Double standards and Hypocrisy

[An Fear Dubh]

I have been following the various debates on a number of threads and have been hesitant to get embroiled in them because of the petty natured way that they have been conducted and this is mainly the fault of the personal insults and emotional responses of one individual and we are all aware who that person is. But for myself, Earl has expressed sentiments that mirror my own, that said, it is a matter for that individual to reflect and judge whether this approach best suits his intention to forward his view point.

Trying to wade through all the emotion and insults, there are some valid points that are lost in the bile.

We here should be beyond the point of such petty engagement and be working at a higher level. If we are not then we serve no point. I believe that we can and have in the past shown maturity in heated debate.

I am not attempting to set myself apart or to take up high moral ground, I know in the past I have followed the same path. In this case I was able to refrain and allow time to pass, but could easily have been in the thick of things.

So now that we have vented our emotions let us together in this thread at least, without personal name calling, engage together to examine the issues.

We have pointed out that the OO say they will not talk to SF until they have a specific apology. Others have went on to add that the links with PIRA make SF unacceptable. Others have pointed out the double standard of this by the various links and support shown by the OO at numerous levels with paramilitary Loyalism.

It has been highlighted that a number of resident spokespersons have links in the past and present with various Republican groups and many have served Gaol terms for Republican paramilitary operations. This has been highlighted as evidence of double standards and hypocrisy of Nationalists and the nationalist community.

Maybe Harry and Wasp would like to highlight other areas where they feel double standards are being displayed.

[An Fear Dubh]

Because I do not want to distort other threads away from their subject, I thought I would create a new thread out of the news section and open up some of the points raised by Harry and Wasp (as our few active members from the Loyalist community).

Garvaghy residents voted and continue to vote (despite the objections of SF) for Brendan McKenna. The key point here is the residents have a choice and an input into who speaks for them.

The history of the residents group is very interesting. It was set up by the local Parish Priest and his church groupies, to address local issues. One such issue (not the main one) was the inability of the some to attend mass because of the OO parade. There was lots of discussions and attempts to engage the OO. But the stumbling block was that the OO refused to speak to the residents because their chairman was the Catholic Parish Priest.

So the priest against the wishes of the locals stood down and the first election was held. SF's nomination was not elected but Brendan McKenna did get elected.

SF went on to woo McKenna and he joined SF. He left SF and has joined Eirigi. Eirigi is a Republican Political group and many of their members have served Gaol terms. But they are not affiliated with any paramilitary group at this time. If individuals use the cover of Eirigi then there is little that Eirigi can do about it.

I am not going to promote or attempt to explain Eirigi policy everyone is free to investigate and decide themselves on what that is. But from my perspective they are a political pressure group that do not engage in violence themselves and that makes them perfectly acceptable in English and Irish political society.

[An Fear Dubh]

The points to note from the Garvaghy Residents case is that the OO objected to the first spokesperson of the residents.

The feeling from that was it is irrelevant who the residents elected every representive would be unacceptable to the OO and now there was a precondition to any talks. The OO had set a veto on talks till the residents selected a representive that complied to the wishes of the OO.

Such a starting point is unacceptable in any dicussion between equal groups. And the second representive turned out to be even more offensive the OO.

[An Fear Dubh]

Another issue that has been highlighted as double standards is that the Nationalist community have no qualms about voting in large numbers for SF a political party with links to the PIRA. But do have issues with the Orange Order/Appentice Boys marching in certain areas. The suggestion being that such a stance is showing double standards.

While the perception of the OO maybe one thing within the Unionist community. It is certainly not the same view in the Nationalist community.

And the onus is on the OO to change how the Nationalist community view it. And the view of the Nationalist community is based on the actions and words of the OO and the hangers on.

The Nationalist community can only change their view/perception if they see positive actions and hear encouraging sounds from the OO. The Nationalist community have no input and can not help change it must come from within the OO.

The idea of 'Orangefest' is a positive step, but when that is followed up by the OO saying they can not speak to the largest Nationalist party (SF). It squeezes all the Orange good out and show 'Orangefest' up as a sham, and a political ploy.

Again I have already said the view of the OO in Nationalist areas is not the same as those in Unionist areas. The OO is seen as being in hand and hand with paramilitary loyalism to the same extent as SF have been in hand to hand with the IRA, but SF have been more honest about it. It is only been in the last number of years that the formal ties with the Ulster Unionist Party have been severed. The OO is first and foremost viewed by Nationalist as an organization based in sectarianism. And it is this sectarian aspect that causes the great distaste and objection within Nationalist communities.

While it maybe argued that some Republican actions can be viewed as sectarianism and by proxy SF are getting tarred with the same brush. There are no attempts to force SF marches through Unionist areas. (Kilkeel was not a SF march!).

So the analogy of voting for SF and objecting to OO marches can not be put side by side as the same thing, from the nationalist perspective. What we must do here is not look at how we view things but consider how people from the 'other' community view things.

[An Fear Dubh]

Another point raised was that the Orange Order's rejection of talks with Sinn Fein was an acceptable/understandable stance. Because the Unionist community had not forgiven Republicans namely the PIRA. But nor had the Unionist community forgiven those that participated in Loyalist paramilitary organizations or those political parties affiliated to them. This is put forward as if the Unionist community holds the high moral ground.

But what this perspective fails to acknowledge is that the British government/army who were supposed to be the legitimate force of the state. Directed and conspired with, as well financed and armed all loyalist paramilitaries. Along with that we have numerous links with the UUP and DUP with paramilitary loyalism. Have the Unionist community forgiven these others also? As it appears that they have, so the notion that an association with 'terrorism' puts you beyond approach is a very blinked perspective.

I can understand why members of Harry's family might feel that such a position is a legitimate one. But we should be more enlightened here and see that such simple analysis does not hold up to examination. Such people exist in both communities our task here is to bridge the gap here and leave here and educate.

[Harry]

Well constructed posts. I need a little time to reply. I will do my best to explain my position

[Harry]

My own position is that i can understand why the OO won't talk with SF. I do believe that it would serve the OO better to fully enter dialog with SF but as a non member of the OO what i have to do is look at the reasons why the OO have difficulties in such an act. The simple fact is that the IRA and SF are/were directly one in the same. They directly ended the lives of over 200 OO members. Now the OO are this, that and the other according to Republicans but i just can't see how anyone can compare anything done by the OO in the period of the troubles to the actions of the IRA in direct relation to the OO.

The OO never went out and planted bombs. The OO never went to the doors of anyone and pulled the trigger which ended someones life. Those from the OO who associated themselves with the UVF/UDA let the OO down. They have no right to complain about the IRA as they associated with those who did exactly the same. Can we get any articles on those speaking out against SF/IRA and also prove links on the same people in relation to Loyalists? As an organisation the OO has to be in control but its near impossible to be in control of every individual. What i will say is that on the whole the OO has not and does not support or engage with Loyalist Paramilitaries. If Nationalists believe such then they are wrong. They can try if it makes them feel better about opposing the OO.

I don't know anything about the GRRC and how they came about in electing Brendan. I can only take what AFD said as being truthful. Brendan is a very questionable in my opinion. His shift from strands of Republicanism seems to shift in line with the more active strands of militant Republicanism. His very demeanor suggests he has very little interest in finding accommodation with the OO. I would suggest he is the kind that won't be happy until as they say 'ALL BRITS OUT'. Erigi is again in my opinion heavily involved in flirtation with dissident Republicans. The recent arrests and the background of these individuals only further adds fuel to that opinion. As we try and move to a more normal future i would hope that the GRRC would see how perhaps Brendan is moving in a different direction and that they would be best served by someone moving in the right direction. We shall wait and see.

I don't know if i tried to implicate double standards in relation to voting SF and then opposing OO parades. I don't think i meant direct double standards as the two can't be exactly the same. It isn't comparing like for like in my eyes. I can only go by what i am told by Republicans. They speak of the misery that the OO has brought to their community. They insist their daily lives are ruined, they can't do what they want, they are held prisoners in their own homes...... Now compare what SF/IRA did to my community. They ethnically cleansed the border areas of Protestants. They blew our streets to bits. They murdered us in our homes. They murdered us on our way to work, at work, on our way home from work. The leader of SF saw fit to carry the coffin of the man who murdered innocent Protestants on the Shankill Rd. However regardless of what SF/IRA have done somehow the Nationalist people of NI have saw fit to vote for them to the extent that they are the largest Nationalist/Republican party. What does this say about the nationalist community. Please will someone explain what this says?? I will draw my own conclusions but i'd like to hear how Nationalists think it makes the other side feel seeing this??

I am not trying to take any moral high ground. The fact is that Loyalist parties have never been able to make any gains within my community. When i have asked the question as to why not vote PUP or UDP at the time the answer was always the same. They wouldn't vote for '2 bit gangsters who are as bad as them other ones'. This isn't anything to do with the British army or whether as a community we have forgiven them for what the done. This is about a free choice we have as a community and we didn't choose to vote for those that we felt were not fit. Again sure go ahead post up pictures of the DUP doing this and that if it somehow justifies something to you or if it makes you feel that the DUP/UUP etc are on an even keel with SF. It just simply isn't the case.

[earl]

I don't know anything about the GRRC and how they came about in electing Brendan. I can only take what AFD said as being truthful. Brendan is a very questionable in my opinion. His shift from strands of Republicanism seems to shift in line with the more active strands of militant Republicanism. His very demeanor suggests he has very little interest in finding accommodation with the OO. I would suggest he is the kind that won't be happy until as they say 'ALL BRITS OUT'. Erigi is again in my opinion heavily involved in flirtation with dissident Republicans. The recent arrests and the background of these individuals only further adds fuel to that opinion. As we try and move to a more normal future i would hope that the GRRC would see how perhaps Brendan is moving in a different direction and that they would be best served by someone moving in the right direction. We shall wait and see.

I'd agree that this doesn't look like someone who would come to an accommodation that everyone would be happy with. The only way to find out is for the OO to sit down without any pre-conditions and call their bluff.

However regardless of what SF/IRA have done somehow the Nationalist people of NI have saw fit to vote for them to the extent that they are the largest Nationalist/Republican party. What does this say about the nationalist community. Please will someone explain what this says?? I will draw my own conclusions but i'd like to hear how Nationalists think it makes the other side feel seeing this??

If the reason people voted for SF was that they 'stuck it to the Prods', then their vote would have been highest during the worst of the troubles. The two governments put SF on a pedestal to try and reign in the IRA, thus giving SF a great platform to do business from . They made good use of this by getting concessions and advancing the republican/nationalist cause through political means. Since the only other choice of vote was a floundering SDLP, and in the face of a rise in the DUP vote, many saw SF as the people to vote for. Some also voted to try and keep the peace. A successful political campaign ensured that the campaign of violence would be wound down as it would have a negative affect on what was been achieved.

Put yourself in a nationalists shoes. Why would you vote for SDLP, if they are spinning wheels and not going anywhere? You certainly wouldn't vote for any unionist party, so that just leaves SF, who had the ear of both governments and the momentum to make changes at that point in time.

SF didn't get their votes because of the IRA. They got them despite the IRA and because a political outlet was finally achieved where violence was on the back foot. SF were seen as the main brookers of this political arrangement on the nationalists side thus giving them a massive boost in votes.

None of this translated down here and while SF have gotten a bump over the last few years, they have plateaued now.

Unionists always use the 'We don't vote for anyone involved' line as if it was going to be believed. The simple reason is that unionists never had to vote for a party directly related to violence. It is clear from the start of the previous century right down to a recent interview with the head of the OO in Scotland that if unionists interests were ever threatened, there would be no issue with using violence and force. If WW1 hadn't broken out, and the UVF hadn't made their blood sacrifice on the fields of Europe, what do you think would have been done with the kaisers guns?

I know that you are asking a genuine question here and are not being high handed Harry, but this is how unionism always approaches this issue as if there is no blood on their hands and that they are always the innocent party, having to deal with the barbarous uncivilised natives and their violent ways. We all know that if the shoe was on the other foot (and the future is uncertain) that most likely unionism would act in the same way.

[Harry]

Earl as you know i'm not high handed about anything. I can't be. I've made it clear before that i supported Loyalism and as such i have to accept that what i supported murdered scores of innocent Catholics. I have absoloutely nothing to be high handed about. I'm as guilty as anyone for supporting SF.

I'm just trying to give what i believe is the majority view of my community. There is alot of what ifs Earl in your response. There is no such thing in terms of the Nationalist Community endorsement of SF. What you imply is that the Nationalist community were able to forget the IRA bit if you like if it meant they could further their own cause?

[earl]

What you imply is that the Nationalist community were able to forget the IRA bit if you like if it meant they could further their own cause?

I wouldn't disagree with this statement. The positive of political gains far out-weighed the negative of close ties with the PIRA.

[An Fear Dubh]

We are agreed that the OO should enter into dialog with SF as the leading Nationalist Party.

I am not attempting to compare the OO with SF or visa versa. I believe the same as the OO baulked at talking to resident groups by creating unreasonable objects to talks, they have again created unreasonable objections to stifle progress.

I am not a Christian/Religious person but I am led to believe that the crux of Christianity is forgiveness. Jesus sacrificed himself so that mankind's sins maybe forgiven. I am also led to believe that the OO is first a Religious organization. Should such an organization not be looking to forgive their enemies not create obstacles to avoid progress.

I feel for every reason why the OO object to talks there are ten more reasons why they should. I also feel that as a mass movement that is both Religious and Cultural there is an added onus on them to show good strong leadership and challenge those who oppose them, to serve away is poor leadership.

[Harry]

I would agree that they should talk with SF but i would be the minority in my own community on this matter. I can only give my views why i think the OO should engage but i have to accept the wishes of my community on it.

Every other day we see OO halls being attacked. What signal does this give to the OO?? Does it seem to them that there is a community out there that only seeks to engage with the OO?? I think not!! I need to see alot more from Republicanism before i believe that there is any real notion of accomodation.

[earl]

Those who attack OO halls are the lowest common denominator. The inactions of those at a less scumbag level of society give these scumbags the chance to 'represent' their community. Of course, many on the other side are always quite happy to let these thugs represent the opposite community as it suits to demonise the other side. This practice is common in both communities.

[An Fear Dubh]

It is difficult to view the support within the Nationalist community for such actions like attacking Orange Order halls the same as it is difficult to view the support within the Unionist community for attacks on Catholic churches and GAA clubs. Without being subject to a political mandate people can interpret different things into each action. Recently we have seen crowds of men descending on areas in Bangor and erecting flags. Armed men went to remove 3 Irish tricolours. What message does this send to the Nationalist community about loyalist paramilitaries honoring the peace process and putting weapons beyond use? If you want to find reasons not to act in a progressive leadership role, and dwell in the past then it is easy to find those excuses.
The harder path to follow is to step out of the crowd and face up to those who wish to dwell in the past and tell them to catch themselves on and to push the communities forward into new ground and give strong progressive leadership that will lead to a better way of life for us all.

[Wasp]

What message does it send to the Unionist community when the psni sit back and evaluate an armed road block in Armagh by republicans?? If this had been a loyalist roadblock nationalist politicians would be screaming from the rooftops about collusion etc. This incident shows where the police are failing and shows even more what a useless bunch of reps the Unionist community has.