Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Sinn Féin leaflet - "Protestant 45.67%, Catholic 46.94%. Make History"

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    I swindled the NSA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭I swindled the NSA


    How is Westminster "increasingly irrelevant" ?

    It still has jurisdiction over Northern Ireland you may disapprove of this state of affairs for whatever reason and that is your prerogative but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la Irrelevant" is not going to change it.


  • Options
    #33
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,493 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Oh, look at that, a statement based in reality. well done.

    During the period running up to the election the mods will have their hands full, especially as we are currently a lady down at the moment. So I'm going to ask posters in difficult threads like this one to be extra nice to each other so that the mods have one less thing to worry about over the next few weeks.

    You can all go back to thumping each other gleefully after next friday (within limits)


  • Options
    #34
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    I swindled the NSA wrote: »
    How is Westminster "increasingly irrelevant" ?

    As more and more powers move to the Assembly it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
    As Westminster continues to prove that it is in fact an english parliament where english MPs have supremacy and those in the colonies have little to no influence (just look at their attitude to 56 SNP MPs) it will become increasingly irrelevant in those places.
    It still has jurisdiction over Northern Ireland you may disapprove of this state of affairs for whatever reason and that is your prerogative but sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la Irrelevant" is not going to change it.

    Never said it would, but the stuff i outlined above will


  • Options
    #35
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    As more and more powers move to the Assembly it becomes increasingly irrelevant.
    As Westminster continues to prove that it is in fact an english parliament where english MPs have supremacy and those in the colonies have little to no influence (just look at their attitude to 56 SNP MPs) it will become increasingly irrelevant in those places.

    That's factually incorrect. England doesn't have a Parliament.

    Also I don't buy the "Irish MPs won't have a voice" or "the issues aren't relevant" line as the same applies moreso to the European Parliament where SF sit.

    Just be honest SF won't sit in the Commons because they have a chip on their shoulder and would deny their own constituents representation due to their own prejudices.


  • Options
    #36
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    That's factually incorrect. England doesn't have a Parliament.

    I never said it has a parliament (although the EVEL thing is becoming increasingly likely) I said that's how it operates. The example i offered was both labour and the tories saying theyd have nothing to do with the SNP no matter how many votes they got. They didnt care what their mandate was, they'd rather not be in power than be in power with any of the colonies.
    Also I don't buy the "Irish MPs won't have a voice"

    Our 18MPs, even if they did all vote together, which they never do, make no difference in there whatsoever.
    or "the issues aren't relevant"

    The vast majority of them arent. Look at the attendance figures for Irish MPs. The SDLP hover in and around 20-25%. Mallon, even during direct rule, attended about 3% of the time. Even unionist MPs who love all that "mother of parliaments" nonsense are well below average at anywhere between 45% and 60%.
    line as the same applies more so to the European Parliament where SF sit.

    Nah. SF sit in the GUE/NGL block and as the biggest Irish party there (well, equal to FG) have more influence than most Irish MEPs. There are huge decisions made in Europe and it's important we have representation there. The same cannot be said for the HOC where any decision that affect Ireland are decided in negotiations between the brit gov and OFMDMF/The Assembly parties.
    It's also important we have representation in europe, particularly in the north, so we can raise issues there on issues such as, for example, human rights abuses, which the brits are hardly gonna investigate properly themselves.
    And that's just off the top of my head. No comparison between Irish reps in Europe and HOC.
    Just be honest SF won't sit in the Commons because they have a chip on their shoulder and would deny their own constituents representation due to their own prejudices.

    A long held political belief is now a "chip on your shoulder."
    Completely betraying everything you stand for (cant exactly be a republican and swear an oath to a monarch) is a "chip on your shoulder.
    Well, 176,000+ people voted for SF knowing full well their policy so they must all have a "chip on their shoulder."
    How exactly are they denying their constituents anything when they are doing exactly what they were elected to do. To go into HOC would be to deny their constituents the representation they want. You cant run a campaign on an abstentionist mandate and then when elected change your mind.
    Some absolute waffle on this issue.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    I never said it has a parliament (although the EVEL thing is becoming increasingly likely) I said that's how it operates. The example i offered was both labour and the tories saying theyd have nothing to do with the SNP no matter how many votes they got. They didnt care what their mandate was, they'd rather not be in power than be in power with any of the colonies.
    I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance. Westminster is not an English parliament, you can huff and puff about numbers but the fact the majority of British people live in England does not make Westminster an English parliament.

    btw I heard Gerry during the count refer to it as "West Minister". He should know the name of the parliament his party is contesting. :P
    Our 18MPs, even if they did all vote together, which they never do, make no difference in there whatsoever.
    Same with the Dail. If all opposition TDs voted together, which they never do, it would make no difference whatsoever. That's not unique to Westminster.
    The vast majority of them arent. Look at the attendance figures for Irish MPs. The SDLP hover in and around 20-25%. Mallon, even during direct rule, attended about 3% of the time. Even unionist MPs who love all that "mother of parliaments" nonsense are well below average at anywhere between 45% and 60%.
    Attendence records don't indicate the relevence of what is being discussed. In Europe very little is relevant but SF take their seats there so I don't buy the "it's not relevant" line.
    Nah. SF sit in the GUE/NGL block and as the biggest Irish party there (well, equal to FG) have more influence than most Irish MEPs. There are huge decisions made in Europe and it's important we have representation there. The same cannot be said for the HOC where any decision that affect Ireland are decided in negotiations between the brit gov and OFMDMF/The Assembly parties.
    It's also important we have representation in europe, particularly in the north, so we can raise issues there on issues such as, for example, human rights abuses, which the brits are hardly gonna investigate properly themselves.
    And that's just off the top of my head. No comparison between Irish reps in Europe and HOC.
    The GUE/NGL hold only 52 out of 752 seats in the European Parliment and SF only hold 4 out of the 52. They're utterly irrelevant, every criticism you've levelled against the Commons can be levelled against the European Parliament. Which shows these aren't really the reasons.
    A long held political belief is now a "chip on your shoulder."
    Completely betraying everything you stand for (cant exactly be a republican and swear an oath to a monarch) is a "chip on your shoulder.
    Well, 176,000+ people voted for SF knowing full well their policy so they must all have a "chip on their shoulder."
    How exactly are they denying their constituents anything when they are doing exactly what they were elected to do. To go into HOC would be to deny their constituents the representation they want. You cant run a campaign on an abstentionist mandate and then when elected change your mind.
    Some absolute waffle on this issue.
    An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.


  • Options
    #38
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    If the queen turned catholic in the morning would it be assumed that all Catholics are monarchists?

    I ask as some assume all Catholics are republican.


  • Options
    #39
    stan larsen
    Registered Users Posts: 926 ✭✭✭stan larsen


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.
    And complained when FF were doing exactly the same thing in Donegal!


  • Options
    #40
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance. Westminster is not an English parliament, you can huff and puff about numbers but the fact the majority of British people live in England does not make Westminster an English parliament.

    btw I heard Gerry during the count refer to it as "West Minister". He should know the name of the parliament his party is contesting. :P

    Oops. Nope. Try again.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/ed-miliband-i-would-rather-not-be-in-downing-street-than-do-snp-deal.124842766
    Same with the Dail. If all opposition TDs voted together, which they never do, it would make no difference whatsoever. That's not unique to Westminster.

    Im not talking about opposition here. Im talking about any issue that affected the north. Even if all the northern MPs were against it, it wouldnt matter, it would be decided by 500 odd english MPs. Totally different. how can you not see that.
    Attendence records don't indicate the relevence of what is being discussed. In Europe very little is relevant but SF take their seats there so I don't buy the "it's not relevant" line.

    Of course, obviously people arent showing up because its so important and relevant :rolleyes:
    The GUE/NGL hold only 52 out of 752 seats in the European Parliment and SF only hold 4 out of the 52. They're utterly irrelevant, every criticism you've levelled against the Commons can be levelled against the European Parliament. Which shows these aren't really the reasons.

    52 is quite a significant block when you consider that all the other blocks range from the 40s to around 200. thats a significant enough number to have influence. Absolutely nothing like having 18 (14, really) disparate MPs in a house of 650.
    An MP does not only represent the people who vote for them. An MP represents all their constituents and SF are denying these people representation in the Commons due to their own prejudices.

    They are elected on an abstentionist basis. While an MP does indeed represent everybody they dont then turn around and reject their own policies just to please everyone. A unionist MP wont vote in favour of something his nationalist constituents want just because he's supposed to represent everyone. you simply cant represent everyone on everything. If you could there'd be no need for elections.


  • Options
    #41
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Oops. Nope. Try again.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/ed-miliband-i-would-rather-not-be-in-downing-street-than-do-snp-deal.124842766
    They say that before the election and now after the result but if they had been able to form a government they would have.
    Im not talking about opposition here. Im talking about any issue that affected the north. Even if all the northern MPs were against it, it wouldnt matter, it would be decided by 500 odd english MPs. Totally different. how can you not see that.
    It's the same thing in the Dail, even if every opposition TD voted against any issue that would affect SF constituents it wouldn't matter. SF have the same power in the Dail than they would in Westminster.

    Of course, obviously people arent showing up because its so important and relevant.
    They're politicians, they wouldn't show up even if it was.
    52 is quite a significant block when you consider that all the other blocks range from the 40s to around 200. thats a significant enough number to have influence. Absolutely nothing like having 18 (14, really) disparate MPs in a house of 650.
    52 is nothing among 750, and SF only have 4 seats in that bloc of 52. Now you're really grasping for straws.
    They are elected on an abstentionist basis. While an MP does indeed represent everybody they dont then turn around and reject their own policies just to please everyone. A unionist MP wont vote in favour of something his nationalist constituents want just because he's supposed to represent everyone. you simply cant represent everyone on everything. If you could there'd be no need for elections.
    SF are denying these people their representation in Parliament, they're denying their constituents their right to democratic representation.

    SF absenteeism has nothing to do with not having influence or the issues not being relevant. We this with the European Parliament. SF absenteeism is due to a chip on their shoulder and long running prejudice and they are willing to selfishly deny democratic representation to their own constituents due to this.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    They say that before the election and now after the result but if they had been able to form a government they would have.

    well firstly, youve no way of knowing that and secondly, that's not actually what you said. You said they had a pre-election agreement on this issue, which they patently did not.

    I think you'll find Labour and the SNP were planning an anti-Tory alliance
    It's the same thing in the Dail, even if every opposition TD voted against any issue that would affect SF constituents it wouldn't matter. SF have the same power in the Dail than they would in Westminster.

    No they dont. The Dail is an Irish parliament full of Irish representatives dealing with irish issues. Westminster is overwhelmingly english and if something doesnt suit them they can railroad it over all the other MPs. The same situation does not exist in the Dail where representatives from different countries can force something on another country.
    Not to mention the fact that this is just one of a number of reasons they dont take their seats.
    This is very basic stuff.
    They're politicians, they wouldn't show up even if it was.

    cute but baseless. Average attendance in the Assembly is in the high 90s while in the Dail it's in the 70s but that doesnt count the difference between someone who simply wasnt present and somebody who consciously abstained from a vote. Both a long way off Seamus Mallons 3%.
    52 is nothing among 750, and SF only have 4 seats in that bloc of 52. Now you're really grasping for straws.

    I've already addressed this and your response was to write the same thing again. Go back and read my original reply, feel free to re-read it as much as you like.
    SF are denying these people their representation in Parliament, they're denying their constituents their right to democratic representation.

    Their constituents democratically voted for abstentionism. Their democratic choice was for their representative to be loyal to them, not a foreign queen and to be there when they need them, not sleeping in westminster.
    To go into HOC when people voted for abstentionism would be to deny their constituents their right to democratic representation.
    How can you not grasp this?
    You also seem to have a very limited knowledge about the role of an MP. As pointed out, sitting in HOC is only a small part of the role, a role that becomes even small and less relevant when youre an Irish MP


  • Options
    #43
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,187 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    In the previous westminster election Sinn Fein got more votes than the DUP but 3 less seats

    Gerrymandering ??!!


  • Options
    #44
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Gerrymandering ??!!

    It's more to do with FPTP and the way constituency boundaries are drawn but it does raise a number of questions


  • Options
    #45
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,187 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    stan larsen wrote: »
    And complained when FF were doing exactly the same thing in Donegal!

    Surely you can see the difference between an abstentionist candidate being democratically elected, and the case where constituents aren't given a vote at all ?

    Anyways, to go back to the OP, it was a very inappropriate leaflet by Gerry Kelly, and he should know better.
    In defence of SF, they do seem to have recognized this pretty quickly and cone out to criticize Kelly.
    Not sure if the party have internal processes to follow.

    I think the "he's only quoting facts from the census" defence is pretty weak


  • Options
    #46
    stan larsen
    Registered Users Posts: 926 ✭✭✭stan larsen


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Surely you can see the difference between an abstentionist candidate being democratically elected, and the case where constituents aren't given a vote at all ?
    Certainly the motives of FF and SF were different. And at least with our multi-seat constituencies the people had some (2 ?) representatives in parliament. Constituencies held by SF in NI have none.

    But you are right, it's off topic. I will cease and desist. :)


  • Options
    #47
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    stan larsen wrote: »
    Certainly the motives of FF and SF were different. And at least with our multi-seat constituencies the people had some (2 ?) representatives in parliament. Constituencies held by SF in NI have none.

    But you are right, it's off topic. I will cease and desist. :)

    youre also just plain wrong


  • Options
    #48
    I swindled the NSA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭I swindled the NSA


    catbear wrote: »
    If the queen turned catholic in the morning would it be assumed that all Catholics are monarchists?

    I ask as some assume all Catholics are republican.

    If Britain ditched the Queen in the morning and became a Republic would any "Republican's" change their minds about this United Ireland thing ?


  • Options
    #49
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    I swindled the NSA wrote: »
    If Britain ditched the Queen in the morning and became a Republic would any "Republican's" change their minds about this United Ireland thing ?

    why would they?


  • Options
    #50
    I swindled the NSA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭I swindled the NSA


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    why would they?

    Because theyre "Republicans" -(or claim to be) why wouldn't they ?


  • Options
    #51
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    I swindled the NSA wrote: »
    Because theyre "Republicans" -(or claim to be) why wouldn't they ?

    Irish republicans. What difference would it make if its a republican state occupying us? America is a republic. Do you not think if america invaded tomorrow we'd oppose that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    glacial_pace71
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭glacial_pace71


    I suppose the unofficial Conservative participation in the pan-Unionist pact in North Belfast and in Fermanagh/South Tyrone was supposed to be repaid with endorsement of Cameron's first legislative programme (Queen's Speech) of a minority Tory Govt.
    Interestingly enough the Tory proposals to reduce the Commons to 600 MPs remain in the bin. That has an impact on the (suspended, draft) proposals to reduce NI from 18 to 16 MPs. It's likely therefore that the whole consultation process will get underway again on constituency boundaries. North Belfast will most likely have a Unionist majority regardless of the outcome, as unless the suburbs are brought in, I can't see Belfast retaining 4 seats. In the event of a Nationalist majority realignment of North and West Belfast as part of the reduction of the MPs to 3 in the city then the South and East Belfast realignments would see not only a solidly Unionist seat there but a surplus population for transfer to Strangford, with a probable readjustment of South Down. There's a lot at stake as result of the current electoral outcome but the likelihood is that the entity known as North Belfast in the next Westminster election could be a completely different creature from the current one.


  • Options
    #53
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    I really dislike this tactic. But why is it only a big deal when Nationalists do it? Loyalists have been doing it since the state was formed. Law, Craig & Carson making speeches about "fighting for our Protestant Ulster" blah blah blah.


  • Options
    #54
    stan larsen
    Registered Users Posts: 926 ✭✭✭stan larsen


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    I really dislike this tactic. But why is it only a big deal when Nationalists do it? Loyalists have been doing it since the state was formed. Law, Craig & Carson making speeches about "fighting for our Protestant Ulster" blah blah blah.

    It's noteworthy when republicans do it because they always insist that republicanism is non-sectarian (Wolfe Tone and all that).

    I don't think anyone seriously doubted that sectarianism was part of the mix of loyalism.


  • Options
    #55
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    stan larsen wrote: »
    It's noteworthy when republicans do it because they always insist that republicanism is non-sectarian (Wolfe Tone and all that).

    I don't think anyone seriously doubted that sectarianism was part of the mix of loyalism.

    I agree.

    There are many loyalist sectarian bigots who make no bones of what they are.

    It is the sectarian bigots who pretend to be something else (most of SF) who stick in the throat the most.


  • Options
    #56
    catbear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,092 ✭✭✭catbear


    Now with the marriage referendum passed, the old accusation "home rule = Rome rule" is now defunct and with the RCC's will being usurped I think the old belief that Catholic = Republic vote is also a shaky presumption.

    In this new reality it's far more likely that conservative/fundamental catholics and protestants will have a common enemy in the Godless southern republic! At least in the Union the maintain their right to discriminate.


  • Options
    #57
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    I agree.

    There are many loyalist sectarian bigots who make no bones of what they are.

    It is the sectarian bigots who pretend to be something else (most of SF) who stick in the throat the most.
    Sectarianism like racism is a form of bigotry, discrimination, or hatred arising from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group, such as between different denominations of a religion, nationalism, class, regional or factions of a political movement.

    Here's the full leaflet, not just the bit highlighted by the media.

    http://c3.thejournal.ie/media/2015/05/sf-leaflet-1-375x500.jpg

    Now, explain to me where the "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" is in that leaflet?

    Those are census figures, you must report them as they are, you cannot attach the words nationalist or unionist to them when the figures are for catholic and protestant.

    The leaflet merely reports the census figures and shows that the tactical voting which was long a feature of that constituency was no longer necessary as there was now the potential for a nationalist MP.
    An eager media, rabid for sticking the boot into SF at any opportunity, completely twisted this and leaped on it (largely ignoring the unionist pact which was in fact sectarian politics in action) while the usual anti-shinners like yourself were only too happyt o be suddenly deeply concerned about north Belfast.

    Again I ask, can you point out where the "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" in that leaflet is? Perhaps the bit where he says he wants to "advance equality and defend all citizens against austerity, sectarianism and the failed politics of the past"? Is that the bit that sticks in your throat?


  • Options
    #58
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    Here's the full leaflet, not just the bit highlighted by the media.

    http://c3.thejournal.ie/media/2015/05/sf-leaflet-1-375x500.jpg

    Now, explain to me where the "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" is in that leaflet?

    Those are census figures, you must report them as they are, you cannot attach the words nationalist or unionist to them when the figures are for catholic and protestant.

    The leaflet merely reports the census figures and shows that the tactical voting which was long a feature of that constituency was no longer necessary as there was now the potential for a nationalist MP.
    An eager media, rabid for sticking the boot into SF at any opportunity, completely twisted this and leaped on it (largely ignoring the unionist pact which was in fact sectarian politics in action) while the usual anti-shinners like yourself were only too happyt o be suddenly deeply concerned about north Belfast.

    Again I ask, can you point out where the "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" in that leaflet is? Perhaps the bit where he says he wants to "advance equality and defend all citizens against austerity, sectarianism and the failed politics of the past"? Is that the bit that sticks in your throat?


    Say I was running for election in Texas as a republican and I put out a leaflet saying Population of Texas is 51% White and 49% Non-White, figures taken directly from the census and in the leaflet I called on the 51% God-fearing Republicans to make sure they got out and voted for me as opposed to the 49% wishy-washy Democrats who would be voting for my opposition, I would be immediately arrested for racial profiling.

    That is what he did - direct sectarian profiling. Catholic does not equal Nationalist unless you are a sectarian bigot. Neither does Protestant equal unionist unless you are a sectarian bigot.

    So yes, the leaflet is sectarian, the candidate is sectarian and the party that endorsed it is sectarian.

    What is frightening and shocking is the inability of so many like yourself to see this. At least the SF party members quoted in the OP were able to see it. It gives us some hope but I am not surprised that there was some SF supporters on these boards out defending it.


  • Options
    #59
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    Say I was running for election in Texas as a republican and I put out a leaflet saying Population of Texas is 51% White and 49% Non-White, figures taken directly from the census and in the leaflet I called on the 51% God-fearing Republicans to make sure they got out and voted for me as opposed to the 49% wishy-washy Democrats who would be voting for my opposition, I would be immediately arrested for racial profiling.

    The fact you even think such a ridiculous scenario is comparable just goes to show the minset of the anti-shinner brigade on boards
    That is what he did - direct sectarian profiling. Catholic does not equal Nationalist unless you are a sectarian bigot. Neither does Protestant equal unionist unless you are a sectarian bigot.

    And at no point does he say it does. But the fact is that the majority of catholics vote nationalist and the majority of protestants vote unionist. Are you disputing this?
    Therefore he used the census to show that demographics had changed and that even with a unionist unity candidate in place the DUP could still be defeated
    So yes, the leaflet is sectarian, the candidate is sectarian and the party that endorsed it is sectarian.

    You have failed to answer the question i posed twice in my post, cause I figured you'd miss it. I provided the definition of sectarian and the entire leaflet, now show me where in it "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" is displayed?
    What is frightening and shocking is the inability of so many like yourself to see this.

    What is repetitive and monotonous are the desperate attempts by the usual suspects to use the tiniest thing to try and portray Sinn Fein as the big bad boogeyman. Not to mention the sudden interest you all get in the north when rubbish like this comes up
    At least the SF party members quoted in the OP were able to see it. It gives us some hope but I am not surprised that there was some SF supporters on these boards out defending it.

    I personally think it was ill advised and stupid. The fact remains however that it was not in any way sectarian.

    http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ac/ac774315db21fa8cb5423bd29a0d2106b630dd2adbe68890613b5f495020e4e1.jpg


  • Options
    #60
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Crooked Jack wrote: »
    The fact you even think such a ridiculous scenario is comparable just goes to show the minset of the anti-shinner brigade on boards



    And at no point does he say it does. But the fact is that the majority of catholics vote nationalist and the majority of protestants vote unionist. Are you disputing this?
    Therefore he used the census to show that demographics had changed and that even with a unionist unity candidate in place the DUP could still be defeated



    You have failed to answer the question i posed twice in my post, cause I figured you'd miss it. I provided the definition of sectarian and the entire leaflet, now show me where in it "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" is displayed?



    What is repetitive and monotonous are the desperate attempts by the usual suspects to use the tiniest thing to try and portray Sinn Fein as the big bad boogeyman. Not to mention the sudden interest you all get in the north when rubbish like this comes up



    I personally think it was ill advised and stupid. The fact remains however that it was not in any way sectarian.

    http://www.quickmeme.com/img/ac/ac774315db21fa8cb5423bd29a0d2106b630dd2adbe68890613b5f495020e4e1.jpg


    There it is in bold - the sectarian bigot piece, repeated by yourself. Go back to my example.

    Most whites vote Republican, most non-whites vote Democrat and as a result all you Republicans should now get out and vote for me because the Texas census shows there are more whites.

    Seriously, how do fail to see the naked sectarian bigotry in the leaflet? Mind-boggling.

    There is nothing racist in saying the statistics show non-whites commit more crimes as there is nothing sectarian in saying the statistics show most Catholics vote nationalist.

    What is racist and/or sectarian is profiling on the basis of such generalities such as targetting non-whites for police searches or asking Catholics to get out and vote for Sinn Fein because of demographic changes in religious identity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Godge wrote: »
    There it is in bold - the sectarian bigot piece, repeated by yourself. Go back to my example.


    1) Are. You. Disputing. That?

    2) Please. For the fourth time of asking. Show me where "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred" is displayed.

    Here it is in bold as well. "bigotry, discrimination, or hatred"


Advertisement