Conference tallis::celt

    pathetic

So what does Sinn Fein propose the Government does?  Just let go and allow 
everything to descend into anarchy?  Well, the IRA would love that, I 
suppose...

Chris.

  Think for a second gentleman.  An independent, third party human rights
  organization (Amnesty International) is condemning this so called
  British "emergency legislation".  It's being used against thousands
  of innocent people.  Don't you think arresting 60,000 people is a little
  much?  Doesn't your own government put the Irish Republican Army numbers
  at something less than a hundred?  What are these 60,000 people guilty
  of?  

  Even by British standards, doesn't it seem wrong to hold juryless trials,
  and convict people on forced confessions.  Come one, use your heads, when
  you bash innocent people, you create your own enemies.  You can't have
  peace when you have this kind of injustice.

                      Mark

Mark,

It sounds like not much has not changed over the years. My mother lived in 
Bansha, Tipperary between 1914 and 1930 during the War of the Black and Tans.
She is 82 today and says she can recall vividly the 6:00 PM curfew...how the 
family members would wait next to their mark on the wall (designating their 
height) until the British "soldiers" would arrive to (1) confirm their presence 
and (2)terrorize the family. Every night, they would pull out and empty the 
dresser drawers, tip over the beds and mattresses and holler and scream at the
family until the women and children cried. After the curfew process was 
completed, the "soldiers" would get drunk and run through the streets shooting 
bullets through the windows of the homes. She also recalls the British
"soldiers" waiting outside the church one Sunday morning and shooting and 
killing several young men and boys on the front steps when they walked out 
after Mass. She also has spoken of the British soldier who took up with one of
the women in the village. As payback, he was killed by the village men when he 
walked out of the same church with his Irish girlfriend. 

As an Irish American, I DO NOT condone terrorism, but I do understand it. I also
believe that it will continue until the British are willing to negotiate with
Ireland on a time table to re-unite the NI counties with Ireland. The delay of
John Major was pathetic and inexcusable. How can anyone be not "understand" the 
IRA choosing to start terrorizing again? How can anyone not see that the way to
stop it is to negotiate peace and unity NOW?!

Why does this position draw accusations of racism?


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

>How can anyone be not "understand" the 
>IRA choosing to start terrorizing again?

I see, it's okay for the IRA to subject me to the threat of death over 
something that happened decades past.  No, I don't understand why I should 
have to live with the fear of death over something that I have no part in.  I 
don't see why anyone should.

Bringing up past injustice, fictitious or real, does not explain away why 
innocent people should have to endure being killed, maimed and living with the 
fear of being killed or maimed.

Chris.

> its okay for the IRA to subject me to the threat of death
> Bringing up past injustice....

Chris,

I DO NOT condone or support the IRA actions. The statement that I understand 
(comprehend the reality of) the mentality of meeting injustice with injustice
is NOT the same as saying "....its okay for the IRA to subject (you) to the 
threat of death..." Thats absurd! I would be happy to see both sides put down
their arms; I don't support violence or terrorism on any level.

At this point, I believe that the eminent danger that you're in has influenced
you to irrationally interpret a rational statement. I will not allow you to 
misrepresent my position.

That aside, do you agree that the peace negotiations should not be delayed any
longer? How do you rationalize the delay thus far? 



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

re: .1, .2

I don't think you realise quite how bad that act is (the PTA).

As you have pointed out many times, the acts that terrorist commit are
crimes in just about anyone's opinion. Most people would even regard the
planning, reconnoiter and supporting these acts as crimes. 

All these things are covered by existing legislation.

The PTA is used to bypass all existing English legal traditions. Worst of
all it is used beyond it's real purpose. When the "Guildford 4" were
arrested almost 50 others were detained with them. All you had to
do get arrested was to offer a version of events that differed from the
police version (when these people "changed their minds" they were
released). This is not according to SF, or even Amnesty, this is
how Justice May criticized the police in his report into those
bombings.

M 

  Bill,
   That was a good note.  Understanding why violence is met with violence
  doesn't mean one supports it.  Unfortunately, the British propoganda 
  machine is intent on labeling anyone who wants to see immediate peace
  talks, as "terrorist sympathizers".  
   I agree with your statement, I think all guns need to be removed from
  Irish politics.  Not only the weapons of the largest armed force in
  north east Ireland, the British Army, but those of the Irish Republican
  Army as well.  Only peace talks that address the ongoing injustice, can
  bring that about.  Immediate peace talks are the right way forward.
  The next step is meaningful talks.  They must put an end to the human
  rights violations by both the British forces, and the Irish Republican
  Army forces.

                 Mark

    re 1562.4
    
    >It sounds like not much has not changed over the years. My mother lived
    >in Bansha, Tipperary between 1914 and 1930 during the War of the Black and
    >Tans.
    
    Well, FWIW, my mother lived in Taughmaconnell, Co Roscommon during the
    tan war, where she looked after Jimmy O'Meara, the Athlone IRA Officer,
    when he was on the run.  She remembers well when the tans arrived and
    put up their machine gun and threatened to murder the family, until
    they were talked down by my grandmother. My great uncle John Kenny was
    a volunteer in the Athlone IRA, and I remember well a discussion I had
    with him about killing British spies. I can assure you that they would
    be disgusted and revolted at the idea of that conflict being used as a
    justification for blowing up old people on a London bus in 1996. They
    would reject completely the hatred of British/English people expressed
    by Mr Holohan in this file. Their opinion of the present IRA and the
    civilian terror would most be best represented by CHARLEY. When the
    PIRA arose in the latest troubles they rejected them as bandits
    discreditng and disgracing Irish nationalism for their own benefit.
    
    Has anything changed ? Well my mother votes Tory regularly, has done
    for about 50 years. She thinks the royal family is marvellous, John
    Major is doing a good job. I would think she is fairly typical of the
    thousands who emigrated to England in the 20's and 30's.           
    
    So I would say if you think nothing has changed since 1922 you have a
    delusory understanding of history, to say the least.
    
    If you want to find out why I think Mr Holohan is a racist, you can
    read this file. He has made any amount of remarks designed to offend
    and insult British/English people, and he talkes pleasure at the
    results of the civilian terror. 
    
    It is of course, quite possible to support Sinn Fein and the IRA
    without being a racist. I get on quite well with a couple although we
    have had long arguments.
    
    Kevin 
    

RE:                      <<< Note 1562.8 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

>>  That was a good note.  Understanding why violence is met with violence
>>  doesn't mean one supports it.  Unfortunately, the British propoganda 
>>  machine is intent on labeling anyone who wants to see immediate peace
>>  talks, as "terrorist sympathizers".  
    
    I want to see immediate peace talks, but I am not a "terrorist
    sympathizer".
    
    Laurie.

    I too wish for immediate peace talks, with all *peaceful* parties
    attending.
    
    >Unfortunately, the British propoganda machine is intent on labeling anyone 
    who wants to see immediate peace talks, as "terrorist sympathizers".  
    
    a/ The British propaganda machine is intent on labelling etc. etc.
    
    You are paranoid Mark. Everybody on this side of the Atlantic has
    formed their own interpretations of the current political situation in
    Eire/N.Ireland. It is odd that you accuse the Non-Americans in this
    conference of being affected by propaganda when you quote distorted
    facts, half facts and selective, one sided accusations directly from the 
    Sinn Fein web page. Can you possibly think that this might not
    paint an accurate picture to you? Do you not think they try to invoke
    sympathy with this selective journalism, just so they can extract
    the dollars from your pocket to spend on the freedom of the oppresed
    when in actual fact your hard earned is spent on drugs for further
    profit for themselves and screw the rest of the community.
    
    b/ Anybody who wants peace talks are not "terrorist sympathizers". You
    are accused of being a terrorist sympathizer because you do not condone
    any I.R.A. murders, you quote excuses, reasons, but you never say that
    the taking of human life in these cowardly attacks is wrong. As long as the
    person/s who die are British or English (even better I expect as far as 
    you're concerned) the murder is justified. Is this hatred of British
    people going to stop when the peace deal is signed? I don't think it
    will on your part.
    
    *I* want the killing to stop. Now. 
    
    
    
    CHARLEY                                                   

    .last
    
    b/ Anybody who wants peace talks are not "terrorist sympathizers". You
    are accused of being a terrorist sympathizer because you do not
    *condone* any I.R.A. murders, you quote excuses, reasons....
    ^^^^^^^^^
    
    This should be Condemn. Sorry about that.
    
    
    CHARLEY

  The racism and hatred expressed by Kevin and Laurie is trully offensive.
  Their continued justification for British human rights violations and
  a British campaign of terror boggles the mind.  Their support for the
  human rights violations which have fueled this terrible war, is the main
  reason for the continuation of the war.

  I post a note on current history, which Bill demonstrates has been a
  repetition of the past, and the pro-violence faction responds with 
  calls of "terrorist supporter".

  I can assure you that hatred of the Nationalist community expressed
  by Kevin Mannerings and Laurie Brown, is not representative of all
  English people however.  I've met plenty of supporters for the peace
  process who have come from London.  It is only a few supporters of the
  violence against the Nationalist community, who don't really want to
  see immediate peace talks, without preconditions.

  As someone who was born in London, and who has family still living there,
  I can tell you that the anti-Nationalist racism expressed by Mr. Mannerings
  and Laurie Brown is not indicitive of all Irish or British people.

                     Mark

  P.S.
   My relatives in London don't vote Tory or love the Royal family.

Mark,

Remind me, please - since the IRA "ceasefire" started, how many people have 
been killed by:

	1) The IRA
	2) The British armed forces
	3) The "loyalist" terrorist forces

I look forward to your explanation of how these numbers demonstrate that the 
British forces are pro-violence.

//atp

    RE: .13
    
    Once again I call for evidence to back up these claims of yours. You
    seem to forget that I am proud to be half-Irish, and that I believe in
    a united Ireland free from Britain by democratic means, by the will of
    the majority; both sentiments have been voiced in the conference many
    times. I do not hate the Irish, Republican or Loyalist, such a concept
    is ridiculous.
    
    I am not proud that Irish people think it's a valid part of the process
    of acheiving a united Ireland to go around blowing innocent people to
    smithereens.
    
    You are making yourself look ridiculous.
    
    Laurie.

    Bill,
    
    For the record, while I do not agree with Laurie and Kevin, I find
    that their entries into this file are, for the most part, pretty
    thoughtful.  They just represent a point of view I don't always agree
    with.
    
    They also tend to let Mark dictate the way issues are discussed here,
    and I'm not sure why.
    
    On the other hand, Mark's response to the recent bombings in London and
    his obvious joy at the prospect troops on the streets of London was
    too much for me. You can't have it both ways.  You can't say you want
    peace and take pleasure in the deaths of innocent people who happen to
    be living in England.  Mark will respond to this by asking me if I do
    not condemn the deaths of Irish civilians in Ulster. I do.
    
    I also agree with your assessment that meeting injustice with
    injustice is a pretty standard (and therefor understandable) human
    response.  Understanding it doesn't mean approving it.
                                                              
     
    
    
    

Re: >.9....."thinks....John Major is doing a good job."

Re: >.16...."I also agree with your assessment that meeting injustice with
             injustice is a pretty standard (and therefore understandable)
             human response. Understanding it doesn't mean approving it.

Kevin,

I must be out of touch. In John Major's capacity, does he not understand 
something as basic as what Barry articulated in .16? Or has he made the 
continuation of his political career more important than the probable outcome
of procrastinating on the peace talks?

From my perspective, he is either an idiot or evil. I don't know why anyone who 
wants peace in NI would support him after his "inaction" on this peace 
opportunity.

I guess, living 3000 miles away, I must be out of touch. Thanks for bringing it
to my attention.

 



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    .13 
    
    Mark, I can assure you that neither Kevin nor Laurie are racists.
    
    Their only hatred is for a terrorist organisation that kills innocent
    civilians indescriminately. These innocents have included children,
    O.A.P.s and tourist who have no idea what or where Ulster is.
    
    They do not justify Human Rights violations by the British Govt. In
    fact I think they are ashamed and disgusted by its past actions.
                                                       ^^^^
    They do not support violence against the nationalist communtity. I
    certainly can't see where you get this idea from.
    
    They do want peace talks. The only pre-condition there should be for these
    talks is that all parties are non-violent.
    
    The I.R.A. are not and haven't been for the past 17/18 months. Why
    should they/Sinn Fein be allowed to the peace table when they are
    voilence orientated?
    
    Kevin and Laurie want to see the end of the conflict, as do I and
    99.99% of the rest of the British Isles.
    
    
    CHARLEY

RE:       <<< Note 1562.17 by NETRIX::"Bill BUrke @MRO.com" "Bill Burke" >>>
    
>> From my perspective, he is either an idiot or evil. I don't know why anyone who 
>> wants peace in NI would support him after his "inaction" on this peace 
>> opportunity.

    Bill, it's not as simple as "inaction", far from it. In fact, if it
    were that simple, the past 25 years might never have happened. Before I
    make a comment, let me put some perspective on it. I am a life-long
    Tory, it stems from my roots, on both sides of the Irish sea. I am, by
    nature and experience, a right-of-centre bloke. John Major, however, is
    the most inept, ineffective, and incompetent PM I've known. He and his
    government are almost without exception corrupt and morally bankrupt. I
    can, do, and will criticise John Major where he deserves it, which is
    quite a lot.
    
    The NI situation is, however, very complex indeed. There's Britain,
    which is the internationally-recognised, lawful government of a
    sovereign state, which is part of the UK: Northern Ireland. There's the
    Unionists in NI, who want to remain as part of the UK. They are,
    currently, the majority in NI. As citizens of the UK, they expect and
    have a right to expect, the goverment to look after their interests in
    NI. Then there's the Republicans, also citizens of the UK, whose views
    and desires range from a single Ireland and nothing else, to some sort
    of compromise. On the sidelines are two main factions of terrorists who
    operate outside of the law, and are using illegal means to promote
    their respective, and mutually incompatible and exclusive agendae.
    
    For there to be a peaceful solution in Ireland, all of those opposing
    parties need to buy into the process and the solution. JM is the focal
    point for that. He is not suited as a person to that role, and has made
    some errors. However, the problem of getting the likes of Ian Paisley
    to sit down and talk to Gerry Adams is not an easy one, and JM has to
    try and engineer that. That takes time, and the IRA continuing their
    campaign has caused immense damage to the work that had been done.
    
    A solution, acceptable to all parties, and by solution I mean an
    environment in which talks can begin to create the solution, is going
    to take a long time; now even longer. To be fair to JM, the task is a
    bloody difficult one, and a long up-hill struggle, where he has to try
    and keep all parties sweet, to adjust their aspirations and prejdices
    in such a way as to steer them towards the ultimate goal.
    
    Add into that his political difficulties at home, which are indeed
    self-inflicted, and the resultant cosh the NI MPs hold over him, and
    you can begin to appreciate that there's a lot more to it than simple
    ineffectiveness. We'll have Tony Blair to look farward to soon, is he
    man enough? Do you know? I certainly don't.
    
    17 months is a long time for sure, but in terms of history it's
    a heartbeat. You can lay some blame at the feet of JM, but try to be
    aware of the difficulty of the task in hand, and of the type of man, a
    bloody rare man, you would have to have to make it all happen.
    
    The IRA, by resuming violence, have caused much more than physical
    damage, they have seriously damaged the peace process, and most of the
    people involved with it, especially Gerry Adams.
    
    So yes, JM is culpable, but not alone, and not through "evil" or simple
    stupidity.
    
>> I guess, living 3000 miles away, I must be out of touch. Thanks for bringing it
>> to my attention.

    No Bill, you're not out of touch, but I do think that your viewpoint may
    be too focused.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

Re: 1562.9

> "Has anything changed? .....my mother votes Tory regularly....thinks the royal
  family is marvellous, John Major is doing a good job....fairly typical of the 
  thousands who migrated to England......"  
   
> (Therefore)"I would say if you think nothing has changed since 1992, you have
  a delusory understanding of history, to say the least."

Kevin,

I was comparing my Mother's stories of her experience with the British with the 
statement in the Base Note, "The renewal of the Emergency Provisions Act gives
the RUC and the British Army the green light to continue to raid, arrest, wreck 
homes, and split families apart.....". Hence, my comment that things have not 
changed much.

I struggle, not with history, rather the inability of some to use logic in their 
reasoning, e.g., "...my Mother likes the royal family, therefore you (Bill) have
a delusory understanding of history".

Give me a break!


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    I'm sure that's not what Kevin meant at all Bill.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Re: 1562.20

Laurie, thank you for your note 1562.20. It was helpful to me. 

On my best day, I can't fully grasp the complexities of this situation, but 
inputs like your note .20 do help. As an Irish-American, I'm intersted.

I have been an avid Celtic Notes reader for over 3 years - but still struggle to
understand why we can't have peaceful negotiations to reunite Ireland. Frankly,
my knowledge of Irish history, and relevant experience, is dwarfted by that of
the people who typically place notes in this file. That has kept me in the mode
of reading to learn, rather than writing (where I am less comfortable).

I believe that Irish-Americans, in general, do over-simplify the problem
and solution. So many of us are descendants of victims who do not have a 
balanced view of either - we not only often lack a sound historical knowledge, 
but also often lack a balanced view. My hope in reading this file was to learn
more. I have learned that the level of emotion by opposing parties diminishes
the probability of a quick and simple resolution. Moreover, violence only gets 
in the way and fuels more violence. I wish that it would stop - today.

Thanks again for your helpful note.

Bill.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

References in note 1562.22 to note #1562.20 should have been to #1562.19.

Sorry!

bILL.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    I shall not bother to reply to Mr Holohan, as he is not only a racist,
    he is a liar as well.
    
    Bill, I point out the change in opinions of those who lived through the
    tan war and an obvious example that things change in history, and if
    you think they haven't you are deluded.
    
    Of course the most important change is that in 1920 Sinn Fein had the
    overwhelming support of people living in Ireland. Today they are a
    small minority of the 32 counties, and are politically quite irrelevant
    in the South. Their political mandate is a fiction kept alive to try
    and bring them into the "democratic process." Their only MP, Gerry
    Adams, was defeated at the last election by the SDLP. In 1918 they
    swept the board. In those days they did not blow up London busses and
    indeed, in spite of the lies the present Sinn Fein put out, there is no
    political connection between the provisional Sinn Fein and the 1918
    party.
    
    It is also a pathetic excuse for the terror to compare present-day post
    ceasefire RUC abuses with the tan war. What the RUC do today (post
    cease-fire, post M Thatcher) is certainly no
    worse than what happens on the USA's death row. Would you, or any other
    US-American readers feel perhaps a teeny bit offended if I described
    the USA as a toilet of a country, if I supported terrorist bombs in
    Washington, if I said the Stars and Stripes is something to be ashamed
    of? I would really like an honest answer to that question from all free
    speech loving true-blooded Americans, because what I have read sofar on
    this reeks of hypocrisy.   
    
    I have never supported British Imperialism or the PTA. It is the
    stupidity of the IRA and its terror against innocent civilians 
    which allows such legislation to go unopposed. When the IRA blows
    up dustbins (sorry, economic targets) it allows a carnival of reaction
    and weakens the opposition to it.
    
    And yes of course it is horrible isn't it, that their are Irish people
    who like the Royal family? Really disgusting. Don't they realise there
    is a war on? Don't they support us killing Brits to achieve human
    rights.
    
    Oh I think I will post some really offensive anti-American crap here
    and see how it goes down.
    
    Kevin    
    
    

  Bill,
    You're not out of touch.  Kevin has publicly supported a campaign of
  murder and support for human rights violations against the Irish Nationalist.

  You've also got Laurie, who neglected to tell you in .19, that he "is
  ashamed of the 50% of his ancestry that is Irish".


  Charley,
>    Mark, I can assure you that neither Kevin nor Laurie are racists.

  The facts speak for themselves.  Whenever anyone mentions a human rights
  report, they call the reporters "terrorist supporters".  Usually followed
  by a Karl Marx monologue.
    
>   Their only hatred is for a terrorist organisation that kills innocent
>    civilians indescriminately. 

  Perhaps their hatred should be directed against British state sponsered
  terrorism, as well as the Irish Republican Army response to said terrorism.
  They can't have it both ways.  There one-sided attacks, and support for
  murder by British forces and their loyalist allies has no place in a
  Digital notes conference.

                   Mark    

Perhaps you would care to either substantiate or withdraw the allegations 
you make against Kevin. Perhaps you would also care to reveal the context 
in which that remark by Laurie was made.

Dave

Mark, just because you can't think up your own arguments, it makes no sense to 
take someone else's comments used in an attempt to counter your own vitriol, 
and use them almost verbatim to condemn those very noters, no matter how 
inappropriate the context.  It just makes no sense, and makes you look rather 
silly.

Chris.

    Dave
    
    >Perhaps you would care to either substantiate or withdraw the
    >allegations you make against Kevin.
    
    You make a number of assumptions here which are incorrect.
    
    -Mr Holohan is not interested in logical or intelligent debate.
    -He has no sense of honour.
    -He sees me as a legitimate target for his hatred, because of my
    part-English background.
    -My part-Irish background gets up his nose, because I don't tolerate 
    or silently approve of his murderous drivel, so he ignores it or makes
    ethnic slurs about it. That is why I call him a racist.
    
    He also gets angry when the rubbish he writes about Sinn Fein gets
    exposed. He tries to hide it by accusing others of supporting British
    human rights abuses. This is a cheap lie. That is why I call him a
    liar. 
    
    I would be concerned if he stopped insulting me. The content of what he
    writes does not deserve serious attention in itself. I only find it of
    interest with regard to the question of "free speech" and Digital's
    policies.
     
    
    Kevin

A liar:

Note: 156.24

> In those days they did not blow up London busses and
> indeed,

 Sinn Fein has never blown up busses.  The only people who would make such
 an accussation is the British government, and their propoganda machine.

A racist:

> Would you, or any other
>    US-American readers feel perhaps a teeny bit offended if I described
>    the USA as a toilet of a country, if I supported terrorist bombs in
>    Washington, if I said the Stars and Stripes is something to be ashamed

 This anti-American rhetoric from a supporter of state sponsered murder.

                     Mark

Re: >1562.24

    >"...a teeny bit offended if I described the USA as a toilet bowl of a
     country, if I supported terrorist bombs in Washington, if I said the
     Stars and Stripes is something to be ashamed of?"

    >"...horrible...that there are Irish people who like the royal family? 
     Really disgusting...Don't they support killing Brits.....?"

    >"...I think I will post some really offensive anti-American crap here
     and see how it goes down."

Kevin,

I sincerely don't understand your response and how I prompted it. Your note
makes me draw a complete blank. I apologize for the disconnect, for not 
understanding your perspective well enough to avoid insulting you. I hope that I
can learn more about your perspective in future notes and, with an appreciation
of it, communicate in a way that brings a more positive and constuctive 
response.

Sincerely,

Bill. 
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Bill, the first quote at least describes almost word for word what certain 
noters have said about Britain.

Chris.

RE:                      <<< Note 1562.29 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

    Holohan, I shall reply to your ridiculous note .25 as soon as my PAN
    search has found the notes in which I mention, explain, and further
    expand upon my shame, and I have extracted them.
    
>> > In those days they did not blow up London busses and
>> > indeed,
>> 
>>  Sinn Fein has never blown up busses.  The only people who would make such
>>  an accussation is the British government, and their propoganda machine.

    Your persistance in pretending that Sinn Fein are unconnected with the
    IRA is laughable, and, frankly, pathetic.
    
>> A racist:
>> 
>> > Would you, or any other
>> >    US-American readers feel perhaps a teeny bit offended if I described
>> >    the USA as a toilet of a country, if I supported terrorist bombs in
>> >    Washington, if I said the Stars and Stripes is something to be ashamed
>> 
>>  This anti-American rhetoric from a supporter of state sponsered murder.
    
    I realise that your grasp of English grammar is somewhat tenuous, but I
    normally refrain from comment. It's quite useful, because if your
    persistent grammatical and spelling errors are missing from something,
    it enables us to spot the cut-n-paste stuff you're so fond of. However,
    in this case I feel that I must point something out to you. Kevin
    started the piece you have selected with the phrase "Would you, or any
    other". The use of the word "would" explicitly tells us that the
    following statement is rhetorical, and the remaining text is in the
    subjunctive. In other words, it is not "anti-American rhetoric", but is
    an example of what Kevin considers would (note, that word again) be
    "anti-American rhetoric" if he were (note the subjunctive again) to use
    it. In other words, the whole point of his comment was that such words
    would indeed be ""anti-American rhetoric" and as such should not appear
    in this conference or anywhere else. You appear to have missed the fact
    that his words were a tight quote of something written elsewhere in
    this conference, with American substituted for British.
    
    I hope this helps, Laurie.

    .29
    
    This note disappoints me greatly, but then again I am not all that
    surprised because as soon as Kevin posted it, I knew exactly what
    Mark's  reply would be.
    
    >Sinn Fein has never blown up busses.  The only people who would make
    such an accussation is the British government, and their propoganda machine.
    
    Sinn Fein are linked to the I.R.A., everybody this side of the Atlantic
    knows this fact.
    
    >This anti-American rhetoric from a supporter of state sponsered murder.
    
    You and I both know what context Kevins paragraph was quoted in. It's
    just another example of misquoting statements and abusive, selective
    reporting.
    
    I suggest everybody reads note 1562.24 again because Marks note is not
    indicative of Kevins standpoint.
    
    .25
    
    >The facts speak for themselves.  Whenever anyone mentions a human rights
    report, they call the reporters "terrorist supporters".  Usually
    followed by a Karl Marx monologue.
    
    The fact of the matter is Mark, that you are quite happy to quote
    Amnesty International in any way that makes the British look bad. Fine,
    that's your perogative. But the I.R.A. also appear in many Amnesty
    reports as well, but we do not hear a word from you about that. Can you
    explain to me why? Why is it that one side is allowed to abuse the
    rights of a human being but the other side isn't? Why do you not inform
    us of P.I.R.A. human rights abuses? Shouldn't we
    universally condemn all parties? This is why you are labelled as a
    terrorist supporter. You do not condemn acts of voilence, you justify
    them by blaming everybody except the perpatrators of the crime- the
    murderers, you post notes from the Sinn Fein page that are universally
    pointed out by other noters as containing half truths, distorted facts
    and downright lies.
    
    After reading your notes it seems to me that your hatred of British 
    subjects makes it intolerable for you to admit that in most cases your 
    standpoint is wrong or at best flawed. When this is proven to you, you
    then get abusive. As you have with Kevin.
    
    
    CHARLEY

RE:                      <<< Note 1562.25 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

>>  You've also got Laurie, who neglected to tell you in .19, that he "is
>>  ashamed of the 50% of his ancestry that is Irish".

    Bill, please allow me to put this into context. The phrase was first
    used by me in another conference, and was transported to here by
    another noter, whereupon I justified my use of the phrase. I did this
    in 1252.38, on 6th August 1993. I should like you to read it, and to
    note that my stance and views have not changed WRT terrorism and its
    use in NI.
    
    Holohan dragged my "shame" up again, for the nth time, in Novemner
    1995, and once again I explained my position. I thought this had been
    for the last time, but I was wrong. I did this in note 1328.82, and
    again, that note stands as a testament to my views on the matter.
    Additionally, that note brings up the issue of censorship in this
    conference, name-calling, insults, threats, contravention of Corporate
    PP&P etc. You may like to read it. As you do so, the word hypocrite
    might come to mind.
    
    I'll be happy to discuss or explain anything that isn't clear in those
    notes, Bill, but please do read them.
    
    Holohan, you are making yourself look more and more ridiculous.
    
    Laurie.

    Bill,
    
    I apologise if I offended you. It was not you I was getting at, but
    that which you defended.
     
    re .4
    
    >Why does this position draw accusations of racism?
    
    This was your question, and this was what I was relpying to.
    
    I am saying clearly, after a long discussion going on over several
    weeks, tha Mr Holohan's position is a racist one and that his notes are
    motivated by hatred of British/English people. 
    
    Your note .4 was an implicit defence of Mr Holohan, as it is he who is
    being accused of racism. In it you drew attention to black and tan
    atrocities, saying nothing much has changed. This seems to me to be a
    fairly typical reason why Mr Holohan's offensive abuse is tolerated as
    "free speech" by Americans here. My remarks about America, would of
    course be offensive if I had meant them, but as has been pointed out
    here, they were a caricature of what Mr Holohan writes about Britain
    and it is a good joke that he missed the caricature and identified his
    own spewings as racist.
    
    I note that no American readers have volunteered to say that such
    remarks about the USA are acceptable free comment, given what Wild Bill
    Hitchcock did to the Indians etc.
    
    The point is, not only are such remarks totally out of order, there are
    real bombs being placed in London by Mr Holohans heroes next to Digital
    Offices, and large numbers of people are being terrorised.
    
    So is it okay to call the US a toilet of a country?
    
    Now don't quote that  farce of a thing you call a constitution at me
    please. Haven't you damn Yanks any shame at all ?????  
    
    (WARNING: the last two lines are satire, but how would you feel if they
    were for real?)
    
    Kevin
    
    PS. Laurie, there is no need to be defensive about your ashamed to be
    Irish remark. It is a perfectly normal and healthy emotion. There are
    plenty of others who have expressed the same emotion, for example
    Patrick Mayhew on the British fascists at Landsdowne Road, and
    innumerable Irish politicians following Eniskillen, Warrington etc.
    The point is you are a "bastard" mixture of Irish and English from the
    racist point of view and that is why it gets up his racist nose. You
    are not pure. It is like the white girl going out with a black boy.
    That is why he scratches around on it. You are not really Irish, have
    no right to claim it, and your "ashamed" remark shows it in his sick
    view.
    
    

>    weeks, tha Mr Holohan's position is a racist one and that his notes are
>
>    I am saying clearly, after a long discussion going on over several
>    weeks, tha Mr Holohan's position is a racist one and that his notes are
>    motivated by hatred of British/English people. 
 

 I'm a bit confused on the racist part.  Since my mother is British, and
 my father is Irish, does that make me a "bastard" in Kevin Mannerings
 opinion?  Perhaps since I was born in London?  Or do I really offend him
 because I'm a U.S. citizen?  A U.S. citizen who understands why violence
 is met with violence in kind.

 Laurie, you can try to repaint your ashamed statement as much as you want.
 I've yet to hear you say you are ashamed of your "English half" because of
 the Hamilton pedophile murders, or because of British forces collusion
 with loyalist death squads.

 Kevin, no matter how you put it, you are a self admitted racists, and
 supporter of state sponsered terrorism.  Your pathetic attempts to paint
 anyone with even "moderate views" as a supporter of terrorism is a sad
 statement on your character.

 Quite frankly, I can't understand why you've attacked Bill.  He has given
 an opinion that is moderate.  Are moderate views subject to your attacks
 as well?  Bill only gave his opinion, he's entitled to that.

>My remarks about America, would of
>    course be offensive if I had meant them,

 Back peddling now. I see it was all satire.  So if I was to refer to 
 England as a toilet of a country, or you as a supporter of British 
 state sponsered terrorism, or even to ask for similarities between
 English pedophiles who write the Queen and Mannerings who write the 
 Queen, we'd understand that it was just satire. 

 I like this. This satire. Do we need to label it as satire after we've
 said it, or while we write it?

                         Mark

    I shake my head in disbelief.
    
    Laurie.

    It is evident, judging from the last few notes Mark, that you twist
    facts to defend your own postion. Perhaps this is why your view on the
    Irish situation is so blinkered. It seems that you find the truth
    offensive.
    
    I agree that the best form of verbal defence is attack, but that attack
    must be made up from sound viewpoints and logical reasoning. Not the
    literal equivalent of throwing your toys out of your pram which you
    practice so eloquently. 
    
    You've made stereotypical remarks about the English, then you're the first 
    to jump on anybody elses (mostly imaginary on your part) indescretions.
    
    >because I'm a U.S. citizen?  A U.S. citizen who understands why violence
    is met with violence in kind.
    
    In the past 25 years the I.R.A. has killed more than 3 times the amount
    of people that Loyalist terrorists and British security forces have. By your
    flawed logic, this is licence for the U.V.F. to go and kill 700 odd I.R.A.
    sympathizers, god forbid.
    
    >does that make me a "bastard" in Kevin Mannerings opinion?  Perhaps since 
    I was born in London?
    
    Again you twist what Kevin says. Not worth discussing this one. 
    
    1252.38
    
    from BROWNL
    
    I unreservedly and roundly condemn the killing of the five Catholics to
    whom you refer, and if those people were British, (as opposed to
    pro-British, as you assert) then I am ashamed of my British 50%
    because of it.
    
    
    There you go Mark. Proof that you talk crap.
    
    
    CHARLEY
    

>    pro-British, as you assert) then I am ashamed of my British 50%
>    because of it.
   

  This begs the question.  If one is ashamed of the 50% of them that is
  Irish, and also ashamed of the 50% of them that is British, what
  part of that individual is left that he isn't ashamed of?

  

                              Mark

    Well now, let's be clear about this.
    
    If anyone anywhere is sincerely upset by my describing the USA as a 
    toilet of a country, and are so "intelligent", (as some one here described
    Mr H) that they didn't understand the irony, then guess what: I shall
    apologise and set it hidden, because I am not in the habit of posting
    hate mail to upset people.
    
    And if anyone for a second thinks seriously that I do not condemn some
    kind of violence unreservedly, then of course the same applies. I'll
    set the record straight. 
    
    Now we know who won't condemn terrorist murder don't we?
    
    We know who posts the hate notes which British/English people object to
    in vain don't we?
    
    What we don't have is a statement from any Americans here saying
    whether desribing the USA as a toilet of a country is free speech. 
    
    I think we should be told, because what Mr Holohan puts out is a
    thousand times worse in my book.
    
    Kevin 
    
    
     

    Wow.  I just started reading in here and am amazed that Mr Holohan
    is so easily missing points made by other noters.  I don't think
    Mr. Brown is saying he's is ashamed of himself;  he's claiming to
    be ashamed of having a heritage/culture which practices acts which
    he finds abhorent.  In other words, he's not screaming, "I'm proud
    to be 1/2 British because we stomp all over the human rights of
    Irish Nationals", nor is he screaming, "I'm proud to be 1/2 Irish and
    applaud the actions of the IRA against the Brits for the centuries
    of oppression forced upon my people".  I gather, from my reading, he's
    ashamed of both sides for perpetrating such atrocities.
    
    Christine

Re: the origin of the `toilet of a country' note, for those wondering.  Also 
contains apparent support for terrorist activities.  Posted without 
permission.

Chris.

           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 495.41                     Northern Ireland                       41 of 100
GYRO::HOLOHAN                                        34 lines  26-JUL-1995 14:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  I suggest that some of the English in here, try reading one of the recent
  Amnesty International reports on Human Rights Violations in northern
  Ireland.  It might educate and enlighten you at the same time.  The
  British are the problem in north east Ireland.  They were the problem,
  and they continue to be the problem.  They sit and play games while the
  Irish Republican Army has held good on their cease-fire for almost a year.

  All the Nationalists are asking for, is that the British sit down at the
  table and talk to them, so they can find a permanent peaceful settlement
  to this problem.  The British are asking for a "surrender" of Republican
  arms.  Why should this be a precondition on sitting down and talking
  with their democratically elected opposition?  The Nationalists want all
  weapons out of Irish politics, including the folks who hold most of the
  weapons (the British forces in north east Ireland).

  I get sick to the back teeth of English whiners who can complain about
  the death of a child at Warrington, and yet seem to forget the Irish 
  children who have been butchered by British troops.  Who's complaining
  about the murder of Carol Ann Kelly (12 year old girl shot in the back
  by British forces, while on her way home from the store). You complain about
  a bombing in Warrington, and seem to forget the  worst bombing of the
  war (the SAS bombing in Dublin/Monaghan).  You can somehow justify "bomber
  Harris" and the murder of civilian children in Dresden, but see it as
  a crime when the people you've stepped on strike back.
 
  You live in a country without a Bill of rights, with legislation that
  judges men and women guilty for silence, you hold juryless trials, and
  your police are notorious for framing Irish men and women.  Clean up
  your own toilet of a country first before you condemn men and women who
  fight against this injustice.


                                Mark   

What Laurie Brown is saying is perfectly clear to me. I don't believe Holohan
is missing the point. He's trying to distort the truth by twisting arguments 
and quoting out of context. He's always done this, it's just that his recent
attempts have been so unsubtle as to be laughable.

Dave

    Thanks, Dave.  As I said, I've just begun reading and don't know
    the histories of exchanges as yet.  I'm sure I'll catch on, I'm
    not too bad for a yank :-)

RE:                      <<< Note 1562.39 by GYRO::HOLOHAN >>>

>> >    pro-British, as you assert) then I am ashamed of my British 50%
>> >    because of it.
>>    
>>   This begs the question.  If one is ashamed of the 50% of them that is
>>   Irish, and also ashamed of the 50% of them that is British, what
>>   part of that individual is left that he isn't ashamed of?

    Fer Krissake, Holohan, are you just thick or are you playing games?
    (Why am I bothering?).

    Laurie.

You're on a fast learning curve round here!

Dave

RE:          <<< Note 1562.41 by GMASEC::KELLY "Not The Wrong Person" >>>

>>     Wow.  I just started reading in here and am amazed that Mr Holohan
>>     is so easily missing points made by other noters.  I don't think
>>     Mr. Brown is saying he's is ashamed of himself;  he's claiming to
>>     be ashamed of having a heritage/culture which practices acts which
>>     he finds abhorent.  In other words, he's not screaming, "I'm proud
>>     to be 1/2 British because we stomp all over the human rights of
>>     Irish Nationals", nor is he screaming, "I'm proud to be 1/2 Irish and
>>     applaud the actions of the IRA against the Brits for the centuries
>>     of oppression forced upon my people".  I gather, from my reading, he's
>>     ashamed of both sides for perpetrating such atrocities.
    
    Christine, thank you. That is *exactly* what I'm saying. But then,
    Holohan knows that, I'm sure.
    
    Laurie.

>    What we don't have is a statement from any Americans here saying
>    whether desribing the USA as a toilet of a country is free speech. 
 
What I, as an American (with 1/4 Irish blood, but that dosn't really come
into play for this note) would say is this... The concept of "free speech"
means that you can say this all you'd like and not be jailed for it.  Many
people would find it offensive, even if they were to agree that there were
problems with the country/govenrment/military/whatever.  It would certainly
provoke a fight under most circumstances.

   
-StevenV

    An apposite topic for this brief suggestion, perhaps:
    
    Let's not bother with him anymore. Don't be drawn into fruitless
    attempts to debate. 
    
    There is no debate.
    
    In this conference, it's easy to see that nearly all the people who 
    write about "The Troubles", "Peace" and the rest, have an interest in 
    genuine exchange of ideas and experiences -- and maybe even consensus.
    
    John

Re: >1562.34

Laurie, I read 1252.38....and take it in context.


Re: >1562.35

Kevin, You didn't offend me. I believe in free speech. I simply didn't know
where you were coming from and why. You have since explained. Thank you.

 



[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Mark,
    ]
    In the interests of balance, could you reproduce the Amnesty report for
    the legislation in the Republic!
    
    Sean
    

A minor deviation in this thread ...

 
>  You live in a country without a Bill of rights, with legislation that
>  judges men and women guilty for silence, you hold juryless trials, and
 

This is a common misconception (even in the British Republican Party), in fact
Britain does have a  'Bill of Rights'. This is believed to be the model
upon which the American Bill of Rights was based. It derives from the
period called 'The Glorious Revolution' circa 1690. If I'm not mistaken
this was won in the war of which the victory of William of Orange against
Catholic Royalist, Loyalists, in Ireland was a battle.


I don't know why but in British History this whole period is largely
ignored. However the American constitution owes much to the Republican
politics established in the English civil war and the  English 
'Bill of Rights' from the 'Glorious Revolution'.

The 1690 Bill of Rights probably still applies in many American states. The
English Lawyers for the Englishman who was executed in Georgia last year tried
to argue this. 

M  
.

>ignored. However the American constitution owes much to the Republican
>politics established in the English civil war and the  English 
>'Bill of Rights' from the 'Glorious Revolution'.

see for example http://www.edshow.com/civnet/Teaching/political.html

IRELAND

In June Ireland signed and ratified the Sixth Protocol to the European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. 

This is from the 1994 AI European Country report.


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Is that Human Rights as in to live peacefully, or Human Rights as to go around 
killing innocent people without fear of retribution?  Please excuse the 
cynicism.

Chris.

Re: Note 1562.55

Ref: Reply 54...."In June, Ireland signed and ratified the Sixth Protocol to
                  the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
                  Fundamental Freedoms"

Ref: Base Note...."the British government announced in April 1995 that police
                   powers were to be extended...(including) random trawling for
                   indiscriminating evidence and forced mouth swabs and 
                   searches."

Chris,

Since it has been established that the IRA is a small terrorist group that most 
Irish don't support, why don't we just compare the human rights direction and 
behavior of ENGLAND versus IRELAND?

How does intent of England in passing the Emergency Provisions Act compare with
intent of Ireland in signing and ratifying of the Sixth Protocol (referenced
above)? 


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Re: Note 1562.55

Ref: Reply 54...."In June, Ireland signed and ratified the Sixth Protocol to
                  the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
                  Fundamental Freedoms"

Ref: Base Note...."the British government announced in April 1995 that police
                   powers were to be extended...(including) random trawling for
                   indiscriminating evidence and forced mouth swabs and 
                   searches."

Chris,

Since it has been established that the IRA is a small terrorist group that most 
Irish don't support, why don't we just compare the human rights direction and 
behavior of ENGLAND versus IRELAND?

How does intent of England in passing the Emergency Provisions Act compare with
the intent of Ireland in signing and ratifying of the Sixth Protocol (referenced
above)? 


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Re: Note 1562.55

Ref: Reply 54...."In June, Ireland signed and ratified the Sixth Protocol to
                  the European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and
                  Fundamental Freedoms"

Ref: Base Note...."the British government announced in April 1995 that police
                   powers were to be extended...(including) random trawling for
                   indiscriminating evidence and forced mouth swabs and 
                   searches."

Chris,

Since it has been established that the IRA is a small terrorist group that most 
Irish don't support, why don't we just compare the human rights direction and 
behavior of ENGLAND versus IRELAND?

How does intent of England in passing the Emergency Provisions Act compare with
the intent of Ireland in signing and ratifying of the Sixth Protocol (referenced
above)? 


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Sorry for the redundant notes. I'm new at writing notes....and screwed up!
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    I see some 23 lefty marxist extremist MP's voted against the PTA. Brits
    the lot of them. Defied the party leadership to do it. Has anyone got a
    list of names ? Safe bet that the London Labour MP's Jeremy Corbyn,
    Bernie Grant, and Ken Livingstone were amoung those who voted against
    the legislation. Needless to say they also oppose sending young people
    from disadvantaged backgrounds onto London busses with badly made
    bombs.
    
    Advanced students of bull in this file will know that Bernie Grant is a
    well known Brit racist.
    
    Kevin 
    
    

    >Since my mother is British, and
    >my father is Irish, does that make me a "bastard" in Kevin Mannerings
    >opinion?  Perhaps since I was born in London?  Or do I really offend
    >him because I'm a U.S. citizen?  A U.S. citizen who understands why
    >violence is met with violence in kind.
    
    Just so anyone who wants to understand why I am saying Mr Holohan is a
    racist:
    
    As far as I am concerned people can define their identity however they
    wish. It will not affect my judgement of their views, and it will not
    be the subject of any of the despicable slurs and jibes which Mr
    Holohan deals in.  This is to me a faily basic tenet of civilised
    behaviour which Mr Holohan doesn't respect. That is not surprising,
    because the problem is not that he understands why violence is met with
    violence ( quite a few people are that far), but that he defends
    rationalises and propagandises for violence against innocent civilians
    and is against the IRA even apologising to the victims of their
    terrorist violence. He also supports the use of terror to achieve
    political ends. That is something quite different to "understanding why
    violence is met with violence."    
                                    

    I'm with Kevin on that one.
    
    MArk, threatens, insults and abuses anybody who disagrees with his
    (proven) flawed rhetoric.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Actually, Bernie Grant could be accused of racism, with some justification.

Years ago, after riots in a district of London for which Grant was a councillor,
he rejoiced in the slaying of a young Police officer.  The Policeman's head
was hacked off using some kind of knife, then carried around the area and
waved at other Police officers.  The Police officer was white, the rioters
predominantly black.

Grant's reaction - in the full knowledge of this murder - was delight that
the Police had received a "bloody good hiding".

He did later withdraw this comment when he realised it might not be good for
his parliamentary career.

I invite the panel to consider whether a politician would have gotten away 
with such a comment had the victim been black.

regards,
//alan

    WRT to "bastards". 
    
    I suspect, Kevin, that a better, and more apposite choice of word would
    have been "mongrel".
    
    Laurie.

    .61
    
    The majority was 192 votes wasn't it?
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    re .55, Chris, Could you provide a little clarity on, if you don't
    mind.
    
    
    

>    re .55, Chris, Could you provide a little clarity on, if you don't
>    mind.
    
just that in too many cases, the rights of a convicted criminal seem to be 
viewed by some of the human rights organisations as more important than the 
rights of their victims.

Unfortunately, I can see the possibility of this view being used by some 
others to attempt to accuse me of being a supporter of so called `state 
sponsored terrorism'.  Which I'm not, btw.

Chris.

    What Chris said.
    
    
    CHARLEY

Does ANYONE care to respond to Reply #57?

"How does the intent of England in passing the Emergency Provisions Act compare 
 with the intent of Ireland in signing and ratifying the Sixth Protocol (to the
 European Convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental 
 Freedoms)?"

"How does the human rights direction and behavior of England (in general)
 compare with Ireland's?"

Are these fair and reasonable questions to ask?

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    
    
    ....Bill.
    
    (1) You can't measure intent...so impossible to say
    
    There are infinite aspects to human rights...re Ireland and UK
    One  is no better nor worse than the other...
    
    whats the point of the question
    
    rgs,
    
    mick 

Re: .70 "What's the point of the question?"

Mick,

My interpretation of Chris' note .55 was that Chris was linking the government
of Ireland with the IRA and its terrorism - therefore, Ireland's signing and
ratification of the Sixth Protocol was hypocritical.

Divorcing the IRA from Ireland (which is fair enough), I thought it would be 
appropriate to ask for a comparison of Ireland's human rights track record with
that of England's. I had expected this to transition to an informative dialogue 
describing advantages and disadvantages to the people of NI if they were 
reunited with Ireland. Instead, there was no response at all.

I acknowledge that, as an Irish American, I am not well informed - but I am not
without bias. I don't believe that "one is no better or worse than the other".
My predisposition is that Ireland's government is kinder and gentler (more in 
tune with human rights issues) than that of the UK......and the base note only
reaffirms that predisposition. More (diverse) input would be helpful to me, as
I would prefer balanced thinking as I reflect upon these troubled times and 
possible solutions. 


[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Bill, thanks for expanding on your question, which I didn't fully understand.  
There was nothing more to my comment than a suggestion that perhaps the Irish 
government may be signing up to a treaty which will effectively force them to 
go easy on the terrorists.

I wasn't making any sort of comparison between the stances of governments, 
just observing that many of the high profile cases dealt with by human rights 
organisations seem to slant toward the rights of the perpetrator of a crime 
rather than a victim.  Having said that, I'm all for human rights, just 
against the misdirected attentions of `do gooders'.

On the other issues that you've highlighted in your note, I'm afraid that I'm 
really not qualified enough to comment, rather than unwilling to.

Chris.

    Not wanting to defend my native country but history will provide
    examples of horrific human rights abuses for both Ireland and England.
    Getting into a discussion about which one has the worst track record is
    irrelevent today.
    
    For a reasonable example of Irelands Human Rights abuses....look to
    Devalera's (sp?) crackdown of the IRA circa 1939.
    
    Shaun.

    
    Bill..To be honest I wouldn't know where to start to give you the
    info..As I Said its a very divesre topic and Human rights has many
    aspects...from the right to work..protection for the under priviliged
    equality..and of couse the fundemental one..the right to life...
    
    I wouldn't like to argue that we in Ireland are any better, kinder
    or gentler in ANY of the above...
    
    rgs,
    
    mick 
    
     

    re .57,
    
      Bill, 
    
         the emergency provisions act is admittedly extremely distasteful
    but remember that it was passed with the intent of improving the
    chances of a democratic society protecting itself against a terrorist
    organisation which claimed "responsibilty" for atrocities such as the
    Warrington bombing.
    
                                 Dennis
                                       

re: .75

I have to disagree here. 

Terrorism is a terrible thing and there are plenty of laws that can be
used to arrest those even suspected of it.


Suppose an IRA man moved into the house next to yours, perhaps said hello
to you a few times. That would be enough to have you arrested as a 
terrorist suspect under the PTA. Over 95% of the people arrested under
this act are released without charge. In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany
you at least had to have someone accuse you. This act goes against
some of the most basic English legal traditions.

M

>Over 95% of the people arrested under
>this act are released without charge. In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany
>you at least had to have someone accuse you. This act goes against
>some of the most basic English legal traditions.

Isn't the fact that they are released within three days of some comfort to you?

Remember that what the other side is doing is making dead people out of living
ones...

//atp

re: .76

>I have to disagree here. 

>Terrorism is a terrible thing and there are plenty of laws that can be
>used to arrest those even suspected of it.

    Unfortunately not true, the IRA is well organised into cell structures and
it's volunteers are trained to remain silent when questioned, questioning 
known associates is one possible way to penetrate the organisation. 

>Suppose an IRA man moved into the house next to yours, perhaps said hello
>to you a few times. That would be enough to have you arrested as a 
>terrorist suspect under the PTA. Over 95% of the people arrested under
>this act are released without charge. In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany
>you at least had to have someone accuse you. This act goes against
>some of the most basic English legal traditions.

   I'll take the chance, if it stops one person being killed or maimed by a 
bomb planted by some psychotic thug it's worth it. As Alan says in .77 they
    are trying to turn live people into dead ones  

                             Dennis

    >In Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany
    >you at least had to have someone accuse you.
    
    I'm against the PTA but this is over the top.
    
    The point for me is that the Unionists have abused  all legislation to 
    terrorise the minority population in NI. That causes more terrorism
    than it prevents. The act should be renamed the Cause of Terrorism Act.
    It prevents sfa.
    
    Kevin 

re: last three

Personally I get extremely upset if the police stop me to give me traffic
survey [it's ok if I speed!] the thought of spending a week detained for
some spurious reason ... I just daren't imagine.

Remember you would be subject to the usual tricks to entice a confession, 
techniques design to break "trained" terrorists. 

When the "Guildford 4" were arrested, the only link to them was a paid
informer. Whoever it was received about 500 Pounds Sterling (about  US
$4000-5000 in todays money). About 50 people were pulled in under guise
of the PTA. The informer has never had to answer for their deeds. 

If the police had waited until they had real evidence they might have got
the "Balcombe Street Gang" much earlier than they did and saved lives.
When police take short cuts it increases the chance they will embark
on a "wild goose chase". So I don't accept the PTA helps anyone - other
than the real terrorists.

M 
  

    The evidence against the Guilford 4 also included "traces of explosives
    on the palms of their hands". These traces were obtained by scientific
    methods which were later proved to be inconclusive at their successive
    appeals.
    
    It should be noted that the film "In the name of the father" is about
    as factual as Oliver Stone's latest films.
    
    Shaun. 

re .79 
   
>    The point for me is that the Unionists have abused  all legislation to 
>    terrorise the minority population in NI. That causes more terrorism
>    than it prevents. The act should be renamed the Cause of Terrorism Act.

    
Could you expand on this?


re .80

>Personally I get extremely upset if the police stop me to give me traffic
>survey [it's ok if I speed!] the thought of spending a week detained for
>some spurious reason ... I just daren't imagine.

>Remember you would be subject to the usual tricks to entice a confession, 
>techniques design to break "trained" terrorists. 

Like I said, the PTA is extremely unpleasant. Unfortunately one of the effects 
of terrorism in a democratic society is to impact the human rights of 
non-terrorists, this is always the case, for extreme examples see the Pheonix 
program in Vietnam and the anti ETA death squads in Spain. I have no expertise 
in law enforcement or anti-terrorist operations so I have to believe the 
professionals, i.e. the Police and Security services if they say that the PTA 
is the minimum of extra powers that they need to combat the terrorists. To 
take the example above I'd still think it was worth it if the powers help to 
save one life or prevent one injury. Remember if there was no terrorism there 
would be no need for the PTA.
 

>If the police had waited until they had real evidence they might have got
>the "Balcombe Street Gang" much earlier than they did and saved lives.
>When police take short cuts it increases the chance they will embark
>on a "wild goose chase". 

Could you expand on this?

  
                             Dennis

    .81
    
    Wot 'e said.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    
    
    I'm busy today at the mo, but just quickly:
    
    re please expand:
    
    Dennis
    
    The way to stop terror is to achieve a political consensus, not
    repression. 
    
    Anyone who thinks a few dope smoking squatters from Maida Vale managed
    to get from 'home' to Guildford and back to the elefant&castle for a
    gig within the time available (I think it was 50 mins from Guildford to
    the E&C) should be appointed a high court judge or a qc. Then they will
    never need to get real.
    
    Anyone who thinks that framing up a few squatters will prevent terror
    is equally out of touch. 
    
    As for explosives, I suppose you believe the SUN headlines about Mrs
    McGuires kitchen? A middle-aged tory voter as a terrorist leader. What
    a joke.
    
    Francis Hughes and Bobby Sands were quiet schoolboys until they got
    picked up and tortured under "pta" type laws. There are thousands like
    them. Thousands. Bobby Sands was elected an MP in Armagh by people who
    reject this repression. 
    
    So if you want to stop people getting on the 171 with badly made bombs,
    put away the silly legal and technical toys and start working on a
    peaceful democratic solution.
    
    The present terror, like the mad cow disease, is the result of immense
    political stupidity.  It will take time and money to fix. 
    
    Mr Trimble and his cronies in the tory party are as much help as the
    crooks who smuggle diseased cows into the food chain. 
    
    Kevin 

One question. When did the PTA come into effect? Before or after the start
of terrorist activity?

Dave

     re: .84
    
    You're quite right, I misstakedly attributed the 'explosive swabs' to
    the Guildford 4 when they were indeed taken from the Birmingham 6. As
    someone who hates propagating unfounded oppinions, I feel quite
    ashamed.
    
    My major agrievance with the film 'In the name of the Father' is that
    it never gave the prosecution the platform to present its case. Still,
    I accept that Hollywood has a need for Hero's and thus must sometimes
    rewrite history such that Hero's are made.
    
    Sick but true.
    
    Shaun.

    pta=son of special powers act=son of riot act=son of 800 years etc etc

    
    
    I used to work in Digital with a guy who had direct experience with the
    PTA.  He is a Catholic from Belfast who has since left Digital.
    
    When he was graduating from university in the North in '71 or '72, he
    was picked up, detained and interogated. Upon his release after the
    mandatory period, he was again picked up no less than 24 hours later.
    He was held for a period of 15 days in total. He was never charged with
    anything, but he was beaten up pretty good. It also cost him a job
    because his employers in the North didn't want anything to do with
    a Catholic that had been detained, irrespective of whether or not he had
    done anything wrong.
    
    This was just a tad more than inconvenient.
    
    Now, this guy was no angel, but he was one of the more honest people
    I've ever met, and he claims that he never had any affiliation whatsoever
    with the paramilitaries. 
    
    He was also smart enough not to let this turn him toward retribution,
    but I can see very easily how it might have.
    
    
    Also, for the record, didn't Mullin's book on the Birmingham Six
    indicate that the chemical reaction on the hands on the men could have
    been caused by the coating on the playing cards or by the lacquer on
    the bar in the train station ?  

    Re: .89
    
    You are right about the coating. If memory serves me correctly,
    the same coating can be found on some cigarette packets.
    
    The weight of forensic evidence against the defendants was reduced
    further by admissions that one of the reagents in the chemical tests
    (NaOH -- caustic soda by its common name) was used at the wrong 
    concentration. The concentration was out by a factor of 10.
    
    John

In the face of the PTA, I would think that the Irish Catholics in NI would be 
anxious for the NI counties to be reunited with Ireland. Is that true?

Is the Irish government very motivated to have a reunited Ireland?
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    The difference between the PTA type laws in the UK and Ireland has been
    in the application of the powers granted to the security forces.
    
    When internment has been used against the IRA in the
    Republic, it appears to have been well targeted against those who were
    actively involved in the IRA. 
    
    The use of internment in NI and the PTA in the UK has been haphazard
    and hampered by a lack of good intelligence. The result is a
    scatter-gun approach where an unacceptably large proportion of those
    targeted were innocent.
    
    I suspect there is little difference in the laws themselves and their 
    various provisions.
    
    
    

re: Balcombe Street Gang

Three members of that cell confessed to their role in the bombings.
Their confessions went beyond culpability and supplied details that
would have only been known to the bombers (i.e. the precise placement
of the bomb and they were able to describe the layout of the Parking Garage
where they loitered before placing the bomb).

My point is that if the police had put their efforts into catching these
terrorists, they would have caught them before they placed other bombs.
As to how it did this - the primary anti-terrorist squad was fully
occupied with the Guildford 4. Other officers did have leads that they
could have followed but were told not to follow them as the 'real' bobmbers
had been caught. 

This is a bit like the OJ Simpson case: the LAPD will not reopen the 
investigation into that murder because to do so would be to admit
that the case against OJ was not as solid as Gil Garceti would have
you believe. 

M 

    >>The difference between the PTA type laws in the UK and Ireland has been
    >>in the application of the powers granted to the security forces.
    
    >>When internment has been used against the IRA in the
    >>Republic, it appears to have been well targeted against those who were
    >>actively involved in the IRA. 
    
    I'm sorry but this is not at all true. During the last bombing
    campaign on the mainland during the late 1930's, otherwise known as the
    S-Plan, Eire introduced the harshest implementation of internment
    without trial yet seen. De valera and his ministers believed that
    internment without trial was the only weapon the could defeat the IRA.
    Mere suspicion of IRA membership was enough to be arrested and put
    before a military court. As Mountjoy and Arbour Hill prisons
    overflowed, a concentration camp was constructed at the Curragh
    military camp - with no heating facilities and limited washing
    facilities. An attempt was made to burn down the Curragh and the
    culprits were brutally punished, sometimes using methods later employed
    by British military personnel in the early days of internment in 1971.
    
    One incident was several days after a failed arson attempt, prisoners
    were lined up outside their huts and soldiers fired indisciminately.
    
    Even two IRA men died on Hunger Strike in a vain attempt to change
    Eire's policy of criminalisation of IRA prisoners.
    
    Shaun.
    

    re .95
    
    Shaun,
    
    I am not disputing the drift of your argument, but what are your
    sources for this ? I have never heard of, or read about, a shooting
    incident at the Curragh. 
    
    Kevin
    

re .85    
    
>    The way to stop terror is to achieve a political consensus, not
>    repression. 
 
	I agree with you and I've stated before that HMG was wrong IMHO to 
delay the start of all party talks
   
>    Anyone who thinks a few dope smoking squatters from Maida Vale managed
>    to get from 'home' to Guildford and back to the elefant&castle for a
>    gig within the time available (I think it was 50 mins from Guildford to
>    the E&C) should be appointed a high court judge or a qc. Then they will
>    never need to get real.
    
  
	Again agreed but surely this is the result of police and security 
service incompetence when under pressure to "get a result" rather than an 
indictement of the PTA    

>     I suppose you believe the SUN headlines 
 	
	I resent that remark sir :-). I don't read that repulsive rag and I 
certainly wouldn't believe anything I happened to see in it    

>    Francis Hughes and Bobby Sands were quiet schoolboys until they got
>    picked up and tortured under "pta" type laws. There are thousands like
>    them. Thousands. Bobby Sands was elected an MP in Armagh by people who
>    reject this repression. 
 
	Again I would say that this is evidence of incompetence and stupidity 
rather than an indictment of the PTA. Would lack of the PTA have prevented 
this?   
 
>    So if you want to stop people getting on the 171 with badly made bombs,
>    put away the silly legal and technical toys and start working on a
>    peaceful democratic solution.
    
>    The present terror, like the mad cow disease, is the result of immense
>    political stupidity.  It will take time and money to fix. 

	Again agreed, but I would like as much protection as I can get from 
the psychopaths while this is happening    
     
re .86

>One question. When did the PTA come into effect? Before or after the start
>of terrorist activity?

After

re .89

   A nasty story, but again surely a tale of incompetyence and stupidity 
rather than a direct result of the existence of the PTA 
   
re .94

   See re .89

                               Dennis

    Kevin, I recently purchased a book by Martin Dillon, called "25 Years
    of Terror - The IRA's war against the British" and previously published
    as "The Enemy Within". Its focus is mainly opon the IRA's targeting of
    mainland Britain. He introduces the book with an explanation of the
    IRA's previous mainland campaign circa 1939-40. Eire's implementation
    of Internment is discussed between pages 50-60, whilst the shooting
    incident at Curragh is described on page 53. 
    
    "Five IRA men were shot, one in the back." and apparently this "...left
    a bitter legacy in IRA History".
    
    Shaun.

    Shaun,
    
    does Mr Dillon give a source for this? It sounds a bit hairy to me.
    
    Kevin

    He doesn't actually provide a source, which is a bit disapointing I
    know, however he is an acknowledged expert in terrorism. His other
    books include "The Shankhill Butchers", "The Dirty War", "Killer in
    Clowntown" and "Stone Cold".
    
    Conner Cruise O'Brien recognizes him as "the greatest living authority
    on Irish Terrorism"...however, I'm not too keen on Connor Cruise
    O'Brien myself.
    
    Personaly, i'd say that Martin Dillon wouldn't be led astray by
    un-researched here-say so I can accept his account as being true.
    Perhapps someone else in this conference could provide further sources
    to either reinforce or discredit his ascertation.
    
    Shaun.

    > I suppose you believe the SUN headlines
    
     >       I resent that remark sir :-).
    
    Sorry. I'm just pissed off at the subtle campaign which has been going
    on to suggest that the Guildford four were really guilty of the
    bombings, but over enthusiastic well meaning bobbies got their
    notebooks in a twist.
    
    I think we would all like to be protected from bombers. I'm just saying
    the solution is 98% political. What is the point of locking up
    terrorists uusing methods which enable the IRA to recruit invisible
    replacements?
    
    It would seem the IRA is having some recruiting problems. "Volunteer"
    O'Brien from Gorey was 19 when they recruited him, from a disadvantaged
    background and not at all "suitable."  They are scraping the barrell
    and O'Brien's family caused them a lot of political damage, indeed they
    positively set out to do it, at the funeral. 
    
    On the question of how the terror started: This is a chicken and egg
    question, but the point for me is that the question of Irish
    self-determination was sabotaged by violence stemming from the
    Unionists. The UVF was founded in 1912. The IRA in 1916. The majority
    of the people of Ireland and the majority of MP's at Westminster
    elected by the people of Great Britain and Ireland (as the UK then was)
    voted for a 32 county Irish Parliament in Dublin. 
    
    The 26-6 settlement was a piece of trickery achieved with terror and
    the threat of terror.
    
    On the subject of repression: Britain has never been able to rule any
    part of Ireland without an army of soldiers mercenaries, paid to do the job
    . It is time they went home and took their pta with them.
    
    Kevin

     > Conner Cruise O'Brien recognizes him as "the greatest living
    >authority   on Irish Terrorism"
    
    Connor is a conner alright. If he says that about Dillon then I cannot
    accept Dillon as an objective source.  But I have  a very dim view of
    the quality of "history" written by academics and journalists, since I
    studied the Casement story in depth. A lot of what you read as fact is 
    fiction which gets repeated over and over until it is accepted fact.
    
    Kevin

    An interesting point Kevin, tis true that repetative fiction can become
    fact over time. The problem here is who to believe. In my experience
    i've found that the more books I read concerning the Troubles and their
    history gives rise to an ever increasing reading list. When should I
    sit back and form my oppinion ? Should I just stop at the headlines,
    perhapps the odd book or two, or should I make a concerted effort to
    understand all ?
    
    I seem to have wandered all around the political spectrum, from the
    English View of broadsheets to the Nationalistic View of Tim Pat Coogan
    et elk. Yet still, i've not found an unbiased account of the troubles
    which can not be discredited by fiction-fact or fact-fact....both of
    which is now fact!
    
    That aside, and not trying to defend Martin Dillon, I can only say that
    he has worked in the BBC in NI for eighteen years whereas I've spent
    the same ammount of time sitting on my arse in the comforts of more
    stable surroundings.
    
    Shaun.

      RTw  04/01 1240  UK to rush through security law to stop IRA
    
        By Alan Wheatley
    
        LONDON, April 1 (Reuter) - The government said on Monday it would rush
        through a bill to give police new stop and search powers in mainland
        Britain to combat guerrillas in the wake of the recent resumption by
        the IRA of its bombing campaign.
    
        Police are already able to search suspicious baggage and vehicles, but
        officers told ministers they also needed the power to look for small
        bombs that can be carried in a coat pocket.
    
        "We face a serious threat from terrorism. It is the government's clear
        duty to take every step possible to meet that threat," Home Secretary
        Michael Howard, the interior minister, told parliament.
    
    
        The new law will also allow police to search non-residential buildings,
        such as lock-up garages, where bombs may be stored.
    
        They will also gain the right to search freight at ports, set up street
        cordons, restrict parking and remove vehicles.
    
        Howard, who asked members of parliament (MPs) to approve the law before
        the House of Commons rises on Wednesday for its Easter recess,
        introduced the measures with the cooperation of the leadership of the
        main opposition Labour party.
    
        Some Labour MPs, already unhappy with party leader Tony Blair's
        decision last month not to oppose renewal of the main body of
        "anti-terrorism" legislation, immediately denounced the extra powers as
        a draconian infringement on civil liberties.
    
    
        A vote against the new laws by some left-wingers would be an
        embarrassment for Blair, whose bipartisan approach on the sensitive
        issue of Northern Ireland is meant to send the message to voters that
        Labour is a responsible government-in-waiting.
    
        Howard countered that the new powers were very tightly drawn and would
        be closely scrutinised by an independent reviewer.
    
        "They are sensible practical measures which will be subject to
        important safeguards. They will help the police to protect our towns
        and our cities and to save lives. I ask the House for its cooperation
        in placing them on the statute book with a minimum delay," Howard said.
    
        Ministers consulted police on what extra powers they needed after the
        Irish Republican Army shattered a 17-month truce by detonating a huge
        truck bomb in east London on February 9.
     
    
        It was the first of four attacks in the capital in a month by the IRA,
        which is fighting to oust Britain from Northern Ireland. One bomb
        detonated on a bus, killing the bomber, and another went off in a
        litter bin. A third was found unexploded in a telephone box.
    
        There have been no bombs since March 9 but Howard said the new powers,
        which essentially will bring the law in mainland Britain into line with
        that in Northern Ireland, were urgently needed.
    
        "We face a real threat of a continuing IRA campaign of murder. No one
        should be deceived by the fact that for a few weeks we have had a
        lull," Howard said.
    
        REUTER
    

    Re .104
    
    The proposed legislation will limit these powers to particular
    predetermined "zones". However, there does not seem to be a limit to
    the size of a zone since London is defined as a zone for other
    temporary powers at the moment.
    
    Ed.
    

Ref: Reply #91

     "In the face of the PTA, I would think that the Irish Catholics in NI would
      be anxious for the NI counties to be reunited with Ireland. Is that true?

     "Is the Irish government very motivated to have a reunited Ireland?

As a new noter, perhaps I'm asking questions that are too simple, or not 
relevant to the interests of other noters.....but, if anyone would field 
these questions, I would appreciate their opinion (I think!).

Answers to the above aside, what I wrestle with is the fairness of the process
that's evolving, i.e., to determine the direction with NI. Over the years, 
hasn't NI been "seeded" with English who represent the majority - who would
choose not to become part of Ireland? In the interest of fairness, why can't
England simply set a date, as with Hong Kong, whereby NI will be reunited with 
Ireland, irrespective of the English population in NI?
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Bill, may I ask why you think that the border between Ireland and NI is any 
different to the borders between any other countries, or why the people who 
have settled in NI are not regarded as being nationalised as is the case with 
many other countries?  I'm not being argumentative, I'm just curious to know 
why people consider NI to be a special case, when the border and settlements 
are older than some established countries.

Chris.

Chris,

Re: "...why do you think that the border between Ireland and NI is any different
     than the borders between other countries?"

My apology for being so shallow Chris (!), but I've been surrounded by Irish-
Americans all of my life who have simply taken the position that Ireland is a
small island that was divided at the end of its last fight for independence and 
freedom from British rule. I've been programmed to perceive it as a "whole" that
has been left unjustly divided, and that justice will be served when it is
reunited. 

Re: "...why are the people who have settled in NI not regarded as being
    nationalised as is the case with many other countries?"

Again, its programming. My perception is that the Irish Catholic descendants of
the Irish who resided in NI when the country was divided have been tormented
and discriminated against by the British government and by the ever-increasing
number of English moving in to enjoy the spoils of war. The people that are 
nationalized are those who already had ties to England when they moved in, not
the Irish Catholics who would prefer to be under the auspices of the government
of Ireland.

Thanks for asking, Chris. My perceptions may not be accurate to an objective
historian, but they are very real and affect how I see the NI scenario. 

Feel free to be argumentative! There are multiple sides to every story!

[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

    Bill, I'm glad you have written your note because you have quite
    clearly laid it on the line that "these are my perceptions....now whats
    wrong with them ?". The diffulculty here is that the ingrained history
    of Ireland and Northern Ireland is not only quite vast, but also very
    complex. I'd reccomend that you aquire a few books on the subject to
    give you a basic background on the history if you are genuinely
    concerned that your perceptions could be wrong.
    
    The english did 'seed' Northern Ireland, mainly with scotish
    protestants. The majority of those 'seeds' have been living in Northern
    Ireland for at least three centuries. If you were to deny them their
    birth right as citizens from the Irish continant then you must also
    deny Americans the right to be citizens of the USA.
    
    Secondly, partition was created by the British Government - agreed opon
    by the Irish Government at the time - to avoid a full scale civil war.
    The protestant majority of Northern Ireland had no desire to be ruled
    by the Republic and rebeled against the devolution of Ireland as a
    whole. They prefered to stay in union with Britain and eventually
    succeeded to pursuade Britain to create a Unionist State. A state
    parliament was then set up, called Stormont, which went on to govern
    Northern Ireland until the early 1970's - without the intervention of
    the British Government at all.
    
    The consequent persecution of the catholics was born out of fear by the
    unionist state that catholics, by the very nature of their religion,
    were in allegance with the republican cause. In order for the unionist
    state to be preserved the unionists crteated what was known as "A
    protestant state for a protestant people" - that state effectively
    considered catholics as second class citizens.
    
    With the arrival of civil rights in the 1960's in Europe and America,
    the time was ripe for anti-discrimination demonstrations in Northern
    Ireland. These demonstrations were seen as a challenge to the authority
    of the protestant state and thus sevearly oppressed by the police. They
    often also ended in clashes between the demonstrators and loyalist groups.
    These clashes were to develop to sevear civil unrest.
    
    Eventually, the police could no longer contain the civil unrest and the
    British Army was called in. At first, the Army was considered as
    saviours by the catholic communities - as they were the communities
    left most suffering during the civil unrest. Unfortunatley, the Army
    had no clear mandate and no knowledge of percieved enemies - this
    coupled with the fact that Stormont still maintained a strong influence
    on the army meant that the Army was duped into thinking its real threat
    was the IRA (which was virtually dead pre 1967 and hardly a threat in
    1969). Because the IRA tends to recrute from Nationalist Areas and
    hence catholic areas then the innitial Honeymoon betwen the Army and
    catholics gave way to a feeling opf mutual distrust and hate.
    
    Stormont eventually voted themselves out of government in reaction to
    strong demands from the British Government and thus the British imposed
    direct rule.
    
    Now get some books......
    
    
    Shaun.

Re 1562.109

Shaun,

>    The english did 'seed' Northern Ireland, mainly with scotish
>    protestants. The majority of those 'seeds' have been living in Northern
>    Ireland for at least three centuries.

	Wow. They must have a really healthy lifestyle if they can live
	that long!

>    If you were to deny them their
>    birth right as citizens from the Irish continant then you must also
>    deny Americans the right to be citizens of the USA.

	How long have the "Irish" people in NI lived there and why does
	one section of the community (with a shorter residency) have
	more rights to determine their environment than any other?

	Well done on the rest of your note which seems to me to be a 
	reasonable assessment of the situation.

Ed.

    Eddie,
    
    >>Wow. They must have a really healthy lifestyle if they can live
    >>that long!
    
    Now, now Eddie,....you knew full well that I meant 'successive
    generations had lived there for at least three centuries'....didn't
    you? ;^)
    
    >>How long have the "Irish" people in NI lived there and why does 
    >>one section of the community (with a shorter residency) have
    >>more rights to determine their environment than any other?
    
    The first part of the question is difficult to answer. The 'Native
    Irish', if I can use these words, roamed all over the place - mainly
    for work, but also as a direct consequence of the Famine, unreasonable
    landlords and Mr Git Cromwell (who was not too popular in England
    either). Parish records only go back as far as 16-17th centuary but i'd
    say that if a family has existed in one place for three generations then
    the decendants of that family can call easily call it home.
    
    The second part of the question is even harder. Ignoring the trap of
    'shorter residency', i'd say that all sections of the community should
    determine their environment - but it is a fact of life that the
    majority will have more say; even with proportional representation. The
    real question here is should the future of NI be determined by the
    whole of the island (in which case the Nationalists will have the most
    say) or by the residents of NI (in which case the Unionists will have
    the most say).
    
    The only way to answer the question is to first decide whether NI is a
    legitamate entity or not.
    
    Shaun.

Shaun,

Thanks for the primer on NI history over the last three centuries.

Is your description of Irish history (in NI) how Sinn Fein and the IRA would
describe it?

Why are they so passionate about reuniting all of the counties?
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

>Why are they so passionate about reuniting all of the counties?

I'm not too clear on this one either, perhaps someone could enlighten me?  I'm 
also confused as to why some people support both the reunification of Ireland, 
and independance for Scotland... er, either they support the idea of a single 
entity for an island or they don't!  Personally, my thoughts are that NI 
(and Scotland, for that matter, if that's what the Scots in general want) 
should be a self governing state, that way the people who actually live there 
get what *they* want.

Chris.

    .112
    
    Just a quick answer Bill.
    
    >Is your description of Irish history (in NI) how Sinn Fein and the IRA
    >would describe it?
    
    No, there are too many facts in Shauns note.
    
    If you were to read the Sinn Fein web page, it is obvious to all on
    this side of the atlantic that it is biased, twists the truth and even
    goes so far as to tell propaganda-orientated lies. Not balanced
    reading.
    
    
    CHARLEY

    Bill,
    
    Shaun's rendition is a pretty fair and balanced attempt.  The problem
    with any rendition of Irish history is that there is plenty of room for
    people to interpret the reasons for historical events.  That tends to
    be where emotions take over.
     
    Irish history is very interesting.  There is a three book set that you
    can find in paperback in the US which was written a few years ago by a
    Thomas Kee which is informative.
    
    Mike
    
    

    re .109
    
    >Secondly, partition was created by the British Government - agreed
    >opon by the Irish Government at the time - to avoid a full scale civil
    >war.
    
    I've been out with 'flu for a few days, but I'd like to comment on this
    as most nationalists and non-unionists of all descriptions would
    disagree with it. It also skips over the monstrous injustice and
    opression which partition is. Not least, it is an important part of why
    the IRA believe they have a mandate for terror. From my point of view
    it is not well informed opinion and an obstacle to peace.
    
    I have written already here about how the home rule bill go onto the
    statute book at Westminster, granting and Irish Prliament in Dublin
    for a 32 county entity which would have left Ireland much as Canada or
    Australia. All party talks without preconditions to deal with the civil
    unrest caused by UVF terror, private unionist armies, and tory party
    support for all that, known as the Winsor Castle Talks, were suspended
    after WW1 broke out. From a constitutional point of view these talks
    were not taken up again until the treaty negotiations which lead to
    partition in 1922. The period in between was marked by revolutionary
    upheaval in Ireland and much of Europe. I am skipping it here, but so
    does the sentence quoted above. The point is this: Loyd Goerge
    threatened terrible and bloody war if the treaty was not accepted. The
    vote in Dail Eireann on the treaty  was a 26-county vote based, as I
    recall it, on partitionist elections called by Loyd George. Most
    important, the leader of the pro-treaty fraction, Michael Collins,
    believed there would be a referendum in each of the 6 counties which
    would have lead to a 29-3 solution. He is also believed to have though
    that he would have been able to destabilise a 3 county NI with terror
    and is thought to have continued his terror campaign after the treaty
    was agreed, most noably by having General Wilson assasinated in
    Kensington.
    
    In the meantime, disenfranchised, ignored, and isolated, the catholic
    ghettoes in NI were subjected to the most appaling pogroms,
    discrimination, poverty and state opression. The refrendum in the 6
    counties was allowed to run into sand, and a stand-off developed which
    has lasted to the present day. 
    
    The border itself is a topological abomination, which those of us who
    have witnessed the poverty it produced percieve differently to those
    who haven't. It cuts off three counties in NI and 4 counties in the 26
    from their natural economic hinterland and services. Together with the
    substantial natural barriers of lakelands and mountains it leaves a
    trail of economic destruction behind it worse than anything caused by
    the IRA, as parts of Ireland became virtually inacessible and
    economically cut off from investment and development. The result was
    mass emigration and poverty which did not start to turn around until
    Ireland and the UK joined the EC in the seventies. There are still
    parts of Ireland where the population is falling and every part of
    rural Ireland has its old batchelor farmers eeking out a wretched
    existence on the edge of poverty. The fringe Islands of the Gaeltacht
    have suffered enourmously. I am not saying all this was caused by the
    border, but it played a major role in the isolation of Donegal, Sligo, 
    Cavan and Monaghan. This had a severe knock on effect in Mayo, Leitrim,
    Roscommon and Longford as the Shannon, the lakes and the mountains add
    to the problems.  Even today poor women with breast cancer in Donegal have
    to travel to Dublin for chemotherapy instead of Derry city.  
    
    Those who wish to ignore this and express the sentiment that the border
    was agreed fair and square and all change is OUT OUT OUT, to qoute Mrs
    Thatcher, and simply repeating the unionist veto and are part of the
    problem, not the solution. There must be some solution which respects
    both traditions but which creates full economic and social integration
    of the 32 counties.
    
    Kevin 
    
    

    Kevin,
    
    Good note. As I mentioned earlier, it would be interesting if we could
    discuss the legitimacy of the NI state. Your note goes some way in
    disputing it but where does the NI state stand legally ? What sort of
    international recognition does it have ? To say that the republic and
    nationalist community of NI were duped into accepting partition is not an
    argument against the states legitimacy.
    
    Perhapps someone else could enlighten me on the legaleese.
    
    Shaun.

    The legal position is confused, I think. Sinn Fein would proclaim
    allegiance to the 32 county Republic declared in 1916. The pro treaty
    fraction were never entitled to  declare a Republic, and betrayed it by
    accepting the free state. 
    
    Take it down from the mast you Irish traitors,
    It's the flag we Republicans made
    It can never belong to free stater's 
    They have brought on it nothing but shame.
    
    This is one of their favorite songs, about the Irish  Tricolour.
    
    In 1937 Devalera used the abdication crisis to proclaim a 32 county
    Republic including territorial waters, which was approved in a 26
    county referendum. Interestingly, the GoI Act forgot the seas so some
    Gaelic speaking fishermen breaking uk fishing law off the coast of NI
    were causing discussion. On the other hand in the 70's some clowns in
    the Royal Navy shocked the seagulls on Rockall by placing the union
    jack on this heap of rock and proclaiming allegiance to her majesty the
    queen. I think they have done it every year since. I knew a guy in the
    seventies who was seriously planning to sail out to rockall and live
    there for a while and declare his allegiance to the Republic. There are
    oil and fishing rights at stake.
    
    The bottom line is, it is a matter of negotiation. 
    
    I'm in favour of peace and plenty of fudge, joint sovereignty, one
    curerency, one social system but you can have a harp or a crown or a
    euro on it depending on your choice, bit like car plates. 
    
    I suppose it may be a curiosity for some PhD on international law, but
    the provos won't recognise the court and they won't wear the prison
    uniform will they?  
    
    What use is legal legitimacy if there is no consensus and no peace.
    
    One day we shall storm Buckingham Palace and raise the red flag. Just
    you wait... We'll exile them to the isle of St Kitt's, that'll keep the
    Scots haapy...
    
    Kevin

    Kevin,
    
    Those are excellent notes.
    
    One issue that I would have added to Shaun's notes was the way the
    border was drawn (and redrawn) to provide a critical mass that allows
    the NI to exist.  Your note spells out the effects of this arbitrary
    decision.
    
    In respect to legitimacy, I'm not all that familiar with the treaties
    that caused the NI to become a state.  But basic fairness and equality
    of treatment would have gone a long way toward a de facto legitimacy
    for NI.
    
    Mike
    
    

>    The english did 'seed' Northern Ireland, mainly with scotish
>    protestants. The majority of those 'seeds' have been living in Northern
>    Ireland for at least three centuries. If you were to deny them their
>    birth right as citizens from the Irish continant then you must also
>    deny Americans the right to be citizens of the USA.

I beg to differ on this. The English seeded the whole of Ireland, though
perhaps "seeded" is a bad word as many went there after being pushed out
of Scotland by the English. 

    
>    Secondly, partition was created by the British Government - agreed opon
>    by the Irish Government at the time - to avoid a full scale civil war.

I don't think there was any Irish Govt. at the time (at least as recongnized
by the English Govt.). It was Michael Collins, he was told to sign or there
would be  English troops sent to Ireland.

    
M
 
 

Apparently last week Michael Howard was questioned about how many
vehicles had been searched under the PTA. His answer was that 21,000 were
stopped and searched, 2 arrests were made and he didn't know if
either had been charged with any crime.

A person was arrested, under the PTA, who was believed to have been
involved in the bombings in Paris last year. When they informed the
French authorities they were told that this person was not wanted
in France and they didn't want him :-)

For all the grief that this act causes, it doesn't seem to be very 
effective. 

M