Socialists and Sectarianism

by Morpheus - SP/SY Mon Jul 01, 2002 19:36

"you have to defeat loyalism and imperialism in order to end it."

This reminds me of an old saying. It takes 2 to tango. Loyalism has attacked the working class. That is true. But so has republicanism. It seems from the above statement which appears to be a ramble and rant that appears that the S.D is a poster boy organisation for the IRA. Not once in your post have you condemned the IRA. For their attack on the workers.

True the loyalits groups attack innocent catholic workers, as do the Republicans attack innocent protestant workers. The only future for Northern Ireland is not for Catholics to fight protestants, nor is it for Catholics to fight britain, or for protestansts to fight Ireland. It is for both Catholic and Protestant to unite together and fight capitalism.

You claim: " They have a well-worn formula, which they produce on these occasions, of opposing ALL sectarianism." True we do oppose all secterianism. Secterianism is of absolutely no use to anyone in Northern Ireland or on the whole Island of Ireland.

You say:
"avoiding a specific opposition to the organisers of sectarianism in front of their nose."

Eh hello maybe you didnt know but the SP/SY opposses all Secterianism. Thats the card. No to Republican secterianism. No to Loyalist secterianism.

Secterianism is like racism. It benefits no one. And who has to suffer from it? The workers and youth. I put it to you that the s.D. through its campaigns has become a poster boy of "Irish republicanism." You statement is disgraceful. You may as well be asking the SP/SY to turn a blind eye to republican acts of violence.

by Des Mon Jul 01, 2002 20:10

I am opposed to all sectarian attacks, loyalist or republican. It is true that recent attacks seem in the main to emanate from loyalist paramilitaries but there are sectarians on both side of the divide. I do not dispute that british intelligence have used loyalists to carry out attacks on the nationalist community. I also think that enquiries re the deaths of Pat Finucane will quickly degenerate into another quaisi judical farce. Working class people have to come together to combat the bigots, that of course is easier said than done. Working people killing each other does nothing to combat the capitalist system.

by stiritup Mon Jul 01, 2002 22:04

poor but loyal, those who pay the most homage to the establishment are the most oppressed,
as an ex loyalist turned socialist party member, i attended socialist party conferences of whom the main speakers were Billy Hutchinson, and Eammon mccann, back in 1997. It appears to me now, that Billy Hutchinson was just paying lip service to socialist principles, though i did understand the dillema that him and his PUP party faced then and even more so today. It was a hard uphill struggle for the pup loyalists to sell socialist concepts to working class loyalist communities, to compete against decades of right wing neo narzi british nationalists/capitalist politicians, who offered the prod working class nothing but empty gung ho rhetoric and the only option of being loyal but poor. loyal to the state and the establishment, the same state and snobby establishment that urged and instructed, adided and abetted working class loyalists to murder their catholic neighbours, to do the state's dirty work for them, whilst the state and the establishment kept their hands clean, the same state that then turned its back on these guillible loyalists and left them to carry the can, for the state, loyal but poor. The state that encourages us to hate, envy and blame our catholic neighbours for the social mess and poverty in our run down estates,neglected by our own pompous right wing fire brand capitalist politicans who spew out their hateful venom against innocent catholic neighbours, ignoring the fact that working class protestant housing, jobs and education are going down the toilet with noone to championing working class rights. the reason catholics seem to have better living conditions, is because the catholic community has embraced socialist concepts and have socialists to speak out on their behalf, catholics have always had the social freedom to embrace socialism/communism/anarchism, whereas socialism has always been a dirty word in loyalist communities, the word that noone dare speak, and what happened when the PUP dare speak its name, the state and the establishment came down on them like a ton of bricks, funding, aiding and directing the LVF/UFF to murder and target UVF socialist protestants. this is what the pup were up against, now with the might of the state/establishment and their armed loyalist lackeys LVF/UFF pitted against them, what did we expect them to do, in order to survive, to not be shot dead, the pup chose to fall back into the loyalist lines, to close ranks, in order to keep working class loyalist elements on their side.
dont forget its coming up to election time, forces are at work, stirring and whipping up sectarian shite,just to prove they are the true defenders of the loyalist people, and so the most deserving of their vote, support and patronage, nevermind the fact that our estates are crumbling, and overrun with drug barons, poverty and crime, our young are condemned and brainwashed into a life of grinding unfulfilling servitude,ignorance and slavery to the state/establishment, destined to end up as prison officers, soldiers, pigs and loyalist prisoners. fodder for the factories.

by red - sp Mon Jul 01, 2002 23:27

the national question is the most difficult and a real test for socialists, will we drop working class unity and support "our own side". in my opinion the article has failed that test.
Even if we are calling out in the wilderness and are the only ones doing so we have to stand behind socialist principles, if we go the other way it will simply end in sectarianism from the other side. This counts internationally too, a good example is the kosovo war. We will oppose ALL sectarianism and not soley that from one side. And many who did join the UVF and others joined for the same reasons many joined the IRA. They thought they were protecting their community.
All loyalists cannot be written off as imperialists or facists. If anything they are prodesdant nationalists. And not all those in the IRA were anti imperialist working class heros either. Its a whole lot more complicated than that. At the moment the British state have more to gain from supporting the shinners than the loyalists. And its obvious that they want them working for them in the assembly. Its a big contradiction, but lifes full of them! Either way unless you oppose all sectarianism you are taking a side in a communal fight.

by red - sp Tue Jul 02, 2002 00:29

"Of course, if we follow the logic of this position to its conclusion it follows immediately that socialism is impossible and that sectarianism, communalism and racialism are the inevitable outcome of human nature. "

of course obviously, only in your mind does opposing catholic as well as prodestant sectarianism do that!

"statement, call for greater social spending so that sectarian apartheid in housing can be preserved in East Belfast!"

so calling for housing to be fixed up and built is now trying to preserve "sectarian apartheid "
so I suppose if we support workers in a factory on strike with more prodestants we're doing the same? And we even oppose hospitals being closed down, but sf have the health ministry. My god I can see it all now we have no concern for maternity wards at all, its cause were all imperialist fake lefts who want to attack catholics anywhere we can! And if SF have that health ministry we'll attack em, and martin wants to privatise the schools too, should we hold back on that one too. Imagine socialists fighting on socialist issues instead of tailing left (or not so left) republicianism. Whatever next!

Next thing you know someone might call for socialism, god forgive us what will the bishops have to say.

by red - sp Tue Jul 02, 2002 00:35

didn't occur to you to print the actual leaflet you were attacking so people could see it?

by red - sp Tue Jul 02, 2002 00:48

"The good news is that the sectarian division of the working class is not inevitable. The bad news is that you have to defeat loyalism and imperialism in order to end it."

does this mean doing it by united class action and taking enough from the prodestant community with you too make it possible. Or standing back and supporting republicans so they can do it on nationalist lines. because that sounds like what you are arguing for. First defeat loyalism by supporting republicans and then sectarianism will melt away? IF this is your argument you are very very wrong.

by Paul O'Donnell Tue Jul 02, 2002 11:15 paulod20 at hotmail dot com

Sectarianism is not a One Way Street. The Provos like to give the impression that all sectarianism comes from loyalists / Protestants when in fact sectarianism is rife throughout the community. (Yes, there is only one community).

Sectarianism Kills Workers. More people should have listened to Tomas MacGiolla in 1972. The Workers' Party have been consitent with this message ever since. Building more "peace walls" will not solve the problem. Institutionalising sectarianism by separate education only adds to it.

by JM - Socialist Democracy Tue Jul 02, 2002 15:17

Below is a copy of a leaflet being distributed throughout Northern Ireland by Socialist Youth

Opposing ALL sectarian attacks

by Gary - Socialist Party Tue, Jun 18 2002
address: Belfast [email protected]

The recent escalation in sectarian clashes in East Belfast and other areas should be met with mass action by workers and youth to prevent a slide into a viciously sectarian summer.

Both Catholic & Protestant communities are suffering from regular attacks and intimidation. Everyday there are attacks on public service workers. School students from both communities are being targeted as they go to and return from school.

At interface areas, the sectarian organisations are fighting a war of attrition over territory. The battle to claim streets by intimidating residents and covering areas in bunting has intensified. All the main parties are to blame for whipping up sectarian hatred.

But it is also the levels of poverty, unemployment, poor housing and services which are to blame. The lack of affordable social housing is forcing communities to spread into “the other sides” areas. The privatisation of public land in the harbour is being used to build yuppy flats, while the local community in the Short Strand and Cluan Place are deprived of adequate social housing.

Socialist Youth believes working class and young people should come together and fight for housing rights, education rights, decent jobs and services.

Earlier this year 100,000 people came on to the streets to take a stand against sectarianism and to defend workers. Events forced the trade union movement to take the lead and mobilise the organised working class against sectarian attacks.

This shows the potential power working class people have when we unite on the issues which most affect us – jobs, housing, services etc. It is the failed right-wing policies being implemented by all the parties in the Assembly Executive which are to blame for these problems.

Young people and workers need a political alternative – a socialist alternative.
Socialist Youth is building an alternative for young people.

We are an anti-sectarian organisation, with members from both Catholic and Protestant areas.
Young people Unite!

After the disgusting sectarian murders of Ciaran Cummings and Gavin Brett, Socialist Youth were the only people to campaign against sectarian attacks. We also initiated School Students United Against Sectarianism and mobilised an impressive contingent of school students to the Jan 18 trade union demos.

Fighting for our rights!

We are opposed to the big business agenda of the political parties in the Assembly. None of them have delivered for young people. Instead they are responsible for privatising (through PPP/PFI) our schools, colleges, postal services, roads and other public services.

We fight on all the issues that effect young people like low pay, sectarianism, tuition fees etc.
Socialist Alternative

The society we live in, capitalism, can provide no stable secure future for young people.
A genuine democratic socialist society would put the needs of people before profit for the few. By owning and democratically managing the main industry and banks working people can provide for their needs.

The fight for socialism requires a well-organised movement. That is why Socialist Youth is building branches around the country and calling on young people to get involved!

Join us today, and build the alternative to sectarianism and capitalism!

by Steve Tue Jul 02, 2002 20:35

Could JM be specific re the objections he has to the leaflet.

by JM - Socialist Democracy Wed Jul 03, 2002 16:36

Objections to the SY leaflet

The main problem with the SY leaflet is that its definition of sectarianism is so general that it is meaningless. It opposes sectarianism without identifying what sectarianism is and were it comes from. The impression is that sectarianism is no more than ideas in peoples’ heads, an illusion peddled by politicians to keep the working class divided. It completely ignores that sectarianism is embedded within the structures of the Northern state. This has become even more obvious with the establishment of the Stormont Assembly in which all members have to register as either unionist or nationalist or else their vote doesn’t count. So at an institutional level Protestants and Catholics are being pitted against each other. Alongside this there is an ongoing campaign of loyalist intimidation that seeks to entrench sectarian divisions even further. The SY leaflet ignores this completely.

In the interests of creating a spurious balance the leaflet completely distorts what is actually going on. While it would be wrong to say that nationalists have not engaged in sectarian acts, it is equally wrong to suggest that there is a parity or equality with the actions of loyalists. The overwhelming number of attacks have been carried out by loyalists as part of an orchestrated campaign of intimidation. The leaflet mentions the murders of Ciaran Cummings and Gavin Brett but doesn’t say who was responsible. This is despite that fact it was widely reported that the UVF was responsible for the murder of Ciaran Cummings and the UDA for the murder of Gavin Brett. While one was a catholic and the other a protestant, loyalists killed both teenagers. Indeed, the reason Gavin Brett was killed was because he had catholic friends. Why is the Socialist Party so reluctant to name the “sectarian organisations” that carried out these murders? Does it think that this will alienate Protestants? If so, it is very patronising. It infers that the actions of loyalists are a reflection of the feelings of this community as a whole. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. The opposition of protestant workers to loyalist intimidation is well documented. Also, the threats of loyalists are directed as much against protestants as they are catholics. The reason why loyalists are threatening doctors, postal staff, teachers and students in east Belfast is because of their daily contacts with nationalists. Sectarianism division is the raison d’etre of loyalist organisations. To be opposed to sectarianism means opposing loyalism not pandering to it.

The leaflet also gives credibility to the loyalist claims on housing. It states that part of the reason for the violence is that a lack of “affordable social housing is forcing communities to spread into the “other sides’ areas”. Again this is a distortion of reality. Figures from the Housing Executive show clearly that there is not a shortage of housing in Belfast. The accurate picture is of waiting lists in nationalist areas and spare capacity in unionist areas. Therefore, the problem is not a lack of housing but the sectarian divisions that prevent people moving from one area to another. The whole thrust of the loyalist campaign is based on the assertion that there is an aggressive nationalist encroachment into unionist areas which must be stopped. This is why their demands have been for more barriers and stricter segregation. Rather than give credence to such claims, socialists should be demanding that people have the right to live where they choose. The inference of the SY leaflet is that segregation is all right as long as people are living in decent housing

Another problem with the leaflet is its assertion that the main cause of sectarianism is “right-wing policies being implemented by all the parties in the Assembly Executive”. While it is true that neo-liberal policies do give a harder edge to sectarianism, even under better economic conditions sectarianism would still exist. This is because the Executive and the Assembly are themselves based upon sectarianism. The problem is therefore not just with the policies but with the institutions through which they are being implemented. Indeed, it the is the dynamics of the peace process and the institutions it has created that are responsible for the rise in sectarianism and the increasing community polarisation. Any serious opposition to sectarianism must also oppose these.

Finally, the YS leaflet ignores the role of the British state in facilitating sectarianism. It is Britain that still exercises political power in the north. It is the British state that is erecting barriers and fences, and underpinning the institutions of the Belfast Agreement. It was the Secretary of State John Reid who legitimised loyalist violence with his “cold house for unionism” speech, and who maintained that the UDA was stalk on ceasefire after a long catalogue of attacks. Only yesterday (02/07/02) Reid was meeting the leaders of the UVF and UDA, in the form of the Loyalist Commission, to talk about their concerns. Rather than being neutral Britain is very much playing an active role in managing sectarianism. Indeed, continuing sectarianism suits its interests as the more focus there is on “community conflict” the more it fades into the background.

A blanket denunciation of sectarianism, such as the one in the SY leaflet, is really a cop out. It fails to identify what sectarianism is, who is responsible for it, and how it can be effectively opposed.

by mike Wed Jul 03, 2002 18:05

What is this debate? Loyalism is a sectarian ideology that mobilizes Protestant people in a campaign to defend the status quo (even when that campaign comes into conflict with other agents of the status quo) which is characterized by an institutional bigotry directed at the Catholic population. Even if "republicans" or nationalists engage in criminal sectarian behavior, which happens on occasion, it clearly comes from a different social reality then loyalist sectarianism. Why compare the two? It is like saying that, in the United States, black bigotry against white people is the same as white racism. They come form different social positions, and while they both need to be struggled against only a reactionary or a fool would codemn them as equal. Socialist Democracy is right on the money here.

by red - sp Thu Jul 04, 2002 00:20

Sinn Fein were the last time I checked! Unless Martin and Barbra have resigned!
Racisim and sectarianism can come about for different social reasons as you say, but that doesn't mean we accept it. It may suprise you to learn there are poor prodestants too. And as many joined the IRA because of their treatment at the hands of brit soldiers etc many joined the paramilitaries on the other side after bad treatment from the IRA. Such as having friends and family killed or maimed.
As socialists we should not side one side of a communal civil war we should expose and oppose both sides. As we have done with the leaflet. Only when we can convince prodestant workers too will a real peace be possible. This isn't done by only highlighting one sides attacks and ignoring another as we are being called to do by the "socialists" in sd.
The british media employed this sort of trickery highlighting victims of the ra and ignoring victims of the other side. What sd is asking us to do is a mirror image of that. We oppose all attacks on prodestants and we equaly oppose all attacks on catholics. One is not more justifiable than the other, driving workers out of their homes for no other reason than territorial sectarianism is wrong and must be opposed.

by red - sp Thu Jul 04, 2002 00:36

"A blanket denunciation of sectarianism, such as the one in the SY leaflet, is really a cop out. It fails to identify what sectarianism is, who is responsible for it, and how it can be effectively opposed."

But I say the opposite it seems to me your argument to ignore attacks on prodestants and only oppose one side (you did not mention opposing catholic sectarian parties) is doing that. Rather than identifying sectarianism you are becoming part of it. And who is responsible for it, again you don't mention sfs role at all. Or the other non ceasefire paramilitaries. Again only one side. How to defeat it is by trying to cut across it on class issues WHILE OPPOSING SECTARIANISM (on both sides)
Joining one side (as you advocate) simply is allying yourself to one reactionary sectarian party or parties against the other. And hope I presume that side wins. That is not a solution unless you want a war. For too long in ireland the "lefts" have tailed the shinners wherever they go. No it is time for us (as it was a long time ago) to come out with independent socialist positions against the orange and the green.
As for not naming the UVF and UDA, I think everyone who was at the march in belfast knows who they are. We're not afraid of naming them but the sectarian paramilitaries are the UVF and UDA. I think most in belfast would have a fair idea of that!
Sinn Fein and the SDLP will put out the catholic sectarian side, the DUP, UU and PUP and the rest will put out the prodestant sectarian side. We on the other hand will put forward a socialist position. I suggest you get of gerrys bandwagon and join us.

by Kevin Farrell Thu Jul 04, 2002 16:34

What the fuck are you lads doing in the Labour Party? Can you not see they have totally sold out and are no different to the Tories.

by Justin - Sinn Fein Fri Jul 05, 2002 14:50 maigh_nuad at yahoo dot com

I'd like to back up a great deal of what the author from Social Democracy stated. I'm fully aware that there are people who are members of Sinn Féin and the IRA who are motivated by sectarian beliefs. I'm also aware that they are overwhelmingly in a minority in both organisations.

Portraying, as Socialist Youth continues to do, the conflict in the North as two 'tribes', two 'gangs' warring on each other is an extremely simplistic analysis. It could have been taken out of any issue of the Daily Telegraph over the last 30 years.

Sectarianism is fostered by middle and upper class unionism as a method of protecting the Union which remains in their social and economic interest.

Referring to the attacks in the Short Strand for example as being a tribal conflict between two equally responsible sides is a nonsense. The attacks on the Short Strand were instigated by Loyalists, organised by Loyalists, have their reasoning and thinking organised by loyalist paramilitaries. Nationalists and republicans are defending their area, lacking a police force to do this. Has every action republicans have taken in the Short Strand been defensive? No, of course not, but the overwhelming majority of attacks have been from the Loyalist side. As has been the case for the last few years.

In what is certainly a well-meaning policy, Socialist Youth condemns all sectarianism equally, and that's a very good and positive thing. But equally they have to be aware of the situation on the ground, they have to be aware of the interest of the media, the British state and Unionism as portraying this as a sectarian conflict, rather than a political one.

The North, and the conflict of the last thirty years was not a sectarian conflict. It was a political conflict between two opposing political ideologies. Sectarianism was an element, and the IRA did carry out sectarian attacks, but they were overwhelmingly a minority of IRA operations. The UVF, UDA, LVF etc. are motivated partly by a political aim, (To protect the Union) but also by a naked sectarian attitude to a minority, an attitude whipped up by organisations like the Orange Order as a method of defending the Union.

by red - sp Fri Jul 05, 2002 16:31

"I'd like to back up a great deal of what the author from Social Democracy stated. I'm fully aware that there are people who are members of Sinn Féin and the IRA who are motivated by sectarian beliefs. I'm also aware that they are overwhelmingly in a minority in both organisations. "

But the problem in itself is sinn fein are a sectarian party in that they only represent one side of the community. Whether or not they "hate" prodestants they are a catholic party.
When all is said and done they are only one side of the community.

"Portraying, as Socialist Youth continues to do, the conflict in the North as two 'tribes', two 'gangs' warring on each other is an extremely simplistic analysis. It could have been taken out of any issue of the Daily Telegraph over the last 30 years."

SY don't simply refer to it in that way. In a leaflet about sectarianism though it is necessary to condem sectarian attacks on both sides. Otherwise anyone from a prodestant community will conclude we are simply another catholic organisation. Which we are not. And we will then be cut off from them. We intend to try and convince as much people as possible. We may not succeed but we will try.

"Sectarianism is fostered by middle and upper class unionism as a method of protecting the Union which remains in their social and economic interest."

I would argue sectarianism is fostered by both sides in some ways. After all in the assembly you have to declare yourself either nationalist (read catholic) or unionist (read prodestant).
And political leaders on both sides talk about "our " community rather than the community.
If the idea that there is two communities ceases to exist what will that do for the parties which represent the communities?

"Referring to the attacks in the Short Strand for example as being a tribal conflict between two equally responsible sides is a nonsense. The attacks on the Short Strand were instigated by Loyalists, organised by Loyalists, have their reasoning and thinking organised by loyalist paramilitaries. Nationalists and republicans are defending their area, lacking a police force to do this. Has every action republicans have taken in the Short Strand been defensive? No, of course not, but the overwhelming majority of attacks have been from the Loyalist side. As has been the case for the last few years."

True in some cases (i don't know all the facts) but remember the unionists are seemingly on the way down and have an increased sense of siege. The last time sinn fein were in that position they were planting bombs which in many cases were deadly sectarian attacks. And again I repeat to only condem one sides sectarian attacks is not enough. SF and the PUPetc do that for us already.

"In what is certainly a well-meaning policy, Socialist Youth condemns all sectarianism equally, and that's a very good and positive thing. But equally they have to be aware of the situation on the ground, they have to be aware of the interest of the media, the British state and Unionism as portraying this as a sectarian conflict, rather than a political one."

We are aware of the media and what it is saying. But we are also aware that no political voice in Northern Ireland is putting forward a socialist position or even a left position.
Socialist Democracys position is essentially a republican one which sinn fein already supply.
All sf will talk about is attacks on their side and vice versa. So we believe we play a better role by trying to highlight problems on both sides of the divide at the same time. No one else is doing it. We do not refer to the conflict in any way close to the british right wing medias "two spolit children, two lunatic sets of savages etc. We are simply pointing out that sectarianism is spreading in NI especially with the dissapointments in some sections regarding the agreement. And although the paramilitaries and politicians are in more agreement on the ground it seems the Northern conflict is in fact becoming more sectarian and less political in recent years. Also if we simply put forward republican slogans we would simply be seen as republicans and cut ourselves off from prodestant workers. Sinn Fein aren't going to try to convince prodestant workers. But we are we will work in both communities as much as possible. And our slogans on housing etc is about trying to unite workers on issues they can be united on. Workers will not unite for catolic rights or prodestant rights. (it has been tried) But possibly for rights in work and housing etc.

"The North, and the conflict of the last thirty years was not a sectarian conflict. It was a political conflict between two opposing political ideologies. Sectarianism was an element, and the IRA did carry out sectarian attacks, but they were overwhelmingly a minority of IRA operations. The UVF, UDA, LVF etc. are motivated partly by a political aim, (To protect the Union) but also by a naked sectarian attitude to a minority, an attitude whipped up by organisations like the Orange Order as a method of defending the Union."

SP has always laid the blame for the conflict on british imperialism and their failure and their policy of divide and conquer which led to the creation of sectarianism. We would also remind of the big industrialists role in this. We never said the war in the north was simply two tribes fighting against each other. The difference now is (and has been for a while) is the brits would be perfectly happy to leave. Ireland is well and truly in the club even as far as joining pfp. British interests are served just fine by our native governments. So why haven't they left, they fear a civil war and so on. It is the unionist and loyalist people who oppose reunification today not the british. This must be recognised. And part of the reason that loyalists opposed unification is because we did set up a catolic state in the south with McQaid writing the constitution. And I would argue the IRAs military campaign set back a united Ireland by generations. For every prodestant killed in or out of uniform you have friends neighbours and families who will never except a united Ireland.
It will take generations to get past this. This is not blaming everything on the IRA but this is the consequence whether we like it or not.

But the sectarian element of the conflict grew and is continuing to grow and to deny that is denying reality. Even up to the 1950s the IRA had numbers of prodestants involved in the organisation. That could not be argued in the provisionals side.

The provisional IRA were not very political at the outset they were very much as physical force party. The politics were not developed untill after the hunger strike.
The loyalist strategy was simple, they said we are terrorists. And we will terrorise. Which they did. And as many were driven into the IRA by british actions many were driven into the uvf etc by ira actions.

Loyalism is a sectarian ideology because at the end of the day it is simply a nationalist ideology. But modern Irish republicanism has alot more in common with nationalism than the french radical republicanism it was founded on.

On another point we do have people on the ground in NI. Socialist Youth was founded in Belfast and existed there for a while before it was organised south of the border. In fact the SP (it was known as militant then) itself was founded in NI at the time of the civil rights movement. We have done a lot of work in NI the latest being the successful term time teachers dispute, now we have four member on the executive of NIPSA because of that work and have helped revitalise the union. We are not a southern organisation looking north and lecturing. The writer of the pamplet lives and works in belfast and they do know what is going on in the ground.

In conclusion there is no point putting forward republican slogans or loyalist slogans we need to put forward socialist slogans, because at the end of the day if sectarianism continues to grow we know excatly where it will end.

by Firewoman Mon Jul 15, 2002 07:00

It's spelled Protestant, as in those who protested the descision made in 1529 at the Diet of Speyer that the spread of Lutherism be halted.