I wrote this yesterday, but having reread it at the time I didn't think the tone was really appropriate so soon after the murder.
Having given it a 24 hours further reflection, I think my main point is still valid:
"It's just a question of semantics I suppose whether you label it as a terrorist murder or you call it "only" a "fatal sectarian lynching". The family have suffered in exactly the same way and will be now feeling the same loss as Mark Quinsey's, Patrick Azinkar's and Stephen Carroll's families did earlier on in the year.
What is the sad truth though is that it is likely to have less impact in the corridors of power, both locally and on the national stage, than those three other attrocities I mentioned. Why?
The three previous murders certainly threatened the "Process". But post the "Belfast Agreement", in "order to keep the peace" (quite another thing entirely than a real "Peace Process" or even it's cynical little brother "The Process"), a large majority of not just the political elite but also we, the population at large, have been prepared to allow sectarianism, "anti-social" behaviour and downright gangsterism to fester in the dark corners of NI.
A government, police force, a citzenry and a "Peace Process" worthy of the name would not have tolerated such a situation to arise which allowed a 49 year-old father of four to be beaten to death in broad daylight on a Sunday afternoon. It's as simple as that."
12 comments:
Hear, hear mate, I hope they catch and charge the low life who did that, there is NO justification.
"..have been prepared to allow sectarianism, "anti-social" behaviour and downright gangsterism to fester in the dark corners of NI."
Sorry pal but the state that you owe allegiance to carved out part of Ireland based on sectarianism. Anti-Catholicism has always been at the core. Hand-wringing and unbelievably, alluding that the peace process is to blame won't work. I'm fed up with middle-class Prods washing their hands of the sectarianism that they fostered. Protestant mobs killing innocent Catholics is not a new occorunce. It is a reality that some of us have to be aware of, literally it may mean that our lives depend on it.
McClarty's second statement:
"My immediate thoughts are with Mr. McDaid's family and friends who have had their world turned upside down so tragically. The attack on Mr. McDaid was abhorrent. How many more times will we have to make statements condemning sectarian violence and death in Northern Ireland?
We all have a responsibility to challenge people in our communities who think this is in any way acceptable. I urge the people of Coleraine to come together at this time to defeat these thugs. Anyone with any information must go to the police immediately; these people must be caught and brought to justice."
I seriously wouldn't have changed anything in that.
Re the overall question, two parts.
First short-term- the PSNI should be allowed (irrespective of the Process or the squeals fro wherever quarter) to do their job. That job is protecting the citizens of NI and that can only be done if the appeasement of paramilitary organisations, gangs and general anti-socials stops and they're allowed to take the gloves off. Would you agree on that or not?
Sevcondly, sectarianism.
In the long-term how would you solve it?
>>That job is protecting the citizens of NI and that can only be done if the appeasement of paramilitary organisations, gangs and general anti-socials stops and they're allowed to take the gloves off. Would you agree on that or not?<<
On the face of it, of course. However coming from Unionists it usually means an opportunity to get at Republican community workers. Then it makes no sense at all if they are doing a job for the wider benefit of the whole community at large. You know building bridges, keeping young people from attacking other young people across the peacelines etc. In that context Points scoring from Unionists is just madness.
As to sectarianism, zero tolerance. However we know that the Unionist community are far too attached to the old ways and traditions that all too often results in tasteless triumphalism and at worst what we have witnesses this past week. So my solution is just as pointless as the Unionist vendetta against Republican community workers.
How would you go about it?
Nationalist blames the Prods for the "norths" ills - SHOCKER! said...
Yes its all the Prods/Unionists/Loyalists/Orangies/Huns/Brits fault. Whatever Gerry. Hang up those eyes patches mate, its making you blind.
1.39 am poster, your comment was altered to remove the personal abuse.
Tony,
"On the face of it, of course. However coming from Unionists it usually means an opportunity to get at Republican community workers.'
Then on the fcae of it we're in agreement, I didn't mention community-workers fullstop. If they are genuinely working for the community, then fine. If "community worker" is a euphemism for "community controller" or "community enforcer" then not fine.
"As to sectarianism, zero tolerance."
Again full agreement.
And that would work without the need for enforcement form the police if everyone else is in full agreement with it which they quite clearly aren't. So, in my ideal world, the police and the legal system would be punishing everyone guilty of sectarian offences right from the kid with a spray can up to the politician who tries to contextualise, for example, the kind of thing we saw in Coleraine.
That's the stick approach which deals with the symptons. Trying to deal with cause with "a carrot" is much more difficult- two possibilities, a much heavier promotion of integrated education would help as would a deliberate, (agreed by all the political parties) mixed, integrated housing policy. But you won't get either because it's not in the political interest of too many people to de-ghettoise our society. Until you sort that out then sectarianism will thrive.
How would you go about it?
I guess we are in full agreement on the principles, and totally agree with you re-community workers Change is difficult and everyone has to play their part. Accepting our own parts though seems to be difficult, especially amongst Unionists in general. Hence my mentioning the upcoming so-called traditional festivals that Unionist are so attached to. And the rest of the world finds so abhorrent.
I still can't see how you view blaming the peace process computes with underlying naked sectarianism that underpins the whole shebang. I also fear that your progressive views don't match Unionist ones in general.
Anonymous 6.25am.
See above.
Also why do you think that your perception of my views are too often a reality?
"I still can't see how you view blaming the peace process computes with underlying naked sectarianism that underpins the whole shebang."
I'll give you one example to prove my point. Several years ago 300 loyalist paramilitaries took over an E Belfast estate in broad daylight, whilst the police stood by. They stood by because to intervene would have upset the unwritten agreement that the UDA/UVF and others have with the Peace Process- "don't push us and you keep your peace".
The loyalist paras are not actually the main drivers of sectarianism but the fact they are allowed to exist means that the PSNI can't do the work any other police force would be able to do with sectarianism, racism and other anti-social behaviour.
With a real peace, the paramilitaries would now be only an ugly memory; as it is the Peace Process has continually appeased them and as a result you've got more "Peace" walls today in Belfast than you did before the Agreement.
I agree with you that Loyalist paramilitaries have had plenty of time to get their act together and do the right thing. Although killing a few Taigs was only ever a by product of their organisation. They can no longer hide behind the tag of the "used and abused" ie. Claiming to be proxies of mainstream Unionism, now hung out to dry.
What about the rest of Unionism though O'neil? Can Unionist leaders and the middle classes not do a hellavu lot more? For example the response to this murder from some politicians was simply not good enough. The middle classes still attempt(and fail badly) to explain away what passes for Orange culture as normal. It is not and never can be, not whilst beligerence and aggression underpins it. I guess if we take away the hatred the majority would not bother with being associated with it.
This to me is a fundamental issue. How can sectarianism be takled anywhere whilst this passes for culture? Or are we proposing a farcical partial zero tolerance?
“What about the rest of Unionism though O'neil? Can Unionist leaders and the middle classes not do a hellavu lot more? For example the response to this murder from some politicians was simply not good enough. “
Yes, to the second question. But I think it’s improving, e.g. McClarty’s 2nd response was much better than his first, Empey and Nicholson didn’t put any conditionals on their condemnation (that’s not a praise, just a recognition of a good change) In each of the three cases, I couldn’t have asked or expected more. Why that doesn’t happen all the time (and with all the unionist parties), I really don’t know. I will say I don’t think it’s a class thing, some of the worst bigots I know are middle-class professionals and most of the serious workers against sectarianism are living in the w/c areas, but yep, it’s undoubtedly true to say there is too much of a detachment by the m/c generally from the problems of the inner city and estates in NI (not just within Unionism). But how do you *force* them to get more interested?
“The middle classes still attempt(and fail badly) to explain away what passes for Orange culture as normal. “
The middle-class, in the urban and flashpoint areas anyway, have walked away from the OO. Which is maybe one of its main problems as an organization. Perhaps more shop-keepers, managers, lawyers and accountants, people with a tangible reason to make sure the organization they belonged to wasn’t in the news (usually for the wrong reasons) could contribute to a more “modern” outlook. An organization which promotes the values of exclusively one religion is not, per-se, sectarian. But it has to be looking to promote those values, not denigrating the values of other faiths.
As an atheist (and secularist), I’m never going to be a big fan of such organizations,but even I would find it hard to criticize an OO which existed to genuinely promote the values of religious (and cultural) freedom which I always assumed lay behind the Reformation. What damages Unionism is the assumption (and occasionally the reality in the case of certain political representatives) that the terms Orangeism and Unionism are synonymous). They shouldn’t be. Unionism should be the promotion of our link with the rest of the UK (and the strongest reasons for that promotion are now completely secular, economic and civic in nature)- Orangeism should be the promotion of the values of the Reformation.
>>I would find it hard to criticize an OO which existed to genuinely promote the values of religious (and cultural) freedom which I always assumed lay behind the Reformation.<<
Sorry for being so tardy in my response. I totally agree with the above. The sooner the OO become pro Prod as opposed to anti catholic is the day that things really begin to get on the right track. Strangely enough the modern catholic church would fit in very well with most of the reforms advocated by the reformation.
Thanks for the response, quite an open one. There is nothing here that we can disagree on, suffice to say we all have to play a part.
Post a Comment