| « Official: EU Makes It to the Big Time | There Was No "War" » |
Fundamental Failure to Understand Unionists
by beano 
on 10 Jan 2008 at 11:49. Categories: Local Wackos, Republicans, Law & Order, Devolved Government Actually, Brian Feeney's fundamental failure might be understanding anything, but I was feeling charitable when I wrote that title. The Irish News is generally the best of a bad bunch when it comes to local news papers, which makes the fact that they give regular space to an idiot like Feeney all the more puzzling. I guess it must be a marketing decision; there are enough people out there who enjoy nothing more than reading material that reinforces their own prejudices, even if it is rubbish.
Over at 3,000 Versts Chekov does a wonderful job of tearing apart Feeney's latest diatribe against unionists, which comes disguised as a rant about Human Rights (nice to see the Irish News finally making their content freely-available online by the way. Damn this new media stuff's a bit scary).
In addition to Chekov's critique, I thought I should add my own thoughts. Firstly to correct a schoolboy error. Feeney says
"[Unionists] use the words "UK" and "Britain" inter-changeably. When they remember that the north [sic] isn't part of Britain..."
Britain and the UK are interchangeable and it's not just unionists who use the terms accordingly. Feeney may be confusing Britain, a convenient short-hand for "the United Kingdom", with Great Britain, the island consisting of England, Scotland and Wales. I'd let the mistake slide if it wasn't for the fact the arrogant shite is trying to correct other people. The first rule of being a smart-arse is to know your facts.
Feeney goes on about unionist reluctance to devolve policing and justice powers "such a mentality indicates a fear of self-reliance, a unionist unwillingness to stand on their own two feet". Actually, it is the manifestation of a fear of letting the fox run the hen-house - to give convicted criminals the ultimate (or nearly ultimate) say in running the police. Sounds like common sense to me.
Follow up:
"It’s a bit like being in the swimming pool but too scared to let go of the bank, which more or less sums up the whole unionist attitude to power-sharing."
The way I see it, if we must use swimming-pool analogies (let's keep it simple for poor Bri, he seems a bit slow), it goes more like this. Our MLAs are charged with looking after the interests and well-being of the voters in a similar way that a parent is charged with looking after the interests and well-being of their child (albeit the child doesn't get to select its parents, much as some may wish they could). To my mind, allowing known terrorists to run the police is more akin to giving a known paedophile the job of running the swimming pool your children attend.
His conclusion sums it all up nicely. Only a complete and total moron, or someone wilfully misrepresenting the situation could conclude with something that is, at the one time, as horrendously idiotic and deliberately insulting as:
"Is that really the limit of their ambition, to be a dependant province of an imaginary state? Yes, of course it is."
Well done Brian. Clearly your intellect knows no bounds and we should do away with the assembly altogether and just let you run the place.
Trackback address for this post
12 comments
Hear Hear?,
Is this some sort of mutual appreciation society?
Thanks for drawing us back to your blog Beano. One forgets sometimes that there's an NI blog world outside Slugger.
The Peadophile analogies a bit scary though.
With very few exceptions, there are no Irish nationalist journalists/commentators that are capable of moving outside their intellectual, cultural and political ghetto.
Hmmm.. you maybe right. But I doubt you could argue that there are many Unionists journalists/commentators capable of the same.
There may be some with open minds on items relating to nationalism, but very few that show any real knowledge or understanding of it, or even show a interest in developing that knowledge. In most cases, comment is provided to further put down and dismiss and to deny, republican and nationalist ideologies very basis of existence.
John Coulter, Alex kane, Roy garland, David Adams and at a stretch, Newton Emerson all are capable of providing pretty good objective analysis which isn;t been replicated on the "other side".
None of them drop to Feeney's level of actively baiting their political opinions.
Who gives it the nod for objectivity ?
In fairness, Roy Garland has a number of thought provoking pieces in the Irish News. Alex Kane? Seriously? Little Davie Adams? Newton Emerson is a clown (and not in the funny ha-ha sense).
I've heard Coulter is a deep-thinker but haven't read him.
All five push me out of my comfort-zone and tells me and their mainly unionist readership things which they may not want to hear. Dunno if that makes them "objective" but it certainly makes for more stimulating journalism than the peddling of old stereotypes and the accepted "truths" about ourselves and the other side
Of the five, Garland and Coulter are pushing the boundaries the farthest and explore corners which the unionist establishment would rather leave unexplored.
Emerson is a bit too golf-club for me and I'm not actually sure if he would describe himslef as unionist, although his background was. I do think Reg is unfair though to describe him as a clown, he rattles cages which deserve to be rattled.
Granted, Alex kane is writing in a Unionist paper for a Unionist audience but again he's 2 or 3 steps ahead of most of the unionist establishment (admitedly that's not saying a great deal).
And what's the problem with David Adams? I find his pieces in the irish times and The Blanket honest and occasionally thought-provoking.
Comment feed for this postLeave a comment
