23 3 mins 15 yrs

No party throughout the democratic world can achieve political power without first affirming support for the various institutions of the country/territory they have been mandated to govern.  In particular, the law-enforcing agents of the State must have that support whilst retaining their operational and structural independence.  Otherwise you would see a situation in the democratic West similar to the various coups that have taken place across Africa.  Zambia saw an attempted coup in 1997; Congo experienced the same in May of this year. Each time the parties attempting the coup tried to enlist the support of the police and/or the army to achieve their goals.  In Africa, where human rights abuses are commonplace, coups are understandable if not justifiable.  In the democratic West there is no system of government, nor has there been a history of government, where human rights ‘violations’ other than those minor indiscretions targeted by the likes of the loony Left or Irish separatism, have occurred.  I know there are those who foamed at the mouth because some beturbaned hate-preaching Islamist or some Provisional IRA bacterium had been accorded nothing more from the police and justice system than they so richly deserved, but that is far removed from the experiences in other parts of the globe.  In short, if you want to govern in the West, you support the legally-empowered forces of the State – end of discussion.

It is bad enough that the DUP are supping with the republican devil (and my purpose here is not to concentrate too much on their decision), without them having to face the clarion calls of a resuscitated pan-nationalist front demanding that all the pressure be put on them to force their hand.  That very call is now coming from Sinn Fein’s political bitch, the Social Democratic and Separatist Party whose leader, Mark Durkan, has insisted the British and Alien governments show Paisley’s crowd just who is in charge.  Nothing about the fundamental pre-condition of support for law and order (though I suspect it would amount to seldom more than cheap words).  Durkan would rather see his ideological masters presiding over Northern Ireland without having to support the police, than face the prospect of Direct Rule and a morally-intact Unionist bloc.  I always think the SDLP criticising Sinn Fein has all the comic irony of a pimp’s underling questioning the indecency of prostitution.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP are SEPARATISTS!  They will always work hand-in-glove for anything designed (short or long-term) for the instability and eventual destruction of Northern Ireland.  Durkan’s role as Sinn Fein’s Ulster play-thing only reinforces that fact.  When are the DUP going to wake up!!!?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

23 thoughts on “The Grumblings of Gerry’s Bitch

  1. Isn’t it a right of the people in a democracy to challenge the excesses of the state, petition the government to adress grievances? Indeed, one of the hallmarks of Western Democracy is protection from government abuses. It also allows for people to express wildly different political beliefs.

  2. Perhaps. It is also the duty of parties in a State to support its integrity and political institutions.

    Imagine the furore in the US if the Democrats refused to support, say, the army because of alleged incidents in Guantanamo Bay. What is unacceptable in any part of the USA is also equally unacceptable in any part of the United Kingdom.

  3. Mahons,

    As an American, I agree with you. The First Amendment to our Constitution says:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think you can extrapolate our rights as Americans to rights worldwide, even to other democracies.

  4. Interesting point, but I am not sure that the Democrats make a good analogy. For starters, there is no disputed claim of territory (at least since 1865). In addition, they are as much a part of the government in practice and in history as the Republicans. They are not advocating a change in the form of government, rather in who leads that government.
    In the course of US history, it has been the duty from time to time of the parties to challenge the authority of the institutions (a president running amuck like Nixon, the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision, the Civil Rights Movement etc).
    We have had instances of smaller political parties calling for more fundamental change (Communist, Socialist etc), but they have always been a distinct minority. Both Democrats and Republicans support the Constitution.
    In the NI context you have a substantial minority who favor a different government. In fact unionists and nationalist by their very defintion would seem unable to reconcile their view of how NI should be governed, and what their ultimate hopes are. It is much more difficult when the two are not even in agreement on this basic priciple (never mind the longstanding distrust in both communities). I think the best to be hoped for at present is an end to violence and equal protection of minority rights under the law. Both goals would seem to require real participation by nationalist parties. And both goals ultimately are good for unionists as well.

  5. Alan: As a fellow American allow me to remind you that we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are ordained by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I think that phrase while written by Americans is none the less a universal truth.

    And Andrew, if you’ll forgive me quoting from our Declaration of Independece further, that to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed . . . whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it.

    There, Jefferson said it better than I could.

  6. >>I think that phrase while written by Americans is none the less a universal truth<<

    Mahons, those phrases are a universal UNtruth, i.e. are wrong even in America. There is no such thing as primordial human rights. Rights are claimed, allowed, denied, fought for etc. in the changing dynamic of human relationship and social systems. The only way such vacuous nonsense could have found its way into what is otherwise a great document is the vague and vain deiism that the founding fathers were subject to.
    They were themself it seems also of my opinion. In any case, they didn’t let thier moral vanity get in the way of wealth and position and they, including the author Jefferson himself, kept their slaves in slavery. So much for THEIR "unalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

    Having said that, the D of Ind. was a great leap forward for mankind, and the world is obviously much the better for it.
    Although it could be argued that it also institutionalised hypocrisy.

  7. Cunningham: "Having said that, the D of Ind. was a great leap forward for mankind …" Make up your mind.

    Whatever imperfections the founding fathers had, it does not intrude upon the meaning of the words. There are universal rights, the fact that they are often denied does not render that untrue.

  8. Mahons

    "There are universal rights, the fact that they are often denied does not render that untrue."

    Quite agree. These basic rights are everyone’s from the get go. They aren’t earned. Some can be lost rather than taken, e.g. you can lose the right to your freedon

  9. Well said, Aileen!

    I have to confess that one of my bêtes noires is the notion of some that they somehow are entitled to more of everything than others (especially if those others are foreigners).

    This mind-set results in so much misery in all quarters, most especially a denial of rights. NATURALLY we’re all entitled to be free individuals, and to all that follows from such freedom.

    The Declaration of Independence came about precisely because too many men were behaving in an antihuman way, denying to others what was rightfully theirs. Freedom is not the absence of subjugation but a natural state; subjugation is the aberration. It has less to do with deism and more with basic respect for oneself and for others.

  10. >>Freedom is not the absence of subjugation but a natural state<<

    Fanny, that’s a wonderful thought, but it doesn’t bear examination in the light of the past.

    From the dawn of mankind, our history has been one tortous progress – with many setbacks – from complete subjugation towards personal independence and freedom.

    There is no freedom in the natural state. Besides the good chance of quickly supplementing some beast’s diet, people were also prey to disease, hardship and the dominance of the physically strong. Life was famously nasty, brutish and short. It was precisely to escape from such arbitrary subjection that societies with laws etc were formed.

    It was absurd for the founding fathers to expand their notion of burgeoise rights onto all mankind at all times, when for 95% of his history man merely wished to survive, and would have willingly forfeited any "rights" to that end. To my mind the fact that high-minded signatories of the Dec of Ind after wards returned to their farms to contemplate their slaves in the fields is closely linked to the idleness of some of their ideas.

    Greed, agression, wickedness etc. are all natural traits, which come down to us from the time when we all had to fend for ourselves and death was everywhere.
    One of the good things about a Catholic upbringing is that it imprints on us the notion of Original Sin. It makes understanding the world so much easier!

  11. Cunningham

    none of that challanges the idea that basic rights have always been there and always will.

  12. Andrew, you suffer from a political stroke. You can only see one side of the argument, and unable to see the lack of democracy in your own backyard for many years. I think it was called Gerrymandering.

    You also miss out in a fundamental point. As proposed, the arrangements would mean that justice/policing would be beyond the control of the second largest party in Northern Ireland. Now, where’s the democracy in that?

    Get better soon!

  13. <>we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal<>

    Airy-fairy namby-pamby wishy-washy liberal nonsense. What does it mean ? Does it mean that Ted Bundy and Osama Bin Ladin are your equals? Tell you what – I might not be the equal of a good man like Colm or a Good Woman like Aileen, but I’m a damn sight better than Ian Brady.

  14. Aaaahhh Snuckums ;o)

    Have to point out though that Ted Bundy, Osama bin Laden were probably not created that way.

    I would have subscribed to the notion of all created equal up until very recently. However as is appears that some people are born with malfunctions in the bit of the brain that deals with conscience and empathy. They can’t help it but that would make them less equal. The existance of such people is a major challange to my world view and I still haven’t resolved it all.

  15. Aileen – whether or not all people are equal when "created" or if it’s only the vast majority of them because a minority have a genetic code that ensures an organic malfunction, the point is that none of us stay the same as when we are created. And it’s who we are and what we do that is important – not an abstract concept about our state at the exact point of creation – which in itself is open to all sorts of debate.

    Fact of the matter is that people aren’t equal – either in physical attributes, intellect, capabilities or morality. So The claim that "all men are created equal" has no bearing on anything practical.

  16. Mad

    Considering that there ere so many people who consider that being black, etc, an attirbute you are born with, makes you lesser, the prinicple that all men are created equal is important. My example above is the only exception I allow. It also lends itself to the "equal before the law" principle.

    "Fact of the matter is that people aren’t equal – either in physical attributes, intellect, capabilities or morality. "

    Excluding the morality, that makes them different not unequal. .And morality is not something that you are born with, except in therms of my exception above.

  17. David,

    I just typed a comment that included a TinyURL, previewed it, made changes then hit "Create Post" and it never arrived on this thread. Is this a SquareSpace glitch (or should I just get all paranoid)?

  18. Let’s try posting what I can remember from my lost comment. (BTW, this may have benn lost due to the link.)

    OK, Decl. of Ind. VS Const.


    The Declaration of Independence is a rather straightforward outcry against British tyranny and the necessity (according to the authors) of an independent union of states, i.e. the United States. The Constitution on the other hand lacks the emotion, the straightforwardness, and overall excitement. It is rather a complex set of guidelines for which the government is to be modeled after and operator’s manual for utilizing the government for regular duty. The Constitution rarely gets looked at as an entity of political ideology, yet it maintains a strict Federalist work with scattered Republican concessions (Bill of Rights). The revolutionary sentiments that were so evident in the writing of the Declaration of Independence would evolve into the reactionary nature of the future capitalist state outlined in the Constitution.

  19. ‘I think it was called Gerrymandering..’

    Which also occurred in nationalist areas. A stroke is better than permanent myopia.

  20. Andrew,

    I never suggested it were only one sided. I’m only a commenter, expecting higher standards of those with the soapbox.

  21. Mad: I was out Monday so missed your comment until I double-back in time. The words all men were created equal was not ment to convey what we scientifically know to be true, that some people are short, blind, deaf etc. What it means is that all men should be treated equally under the law. As correctly pointed out, a number of years were needed to have the sentiment realised.

Comments are closed.