Ian Paisley 'indirectly responsible for killings during the troubles?'

William F

says James Galway.

I have to agree. I mean Hitler didn't go around personally killing Jews but his speeches were enough to incite people to do the killing.

Paisley was the same. His speeches were pure poison and he is often overlooked for sabotaging the first two Peace Agreements.

He was the quintessential DISSIDENT Ulster Unionist. He was the De Valera of Ulster Unionism.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Primary responsibility for all the deaths in the north has to start with the British security forces, including the RUC.

Ian Paisley was an ignorant and bitter man warped by a myopic way of thinking. I almost feel sorry for him up to a certain point.
There is absolutely no doubt he helped fuel plenty of hatred in the north which then had the consequence of leading to people being murdered.

I think the British government owe all the people of Northern Ireland reparations for their primary role in the conflict, which in a way they are through the subsidy, but it isn't enough.

Godge

Anyone who fired a bullet or planted a bomb or organised a riot or managed any of the above is responsible for the deaths in Northern Ireland.

johnnyskeleton

MOD: Moved from the main forum.

OP, you might want to add some more substance to your argument. For instance, which exact speeches are you saying incited hatred, and how do you prove the direct link between those speeches and actual deaths. Having a gut feeling about it or agreeing with James Galway is not really the same as a detailed analysis of Ian Paisley's contribution to Norther Irish politics.

Nodin

William F wrote: »

says James Galway.

I have to agree. I mean Hitler didn't go around personally killing Jews but his speeches were enough to incite people to do the killing.

Paisley was the same. His speeches were pure poison and he is often overlooked for sabotaging the first two Peace Agreements.

He was the quintessential DISSIDENT Ulster Unionist. He was the De Valera of Ulster Unionism.

A tiny sample of some of Big Ian's outpourings and views (some from loyalism) on him....

"They breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin" - talking about Catholics at a loyalist rally in 1969.'

"Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs; Catholic churches were attacked and burned because they were arsenals and priests handed out sub-machine guns to parishioners" - at a loyalist rally in 1968 following attacks on Catholic homes.'
http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0912/643274-paisley-quotes/

"In 1966 Belfast, UVF man Hugh McClean who was charged with murdering 18-year-old Catholic, Peter Ward, said, “I am terribly sorry I ever heard of that man Paisley or decided to follow him. I am definitely ashamed of myself to be in such a position.”

Decades later the late UVF leader David Ervine remarked that countless young loyalists wasted away their lives in prison because of Paisley’s inflammatory diatribe.

An abiding voice from the historic Good Friday Agreement in 1998 came from a faceless loyalist in the Ervine camp.
It was played on Monday night’s programme, recalling Ian leading a band to Stormont where he held an impromptu press conference flanked by Willie McCrea and his now nemesis Peter Robinson. As Ian thundered yet again against the idea of an agreement between Protestant and Catholic, the green and the orange, the British and Irish, a PUP voice in the room asked, “Ian, where are you going to take us? The Grand Old Duke of York, mark I and mark II.”
http://ulsterherald.com/2014/01/20/blame-free-paisley-didnt-fool-anyone/




"Ian Paisley was an old man who did a lot of damage, took credit that was due to others and eventually came to realise the damage he had done, Gaelic language enthusiast Linda Ervine said yesterday.
Ms Ervine, a sister-in-law of the late Progressive Unionist Party leader David Ervine, was responding to questions about the significance of Dr Paisley in the North’s affairs at the 26th Desmond Greaves Annual School at the Pádraig Pearse Centre in Dublin.
Ms Ervine said her earliest memories were of her father, a committed communist and egalitarian, railing against the television as Dr Paisley protested against civil rights marchers. Later, with her family living in “the last Protestant house” on Beechfield Street, Dr Paisley led a rally outside the house that incited local rioting. After Dr Paisley had gone home to his “safe house”, Ms Ervine said her family were left to face the consequences and their windows were smashed."
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/paisley-took-credit-due-to-others-for-peace-claims-david-ervine-s-family-1.1928844

Also for some consideration
http://www.irish-association.org/papers/stevebruce11_oct03.asp

Mr.Nice Guy

William F wrote: »

says James Galway.

I have to agree. I mean Hitler didn't go around personally killing Jews but his speeches were enough to incite people to do the killing.

Paisley was the same. His speeches were pure poison and he is often overlooked for sabotaging the first two Peace Agreements.

He was the quintessential DISSIDENT Ulster Unionist. He was the De Valera of Ulster Unionism.

I agreed with you up until your last sentence which is ridiculous. De Valera and Paisley were nothing alike.

I am sure some will bring up the 'wading through blood' speech he made, but that notoriously misunderstood speech was not actually advocating such a policy.

I know it's trendy to bash De Valera these days, but he was not prepared to pit religious communities against one another as Paisley was. De Valera's constitution gave constitutional protection to minority religions. There is even a park in Israel named after de Valera in recognition of Ireland being one of the first European countries to give legal status and protection to Jews. The only Church unhappy with his constitution were the Catholic Church who felt he had not gone far enough with his support.

Paisley was prepared to risk people's lives and property due to his ideological disposition. De Valera, contrary to the myths, was not a hardliner in the civil war days and was actually loathed by the real hardliners who marginalised him and limited his influence as much as possible. He was practically a non-entity in those times. Later, when the build-up to WW2 afforded opportunities to advance the pro-Unity position with a desperate British government, he resisted due to security concerns - and was berated by hardline republican element for doing so. He declined involving Ireland in war and sacrificed ideology for common sense. Would Paisley? Not until his twilight years would he take these kinds of steps.

A final point to illustrate the difference of the two men: when Catholic homes burned after a Loyalist attack during The Troubles, Paisley brushed it off saying "Catholic homes caught fire because they were loaded with petrol bombs". During WW2, when Belfast suffered a devastating attack and the city was in flames, De Valera sanctioned sending all but one of the available fire trucks north of the border. When an uneasy Minister asked him if he was sure, knowing full well this risked the precious policy of neutrality, De Valera replied, "Yes. They are our people."

There's plenty of things to criticize De Valera for, but comparing him to Ian Paisley is over-the-top and unfair.

porsche959

Godge wrote: »

Anyone who fired a bullet or planted a bomb or organised a riot or managed any of the above is responsible for the deaths in Northern Ireland.

By that argument, Hitler wasn't to blame for WW2 because he never personally did any of the above.

porsche959

Interesting to see David Trimble has basically agreed with Galway's comments and has even gone further:


http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/regional/trimble-without-paisley-there-d-probably-have-been-no-troubles-1-6784836


The Sindobots heads must be about to explode, although mind you perhaps not as they do have a remarkable ability to ignore inconvenient facts, it's probably their only talent.

blatantrereg

Later, when the build-up to WW2 afforded opportunities to advance the pro-Unity position with a desperate British government, he resisted due to security concerns - and was berated by hardline republican element for doing so. He declined involving Ireland in war and sacrificed ideology for common sense.

What are you referring to specifically? I'm aware of is DeValera's refusal to grant Allied access to the treaty ports which Churchill requested, suggesting he woud try to offer Northern Ireland in return. My perception has been that hardline republicans liked the refusal, since it was telling England to bog off basically. Was it public knowledge at the time that the offer was made, or did it come out a long time later?

Not sure about common sense. Neutrality didn't protect us in WW2. We were an attractive launchpad for attacking Britain, whether neutral or not. He might not have seen the handover as a realistic proposition though. Ulster Unionists had already blocked Home Rule from being granted - the bill was passed, but they promised to take up arms in response if it was actually implemented. Surely then there would have been a militant response if a handover were to go through. Would the Republic have been able to handle a large scale uprising? Not sure they would have been. Really, once you're past political posturing, was a 32 county Republic ever a viable proposition in the first place?

...To address the original topic, yes Paisley did incite hatred and I think some measure of blame for killings should be put on his shoulders.

downcow

Yeah agree with this "...To address the original topic, yes Paisley did incite hatred and I think some measure of blame for killings should be put on his shoulders."
But a few on this topic seem to be blinded by sectarianism if they are holding Paisley more responsible than the ira etc. ironically the same sectarianism that drove the ira armed campaign to kill Protestants

Crooked Jack

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

MOD: Moved from the main forum.

OP, you might want to add some more substance to your argument. For instance, which exact speeches are you saying incited hatred, and how do you prove the direct link between those speeches and actual deaths. Having a gut feeling about it or agreeing with James Galway is not really the same as a detailed analysis of Ian Paisley's contribution to Norther Irish politics.

"You people of the Shankill Road, what's wrong with you? Number 425 Shankill Road - do you know who lives there? Pope's men, that's who [Forte's ice-cream shop] Italian Papists on the Shankill Road." - Addressing a meeting on hearing that an Italian ice-cream parlour had opened on Belfast's Shankill Road

Take your pick, there's loads of them.

And that's before you get into his involvement in setting up paramilitary groups such as the Ulster Protestant Volunteers, Ulster Resistance and The Third Force.

eire4

I would tend to agree with the opening post in that Ian Paisley was indirectly responsible for killings given his constant hate filled rants and ideology.

Godge

eire4 wrote: »

I would tend to agree with the opening post in that Ian Paisley was indirectly responsible for killings given his constant hate filled rants and ideology.

I would tend to agree that his responsibility was indirect especially compared to the direct responsibility of the likes of McGuinness, Adams and Ferris.

TOMASJ

Godge wrote: »

I would tend to agree that his responsibility was indirect especially compared to the direct responsibility of the likes of McGuinness, Adams and Ferris.

I notice a few post back someone was asked by a mod....
.. "you might want to add some more substance to your argument when refering to Ian Paisley's contribution to violence in the north" ..
..any chance we could have same from yourself For instance how was the likes of McGuinness, Adams and Ferris directly responsible for killings by speeches they made

michael999999

TOMASJ wrote: »

I notice a few post back someone was asked by a mod....
.. "you might want to add some more substance to your argument when refering to Ian Paisley's contribution to violence in the north" ..
..any chance we could have same from yourself For instance how was the likes of McGuinness, Adams and Ferris directly responsible for killings by speeches they made

Don't get sucked into he's whataboutery!