|
|
Blog Feeds
Anti-Empire
The SakerA bird's eye view of the vineyard
Public InquiryInterested in maladministration. Estd. 2005
Human Rights in IrelandPromoting Human Rights in Ireland |
Gerry Adams avoids answering hard questions national |
miscellaneous |
news report
 Tuesday November 26, 2002 21:23 by doheochai - Socialist Party
 Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams, attended a Sinn Fein Public Meeting in Shannon on Saturday night. In a town with a large population of people from Northern Ireland, Adams may have been expecting an appreciative audience. While many did come to hero worship, he also had to face some hard questions. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, getting the answers from Gerry Adams was far from easy. Approximately 70 people attended the meeting, which followed on from a Sinn Fein members meeting for SF’ers from Clare, Limerick and Tipperary. Adams spoke on the theme of “building an Ireland of equals”. It was an enlightening speech, more for showing how much Sinn Fein were willing to compromise than anything else. Adams started by talking about how the Irish had travelled the world without bothering anyone, telling the following story. St. Brendan went to America, had a few pints with the natives and then came home; Columbus went to America and turned the place into a colony. It was later pointed out to him that the Irish became some of the most ruthless slave-owners in the southern states of America in the 19th Century. The thrust of his speech was that the Good Friday Agreement had to be implemented and that it must be a good agreement because Unionists and Loyalists opposed it. He stated that Blair promoted the interests of Unionists, so he expected Bertie Ahern to support the promotion of the interests of the Nationalist community. He spoke of the continuing attacks by loyalist paramilitaries on the Nationalist community and called for the Patton proposals on the PSNI to be fully implemented. He stated that the primary objective was to achieve a united Ireland and that, if after 10 or 15 years we are not happy with the type of country we are living in we could change it. He finished by saying, “we have a long way to go, but with your help we will get there” Peace activist, Mary Kelly, asked why Sinn Fein weren’t condemning the actions of the Israeli army and what they intended to do in the future. Adams replied that every time he meets representatives of the US Administration he raises the issue with them, as he had done with Haas last week. Socialist Party member, Dominic Haugh, pointed out that the Socialist Party regarded the Good Friday Agreement, rather than being an instrument of peace, was actually an instrument of division. He pointed out that while 90% of attacks were coming from the loyalist side, it was wrong to ignore the fact that sectarian attacks also originate from the nationalist community. He asked Adams to explain why Sinn Fein’s Health Minister, De Bruin was privatising the Health service and quoted the Hayes Report and the fact that different Sinn Fein representatives was either supporting or opposing the report depending on which area they represented. Also raised was the issue of the term-time workers strike and the fact that Martin McGuinness refused to pay the workers despite the fact that Finance Minister Mark Durkan said money was available. Why did Sinn Fein councillors in Sligo vote in favour of refuse charges after doing a deal with Fianna Fail to secure the mayor’s position for Sinn Fein? Finally, referring to the closing comments by Gerry Adams, Dominic Haugh asked that if the Republican movement had a long way to go, should not the real question be, “What direction it was going in?” Needless to say Adams did not answer any of the questions posed. He was rather condescending in his reply stating that he would not answer the questions because he lived in the real world. He said that the question of coalition was not whether Fianna Fail would go into Coalition with Sinn Fein but the other way around. The real world of Adams and Sinn Fein is the world that expects Bertie Ahern to enter a Pan-Nationalist alliance with Sinn Fein. Ahern represents the interests of the Irish ruling class and no one else. The real world of Adams is the world of shutting hospitals and privatising health and education, of attempting to defeat striking workers, to prove how responsible they are. The real world of Adams expects that the implementation of “Patton” will actually change the nature of the state forces in Northern Ireland The real world of Adams expects the working class in Ireland to repeat the mistakes of 1918. The Socialist Party will do its be to insure that the cause of socialism will not be put into the cupboard until some distant day in the future when, after a United Ireland, it can be taken out dusted down and then Sinn Fein might talk about it. |
printable version
Digg this
del.icio.us
Furl
Reddit
Technorati
Facebook
Gab
Twitter
|
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (35 of 35)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35"Socialist Party member, Dominic Haugh, pointed out that the Socialist Party regarded the Good Friday Agreement, rather than being an instrument of peace, was actually an instrument of division. "
So why did the SP urge everyone to support the blasted thing and not campaign for a for real alternative that put class first?
Vote for the instrument of division I rememeber was what you pleaded for us to do.
Dominic Haugh = doheochai ?
we called for a yes vote cause there was a wee thing that uit was supposed to be all about having peace and not violence on our streets. if you wish to read the material we produced iv not problem in sending it to you. but we pointed out while campaigning for a yes vote that this agreement wouldnt ever solve anything in the long run, it might make the paramilitaries on both sides stop killing working class people for a few months but that the troubles would have to return in a different form because the reasons for the troubles were still there, capitalism.
attacks are going on against the catholic as well as protestant area but the figure of 90% against catholic areas, can eaily be questioned, conidering on SF's webasite a press statement issued a onth ago said 2/3's of sectarian attacks are against cvatholics. even after this they ironically failed to tell us who the other 1/3 was againts, i just took it to mean that protestants were just discriminating against themselves, that's the obvious conclusion!!!!!!! going by SF's analysis.
AND REAL TRUTH WAS BRUSHED OVER BY GERRY ADAMS 1 SECTARIAN ATTACK IS 1 TOO MANY NO MATTER WHETHER IS BY A PROTESTANT AGAINST A CATHOLIC OR A CATHOLIC AGAINST PROTESTANT.
1. Why wont the SP tell us if their Belfast Branch investigated the activities of an SP member who supported having a British Army Recruitment stall in QUB?
2. Why wont the SP tell us if they support the right of Palestinians to use armed struggle to defend themselves against the Israeli Army and the Settlers in the Occupied Territories?
3. Why dont the SP accept that 90% of all sectarian attacks are carried out by loyalists? (These are the figures supplied by the Pat Finucane Centre and accepted even by the RUC/PSNI. It is shameful that the SP are using an error on the SF site to try & turn reality on its head.)
4. Why do the SP ignore the 600 attacks carried out over the last 6 months on the people of the short strand?
5. Why do the SP ignore the fact that Catholics are being ethnically cleansed allover the North?
6. What strategy do the SP have for stopping this ethnic cleansing? (Saying Soialism is THe Answer is not going to help people who are being attacked)
7. Why do the SP support the Orange Orders "right" to march down the Garvaghy Road?
(The Orange Orders constitution forbids membership to anyone who has even one Catholic Grandparent. Substitute Black or Jew for Catholic & would the SP still be supporting the Orange Order? Do the SP support the right of the BNP to march through Black, Asian or Jewish Areas in England?)
1. an investigation is not necessary, the comrade in question accepts that the socialist party and the cwi deos not accept nor promote any army of the state. and the mistake of a comrade should not be exploited to the degree that you are trying to. the comrade in question is of english origin and he objected to the sectarian way that SF objected to the territorial army handing out leaflets for an hour in one part of the university campus. sectarian in that you do not put across the idea that british working class people join the british army for economic reasons and not sectarian. no army should be allowed to hand out leaflets on any university campus. and the fact that members of the armed forces are workers in uniform, lenin and trotsky did work amongst the russian army even though it was fighting for the tsar and his imperialist aims.
2.SP accepts the right of any subjugated people to self-defense, but the tactics of terrorism and suicide bombings as used by palestinian militants are a self-defeating device that drives sections of the working class behind the isreali ruling class. it is a fact that in the occupied territories the mass of people are not armed and that palestinian islamic militants and yassir arafat are afraid of arming their own people as how would they be able to control them?
3.OK if they are the facts then i accept that 90% of attacks are carried out by loyalists. but what does that prove? it proves that loyalism is more militantly active against catholics than republicans against protestants, it also proves that ceasefires are not being adhered to on both sides. 1 sectarian attack is 1 too many and our point is that sectarianism is not a one way street as SF would present it to us. and who is it carrying out the 10% of attacks against protestant people? attacks are going on against both communities, that is a disturbing fact and the fact that 68% of 18-25 year olds have not had a meaningful conversation with someone of the other community. by blaiming and branding all protestant people as loyalist you are alienating palying into the hand of sectarians, but then again alot of hat SF says is sectarian.
4.What do we ignore about it? why does SF make such a point of attacks against catholics? what about the attacks against protestants, if you ae truly anti-sectarian you would condemn all sectarian attacks. THE SOCIALIST PARTY CONDEMNs ALL SECTARIAN ATTACKS. But the reasons for it are not to be found in the fact that protestant people are just more bigoted than their catholic work colleagues friends comrades. the reasons for it are sectarianism is wiped up by parties like yourselves, dup uup and sdlp because without sectarianism their would be no need for your parties to exist. i don't care if i live under a capitalist ireland, capitalist independent northern ireland or a state with the queen as head of state and linked completely to britain. We want a socialist ireland and no one can be co-erced to live in a nation they don't want, if protestant people become a minority of the community and a capitalist united ireland was put in place would SF accept the right of the protestant community to secede from a united ireland? and do you not accept that no one can be co-erced into a state they do not want to be in?
5.Ethnically Cleansed? yes they are by ira punishment beatings, by loyalist punishment beatings, by the drugs running and illegal activities of paramilitaries. ethnically cleansed from their public services by parties suchas SF that put in place privatisation policies in education and health while they were in the Assembly for that whole one day a week on average in stormount. working clss people who are catholic are being ethnically cleansed by a system that SF helps uphold by its gala dinners in washington (latest one was $500 a plate, what working class or socialist party can defend this?), by it's sucking of satans (sorry i meant bush jnr's) cock. why does SF tie itself to rich people in the states, why doesn't it rely on the people it says its fighting for the working class of ireland?
why does SF sit in a parliament it says has no right to exist, Stormount, Dail, Westminister?
6.the last two points, i've got more important things to be doing than regurgating what we say about issues, go look at our website or read our material.
They did nothing to oppose the loyalist picket on the Harryville Church. They actually attacked Socialists who opposed the loyalists there.
During the Hungerstrike in 1981 Militant attacked action in support of the Hungerstrikers. Their members in the Unions called anyone who supported the H Block men, sectarian.
The SWP supported the Hungerstrikers and while they criticise Republicans they have never pandered to loyalist prejudices in the North of Ireland.
The SP also opposed the McBride principles. The SP message for Taigs in the North is:
'Croppy Lie Down!'
Distortion seems to be a way of life for some SP members.
Blandly stating that Socialism is the answer or saying that one sectarian attack is one too many is no answer.
The Dalek is right:
The SPs only answer to catholics in the north is croppy lie down. you think you can avoid the fact that catholics are being driven out of areas allover the north by mentioning washington.
i notice you have evaded the question of whether or not you support the right of palestinians to defend themselves wuith arms.
no, as usual you have sympathy with the planters.
i see you are too ashamed to try & really justify your support for the orange order.
if you read my post you would see i said we support the right of palestinians to bear arms in defense against the occupational forces but capitalism affects all working class people whether their in the british or isreali army.
and yes of course the socilist party loves the orange ordr did you not hear im to be their new grand master??!! anyweay at least now this debate is over and i am sorry that indymedia has ot put up with this kind of shite! maybe it's time someone just put up a discussion board were we wouldnt bother anyone whos actully interested in the facts having to hear SF's lie. i'l try not to post any non-relevant political bnickering again on indymedia sorry to the people who reun the service cos it is a good service
So Indy shouldn't have to put up with postings from a Republican viewpoint? Just the SPs views should be aired?
This is mindboggling, these people really believe they have the right to attack whoever they want but no one has the right to criticise them back.
I suggested on several occasions previously that people should accept that they have differences on the national question.
But the SP have to attack, attack, attack. Whats nauseating is their air of outraged innocennce when anyone strikes back.
You are about believable as Liam Lawlor.
Every time you attack Republicans or misrepresent what is happening in the Occupied Six Counties you will be given a set of hard questons to answer.
Now the SP want Section 31 in IMC. This is their idea of democracy.
The Socialist Party defends the rights of the Orange Order to march down the Ormeau Road past the bookies where five Catholics were murdered by the UDA. I want no crap about community consent. The fact you even think of seeing such a thing as a RIGHT shows you are a bunch of Counter Revolutionaries.
To aunty party:
Do you have an objection to me using the Irish version of my name. The post is taken from a press release, do you think I have the time or inclination to write stuff just for indymedia.
From Pat c
3. Why dont the SP accept that 90% of all sectarian attacks are carried out by loyalists? (These are the figures supplied by the Pat Finucane Centre and accepted even by the RUC/PSNI. It is shameful that the SP are using an error on the SF site to try & turn reality on its head.)
Read the bloody original post will you. It says 90%
by Durutti Column Wed, Nov 27 2002, 5:53pm
The Socialist Party defends the rights of the Orange Order to march down the Ormeau Road past the bookies where five Catholics were murdered by the UDA. I want no crap about community consent. The fact you even think of seeing such a thing as a RIGHT shows you are a bunch of Counter Revolutionaries.
When 5 people were shot on the Ormeau Road the Socialist party called for a trade union protest against the killings, a protest that was supported by large numbers of catholic and protestant workers.
What was the response of Sinn Fein. They condemned the idea of a trade union protest and said that these people should not come into their area. They organised a meeting for "catholics " only the same time as the protest and then organised a demo on the exact same Ormeau bridge for nationalists only.
The Socialist Party is critical of Sinn Fein and rightly so. They are a sectarian nationalist party. If loyalists decided to participate on indymedia, we would be just as critical of them, if not more so. The Socialist Party opposes sectarianism from whichever side of the divide it comes from.
Why dont you merge with the PUP.
I noticed that you said nothing about your support for the Orange Order marching down the Ormeau.
Trotsky is spinning in his grave.
-Tell the big lie first, the truth will never catch up. -
The SP take this Goebells saying to heart but they are so clumsy at lying that they trip up and the truth passes them out.
The only people you are fooling are yourselves plus a few new (short lived)raw recruits every so often.
I cannot understand how Irish Socialists would support the Orange order on the Ormorea Road. Is it how you think theres more protestants in north so you will recruit more there?
I can only think of it being like Jewish Socialists giving Nazis leave to march past a Holocaust Memorial
I think they take after
Lord Haugh Haugh
Rather than Goebells
The sp and the swp have trotskyist delussions about taig and prod workers coming together and holding hands under the leadership of the 'party' They have the a similar crackpot theory in relation to Palestinian and Jewish workers forgetting their animosity. These vulgar Trotskyist sects have no understanding of history and are not taken seriously by serious people.
>What was the response of Sinn Fein. They >condemned the idea of a trade union protest and >said that these people should not come into >their area. They organised a meeting >for "catholics " only the same time as the >protest and then organised a demo on the exact >same Ormeau bridge for nationalists only.
Local residents groups organised the protest and in an effort to defuse tension in the area requested that supporters from outside the area not turn up. This is a very regular, normal occurence when local people don't want people who know nothing about the situation fucking things up, even from good sentiments. There are times when areas have mobilised because it was the sensible thing to do and all have been welcome and there have been times when we were told to stay away. And frankly, even if all four SP members in Belfast had been there I doubt it would have had much effect.
Stickie bastard Joe!
joe is ok, hes a real campaigner. joe understands the importance of being able to work with other groups. he doesn't carry on like the sp here.
i have also managed to drink with the more adult sp members in the Batch' without us having to shout slogans at each other. (socialist republicans & sp members even staged a mock orange march down abbey street , one drunken night. i wont name names!)
the problem with the Sp "Trots 'n Tots" here is that they have to use every oportunity to attack republicans. i'll put it down to their inexperience.
their inexperience (and even ignorance) was also revealed in their attack on the WP pamphlet on National Agreements.
whats laughable is their outrage when anyone dares to criticise them back. they really dont seem to believe that people have the right to disagree with them.
i have worked with the sp in many different campaigns & i'm sure i will continue to do so in spite of the "Tots 'n Trots" who act as if they are permanently on E.
Anyway, they have been warned. Everytime they attack Republicans or misrepresent the situation in the North, they will be given a list of hard questions to answer. Now "Workers in Uniform", that would make an interesting topic.
"joe is ok, hes a real campaigner. joe understands the importance of being able to work with other groups. he doesn't carry on like the sp here."
That really pisses me off!. Joe Higgins is a MEMBER of the SP. He's not indepedent. Most, if not all, of the views of the Party would be shared by Joe. How can someone say that they've great respect for Joe, or any of our public reps, and then attack other members? Who do you think that our public reps are? they are members of our party, and put forward the views of the party.
I dont want to say it again, so here goes. The SP do NOT support loyalist paramilitaries. We're opposed to ALL sectarian thugs. The thing is that loyalists tend not to come onto Inymedia.
We do NOT "support" Orange marches. We think that everyone has the right to march and assemble, except fascists. We dont classify the Orange Order or the AOH as fascists. That doesn't mean we are big fans of these groups!
Pat C,
You obviously have a bit of a problem with the SP. You've got a chip on your shoulder about something. had a bad experience? some girl from the SP dump you? Pat C, I would have thought that someone of your age would have grown out of nationalistic republicanism by now!
I have a lot of respect for Joe. There are other SP members, prominent and non-prominent I have respect for. There are many SP members I have nothing but contempt for.
I respect the ones who are non-sectarian, who are prepared to work, and work with other people, who put forward intelligent arguments whether supportive of us or not, who live in the real world, who deliver for their communities.
As a result, I respect Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Mick Murphy and a few others. I don't respect you or any of those whose first reaction to SF or anything you don't agree with is to attack with raw, blind, vitriolic sectarian hatred. We know you don't agree with us, and we know why, so you don't need to keep pointing out your 'reasons' and obsessing about us to what is, frankly, a degree that is a little sad.
"That really pisses me off!. Joe Higgins is a MEMBER of the SP. He's not indepedent. Most, if not all, of the views of the Party would be shared by Joe."
joe doesn't go around shoving his views down peoples throats all the time. he can accept that people have differences & respect those differences.
"How can someone say that they've great respect for Joe, or any of our public reps, and then attack other members? "
i respect joe because hes earned thast respect, you fools havent. the idea that all members of the sp should be held in awe because of oe, dermot, clare is laughable. it says something about your juvenile mindset.
"Who do you think that our public reps are? they are members of our party, and put forward the views of the party."
i am glad to say that your hare-brained behaviour is not typical of the sp members i know.
"I dont want to say it again, so here goes. The SP do NOT support loyalist paramilitaries. We're opposed to ALL sectarian thugs. The thing is that loyalists tend not to come onto Inymedia."
i never suggested the SP supported loyalist paramilitaries. Typically you resort to Stalinist style falsification.
if you are suggesting that the inla or ira are sectariian then it shows just how irrelevant you are to the northern situation.
"We do NOT "support" Orange marches. We think that everyone has the right to march and assemble, except fascists. We dont classify the Orange Order or the AOH as fascists. That doesn't mean we are big fans of these groups!"
the aoh dont wish to march through loyalist areas & certainly does not whip up any sectarian attacks. the very fact that you compare the two, illustrates what a fool you are.
the sp support the right of the Orange Order through areas where they are not wanted. I find it astounding that you would support their "right" to march down the garvaghy road after the amount of catholics who have been murdered by loyalists who want to assert that "right".
red shows that the sp "tots 'n trots" just cannot accept that people have the right to criticise them:
"You obviously have a bit of a problem with the SP. You've got a chip on your shoulder about something."
you guys seem to have the chip on your shoulders, you attack every republican & socialist republican posting on indy. the more mature members of the sp dont carry on in this fashion. again your double standards, why dont you accept that people have the right to respond to your attacks?
"had a bad experience? some girl from the SP dump you? Pat C,"
nah, dont think i ever slept with a SPer or a millie. memorys going a bit so dont quote me.
dont you think that you are being a bit juvenile though; it hardly counts as polemic?
" would have thought that someone of your age would have grown out of nationalistic republicanism by now!"
my dear boy, i am a socialist republican, not a nationalist. it makes just as much sense for you to call me a nationalist as it would for
me to call you a loyalist because of your support for the orange orders "right" to march over the bodies of taigs.
When there is a posting on Indymedia that I disagree with I raise criticisms etc. What's the problem with that?
I dont have a big chip on my shoulder about Nationalism. Unlike Pat C's problems with SP.
I dont think that SF are full of reactionary right-wingers. I accept that there are many progressive and hard-working people in SF.
The nature of postings is that it's easy to misinterpret what is written.
"I dont have a big chip on my shoulder about Nationalism. "
then why do you attack every republican posting?
why call me a nationalist when you know i'm no such thing?
"Unlike Pat C's problems with SP."
i have no problems with the sp. i have political differences with the sp.
i do have problems with people who see every socialist republican posting as an opportunity to launch an attack.
what is hilariuos is your outrage when ahyone attacks you back.
now i have no more time to waste on you fools at present.
i wont be back to this thread, so stamp your foot & hold your breath till you turn purple.
any further attacks you carry ot on republican postings will be met with an interesting set of questions for the sp.
i have respect for some sp members. i have contempt for you fools.
The mature part of me says I should let this go but sadly the immature side of me is still strong in the Force.
"When there is a posting on Indymedia that I disagree with I raise criticisms etc. What's the problem with that?"
Nothing as such, but typicaly any SF post, on any subject, rouses some sort of attack from some bored SP head. When the SP post something about an event my typical reaction, sometimes posted, sometimes not, is fairplay, well done. This isn't an SP thing, this is fairly general. If some party does something one agrees with, just because they're in a different party doesn't mean ou search for something to go mental on.
"I dont have a big chip on my shoulder about Nationalism. Unlike Pat C's problems with SP."
I'm not sure I can agree here. I can't remember a thread I started atacking the SP and Pat C is typically the same. Some-one, not even SF, posts, some-one from the SP eventually attacks, Pat C or me, or some-one else comes along and a slagging match develops. I've posted on dozens of occasions about the pointlessness of it. I think you do have a problem with nationalism, but it's more with SF your main problem is. Don't get me wrong, there are parts of party policy I don't agree with and there are justifiable criticisms to make. It's just that they're rarely made.
"I dont think that SF are full of reactionary right-wingers. I accept that there are many progressive and hard-working people in SF."
Hooray. And Pat and I have pointed out on several posts that we respect and admire SP members and elements of the party's activity and work. I don't think either of us obsesses about the SP. I find a lot more attacks on us in Voice, that magazine with 'Where is Sinn Fein Going?' as the lead story for over a year now and SWP publications than I do in An Phoblacht.
If you want engaged political debate I, and possibly Pat C I don't know, are more than up for it. If you want trite, meaningless slagging matches that matter to no-one except the people involved in tham and make us all look like complete wankers half the time more obsessed with each other than with attacking capitalism, frankly, I'm sectarian enough to be brought in occasionally, but I'd prefer the former.
"The nature of postings is that it's easy to misinterpret what is written."
it is clear from pat c postings that he is evil and has supported a campaign which has resulted in the deaths of thousands of men, women and children -shame on this pathetic scumbag
I find it unbelieveable that PatC and SF members can give out about imperialism.
Surely nationalism (and left republicanism) is built around the concept of 'the nation'. Imperialism is also about 'the nation'. Nationalism and Imperialism are a part of capitalism.
Sinn Féin are getting money of big business in the USA, ie off US imperialists!!
The hypocracy!
1. Why wont the SP tell us if their Belfast Branch investigated the activities of an SP member who supported having a British Army Recruitment stall in QUB?
We did and have and he agreed not to do it again, he has realised his mistake. he won't repeat it and remain in the party, you knew this from before what more do you want?
2. Why wont the SP tell us if they support the right of Palestinians to use armed struggle to defend themselves against the Israeli Army and the Settlers in the Occupied Territories?
Read the material or go to a meeting. We do support the palestinians right to armed self defence as do are comrades in Israel, link to their website on www.worldsocialist-cwi.org
And they do so publicly in israel working class areas. Mass action is stressed though.
3. Why dont the SP accept that 90% of all sectarian attacks are carried out by loyalists? (These are the figures supplied by the Pat Finucane Centre and accepted even by the RUC/PSNI. It is shameful that the SP are using an error on the SF site to try & turn reality on its head.)
We do "admit" which is a strange word, we do say 90% if not more sectarian attacks are against catholics which we oppose. But we also oppose the other 10% It may be small bbut it isn't if its your house or family member. To ignore the 10% is sectarian in itself. We oppose all sectarian attacks no matter from or by who or how big or small. Sectarianism is sectarianism.
4. Why do the SP ignore the 600 attacks carried out over the last 6 months on the people of the short strand?
Again we do not deny ignore or anything of such we are against all sectarian attacks. If we didn't condem attacks on prodestant areas you wouldn't accuse of us ignoring attacks on catholics would you? Its simply becasue we are against all sectarian attacks we are considered pro loyalist.
5. Why do the SP ignore the fact that Catholics are being ethnically cleansed allover the North?
We do not ignore the fact. We just mention the prodestant victims at the same time.
6. What strategy do the SP have for stopping this ethnic cleansing? (Saying Soialism is THe Answer is not going to help people who are being attacked)
We are trying to build a non sectarian group in NI which will not be considered "its left it must be catholic" which in fact is the reason for all of the above. Whats the republicans plan, have the catholics win?
7. Why do the SP support the Orange Orders "right" to march down the Garvaghy Road?
(The Orange Orders constitution forbids membership to anyone who has even one Catholic Grandparent. Substitute Black or Jew for Catholic & would the SP still be supporting the Orange Order? Do the SP support the right of the BNP to march through Black, Asian or Jewish Areas in England?)
The position of the SP was that no one "owns " the road, but if you look at our position we said if the Order refused to talk with the residents they should not walk. The residents took a similar position, "no talks no walks". The problem with it is areas are then catholic and prodestant adding to sectarianism. To say we support the orange order though is stretching it.
just noticed this, t Planters? I take it you mean the ones from 300 years ago? Should all the desendents of these go home and are you sure you are so ethnically pure:) sure you don't have a bit of prod blood in there yourself:)
just joking on that last one BTW.
Its true really there has been alot of silly bickering and point scoring on this website between republicans and the SP. At the beginning I think it was reasoned debate but it has just turned to point scoring lately and is serving know one and embarrassing to be honest. ( and I know I've been guilty of it too). And the website is spirraling down into a sectarian mess at the moment!
The SP call British Soldiers 'Workers in Uniform.
The SP say that the Paras who shot dead 13 unarmed civilians on Bloody Sunday were 'Workers in Uniform'.
The SP say that the IRA men who killed 18 armed Paras at Narrow Water were 'Terrorists'.
Its easy to see which side the SP are on.
Do you end your meetings by singing God Save the Queen?
"Its easy to see which side the SP are on."
It's easy to see that some people are deliberatly misinterpreting the SP position and are simply not willing to engage in real debate but would rather just distort things in some pathetic attempt to score sectarian points.
If I thought for a minute that you were serious about wanting to actually find out what our position re the army I would reply but I'm not going to waste my time.
The UCD bobsy twins are quick to attack but they lose the head when you respond to them.