The orange order / unionist parties would not be capable of lying on the industrial scale of sinn fein. The Irish/American lobby should wake-up & smell the coffee and stop swallowing this tripe. This absurd claptrap being peddaled over in the U.S. make most still believe we live in white-washed thatched cottages wearing rags because of the evil protestant's/unionist's. This propaganda is insulting to me as an Irishman and is it any wonder that people around the world joke about us. The only winners are sinn fein who take the dollars off many well-meaning U.S. citizens.
If evidence was needed - my son travelled to America with the Ulster Project last year and took a folder with him to show people where he lived. Many of the good people reading and viewing the photos in this folder, were totally stupified as to the beautiful countryside, town, modern shops, schools and home where he lived. Two people actually enquired where the cottages where?
Sinn fein need their arses kicked for feeding this evil drivel to the emotional Irish Americans and blatently taking their money for Terrorism, NOT as they say, "the poor Catholic oppressed families". Sinn fein only exist due to blatent lies and have only ever lined their own terrorist pockets.
Maybe a good job for them now would to be a P.R. for Bin-Laden.....

RE: The Anne Frank house I was actually there a few months ago and saw the video in question. Its actually far more harmless than Cllr Copeland suggests.

Basically It takes the form of an interactive video regarding current controversies (Islamic headscarfs in French schools, Sikh police officers wanting to wear trubans in place of their uniform helmets, etc etc) where the rights of one group of people are deemed to be in conflict with another group. A short video is shown outlining the background to the controversy and the opposing viewpoints and the each audience member is invited to vote (via handheld remote devices) for which side they think is "right".

On the day I was there the vote was running in favour of the Orangemen. I cant remember the exact percentage but it was in the mid-sixties.

I was somewhat suprised at the result (given that Orangemen are generally not portrayed in a sympatheric manner in the international media) but Im even more suprised a unionist counciller is complaining about it !

MIke, thanks for the extra detail. I hope you're right and that particular case is a lot of fuss over nothing.

It could be that Copeland's overreacting or maybe the Irish Times are sensationalising it by saying he has "complained" to the Dutch embassy. I would hope if he hadn't seen the item himself it may have been more of an enquiry than a complaint, but you never know with local politicians.

I do believe that your article may be just a bit one sided. The links you provide about Nationalist opposition to the Orange Order all show over the top, extravagant, unnecessary and in some cases just blatant lies about the Orange Order. But to say that Nationalist opposition to the Orange Order is bigoted, lies and against Unionism in general, is just plain bullshit from yourself.
Ultimately, I have no problem with Protestantism, and despite disagreeing with Unionism, I respect its right to its opinion, no matter how wrong I feel it is. That aside, I hate, loathe and despise the Orange Order. I feel that it an organisation of bigoted, triumphalist, old men who like to try to constantly remind us that a Protestant Dutch king defeated a Catholic British king 400 years ago. The Orange Order is not welcome in Catholic areas. They can stay in Protestant areas and march to their hearts content. This may be bigoted of me, but to say that walking down the Springfield Road or the Garvaghy Road, with a sash and a bowler hat, a Union Jack and playing ‘The Sash’ is necessary to a religious movement, then that is just complete and utter crap.

"But to say that Nationalist opposition to the Orange Order is bigoted, lies and against Unionism in general, is just plain bullshit from yourself."

Seamus, let's not cross our wires here. I'm not saying that at all. Nationalists are perfectly entitled to dislike the Orange Order (I certainly don't think they do enough to discourage things like this, for example); but do it based on facts, not lies and/or exaggerations. What I'm talking about is deliberate and calculated demonisation, not justified criticism.

And it's doesnt' just go for the Orange Order either, they're just the most obvious and most common legitimate target. When lies are put about like that I think it's deliberately inciting hatred; not just against the Orange Order but against the "other Irish" population as a whole. It would be a laugh, were it not so serious, that they try to justify with claims that the Orange Order are intolerant. (Speaking of intolerance...) just look at Limavady where the simple fact that someone was an Orangeman was used as justification for removing a statue of someone.

Why does all this matter? Because once these hateful liars have successfully demonised unionism and the majority population of Northern Ireland

I am unsure as to how attacking an allegedly religious organisation can amount to demonising unionism or even the majority of the population of Northern Ireland.

"The Orange Order is not welcome in Catholic areas. They can stay in Protestant areas and march to their hearts content."

For a variety of reasons I wouldnt be a fan of the OO for but this notion that people should be free to parade in one one "area" but not another is obnoxious and dangerous nonsense.

Besides there is NO SUCH THING as a "Protestant area" or a "Catholic area". If there is then over the last eight years Ive had two six month spells as a Catholic and been Protestant for the rest of the time.

Mike, you are just being flippant. Everyone knows what I mean by the term "Protestant area" and everyone knows what I mean by the term "Catholic area". And I don't think that it is dangerous nonsense. It is actually quite sensible. All the trouble around parading would end if people marched in an area where they have the support of the majority of the population. Would a white supremacist movement be welcome in Harlem? Of course not, so why should a protestant supremacist movement be welcome in the lower Springfield?

I would like to think a white supremacist movement would be met by batons and bullets (or failing that bricks, bottles and petrol bombs) in most places to be honest.

By the same token if Orange parades were as "sectarian" as the Shinners (and others claim) then why chould the inhaitants of PREDOMINANTLY Protestant areas have to put up with them any more than those living in PREDOMINANTLY RC areas.

Believe me there are plenty of people living in such places who dislike the parades as much as you do.

No the sensible thing would be for the parades commision to judge each individual parades on its merits.

1) Does it glorify terrorism.
2) Does it include bands/groups affiliated with terrorist/criminal organisations.
3) Could it REASONABLY construed as racist/sectarian/homophobic etc
4) Is it likely to cause undue traffic disruption or inconvenience to the public.
5) Does it take place at a reasonable hour.

If it passes the tests above then let em march where they damn well like.

If not then get out the batons.........

That would be okay except for the fact that as an organisation the Orange Order is sectarian by nature. It bans Catholics, it bans anyone who is married to a Catholic. It bans anyone who has ever been to a Catholic ceremony, whether it be mass, a wedding, a funeral, a christening etc. Why should people have to put up with an organisation marching through their area that basically says we are all going to hell and that the leader of our Church is an Anti-Christ?

Seamus, of coruse it "bans" Catholics it's f**king purpose is to promote Protestantism. As I said above, I'm an atheist so also couldn't join either. That doesn't give me a right to tell them where they can and can't go.

I think disallowing anyone who's married to a Catholic to join etc. is stupid (as with a lot of things in religious organisations) but as a private religious organisation that's their decision, as long as it's lawful they can do what they like.

And by describing them as Protestant supremacist (and explicitly drawing parallels with white supremacist groups - the ones who murder innocent blacks), by comparing a group with the aim of promoting a faith with one with the aim of eliminating a race of people you're more or less proving my point for me and exhibiting the exact sort of hyperbole I'm talking about, never mind making your own position look rather blinkered.

First off all, not every white supremacist group murder innocent blacks, some of them just promote white people. Also, as an allegedly religious group, why should they be allowed to march through the area of another religious group of whom they are completely intolerant of? Personally, as an organisation, I view the Orange Order as offensive, maybe not violent like most of the white supremacist movements, but just as offensive. They say marching is a massive part of their culture, and fair enough it might be. But surely they can do it in an area where they will not cause offence? That surely would be the Christian thing to do.

"....the area of another religious group ..."

I was didnt realise there were orange parades through the Vatican ?

Mike, I'll explain this again, slowly for yourself. Whether you like it or not the Falls Road is a Catholic area, as in, an area where the massive majority of people are Catholic. We are offended by the Orange Order so why should we have to put up with them and their offensive attitudes to our religion in our own area.

This is the same as saying the UK is a Christian country, Iran is an Islamic country and India is a Hindu country.

Also, Mike, you also know full well what I meant by my post, so why don't you respond to my comments, rather than trying to play word games.

Children, children, children! Calm down.
Maybe if we tried to learn a bit about each others culture rather than the "well I hate them but if they don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses then that's up to them" approach we might find that the "other side" don't eat babies etc.
Maybe contentious marches or parades would be less contentious if the "other side" don't feel they are being challenged or intimidated. Maybe they could even participate in some way and make a lot of exclusive things more inclusive.
Maybe pigs will fly first - unfortunately.

So would also you be in favour of banning for example the annual Belfast Gay pride demonstration ?

After all it does offend a lot of people and takes place in a hetrosexual area.

Personally speaking, I see Gay Pride as being completely and utterly pointless. Could you imagine Straight Pride. I'm a man and I love women and I'm going to dance in the street about it. Completely and utterly pointless. And as allowing Gay Pride marches offends more people than banning them then I would have no problem if the council were to ban it or tell them to parade in an area of the city that they won't offend people.

So do you have a particular area in mind ?

"Could you imagine Straight Pride. I'm a man and I love women and I'm going to dance in the street about it."

Is a line of cars driving through the streets with ribbons tied to their aerials headed up by a long limousine with "Just married" chalked on the rear and some tin cans tied to the back bumper not pretty much amounting to the same thing ?

No, that is a celebration of marriage, not Heterosexuality. How many people participating in Gay Pride are married? There is a massive difference between celebrating marriage and celebrating a sexuality.