BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 10:22 AM

Are you the baby-eating Bishop of Bath and Wells, Al? That's what he threatened Blackadder with!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

Steve,
, simply to demonstrate that three factions, not just the IRA, have plenty of blood on their hands.

But you only posted the numbers killed by security forces, few of whom were civilians!
Who has by far the most blood on their hands Steve, especially of civilians, and why defend them?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:15 PM

i don't think anyone's defending anyone Keith.   killing people is indefensible.
the point is that we can't stop what the IRA do.
But ultimately those soldiers were working for us - our tax dollar. so really its our responsibility.

the problem is....sorry! one of the problems is that there are far more than three factions. and all the factions aren't military. the various church leaders bear an enormous responsibility. as Jim has said the shades of political opinion are many and various, and they all have terrific reasons for being in different parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 01:17 PM

Just bugger off, Keith. I've made it abundantly clear that the figures I provided were incomplete, that they were not intended to kick off one of your stupid numbers games and that I posted a few statistics to demonstrate the non-numerical point that the IRA far from being the the only dog in the fight - they did not even provoke the fight in the first place. You'd think from some of the coverage in the last few days that this man, who turned out to be a man of peace, was an unreconstructed, unapologetic murderous thug until he drew his last breath. It is not true, and plenty of his adversaries in the other two factions involved have as much to answer for as he had.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:21 PM

I posted a few statistics to demonstrate the non-numerical point that the IRA far from being the the only dog in the fight

INLA and the various IRAs were responsible for more deaths than everyone else put together!

they did not even provoke the fight in the first place.

Yes they did. There was discrimination and repression in NI as in USA.
In both places it was dealt with peacefully by the Civil Rights movement and in NI the SDLP.
The IRAs achieved nothing but death.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Senoufou
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:53 PM

I thought his funeral today was a very dignified affair, and I was heartened to see representatives of all sides of the Troubles attending. The officiating priest actually said that Martin McGuinness fully realised the implications of his past activities, and had made great efforts to bring about resolution and peace.
I wish only for him to Rest In Peace. Raking over past injustices and violence can do no good, but looking ahead with hope and goodwill can.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 02:57 PM

The killing of civilians by security forces is a special case and can never go untried and unpunished, however many are killed by the warring factions.
The security forced not only killed civilians, but they colluded with the loyalists to assist in their killing
The fact that they did it in the name of the British people and were given the right to carry arms by te British Government, makes it a crime we are all responsible for if it is left investigated and unpunished.
Counting and comparing corpses is sick, meaningless garbage - all it proves is that one side side were more efficient or more committed than the other
A sick-sick-sick argument   
Any blame lies with those who created the situation in which this was inevitable, as it was following the response to the peaceful Civil Rights demonstrations.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 03:03 PM

COLLUSION
MORE
LONG TERM COLLUSION
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 04:59 PM

In order to maintain dignity in this thread, it is important that we ignore this despicable intervention by Keith. I refuse to engage with this man whose twisted ideology dictates to him that he "only gives one side of the story." We've seen it before apropos of Ireland and we've seen it before apropos of Israel. There's nothing to be gained by to-ing and fro-ing with him on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:08 PM

There've been plenty of threads arguing back and forth about the rights and the wrongs of what happened in the Troubles, and about all the other priods of Troubles since Ireland was under the control of England.   Couldn't we leave this thread to be about Martin McGuiness?

As I made the point, his role in relation to the violence was one that many others could have, but his role in relation to moving Northern Ireland, and the Republican movement, away from violence was one that it is hard to see anyone else doing as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 23 Mar 17 - 05:13 PM

I agree one hundred percent with both the substance and the sentiment of your post, Kevin. Maybe I have a way of being slightly less subtle!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

"Couldn't we leave this thread to be about Martin McGuiness?"
Nice idea Mac, but a little like discussing the Pope without mentioning Catholicism
McGuinness, like Adams, Paisley and the rest of the combatants, need to be discussed if full, historical context - almost impossible to do while the situation that gave rise to their prominence is still so fresh in our minds - any discussion with inevitably be a continuation of the war using words rather than guns.
I came across this article, which for me come the nearest to dealing with the conflict in context - the alternative is to plough through Someone like Robert Kee's detailed history of conflict in twentieth century Ireland - I wondert if Thames Television's excellent and very readable 'The Troubles' overview of the conflict is still available
It is almost certainly incomplete, but so is the information we have at our disposal.
Maybe a United Ireland and a coming together of all sides will fill in the gaps as the "context" article points out "The violence of the 'Troubles' is still open to partisan interpretation."

IN CONTEXT

Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Senoufou
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:36 AM

I apologise if this thread has opened wounds and provoked a bitter discussion. My intention was to explore the complexity of this man, to condemn the very unpleasant remarks about his death on social media and to muse upon the fact that he redeemed himself by his actions in his later years. I didn't intend to create yet another argument about the rights and wrongs of the Troubles. These have all been explored before.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:08 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King, he would have advised him and to abandon the peaceful, dignified protests that led to full civil rights within a few years, and to start exploding huge bombs in malls, bars and bus stations, and to shoot policemen and National Guard in the streets and in their homes on or off duty.
In NI that policy drove the communities even further apart and delayed a peaceful, equitable settlement for half a century.
We could have had it in the 70s.

The number of deaths, scaled up to the US population, would be comparable to the Civil War.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 06:33 AM

i totally agree with everything Jim has said in that last post.

history is still being written on the subject of Ireland. and we, by virtue of our historical context - our view is skewed and imperfect.

i should be able to understand a guy like Martin McGuinness - but I don't. My family had Irish republican connections right into the 1930's.
To me - he and Adams appeared to have a free press, access to democratic process - however imperfect - but compared to people in Putin's Russia, they had an open goal. it seemed to me (reading their own accounts of the Cheyne House talks) - they had the sympathetic ear of the most left wing government that England has ever had - and they rejected it to choose violence.

but obviously that's because i was in England, and i didn't understand their point of view. and whatever they say - you can't walk a mile in another man's shoes. the facts of the situation are just not available and really its no use worrying at it like a dog at a bone.

he did what he did, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 07:56 AM

If Martin McGuinness had met Martin Luther King...

I don't think he did, did he? Such speculation has no relevance and the sentiment that follows that speculation does nothing to further the peace process nor address Eliza's points.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 09:31 AM

Comparing Ireland to the US Civil Rights Movement is facile
In the US, the Southern blacks were fighting for a right that had already been granted to the rest of America
There was never any question that the southern administrations would offer armed resistance to those demands.
In Ireland, the protests had already been met with violence from the Loyalists which had been backed by the 'forced of law ang order' and ignored by Britain.
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.
It needs to be remembered that those who fought remembered tat the British state had executed the leaders of 1916 and Independence (of a sort) was only finally won by taking up arms.
It is nonsense to claim that Britain was there to keep the peace - the collusion with the Loyalists makes it quite clear which horse they had decided to back
Whatever your take on the violence (from all sides), that is what brought the sides to the conference table and nobody disputes that fact
It is often forgotten that there was another war of independence against British rule 20-odd years earlier that also involved violence and terrorism, but I doubt if those choosing to condemn outright what happened in Ireland would take the same stance on what happened elsewhere in the 1940s
In the end, all of these occurences are directly traceable back to The British Empire
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 10:53 AM

Jim,
Rightly or wrongly, the Catholics decided that peaceful persuasion was not going to work - especially as the Loyalists had already introduced violence into the equation.

It did work. Public opinion nationally was on their side. The national government took control, disbanded the B Specials, instituted equal rights for all, and sent troops to protect the Nationalist community from the sectarian attacks.

The "armed struggle" achieved nothing but decades of death and misery.

Dave, I did not speculate about McG's policies, I just applied them to the American Civil Rights situation which despite what Jim claims was a fair comparison.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: robomatic
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 11:24 AM

This is a fascinating thread and I am grateful for the range and fierceness of it. I am not Irish, I am not Catholic, nor Protestant, but I am from Boston and in my elementary school days there were more Brians than Roberts in my classes. I've spent time in Ireland and read plenty of literature that is adorned with Irish thought and perspective. The Irish have had a major impact on my country and me. So this thread speaks to me.
I think when people exhibit a capacity and commitment to change, that puts them above the average level of behavior.
I also remember a saying that it is good to bury the hatchet, but no one forgets WHERE it's buried.
It is easy to enumerate the dead and their numbers, and harder to note the cases where people are not killed.
I visited Eason's in Dublin and bought a bunch of books to ship home. The title of one of them: "It's handy when people don't die."

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 12:55 PM

"It did work."
No it didn't Keith - the Loyalists were forced to the conference table, as were the Brits by Easter Week and the War of Independence - it would never have happened otherwise, as the responses to the Civil Rights marches proved.
The six counties were an oppressive set up by Britain which led to nearly half a century of inequality and injustice.
Anti Catholic riots were a regular feature of life, voting determined by property ownership and, in the times of unemployment, work only if you kicked with the 'right' foot.
All this is documented, as is the fact that, once afgain, the first signs of violence cam from the loyalists, and the compliance by the forces of 'law and order' and the Protestants to maintain the status quo
You are fully aware of this, or if you are not, you have never followed up the information you have been given in previous arguments
I have no intention of making this another head-to-head with you.
Please respond to what has been put up - we really have been here far too often before
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:21 PM

It strikes me that the English establishment suffers from two major failings
They live in the past and they are incapable of learning from it
Write that down - it's a gem
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:44 PM

Jim,
"It did work."
No it didn't Keith

Yes it did. All the demands of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association were met, but that was never the issue for the IRAs.

They intended to force NI out of the UK against the will of the majority of its people by violence, intimidation, murder, bombing and shooting.

McGuinness said,"it would be the cutting edge of the IRA rather than the ballot box that would remove the Brit presence from Ireland "

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 04:46 PM

all true Jim.
the conservative party was still at that point (round 1967 say...) the conservative party the conservative and unionist party. there can be little doubt which side the english establishment were on.

However - they weren't the party in power. plus i think many english people were genuinely repelled by the violence of Ian Paisley's rhetoric. Although in truth, I will admit very few of us could have told with any certainty what he was on about! But he sounded like trouble, and english people don't like that.

Adams and Martin McG were very young and full of 1916 rhetoric. McG was younger than me. at that age i was screwing up my first teaching practice. i don't think its really fair to expect wisdom from the young. i'm not sure its all that clever to be justifying them. certainly failing the teaching practice was my fault.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:19 PM

Whatever party was in power in UK, they could not force NI out of the Union without at least a 1% majority of the NI electorate, and that was unachievable.

Even though Unionist was in their name, the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.
The problem was persuading them to vote for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

'the Tories would have been delighted to be rid of NI as would every other party and the whole population of mainland UK.'

i don't think the evidence bears that out. the monied classes had a lot invested in NI. in fact that was one of the 1916's lot main bone of contention - we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

if there was the political will to get them to bugger off, theres all kinds of ways we could have tipped them the black spot. made subtle differences between the two countries that would have built up. - - like the fuss about them wearing prison uniforms. if we really didn't give a shit - we could have said, yeh whatever it takes for you to shut up. instead we had the hunger strikes. . and Thatcher's intransigence.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:41 AM

we had nicked the industrial heartland of the country.

We did not nick it. We did not want it even then.
The British government wanted it gone but the army refused to fight them to make them go, and the Irish army could not fight them to force them in.
We were stuck with them.
Maybe Brexit will finally rid us of the place.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:02 AM

I said I wasn't going to turn this into a head-to-head Keith but I am grateful for your display of ignorance of Britain's oldest colony.
While such attitudes exist we will still be counting the body bags.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:49 AM

Poor Keith. Him and his old buddies, standing on the sidelines shouting at a world that's leaving them behind, unable to comprehend the fact their empire is dead and we're now nothing more than an increasingly marginalised collection of small countries whose union is fracturing down nationalistic lines due to the fact the old folk trashed the future with Brexit.

Their spittle-flecked invective is witless, sad and dull to endure.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:10 AM

ignorance - a funny word.

i'm sure we all ignore. what we don't want to think abouut.

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

i've heard it said, we would have Beirut on our doorstep.....possible, i suppose. certainly we couldn't make Ireland unite if it didn't want to. anyway - it wouldn't be our concern. no more English troops sacrificed. they could all be merry little Europeans, without wicked old British empire.

i suppose in many ways what the violence achieved was that it made NI an unattractive place in which to in vest for many years. but to get rid of NI then would have been to reward violence. now would be a good time.

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:18 AM

but what is really stopping us kicking NI out of the United KIngdom tomorrow?

Just that up to now they did not want to go, and were prepared to fight to stay in.
Like Scotland it requires a 1% majority.

Talk of colonialism and empire is just Republican propaganda. Lies.
The British Parliament passed the Home Rule Bill for the whole island in 1914. We did not want any of it then and never have since.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:47 AM

we don't need the acquiesence of the the people of Northern Ireland. Surely its up to the people of the United KIngdom, who we invite in.

Yes, but NI is already in.
They are entitled to self determination, as are the peoples of Wales and Scotland (and England).

Only the Scots were consulted over whether they should leave or stay, not the whole UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 06:32 AM

yes but its our country. if we don't want them, as you say. everything points to the fact that the public will is being thwarted on this subject by an uppercrust elite.

its about time wedid something about it and kicked them out.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:05 AM

THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland
Funny old world
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Stu
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:32 AM

"It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland"

There have been no obstacles in place since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement, only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:46 AM

"only the entrenched attitudes of frightened people."
From what I can ake out Stu, apathy has played a large part in it - doesn't it always?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 09:00 AM

in truth - theres plenty to be frightened of. i don't blame anybody for not wanting to confront their fears.

but when the past holds so much bad stuff - surely its better to try for something new.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 10:15 AM

Could I suggest that the right wingers on here read "Those are real bullets, aren't they" by Peter Pringle and Phillip Jacobson.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:01 AM

Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?
It is not any "uppercrust elite" but ordinary people like us.
Would you force them out at gun point, as the IRA tried?
I would not want to be part of such fascist aggression.

Jim,
THe six counties have been moving towards an Catholic/Protestant equality situation fro some time now.
It seem Brexit has pipped it at the post and removed many of the obstacles for a long needed United Ireland

Let's hope so Jim.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 11:34 AM

"Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?"
No people has the right to choose a Government that persecutes and discriminates against a large section of the population - we are learning that with Trump
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title
The Troubles were Britain's chickens coming home to roost
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Raggytash
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:22 PM

Jim, I fear you are wasting your time trying to educate some people on here as to the history and geography of Ireland, they simply do not want to know or understand the various issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 12:59 PM

Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.
However, if you read it, it's not the kind of devolution that people imagine - it was a very limited thing, basically allowing Ireland to have a kind of county council level representation. All real power remained with London.
And in Northern Ireland to this day, there is a hate-filled tiny minority who burn effigies of people like Martin McGuinness and burn Ireland's national flag on the night of 11/12 July every year, to celebrate a battle that took place in 1690?

Might I mention that this discussion should really be separated out from a thread about the recent death of someone, which should be limited to RIPs?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 01:13 PM

'Al, would you not allow the people of NI themselves to choose their form of governance?'

frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

as Jim points out - the situation was artificial. but it has to be said - all the paraphernalia of democracy and a free press was open to them. they could have shouted louder.

but both sides went, no! sod that! we'd rather kill each other.

government or governance - whatever that means, its a bit like teaching. it implies an act of cooperation, a willingness to be governed. in Northern Ireland that act of cooperation with the parliament in London was missing.
what you require of the participants, ironically particularly the ones calling themselves loyalists is impossible. just face the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 02:29 PM

Jim,
Britain carefully chose the six counties to give them a Protestant majority - that's why we never refer to them as "Ulster" - three counties were deliberately excluded afiet Britain had don her sums
That is deliberately building in inequality into a State - Gerrymandering, to give it its correct title

No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible.
Consideration, to give it its correct title.

Thompson,
Keith A, a small correction, if you wouldn't mind. The British Parliament did indeed pass the Home Rule Bill in 1914 - but it was then shelved until the end of the war; it was never enacted fully.

The fact that it was passed proves that Britain did not want any of Ireland.
It would have been enacted but for the pointless and unnecessary 1916 "Rising" (when hardly anyone rose.)

Had they just waited for the war to end (and their boys come home) decades of bloodshed would have been saved and a United Ireland achieved early in 1919.
The fools the fools.

Al,
frankly no. they forfeited that right cos they couldn't behave themselves.

Every person? Collective punishment?

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:20 PM

"No Jim. The Unionist community wanted to be in and the Nationalists wanted to be out, so the line was drawn to please as many people as possible."
Gerrymandering is a fact -
To make such yor ridiculous claim possible would require a referendum
The original decision was to partition the whole of Ulster in line with the Loyalist demand "Ulster says No"
They did the math and realised the other three counties would give a majority to the 'Taigs' so they dropped three - simple s that.
How do you claim the will of the people was sought - issuing mobile phones maybe
Please do not be stupid
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 04:23 PM

The decision to end the union with Europe didn't require getting the agreement of other Europeans, even the ones living and working and paying taxes here. It didn't even require consulting with them.

It would be perfectly possible for Westminster to end the union with Northern Ireland. Why we could even have a referendum about it - then, if England voted heavily enough in favour, we could ignore whatever they thought about it in Northern Ireland. After all, there's a precedent for that.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:04 PM

well according to you Keith, they have avoided the 'punishment' since 1919.

make yer bleedin' mind up!

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 05:54 PM

THERE YOU GO
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Thompson
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 07:29 PM

Keith A, if politics had stood still during the war, you'd be right. But in 1915 the Liberal government (Home Rule was a Liberal project) collapsed, and was replaced by a coalition dominated by the Conservative and Unionist Party. They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being.
And what's this about "the fools, the fools" - they fought for and got full independence, a full and free Republic, rather than the county council status that Home Rule would have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Martin McGuinness (1950-2017) (Sinn Fein)
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Mar 17 - 08:05 PM

"They were never going to allow Home Rule to come into being."
To ascertain this, in 1929, having gerrymandered a Protestant majority and declared that the North would be a Protestant State, they abandoned the Proportional Representation system of voting and installed a first past the post system, this way making sure that the Catholics had no say in the running of the State.
Additiuonally, under this system, Catholics were disadvantaged further when it came to the vote because of the property ownership restrictions to elections (see below description)
Jim Carroll

The commonly understood impetus for civil rights grievances is the way unionists dominated government in Northern Ireland after partition in 1921. Under the devolved Stormont regime, anti-Catholic discrimination occurred in private and public employment and public services, particularly those provided by local councils. Although some debate the character of the postpartition state in both politics and scholarship, a broad consensus agrees that, from 1921 to 1968, the devolved political system supported and legitimated widespread discrimination against the Catholic minority (e.g., Darby 1976; Whyte 1983).
State discrimination was most pronounced in local government. Local authorities preferentially allocated public housing to Protestants, and the system for voting in local elections meant housing discrimination had electoral consequences. That is, under Northern Irish voting laws, only "ratepayers"— either property owners or public housing tenants, both of whom paid a local property tax called "rates"—or their nominated representatives could vote in local elections. Private tenants did not pay rates—their landlords did—so these tenants were not automatically entitled to a local council vote. These rules applied only to local council elections; all adults were enfranchised for Northern Irish and UK parliamentary elections. Yet this system, combined with discrimination against Catholics in public housing, amplified the political representation of unionism. Ratepayers' provisions also entitled owners of commercial property to nominate special voters (non-ratepayers) for each £10 ($28) value of the property, for up to six voters.2 Given disproportionate Protestant ownership of commercial property, this, too, increased unionists' political representation (see Darby 1976). Furthermore, the practice nurtured a culture of patronage within unionism, as non-ratepaying Protestants were dependent on properly owners for nominations lo vote in local council elections. There was also a pattern of gerrymandering, whereby electoral boundaries were drawn to ensure unionist dominance, most strikingly in Derry. Policing and justice also operated in a biased fashion, with the Civil Authorities (Special Powers) Act 1922 allowing internment without trial.'
Brice Dickson (2010), a respected human rights scholar and advocate (he was a founding member of the Committee on the Administration of Justice and the former head of the Human Rights Commission), makes clear the underlying difficulty of approaching Stormont's repressions as human rights violations. Although these practices disenfranchised the minority, he explains, international frameworks that define human rights do not prescribe particular political or voting arrangements. In this sense, these frameworks offer limited tools. For Dickson (2010), stretching human rights principles to denounce the Stormont regimes practices obscures the essentially political nature of its abuses (15). Extending this observation helps clarify a central insight: rights conflicts were political from the moment of their emergence in Northern Ireland. Broader narratives took longer to emerge, such as identifying human rights violations as causes of conflict or, later, human rights culture as a cause of peace.
In the 1960s, however, political and economic shifts occurring through¬out western Europe dramatically changed the regions politics. A growing Catholic middle class and radicalized university students (from both Catho¬lic and Protestant backgrounds) challenged the regions governance. 'The civil rights movement they created, and opposition to it, became a catalyst, rather than a simple cause, for the conflict. The local movement combined tactics from both the U.S. civil rights movement and European student uprisings. These tactics were introduced at a moment of increasing local tensions, as nationalists and unionists, respectively, celebrated the fiftieth anniversaries the Easter Rising and the World War I Battle of the Somme.4