A Different Kind of Loyalty

By on


The other day (well, a wee while ago) I saw something most peculiar. At least I found it to be peculiar as I am quite ignorant of said topic.

The topic in question being the latest turmoil in Gaza.

And the peculiarity in question was the sight of Hassidic Jews attending a pro-Palestine rally.




Regardless of your views on the Israel-Palestinian conflict you would be hard pressed to deny that this is quite a sight and gesture.

This surely is fine example of courage?

It is a very polarised topic and there must be some people on both sides of the divide that would be quite irate at such a stance.

But nonetheless they made their stand.

Hats off (or ‘shtreimels off’ in this particular case).

I’m sure someone somewhere is bandying about the label traitor/Josephus/Lundy at their actions, but they’re standing up for what they believe is right.

Imagine if in NI some of the unionist political leaders were to practise what they preach?

To have a consistent line on parades, flags, bonfires, respect and behaviour?

No doubt they’d attract the wrath of the hardliners and maybe even lose votes to begin with.

But what could the benefits be?

Would those who are more ‘pro-status quo’ rather than explicitly ‘pro-union’ finally feel that unionism is no longer an exclusive club?

Would it show the world that not all unionist leaders happily turn a blind eye to sectarianism, the minority of marches that are contentious or even ‘sashbashs’?

Would it show or that the unionists aren’t necessarily ‘the baddies’?

Rabble rousing, fear mongering and playing on the paranoia of the Protestant people is indeed an effective way of winning votes from many Protestants, much to the detriment of the Protestant community. It seems they have to be kept in a state of semi-panic so that their indignant votes can be harvested when necessary.

However, the Protestant community is in decline the Catholic community is on the increase.

Since the GFA there has also been noticeable increase (or indeed ‘sudden appearance’) of people from a Catholic background who are willing to vote pro-union.

It would seem that being a part of both Ireland and the UK holds appeal for some people.

To an outsider, this state of affairs would foster the following assumption:

 “So, obviously these unionist politicians are focusing on a potential growth market as opposed to the shrinking one?”

“Erm, not quite…”

“?!”

Unionist Strategy: Illogical


From a unionist point of view, the link with the union doesn’t stand to lose. In fact, it would if anything be strengthened by the addition of fresh votes from new quarters

Yet seemingly they feel they would lose something for adopting a consistent line.

 That they would be betraying something in their heritage or ancestry (which would only start in the mid-19th century when Presbyterian Unionism appeared on the scene, before that Presbyterians were always a law unto themselves with regards to the establishment)

What exactly they would lose I don’t know; the idea of preserving culture has been exposed as nonsense time and time again, upholding Christian values certainly doesn’t come into it, ‘British’ values even less so.

Here’s an example of someone throwing fuel on the fire, the TUV’s Walter Miller, despite all the evidence of intimidation and loutish behaviour at some parades there’s always someone ready to ignore reality and offer up a fantasy version of what they think is going on: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/hostility-to-twelfth-parades-1-6172991

So, let’s go through what he has to say and see what stands up under scrutiny:


“The Ulster Protestant and loyalist communities, rather than looking forward to a peaceful and stress-free Twelfth of July, are yet again being subjected to intolerance, opposition and hostility by the republican community in Ardoyne who have the backing of the Parades Commission in their determination not to allow the Orange Order lodges past Ardoyne in the evening parade from the field. “

Out of all the hundreds/thousands of parades that day, it was only this one that caused any hassle. There were parades in nationalist towns that went ahead without any trouble. This might lead an outsider to think that if nationalists all over NI are willing to tolerate parades elsewhere then there may indeed be something wrong with this one. But not if you’re the TUV.

“Since the time of the Reformation, Protestants not only in Ulster but throughout the British Isles have faced such opposition for standing up for their Protestant beliefs.”

 Well, yes they have. But drunken behavior and  provocative acts are NOT part of the Protestant belief system, yet this is not mentioned. It would be fair to say that they are NOT standing up for their Protestant beliefs rather Protestant beliefs have been put on hold to facilitate the rabble rousing nature of this parade.

Protestant Values: Laying a wreath to the memory of a young GAA player


NOT Protestant Values!!!

“Those republicans and their allies in political, religious and media circles who oppose us will not have to do much research or look for evidence as all they have to do is look at the various paintings on the Orange banners during the Twelfth of July and they will see the persecution faced by our Protestant forefathers throughout the centuries.

Some of the banners will have paintings of Ridley and Latimer, the two Protestant reformers who were burned at the stake in 1555 for refusing to denounce their faith and turn to Roman Catholicism.”

No one needs evidence cos no one is doubting it. So why mention  it? Oh yes, that’s right, we have to make people believe they’re being oppressed or they won’t vote for you….

“They will also see the banner paintings with the words “My Faith Looks Up To Thee” which shows the young Scottish Covenanter Margaret Wilson who, in 1685, was tied to a stake in the Solway Firth and drowned when the tide came in because she refused to acknowledge King James II as the head of the Church, or denounce her Protestant faith. “

Bad example, many historians are dubious if this took place at all and it wasn’t the Church of Rome that was intent on drowning them, it was the church of the state i.e ‘Protestants’.

“The banners will also show King William III crossing the Boyne and defeating King James II, a battle which was decisive and has secured the civil and religious liberties which we now enjoy and a battle which changed the course of the history of the British Isles and Europe.”

Only a few day ago a plaque was unveiled in Aghadowey in honour of ‘the Moses of the Scots-Irish’ Rev James McGregor led his flock to the New World because of the DENIAL of ‘civil and religious liberties’ since the victory of the Williamite forces (that he had fought for):
“to avoid oppression and cruel bondage, to shun persecution and designed ruin…and have an opportunity of worshiping God according to the dictates of conscience and rules of His Inspired Word”

And as for changing the course of history of Europe? Well, most of the important battles were fought in Europe itself, Ireland was a minor theatre of operations, so much so that William didn’t even hang around to see the Irish war to its end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Grand_Alliance (Yes, I know it’s Wikipedia, but ‘mon).

“The banner paintings will show a century later how Protestants came together after the Battle of the Diamond and formed the Orange Institution, again to defend their Protestant religion.”

 SOME Protestants, Presbyterians very on the whole quite suspicious of the OO until Anglicanism was de-established as the state religion. Some of these Protestants teamed up with Catholic Militiamen (like the Monaghan militia) to break some Presbyterian skulls in 1798

“Other banners will show paintings of the signing of the Ulster Covenant and Lord Carson in 1912 and the sacrifice of the men of the 36th Ulster Division at the Battle of the Somme. “

This act actively encouraged other Irish militias including those who would later take part in the Easter Uprising. Oops!

“Erm, loyalty-IRA????”




“The banner paintings take us to the present generation and, sadly, many have portraits of members who have been murdered by the IRA in their terrorist campaign. “

Sad indeed, but a cheap attempt to induce sympathy for a cause that is in the wrong, the protesters have not highlighted ANY of the above points as their key gripes.

In fact, Mr Millar makes no attempt to address their key gripes, as the key gripes are un-Christian in nature and therefore don’t exist…


 
Controversial


Uncontroversial






“Ulster Protestants and Unionists are again being subjected to an ongoing assault on our identity by those who would seek to lecture us on equality and a shared space, yet for a few minutes they cannot allow an Orange parade to go by on the Twelfth without seeking to cause disruption and tension in what should be a peaceful and enjoyable day for Ulster Protestants and unionists.”

If it is an assault then it’s a pretty feeble effort, there are as many parades now as there ever were.

He can’t even address the actual controversial points of the parade. Can’t bring himself to mention them. So he has to change the topic completely to one that isn’t even up for debate.

This does nothing to further the unionist cause, it keeps it as an exclusive club and repels people who may actually be interested in voting ‘no’.

It is all so very short term and makes the idea of maintaining the union with Britain all the less appealing on account of the actions of its advocates and ‘defenders’.

So those looking after the union are seemingly doing so in a manner akin to thon creepy mad woman in the film ‘Misery’.

“Why do you have to talk about drunk people being abusive? We all know you’re just being intolerant of a culture that you tolerate everywhere else 3500 times a year…”



When will we have our version of defiant pro-Palestine Hassidic Jews? Someone from the unionist side to stand up against the extremes of unionism?
Michael Nesbittowitz?

1 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY - Part Two: Loyalists alongside Progressives?

By on

 I argued in my previous article that, looking through the strategic mistakes made by Loyalists at the time of the flag protests and since (in terms, at least, of delivering real outcomes and political influence), it is remarkable how many of the same strategic mistakes are made by Progressives - the very people against whom much of that Loyalist ire was turned! This article looks particularly at the old maxim that divided parties (and movements) don't win elections and thus can't secure influence; concluding by introducing the notion that all politics is based around "bogey men" as the best means of securing unity.
Like Loyalists, Progressives spend too long talking to each other. The problem is not that this results in bad policies (in fact, it tends to result in good ones). The problem is that it results in skewed priorities - and thus the discussion becomes an ever decreasing circle of total irrelevance (from the wider voting population's perspective). This is why, despite good policies in many areas, both Loyalists and Progressives (with the odd notable exception) are left without serious political representation or influence. How often have we seen it? The election campaign was great fun - but the result was bewildering; the policies were well presented - but they were irrelevant to those determining the election outcome, namely the voters!
A particularly peculiar thing about Progressives in the context of Northern Ireland is their own inability to compromise, even with each other! While they preach about how Unionists and Nationalists should be able to sort things out instead of putting obstacles in the way (and they are right about that of course), they themselves put obstacles in the way of working with each other!
There is the aforementioned tendency to set up new parties and groups. More notably, however, there is the tendency of many Progressives to put a particular, narrow policy objective in the way of cooperation with other Progressives. We have surely all seen it: "Yes, I'd support a non-sectarian party as long as it backs the living wage"; "Oh, I'd support a cross-community movement, but only if it's libertarian"; "Yeah, they're okay, but I didn't like it when they walked out of those talks 12 years ago"; "Ah well, I basically like them but I can't join them because some of them are Socialist/Liberal/Conservative/vegetarian/meat-eating/pro-fracking/anti-fracking/brunette/blonde..."
Progressives are a relatively small minority as it is, even smaller when you only count the politically minded ones - so where on earth does this appetite for the luxury of every increasing numbers of small groups with ever decreasing numbers of people (and thus usually zero influence, individually and collectively) come from?!
Perhaps there are two prime reasons for this. Firstly, Progressives do not actually see themselves as a group - they are conditioned not to by an ongoing narrative, backed up by the political institutions, which only really allows for "Unionists", "Nationalists" and "Others" (a deliberately ill-defined and frankly slightly irritating jumble with no common positions of their own). Thus, they do not realise what power they could have if they acted as a coherent, cohesive unit as opposed to sideshow smattering of small conflicting groups. Secondly, perhaps due to who they are, Progressives believe political arguments can be won solely by way of reason - a comforting but actually nonsensical argument given that it has never happened that way in this (or arguably any) part of the world! Thus, they forget (as ever with the odd notable exception) that influence actually derives from hard work on constituency issues.
The fundamental problem which comes from all of this, it seems to me, is that Progressives are so busy arguing over (comparative) irrelevance with each other, they have no idea how to connect with the electorate. Put crudely, when you arrive on a voter's doorstep, they could not care less about your vision for Northern Ireland's political institutions, your magical plan education for the next generation, or your wonderful proposed decades-long reform of the health system. What they care about is immediate. Can you get their bin replaced; can you sort a place in the local nursery for their niece; can you ensure a bed in the local A&E for their grandfather - and can you do it now?! Suddenly, that crazed 50-tweet argument you had about the living wage with someone with whom you otherwise agree on everything counts for absolutely zilch...
I have written before that there is only one thing which really matters to politically minded Progressives keen to make a difference: the anti-Progressive forces of hard-line Unionism and hard-line Nationalism, the DUP and Sinn Fein, between them hold 67 out of 108 Assembly seats; 13 out of 18 Parliamentary seats; and a majority of Council seats. There are three obvious reasons this matters, which are worth re-stating.
Firstly, it matters because of the simple numbers when it comes to passing legislation or voting through policy. If the DUP and Sinn Fein agree, it happens; and if they don't, it doesn't. Until they are deprived of their majority, it will ever be thus. Bring as many Bills to the Assembly as you like advocating "Opposition", or same-sex marriage, or selection without examination at 14, or whatever - you can't win any of them.
Secondly, it matters because of how there were structured to achieve it. Think of the calamities which have befallen the leadership of each party even just this decade - from Irisgate to the horrendous abuse cases around Liam Adams. The DUP and Sinn Fein closed ranks, kept their concerns and divisions internal, and came through as a single cohesive unit capable of winning elections. Compare that to the aforementioned Progressives, going out of their way to find the most minor policy or strategic issue to justify further division into ever smaller warring camps!
Thirdly, it matters because of what they did to achieve it - and, particularly, what they didn't do! The DUP and Sinn Fein got there by being able to answer those immediate questions on the doorstep - in other words through a hard won reputation for constituency work. If you doubt that, look at the exceptions to the rule (say, Lady Hermon or Naomi Long) and ask yourself how they did it. If it looks like hard work, that's because it is! What they didn't do was spent ages and ages sitting about with each other obsessing over detailed policy platforms...
This brings us neatly to the notion of the "bogey man". Perhaps the main way in which the DUP and Sinn Fein remain cohesive lies not in what they are far, but in what they are against. Frankly, this is the same everywhere - the motivation for winning elections is best summed up in the words of Sir Humphrey Appleby: "You know what happens when the right people don't have power? The wrong people get it!"
Therefore, they create a "bogey man" - noting as ever that this "bogey man" need not be entirely or even remotely rational. It merely has to be something perceived (whether accurately or not) to unite against.

Illustration by Brian John Spencer
 For Unionists, the overall "bogey man" is the "United Ireland" or any perceived staging post to it - be it a Sinn Fein Lord Mayor, a Sinn Fein European Election win, or (now, as the others have both happened) a Sinn Fein First Minister. This works best when it is presented specifically - thus, the flags issue was presented as the Alliance Party (a direct electoral rival) forming a coalition with Sinn Fein (not a direct electoral rival but representative of the "bogey man" of the operation) to "tear down the flag". That designated days actually made Belfast a more typically British Council (as most British Councils have designated days) was neither here nor there - "bogey men" are not rational beings!
For Nationalists (including self-identifying "Republicans"), the "bogey man" is a return to Unionist domination (the opposite of which is always referred to as "equality", even if it actually means Nationalist domination). The flags issue was presented (literally - it was even filmed) as Sinn Fein delivery of the end of Unionist domination in Belfast. That it was the first time Irish Republicans had voted for the Union Flag to fly over a civic office in Ireland and was thus reflective of Nationalism's total defeat on the constitutional question was neither here nor there - see above!
Nationalists, of course, see change inevitably as moving away from their "bogey man"; Unionists see it as moving towards theirs. This is broadly reflected in their attitude to any change - even, say, same-sex marriage. (On one occasion, Unionists even opposed a change in Assembly procedures to allow MLAs to take their jackets off in the Chamber on a particularly hot day - and sat their sweltering as Nationalist and Alliance members proceeded with the change!)
And so we return to the two groups we started with - Loyalists and Progressives. Loyalists are in fact trapped by this anti-change Unionist versus pro-change Nationalist narrative, because in fact they do want change in terms of their social circumstances even if not in terms of the constitution. They bought into the Unionist "bogey man" narrative during the flag dispute, but must come to realise their real bogey man is the overarching narrative which doesn't allow Northern Ireland people to seek social change without also seeking constitutional change.
Progressives are also trapped by this narrative. In fact, they found themselves presented as the "bogey man" during the flag dispute, yet they lack one of their own. Not having something to unite against, they divide up all over the place and fail to present a coherent case to the voters. In fact, their bogey man is also the narrative which doesn't allow people to seek social change without seeking constitutional change.
If there is a problem looming, Unionists and Nationalists can simply create another illusion of a problem based on their bogey man, around which they can unite. Loyalists and Progressives haven't mastered that, and thus remain divided.
What is remarkable, at the end of all of this, is how much Loyalists and Progressives actually have in common - despite having been on the opposite ends of a dispute created by others as a "bogey man" issue. Loyalists and Progressives are divided among themselves; they tend to talk to each other too much without engaging enough with wider society; they tend to believe contrary to the evidence that non-voters are all on their side; they haven't recognised that political influence derives from hard constituency work; they haven't taken account of the old maxim that divided parties (and movements) don't win elections - and thus don't attain influence.
Most remarkable of all, Loyalists and Progressives both in fact have the same common objective. They will get nowhere until the DUP and Sinn Fein are deprived of an Assembly majority; and to do that they have to challenge the narrative that those who want social change must also want constitutional change.
That is why, as a Progressive, I want to see Loyalists for democracy. With a bit of hard work, we can make democracy deliver for both of us.

READ MORE FROM IAN JAMES PARSLEY
1 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

FIGHTING FOR DEMOCRACY - Part One: Loyalists versus Progressives!

By on

3 December 2012. This is a date etched on many politically minded people's memories - the date when the City Council voted to fly the Union Flag on designated days at Belfast City Hall; a date which was followed by the Council Chamber being stormed, by street blockages, and by mass disruption.
There were two prime sides involved in this dispute - the "Loyalists" (broadly inner-city Protestants) who wanted the flag retained 365 days a year and were broadly backed by Unionists, and the "Progressives" (broadly suburbanites) who were content to compromise on designated days and were in this case broadly backed by Nationalists. Here I will argue that the Progressives were right in terms of pure policy, but also that in fact both sides are guilty of similar types of strategic misjudgement. This will lead to a further, subsequent article about why "Loyalists" and "Progressives" need both to be aware of the "bogey man politics" used against them both (when it suits) by mainstream Unionists and Nationalists.
Loyalists were sure of their case. Despite being the majority community; despite being the very group for whom Northern Ireland was set up; despite being British people on British territory; their flag was "torn down" from their capital city's civic centre. A campaign ranging from general disruption to mass voter registration would soon see it put back up again, however. How could it not? After all, almost everyone Loyalists themselves spoke to agreed with the obvious merit of their case. We were told, with certainty, that the quiet minority who had not been voting up until this point were also instinctively on their side and would no doubt be invigorated by their campaign.
Illustration by Brian John Spencer
Yet somehow we have arrived into 2014 and the flag still isn't "back up". Disenchanted, Loyalists mustered only 300 at a City Hall protest registered for 10,000; voter registration is lowest in the very constituencies Loyalists were targeting; general frustration with politics in inner-city, majority-Protestant areas has, if anything, increased.
There are three main potential reasons for this - first, that the campaign didn't actually deliver; second, that it was on the wrong issue for most people anyway; and third, there was simply no evidence for the claims about "non-voters" they were making.
The campaign couldn't possibly work in reality. Speaking to each other, Loyalists may have perceived they had numbers, but in fact they were nowhere near a majority; and outside their own social circles, their case was by no means obvious.
In any case, it was on the wrong issue completely. Asked if they want the flag "back up", most in inner-city majority-Protestant areas will no doubt agree - but it's not remotely a priority. Welfare changes, leisure provision, local jobs, perhaps immigration would all feature higher in their list of interests. As politicians have shown no interest in those, we should be unsurprised that they show no interest in politicians!
Of course, the census shows there is also a Catholic plurality in Belfast. Crudely, this means that if everyone in Belfast turned out to vote, Nationalists would still have more seats than Unionists. The "non-voter" was no more or less likely to be "Loyalist" than the "voter"!
What has this to do with people in the "moderate centre ground", those I have come to refer to as "Progressive"? Did Progressives not support the Alliance position, backing designated days? They couldn't be more different from Loyalists, surely?
In some ways, they are exactly the same - capable of making the precise same basic strategic errors. Like Loyalists, Progressives are inclined, from discussions with each other, to assume their positions have greater support among the general public than they actually have. Like Loyalists, Progressives can often pick issues with which they find wide-ranging agreement, but which are not in fact priority issues. Like Loyalists, this disconnect - assuming wider-ranging support than is the case, and picking low-priority issues in any case - leads to greater disenfranchisement among people who would be natural supporters (while being ignored by the majority of non-voters who were never likely supporters in the first place).
Before we determine what Progressives want, we may usefully ask who they are, and why they are who they are. I wrote some months ago that they tend to be from professional backgrounds, typically well-educated and most often suburban. That, alongside the fact they tend to be younger, means they typically knee-jerk social-liberal. Generally, they did not experience the brunt of "the Troubles", although there would certainly be directly affected victims among their number (conceivably even disproportionately so). They are well represented in finance, in the arts sector, in the tech industries, in academia and in the third sector, but scarcely at all in politics (in the broadest sense). On economic issues their views vary, though they typically endorse both grammar schools (without necessarily advocating selection) and integrated education (including shared, to some extent). Sports-wise they tend towards rugby, and leisure-wise towards film/theatre. They have no time for parades, and little for local football (although they would almost unfailingly endorse the NI international team). As a result of all of this, they tend not to think much about identity, but insofar as they do, they are probably most comfortable with the designation "Northern Irish". Most are content living in the UK but also enjoy regular trips across the border. They do not regard a "United Ireland" as something to be feared, but simply do not believe it to be feasible (even if it is their instinctive preference in some cases). If challenged (and they prefer not to be), they endorse the constitutional status quo on broad economic and social grounds, rather than on communal or cultural grounds.
I should emphasise that very few people in Northern Ireland fit this precise description; but when I did put it forward, a number did say they clearly identified with most of it.
It is important to note also that Progressives are not merely "moderates" or "liberals" fitting in somewhere between Unionists/Loyalists and Nationalists/Republicans; they are in fact entirely distinct from them. They do not attempt to balance out the competing aspirations and policy goals of each side; on the contrary, they have their own to pursue!
From a narrow sectarian point of view, "Progressives" look a bit like "Unionists". "Nationalists" would often accuse them of this - but they are wrong to. Progressives are markedly different. Most obviously, Progressives are positive about the future and indeed cannot wait to move themselves (and Northern Ireland broadly) into it; this is the complete opposite of mainstream Unionists, who are negative about the future and would like, if possible, to move us back to the past.
Despite their different cultural interests and social backgrounds, we have established there are incredible similarities in the way Progressives and Loyalists go about their politics. Like Loyalists, Progressives are split between a growing number of small political parties, when this in fact deprives them of influence. Like Loyalists, Progressives believe some of their causes to be obvious (e.g. the case for an Assembly Opposition), when in fact no one else is interested. Like Loyalists, Progressives believe they have vast numbers (particularly among "non-voters"), when there is simply no evidence for this contention.
Like Loyalists, Progressives are a relatively small minority who have to work with larger minorities. So, like Loyalists, Progressives in fact need to pick their issues more carefully and then unite to argue for them. Perhaps it is time to discuss that...?

Read part two tomorrow...
 

GUEST POST

This is a guest post from a new contributor Ian James Parsley

Whilst we don't necessarily agree with all of the content of this article, we are always happy to feature an alternative point of view.
0 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Guest Post: November 30 Uncivil Shites march – There is no absolute right to protest

By on

GUEST POST

This post has been written by regular contributor Brian John Spencer



Let’s get this very straight. There is no absolute and unabridged right to protest. People like Simon Hamilton who say there is an "absolute right", are very wrong. Yes the land is planted thick with laws which protect our liberty. However, protections also exist that limit liberty, in the event and only in the event, that a person's use of freedom infringes the liberty of other persons.

In a Northern Ireland rapidly advancing in civilization, the whole history of the flags protests has been one of anti-civilisation; of gratuitous and promiscuous violence and vandalism. Of the anti-civilisationists acting to deprive and limit the rights of those who wish to live in civilization with liberty, peace, safety and prosperity. Protest and march after march, loyalists have shown themselves pathologically incapable of marching peaceably or in a manner that is open, decent or even remotely family-friendly.

As Visit Belfast found out from some very unfortunate tourists, it's been the consummate jungle and booze filled circus. (And let's come back to that matter in a later day, that the 12th has degenerated into a festival of piss (preface here).)

And on this matter the precedent has been set: loyalist protesters exercise their liberty at the expense of society's liberty. This cannot stand. We cannot tolerate this. Their violent experiment has been tried and they will continue it upon us at the expense of our liberty. 

On these grounds, I can present the argument that these marches should be heavily restricted in way that is in accordance with the law, and in a way that is neither an indiscriminate or disproportionate restriction on a person’s right to protest. 

Here's the European law:
Article 11 – Freedom of assembly and association 
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. 
2. No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the State. 
By virtue of Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights you possess the liberty to protest by holding meetings and demonstrations with other people.

By virtue of Article 11 you possess the responsibility to act peacefully and without violence or threat of violence.

On the balance of rights and responsibilities, the right to protest may be restricted provided such interference has a proper legal basis, is necessary in a democratic society and pursues one of the following recognized and legitimate aims:
– National security
– Public safety
– The prevention of disorder or crime
– The protection of health or morals
– The protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Any interference in the Article 11 right must not only be justifiable, but necessary. 

Here's domestic law:

There are a number of legislative provisions which allow the restriction or prosecution of public protest. Provisions such as offences under the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987, the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland)Order 1997, the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-social Behaviour Act2003. 

In the event of breaching the terms of any parade set by the Parades Commission, this is a crime under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998.

In the event that a person incites another person to disobey a Parades Commission ruling, that person can be charged with inciting a breach of a ruling as a specific offence under the Public Order Act.

The argument:

Now, I submit myself to my honest and honorable readers: Do loyalists march peacefully, without violence or threat of violence? Do they compromise our national security? Do they compromise public safety? Do they promote disorder and crime? Do they pervert the freedoms of others? Do they unleash fear and uncertainty writ large across the whole of Belfast?



I take leave to submit that Loyalists have consistently violated every single one of these elementary duties they owe towards their fellow citizen. Newton Emerson agreed. He said in the Sunday Times here that "Flag protesters have rode roughshod over all these concerns and it is irresponsible to indulge any notion of their “right” to do so."

By that fact, the simple case should be made that this coming march should be heavily restricted if not banned.

By the Loyalist precedent for violence, I suggest that there is an imminent likelihood that Saturday's peace and prosperity will be breached. On the balance of liberties, I submit that Loyalist protesters will hold sway over the city and hold much of civic society hostage by their delinquency.

Because of our indulgence of them, Loyalism has constructed a hideous mentality of Loyalist exceptionalism. That they can act with impunity and that they’re immune from the laws we must subscribe to. Call them out and you get more rioting. Call them out and you get accused of police brutality. This is a hideous distortion.

They have also constructed some disgusting grievance culture. That they have it hard in a way unlike any one else. Catholics and nationalists have it hard. Moderate loyalists and unionists have it hard. These are challenging times for us all. You would think that beyond the walls of loyalism lies a utopia. This is babyish babble.

Now ladies and gentlemen, what are we to do? I suggest we take a stand and offer a modicum of civic opposition. Loyalism wields arbitrary power over a civil majority in Northern Ireland. They make grand, abstract claims. No power can exist unchecked. Grand claims cannot go out unopposed.

They can have their protest this week. But I suggest something changes. Friends, I beseech you. They will repeat their foul experiment upon us. As long as we let them. Stop appeasing this horrendous nonsense. It's time to stand up and oppose these squalid little bigots who masquerade themselves as civil rights protesters and call them out for what they are: uncivil shites. Use the law as it exists. Lodge complaints. Campaign against this shower of loyalist incontinence.
12 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Guest post: LAD may not be middle class, but their attitudes are.

By on

GUEST POST

This is a guest post from a new contributor Ed Simpson

Ed contacted us to request that we post his response to another guest post that previously appeared on our blog entitled 'An Anus Horeebliss'.

Whilst we don't necessarily agree with all of the content of this article, we are happy to feature an alternative point of view.

This is the opening paragraph from a post by a contributor to the Loyalists Against Democracy blog:

“December 3rd 2013 signals the first anniversary of the restrictions placed on the flying of the Union flag at Belfast City Hall, a decision so incredibly benign that the overblown reaction to it could only spring from a place as barking mad as Northern Ireland.”

You can read the rest of the post here and it’s worth a read but, I generally think it’s misguided and ignorant. I could go through it line by line but I think I’ll concentrate on this first paragraph because it is, like much of the content LAD produce (though they didn’t produce this), a good example of the attitude that pervades their work.

They refer to the decision to restrict the flying of the Union Flag to designated days as ‘so incredibly benign.’ To whom is it benign? All the evidence suggests that it was far from benign.

It wasn’t benign to the Loyalist community. Not in the least. As much as people like to apportion blame to the DUP and the UUP for stirring up trouble (and they certainly must take some of the blame), it’s incredibly arrogant to suggest that Loyalists were a) ignorant of the planned vote and b) needed the DUP & the UUP to tell them how much to be upset about it.

It wasn’t benign to the Nationalist/Republican community. Sinn Fein – who LAD quite sincerely claim were defeated on the night – were rumoured to have had a celebration party after the vote. An Phoblacht recorded the flag coming down – keen to capture the significant moment. SF Council Leader at the time, Jim McVeigh said:

“Perhaps more than any other, this symbolises the process of change taking place across the city of Belfast and within the City Hall. Sinn Fein has become the biggest party across Belfast and we have used that strength to push ahead with the equality agenda. This decision is a milestone. This is part of our strategy to make City Hall a City Hall for everyone and every tradition, not least the republican and nationalist tradition.”

Republicans and Nationalists speaking after the flag was taken down talked of how important it was that the city was a shared space for all and that an inequality had been addressed.

That’s not the markings of a benign decision, is it? In fact, is it really even benign to LAD when it seems to be their key reason for marking out the pro-choice, pro-equal marriage PUP as a regressive party? Yes, they are right to point out the change in tune from the PUP over their position on the flag and hold them to account for it. They may well decide that it casts doubts on the PUP claim as a progressive party. But if that’s the case, it’s not really a benign issue is it?

Regardless of whether it was actually benign or not, the attitude that others should see it as benign is what is unsettling. This and other such attitudes – telling Jamie Bryson to get a job – are what I refer to as a ‘middle class attitude.’ An attitude of ‘those beneath me are the problem and the way they stop being a problem is to be like me.’

Why call it a middle class attitude? Because it is most often presented by people who are sitting in a position of relative privilege. The phrase ‘Get a Job’ is almost only ever said by those who are lucky enough to actually have a job. Those desperate for work would never suggest getting a job as an easy solution to a problem. In this climate, it’s not the class you were born into that is relevant, but your circumstances. Having a job and qualifications are pretty much all you need to be in that position of privilege.

That’s not to say LAD are middle class – I have no idea who they are so couldn’t possibly label them as such – but their attitudes certainly are.

I understand that it’s not easy these days to assign class to people and in many ways that’s a good thing, but we’re kidding ourselves if we pretend class groups don’t exist and there’s undeniably a class group that thinks itself superior to Loyalism and the majority of Loyalists. It’s plain to see in the mocking of poor grammar and spelling. In the mocking of the clothes people wear. In the mocking of the accents people talk with. That class group doesn’t need to be made up of people in similar socio-economic circumstances; they just need to display the same attitudes.

To be absolutely clear: there is nothing wrong with being middle class, working class or even upper class, it’s the attitudes I take exception to.

My issue is that I think those attitudes are detrimental to society. We won’t get anywhere by alienating people. We need to make people feel equal within society, people need to know that what’s important to them is for them to decide and for us to respect, with the obvious caveat that it shouldn’t be detrimental for others. There’s no doubt that the approach by some factors in Loyalism aren’t meeting that criteria and it’s right that they’re criticised, but that criticism needs to be measured and it needs to offer solutions beyond telling them to ‘wise up’.

LAD will say, and have said, that that is not their responsibility and so be it. But they shouldn’t condemn others for trying. They have said on occasions that some of the behaviour and actions of some who claim to represent Loyalism would have David Irvine spinning in his grave. They might well do, but I’d wager he’d have a bigger problem with the way LAD conduct themselves.

I didn’t want this to be an attack piece on LAD – I’m not immune to their humour, and it’s right that the likes of Jamie Bryson and Willie Frazer are held up as the backward and dangerous idiots that they are, but for all the good LAD can do on that particular score, it is undone by the way they apply that same approach to anyone who disagrees with their view on things.

We like to try and pretend our problems are unique in Northern Ireland but that’s self-indulgent nonsense. Our problems are rooted in class warfare, as are most countries, and they’re best addressed by attacking the systems that perpetuate them – the fallacy of Grammar school social mobility, being one – not the people who suffer under it.

For the record, I pretty much agree with LAD on the fact that the flag not being flown every day doesn’t represent an attack on the civil rights of Loyalists. I don’t support the reasons for the ‘civil rights’ camp at Twaddell, though I do support their right to protest. The flag protests are not the cause of our problems, they are a symptom and we will never get anywhere by attacking the symptoms, while ignoring the underlying causes.

I’m glad LAD exists. Satire and parody are important, provided the right targets are engaged. Too often though, I feel that LAD have the wrong targets in their sights (though they’re bang on the money with Poots) and while the PUP may be an easy target, I don’t see anyone else trying to bring Loyalists along the right path.

20 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Frazer: Abu having a laugh?

By on

We all looked on horrified as this morning's events unfolded. We knew he was going to do it, he told as much beforehand. Yet still, deep down we didn't believe it. It took that first image on Twitter for us actually to believe that yes, Willie Frazer has indeed turned up to a British court of law dressed as Abu Hamza. The horror quickly turned to laughter as the news spread quickly on social media and the bizarre media circus was shared far and wide. The occasion was so bizarre that Willie achieved what we think he had hoped for. The spectacle has gone national, with Channel 4 news running the story. Yet again Northern Ireland has been thrust onto the national stage and yet again we are left looking like the sadly ridiculous drunk relative at a wedding who makes a total arse of themselves.


Now the dust has settled and the laughter has (partially) abated, the initial horror has returned. Just why would Willie Frazer and his cohorts wish to cause such a scene? Willie explained things in his own unique manner outside the court today. "The law that they are trying to charge me with was brought out to deal with extreme Muslims", Willie claimed. "Who do they charge? The first man charged in the United Kingdom is a protestant from Northern Ireland"[1], he boldly asserted. These are very serious and daring claims to make. They are also untrue, and have been fabricated for no other reason than to enable Willie to create a media circus.

 Let's take a look at Willie's claims in a little more depth:
"The law that they are trying to charge me with was brought out to deal with extreme Muslims"

 The Facts:
The offences to which Willie refers are those covered by the Serious Crime Act 2007. Sections 44-46 of this act deal with encouraging or assisting an offence[2]. These sections have slight differences from one another but together they replaced the more commonly known offence of incitement in England, Wales and Northern Ireland[3]. These sections were not introduced specifically to deal with Muslim extremists. The truth is that these offences were already partially covered in some form by prior incitement law.
"The first man charged in the United Kingdom is a protestant from Northern Ireland"

 The Facts:
Willie Frazer is not the first man to be charged under these offences in the United Kingdom. Sections 44-46 of the Serious Crime Act have been applied in a number of different cases. There are too many to fully research and list here, however we have included a few below to highlight the absurdity of Willie's claims.

 Amed Pelle was jailed for 33 months after pleading guilty to a breach of section 44. Pelle had used Facebook to encourage other to commit offences during riots in Nottingham. [4][5][6]

 Jordan Blackshaw and Perry Sutcliffe-Keenan were jailed for offences under sections 44 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act at Chester Crown Court. These offences were linked to encouraging offences during rioting. [7]

 Jake Davis from Shetland, and Ryan Cleary from Essex were both charged with offences under sections 45 and 46 of the Serious Crime Act. Their charges were related to computer hacking. [8][9]

Omar Sadique was convicted at Maidstone Crown Court of assisting in the supply of controlled drugs contrary to section 46 of the Serious Crime Act 2007. [10]

David Wain was jailed for offences under sections 44-46 of the Serious Crime Act in relation to the supply of chemicals and drugs. [11]
In Summary

 The cases listed above show that Willie Frazer was lying about his motivation in dressing as a Muslim cleric today. What was his real motivation? If we were to hazard a guess it would be that Willie wanted to create a media frenzy to attract attention and to keep himself where he feels he belongs, in the spotlight. One thing is certain, his actions were decidedly racist and contrary to his vocal demands for civil and human rights. Surely the time has come for this man to fade into obscurity?
References

 1. http://www.u.tv/News/Frazer-appears-at-court-as-Abu-Hamza/c5e6e96c-9959-4fbf-b43f-8f01f2fab11e 
2. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/27/part/2/crossheading/inchoate-offences
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serious_Crime_Act_2007#Encouraging_or_assisting_crime
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2029920/UK-riots-Teenager-urged-Facebook-friends-kill-million-police-jailed.html
5. http://www.nottinghampost.com/Riot-teen-locked/story-13209179-detail/story.html
6. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-14508966
7. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14557772
8. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9354188/LulzSecs-Ryan-Cleary-admits-hacking-into-CIA-and-the-Pentagon.html
9. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164504/LulzSecs-Ryan-Cleary-Jake-Davies-admit-hacking-CIA-UK-s-Serious-Crime-Agency-websites.html
10. http://cases.iclr.co.uk/nxt/gateway.dll/WLR%20Dailies/WLRD%202011/wlrd2013-269?f=templates&fn=document-frame.htm&vid=PoC:Sum
11. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11972945

2 comments
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,