Irish peoples double standards / hypocrisy

thebaz

I cant speak for every Irish citizen , but now that I'm getting free cheese , I'm very content, and wont be protesting no more, in fact I'll vote for my local FF candidate at the next election

Rabble Rabble

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

It was the democratic will of the people, the Irish people elected representatives to parliament on the mandate of seeking Home Rule, therefore the democratic will of the Irish people was that aim. The reaction of the citizens of Dublin by pelting rotten vegetables and verbal abuse on the men who sought full indepence as they were led away from the GPO shows just what these citizens thought of their aims and if you want to argue otherwise fire ahead but back up your claim in such a way as to discount these two historical facts.



This is getting off topic, you argued that citizens of a parliamentary democracy have no right to non-violent protests. I just pointed out that Irish citizens in 1916 were in a parliamentary democracy and the lowliest Irish person's vote then had exactly the same weight as Lloyd George's or Winston Churchill's.

That the Irish people couldn't get what they want was due to them being a minority grouping within the democratic system, that is how democracy works. The act of the 1916 rising was a violent action against parliamentary democracy where a small subsection of the greater population were unhappy that they couldn't get what they wanted through peaceful politics so they took up arms to force through their demands.

In my opinion this was the right course of action, but I can say this as I don't have the double standards of automatically denouncing all forms of non-violent protest in today's society.



I didn't argue that at all so less of the straw man argument please.

There are a few problems with your analysis.

1) A large country can invade a smaller one and then say it is the democratic will of the people ( of the combined State) that the former rule the latter, even if all of the latter vote for independence and/or home rule.
2) The UK did not have universal male suffrage in 1916. Universal female suffrage came much later ( Seeing the 19th UK as a mother of democracy is a bit of a joke. The US had far more rights, for instance).
3) The house of Lords was overthrowing home rule from the 19th century. The house of Lords is unelected. It had veto power. Had it not, this would not have come to pass.

This is significant difference to now. The 1916 rebels succeeded precisely because there was a lot of support for full independence, and more for home rule.

Pompey Magnus

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

There are a few problems with your analysis.

1) A large country can invade a smaller one and then say it is the democratic will of the people ( of the combined State) that the former rule the latter, even if all of the latter vote for independence and/or home rule.

The 1916 rebels succeeded precisely because there was a lot of support for full independence, and more for home rule.

The attutude of Irish people pre-1916 rising was much like Scottish attitude today, a small core who wanted full independence and the majority who would be happy enough within the British system but with their own say in certain national affairs. The 1916 rebels only succeeded because of the British reaction to their actions, had Pearse, Connolly etc been given long jail terms then the event would have gone down as a minor footnote in Irish history about how a ragtag group of poorly armed men took over a post office, a distillery and a biscuit factory for a few days before being forced to surrender.

So I repeat, these men were not acting in the name of the overwhelming democratic will of the Irish people and for certain people to revise history to justify their acceptance of this act of violence against the state whilst being able to denounce modern acts of non-violent protest is pure hypocracy.

3) The house of Lords was overthrowing home rule from the 19th century. The house of Lords is unelected. It had veto power. Had it not, this would not have come to pass.

The House of Lords was no longer an issue in 1916, they were basically unable to veto Home Rule since the Parliament Act of 1911.

curlzy

cedissapointed wrote: »

I guess we can all say we are 'self employed'.. And..Belittling this to what your friend did to a hooker who probably had a black eye and some jizz on her face is neither here nor there to the FAS scandal that is ROBBING OUR COUNTRY OF PAID JOBS!

Did you forget to take some medication or you always this scarily nasty?

ejmaztec

curlzy wrote: »

Did you forget to take some medication or you always this scarily nasty?

I think he's just disappointed, with an extra "s" thrown in for good measure.

Sharkey 10

dotsman wrote: »

Any sensible person would highly criticise the actions of the paint thrower and the truck driver in question. What did they achieve other than throw their toys out of the pram? Their actions in no way had any positive influence on the governing of this country.


They did? As far as I can remember, everybody I talked to about the French strikers thought they were the biggest fools ever.



The student protests were a sham. The problem with protests is that they have to be for a legitimate reason (ie, if the students in question were proposing a viable alternative, but felt they were not being listened to, then it would make sense). As it stands, these sort of protests are simple bullying. In the case of the protest last week, it was a bunch of people who were there for a variety of reasons. Most were simply fools who thought they could have a day out and something constructive would come out of it. For many, it was a laugh, have a day out, have a few drinks etc. Some were absolute scumbags (possibly not even students) who are affiliated with extreme left wing organisations who just saw the day as a chance to commit crimes without repercussions.

On your first point , i will say that the intention behind those actions were good therefore they were acceptable to me . Just because they didnt have any affect doesnt mean they were wrong.
On your second point , everyone i spoke to thinks the French are right to riot and protest the way they have , we are most likely politically at polar opposites and have differently minded friends. My statement was too general.
on your last point I say maybe the best way to beat the bully is to bully them back

Noreen1

twinytwo wrote: »

peaceful protest wont work in this country , you will just be ignored. Or by the time it works there will be no bringing the country back

Sorry - I missed this.

I have to disagree. Peaceful protest, by the masses, will work now, just as it worked for the PAYE protests in the 80's.

In contrast, any hint of violence will be seized on by the media.
That may sell newspapers - but it defeats the purpose of the protest, since there will be no discussion of the reasons, valid or otherwise, for the march.

Hence the message that people are trying to get across is completely ignored.

IMO, we need one huge protest, with representation from PAYE workers/(public and private sector), the unemployed, SMEs, etc.
In short, every group that has been put at a disadvantage by the current economic fiasco.

It will not cancel out our debts - it may, or may not, ensure a more equitable budget.

It will, however, send a powerful message to the Government (in waiting?) - that the ordinary Irish citizen, whether Labourer, Teacher, or Student - is never again going to tolerate "footing the bill" to protect the "elite".

Noreen

Bard

Let me get this straight... the French are protesting the retirement age going up from 60 to 62.

Ours is 65 and they're pushing it back to 68...

Ooh lah f*cking lah!

Nodin

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

When you say different times I would have to challenge you on that, its not like Cromwell was rampaging through the country killing all before him, this was less than 100 years ago. Ireland was a functioning member of the British Empire, alright the majority of people were looking for Home Rule (not full independence by the way) but there was a democratic mechanism available within the British system for the Irish people to voice their concerns. Yet here is what the OP was getting at, Irish people who apply double standards to justify in their own mind their hypocrisy. Excusing some forms of violent action while condemning others.

Seeing as that vote was to a parliament into which they'd be in a permanent minority, its about as valid and "functioning" as the current Burmese/Myanamar elections.

FreudianSlippers

cedissapointed wrote: »

bla bla bla... ROBBING OUR COUNTRY OF PAID JOBS!

They took our jobs?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls

Pompey Magnus

Nodin wrote: »

Seeing as that vote was to a parliament into which they'd be in a permanent minority, its about as valid and "functioning" as the current Burmese/Myanamar elections.

So what if they were always going to be in a minority? The Communist Party of Ireland will always be a minority party in Irish poltical life, that doesn't mean they suddenly have a justification to take matters into their own hands.

And I repeat again that I do believe the rebels were right in their actions, but it is my opinion that they took arms despite the will of the people and not because of it, and that had Boards.ie existed in 1916 there are an awful lot of posters on here would be online condemning the actions of these men who took the law into their own hands. As Connolly, Pearse etc were being led to Kilmainham the Holier Than Thou brigade would be on here screaming "This act of violence was not in my name!!!".

Yet these same people today see no problem with condemning modern forms of non-peaceful protest whilst, with the benefit of a cushion of near a century since the action plus the change of public opinion after the executions they can feel comfortable enough to praise these same small group of men who took up arms when the rest of the Irish citizens were stuck in a mindless stupor of inaction and repaid their actions with abuse, mocking and insults.

Guy:Incognito

maxxie wrote: »

Im with you!

How to unite the voices of the people who really care about Ireland?

Your confusing people caring about Ireland with people caring about themsleves.

charlemont

the whole island is gone to the dogs lately, it needs vision...

Sharkey 10

Stekelly wrote: »

Your confusing people caring about Ireland with people caring about themsleves.

How so?

Guy:Incognito

Sharkey 10 wrote: »

How so?

Because any people out protestign are doing it for their own gain/ to stop cuts to the things that involve them, not some patriotic sense of keeping Ireland great.

Nodin

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

So what if they were always going to be in a minority? The Communist Party of Ireland will always be a minority party in Irish poltical life, that doesn't mean they suddenly have a justification to take matters into their own hands. .

You seem to be confusing the ordinary parliamentary process with the reality of Empire. The inclusion of Ireland in the British Empire was not a legitimate act.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

...... that had Boards.ie existed in 1916 there are an awful lot of posters on here would be online condemning the actions of these men who took the law into their own hands. As Connolly, Pearse etc were being led to Kilmainham the Holier Than Thou brigade would be on here screaming "This act of violence was not in my name!!!"..

I'm sure they would.

Sharkey 10

Stekelly wrote: »

Because any people out protestign are doing it for their own gain/ to stop cuts to the things that involve them, not some patriotic sense of keeping Ireland great.

Are they not also protesting (in most cases) about things that affect great numbers of people , therefore caring about those people.

I do see your point i have seen a lot of people who have gone bust in the recession giving out about how they lost all their money a lot of these people are the same people who give to ****s about the poor people of Ireland who remain poor today or the things that during the boom we could still not get right

TelePaul

Highlighting the detrimental impact of potential third-level fees by skipping college to spit at the po-po. Delicious ironing!