Isn't Ian Paisley Junion the wrong guy to sent out to bat on this one. Whatever about anyone else we know he was raised by an anti-Catholic bigot.

Henry,

Reminder: please play the ball, and not the man. Now, is there anything Ian Junior has said that doesn't stand up to scrutiny?

I'd think along the same lines as Henry on this one.

"spewing out hatred" he says. Daddy can tell you more about that.

Mick Fealty

Paisley Junior is reported elsewhere as claiming Protestant's were raised to love their neighbours so I would argue that he brought up the issue. His father's incitements to the "men of the Shankill" to burn out their Catholic neighbours are on the record.

Yes, but the same applies Maca.

It seems to have become de rigeur around here recently to simply attack the person rather than deal with the substance of the argument.

Apart from anything else, it is just plain dull!

Henry, thanks for playing the ball!

Although from what I've seen, he's arguing that the President of Ireland pinned Nazi attitudes on Ulster Protestants only.

I was disgusted to read McAleese's comments. I have no idea what her motivation could have been for saying this, but I would hope an apology will be forthcoming. I wasn't brought up to hate anyone, and I deeply resent this accusation.

Well carry on Mary. You can now address the subversive sectarianism in the GAA police ban, and the Irish Cultural imperialism in the state funded Catholic schools in the North, and the vain republican view of Unionism as false conciousness.

And while you are at it, you can thank the americans, brits et all from saving mise eire from becoming a twee but compliant appendage to a german fascist superstate, complete with pocket dictator.

Look at how the jews fared in catholic poland and france before taking an easy dig.

Aquifer,

Em, I have at least one Polish Catholic friend who was born in a concentration camp. The Nazis targetted Slavs as well as Jewish people.

I think you ought to be a bit more careful with your accusations, no matter how provoked you may feel!

Mick, her remarks were disgraceful and totally unacceptable, and IPJnr's comments are a fair response to those comments, IMHO.
BUT I do think it is ok to look at the person making the comments. They are not exactly champions of friendship and tolerance.

"I know of a community that teaches Love Thy Neighbour, even though for the last 34 years they have been tortured, tormented and murdered by violent republicanism."

Maca, thanks for playing the ball!

Lets turn Paisley jnrs own words on him. The accusation has been made, its up to him to prove his innocence.

Did IP Jnr approach the press or did the press seek him out for a story ?

Mary McAleese is an intelligent woman, she's educated and she's from NI so she understands our sensitivities. In the interview she came out with an outrageous example of stereotyping that I would have expected from across the atlantic.

The Nazis raised children to hate jews - in the home and at school. I've seen some of their teaching materials for children.So my parents and teachers raised me to hate Catholics ? McAleese used the same dangerous generalisation that saw Loyalists attempt to justify their sectarianism - "some Catholics are IRA, Some Catholic Families have a republican tradition so all Catholics are IRA members or sympathisers and as such are fair game."

Pat Mc Larnon

"...it's up to him to prove his innocence."

What an interesting insight to republican jurisprudence.

Pakman,

Paisley jnr used the exact terminology after the Northern job regarding republicans. I am just showing up his hypocricy and I think yours.

Pat - looks to me more like you are kippering another red herring.

Davros,if you don't mind me saying,you're looking for things that aren't there.
Now her remarks were an attack on the education system of NI?

The woman made a simple error of forgetting to mention Catholics by citing an example of sectarianism which mentioned only Protestants.
Big deal.Hardly on a par with anything Paisley has come up with in the past.

If one looks over her comments objectively and leaves aside emotions,which I understand is not easy when your country is in question,but if one does this then you can see her comments are harmless.
People are seeing something in her words that frankly aren't there.
It's time for people to return to earth and be realistic.The woman is no bigot as her actions in the past have proven.
She merely cited an example of bigotry from her own experience growing up.

Alot of the people on this site are acting like it's the Salem Witch Trials!I'm expecting someone to write "Burn her!" any minute...

YI

'She merely cited an example of bigotry from her own experience growing up.'

No she didn't. She did not grow up as a protestant in Northern Ireland, so how does she know what Protestants were taught? If she had commented on Catholic hatred towards protestants, she could then have claimed that she was speaking from experience.

The answer of course is that you don't need to know anything to slander an entire community.

Now her remarks were an attack on the education system of NI?

I suggest you read a little about how German Children were taught about Jews in School and then consider how she phrased her comments.

"They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred of Catholics"

"Mick Fealty to Aquifer: I think you ought to be a bit more careful with your accusations, no matter how provoked you may feel!"

I was disappointed to read this comment by Mick. I never see him reprimanding payroll members of Sinn Fein IRA who regularly post anti-Protestant anti-Unionist sectarian comments. Yet many of us know people who were tortured and murdered by the Sinn Fein IRA death squads.

It's funny how Mary forgot to mention the IRA's links with the Nazis. She has insulted the entire Ulster Protestant community - she should resign.

Sorry P&C and Aq. I may have been a tad over zealous.

Davros,

looks to me that after having the run of the site since the Northern job unionists are melting and squealing under a little bit of heat.

ricardo,the fact that she didn't grow up a protestant is irrelevant.
People on this site didn't grow up Jewish after all.
As a Catholic she probably suffered abuse from protestants growing up.

Davors,I'm well aware of what happened in schools in Nazi Germany.
I'm not aware McAleese made any comparison with that and NI.
Read her comments.They are not as bad as people are believing they are.

No you weren't Mick. You were spot on and Aquifier's revealing comments about ``Catholic Poland'' needed to be dragged out into the open and given a good kicking.

It is commonly, and wrongly, reported that six million people died in the Holocaust. In fact it was six million Jews, but more than 11 million in total.

The second largest group of exterminated people? Oh yeah, Poles. As in, people from ``Catholic Poland''. Three million of them slaughtered after their country was invaded and enslaved.

The context was important, to highlight just how wrong Aquifier was. Her comment was a scandal.

Eh,

not meaning to interrupt, but... did any of you hear her comments and their context, as opposed to reading later coverage of what she said? She spoke very eloquently on the dangers of racist attitudes that creep into society. I only heard an edited version of what she said, but, reading the above you'd have no idea that spoke about anything other than northern ireland...

The fuller quote is:

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

I honestly don't think she means protestant kids are taught anything like this in school.

I think the main problem is the selectivity of the comments. It reenforces the old roles of Nortern Irish catholics as the victims, protestants as the bigots and agressors. At the least it was crass and insensitive at most a deliberate insult.

If Tony Blair had made a statement to the effect that Catholics taught their children to be terrorists there would be (justified) outrage.

However it has stopped us and the media talking about who robbed the Northern Bank and Bertie's response to it now hasn't it.

Does anyone think that children (in any community) re-invent the wheel when it comes to developing prejudicial/racist/sectarian attitudes?
Surely they acquire them from older members of their community.
The only alternative explanation is that they develope those attitudes afresh and that somehow they have some basis in reality...

...and what GAA Police ban is aquifer talking about?

With respect Billy, it was not my intention to drag any thing or one out "into the open and [be] given a good kicking".

As Richard Delevan pointed out here yesterday all of this discussion is dancing dangerously around the edge of Godwin's Law.

Whatever her honest intention, the President singled out one section of the population on the island as an example. That this population, which largely backed the war against Hitler, is outraged should surprise no one!

And, shamingly perhaps, these early morning remarks have set the theme for Ireland's day of Remembrance.

He may possibly be stuck in the last century maca. Just about fits the bill perfectly for here then!

First, I think President McAleese was wrong because she should have acknowledged hate filled attitudes have been taught from both sides of the "religious" divide. But her views were probably coloured by the fact that her family were burned out of their north Belfast home and her handicapped brother was severely beaten in a sectarian attack.

Ian Paisley jnr commenting on this is hypocritical in the extreme. Not jsut based on who is father is, but by his own mouth and actions does he stand condemned.

He was the main political figure involved in the Harryville siege - and on one occasion (to journalist Malahi O'Doherty, later recalled in a speech) - he claimed those people going to the chapel at Harryville were 'ethnically inferior' to those protesting.

Case closed.

I think they've actually misquoted her. AFAIK the actual quote is:

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

I think it's quite an important omission. She's making a good point in a broader context, although she could have been a bit more sensitive.

I'm sure Ian Jr grew up in a household that firmly believed in Love thy neighbour but there were, undoubtedly, people in Northern Ireland who transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Protestants.

She doesn't specifically mention any names, maybe she was referring to Loyalists and not Unionists or Protestants?

I won't defend the unfortunate way McAleese chose her words, or the selectivity of the examples she used - but the statement taken at face value is factual. People (not all of the people, not a majority of the people, and not "Protestants", the word Protestant does not appear anywhere in McAleese's statement - just "people") in Northern Ireland *did* bring their kids up to hate Catholics, Ian Paisley Jnr's own father stood right on the Shankill Road naming the Catholics in the neighbourhood and rhetorically asking the local residents why they were still there.

McAleese declined to mention that people also brought their kids up to hate Protestants. On balance, comparisons between what the Nazis were doing in Auschwitz and what took place here are way off the mark, as is talk of "ethnic cleansing" which is unfortunately used only too lightly by politicians of various flavours in this place.

The statement by President McAleese was an error, but it is factually correct.

There are "people" in Northen Ireland that have transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things.

Her error was to omit "people" doing the same for example , "of Protestants".

However to suggest that she was indicting "the protestant community" as some have suggested is inaccurate, and those that claim that such a well defined unit exists, are by definition "sectarian".

Her remarks were perhaps a little over the top and poorly timed, but she had a point. The subjugation of a minority/minorities is certainly one ideological pursuit that both one-party states (Germany and Northern Ireland) shared.

As someone who visited her house over the summer and was impressed by her outreach to the pro-British minority in the republic I was disgusted by her comments.

Yes there are protestants who pass on sectarianism to their children but there are also catholics who do exactly the same thing. It is a problem on both sides, I would have thought someone who had grown up in Belfast would appreciate that. The solution certainly isn't to vilify only protestants for it and compare them to Nazis. I think an apology is most certainly due if she wishes to salvage any respect.

A spokesperson has clarified...
"The President was speaking about how the effects of hatred and intolerance are seen around the world and how they can impact on our children and one of the examples she used was Northern Ireland," she said.

"Her comments were never intended to single out the Protestant people of Northern Ireland."

If I may comment as an outsider on this sensitive topic and i hope that I am playing la pelota.

1) Though there is ample proof that Poland Catholics suffered under the Nazi regime, there is also ample proof that they helped the Germans into rounding up Jews for extermination, Ukranians were also known to do this as well. There is an excellent book called Hitler's Willing Executioners. It details the role of ordinary Germans and Poles in the Holocaust.

2) I do not know this woman, but I think her point was that there was a generation of some protestants that taught their kids hate, I mean how else would this sectarianism have gone on? After all, she was burned out of her home. And If I am not mistaken there were mobs of protestants who burned Catholics out of their homes in the late 60's? Or no? Some things have to be recognized and acknowledged, and perhaps the comparison to Nazi germany was over the top, but you have to admit that some of those things did go on and Catholics in Northern Ireland did live in a state of Apartheid for many years.

I just heard her comments on the net and I have to agree with muckys earlier comments, it does make a big difference when you read what she really said:

"They gave to their children an irrational hatred of Jews in the same way that people [i.e. all people] in Northern Ireland transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example of Catholics..."

It was wrong to add the example but her main point includes catholics as well.

1) Though there is ample proof that Poland Catholics suffered under the Nazi regime, there is also ample proof that they helped the Germans into rounding up Jews for extermination, Ukranians were also known to do this as well. There is an excellent book called Hitler's Willing Executioners. It details the role of ordinary Germans and Poles in the Holocaust.

It goes a lot further than that. A Cardinal was after all jailed for assisting in the Genocide. Cardinal Stepinac.

Davros,

Did your good book happen to mention what became of the Jews who found themselves trapped on the Channel Islands?

Yes Davros, it did go further, just as the apartheid conditions in which the Catholics of Ulster lived can not be denied. The Unionist state of the past taught their supporters to look at Catholics as second class citizens. Surely that is not the case now, but it was and prominent protestants who are now in office led marches against Catholics and I have seen photographs of this man who enjoys support in NI leading marches with signs sending all Catholics to hell.

Mick

Can I suggest a follow on from Godwin's Law, after reading this quote?

SDLP leader Mark Durkan said the Holocaust could teach everyone "lessons about the danger of unchecked prejudice and unchallenged persecution".

"The Holocaust memorial event in the north has always referred to the lessons for our own society, which has its own prejudices around difference," he said.

Durkan's Law:

"The longer a discussion on any conflict outside Northern Ireland goes on, the more likely it is to be unjustifiably compared to the 'Troubles' and the probability of lessons NOT being learned by the natives approaches 1."

Yes Davros, it did go further, just as the apartheid conditions in which the Catholics of Ulster lived can not be denied.

oh yes they bloo*dy can matey. Where were the pass laws , the segregated toilets etc ?

Davros,

What happened to the Jews on the Channel Islands who were 'protected' by British Bobbies? They were not quite in Cardinal Stepanic's dioscese, so what's your explanation for their deportation to the death camps?

barney- we are discussing religious bias. Please provide proof that protestant clerics in the Channel Islands tried forced conversions or behaved as Franciscan Friars did in both pointing out and shipping Jewish people off to their death.

Davros- You are not seriously denying that the Catholics of Ulster lived in apartheid like conditions in the past?

Note how I said "like conditions".

That is as silly as the Vatican denying that they helped Nazis escaped to my country.

Be more specific Mario. Discrimination was and still is a 2 way street here. Can you tell me where In South Africa Black people were able to discriminate against white people as happened in Nationalist controlled councils here ?

By all means point out that there was discrimination. But I resent the attempt to pretend that it was all one way - as happened under apartheid in which the minority community were collectively totally in the wrong.

Can I be the first to invoke Durkan's Law?

:o)

You want to associate yourself with Durkan ? ;)

Davros,

It is foer you to make the case that the British Jews were killed as part of some Catholic conspiracy. The fate of the unfortunate Channel Islanders undermines your case somewhat. The Jews were betrayed all over Europe and the religion of there persecutors didn't have much to do with it. Shame on you for using the holocaust to try to score a cheap point against your beleagured oppressed Catholic neighbours. The president's observations were not so wide of the mark after all.

Davros – Was there not a RUC that consistently harrassed and intimidated Catholics? Were not Catholics area more underdeveloped, were not Catholics discriminated in employment? Were thousands of inocent Catholics not interned? Who did the interment? Was there not a Unionist state in power? So the Civil Rights marchers were just marching for a little excercise and to prevent obesity levels in NI?

I am not saying that the Falls Roads was the equivalent of Soweto, but how can you denny that a state that denied 40% of its population access was righteous. Power was in Unionist hands in those days. Catholics had no power. Now, it very well could be that Blacks in Soweto could have prevented whites from living there , if a white chose to live there, but you would consider this discrimination on an equal level?

Yes, it is not the same today and I agree that it goes both ways, but surely you can not honestly type on that keyboard that there was equality in the past and that both communities had the same amount of power.

Gonzo- What is Durkans Law?

Barney - you are wrong :) I haven't made any claims to do with the Channel Islands, you are blethering. I haven't claimed that British Jews were killed because of any Catholic Conspiracy.
I have developed Mario's point about Catholic Complicity in War Crimes by mentioning Stepinac, Forced Conversions and Franciscan involvement in Genocide. Does Hubert Butler ring any bells ?

I am not saying that the Falls Roads was the equivalent of Soweto,

Good. Then drop the hyperbole about Apartheid. It's another example of piggy-backing MOPEry that is disrespectful to those who suffered under apartheid, just as attempts to piggy-back Irish experiences onto the horrors of the Holocaust is disrespectful to those who suffered during the 30's and 40's.

I disagree mi amigo Davros, I still hold that an oficial policy of segregation existed in Ulster. It was not called a Unionist state for nothing. Are you saying that Catholics did not suffer under this regime?

So it is your contention that the Civil rights marchers that were massacred by the British goverment were just out for a stroll? Interment never happened? Gerrymandering, Substandard housing? A sectarian police force?

If you read my comments I am always careful not to compare. I stay away from "MOPEry"

Mario

My post at January 28, 2005 08:03 PM might explain.

Does anyone thing that McAleese is owed an apology by whoever misreported her comment on Morning Ireland? ;o)

Sorry Mario, you are talking blethers. Apartheid is a specific term for a system that did not apply in NI. And it's obvious you have been spending too much time on sites like The Irish People and The PFC.

Thus I said Apartheid like conditions Davros. Aparheid being a system of segregation by race.

I have never been to those sites. No need to insult me my friend.

For the record, I am not a Roman Catholic, but a mere Argentine Socialist.

I said in the begining that I was viewing this as an outsider. There is no need to offend me camarada Davros..

You still have not answered my question. Do you denny that the state discriminated against Catholics in the past? Si o no.

Mario, an official policy of segregation did not exist in Northern Ireland. There were no laws on the books which accorded specific rights to people depending on their religion. This is why there is no sensible comparison to Nazi Germany or to South Africa under Apartheid. The Stormont government was - in law - entirely equitable.

It was the people charged with enforcing the laws or providing those public services who were behind the problem, alongside the lack of a legislative framework to prevent discrimination.

quite true Roger-
Noone denies there was discrimination in the allocation of housing by individuals, but it is interetsing to see that in Newry, for example the argument that Protestants did not receive sufficient houses is sustainable from the statistics. No it's not a piece of whataboutery, just a comment on how a woefully inadequate and archaic system of housing allocation and building was capable of exploitation. And ultimately that was the responsibility of a government

Hubert Butler is just one in a long line of dead horse floggers. What's his appeal for you Davros?

Hubert Butler is just one in a long line of dead horse floggers. What's his appeal for you Davros?

Barney - I notice you have backed off from your claims about the Channel Islands.

What are your thoughts on the behaviour of Stepinac and the forced conversion issue? The Franciscans in Croatia during WWII ? Andrja Artukovic - Interior minister in the Utashe regime - introduced 'racial purity' laws whereupon Stepinac wrote and congratulated him and asked only that catholic non-aryans be treated with 'respect' ? Smuggled by the Church to Dublin after the war. After the War Stepinac was sentenced to 16 years - but rather than apologise for church actions or criticise Pius XII actually promoted the man to Cardinal. Irish catholic Children were amde to pray for him as a 'victim of communism' ... and that was where Hubert butler came into it as he dared ask awkward questions and paid the price. What are your thoughts on that barney ?

I'm glad the President has apologised and I'm impressed with the unionist reaction to the apology.

I hope we are as gracious if Paisley ever apologises for his many remarks about Catholics or if David Trimble ever apologises for his comments about the south.

I was wondering Henry- do you think the Unionists would have reacted differently to the apology if this had been someone from the ROI who had made the comments and then apologised ?

Davros

You mean if it had been President Mary Robinson for example? I don't think it would have been that different. Both of them had built up a certain political capital with unionists.

I think the reaction would have been the same. Why do you ask?

I suspect that we in the North are prepared to forgive "Northerners" more readily than "Southerners". Is there a hint of "she's one of our own"? Is there a hint, a begrudging recognition that having suffered personally we should cut her some slack, give her some leeway ?
If someone we would have considered to have been an outsider had said this I suspect that the reaction to the apology wouldn't have been as positive.
Regarding Trimble's remarks - plenty of Southerner's have written much the same sort of thing, I suspect the offence was to some extent because he was an outsider. I know if I think back I don't get anything like as annoyed with criticisms of NI from people such as cg and pat as I do from someone in Canada or USA or Australia who had a great, great grandfather allegedly from here. I know that it's a common reaction from people from the ROI to criticism from Northerners - "what would you know about us ?"
And in respect of that "learned gentleman" who made the silly remarks about the Red Hand - would we all have been quite so upset if it had been someone like Paisley or Sammy W or Danny M or Mary Lou ? We would probably have laughed and said - "Typical nonsense from that bollix ".

davidbrew, I couldn't argue with that. The system was poorly run and open to being exploited in this manner, and if there had been oversight allowing the public to see what was going on I've no doubt that it would have been less significant. The creation of the Housing Executive by the Stormont Parliament suggests that the NI government at the time was moving seriously to try to fix this, and it resolved many of those problems at a stroke. History might have been different if it had come into existence five years earlier.

Daavros

You probably have a point. I suppose most groups react differently to internal and external criticism. It depends on who you consider external and internal. For me the Secretary of State is external and the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs is internal.

I take your point about officialdom Henry. But we have always had parochialism - even now Munster men look askance at Diktat from Leinster, Derry wans resent Belfast. And I suspect that despite the All- Ireland Identity being deeply felt, there's an edge to Northern Nationalism, a feeling of "difference" because Northern Nationalists see themselves as living under foreign rule ?

Shay Paul

There are "people" in Northen Ireland that have transmitted to their children an irrational hatred, for example, of Catholics, in the same way that people give to their children an outrageous and irrational hatred of those who are of different colour and all of those things.

She didn't say that. She said in the same way that the Nazis transmitted an irrational hatred of Jews.

Stop twisting things.

Mario

And If I am not mistaken there were mobs of protestants who burned Catholics out of their homes in the late 60's? Or no?

Many Protestants were also forced from their homes by mobs of Roman Catholics.

... and Catholics in Northern Ireland did live in a state of Apartheid for many years.

No they didn't. That is complete nonsense.

... just as the apartheid conditions in which the Catholics of Ulster lived can not be denied.

They can be denied. I deny them.

If there was "apartheid" - in the literal sense of separateness, i.e. two communities living in separate communities - the primary proponent of such a situation was the Roman Catholic Church.

I disagree mi amigo Davros, I still hold that an oficial policy of segregation existed in Ulster.

Yes, put in place and implemented by the Roman Catholic Church!

I have been thinking about the point made that it's important that we remember she used "for example" in her speech. It doesn't make any difference.

There is corruption in politics. Mr X takes bribes.

There is corruption in politics, for example, Mr X takes bribes.

Would the insertion of that 'for example' mean that I have no longer defamed Mr X ?

I think it does make some difference, in that it leaves room for a more benign interpretation of her remarks (i.e. she's not damning Protestants only). But the fact that she uses (Protestants in general) as an example is still offensive to Protestants generally.

That would be my take on it too Willow.

Davros

Would the insertion of that 'for example' mean that I have no longer defamed Mr X ?

Not if he took bribes.

Henry - in my example Mr X has never been convicted of taking bribes ;)

Davros

Has Hugh Orde said he did?

I'm a little uncertain as to why there is such a concerted effort to divert from the nakedly sectarian conditions in the North that led to NICRA and the mass burnings of Catholics out of their homes by the references to Protestants burned out of theirs. You don't need to shoot or beat someone with baseball bats to subject them to violence.

I'm not denying for a moment that there was isolated pockets of Protestants who were targetted, but it is offensive to use these cases to divert attention from the massive systematic discrimination against Catholics.

Even if this was not "official policy," there was discrimination against a minority by the majority. Of course, this arrangement does leave room for plausible deniability.

Why don't we see more expressions of regret and shame for this violent unionist sectarianism instead of feeble attempts to avoid the issue?

Why don't we see more expressions of regret and shame for this violent unionist sectarianism instead of feeble attempts to avoid the issue?

Because of the exaggerated nature of the claims made and a reluctance to give anyone a chance to claim that there was any justification for terrorism.

Davros,

Because of the exaggerated nature of the claims made and a reluctance to give anyone a chance to claim that there was any justification for terrorism.

Exaggerated? The largest forced movement of people since the end of WWII is exaggerated? 30,000 catholics burned/force out of their houses fled south, exaggerated? Cop yourself on.

Given your recent comment about how important it is to you to hear Republicans confess their actions as crimes, you should understand how the Nationalist community feel about Unionisms inability to confront their own criminal/sectarian acts.

Even if this was not "official policy," there was discrimination against a minority by the majority. Of course, this arrangement does leave room for plausible deniability.

Well said JD, this was my point, but what I see is total denial on the part of some Unionists here.

Can it be possible that two communities feel they have two totally different histories? I am hesitant to go on, as I have made clear that Ulster is not my country, but I will say that from my readings , I think that there was blatant discrimination against the ROman Catholic minority. Some people seem hung up on the fact hat there were no laws in the book. Well, Stalin did not have any laws in his books and clearly that didnt stop them. And please, before you jump at me, I am NOT comparing NI to Stalinist Russia.

I cant see why somebody would say that ROman Catholics were the seperatists when they didnt have the power.

Even if this was not "official policy," there was discrimination against a minority by the majority. Of course, this arrangement does leave room for plausible deniability.

Well said JD, this was my point, but what I see is total denial on the part of some Unionists here.

Can it be possible that two communities feel they have two totally different histories? I am hesitant to go on, as I have made clear that Ulster is not my country, but I will say that from my readings , I think that there was blatant discrimination against the ROman Catholic minority. Some people seem hung up on the fact hat there were no laws in the book. Well, Stalin did not have any laws in his books and clearly that didnt stop them. And please, before you jump at me, I am NOT comparing NI to Stalinist Russia.

I cant see why somebody would say that ROman Catholics were the seperatists when they didnt have the power.

The largest forced movement of people since the end of WWII is exaggerated?

deffo American ;)

How many people were forced to move in the US "Strategic Hamlet" program during the Vietnam War Robert ? That was, after all, after the end of WWII.

Davros,

How many people were forced to move in the US "Strategic Hamlet" program during the Vietnam War Robert ? That was, after all, after the end of WWII.

Wow, you did it! I am impressed. You are in this instance correct. I meant to say "The largest force movement of people in Europe since the end of WWII." Thanks for catching that.

I notice that you don't dispute the figures though.

deffo American ;)

*bzzzt* try again.

"The largest force movement of people in Europe since the end of WWII."

Oh dear me - after the end of WWII MILLIONS of ethnic Germans were forcibly moved from Poland and Czechoslovakia.

I've just explained on another thread that there is no parallel whatsoever between Apartheid South Africa and mid-C20th NI.

However, Mario has a point. Firstly, of course there are different histories - indeed, NI's political parties rely on these different histories (and accompanying myths) for their very existence. Secondly, the lack of laws in the book does not mean there was no discrimination.

The late John White wrote the definitive work on this in 1983. I hope I am not abridging too much (but I may be) when he essentially suggested that 'discrimination' was generally too strong a term for most policies and practices, though it no doubt existed in certain circumstances (indeed both 'ways'). However, there is no question that the 'minority community' was defined as such and that it was often treated unfairly. I think few would doubt this was partly plain bigotry, but it was also largely ignorance.

The real problem comes about when some Nationalists try to align themselves with groups that were in fact clearly far more deprived than Catholics in NI ever were - and this is sickeningly used as a way of gaining support (and funds) outside NI (while being most unhelpful inside NI); or alternatively when some Unionists try to deny there was any hint of unfairness at all (has that farcical bit on the uup.org website about how well they ran NI 1921-72 been removed yet?)

The result? General 'whataboutery', MOPEing (MOPE = 'Most Oppressed People Ever'), mistrust, social division, conflict...

To deliberately use a phrase that unifies us all and shows how NI residents are the best people to sort out NI... it's time we caught ourselves on!

What's the title of the book IJP ?

Oh dear me - after the end of WWII MILLIONS of ethnic Germans were forcibly moved from Poland and Czechoslovakia.

Oh dear me - more sophistry Davros. I was going to say "As you are perfectly aware.." but I guess you aren't. The events you refer to were a direct consequence of the peace treaties of WWII and are considered part and parcel of WWII.

I notice you'd rather play games about comparing mass movements, than engage in the substance of Unionist abuse in the Northern Ireland state. Anything to avoid the painful truth?

IJP

After the McAleese comments and the 'red hand' debate, do you think unionism is making a late bid to be top of the MOPEs?

;op

Robert - How many people were moved in the Balkans during the 90's by the Serbians ? Hundreds of thousands.

whoops. That should have read Robert - How many people were moved in the Balkans during the 90's by the Serbians ? Hundreds of thousands moved in the Balkans because of the various factions activities.

Davros,

you'll talk about anything else other than the events that occurred in Northern Ireland. Why is that?

Do you disagree that tens of thousands of catholics were burned/forced out of their homes at the end of the 60s? Is it your contention that this is an exaggeration?

you'll talk about anything else other than the events that occurred in Northern Ireland. Why is that?

RK - I'm too busy correcting your exaggerations and mistakes ;)

JD

The President implied that Protestants teach their children to hate Roman Catholics in the same way that the Nazis taught children to hate Jews.

To object to this slur does not mean one denies the discrimination of the past.

"The President implied that Protestants teach their children to hate Roman Catholics"

I could be an completely pedantic fucker here and say tht she never said "Roman" catholic, and since you yourself said protestants ARE catholic surely this applies to the vast majourity of NI folk. As I said, I could, but i'd never do such a thing ;)

"To object to this slur does not mean one denies the discrimination of the past"

Very true.

I could be an completely pedantic fucker here and say tht she never said "Roman" catholic

And I could point out that I never said that she said Roman Catholic. I said she implied that Protestants teach their children to hate Roman Catholics: which she did.

True.

Because of the exaggerated nature of the claims made and a reluctance to give anyone a chance to claim that there was any justification for terrorism.

Therein lies my problem with this "debate."

Unionists can't be seen to offer any "justification," so they won't express any shame for the treatment of Catholics? Can anyone see what's wrong with that approach?

You'd do better to call it what it was: an absolute shame and disgrace.

To not do so not only removes historical responsibility and accountability, but also invisibilises the conditions and causes of the Troubles.

Unionists can't be seen to offer any "justification," so they won't express any shame for the treatment of Catholics?

JD- you'll see on this site that most "unionist" posters do condemn previous mistreatment of RCs, something I have yet to see from most of our "nationalist" contributors about discrimination against Protestants.
There's an element of the " have you stopped beating your wife" about this topic. I cannot/won't express regret or shame about the grossly exaggerated claims made such as that there was "apartheid".

you'll see on this site that most "unionist" posters do condemn previous mistreatment of RCs, something I have yet to see from most of our "nationalist" contributors about discrimination against Protestants.

On the first point, that's not my experience of this site. Some "unionist" posters do "condemn." Not "most." I've also seen a lot of "fudge." Is "condemn" the same as feeling "shame"?

On the second point, fair enough. But I notice that once again there is a suggestion of parity in being discriminated against.

I cannot/won't express regret or shame about the grossly exaggerated claims made such as that there was "apartheid".

No one said unionist-run NI was an apartheid regime. One person drew a parallel on the basis of discriminatory practices.

Is there a name for the widespread and systematic discrimination against a minority which never was written down as such but whose very real effects were still felt?

Why should I feel shame for something that I didn't do and something that I oppose?

Why should I feel shame for something that I didn't do and something that I oppose?

It's already amply clear that you accept no responsibility.

That's too bad.

JD- do you accept responsibility for the massacres of 1641 ? Same principle.

I took great pains to point out that NI was not South Africa and that the Falls Roads was not Soweto, but some still seem to be wanting to accuse somebody of “spending too much time on some obscure sites”. No one is suggesting that the sufering of Roman Catholics in the North comes even close to the suffering of black south Africans.

The funny thing about all this is, that when I pointed out the role of Polish Roman Catholics in the Holocaust they wer quick to agree and provide more evidence of Roman Catholic wrong doing not only in Poland, but in Croatia as well. I went as far as point out the Vatican’s role in helping war criminals escape to my country Argentina.

But when I said that a policy ( though not griten) of discrimination existed, I was attacked imediately, and the denials kept comino. It would seem that some take it too personal as if somebody is accusing them of the discriminatory practices of the past.

A society which refuses to accept the wrongs done to others in the past will continue to be divided.

It is no surprise then that the majority of the population chooses two parties in the extreme who use two different versions of history to obtain political capital. If educated people view it this way than what about the popular massess and the workers and the every day people, do they live in a society with two totally different concepts of history?

JD- do you accept responsibility for the massacres of 1641 ? Same principle.

"Principle": a hollow yet convenient derailment of the question and issue. "Principle" covers up the fact that there are people alive now who argued for and kept the discrimination going.

However, your attempt to equate 1969 with 1641 on the basis of "principle" is instructive. If your point is that "it's all in the past," and if 1969 is now somehow as lost in the mists of time as 1641, what is going on when people celebrate, for example, 1690? Re-enactment of the past makes it a present concern. The past is never simply past.

I should also mention that at school, I was often made to feel shame for certain acts carried out in the name of Republicanism.

Nice evasion JD. WF opposes what happened in 1969 and took no part in it. I assume you oppose the massacres in 1641 and obviously took no part.
Yet you are demanding that WF take's responsibility for events of the past ?

The only people "re-enacting" Bombay street are on your side of TDF.God help anybody on our side of the fence who wishes to mention anything that reflects badly on republicans ... then we hit "in the past, time to move on " overdrive. La mon ? Wails of anguish. The abduction and murder of Jean McConville ? Wails of anguish. The abduction from school and murder by the IRA of a boy with learning difficulties? Wails of anguish. Hands wrung until they bleed. Of course we can discuss Holy Cross - but not the abduction and murder by the IRA from a school, or the shooting by the IRA of Liam Staunton outside a school on the Falls Road in 1972. Hell, some of you have the affrontery to say they weren't even crimes.

When I wrote:

I should also mention that at school, I was often made to feel shame for certain acts carried out in the name of Republicanism.

I meant it. No evasion. I felt shame for things I had no hand in. WF is either unable or doesn't want to. And that's too bad.

JD- you specifically criticised him for refusing to accept responsibility. Hence my question.

"It's already amply clear that you accept no responsibility.

That's too bad.

Posted by: JD [TypeKey Profile Page] at January 31, 2005 07:18 PM "

JD

It's already amply clear that you accept no responsibility. That's too bad.

What exactly do you want me to accept responsibility for?

I should also mention that at school, I was often made to feel shame for certain acts carried out in the name of Republicanism.

If you were a supporter of those republican acts, or the organisations responsible for them, then that was fair enough. If not, then that was unfair.

Mario

No one is suggesting that the sufering of Roman Catholics in the North comes even close to the suffering of black south Africans.

Then why did you say: "... and Catholics in Northern Ireland did live in a state of Apartheid for many years"?

But when I said that a policy ( though not griten) of discrimination existed, I was attacked imediately, and the denials kept comino. It would seem that some take it too personal as if somebody is accusing them of the discriminatory practices of the past.

As IJP pointed out, it is not at all clear that there was a "policy" of discrimination. More like a turning of a blind eye to discrimination.

A society which refuses to accept the wrongs done to others in the past will continue to be divided.

Maybe so. I think it's fair to say, however, that unionists generally do accept the wrongs of the Stormont regime (while questioning and challenging exaggeration).

Provisional republicans, on the other hand, do not accept that their murder and terror campaign was wrong.

Equally important WF - even IF the claims about NI were accurate the IRA was wrong to murder and bomb and terrorise. There was a political alternative available. They CHOSE not to engage.

I do hope that you not read into this any support for IRA terrorists on my part. I have never supported any sort of terrorism, state or otherwise. It is wrong to murder others just as it was wrong to murder civil rights workers in NI.

I dont think that the majority of Republicans in NI justify the IRA's murder campaign and I would bet most would admit so.

Further thoughts about McAleese's remark:

Is there a difference in interpretation, possibly along unionist/nationalist lines, as to what was meant by 'people in Northern Ireland'?

When I read McAleese's remark, I honestly did not interpret 'people in Northern Ireland' as in any way intended to imply that the majority, or even a reasonably large proportion, of Protestants in Northern Ireland transmitted hatred to their children. I took 'people in Northern Ireland' to mean simply and primarily that: 'people' who transmitted hatred.

Now, one can make a reasonable assumption that such people would be Protestant, but it would have required, for me at least, to make a rather large inferential leap in order to take her remarks as meaning that an entire community, or even a majority of that community, or even a significant minority of that community, taught hatred to their children in the same way as Nazis did to theirs.

But perhaps that is because I was brought up an RC in NI, and my way of reading and interpreting the remarks of another NI RC could differ from that of people in NI who were brought up as Protestants.

As I said on another post, her comments were ill-judged and one-sided. She should have mentioned hatred of Protestants. However, I think that her remarks have been wilfully misread and misinterpreted by some people (note that when I say some people, I don't mean 'Protestants') in media and political circles, for maximum publicity.

People who make a living of inferring nuances off the back of other nuances all of a sudden turned into literal fundamentalists, with scant regard for context or circumstance.

In short, 'People in Northern Ireland' does not, and should not, be taken to mean 'Protestant'. Especially when it's an NI Catholic who's talking.

Now, one can make a reasonable assumption that such people would be Protestant, but it would have required, for me at least, to make a rather large inferential leap in order to take her remarks as meaning that an entire community, or even a majority of that community, or even a significant minority of that community, taught hatred to their children in the same way as Nazis did to theirs.

I understand from where you are coming SJ. However the "as Nazis did" is the crux - Formally, openly , in the home, in the media and in the school 24/7. When we talk of the nazis and how they did it we're not talking about a minority of a localised majority.We are talking of, with some exceptions, the ordinary public. I would say that it was my experience that those who passed on hatred in NI were the exception rather than the rule. And I would suggest that the type of "hatred" passed on in Ireland by both sides was generally very different -political emnity and distrust rather than the belief that the other side were sub-human or vermin to be exterminated.

Incidentally, this may be of interest as an illustration -

Packie's years of terror

If what the President said was true, would someone who could be so demonised as a member of both the UDA and UVF have played with the Young Bobby Sands if he had been brainwashed from birth to hate Catholics ? And obviously the same for Bobby Sands. One of the most demonised figures of my youth, Bernadette Devlin wrote with great affection of an orangeman she called her "uncle".
Bad and all as things were and still are here, I don't think it does anyone credit to suggest that what the President said originally was fair comment.

Incidentally, this may be of interest as an illustration -

Packie's years of terror

If what the President said was true, would someone who could be so demonised as a member of both the UDA and UVF have played with the Young Bobby Sands if he had been brainwashed from birth to hate Catholics ? And obviously the same for Bobby Sands. One of the most demonised figures of my youth, Bernadette Devlin wrote with great affection of an orangeman she called her "uncle".
Bad and all as things were and still are here, I don't think it does anyone credit to suggest that what the President said originally was fair comment.

Shame and responsibility are interlinked, Davros. Both are admissions of responsibility/ guilt. I am also talking about taking personal responsibility for the actions of one's community.

I'm not suggesting anything outlandish.

More thoughts about the actual thread topic - several posters have claimed that McAleese's remark was deliberate, with the justification that she is a smart, media-savvy person who would have known better. She simply underestimated the reaction, or so the claim goes.

My question is, how could such a person not be intelligent enough to anticipate the reaction? I mean, is there anyone here who is surprised at the reaction? It seems to me that it would be far stupider to have thought that such a comment would not draw the reaction it has than it would be to make the statement without thinking it through.

At 8.58pm last night, I asked JD to explain what exactly he wants me to accept responsibility for.

He declined to answer.

Davros

As the woman herself pointed out, it was a clumsy remark, so I would not make any claim that it was somehow 'fair comment'.

'In the same way the Nazis did' is indeed a rather clumsy formulation. I suppose you have to ask yourself, though: in light of what you already know about this person, is it reasonable to infer, from this remark, that she is intentionally, or even subliminally, attempting to smearing all Protestants in Northern Ireland?

I think it is perfectly fair to argue that this was a person sincerely trying to make a serious point, in light of the occasion, about how prejudice gets passed on from one generation to the next, and how we should be vigilant against it.

She sought to illustrate this, for the benefit of her audience, with what we would both recognise as her most immediate example, yet she did not acknowledge simultaneously a hatred of Protestants. That was the main deficiency of her remarks. I do not know why she failed to do this, but I think that it is prejudiced to imply, as many appear to have done, that this was evidence of 'the mask slipping'. As you might say Davros, the reasons her omission may have been complex and multi-factorial :).

Now, to compound matters, the use of the term 'in the same way the Nazis did' is, as you point out, a very serious description indeed.

Again, though, I think you should ask yourself if her intention, given what you already know about her, was to imply, in order to smear, that the majority of Northern Protestants methodically inculcated in their children a hatred of Catholics, using exactly the same methods as the Nazis. If your answer is yes, then perhaps you can tell me what motivation this person would have to do such a thing. Because I cannot see any reason, given what I already know about this person, for her to use her position to make claims for systematic brainwashing practised by the majority.

Or, put another way, do you really believe, given the source you quote, that Mary McAleese is somehow more prejudiced and less objective than Bernadette Devlin? If so, why?

Finally, with regard to your comment that 'the type of "hatred" passed on in Ireland by both sides was generally very different -political emnity and distrust rather than the belief that the other side were sub-human or vermin to be exterminated.',

I am sure that you would agree with me that anti-semitism was fuelled in Germany, under the Nazis, by fomentation of political emnity and distrust. This political emnity and distrust fed off essentializing prejudices.

To kill someone simply because of their religion doesn't just require political emnity and distrust - it requires a fair amount of essentializing prejudice - something that was never in short supply in Northern Ireland. And it is that type of prejudice that we should seek to eliminate. I think that that was the point, however clumsily expressed, of Mary McAleese's remarks.

I am sure that you would agree with me that anti-semitism was fuelled in Germany, under the Nazis, by fomentation of political emnity and distrust.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'fomentation of political emnity' in this context SJ. Jews weren't condemned for political beliefs or affiliations, they were condemned for existing. That's why even converts and people with jewish parent or grandparents who didn't regard themselves a jewish were murdered. One of the reasons I dislike this
"celt" business, gael vs gall.

Davros

I fear we may be getting into entanglements over the meaning of words. Which is fine - we interpret words in different ways, depending on our own experiences and backgrounds. Where we get into difficulty is when we try to pin down words or phrases so that they can only have one meaning or interpretation.

Now -

'Jews weren't condemned for political beliefs or affiliations, they were condemned for existing.'

Allow me to clarify. I am not seeking to diminish in any way the systematic dehumanization and extermination of Jews by the Nazis. It is a while since I formally studied the matter, and my only conclusion is that I do not believe that I have the cognitive capacity to imagine the full extent of such a horror, nor to fully conceptualize the foul racial ideology that led to it.

However, what I wanted to point out in this case is that the Nazis also legitimated their racial ideology and its outworkings by blaming Jews for political events. Perhaps 'political enmity', then, is not strong enough a term, and also enmity, which often has overtones of mutuality, is not the best term to use here.

To develop the point I was trying to make, hatred and suspicion of Jews was fomented not only as a result of racial, but also political propaganda. Jews were deemed by the Nazis, for example to be co-conspirators in the perceived threat of Bolshevism; they were blamed, for example, for the burning of the Reichstag, and for profiteering during an era of severe economic depression.

Such hatred and suspicion, therefore, could only serve to heighten essentialized prejudice. And such prejudice, even at a considerably lower level, should be challenged at every turn, because of its consequences. I think that that was the message that Mary McAleese was trying to get across, by using, albeit clumsily and one-sidedly, the example closest to home. It would be wrong to say that such essentialized prejudice did not exist in NI. On both sides. Or, to use my own preferred term, everywhere.

It is wholly inappropriate to draw comparison between the actions of the Nazis and those of Protestants in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that continued reference to both within the same sentence serves to give the undue impression that such a comparison could even merit debate. But it is my view, based on what I know of Mary McAleese (and I am not a big a fan as you may think), and based on my interpretation of her comments, that such a comparison was not her intention.

Now, any chance you (or anyone else so inclined) might answer the questions I posed in my previous post?

Davros

I fear we may be getting into entanglements over the meaning of words. Which is fine - we interpret words in different ways, depending on our own experiences and backgrounds. Where we get into difficulty is when we try to pin down words or phrases so that they can only have one meaning or interpretation.

Now -

'Jews weren't condemned for political beliefs or affiliations, they were condemned for existing.'

Allow me to clarify. I am not seeking to diminish in any way the systematic dehumanization and extermination of Jews by the Nazis. It is a while since I formally studied the matter, and my only conclusion is that I do not believe that I have the cognitive capacity to imagine the full extent of such a horror, nor to fully conceptualize the foul racial ideology that led to it.

However, what I wanted to point out in this case is that the Nazis also legitimated their racial ideology and its outworkings by blaming Jews for political events. Perhaps 'political enmity', then, is not strong enough a term, and also enmity, which often has overtones of mutuality, is not the best term to use here.

To develop the point I was trying to make, hatred and suspicion of Jews was fomented not only as a result of racial, but also political propaganda. Jews were deemed by the Nazis, for example to be co-conspirators in the perceived threat of Bolshevism; they were blamed, for example, for the burning of the Reichstag, and for profiteering during an era of severe economic depression.

Such hatred and suspicion, therefore, could only serve to heighten essentialized prejudice. And such prejudice, even at a considerably lower level, should be challenged at every turn, because of its consequences. I think that that was the message that Mary McAleese was trying to get across, by using, albeit clumsily and one-sidedly, the example closest to home. It would be wrong to say that such essentialized prejudice did not exist in NI. On both sides. Or, to use my own preferred term, everywhere.

It is wholly inappropriate to draw comparison between the actions of the Nazis and those of Protestants in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that continued reference to both within the same sentence serves to give the undue impression that such a comparison could even merit debate. But it is my view, based on what I know of Mary McAleese (and I am not as big a fan as you may think), and based on my interpretation of her comments, that such a comparison was not her intention.

Now, any chance you (or anyone else so inclined) might answer the questions I posed in my previous post?

I suppose you have to ask yourself, though: in light of what you already know about this person, is it reasonable to infer, from this remark, that she is intentionally, or even subliminally, attempting to smearing all Protestants in Northern Ireland?

The jury is still out. I don't know what to make of her in the light of those comments. Certainly BD comes across better in "The Price of My Soul" than MM did in her interview. Time will tell.

Davros,

'The jury is still out. I don't know what to make of her in the light of those comments.'

I obviously did a great job of convincing you on that one then. :)

'Certainly BD comes across better in "The Price of My Soul" than MM did in her interview.'

I too had an uncle who was an Orangeman. Does that count for anything in my defence of MM?

He declined to answer.

The systematic discrimination against a minority carried out by those in power in the name of your religion.

Individual and collective responsibility are intertwined.

I too had an uncle who was an Orangeman. Does that count for anything in my defence of MM?

I always admire and congratulate people who come out ! :)

Individual and collective responsibility are intertwined.

You are arguing for the same notion of collective responsibility that loyalist paramilitaries used to justify any RCs because they felt that all RCs were collectively responsible for the actions of the IRA and INLA.

whoops:

You are arguing for the same notion of collective responsibility that loyalist paramilitaries used to justify sectarian attacks on any RCs because they felt that all RCs were collectively responsible for the actions of the IRA and INLA.

You are arguing for the same notion of collective responsibility that loyalist paramilitaries used to justify any RCs because they felt that all RCs were collectively responsible for the actions of the IRA and INLA.

Of course I am. And I'm arguing for, and justifying, killing in precisely the same manner as they did.

JD wants me to accept responsibility for “the systematic discrimination against a minority carried out by those in power in the name of your religion”.

Assuming I accept the premise, why on earth would I accept responsibility for something in which I played no part, and which I would oppose?

You are arguing for the same notion of collective responsibility that loyalist paramilitaries used to justify any RCs because they felt that all RCs were collectively responsible for the actions of the IRA and INLA. … Of course I am. And I'm arguing for, and justifying, killing in precisely the same manner as they did.

Is this guy for real?