|
|
Post by Harry on Jun 7, 2007 12:01:30 GMT
I see what your saying but feel your idea on the condemnation is wrong and dangerous and feeds those who seek to prolong this campaign of hatred. I'm well aware that SF publically condemning attacks on Protestants won't make a huge difference but it at least publically sends out a clear message. A message to those within your community that SF won't stand for it and a message to my community that at least they condemn both sides. At the minute the hardliners are feeding on SFs failure to highlight any attacks on protestants, it gives them the ability to further the scaremonger tactic, it creates impressions and lasting ones at that of SF intentions within Ballymena, it will make future talks, meetings, deals, all the more difficult because of the trends we are following now.
What makes it worse is calls on Unionists from Republicans to condemn Loyalist attacks, calls about Unionist silence and i bloody well agree with them but they aren't setting any example and should practice what they preach!!!!
The chill pills have worked ;D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by An Fear Dubh on Jun 9, 2007 12:09:50 GMT
SF did not create the issue of contentious parades, the Orange Order did. What SF did do was help local residents to voice their concerns and help organize local residents into effective protest groups. This is not trying to create unrest, this is to voice legitimate concerns that have been suppressed through unionist state dominance. These groups are not puppets of SF but because of the trust gained by SF activists the residents groups do listen to advice given but not always do they take that advice. If Unionism can not tell the difference then you do not know what SF are doing because your analysis is flawed.
A bad bend that has road deaths is an issue, so if SF campaign to make it safer are they causing trouble/unrest for motorists??
Yes, SF have used to parades issue to make political gain, is this the fault of SF because they have voiced legitimate concerns or is the fault of unionism because they have failed to take on board these legitimate concerns. Maybe if they had of dealt with them at an earlier stage that would not grow into larger issues. The same can be said of how Unionism dealt with the Civil Rights campaign of the 1960's. No doubt there is an element of SF not wanting to 'upset the apple cart', but first you must confront the position taken in a tolerant way, by talking to residents.
While the point about a statement in the media can be meaningless and work on the ground would be better, is a good point. I think it is disingenuous in that SF are good at media statements as well as work on the ground, and open vocal condemnation across the board is important. As it sends a message out to those being attacked and those doing the attacking.
|
|
