This is just plain silly. YES YES YES violence has been visited on the Catholics. There is evidence of a “shoot to kill”. Catholics have been violated by both offical and unoffical bodies, but guess what ? For every incident you could mention I could go off and find a incident about a poor innocent protestant being violated.
This will go on forever if you can’t stop this shite.
You said it yourself
Either way though, I’m happy to do as oglaigh asks, and say that violations of human rights/offences/violence were committed upon the Irish/Nationalist/Catholic people by British forces, such as the shoot to kill policy you mention. I’m also happy to say that this was a terrible thing.
As everyone seems to agree that violence is a terrible thing, and the ends would not justify such means as fighting and bombing, does Oglaigh feel his question has been answered?
That is true, but the members of the Real IRA are former members of the IRA, trained by the IRA and, it is alleged, using arms and equipment which originally belonged to the Provos. I’m not sure that NORAID can simply wash its hands of moral responsiblity for the various post-GFA splinter groups and I would be prepared to bet that some of the weapons being used in the ongoing violence were purchased with funds kindly donated by US citizens.
Yep, I agree TomH.
True, but only one side is threatening to collapse the agreement because it isn’t living up to their false portrayal of it.
From the CAIN site:
Catholic deaths: 1509
Protestant deaths: 1268
So yes, more Catholics have been killed than Protestants. However, look at these stats:
Deaths by loyalist paramilitary: 991
Deaths by British Army: 363
Deaths by republican paramilitary: 2043
A good chunk of 'em have been killed by republicans.
ruadh, I’m not sure that you can have a “false portrayal” of a document as deliberately ambiguous as the GFA. As far as I can see, all the parties’ interpretations are equally subjective (including those of the two governments), and any of them would be hard-pressed to justify their particular interpretation to the exclusion of all others based on a close reading of the text.
We been over this before. The right to freedom of religion is constitutionally guaranteed in the Republic. Incidences of religious discrimination are extremely rare, as the Equality Authority’s 2000 Annual Report shows: out of 202 discrimination cases the EA took on last year, a whopping two were religion-based (and the report doesn’t say which religion).
The thing is, though, it really doesn’t matter. Unionists aren’t against a united Ireland because they’re afraid of how they’d be treated. Their opposition is as much visceral as it is rational. More so, probably. One curious feature of the NI “democracy” is that the British Conservative, Labour and Lib-Dem parties don’t even stand candidates in the North, so Northern Ireland is therefore ultimately controlled by a government which none of its citizens voted for. The influence the UUP once held with the Tories is now as much of a joke as the Tories themselves are these days. And one of the great ironies of the NI situation is that in a united Ireland, Northern unionists would be far less of a minority than they currently are in the UK. Their political power would be greater, on a nationwide (as opposed to province-wide) basis. Does that make a united Ireland seem any more appealing to them? Hell no.
The statement released by PIRA shortly after the adoption of the GFA can be found here. I direct your attention to the seventh paragraph of it. Trimble would certainly have been aware of the statement. He would also have been aware, at the time the GFA was signed, that what it obligates Sinn Féin to do - “to use any influence they may have to achieve decommissioning” - is all that Sinn Féin can do. He would have to be exceptionally thick to think that by signing the GFA they were promising to deliver IRA disarmament. And he’s not exceptionally thick.
And anyway, the GFA calls for all participants to use their influence to achieve decommissioning by all paramilitaries. Granted the UUP doesn’t have a hell of a lot of influence in that area, but they sure seem to be aiming what they have exclusively at the Provos. The only time they even mention loyalist decommissioning is as an afterthought, usually when someone calls them on it. In the meantime they do things like voting a PUP candidate into Belfast’s Deputy Lord Mayor office - apparently their “guns before government” mantra only applies to republican guns. That’s not really in keeping with the terms of the GFA either, is it?
You left out the rest of the sentence on decommissioning from the GFA, which reads in full:
The participants did not even agree to use their influence to achieve decommissioning, they “confirm[ed] their intention” to use “any influence they may have” to achieve decommissioning. That, on its own, would not be a commitment to anything much: to intend, at a given time, to do something is not the same as committing yourself to doing it (nor does the formula, “we have no intention …” rule it out, as every politician knows), and to intend to use “any influence they may have” does not necessarily imply that they have any influence at all (which is what the IRA claim about their relationship with SF).
But when you add onto this a deadline, “within two years following endorsement in referendums” it makes the whole thing ambiguous. Is it a commitment to decommissioning within two years, as the inclusion of a deadline would suggest (and the UUP insist), or is it simply a statement intentions which caries no firm commitment to any particular, identifiable action or measurable result (as Sinn Fein insist)? I don’t think either interpretation is better supported that the other by the text of the Agreement.
And I suggest that if the GFA had explicitly contained the words “no firm committment to achieving decommissioning and no deadline for decommissioning” – which is pretty close to SF’s interpretation of what it actually means – it might never have been agreed to by the parties, let alone been approved in the referendums.
I’m not really sure what you’re getting at, Tom. Of course many unionists interpreted the GFA as a promise of PIRA decommissioning. That’s how it was sold to them. My point is that Trimble had to know that it could do no such thing, and for him to claim now that by not delivering it SF aren’t living up to their part of the agreement is disingenuous in the extreme.
christ on a bike, have you not got bored yet?
as it stands the best way to look at NI is that you can’t please all of the people all of the time. no matter what happens someone gets pissed off.
let’s be blunt here. reconciliation=forgiveness.
in order to forgive you have to
FORGET THE PAST AND MOVE ON.
no, protestants aren’t oppressed in the republic of ireland (um, speaking from personal experience here)
no, at present a united ireland is unlikely
(what with a unionist majority and all)
paramilitary organisations and vigilante justice is not the way forward.
(kneecapping drug dealers isn’t really helping the drug problem)
neither is violence
dialogue is. but talking also means listening.
you have to accept that everyone else’s grievances are legitimate as well, and then decide that history is history.
our past must not be a blueprint for our future.
Actually, irishgirl, that’s basically what I was saying earlier about decommissioning. It just infuriates me that the agreement is under threat because of what is for practical purposes really a non-issue. But there are certain genuine issues that need to be resolved and they won’t be just by saying “we need to forget the past and move on”. The obstacles to real peace aren’t going to sort themselves out.
Besides, when loyalist paramilitaries are still openly engaging in sectarian murder, and when dissident republican bombs are still being made, you can’t really use the word “past”, can you?
In response to Gary:
You said:
As everyone seems to agree that violence is a terrible thing, and the ends would not justify such means as fighting and bombing, does Oglaigh feel his question has been answered?
I sure do and for that I thank you. You see, it’s not something we see too often in the main.
A few points in relation to Decommissioning. There will be NO handover of gear to anyone, Unionists only want a symbolic surrender which they will NOT be getting. If Republicand were to give up ANY amount of arms they would still look for more. Hoe do you decommission all the fertiliser from all the farms, all the shotguns that the farmers that they also hold. Presently there seems to be an increasing number of Politicans getting their hit on the Decommissioning junkie trail and spend their time chasing the dragon of Republicans being unarmed, sorry Girls and Boys that hit is never to be.
Not a word from anyone about the several hundred loyalist bomb attacks this year, nobody seems to be looking for their hardware, and what about the " In excess of 100,000 " guns which are legally held by the unionist people? Not a whisper on that either.
It’s very simple, either ALL guns go together or none go at all. I’ll go for the first option. If the IRA were to hand over it’s gear none of us could sleep in our beds at night and I’m telling you that a lot of people would seek to defend themselves and that is something we do not need.