to present a case). But the fact that you have a different point of view on the former (albeit one that you have failed to argue), does not in any way explain or justify the below-listed allegations.

    – that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;

    – that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;

    – that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;

    – that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.

    Either back these allegations up with evidence and reasoning, or retract them. It’s quite simple – you’ve failed to back them up, so have the integrity to retract them.

  • Paul McMahon

    So this PNF that you speak of only exists in the context of the GAA then TJ?

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    >>I have neither the time nor the inclination to go five pages dancing on the head of a pin so if you want debate no attempts at lengthy stilted bookishness or it’s adios from me.<

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    “Where was the imposition?”

    Er, there was no imposition: NI was created. Hence violence would not have been justified. There was, however, a threat of imposition, therefore threat of violence (i.e. defence by force of self-determination) was justified.

    “Tell me why the democratic express will of the people should be defined by a minority populace as an imposition?”

    That makes no sense. Democratically-expressed will, by definition, means a majority.

    “… however, could you please expand as to how it would have been justified to use force – it sounds ambiguous on the principal [sic] of “terrorism” as opposed to it’s [sic] actual practice.”

    Every people has the right to self-determination. Implicitly, then, every people has the right to defend that right. So we have just cause.

    We also have proper authority: the unionist people had voted overwhelmingly against an all-Ireland state and had elected representatives who properly made decisions on their behalf.

    We also have right intention – the use of violence would have been justified only if its intention was to defend self-determination and no more (any use of such violence for, say, sectarian intimidation would not have been justified).

    The “reasonable chance of success” theory is more difficult to assess, but the unionists at the time seemed to have the numbers and the organisation to give them such a chance.

    Finally, proportionality – any use of violence would have had to have been proportionate to the ends sought.

    “Hoe do you define the right of a people Willowfield?”

    I don’t. The right to self-determination is not mine: it is a universally-accepted right.

    “To follow your train of thought is it then right for say…Muslims in Bradford to lobby and “resist” for self determination as THEY define it?”

    Muslims in Bradford do assert a right to self-determination, nor do they asser that they are a separate people.

    “Do Cornish nationalists have a right to accede from the Union?”

    Given that they achieve 0% of the vote, I’d have to say no!

    “In short Willow, what constitutes a “people”?”

    I’d say it was a collection of people with a common culture, heritage, etc., who consciously consider themselves to form part of a single people, bound together by said cultural bonds. I’m sure there are more elegant definitions.

    “Third point – see question above + self determination. IMO this argument forwards the scenario that nationalists have the right to re-partition the six counties strictly along the lies of county nationalist-unionist majority. What say you?”

    Since nationalists have consistently voted in opposition to repartition since 1921, and signed up in huge numbers to the GFA, I’d say “no”.

    “Now remember Willow no smart arsery of obfuscation. If you want honest debate genuine answers to genuine questions please.”

    It’s not me who engages in smart-arsery or obfuscation – you need to direct those accusations at Concubhar the Dishonest – the man who tells lies and makes outrageous accusations and refuses to back them up.

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    Naebdy can say you didn’t try Paul, better luck with the King Canute routine ;¬)

  • Ulster Native

    Some of the comments by a certain poster (certainly as mentioned) justifies ANY Republican dominated county in the north of Ireland to declare reintegration with the Republic! Going by the reasoning outlined.

  • willowfield

    Prionsa

    As a liar yourself, I’m not surprised at you coming to Concubhar the Dishonest’s defence.

    Also, I can’t post on the Healy thread for some reason. I notice you said TWICE that it was untrue that Celtic fans good-humouredly sang “Where were you on the Twelfth” and that Healy responded in kind. I asked you what your version of events was. I note that you failed to answer. Perhaps you could explain now?

  • willowfield

    Paul McMahon

    I should, of course, add a further criterion, in that violence must only be used as a last resort.

  • Steve

    Willowfield speaker of forked tongue and split brain

  • willowfield

    Incisive contribution there, Steve. You really put forward a convincing argument.

    If you disagree with anything I say, you’re at liberty to argue. As ever, though, you demonstrate your inability to do so.

  • Steve

    willow; Its okay for unionists to threaten terrorist violence to split up a territory against the expressed democratic rights of the majority of its peoples

    Concubhar O Liathain: If it was right for the unionists to use violence then it was right for the nationalists

    willow: no

    Concubhar O Liathain: Why?

    willow: Because I said so

    Concubhar O Liathain: Thats not a reasonable answer, tell me why its right for one side but not the other?

    willow: because they are unionists like me and we are always right

    Concubhar O Liathain: See above

    willow: well they were the vast majority in the 6 counties

    Concubhar O Liathain: No they weren’t, try again

    willow: (repeat adnauseum falsehoods presented as facts)

    Concubhar O Liathain: Why is it right for unionists to use violence to illegally divide a territory and immoral fot nationalists to use it to re-unite the same territory

    willow: It just is just is because I said so and I never said that

    lather, rinse repeat for 5 pages

  • Paul McMahon

    Right Willow, I’ll have one last try at honest debate. Maybe I haven’t made myself entirely clear or else you’ve whizzed into pedant mode from the off.

    I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    “Er, there was no imposition: NI was created. Hence violence would not have been justified. There was, however, a threat of imposition, therefore threat of violence (i.e. defence by force of self-determination) was justified.

    I was clearly talking about the alleged imposition of a UI per your:

    “What I say is that if an all-Ireland state were to have been imposed against the will of unionists in the north, then it would have been justifiable to resist such imposition – by force if necessary, and only if necessary”

    So please answer my question @ 6.30 pertaining to this issue.

    ““Tell me why the democratic express will of the people should be defined by a minority populace as an imposition?
    That makes no sense. Democratically-expressed will, by definition, means a majority”

    How do you explain the democratically expressed will of the majority in the 1918 all Ireland general election?

    “Every people has the right to self-determination. Implicitly, then, every people has the right to defend that right. So we have just cause. We also have proper authority: the unionist people had voted overwhelmingly against an all-Ireland state and had elected representatives who properly made decisions on their behalf”

    Unionism was a minority in Ireland. Do you define “proper authority” as the Island being partitioned under the threat of “immediate and terrible war” or the British government capitulating to the threat of violence, [OED definition of “terrorism”], by a privately raised militia who illegally imported thousands of arms to fight a democratically elected just seven years previously?

    “We also have right intention – the use of violence would have been justified only if its intention was to defend self-determination and no more (any use of such violence for, say, sectarian intimidation would not have been justified).

    ““How do you define the right of a people Willowfield?I don’t. The right to self-determination is not mine: it is a universally-accepted right”

    I was asking for your opinion Willow, but, as you seem to prefer the universally accepted right please explain how this right relates to minorities in defined geo-political territories?

    I asked the question : “In short Willow, what constitutes a “people”?”

    You answered : “I’d say it was a collection of people with a common culture, heritage, etc., who consciously consider themselves to form part of a single people, bound together by said cultural bonds”.

    So the Muslims of Bradford have a right to “resist” and use violence, [as a last resort of course], to realise self determination for themselves as the fit perfectly into your definition as “a people”?

    “Third point – see question above + self determination. IMO this argument forwards the scenario that nationalists have the right to re-partition the six counties strictly along the lies of county nationalist-unionist majority. What say you?”
    Since nationalists have consistently voted in opposition to repartition since 1921, and signed up in huge numbers to the GFA, I’d say “no”.

    Please answer the question in the context that this is a hypothetical discussion [as stipulated in my 6.30], stop hiding behind the GFA and give me YOUR opinion. I’ll even rephrase the question for you:

    Hypothetically, in light of your self-determination as defined by a geographical majority remarks, do nationalists have the right to then re-partition the six counties along unionist-nationalist majorities on a county basis.

    One last point on your extremely annoying [over] use of sic. Why did you use it when reproducing my post above?, and,

    People in glass houses Willow…

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    >>Prionsa

    As a liar yourself< >I asked you what your version of events was<

  • Paul McMahon

    “by a privately raised militia who illegally imported thousands of arms to fight a democratically elected just seven years previously”?

    Should read :

    Democratically elected government.

  • Steve

    Paul

    He uses (sic) to point out what he percieves as a spelling or grammar error. He likes to point out little mistakes because well frankly he is pedantic beyond any normal persons ability. He has turned it into an art form.

    I think some posters put mistakes in just to watch his eyes roll back in his head in pleasure when he coppies and pastes

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    percieves (sic)

    Caught ye!

  • Steve

    Arghhh you cut me to the quick Prionsa, mortally wounded by the i before e rule! The shame!!!! I die with out regrets except that I did not live to mispell another day.

    I go quietly into the dark night………

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    Think nothing of it noble Steve, ach I was only flagging up my superiority/letting everyone know who the wanker is type of thing.

    Just don’t let it happen again!

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    Right Willow, I’ll have one last try at honest debate.

    What is that supposed to mean? I responded honestly to each of your questions.

    So please answer my question @ 6.30 pertaining to this issue.

    I’m afraid I don’t understand. What exactly is the question?

    How do you explain the democratically expressed will of the majority in the 1918 all Ireland general election?

    Again, I’m not quite sure that I understand. How do I explain it? There was an election: people voted. Unionists, concentrated in the North, voted overwhelmingly to remain in the UK and outside an all-Ireland state. Nationalists, the majority in the rest of the island, voted for a republic.

    Unionism was a minority in Ireland.

    And? Nationalism was a minority in the UK. The French are a minority in Europe. If unionists had sought to use violence to keep the whole of Ireland in the UK, and thereby suppressing the right to self-determination of nationalists, then they would not have had just cause and such violence would not have been justified.

    Do you define “proper authority” as the Island being partitioned under the threat of “immediate and terrible war” or the British government capitulating to the threat of violence, [OED definition of “terrorism”], by a privately raised militia who illegally imported thousands of arms to fight a democratically elected just seven years previously?

    Er, neither. The proper authority was the democratically-elected unionist leadership.

    I was asking for your opinion Willow, but, as you seem to prefer the universally accepted right please explain how this right relates to minorities in defined geo-political territories?

    It relates to all peoples. You don’t suppress a people’s right to self-determination just because a neighbouring people is more numerous.

    So the Muslims of Bradford have a right to “resist” and use violence, [as a last resort of course], to realise self determination for themselves as the fit perfectly into your definition as “a people”?

    As I said, I’m aware neither of the Muslims of Bradford defining or asserting themselves as a separate people, nor of them asserting a right to self-determination.

    Please answer the question in the context that this is a hypothetical discussion [as stipulated in my 6.30], stop hiding behind the GFA and give me YOUR opinion. I’ll even rephrase the question for you: Hypothetically, in light of your self-determination as defined by a geographical majority remarks, do nationalists have the right to then re-partition the six counties along unionist-nationalist majorities on a county basis.

    Why on earth would any repartition be done on a county basis? If you’re asking whether the border could and should have been drawn more accurately and fairly then, of course the answer is yes.

    One last point on your extremely annoying [over] use of sic. Why did you use it when reproducing my post above?

    The words “principle” and “its” were misspelled.

    PRIONSA

    And how does this make you feel, living in a world where everyone is a liar but you?

    I don’t live in such a world. I have never claimed that everyone is a liar but me. I do, however, always post honestly on these forums, unlike certain others, unfortunately.

    Just for the sake of completeness where and when have I lied?

    You accused me of lying when I hadn’t lied. Can’t remember the details, I think you said that I lied about the Provos’ electoral performance in West Belfast, when I hadn’t.

    Re-Healy agent’s cover story; >>I asked you what your version of events was< < Mostly I try and ignore you, but I did answer that point

    Well, I don’t recall the answer – what was it?

    Anyhow your devotion to believing said cover story is a moot point as Healy has came clean and came across as a daft, naive but ultimately harmless individual.

    I didn’t think there was any implication in Healy’s apology that he wasn’t responding to banter from the Celtic fans. Could you explain?

  • I’m back – and I can see the debate hasn’t moved on. It’s still stuck at Willowfield refusing to acknowledge that his cheerleading for the Unionist ‘Just War’ of 1913/14/18/21/? could be interpreted by unreasonable – and reasonable people – like myself as, in effect, cheerleading for violence for political ends. Because the victims of such violence don’t get the benefit of a breathless explanation from Willowfield that their victimhood is as a result of a ‘just’ rather than an ‘unjust’ conflict, they may not have been too worried about the semantics of the bullet or beating which they received.

    I don’t believe the Unionists have a case for a just war. Willowfield does. His case doesn’t stand up, I believe, because Northern Ireland didn’t exist as a state or even as a concept in 1913 when the UVF was established and armed by Craig and Carson. In 1918, when there was an election, there was far from an uniform vote across the six counties or the province of Ulster for “Northern Ireland”.

    He believes, by the same token, that the IRA didn’t have a just cause for their conflict. He fails to see how the reasoning he advances for the Unionist threat of violence for political ends, which he believes was justified,could be used by those engaged in a conflict which he would consider unjustfied.

    On top of that he fails to see – or won’t see – that his cheerleading for the unionist cause in this instant falls into the age old pattern. Unionist violence good, nationalist violence bad.

    My position is simple. All violence is bad. There is no valid justification for violence. The ‘just war’ argument advanced by Willowfield in support of unionist violence could just as easily be adapted to support the IRA in its conflict post 1970. In both cases – the Unionist case of 1913/14/18/21/? or in the case of the IRA – the argument is a fallacy.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    It’s still stuck at Willowfield refusing to acknowledge that his cheerleading for the Unionist ‘Just War’ of 1913/14/18/21/? could be interpreted by unreasonable – and reasonable people – like myself as, in effect, cheerleading for violence for political ends.

    It’s not stuck there at all. I’m happy to debate with anyone who makes such a fallacious leap of logic from the specific to the general and, indeed, have done. It’s stuck at your refusal to retract your dishonest allegations, namely:

    – that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;

    – that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;

    – that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;

    – that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.

    Because the victims of such violence don’t get the benefit of a breathless explanation from Willowfield that their victimhood is as a result of a ‘just’ rather than an ‘unjust’ conflict, they may not have been too worried about the semantics of the bullet or beating which they received.

    There were no victims. The violence never occurred. If it had – as I’ve stated – it would not have been just.

    I don’t believe the Unionists have a case for a just war.

    Maybe you don’t, and you’re quite entitled to argue your case. What you’re not entitled to do, however, is make unfounded, false, serious allegations against me and then refuse to retract them when you are unable to back them up.

    Willowfield does. His case doesn’t stand up, I believe, because Northern Ireland didn’t exist as a state or even as a concept in 1913 when the UVF was established and armed by Craig and Carson.

    What a ridiculous argument – self-determination is not allowed unless the state already exists! Quite a few internal contradictions to deal with in that position!

    In 1918, when there was an election, there was far from an uniform vote across the six counties or the province of Ulster for “Northern Ireland”.

    No-one said there was.

    He believes, by the same token, that the IRA didn’t have a just cause for their conflict.

    The PIRA don’t meet any of the criteria!

    He fails to see how the reasoning he advances for the Unionist threat of violence for political ends, which he believes was justified,could be used by those engaged in a conflict which he would consider unjustfied.

    The reasoning couldn’t be used since, by applying the reasoning, the opposite conclusion is reached!

    On top of that he fails to see – or won’t see – that his cheerleading for the unionist cause in this instant falls into the age old pattern. Unionist violence good, nationalist violence bad.

    Well, given that I oppose ALL violence, except in certain very specific circumstances, and that position applies equally to unionists as it does to nationalists, quite clearly it DOESN’T fall into the “age-old pattern”. Indeed, I have expressly stated that the nationalist threat of violence at the same time was just, therefore immediately rendering the above as yet another DISHONEST statement.

    My position is simple. All violence is bad. There is no valid justification for violence.

    We know that. And we know that such a position is ludicrous as it gives, for example, equal legitimacy to the suicide-bomber as it does to the policeman apprehending the suicide-bomber by force.

    But you are entitled to your position – that is not at issue. What is at issue is your dishonest allegations against me. Please retract them.

    The ‘just war’ argument advanced by Willowfield in support of unionist violence could just as easily be adapted to support the IRA in its conflict post 1970.

    Really? And how do you work that out?! In actual fact, the PIRA violence to which you refer fails on all counts. So the exact opposite to what you say is, in fact, true!

    Now retract your allegations, please. Have some integrity.

  • Paul McMahon

    I gave you a second chance at honest debate and got more verbal somersaults and pedantic arseholery. UFB was right and I’m not prepared to give troll food anymore.

    I’m outta here byyeeee.

    I’m sure that you consider this a victory Willow, a pyric victory but a victory nonetheless, enjoy it.

  • Really? And how do you work that out?! In actual fact, the PIRA violence to which you refer fails on all counts. So the exact opposite to what you say is, in fact, true!

    Given that you are, apparently and obviously, posting from a unionist perspective, and unionists were part of the repressive regime which the IRA engaged in conflict, your objectivity on the issue is compromised. In simple English, you would say that wouldn’t you.

    The suicide bomber/policeman analogy is not appropriate. After all the UVF of 1912+ would have been regarded as the ‘suicide bombers’ of their day. Or George Washington would have been seen as an 18th century suicide bomber.

    My point about NI not existing even as a concept in 1912 gives the lie to your notion that somehow unionists were seeking ‘self determination’ back then. In fact any measure of self determination, ie Home Rule, is what they were NOT seeking! The UVF was formed to stop Home Rule because of the 1911 debacle which led to the veto of the House of Lords being ended.

    And your notion of ‘proper authority’ vesting in the democratically-elected unionist leadership is a fallacy too. The likes of Carson and Craig had no more right to claim ‘proper authority’ than the IRA had post 1970.

  • willowfield

    PAUL McMAHON

    I gave you a second chance at honest debate and got more verbal somersaults and pedantic arseholery. UFB was right and I’m not prepared to give troll food anymore.

    Disappointing attitude. I responded honestly and genuinely to every question that you posed. Maybe you can’t cut the mustard, but if you don’t understand anything that I have said, you are at liberty to ask.

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    Given that you are, apparently and obviously, posting from a unionist perspective, and unionists were part of the repressive regime which the IRA engaged in conflict, your objectivity on the issue is compromised.

    It may be, in your view, and you are entitled to argue your case. No-one’s stopping you, and when you do, you find that I respond constructively.

    What you are not entitled to do, however, is to make unfounded allegations against me. You need to retract those.

    The suicide bomber/policeman analogy is not appropriate.

    It’s not an analogy. It’s the logical conclusion of your position.

    After all the UVF of 1912+ would have been regarded as the ‘suicide bombers’ of their day. Or George Washington would have been seen as an 18th century suicide bomber.

    I don’t believe either the UVF or George Washington used or planned to use suicide bombing. But, regardless, if they did it would still be your position that there was no moral distinction between a UVF/George Washington suicide-bomber and a policeman who used to force to prevent suicide-bombing by either. A ridiculous position, in my view.

    My point about NI not existing even as a concept in 1912 gives the lie to your notion that somehow unionists were seeking ‘self determination’ back then.

    Really? And how do you work that out?

    In fact any measure of self determination, ie Home Rule, is what they were NOT seeking!

    Er, their self-determination was to remain outside a home-rule parliament! The whole point about self-determination is that you get to choose how and by whom you are governed!

    The UVF was formed to stop Home Rule because of the 1911 debacle which led to the veto of the House of Lords being ended.

    Correct. And your point is?

    And your notion of ‘proper authority’ vesting in the democratically-elected unionist leadership is a fallacy too. The likes of Carson and Craig had no more right to claim ‘proper authority’ than the IRA had post 1970.

    Oh dear. So you are unable to discern the distinction between (a) leaders elected by the democratic votes of thousands, accountable to their people, and carrying out the wishes of their people, and (b) unelected, unaccoutable leaders, operating AGAINST the wishes of the people whom they purport to represent. That shows an appalling analytical skills.

    I’m still waiting for your retractions. Why are you unwilling to retract allegations which are clearly false? If you believe them to be true, why have you been unable to back them up?

  • Prionsa Eoghan

    At least with some trolls you get entertained. With Willow there is an overwhelming desire to gnaw at the fingers less you make the mistake of responding to his verbal pedantic arseholery(good wan paul)

  • I wouldn’t wait for retractions from me, Willow. They’re not coming. EVER. I explained my position and it differs fundamentally from your position. It’s a matter of perspective. I am a pacifist. You are a unionist. You have painstakingly set out why some violence is ok and this violence emanates from those, coincidentally or otherwise, who share your political perspective. I believe all violence is wrong. Nevertheless I am a republican. That doesn’t mean I support the IRA but it does mean that I aspire towards a United Ireland. Violence carried out by the IRA was wrong – but no more so than the violence carried out or threatened by unionists be it in 1912 etc. That violence begat other violence and led to the recent Troubles. Now we’re out on the other side at that but some, I feel, are still stuck in 1912 or maybe 1690.

  • willowfield

    Very useful contribution there, Prionsa.

    Thanks

    Oh, and it was good of you to explain your versions of events at Fulham. Very informative.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    I wouldn’t wait for retractions from me, Willow. They’re not coming. EVER.

    Why not? Don’t you have any integrity whatsoever?

    I explained my position and it differs fundamentally from your position.

    We know your position differs from my position – that doesn’t alter the fact that you made unfounded allegations against me! Why won’t you retract them?

    It’s a matter of perspective. I am a pacifist. You are a unionist. You have painstakingly set out why some violence is ok and this violence emanates from those, coincidentally or otherwise, who share your political perspective. I believe all violence is wrong. Nevertheless I am a republican. That doesn’t mean I support the IRA but it does mean that I aspire towards a United Ireland. Violence carried out by the IRA was wrong – but no more so than the violence carried out or threatened by unionists be it in 1912 etc. That violence begat other violence and led to the recent Troubles. Now we’re out on the other side at that but some, I feel, are still stuck in 1912 or maybe 1690.

    That’s wonderful, but we still return to the issue of you making unfounded accusations about me. Accusations which are false and which you won’t retract. Please do do.

  • willowfield

    I don’t see any difficulty in us having different perspectives and different views. That is why we come on to this site – to debate and argue with others. It would be no fun if we all had the same views.

    The difficulty is that you have grossly misrepresented my views and made some very serious allegations about me. Now, initially these allegations may have arisen out of a misunderstanding of my position, or a failure on my part to articulate my position more clearly. But there can be no excuse for you to stand over the allegations now, after several pages of discussion and debate, over more than one thread, in which I have made my position clear, and expressly stated and argued opposite positions to those of which you have accused me.

    I always apologise or retract a statement if I am shown to be wrong. Why can’t you do the same?

  • There is no misrepresentation. How can there be a retraction? You support violence for political ends in certain circumstances, which you have rehashed over and over again.

    As a person hiding behind a nom de plume, you have no reputation. I don’t know who you are. Sometimes I think you’re a computer programme endlessly churning out these rather unreadable demands for retractions and turgid rationalisations of the Unionist just war – or is that the Just Unionist War?

    You on the other hands have said repeatedly that I am dishonest. You have called me a liar. I am posting under my own name. You are posting under a pen name. So, even if you were owed a retraction, and this is not the case, on principle I would never give it to you. Because you are a COWARD.

  • Paul McMahon

    Concubhar, an madadh go thug muid doibh,cadé mar ata í?

  • Danny O’Connor

    What the issue Willowfield appears to be arguing is that ,if Cornwall decided that Labour was not their chosen party of government,they would be right to oppose the Labour Government in London(by arms if needed)to create their own little statelet -despite the wishes of their fellow Englishmen,The Cornish have always thought of themselves as Cornish first,then English.What about Yorkshire ,or Lancashire,would it be legitimate if they did the same.
    I thought that unionism was against the break up of the union,(the SNP are getting stronger)are the Scots going to leave the union,or perhaps a minority of Scots in Ayrshire or somewhere will resort to arms despite the wishes of their fellow scots.

  • Paul McMahon

    Sound contribution Dan, but listen to Eoghan,

    [could never bring myself to recognise those bloody monarchs “appointed by god”]

    Don’t feed the troll.

  • RepublicanStones

    Concubhar and Paul..keep er lit, loved the last few pages. Usually get a good laugh out of Weakfield…sorry…willowfield, but haven’t seen him spanked like this in a while.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    There is no misrepresentation.

    Yes there is. I have articulated a clear, consistent position in respect of the use of violence, and put forward a set of criteria, all of which must apply if violence is ever to be justified. Those criteria apply in some circumstances, such as when a people’s right to democratically-expressed self-determination is to be suppressed, and such decision is taken on proper authority, and only after all other peaceful means have been exhausted. Those circumstances almost arose in the early 20th century in respect of both nationalists and unionists. Hence both peoples were justified in preparing to defend their respective self-determination in the event that it was to be suppressed.

    That is my position. It is quite impossible to deduce from the above, any of the following:

    – that I “condone the use of paramilitary violence by unionists in the event of a United Ireland being ‘forced upon you’ by a 50+1 decision”;

    – that I expressed “moral ambivalence on the question of the use of violence”;

    – that I am “generally in favour of the use of violence for political ends as long as those ends coincide with my own”;

    – that I say that “State run unionist death squads were ok because they were engaged in a just cause – protecting society from crime”.

    Each of those accusations is unfounded, unreasonable, and must be retracted. An apology is also due.

    How can there be a retraction? You support violence for political ends in certain circumstances, which you have rehashed over and over again.

    Supporting violence for political ends in certain circumstances is a perfectly reasonable and commonplace position. The point at issue is the allegations that you have made above.

    You on the other hands have said repeatedly that I am dishonest. You have called me a liar.

    You have made the above false allegations against me, and repeated them despite not being able to back them up and despite my express statements to the contrary and arguments of OPPOSITE positions to those of which you have accused me. That makes you dishonest. You have also told lies on this very thread. If you don’t want to be called dishonest or a liar, then have the integrity to withdraw dishonest allegations, and don’t tell lies. It’s quite simple.

    I am posting under my own name. You are posting under a pen name. So, even if you were owed a retraction, and this is not the case, on principle I would never give it to you. Because you are a COWARD.

    You claim to be posting under your own name, and seem to think you’re great because of it. I’ve no way of knowing whether or not it is your own name – we only have your word for that, yet we know from your conduct on here that you are dishonest. I choose not to use my own name – like 90% of contributors to this site – for my own reasons. That does not give you carte blanche to engage in smears, lies and false accusations. It doesn’t matter whether the person you are smearing uses a pseudonym or not – it is totally unacceptable conduct. Have some integrity, man.

  • willowfield

    DANNY O’CONNOR

    What the issue Willowfield appears to be arguing is that ,if Cornwall decided that Labour was not their chosen party of government,they would be right to oppose the Labour Government in London(by arms if needed)to create their own little statelet -despite the wishes of their fellow Englishmen,The Cornish have always thought of themselves as Cornish first,then English.What about Yorkshire ,or Lancashire,would it be legitimate if they did the same.

    Complete nonsense. Simply preferring one political party to another is not an exercise of self-determination. If, however, the Cornish people voted overwhelmingly for, say, devolution, or even independence (both extremely unlikely), then why should their wishes be denied?

    I thought that unionism was against the break up of the union

    Of course it is. That doesn’t mean to say that people should be held within the Union against their will! Wise up.

    ,(the SNP are getting stronger)are the Scots going to leave the union,or perhaps a minority of Scots in Ayrshire or somewhere will resort to arms despite the wishes of their fellow scots.

    I’m unaware of people in Ayrshire considering themselves to be a separate people from the rest of the Scots. I think you’re making that up.

    PAUL McMAHON

    Don’t feed the troll.

    Just because you are unable to engage in debate, doesn’t mean that you have to dismiss those with whom you disagree as “trolls”. If you don’t want to debate, don’t come on to the site.

    REPUBLICANSTONES

    Concubhar and Paul..keep er lit, loved the last few pages. Usually get a good laugh out of Weakfield…sorry…willowfield, but haven’t seen him spanked like this in a while.

    If you consider resorting to lying about people, misrepresenting them and making false accusations against them are substitutes for constructive debate, then I think you demonstrate your own lack of integrity and intelligence. You don’t like unionists, so you’re happy to see them abused when they put forward a position which you can’t argue against.

  • willowfield

    DANNY O’CONNOR

    I take it you are opposed generally to self-determination and oppose the defence of it by force? Or is it only unionists who aren’t allowed that right? OK for nationalists?

  • DANNY O’CONNOR

    I take it you are opposed generally to self-determination and oppose the defence of it by force? Or is it only unionists who aren’t allowed that right? OK for nationalists?

    This is another example of your skewed perspective. You happen to believe, it seems to me, that it’s only unionists who are allowed self determination or the right to defend it by force. Nationalists aren’t allowed this right.

    The ‘allegations’ you allege I have made are merely my perceptions of your position. They couldn’t be ‘retracted’ even if I wanted to because they remain my perception of your position.

    As for your demand for an apology, what am I supposed to apologise for? Do I apologise to you because I think that your position of supporting violence for political ends in certain circumstances can be adapted by your enemies to attack you?

    As for the name issue, let me show you that I am who I am. Follow this website link http://igaeilge.wordpress.com and then you will understand. I don’t know about your 90% of posters post under a pseudonym claim. What’s your authority for that? Is there a survey to back your claim up?

    You are a coward….and your arguments here have been exposed as fallacies which serve those who wish to use violence for partisan poltiical ends. Your argument is dishonest and, I sense, sectarian.

  • Arconada Armstrong

    I hope you put a bit more research into your own blog than you do when commenting on this one.

    Windsor Park? Named after terrorists? A fairly tasteless, ignorant comment with no basis in fact. And no, as a republican (with a small r) its not the branding of the Royal Family as terrorists that so offends, but your ignorant attempt at whataboutery that was so completely incorrect.

    Still, at least you’ve learnt one thing over the past few days…

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    This is another example of your skewed perspective. You happen to believe, it seems to me, that it’s only unionists who are allowed self determination or the right to defend it by force. Nationalists aren’t allowed this right.

    More dishonesty. I have expressly stated PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.

    The ‘allegations’ you allege I have made are merely my perceptions of your position.

    Perceptions which are patently false and are actually the OPPOSITE of what I have stated.

    They couldn’t be ‘retracted’ even if I wanted to because they remain my perception of your position.

    Unless you have some kind of learning disability, or have refused to read what I have said, they really couldn’t be your genuine perception, because I have stated and reasoned the OPPOSITE to what you allege.

    As for your demand for an apology, what am I supposed to apologise for?

    For misrepresenting me and for making, and then persisting with, false allegations against me.

    Do I apologise to you because I think that your position of supporting violence for political ends in certain circumstances can be adapted by your enemies to attack you?

    No. You apologise for the misrepresentation and false allegations.

    As for the name issue, let me show you that I am who I am. Follow this website link http://igaeilge.wordpress.com and then you will understand. I don’t know about your 90% of posters post under a pseudonym claim. What’s your authority for that? Is there a survey to back your claim up?

    No, it’s a rough guess. Have a look through the site. Maybe it’s “only” 80%!

    You are a coward….and your arguments here have been exposed as fallacies which serve those who wish to use violence for partisan poltiical ends. Your argument is dishonest and, I sense, sectarian.

    First, my arguments haven’t been exposed as fallacies.

    Second, you are entitled to disagree with me and make an argument in opposition to what I say. That is the whole point of the site.

    Third, you are NOT entitled to misrepresent me and make false allegations against me.

    Fourth, my argument is NOT dishonest: far from it, and I think you should also retract that accusation, unless you are prepared to explain why it is dishonest and back it up with some evidence.

    Fifth, my argument is certainly not sectarian, as it applies to ALL peoples: unionist and nationalist. Ironically, it appears that it is you who are sectarian, since you appear unable to engage constructively and honestly with someone whom you perceive to be of “the other”. You would rather hurl unfounded accusations at them and lie about them, than take part in an honest discussion.

  • willowfield

    Willowfield at 8.46am today:

    “Those criteria apply in some circumstances, such as when a people’s right to democratically-expressed self-determination is to be suppressed, and such decision is taken on proper authority, and only after all other peaceful means have been exhausted. Those circumstances almost arose in the early 20th century in respect of both nationalists and unionists. Hence both peoples were justified in preparing to defend their respective self-determination in the event that it was to be suppressed.”

    Concubhar the Dishonest at 9.26am today:

    “You happen to believe, it seems to me, that it’s only unionists who are allowed self determination or the right to defend it by force. Nationalists aren’t allowed this right.

    I couldn’t get a better example of this man’s dishonesty as that. Blatant misrepresentation.

    (I can’t access his site, but it is unsurprising to learn that it contains lies about Windsor Park. He repeated these lies on another thread and – true to form – wouldn’t retract them when they were exposed. What does it say about somebody that they must resort to dishonesty on such a consistent basis. A lack of self-confidence in his own beliefs?)

  • My perceptions are my perceptions. They are not false. This is becoming Orwellian. Your accusation that my perceptions are ‘false’ sounds to me like you’re accusing me of thought crime! Your constant talk of you only support violence in ‘particular circumstances’ sounds like ‘doublespeak’. If you write what you write, don’t blame reasonable and honest people for thinking that you are a unionist who supports political violence as long as it furthers the unionist cause. All other violence, it appears, apart from the policeman apprehending the suicide bomber, doesn’t fit your criterion of a just war so it’s not justified, according to you.
    I am not trying to justify nationalist violence – I’m merely trying to point out to with, with the utmost patience, that the just war you talk about is a fallacy. The innocent are killed in just wars as well as in unjust wars – they don’t know the difference.

    As for your harping on about ‘misrepresentation’ and your descriptions of me as ‘dishonest’ and ‘sectarian’ – well I think you’re wrong. And your allegations amount to libel. You’re hiding behind a pseudonym – and that makes you a coward without a reputation to defend. I will persist in pointing out that you are little more than an illmannered deceitful Unionist troll – how illmannered it is to come into someone else’s site to libel people and place that site’s integrity at risk. How deceitful it is to preach about the violence of the ‘other’ and to defend the violence of your own as somehow just when it’s patently far from honourable.

  • ggn

    Just a few bits and pieces for those who may be interested in Gaelic games.

    Shinty (Gaelic Camannachd) is great!

    http://www.shinty.com/

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cammag

    Sadly, like many aspects of Manx culture Cammag, ie Manx Hurley / Shinty has declined, I would hope for a revival.

    The Gaelic language is doing well in Mann at the moment BTW. Heres a great site for anyone interested in learning a bit.

    http://www.learnmanx.com/

    Heres a thing too ….

    http://rounders.gaa.ie/

    Rounders seems to have originated in England but is organised by the GAA in Ireland.

    We played alot of rounders at school and often in the fields but it became heavily influenced by Baseball / Softball with equipment coming back from America particularily the bats and the mits. Rounders bats are hard to get. But the rules we played by were more rounders than baseball.

    Do they play rounders in State Schools? Maybe it is not called rounders?

    In our secondary school soccer was barred but the very occasional game of ‘ground control football’ was tolerated.

    code word : paper

  • cladycowboy

    Hi willowfield

    “I thought that unionism was against the break up of the union
    ———————————————–
    Of course it is. That doesn’t mean to say that people should be held within the Union against their will! Wise up. ”

    I’d like to get to the core of your philosophy. Irish Republicanism is pretty simplistic in its goals. The Island of Ireland politically independent and its people united as Irish men and women. Any deviation from that goal is not classed as Irish Republicanism. For instance, fellow poster, Greenflag espouses something similar to your own views about choice.

    What is the base meaning of Northern Ireland Unionism?

    What would need to occur before it can become obsolete?

    Would the Union lose a lot of its appeal, given many unionists affinity to the country, if Scotland was to vote for independence?

    What would happen if Wales followed suit?

    If i am to take you at your word regarding peoples right to self-determination then you are a student of Rousseau. If, however, Cornwall was to seek autonomy or independence, if London decided to go it alone, followed by the shires, what then?

    I’d like you to examine all these questions and not just state that you are unaware of these movements. What if large swathes of the Midlands decided to vote for self-determination and become part of a Pakistani empire? Would you think this fair?

    What if all that is left of the Union is Northern Ireland and East Anglia? Is that worth it? Hasn’t Unionism changed by then? Is union with Norwich worth the division caused in our own island because of it?

    What if East Anglia pulled out too? Would there be an independent Northern Ireland where there are now no unionists but half the people are republican?

    Do you consider me a foreigner, regardless at the betrothal on my person of British citizenship, I was born and bred in Northern Ireland but i carry an Irish passport and am republican-minded?

    I ask these questions, some of them admittedly fanciful (in our present time) in good faith, i’d ask that you answer in similar fashion, please.

  • willowfield

    CONCUBHAR THE DISHONEST

    My perceptions are my perceptions. They are not false.

    Your accusations are false. They have no foundation. You should retract them. Your perceptions are entirely unreasonable if they lead you to make those accusations.

    Your accusation that my perceptions are ‘false’ sounds to me like you’re accusing me of thought crime!

    I’m accusing you of making false accusations. Nothing more. Nothing less. The evidence is here for all to see. You can’t stand over any of your allegations, yet you refuse to withdraw them.

    Your constant talk of you only support violence in ‘particular circumstances’ sounds like ‘doublespeak’.

    Well, it’s not. It’s quite clear and reasoned.

    If you write what you write, don’t blame reasonable and honest people for thinking that you are a unionist who supports political violence as long as it furthers the unionist cause.

    Even though I have never written that and have actually stated precisely the opposite?? I think I can blame such people – none of whom, by definition can be “reasonable and honest” if they draw unreasonable and dishonest inferences from what others say.

    All other violence, it appears, apart from the policeman apprehending the suicide bomber, doesn’t fit your criterion of a just war so it’s not justified, according to you.

    I have never said that. What a preposterous claim. More misrepresentation. You just don’t know when to stop.

    I am not trying to justify nationalist violence

    I never said you were.

    – I’m merely trying to point out to with, with the utmost patience, that the just war you talk about is a fallacy.

    And I have stated on several occasions that I have no problem with that. Go ahead and argue your case. The problem is with the misrepresentation and false allegations.

    As for your harping on about ‘misrepresentation’ and your descriptions of me as ‘dishonest’ and ‘sectarian’ – well I think you’re wrong.

    Well, it’s a bit odd for you to say that you are not dishonest, when you have blatantly misrepresented me, even within the last hour or so! It’s there for all to see!

    And your allegations amount to libel.

    You can’t libel someone with the truth.

    I will persist in pointing out that you are little more than an illmannered deceitful Unionist troll

    Because that’s so much easier than engaging constructively with someone in debate. You can’t deal with someone whom you perceive to be of “the other” – you can’t argue your case, so you resort to deliberate misrepresentations and unfounded accusations. Pathetic, really.

    – how illmannered it is to come into someone else’s site to libel people and place that site’s integrity at risk.

    I haven’t libelled anyone – you can’t libel by stating the truth. It is ill-mannered of you, however, to misrepresent others’ positions and make unfounded allegations against them without the integrity to back them up or withdraw them when they turn out to be untrue. Shame on you.

    How deceitful it is to preach about the violence of the ‘other’ and to defend the violence of your own as somehow just when it’s patently far from honourable.

    I haven’t defended the violence of “my own”. Quite the opposite: I have stated that if unionist violence had occurred, it would have been unjustified. I have also defended nationalists in preparing for violence at the same time. My views about violence are universal and consistent – nothing to do with what you perceive to be “my own”. With every post you add to your dishonesty.

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    What is the base meaning of Northern Ireland Unionism?

    What do you mean by the base meaning. It means wishing Northern Ireland to be in Union with Great Britain! It is an assertion of a British identity and a rejection of an Irish-nationalist identity. Underneath that is an assertion of an Ulster-unionist identity.

    What would need to occur before it can become obsolete?

    In the literal sense it would be the ending of the Union, I guess, with no prospect of it being restored. In the cultural sense, I don’t think it would ever become obsolete, unless there was mass migration or oppression.

    Would the Union lose a lot of its appeal, given many unionists affinity to the country, if Scotland was [sic] to vote for independence?

    I doubt it would lose a lot of its appeal, but probably some.

    What would happen if Wales followed suit?

    It would weaken the Union politically, it might weaken the unionist identity among some people, but for others their identity would be unaffacted.

    If i am to take you at your word regarding peoples right to self-determination then you are a student of Rousseau. If, however, Cornwall was to seek autonomy or independence, if London decided to go it alone, followed by the shires, what then?

    I’ve no idea. It’s such a ludicrous proposition that it’s impossible to state what would happen.

    I’d like you to examine all these questions and not just state that you are unaware of these movements. What if large swathes of the Midlands decided to vote for self-determination and become part of a Pakistani empire? Would you think this fair?

    These are ludicrous propositions. Pakistanis are a small minority in the Midlands and unlikely to win such a vote, even if they had any remote interest in doing what you suggest. It seems you are putting forward these ridiculous propositions in an attempt to undermine the principle of self-determination. If you do not believe in self-determination, however, presumably you are not a nationalist. Is that correct?

    Do you consider me a foreigner, regardless at the betrothal on my person of British citizenship, I was born and bred in Northern Ireland but i carry an Irish passport and am republican-minded?

    If you’re born and bred in NI, how could you be considered to be a foreigner?

  • The Third Policeman

    Well for what its worth, as a Republican, I don’t think that partition itself was necessarily wrong. It was the 1920s and half of Europe was being redrawn and cut up! Ireland isn’t some mythical island Goddess that must never be divided. No, the great wrong in our situation lay in the sloppy way in which it was cut, and the subsequent institutionalized oppression, sectarianism and paramilitarism that followed.

    Can you Willow, as a unionist (an unionist? Doesn’t sound right) admit that simply lopping off the six counties was a terrible way to remove the northern prods from the Free State? It simply stored up problems for the future and dirties and diminishes any claim that what happened was a true expression of self determination. A smaller state could have been created with a far greater unionist percentage, and presumably, without such a threat of nationalist uprising, would have treated its minority better. I guess that’s what happens when you leave small men (on all sides) to do a big job.

    Incidentally, isn’t it time for a Carson GAA team. Perhaps Trinity College can rename itself after the big man. A Dubliner who played hurling (an early version), and who lead a successful revolt against the Empire?! The stuff of Irish dreams!

  • Danny O’Connor

    Willowfield
    I simply mentioned Ayrshire as an Area of Scotland,In the context it could be Glasgow East,I was using the point that the Scottish Nationalist Party could, using the arguments,you make ,decide to set up their own little state .N.Ireland was an artificial creation ,I am simply pointing that out. why only 6 counties,why not 9,or 4 or 5 .
    The answer is how much can we possibly have and maintain a majority ,and try to be of any significance in the wider scheme of things.

  • willowfield

    THE THIRD POLICEMAN

    Well for what its worth, as a Republican, I don’t think that partition itself was necessarily wrong. It was the 1920s and half of Europe was being redrawn and cut up! Ireland isn’t some mythical island Goddess that must never be divided. No, the great wrong in our situation lay in the sloppy way in which it was cut, and the subsequent institutionalized oppression, sectarianism and paramilitarism that followed.

    Thank you very much. A truer word was never spoken – it’s amazing how you are able to understand what I say, yet others cannot!

    Can you Willow, as a unionist (an unionist? Doesn’t sound right) admit that simply lopping off the six counties was a terrible way to remove the northern prods from the Free State? It simply stored up problems for the future and dirties and diminishes any claim that what happened was a true expression of self determination. A smaller state could have been created with a far greater unionist percentage, and presumably, without such a threat of nationalist uprising, would have treated its minority better. I guess that’s what happens when you leave small men (on all sides) to do a big job.

    I think I’ve already said that!

    DANNY O’CONNOR

    I simply mentioned Ayrshire as an Area of Scotland,In the context it could be Glasgow East,I was using the point that the Scottish Nationalist Party could, using the arguments,you make ,decide to set up their own little state

    ???? Since when has the SNP argued that people in Glasgow East are distinct from the rest of the Scottish people, with their own right to self-determination separate from the rest of Scotland? That is a crazy analogy. Doesn’t work at all.

    .N.Ireland was an artificial creation ,I am simply pointing that out.

    No more or less artificial than any other state or territory.

    why only 6 counties,why not 9,or 4 or 5 .

    The precise location of the border is, of course, a separate issue from that of self-determination itself. Using counties – whatever number – was a bizarre and stupid means of drawing a border.

    The answer is how much can we possibly have and maintain a majority ,and try to be of any significance in the wider scheme of things.

    No different to the nationalists who also wanted as much territory as possible.

    If you are arguing that the border was drawn in the wrong place, then I agree with you.

  • cladycowboy

    WILLOWFIELD

    “What do you mean by the base meaning. It means wishing Northern Ireland to be in Union with Great Britain!”

    So, when Scotland disengages from the Union, this will be re-defined as wishing Union with England and Wales?
    This will leave Northern Ireland as the lone, curious loyal territory in the great Ulster-Scot story, from Alba to America

    “It is an assertion of a British identity and a rejection of an Irish-nationalist identity.”

    It’s quite an exteme assertion of that identity. You can be British outside of the UK.

    “Underneath that is an assertion of an Ulster-unionist identity.”

    Could you clarify what this means? Is it seperate from a British identity?

    “In the literal sense it would be the ending of the Union, I guess, with no prospect of it being restored. In the cultural sense, I don’t think it would ever become obsolete, unless there was mass migration or oppression.”

    I would agree that the cultural sense would not and should not disappear. I’d also argue that if there is Irish re-unification, a lot more of your non-unionist neighbours will share this culture with you.

    “I doubt it would lose a lot of its appeal, but probably some.”

    I think it’d cause a huge emotional correction and great internal questioning. The oft quoted feeling of Britishness due to family connections in Scotland would become obsolete. Scotland will have decided to leave the UK.

    Would Unionist undergraduates still decide to educate themselves there, outside of the UK?

    An affinity with people who have anti-UK (in the literal sense) republican credentials would be the new reality.

    Might this lead to less hostility to those people within Northern Ireland and the Republic who basically hold the same views?

    “It would weaken the Union politically, it might weaken the unionist identity among some people, but for others their identity would be unaffacted.”

    I would imagine great questioning of identity should Wales follow suit. Those who remain unionist after that would then have to re-define as those who wish to remain in union with England. Is this the crux of unionist identity?

    “I’ve no idea. It’s such a ludicrous proposition that it’s impossible to state what would happen”

    So, once, was the idea that an impoverished small island on the fringes of Europe would control a quarter of the globe.

    I’ll give a more readily plausible question then. What if England decides that in the break-up of the UK it’d rather go it alone, without us, would unionists petition to unify with the newly independent Scotland or Wales?

    If that fails, is Northern Ireland independence the only route left? What of unionism then? Will anti-Irish nationalism still remain as the remaining part of the double-edged sword?

    “If you’re born and bred in NI, how could you be considered to be a foreigner?”

    According to you, the state of the Republic of Ireland and the region of the UK known as Northern Ireland exist due to the applied self-determination of the Irish people and the British people in Ireland.

    You once told me that Ulster Protestants and Catholics were a distinct people and this justified unionist self-determination.

    So, logically, i am a foreigner to you, a breed apart, or have i missed somehting?

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    So, when Scotland disengages from the Union, this will be re-defined as wishing Union with England and Wales?

    Well, I don’t know – this is mere hypothesis. I should imagine most unionists would still desire union with the whole of Great Britain, but that would not be possible in such a scenario.

    It’s quite an exteme assertion of that identity.

    Why do you think that? Is the desire for a separate Irish state an extreme assertion of Irish nationalist identity? Strange view.

    You can be British outside of the UK.

    You can be Irish inside the UK.

    Could you clarify what this means? Is it seperate [sic] from a British identity?

    Ulster unionists/Protestants/Ulster-British/whatever consider themselves to be British, so it’s part of a British identity but obviously not the same as the British identity of an Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman.

    I think it’d cause a huge emotional correction and great internal questioning.

    Perhaps in the long-term that might happen.

    Would Unionist undergraduates still decide to educate themselves there, outside of the UK?

    How on earth would I know? But I don’t see why not, so long as it were still financially feasible.

    Might this lead to less hostility to those people within Northern Ireland and the Republic who basically hold the same views?

    I think unionists will always be hostile to those who tried to murder them and remove them by force from the UK, and those who support that. But I don’t think there is the same degree of hostility against peaceful nationalists. I don’t see how Scotland’s leaving of the Union would alter either of those feelings.

    I would imagine great questioning of identity should Wales follow suit. Those who remain unionist after that would then have to re-define as those who wish to remain in union with England. Is this the crux of unionist identity?

    The “crux” of the unionist identity is that of being a distinct people in Northern Ireland. That people considers itself to be British and therefore wishes the UK to continue and for all British peoples to be part of it. If the other British peoples decide otherwise than that ceases to be possible, but it doesn’t alter the identity. They won’t embrace Irish nationalism.

    I’ll give a more readily plausible question then. What if England decides that in the break-up of the UK it’d rather go it alone, without us, would unionists petition to unify with the newly independent Scotland or Wales?

    I’ve no idea. I doubt that would be a realistic option.

    If that fails, is Northern Ireland independence the only route left? What of unionism then? Will anti-Irish nationalism still remain as the remaining part of the double-edged sword?

    There will be no desire among unionists for a “united Ireland” ever. If it is forced on them, they will suffer it grudgingly and with a great degree of sadness and anger. An independent NI would not be possible without international recognition which I don’t believe would be forthcoming.

    According to you, the state of the Republic of Ireland and the region of the UK known as Northern Ireland exist due to the applied self-determination of the Irish people and the British people in Ireland.

    It’s not according to me: it’s what happened. I fail to see how this makes someone born and bred in NI to be considered a foreigner in NI.

    So, logically, i am a foreigner to you, a breed apart, or have i missed somehting?

    By your own logic, if you consider the Irish and British to be separate, then I am a foreigner to you. I do not accept your logic, however. If you are a native in NI, then you can’t be a foreigner – regardless of your ethnic background.

  • Clady Cowboy

    WILLOWFIELD

    Do tell me if i’m boring you…

    “It’s quite an exteme assertion of that identity.
    ————————————————-
    Why do you think that? Is the desire for a separate Irish state an extreme assertion of Irish nationalist identity? Strange view.”

    The region of the British State known as Northern Ireland denies 16% of the Irish people (Ulster Unionists not counted-as is their wish) their self-determination as expressed in the 1918 elections.

    If Ireland as a whole had left the UK in 1921 then only 1.5% of the British population would have been ‘denied’ self-determination.

    Israeli settlements in the occupied territories are an extreme advancing of Israeli self-determination.

    “You can be Irish inside the UK”

    Just don’t ask to promote the Irish language.

    “I think unionists will always be hostile to those who tried to murder them and remove them by force from the UK, and those who support that”

    Perhaps you can empathise with the Irish nationalist psyche and similar experiences used to keep them within the UK.

    “It’s not according to me: it’s what happened. I fail to see how this makes someone born and bred in NI to be considered a foreigner in NI.”

    Ok, so my great-grandfather living in Tyrone in 1918 voting with the rest of the Irish people to express his desire for Irish self-determination was deemed to be of a distinct people from the minority of his near neighbours. This belief is the sole rationale for Northern Ireland’s existence.

    When exactly did he stop being of a distinct people (and hence a foreigner)? Did every Irish republican within the six northern counties suddenly lose this people apart identity with the opening of Stormont?

    “By your own logic, if you consider the Irish and British to be separate, then I am a foreigner to you. I do not accept your logic, however. If you are a native in NI, then you can’t be a foreigner – regardless of your ethnic background.”

    If you hold British citizenship then you are British but as you are of Ireland then you are still Irish and so i consider you my countryman.

    My point remains that my Ulster ancestors were part of the Irish nation and you considered this nation to be seperate from you. I’m still part of that nation so i am a foreigner in my own land.

  • willowfield

    CLADYCOWBOY

    The region of the British State known as Northern Ireland denies 16% of the Irish people (Ulster Unionists not counted-as is their wish) their self-determination as expressed in the 1918 elections.

    Well, if you think that’s “extreme”, your alternative (denying 100% of Ulster-unionists their self-determination) is off the stratosphere.

    Ok, so my great-grandfather living in Tyrone in 1918 voting with the rest of the Irish people to express his desire for Irish self-determination was deemed to be of a distinct people from the minority of his near neighbours. This belief is the sole rationale for Northern Ireland’s existence.

    Presumably your great-grandfather deemed himself to be distinctly not British. He can’t have it both ways.

    When exactly did he stop being of a distinct people (and hence a foreigner)?

    I don’t know anything about the man. I’m unaware that he subsequently no longer considered himself to be of a distinct people. And nor am I aware of ever saying that he was a foreigner.

    Did every Irish republican within the six northern counties suddenly lose this people apart identity with the opening of Stormont?

    I’ve no idea what you’re talking about. I can’t speak for any Irish republican, let alone all of them. You’d need to ask them.

    If you hold British citizenship then you are British but as you are of Ireland then you are still Irish and so i consider you my countryman.

    So what’s your problem?

    My point remains that my Ulster ancestors were part of the Irish nation and you considered this nation to be seperate [sic] from you.

    Presumably they considered their “nation” to be separate from the British “nation”.

    I’m still part of that nation so i am a foreigner in my own land.

    Congratulations. It was you, not me, who said you were a foreigner. What a completely bizarre and pointless exchange.

  • willowfield

    Oops, sorry, I misread your last sentence. If you consider yourself a foreigner in your own land, that is entirely up to you. I certainly don’t.

  • Clady Cowboy

    WILLOWFIELD

    “Well, if you think that’s “extreme”, your alternative (denying 100% of Ulster-unionists their self-determination) is off the stratosphere.”

    100% of NI Nationalists also but i’m talking of two peoples, Irish and British not small portions of them.

    Maybe my clarity leaves a lot to be desired.

    The justification for the creation of Northern Ireland is that it was the application of British/Ulster-Unionist (delete as applicable) self-determination.

    As the island as a whole had voted for Irish independence, that particular manifestation of Irish self-determination would leave Ulster unionists outside of their preferred state.

    Ulster-unionists were a distinct and separate people from the rest of the people on this island, as the justifiers of Northern Ireland insist, and so deserved their right to self-determine.

    Hence, I am not the same as you, or your argument for a distinct state would be hollow, and this logically must mean i am a foreigner in the statelet of Northern Ireland.

  • willowfield

    Hence, I am not the same as you, or your argument for a distinct state would be hollow, and this logically must mean i am a foreigner in the statelet of Northern Ireland.

    It doesn’t follow at all. There are ethnic/national minorities in scores of states around the world. That does not make them “foreign”. If you wish to consider yourself a foreigner, however, that is your choice. It’s a free country.

  • eranu

    ggn, its was rounders when i was at a state school in the 80s. also rounders when i was in scouts too.

  • Clady Cowboy

    Willowfield

    “It doesn’t follow at all. There are ethnic/national minorities in scores of states around the world. That does not make them “foreign”. If you wish to consider yourself a foreigner, however, that is your choice. It’s a free country.”

    An Irishman a minority in Ireland, it’s like a little-Englander’s nightmare.

    Not sure by what right Unionists were able to resist the national minority scenario for themselves then considering they went to the polls as Irish people to elect Irish MPs.

  • Steve

    There you guys go trying to argue logic with a pedant, give it up its like Sysiphus and his wee rock

  • willowfield

    CLADY COWBOY

    An Irishman a minority in Ireland, it’s like a little-Englander’s nightmare.

    I’m afraid the above comment makes no sense. Who said an Irishman was “a minority in Ireland”?

    Not sure by what right Unionists were able to resist the national minority scenario for themselves then considering they went to the polls as Irish people to elect Irish MPs.

    Not sure by what right nationalists were able to resist the national minority scenario for themselves then considering they went to the polls as British people to elect British MPs.