Ian Paisley has died

BeerBoobs wrote: »

The point was Homosexuality ISN'T spread by DNA.

I'm guessing those charged with the management of blood transfusion services in NI are aware of this, Poots included.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

So why the denial of blood donations from the Gay society?

Look it up.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

I don't need to look it up.

I am educated enough to know that there are tests to determine whether or not the blood being transfused is clean and compatible for the patient.

Banning the blood of homosexuals while these tests exist is a singling out because of their unforgiving orientation!!!

It's homophobia from unionists, no excuses.

As a mater of fact any institution that prohibits the donation of blood from homosexuals is also equally disgusting!

Come on now, neither you are I are stupid. Agree?

Then you should be educated enough to know the IBTS in the Republic don't take blood from a wide range of people, including actively homosexual men, and people who lived in Britain during BSE, what has that to do with Ian Paisely and the DUP ?
The answer is nothing.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

Yes, I am obviously aware of those facts.

The reason it bears significance with he DUP is that there was a decision (Very very recently) to either allow or prohibit blood donations from Gay men here in the North part of Ireland and the health minister Edwin Poots of DUP didn't legislate it.

We had a chance to change that in the North and Sinn Fein agreed with the motion.

Do you understand?

If I am missing something, please fill me in.

Why is clean and compatible blood from a gay man not allowed to save a child's life?

FFS are people so fecking thick?

EDIT: Do you hate homosexual men/women?

Do you think their blood should be allowed to save children's lives?

I lived in Britain during the BSE years, and I'm excluded from giving blood.
I couldn't forgive myself if someone got CJD from my blood, because some things are so difficult to screen with any accuracy, particularly in the earliest stages, and it's impractical to screen every pint of blood for every possible infection on the planet.
Does IBTS hate people like me who cannot give blood because they lived in the UK during the BSE years, or scores of other categories of people who cannot give blood ?
Cop yourself on.
It's got zero to do with this thread.

Karl Stein wrote: »

History would disagree. Heck, even Kevin Myers would disagree.

Would this be the "history" that leaves out the sectarian murders by republican and nationalists down through the years, and the fate of the disappeared ?

BeerBoobs wrote: »

I'd have to argue this reply, with "How is anybodies blood safe to give then, if it's impossible (As you say), to screen any type of blood disease, especially with the inaccurate medical technologies we have at our disposal; according to that statement, NOBODIE'S blood is safe for transfusion.



You have a disease. your blood is infectious to people who would need a blood transfusion.

There are Gay people out there who don't have a blood disease and are being denied from helping the people in need.

Don't hold it against them because of their sexual orientation.

No-one "hates" you because of your condition. Don't apply that to yourself either. Really unfortunate that you have such a condition, but don't let it embitter you towards gay people with no infection, who can save lives by donating clean blood.

Take your own advice sometime, maybe?

Do you even understand the difference between the words some, all, and risk ?
I don't have any known infection whatsoever, I and millions of other that lived in the UK during the BSE years most probably have no infection of any type, we are all in a risk category the IBTS responsibly choose to exclude.
They cannot possibly test every pint of blood for every single infection know to mankind, particularly anything that might be lying dormant or in the early stages is extremely hard to detect.
Again, none of this has anything to do with this thread.
It's about protecting recipients of blood from the risk of hard to detect early stage infections.

BeerBoobs wrote: »

Well then, No-one is fit to donate blood!!!

Just in case (And all that).

Actually they are, and it's rightly up to the IBTS risk assessments and ability and resources to screen for infections.

Karl Stein wrote: »

History would disagree. Heck, even Kevin Myers would disagree.

I totally agree Karl that it's a pile of disingenuous plop to suggest republicanism and loyalism are two sides of the same coin, but I think that poster meant more at an individual level, that a nationalist/republican who hates someone for no other reason than being protestant/unionist even if they're a decent person, is as bad as the reverse. I'd be in agreement there. I think that's what they meant anyway.

In his life, Ian Paisley created more misery, strife and hatred than arguably any other man ever to come from this island. For almost five decades, Ian Paisley spouted fascist, apartheid, homophobic bigotry from his pulpit. He incited hatred and sectarianism in the North, hindered the peace process at every turn until about a decade ago and had views that made Jean Marie Le Pen look like the Dalai Lama.

From the time he became an evangelical preacher in 1946 until his death, Ian Paisley was a stormtrooper for the Protestant religion. He incited great hatred towards Catholics amongst the Protestant majority in the North, causing untold deaths amongst both communities through his vitriol. His speeches no doubt spurred on some younger Loyalists to commit their atrocities against Republicans. As such, the Republicans would arm themselves up and commit atrocities of their own in retaliation. However, there can be no doubt as to who started it. And as to whom the key instigator was. The IRA probably never had a recruitment agent as efficient and effective as Ian Paisley.

Ian Paisley was instrumental in the foundation of the Ulster Volunteer Force (UVF), Third Force and Ulster Resistance. All three were Loyalist/Unionist terrorist organisations that specialised in petrol bombings, sectarian killings and spreading terror and fear amongst Nationalist/Catholic communities. One former member of the UVF, when arrested for the murder of a Catholic civilian, is known to have said: "I am terribly sorry I ever heard of that man Paisley or decided to follow him."

The shameful acts of incitement to hatred and prejudice were not confined only to the Catholic minority in the North. Gay people came under his umbrella of hatred as well. "Save Ulster From Sodomy" was a rallying cry that Paisley used in the 1970's and 80's in a horrendous, bigoted campaign against innocent people from both sides of the religious divide. He violently opposed loosening of anti-gay laws and openly espoused hatred and violence towards gay people. Apparently, religious bigotry was not enough for the good "Dr." Paisley. He had to pick another minority to demonise, and no better minority for loud-mouth bigots like Paisley than gay people.

Thankfully, his efforts to stop the extension of the Sexual Offences Act, 1967 into Northern Ireland failed, and the legislation was extended in 1982. But still, how many gay people in Northern Ireland suffered endlessly as a result of his endless hatred and bigotry towards them? It is also a fact that Paisley's party, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), remains opposed to homosexuality to this day. It is little surprise, considering that the DUP is the closest thing that this island has to a Nazi party.

The lines such as "They breed like rabbits and multiply like vermin", when being used to describe entire groups of people, are offensive and deplorable. The above phrase was infamously used to describe the Catholic minority in the North of Ireland. Comparing people, human beings, to "rabbits" and "vermin" is, to say the least, an act of pure hatred. To denigrate an entire group of people based upon their religion is not something that was exclusive to Paisley, but he was the most vocal and most supported on the subject. His speeches reached thousands upon thousands of people, many of them young, hot-headed, impulsive and impressionable people. His dangerous incitement of hatred to violence amongst the Protestant majority led to untold death, misery and suffering amongst the people of Northern Ireland, Catholic and Protestant alike.

It is often said to me that Paisley treated his own constituents equally, regardless of religious affiliation or anything else. Well, of course he would. They were his constituents! They were the ones who would vote for him, after all. It was in his own interest to help his own constituents, be they Catholic or not. This is, of course, while telling them they were vermin and inciting Unionist death squads to go and kill them. He may have helped a few Catholics within his own constituency, but he piled hatred and death upon the remaining large minority that existed throughout Northern Ireland. One swallow does not make a summer, and one act of kindness or benevolence does not make up for countless acts of hatred, violence and bigotry.

It is also argued that Paisley was, in recent times, an advocate of peace, progress and helped the peace process. This is also not due to the goodness of the man, but due to external factors that would force him to do so. He would have relished nothing more but to continue his sectarian warfare until the end of time. But his own time on this earth was drawing to a close. With his card about to be punched, the now-frail "Dr." Paisley probably weighed up his options and thought about that big, bad word of "LEGACY". What kind of a legacy am I going to leave, he must have pondered. How will history judge me, he surely wondered during the very sparse quiet moments he had.

If Ian Paisley had died a decade ago, he would have been remembered as simply a hate-filled, bitter, twisted zealot. However, because he allegedly "changed", his legacy is now much more grey than plain old black and white... supposedly.

It was not down to concern for his fellow man, nor for concern for the damage he had done that caused Ian Paisley to change his tune. No. It was simply that he now feared for his own legacy. While, for sure, a core of his supporters would anoint him with a legacy befitting a war hero... a vast majority of people from Britain and Ireland would remember him only as the vile bigot that he truly was. In an effort to re-write history, Paisley allegedly mellowed and was seemingly trying to create peace.

The truest advocate of peace from the Unionist side in Northern Ireland was David Trimble. He was just as fire-brand as Paisley was, but this was a man who truly saw the light early enough in life and made huge strides in an attempt to create a peaceful Northern Ireland. He genuinely did make every effort altruistically; and he paid the price for moderating his views when he lost his seat at the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2005. Both David Trimble and John Hume are the two men from Northern Ireland who deserve the lion's share of the praise. But both are now, sadly, largely forgotten along with their parties (the SDLP and the UUP) in favour of the more extreme Sinn Féin and DUP.

Paisley and his henchmen opposed every peace agreement that was tabled and tried their best to derail the Good Friday Agreement. But, thankfully, it passed and ushered in an era of an uneasy peace, but a peace nonetheless. The screaming rhetoric of the likes of Paisley and his ilk had failed. Their hatred had been brought, temporarily, to its knees. Sickeningly, however, they hypocritically changed their spots somewhat and are now championed as agents of peace. They were agents of sickening sectarianism who realised the game was up and in order to remain relevant, they simply had to do something. The change was forced and insincere and something that they begrudged doing.

It was only by feeling the cold, hard hand of the Grim Reaper upon his shoulder that caused Paisley to change his mind. He did not want to go to his grave a hated man and leave a tarnished, hate-filled legacy. So he attempted to change his image from fire-brand inciter of hatred to that of a peace-maker. Some bought the act. But the reality is that he "changed" in order to leave some kind of a legacy behind, not because he truly cared about the people of Northern Ireland. He cared about his image and his legacy above all, hence the forced change. His later interviews largely reflect this. While he never came out and said that he was forced into it, reading between the lines reveals that he had no choice.

Ian Paisley was nothing more than a hate-filled bigot who stoked the ashes of age-old sectarianism to ignite the flames of The Troubles, who then attempted to erase decades of hatred with less than a decade of so-called "peace-making" (swooping in when the majority of the work was already done). John Hume, David Trimble, Albert Reynolds and John Major are the four men who deserve most praise for the eventual creation of peace in Northern Ireland. Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair are pretenders to the throne who absorbed the plaudits and praise for work that was largely done before they came onto the scene.

While I am sure that there are people (his family, friends and close allies) that are genuinely upset at his passing, for most people this is something that is ultimately a relief more than anything. No death should be celebrated, nor should every death be mourned. Paisley's fits into that category. For any good he may have done, his bad acts far and away outweighed them. The misery, suffering and death that he caused in the North for over five decades should never be forgotten. Nor should his shameless attempts at trying to get them forgotten, in recent times.

He is also, as someone else mentioned, an inspiration to anyone who wants to get called "Doctor" on the back of a fake honorary doctorate.

He was essentially Ireland's version of Fred Phelps, and while I would never openly celebrate the death of another human being (for they were some mother's son), the world is a far better place without him.

The people we should truly be remembering on this day are those who are not here because of the hatred and sectarianism that he fuelled during his lifetime. A truly repugnant person who gave so little yet took so much.

I'd agree with everything in DazMarz's very well written post except the lumping together of Gerry Adams, Paisley, Blair and Ahern as 'pretenders'.

Originally Posted by DazMarz

Gerry Adams, Ian Paisley, Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair are pretenders to the throne who absorbed the plaudits and praise for work that was largely done before they came onto the scene.

As much as I dislike the weasels Ahern and Blair they both played a strong part in moving the PP toward its conclusion. Adams too managed to deliver almost the entire Republican family to the table up to and including decommissioning of weapons. He seriously risked splitting the PIRA and for that he would never have been forgiven and may well have been assassinated.

You've totally hit the nail on the head with Paisley though.

Karl Stein wrote: »

I'd agree with everything in DazMar's very well written post except the lumping together of Gerry Adams, Paisley, Blair and Ahern as 'pretenders'.



As much as I dislike the weasels Ahern and Blair they both played a strong part in moving the PP toward its conclusion. Adams too managed to deliver almost the entire Republican family to the table up to and including decommissioning of weapons. He seriously risked splitting the PIRA and for that he would never have been forgiven and may well have been assassinated.

You've totally hit the nail on the head with Paisley though.

I will agree a lot was done by the latter people too, but most of the work had been done already.

I will also add, I am no lover of Gerry Adams, but the man never spouted hatred so widely and so openly as Paisley. Also McGuinness. These men have genuinely changed in my opinion. They have many, many years left on this earth, and are not concerned too much with legacy. I may not like them or Sinn Féin, but I will always have a respect for the dignity that they have carried themselves with in recent years, and this is not just some nonsense like Paisley was it; this is genuine change on their part. They are not close to death and fearing "WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK OF ME WHEN I'M GONE?!!" They changed because they genuinely wanted to.

That is the big difference between the genuine peace-makers (Adams, Trimble, Hume, McGuinness, etc.) and Paisley. Paisley only changed his tune when he was well into his late-70's and knew time was short and needed to salvage something.

Maybe I'm being overly critical of the later leaders, but I feel that the four I've mentioned previous (Hume, Trimble, Reynolds, Major) are not given enough praise for the stellar efforts they made. In fairness to Adams, Ahern and Blair, they did get it over the line, but the foundations were well laid by the four that came before. Paisley opposed everything up until a few years ago and it is sickening that he got his foot in the door enough to allow for revisionism.

If Paisley had kicked the bucket 10 years ago, he'd be vilified almost universally. Sadly, he managed to do a P.R. coup and now has a slightly less awful legacy. But the reality is totally different; he only cared about how he'd be remembered, and was forced to compromise.