Protestan / catholic relations?

[eyzonthepriz]

I was just wandering about the Protestant/catholic relationship in Ireland. Years ago I seen alot of in fighting going on in the news and parents had to literally sheild their children from attacks when they walked them to school . Have things changed over there? If not how do you interact on a daily basis? Dont ask dont tell? Just interested....

 

[Echoes]

Yeah everything's fine now

 

[Cjwinnit]

Yeah everything's fine now

You may have spoken too soon given the recent events.

 

[Pòl]

I think the vast majority of people in the North are sick of the past troubles and want peace. Unfortunately there seems to be a few eejits still intent on stirring things up again.

 

[zaksmummy]

Last time I saw anything about N. Ireland on TV was a programme by a journalist from there, cant remember which town. It seemed it was more segregated than ever. His family was catholic, he returned to his home town to find two leisure centres - one for catholics, one for protestants, two schools, etc, everything was doubled up to serve two entirely different communities and there was a "peace wall" running through the middle.

There may not be much trouble, but it doesnt look like the problems have gone anywhere

 

[British One]

I'd be interested to hear an answer to your question as well.

I was in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks and was surprised at just 'normal' things had become - considering the events that have occurred over the past 35 years.

It was great to see work being finished on the newly built motorway between N.I and the Republic, and the removal of checkpoints at the border and throughout N.I.

Its a real shame that the CIRA and the RIRA insist on returning to the violence that has plagued this area of the world for so long. After ten years of relative peace in the region it did look like these organisations had given up on forcing change in NI through bloody and pointless violence.

What is brilliant though, is the unity shown by the people of NI since the recent killings, and the unity of the political parties that now represent the people.

 

[ScottishJohn]

I'm married to a girl from Northern Ireland, and we're over quite a lot. I think things are pretty good all things considered. However I think below the surface there are still a lot of old hurts and grievances, that it wouldn't take too much to bring to a head. My experience of Northern Ireland is that everyone is great, and totally reasonable until you get onto politics and then you find really amazing people who surprise you with the unreasonable and prejudiced views that they have somehow held onto, as we saw at the elections 2 times ago, people are very quick to abandon the centre, parties like the UUP and SDLP, and run to the more comfortable extremes of the DUP and Sinn Feinn, when the right kind of rabble rousing (Adams and Paisley) is conducted. After all, what Adams and Paisley delivered was not significantly different to what they were howling at when it was proposed by Trimble and Hume.

The troubles were nearly behind us once before, and then it all kicked off in the sixties. That time it was the unionists objecting to equal voting rights for the catholic population. We'll see how it goes this time.

I think it will take generations of the same kind of progress we've seen over the last 15 years before the unreasonable undercurrents are removed from the people of Northern Ireland.

 

[cgcsb]

The UUP isn't exactly the centre. It's not as extremist as the DUP, who have an inbuilt beliefe that catholics do not constitute full human beings according to the reverend (and up until recently leader of the party) Ian Paisley. As far as I can tell, modern Sinn Fein is not extremist at all. They are a very pro equal rights party and have done alot of good work in the protestant community to help build trust. DUP have yet to show signs of change and willingness to stop paramilitary activity

 

[ScottishJohn]

The UUP isn't exactly the centre. It's not as extremist as the DUP, who have an inbuilt beliefe that catholics do not constitute full human beings according to the reverend (and up until recently leader of the party) Ian Paisley. As far as I can tell, modern Sinn Fein is not extremist at all. They are a very pro equal rights party and have done alot of good work in the protestant community to help build trust. DUP have yet to show signs of change and willingness to stop paramilitary activity

It is a crude scale but for the point of argument the UUP and SDLP are roughly equivalent on either side of the sectarian divide, and the DUP and Sinn Fein are further to the extremes.

As you correctly point out the DUP extremism comes in the form of thinly veiled or not veiled at all bigotry, stemming mainly from the culture set up by their founder, and a general unwillingness to be part of any change or recognise that they do not speak for all of Northern Ireland.

The extremism in Sinn Fein is clear in that many of their politicians are the terrorists who spent decades attacking innocent people in order to prove their point. They are far better at marketing themselves than the DUP - Adams is a clever (and despicable) man. Yet where it matters they show their shady links to their violent past, such as in their slowness to get properly engaged in the process surrounding the pub murder a few years back.

As far as the DUP is concerned, although it pains me to defend them at all, because they represent everything that is wrong with Northern Ireland, they have been surprisingly willing to change to the extent that we have power sharing. At one stage Paisley was adamant that there would be no sharing power with terrorists (despite his own shady past) yet he shook hands with McGuiness, took considerable flack from his own people over it, was lobbed out of the lifetime moderatorship of his own church over it, and we have to acknowledge that this happened.

 

[cgcsb]

true but the DUP are not at willing to commit to commit willing to the peace process or give up the guns. In fact the British govt. recently gave the UDA a 6 figure sum to turn away from criminality
Could you imagine the controversy if the Irish govt. offered the IRA a similar package?
Regarding the recent debate over the department of justice powers being givin to Northern Ireland. All parties are for it but the DUP are against it if Sinn Fein get a role in justice (double standard much?). Also I believe modern Sinn Fein is a very inclusive party, not at all sectarian really infact they have protestant members. Unlike their DUP counterparts

 

[ScottishJohn]

true but the DUP are not at willing to commit to commit willing to the peace process or give up the guns. In fact the British govt. recently gave the UDA a 6 figure sum to turn away from criminality
Could you imagine the controversy if the Irish govt. offered the IRA a similar package?
Regarding the recent debate over the department of justice powers being givin to Northern Ireland. All parties are for it but the DUP are against it if Sinn Fein get a role in justice (double standard much?). Also I believe modern Sinn Fein is a very inclusive party, not at all sectarian really infact they have protestant members. Unlike their DUP counterparts

I'd still put Sinn Fein and the DUP in the same bracket, their faults are not identical, but they are just as serious. The DUP does not have the same proven links to terror that Sinn Fein has, although I am sure they have plenty of members who have been or are up to their necks in paramilitary activities. I know Ian Paisley was involved in the UPV back in the seventies in the sense that he gave orders but did not get his hands dirty. However in many ways they are a bigger obstacle to peace than Sinn Fein.

Both parties represent the extremes of their relevant sides. Sinn Fein is more extreme and much less respectable than the SDLP in the same way that the DUP is more extreme and less respectable than the UUP.

Both are obstacles to peace in their own way. I think it is perfectly acceptable for people in Northern Ireland to be nervous about having terrorists in government, especially in areas such as justice, and Sinn Fein should have to work to earn the trust that they are seeking, it is only a few years since they started to support policing in Northern Ireland, and have done so in a fairly one foot in one foot out kind of way.

On the other hand, compromise is essential, and Sinn Fein have shown themselves willing to make big concessions, whereas the DUP have in general made a big fuss over any ground conceded, and Paisley - for a long time the most unreasonable and wicked man in Northern Irish Politics - lost his party and his church over the concession he made, and has not brought his supporters with him in many senses.

 

[Tyndale]

I was just wandering about the Protestant/catholic relationship in Ireland. Years ago I seen alot of in fighting going on in the news and parents had to literally sheild their children from attacks when they walked them to school . Have things changed over there? If not how do you interact on a daily basis? Dont ask dont tell? Just interested....

The real problem in Ireland and N.Ireland over the past century is not sectarianism, it's a conflict between Nationalism and Political identity. People make a grave mistake when they blame sectarianism as the cause of the problem. Sectarianism is the off-shoot of this problem.

Billy Mitchell explains the causes of the conflict better than anyone I've come across.

For republicans “the causes of the conflict” are rooted in so-called British imperialism. Get “the Brits” out and the core cause of the conflict will be removed and the unionist community will suddenly realise that they were Irish all along. Problem solved. Conflict over. Republicans, by and large, are nationalists at heart. They subscribe to the doctrine that for every nation there must be a state. Thus, if Ireland is a nation, there must be an all-Ireland state and that can only be achieved when the British are expelled from Ireland .

For unionists “the causes of the conflict” stem from the nationalist doctrine that all who live on the island of Ireland constitute an Irish Gaelic Nation that must have its own political state and model of citizenship. Unionists make a distinction between “national identity”, “citizenship” and “nationalism”. For unionists, citizenship within the context of the United Kingdom is about political identity rather than about national identity. Those citizens of the United Kingdom who regard themselves as Scottish, English, Welsh or Irish in terms of national identity are still able to enjoy full citizenship within the United Kingdom . Citizenship within the United Kingdom has nothing to do with nationalism, culture or religion. It is about political identity and loyalty to the concept of the Union .

 

[ScottishJohn]

The real problem in Ireland and N.Ireland over the past century is not sectarianism, it's a conflict between Nationalism and Political identity. People make a grave mistake when they blame sectarianism as the cause of the problem. Sectarianism is the off-shoot of this problem.

Billy Mitchell explains the causes of the conflict better than anyone I've come across.

If this is the best you have come across then that explains a very great deal!

Seriously that guy needs a clue - I have never read such an oversimplified and partisan summary of anything.

 

[Tyndale]

If this is the best you have come across then that explains a very great deal!

Seriously that guy needs a clue - I have never read such an oversimplified and partisan summary of anything.

It gives a more accurate insight into what is at the heart of the troubles than your explanation in page 1:

The troubles were nearly behind us once before, and then it all kicked off in the sixties. That time it was the unionists objecting to equal voting rights for the catholic population. We'll see how it goes this time.

If you're talking about the change of electoral boundaries, they change all the time. The Unionist Government in the late 60's did change the electoral boundary in Londonderry as do Governments around the world. However there was no distinct advantage or disadvantage to either Unionist or Nationalist MP's after the election, as explained by Professor John White. If there had been a distinct disadvantage to Nationalist MP's, the Unionist government would have been brought to court. That case never came to court and still hasn't come to court, but what did follow was black propaganda against the Unionist government.

The troubles were always going to kick off at some stage again, after the failed IRA border campaign, they just needed a trigger and that trigger was gerrymandering propaganda which piggybacked on the back of the black civil rights campaign in America. Nationalist and Republican citizens were no worse off than Unionists in 1960's N.Ireland, both communities were poor and it made no difference to your political association. All we hear is that Nationalist and Republicans were second class citizens, that is simply lies.

 

[Franze]

I think that the conflict has been solved in the less bad possible way and it was difficult. I hate a lot Sinn Fein because they have been terrorists and idelogically are marxists and abortionists. Respect the protestants I have better opinion although I know that they have treated the catholics as citizens of second class much and much time. But I think that things have got better and now they are other problems, like the economic crisis as in Spain is very deep and the lack of business for population and of course closing the wounding of such many years of terrorism and opression.

 

[ScottishJohn]

It gives a more accurate insight into what is at the heart of the troubles than your explanation in page 1:

It gives no insight into anything other than the bias of the authors. On page one I didn't give any time to the 'heart of the troubles', but limited myself to where we are now and one short sentence on past events. Perhaps if you had read what I had written you would know that.

If you're talking about the change of electoral boundaries, they change all the time. The Unionist Government in the late 60's did change the electoral boundary in Londonderry as do Governments around the world. However there was no distinct advantage or disadvantage to either Unionist or Nationalist MP's after the election, as explained by Professor John White.

I expect you were hoping I didn't read your article. However we find this in the conclusion:

Neither of these extreme views can be sustained. The amount of discrimination proved, or even alleged, to have existed is insufficient to bear the weight that McCann or Farrell place on it. On the other hand, it is quite sufficient to disprove attempts to dismiss it as unfounded or trifling.

And this:

Darby, who in the course of an appraisal of the literature on the Northern Ireland conflict provides a set-piece discussion of discrimination, concludes that some charges are unsubstantiated and others are exaggerated, but that proven cases are sufficiently numerous to constitute 'a consistent and irrefutable pattern of deliberate discrimination against Catholics' (1976: 77-8). This is fractionally sharper language than Brett's or Buckland's, and my own view is that, as between nuances of emphasis, I would support Darby.

And also this:

The unionist government must bear its share of responsibility. It put through the original gerrymander which underpinned so many of the subsequent malpractices, and then, despite repeated protests, did nothing to stop those malpractices continuing The most serious charge against the Northern Ireland government is not that it was directly responsible for widespread discrimination, but that it allowed discrimination on such a scale over a substantial segment of Northern Ireland.

You would do well to read what you link to prior to posting, as in this case your article clearly does not support your argument.

If there had been a distinct disadvantage to Nationalist MP's, the Unionist government would have been brought to court. That case never came to court and still hasn't come to court, but what did follow was black propaganda against the Unionist government.

Except, as your article demonstrates, there was a case to answer.

The troubles were always going to kick off at some stage again, after the failed IRA border campaign, they just needed a trigger and that trigger was gerrymandering propaganda which piggybacked on the back of the black civil rights campaign in America. Nationalist and Republican citizens were no worse off than Unionists in 1960's N.Ireland, both communities were poor and it made no difference to your political association. All we hear is that Nationalist and Republicans were second class citizens, that is simply lies.

Not according to your article.

If it were lies then why would the likes of Paisley get his knickers in a twist when it was proposed that the gerrymandering stop?!

 

[Tyndale]

I expect you were hoping I didn't read your article. However we find this in the conclusion:

You originally said "the unionists objecting to equal voting rights for the catholic population". I see you have now removed that comment. Why? The article I linked to is a fair article, its not biased, and it shows the wild claims by Nationalists that gerrymandering (which is the electoral advantage through border manipulation) didn't happen. There was an original electoral border change, but there was no electoral disadvantage to Nationalist MP's. I've said that in my initial post, but you edited your post and now have moved the goal-posts.

You choose to ignore the fair conclusion of the article as is evident by your attempt to edit and highlight particular sections of the article. The article correctly places blame on the Northern Ireland government for allowing discrimination to happen, yet it concludes the government was not directly responsible for the discrimination, which clears it from the gerrymandering charge. The Government of N.Ireland, like all Governments, are not perfect and its about time the people of N.Ireland admitted their Government did turn a blind eye to certain things which happened, but also important that they realise the more damaging claims that the Governments foundation was discriminatory and it gerrymandered elections for political advantage is false.

and the part you edited "'a consistent and irrefutable pattern of deliberate discrimination against Catholics", concludes with...."The consensus among those who have looked at the evidence dispassionately is that the picture is neither black nor white, but a shade of grey." So the claim that there was an irrefutable pattern of deliberate discrimination against Catholics is inconclusive.

John, I always thought you were an impartial type of guy constantly looking for balanced conclusions and outcomes as is eveident when you always refer to marrying a N.Irish lass, but your attempt to edit and highlight parts of this impartial report shows you're in no way impartial when it comes to N.Ireland.

 

[ScottishJohn]

You originally said "the unionists objecting to equal voting rights for the catholic population". I see you have now removed that comment. Why? The article I linked to is a fair article, its not biased, and it shows the wild claims by Nationalists that gerrymandering (which is the electoral advantage through border manipulation) didn't happen. There was an original electoral border change, but there was no electoral disadvantage to Nationalist MP's. I've said that in my initial post, but you edited your post and now have moved the goal-posts.

I think you are getting mixed up. Both about my post, and about your article. My post remains exactly as it was and the sentence you refer to is still there, if of course you take the trouble to read it. It is here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7349775/#post51098724

Your not being able to find it, or not bothering trying to find it, and immediately assuming I have changed text or shifted the argument in some way is indicative of the paranoia and fear exhibited in many unionist arguments.

As for your article it proves that there was gerrymandering. If you read it that is.

You choose to ignore the fair conclusion of the article as is evident by your attempt to edit and highlight particular sections of the article.

I think you'll find that the sections I highlighted were from the conclusion of your article, and I lifted those out of the article because they directly contradict your position.

The article correctly places blame on the Northern Ireland government for allowing discrimination to happen, yet it concludes the government was not directly responsible for the discrimination, which clears it from the gerrymandering charge.

Again you would do well to read what you quote from. This excerpt comes directly before the portion I presume you are referring to:

The unionist government must bear its share of responsibility. It put through the original gerrymander which underpinned so many of the subsequent malpractices, and then, despite repeated protests, did nothing to stop those malpractices continuing

and the part you edited "'a consistent and irrefutable pattern of deliberate discrimination against Catholics", concludes with...."The consensus among those who have looked at the evidence dispassionately is that the picture is neither black nor white, but a shade of grey." So the claim that there was an irrefutable pattern of deliberate discrimination against Catholics is inconclusive.

Read the whole thing. I chose that statement because the author states that it is his preferred summary of the situation. If you read on, you will find that he draws a conclusion on where the most grievious abuses occur, and places electoral practises first.

Your postition is one of the extremes which he dismisses.

John, I always thought you were an impartial type of guy constantly looking for balanced conclusions and outcomes as is eveident when you always refer to marrying a N.Irish lass, but your attempt to edit and highlight parts of this impartial report shows you're in no way impartial when it comes to N.Ireland.

I have edited nothing, and have quoted sections which directly contradict your arguments - the whole article is there for all people on this thread to read - which is just as well because the conclusions are far from as you report them.

The balanced view in the conclusion of this article is that although not all of the claims made by the nationalist side can be substantiated, that gerrymandering did take place, and my initial statement which sparked this tangent of discussion, stands.

If you want to discuss impartiality, then let us look at the facts - I am scottish, I live in scotland, I am the son of a protestant minister, active member and employee of a protestant church, I have family in Northern Ireland. If anything I should be pro unionist. The fact that I am not in this discussion speaks of someone who has challenged a 'default setting' in their environment. You on the other hand come from one of the areas most greviously implicated in the discrimination, you belong to the section of the community blamed for the discrimination, you are living with the long term consequences of that discrimination. Which brings into question the possibility of you ever being considered impartial because you are so deeply and personally invested in the discussion.

 

[Oneofthediaspora]

Nationalist and Republican citizens were no worse off than Unionists in 1960's N.Ireland, both communities were poor and it made no difference to your political association. All we hear is that Nationalist and Republicans were second class citizens, that is simply lies.

This is not true. At all.
Unemployment was disproportionately worse in the Nationalist community as was sub-standard housing, as was opportunity for civil service or public servant work or government contracts.
Representation in the RUC ?
Percentage Nationalist workforce in shipbuilding ?
Etc, etc, etc.

I agree with you that the historical causes of the problem in Northern Ireland have little if anything to do with differences in theology and everything to do with identity and the economic/political supremacy of the 17th and 18th century Planters and the communities they spawned.

Whilst I have (had) a lot of time for Billy Mitchell, I think your quoting of him above does him no favours as it oversimplifies the problem to an extent that makes him appear stupid, which I do not believe he was.

 

[TeutonKnight]

"Billy Mitchell explains the causes of the conflict better than anyone I've come across."

Did you get that off the Progressive Unionist website per chance?

"Yeah everything's fine now" (Echoes)Sorry that is to much of a genralistaion. Must I cite sources of continual secterian abuse?

http://www.christianforums.com/users/139447/"I think the vast majority of people in the North are sick of the past troubles and want peace. Unfortunately there seems to be a few eejits still intent on stirring things up again." (Pòl )

I would agree with you on that. However that only seems to be the case in middle class suburbia. Whilst the two great traditions in the working class are allowed to carry on in their poverty and ruin then I am afraid that fear and loathing will continue to breed hatred. (The phrase the Grass is always greener comes to mind)

"Last time I saw anything about N. Ireland on TV was a programme by a journalist from there, cant remember which town. It seemed it was more segregated than ever. His family was catholic, he returned to his home town to find two leisure centres - one for catholics, one for protestants, two schools, etc, everything was doubled up to serve two entirely different communities and there was a "peace wall" running through the middle.

There may not be much trouble, but it doesnt look like the problems have gone anywhere" (zaksmummy)

You are talking about Belfast City. The two lesiure centres have been in exsistance since the troubles . As regard to the peacewall well to me it is a necessary evil. I know people who live on the interface areas and their homes being atatcked by young hoods and thugs makes the peacewalls very important.

"I'd be interested to hear an answer to your question as well.

I was in Northern Ireland a couple of weeks and was surprised at just 'normal' things had become - considering the events that have occurred over the past 35 years.

It was great to see work being finished on the newly built motorway between N.I and the Republic, and the removal of checkpoints at the border and throughout N.I.

Its a real shame that the CIRA and the RIRA insist on returning to the violence that has plagued this area of the world for so long. After ten years of relative peace in the region it did look like these organisations had given up on forcing change in NI through bloody and pointless violence.

What is brilliant though, is the unity shown by the people of NI since the recent killings, and the unity of the political parties that now represent the people." (British One)

Some of us where not best pleased with the clousure of police staions and the like. The Unity of political parties is a good thing. However it makes me somewhat sick to see former PIRA me with their hands on goverment due to the fact that they used to bomb and shoot us. I understand however that it is necessary for conflict transformation to take place and make NI a more pluralist society.

"I'm married to a girl from Northern Ireland, and we're over quite a lot. I think things are pretty good all things considered. However I think below the surface there are still a lot of old hurts and grievances, that it wouldn't take too much to bring to a head. My experience of Northern Ireland is that everyone is great, and totally reasonable until you get onto politics and then you find really amazing people who surprise you with the unreasonable and prejudiced views that they have somehow held onto, as we saw at the elections 2 times ago, people are very quick to abandon the centre, parties like the UUP and SDLP, and run to the more comfortable extremes of the DUP and Sinn Feinn, when the right kind of rabble rousing (Adams and Paisley) is conducted. After all, what Adams and Paisley delivered was not significantly different to what they were howling at when it was proposed by Trimble and Hume.

The troubles were nearly behind us once before, and then it all kicked off in the sixties. That time it was the unionists objecting to equal voting rights for the catholic population. We'll see how it goes this time.

I think it will take generations of the same kind of progress we've seen over the last 15 years before the unreasonable undercurrents are removed from the people of Northern Ireland." (ScottishJohn)

Sorry but no matter what your views on Rev I an Paisley he still amzed me by sharing power with Sinn Fein. I am afraid that your view on the start of the troubles is not correct. It was not just about evil Unionists opressing poor Irish Catholics. Working class people from my community where also betrayed by their Unionist masters. Remember what Paisley said in 1968? For years we have been lied to, For years we have been told that we are true blue but we have found them out! The Dictators in Glengall Street (ie the Ulster Unionist Goverment)

"The UUP isn't exactly the centre. It's not as extremist as the DUP, who have an inbuilt beliefe that catholics do not constitute full human beings according to the reverend (and up until recently leader of the party) Ian Paisley. As far as I can tell, modern Sinn Fein is not extremist at all. They are a very pro equal rights party and have done alot of good work in the protestant community to help build trust. DUP have yet to show signs of change and willingness to stop paramilitary activity" (cgcsb )

Rubbish utter rubbish. I am no supporter of the DUP but they have always condemmed pariamilitary activity or violence in this country from either side. Sinn Fein are not extremist? What? "The Bullet and the ballot box" comes to mind. What good work have they done in the Protesant Community? Do tell I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW

Anyone like to challenge me?

http://www.christianforums.com/users/99692/

http://www.christianforums.com/users/194978/