Fr Reid went way over the top and he admits that. While there was discrimination, it was obviously nothing as bad as that of Nazi Germany. We ALL have a lot to thank him for. He put in decades of persistent pressure on SF and the IRA to abandon violence, and risked his own life to give the last rites to the two Corporals killed so horribly in Andersonstown. He has put in a lot of work with those of other faiths to bring the different christian denominations closer. I can understand how unionists feel upset, but they are not the only ones. Fr Reid will be HUGELY disappointed in himself too.

While the statement by Reid is disappointing, I have a very hard time to taking it as seriously as Munce because it really is in the realm of the absurd.

Reid's choice of words is fairly informative as it is almost a re-run of the Irish President's. This pattern tells us that this attitude must be something deep in the minds of many Irish nationalists in NI.

At a personal level I think it would be wrong to be too hard on Reid, here. It was obviously a much more serious matter when the Irish President blurted it out, as the head of the Irish Republic, in the calm surroundings of a TV studio, when we were supposed to be talking about Holocaust.

That error as well as Fr Reid's illustrates how many of us in Northern Ireland still tend to have a very NI-centric view of world affairs. It ges without saying Unionists are just as bad in this regard. Its a Northern Irish trait. Many of us appear unable to think about an issue without relating it to the Northern Ireland issue.

Reid's words were an error because he was supposed to be at that meeting in his role as an observer of decommissioning and he should not have side tracked. But his error is much more excusable than the Irish President's because he does not represent anyone but himself.

From all accounts the discussion in that room was heated and intense. Reid was probably just frustrated that he wasn't getting his point through. We have all been there. Clearly he is a man who takes things to heart and perhaps permits his heart to rule his head in what he says. I get the impressio that he is a decent enough bloke. The reports are the Dr Paisley and Fr Reid had a very meaningful conversation when they met.

I imagine this public meeting to have descended into the tone of one of those heated Slugger threads. Some posters, in that situation, we know would have a near-instinctual tendency to exagerate.

He has apologised. We should accept that and not give him a hard time. It was, after all, an absurd comparison. And Unionists have not, after all, always been angels themselves. Which is, in essence, the real point Reid was trying to make. Let unionists not be too self-righteous. And let us not ignore his real point.

Ian Paisley jr managed to demonsrate on hearts and minds how anti-catholic the DUP really are with his bigoted unsubstantiated assumptions about Fr Reid and the BBC.

A few more performances like this and they (the DUP) will undo Fr Reids 'own goal'.

Excellent post, slug, and william is spot on too.

What did Ian Paisley junior say?

It's the height of hypocrisy for Ian Paisley Junior to be criticising Father Reid when his own father, Paisley Senior has said far worse things about Catholics and 'NEVER, NEVER, NEVER' apologised.

There was massive discrimination by Unionism but the use of the term "Nazis" is really over the top. However, he was provoked by anti-Catholic bigotry from some in the audience.

Like Willie Fraser ranting on about supposed links between Clonard monastery and the PIRA, where he says weapons were stored. And he also said that "Catholics" butchered Protestants. Should he not be condemned for these remarks?

During the Old Stormont, a Catholic couldn't get a job as a bus-driver in Fermanagh. Unemployment in places like Derry, Strabane and Newry was around 30%, compared to 8% in NI overall.

Fr.Reids comments were disgraceful, there's no doubt. But it's not as if he just jumped up out of the blue and said them for no reason. He was being attacked:
"I was deeply provoked and offended by comments, many comments, about my church, my integrity and Clonard Monastery."

When are the bigots who insulted Fr.Reid going to apologise for their remarks?

As for Paisley and his kind, they are not worth even listening to.

Nigel Dodds:
"If unionists were to make similar remarks, they would be threatened with prosecution for inciting hatred."

I look forward to the day when Paisley Snr is behind bars where he belongs.

Interesting article by Gerry Moriary in todays IT, where he makes the point about Willy Frazer being a deeply troubled person.

I completely disagree with Frazer's campaign, but I do wonder if I had lost as much as he did, would I be just as bitter ?

As for Junior etc., he just made an even bigger fool of himself.

I have to say that for the first time in many years, I felt genuinely angry about a comment that I heard on the radio. It was no surprise that Talkback was snowed under with e:mails, texts & phone calls -- I was one of them.
Father Reid managed quite a feat the other night -- with one sentence he managed to insult:

1. The entire Unionist community -- good, bad & indifferent.
2. The vast majority of Nationalists & many of the Republican community -- even Alex Maskey thought he was being too strong.
3. His own intelligence.
4. (And perhaps most importantly) everyone who suffered and died at the hands of the Nazi regime.

Had Harold Good stood up and announced that the Roman Catholic church was the largest paedophile ring in the world, it couldn't have been any more offensive.
Whether or not Reid's comments were a threat to the peace process remains to be seen, but the damage to community relations is appalling.

I'm delighted but not surprised to see such intelligence on this question from Slugger's contributors.

I have great respect for Fr Ried but live debate is something he is proably not used to. I would suggest that his best work was done behind the scenes and maybe he should stick to that.

I'm certain that it's not the case but I'm amused by the thought that he was just pissed off because somebody else got the Nobel peace prize.

If 'right minded unionists' are offended at the comparison of the treatment by a Unionist regime of nationalists in 'Northern Ireland' from 1920 to the beginning of the Troubles and beyond to the Nazi treatment to the Jews, that's to be expected.
However they should come out now and acknowledge the historic facts and give reasonable nationalists an idea of how right thinking unionists view how nationalists were treated in NI.
Fr Reid has apologised. But unionists, right thinking of otherwise, have never properly acknowledged the shameful past of their political leaders and the regime their forefathers supported. In fact they spend their time denying it ever happened. Perhaps that's where the comparison with the Nazi regime rings true - just as you have Holocaust deniers we also have to put up with 'it wasn't like that' bleating from unionists about the shameful Protestant Parliament and Statelet for a Protestant People era.

A BBC commentator asked Fr Reid do you think your comments will hold up political progress.

Is this the goalposts being moved again, are we being told that there cannot be political progress here until Willie Frazer stops being angry.

This mans' grief has been elevated to a ridiculous level, many, many people have suffered in this society but no ones suffering should be used as an excuse for not moving forward.

But unionists, right thinking of otherwise, have never properly acknowledged the shameful past of their political leaders and the regime their forefathers supported. In fact they spend their time denying it ever happened.

Oilbbear Chromaill

I put it to IJP on another thread that we might have to face the fact that we will never agree on the past. I'd swap any number of "cold house" speeches for getting the heating turned on in the Assembly chamber today.

"But unionists, right thinking of otherwise, have never properly acknowledged the shameful past of their political leaders and the regime their forefathers supported. In fact they spend their time denying it ever happened."

I really don't think thats true of unionists in general, I would freely admit that the discrimination and gerrymandering that went on in the 1970s was appalling, especially in Londonderry and I condemn it utterly.

Many other unionist minded people that I know would agree. Theres few who wouldn't, but what exactly do you want us to do to prove that we condemn it? Must every unionist in ulster stand up and publicly condemn it?

However the issue is not quite so clear cut as that, it can be argued that catholics were excluded from society by the Catholic Church more than anyone else. The Catholic Church insisted on separate schools from the very founding of the state so catholic children were brought up separately. As far back as when the Lynn committee was set up to address how the state would educate children in 1923, the catholic church refused to participate.

The state schools were open to all but the children who attended them never got to mix to catholics and what you don't know anything about does make you feel uneasy. Perhaps if all children were educated together from the start there wouldn't be so much of a divide in society.

This of course does not explain all the woes of NI, far from it but examples like this show that the catholic church has alot of answer for in NI. Its no wonder many protestants hate the catholic church, its been dividing us and keeping us apart for decades.

Furthermore when a priest of this church likens all unionists to nazis it doesn't do much to mend these ills. Its high time to free both sides of the community from the church.

Quick Quiz Question for Ten: Which DUP councillor on the election of Sinn Feins Joe Austin in North Belfast referred to the people who voted for Joe as ' 5,000 sub human animals'?

I don’t remember anyone complaining about remarks the Irish Justice Minister made about Sinn Fein and Nazis and concentration camp methods. Or that nice little saying some had not that long ago that they breed like rabbits so let them be killed like rabbits.
Taking verbal abuse turned to be out very difficult to handle compared to dishing out.
But developing a whinging culture to replace insult is still no culture.

Bitter words like those of Father Reid are a result of a lifetime of receiving offence. It is sad to see he lost the plot by repeating such error.

Brian Boru ... "During the Old Stormont, a Catholic couldn't get a job as a bus-driver in Fermanagh. Unemployment in places like Derry, Strabane and Newry was around 30%, compared to 8% in NI overall"

Lets not forget nationalist councils (though clearly not as many existed) also discriminated against protestants. Newry for example, a nationalist council who discriminated against protestants. In the 60s 700+ council houses were built by the nationalist council, 22 of these were allocated to protestants. How many of those unemployed figures you quote Brian were protestant and catholic?

It always amazes me on this board how the the nationalists respond to something that doesn't sit well with their pov, the author is dismissed for his views, the point in question is deemed to be a storm in a teacup etc etc. Exactly the same has happened here. The good father has made a huge mistake in what he blurted out. This is the father that the Unionist community has been asked to put their faith in with regards to decomissioning and then he comes out with this? Lets here it from you all, 'he was under pressure from bigots' etc, etc etc. The point is that it doesn't matter the circumstances, he said it and the damage it will do to an already fragile Unionist confidence in this peace process will unfortunately be large.

Seannaboy,

Would be the boul Sammy Wilson by any chance.

mr bigglesworth

Your post is an example of what I'm talking about. Your anti-Catholic attitude merits the discription of bigotry but I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a bigot. The Catholic Church runs schools for Catholics where it can. It is part of Catholicism and it is a right for the Church and for Catholic parents to have such schools.

If you think Catholics giving up their schools is an answer to unionist attitudes then you are failing to understand the rights of others.

It's like saying that the answer to anti-Islamic discrimination is for the Muslims to come down to the pub and have a few pints with the rest of us. Understanding difference not eliminating it is the solution.

Henry

Should any church claim the right to educate young people?

Ginfizz

The rights regarding education belong to the parents. Not the Church. Not the State. Their is an ideological position thta the state should run all schools. Nobody has a right to impose that on every parent.

In France Henry's views on religious education would be dismissed as strongly as Henry94's dismissal of Bigglesworth's.

Henry94,

The RC church in the South needed to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century on this issue.

Its only recently been recognised that it is a parents issue, and not an issue for the church to dictate to parents as to what they should do.

I don't have an issue with RC schools, or it propounding a position. I do have a problem with the level of subtle (and unsubtle) intimidation that went along with it, especially in rural areas. The disagree with the PP could lead to ostracisation.

Reid has obviously shown himself to be a man of very poor judgement and prone to huge oversatement and bias. This invalidates him as a witness to supposed IRA decommissing.

While we're on the subject of the Stormont government, I'd like to debunk another piece of nonsense posted earlier "Unemployment in places like Derry, Strabane and Newry was around 30%, compared to 8% in NI overall.". Have you considered that most of the industry in N.I. was based in Belfast and Antrim? The same thing happened in the Republic. Unemployment in areas where agriculture was the main employer (mainly though not exclusivly the west and south) had hugely higher unemployment that the areas around Dublin.

All this bluster about discrimination real or imaged, does not hide one important statistic. Catholics in Nothern Ireland were better off than their counterparts in the IFS/Eire/Republic. This is why there was no significant movement south during the time of the Stormont govenment. This is fact, most of the rest of the debate is subjective conjecture.

While nazi might not be the most accurate term to use to describe unionists, it does signify the feelings of many nationalists on how they were treated by the criminally sectarian Stormont government of 1920-72. Unionists must accept that this is how their great wee 'province' was seen by a third of the people that lived there between those years (the ones that weren't driven south, that is, by the state approved/tolerated intimidation). In fact, I would go further and say that their mis-use of power during those years is something to be deeply ashamed of and not something to be yearned for ever since (by seemingly the majority, sorry, greater number of the Protestant people).
Personally, I would say that the state was closer in ethos to the Afrikaner apartheid state in South Africa, or the activities of the Klu Klux Klan in the US (secret societies, marching here and there, burning out your catholic/black neighbours). To the unionists were catholics not considered as white 'blacks', something racially inferior to themselves? Otherwise, how does one explain the discrimination? And please, do not come on here and say that there was little discrimination againist catholics in those years...anecdotal evidence alone would show that it was widespread (or are we to believe that only protestants were sufficiently 'qualified' to work as labourers in Harland & Wolf or Shorts). And was the explosion of anger in the catholic community in 1968/69 really a demand for a united Ireland or just a frustrated cry for some fair treatment on jobs, housing, voting, etc., denied for years.
The hardest thing for nationalists to take is the revionist idea going the rounds at the moment that there was little discrimination in the six counties during the Stormont government. But, for the sake of the peace process we are to say nothing and allow this lie to fester. Only one side of the community apparently is required to examine its conscience, to change, to disarm, to apologise.

Believe what you want Keith

Henry94 (and OC)

To some extent you're right about people not agreeing on the past.

In my view, however, the main reason for this is that we have political parties whose very basis is upon a certain reading of the past.

Unionists simply cannot afford to say 'You know, you're right. Although we would refer to some extent to what happened in the Free State and to the boycott of certain institutions by Catholics, our reaction to that was deliberately to create a society dominated by Protestants which created unacceptable disparities and injustices which we accept led to the conflict...' - not because they can't accept it's true, but because it'd be electoral suicide among their 'tribe'.

And Republicans simply cannot afford to say 'You know you're right. Although majority rule created outrageous disparities in our society which needed to be put right, not least in the realms of security and voter participation, a terrorist campaign murdering 2,000 people was not the answer and delayed the process of improving everyone's lot, not least the deprived on both sides of the religious divide whom it only served to drive further apart' - not because they can't accept it's true, but because it'd be electoral suicide among their 'tribe'.

We'd get a good deal closer to agreeing on the past if our political parties weren't based on a specific reading of it. And outrageous comparisons trying to link grievances here with those of Nazi Germany, Milosevic Yugoslavia, Rwanda or even frankly Apartheid South Africa do no one any good in the longer term.

"Your post is an example of what I'm talking about. Your anti-Catholic attitude merits the discription of bigotry but I'm sure you don't think of yourself as a bigot. The Catholic Church runs schools for Catholics where it can. It is part of Catholicism and it is a right for the Church and for Catholic parents to have such schools."

Perhaps I am just a bigot, my catholic father and friends might disagree with you on that one. I am speaking from an increasing frustration with the Catholic Church. Why can't catholic children be educated with protestant children, why is the catholic church so against integrated education?

In my school there was a very general religious education, I received most of my religious education from church sunday schools. Why can't that approach be used by catholics?

"It's like saying that the answer to anti-Islamic discrimination is for the Muslims to come down to the pub and have a few pints with the rest of us. Understanding difference not eliminating it is the solution."

Muslims cannot drink according to their faith, however I don't think there is anything in the Catholic faith to prevent children from going to school with non catholics.

School is an area that really does need to be integrated, many people often do not meet people of another faith until they go to university or enter the work place by which time their opinions and prejeudices are already formed. If you want any change in Northern Ireland attitudes then it has got to start with the youth.

*by the way, all the above also applies to free presbyterian schools although they do not receive state funding unlike catholic schools.

The hypocrasy of unionist leaders is overwhelming. DUP and UUP leaders and members have made similar and much worse comments about republicans and nationalists, and yes, catholics, in the past few years. Talk of incinerators, dogs, fleas, sub-human animals etc (oh, and 'Nazis' all the time!) were never condemned. They have no right to seize the moral high ground here.

Keith M, why does this 'invalidate' him as a witness to IRA decommissioning? No such luck, boy! It is a fact that you will undoubtedly do your best to ignore, but things are moving on. It must make uncomfortable reading for some people, but the IRA are gone. Can we not all wise up and move on? I find it amazing how people are more bitter at moves towards peace than they were during the troubles.

I am all in favour of integration too Mr Bigglesworth. I think if done genuinely it is something that would challenge both traditional unionist and traditional nationalist attitudes: It is not and should not be 'unionist-ethos education' or 'nationalist-ethos' education. Actually there would be great difficulties in getting to that point. But it should not be impossible: education is just that - education.

The government is emphasising "A Shared Future". I think that is right.

"how people are more bitter at moves towards peace"

I've no evidence but I suspect that fear is a lot to do with the obvious bitterness of unionism. Did they really expect nationalists to love their chains?

It would seem to me that a more sensible attitude for unionists to take would be to ask why Father Reid's language is not more commonly used and why republicans particularly are so forgiving of past wrongs, whether real or perceived.

"I find it amazing how people are more bitter at moves towards peace than they were during the troubles."


I think that's how politics in peacetime appears to people who post on the internet. For two reasons.


1. the internet allows "safe" and quick anonymous access to other people's views. These offend. Only a sociopath would, in real life, communicate the way the posters on a blog do.


2. A sense of grievance, or being endangered, is a great way of motivating voters. so stories are publicised for that purpose.


It's not specific to northern ireland, I don't think. Politics everywhere seems to be getting bitterer.

"1. the internet allows "safe" and quick anonymous access to other people's views. These offend. Only a sociopath would, in real life, communicate the way the posters on a blog do."

Isn't there the 'law' on the net that you have officially lost the argument once someone (as someone inevitably does) likens the person on the other side of the argument to a Nazi????

I believe its called Godwin's law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

"I am all in favour of integration too Mr Bigglesworth. I think if done genuinely it is something that would challenge both traditional unionist and traditional nationalist attitudes: It is not and should not be 'unionist-ethos education' or 'nationalist-ethos' education. Actually there would be great difficulties in getting to that point. But it should not be impossible: education is just that - education."

the problem is that the catholic church keeps refusing to get involved in consultations for integrated education, their voice is missing, until they do start to contribute to it we are lost.

Btw what is your opinion on current integrated schools such as Lagan College?

I believe Slug calls this approach causal empericism (should that be casual?) and I know one should not leap to concusions but I interviewed someone from Lagan College recently and found them a breath of fresh air. Whatever the ethos is it seems to be doing them good.

IJP

We'd get a good deal closer to agreeing on the past if our political parties weren't based on a specific reading of it.

Parties evolve to meet current needs in a normal situation. I think trying to solve the past will keep the focus on it to the advantage of those who would exploit it.

that should of course have been conclusions although leaping to concussions is also a bad idea.

Mr Bigglesworth

"Btw what is your opinion on current integrated schools such as Lagan College?"

I can't comment on Lagan College specifically. The most important thing about education is that it gives a rigorous academic training and I know that some such as Slemish College manage to achieve that. Some other schools, like Methodist College have a religiously mixed intake and are academically excellent even though not formally part of the integrated sector.

I would be worried about setting up too many small integrated schools in their own 'integrated sector' without thinking about the effect on the overall system - I don't think the present 'parent choice' driven model is tenable because in a small town like Ballycastle you now have a state primary, an integrated, an Irish language and a Catholic primary. That is just stupid duplication and shows the limit of Henry94's 'choice' model in practical settings.

You actually have the perverse outcome that integrated sector is 'separated from' rather than 'integrated into' the overall system. That is wasteful because of the duplication of costs, but also because the people who choose to go to integrated schools are not the only ones who would benefit from it.

I would prefer if all schools were integrated and I think we have to use our resources in a much more coordinated way than just setting up new integrated schools alongside other schools.

The integrated sector has done well to get so far (6%) but we now have to think at a more coordinated level.

Gum "Keith M, why does this 'invalidate' him as a witness to IRA decommissioning? " Because in the last 48 hours he has proven himself to be a person of unsound judgement who lives in a fastasy World, where SF/IRA can do no wrong. Just as Redid was saying that THE iwere not behind the Northern Babk robbery, the Garda were making the link with the Cork raids.

yerman

Yeah. I only ever heard of Godwin's Law yesterday, on Slugger (so at least I learnt something out of it). It does seem to hold good.

Keith m

Reid has obviously shown himself to be a man of very poor judgement and prone to huge oversatement and bias. This invalidates him as a witness to supposed IRA decommissing.

Doe's Father Reids comments also invalidate, the Rev Good and the International Arms Decommissioning body as to the merits of decommisioning or is the hurdles being mounted once again!

Hi All,

Since a number of people have mentioned integrated education and Lagan College, does anyone know if any major research has been done on the voting habits of those who have been through the integrated system?

I have some anecdotal evidence (I have spoken to a dozen or so ex-pupils) which indicates that those from a Protestant background tend to vote unionist (if, indeed they vote at all), while those from a Catholic background vote nationalist.

I am in favour of integrated education, by the way, and my daughter attends one. But I don't detect any real signs that these schools really do represent the social/community coming-together breakthrough that many of their supporters would have us believe.

Best wishes,

Alex.

KiethM

the Garda were making the link with the Cork raids.

They were claiming a link as they always have done but it's up to them to prove it.

News reports this morning remind us why the police can't declare people guilty.

"A woman who implicated English journalist Ian Bailey in the murder of Sophie Tuscan du Plantier has reportedly admitted that her statements to Gardaí were false."

"One of this morning's newspapers said Ms Farrell was claiming her false statements were made under pressure from the Gardaí"

To settle this argument once and for all
Since the inception of the six county partition catholics have been the enemy of the state.The evidence is irrefutable.Remember a certain Mr Craig who bellowed "employers should only employ good protestant lads and lasses.The same individual who proclaimed stormont as "a protestant parliament for the protestant people".Raw sectarianism at it's worst.At a mass loyalist rally the previosly referred gentleman also said it would be for ulster protestants to"liquidate the enemy".By this he meant catholics.

The civil rights movement.A peaceful organisation demanding civil rights for catholics.Ironically led by a protestant(Ivan Cooper).He obviously felt disgusted by the treatment of catholics.This was declared a threat to the state and was literally shot and beat off the streets.RUC,B Specials and British Army are all immortalised by unionists for this.You see back then the taigs were kept in the place.

Ian Paisley
The man who has whipped up tension more than anyone.The claim he made about catholic houses catching fire because they were filled with petrol bombs and priests giving out guns at mass rank among his most absurd yet this man is a "hero"to the protestant faith.Plus I have a lovely photo of him marching past UDA headquarters.Charming isn't it?

I could go on but I won't.Unionists have never accepted any of this was wrong.I doubt an apology will ever come.But catholics have made huge progress in the last 35 years,no one can deny that.Unionism used violence to try to suppress it but failed.
Now look foward to an Ireland of equals

Henry94 : "They were claiming a link as they always have done but it's up to them to prove it." Actually no, until this week it was Minister McDowell who said the Gardai could make a link. This week the Garda Commissioner said they now had evidence that there was a link. Whichever way you look at it Reid's assertion that SF/IRA were not involved looks at best misjudged.

victor1 "Doe's Father Reids comments also invalidate, the Rev Good and the International Arms Decommissioning body as to the merits of decommisioning or is the hurdles being mounted once again!". Reid's nonsense only serves to remind us of the flaws of the last few weeks. There were three requirements which SF/IRA needed to fulfill ; 1, transparent decommissioning (failed) 2, The wind-up of the IRA (failed so far) and 3, an end to criminality (still unproven. There are no new "hurdles" simply an inability or unwillingness to surmount those already in place.

Alex

"I am in favour of integrated education, by the way, and my daughter attends one. But I don't detect any real signs that these schools really do represent the social/community coming-together breakthrough that many of their supporters would have us believe."

True we should not expect conversions but I think it would give people within each 'tribe' a better perspective.

Fr. Alex Reid's comments and those of William Frazer bring home how people in NI - on both sides - can lack a sense of perspective.

keith m, the problem here is there are hurdles, and above you just set out 3 of them, why must Republicans have to constantly convince Unionism of its bone fide, Republicans/Nationalists don't ask the Unionists to prove themselves, I have yet to hear anyone call for the disbanding of Paisleys Third Force, or the transparent decommisioning of thier weapons or that of the other armed groups representing Unionism! There are no SACKCLOTH and ASHES calls from Republicans/Nationalists, we have no need to ask people to cleanse themselves before we get involved in Political negotiations, our confidence comes from the belief that our argument is right, maybe Unionism knows this hence thier fears!

“The wind-up of the IRA (failed so far)” Indeed.

And of course the usual Republican suspects make the moves and noises we could all have predicted. I am sick and tired of Republican hypocrisy on these boards.

Any moves that might cast Sinn Fein in a bad light is the work of securocrats (only Republicans are allowed to make unbased accusations, for anyone else it's collusion and cries of 'where's the proof'.)

Revisionism is just that. A revision. People are going back and looking at the past again, hopefully casting a less involved eye on it. But anything that might diminish the suffering, real or imagined, of Catholics under Stormont is dismissed out of hand, because it removes part of the justification for the Republican struggle, one of a number of cunning Republican strategies that neatly ignores that the IRA was fighting a constitutional battle, not a civil rights one. Civil rights had been extended to all sectors of the community once Stormont was prorogued and Westminster got involved, another factor neatly ignored. IRA - I Ran Away; that was the graffiti in the late 60s.

Which leads me to my next point. Yes, Catholics were mistreated, quite badly, but not to the extent of Jews in Nazi Germany, or even blacks in pre-Civil Rights America (although it came close). This is a shameful part of our past, which the vast majority of Protestants and Unionists I know are very, very sorry. But I refuse to hear comparisons to Nazism; many thousands of men from these six counties gave their lives to fight Nazism- how dare a man of the cloth effectively call them hypocrites. Those who saw UTV last night will have seen the precise way in which these comments were delivered. And of course, from the Republicans present, Fr Reid's comments were understandable. They can be explained away. Showing the same disregard for difference of opinion that G illustrated earlier.

And of course any difference of opinion is sectarian, isn't it Henry? Like Mr Bigglesworth's well made argument; that was *obviously* anti catholic...

IJP makes the soundest point here- he's perfectly encapsulated the problems with politics here; what we need is to get our political leaders to actually makes those statements.

"keith m, the problem here is there are hurdles, and above you just set out 3 of them, why must Republicans have to constantly convince Unionism of its bone fide..?

Miami
Canary Wharf
Northern Bank
Manchester
Colombia
Robert McCartney
Want me to go on?

" I have yet to hear anyone call for the disbanding of Paisleys Third Force" and I have have yet to heard of this "third force"

Importing arms
Blowing up buildings and killing people.
Working with international terrorist organisations
Killing people in Belfast bars
Conducting record break bank robberies.

Have I missed the news for 20 years? I think not.

Let me say that I would put thew very same hurdles (or to give them their correct name, confidence builing measures) if Loyalists were loooking for a say in the governing of Northern Ireland.

Does anyone else think that Willie Frazer should seek counselling for his grief? He always comes across as a hate-filled bigot when interviewed, and his heckling of Fr (not Mr, Ian Og) Reid was but one example of this. He's clearly never come to terms with his loss, but he must recognise that he's not alone in this, or that just one side suffered during the conflict.

Fr Reid has apologised; perhaps Mr Frazer should examine his own conscience and see if perhaps he could find peace for himself and for others in a more constructive manner.

As for Ian Og on H&M last night, he once again showed himself up to be a bigotted idiot who is a poor imitation of his father.

I would add that my point on defending Fr Reid's claims was to the Republican shame here, not his own, his apology was sound and unequivocal, and I would call on all those who felt offended by it to accept this and move on.

If you are going post claiming 'To settle this argument once and for all' then you could at least tell the the whole truth.

... "The civil rights movement.A peaceful organisation demanding civil rights for catholics"

How about the Civil rights movement set up in 1966 as a pressure group taking up individual cases of discrimination regardless of the religion. Within 2 years of inception it was to be infiltrated by the IRA and used to agitate and destabilse NI. 30 of the 70 present at the first AGM in 68 where known IRA men or republicans. Indeed the first council of NICRA had 6 out of the 13 members on it, who were members of the IRA.

Peaceful? Yea, right.

G-

Those IRA men were not the Provisionals. While there were definitely rogue elements in there, a large proportion, indeed the majority, were commited to peaceful means, although you do raise a valid point about the nature of NICRA, particularly in relation to incidents it was involved in (Burntollet Bridge, Bloody Sunday etc)

Daisy

Fair points.

But rather than telling Fr Reid or Mr Frazer to 'wise up', perhaps we should accept that theirs represent the attitudes that exist in NI.

They are useful in illustrating the difficult legacy we have been handed by history, and a better future will come about through accepting that attitudes like that come from somewhere.

As well as being tough on these attitudes we must be tough on the causes of these attitudes.

Purportedly Fr Reid also believes that the IRA was not responsible for the NB robbery.

His credibility is just shooting up isn't it?

There were no crimes against humanity in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic in the last 87 years and nobody deserves to be called Nazis, unionist or nationalist.

We may not like each other and we may have done bad things to each other since the collapse of British hegemony in Ireland but let's keep things in perspective. Worse things happened to the people of this island in the preceding century within the Union.

If the truth be told, both sides have inflicted as much evil on their own communities as on the opposing ones.

Keithm,
when you said "Miami", I thought you meant the Miami Showband massacre and DUP politician Rev. Ivan Foster leading a prayer service at the paramilitary funerals of Wesley Somerville and Harris Boyle but you obviously didn't.

But that was the first thing that came into my head with the word Miami.

''But unionists, right thinking of otherwise, have never properly acknowledged the shameful past of their political leaders and the regime their forefathers supported. In fact they spend their time denying it ever happened."

Oliver there is absolutely no doubt that the Stormont regime was discriminatory, small-minded & bigotted, but it's worth considering a couple of points:
The nationalist population in NI has grown steadily since the inception of the province, while the protestant population in the republic has plummeted from 10% to 3% in the same period.
The murder rate in NI, prior to the 60s, was one of the lowest in Europe. The public records office notes that from 1922 to 1955, there were 147 murders in NI, less than 5 per year, from a population of 1.5 million.
Living conditions for the Protestant working class were in most cases no better than that of their Roman Catholic counterparts.
Much is made of the 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' remark, but it is painfully clear that the Republic was a 'Roman Catholic state for a Roman Catholic church.' Their interference in all walks of life from education, hospitals, family planning, mixed marriages, book & film censorship and all aspects of family life has even now only partially been broken, and only after the foulest of revelations concerning their own doings. I think it is fair to suggest that Father Reid's own church were no kinder to the RC population than the Stormont regime.
For father Reid to make this outburst whilst claiming that the PIRA were 'honourable men' and believing their denials concerning the Northern bank robbery almost beggars belief. For him to then apologise for remarks which he obviously meant is even worse.

Found this interesting quote on Nazis and Paisley:

"... the pattern is horribly familiar. The contempt for established authority; the crude and unthinking intolerance; the emphasis upon monster processions and rallies; the appeal to a perverted from of patriotism each and every one of those things has its parallel in the rise of the Nazi's to power. A minority movement was able, in the end to work its will simply because most people were too apathetic or too intimidated to speak out. History must not be allowed to repeat itself."

-Northern Premier, Terrence O'Neill speaking about Paisleyism in June 1969

George

Interesting quote.

GLC

Much is made of the 'Protestant state for a Protestant people' remark, but it is painfully clear that the Republic was a 'Roman Catholic state for a Roman Catholic church.'

In the south when the pressure came on for change the state evolved and accomodated new outlooks.

It was the inability of the north to change that above all marks it down as a political failure.

NI didn't change?

Keith M

"All this bluster about discrimination real or imaged, does not hide one important statistic. Catholics in Nothern Ireland were better off than their counterparts in the IFS/Eire/Republic. This is why there was no significant movement south during the time of the Stormont govenment. This is fact, most of the rest of the debate is subjective conjecture."

That statement is just plain dumb.

Catholics, unlike Protestants, emigrated en masse out of NI during and after Stormont. They went to places that offered job opportunities, places like GB not ROI.

You could just as easily have claimed that discrimination is proved by the fact that people from the south didn't emigrate north where economic conditions were better.

If you had made such a claim you could actually have backed it up with genuine evidence of discrimination in the fact that the Northern Civil Service, unlike that in GB, barred people from the Republic from employment.

If Slugger gave out gongs for easily debunked, half baked, ill-thought out, subjective theories you would be today's clear winner.

''In the south when the pressure came on for change the state evolved and accomodated new outlooks.''

Interesting analogy Henry -- but the NI 'state' effectively ceased to exist in the early 70s when direct rule was established. At this particular point, the Republic remained under the cosh of the RC church and only emerged some 20 years later largely due to church scandals and economic prosperity.

''It was the inability of the north to change that above all marks it down as a political failure.''

NI as an entity was under huge pressure from the 60s onwards due to a sectarian murder campaign by PIRA. The demands of the civil rights marchers had been more than accomodated, but the republican movement refused to settle for anything less than the destruction of Northern Ireland's place within the UK. After 30 years of murder, propaganda and lies, they are no nearer to their goal.

I have become rather cynical of the Peace Process of late.

Does anyone think that these remarks by Fr. Reid taken with the President’s similar comments are part of an attempt to start the debate about the causes of the conflict on a wider scale?

You could say that it was the start of an unofficial Truth Commission.

I am not normally one to align myself with conspiracies but you never know. We have been told some BS over the last few years in the name the Peace Process.

Love your conspiracy theory, Too Late. But is this not more over optimistic then cynical?

gerry lvs castro-a sectarian campaign by PIRA?Of course so!Gusty Spence killed in 1966 for no apparent reason.It just so happened they were catholics.That wasn't the catalyst for 35 years of sectarianism.What history books have you been reading?Have some advice.Read the Shankill Butchers by martin dillon.Then come back and lecture me on sectarianism

Gerry Lvs Castro

"NI as an entity was under huge pressure from the 60s onwards due to a sectarian murder campaign by PIRA"

Gerry, they sat that if you remember the 60's you weren't really there.

You prove that you were indeed there

I estimate that you came round from your drug induced coma sometime in mid 1969, just in time for the PIRA campaign.

You missed the following part of the 60's:

Republican violence fizzled out like a damp sqib in the early 60's.

The early to mid 60's saw a growth in Protestant religious fundamentalism intent on provoking violence clashes, as when Ian Paisly marched on the Falls Road in 1964 to remove flags.

The mid 60's saw the re-emergence of extremist Loyalist terrorism with a sectarian murder campaign against Catholics in 1966.

The religious fundamentalists and the loyalist terror groups joined up to attack the new Civil Rights movement 1967 - 1968.

The RUC were increasingly dragged in and they also managed to killed some Catholics.

Then you woke up, and the rest as they say is history.

By the way, you also missed the Beatles, they were a great 60's band.

Achtung!

Does this mean the News Letter is the new Volkischer Beobachter?

Seerzely folks, isn't this all a bit much to take - a raw and open man not given much to media performances (and who has worked tirelessly to get us to the peaceful and relatively affluent Norn Iron we all live in today) is heckled by the Milky Bar kid's evil ginger twin and let's rip with an inappropriate analogy.

You'd think the sky had fallen in, the IRA had gone back to war, and Paisley had just called the Pope the anti-Christ.

The silence of the unionists has been broken by a few intemperate words - this outpouring of indignation quite shocking after a summer and early autumn of relative quiet from the usual suspects stunned as they were into silence by the IRA moves - and loyalist medievalism.

Any suggestion that Fr Reid's unfortunate words could in some way negate his and the Rev Good's authority with regard to IRA weapons decommissioning must be rebuked.

Would those who now seek to discredit him accept the word of someone said the Pope was the anti-christ?

So Keith m you never heard of the third force, yet you can quote the news for the last 20yrs, rather selective there now Keith!

. Paisley controversially set up an unofficial paramilitary unit which met secretly called the Third Force, which began to import arms from South Africa.look under no surrender!

your other comments are selective also and I am not going down the rd of whataboutery with you suffice to say, there are victims on both sides of the religious/political divide here, it is not a one way street all could call for a cleansing of souls, I myself have lost 6 members of my family to Loyalist/State Sponsered Murder, but I don't need anyone crawling on thier hands and knees as a self satisfying hurdle to political progress!

Gerry,
"At this particular point, the Republic remained under the cosh of the RC church and only emerged some 20 years later largely due to church scandals and economic prosperity."

I think the RC church was on the ropes from the 70s on and by the mid-90s had collapsed.

For example, Alan Dukes told how he nearly decked an unnamed bishop when they suggested the 80s divorce referendum be scrapped and the state instead accept RC annulments as having legal status.

The RC church was allowing people remarry even though in the eyes of the state, they were bigamists.

At that time the RC church had no respect for primacy of the Irish State and its laws, but they certainly didn't have it under the cosh. They challenged the very integrity of the state and lost.

(Dukes said the circumstances of the meeting prevented him from "being dug out of that bastard".)

Biffo; "Catholics, unlike Protestants, emigrated en masse out of NI during and after Stormont. They went to places that offered job opportunities, places like GB not ROI."

Firstly if people move within the U.K. it is not emigration, it is migration, but semantics aside it is worth remembering that N.I. Catholics found opportunities within the U.K. that were not available in the Republic. If the border disadvantaged anyone economically it was peole in the Republic (of all religeons).

"If you had made such a claim you could actually have backed it up with genuine evidence of discrimination in the fact that the Northern Civil Service, unlike that in GB, barred people from the Republic from employment." I don't recall the Repblic's claim to ownership of "GB", only Northern Ireland. It would be quite appropraite to ban people from a hostile state from serving in the civuil servoice.

George, I'm sure there's pills available for partial memory loss.

victor1 "your other comments are selective also and I am not going down the rd of whataboutery". Please follow the thread, you started the whataboutery, if it doesn't suit you now that you've been given the facts, then tough!

Keithm,
could you elaborate on the memory loss jibe please?

Keith M

"it is worth remembering that N.I. Catholics found opportunities within the U.K."

And it is worth remembering that NI Portestants found opportunities within NI

"It would be quite appropraite to ban people from a hostile state from serving in the civuil servoice."

It might be quite appropriate but it's worth remembering that that wasn't Stormont's rationale.

It was to brought as a dis-incentive to potential economic "immigrants" from the south.

The Civil Service in the rest of the UK continued to employ job-seekers from the "hostile state". Maybe you can come up with a good reason for that?

You answers amuse me.

´´It would be quite appropraite to ban people from a hostile state from serving in the civuil servoice."
I don´t think it was appropriate or justified in any way.
Neither, though, is it appropriate in any way to compare anti-Catholic discrimination in the North with the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis. That was just plain wrong.
In Reid´s favour he has apologized. I think it will be a rather chilly day in hell before, for example, Big Ian apologizes for a single one of his inflammatory remarks made in the past. Or has he ever done so, does anyone know?

George

"could you elaborate on the memory loss jibe please?"

Keith M forgot who made the point he was responding to.

He needs a memory pill. Maybe it will help him to be less selective when recalling events from NI history.

Can you help him out?

Biffo: "Maybe it will help him to be less selective when recalling events from NI history"

Maybe you too should take one? You talk about Paisley march on the falls in 1964? Really?

Are you sure he didn't threaten to do so thus forcing the hand of the police who then removed the flag? It was then put back and the police returned to remove it which then caused a riot.

Biffo: "Maybe it will help him to be less selective when recalling events from NI history"

Maybe you too should take one? You talk about Paisley march on the falls in 1964? Really?

Are you sure he didn't threaten to do so thus forcing the hand of the police who then removed the flag? It was then put back and the police returned to remove it which then caused a riot.

anyone who compares the treatment of Catholics in Northern Ireland to the murder of 5m Jews by the Nazis should go into the bathroom and have a hard, long look at themselves in the mirror (before locking the door and having a wank over a photo of Des Wilson)

Bad stuff was dished out by and sustained by elements within both communities.
Fr.Reid,under extreme provocation,made some intemperate,ill-judged remarks which were subsequently withdrawn.
Let's just leave it at that.

what exactly was this 'extreme provocation' we keep hearing about?

"Alec Reid has now revealed himself as the Provo Army Council's useful idiot - accepting the words of the Provos that they didn't rob the Northern Bank (yes, you read that right) and seeking to justify the barbarism of 'punishment' beating/shootings. And just to make sure we get the point, he denied that PIRA was a criminal organisation.

Father Alec Reid - priest, witness to decommissioning, Holocaust denier, Provo apologist ..."

If u r looking for a spot on post look no further.

Keith M

"Reid has obviously shown himself to be a man of very poor judgement and prone to huge oversatement and bias. This invalidates him as a witness to supposed IRA decommissing."

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that IRA decommissioning might not have taken place after all, and that Fr Reid's remarks somehow prove Paisley's theory about the "falsehood of the century"?

If that's what you mean, be man enough to say so. Stop playing games.

Or if I'm misunderstanding you, what do you mean by saying that through his remarks Fr Reid has rendered himself "invalid"?

Keith M

"Reid has obviously shown himself to be a man of very poor judgement and prone to huge oversatement and bias. This invalidates him as a witness to supposed IRA decommissing."

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that IRA decommissioning might not have taken place after all, and that Fr Reid's remarks somehow prove Paisley's theory about the "falsehood of the century"?

If that's what you mean, be man enough to say so. Stop playing games.

Or if I'm misunderstanding you, what do you mean by saying that through his remarks Fr Reid has rendered himself "invalid"?

One question on the Fr Reid controversy.If Harryville Church was a Synagogue anywhere in the world and the people going to worship were abused and prevented going to worship by a baying mob {led mostly by DUP supporters with Baby Doc sometimes in attendance)what would they be called?-Facist's and Neo Nazis thats what.Truth hurts when it hits home young Ian!

Oilbbear Chromaill you said that "Unionists have never properly acknowledged the shameful past of their political leaders and the regime their forefathers supported"

Perhaps your stupid name is an excuse for your ignorance but you seem to ignore the fact that up until AIA the irish Constitution ignored the fact that northern ireland even existed. Contraception etc was outlawed just because it went against the Catholic religion. The govt was specifically biased towards Catholics and the level of sectarianism towards protestants in areas like Dublin where they existed in large and significant numbers was shocking. When we talk about a vast minority of Catholics in northern ireland now we also need to look back at the vast minority of protestants that were forced into a foreign state in the 3 Ulster counties left out and stabbed in the back by the british govt. The protestant culture was gradually eroded by the agressive clauses within the Catholic religion that any children MUST be brought up as Catholic and the campiagn of disownment and exclusion undertaken towards any Catholic who brought up their child as a protestant in a mixed marriage. If you call yourself Irish perhaps you should look a bit closer to home before you start critiscising the regime that existed here. We all have skeltons in the closet and its time u started to relaise that.

Keith M

Oh, and what do you mean by "supposed" IRA decommissioning. I'd like to clarify where you stand on this.

Given that you are a Stormont denier, I think I can guess.

What are the characteristics of Holocaust deniers?

Bigotry, certainly. That's a given.

Monstrous intellectual vanity - that's essential if you're going to question something for which there is such an overwhelming body of evidence.

A hardline political agenda - that is, that you deny proven historical fact as a means of making a political point that has currency.

I'm not trying to compare you to a Holocaust denier Keith. I would stress that the Holocaust was an event of unique scale and significance and horror and any comparison with the smaller crimes of Stormont would be fatuous and immoral. I accept that you are an extremist and a denier of a different stripe. I accept that your denial is of a smaller magnitude.

But I would say this: I can understand why a unionist in the north might deny the crimes of their parents and grandparents. But you are not a unionist from the north Keith. You look in from the outside and dabble occasionally in the game of northern affairs when the mood takes you. You deny crimes that which even most unionists have ceased to deny. You clearly are not lacking in intelligence or acumen.

So I can only conclude that your failure is a moral one. I'm sorry for you.

TOAOIU

Regardless of the value of any of the points you raise, none of them answer the charge that unionism was guilty of terrible and systematic crimes against Catholics in the Orange state.

Your answer is pure whataboutery and avoids dealing with the issue. (Which, of course, is always the point of whataboutery.)

Set aside what was going on elsewhere for a moment: would you accept that unionism's history in post-partition NI was shameful? If not, why not?

Discrimination against the Roman Catholic population occured in Northern Ireland, just as discrimination against Protestants happened in the Republic of Ireland. The difference is that the discrimination in N.I. is exaggerated and used as a political football to score points locally and internationally, even to date.

The Civil Rights movement happened for a reason, where people were looking the same rights as their fellow citizens on the British mainland. It was however used in an opportunistic way to see the collapse of Government in N.I. and portray a 'shaken' community internationally.

If Nationalists had accepted the N.I. Parliament at the time, as they accepted it a few years later with Sunningdale and used their position to form an opposition, maybe they could have achieved that change and reform they where seeking. However thats not what they wanted, they wanted to see things happen on their terms.

But lets not forget, the Civil Rights movement comprised of many lawbidding citizens in the early years of its existence. It comprised of Protestant people as well, so it wasn't all about Catholic Discrimination.

The oneandonly Irish Unionist,

"the level of sectarianism towards protestants in areas like Dublin where they existed in large and significant numbers was shocking."

Really?
Tell me what shocking sectarianism Dublin Protestants endured? I'd love to know.
Which areas were worst affected?
How many were burnt out of their homes in Dunlaoghaire? Fairview?
Do you even know where Protestants live?
Do you even know any?
How many Dublin Protestants have been murdered because of their religion in the last 86 years?
1? 5? 10?

Your concern is touching but I'd like to know what you think happened in Dublin and more importantly what any shaggin' northern Unionist ever did about it.

What gives you the right to think you can pass judgment over the experiences of southern Protestants, especially Dublin ones?

Did the one and only Irish unionist do anything?

I'll tell you what you and the rest of unionism did: dada pal.

And you have the nerve to come on here spouting about how tough it was for southern Protestants.

Southern Protestants can do without your feigned concern.

Stick to portraying yourselves as victims if you must but don't drag all of Ireland's Protestants down to your whining level. Thanks but no thanks.

You'll have find someone else to saddle as your fifth column.

As for Ne Temere, what experiences do you have of Ne Temere and if you have any why do you blame the Irish state and not the Roman Catholic Church?

There was Ne Temere up north too you know.

By the way, did they not do the 50/50 rule in Northern Ireland?

Could the one and only Irish unionist handle a Catholic sister and Protestant brother?

Visioneer, there is NO comparison between treatment of the respective minorities in the North and the South. As a Southerner who has researched this I know that the decline in the Southern Protestant population was due the Ne Temere decree of the Catholic Church which required that the children of mixed marriages be brought up as Catholics. This was not the law of the land but rather a worldwide Catholic Church rule. As the South was a deeply religious country until the 90's, this practice was the norm even after the decree was scrapped in the 70's. However, no one forced Protestants to marry Catholics, unless that is what you are going to accuse us of next.

We kept the PR-STV voting system, whereas the Unionist regime scrapped it. This system was intended to protect minorities. Recent census has shown a big increase in Protestant numbers down here. The Catholic population has gone from 31% to 41% since NI was founded. This shows that you can have an increase in population coinciding with persecution of that minority, and a reduction in % coinciding with non-persecution of a minority.

The references in the Irish Constitution to the Catholic Church were removed more than 25 years ago. The divorce ban was scrapped by referendum in 1995 and the ban on contraception was removed in the 90's. The ban on homosexuality was removed in 1994. It is now our state that is the most secular. We have had Protestant presidents, Finance ministers and other ministers, whereas the Stormont regime never gave a ministry to a single Catholic (unless Attorney general counts and that was only 1).

Our governments never made the kind of hysterical outbursts towards Southern Protestants that Northern Unionists made about Catholics e.g.

"I recommend those who are Loyalist not to employ Roman Catholics, 95% of whom are disloyal" (Lord Brookeborough 3rd PM of NI).

We don't burn Protestants out of their homes in Donegal where Protestants are 11% of the population. Intercommunal relations in the South are a million times better than in the North - and everyone other than the Unionists who has visited the Republic knows this. Wake up!

Visioneer

"Discrimination against the Roman Catholic population occured in Northern Ireland, just as discrimination against Protestants happened in the Republic of Ireland. The difference is that the discrimination in N.I. is exaggerated and used as a political football to score points locally and internationally, even to date."

That the only difference? I'd suggest there were others. For example, A Protestant from, say Dublin, could aspire to being President (Hyde, Childers), a senior politician (Blythe, Browne), a powerful civil servant (TK Whitaker, Irishman of the century), a supreme court justice, a captain of industry or whatever else.

Meanwhile a Catholic in, say, Derry, couldn't get a job cleaning the toilets in the Guildhall in Derry. In fact it was explicit government policy that Catholics should not be employed. Yes, nationalists use this historical fact to score points in the present, but that doesn't make it untrue, however much you might wish it did.

I would suggest that unemployment in areas like Derry, Strabane, Newry, Armagh and whole swathes of Tyrone was off the chart, while areas in which there were identifiable Protestant communities south of the border such as Dun Laoghaire were marked by their relative affluence.

To counteract Keith M's mendacious suggestion that Catholic unemployment was simply a matter of geography, I would point out: unemployment in Derry, the fourth-largest city in Ireland, and it's satellite town of Strabane was the highest in Europe; unemployment in west Belfast in the postwar period was consistent with that in west Tyrone, even as demand outstripped production capacity in the Protestant workforce of the Lagan valley. The solution the unionist government came up with was to create the new city of Craigavon, a second powerhouse of Protestant productivity. NI's second city and Ireland's fourth-largest was left to fester. It was a decision that made no economic sense. What do you think the logic was?

Now I wouldn't deny that Protestants in the south faced some instances of discrimination and generally, the whole ambience of the place must have been a constant source of concern and frustration. But let's not indulge in the classic unionist fantasy that "both sides are as bad as each other". That is clearly self-serving bunk.

The Republic used to be a place where the Catholic majority built a state without the slightest regard for the feelings of the Protestant minority. The Protestant minority simply vanished from the radar of Catholic Ireland.

Meanwhile in the north a state was created in which every opportunity was taken to proactively humiliate the Catholic minority. No act of humiliation was too petty. It was explicit economic policy to engineer mass Catholic emigration - crystallised for posterity by Brooke's famous "not a Catholic about the place" speech. This is not a controversial claim - this is simply a matter of historical record.

Given the run of the place, unionism lost the run of itself. Unionism behaved monstrously. Unionism deserved to lose power.

The concern that many nationalists have is that it's hard to discern any change of heart among our unionist brothers and sisters. We'd like to perceive some sort of collective "never again" mood but we're not seeing it. (Sorry, don't mean to imply anything by using a phrase usually associated with the Holocaust.)

I'm not saying there should be an apology or any sort of prostration or humiliation or anything like that. I suppose what nationalists want is a sense that, with the wisdom of hindsight, that even if unionism had the chance to rule in the same corrupt way their forefathers did, that they would choose not to. That they would make a moral decision for equality and justice and anti-sectarianism.

But to be honest, the fear is that unionism would love to have the chance to do it all again. Denying the crimes of Stormont only reinforces that fear.

I understand that as late as the 1960's, around 40% of the wealth of the South was in Protestant hands. Some discrimination!

G1973

"Maybe you too should take one?.."

I certainly will if I can get my hand on one.

Anyway, thanks for putting me right, it adds a new dimension on those events for me - not only were religious fundamentalists trying to re-invigorate sectarian enmity, but the RUC were draughted in to carry out their demands.

Worse than I initially thought, but not surprising.

Blah blah blah.

Get over it, you lot.

Bad stuff happened. But not in the same league as what happened to the Jews under the Nazis.

We can't change the past. We can change the future. Now let's get on with it, for goodness sake.

Well said IJP.

There are times I think Slugger could be re-named *Mope-wars*.

Alec Reid was retaliating to what he saw as a personal attack. But the rest of us know that retaliation gets you sent off, why didn't he?

It has left us with a situation in which DUP bile comes floating to the top. It has also probably added a few weeks to the return of the Assembly while the DUPers work out how to become un-offended by the remarks.

It was also interesting to look at the lists of discriminations and see the class based intention behind them too. It was ordinary working people that they feared.

We can't change the past. We can change the future. Now let's get on with it, for goodness sake.
Thats the problem though, Unionism hasn't changed at all, they wish to trail us back pre 69, they to date refuse to recognise the democratic mandate of a large section of the North, the want Republicans to crawl and beg for forgivness as though they are subhuman! Not a chance of it, never again will we allow ourselves to be treated as are fathers and thier forebearers and the sooner Unionism realises it the better we will all be!

But when are the Nazis going to demand an apology from Reid?

victor1

And now you start it again... 'it's all themmuns, so it is'.

Fr Reid's remarks show unmistakeably that the chip on Irish Nationalism's shoulder is getting ever bigger too.

The simple fact is this: both Unionism and Irish Nationalism can't change, they can't move on, they are anchored in the past.

So it's long past time we abandoned both of them and looked to the future.

Ye, lets all vote for the 'invisible' Alliance party, eventhough the don't exist in many parts of the country.

IJP, Wrong ! Republicans have moved considerably, from a military campaign to a purely political one, unfortunately some here on these shores feel the need to force Republicans to crawl on thier bellys to be able to continue along that democratic route, maybe it would suit if Republicans continued with thier military campaign! As for the whataboutery, is it not true that Unionists are stalling the political process ? no whataboutery there! maybe it is themmuns that are the problem, what type of democracy allows 24.46% of its electorate to be excluded from the political process?
So it's long past time we abandoned both of them and looked to the future. I'd be interested to know who WE are in this instance?

Victor

'what type of democracy allows 24.46% of its electorate to be excluded from the political process'

It's called first past the post, a generally recognised way of forming a strong government.

And your line about Republicans crawling on their bellys- Republicans endorsed violence against my countrymen, regardless of religion. Unionist injustices ended in 1972. Republicanism thinks that just because it has ended an armed campaign that it should be trusted. I will agree that progress has been made. But by your figures of 24.46% that would mean that a quarter of the voters endorsed the Republican campaign, suggesting that 75.54% were against it, and therefore victims of it.

Still bitter about crawling? You and all the other IRA apologists on this board are the enemies of progress here; do not think that the people of Ireland, North and South are blind to the hypocrisy of the Movement. 'Themmuns' doesn't wash with us.

You and all the other IRA apologists on this board are the enemies of progress here;

Followed immediately by:

do not think that the people of Ireland, North and South are blind to the hypocrisy of the Movement. 'Themmuns' doesn't wash with us.

Irony much?

Please qualify that

You are playing the same game that you condemn: your "You and the IRA apologists on this board..." is a "themmuns"-type condemnation.

No, it's a condemnation that highlights the very serious fact that people seem to be oblivious to the hypocrisy of republicans in general, and of those of those republicans on this board in particular.

When I condemn IRA apologists I am singling out a particular group. They are not people who I can describe as 'the other side' except as on the other side of right and wrong.

The 'themmuns' rhetoric is a device used in the other side has it better/was just as bad thread of debate. It is this that I condemn from either side; when I want to call a particular group on an issue I will identify them as specificly as I can, in the case I am referring to Victor as IRA apologists; if he complains that the Republican movement is having to crawl on its belly, then launches into a themmuns spiel, when taken with the undertone of implied violence ('unfortunately some here on these shores feel the need to force Republicans to crawl on thier bellys to be able to continue along that democratic route, maybe it would suit if Republicans continued with thier military campaign! ') this underlines the hypocrisy of this particular position, which I am calling to question.

The point of my post, somewhat missed, is that he complains of the minority electorate being ignored, when this minority has been granted seats in government, and in an assembly that the actions of their party had suspended (but don't tell them that, it was the securocrats). Every legitmate question raised is brushed away, both the party and posters here. Fair_deal, TAFKABO often have our ideas carelessy brushed aside as irrelevancies or returned with themmuns examples, and that since the topic of the post was the reaction to a viewpoint about a system of not-overtly violent but palpable and immoral discrimination that ended 23 years ago and the views of people who were, in the last elections, supporters of an armed campaign that has only since ceasod, I found it a bit ironic.

No, it's a condemnation that highlights the very serious fact that people seem to be oblivious to the hypocrisy of republicans [themmuns] in general, and of those of those republicans [themmuns] on this board in particular.

This is more of the same, unfortunately.

Just look at the way you are talking about "the republicans": has it slipped your mind that they are now the largest nationalist party in NI?

Like it or not, they were democratically elected.

"Themmuns" like "whataboutery" is a strategy of non-engagement. It's easier to talk at someone than talk to them.

Yoda

'Just look at the way you are talking about "the republicans": has it slipped your mind that they are now the largest nationalist party in NI?

Like it or not, they were democratically elected.'

So were the two Unionist parties. But they're Nazis. See?

So were the two Unionist parties. But they're Nazis. See?

I see the deadendedness of the line of argument you were trying to pursue. Yes.

Now, hopefully, you do too.

That's another classic example of the brush off I was talking about earlier.

Here's my mindset here, see if you can reassure me:

1. Fr Reid made an ill-placed and ill-thought comment.

2. Fr Reid apologised

3. Slug and IJP call for his apology to be accepted.

4. United Irelander interjects with 'themmuns'

5. Brian Boru, maca, Oilbbear Chromaill, an seabhac siulach et al all attempt justification of one form on other, a lot of it 'themmuns' rhetoric.

6. I point out that a minority group that indiscriminately supported violence against the majority of people here (and attempting to use above wrongs to justify it) is blatantly hypocritical.

Your comments to me are more of that themmuns thread. '"Themmuns" like "whataboutery" is a strategy of non-engagement. It's easier to talk at someone than talk to them. ' in particular show a smoke screen. Be engaging my argument as you have done, you show yourself to be a hypocrite- I explained that I singled a particular group that had a certain characteristic. Those who supported violence are my problem, not those who wish for a United Ireland, and even as the largest Nationalist party, they are still a minority.

1. Fr Reid made an ill-placed and ill-thought comment.

2. Fr Reid apologised

3. Slug and IJP call for his apology to be accepted.

It's not my job to reassure you of anything, but, for the record, I agree with IJP and Slug. Clear enough?

My point about the "themmuns" tenor of your remarks was simply this: you did exactly what you accused the other poster of.

Those who supported violence are indeed your problem now that they are elected and you and other unionists will need to figure out how to talk to them. It's that simple.

I'll ignore the personal slur.

Personal slur? You've done it again.

If you are in agreement with the consensus that his apology should be accepted that is fair enough. But you have continually accused me of the themmuns stylings while ignoring that I was merely pointing it out in others. Perhaps you misunderstand what I have been saying, so here it is as clear as I think I can make it at this time of the morning:

Calls had been made to accept the apology, all well and good, no harm done, won't affect the peace process etc etc.

THEN, that is, after these calls had been made, the various elements I described above launched into an attempt to justify it, then accuse the unionists community, when attempting to repudiate comments that those on the board made, of being the problem holding the peace process back.

Yet you choose to single me out, and disregard out of hand any points I would raise.

Get off the cross. Someone needs the wood.

You need to figure out if you can or cannot live without an argument that relies on "themmuns."

If you can live without it, good.

If you cannot, good.

But you do need to think about it.

Yoda

You've done nothing more but lend weight to my argument.

We're through the looking glass here, people.

Yoda

You have done that which i accused you of; ignoring my points and questions and again attempting to ridicule me.

Roger

When people try to justify a particular political line purely on the basis of the number of people who vote for it, you know who usually ends up getting mentioned, don't you...?

Don't force me into a 'flash of anger', now...!

The fact is most people vote Unionist or Nationalist. And the fact is we have political stalemate (with more and more people just refusing to participate at all).

Draw your own conclusions.

Yoda

Specifically, I didn't quite call for the apology to be accepted, but rather I suggested it was rather irrelevant.

What should be accepted is that there are a lot of Nationalists who think the treatment of Catholics 1921-73 equates with that of Jews by Nazis. And they are wrong. And there are a lot of Unionists who think the IRA terrorist campaign is the only issue/legacy we have to overcome in NI. And they are wrong.

We have two 'sides' each wanting the other 'side' to give everything, yet neither side has anything to give.

I say it's time for a new type of politics altogether, that moves us on from collective navel gazing and blame game towards a genuinely functional society.

Apologies, IJP, your call for an acceptance of the apology was inferred, wrongly it seems.

Agreed that there are a lot of issues to overcome, and that a functioning society should be the goal, and should have been the goal all along.

Just read all the above. Phew! Lot of anger going on. Let's just accept we all make mistakes. We need to accept this before we move on.

Interesting conspiracy theory in the middle of it all, Posted by: Too late at October 14, 2005 03:00 PM. The theory will only be proven when a mainstream unionist comes out with an 'apology' for unionist government actions. Any bets as to who it will be?

My but this thread has gone off in several directions. I'm going to make two comments, one of "discrimination" and the other of Reid's status as a witnes after this week.

Regarding discrimination in Nothern Ireland, there are few that would deny that it existed. However what upsets me is that comments like those made this week by Reid, only serve to stiffle any debate (if indeed it is something that needs to be debated), as it makes reasonable discourse impossible as people are starting from a position of trying to sustain or deny such an obvious lie.

If unionists are prepared to accept that there was discrimination and that it was wrong, are nationalists/republicans willing to admit that 30 years of terrorism was not the way to counter it?

One of the main reasons for this discrimination was the nationalists never fully engaged in politics in Northern Ireland. Instead they clung on to the obviously misguided idea that a "united Ireland" was just around the corner (heaven help them, but some still do). Few Catholics joined the Unionist parties (despite the fact that thousand of Catholics prefer NI to remain in the UK) and the Unionist parties were left to run N.I. by successive U.K. government, self content that after several centuries the "Irish problem" had gone away.

In a situation where one section runs the state without an effective oppostion for 50 years, there is bound to be favouratism and consequently discrimination. This is human nature. Look to any state where one party or group has ben in power for so long, and you'll see the same thing happened.

What triggered the troubles 1960's in N.I. was not some increase in "Protestant fundamentalims" as somebody has fancifully suggested, but rather a global uprising with saw the civil rights movement in the USA, the student riots in France and surges in support for the left in most of Europe. This inspired the original civil right movement in N.I. If you want evidence, then follow the history of the song "We Shall Overcome". Unfortunatly the NICRA was very quickly hijacked by republicans (they may not have been Provos but let's not forget that this predated that split). The authorities knew this, so were initally not willing to make the necessary changes on equality. Of course when the government doesn't act there are those who choose other means, and thus the increased paramilitary activity by loyalists and republicans, and we know the rest.

Discrimination in the IFS/Eire/Republic, also existed but in a very different way. The IFS was a Catholic state for a Catholic people. Within the first few years of leaving the UK, the IFS government had banned divorce (previously leagal in Ireland) and brought in the most repressive censorship in western Europe. The Catholic church basically ran the country on all issues of personal morality. In 1932 in one of the most obvious displays church power there was the Eurchistic Conference.

For people like my father (a Church of Ireland child in Limerick) this only demonstrated that while he was Irish, he was not the "Irish" that was being defined by the new state. It got worse under DeValera who tried to cut any remaining ties with the UK and who try to create a monocultural isolated society, the like of which is only seen in places like North Korea today.

It comes as no surprise that one of DeValera's early acts once he came to power was to wipe out the Senate which in its original form was to be a place that protected the interest of minorities. The 1938 Constitution (which was drafted with the "help" of the arch-conservative Catholic arch-bishop of Dublin) recognised the "special positio of the Catholic church. It also constitutionally enshrined the ban divorce which ironically in turn led to the referendum campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s which served to undermine the position of the church, in a more enlightened time.

All of this led to huge alienation within the Protestant community. Many left the country, leaving only thise that had sufficient assets here to make a move undesirable. This in turn led to the perception of Protestants being a monied people and in turn more Catholic resentment. When my (Catholic) mother chose to marry "a Prod" some of her friends saw it as disloyal. When my father was forced to sign a document that all children would be raised as Catholics he was ostracised by his family.

I haven't even started on contraception, or the Catholic Church running schools and hospitals. Yes the Republic has got a whole lot better in the last 20 years but for the first 60 years it was every bit as bad as Northern Ireland, when it came to treating people equally.

That A Catholic proiest should come out with the statement he dids this week is not only offensive, it is downright disgusting, for above all alse it is the Catholic church which has abused people on this island for most of the last century. Reid would be best to re-read the bible and forget about politics. He might find an interesting line "Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone."

Keith M
Well said.

Keith M, me oul china plate, I dont have time to address your entire post, but let me just say that in general it is at best inaccurate and at worst nonsense.

I agree that the Catholic church had an unhealthy prominence in the 26 counties and that de Valera was a fool (but probably for many different reasons than you), but to suggest that the same level/type/scope of discrimination existed there against Protestants as existed here against Catholics is wrong. Nonsense altogether.

"If unionists are prepared to accept that there was discrimination and that it was wrong, are nationalists/republicans willing to admit that 30 years of terrorism was not the way to counter it?"

Again here you completely are off the mark. It is not for nationalists/republicans as one entity to 'admit' anything of the sort as very many were absolutely opposed to physical force the whole time. Ever heard of John Hume or Séamus Mallon? Those who were pro-physical force (to differing degrees) incluiding SF have said that they regret much of the violence.

"One of the main reasons for this discrimination was the nationalists never fully engaged in politics in Northern Ireland."

It's a tad difficult when in your gerrymandered constituency your religion often excluded you from the right to vote. And anyway, does being disenfranchised or disengaged in the political process mean that you're fair game for discrimination or that if you are discriminated against, it's your own fault? Nonsense. Discrimination existed because of bigotry.

All your examples of alleged discrimination, illegal divorce, contraception etc can hardly be called Catholic specific discrimination against Protestants. That's just nonsense too frankly. Don't you realise that Catholics mobilised against it to have it overturned and don't you remember that it's Paisley et al who are all for it up here!?! Who's running the campaign against 'sodomites' and 'family planning' etc.

Religion has no place in the political running of the company. I agree completely there, but seriously, re-read your own post there and don't be too harsh on yourself when you realise that it's a load of bull.

Reid shouldn't have said what he said. You will argue he shouldn't think it either. I don't think he does believe it since he himself called them 'foolish words', I suspect he was trying to express frustration and did it badly.

However, Catholics have been labelled 'subhuman', 'animals','scum' etc off an on for a long time. My native language has been completely disrespected as has my choice of vote etc etc etc. Both sides have and do sling mud. All this 'righteous anger' that is coming from the DUP is absolutely laughable.

He shouldn't have said it. He apologised. Let's stop the name-calling and engage with each other.

Oh yeah, that won't happen because the main Unionist party calls the party I vote for and their voters 'subhuman scum' so they won't talk to them (except for every day, day in day out at council meetings etc).

Keith M, me oul china plate, I dont have time to address your entire post, but let me just say that in general it is at best inaccurate and at worst nonsense.

I agree that the Catholic church had an unhealthy prominence in the 26 counties and that de Valera was a fool (but probably for many different reasons than you), but to suggest that the same level/type/scope of discrimination existed there against Protestants as existed here against Catholics is wrong. Nonsense altogether.

"If unionists are prepared to accept that there was discrimination and that it was wrong, are nationalists/republicans willing to admit that 30 years of terrorism was not the way to counter it?"

Again here you completely are off the mark. It is not for nationalists/republicans as one entity to 'admit' anything of the sort as very many were absolutely opposed to physical force the whole time. Ever heard of John Hume or Séamus Mallon? Those who were pro-physical force (to differing degrees) incluiding SF have said that they regret much of the violence.

"One of the main reasons for this discrimination was the nationalists never fully engaged in politics in Northern Ireland."

It's a tad difficult when in your gerrymandered constituency your religion often excluded you from the right to vote. And anyway, does being disenfranchised or disengaged in the political process mean that you're fair game for discrimination or that if you are discriminated against, it's your own fault? Nonsense. Discrimination existed because of bigotry.

All your examples of alleged discrimination, illegal divorce, contraception etc can hardly be called Catholic specific discrimination against Protestants. That's just nonsense too frankly. Don't you realise that Catholics mobilised against it to have it overturned and don't you remember that it's Paisley et al who are all for it up here!?! Who's running the campaign against 'sodomites' and 'family planning' etc.

Religion has no place in the political running of the company. I agree completely there, but seriously, re-read your own post there and don't be too harsh on yourself when you realise that it's a load of bull.

Reid shouldn't have said what he said. You will argue he shouldn't think it either. I don't think he does believe it since he himself called them 'foolish words', I suspect he was trying to express frustration and did it badly.

However, Catholics have been labelled 'subhuman', 'animals','scum' etc off an on for a long time. My native language has been completely disrespected as has my choice of vote etc etc etc. Both sides have and do sling mud. All this 'righteous anger' that is coming from the DUP is absolutely laughable.

He shouldn't have said it. He apologised. Let's stop the name-calling and engage with each other.

Oh yeah, that won't happen because the main Unionist party calls the party I vote for and their voters 'subhuman scum' so they won't talk to them (except for every day, day in day out at council meetings etc).

Suitably coffeed and sleep fully washed from my eyes, I'll cover Reid's role as a witness.

First a preamble on decommissioning. What seems to have been forgotten in the wrangling of the last 6 years is that decomissioning was put into the Belfast Agreement to help SF/IRA. It would have been much easier (and in hindsight probably better) for that Agreement to have proposed a power sharing executive which only had representatives of the biggest parties (at the time the UUP and the SDLP) from each community. When it was decided to go for the "inclusive" version which gave every party achieving 10% of the MLAs a place on the executive it meant that SF/IRA would have to prove that they were an exclusivly democratic party, or at least were willing to become one. This meant that there had to be a credible decommissioning process, and here the Agreement fell down. It did not expressly make decommissioning a pre-requisit of places in the executive. Instead it was cloaked in fuzzy ambigous language.

Within weeks of the referendum, the IRA were in "not a bullet, not an ounce" mode and this completly undermined the executive and consequently destroyed the whole agreement. However this a huge own-goal by SF/IRA, as not only did it collapse the only ever agreement to which they were a party, but by showing the flaws in the agreement, pushed unionists into the DUP camp (as the only party which had been unequivical in its opposition to the agreement).

Eventually the penny dropped and SF/IRA realised it had to make moves on decommissing, but they did so in such a grudging and non-transparent way that instead of being the confidence building act which had initially been intended it was seen as the act of a group who were reluctant to give up the bullet for the ballot box. So we are now in a position where SF/IRA may or may not have fully decommissioned, and people still don't believe that they have made that choice. The only thing we can be pretty certain of, is that there won't be any future act of SF/IRA decommissioning, so its use as a confidence building measure has all but evaporated.

And so we come to the point at hand. To have had any credability whatsover, the recent act decommissioning needed to be as transparent as possible. The fact that one of the witnesses is so obviously a SF/IRA stooge only serves to make people believe that once again the wool is being pulled over our eyes. Add to that is the fact that the Protestant churchman was not the one nominated by the DUP, and the whole things reeks to high heaven (pun intended).

"Unionist injustices ended in 1972. Republicanism thinks that just because it has ended an armed campaign that it should be trusted. I will agree that progress has been made. But by your figures of 24.46% that would mean that a quarter of the voters endorsed the Republican campaign, suggesting that 75.54% were against it, and therefore victims of it.
"

Nonsense. The security-forces colluded with Loyalist terrorists in the killing of Catholics - including Pat Finucane. The RUC was over 90% Protestant. Even now the PSNI is 85% Protestant. Not to mention the sectarian marches and laying siege to Catholic areas in order to rake up the past regarding 1690. So backward looking...

"One of the main reasons for this discrimination was the nationalists never fully engaged in politics in Northern Ireland. Instead they clung on to the obviously misguided idea that a "united Ireland" was just around the corner (heaven help them, but some still do). Few Catholics joined the Unionist parties (despite the fact that thousand of Catholics prefer NI to remain in the UK) and the Unionist parties were left to run N.I. by successive U.K. government, self content that after several centuries the "Irish problem" had gone away.

In a situation where one section runs the state without an effective oppostion for 50 years, there is bound to be favouratism and consequently discrimination. This is human nature. Look to any state where one party or group has ben in power for so long, and you'll see the same thing happened.

What triggered the troubles 1960's in N.I. was not some increase in "Protestant fundamentalims" as somebody has fancifully suggested, but rather a global uprising with saw the civil rights movement in the USA, the student riots in France and surges in support for the left in most of Europe. This inspired the original civil right movement in N.I. If you want evidence, then follow the history of the song "We Shall Overcome". Unfortunatly the NICRA was very quickly hijacked by republicans (they may not have been Provos but let's not forget that this predated that split). The authorities knew this, so were initally not willing to make the necessary changes on equality. Of course when the government doesn't act there are those who choose other means, and thus the increased paramilitary activity by loyalists and republicans, and we know the rest. "

Keith M, the kind of system that existed in NI was overtly sectarian from Day 1, not simply because it was in power for 50 years. From Day 1 Unionist ministers were telling their people not to employ Catholics e.g. Lord Brookeborough said "I recommend those who are Loyalists not to employ Roman Catholics 95% of whom are disloyal". The West of the Bann was gerrymandered by Unionists and Catholic unemployment was far higher. Get real please.,

You seem to be implying that because most Catholics did not support partition, that this somehow justified them being discriminated against. This relfects the authoritarian mindset of much of Unionism that does not accept the right of Nationalists even to aspire to a United Ireland. Northern Nationalists who want a UI are going to continue to aspire in that direction and you have to accept that just as they accept that you are going to continue supporting the Union. Political-opinion should not be trotted out as an excuse for discrimination.

I do not accept that NICRA was hijacked by the PIRA. That was just propaganda from the Unionist authorities to distract attention from NICRA's demands for an end to the bigoted suppression of the Catholic community, including discrimination in housing - partly intended by Unionists to reduce the Catholic vote at elections - the business-vote - intended by Unionists to increase the Unionist vote, and the brutally partisan behaviour of the RUC, B Specials etc.

"It comes as no surprise that one of DeValera's early acts once he came to power was to wipe out the Senate which in its original form was to be a place that protected the interest of minorities. The 1938 Constitution (which was drafted with the "help" of the arch-conservative Catholic arch-bishop of Dublin) recognised the "special positio of the Catholic church. It also constitutionally enshrined the ban divorce which ironically in turn led to the referendum campaigns of the 1980s and 1990s which served to undermine the position of the church, in a more enlightened time."

The Senate was gotten rid of because it was determined to keep the hated Oath of Allegiance to the British monarch that Irish Dail members had to take. In the 1920's the Constitution forced on us by Britain required such an oath to be taken. It also allowed for a referendum to be held to change the Constitution if a certain number of signatures petitioned for constitutional change. De Valera in the 20's refused to enter Dail Eireann because of the Oath. His Fianna Fail party started to collect signatures for a referendum on the Oath, by the Cosgrave Government then changed the law to prevent this (at the time the Dail had the power to change the constitution). After De Valera and Fianna Fail came to power in 1932, he passed legislation in the Dail to abolish the Oath, but the Senate rejected it. This behaviour by the Senate explains why De Valera changed the rules in 1937 to replace the veto power of the Senate with a 9 month delaying power. It ensured that an elected house would not be bossed around by unrepresentative aristocrats like the British House of Lords.

Keith, if the Northern state was so keen on protecting minorities why did it abolish Proportional-Representation for Stormont and local elections? This system was in the Government of Ireland Act in order to protect minorities. We have retained this system in Southern Ireland to this day.

While I agree that until the 90's, the Southern law and Constitution contained too much of Catholic social-teaching, e.g. ban on divorce, homosexuality, contraception, and a reference to the Catholic Church's "special place", these are now gone. And in any case, all of this was far from the overt persecution of Catholics in NI where the security forces were beating up Catholics in tandem with Loyalist mobs. Our ministers never went around telling Catholics not to employ Protestants. If our state was only for a "Catholic people" then why did we have 2 Protestant presidents? And why were Protestants in senior positions in government, e.g. Ernest Blythe from Co.Antrim was our first Finance Minister.

You have to refer to the past for evidence of discrimination. However, I don't have to go all the way back to the Old Stormont for evidence of discrimination. You can talk about 1932 if you want. But that is a hell of a long time ago. I am amazed how much Northern Unionists 'know' about my State having never been here or if they have been here have not come across anti-Protestant attitudes. At least mny state doesnt ban Protestants from becoming Head of State, unlike the UK ban on Catholics becoming the monarch.

By the way Keith, we never had a law down here requiring Protestant parents to raise their children as Catholics.

Nonsense Keith M.

"Eventually the penny dropped and SF/IRA realised it had to make moves on decommissing, but they did so in such a grudging and non-transparent way that instead of being the confidence building act which had initially been intended it was seen as the act of a group who were reluctant to give up the bullet for the ballot box. So we are now in a position where SF/IRA may or may not have fully decommissioned, and people still don't believe that they have made that choice. The only thing we can be pretty certain of, is that there won't be any future act of SF/IRA decommissioning, so its use as a confidence building measure has all but evaporated."

Confidence should be built that at very least a very significant amount of killing apparatus is gone. No transparency could ever completely convince that every bullet and every ounce was decommissioned. How could that be done really?

Fr Reid is hardly an IRA stooge. That's insulting. The man, if you care to actually find anything out about the man instead of just jumping to the idiotic DUP tune, is and always was 100% anti-violence.

So, because the DUP didn't select Harold Good, what he saw was not good enough. What the hell gives the DUP any right to do the picking?

Either you think Good is a man of integrity or you think he's lying. You obviously don't think that Fr Reid is a man of integrity. That's regretable.

DUP can posture about it all all they want. Progress will be made and SF will continue to push things forward as they seem to be the only ones who give a damn about the working class who are being shafted by Unionist and Nationalist intransigence.

The guns are gone whether you like it or not.

Baluba.."but to suggest that the same level/type/scope of discrimination existed there against Protestants as existed here against Catholics is wrong." I didn't say that what I said was "Yes the Republic has got a whole lot better in the last 20 years but for the first 60 years it was every bit as bad as Northern Ireland, when it came to treating people equally." That is something I don't think you can argue against, if yoy speak to people who lived through that time.

"Ever heard of John Hume or Séamus Mallon? Those who were pro-physical force (to differing degrees) incluiding SF have said that they regret much of the violence." Hume is the very man who when he issued statements about IRA terrorist acts, always put in a caveat. This is the difference between honourable men like Gerry Fitt and John Hume. I'm not suggesting for a moment that every nationalist supported SF/IRA terrorism, but people were aquiesant like so many unionists in the 1921-1971 period.

"It's a tad difficult when in your gerrymandered constituency your religion often excluded you from the right to vote." First of all there was no gerrymandering of constituencies. There isn't one Westminster MP elected from N.I. since partition that was elected thanks to gerrymandering. Secondly it's hard to take lectures on geryymandering from people who when elected, do not take their seats and choose to disenfranchise every one of their constituents.

"Discrimination existed because of bigotry." Some did, some didn't. Much of the discrimination came because some people were favoured above others. Blankey generalisations don't help the debate here.

"All your examples of alleged discrimination, illegal divorce, contraception etc can hardly be called Catholic specific discrimination against Protestants." When one religeon allows divorce, contraception etc., and one doesn't, making an act of private morality illegal is religeous specific discrimination. The same applies to Paisley and gay rights. What he tried to do was wrong.

We seem to agree that what Reid said was wrong, but these are not the ramblings of an irrelevant figure, they are the beliefs of someone who was supposed to act as an honest broker and that is clearly not the case. That is the longterm implication of this week.

"Fr Reid is hardly an IRA stooge". Who but an SF/IRA stooge would believe that they were not involved in the Northern Bank raid.

"What the hell gives the DUP any right to do the picking?" Because they are the party that are being asked to share power with SF/IRA.

"Much of the discrimination came because some people were favoured above others."

Great euphemism.

Can you explain to me where this institutional discrimination was and what form it took? You keep referring to religious related issues. Are you seriously comparing some unhappy Protestant married couple being unable to divorce with people being denied employment, housing and democracy!?!

Seriously mate, wise up.

Well KeithM, I don't believe they did it and most of the people I know don't either, because we prefer to hear some, what do you call that stuff, erm...evidence.

I must be a stooge then. (I hope I can be Mo).

How come when Reidso says something stupid he should be immediately thrown to the dogs, but the DUP can go on doing it week in, week out and still enjoy your support (sorry if that's a presumption, but I am under the iumpression that you're a bit of a fan of Doddsy and the Punt etc).

Is there not a double-standard there?

As I said, many people have said many regretable things, why don't we take on Maskey's suggestion of the other night to undertake to stop the name-calling (even though Ian Jr refused point blank - it's all he's good at.)

Well, I'm off to buy some great organic produce from St George's market - I especially enjoy Churchtown farm's meat - it's so good I have to plug it here in a completely irrelevant forum!

Those Unionists using Fr.Reid's remarks to try to undermine the credibility of the decommissioning process should remember that Rev.Good was also a witness and that no reason exists as to question his credibility. Or John de Chastelain, the Finnish general and the American witness. Unless everyone is involved in some massive international "Papist" conspiracy against you of course, including Protestants. :)

"Are you seriously comparing some unhappy Protestant married couple being unable to divorce with people being denied employment, housing and democracy." Yes I am. Try living in an unhappy relationship, knowing that you can never legally get out of it for the resrt of your life. Try being branded as a criminal because you bring birth control into the country. As I said it was a different type of inequality but it was just as intrusive and just as misery making.

"I must be a stooge then." If the cap fits.

Please don't fall into the trap of beliving I'm a fan of the DUP, simply because I took the same position on the 1998 agreement.

Brian Boru "we never had a law down here requiring Protestant parents to raise their children as Catholics." I never said we did, but yet that is what happened in 95% of of "mixed marriages". You don't need laws when peer pressure is at work in a society.

IJP

"What should be accepted is that there are a lot of Nationalists who think the treatment of Catholics 1921-73 equates with that of Jews by Nazis."

There are very few nationalists who would think that. It's patently ridiculous (unless you were talking about the penal laws or plantation of Ulster).

Nobody is claiming that that Stormont regime systematically tried to exterminate Nationalists.

What Reid believes is that protestants and unionists attach a different value to the lives and feelings of catholics, and in their own modest way they echo Nazi thories of superior and inferior races.

Take prisoner releases as an example. Unionists have continuously talked about the pain and the hurt caused exclusively to protestants by those releases. Unionists claim it was a difficult process uniquely for protestants.

Do unionists genuinely believe that prisoner releases are more difficult for protestants?

Do they believe that catholics don't experience a full range of similar of human emotions as protestants? Are they saying that Catholics are sub-human?

If not why continuously make such a ridiculous, offensive claim?

If you want to understand what Reid means, that's the kind of place he is coming from. It's just run of the mill sectarian insult like nationalists and unionist do everyday - and it illustrates the main problem in NI right now, everybody suffers from an excessive amount of self-righteous indignation.

Keith M

You suck.

'Nonsense. The security-forces colluded with Loyalist terrorists in the killing of Catholics - including Pat Finucane. The RUC was over 90% Protestant. Even now the PSNI is 85% Protestant. Not to mention the sectarian marches and laying siege to Catholic areas in order to rake up the past regarding 1690. So backward looking...'

I presume you're referring to yourself there. More whataboutery. That's the 3rd mythical figure about PSNI composition I've been hit with this week. Remember 50/50 and stop complaining. Protestants are discriminated against in the PSNI application process; we accept that as part of the move to a more representative force. And I would suggest the threat of IRA terror against Catholic officers had a lot to do with that composition (one example off the top of my head; Gabriel Mullally, February 1989).

Let me make my position clear: As a democrat I respect the constitutional views of everyone in this country; if they consider themselves Irish, Northern Irish, British, an Ulsterman, a Welshman, an American, it is so. But I do not have to, and will not, respect those that support violence against my countrymen. Nor will I hear criticism of the composition of the PSNI, when, given its current attempts at being more inclusive, being used as a stick do beat it, especially given the implied insult of sectarianism in the Protestant demographic.

Fr. Reid is no Republican. Republicanism has never been assisted by Catholicism. From the Fenians onwards, Republicanism has never found any parallels in a reactionary church organised on openly monarchic principles. Lets not forget that Maynooth priest training college was funded by British government money. Apart from one or two "maverick" priests (Wilson, Murray) who were barely tolerated by the Catholic hierarchy, Catholic priests and bishops instinctively favour the status-quo. It’s how they’ve been conditioned. When they step out of line, as with Latin American liberation theology, the Church disowns them.

Fr. Reid is no Republican. Republicanism has never been assisted by Catholicism.

I know a father Chesney, who might disagree, if he were alive.Not to mention the church that harboured him.

As for the issue at hand.

It seems pretty instuctive to me that father Reid made the remarks when on the defensive.
One of the biggest problems we have is in coming to terms with the ills "our" side has visited upon "their" side.

From my perspective, the discrimination that catholics undoubtably suffered can in now way justify the violent rection to that discrimination.
The deep seated need for nationalist to equate their experiences with the treatment of jews at the hands of te Nazis stems from their need to justify what the IRA did.
If it was justified by what happened, then they would argue this point, but instead they have to exaggerate what happened.

I've heard similar styles of MOPPry from prods, who claim that all catholics are part of a conspiracy to undermine and overthrow the state, as if this justifies their unfair treatment, not to mention the slaughter visited upon them by the loyalist scum.

Regarding republicanism (with a small r) and the church (any church), isn't the concept of republicanism that developed in the Enlightenment inherently anti-clerical?

I ask this because, over here in America, we have right-wing Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals in lock step trying to undo the secular state we established in 1787. For just two recent examples, see Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president Bill Donohue's MIERS’ RELIGION ALREADY UNDER FIRE and Focus on the Family chairman James C. Dobson's Transcript of Dobson Comments on Miers.

Argument on the Irish Times letter page saying the unionist mindset in Ireland was similar to that of the Third Reich.

"The Nazis behaved as they did towards other groups because of an inherent belief in their own superiority. Unionists too have been guilty of this attitude towards the nationalist community. This is the bald truth and something that unionists need to engage with ... Apologies allow unionists to disengage from their responsibilities and give credibility to their outlandish belief that they were the only victims."

"Ref- err - eeee!!"

TAFKABO

"The deep seated need for nationalist to equate their experiences with the treatment of jews at the hands of te Nazis stems from their need to justify what the IRA did."

Unionists should be aware:

1.Nationalists don't equate their experiences with the treatment of the Jews.

2.Nationalists equate Unionists with Nazis.

Take the example of Unionists equating republicans in particular with "fascists". That's not very controversial, we've heard it a million times.

Do unionists believe the aim of Republicans was to take over as much of the world as possible and turn it into some kind of "Greater Ireland"
- like the way the Italians invaded Africa.

Of course they don't, but they still use the term even though it's complete nonsense, just like Alec Reids comments.

Also, by using this kind of language nationals are not exagerating to justify what the IRA did. They are insulting Unionists and painting them black.

Tafkabo, you've said were a member of UVF/PUP. So, you'll be well versed in the justification of murder, whether it's a "measured military response" or a "legitimate target".

Reid's comments are disgraceful. Mind you, so to is the absence, after all this time, of any serious, measured, rational, respectful acknowledgement that the old Stormont treated non-unionists as equal citizens. It also treated sections of the unionist working class disgracefully which is commonly unacknowledged by catholic bigots. The GFA did not in any sense give recognition to the causes of conflict and this has still not been debated in adult fashion by most of the maian parties. How can there be a solution until the nature and reasons for the conflict are debated and some baseline consensus reached upon why we are where we are ? Meantime, the cacophany of idiocy continues.

Tafkabo, you've said were a member of UVF/PUP. So, you'll be well versed in the justification of murder, whether it's a "measured military response" or a "legitimate target".

Biffo

It's regrettable that you choose to engage in this style of debate.
If you had taken all of my post into consideration, you could see that I wasn't trying to play the game of themmuns and ussuns, but pointing out faults common to both sides of the divide.
I have never been a member of the UVF and take great exception to be accused of such a thing.
I did briefly belong to the PUP a few years back, for about six months, but when I mentioned this, I also clearly stated that I left as soon as it was apparent that the UVF were still engaged in violence, and not making moves towards soley peaceful methods, as I believed they were when I joined.
I have levelled far worse criticisms at the PUP than I have at any other political party.
I do not, and have not, ever sought to excuse or justify what the UVF have done, please let's not get into this game of smearing each other in lieu of being able to argue a point.

Slugger is one of the few places that is above this kind of thing.

"your religion often excluded you from the right to vote"£

Once again we have this claptrap trotted out -everybody in N Ireland had THE VOTE. There was a property qualification for votes in electing town councillors. This affected both prods and micks -so no discrimination there.

The catholic community insisted in its own education system -controlled by the Roman Catholic church so no dicrimination there.

33% of places were reserved for RCs in the police service-(some discrimination there?)-- they refused to take them up.

The catholc community took full advantage of the benefits of thye british state at the same time giving active a and tacit support to IRA murder gangs (who have operated in every decade in the past 100?300? years).

The sad fact is that the old jib not loyal to the crown but loyal to the half crown( a coin worth 12.5 p for the younger element) had some basis.

Having spent years trying to wreck the state it takes a real brass neck to complain about state treatment. The catholic community has an exact analogy in the child who murders his parents and then expects special treatment because he is an orphan

Biffo

That's not what Fr Reid said and it's not what he meant and you know it. He equated treatment of Nationalists with treatment of Jews. That is a ludicrous and indefensible parallel.

There is, as George suggests, a legitimate underlying parallel (although this must be mega-carefully stated). But again George puts the blinkers on - the truth is that all sorts of Nationalism assume the superiority of one group over another (whether this be expressed through claiming a superior culture, claiming a greater right to a specific territory, or whatever). This is yet another reason that both Irish Nationalism and Ulster Unionism are outdated and have nothing to offer us in the future.

IJP,

Specifically, I didn't quite call for the apology to be accepted, but rather I suggested it was rather irrelevant.

Thanks for clarifying. I would still argue that Reid's apology should be accepted, though. I also agree that a new way of doing politics is needed, but I disagree that the old political positions can be swept aside. The only hope seems to me to lie in reworking those positions. I won't bore you with the details here, but I've made numerous suggestions of how I think this could happen on this board.

stu,

You have done that which i accused you of; ignoring my points and questions and again attempting to ridicule me.

*sigh* I have no interest in "ridiculing" you. You need to get over it.

I'll try to spell this out for you. Your "points" and "arguments" essentially boil down to a series of rationalisations for a refusal to engage with elected republicans because you see them as having supported the use of violence. This is not a new argument. It's rebuttal is not new either.

You couched your arguments in the rhetoric of "themmuns" which you dismissed when it was used by another poster.

So, your argument is one heard a million times before. And look where it's gotten things. In short, I think your points are not constructive because they simply retread a bald argument: you don't want to talk to "themmuns."

I also suggested that from the point of view of how you make your arguments, you need to decide whether or not you can do without the strategy of blaming "themmuns." Judging by the evidence you cannot. I'm not slagging you off: very few (I'm being generous) political arguments can do without scapegoating someone. It's a community builder.

However, your argument brought nothing new to the discussion. Your posts might have attempted to suggest ways of engaging and talking, but they did not.

IJP,

This is yet another reason that both Irish Nationalism and Ulster Unionism are outdated and have nothing to offer us in the future.

If you have the time, could you tell me what you think should replace them?

How would it appeal to both communities?

Alan Mc Donald: "I ask this because, over here in America, we have right-wing Catholics and right-wing Evangelicals in lock step trying to undo the secular state we established in 1787. For just two recent examples, see Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights president Bill Donohue's MIERS’ RELIGION ALREADY UNDER FIRE and Focus on the Family chairman James C. Dobson's Transcript of Dobson Comments on Miers."

A secular state? Only in so far as the central government was not to annoit a NATIONAL religon. The several states could and did establish state religions, up until the late nineteeth century. A side note is that the decision that brought up the phrase "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution, but derives from a mid-nineteeth century NY State decision denying state support to parochial (read RC) schools, since a perfectly good Protestant education was available in the public school system. The United States was never intended as a secular state, it was meant to be one free of the problems found in the United Kingdom that had led to the waves of colonization in the first place.

victor1

I've only just noticed an earlier response of mine.

For some reason you say I'm wrong, and then you say that Irish Republicanism has moved. Yet that doesn't contradict me!

I specifically said 'Unionism and Irish Nationalism'. And by 'WE' I meant 'the people'.

I do not recognize SF in its current form as an Irish Republican party - it has adopted Irish Nationalism almost wholesale for the sake of votes. It's easier to get votes based on 'tribe wars' than on principle - as I would know! :)

However, Irish Republicanism in its true, traditional form is fundamentally a progressive, democratic movement. Link that with the tradition of British Liberalism (likewise progressive and democratic) and you have two concepts which, despite competing national affiliations, are forward-looking and capable of mutually beneficial compromise.

Hi Yoda

I've actually accidentally more or less answered your question in my previous post, despite the fact I wrote it before reading yours!

There are minority strands within both the SDLP and SF which adhere to the true Irish Republicanism I talk of. And there are strands certainly within the Ulster Unionists which are fundamentally Liberal (capital 'L'). Those two groups, both also represented in 'Centre' parties like my own, need to work together to deliver a genuinely progressive political movement based on sharing territory not because that's morally the thing to do, but because it is genuinely mutually beneficial to do so.

The alternative is a (Ulster Prod or Irish) Nationalist zero-sum game based upon the blame game and tribal trade-off. That delivers nothing by distrust, ignorance, and hatred, the like of which we've seen illustrated by both sides this week.

We should stop focusing on a single individual (Fr Reid), and focus on the reality that the poison of bigotry is if anything growing rather than declining in too many areas - he has merely represented that, but he alone is not responsible for it. Deep inside we all have our grievances. But we also have our futures. We all need to think about that.

Yoda

If you mean that I refuse to engage with those who support terror; even though they mave a minority electoral mandate, then you're right. A vote for Sinn Fein in the last election is the same as a vote for the IRA. It would be churlish to argue otherwise. Anyone who wanted to express their Nationalist tendencies could have voted SDLP, like I did, but they chose not to. The last time I checked, we were in a majority rule, and the majority did not vote Sinn Fein, a fact that seems to be ignored everytime someone claims they have a mandate. Until a government can be formed, there is no mandate.

Do not presume that because I am Protestant that I am not prepared to engage with my fellow countrymen who are commited to peaceful methods. If the Monitoring Commission declares an end to criminality by the IRA I will be first in line to demand the DUP get round the table and get devolution back up and running. I would like to see this happen now as well, and would be perfectly willing to see SF in government if they form a coalition to establish one; but if the largest returned party doesn't want to form a government with them, they don't have to, and they don't have to form one with any party they don't want to.

If you think that calling attention to hypocrisy among the aforementioned on this board is a cry of 'themmuns', then you're entitled to your opinion. I would argue that given your refusal to engage with my points past those which served your own argument, and your reason for doing so ('However, your argument brought nothing new to the discussion. Your posts might have attempted to suggest ways of engaging and talking, but they did not.') Read the board title. When a thread is started about engagement, you'll see me there, lobbying for it.

IJP,

Thanks for that. I suspect that we are largely in agreement on looking for the best in strands of political ideologies that can all-too-easily be stereotyped and dismissed. I firmly believe those strands should be fostered and encouraged. It's the only way (well, short of a big comet or global thermo-nuclear war) that the political landscape and political imaginations can be changed.

It takes a great deal of fortitude to look past our grievances if they form our most treasured sense of identity. It's even harder if we believe that we're being suckered into renegotiating our identities by the "other side."

stu,

If you mean that I refuse to engage with those who support terror; even though they mave a minority electoral mandate, then you're right.

I know.

Do not presume that because I am Protestant that...

I did not presume anything about your background or what you will or won't do. I simply read your post and, as it turns out, I was right.

I would argue that given your refusal to engage with my points past those which served your own argument...

Look, for the last time. I get your argument. The problem is that there is nothing to engage with in it aside from yet another series of rationalisations about why you don't want to talk to "themmuns."

I've already said that there will always be a "themmuns" (I am truly getting tired of this word) who are "responsible" for the ills of society: the travellers, the unmarried mothers, the freeloading jobless, the underclass, the immigrants, the criminals, etc. The trick is to be vigilant and to spot it when it's happening. It's not always easy, but it's the only way to bring about an inclusive society. It can sometimes take the form of showing to opposed groups how similar they are.

I'd argue that talking to "themmuns" is always educational (for BOTH sides) and a useful avenue for bringing to bear the social pressure for change. I'm not suggesting it's easy, but it beats impotent "moral" outrage anyday. "Moral" outrage is usually very selective: a bullshit rationalisation for letting things stagnate. Talking about mutual benefit is better.

I've been hearing your argument for years. It's sterile, it's arid, it's stillborn. It's bad for my nerves and gives me hives. It is, in the immortal words of Therapy?, "Goin' Nowhere."

Yoda

You've somehow managed to turn my observation of irony and ever-so-slight hypocrisy into a defiant political statement.

In my first post I predicted the familiar issues to be drawn into an irrelevant debate (securocrats, themmuns etc)

A serious of posters from Henry to Victor to ASC etc make those very noises, the whole while blaming unionism for the 'themmuns' thing. A word, incidently, I'm also sick of. I point out the hypocrisy there. This is called wry humour. You have your little stab. And off we go on the irrelevancy tree until somehow my post was all about why I woulnd't engage with themmuns. WHich was the point of my post all along, wasn't it?

I predicted a series of noises and responded when they came up, then you jumped in with two feet and dragged the issue around to try and twist what I was saying. I understand I shouldn't have bitten. But you're good, and I understand that. I won't be drawn again.

The point of my posts was 'why I won't talk to Sinn Fein' it was 'Why are people justifying his statement after he's apologised and we've accepted that? I bet this gets spun onto how this whole mess started and all kinds of stupid parallels get drawn. I bet securocrats (or the work thereof esp. in connection to Northern Bank, allegations of criminality etc.)' And it was.

All that can be quite easily drawn from my first posts. Until you brought it up yourself, whether or not I thought the Unionist community should talk to SF was not raised.

TAFKABO

"I also clearly stated that I left as soon as it was apparent that the UVF were still engaged in violence."

Fair play to you.

IJP

"That's not what Fr Reid said and it's not what he meant and you know it."

That statement is untrue. I can't find any blow by blow account of what happened at that meeting, there is nothing quoted about what was said from the floor, I don't know what the provocation was, if any.

I didn't feel the need previously, but I've just checked out exactly what he said.. from..

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/10/13/story225166.html

This is what he said:

“You don‘t want to hear the truth.

“The reality is that the nationalist community in Northern Ireland were treated almost like animals by the unionist community.

“They were not treated like human beings.

“They were treated like the Nazis treated the Jews.”

You can take whatever you want from his words, but I know he doesn't think that unionists engaged in a "final solution" to exterminate nationalists of the face of the earth, that's just ridiculous.

What he believes is that unionists were engaged in doing things like unfairly manipulating the democratic processes to consolidate and bolster their own power, inventing the most draconian legislation in the British Isles directed exclusively against nationalists, discriminating against nationalists in jobs and housing. Revelling in beating nationalists off the streets when they finally got around to demanding "civil rights"

Strictly speaking those are all kinds of things the Nazis did.

But the Nazis did them on a scale that is hard to imagine and Nazis were brutal on a scale you just couldn't comprehend.

I don't know if father Reid was around Clonard in 1969 and the burning of Bombay Street when the RUC were accused of standing back while loyalist mobs burned whole streets down.

That's what he's talking about.

The above article goes on to report:

"Fr Reid told the audience that the nationalist community would have acted in the same way, had the roles been reversed".

Maybe he was then trying to extricate himself from the shit he got himself into and is unconvincing.

Maybe he believes that, and given the right circumstances, nationalists would have behaved like unionists and been the Nazis.

There are even contradictions in his accusation. The Nazis didn't treat the Jews "almost like animals"

What people like yourself and unionists like Peter Munce are reading into this is unfortunate. But please read my previous comments about prisoner releases. Unionists continuously use the derogatory insult as well. That is what we have here - we don't have equation between Stormont and the holocaust.

Sorry for being so long-winded - this is my summary.

The provocation he faced was probably OTT. (Willie Frazer!!!)

His retaliation was OTT.

Unionist reaction is OTT.

Your interpretation of nationalist opinions is OTT.

IJP,
"But again George puts the blinkers on -..."

The quote I put up was from the Irish Times, which I thought might be of interest to people on this thread. I never put it forward as my view.

George

Fair enough - the Irish Times put the blinkers on. Although sometimes blinkers aren't such a bad thing, mind!

Biffo

They were treated like the Nazis treated the Jews.

Sorry, you're tying yourself in knots. You yourself accept we can only go by what he said. And the words are clear enough (and indeed were not withdrawn). He wasn't talking about 'attitude', he was talking about 'treatment'.

The truth is that a significant number of Nationalists in the North genuinely think their grievances from the past are comparable to those of Jews under the Nazis, when the fact is that parallels even to blacks in Apartheid South Africa are plainly ludicrous. That is the issue. When are Nationalists going to rid themselves of this ridiculous grievance culture and get on with the future?

The Unionist reaction is not OTT, it's just wrong. Because the truth is many, perhaps even most, Unionists believe that the only legacy we have to recover from is an IRA bombing campaign. That is equally ludicrous. When are Unionists going to accept their fundamental role in creating the legacy from which we all have to recover?

But yet it's very difficult for Nationalists not to overplay the past while Unionists turn a ludicrously blind eye to it altogether. And it's very difficult for Unionists to accept their role when Nationalists ludicrously overplay it. More important still, it's impossible for either 'side' to stop the exaggeration while votes fundamentally depend on it.

The ultimate truth in Northern Ireland is we are all waiting for the 'other side' to admit its wrongs while trying to claim the moral high ground for ourselves ('We all have our histories', 'At least Protestants don't vote for Loyalist parties' etc). But none of us has a right to the moral high ground historically - some of us supported blatant disparities, others backed (to various degrees) the worst post-war terrorist campaigns in Western Europe.

We should stop competing on the past, otherwise we'll never move on to the future.

IJP

I am not tying myself in knots. I have made it pretty clear what I believe to the case about what he said and what he means by it.

"They were treated like the Nazis treated the Jews."

Nazi's controlled the functions of the state and discriminated against Jews.

Unionists controlled the functions of the state and discriminated against Catholics. Fr Reid is right if that's what he meant.

Nazi's also tried to wipe European Jews off the face of the earth.

Unionists did not try to wipe Northern Irish Catholics of the face of the earth. Fr Reid is wrong if that's what he meant.

"They were not treated like human beings."

Have you looked at how the RUC and B Specials treated people like the civil marchers in the 1960's? Those people were protesting for rights that are not controversial, that we all now take for granted. They were treated them like animals. Look what happened at Burntollet.

Is this clear enough for you? Can you see the consistency of my point?

Calling unionist Nazis doesn't equate to the holocaust. Similarly Unionist claims about the impact of prisoners releases, if you take them at face value, suggest that nationalists are sub-human (please read my comments above). I know that's not what unionist believe but if I wanted to I could put it too you that that is exactly what they believe because that is exactly what they say.

Fr Reids comments are wrong, they are intemperate and insulting and out of all proportion. It's an everyday occurance in Northern Irish politics.

Now Willy Frazer is going to bring a prosecution under "incitement to hatred". Arlene Foster is involved and she believes they have a strong case. The matter is in the hands of the PSNI.

They haven't a hope in hell.

(how do you do bold type, by the way?)

Biffo,

less than symbol B greater than symbol
word(s) to be bolded
less than symbol slash symbol B greater than symbol

#B%word(s) to be bolded#/B%
where # = less than symbol
and % = greater than symbol

example: word(s) to be bolded

See also Boldface in the HTML Code Tutorial.

To Mr Bigglesworth, Keith M and others

I think it was Napoleon who said ‘ What is history but a myth agreed upon’

The reaction to the remarks of Fr Alex Reid is dismaying. and totally true to form. If you want to travel on, you are gonna have to pass thru checkpoint reality at some point.

Robert Fisk wrote In Time of War: Ireland, Ulster and the Price of Neutrality 1939-45 (Gill & Macmillan)
‘When Belfast suffered its 1941 calvary, the morale of its bombed survivors collapsed while the Northern Ireland home affairs minister, the mean-spirited and alcoholic Dawson Bates, urged the opening of camps for thousands of refugees whose "personal habits . . . are sub-human". No wonder the moderator of the Presbyterian church was to warn that "if something is not done now to remedy this rank inequality, there will be a revolution after the war". Brooke intended to avoid any such civil unrest, whatever the cost to Britain's wartime allies. Secret communications - I found them in the Northern Ireland Public Record Office in 1978 but they were swiftly closed afterwards - show that Brooke was fearful of British plans to farm out thousands of Polish troops to the North after the war. The Poles had fought alongside Northern Irish regiments at Monte Cassino, but could not return to their now-Communist homeland. Brooke refused to have them. The Poles were Catholics.’

‘Sub-Human’ ?
‘Camps’ ?

Doesn’t sound a thousand miles away from Germany circa 1935-1945. Does it?

What has been ignored in the misplaced and misleading response to Fr Alex Reid’s remarks is simple. It is this.

Unionism, not the unionist or protestant people, is seen by many, including reputable historians and journalists, at its most fundamental to be a racist supremacist ideology.

In turn the sad fact is that the wider unionist community/family is seen to have endorsed, or at least acquiesced to, this political belief system based on racist supremacy. And why not? They clearly benefited from it.

However, until this ongoing dysfunctional denial is confronted and addressed, no one benefits.

wild turkey: urged the opening of camps for thousands of refugees whose "personal habits . . . are sub-human".

I see you picked up on a couple of key words here. The camps were to be refugee camps. Jonathon Bardon also described the evacuation from Belfast in his history of Ulster - he describes the 'personal habits' that were such a problem to the people offering shelter to some of the refugees. But there's nothing to say whether the habits were the exclusive preserve of one side of the community. It's not nearly so sinister now - is it?

Alan McDonald

Thanks

And of course no one is prosecuting Willie Frazer for incitement to hatred?
His own website compares the Irish state with Nazi Germany and even places the Irish flag next to the swastika. Willie Frazer should ring up Arlene Foster and get her to prosecute him too.

Frazer's own Nazi accusations

wild turkey

What you say has a lot of merit (although Reader has rightly picked you up on your selective use of certain terms).

But again it is not the point. Reid said that the treatment equated with that of Jews by Nazis. It is true 'Most Oppressed People Ever' stuff. And it is, to use a technical term, bollocks.

And again, all Nationalist discourse is ultimately supremacist, including Irish Nationalism. It is about one people having more rights (be it to territory, righteousness or whatever) than another. That pervades nearly all political thought in NI right across the Board

It is accurate but also easy for a Nationalist to say Unionists have to tackle it. But are Nationalists prepared to accept, fundamentally, that Nationalists too have to tackle it, at its very core? That's not the impression I'm getting, but that is the issue.

why exactly were the electoral boundaries of Donegal county redrawn in the 1960s . By a strange coincidence the bizarre realignment of the constituency boundary through the Barnes Gap had the no doubt unintended consequence of severing the Protestants of the south from those of the east, and the independent TD (i.e. Protestant) that had hitherto been returned since 1921 was no longer electable.

Brian the civil rights organisation took a march that wasn't wanted through a host community without engaging in dialogue with that community ( sound familiar?) It sought confrontation with the state apparatus . It is now widely accepted that before it left Maghera for Londonderry members of the IRA were present , but instructed not to offer violence if attacked. maybe these things were justifiable in the context of the times, but the NICRA were no cuddly innocent wide eyed students. They had a radical agenda which was not supported by the majority of the population

dathrumsfeld-They had a radical agenda which was not supported by the majority of the population

Yes your right.The majority of the population didn't support it because it was campaigning for catholic rights.Something which still to this very day is abhorred by unionists.So what did they do at the time.They used violence because they knew they would get away with it.Resemblences of murders in the deep south where members of the police were in the kkk or judges and juries were as well spring to mind

"the civil rights organisation took a march that wasn't wanted through a host community without engaging in dialogue with that community ( sound familiar?) It sought confrontation with the state apparatus . It is now widely accepted that before it left Maghera for Londonderry members of the IRA were present , but instructed not to offer violence if attacked. maybe these things were justifiable in the context of the times, but the NICRA were no cuddly innocent wide eyed students. They had a radical agenda which was not supported by the majority of the population "

Darthrumsfeld, there is no comparison between a march celebrating a battle, and a march against gerrymandering, discrimination in housing, the absence of one-man-one-vote, and discrimination in employment.

Of course most in NI probably didn't support NICRA. After all, NICRA was demanding equality, something that the Unionists were stubbornly opposed to.

I was glad to read Willie Frazer website. I never realised how many Nazi supporters there were in the Republic during the years 1933 - 1945 and the continuing support and devotion to Sean Russell by Sinn Fein's Mary Lou McDonald.

We didn't support the Nazis. The IRA was illegal at the time so the Irish government is in no way accountable for the actions of Russell. And I can safely say on behalf of the Irish people that the vast majority of us had no truck and have no truck with what Russell did.

We were neutral in WW2 because we had no option. We had no defence capability with which to resist a Nazi invasion. Hence we wished to avoid provocation - as did Switzerland and Sweden - though unlike Sweden we did not allow Nazi troops onto our soil. Our wartime neutrality wss in reality biased towards the Allies. For example, the date of D-Day was chosen on the basis of secret weather-reports passed by the Irish government to the British government. Also, German spies and soldiers were interned whereas British soldiers who were captured were allowed escape to the North.

The only alternative to our neutrality would have been a second British occupation of Southern Ireland, from which extrication after WW2 would have been very difficult. It had only been 16 years from Irish independence to the start of WW2 and as is the tendency when a colony liberates itself from the imperial power, a period of mutual distrust ensues.

And anyway, more Southerners fought on the Allies side in WW2 than Northerners (60,000 Southerners to 50,000 Northerners).

actually the majority of Roman Catholics also didn't support the Civil Rights Association, as Eamonn Mccann will cheerfully tell you, but how predictable of Brian and forest to use that fact as an excuse to bash the prods again.

The NICRA was infiltrated by the IRA, but it is impossible to say how much that influenced its agenda. The leading lights were mostly trendy lefties of the student set, and have continued to plough their lonely red furrow-all except dear wee Bernadette who was calling us fascists years before it became fashionable

"Darthrumsfeld, there is no comparison between a march celebrating a battle, and a march against gerrymandering, discrimination in housing, the absence of one-man-one-vote, and discrimination in employment"
Quite so, and obviously free speech should only be afforded to people who think like you , because you know best. Even though you don't seem to understand that the Drumcree parade is a) a church service B) commemorates the dead of World War I and c), unlike the NICRA route which targetted areas like Antrim to pass through, followed the route that for almost a century had been fields, and until 20 years ago not a republican area.

Can't stop-off to practise my goosestepping now

Darthrumsfeld, you are just yet another example of a Unionist in denial over the discrimination inflicted on the Catholic community by the unapologeticly sectarian Stormont regime of 1920-72.

Agitation was the only way to end these abuses and the IRA did not control NICRA, whatever you and others say.

During the 1960's in the US Deep South, the White politicians there similarly tried to smear the Civil Rights movement there as "Communist", so I guess some people are learning from the tactics of others.

And if the majority of Catholics didn't support the NICRA then why did so many of its leaders get into Westminster, e.g. Bernadette Devlin, John Hume, Gerry Fitt.

"Now Willy Frazer is going to bring a prosecution under "incitement to hatred". Arlene Foster is involved and she believes they have a strong case. The matter is in the hands of the PSNI"

Its win/win for willie-if reid gets admonished win
if no action wille can bleat on about the attitude of tha psni/courts/government to victims win

given that most republicans support the slaughter of innocent jewish men , women and children in israel, it comes as no suprise to hear, yet again, people like alec reid trivialise such events as the holocaust.

shame on them

feel the love

b13xxxx

It is worth noting that DUP Balmoral ward, Belfast city council cadidate, Jim Kirkpatrick, had his nomination papers signed by and was proposed by former National Front member and former UUP man John Hiddleston.

Also one of Michael McGimpsey's key supporters in the S. Belfast UUP, Stuart MacKinlay, is also a former member of NF.

B13: "given that most republicans support the slaughter of innocent jewish men , women and children in israel, it comes as no suprise to hear, yet again, people like alec reid trivialise such events as the holocaust."

Assumes facts not in evidence, B13. As a matter of fact, care to guess who taught the Stern Gang and the Haganah the finer points of assymetric warfare?

darthrumsfeld-drumcree is a peaceful church parade?Then why the quinn children get burnt alive because of it?

"given that most republicans support the slaughter of innocent jewish men , women and children in israel..."

They don't. But they support freedom-fighters. Israel is violating international-law in its occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. Its expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Arabs from their homes since 1948 and their replacement with Jewish settlers amounts to ethnic-cleansing and those in the Israeli military and political establishment should be sent to a war-crimes court along with Palestinian suicide bombers who targeted civilians.

However, if you are illegally occupied and attack the soldiers that occupy you, then that is not terrorism but "war".