Taoiseach shocked and dismayed at Sinn Fein TDs tweet on IRA attacks

Feisar

Hamsterchops wrote: »

Legit post independence, when carried out by whom? By the Irish army, or a Terrorist group?

A terrorist group cannot attack UK forces inside the UK and not expect universal condemnation. Lord Mountbatten also died that day as did two children and their Nanny, no legitimacy about any of it, hence Stanley was made to delete and apologies for his disgusting tweet.

There is a big difference between legitimate force as used by one country against another, and Terrorist attacks which have no mandate for their actions. Irish people up and down this island were disgusted and ashamed of what the Provos did that day, same in Britain where so many decent Irish people had to explain that the Provos did not speak for the people of Ireland.

The legitimate Defence forces of this State were in a constant tussle with the illegitimate IRA during the Troubles.

Were the old IRA legitimate pre independence or did winning independence grant them legitimacy? Surely by your logic they were a hostile force in the UK? On to the Provos then, surely they had the same legitimacy as the old IRA. What legitimacy did the British have to be here? It certainly wasn't the will of the people. Might is right and the victor gets to write the history. Mandella wasn't adverse to violence to further his aims. Yet he was considered a great man, the Provos were also in an apartheid state, what's the difference?

Regarding kids being blown up, no argument from me there.

Defense forces of this state, yea that's a grey one. On paper yes you are correct. However lets not forget Jack Lynch talking about going across the order and the Irish Government "no longer standing idly by". Then you had Charles Haughey and Neil Blaney dismissed from cabinet for alleged involvement in gun running. I also heard it said and that's all it is something a man said in conversation, that it "sometimes wouldn't of done a lad's career any favors to be overly zealous when it came to the IRA, depending on who was in power."

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/varadkar-claims-sinn-fein-supporters-are-targeting-him-for-homophobic-abuse-39820352.html

"Fine Gael MEP Maria Walsh has asked Mr Stanley to explain a Twitter comment he made when Mr Varadkar was elected Fine Gael leader.

In the post on June 2, 2017, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) chairperson wrote: “Yippie 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what you like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise in the morning.”

The comment was made just after Mr Varadkar said his successful election showed “prejudice has no hold on this republic”.

Ms Walsh, who is a prominent LGBTI campaigner, asked why Mr Stanley was connecting the Tánaiste’s “sexual orientation and his democratically elected position”. “Is it just another flippant straight comment or is there a more sinister meaning behind the tweet?” she asked.

Sinn Féin did not respond to requests for comment."


It seems that your comment on context is just distraction and a disgusting attempt to deflect. The comment was made after Leo became leader of Fine Gael, and not in the context you referenced.

It also seems I am not alone in concern about the tweet, and my concern is shared by a prominent LGBTI campaigner. Are you suggesting she is seeing something that isn't there as well?

Time for Stanley to crawl back under his rock.

Even if it was in relation to that, where is the 'homophobia'?

Nobotty

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Even if it was in relation to that, where is the 'homophobia'?

To be fair Francie,in any world that's a homophobic comment
Its designed to belittle being gay
Its more at home in the DUP than SF
I'm not impressed

Normal One

The Tánaiste doesn't seem too bothered by the bigots and homophobes in the orange order.

"There would have been a lot of Orange lodges in Dublin and Wicklow at a time – and all over the country – so if we’re serious about respecting each other’s identities, each other’s values; if we’re serious about parity of esteem, it’s not the sort of thing you can pick and choose," he said, speaking to the News Letter

The Orange Order is standing behind anti-gay remarks made by Fermanagh County Grand Master Stuart Brooker, who said gay people could not join the organization because "homosexuality is wrong.”

General Law No. 4 of the Orange Loyal Institution of Ireland states "Any member dishonouring the institution by marrying a Roman Catholic shall be expelled and it shall be deemed an offence for any member to facilitate in any way Sunday sports, amusements or dances by Roman Catholics."

More faux outrage.

El Tarangu

FrancieBrady wrote: »

If you see homophobia because somebody mentioned 'bed' in reply to somebody talking about 'people who get up early in the morning' tis you guys need help tbh.

Not because he mentioned 'bed'.

Any variation on the phrase "U can do what you like in bed" I have ever heard ("You can do anything you like in bed", "You can do anything you like to me in bed") usually relate to matters sexual, rather than watching television or eating crisps. So not exactly a huge leap to think that it refers to Varadkar's sexuality, as opposed to any other bedtime activities.

weldoninhio

Hamsterchops wrote: »

No, what I said was that like many Irish people I too had family in WWI and WWII. Navy & RAF.

You should be ashamed of them rather than proud of them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_war_crimes#Crimes_against_enemy_combatants_and_civilians

expectationlost

I think Varadkar's first said his line about 'wanting to lead a party for people who get up early in the morning' around May 20th https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-wants-to-lead-party-for-people-who-get-up-early-in-the-morning-1.3090753

Stanley was referencing that but not just that.

Ireland2020

expectationlost wrote: »

I think Varadkar's first said his line about 'wanting to lead a party for people who get up early in the morning' around May 20th

Stanley was referencing that but not just that.

Like Student Nurses who get up early in the morning?

blanch152

expectationlost wrote: »

I think Varadkar's first said his line about 'wanting to lead a party for people who get up early in the morning' around May 20th https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-wants-to-lead-party-for-people-who-get-up-early-in-the-morning-1.3090753

Stanley was referencing that but not just that.

His tweet was the morning after Leo's election as party leader, and had nothing to do with the get up early in the morning remark.

You are stretching credibility that he waited over two weeks to tweet about the get up in the morning remark and thought that more important to tweet about than Leo actually becoming leader. Give it up, nobody believes it.

expectationlost

blanch152 wrote: »

His tweet was the morning after Leo's election as party leader, and had nothing to do with the get up early in the morning remark.

You are stretching credibility that he waited over two weeks to tweet about the get up in the morning remark and thought that more important to tweet about than Leo actually becoming leader. Give it up, nobody believes it.

Im not franciebrady, Im not denying he was referencing Varadkar's personal life, as I said Stanley was referencing the morning line but not just that.

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

His tweet was the morning after Leo's election as party leader, and had nothing to do with the get up early in the morning remark.

You are stretching credibility that he waited over two weeks to tweet about the get up in the morning remark and thought that more important to tweet about than Leo actually becoming leader. Give it up, nobody believes it.

People to this day are having a dig at Leo's now infamous gaff.

FrancieBrady

As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one.

In the tweet sent in 2017, the now head of the Public Accounts Committee wrote “yippee 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what u like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise the next morning.”

Asked to explain the tweet, he said: “What I meant in that tweet was, we were trying to push legislation and measures regarding worker’s rights and minimum wage and minimum wage. The point I was making was it is great that we have achieved the rights for gay people and women and yippee to that. But the point I was making was we still had the missing piece as a Republican, the missing piece, to try and advance the rights of workers.”

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter

rdwight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where in that tweet is 'attention drawn to Varadkar's sexual orientation'?

WTF it was in response to Varadkar's 'people who get up early in the morning' gaff, that even Coveney criticised.

That's the thing about dog-whistles: they are designed to facilitate operational deniability.

rdwight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one.

Quote:
In the tweet sent in 2017, the now head of the Public Accounts Committee wrote “yippee 4 d tory. it’s Leo. U can do what u like in bed but don’t look 4 a pay rise the next morning.”

Asked to explain the tweet, he said: “What I meant in that tweet was, we were trying to push legislation and measures regarding worker’s rights and minimum wage and minimum wage. The point I was making was it is great that we have achieved the rights for gay people and women and yippee to that. But the point I was making was we still had the missing piece as a Republican, the missing piece, to try and advance the rights of workers.”


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter

Lamest explanation since Trump said he was being sarcastic about injecting disinfectant.

PS Got a chuckle reading poster who's a fan of the the permanently scandalized Mary Lou describe others as "outrage junkies".

blanch152

rdwight wrote: »

That's the thing about dog-whistles: they are designed to facilitate operational deniability.

And that is exactly what has happened with the lame explanation.

rdwight

Bowie wrote: »

Likely a reference to people who like to get up early? I think denying student nurses money will take over from historic tweets.

Glad to see SF are back supporting nursing staff

I seem to remember they were also front and centre at picket lines the last time nurses took industrial action down here. And soon after were nowhere to be seen when nurses in the North (where SF had the power to do something) were protesting.

blanch152

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2020/1203/1182126-brian-stanley-varadkar-tweet/

Seems like Catherine Murphy isn't buying it either.

"Vice Chair of the Committee Catherine Murphy said that she notes the work Mr Stanley has done in promoting gay rights, however she believes that "it's never acceptable to link somebody's sexual orientation with public policy.""

"She said that she does not believe the reference to the then-taoiseach is acceptable."

It is about time that this dog-whistle homophobia (and racism) is stamped out. Sites like boards should be taking the lead on this.

Amirani

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one.




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter

That's all great that he was intending the tweet to support workers rights, but it was a homophobic remark. Catherine Murphy, who's fairly impartial here and was quite balanced on Stanley's previous tweet, seems to think so too.

FrancieBrady

Amirani wrote: »

That's all great that he was intending the tweet to support workers rights, but it was a homophobic remark. Catherine Murphy, who's fairly impartial here and was quite balanced on Stanley's previous tweet, seems to think so too.

Saying 'that it is great about gay rights being achieved but whatabout workers rights....' - is homophobic???

This 'woke faux outrage' stuff is what needs to be stamped out I think. :rolleyes:

blanch152

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Saying 'that it is great about gay rights being achieved but whatabout workers rights....' - is homophobic???

This 'woke faux outrage' stuff is what needs to be stamped out I think. :rolleyes:

But he didn't say that it is great about gay rights being achieved, he said that the then Taoiseach could do what he liked in bed, drawing attention in an inappropriate way to the then Taoiseach's sexual orientation, low-level dog-whistle homophobia.

Let's hope he does the decent thing and apologises to the Tanaiste.

Bowie wrote: »

Likely a reference to people who like to get up early? I think denying student nurses money will take over from historic tweets.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where in that tweet is 'attention drawn to Varadkar's sexual orientation'?

WTF it was in response to Varadkar's 'people who get up early in the morning' gaff, that even Coveney criticised.

Glad to see that the excuses of this morning have now been dropped. We were told it was about getting up early in the morning, now it is about gay rights.

The brass neck of this posting is incredible.

hatrickpatrick

@Blanch did you watch the video yet? You can skip to 6 minutes in if you haven't ten minutes to spare.

You and anyone else defending the RUC / British Army scumbags and attacking those who resisted them have no leg to stand on if you refuse to comment on why everything kicked off in Northern Ireland to begin with. The people in this video were peacefully protesting against electoral, housing and employment discrimination and demanding an end to it. What followed is the specific catalyst for the entire thirty year conflict which immediately followed.

Nothing to say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1CTWv8zpPI

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

@Blanch did you watch the video yet? You can skip to 6 minutes in if you haven't ten minutes to spare.

You and anyone else defending the RUC / British Army scumbags and attacking those who resisted them have no leg to stand on if you refuse to comment on why everything kicked off in Northern Ireland to begin with. The people in this video were peacefully protesting against electoral, housing and employment discrimination and demanding an end to it. What followed is the specific catalyst for the entire thirty year conflict which immediately followed.

Nothing to say?

]

I am not defending any scumbags, stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the video, I lived through the 1970s and 1980s, I don't need to watch any video reinterpreting my experiences.

paddy no 11

Stanleys comments are just crass, crude and ugly and you can manoeuver around that if you want but is not a good reflection on yourself

FrancieBrady

blanch152 wrote: »

But he didn't say that it is great about gay rights being achieved, he said that the then Taoiseach could do what he liked in bed, drawing attention in an inappropriate way to the then Taoiseach's sexual orientation, low-level dog-whistle homophobia.

Let's hope he does the decent thing and apologises to the Tanaiste.






Glad to see that the excuses of this morning have now been dropped. We were told it was about getting up early in the morning, now it is about gay rights.

The brass neck of this posting is incredible.

Ok...it's clear you aren't going to give the man's perfectly reasonable explanation any consideration.
The mob's mind is made up, we are desperate for a scalp and some deflection. Basically, what we have here, is a man who is noted for standing up for gay and lesbian rights, who backed every campaign to gain them when others where denying them, has suddenly turned homophobic in a tweet.

A tweet that nobody turned a blind eye to three years ago or since until somebody was sent to trawl his posts for anything that might make up for not getting him in his first insensitive tweet.

Heighway61

Only shocked and dismayed? Expected him to at least be disappointed.

hatrickpatrick

blanch152 wrote: »

I am not defending any scumbags, stop putting words in my mouth.

As for the video, I lived through the 1970s and 1980s, I don't need to watch any video reinterpreting my experiences.

You did, though. Your earlier post on the subject:

blanch152 wrote: »

That bit in bold simply isn't true. For a start, there were many actions that the Crown Forces took that were protecting people, many of them risked their lives (e.g. Warrenpoint) for the security and safety of ordinary people. Yes, there were things that they did that were wrong, and they should be rightly condemned for those, but the vast majority of their actions were in defence of law and order. Secondly, they were a legitimate democratically accepted security force. Northern Ireland is and was British by virtue of the democratic will of the people of Northern Ireland. That makes them very different to the IRA who had no democratic legitimacy (unless you believe the fable of a history back to 1919).

None of that excuses Bloody Sunday or Finucane or any other wrong.

This is blatantly untrue and that's what I'm asking you to address. There were not merely "things that they did wrong", the organisations to their very core were built around the priority of protecting the Loyalist/Protestant stranglehold on power and violently suppressing everyone who tried to agitate against this through peaceful protest. This is the direct reason the Troubles began. If those protest marches hadn't been baton charged by the c*nts who comprised the majority of the RUC, not just "a few bad apples", there would have been no thirty year conflict and certainly not one as bloody as what ultimately occurred.

The RUC as an organisation was a sectarian, British equivalent of the KKK. It's as simple as that. Any and all attacks against either it or the British Army which were subsequent to the events depicted in that video were a legitimate response to state-sponsored police brutality and apartheid.

They fundamentally deserved every single bullet or bomb thrown their way after behaving like this, again not as individuals but as an entire organisation. It was rotten and scummy to its very core. Your narrative that it was primarily good, ordinary cops is absolute bullsh!t - it was a paramilitary force whose primary goal was to maintain the system of oppression against the nationalist population. This applies even more so to any element of the British Army which subsequently got involved in the conflict. The entire organisations made themselves fair game for violent resistance after violently putting down a peaceful protest march. Had every RUC station in Northern Ireland been firebombed the following morning, it would have been justified.

rdwight

FrancieBrady wrote: »

As I thought...this is all about uptight people's issues with sexuality more than anything else. Embarrassed for the outrage junkies on this one.




https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/brian-stanley-says-he-has-nothing-to-apologise-for-over-2017-tweet-1.4426553#.X8jYyDBjg0U.twitter

No, not as you thought. You thought he was referring to the "people you get up early" quote

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Where in that tweet is 'attention drawn to Varadkar's sexual orientation'?

WTF it was in response to Varadkar's 'people who get up early in the morning' gaff, that even Coveney criticised.

James Brown

rdwight wrote: »

Glad to see SF are back supporting nursing staff

I seem to remember they were also front and centre at picket lines the last time nurses took industrial action down here. And soon after were nowhere to be seen when nurses in the North (where SF had the power to do something) were protesting.

Are they? Good for them. I would have assumed they were.
Are nurses a political football now? Try knock anyone supports them? Do you not support SF on this?

blanch152

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You did, though. Your earlier post on the subject:





This is blatantly untrue and that's what I'm asking you to address. There were not merely "things that they did wrong", the organisations to their very core were built around the priority of protecting the Loyalist/Protestant stranglehold on power and violently suppressing everyone who tried to agitate against this through peaceful protest. This is the direct reason the Troubles began. If those protest marches hadn't been baton charged by the c*nts who comprised the majority of the RUC, not just "a few bad apples", there would have been no thirty year conflict and certainly not one as bloody as what ultimately occurred.

The RUC as an organisation was a sectarian, British equivalent of the KKK. It's as simple as that. Any and all attacks against either it or the British Army which were subsequent to the events depicted in that video were a legitimate response to state-sponsored police brutality and apartheid.

They fundamentally deserved every single bullet or bomb thrown their way after behaving like this, again not as individuals but as an entire organisation. It was rotten and scummy to its very core. Your narrative that it was primarily good, ordinary cops is absolute bullsh!t - it was a paramilitary force whose primary goal was to maintain the system of oppression against the nationalist population. This applies even more so to any element of the British Army which subsequently got involved in the conflict. The entire organisations made themselves fair game for violent resistance after violently putting down a peaceful protest march. Had every RUC station in Northern Ireland been firebombed the following morning, it would have been justified.

I am beginning to understand why so many young people are voting Sinn Fein if they have been convinced as you clearly have been by what is essentially propaganda.

On a different note, your callous attitude to human life as displayed in your last sentence is shocking and disappointing, especially for someone who claims to support human rights. The right attitude in the 1960s and 1970s was taken by John Hume and Seamus Mallon who were the ones who had the vast support of the nationalist population.

Amirani

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Saying 'that it is great about gay rights being achieved but whatabout workers rights....' - is homophobic???

This 'woke faux outrage' stuff is what needs to be stamped out I think. :rolleyes:

Look, I've no skin in the game here in the stupid arguments blanch and you seem to have constantly. I have been involved in LGBT campaigning for a long time, and have witnessed and been subjected to various slurs and off-handed comments that are then sometimes dressed up as not being homophobic.

I don't expect you to understand what it's like. It might just be "faux outrage" to you, but making comments about what somebody does in bed when they are gay is a comment with homophobic roots, and is disparaging. It's such a common trope, from lots of people, Stanley is hardly the first and won't be the last. Fine if you don't consider it to be such, but the majority of people in the LGBT community would rather such insinuations not be made.

I've no problem giving him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't mean it to be a homophobic attack, but it's not something that should be said.