Belfast city council in uproar

by observer Wed Feb 04, 2004 14:24

How was the fact that Unionist Councillors refused to support a motion that correctly identified the perpetrators of racist attacks or that the SDLP refused to withdraw it sectarian?.

by Easy Wed Feb 04, 2004 14:59

It was used as a division amongst tribal lines, unionist versus nationalist. One side opposed, the other not opposed. Blaming one community no matter how right could not be done as it would and did get a reaction along sectarian divisions. Sadly it was used on the issue of racial attacks so showing sectarianism, tribalism and dis unity to society at large on this issue.

by Not So Easy Wed Feb 04, 2004 15:04

The vast majority of racist attacks take place in Loyalist areas. All of the recent serious attacks took place in areas controlled by the UDA or UVF. Only a foll or a rogue would try to deny this.

by Easy Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:18

I totally agree but it was precisely because it did happen in loyalist areas unionists could not bring themselves to agree the motion. They would not agree to something that was condemning only their side despite the fact that it was their side doing it in that area. So sectarian division coming from unionism held back and then stopped the motion

by Hume Hater Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:56

I'm sick of the SDLP being presented as 'moderates' and liberals. Hume and the other founders of the SDLP played a shameful role in sectarianising the Civil Rights Movement. He made the CRA into the Catholic Rights Asscotion not the Civil Rights Association. The sectarian approach of Hume and co. is largely to blame for the rise of Paisleyism and the degeneration into sectarian conflict.

What caps it off is that they're called the 'Social Democratic and Labour Party'. They are at one with the bosses. Hume's role in getting Arms Companies into Derry is disgusting. Hume is even a personal friend of Bill "Great Friend of the Workers" Clinton. SDLP are politically linked to the PES which is butchering pension rights throughout Europe and are waging war on Iraq.

by Nordie Wed Feb 04, 2004 16:59

"The sectarian approach of Hume and co. is largely to blame for the rise of Paisleyism and the degeneration into sectarian conflict."

This has to be an SPer. Not mention of the apartheid state that was Northern Ireland from 1922 to 1969. The reasons for the sectarian conflict have deeper routes than Hume.

by Observor Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:01

This thread is about racist attacks not a forum for attacks on the SDLP or Hume. I'll bet you dont like catholics either you troll.

Would you by any chance have the initials PH?

by Hume Hater Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:04

"...largely to blame... "

this does not mean he is only to blame. It means the SDLP have played a role in sectarianising the Civil Rights Movement. On Bloody Sunday Hume was more concerned about not getting on the world's media, as he was not there but Ivan Cooper MP was.

by Hume Hater Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:06

I disagree. The original posting is about a sectarian degeneration of a council meeting which the SDLP are involved in. I think it's right to point out that SDLP do have a record on being sectarian.

by Observor Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:09

It is the loyalists who are responsible for the racist attacks in question. Why are you trying to provide cover for loyalist racist thugs?

by slugfan - Indymedia Ireland Wed Feb 04, 2004 17:22

.

by matt Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:02

As a republican, I am loath to defend the SDLP but to accuse them of being sectarian because they placed a motion condemning racist attacks by loyalists is pathetic.

I suspect that this nonsense originates in the delusions of certain minor left groups that loyalism is some sort of progressive ideology.

by John Meehan Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:18

It is a well documented fact - see for example Susan McKay's detailed articles in the Sunday Tribune - that loyalist organisations (the UDA and the UVF) are responsible for the recent increase in racist attacks in Belfast.

In this respect Matt is right, and the SDLP appear to be right also. Is there much point in a general denunciation of racist attacks, and the ideology of racism, without accurately identifying the organisations responsible?

It is rather like attacking immigration controls in Ireland, in general, without criticising the oirganisation and politician responsible - the Department of Justice and the MInister Michael McDowell.

Matt, a Sinn Féin supporter, goes on to attack the left in general for having illusions in loyalism - surely you are going over the top there Matt?

by matt Wed Feb 04, 2004 18:38

I think we all know which element of the left is infatuated with loyalism. A clue; it is not the SWP, anarchists, CP, ISN, or even the WP.

by soundmigration Wed Feb 04, 2004 19:56

even on this site.
to anyone who has an inkling of the way issues are debated in political mechanisms within northern ireland, it is of no surprise that todays fracas happen as a result of the written word. Regardless of your position taken on the constitutional issues of the most asskickin part ot this isle, whenever topics are discussed and particularly 'blame 'is to be approppriated, it is a sad but real fact that defences are raised, counter claims made and hell for leather aural masterbation that we have heard ad nasuem will be repeated again and again. its the nature of the beast. its at a particular moment in time. whatever else the the political representive or paramilitaries are respondsible for, they are also part of, and claim to represent, a diverse group of unionism/loyalism that itself is in a stage of fear, selfexamination, and anger.

it would take time i dont have at mo to illustrate why but i think it is generally accepted that as sectarian as the Good Friday {pity it had'nt been pancake tuesday, or 'oh fuck its 4.32 on wednesday nite and i've no fuckin fags!!!!' but...} it has generated perceptions of unstability and change within the broader unionist family.

So they wont support a motion singling out 'their side' , however true the realities on the street. SF have adopted the same stance { the dissappeared, punishment beatings, rackateering, crap haircuts etc etc} as and when needed and no doubt will continue to do so.
this are politcical stage plays, maskerading as political realities..
a common sence solution would have being a strong rebuke on racism and racist motivated attacks upon and by anyone or group, and perhaps concillors taking more concrete efforts to increase integration and dispell fear and distrust in their 'own' communities through the existing community networks and those still developing.

Words mean,...however troublesome to formulate and agree on and however entertaining that process is.... fuck all unless attempts are made to realise thier essence

by belfaster Thu Feb 05, 2004 08:07

welcome to the real northern ireland. In the real northern ireland every opportunity is taken to score sectarian points.
Just because the big ruling class parties signed the statement against race attacks dont take that to mean that they care one bit about the issue.

by matt Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:11

I'm afraid - as someone who has little time for the SDLP - that I fail to see in what way they were being sectarian. Surely if there was a sectarian element it was in the fact that Unionists as usual would not support anything opposed to the loylaist paramilitaries with whom a good number of them have rather intimate links.

Far from being sectarian, those Councillors who supported the motion - SDLP, SF and Alliance I presume - were proposing something that would have added to the public manifestation of opposition to racism that was expressed last week.

by D Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:25

Agree with that Matt

by Fed Up With Stupidity Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:27

It looks like the SDLP were to the left of Davy Carlin and his mates when they correctly identified two organisations that were engaged in racist attack. Saying that you condemn all racist attacks but refuse to name the specific organisations involved in it under this pretence of condemning all, actually means that you don't condemn any attacks.

When the KKK marched through the southern states of the US we may well have had such stupid notions arising.

Be clear, the UDA and UVF are involved in attacks . It is not sectarian to point this out, it is sectarian however, to think that any criticism of loyalist thugs is automatically a relfection on protestants. The left don't understand this, what is going through your head (or not as the evident case is) is what makes you a racist and not the fact that you were born into or practise a particulcar relgion.

by matt Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:50

Anyone who believes that attacking the paramilitaries is the same as attacking protestants is living in some kind of other dimension. The loyalist gangs are as much the enemy of protestant working class people as anyone else. Catholics may be their chosen murder victims - and now of course poor unfortunate immigrants who happen to live in loyalist controlled areas - but protestants have to live with them and bear the brunt of their drug dealing, protection racketeering and the awful reality of having scum like Adair and Shoukri and whoever has stepped into their boots basically living off them. And except for a minority they do not support them. Just look at recent election results to see how badly the gangs "politcal" representatives have done.

by John Meehan Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:19

Matt :

Your comment re not "the left in general" but

"I think we all know which element of the left is infatuated with loyalism. A clue; it is not the SWP, anarchists, CP, ISN, or even the WP."

is good.

I think we agree it is not enough to be against racist attacks in general, in Belfast, without identifying the organisations responsible - namely the UDA and the UVF.

What follows from that is to ask, politely, that every section of the left agree with this approach, and takes the necessary action to put a stop to these hideous attacks - in word and deed.

If you have practical agreement on that - not a lot to ask - it is better than the "sport" of denunication.

by ARN Thu Feb 05, 2004 17:49

Link to ARN and pictures of rally via above link

by maalox - Underground Glitterati Experience Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:28 maalox at safe-mail dot net

...was reporting that SF opposed the motion as well- it contained implicit support for the DPPs and the pigs. I don't know, i wasn't there, but Belfast CC (as with everything that the sectarian gobshites get themselves elected to here) is a lot like a stupid student debating society- people will oppose their tribal opponents motions just for practice.

On the same day, a previously agreed motion on the cleanup of poisonous silt in the Waterworks was overturned for some reason. The rates increase for 2004/5 remains unresolved.

The point is it doesn't matter _at_all_ to the people being violently evicted and harassed what the wording of Belfast CCs motion is or who it mentions. What matters is action- not motion passing.

by By ANy Means Necesary Thu Feb 05, 2004 18:37

Loyalism has natural links with British neo-nazis, all anti-racists accept this.

What manifested on Monday was an attempt by the PUP to deflect the attention away from their constituients.
As always Loyalism is treated with kid gloves by the media and their allies in the British establishment. Loyalists Against Racism..? that got the media attention..they made a great PR stunt, taken up eagarly by the media.
If we accept that the six counties was built on racism then why are we surprised when loyalist go for black and ethnic people..
C18 and the BNP have been vocal in supporting loyalist paramilitaries.
The ARN needs to make a decision. If it is to fight all forms of racism it has to accept that some sections of this society have been made natural racists by the partition of this island.
Did not Enoch Powell stand in South Down for the UUP ?
Any anti-racist agenda has to go to the core of the problem, partition.

by Peter Midgley Fri Feb 06, 2004 04:27

Everyone knows that objectively the Protestant working class is the vehicle of historical progress in the province. So if a few taigs or darkies have to pay the price, sure what the hell. Once Norn Iron is transformed into one big shipyard full of socialist lodge members, then we'll have socialism. Anyone who disagrees with this "perspective" is obviously a petit bourgeois nationalist sectarian. Okay? Now all stand for the Sash.... sorry I meant the International kumrades. Anyone who doesnt like it can go back to China, or Cork....

by Belfaster Fri Feb 06, 2004 08:35

UUP and SF opposed the motion. who apart from the sdlp supported it?

by John Meehan Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:31

Here's an extract from an Irish Echo (New York) Report :

"But Anna Lo of the Chinese Welfare Association said she believed that Belfast's growing reputation as a racist city was deserved.


"A lot of racist incidents have not been reported," she told the BBC. "A lot of Chinese people would have kept away from reporting attacks because they are saying 'what is the point?'"


In Belfast City Council, the motion condemning racism was rejected by Sinn Fein because of the following line: "The council calls upon the PSNI and DPPs to implement and monitor and effective strategy to protect members of ethnic communities living in Belfast."

The SDLP motion was also opposed by the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP).

The full Irish Echo story can be accessed at this link :

http://www.irishecho.com/newspaper/story.cfm?id=14139

This, I think, is a chemically pure illustration of how the peace process / Good Friday Agreement institutionalises sectarianism in the six counties - and why socialists should reject it.

by Andre & Ahab shoukri fan club Fri Feb 06, 2004 23:23

Things were bad in the 1980's, but they've got alot worse especially in snobs backside areas like South belfast. I would even go as far as to say, Johnny Adair's NF associates in the 1980's were mild and more tolerant than todays hateful far right neonazis.

Middle class political parties, such as the UUP and DUP are very quick to put the blame and point the finger at working class loyalist paramilitaries, when in fact the real nazis and far right extremists are within their own ranks, and members of their own respectable mainstream political parties, such as the UUP's Enoch Powell, and other rabid neo conservative apartheid loving binky old boy snobs. Members of mainstream Unionist parties effectively encourage racism, such as UUP member in Craigavon (the uncle of limbs in the loch murderer)who campaigned and scaremongered against a harmless muslim mosque.

Racism is being whipped up by the respectable right wing press tabloids such as the Daily Express, Sunday Telegraph, Sun etc, through their sanctimonious scaremongering about asylum seekers, politicians pick up on the lies and run with it, for self promotion. Allowing most of the mainstream political parties to be able to hypocritically condemn phycial violence and attacks against asylum seekers and foreign looking people, but still be able to pander to fascist hate and concern about foreign looking people and asylum seekers.

Racial intolerance in North belfast, is more direct and open, if your neighbour has a problem with you, they will generally slobber direct to your face and it is socially acceptable to go out and have a fist fight with them, afterwhich its all over and done with quickly, no harm done and everyone is friends afterwards.

In South belfast on the other hand, if a racist neighbour has a problem with you, instead of confronting you directly, they will snobbily ignore,isolate and back stab you. Because people from south belfast have a relatively cushy peaceful lifestyle, not living on peacelines or in the middle of a sectarian warzone, smug south belfast bastards need their own focus of hate and agression, what better way to enliven their dreary 9 to 5 competitive existences than to encourage them to particpate in trivial race war pursuits.

Most people in South belfast are snobs, who consider themselves sophisticated, cultureally refined, and socially superior, to everyone else in belfast, so being so socially superior they like to disguise and make excuses for their ignorant blind race hate, such as asylum seekers and foreign looking people are scroungers, criminals and social deviants. Racist Cowards who can't even admit to just hating people just because they have different colour skin or culture.

by Cllr Eoin O'Broin - Sinn Féin Sat Feb 07, 2004 16:36 eoinobroin at hotmail dot com

The debate on a proposed anti rascist motion at last weeks Belfast City Council monthly meeting was indeed one of the worst events which has taken place in Council for many years.

As someone who was there and spoke at the debate I want to offer some information so that people are aware of the full facts of the debate.

SDLP South Belfast Councillor Pat McCarthy proposed a motion condeming rascity attacks, highlighting loyalist violence and calling for a PSNI and DPP strategy to combat the problem.

Speaking on behalf of SF I outlined some concerns which SF had with the motion, particularly the absence of any reference to institutional rascism, which often creates the context for rascist attacks; the absence of reference to rascism within the broad nationalist community; and the issue of whether tackeling rascism was primarily a police problem (as suggested by Cllr McCarthys motion) or a wider societal issue requiring action by many other agencies, groups and individuals. In conclusion I outlined that as rascism should not be used as a political football SF would support his motion in order to allow for no division and a clear signal that City Hall was opposed to rascist attacks, but in future where such motions were being put forward it would be better to do some preparatory work to ensure unanimity.

All of the unionist political parties (DUP, PUP, UUP) opposed the motion and some with a degree of emotion and anger which I personally have not witnessed in my three years on the council. One or two even accused Pat McCarthy of sectarianism and deliberately trying to demonise loyalism and the loyalist community of south Belfast! Each unionist who spoke proposed a different ammendment, which at last count reached five separate proposals for ammendment.

On behalf of SF I suggested that some time be taken out to try and reach a compromise, and the SDLP Mayor Martin Morgan called a ten minute adjournment to allow all parties to produce a motion which would satisfy all.

A group of councillors from all parties including the SDLP came together and drafted a motion which condemned all rascist attacks, condemned institutional rascism, pledged support for ethnic minority communities and support groups and called on all relevant agencies to work together to combact rascism in all its forms in our city.

The fact that after an hour long, and at times acrimonious debate we seemed to be able to reach a consensus was a positive development.

However, when the Mayor reconvened the meeting, Cllr Pat McCarthy, the original proposer rose and said that in light of the inability of the council to agree a motion condeming rascist attacks he was withdrawing his motion, and with that the SDLP elected members withdrew from the chamber, leaving the rest of the council flumoxed.

In the following days newspapers, the SDLP and UUP traded insults over who was to blame.

On Friday Alliance Party councillor and chair of the Councils Good Relations Committee raised the issue at that committee meeting. He propsoed that a new motion be put forward for agreement. On behalf of SF I supported Cllr Ekin's suggestion and ammended his proposal to say that it was regretable that the council could not agree a motion the first time round and that Cllr Ekin's draft be forwarded to the Councils Policy and Resources committee in two weeks which in turn would be presented to March's full council.

In conclusion, clearly this was a bad day for the Council, especially at a time when we should be united in word and action in confronting this and other forms of prejudice and discrimination. Only a week earlier senior members and councillors from all parties (bar the DUP) stood shoulder to shoulder at a rally organised by the Belfast Anti Rascist Network calling for an end to rascism. Lets hope that at March's full council we can do the same again and with one voice pledge out name and resources to the ongoing fight against rascism.

by belfaster Sat Feb 07, 2004 22:30

Thanks to SF for making it clear that things are never straight forward in BCC. Perhaps indy readers and contributers will remember this the next time such an issue comes up.

by anti-maalox - malone and balmoral regeneration initiative Mon Feb 09, 2004 16:07 me at ormobakery dot com

This demonisation of south belfast is wholly unacceptable. Your post clearly used offensive ethnic slurs such as 'snob', 'smug ... bastards' and 'snobbily'- used by a regrettable minority of the population of north, east and west belfast to refer to our people.

It is simply NOT TRUE that everyone in south belfast has a 'cushy' lifestyle- the areas with the highest incidences of rape, assault, burgalry and wheelie bin theft* in the city.

Our warzones are every bit as sectarian as the "more-working-class-than-thou" ones in North Belfast. The casual racist fist fight with a neighbour, though initially alien to our rich culture is fast becoming socially acceptable here too. I will not stand for these slurs on the character of the hard working south belfast racist!

humph.

*note- my flatmate was accosted by officers recently in stranmillis and accused of wheelie bin theft. God bless the pigs!

by toffs/binky oldboys are bitter and sore losers Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:25

Gosh, i have to sympathise with the terribly harsh lifestyles of the upwardly mobile in South belfast, who have had to endure theft of their precious wheelie bins and burgularies of their valuables. My mistake for pointing out that the well heeled, refined, sophisticated and culturally superior toffs of south belfast have led sheltered, exclusive and protected lives.

As opposed to the rest of belfast, who've had to endure, years of indiscriminate sectarian murder, rioting, car burning, stone throwing, economic and social deprivation.

by Cultra tea set Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:52

I agree wholeheartedly with maalox the binky old boy poster earlier, it is wholly unacceptable to demonise the rich, snobs and toffy nosed people, who enjoy looking down on the smelly working class poor, dirty asylum seekers and foreign looking scum.
We live in a dog eat dog competitive society, and only the best rise to the top as they say.

What else is there to do to pass away our boring lives and leisure time but to look down on those who smell, don't wear the proper designer clothes and haven't got the right footwear. You fail to see that our people get immense pleasure from turning up their noses at gypos, foreigners and working class irish oiks.