Orangemen's right to vote

The Highwayman

'William of Orange, originally of the Netherlands, led the fight against Catholic King James.

He took the throne in England and his final victory over James at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland 1690 sealed the religion's supremacy in the British Isles.

In 1795, a clash between Protestants and Catholics at the "Battle of the Diamond" led to some of those involved to swear a new oath to uphold the Protestant faith and be loyal to the King and his heirs, giving birth to the Orange Order.

Since then, the Order's principles and aims, and those of similar organisations it is related to, have changed little.'



If an orangeman from the ROI swears an oath of aligence to the monarch of another country should they have a right to Irish citizenship, to a passport and to vote in Irish general/local elections?

In the past this sort of an oath was enough to land your ass in jail, be deported to that country or put against a wall and shot.

What do you think?

Max Power1

Should be shot for treason imo, same as anyone swearing an oath to a foreign obligarch\monarch

My name is URL

Can open.. sectarian worms everywhere =p

I dunno though.. I mean if they live in Ireland they should have a right to vote, whatever their political views are. That's democracy

losthorizon

For their views, check this out

http://www.rte.ie/radio1/doconone/radio-documentary-orangeman.html

Its excellent I listened to it last week after Stephen Fry recommended Rte Radio 1s Documentarys on his Twitter feed

opinion guy

I thought we were all European these days ???

Dutch people should be allowed to vote imho

4zn76tysfajdxp

Max Power1 wrote: »

Should be shot for treason imo, same as anyone swearing an oath to a foreign obligarch\monarch

Bit of an overreaction.

starbelgrade

The Highwayman wrote: »

If an orangeman from the ROI swears an oath of aligence to the monarch of another country should they have a right to Irish citizenship, to a passport and to vote in Irish general/local elections?

Yes.

Mr Benevolent

More IRA 'let's blow everything up' bullshit. Who cares about the fcuking Orange Order? Do people really have lives empty enough to care about this shit?

beanyb

Oh dear.

Denying a vote to those with whom you disagree basically goes against every democratic principle there is.

Fratton Fred

beanyb wrote: »

Oh dear.

Denying a vote to those with whom you disagree basically goes against every democratic principle there is.

Indeed it does. All the Sinn Fein MPs up north exercise their right to vote and to be elected. They refuse to pledge an oath to the Monarch ( which is in itself kind of odd, as Westminster has always fought the monarch) so they can't take up their seats, which is their democratic right.

d.anthony

King Billy was gay.

galwayrush

Didn't the Pope at the time finance William's war effort? It's a strange world when it comes to religon and politics.:rolleyes:

Dravokivich

The Highwayman wrote: »

If an orangeman from the ROI swears an oath of aligence to the monarch of another country should they have a right to Irish citizenship, to a passport and to vote in Irish general/local elections?

If a Muslim, brought up within a Catholic Parish...

... To be honest it makes no odd's to me.

Neither Allah nor the Queen are telling their followers to slay us...

Pauleta

I will swear my oath of allegiance to whoever pays me the most money

PeterIanStaker

Irish Media rule #1; if you criticise the Orange Order in any way, you're in the IRA.

Rational, balanced debate is not encouraged because it could lead to peace/agreement.

*sarcasm*

Mint Sauce

oh boy....

who wants popcorn?

scientific1982

Its treason.

My name is URL

scientific1982 wrote: »

Its treason.

Not really though

"treason shall consist only in levying war against the State, or assisting any State or person or inciting or conspiring with any person to levy war against the State, or attempting by force of arms or other violent means to overthrow the organs of government established by the Constitution, or taking part or being concerned in or inciting or conspiring with any person to make or to take part or be concerned in any such attempt."

Even if someone has pledged allegiance to a foreign monarch it doesn't mean that war is being levied in any way against the state

Einhard

Max Power1 wrote: »

Should be shot for treason imo, same as anyone swearing an oath to a foreign obligarch\monarch

Irish soliders in the British army swear an oath to the British crown. You need to look up the definition of treason if you think it covers the mere swearing of an oath to a foreign entity.

Xiangjiao

The Highwayman wrote: »

'William of Orange, originally of the Netherlands, led the fight against Catholic King James.

He took the throne in England and his final victory over James at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland 1690 sealed the religion's supremacy in the British Isles.

In 1795, a clash between Protestants and Catholics at the "Battle of the Diamond" led to some of those involved to swear a new oath to uphold the Protestant faith and be loyal to the King and his heirs, giving birth to the Orange Order.

Since then, the Order's principles and aims, and those of similar organisations it is related to, have changed little.'



If an orangeman from the ROI swears an oath of aligence to the monarch of another country should they have a right to Irish citizenship, to a passport and to vote in Irish general/local elections?

In the past this sort of an oath was enough to land your ass in jail, be deported to that country or put against a wall and shot.

What do you think?

You can be a citizen of one country and vote in another country where you are resident, you know. I've voted in election in Scotland & England without ever shedding an iota of my Irishness, or glancing astray at HRH. You can be British and anti-monarchist and vote there without compromising any of your principles, it's parliament that runs the show ultimately with the Saxe-Coburg Gotha family performing a quaint/outdated (delete as appropriate) and purely ceremonial function.

Einhard

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

Irish Media rule #1; if you criticise the Orange Order in any way, you're in the IRA.



*sarcasm*

Irish Republican rule #2; if you don't share the views and agenda of Irish Republicans, then you're not Irish.

Xiangjiao

Einhard wrote: »

Irish Republican rule #2; if you don't share the views and agenda of Irish Republicans, then you're not Irish.

Hear hear!

PeterIanStaker

Einhard wrote: »

Irish Republican rule #2; if you don't share the views and agenda of Irish Republicans, then you're not Irish.

A warrant has been issued for your arrest.


Signed

C Cruise - O'Brien

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.






*more sarcasm *

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

Irish Republican rule #2; if you don't share the views and agenda of Irish Republicans, then you're not Irish.

A statement almost as pathetic in its way as the OP.

mikemac

The Highwayman wrote: »

'William of Orange, originally of the Netherlands, led the fight against Catholic King James.

He took the throne in England and his final victory over James at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland 1690 sealed the religion's supremacy in the British Isles.

In 1795, a clash between Protestants and Catholics at the "Battle of the Diamond" led to some of those involved to swear a new oath to uphold the Protestant faith and be loyal to the King and his heirs, giving birth to the Orange Order.

Ah but the Pope supported William over King James.
Seems strange but that was the power struggle at the time

SV

Confab wrote: »

More IRA 'let's blow everything up' bullshit. Who cares about the fcuking Orange Order? Do people really have lives empty enough to care about this shit?

It'll be cared about for as long as they march

Einhard

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

A warrant has been issued for your arrest.


Signed

C Cruise - O'Brien

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs.






*more sarcasm *

/hides under his bed.

Nodin wrote: »

A statement almost as pathetic in its way as the OP.

/thinks Nodin should get a sense of perspective, as well as a sense of humour.

dlofnep

Of course they should have a vote. When you take the vote away from people with whom you disagree with, then you are putting a knife through the heart of democracy. I doubt we have much to worry about.

Wolfe Tone

Oh dear.


Yeah they can vote why not? Doesn't mean that I will respect or like them. Or tolerate their displays of triumphalism.
Just don't let them be in charge of drawing up constituencies.

dlofnep

Secondly, it's perfectly valid to criticize the orange order itself as an organization. I fail to see the link between criticising it, and "the IRA blowing shít up" as it were. It might benefit a few posters in this thread to attend a critical thinking 101 class, with that sort of out of whack logic.

Einhard

SV wrote: »

It'll be cared about for as long as they march

Surely they have a right of free assembly?

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Surely they have a right of free assembly?

Assembly to do what though?

March where they are not wanted? Sing offensive songs? Effectively shut down towns?

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Assembly to do what though?

March where they are not wanted? Sing offensive songs? Effectively shut down towns?

Well yes to the former two. And the latter only occurs because others seek to deny them the right to do the former.

Don't get me wrong, I have no truck with the Orange Order, and can't abide their atavistic triumphialism, but they have as much right to march as you or I.

SV

Einhard wrote: »

Well yes to the former two. And the latter only occurs because others seek to deny them the right to do the former.

Don't get me wrong, I have no truck with the Orange Order, and can't abide their atavistic triumphialism, but they have as much right to march as you or I.

How long do you think a march opposing it would last before being blasted by both governments?

Wolfe Tone

Do you even think a march would be allowed?

aDeener

Confab wrote: »

More IRA 'let's blow everything up' bullshit. Who cares about the fcuking Orange Order? Do people really have lives empty enough to care about this shit?

where did you pull that out of? :rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Well yes to the former two. And the latter only occurs because others seek to deny them the right to do the former.

Don't get me wrong, I have no truck with the Orange Order, and can't abide their atavistic triumphialism, but they have as much right to march as you or I.

So you see no problem with them singing(apprentice boys sing this) We're up to our necks in Fenian blood. Surrender or you'll die while marching through nationalist areas? Or having bands in memory of Loyalist murderers marching through the area said murders occurred? Or glorying over the deaths of innocent catholics with "5 nil" hand signs?

In no other western country would bollix like that be permitted.

Einhard

SV wrote: »

How long do you think a march opposing it would last before being blasted by both governments?

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Do you even think a march would be allowed?

Of course they'd be allowed as long as they were peaceful. We live in a bloody democracy for chrissakes, and people have the right to free assembly. I hate this nonsense about how Loyalists would be welcomed into an inclusive 32 country republic, but only so long as they leave their cultural baggage at the door. Their marches pass by in minutes. The Nationalists should hold their noses, and perhaps stage a dignified counter march in protest, thus showing themselves as moderate and reasonable, and the OO for the sectarian fools they are.

dlofnep

aDeener wrote: »

where did you pull that out of? :rolleyes:

Out of his arse, it would appear.

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

So you see no problem with them singing(apprentice boys sing this) We're up to our necks in Fenian blood. Surrender or you'll die while marching through nationalist areas? Or having bands in memory of Loyalist murderers marching through the area said murders occurred? Or glorying over the deaths of innocent catholics with "5 nil" hand signs?

I'd find it abhorrant, but I'd let them march anyway. And I think that once they are allowed to march without hindrance, then such naked hatred would slowly disappear from their marches. We can't claim to support free speech only to turn around and demand its supression when it offends us.

In no other western country would bollix like that be permitted.

It would most certainly be permitted in America where they have a much more highly developed sense of free speech than the watered down, only as long as it doesn't offend people European version.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

Of course they'd be allowed as long as they were peaceful. We live in a bloody democracy for chrissakes, and people have the right to free assembly. I hate this nonsense about how Loyalists would be welcomed into an inclusive 32 country republic, but only so long as they leave their cultural baggage at the door. Their marches pass by in minutes. The Nationalists should hold their noses, and perhaps stage a dignified counter march in protest, thus showing themselves as moderate and reasonable, and the OO for the sectarian fools they are.

I think that marches should only be allowed march through areas with the agreement of those who live there. Is that fair?

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

I'd find it abhorrant, but I'd let them march anyway. And I think that once they are allowed to march without hindrance, then such naked hatred would slowly disappear from their marches. We can't claim to support free speech only to turn around and demand its supression when it offends us.




It would most certainly be permitted in America where they have a much more highly developed sense of free speech than the watered down, only as long as it doesn't offend people European version.

Ok, lets see how a KKK march through harlem will go down.

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I think that marches should only be allowed march through areas with the agreement of those who live there. Is that fair?

No it's not!! Jesus, that's such an illiberal concept! The people who live in certain areas don't own those areas!! They can't control who does what on public land! If you were to bring it to its logical conclusion then the people of Jones' Road could demand the same of the the hordes of GAA fans who plague the place every Sunday in summer.

dlofnep

Einhard wrote: »

Of course they'd be allowed as long as they were peaceful. We live in a bloody democracy for chrissakes, and people have the right to free assembly. I hate this nonsense about how Loyalists would be welcomed into an inclusive 32 country republic, but only so long as they leave their cultural baggage at the door. Their marches pass by in minutes. The Nationalists should hold their noses, and perhaps stage a dignified counter march in protest, thus showing themselves as moderate and reasonable, and the OO for the sectarian fools they are.

I don't believe he has an issue with free assembly. Most people affected by the marches have an issue with the intimidation from those who attend the marches, and feel under siege while they are underway. They also feel disappointed by the chants that take part during them, which I'm sure or at least hope you are aware of what is said.

It could be equated to the KKK marching through Harlem, shouting "Hang all blacks". Now obviously, the Orange Order has the right to march - but they have a responsibility to discourage the type of activity that happens during these marches.

Watch the difference in the marches in Donegal & Belfast. The contrast is quite astounding. This is the example that should be set for across the Island. The OO needs to filter out the hatred that exists within it's ranks, and the hatred that exists within the type of people that it attracts.

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ok, lets see how a KKK march through harlem will go down.

The point is it would be allowed.

SV

Einhard wrote: »

The point is it would be allowed.

It would in it's shíte!

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

The point is it would be allowed.

Well call me whatever you want, but I feel that things like that should not be allowed.

Einhard

dlofnep wrote: »

I don't believe he has an issue with free assembly. Most people affected by the marches have an issue with the intimidation from those who attend the marches, and feel under siege while they are underway. They also feel disappointed by the chants that take part during them, which I'm sure or at least hope you are aware of what is said.

It could be equated to the KKK marching through Harlem, shouting "Hang all blacks". Now obviously, the Orange Order has the right to march - but they have a responsibility to discourage the type of activity that happens during these marches.

Watch the difference in the marches in Donegal & Belfast. The contrast is quite astounding. This is the example that should be set for across the Island. The OO needs to filter out the hatred that exists within it's ranks, and the hatred that exists within the type of people that it attracts.

That's a well reasoned post. I'd point out though that it's probably not conincidental that the peaceful, less nakedly sectarian marches in Donegal are tolerated by the local community.

I also can't accept that the Nationalist communities could possibly feel under siege by a 20 minute march. The siege mentality comes from the fact that security forces have to be drafted in to ensure the OO right of free assembly, thus turning a short march into a day long stand off. In effect, the communities are comlicit in creating the siege conditions they complain about.

Einhard

SV wrote: »

It would in it's shíte!

It's not an opinion. It's fact.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

That's a well reasoned post. I'd point out though that it's probably not conincidental that the peaceful, less nakedly sectarian marches in Donegal are tolerated by the local community.

I also can't accept that the Nationalist communities could possibly feel under siege by a 20 minute march. The siege mentality comes from the fact that security forces have to be drafted in to ensure the OO right of free assembly, thus turning a short march into a day long stand off. In effect, the communities are comlicit in creating the siege conditions they complain about.

So it is the communities fault?

Einhard

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Well call me whatever you want, but I feel that things like that should not be allowed.

Well fair enough, but I think it sets a nasty precedent when we start curtailing the rights to free speech and assembly based on our negative opinion of those who exercise them.

Incidentally, I believe the same about European laws proscribing Holocaust denial and the like.