Digger Used in Murder
Greig
New details today in respect to the sectarian murder of the catholic wee
boy beaten to death by loyalists near Clough, according to reports
released yesterday a mechanical digger was used to lift animal carcasses
from the fiftenn foot pit and replaced on top of the lad. There is
widespread concern amongst nationalists that people involved in the
killing may be walking free - previous court verdicts in respect to even
mass murder have been lenient towards accessories - the Greysteel
scenario being an object lesson in latitude - the participant in this
case was abducting catholics with a British Army supplied weapon within
days of his release.
Plans for a nearby Orange Parade to be cancelled as a mark of respect
for James Morgan came to nought. The boys body was found three days
after the crime and is being directly linked with the campaign to stop
sectarian marches .
Rgds
Greig
Sawney Beane
On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:56:52 GMT, dar...@cracker.dnet.co.uk (Darren
Aitcheson) wrote:
>
>So tell me. How do you know if they were in the OO or not?
Hmmm... Let's see: OO agitators doing everything in their (limited)
power to collapse the talks... Catholic schoolchildren brutally
murdered... Hammas extremists doing everything in *their* limited
power to collapse *those* talks... Bombs going off in Israeli
marketplaces... History cyclical by nature...
>Or are you just stupid?
I don't know: are you?
Stochasticly Bemused,
---Sawney Beane
MacIomhair
Darren Aitcheson wrote:
>
> On Wed, 06 Aug 1997 01:08:21 GMT, Hav...@Nice.Snack (Sawney Beane)
> wrote:
>
> >Aye, brave lads, these OO bastards.
>
> So tell me. How do you know if they were in the OO or not?
>
>
The fact that the LVF don't agree with passive resistance would give me
the impression that very few if any of the members of the LVF are also
in the OO, and is probably well documented.
Sawney's lack of intelligence is matched only by his ignorance
MacIomhair
I gaze at the brilliant full moon. The same one, I think to myself, at
which Socrates, Aristotle, and Plato gazed. Suddenly, I imagine they
appear beside me. I tell Socrates about the national debate over one's
right to die and wonder at the constancy of the human condition. I
tell Plato that I live in the country that has come the closest to
Utopia, and I show him a copy of the Constitution. I tell Aristotle
that we have found many more than four basic elements and I show him a
periodic table. I get a box of kitchen matches and strike one. They
gasp with wonder. We spend the rest of the night lighting farts.
MacIomhair
Sawney Beane wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Aug 1997 00:56:52 GMT, dar...@cracker.dnet.co.uk (Darren
> Aitcheson) wrote:
> >
>
> power to collapse the talks... Catholic schoolchildren brutally
> murdered... Hammas extremists doing everything in *their* limited
> power to collapse *those* talks... Bombs going off in Israeli
> marketplaces... History cyclical by nature...
>
>
>
> Stochasticly Bemused,
> ---Sawney Beane
Hmmmmm...... Let's see
No mention of OO members killing children.
No mention of OO carrying guns.
No mention of OO members being members of Hammas
No mention of any new thought coming from Sawney.
No mention of any intelligent arguement coming from Sawney.
Loads of bullshit coming from Sawney
History cyclical by nature
Stupidity hereditory by nature
Ignorance cultivated by stupidity
Just plain happy!!
MacIomhair
--
Michael Rutan
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
snip shawney bean-
snipped foreigners insult to another foreigner-
>Firstly, the original report was posted by Greig, who has a most
>prolific imagination and slants everything he can against Orange Order,
>Protestants, RUC, BA, et all, roughly in that order!
Greig is in good company since the people living in Morgan's village
seem to agree that:
1) The RUC seem to be sweeping things under the carpet
2) The RUC is the first to blame any violence against Protestants on
the IRA, but downplays sectarian foul-play when it's a Catholic
victim.
sniped about knew somebody that knew somebody-
> was dragged off,
>beaten to death and his body dumped in a hole used to dispose of cattle
>carcasses. However, unlike Greig's version, the body was not covered by
>an excavator but was just left were it was thrown.
According to eywitnesses a "digger" was being used to pile dead
carcasses on top of the boys burned body. I guess the only form of
I.D. were his dental records.
>Quite, quite
>appalling! And every descent minded person is appalled by this act. (And
>that includes 99% of all Protestants too, believe it or not!).
I have no problem believing that most people are decent and that it
takes a sick and evil person to carry out this type of murder or that
of Bernadette Martin. The "No claim, no blame" system used by the
Protestant terrorists is very handy regarding the RUC's downplaying of
this type of business not being planned or directed.
>The RUC, contrary to your implied comment, have in fact, tried their
>damnedest to capture those involved.
They've held one man and let another go. If that's their best it's
pretty bad. There are eye witnesses and enough tire tracks, finger
prints and general knowledge of this particular group of terrorists to
do something.
> In fact they were so much on the
>ball that they were the first to let the family know their son's body
>had been found.
I hope you never have a management position regarding criminology if
you think being the first to bring bad news to the family of a victim
has anything to do with preventing or solving a crime. That statement
sounds like something out of a "Naked Gun" movie.
>The extremely old fashioned and Republican inspired idea
>that the RUC is involved in these sort of acts is totally ridiculous in
>the light of today's situation. You seem to forget, everyone is in the
>glare of world wide media, you surely do not think that any untoward
>behavior by anyone would escape attention?
The world is watching and getting a good sense of what type of people
are involved. Those that have reserved judgement are getting quite an
image of one side burning and killing because they can't march and the
other talking peace.
>The laws of any civilized land prohibit the arrest of any persons
>without positive proof of their guilt, and that includes NI.
People are arrested if there is enough evidence thought to convict
them or if they are suspected of a crime. You're talking a place
where Catholics are tried in Diplock courts and anyone suspected of
being related to the IRA is guilty until proven dead. No where on
earth are people only arrested after they've been found guilty.
>As indeed
>the Sinn Feinn/IRA/Republicans' know well and have used to their best
>advantage in the past.
So why are there prisons filled with "them"?
>It will take time and a lot of effort to be able
>to bring these persons to justice, even if the RUC do indeed know who
>they are. I am sure that they do know in fact. Proving it is going to be
>the problem.
With the current government in NI they will never come to trial.
Since the Protestant terrorists will not honor the cease fire there
will be other horrific killings of children and innocents. Something
that MI5 would lead us to believe is only done by the IRA.
____________________________________________________
A tune is more lasting than the song of the birds
A word is more lasting than the riches of the world
Harry Merrick
Sawney Beane wrote:
> On Mon, 04 Aug 1997 21:00:22 +0000, Greig <ta...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >New details today in respect to the sectarian murder of the catholic
> wee
> >boy beaten to death by loyalists near Clough, according to reports.
> The
> >boy's body was found three days after the crime and is being directly
> linked
> >with the campaign to stop sectarian marches .
>
> Aye, brave lads, these OO bastards. You don't see `em taking on men
> their own size very often, though they know well enough where to find
> `em. No doubt they're having a good laugh down t'the pub over the
> whole thing, as the police and the government are their mates. But by
>
> God, there'll be a Reckoning by and by...
>
> Waiting And Watching,
> ---Sawney Beane
Hi Sawney Beane,
Obviously, you are a "bitter" sic "Catholic" residing safely far far
away from any problems, probably in the good old US of A!
Firstly, the original report was posted by Greig, who has a most
prolific imagination and slants everything he can against Orange Order,
Protestants, RUC, BA, et all, roughly in that order!
I happen to know a boy who went to school with Morgan and we discussed
the whole thing only this week. The story is as posted before, the lad
was going home on his own, was lifted by some men in a car, almost
certainly Protestant, almost certainly OO members, and was dragged off,
beaten to death and his body dumped in a hole used to dispose of cattle
carcasses. However, unlike Greig's version, the body was not covered by
an excavator but was just left were it was thrown. Quite, quite
appalling! And every descent minded person is appalled by this act. (And
that includes 99% of all Protestants too, believe it or not!).
The RUC, contrary to your implied comment, have in fact, tried their
damnedest to capture those involved. In fact they were so much on the
ball that they were the first to let the family know their son's body
had been found. The extremely old fashioned and Republican inspired idea
that the RUC is involved in these sort of acts is totally ridiculous in
the light of today's situation. You seem to forget, everyone is in the
glare of world wide media, you surely do not think that any untoward
behavior by anyone would escape attention?
The laws of any civilized land prohibit the arrest of any persons
without positive proof of their guilt, and that includes NI. As indeed
the Sinn Feinn/IRA/Republicans' know well and have used to their best
advantage in the past. It will take time and a lot of effort to be able
to bring these persons to justice, even if the RUC do indeed know who
they are. I am sure that they do know in fact. Proving it is going to be
the problem.
If you feel so strongly Sawney Beane, why ever don't you come on over
and sort it out for us all? You would be very welcome if you only could!
--
Harry.
--
Non Desperandum Est Cupiditas.
Gareth G Davis
Michael Rutan (ex...@ime.net) wrote:
(snip)
Michael,
I am afraid that while being right on the digger you are
wrong about the actions of the RUC. The actions of the
police have been praised by _both_ James Morgan's parents and
the *local* SDLP (nationalist) councillor. A man has been
charged and will most definitely be brought to trial. He is
currently in jail. And a major RUC effort is currently underway
(including direct appeals to the public and questioning motorists).
They were forced another suspect for lack of evidence. I would
be interested to learn how you came to "know" that fingerprint and
other forensic evidence link this (un-named) individual to the
crime.
(All of these are referenced below).
As a reference for how the police have typically dealt with these
sorts of murders I suggest that you read "The Shankhill Butchers"
by NI (catholic)journalist Martin Dillon.
Interestingly the only source making the claims that you have
advanced are Sinn Fein, (which is rather cyncial of course given that
they are the political wing of an organization (the IRA) which has
conducted similiar "operations".) Talk about misuse of the dead.
The claim that just because the police have failed to yet capture
more than one killer means that they are biased is fundamentally flawed.
To date the police have only charged 1 man with the June IRA killings in
June of two police officers in Lurgan. Others were let go because of
lack of evidence, despite partial wittness ID. Likewise the perpetrators
of the 1983 Darkley massacre of protestants just 20 miles from Clough
walk free despite being locally known because of lack of direct evidence.
Indeed a statistical analysis done by a QUB professor found that the
RUC convict a higher percentage of loyalist killers than republican
killers.
I have conducted a search of NI's main nationalist newspaper "The Irish
News". I am providing here all of the articles which deal with the
investigation and the allegations which you make:
(God, this stuff makes very depressing reading. I am deeply ashamed
as an Ulster protestant that my culture would produce people who
do things like this.)
8/6/1997
Suspect in schoolboy killing is moved
A MAN facing charges of murdering Co Down schoolboy
James Morgan has been moved to a Loyalist Volunteer Force
wing at the Maze prison.
Norman Coopey, of Bryansford Road, Newcastle, was
charged last week with killing the 16-year-old Catholic youth
whose badly battered and burned body was found in
Clough just over a week ago.
James, from Annsborough on the outskirts of Castlewellan,
was last seen alive thumbing a lift between Newcastle and his
home 12 days ago. His body was found in a pit on a farm three
days later.
Police said that a mechanical digger was used to conceal James's
body amongst the remains of dead animals.
Coopey (26) was originally remanded to Maghaberry jail
but was transferred to the Maze after being attacked by two
other prisoners. He is not thought to have been badly injured.
Members of the breakaway extremist LVF - composed mainly
of dissidents who left or were thrown out of the mainstream loyalist
paramilitary groups - were given their own wing in H-Block 6 earlier
this year after a series of protests. A second wing was
put at their disposal shortly afterwards.
Their numbers include leading Portadown loyalist Billy Wright
who is serving an eight-year sentence for threatening a woman.
7/31/97
Car holds key to teenager's murder
* SUSPICIOUS VEHICLE ... police are appealing for information
about the movement of this car which they believe may be
connected to the abduction and murder of James Morgan
Picture: Ian Magill
By Brendan Anderson
A CAR believed to be connected to the abduction of
schoolboy murder victim James Morgan had been scrubbed
clean before it was found, it was revealed yesterday.
The silver Toyota Corolla was put on show near James's
Annsborough home yesterday, exactly a week after he was
abducted and murdered in a frenzy of hatred. Senior RUC officers
at the scene said they hoped the presence of the vehicle would
jog motorists' memories.
The popular 16-year-old is believed to have been picked
up by his killers as he thumbed a lift home from Newcastle around
lunchtime on Thursday July 24. His badly-battered and burned body
was found three days later in a pit in a field near Clough a few miles
from his home.
Although the murder is not thought to have been a
planned operation by the outlawed Loyalist Volunteer Force, residents
of the tightly-knit community of Annsborough and Castlewellan
believe that a person involved in the youth's killing - who is still at
large -
has connections with the group.
Speaking at the scene of yesterday's reconstruction, Superintendent
Sam Martin saidpolice already had a good response from the public both
at Annsborough and near the murder scene at Clough. He said, however,
that inquiries were continuing and appealed for information.
"We have been trying to reconstruct the scene which we
believe took place shortly after 1pm on Thursday July 24 because we
believe James Morgan was hitching a lift in this area. He was offered a
lift in this car ... It was later recovered on Friday evening at
approximately
6pm. I am appealing to anyone who has seen anything between
lunchtime on the 24th and teatime on the 25th to come forward and give
information."
Police particularly want to hear from anyone who spotted suspicious
activity around the car in the area between Annsborough and Clough
and Blackstaff Road.
(7/31/97)
Teenager's body 'mutilated'
By Fiona Ryan
THE parents of 16-year-old murder victim James Morgan who is being
buried this afternoon were advised by police not to look at their son's
body because of his horrific injuries.
James, who was reported missing on Friday, was found dumped in
a water-filled hole near the Co Down village of Clough.
His body was so mutilated he could only be identified by his dental
records.
Speaking from his Annsborough home yesterday, James's father
Justin said: "The police told us not to even look at James's body because
he had been so badly beaten."
He praised detectives investigating the murder for the sensitive way
they had dealt with the family. The distraught father said his neighbours
- both Catholic and Protestant - had united in total support for the
family. "They can't do enough for us," he added.
On the day before their son and brother's funeral, the Morgan family
were still in total shock. Mr Morgan said: "Everybody here is numb -
there seems to be a calmness in the house."
Police were last night still questioning a man in relation to the
killing. Another man, 26-year-old Norman James Coopey from
Bryansford Road, Newcastle was charged on Monday with the
teenager's murder.
A post-mortem was carried out on Sunday night.
James Morgan's murder has parallels with the killing of
Castlewellan teenager Francis Rice 22 years ago. The 17-year-old
was abducted on his way home and it later emerged he had been
stabbed at least 10 times.
Three Protestant men were convicted of his murder. The loyalist
paramilitary group Protestant Action Force claimed the murder at the time.
Over the years there have been a series of murders in a
four-mile radius of the village of Clough including one of the worst
massacres of the troubles - Loughinisland.
On June 18 1994, laughing UVF men opened fire on a crowd
gathered in the Heights bar. Six people were killed. No-one has ever
been charged with the murders.
Seven years earlier, the IRA shot dead loyalist and ex-prison
officer Charles Watson at his Clough home on May 22 1987.
The following year his brother Delbert Ivor Watson, a former
UDR-man, was given a life sentence along with two others for
the murder of Catholic businessman Jack Kielty in his Dundrum on
January 25, 1988.
7/30/97
Sinn Fein claims RUC murder 'cover-up'
By Fiona Ryan
SINN Fein accused the RUC yesterday of trying to
reduce public concern over the murder of 16-year-old James
Morgan by refusing outright to call his killing sectarian.
The Castlewellan schoolboy's body was found dumped
in a water-filled hole near his home after he was reported
missing on Friday.
Initially police said they believed the killing was not sectarian
or paramilitary related.
But the RUC said yesterday it was investigating a number
of motives including the theory James Morgan's murder was
sectarian.
Yesterday, a 26-year-old Newcastle man Norman James
Coopey, from Bryansford Road in the Co Down town,
appeared at a special sitting at Downpatrick courthouse
charged with the murder.
A detective inspector told the court that when Coopey
was charged he replied "no".
Defence solicitor Richard Monteith asked the detective
if he could confirm whether police have come to the view
that this alleged offence has any sectarian nature.
The detective replied: "We are pursuing all lines of inquiry
and we are not ruling out that possibility."
Coopey, who was dressed in a navy jacket and white t-shirt,
spoke only twice during the brief, five-minute hearing to confirm
his identity and to acknowledge that he understood the charge.
Legal aid was granted and he was remanded in custody
by the resident magistrate Paul Copeland to appear in court at
the Maze on August 13.
As he was being led from the dock, Coopey looked directly
at his parents and sister sitting in the public gallery.
Earlier in the day, Sinn Fein South Down councillors
Mick Murphy and Frank McDowell said: "The RUC are seeking to
defuse public concern around the apparent brutal sectarian
murder of 16-year-old James Morgan.
"All of the evidence at this time points to a sectarian abduction
which ended with the brutal murder of this young lad."
Both men drew parallels between James's murder and that of
Bernadette Martin where a sectarian motive was also initially disputed.
But SDLP councillor for the Castlewellan area and James's
former vice principal at St Malachy's, Eamonn O'Neill said he was
"satisfied" with police progress.
Mr O'Neill said he spent an hour being briefed by the police
on the case:
"Considering the difficulties surrounding the case and the
complexities for the police to move and charge a man as quickly
as they did must be welcomed.
"I spent an hour with those in charge of the case and I was
satisfied progress was being made with the case."
James Morgan was hitching a lift home from the nearby
seaside resort of Newcastle on Thursday when he was picked up.
Detectives believe he was first attacked in a car and
then bludgeoned to death soon afterwards with a weapon
which has not been recovered. It is understood he was also
kicked.
Women's Coalition Down representative, councillor Anne
Carr called the murder "brutal and depraved".
Harry Merrick
Michael Rutan wrote:
> Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
> snip shawney bean-
>
> snipped foreigners insult to another foreigner-
>
> >Firstly, the original report was posted by Greig, who has a most
> >prolific imagination and slants everything he can against Orange
> Order,
> >Protestants, RUC, BA, et all, roughly in that order!
>
> Greig is in good company since the people living in Morgan's village
> seem to agree that:
>
> 1) The RUC seem to be sweeping things under the carpet
> 2) The RUC is the first to blame any violence against Protestants on
> the IRA, but downplays sectarian foul-play when it's a Catholic
> victim.
O.K. - But as I do not believe that you actually know anything about it,
come on, - prove it! This is a typical Republican whinge of which we are
all sick to death of hearing.
>
>
> sniped about knew somebody that knew somebody-
>
> > was dragged off,
> >beaten to death and his body dumped in a hole used to dispose of
> cattle
> >carcasses. However, unlike Greig's version, the body was not covered
> by
> >an excavator but was just left were it was thrown.
>
> According to eywitnesses a "digger" was being used to pile dead
> carcasses on top of the boys burned body. I guess the only form of
> I.D. were his dental records.
Alright, I am quite prepared to believe that my source, who actually
lives nearby, could have got it wrong, but I rather doubt it! If there
were "eyewitnesses" then why did they not put a stop to the whole
appalling episode? - My guess is that your sources are inspired by
wishfull thinking!
>
>
> >Quite, quite
> >appalling! And every descent minded person is appalled by this act.
> (And
> >that includes 99% of all Protestants too, believe it or not!).
>
> I have no problem believing that most people are decent and that it
> takes a sick and evil person to carry out this type of murder or that
> of Bernadette Martin. The "No claim, no blame" system used by the
> Protestant terrorists is very handy regarding the RUC's downplaying of
>
> this type of business not being planned or directed.
Soorreee! But _RUBBISH_!
>
>
> >The RUC, contrary to your implied comment, have in fact, tried their
> >damnedest to capture those involved.
>
> They've held one man and let another go. If that's their best it's
> pretty bad. There are eye witnesses and enough tire tracks, finger
> prints and general knowledge of this particular group of terrorists to
>
> do something.
As I said, if there were "Eyewitnesses", what were they doing whilst all
this was going on? The real story, accepted by most, was that the
unfortunate boy accepted a lift home, and was unlucky in the car which
stopped! The general opnion is that they were indeed local Protestants
and Orange members, and that they were quite likely reponsible for other
unsolved killings in the past.
>
>
> > In fact they were so much on the
> >ball that they were the first to let the family know their son's body
>
> >had been found.
>
> I hope you never have a management position regarding criminology if
> you think being the first to bring bad news to the family of a victim
> has anything to do with preventing or solving a crime. That statement
>
> sounds like something out of a "Naked Gun" movie.
It is very difficult sometimes to get one's point over clearly when
there is a deliberate scam afoot to misunderstand the simplest
statement. You are so busy trying to blaggard the RUC, you will not
listen to reason! - It just is not possible to clear up a crime like
murder in a satisfactory fashion in days or even weeks. You should know
that, enough of your crowd ended up in prison due to insufficient
evidence, or evidence that was falsified due to the urgency factor!
>
>
> >The extremely old fashioned and Republican inspired idea
> >that the RUC is involved in these sort of acts is totally ridiculous
> in
> >the light of today's situation. You seem to forget, everyone is in
> the
> >glare of world wide media, you surely do not think that any untoward
> >behavior by anyone would escape attention?
>
> The world is watching and getting a good sense of what type of people
> are involved.
Yes, everyone is being markedly better behaved of late!
> Those that have reserved judgement are getting quite an
> image of one side burning and killing because they can't march and the
>
> other talking peace.
When? Where? - Do you live in NI? - It would appear not! It was
Republicans who were and are being extremely unreasonable about letting
some of these marches go ahead, and it was Republicans who were
perfectly ready to start a major civil war on the Ormeau Road, which
would have undoubtedly spread all over NI!
>
>
> The laws of any civilized land prohibit the arrest of any persons
> without positive proof of their guilt, and that includes NI.
> People are arrested if there is enough evidence thought to convict
> them or if they are suspected of a crime.
They can only be held for a short while whilst under investigation,
after that they are free to go unless the courts give further time, and
even that is limited.
> You're talking a place
> where Catholics are tried in Diplock courts and anyone suspected of
> being related to the IRA is guilty until proven dead.
Hah! - That old whinge! - Plenty of Protestants have also been tried
under these courts, but you really would prefer that the rest of the
world didn't know that, wouldn't you? You are _ALL_ so paranoid about
being Roman Catholic! - Why _IS_ that? - Does it really matter these
days _what_ you are? - I, certainly do not think so, and I am very sure
the vast majority of people don't think so either! That attitude is _SO_
out of date it is nearly unbeleivable!
> No where on
> earth are people only arrested after they've been found guilty.
I agree on that, at least. They are, however arrested on suspicion,
which is reasonable enough I would have thought.
>
>
> >As indeed
> >the Sinn Feinn/IRA/Republicans' know well and have used to their best
>
> >advantage in the past.
>
> So why are there prisons filled with "them"?
Because, and _you_ asked for this, you cannot hope to win all the time,
some are cleverer than others!
>
>
> >It will take time and a lot of effort to be able
> >to bring these persons to justice, even if the RUC do indeed know who
>
> >they are. I am sure that they do know in fact. Proving it is going to
> be
> >the problem.
>
> With the current government in NI they will never come to trial.
What current government in NI? We haven't got a government here! That is
quite possibly what the root cause of all our problems are!
> Since the Protestant terrorists will not honor the cease fire there
> will be other horrific killings of children and innocents. Something
> that MI5 would lead us to believe is only done by the IRA.
God! You really _ARE_ paranoid!! After the IRA wrecked their "permanent"
cease fire that is _some_ statement! The Protestant terrorists
responsible lately, (theLVF, I believe), never agreed to a ceasefire.
Similarily neither did the INLA, and maybe other Republican groups I
don't know about. Everyone knows that the vast majority of horror
killings was done by the IRA. That does not excuse anyone doing these
acts, but do lets get the true story!
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________
> A tune is more lasting than the song of the birds
> A word is more lasting than the riches of the world
>
>
--
Michael Rutan
Harry Merrick <merr...@agencies.dnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Michael Rutan wrote:
>>
>> 1) The RUC seem to be sweeping things under the carpet
>> 2) The RUC is the first to blame any violence against Protestants on
>> the IRA, but downplays sectarian foul-play when it's a Catholic
>> victim.
>O.K. - But as I do not believe that you actually know anything about it,
>come on, - prove it! This is a typical Republican whinge of which we are
>all sick to death of hearing.
I don't mind replying to this type of argument, once. Perhaps this
should continue via e-mail? We both have our own minds made up. I'm
open for information. Telling me I don't know anything about it will
not convince me of your opinions. The fact that I'm familiar with the
situation and have sources regarding the facts disputes your
accusation that I know "nothing" about it.
>> According to eywitnesses a "digger" was being used to pile dead
>> carcasses on top of the boys burned body. I guess the only form of
>> I.D. were his dental records.
>Alright, I am quite prepared to believe that my source, who actually
>lives nearby, could have got it wrong, but I rather doubt it! If there
>were "eyewitnesses" then why did they not put a stop to the whole
>appalling episode? - My guess is that your sources are inspired by
>wishfull thinking!
I live two blocks away from a site of a major fire last night. The
fact that it happened near my home doesn't give me full knowledgs of
th event. The information I've read concerning the crime is from
Irish newspapers and Internet news sites. The quotes from
eyewitnesses are usually scrutinized by the publishing source. Since
when are "eyewitness" accounts taken into account regarding these
matters in NI? How many have the courage to step forward?
>>
>> I have no problem believing that most people are decent and that it
>> takes a sick and evil person to carry out this type of murder or that
>> of Bernadette Martin. The "No claim, no blame" system used by the
>> Protestant terrorists is very handy regarding the RUC's downplaying of
>>
>> this type of business not being planned or directed.
>Soorreee! But _RUBBISH_!
Here we go again. My information is "RUBBISH". Based on what? These
same type of murders have been going on for decades. The reason is
stated by authorities (outside of NI) as terrorist attempts to punish
or effect Catholics. Nationlists had been warned that UVF activities
were being stepped up in the area. Eyewitnesses reported that there
were several unknown men at the pit while the digger was being used.
>> >The RUC, contrary to your implied comment, have in fact, tried their
>> >damnedest to capture those involved.
>>
>> They've held one man and let another go. If that's their best it's
>> pretty bad. There are eye witnesses and enough tire tracks, finger
>> prints and general knowledge of this particular group of terrorists to
>>
>> do something.
>As I said, if there were "Eyewitnesses", what were they doing whilst all
>this was going on? The real story, accepted by most, was that the
>unfortunate boy accepted a lift home, and was unlucky in the car which
>stopped! The general opnion is that they were indeed local Protestants
>and Orange members, and that they were quite likely reponsible for other
>unsolved killings in the past.
That is the story that the RUC is passing. If you are so close to the
crime, go talk to the farmer that owns the land since he is an
eywitness and was one of the first on the scene. His story does not
match the RUC account.
>> I hope you never have a management position regarding criminology if
>> you think being the first to bring bad news to the family of a victim
>> has anything to do with preventing or solving a crime. That statement
>>
>> sounds like something out of a "Naked Gun" movie.
>It is very difficult sometimes to get one's point over clearly when
>there is a deliberate scam afoot to misunderstand the simplest
>statement.
My statement has nothing to do with the RUC, it was directed at "you"
based on "your" opinion that the RUC are craker jack since they were
the first ones to tell the boys family that he had been killed.
>You are so busy trying to blaggard the RUC, you will not
>listen to reason! -
The RUC have come under international critique. Their actions have
been openly violent against Nationalists. Most recent activities
range from the beating of Nationalists in Newtownbutler to the
defacing of a Rebublican memorial in South Fermanagh. The RUC receive
their standing orders and training from the British military regarding
the treatment of Catholics and Nationalists. A recent report in a
Montreal newspaper regarded a visit of a Quebec legislator and his
impressions of RUC "Robo Cops" in their new, high tech riot gear
beating a group of Catholic bystanders during an Apprentice Boys
parade. I don't need to argue the abuse and cruelty of the RUC since
it's available in any publication regarding the group internationally.
>>
>> The world is watching and getting a good sense of what type of people
>> are involved.
>Yes, everyone is being markedly better behaved of late!
Except the RUC, Orange marches and Loyslist terrorist groups.
>> Those that have reserved judgement are getting quite an
>> image of one side burning and killing because they can't march and the
>>
>> other talking peace.
>When? Where? - Do you live in NI? - It would appear not! It was
>Republicans who were and are being extremely unreasonable about letting
>some of these marches go ahead, and it was Republicans who were
>perfectly ready to start a major civil war on the Ormeau Road, which
>would have undoubtedly spread all over NI!
I didn't live during the Middle Ages, but managed to earn two degrees
in Medieval History. The typical argumant found on this newsgroup
that "if you don't live in NI, you don't know anything about it" is
lame. If you live there, as you claim, your select knowledge and lack
of details is argument enough. Layer on the lack of local news
coverage and investigation to complete the picture.
As far as the Republicans being unreasonable, could it have something
to do with the forked tongue Orange promises regarding the parade
season?
>> The laws of any civilized land prohibit the arrest of any persons
>> without positive proof of their guilt, and that includes NI.
>> People are arrested if there is enough evidence thought to convict
>> them or if they are suspected of a crime.
>They can only be held for a short while whilst under investigation,
>after that they are free to go unless the courts give further time, and
>even that is limited.
According to the findings of Amnisty International (now on their home
page) this is not the case.
>> You're talking a place
>> where Catholics are tried in Diplock courts and anyone suspected of
>> being related to the IRA is guilty until proven dead.
>Hah! - That old whinge! - Plenty of Protestants have also been tried
>under these courts, but you really would prefer that the rest of the
>world didn't know that, wouldn't you?
What is the ratio? What is the ratio of conviction? Name one case
where a Protestant was tried and convicted and let's go on from there.
> You are _ALL_ so paranoid about
>being Roman Catholic! - Why _IS_ that? - Does it really matter these
>days _what_ you are? - I, certainly do not think so, and I am very sure
>the vast majority of people don't think so either! That attitude is _SO_
>out of date it is nearly unbeleivable!
What is "your" definition of paranoia? Were the British being
paranoid of Nazi Germany because the were dropping bombs on London
daily? Centuries of abuse, the continued need for middle aged men
(that call themselves boys) to celebrate a victory over Catholics with
marching and mayhem, the insistance of Britain (which will not allow a
Catholic monarch or one of its monarchs to marry one) to keep control
of a country that it is destroying in the attempt, Catholics being
barred from their places of worship, lack of basic civil rights for
Catholics all sound like todays headlines to me. _SO_ current and
true.
>>
>> So why are there prisons filled with "them"?
>Because, and _you_ asked for this, you cannot hope to win all the time,
>some are cleverer than others!
The sublevels of "goons" that operated with the fascists during WWII
were not "clever". Justice and truth were substituted for oppression
and force. The situation in NI can be measured with the same stick.
The British have had their hand on the clean end since the farce
began.
>> With the current government in NI they will never come to trial.
>What current government in NI? We haven't got a government here! That is
>quite possibly what the root cause of all our problems are!
You have a crown representative, elections and your own para-military
police force. The forces governing have been in place and in control
for centuries. The fact that NI is such a hot spot is because of the
current government and not lack of it. Sounds like time for a change.
>God! You really _ARE_ paranoid!! After the IRA wrecked their "permanent"
>cease fire that is _some_ statement! The Protestant terrorists
>responsible lately, (theLVF, I believe), never agreed to a ceasefire.
>Similarily neither did the INLA, and maybe other Republican groups I
>don't know about. Everyone knows that the vast majority of horror
>killings was done by the IRA. That does not excuse anyone doing these
>acts, but do lets get the true story!
There was nothing "permanent" ever stated about the first ceasefire by
the IRA. The lack of action by the British government ended it.
Horror killings have been performed by both sides. Where the hell
have you been during this exchange?
There is no doubt that the British military has been involved in the
dirty tricks. There is quite a bit of propaganda regarding the
Nationalist movement, relationship between Sinn Fein and the IRA,
Gerry Adams, the active role of the RUC, Loyalist terrorism that have
MI5's signature and they have never denied it.
Matthew M. Huntbach
Michael Rutan (ex...@ime.net) wrote:
> What is "your" definition of paranoia? Were the British being
> paranoid of Nazi Germany because the were dropping bombs on London
> daily? Centuries of abuse, the continued need for middle aged men
> (that call themselves boys) to celebrate a victory over Catholics with
> marching and mayhem, the insistance of Britain (which will not allow a
> Catholic monarch or one of its monarchs to marry one) to keep control
> of a country that it is destroying in the attempt, Catholics being
> barred from their places of worship, lack of basic civil rights for
> Catholics all sound like todays headlines to me. _SO_ current and
> true.
Here we go again, your usual rubbish.
The Nazi Germany parallel is rubbish. The Nazis did not offer free speech to
their opponents and free elections in which their opponents could stand on
a platform of Nazi withdrawal. Attempting to justify terrorism by this
Nazi analogy is a revolting thing to do for a so-called Catholic, who should
be amongst the peacemakers, not amongst the violence-spreaders.
The Orange Order are simply celebrating their own beliefs and culture and
survival at a time of danger, just as we Catholics do on other occasions.
Why do you love to spread hatred by describing their own celebrations as you
do?
Britain and British people are not interested in keeping hold of Northern
Ireland for its own sakem, as I keep saying on and on and on in this
newsgroup. Northern Ireland is British because most people living there
want it that way. You keep on saying what you have been told is not true
because you delight in spreading hatred and justifying violence.
The British monarchy is an old piece of quaint pageantry which has no real
power in Britain today and which an increasing number of Britons have no
interest in at all. Why keep bringing up this totally irrelevant thing?
There is one Catholic Church which is subjected to cruel picketing in Northern
Ireland by a bunch of thugs accountable to bno-one but themselves. But you
write above in a way that seems designed to suggest that every Catholic
church in Northern Ireland is barred in this way, and the barring is done by
the British government. Why write in this completely misleading way unless
your real intention is to spread hatred and justify evil terrorist violence?
Northern Ireland Catholics have the same civil rights as any other British
citizens, so your phrase "lack of civil rights" jas no basis.
Michaal Rutan - you claim to be a Catholic, so why not listen to what Jesus
Christ said "Blessed are the peacemakers"? He did not say "Blessed are those
who lie and spread falsity in order to encourage violence". He said "Love
your enemey" not "Lie and spread hatred about your enemy". Bearing false
witness is a serious sin against the Commandements.
Matthew Huntbach
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>The Orange Order are simply celebrating their own beliefs and culture and
>survival at a time of danger, just as we Catholics do on other occasions.
>Why do you love to spread hatred by describing their own celebrations as you
>do?
The problem with the OO is at their organisation, even in it's constitution and
apparently since it's inception, is founded on a basis of "upholding
Protestantism". What does that mean exactly ? It implies to Catholics living
here such as myself that the Orange Order, in banning marriages of it's members
to Catholics, interfering when the Prime Minister sends his kids to a Catholic
school, complaining when Prince Charles says that he wishes to represent all
religions and all corners of belief (including Catholicism) and doing all those
things that it views Catholics as a kind of dangerous vermin who must be kept
out of positions of power/influence at all costs.
What I'm saying is that THAT is not a culture. It is centuries old, crusty old
bigotry, often trivialized as "a few old men going to church" or "a rightful
expression of our culture". I suppose the KKK could be similarly trivialized as
a "bunch of fools running around in blankets burning crosses" and similarly any
other questionable organisation that legally exists.
>Britain and British people are not interested in keeping hold of Northern
>Ireland for its own sakem, as I keep saying on and on and on in this
>newsgroup. Northern Ireland is British because most people living there
>want it that way. You keep on saying what you have been told is not true
>because you delight in spreading hatred and justifying violence.
Yes, I agree with this entirely - the Principle of Consent must override all.
Although at present I believe the union with Great Britain is for the good of
all people living here, if the people living in Northern Ireland decided
otherwise then I would accept their judgement (while still withholding my right
to support the union should I wish).
>The British monarchy is an old piece of quaint pageantry which has no real
>power in Britain today and which an increasing number of Britons have no
>interest in at all. Why keep bringing up this totally irrelevant thing?
Agreed!
>Northern Ireland Catholics have the same civil rights as any other British
>citizens, so your phrase "lack of civil rights" jas no basis.
It is not quite as simple as that. Many Northern Ireland Catholics, even ones
who believe themselves to be moderate (like myself) feel that the British
government at the best of times is making terrible mistakes. Drumcree this year
suggested that violence DOES work if you want to achieve certain aims. The
problem with the RUC's 90% membership and Orange Order proliferation in it's
ranks has to be addressed somehow (not necessarily disbandment). People are
continuing to read IRA propaganda, and just when some of us turn around and try
to rubbish that propaganda, the British pull something out of their hat to
confirm it!
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
Life may have no meaning.
Or even worse, it may have a meaning of which I disapprove.
-- Ashleigh Brilliant
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
Yes, his mailer is all over the place.
>>>> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
>>>> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
>>>> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
>>>> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
>>>> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
>>>> hundred books.
>>>As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement to
>>>hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
>>As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been
>>prosecuted under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious
>>even to outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
>Yes, I certainly think it should be applied far more strongly, and an
>explicit condition attached to any permission given to parade should be that
>the organisers of the parade agree to accept the full application of the law.
I would welcome any such moves.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house.
-- George Carlin
Matthew M. Huntbach
>>The Orange Order are simply celebrating their own beliefs and culture and
>>survival at a time of danger, just as we Catholics do on other occasions.
>>Why do you love to spread hatred by describing their own celebrations as you
>>do?
>The problem with the OO is at their organisation, even in it's constitution and
>apparently since it's inception, is founded on a basis of "upholding
>Protestantism". What does that mean exactly ? It implies to Catholics living
>here such as myself that the Orange Order, in banning marriages of it's members
>to Catholics, interfering when the Prime Minister sends his kids to a Catholic
>school, complaining when Prince Charles says that he wishes to represent all
>religions and all corners of belief (including Catholicism) and doing all those
>things that it views Catholics as a kind of dangerous vermin who must be kept
>out of positions of power/influence at all costs.
So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
live with people that disagree with you. You could find any number of
Catholics equally antagonistic towards Protestantism, opposing mixed
religion marriages and the like. One could say some pretty hair-raising things
about organisations like Opus Dei, for instance. The Orange Order happens to
believe the Catholic interpretation of Christianity is wrong, and campaigns
to promote their own interpretation. What sort of bigot is it that can't even
stand the thought of an organisation that says to him "you are wrong"?
If you were a politician would you ban all political parties that disagreed
with yours? If you don't agree with the Orange Order, either ignore it or
challenge what it says. Elementary John Stuart Mill stuff.
>>Northern Ireland Catholics have the same civil rights as any other British
>>citizens, so your phrase "lack of civil rights" has no basis.
>It is not quite as simple as that. Many Northern Ireland Catholics, even ones
>who believe themselves to be moderate (like myself) feel that the British
>government at the best of times is making terrible mistakes. Drumcree this year
>suggested that violence DOES work if you want to achieve certain aims. The
>problem with the RUC's 90% membership and Orange Order proliferation in it's
>ranks has to be addressed somehow (not necessarily disbandment). People are
>continuing to read IRA propaganda, and just when some of us turn around and try
>to rubbish that propaganda, the British pull something out of their hat to
>confirm it!
Had there been a few adult-minded people at Drumcree who had the sense to
realise the best way to deal with this silly little march was to ignore it,
there would have been no trouble. Instead there's all these babyish sorts
who think the mere expression of views different from their own amounts to
some sort of "attack" and stir up trouble and violence to make a whole big
mess of things. Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
thme behaving in an antagonistic and stuborn manner? If you say "You can't
walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their ground
and insist on their right to do so?
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
Martin Hanna (admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 14 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
>> So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
>> live with people that disagree with you.
>> Had there been a few adult-minded people at Drumcree who had the sense to
>> realise the best way to deal with this silly little march was to ignore it,
>> there would have been no trouble. Instead there's all these babyish sorts
>> who think the mere expression of views different from their own amounts to
>> some sort of "attack" and stir up trouble and violence to make a whole big
>> mess of things. Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
>> your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
>> walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their ground
>> and insist on their right to do so?
> I see nothing had changed with Matthew since I was away on holidays. Still
> the same old wish-washy liberal wet ideas. This weakness to stand up and
> be strong in condeming agression is just like the weakness of the US
> government to stand up to the gun lobby. Instead of trying to limit the
> spread of waepons the gun lobby quotes the constitution and so you have a
> society of gun totting citizens with 20,000 murders a year.
Sorry, but there you go again. You call a mere expression of views which
are different from your own "aggression". I do not. We can agree to disagree,
but I am with the classic liberalism of Voltaire, John Stuart Mill etc on
this, while you are not. I would say the "wet" are those who go along with
conventional trendy thinking on this issue without thinking it through,
rather than those like myself who are standing up for free speech, even for
free speech of those whose views we disagree with, ane even when we know
we are going to get a lot of flak for it from the likes of yourslf.
> Matthew argues that ideas opposed to his are childish, eg "Grow up",
> "adult-minded" yet argues "in a pluralistic world you have to live with
> people that disagree with you". It seems he cant live with others ideas
> and so calls them childish. Illogical? You bet.
Yes, I believe it is a mark of an adult mind to accept that others may
have different views from yourself, and may even express those views,
without starting calling that expression "aggression" andwanting to stop it.
> Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
> just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
> expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
> a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
> march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
I want EVERYONE to have the freedom to express their own views. I make no
special case for the Orange Order.
> You sound more like a right wing extremist than a liberal Matthew,
> advocating goose-stepping Orange men's right to march anywhere in the
> fatherland.
Oh. First I'm a woolly wet liberal, next I'm a right-wing extremist. Make up
your mind, please.
But here we go AGAIN. As I keep saying, I don't myself agree with either the
political or the religious views of the Orange Order. But I do not see them as
"fascist". They dislike Catholicism, fine, so do people like Tom McVey on
this newsgroup. So shall I liken Tom McVey to a fascist simply because he
doesn't agree with me on the Catholic faith? Or shall I behave as an adult
and accept he has deep personal reasons for his views, and more so has a
right to celebrate and demonstrate his views in public if he so wishes?
The Orange Order is not a particularly pleasant organisation, but I think this
readiness to liken it to fascism rather than accept that it is an expression
of the heartfelt views of those who genuinely believe that Catholicism is a
mistaken interpretation of Christainity, indicates that sort of contempt for
one's fellows which stands in the way of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
Martin Hanna (admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 14 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> > Martin Hanna (admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> >
> > > I see nothing had changed with Matthew since I was away on holidays. Still
> > > the same old wish-washy liberal wet ideas. This weakness to stand up and
> > > be strong in condeming agression is just like the weakness of the US
> > > government to stand up to the gun lobby. Instead of trying to limit the
> > > spread of waepons the gun lobby quotes the constitution and so you have a
> > > society of gun totting citizens with 20,000 murders a year.
> >
> > Sorry, but there you go again. You call a mere expression of views which
> > are different from your own "aggression". I do not.
> It's more than a mere expression of views. If a bunch of Orange Order
> people want to call the pope the devil and march up and down their street
> a thousand times I couldnt really give a toss. It's when they force their
> opinions on others who want nothing of their 18th century opinions I find
> offensive. To march where they're not wanted shows the kind of people
> you're dealing with. The Orange Order and the christian ideal of respect
> for others stops when it comes to their right to march everywhere they
> deem fit to goosestep.
Democracy is all about "forcing" your opinion on others by being allowed to
express it openly. If people wish to express their strong opinion that the
Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope is a dangerous and bad
thing, then they must be free to do so. One Sinead O'Connor did likewise when
she tore up His Holiness's picture on television. While I accept that marches
must have some limitations on them, I cannot accept that a march from a
town centre to a church once a year down a main road should be banned
simply because some people living on that main road may have different
religious/political opinions to those on that march.
> > We can agree to disagree,
> > but I am with the classic liberalism of Voltaire, John Stuart Mill etc on
> > this, while you are not. I would say the "wet" are those who go along with
> > conventional trendy thinking on this issue without thinking it through,
> > rather than those like myself who are standing up for free speech, even for
> > free speech of those whose views we disagree with, ane even when we know
> > we are going to get a lot of flak for it from the likes of yourslf.
> All this stuff about Liberals supporting free speech is nonsense. You just
> cant say "kill all bastard taig babies" in public on television so you
> obviously disagree with various forms of free speech.
Yes, and if the Orange Order march did have banners calling for murder
and using abusive terms like "taig" and "bastard" then most certainly it
should be banned. But I have seen no suggestion that it has such elements.
Your inability to distinguish between the mere expression of views different
from your own, and direct abuse and incitement to violence is really rather
sad, and I am sorry to see it from someone whose other posts often contain a
lot of sense.
> > > Matthew argues that ideas opposed to his are childish, eg "Grow up",
> > > "adult-minded" yet argues "in a pluralistic world you have to live with
> > > people that disagree with you". It seems he cant live with others ideas
> > > and so calls them childish. Illogical? You bet.
> >
> > Yes, I believe it is a mark of an adult mind to accept that others may
> > have different views from yourself, and may even express those views,
> > without starting calling that expression "aggression" andwanting to stop it.
> Yet you try to belittle others' opinions by calling them children. This is
> like in wars when the enemies try to dehumanise the others hence making
> killing them easier. You try to be smug and call others children. To me
> that's little more than sheer arrogance. The "children" are not mature and
> wise like you and hence their opinions are to be ignored. Maybe that's
> what Liberalism is all about these days.
Surely we can all agree that society has grown up in having a greater
acceptance of differing views than used to be the case. If you go back in
history, people were burnt at the stake for expressing views different from
those of the Catholic Church. I would say the fact that the Catholic Church
no longer advocates such measures is a sign it has grown up. Wouldn't you?
> > > Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
> > > just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
> > > expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
> > > a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
> > > march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
> >
> > I want EVERYONE to have the freedom to express their own views. I make no
> > special case for the Orange Order.
> Yet you want the Orange Order to march anywhere they like and have no care
> for the expressions of the people who object to their marches in their
> areas. Where is their freedom to express their opinion?
Liberalism is about letting people be free to express their own opinions
not about letting them suppress opinions they don't like. As I said, in
the matter of marches, I would say that sense should prevail. A march on
the main road is one thing, I wouldn't support say a deliberate turn off
into side roads merely in order to provoke. I have seen no evidence that
the Garvaghy Road march involves any such turning off the main road.
>>But here we go AGAIN. As I keep saying, I don't myself agree with either the
>>political or the religious views of the Orange Order. But I do not see them as
>>"fascist". They dislike Catholicism, fine, so do people like Tom McVey on
>>this newsgroup. So shall I liken Tom McVey to a fascist simply because he
>>doesn't agree with me on the Catholic faith? Or shall I behave as an adult
>>and accept he has deep personal reasons for his views, and more so has a
>>right to celebrate and demonstrate his views in public if he so wishes?
> This adult stuff is boring. Sounds like someone who is losing an argument
> when they start calling others children.
But I do believe this idea that mere expression of views is an attack is
childish. That is why we have that little rhyme we say to children "sticks and
stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The fact that this
is a rhyme we use with children indicates it is meant to counter a childish
view of the world.
Matthew Huntbach
Gerry Lynch
Martin Hanna wrote:
> Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
> just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
> expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
> a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
> march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
>
> You sound more like a right wing extremist than a liberal Matthew,
> advocating goose-stepping Orange men's right to march anywhere in the
> fatherland.
Maybe the Garvaghy residents should orgainse a march down Corcrain Road.
That would really put the cat amongst the pigeons.
Gerard James Anthony Lynch, GI0RTN
--. .. ----- .-. - -.
http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn
North Belfast Alliance http://members.tripod.com/~gi0rtn/nballiance
'A woman's just a woman, but a good cigar's a smoke'
W C Field
Sawney Beane
On 14 Aug 1997 08:15:07 GMT, m...@dcs.qmw.ac.uk (Matthew M. Huntbach)
wrote:
>
>So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
>live with people that disagree with you.
>What sort of bigot is it that can't even stand the thought of an organisation
>that says to him "you are wrong"?
>If you were a politician would you ban all political parties that disagreed
>with yours?
Hmmm, like the Nazis and the KKK, I suppose...
Stewing,
---Sawney Beane
Gerry Lynch
Brendan Heading wrote:
>
> Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>
> >The British monarchy is an old piece of quaint pageantry which has no real
> >power in Britain today and which an increasing number of Britons have no
> >interest in at all. Why keep bringing up this totally irrelevant thing?
>
> Agreed!
Support for the monarchy now less than 50% according to yesterdays
Guardian.
Hooray!!!!
Gerry Lynch
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> Yes, and if the Orange Order march did have banners calling for murder
> and using abusive terms like "taig" and "bastard" then most certainly it
> should be banned. But I have seen no suggestion that it has such elements.
What about the UVF band which marched with East Belfast lodges for
years? AFAIK, it is no longer hired since it went beserk outside
St.Matthew's when a funeral was in progress last year.
Martin Hanna
On Thu, 14 Aug 1997, Gerry Lynch wrote:
> Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
>
> > Yes, and if the Orange Order march did have banners calling for murder
> > and using abusive terms like "taig" and "bastard" then most certainly it
> > should be banned. But I have seen no suggestion that it has such elements.
>
> What about the UVF band which marched with East Belfast lodges for
> years? AFAIK, it is no longer hired since it went beserk outside
> St.Matthew's when a funeral was in progress last year.
Last July a UFF band headed an Orange Order march up the shankill
which ended with a speech from McCrea, decked out in his OO regalia.
Well, it was either the UFF or the UVF. Each of these groups are well
known for their repect for Catholics.
"Trick or Treat?"
"That's not funny!"
Martin.
--
~~o( Martin Hanna 01865 280472 )o~~~
~~~o( Room 402 University Offices )o~~~ __o __o __o *
~~o( University of Oxford. OX1 2JD )o~~~ _`\<,_ _`\<,_ _`\<,_ |
~o( http://users.ox.ac.uk/~admn0014/ )o~~(_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) (_)/ (_) |
Martin Hanna
On 14 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> Brendan Heading (li...@heading.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>
> >>The Orange Order are simply celebrating their own beliefs and culture and
> >>survival at a time of danger, just as we Catholics do on other occasions.
> >>Why do you love to spread hatred by describing their own celebrations as you
> >>do?
>
> >The problem with the OO is at their organisation, even in it's constitution and
> >apparently since it's inception, is founded on a basis of "upholding
> >Protestantism". What does that mean exactly ? It implies to Catholics living
> >here such as myself that the Orange Order, in banning marriages of it's members
> >to Catholics, interfering when the Prime Minister sends his kids to a Catholic
> >school, complaining when Prince Charles says that he wishes to represent all
> >religions and all corners of belief (including Catholicism) and doing all those
> >things that it views Catholics as a kind of dangerous vermin who must be kept
> >out of positions of power/influence at all costs.
>
> So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
> live with people that disagree with you. You could find any number of
> Catholics equally antagonistic towards Protestantism, opposing mixed
> religion marriages and the like. One could say some pretty hair-raising things
> about organisations like Opus Dei, for instance. The Orange Order happens to
> believe the Catholic interpretation of Christianity is wrong, and campaigns
> to promote their own interpretation. What sort of bigot is it that can't even
> stand the thought of an organisation that says to him "you are wrong"?
> If you were a politician would you ban all political parties that disagreed
> with yours? If you don't agree with the Orange Order, either ignore it or
> challenge what it says. Elementary John Stuart Mill stuff.
>
> >>Northern Ireland Catholics have the same civil rights as any other British
> >>citizens, so your phrase "lack of civil rights" has no basis.
>
> >It is not quite as simple as that. Many Northern Ireland Catholics, even ones
> >who believe themselves to be moderate (like myself) feel that the British
> >government at the best of times is making terrible mistakes. Drumcree this year
> >suggested that violence DOES work if you want to achieve certain aims. The
> >problem with the RUC's 90% membership and Orange Order proliferation in it's
> >ranks has to be addressed somehow (not necessarily disbandment). People are
> >continuing to read IRA propaganda, and just when some of us turn around and try
> >to rubbish that propaganda, the British pull something out of their hat to
> >confirm it!
>
> Had there been a few adult-minded people at Drumcree who had the sense to
> realise the best way to deal with this silly little march was to ignore it,
> there would have been no trouble. Instead there's all these babyish sorts
> who think the mere expression of views different from their own amounts to
> some sort of "attack" and stir up trouble and violence to make a whole big
> mess of things. Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
> your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
> thme behaving in an antagonistic and stuborn manner? If you say "You can't
> walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their ground
> and insist on their right to do so?
I see nothing had changed with Matthew since I was away on holidays. Still
the same old wish-washy liberal wet ideas. This weakness to stand up and
be strong in condeming agression is just like the weakness of the US
government to stand up to the gun lobby. Instead of trying to limit the
spread of waepons the gun lobby quotes the constitution and so you have a
society of gun totting citizens with 20,000 murders a year.
Matthew argues that ideas opposed to his are childish, eg "Grow up",
"adult-minded" yet argues "in a pluralistic world you have to live with
people that disagree with you". It seems he cant live with others ideas
and so calls them childish. Illogical? You bet.
Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
You sound more like a right wing extremist than a liberal Matthew,
advocating goose-stepping Orange men's right to march anywhere in the
fatherland.
Martin :)
>
> Matthew Huntbach
>
>
Gerry Lynch
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
> your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
> thme behaving in an antagonistic and stuborn manner?
As someone who supports the OO's right to march (and anyone elses for
that matter) I think you are being a bit naive about the OO. They will
baehave in an antagonistic and stubborn manner anyway. Most of them are
just like that.
Martin Hanna
Dont patronise me. I know what's what and dont have to take the arrogant
views of an outsider who calls us children and most likely has never set
foot in Northern Ireland. I've seen enough Orange Order marches with
loyalist paramilitary logos in my time to know who calls the shots.
Martin.
Brendan Heading
Gerry Lynch was saying:
>> >The British monarchy is an old piece of quaint pageantry which has no real
>> >power in Britain today and which an increasing number of Britons have no
>> >interest in at all. Why keep bringing up this totally irrelevant thing?
>>
>> Agreed!
>Support for the monarchy now less than 50% according to yesterdays
>Guardian.
>Hooray!!!!
Yes, but you're forgetting the obviously-stage managed "The Great Debate On The
Monarchy" held by ITN under a year ago. It suggested around 65% were in favour.
I personally think it's time the monarchy went and were replaced with something
more useful and less expensive.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
"Recursion : see Recursion"
Matthew M. Huntbach
> >Democracy is all about "forcing" your opinion on others by being allowed to
> >express it openly. If people wish to express their strong opinion that the
> >Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope is a dangerous and bad
> >thing, then they must be free to do so.
> I agree, and I do it all the time. But I would not march into a room full of
> Catholics and proclaim this, and neither would you, I'm sure. I regard that as
> decency and, dare I say it, probably essential Christianity.
I do not think a march up a main road is equivalent to entering a front
room. There is a big diffeence between a private front room and a public main
road.
> You will probably call me a liar if I told you about the UDA and UVF banners
> that have been seen even on television on parade with the Orange marches. UDA
> and UVF members are on record as desiring to murder "taigs" and "fenian
> bastards".
Why on earth do you think I would call you a liar? That suggests you have
a completely wrong impression of me. Not only would I not call you a liar,
I am fully aware that what you say is true. As I have said several times,
if any such things occurred in the Garvaghy Road march, I'd have no
hesitation in saying the thing should be stopped.
> >Surely we can all agree that society has grown up in having a greater
> >acceptance of differing views than used to be the case.
> Yes, which is why organisations like the OO have, by and large, faded away.
Fine, so if they are fading away of their own accord, doesn't that suggest the
best thing is just to ignore them and let them fade away?
> >If you go back in
> >history, people were burnt at the stake for expressing views different from
> >those of the Catholic Church. I would say the fact that the Catholic Church
> >no longer advocates such measures is a sign it has grown up. Wouldn't you?
> Yes, I would. However the Catholic Church's failure to apologize for or
> explain these deeds and worse, even though they occurred centuries ago, is
> one of the reasons I left it and condemn it.
I myself have attended masses of reparation organised by the Catholic
Church in order to express apology for and pray for the victims of past
excesses.
> >the matter of marches, I would say that sense should prevail. A march on
> >the main road is one thing, I wouldn't support say a deliberate turn off
> >into side roads merely in order to provoke. I have seen no evidence that
> >the Garvaghy Road march involves any such turning off the main road.
> The alternative route back to the lodge from the church is shorter than the
> Garvaghy Road route. The Garvaghy Road route involves a lot more uphill
> walking - for the elderly men that compose that particular lodge, it's a
> fair old slog.
Oh. I thought you were saying they were stormtroopers ready to invade Poland.
Now you admit they're a few old men. What sort of wuss is it that is afraid
of a few old men holding banners? Sorry to be offensive, but you really
make yourself look rather silly by all this.
Matthew Huntbach
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>> It's more than a mere expression of views. If a bunch of Orange Order
>> people want to call the pope the devil and march up and down their street
>> a thousand times I couldnt really give a toss. It's when they force their
>> opinions on others who want nothing of their 18th century opinions I find
>> offensive. To march where they're not wanted shows the kind of people
>> you're dealing with. The Orange Order and the christian ideal of respect
>> for others stops when it comes to their right to march everywhere they
>> deem fit to goosestep.
>Democracy is all about "forcing" your opinion on others by being allowed to
>express it openly. If people wish to express their strong opinion that the
>Catholic Church under the leadership of the Pope is a dangerous and bad
>thing, then they must be free to do so.
I agree, and I do it all the time. But I would not march into a room full of
Catholics and proclaim this, and neither would you, I'm sure. I regard that as
decency and, dare I say it, probably essential Christianity.
> One Sinead O'Connor did likewise when
>she tore up His Holiness's picture on television.
Did anyone seek to ban her ? No.
>> All this stuff about Liberals supporting free speech is nonsense. You just
>> cant say "kill all bastard taig babies" in public on television so you
>> obviously disagree with various forms of free speech.
>Yes, and if the Orange Order march did have banners calling for murder
>and using abusive terms like "taig" and "bastard" then most certainly it
>should be banned.
You will probably call me a liar if I told you about the UDA and UVF banners
that have been seen even on television on parade with the Orange marches. UDA
and UVF members are on record as desiring to murder "taigs" and "fenian
bastards". These organisations appear to be tolerated by the OO, since their
members also wear OO sashes and no attempt is made to prevent them from marching
with the OO.
> But I have seen no suggestion that it has such elements.
I have.
>Your inability to distinguish between the mere expression ofviews different
>from your own, and direct abuse and incitement to violence is really rather
>sad, and I am sorry to see it from someone whose other posts often contain a
>lot of sense.
It is really rather sad that you use the limited television and newspaper
reports you see whereever you are to build a small picture up of people like the
OO and then criticise other folks for having different views. Your personally
aimed comments are not the mark of a capable debator.
Was the OO not inciting violence during Drumcree 1996 ? Martin Smyth said : "If
we have to go beyond the law in ensuring our right to march, then that is what
we must do".
>> Yet you try to belittle others' opinions by calling them children. This is
>> like in wars when the enemies try to dehumanise the others hence making
>> killing them easier. You try to be smug and call others children. To me
>> that's little more than sheer arrogance. The "children" are not mature and
>> wise like you and hence their opinions are to be ignored. Maybe that's
>> what Liberalism is all about these days.
>Surely we can all agree that society has grown up in having a greater
>acceptance of differing views than used to be the case.
Yes, which is why organisations like the OO have, by and large, faded away.
>If you go back in
>history, people were burnt at the stake for expressing views different from
>those of the Catholic Church. I would say the fact that the Catholic Church
>no longer advocates such measures is a sign it has grown up. Wouldn't you?
Yes, I would. However the Catholic Church's failure to apologize for or explain
these deeds and worse, even though they occurred centuries ago, is one of the
reasons I left it and condemn it.
>> Yet you want the Orange Order to march anywhere they like and have no care
>> for the expressions of the people who object to their marches in their
>> areas. Where is their freedom to express their opinion?
>Liberalism is about letting people be free to express their own opinions
>not about letting them suppress opinions they don't like.
Precisely. The Orange Order directly subverts that idea.
>the matter of marches, I would say that sense should prevail. A march on
>the main road is one thing, I wouldn't support say a deliberate turn off
>into side roads merely in order to provoke. I have seen no evidence that
>the Garvaghy Road march involves any such turning off the main road.
The alternative route back to the lodge from the church is shorter than the
Garvaghy Road route. The Garvaghy Road route involves a lot more uphill walking
- for the elderly men that compose that particular lodge, it's a fair old slog.
>> This adult stuff is boring. Sounds like someone who is losing an argument
>> when they start calling others children.
>But I do believe this idea that mere expression of views is an attack is
>childish. That is why we have that little rhyme we say to children "sticks
>and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me". The fact that
>this is a rhyme we use with children indicates it is meant to counter a
>childish view of the world.
Martin's point was that criticizing the poster rather than his comments is
itself childish behaviour.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to
learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their
apparent disinclination to do so.
-- Douglas Adams
Martin Hanna
On 15 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> Brendan Heading (li...@heading.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> > Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>
> > >the matter of marches, I would say that sense should prevail. A march on
> > >the main road is one thing, I wouldn't support say a deliberate turn off
> > >into side roads merely in order to provoke. I have seen no evidence that
> > >the Garvaghy Road march involves any such turning off the main road.
>
> > The alternative route back to the lodge from the church is shorter than the
> > Garvaghy Road route. The Garvaghy Road route involves a lot more uphill
> > walking - for the elderly men that compose that particular lodge, it's a
> > fair old slog.
>
> Oh. I thought you were saying they were stormtroopers ready to invade Poland.
> Now you admit they're a few old men. What sort of wuss is it that is afraid
> of a few old men holding banners? Sorry to be offensive, but you really
> make yourself look rather silly by all this.
They aint just a few old men. And anyway, their cousins and mates have
those rat-a-tat-tat thingies.
I dont feel comfortable with Matthew's decision that while they may parade
with the taig stiffers now and again as long as they march peacefully then
they can go wherever they want. I've seen enough Sinn Fein yobbos at
paramilitary events to know that just cause the SFers arent hand-in-hand
with the IRA when you bump into them, that doesnt mean I'm going to be all
friendly and accommodating to them. If they associate themselves with
terrorists at any time then I have the right to treat the Orange Order
with the same respect as SF. I dont want these people anywhere near me.
Martin.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
>
>
Matthew M. Huntbach
>>
>> Oh. I thought you were saying they were stormtroopers ready to invade Poland.
>> Now you admit they're a few old men. What sort of wuss is it that is afraid
>> of a few old men holding banners? Sorry to be offensive, but you really
>> make yourself look rather silly by all this.
> Can I first say that Brendan Haeding and I have fought many elections
> together and are mates and agree on most things. Here however, I tend
> to agree more with Matthew. However, Matthew, you don't know that a
> number of Catholic families have been attacked and put out of their
> houses less than 100m from where Brendan lives, by people who were
> members of bands this summer, which is why me might not like the thought
> of parades too much.
Sure, which is why I am saying that any such parades must be agreed on
the strict condition that any suggestion of support for such initimidation
gets the parade stopped instantly. The agreement of the organisers to
the parade that they will accept this condition and not stand in the way of
the police should they be forced to act to stop the parade must be received.
If they are unwilling to agree to such policing then no parade, for sure.
> Also, Catholics in Portadown can't even go in to their own town centre
> at night without fear of being attacked and possibly even killed. The
> Garvaghy Road is literally the only place in the town where they feel
> safe. To them, not being able to object to an Orange march (and I think
> it is more the right to stop the march they want, rather than actually
> to do it) is a violation of their security.
My fear is that Brendan's reaction, though I can fully see where it is
coming from, simply feeds into this nasty sectarian and territorial way
of dividing things up. If one acts territorial by seeking the absolute
control of some main road, one is going to get an unreasonable
territorial attitude thrown back. If one shows contempt for one's fellows
by likening a mere parade to "Nazis", "rape" and "robery" one is most
certainly stoking up the fires of antagonism which will result in more
unpleasantness being thrown back.
It is a real tragedy to see the forces of reaction and counter-reaction
coming into play every year at Drumcree, each side stoking up the
resentment of the other, each stubbornly refusing to admit any compromise.
I really can't see much Britain can do about it either, whatever is done
we will be damned. We can't even step out by saying "sort it out
yourselves" since doing that would result in a bigger conflagration still.
The only way I can sort out this mess in my head is to start from first
principles. And my first principles are those of liberalism where freedom
of speech is given a high priority.
Matthew Huntbach
Gerry Lynch
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
>
> Gerry Lynch (gi0...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > Also, Catholics in Portadown can't even go in to their own town centre
> > at night without fear of being attacked and possibly even killed. The
> > Garvaghy Road is literally the only place in the town where they feel
> > safe. To them, not being able to object to an Orange march (and I think
> > it is more the right to stop the march they want, rather than actually
> > to do it) is a violation of their security.
>
> My fear is that Brendan's reaction, though I can fully see where it is
> coming from, simply feeds into this nasty sectarian and territorial way
> of dividing things up. If one acts territorial by seeking the absolute
> control of some main road, one is going to get an unreasonable
> territorial attitude thrown back.
I agree, Matthew, in an ideal society. Unfortuately NI is not an ideal
society, and all we can do is hope to stop things egtting worse than
they are sometimes. As I have said, in terms of most OO marches, I
agree with you. However there are particular problems associated with
Portadown and the Ormeau Road.
<bit snipped>
> The only way I can sort out this mess in my head is to start from first
> principles. And my first principles are those of liberalism where freedom
> of speech is given a high priority.
As are mine.
Matthew M. Huntbach
> > and using abusive terms like "taig" and "bastard" then most certainly it
> > should be banned. But I have seen no suggestion that it has such elements.
> What about the UVF band which marched with East Belfast lodges for
> years? AFAIK, it is no longer hired since it went beserk outside
> St.Matthew's when a funeral was in progress last year.
Sure. If there was any evidence that the Garvaghy Road march was to involve
anything like that, I'd have the police go in and arrest the lot of them
for provocative behaviour leading to breach of the peace. But, as I said in
the paragraph you quote above, I saw no evidence that it did involve that
sort of thing.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
> > Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
> > your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
> > thme behaving in an antagonistic and stuborn manner?
> As someone who supports the OO's right to march (and anyone elses for
> that matter) I think you are being a bit naive about the OO. They will
> baehave in an antagonistic and stubborn manner anyway.
I am sure they will, but their anatgomism and stubbornness will just look
silly if it's met with indifference. The best way to treat them would be
"go and have your silly little march you pathetic bunch of has-beens" and let
them get on with it. All this huge fuss and opposition and overblown
comments about them just puffs up their antagonism and stubbornness. That's
elementary human nature.
Matthew Huntbach
Brendan Heading
Martin Hanna was saying:
>Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
>just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
>expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
>a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
>march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
I agree. I am not seeking that the OO are banned or prevented from all marching,
but if they were a liberal and pleasant bunch (which they're not, by nature)
they'd know where they were not wanted and politely reroute themselves.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
"Blessed are the cracks, for they let the light through!"
- Rev. Stevie Fever
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>>The problem with the OO is at their organisation, even in it's constitution
>>and apparently since it's inception, is founded on a basis of "upholding
>>Protestantism". What does that mean exactly ? It implies to Catholics living
>>here such as myself that the Orange Order, in banning marriages of it's
>>members to Catholics, interfering when the Prime Minister sends his kids to
>>a Catholic school, complaining when Prince Charles says that he wishes to
>>represent all religions and all corners of belief (including Catholicism)
>>and doing all those things that it views Catholics as a kind of dangerous
>>vermin who must be kept out of positions of power/influence at all costs.
>So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
>live with people that disagree with you. You could find any number of
>Catholics equally antagonistic towards Protestantism, opposing mixed
>religion marriages and the like.
To begin with, there aren't too many of those.
Secondly, you misunderstand the exact nature of the situation. Of course I
respect the pluralistic world we have to live in. You don't see me out
protesting against EVERY marching organisation or society that passes by, do
you ?
But what would you do if coloured people rioted or protested at a KKK march down
their road ? What would you do if the Nazi party staged a procession down a
street full of Jewish people, when there were plenty of other routes available ?
What would you do if someone even broke into your house, robbed all your
possessions and destroyed your property ? Of course, I could turn around like a
fool and ask you to grow up, and ask you to accept the pluralistic society you
live in. Burgulars should be allowed to break into people's houses - after all,
it is a legitimate expression of their culture.
> One could say some pretty hair-raising
>things about organisations like Opus Dei, for instance. The Orange Order
>happens to believe the Catholic interpretation of Christianity is wrong, and
>campaigns to promote their own interpretation.
That would be OK by me, but again there is more to it than that. Here is an
excerpt from the Orange Order's constitution :
"[An Orangeman] should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the
Church of Rome and scrupulously avoid countenancing any act of Popish worship"
You are also required to sign a statement declaring that you are of Protestant
parents and your wife is Protestant, and you have never been in any way
connected with the Church of Rome.
The Orange Order complained publically on hearing the Prime Minister was married
to a Catholic and attempted to send his kids to a Catholic school; they were
very irritated when Prince Charles stated his desire to be representative of all
religions (not just Church of England/Anglican) and in Northern Ireland they
have been instrumental in influencing legislation preventing, for instance,
Sunday opening/trading (which is now being repealed, at last).
A more sinister aspect of the Order can be observed during it's marches, when
bandsmen can be seen proudly wielding banners of the UVF and the UDA with no
obvious opposition to their presence.
> What sort of bigot is it that
>can't even stand the thought of an organisation that says to him "you are
>wrong"?
No, it is saying "we hate your guts and for as long as we live, we want you kept
out of all positions of power and privilege in society". What sort of bigot is
it that allows bigotry to be paraded and upheld by governments ?
>If you were a politician would you ban all political parties that
>disagreed with yours?
No, and the fact that I don't should mean something to you.
>If you don't agree with the Orange Order, either ignore
>it or challenge what it says. Elementary John Stuart Mill stuff.
I could ignore it more easily if they didn't keep marching down my streets and
coming back late at night smashing all my windows and yelling sectarian taunts.
While I disagree with the OO fundamentally I am not calling for it to be banned
- I am merely asking that it marches within the areas in which it is supported.
What is so hard about that ? What does the fact that the OO steadfastly refuse
to be rerouted away from Catholic areas tell you ?
>>It is not quite as simple as that. Many Northern Ireland Catholics, even
>>ones who believe themselves to be moderate (like myself) feel that the
>>British government at the best of times is making terrible mistakes.
>>Drumcree this year suggested that violence DOES work if you want to achieve
>>certain aims. The problem with the RUC's 90% membership and Orange Order
>>proliferation in it's ranks has to be addressed somehow (not necessarily
>>disbandment). People are continuing to read IRA propaganda, and just when
>>some of us turn around and try to rubbish that propaganda, the British pull
>>something out of their hat to confirm it!
>Had there been a few adult-minded people at Drumcree who had the sense to
>realise the best way to deal with this silly little march was to ignore it,
>there would have been no trouble.
Are the silly little KKK ignored by black people ? Were the silly little Nazis
ignored when they invaded Poland ? A whole war could have prevented if they
were. Is that really what you're trying to tell me ?
> Instead there's all these babyish sorts
>who think the mere expression of views different from their own amounts to
>some sort of "attack" and stir up trouble and violence to make a whole big
>mess of things.
Yes, and that grouping is the Orange Order. Witness their attitudes towards
Irish language signs being used at Queen's University.
> Can't you see that a policy of "live and let live" towards
>your fellow Irishmen in the Orange Order would be the best thing to stop
>thme behaving in an antagonistic and stuborn manner?
The OO is an antagonistic and stubborn organisation since it's inception and by
it's nature. It is not a mere religious organisation; here, those are called
"churches", you may have heard of them.
> If you say "You can't
>walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their ground
>and insist on their right to do so?
If you let a burgular rob your house, then is he gonna stop robbing it after a
while ? Or is he gonna keep coming back time after time, knowing you'll let him
in ?
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
"We don't need lessons from Brussels on how to be European.
We have known that for centuries".
-- Jean Michel Jarre
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>> Matthew argues that ideas opposed to his are childish, eg "Grow up",
>> "adult-minded" yet argues "in a pluralistic world you have to live with
>> people that disagree with you". It seems he cant live with others ideas
>> and so calls them childish. Illogical? You bet.
>Yes, I believe it is a mark of an adult mind to accept that others may
>have different views from yourself, and may even express those views,
>without starting calling that expression "aggression" andwanting to stop it.
The Orange Order does not accept that others with different views and practices
(eg Catholics) are legitimate at all, and the behaviour of the Stormont
government since it's establishment until it's abolishment was proof of this.
>> Liberalism is all about individual freedom and toleration of other people,
>> just like in a pluralistic society but that does not mean the
>> expression of one group's opinion over another. It's all about respect and
>> a bit of give and take. Matthew wants the Orange Order to have it all, to
>> march wherever they want. How's that for pluralism?
>I want EVERYONE to have the freedom to express their own views. I make no
>special case for the Orange Order.
I agree with that in principle, but what do you do with an organisation that
exists to prevent other people's freedoms ?
>But here we go AGAIN. As I keep saying, I don't myself agree with either the
>political or the religious views of the Orange Order. But I do not see them
>as "fascist". They dislike Catholicism, fine, so do people like Tom McVey on
>this newsgroup. So shall I liken Tom McVey to a fascist simply because he
>doesn't agree with me on the Catholic faith? Or shall I behave as an adult
>and accept he has deep personal reasons for his views, and more so has a
>right to celebrate and demonstrate his views in public if he so wishes?
Does the right to celebrate and demonstrate views in public (I know of no law,
national or international, that states this or guarantees this) supercede the
right of people to live in peace with their neighbours and without fear or
aggression (which is enshrined in nearly all national and international law) ?
>The Orange Order is not a particularly pleasant organisation, but I think
>this readiness to liken it to fascism rather than accept that it is an
>expression of the heartfelt views of those who genuinely believe that
>Catholicism is a mistaken interpretation of Christainity, indicates that sort
>of contempt for one's fellows which stands in the way of reconciliation in
>Northern Ireland.
I think that Catholicism is a mistaken interpretation of Christianity too, in
fact I think the whole of Christianity (with respect to Christians out there) is
nonsense. I am sure a lot of other people in the world are the same way.
Doesn't change the fact that the Orange Order are not simply religious, but a
sectarian hate organisation. The fact that I am no longer a Catholic does not
and would not prevent certain members of it from intimidating me, and does not
prevent me from campaigning against it.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
I think that all right-thinking people in this country are sick
and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in
this country with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! But I'm
sick and tired of being told that I am
-- Monty Python
Matthew M. Huntbach
> >>The problem with the OO is at their organisation, even in it's constitution
> >>and apparently since it's inception, is founded on a basis of "upholding
> >>Protestantism". What does that mean exactly ? It implies to Catholics living
> >>here such as myself that the Orange Order, in banning marriages of it's
> >>members to Catholics, interfering when the Prime Minister sends his kids to
> >>a Catholic school, complaining when Prince Charles says that he wishes to
> >>represent all religions and all corners of belief (including Catholicism)
> >>and doing all those things that it views Catholics as a kind of dangerous
> >>vermin who must be kept out of positions of power/influence at all costs.
> >So bloody what? Grow up and accept that in a pluralistic world you have to
> >live with people that disagree with you. You could find any number of
> >Catholics equally antagonistic towards Protestantism, opposing mixed
> >religion marriages and the like.
> To begin with, there aren't too many of those.
The Catholic Church still discourages mixed marriages and requires that
children of such be brought up as Catholics.
> But what would you do if coloured people rioted or protested at a KKK march
> down their road ? What would you do if the Nazi party staged a procession
> down a street full of Jewish people, when there were plenty of other routes
> available ?
As I have said, while I don't find the Orange Order a particularly pleasnt
organisation, and I disagree with both its political and religious views,
it does not seem to me to be the equivalent of either the Nazis or the KKK,
and it is surely the sort of thing calculated to cause discord to liken it
to that.
> What would you do if someone even broke into your house, robbed all your
> possessions and destroyed your property ?
Whose house is the Orange Order planning to break into? If there is any
house breaking done, people should be arrested for house breaking. Otherwise,
what on earth are you on about?
> > One could say some pretty hair-raising
> >things about organisations like Opus Dei, for instance. The Orange Order
> >happens to believe the Catholic interpretation of Christianity is wrong, and
> >campaigns to promote their own interpretation.
> That would be OK by me, but again there is more to it than that. Here is an
> excerpt from the Orange Order's constitution :
>"[An Orangeman] should strenuously oppose the fatal errors and doctrines of the
>Church of Rome and scrupulously avoid countenancing any act of Popish worship"
> You are also required to sign a statement declaring that you are of Protestant
> parents and your wife is Protestant, and you have never been in any way
> connected with the Church of Rome.
Fine, that is their rules, why does it bother you that they should live by
them? My political party wouldn't let me be a member of it if I were
simultaneously a member of the Labour Party, but people don't go round
suggesting that makes the LibDems a version of the Nazis.
> The Orange Order complained publically on hearing the Prime Minister was
> married to a Catholic and attempted to send his kids to a Catholic school;
> they were very irritated when Prince Charles stated his desire to be
> representative of all religions (not just Church of England/Anglican) and in
> Northern Ireland they have been instrumental in influencing legislation
> preventing, for instance, Sunday opening/trading (which is now being
> repealed, at last).
Fine. You and I are free to disagree with them. Where's your problem?
> A more sinister aspect of the Order can be observed during it's marches, when
> bandsmen can be seen proudly wielding banners of the UVF and the UDA with no
> obvious opposition to their presence.
As I have said, I would want to ban direct expressions of support for
terrorism from any such marches, and would make it a condition of their
being allowed to take place that no such banners be carried, and if any
appear those holding them would be arrested under laws of incitement to
hatred.
> >If you don't agree with the Orange Order, either ignore
> >it or challenge what it says. Elementary John Stuart Mill stuff.
> I could ignore it more easily if they didn't keep marching down my streets
> and coming back late at night smashing all my windows and yelling sectarian
> taunts.
If people are smashing windows and shouting sectarian taunts then they should
be arrested for smashing windows and shouting sectarian taunts. WHat has that
got to do with carrying banners?
> While I disagree with the OO fundamentally I am not calling for it to be
> banned - I am merely asking that it marches within the areas in which it is
> supported. What is so hard about that ? What does the fact that the OO
> steadfastly refuse to be rerouted away from Catholic areas tell you ?
The particular march which is causing controversy goes from a church where
a religious service is held in context with it, down a main road to the
town centre. I do not see that this as a route that can be objected to.
As I have said, it would be objectionable if the march turned off the main
route and went round a housing estate merely to cause offence, but I don't
see any evidence taht this is what is done in the case of that march.
> >Had there been a few adult-minded people at Drumcree who had the sense to
> >realise the best way to deal with this silly little march was to ignore it,
> >there would have been no trouble.
> Are the silly little KKK ignored by black people ? Were the silly little Nazis
> ignored when they invaded Poland ? A whole war could have prevented if they
> were. Is that really what you're trying to tell me ?
No, but I don't see the Orange Order planning to invade Poland. The mere
carrying of banners does not amount to a declaration of warfare, that's been
my point.
> > Instead there's all these babyish sorts
> >who think the mere expression of views different from their own amounts to
> >some sort of "attack" and stir up trouble and violence to make a whole big
> >mess of things.
> Yes, and that grouping is the Orange Order. Witness their attitudes towards
> Irish language signs being used at Queen's University.
Sure, I'm not saying the Orange Order is any better than those who oppose
it, am I?
> > If you say "You can't
> >walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their ground
> >and insist on their right to do so?
> If you let a burgular rob your house, then is he gonna stop robbing it after a
> while ? Or is he gonna keep coming back time after time, knowing you'll let
> him in ?
The mere carrying of banners does not amount to a robbery, and it suggests that
you have lost your sense of proportion when you make these silly analogies.
Matthew Huntbach
Matthew M. Huntbach
Martin Hanna (admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> On 15 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> > Brendan Heading (li...@heading.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>> The alternative route back to the lodge from the church is shorter than the
>>> Garvaghy Road route. The Garvaghy Road route involves a lot more uphill
>>> walking - for the elderly men that compose that particular lodge, it's a
>>> fair old slog.
>>
>> Oh. I thought you were saying they were stormtroopers ready to invade Poland.
>> Now you admit they're a few old men. What sort of wuss is it that is afraid
>> of a few old men holding banners? Sorry to be offensive, but you really
>> make yourself look rather silly by all this.
> They aint just a few old men. And anyway, their cousins and mates have
> those rat-a-tat-tat thingies.
> I dont feel comfortable with Matthew's decision that while they may parade
> with the taig stiffers now and again as long as they march peacefully then
> they can go wherever they want. I've seen enough Sinn Fein yobbos at
> paramilitary events to know that just cause the SFers arent hand-in-hand
> with the IRA when you bump into them, that doesnt mean I'm going to be all
> friendly and accommodating to them. If they associate themselves with
> terrorists at any time then I have the right to treat the Orange Order
> with the same respect as SF. I dont want these people anywhere near me.
Sorry, where am I suggesting being friendly with them? I am suggesting they
should have the freedom to parade on the main road, I am not suggesting
you have to go out and shake their hands or whatever.
As I keep saying, if any march contains direct references to terrorists,
then it should be stopped forthwith. If a speaker on such a parade were
to refer to "Loyalist" terrorists as "brave heroes" etc or any of the
praise words used by SF for the IRA, then that parade should be stopped
immeditaley as breaching the necessary conditions for a peaceful march.
I have not, however, seen any evidence that the Garvaghy Road parade involves
anything of that, therefore however much I may disagree with the
sentiments expressed in it, as a liberal I cannot accept simply banning it.
Now obviously you in Northern Ireland know more about these things than I
do. But my first position as a liberal must be that I do not ban freedom of
speech. I am open to be persuaded otherwise by people who know more about
what actually happens than I do, but so far you have not persuaded me.
Rather you have confirmed what I have already felt that this overblown
divisiveness and readiness to see "the other side" in the most extreme
terms including likening parades to "Nazis", "rape", "robbery" etc is a
contributing factor to the antagonism - an antagonistic approach one way
results in a likewise antagonistic approach in the other. If someone were to
refer to some Catholic/Nationalist parade as "a bunch of superstitious
peasants who are hand-in-hand with murderers, and would bring back burning at
the stake for Protestants if they could" would that calm down a heated
situation, and lead to the sort of community cooperation that might lead
to acceptance of parade re-routing? Well it certainly wouldn't if I were the
oraganiser of such a march, I'd certainly be bloody-minded and stand my
ground in response to that and insist all the more in my right to march.
Now I don't claim here to be expressing any more than my own view. I'm not
Mo Mowlem so I don't have to make the decision on such things. It simply
seems to me so obvious from the outside what is happening and what is the
obvious approach to it, that I really do want to pull people like you out
to try and find if you can persuade me that I am wrong, that I have missed
a vital factor. But so far from all you have said right through this
summer, you have failed to do so.
Matthew Huntbach
Gerry Lynch
Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
>
> Oh. I thought you were saying they were stormtroopers ready to invade Poland.
> Now you admit they're a few old men. What sort of wuss is it that is afraid
> of a few old men holding banners? Sorry to be offensive, but you really
> make yourself look rather silly by all this.
Can I first say that Brendan Haeding and I have fought many elections
together and are mates and agree on most things. Here however, I tend
to agree more with Matthew. However, Matthew, you don't know that a
number of Catholic families have been attacked and put out of their
houses less than 100m from where Brendan lives, by people who were
members of bands this summer, which is why me might not like the thought
of parades too much.
Also, Catholics in Portadown can't even go in to their own town centre
at night without fear of being attacked and possibly even killed. The
Garvaghy Road is literally the only place in the town where they feel
safe. To them, not being able to object to an Orange march (and I think
it is more the right to stop the march they want, rather than actually
to do it) is a violation of their security.
The psychology on Drumcree and the Lower Ormeau is very different to
other places (Bellaghy, Dunloy, Derry, Clifton Park Ave, Whitewell Rd,
etc,etc, ad infinitum) where it seems to be a straight case of not
wanting the Jaffas in your village/estate.
Respectfully
Greig
I've seen enough Sinn Fein yobbos at
paramilitary events
Hi
Other than a few chuckies turning up at Ardoyne I don't think the IRA
and SF have been in the same Street for about ten years and they *never*
talk to each other - must be some kind of rift between them. Ardoyne is
a separate kettle of fish
Rgds
Greig
Greig
If you say "You can't
walk here" isn't that the most likely thing to make them stand their
ground
and insist on their right to do so?
Matthew Huntbach
There has never been a right to march - from time immemorial there has
in fact been "no right to march". The catholics in Portadown despite
being attacked on Obins allowed all ten parades there and back through
their area - only the one march the Garvaghy one opted for a circular
detour. The history of the matter is as clear as the facts, in Ireland
there has never been a right to march - it has been discouraged in law.
The law is something the Orange Order have never been that fussed about
- attempts to restrict Orange marches have been a feature of civic
government here for almost two hundred years only the Stormont Junta
allowed these marches the British Government was "opposed" to Orange
marches of any description. You can't allow rioters free assembly for a
campaign of intimidation and the Portadown Lodge is a free expression of
the right to riot. It is of course not representative of the Orange
Order mainstream who to be honest are not disliked in a generic sense -
well not disliked to any great extent.
Greig
Greig
it does not seem to me to be the equivalent of either the Nazis or the
KKK,
Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
hundred books. Not that I would judge them or hold them to account on
the basis of a few emotional speeches but the *core* values are still
very much there.
Greig
Greig
I do not think a march up a main road is equivalent to entering a front
room. There is a big diffeence between a private front room and a public
main
road.
Interestingly enough the ability for this lodge and their band followers
on previous excursions into Nationalist Portadown to end up in either
"your" front room or failing that to put "you" through your own front
window is very high - the Orange expression "a wee spot of bother" can
in fact mean anything from burning down an entire section of town or
losing their wallet. Matthew I've noted has retreated from a technical
analysis given his ignorance of local conditions and is instead spewing
meaningless waffle.
Rgds
Greig
Greig
Therefore a place like Garvaghy has to tell it's teenagers and it's kids
that these fascist bastards that went through Obins Street like Atilla
the Hun are coming our way and we've to keep out of their way so we're
sending you to relatives which is what we have to do when we try and
stop them coming down . Yes well what can I say it's an idea - not a
good one in my book but an idea. What happens when the kids grow up and
decide to come at the problem from the flank or behind by getting some
guns and a coffee grinder.
Better by far to prohibit the Portadown Orange Lodge
Greig
Matthew M. Huntbach
Martin Hanna (admn...@ermine.ox.ac.uk) wrote:
> Northern Ireland is not a normal society. To pretend it is either shows a
> misunderstanding of the situation or a refusal to accept the facts. There
> are serious religious and political problems, usually avoided by simply
> wishing them away or not talking about them. In work people usually avoid
> these topics and in single/majority religious areas people can just get on
> with their life as normal as possible. But no-one can fail to notice
On the other hand, people who assume the whole of Northern Ireland is one
great battlefield also get attacked as not knowing what they are talking
about. Clearly, Northern Ireland is not a "normal society". But my point is
a more determined attempt to cool down the tempo of the abnormality of the
society may be helpful. For example, not getting so hot and bothered over some
silly little parade might help. But the extremism of the opposition to the
parade, including these overblown analogies with Nazis invading Poland etc,
seem to me to be the sort of thing whcih is perpetuating the abnormality.
> Northern Ireland is in the middle of great change. The first nationalist
> mayor in Belfast in Northern Ireland's history shows this. The unionist
> community is extremely worried while the Republican are trying to seize
> their moment.
Sure. I feel part of the problem is a feeling amongst the Unionists that their
position is inevitably in decline, that every piece of lost ground is lost
forever, and that any movement is inevitably a step towards becoming part
of a United Ireland. This must explain a lot of the stubbornness over things
like parade routes.
> But to come from the outside and tell us to get on with each
> other and stop acting like children shows gross misunderstanding of the
> complexity of Northern Ireland. To you it seems obvious what is happening
> in Northern Ireland. To me that shows you dont understand the problems.
We are speaking about the narrow issue of one particular parade. From all
the evidence I've seen - and it's been discussed in detail in this newsgroup
for the past three years, as well as got a fair amount of press coverage in
British newspapers - the form of the opposition to it strikes me as
counterproductive and more likely to inflame the situation than lead NI
away from the abnormal situation in which it is in currently. There are also
issues of principle about free speech here which interest me.
If you think I am wrong, tell me where I am wrong. Simply saying
"misunderstanding of complexity" is not enough. What is this complexity I'm
misunderstanding? It does seem to me that we keep hearing from NI "Britain
must take responsibility" but if we do it's "you don't understand", unless
we take on the usual silly trendy lefty line of uncritical support for
Republicanism. No-one told Jill Baker, for instance "you don't understand".
I'm not accusing you of supporting that simple sort of Republican line, because
I know you don't, but iof you drive away anyone who is moderate from trying
to understand your problems, you will end up having none but the
terror-groupies looking on.
Matthew Huntbach
Martin Hanna
On 15 Aug 1997, Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> Now I don't claim here to be expressing any more than my own view. I'm not
> Mo Mowlem so I don't have to make the decision on such things. It simply
> seems to me so obvious from the outside what is happening and what is the
> obvious approach to it, that I really do want to pull people like you out
> to try and find if you can persuade me that I am wrong, that I have missed
> a vital factor. But so far from all you have said right through this
> summer, you have failed to do so.
Northern Ireland is not a normal society. To pretend it is either shows a
misunderstanding of the situation or a refusal to accept the facts. There
are serious religious and political problems, usually avoided by simply
wishing them away or not talking about them. In work people usually avoid
these topics and in single/majority religious areas people can just get on
with their life as normal as possible. But no-one can fail to notice
Northern Ireland is in the middle of great change. The first nationalist
mayor in Belfast in Northern Ireland's history shows this. The unionist
community is extremely worried while the Republican are trying to seize
their moment. But to come from the outside and tell us to get on with each
other and stop acting like children shows gross misunderstanding of the
complexity of Northern Ireland. To you it seems obvious what is happening
in Northern Ireland. To me that shows you dont understand the problems.
Martin.
>
> Matthew Huntbach
>
>
Matthew M. Huntbach
Greig (ta...@btinternet.com) wrote:
>Matthew Huntbach:
> it does not seem to me to be the equivalent of either the Nazis or the
> KKK,
>
> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
> hundred books.
As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement to
hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
Matthew Huntbach
Brendan Heading
Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
>> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
>> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
>> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
>> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
>> hundred books.
>As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement to
>hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been prosecuted
under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even to
outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
-- A Bit of Fry and Laurie
Harry Merrick
Brendan Heading wrote:
> Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
>
> >> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's
> raison
> >> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
> >> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they
> themselves
> >> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from
> the
> >> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
> >> hundred books.
>
> >As I have said, I support the full application of the law on
> incitement to
> >hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for
> it.
>
> As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been
> prosecuted
> under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even
> to
> outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
>
> --
Hear! Hear! Paisley and Robinson and Greig, for as start! :-))
> /=======================================================================\
>
> |Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online
> soon |
> | Influence and inspiration from
> : |
> | Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas
> TangerineDream |
> |Alliance Party of Northern Ireland
> (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
> \====================================
> ==================================/
> I think animal testing is a terrible idea;
> they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.
> -- A Bit of Fry and Laurie
--
Harry.
--
Non Desperandum Est Cupiditas.
Harry Merrick
Greig wrote:
> Therefore a place like Garvaghy has to tell it's teenagers and it's
> kids
> that these fascist bastards that went through Obins Street like Atilla
>
> the Hun are coming our way and we've to keep out of their way so we're
>
> sending you to relatives which is what we have to do when we try and
> stop them coming down .
God! Greig! You really _are_ a bitter old pill, d'you know that? - Why,
for goodness sake, do you make up or exaggerate these story's like that?
- You always try to put all the blame on Protestants one way or the
other, and totally forget that your crowd have most _certainly_ done
acts of violence at least as bad in their time, or far far worse! - You
just do not want any one to live their lives in peace do you?
> Yes well what can I say it's an idea - not a
> good one in my book but an idea. What happens when the kids grow up
> and
> decide to come at the problem from the flank or behind by getting some
>
> guns and a coffee grinder.
There you go again! Inciting violence for violence sake! - I have to say
I find your whole attitude highly reprehensible and irresponsible.
Someone your age should be preaching wisdom, not total rubbish!
>
>
>
> Better by far to prohibit the Portadown Orange Lodge
>
> What a load of crap!
>
> Greig
Greig
I find your whole attitude highly reprehensible and irresponsible.
Someone your age should be preaching wisdom, not total rubbish!
I think we'll have to agree to disagree there are no shortage of people
prepared to adopt my position which is valid enough and in this case
unless you were one of the cops beating people of the street so their
Orange Chums could march - then you weren't there - with a bit of luck
the TV might be as close as you have to get to smelly taigs so don't
choke worrying about it. New Nationalism isn't in the swallowing shit
business any more - remember we're the democrats - we're not the
sectarian headcounters or gerrymanderers - no mate there is nothing
wrong with sticking up for ones own community - thats all I'm doing, I'm
not marching up your cul de sac having my chums beat your old lady or
your kids off the street - give it a rest.
Greig
Greig
If the parade in question were to change from being merely a parade to
doing any of this, of course it should be stopped immediately and those
responsible for these crimes arrested.
> Matthew I've noted has retreated from a technical
> analysis given his ignorance of local conditions and is instead
spewing
> meaningless waffle.
Do you say people like John Stuart Mill or Voltaire, who taake the same
line
as I am taking on freedom of speech were "spewing meaningless rubbish"?
Matthew Huntbach
Right so in a way you're saying to give the Orange fellas a chance and
if they crap in the nest impose some sort of restriction, fine,
compensation or ban it next time if they run amok - yes I'd agree with
that as a rule and I reckon the residents groups would be interested,
the Brits should tell the Lodges to get their Lawyer to work out the
fine detail with Garvaghy residents etc or police or what have you - yes
certainly that formula will travel so it has a universal application -
most of the Orangies are OK, pain in the arse but OK. No that would be
fine though the devil is in the detail - mind you Matthew Portadown
Lodge are *the* Waffen SS of the entire Order they got it banned and
made illegal - one fella use to practice on *his* own tenants for the
fray on the 12th, seriously bad reputation - but certainly for 99.9
percent I'd be happy to run with what you suggest. However they've been
down 3 times on the trot so maybe given the ceasefire it would be an
idea to let it take the straight route next time as the locals are livid
- most of the Drumcree catholics died out in the famine unusual for the
North a lot of protestants as well, although they've bred back well
enough - not many people know the famine was very bad there you know -
the only reason I mention that is that I read that the OO had driven the
catholics out last century not quite true most of them died of plague -
can't really blame that on the Order.
Fair enough
Greig
Matthew M. Huntbach
Greig (ta...@btinternet.com) wrote:
Matthew Huntbach wrote:
>> I do not think a march up a main road is equivalent to entering a front
>> room. There is a big diffeence between a private front room and a public
>> main road.
>
> Interestingly enough the ability for this lodge and their band followers
> on previous excursions into Nationalist Portadown to end up in either
> "your" front room or failing that to put "you" through your own front
> window is very high - the Orange expression "a wee spot of bother" can
> in fact mean anything from burning down an entire section of town or
> losing their wallet.
If the parade in question were to change from being merely a parade to
Gerry Lynch
Martin Hanna wrote:
> Northern Ireland is in the middle of great change. The first nationalist
> mayor in Belfast in Northern Ireland's history shows this. The unionist
> community is extremely worried while the Republican are trying to seize
> their moment.
A nationalist Lord Mayor elected thanks to the Alliance Party.
It's a pity the SDLP, sorry that's unfair, it's a pity Alex Attwood
can't show a bit of reciprocation and a bit of give and take towards us,
instead of dancing to SF's tune all the time in the City Hall. But
there we are.
Martin Hanna
On Mon, 18 Aug 1997, Gerry Lynch wrote:
> Martin Hanna wrote:
>
> > Northern Ireland is in the middle of great change. The first nationalist
> > mayor in Belfast in Northern Ireland's history shows this. The unionist
> > community is extremely worried while the Republican are trying to seize
> > their moment.
>
> A nationalist Lord Mayor elected thanks to the Alliance Party.
>
> It's a pity the SDLP, sorry that's unfair, it's a pity Alex Attwood
> can't show a bit of reciprocation and a bit of give and take towards us,
> instead of dancing to SF's tune all the time in the City Hall. But
> there we are.
There's been plenty of power-sharing by the SDLP in areas such as Down
District. What's Alex Atwood been up to?
Martin.
George Griffin
On 18 Aug 97 17:09:51 +0000, Brendan Heading <li...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}Matthew M. Huntbach was saying:
}
}>> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
}>> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
}>> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
}>> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
}>> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
}>> hundred books.
}
}>As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement to
}>hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
}
}As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been prosecuted
}under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even to
}outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
What about the bandsmen who were prosecuted for "playing" their drums in a
manner likely to cause offence (or something similar)? I think they were done
for attempting to cause a fight by playing some "music" (to use the term
loosely) at soem bystanders.
George
Greig
As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement
to
hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
Fair enough but it will never happen they had a UVF Colour Party on the
BBC this year - thats illegal. The Methodists had a word with them about
it and denounced at their synod - they don't care Matthew - there are
almost 80,000 of them they're above the law. I agree in principle but
there is no remedy in real life.
Greig
Greig
Matthew M. Huntbach
>>> Thew Orange Order is a organisation truely rich in history, it's raison
>>> d'etre and genesis being the Peep O'Day Boy's, to argue a distinct
>>> purpose from the original institution is difficult - they themselves
>>> insist they are the same thing. *One* speech at their field from the
>>> back of a lorry will teach you more about their core values than a
>>> hundred books.
>>As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement to
>>hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
>As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been prosecuted
>under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even to
>outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
Yes, I certainly think it should be applied far more strongly, and an explicit
condition attached to any permission given to parade should be that the
organisers of the parade agree to accept the full application of the law.
Matthew Huntbach
Brendan Heading
George Griffin was saying:
>>As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been
>>prosecuted
>>under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even to
>>outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
>What about the bandsmen who were prosecuted for "playing" their drums in a
>manner likely to cause offence (or something similar)? I think they were done
>for attempting to cause a fight by playing some "music" (to use the term
>loosely) at soem bystanders.
I don't think they were prosecuted under that act. Secondly, in NI, there are a
lot of songs that, on the face of it, seem very innocent, but if you live here,
they are plainly offensive.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
There's so much comedy on television.
Does that cause comedy in the streets?
-- Dick Cavett, mocking the TV-violence debate
Brendan Heading
Greig was saying:
>>As I have said, I support the full application of the law on incitement
>>to hatred. If they are guilty of such a thing, let them be arrested for it.
>Fair enough but it will never happen they had a UVF Colour Party on the
>BBC this year - thats illegal. The Methodists had a word with them about
>it and denounced at their synod - they don't care Matthew - there are
>almost 80,000 of them they're above the law. I agree in principle but
>there is no remedy in real life.
For once I'm going to agree with Greig. The UVF band could be quite plainly seen
parading unhindered with an Orange march around the city hall a few weeks before
Drumcree. And yes, the Methodist Church denounced all of this at their annual
meeting.
--
/=======================================================================\
|Brendan Heading (bre...@heading.demon.co.uk) - Webpage online soon |
| Influence and inspiration from : |
| Jarre Vangelis Tomita Carlos Erasure Pinhas TangerineDream |
|Alliance Party of Northern Ireland (www.unite.co.uk/customers/Alliance)|
\=======================================================================/
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible
will make violent revolution inevitable.
-- John F. Kennedy
George Griffin
On 19 Aug 97 11:07:05 +0000, Brendan Heading <li...@heading.demon.co.uk> wrote:
}George Griffin was saying:
}>>As is usual in Northern Ireland, no-one is. A single person has been
}>>prosecuted
}>>under that Act since it was introduced, when it is quite obvious even to
}>>outsiders that there has been a great deal more incitement going on.
}
}>What about the bandsmen who were prosecuted for "playing" their drums in a
}>manner likely to cause offence (or something similar)? I think they were done
}>for attempting to cause a fight by playing some "music" (to use the term
}>loosely) at soem bystanders.
}
}I don't think they were prosecuted under that act. Secondly, in NI, there are a
}lot of songs that, on the face of it, seem very innocent, but if you live here,
}they are plainly offensive.
At least he was prosecuted which has to be a good sign. However he was done for
the manner in which he played rather than his choice in music.
George
ps I do live here.
Greig
There's been plenty of power-sharing by the SDLP in areas such as Down
District. What's Alex Atwood been up to?
Martin.
I think given the factional problems within the SDLP and the need to
collaborate with Sinn Fein Mr Attwood has done well enough, so well that
the RUC broke into a house in the Springfield and beat him up but that's
another matter, no he's been intelligent and coherent when under severe
pressure from all directions I think he should be able to hold the SDLP
vote at either the present level or a little above and this will be
important as the increase in votes that Sinn Fein are likely to pick up
will be substantial very few young catholics vote with a general trend
across nationalism for abstention still to be reversed. The protestant
registration is very much higher than our own - I'd appreciate regional
variances on this should anyone feel that I'm wrong.
Greig
Chris Hedley
In article <33FC24FB...@chah.ucc.ie.montenotte>,
Des Higgins <D...@chah.ucc.ie.montenotte> writes:
> Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
... and so on ...
I see that Messrs Higgins and Huntbach are steaming ahead of the
competition for the Mills-Linehan Award for Contemporary Argument. :)
Chris.
Des Higgins
Chris Hedley wrote:
Those beginners?;they have only been doing this for a few months!
Uncle Des
> Chris.
Matthew M. Huntbach
Des Higgins (D...@chah.ucc.ie.montenotte) wrote:
> Matthew M. Huntbach wrote:
> > For example, not getting so hot and bothered
> > over some silly little parade might help.
> That is the crux of the argument. You consider them to be "silly little
> parade"s;
> you completely underestimate the damage they cause and write off those
> who object (including extremely moderate people like Martin Hanna
> and the local catholic priest on the Garvaghy Road) as cranks or
> trouble makers. if these parades were so silly then how come N.I.
> comes to the brink of civil war and people die because of them
> every year now.
Because people in Northern Ireland ON BOTH SIDES seem not to have a sense of
proportion over them. This parade has become a flashpoint because of the
insistence on one side that it goes ahead, and on the other that it is
stopped.
I'm not saying that people like Martin Hanna or the local priest are either
cranks, or troublemakers, though I rather think (and Gerry Adams has admitted
it with his "lot of work went into it" quote) that troublemakers from the
Nationalist/Republican side HAVE been inolved in inflaming the tensions
that exist. I am suggesting they've been caught up in this inflaming
of tensions, and that perhaps a cooler look and different tactics might
work better to cool down this difficult situation. I fully appreciate that
actually on the ground in NI where people do get physically abused by
troublemakers, it would not be so easier to take the lead with the cooler
approach.
In essence, what I'm saying is that belittling often works better as a tactic
against a bully than inflaming his ego by reacting in the way he wants you
to react. If you believe this march to be mere bullying, than I suggest
that dismissing it as a silly little thing would be a better way to fight it
than all that has been done and has caused the deaths and near civil war you
mention above.
Matthew Huntbach