Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Identity and the Orange Order

By bc in Op-Ed
Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:33:24 AM EST
Tags: Politics (all tags)
Politics

The Orange Order is often in the news in Britain, and everyone who keeps an eye on Northern Irish politics must be at least slightly familiar with that institution. We are often shown members of the Order marching, and told that it is disgraceful that they march on certain routes, and that they must be stopped by the police and the state despite this being strangely in opposition to the fundamental human rights of every man to self assembly. Sometimes the television screens blast out condemnatory speeches by politicians interspersed with mocking pictures of men in bowler hats, wearing orange and playing flutes.

But what is the Orange Order really? Why does it have such a huge coalition of enemies, enemies that include the Irish State, the British State, and the American State? How can it rouse such ire, despite (unlike the always in vogue IRA) having never planted a bomb, kneecapped a civilian, or machine-gunned a pub?


The Orange order is a Protestant fraternity with members throughout the world. Their name comes from William III, Prince of Orange, whose victory over the despotic power of James II (who believed in the Divine Right of Kings) at the Battle of the Boyne established the foundations for a constitutional democracy in the British Isles. No battle can be more indelibly imprinted on folk memory than the Battle of the Boyne, every year on the anniversary of its date there are celebrations across Ireland - which causes a lot of the hatred for the Orangemen, for they alone are an identity in this modern, "multicultural" British Isles that is not allowed to be proud of its identity or history, or to celebrate it in any way without condemnation from all quarters.

To understand the visceral identity of the Orangemen, you must realise that they were founded in strife. In 1795 the so-called "Defenders", a Catholic terrorist rabble active during the period, attacked Protestant weavers and farmers in Armagh. This was the Battle of the Diamond, and afterwards the Protestants formed a circle, joined hands, and declared their Brotherhood in Loyalty to the Crown, the Country and the Reformed Religion. When we look at the Black Legend, the fervent belief sprung from the propaganda presses of the Netherlands that Phillip II of Spain and Louis XIV of France had a pact to genocide every last Protestant man, woman and child, and couple this with the estimated quarter of a million actually killed in the Spanish Inquisition, and then add the simple fact that Catholic monarchs stood for absolute rule and tyranny, as compared to the edging towards democracy of the more advanced, northern European, protestant governments, we can see that the Protestants of 18th century Ireland, clinging to the edge of a predominantly Catholic island, had a lot to fear and suffered many problems and attacks from the Catholic majority.

The Orange lodge, we can see, is fundamentally a small-c conservative institution. It stands not to send society into turmoil, not to bring down the firmament of Church and State, but to safeguard the protestant faith and people against aggression. Central to the Orange Order is the idea of civil liberties and inalienable rights. As an organisation founded by Protestants in the late 18th century, this is not surprising; the United States of America has a similar idealistic base as the Orange Order. The Order proclaims civil and religious liberty for all: special privileges for none. While the Order stands for the Protestant faith, it is also fundamentally tolerant, standing for liberty under the law. This is fundamental to an order founded to defend against the encroachments and tyranny of both a soulless state and an authoritarian Church, an order that stands for the dignity of the individual.

So why does the Order have such a tarnished reputation these days? More and more, as I have travelled throughout the world, I have found that people see the Order as somehow opposed to Catholicism, reactionary, and an institution of bigoted extremists. It is true that some people associated with the Order are less than savoury, but this is said of any institution. It is true that the order is sometimes reactionary, in that it stands increasingly opposed to encroachments on civil rights and liberties by the increasingly statist Westminster government in London. However, the very principles of the order are against discrimination against Catholicism or any other creed, so it is hardly institutionally biased.

It seems to me that there is one singular yearly occurrence that drags the name of the order through the mud: the marching season. The Orange walks are colourful public processions by which we witness for our faith and celebrate our cultural heritage, and every lodge has its own route that its members have followed, often, for many years. The problem here is that, in Belfast particularly, aggressors opposed to the Order have identified some of the larger routes and have aggressively forced Protestants out of the communities through which the procession respectfully meanders. The Orangemen, being a traditional group of people, refuse to alter their route, leading to strife and chaos every year. The problem is that the British state has unwisely pushed its way into these affairs, and tries to stop Orange walks from taking the route they would like and have done for over a hundred years. This is an attack on the rights of men to self-assembly, the rights of men to walk on public thoroughfares wherever they please without state entanglement, and given the Order's fervent, 18th century inspired belief in the Rights of Man, a terrible mistake that only encourages all Orangemen to stand against state tyranny. It is hard to see how a swift march can irritate Catholic communities so much, especially when they are being coerced by Sinn Fein and the IRA to oppose their fellow's civil rights to self-assembly at any opportunity.

Otherwise, there is a general confusion in people's minds between extremist paramilitary groups such as the UDF and the Orange Order, which have no basis in fact. And many people see the Order as some sort of secret society, despite that we have public processions and that the aims and articles of our Order are publicly available.

It is a shame that the Orange Lodge has such a bad reputation outside its core constituencies. It is ironic that the IRA/Sinn Fein, which, frustrated by the simple fact that 70% of the Northern Irish population wishes to remain British, has resorted to a campaign not just of bombing and gunning, but of smearing every single institution that is beloved of the Northern Irish majority. It is annoying to me, personally, because like many Orangemen, I am not Northern Irish, and I have never been there. My local lodge is in southwest Scotland, and has no truck with sectarianism or bigotry of any kind, and yet we are viewed as pariahs. A letter from the Loyal Orange Lodge Institution of England to Prime Minister Tony Blair sums up the situation rather well.

The Order is not the brutish den of bigotry you think it is. It is just an inclusive fraternity united in principles all the West held dear at one time, formed before these principles of Liberty and Natural Rights had swept all before them, and now suffering afterwards as these same principles are washed away on a tide of prejudice, hate and statism.

bc is a thinker and writer who has been involved in the orange order since he was a boy.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o throughout the world
o Black Legend
o letter
o inclusive
o Also by bc


Display: Sort:
Identity and the Orange Order | 363 comments (324 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden)
Nice troll (3.83 / 12) (#3)
by greenrd on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 02:17:39 PM EST

The Left blindly supports all terrorists, everywhere;

I see. Just keep smoking whatever it is you're smoking. Perhaps you would make a good replacement for Ms. "Invade Their Countries and Convert Them All To Christianity!" Coulter.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

No, it's a bad troll (5.00 / 2) (#177)
by faustus on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:09:18 AM EST

I love good trolls, which I would define to be not about real issues, or at least so exagerated that they become satire. Of course the fact that this story made it to the first page rules out both of these possibilities. It doesn't take any skill to argue like a racist, as racist people are often the most ignorant around. If a troll wants to be like a racist person, they need to be so insane that they invalidate their own position. This is just a troll which could actually been written by a clown Orange Man, and is therefore not original in any form, real or otherwise.

[ Parent ]
Ah, this was inevitable. (none / 0) (#202)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:15:58 AM EST

Giving the old "troll the trolls" lark a shot, are we? Best of luck with that.

I don't think I'll be playing your little game of chasing around trying to figure out what constitutes a "good troll."

I do think it's interesting that a defense of an organization like the Orangemen can make it to the front page of K5 simply by marshalling a herd of sacred cows bearing the brand of the Left.

He's coralled quite a mooing lot of them, hasn't he? Sympathy for any history of "oppression," identity politics, civil liberties, decrying "discrimination," anti-authoritarianism, etc.

[ Parent ]

It's not even a troll. (none / 0) (#219)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:36:32 AM EST

Most Orangemen believe what bc says to be true.

[ Parent ]
No I'm being serious... (none / 0) (#276)
by faustus on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:32:55 PM EST

...so please don't try to troll the trolling of a troll.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, right. (2.50 / 2) (#296)
by RobotSlave on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:25:31 PM EST

Nice try, man. You're "serious." Sure. Whatever. I'm not biting.

Remember, don't feed the meta-trolls, people.

[ Parent ]

But 'Slavey, you can't bite. (5.00 / 2) (#312)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:43:41 AM EST

Your master has trained you not to bite, as he does not like that. You cover your teeth with your lips and everything is... oh! oh! huagualugahugaggg

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Bravo (2.80 / 5) (#8)
by IHCOYC on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 02:37:59 PM EST

I will agree with some of the other writers, that the business about the (generic) Left's automatically supporting all terrorists is a bit over the top.

Still, this is a nice piece, and worthwhile just to show the side of the story that does not get much airplay. What we Americans owe specifically to Protestantism --- the struggle against absolute monarchy that gave shape to the belief system that ultimately begat the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights --- is given short shrift in contemporary education. We speak in terms of the generic monotheism contained in the familiar yet meaningless phrase "Judeo-Christian." We forget that it was people like Thomas Cranmer, William Tyndale, John Knox, and John Foxe who actually put the ideas of freedom of speech and freedom of religion into the consciousness of the English-speaking world. Unless you're a student of the period, you may not even know these names.

We owe the freedoms we enjoy in American to Protestantism. It is important not to forget, especially in the face of foreign-controlled and anti-democratic churches and their numerous apologists.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit Grignr.
--- Livy

We owe our freedoms here and abroad to Free Masons (4.00 / 2) (#53)
by Benjammin on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:03:18 PM EST

The blue lodge did more to obtain, promote and preserve liberty, the rights and equality of men, and challenge the power of tyrants and despots than any religion ever did. The system that begat the bill of rights rests within the constitution and bylaws of any Grand Lodge of Free masons, as it was before the nation was first conceived.

[ Parent ]
Hit the nail on the head there... (5.00 / 2) (#70)
by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:32:46 PM EST

The blue lodge did more to obtain, promote and preserve liberty, the rights and equality of men,

Men, yes, but not women. Curiously enough.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

It is a product of its times (3.50 / 2) (#72)
by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:40:36 PM EST

In 1795 no newly formed organisation anywhere would have admitted women. Of course the Order has got more up-to-date nowadays - women have their own affiliate organisations.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]
Do they sit at the back of the lodge? (5.00 / 4) (#78)
by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:07:45 PM EST

This is really no better than saying '50s America was racially integrated because the blacks got to sit at the back of the same bus the whites sat on.

Affiliate associates my arse. Either you are like every other church in Scotland, with a free mix of men and women in congregations led by ministers of either gender, or you're being deliberately divisive on gender issues.

Besides, I was commenting on the Freemasons. I am perfectly aware that the Scottish Freemasons (at least, the Edinburgh grand lodge) still won't allow female membership, and they refuse to acknowledge any other lodge which permits female membership. And yes, I know women are allowed in the lodge on Ladies' Night.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

I don't see what's wrong with it exactly (2.33 / 3) (#81)
by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:25:05 PM EST

If I should wish to start a club for people with one ear, and waht to stop people with two ears from joining, I should be able to do so. I'm sure you agree with this, at least. People have a right to self assembly.

I the two eareds don't like this, they can start their own thing, and they can perhaps have it affiliated.

In this way, I can start a club. If I'm short of members, I can put two eared people on the bus and send them to Dundee, and when they come back welcome them into the fold.

It may be morally reprehensible in some sense, nonetheless, despite being perfectly legal and in accordance with the Rights of Men (nd yes, women). As it operates, often, as a social club for men, I don't see why it is necessarily, though. I like places I can go to to escape the opposite sex and be among my peers, and relax. It's just one of these things.

It would prefer it if every lodge could decide for itself whether to admit women or not, rather than it being a policy of the Order as a whole.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

It's not the lodges, per-say, (4.50 / 2) (#84)
by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:49:45 PM EST

it's the fact that Freemasonry has an influence on the architecture profession that goes beyond its social and religious role. To exclude female architects from the membership therefore affects their chances in their profession, that familiar "glass ceiling" or "Old Boys' Network".

To be truthful, it is unethical that professionals involved in architecture have associated themselves so deeply with a private single-sex social club. It is not unethical for the private single-sex social club to exist. It's akin to holding staff meetings in a lap-dancing club.

But let's not debate this to death, our public servants have already done this on our behalf.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Only speculative masons are made members now... (none / 0) (#262)
by Benjammin on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:59:00 PM EST

Operative masons were the thing back in midevial Europe, but as building techniques modernized and guild craft gradually diminished into oblivion, only speculative masons ran the lodge. There is no longer any provision in the constitutions or bylaws of the lodges allowing operative masons to become members without also passing the degrees of speculative masonry, like all other men. Since this is not a public organization, but a private one, membership is exclusive. Not only are no women allowed to be made masons anywhere in the world, neither can a boy, a doting elder man, an atheist, a madman, or a slave. Also, we are not a secret society, or few who are not members would know of our existence, though it was once that way long ago. We are a society with a few secrets, which help us to recognize each other as members and avoid frauds. What else do you want to know?

[ Parent ]
Need to know? (none / 0) (#277)
by it certainly is on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:36:56 PM EST

I've got one of the Edinburgh Lodge's log books. I know the entire constitution, statement of beliefs, big list of all associated lodges all over the world, the fact they keep sending telexes to Brenda to inform her that they had a toast to her that day, etc, etc.

Add to that the fact their "Volume of Sacred Law" is actually just the Christian Bible, Freemasonry in the UK is just Protestantism dressed up in aprons.

As I am a devout atheist, I refuse to acknowledge the existance of the Supreme Being, and therefore fail the first step of becoming a Mason. So much for it being a 'secular' organisation.

Thanks to my Dad, I have experienced the ultra-secret two handed handshake, but I've since forgotten how to apply it myself.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Freemasonry in General... (none / 0) (#353)
by Benjammin on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 03:12:03 PM EST

It is true that in the UK, as in many parts of Europe, Catholicism does not tolerate it's members being Masons. This is not to say that Freemasonry prohibits its membership from being one religion or another, but that each lodge in particular is flavored with the beliefs of that community's participants. If you are in a predominantly protestant community, and men who are interested in joining the lodge are protestant, then of course the membership in that lodge will be primarily protestant, but there is nothing that says anywhere that it must be so. If a British Freemason traveled to one of the lodges say, in India, for example, he might find that lodge uses whatever Hindus use as their textual reference for worship. Likewise, he may not be excluded from attending their meetings simply because he is not of the same religion as they. In fact, he would be made quite welcome and an honored guest, just as any Catholic Freemason would be in going to a primarily protestant UK lodge. You see, in Freemasonry, there is only one standard, which is you must acknowledge that all freemasons are equal, and have equal rights and responsibilities to themselves, to fellow masons, to their families and to their community and their government. You must also acknowledge that it is the plan of the universal architect that it be so. We could go in depth about the fundamentals of freemasonry belief structure, but that is a rather tedious subject. There are publications out there which would better serve to explain this position. However, do not confuse beliefs with religion, for religion is not part of Freemasonry. In fact, we do everything we can to avoid the subjects of religion and politics, and any member bringing these issues up in meetings would be counseled against it, and the meeting redirected to the proper order of business. Freemasonry was not founded on Protestantism, nor has it since been reformed thus. Freemasonry predates Christianity for that matter. There are qualifications to becoming a Freemason, but these have to do with beliefs, not religion. Any lodge may ascribe to whatever benevolent monotheistic organizations they prefer to use in their meetings, and is free to change their associations at will and for whatever purpose suits their membership at the time. A freemason from Calcutta is just as welcome in a lodge in Kansas City, Kansas as he would be in Lancashire, England, or in Tokyo, Japan, or his own home lodge. If possible, the lodge he visits will do everything they can to accomodate his needs, including using his theological references in their meetings.

[ Parent ]
Freemasons (4.50 / 2) (#93)
by IHCOYC on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 11:54:26 PM EST

Of course, Freemasons were also a product of popular Protestantism. Even now, it's still against the rules for a member of the Roman church to join the Masons: not because the Masons would exclude him, but because he faces excommunication if the priests learn he joined.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit Grignr.
--- Livy
[ Parent ]
A shristian freemason needs to make their mind up. (none / 0) (#257)
by the womble on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:36:17 PM EST

The reason for that is that Freemasonry involves worship of a God not compatible with the Christian idea of God. They do believe in a montheistic God but there is more to Christianity than that.

Someone who claims to be a Christian and a Freemason is rather like someone who claims to be simultaneously a Christian and a Muslim.

[ Parent ]

Freemasonry worships nothing... (none / 0) (#258)
by Benjammin on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:45:33 PM EST

Although we do pray and we use the Bible, the Toran, the Korah, etc, depending on where a particular group is meeting. A freemason does not go to lodge to worship, but to fellowship. He leaves worship at home or at church. You do have to be monotheistic to be one, though.

[ Parent ]
i'm confused (none / 0) (#260)
by dirtmerchant on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:46:54 PM EST

maybe its due to my agnosticism, but i'm missing the point you're trying to make. specifically how is the god worshiped in freemasonry and the god traditional protestants worship incompatible? and furthermore, explain specifically how allah and the christian god (or for that matter yaweh) incompatible (try not to bring the jesus-as-messiah argument into it, as that is a separate issue than the question presented above altogether).
-- "The universe not only may be queerer than we think, but queerer than we can think" - JBS Haldane
[ Parent ]
Same God, different beliefs (1.00 / 1) (#269)
by the womble on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:04:09 PM EST

try not to bring the jesus-as-messiah argument into it

Sorry, that I can not do. Jesus as messiah is Christianity.

As far as "compatibility" with Islam goes, it is not just that we believe that Jesus was the messiah, we believe he is God and worship him - from a Muslim point of view that is idolatrous. We worship the same God but some beliefs of a Christian are not compatible with some beliefs of a Muslim.

As far as the incompatibility with Freemasonry it is difficult to argue Freemasons will deny anything about their beliefs that leads to this conclusion, and it is hard to argue with member of a secret society about what their beliefs are! A lot of good points are made here although I find the tone of that article a little overdone. Freemasons do contradict themsleves with regard to their compatibility with all religions, for example this claims that belief in a supreme deity is necessary to fremasonry and then (a few paras later) says that Buddhists can be Freemasons.

I also find their claim to believe in a supreme being without being without any beliefs about the nature of that supreme being. Are they free to believe in an evil supreme being? or a flawed one? (both beliefs of some religion), can a dualist be a freemason? belief in a God can not stand in a vacuum.

[ Parent ]

Freemasonry precedes Christianity... (none / 0) (#261)
by Benjammin on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:47:36 PM EST

Check your history. Only the European movement after the rise of the Knights Templar dealt with Protestantism.

[ Parent ]
The Orange Order and terrorism (4.33 / 12) (#9)
by greenrd on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 02:39:43 PM EST

Otherwise, there is a general confusion in people's minds between extremist paramilitary groups such as the UDF and the Orange Order,

A confusion that surely would not be helped by the Orange Order allowing the convicted loyalist terrorist ringleader, Johnny Adair, to join a march, I expect. Or by an Orange Order Lodge Grand Secretary warning that the Order would turn to "paramilitary activities" (i.e. terrorism) if the Scottish Nationalists succeeded in their bid for independence from London.

Bad PR moves, no?


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes

Eh? (3.71 / 7) (#10)
by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 02:44:22 PM EST

How can the order control who walks in marches? Marches are on public thoroughfaires, anybody can join in. Further, I did not say that the Order is a perfect institution or that everybody in it is lovely; it has some pretty nasty people associated with it in Northern ireland in particular, if not elsewhere. Guess what, so does the Catholic Church in Ireland, the order can't help it if radical and angry groups within it try to seize control, or if some of it's members shoot their mouths off irresponsibly, like the Grand Secretary.

It doesn't mean anything compared to the principles the Lodge is founded upon, mostly follows (as perfectly as it can) and inculcates in its members. However, the northern irish branch of the Order is in an extreme atmosphere with some extreme people, you have to allow leeway given the pressures these people operate under.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

Hmm (3.83 / 6) (#13)
by 5pectre on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 03:06:57 PM EST

Why does it seem that you are 1. trying to deliberately antagonise the catholics and 2. celebrating the british invasion of ireland?

Liberty is incompatible with conservatism.

"Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

Incompatible? (none / 0) (#300)
by cdyer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:27:20 PM EST

Liberty is incompatible with conservatism.

Liberty is incompatible with incompatibility

[ Parent ]

You forgot a bit (4.50 / 6) (#14)
by imrdkl on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 03:12:02 PM EST

The order began with Bill the Bastard, and has never lost it's longing for the days of cannonblasting the Irish patriot at close range.

William the Bastard? (5.00 / 2) (#119)
by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:32:40 AM EST

The Orange Order dates back to the 11th century?

For those not in the know, the Vikings referred to William the Conqueror as William the Bastard, because of his parentage.

Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
[ Parent ]

Onward Christian bowlers... (4.69 / 23) (#16)
by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 03:32:18 PM EST

The irony is that nobody ever complains about the Dutch. The reason that the orange marchers are universally condemned has mostly to do with their mantra of NO! NOT A FUCKING INCH! NEVER!. This is how far they are willing to divert from their "traditional route" through Catholic areas. Their motto is "Never Surrender", which is what bc euphemistically calls "conservatism with a small c". The orangemen are welcome to song songs about how king billy slaughtered the catholics anywhere they like within their protestant strongholds. But they don't want to do that. What would be the fun in that? There are no Catholics to hear their hatemongering warsongs1 in those areas. No, they want to stir up trouble with a big stick.

Now, the IRA are a bunch of gun-running, drug-pushing terrorists, just like the UVF. However, the IRA did have one useful function in their dim past: they repelled the British invaders. Unfortunately, some British immigrants managed to plant themselves in the north of Ireland, and their NO! NOT A FUCKING INCH! NEVER! attitude has been a point of contention ever since.

1 Songs along the lines of

When the British Empire stood quite firm, we knew we need not fear
for we knew the Lord was on our side, and the Ulster Volunteers.
Now the U, it stands for Ulster, a place of great renown.
The V, its stands for Victory, for we will not back down.
The F, it stands for Freedom, for which we fight till death.
When you put them all together you've got UVF.
or the more traditionally
Hello! Hello!
We are the Billy Boys!
Hello! Hello!
You'll know us by our noise.
We're up to our knees in Fenian blood.
Surrender or you'll die, for we are the Brigston Billy Boys!


kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.

Well that's all very well Mr Isn't (3.77 / 9) (#17)
by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 03:43:43 PM EST

But I don't think those songs are part of the Order's official litany, and I don't think the order deliberately seeks out catholic routes to march through - the majority go off perfectly peacefully, it only becomes a problem for a very few high profile marches where Sinn Fein/IRA have deliberately targeted the communities along the march to push out protestants and push in catholics, so as to create a political advantage and strife, and so they can use the British state (how ironic) to protect themselves against those evil orangemen exercising their civil liberties (gasp!) and marching (HORROR).

Certainly there are some awful people in Northern Ireland, some terrible organisations, protestant and otherwise. You'll note I don't sing those songs, and that hate the UVF passionately, and yet I am still an Orangeman. This means that orangeism, which is what we are talking about specifically, has nothing to do with the bigotry you are bringing up and confabulating with it, which is exactly the problem I am complaining about in the first place!

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]

ugh (4.42 / 7) (#20)
by eudas on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:23:18 PM EST

bc, i've refrained from comment before, but i'll say it now. somehow, while nearly everything you write has a semi-reasonable tone, it also has the slimy feel of a troll at its best. perhaps you could satisfactorily explain why that is? from the smug overtones to the neat, sarcastic replies, one does not receive a sense of communication but rather a sense that one is merely being played for maximum furor and effect.

perhaps i've answered my own question.

eudas
"We're placing this wood in your ass for the good of the world" -- mrgoat
[ Parent ]

Well (4.00 / 2) (#24)
by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:33:23 PM EST

I'm hardly going to play up "it certainly is", I really rather like him, and enjoy having knockabout arguments with him, tongue-in-cheek and fun ones. Which means I can only think that somehow your personality and mine are somehow opposed - I don't try to irritate as much as I enjoy a good knockabout argument, with lashings of cream and strawberries on the side, and beer, and football and side. And maybe some sarcasm and cheap shots, but I can't help myself sometimes, and we are all grown up, after all.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]
Yes (3.40 / 5) (#29)
by greenrd on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:19:43 PM EST

while nearly everything you write has a semi-reasonable tone, it also has the slimy feel of a troll at its best... one does not receive a sense of communication but rather a sense that one is merely being played for maximum furor and effect.

Yes, chilling, isn't he?

Of course, this could be how aristocrats like him talk all the time.


"Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
[ Parent ]

Would you make love to me? (4.23 / 13) (#30)
by eSolutions on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:28:00 PM EST

I find your cool insight intensely erotic.  You are like an unblinking eye, a Norse lord who slices the levee and unleashes the flood in my pants.  Do me.

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial
[ Parent ]

slices the levee? (2.50 / 10) (#128)
by adequate nathan on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 11:48:14 AM EST

Fagot.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

To the Wild Zero Raters (none / 0) (#286)
by jvance on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:29:23 PM EST

Please allow Mr Adequate to insult his friend Mr. Isn't in peace.

I thank you.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Oops, wrong account. (none / 0) (#288)
by jvance on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:33:19 PM EST

I meant Mr. Solutions, not Mr. Isn't. Whether they are actually different persons is left as an exercise for the reader.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Am I eSolutions, dreaming I am it certainly is? (5.00 / 1) (#292)
by it certainly is on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:36:49 PM EST

Or am I it certainly is, dreaming I am eSolutions?

Only one thing is for certain. Adequacy is dead.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

It is? (none / 0) (#311)
by jvance on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:04:18 AM EST

I was wondering what that stench was.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Newsflash: *AQY is dying. (5.00 / 2) (#313)
by it certainly is on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:45:56 AM EST

Another crippling bombshell hit the troll community today as yadda yadda yadda.

FACT: Adequacy is dead.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

Your guide to the Adequacy refugees (5.00 / 6) (#331)
by eSolutions on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 10:25:22 PM EST

--- it certainly is ---
Ethnicity: Mick, or limey or something.  
Posts: Straightforward, perceptive comments.
Style: Coherent.

--- eSolutions ---
Ethnicity: American.  
Posts: Homicidal, Shel Silverstein-esqe rants.  
Style: Incoherent.

--- adequate nathan ---
Ethnicity: Self-hating Jew.  
Posts: Usually some variety of war-cry.  
Style: Incoherent.

--- perdida ---
Ethnicity: Female.  
Posts: Reads like a normal kurosinner.  
Style: Coherent.

--- Philip A. Shoe ---
Ethnicity: Unknown.
Posts: Troll.
Style: Coherent.

--- RobotSlave ---
Ethnicity: Unknown.
Posts:  Love letters to himself.
Style: Incoherent.

These are the Daves I know; post up others as the power of whim compells you.  (I can pin down you, Herr Jvance, on none of these criteria.)

----
Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
--Tampax Commercial
[ Parent ]

Minor correction (none / 0) (#332)
by Phillip Asheo on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 09:40:12 AM EST

--- Philip Asheo ---
Ethnicity: Self-hating Englishman.
Posts: Controversial, but well thought out arguments.
Style: Coherent.

Just in case any of you are too thick to understand the user name, its Phil, Phil Asheo. geddit ?

I was also dmg on sid=trolltalk  sid=k22320inchfan and sid=10gramspoppylatex.

Recently I have been doing a lot less trolling, and you will find my troll postings are, for the most part, "trolling with the truth"

I've also been experimenting with crapflooding, but only in a very small and uncreative way. Like posting *BSD is dying to a bsd-related article.

Thank you, eSolutions for providing this handy reference guide, It will be very useful to k5-ers who don't wish to respond to trolls !!!

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

You missed a few (none / 0) (#333)
by Phillip Asheo on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 09:44:16 AM EST

bc, spiralx to name but two...

--
"Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
-Earl Long
[ Parent ]

Life wouldn't be fair (none / 0) (#334)
by it certainly is on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 10:22:22 AM EST

if we failed to name-check faustus, PotatoError, spaceghoti, gordonjcp, walwyn, cp, ana, Craig McPherson, Scott Lockwood, Trollaxor, egg troll, streetlawyer/jsm, tgibbs/T Reginald Gibbons, shoeboy/Peter Johnson and other Adequacy-reading but otherwise normal and well-adjusted kur0shin community members.

If you want to go on a crusade and unmask the evil in our midst, please post a message here. Thanks.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

My God! (none / 0) (#335)
by jvance on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 01:01:29 PM EST

I can't believe I just spent time reading that. I mean, Adequacy was a time waster, but at least it was fun. At least there was a modicum of intelligence there. The goatsex front page is an apt metaphor for trolltalk - a gaping vortex of nothingness, the open sucking anus of the Internet.

---

This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
[ Parent ]

Have you met Cornelia Lingus? [n/t] (none / 0) (#338)
by it certainly is on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 06:08:13 PM EST



kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

My (5.00 / 1) (#339)
by bc on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 07:38:50 PM EST

You're a cunning linguist.

♥, bc.
[ Parent ]
I'm no ornithologist, me... (5.00 / 1) (#340)
by it certainly is on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 07:40:20 PM EST

I'm more of a word botcher.

kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
[ Parent ]

all about me (5.00 / 1) (#341)
by adequate nathan on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 12:10:58 AM EST

I am not actually Jewish, but I have a Jewish name and features. People always assume that I'm Jewish because of my looks, whatever that means. I play chess and the violin proficiently, I have studied Biblical languages, I have read Talmud commentaries seriously (in English,) and yet, I am an unmixed Anglo-Saxon except for that lamented (by my Papa) Huguenot who married into the line a few centuries back.

My girlfriend's name is Rosenberg and she's not Jewish either.

As for jvance, my diagnosis is:

  • American
  • Usually something witty or about exercise
  • Coherent, but only by choice

    Btw eSolutions: I'm hooked on that crazy new dance of yours! It's so crazy!

    Nathan
    "For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
    -Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

    Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
    [ Parent ]

  • As much about me as you can stand (5.00 / 2) (#342)
    by jvance on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 03:19:06 AM EST

    Nathan a Jewish name? Oy!

    As for me,

    Ethnicity: Mutant Anglo-American hybrid.
    Posts: Counterpuncher who keeps his comments short to limit his losses.
    Style: As coherent as his shitty writing allows.

    ---

    This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
    [ Parent ]

    Crazy new dance? (none / 0) (#351)
    by eSolutions on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 12:06:34 PM EST

    I am confused by your comment.  Elucidate or die!

    ----
    Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
    --Tampax Commercial
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, wait.... (none / 0) (#352)
    by eSolutions on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 02:50:39 PM EST

    ...are you referring to this? I guess that is a crazy new dance; carry on.

    ----
    Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
    --Tampax Commercial
    [ Parent ]

    bc came from Adequacy. (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:21:58 AM EST

    Do I have to say more?

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Not true (4.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Phillip Asheo on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 01:46:02 PM EST

    I have it on good authority that bc actually came from slashdot. As did pretty much all the adequacy editors.

    --
    "Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
    -Earl Long
    [ Parent ]

    Well. (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:58:07 PM EST

    What authority would that be? As good as the second comment that bc ever posted to k5?

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    You do. (4.50 / 2) (#143)
    by it certainly is on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 01:48:54 PM EST

    The AQ founding editors were pooled from the THC, an umbrella organisation that represents trolls on Slashdot, kuro5hin and other discussion sites.

    Don't accuse them of happening upon kuro5hin recently -- they've never left.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    I'm not discussing the group. (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:59:51 PM EST

    I'm discussing bc, who hit k5 in July of 2001.

    THC? Hmmm, I wonder if they know what that means. :)

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    I've actually been here much longer (none / 0) (#154)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 03:42:36 PM EST

    But needs must, I changed from my low uid account. Also, July is before adequacy was around. And he's right, I did "come to k5 from /." like lots of other people did, at first.

    Thanks for the interest.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Well, you do reference adequacy in that post. (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 03:53:22 PM EST

    Perhaps you should read it. ;)

    Anyway, I suppose maybe I came to k5 from /. … but the chronology is so long and complicated. Let's face it, the online world in 1987 was a lot different than it is now, and well, I'm a dinosaur. :)

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Coming from Slash... (none / 0) (#298)
    by cdyer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:09:21 PM EST

    If I'm not mistaken, Rusty came to K5 from Slashdot, too, no? What is your point?

    Cheers,
    Cliff

    [ Parent ]

    Dignity. Humility. Compassion. (4.40 / 10) (#38)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:46:00 PM EST

    It is these three things that the Orangemen lack in spades.

    I'm not saying that nationalists have clean hands, they obviously don't. It's a barely kept secret that the IRA ethnically cleansed the Garvachy Road with their bombs and cheap Irish navvies built it back up. But the point is:

    • The Nationalists do not want Orangemen marching down the Garvaghy Road.
    • The British Government, to whom the Orangemen are loyal, do not want Orangemen marching down Garvaghy Road.
    • The Orangemen refuse to march anywhere but Garvaghy Road. They are back to their old "No. Not a fucking inch. Never." game again. Lovely PR move.
    This 'game' of sectarianism really has nothing to do with religious history. For the leaders, it is a messy, Machiavellian game of politics. Divide a people into "them" and "us". Tell a man that his neighbour is inferior because of his religion (or his eye colour, or his accent, or his sexual orientation, it really doesn't matter) and you walk along the road to tyranny. Give that man a uniform (say, a sash and a bowler hat, or a mitre and crook, or a balaclava and an Armalite, again it really makes no difference) and you have taken another step. Give the camps an irresponsible leadership to absolve them of personal responsibility (Ian Paisley, Bill Clinton, Brenda, JP2, whoever) and you have the outbreak of World War 3.

    The truth is, humanity has has an ugly side. All that side needs is an excuse. Sectarianism is that excuse. I'm sure you titter quietly to yourself about Mo Johnstone, but there are people who really do believe what you mockingly support. You are not dangerous. They are.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    "Not an inch, but maybe half a mile" (4.16 / 6) (#42)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:10:30 PM EST

    Would be a more accurate assessment. I think I covered this in another comment, but it is untrue to say that the Orange Order "hasn't moved an inch" on the issue of marching when it has gladly cut the number of marches on that infamous road from 11 down to 1 per year. it's just a little disingenuous; perhaps it is the Nationalists with their "not till we have everything! ALL our demands met" attitude that are the problem here?

    Anyway, I certainly agree with your latter paragraphs, but I think it is going too far to say that it has nothing to do with religious history. Regardless of how people split themselves up, they tend to do so because they really are different and do have different histories and identities. I think I am more optomistic that you in that I think the majority of times this happens it is perfectly peaceful. There is nothing wrong with having an identity or regarding yourself as different, so long as you respect the other guy and leave him free to follow his beliefs. The majority of ways in which humanity splits itself up are peaceful and helpful, except for the occasional well publicised case.

    Given that Orangeism really is founded on an idea of Civil Liberties and tolerance (18th century style, ie, imperfectly and sometimes hypocritically), the problem comes down to wider culture rather than the lodge itself institutionally.

    I agree about Mo Johnstone.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    The funniest thing I have read in ages: (4.75 / 4) (#45)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:23:41 PM EST

    "Sinn Fein, like the German Nazi party, has always understood the value of propaganda."

    Godwin would turn in his grave. As would Swift.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    heehee (3.33 / 3) (#47)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:34:07 PM EST

    That reminds me of this article dmg and I were having a chuckle over the other day. There are many highly amusing things on that site in this vein.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    In the spirit of equality: (4.50 / 2) (#50)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:54:12 PM EST

    Catholic joke.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Oh, and a mystery you could clear up: (4.50 / 2) (#51)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:56:54 PM EST

    that whole "Red Hand of Ulster as the Adequacy banner" thing. Was that your doing?

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Not exactly (4.00 / 2) (#57)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:20:19 PM EST

    There was a big argument that flared up in #adequacy about NI, I think jsm started it, and that changed into a look at various symbols used by the different sides, and iirc cp was rather taken with the "Red Hand", and there was an article on the topic, so tongue in cheek, cp changed the banners to display it. We thought it'd be fun to confuse people with no clue what it was, there was nothing in it really.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    Originism at its worst... (5.00 / 1) (#299)
    by cdyer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:24:29 PM EST

    Founded on, schmounded on. You play that card like it was six aces and a joker. I came into this discussion knowing absolutely nothing about the Orangemen. However, it is quite clear that despite what their origins may be, they behave like thugs. You keep on with this broken record of religious freedom and peaceful marches, but you ignore any real critiques of your point, like the one about the marchers standing outside a bookstore where Catholics were killed, and mimicking the firing of a machine gun. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the orangemen are devoted to the high principles you claim, but until they start living up to them, not necessarily perfectly, but at least in good faith, you can't expect the rest of the world to respect your claim.

    It's not that the Orange can't be all you want them to be, but it has to be clear in their actions. If they engage in this ugly harrassment on their marches, no one will respect your claims of peace and tradition. If they don't disclaim this action from others who follow them on their march, it will still, rightfully, be attributed to the Orange, as it is an Orange march, and hence their responsibility. You can complain about your rights to march all you want, but you can't demand respect when you clearly haven't earned it. Stand up for your actions, good AND bad, take off the rose colored glasses, and tell us the truth.

    Cheers,
    Cliff

    [ Parent ]

    What a troll (4.75 / 4) (#123)
    by odaiwai on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:39:23 AM EST

    Yeah, the orange order never scream abuse at little Catholic schoolgirls, or  insist that they should be free to parade their lambeg drums with the picture on th pope on the dig (so they hit it harder) through Catholic housing estates, while singing their songs of hatred.

    (I'm a southern Irish Catholic.  I hold the current IRA in just about the same low regard as I hold the orangemen - i.e. quite a bit below cockroaches, and even lower than spammers.)

    dave
    -- "They're chefs! Chefs with chainsaws!"
    [ Parent ]

    I heard they changed it to (4.90 / 10) (#19)
    by bob6 on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:17:00 PM EST

    NO! NOT TWO FUCKING POINT FIVE CENTIMETERS!

    Cheers.
    [ Parent ]
    You forget -- it sends a message (3.00 / 9) (#27)
    by eSolutions on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:59:45 PM EST

    The Orange Order may seem unreasonable and reactionary, but, in their defense, they send a message.  The message they send is that intimidation and dictatorship are wrong -- a simple and innocent message, but one that I feel is often ignored in today's speed-of-light world.  Their uplifting songs may make the knees of society's weaker elements quake a little, and their proud marches (like the "Take Back the Night" rallies here in the U.S.) may annoy those who would prefer a populace that cowers in fear.  But I support the Orange Order for their choice to send a message to the world: "It's wrong to be afraid."

    Yours in Christ,
    eSolutions

    ----
    Making periods more convenient -- one box at a time.
    --Tampax Commercial
    [ Parent ]

    Contrast with WTO marches is amusing (2.44 / 9) (#28)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:05:45 PM EST

    The typical WTO march, which deliberately sets out to invade and damge property and disrupt people's lifes, when compared to an Orange Walk, which is always peaceful in intent, gets a lot less opprobrium and condemnation, and indeed some condemn the latter while praising the former!

    It is perpelexing.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Simple (3.85 / 7) (#33)
    by greenrd on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:32:42 PM EST

    It's very simple. The Orange Walks are seen as symbolic of a "grind the Catholic's noses in the dirt" type of mentality - symbolic of a two caste society.

    The WTO protests, on the other hand, are thousands of Davids vs Goliath.

    You side with the oppressors in both cases, rather than the representatives of the oppressed, which does not altogether surprise me.


    "Capitalism is the absurd belief that the worst of men, for the worst of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all." -- John Maynard Keynes
    [ Parent ]

    biased review (4.25 / 4) (#43)
    by 5pectre on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:12:29 PM EST

    i'm sure the orange walk is peaceful in intent but the WTO protests (by global justice activists) are also largely peaceful both in intent and actuality. it is a myth that they set out to 'damge' (damage) peoples 'lifes' (lives), anyone who tells you that is probably a conservative :P

    in the recent 'no war in iraq/freedom for palestine' in london, volunteers formed human chains to guide the march and prevent destruction of property. there was also a small police presence.

    "Let us kill the English, their concept of individual rights might undermine the power of our beloved tyrants!!" - Lisa Simpson [ -1.50 / -7.74]

    [ Parent ]

    Is it? (4.44 / 9) (#44)
    by wji on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:20:23 PM EST

    I'm always amused by those who claim that any significant proportion of such marchers are interested in violence. Don't you give us any fucking credit? Do you think there'd be anything left of Seattle if 20,000 people all intent on destruction attacked it?

    Of course there are other differences as well. One is that protestors do not generally march in the thousands on the homes of rich businessmen. Hey, and for that matter, why is it always the mostly local crowd at demos that gets the venom while the foreign ultra-rich businessmen and politicians, who also come knowing they'll provoke conflict, are "just exercising their rights"?

    Another is that saving the world from corporate hell is a lot more important than saving the Northern Irish from self-determination. There's always some point at which theoretical rights have to be compromised for the greater good. There's a high burden of proof for doing that, of course, and it only applies in extreme cases. Blocking roads to stop WTO delegates is a violation of their freedom of movement and distasteful. But it's necessary. We're literally talking about the survival of democracy here. I see no such justification in what's happening in Northern Ireland.

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]

    It's simple (4.22 / 9) (#46)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:30:18 PM EST

    The Nation of Islam can muster 1 million people under charismatic (and hardly peacable) leaders like Farrakhan and march on Washington, and make their point without a single arrest. 20,000 antiglobalists can't do the same? Violence and denial of rights harms your movement and denial of rights like that is never, ever possibly justified. I thought you people liked Ghandi?!? But now I hear this semi-fascist claptrap and inane justification of the denial of rights to our fellow man.

    The protestors can either keep on trying to justify their violence, as greenrd does in another reply, making them seem rather immature, or they can blame "fringe elements" for all the problems, or, they can actually do something about it by getting organised and just not tolerating it! If the nation of Islam can do it with 50x the number of people, surely they can?

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Now you're just being totally ignorant (3.83 / 6) (#60)
    by wji on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:29:00 PM EST

    The protestors *were* organized; the Black Bloc was also organized, seperately. The protestors *did* try and stop them; after a few boots to the face they said "fuck this, let the cops handle these nuts".

    It's not a matter of blaming fringe elements. They are fringe elements. It's an obvious objective truth. The Black Bloc hardly keep things secret. Go to some Bloc-type websites and you'll probably see as much denunciation of mainstream protestors as of the WTO. But nah, stick to your comfortable fantasies.

    Of course I like Ghandi. You'll note that Ghandi regularily broke the law and harmed other peoples' rights with his actions. But it was justified.

    You call a statement like "sometimes you have to violate peoples' rights for the greater good" 'semi-facist'. Does that mean the Allied countries in World War Two were "semi-facist"? After all, they threw thousands in jail for speaking against the war effort. But they had to, because there was a very real threat to democracy, and every day the defeat of the Nazis was delayed cost thousands of innocent lives.

    I don't really want to deny a delegate's right to go to a WTO meeting, but he's engaging in a conspiracy to deny billions of people affordable water, health care, and social services, decent wages, and a clean environment, and I don't have any better means of stopping him.

    For that matter, if smashing up Niketown was going to bring decent wages to their laborers of course I would do it. But I wasn't talking about smashing up Niketown, as would be fucking obvious to you if you'd actually read my comment.

    [ IHBT ]

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]

    It's my impression (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by johnny on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:47:22 PM EST

    That the DC cops went out of their way to not provoke the so-called million man marchers into a giant race riot. (I think they did a good job.) On the other hand, in Seattle, in Philadelphia (Republican convention), in Washington, the police themselves did riot. Not to be too inflamatory, but also it's perhaps worth noting that the DC cops are mostly black, as were the million man marchers. The WTO protesters are not.

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]
    You're actually stating that? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by Otter on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:35:44 PM EST

    Not to be too inflamatory, but also it's perhaps worth noting that the DC cops are mostly black, as were the million man marchers. The WTO protesters are not.

    Yup, minority groups can hold large demonstrations without incident, but as soon as you assemble a few privileged white college students, the police start beating and tear gassing them without provocation. It's a good thing they just happen to be carrying gas masks and battle plans!

    Even if I hadn't been in both Quebec City and Los Angeles as rioters gathered, drew up elaborate orders of battle, dressed for combat and started daily fights with the police, that would seem like an unlikely explanation. I'm surprised to hear someone explicitly argue it.

    [ Parent ]

    News flash: Cops are human beings. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by johnny on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 07:33:59 PM EST

    Also, police have been known to abuse their power. If you don't think it's possible that cops would have the same attitude to "priviledged white college students" that you do, could you explain to me why not?

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]
    Denying the rights of others (4.40 / 5) (#67)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:49:27 PM EST

    Is never justified if they are innocents. Any movement that thinks it is is no better than that they fight - it has already committed the original sin.

    Yes, this means that the state locking up dissenters during WWII wasn't justified, and nor was conscription. Freedom is best defended by truly free men, not by coerced drones. Further, your democracy is just the coercion of the minority by the majority, and I reject it.

    If your rights are being genuinely hampered and infirnged upon, you can effectively protest by taking them back. When Rosa Parks rode in the front of that bus, she wasn't denying other's rights, she was truly standing up for herself. The globoprotestors, it seems, stand up for other people and have the gall to think on their behalf. it doesn't seem they are in any particular danger themselves - they seem middle class and well to do, but isn't that always the case.

    For that matter, if smashing up Niketown was going to bring decent wages to their laborers of course I would do it.

    Yes of course, don't bother asking them what they think. Stand up for them, think for them, treat them as non-humans. Have you ever considered that these workers are in the best possible job suited to their situation? if they weren't getting enough money, they wouldn't work for Nike. But they do so on their own merit, they take the decision to work for those wages, not you.

    Just bloody leave people alone and stop trying to presumptiously tell people what they think, and coerce other people in the name of other people. WTF?

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Really, the third world wants neo-liberalism? (4.00 / 4) (#79)
    by wji on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:13:49 PM EST

    I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for that, given that it seems pretty obvious that the third world is anti-neoliberalism (they invented that term). Across South America anti-capitalist parties have been getting many many votes even though there are strong inducements to vote against them even if you agree (like, capital flight and the CIA). "Neo-liberalism" is a term invented in the third world, actually.

    I'm a little confused as to why you dispute that Nike labourers don't want better wages. Also confused as to why you insist they must desire to work for their current wages or they wouldn't do it. Doesn't it seem possible to you that they may view working for shitty wages as better than starving to death, but not the best possible outcome?

    You're right, I never have met a Nike labourer. I never met a victim of the Holocaust either (well, not until a few years ago). Does that mean opposing the Holocaust would be an example of first world arrogance and "thinking for them"? Of course it fucking doesn't, because it's common sense.

    Oh, and I presume you are at least as loathsome of the corporations who seek to make profit off the citizens of the third world as the activists who have their own agenda. I mean otherwise you'd just be a complete hypocrite.

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]

    Great (3.60 / 5) (#82)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:35:44 PM EST

    They invented the terms - they must surely be as anti-neoliberalist as London is communist.

    As for what Nike labourers want. well great. i want all sorts of things too. I want a 32" plasma television, I want a fucking big aga, a lava lamp and, gosh, some Nike trainers. Git protesting for me, boy! After all, I want it, I must therefore be entitled to it by some bizarre process in your head.

    You'd do well to realise that nobody is enitled to the damndest thing, and that people must work to earn their crust, nomatter how small it is. Yes, these Nike labourers have the alternative of death. So they'd better get working, cos it is better than dying, and they'd better thank Nike and global capitalism for giving them a job and the option while they are at it. If they are left alone, they may start their own business, move on and up, help their peers directly, and bring out a mighty flowering of economic and social activity. But not if people insist on telling them what they should and shouldn't work for, they won't. Sucks for them, eh?

    You can oppose injustice; that seems well and good, but you aren't opposing any injustice, you are promoting a notion of entitlement that is fundamentally unjust.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    You're right (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by wji on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 01:47:50 PM EST

    People aren't entitled to profit fairly from their own work; they aren't entitled to food, medicine, health care, or human dignity. The market is always right. Nike labourers desiring better than starvation wages are the exact moral equivalent of you desiring luxury goods.

    It's possible for sweatshop workers in Nicaragua to start a business -- they could, say, work 56 hour work weeks and put aside a third of their pay for 50 years and then have 10,000 dollars to start their own business with! Sure, based on the life expectancy in Nicaragua they'd have to start work at 12 years old to have 5 years left for their own business -- but they must be lazy freeloaders or why else would the life expectancy be so low! Hell, if they weren't so stupid and lazy they would have worked hard to have the right parents, like 8 out of the 15 richest people in the world did (and all of them if you count people who started rich and became hyper-rich), not to mention the President.

    All this anti-corporate activism is an appalling violation of the rights given to corporations by our constitution. Somewhere in there. I just can't find it, that's all.

    Corporations are just following the market, even when they use Maost dictatorships and paramilitary death squads to keep their workers in line. It's the activists daring to subvert the capitalist process by encouraging people to make moral consumer choices who are the real enemy! Believing that humans are more than utility-maximizing robots is evil! Solidarity does not exist! Sacrifice is bad! People don't care about each other! The poor are lazy! The rich are hard-working! Capitalism rewards all labour at its proper value! Alice Walton had done more valuable labour on the day she was born than 18,000 Nicaraguan sweatshop workers in a hundred years of nonstop 56 hour work weeks! Yeah!

    You've won me over. I'm going to go outside now, burn all my leftist books, and go buy some Ayn Rand, and Milton Freedman.

    I have seen the light.

    [ I realize I'm probably being trolled, but there are people who believe this just as much as bc. So I'll assume he's serious. ]

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]

    You are succumbing to emotion (2.00 / 3) (#145)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:02:54 PM EST

    "Fair" isn't determined by what you want or by what people or society in general think might be fair in an ideal world. If you are willing to work, voluntarily, for $1/hour, then it's fair. That's just the way it is.

    And I think you overestimate the cash needed to start a business. You can start a business with just your own labour. The main impedement to starting a business in the third world are moronic laws and legal apparatus making it as difficult as possible, plus insane property laws.

    I suppose I'm different from you. I'm a real socialist, by which I mean, I believe in society. You appear to be some sort of fascist statist dreaming of coercing the globe into your absurd notions of what is fair and what isn't.

    I'm thankful that you people have been thoroughly slapped down into irrelevance. The sort of blind spot you totalitarians have about where your blatant coercion and hatred of freedom leads to is amazing, and a shame. Thank the Lord you are living on political hand me downs now, on the outside, protesting and eating gruel.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Voluntary? (4.33 / 3) (#149)
    by wji on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:40:49 PM EST

    Let's say you're a slave. You can voluntarily build a pyramid in exchange for food and accomadations, or you will be killed.

    Let's say you're a wage labourer. You can voluntarily make shoes in exchange for barely enough money for food and accomadations, or you will starve.

    Spot the difference!

    In conclusion, the Powerpuff Girls are a reactionary, pseudo-feminist enterprise.
    [ Parent ]

    The difference is fairly fucking gigantic (3.25 / 4) (#152)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 03:25:47 PM EST

    Like it or not, the man in the latter case would consider the himself in a far, far better position than the man in the first. He has possibilities. He can perhaps make something of himself. He has freedom under the law. Perhaps he does not have any entitlement to a great job, but why should he think he has that? The point is, he has the freedom to do as he wishes according to his means.

    Your sob stories are absurd. Life is tough, get over it (I too work, as an alternative to starvation. Isn't it awful, Delilah?).

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    He has no entitlement to a job. (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:51:02 PM EST

    People need things to live. If they can't get them, they die.

    This is the reality of 19th-century England, and Ireland. People died because they weren't slaves. If you got hurt in a factory accident, you were fired, and if you couldn't get a job, you died.

    Well, reality for the poor anyway.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    In Ireland, it was exacerbated (4.50 / 2) (#183)
    by it certainly is on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:29:15 AM EST

    by the fact that even if you could afford to feed yourself, paying your landlord's steep rates for renting your squalid abode was the first priority. A proletariat actually owning any land was out of the question, even if they paid for that land in rent many times over.

    There was this nice chap who came up with a clever solution for that one. I can't remember his name, but bc could probably tell you.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Nitpick. (none / 0) (#191)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:17:11 AM EST

    The proletariat is the social group. The individual form is proletarian - that's a person who belongs to the proletariat.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    No you don't (none / 0) (#343)
    by jvance on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 06:05:21 PM EST

    I too work, as an alternative to starvation. Isn't it awful, Delilah?

    You live in that bastion of Socialism, the UK. If you lost your job, the State would ensure that you got enough grub, a roof over your head, and proper medical care should you get sick. What a horrible, horrible state of affairs. You must feel like such a hypocrite, surrounded by all those safety nets.

    Why don't you pull up stakes and move posthaste to some Third World country with the clothes on your back as your only belongings. I'm sure that with your Protestant work ethic and your can-do attitude you'll quickly make something of yourself. A lifetime debtor, that is. You see, even though your newfound employer doesn't quite pay you enough to keep body and soul together, he'll be more than happy to loan you enough money to make up the shortfall. You, your children, and your grandchildren, who each in turn become responsible for your debt, will find the interest rate quite reasonable.

    Now what was this you were saying about slavery versus employment in the Third World?

    ---

    This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
    [ Parent ]

    So? (none / 0) (#344)
    by bc on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 06:57:12 PM EST

    I have in fact been close to starvation, despite being in the UK. I've shoplifted before, due to total lack of food and an inability to get any "benefits" due to being of no fixed abode. Say what you like, I work to provide myself with a living. Most people, with the exception of the underclass, aren't very morally comfortable with accepting benefits, and there's a reason for that: they know full well they aren't entitled to jack shit.

    As for the rest, I don't know where you get the strange, strange idea that the state has any impact on my ability to make a living, other than retarding it by any means necessary and stealing 40% of my income. And of course, in the Third World by having laws that make it nigh impossible to start a business, or own or trade property, with ease.

    The problem for third worlders and for first worlders is exactly the same: this state you adore getting in the bloody way of people going about their business. I doubt very much that third worlders would welcome your idea to get the state even more on their back. by instituting more beaurocracy. more coercive taxation, more stupid laws restricting what people can do economically, and thus socially.

    You've been telling them these great ideas for 50 years now. So far, all it has produced is various tinpot dictatorships, massacres, genocides, etc etc. Keep praising government, brother. Keep the blind faith in opposition to all and any evidence or thought.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Ho hum. (none / 0) (#346)
    by jvance on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 11:16:28 PM EST

    You've been telling them these great ideas for 50 years now.

    Who, me? I'm not that old.

    So far, all it has produced is various tinpot dictatorships, massacres, genocides, etc etc. Keep praising government, brother. Keep the blind faith in opposition to all and any evidence or thought.

    Yes, genocide, dictatorships, massacres, they weren't a part of the human condition until they sprang fully - formed from the forehead of Socialism (or whatever brand of ism you're accusing me of supporting) 50 years ago.

    I note that you ignored my point about defacto slavery in the Third World. And you accuse me of keeping blind faith yadda yadda?

    Look, if you're going to be an idiot and insist that a Stateless society can coexist with amassable wealth without the emergence of rampant thuggery, then you're welcome to continue this argument with yourself, on the lunatic fringe of the political spectrum. I leave you with this little gem from eLuddite.


    ---

    This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
    [ Parent ]

    Blah blah Hobbesianism (none / 0) (#349)
    by bc on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 10:58:37 AM EST

    YES. OOG NEED STRONG LEADER. OOG NEED STRONG LEADER TO STOP HOBBESIAN WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL. IF OOG NOT HAVE LEADER, CHAOS RESULT! OOG GIVE 50% OF HIS INCOME TO LEADER TO KEEP THE PEACE. OOG IGNORE WHEN LEADER START WAR WITH OTHER LEADERS - THAT IS DIFFERENT. OOG ALSO IGNORE THE CONCEPT OF LAW AND POLICE FORCES KEEPING PEACE AND ENFORCING CONTRACTS IN ANY ANARCHIST SOCIETY. OOG THINK SUCH THINGS NEED STATE TO EXIST! WITHOUT STATE, WE ALL DOOMED! DOOMED! NOW OOG LICK BOOTS OF LEADER AND THANK HIS LUCKY STARS. LEADER IS WISE, LEADER IS WONDROUS!

    I don't know what you meant by "de facto slavery in the third world" because I addressed that point earlier. It's simply untrue, unless you have a very odd definition of "slavery" and think people are automatically entitled to a happy, wonderful job and income. You also need a strange definition of "fair", one that depends not on what the individual will happily work for, but rather in comparing to what others elsewhere earn.

    To reiterate, the employer presents and open ended choice to the employee. This is not coercion or slavery nomatter how you try and twist it or moan about the employee's alternatives. The employee's alternatives are not the employer's concern. The slavemaster holds a gun to the slaves head; the employer does not. To say he does is hysteria.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Deserved Response (none / 0) (#350)
    by jvance on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 11:31:29 AM EST

    OOG LEARN USE COMPUTER, BROWSER. OOG FIND KURO5HIN, POST CRAP THERE. BUT, OOG NOT UNDERSTAND MAGIC OF CAPSLOCK OR PROPER GRAMMAR. FOR THAT MATTER, OOG HAVE DIFFICULTY WITH LOGICAL ARGUMENTATION AND RESORT TO WEAK RIDICULE.

    OOG MUST GO NOW. BOSS FIND OOG, HENCHMEN BEAT OOG AND DRAG BACK TO FARM. OOG MUST WORK HARDER NOW TO PAY OFF OOG GRANDFATHER'S DEBT.

    ---

    This is taking too much of my time. I've gone away. You can reach me at john_a_vance atsign hotmail dot com if you wish.
    [ Parent ]

    Cry me a river, brother. (5.00 / 1) (#347)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 12:04:23 AM EST

    Dearie me, poor old bc the Glesca street urchin.

    I have absolutely no idea why you're so stupid as to avoid government benefits. It's your money, given back to you! Even better, if you're poor, it's other people's money! Pay bugger-all taxes and get a whole load of benefits back. In case you hadn't noticed, that's how Socialism works.

    I ♥ the Welfare State. I'm one of these evil liberalists who think the rich should subsidise the poor. I've already had years of child benefit (get paid for being a child!), a full 4-year student grant -- I'll bet you got one as well, fucker -- and full HC1 entitlement. Since I started earning a fuckload of money, I've probably paid it all back. It's fuckers like you and Maggie Thatcher the Milk Snatcher who want to hoarde your money and let the country go to ruin.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    bah (none / 0) (#348)
    by bc on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 10:44:32 AM EST

    Of course. Opposing coercion makes me a fucker. Apparantly Maggie the Milk Snatcher should have snatched another 20% of everybody's income; that would have been perfectly OK.

    I certainly don't want to hoard my money. I just don't think anybody is entitled to take from me by the threat of force. Unlike you, I have a genuine faith in society. I think people can voluntarily take care of things like medical care for the poor, grant cheques for poor students, and so on and so forth, without any need for this fucking gigantic house of cards and incompetence that through it's welfare state provides a big fucking retarding duvet that smothers the countryside with this disgusting sense of entitlement.

    As for letting the country go to ruin, who cares about that? I'm not a fascist, I don't consider my identity or my success to be bound up with the success and health of the state. What a strange idea indeed. I doubt many others do, either.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    That's not the bc I know. (5.00 / 1) (#354)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 05:30:24 PM EST

    The bc I know is a bluenosed Protestant, an Orangeman, a man fiercely loyal to his Monarch, her Church and her State. You, clearly, are an impostor. Look everybody! Libertarian Randroids have stolen bc's account and are flooding the channel with ramblings about tyrannous "threat of force" taxation and the Free Market's Invisible Hand!

    I care about my country, bc, because it's the country I live in, the country we all live in. If we don't work together, the country goes to the dogs and we are all royally fucked. If it means bribing the orra tink bitches with one hand and coshing them with the other, so be it. We shall fight Thatcher's "Me" generation with the NHS, the New Deal and the Minimum Wage. The Selfish gene shall not prevail.

    If you want to see what life would be like if the Iron Lady got her dream, just look to America. Urban decay, the world's largest prison population, death penalties, survivalist nutters armed to the teeth, people who can't afford to be ill, gifted children kept out of universities because their parents don't have the Benjamins, people doing indentured servitude because they're up to their eyeballs in forced debt while the rich get huge tax breaks from the oil baron they installed as leader and they live in underground bunkers, protected from the poor by razor wires and hired guns. I wouldn't live in that hell-hole. If that's your idea of how things should work, by all means leave Britain today. But I'm staying here. I'm no patriot, but I love my country.

    PS: You're a fucker because you're denouncing the cradle-to-grave support that you were reared on. It's a new synonym for 'hypocrite' that I've just invented.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    "Working Together" (5.00 / 2) (#355)
    by bc on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 06:19:43 PM EST

    I don't remember announcing some Randian opinion on "working together" being evil, only the strong should survive, etc. Strange, that.

    You see, I do very much believe in people working together. Oh God, I do. It's just that where I think of people working together, other people believe in this shibboleth "socialism" which is nothing but political demagoguery. It's not people "working together" at all - it's huge innefficient state agencies kept alive on the life blood of the people, these poor peons and automatons who must be jerked around by their puppet masters, the state. Apparantly this is "working together". Christ!

    It isn't working together, it's the modern equivalent of an elite group of cave savages getting big clubs and beating the crap out of another group of cave savages for 20% of their food, then giving 10% back to the poorest, providing a "protection racket", and being thanked. Of course, this political programme has been worked on a little by people desperate to justify it, from Karl Marx to John Rawls. I suppose the instinct is fairly fundamental, but nomatter how you dress it up in modern intellectual thought, or give it pretty names like "social justice" (ugh), the programme remains the same: utterly fucking unjust, and a completely mockery of "working together" or "social justice" nomatter how you try to consistently define these terms.

    This gene is not selfish. The only selfish gene is the gene of the state. I have a genuine belief in society. As I said, it appears you don't.

    Perhaps you were confused by my not giving a damn about my country; I can see how you might wonder at this, seeing as so many are trained to think "ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Fuhrer", and find it difficult to seperate these components out. I don't believe in the state. I believe in my community, in my fellow men, in society. I would never dream of forcing them to adhere to my beliefs for silly notions of what's good for the state. What's good is allowing people to be free.

    Your depiction of America seems to be somewhat hysterical. I look, and I see a country where crime rates are lower, where people can walk the streets without fear of being mugged after dark (thanks, "survivalist nutters", for not letting the state monoplise the use of defensive violence and then fail to live up to its promises. If only I could legally defend myself by whatever means necessary!), where, thanks to the majority of hospitals being charities, anyone can recieve health care nomatter what their illness, and without waiting lists, to boot. Quite unlike our "charitable" NHS that. I'd like to know that, if penniless and lying bleeding in Ibrox one night, the local charity hospital will send out a helicopter, rathe than a 30 minutes late NHS ambulance. When walking down the street, I too would like to be sure that the state isn't spying on me using thousands of CCTV cameras (for my protection!). I'd like to live in a country where the unemployment rate is as good as 0%, thanks to the state staying a little more off everybody's back. I see an America where the average income is 40% greater than the average UK income, where charity is still believed in, where individual rights are more respected. Frankly, America kicks this country's arse in almost every metric, and all thanks to being just a little freer.

    BTW, I believe in cradle to grave support. I just don't think the state should provide it, or that the state is best equipped to provide it, and I certainly don't think others should be forced against their will and used as marrionettes by said state in order to provide it.

    But then, I'm more worthy of the word "socialist" than the fuckers who dare use the word to describe their statist claptrap. Hooray for a belief in society!

    PS, for consistency's sake, I'm part of a new wing of the Orange order, one that has taken the founding principles and extended them for the modern era. I certainly don't let the lodge define my views! I see myself as in the tradition of Locke, von Mises, Hayek, etc. Many Orangemen seem to be freezed in aspic just after Tom Paine, which is a shame.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Attack of the 50ft Welfare State! (5.00 / 1) (#356)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 21, 2002 at 10:55:13 PM EST

    Well, at least we know where you stand.

    I agree that many state services are inefficient. There is an element of self-serving Sir Humphreys, but mostly it is because they need urgent modernisation. The government knows that, and it regularly contracts out, usually to its cost -- or rather, the taxpayers' cost.

    While government is inefficient, it is nowhere nearly as inefficient as private enterprise given a monopoly to play with. Parasitic, greedy, incompetent and downright negligent companies like Capita, Jarvis, Balfour Beatty, EDS, ITNet, Onyx, Initial and CSL cost the taxpayers of this country millions in their abortive attempts to take over running state and local services. Even putting in a new criminal database is too for them much to handle. But dividends are still paid and directors are still given fat bonuses for their failure. But I don't blame them for their incompetence -- it is the government's failure to be tough on them that is the key. While the Tories privatising our railways was still the worst deal ever, Premier Blair has a soft spot for big business, and is more than willing to throw our money their way. Nobody knows why.

    I like my community too, but I don't wrap myself up in provincialism and pretend that what goes on in London doesn't affect me. I'm generally amiable to the state, you clearly despise it. Let's agree to differ. What I personally despise is the increasing grip of private companies on public life, through things like public services tendering. Our state is the only thing with enough power to restrict this. Furthermore, our state has the frighteningly progressive principal of one person, one vote. Public and private companies still rely on the older principal of the golden rule; i.e. who has the gold, makes the rules. If there's a third way, let me know about it.

    Let's be brutally honest about America. You are at great risk of being mugged in any deprived or inner city area, regardless of which country it's in. Statistically, you're still more likely to be shot in New York than you are in London. While you pay less taxes in America, staple foods and the utilities are much more expensive, and you can be fired on a whim. Swings and roundabouts. And, of course, your trip to A&E in America is just as variable according to where you are as it is in Britain. If you really love America so much, hurry up and move there, do us all a favo(u)r. Personally, I wouldn't settle for anything less than Canada. Partly because I can't bear to wean myself off the state's nipple, but mostly because American "beer" is shit, Americans have no concept of irony and there are too many gun fetishists roaming about unchecked.

    Your dislike of CCTV is a canard -- you want to go out in public, but you don't want anyone to see you? Get real. Have a read of Spycatcher some time, you'll know that if you're important enough to be watched, MI5 won't waste their time fiddling about with cheap, unreliable CCTV tapes, they'll just bug your home and work illegally.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Oh yeh (none / 0) (#153)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 03:29:05 PM EST

    On a fundamental level, the difference is in who enforces the choice. The slavemaster says you must work or die. The employer merely says you have the option to work. What happens if you refuse is none of my business.

    As a result, the slavemaster is coercive, in every sense of the word. The employer is not coercive in any sense, because the choice he presents is open-ended.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (4.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Simon Kinahan on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 06:42:35 PM EST

    Of course there are other differences as well. One is that protestors do not generally march in the thousands on the homes of rich businessmen

    Well that's a telling analogy. And not one that reflects well on your view of the purpose of demonstrations.

    Another is that saving the world from corporate hell is a lot more important than saving the Northern Irish from self-determination.

    And that's telling too. Tell me: what kind of self-determination is it that doesn't involve the will of the majority ?

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    Depends on which majority. (4.80 / 5) (#75)
    by haflinger on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:59:05 PM EST

    The majority of the locals on the Garvaghy Road have made their wishes clear. They do not wish Orange marches.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Certainly (4.50 / 2) (#101)
    by Simon Kinahan on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 04:57:18 AM EST

    But it isn't the self-determination of the Garvaghy road that wji was talking about, was it ?

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]
    Probably not. (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 07:25:10 AM EST

    But you know, all these lines are arbitrary.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Oh, I know (4.50 / 2) (#112)
    by Simon Kinahan on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 08:27:28 AM EST

    NT

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]
    Well, my grandfather ... (4.55 / 9) (#23)
    by pyramid termite on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:30:28 PM EST

    ... wanted to kick someone's ass for putting an orange shamrock in his lunchbox. As for myself, I think the whole thing's stupid - I'm glad my ancestors, both Green and Orange left. Maybe Catholics and Protestants should march together for peace instead of seperately for pride. It's not like you worship different gods or something ...

    On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
    Point of theology. (2.27 / 18) (#58)
    by Phillip Asheo on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:21:36 PM EST

    It is widely accepted that whilst protestantism is a monotheistic Christian religion, Catholicism is a more paganistic religion with elements of Pope-worship, and virgin Mary worship alongside the more traditional God/Jesus worship of traditional Christians.

    --
    "Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
    -Earl Long
    [ Parent ]

    Here come the Chick Tracts. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:31:21 AM EST

    Wow, I was only meaning to be facetious in this editorial. I should have realized how accurate I was being at the time, though.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Protestants are the traditional christians? (n/t) (none / 0) (#226)
    by borderline on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:26:01 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Accepted? (none / 0) (#254)
    by the womble on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:04:18 PM EST

    Accepted by who? bc? Do you really belive that or are you a troll?

    [ Parent ]
    both sides are hyppocrites (4.25 / 4) (#164)
    by bolthole on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 08:46:00 PM EST

    Maybe Catholics and Protestants should march together for peace instead of seperately for pride. It's not like you worship different gods or something ...

    Yeah. The overwhelming irony is that BOTH sides, claim to worship the same God, using the same holy book, that equally tells both sides they should not be doing things like shooting people and blowing each other up.

    Their actions are a blight on the name of Christians everywhere.

    [ Parent ]

    Unfortunately, Orange and Green marching for peace (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Ruidh on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:22:29 AM EST

    ...will get their asses kicked by the sectarians.
    "Laissez-faire is a French term commonly interpreted by Conservatives to mean 'lazy fairy,' which is the belief that if governments are lazy enough, the Good Fairy will come down from heaven and do all their work for them."
    [ Parent ]
    marching together (4.50 / 2) (#255)
    by the womble on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:15:40 PM EST

    Maybe Catholics and Protestants should march together for peace

    In the rest of the world we usually do.I am very welcome at my protestant wife's church and she at my catholic church.

    If the problems of Northern Ireland is a religous clash how come catholics here in England are not particularly sympathetic towards Northern Irish nationalists and protestants are not particularly sympathetic towards unionists? Perhaps it would be more accurate to think of this as an ethnic/political problem - the Indians tend to decribe these things are "communal" (i.e. a clash of communities, without implying what seperates them), would that be an appropriate word to use here?

    [ Parent ]

    You've got it! (5.00 / 2) (#284)
    by deadplant on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:20:51 PM EST

    You hit on the real problem 'those people' are having over there.  Pride.  It's a sin according to the catholics AND the protestants.  Pride is the source of all their troubles, pride in the achievments of other people centuries ago.  Pride in their 'culture'.

    Sure everyone has the right to be proud of whatever they want.  That doesn't change the fact that it's Wrong, and it's causing all sorts of pain an suffering for thousands of mostly innocent people.

    Ethnic pride... ptooi! (i spit)
    Cultural pride... ptooi!
    Religous pride... ptooi!
    National pride... ptooi!

    Stop marching and being 'proud' of your ancestors and go achieve something worthy of real pride.

    ...and for god's sake, stop antagonizing religous people!  There is no excuse for that, everybody knows they're overly sensitive, just leave them alone and they'll leave us alone.
    For example, I think the catholic church is fucking evil but I don't excercise my fundamental right to stand outside their church on sunday and rant about the pope do I? That's because I'm not a fucking petty idiot.  (i keep my rants to weblogs and private converstions)
    Why can't the orange order act like adults and stop antagonizing the lunatics?

    [ Parent ]

    Off-topic anecdote (4.22 / 9) (#25)
    by Tatarigami on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:49:05 PM EST

    My bus driver this morning had a bit of an accent -- I thought it sounded vaguely Italian, Mediterranean at the very least.

    However, that didn't stop the three teenage girls who got on at the next stop, unhappy at being charged full fare in spite of claiming to be schoolchildren, from muttering amongst themselves: "Stupid Irishman! Go back to Irony!"

    :)

    A different view of William of Orange (4.53 / 15) (#26)
    by rasilon on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 04:54:31 PM EST

    William of Orange's victory over James VII could hardly be considered a victory over the despotic, rather a return to the Edwardian techniques of oppression and cultural destruction. Whilst Longshanks (Edward I) is generally regarded with more venom as the originator of most of the modern techniques of oppression, it is arguable that William III was more effective. Certainly he had more success dominating the highlands than any previous incursor -- from the Romans to the Plantagenets numerous armies sought to take the highlands but never conquered more than the land the stood on or the castles they slept in.

    William's success was due in no small part to the alliances he forged, drawing to his side the expansionist clans and those whose morals had an easy price. Whilst the highlands were far from peaceful in those days, some of Williams orders are recorded as being brutal far beyond the normal levels of violence. The reader is invited to google on the Massacre of Glencoe.

    There was more to William's oppression than just killing, he advanced the methods of cultural domination that Edward I had begun, and added to them a finesse that Edward never had. By the issue of "Letters of Fire and Sword" he sought to use clan rivalries to deliver Scotland to him in much the same way that Edward had in Ireland. By the "Act of Proscription" in 1693, he attempted to break and disperse the McGregor clan who were probably his most influential opposition. The act banned the name McGregor and specified the death penalty for any caught using it. In prohibiting the name and granting the McGregor lands to their enemies it appears that he hoped to destroy their influence and bury their history.

    He was largely unsuccessful in using these tactics against the McGregor clan who remained a distinct force until the highland clearances. However, a similar act levied against highland dress in the wake of Culloden, banned the wearing of any garment distinct to the highlands on pain of transportation/death for anybody who was not a member of the government armed forces. This act lasted from 1746 to 1782 and successfully destroyed the history of tartan with almost all tartans in existence today having been invented since its repeal.

    By picking his allies and enemies he advanced his cause at little cost to himself. The battle of Culloden moor in 1746 is generally thought of as a victory of the English over the Scots, but in reality the soldiers on both sides were mostly Scots with the government side following the English and the jacobite side following the French. His success at Culloden allowed him to continue using internal rivalries to further his power base, letters of fire and sword effectively permitting his followers to hunt anyone who might oppose him.

    "Edwardian" (4.71 / 7) (#37)
    by Simon Kinahan on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:43:24 PM EST

    ... normally refers to the time of Edward VII, not Edward I.

    I found a couple of other things about the parent post slightly baffling. I find it hard to see much connection between Edward I and William III in terms of goals or policies. Edward's wars were against the leaders the the Kingdom of Scotland, whose writ never ran far into the highlands. The dispute was initially a factional one between various bits of the Norman-French aristocracy that ruled both England and Scotland. You can only understand it in the context of a world in which there really was no such thing as a nation: just constantly shifting feudal allegiances. I doubt Edward gave much thought to the highlands. Certainly noone - except perhaps for Wallace - gave much thought to ordinary people.

    William's problem was quite different. Many of the highland clans were Jacobite, in that they supported James II as the legal king (which, viewed dispassionately, he certainly was). They rose up against William, under James' son Charles, with French support, in 1745. Until that time, the British monarch had been largely happy to leave the highlands to their own devices. It was only once they became a "back door" for the French that it became necessary to put them under millitary rule.


    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    Edwardian (4.71 / 7) (#56)
    by rasilon on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:18:09 PM EST

    ... was the best description that I could think of. Whilst it is usually refers to the later Edward I did make it clear which one I was referring to.

    In very general terms, their goals were the rule of the whole of Britain, Ireland and anywhere else that presented itself. Their policies were subjugation by cultural suppression.

    I tend to look at the situation from the point of view of the people rather than the rulers who tended to be a bit disappointing on both sides, even the Bruce who for all his good points played politics as much as any other Norman lord and indeed sided with Edward at the beginning.

    The notion of nationhood was indeed a rare one in Scotland as across europe at that time. It has been said that only Kenneth MacAlpine and Robert the Bruce ever led a united Scotland and even that was never really true. The notion of nationhood could, however, be considered to have properly begun with the Declaration of Arbroath which I recall being the first time the rights of the people of a nation have been formally set above the rights of their king.

    From an abstract point of view the situations that Edward and William found themselves in are actually quite similar -- an English king, with his power base in the south who believes himself king of Scotland, facing a large number of Scots who disagree and are willing to fight over it with some (usually late, or non-existent) French assistance.

    In any event, I suspect that Edward gave the highlands quite a bit of thought since that is where the Bruce fled and raised his army. Whilst he may not have cared for the highlands I suspect he realised that without subduing them, Scotland would never be secure.

    Lets turn it around,
    Edward's problem was quite different. Many of the highland clans supported Robert the Bruce as the legal king (which, viewed dispassionately, he certainly was). They rose up against Edward, first under Wallace, and then with the Bruce with the support of a number of French mercenaries, in 1314.

    As I said, both kings realised that a strong Scottish cultural identity was the main rallying point for their enemies, and both tried to break that identity, Edward's most remembered act (save for battles) was the theft of the Stone of Scone, whereas William's was the banning of highland dress, both intended to break the spirit and erase the identity.

    In my opinion: I dislike the Norman influence on Scotland, the Bruce was the best of a bad lot. I think Scotland would have been better off had Wallace continued to rule rather than hand the great seal over to Bruce and Comyn, but with the Norman aristocracy against him that was never really an option. Charlie would never have made a good king, he exercised very poor judgement, and never developed any authority that wasn't handed to him on a plate. Rob Roy (who very effectively ran what was to all intents and purposes a second government for many years), or any of the jacobite chiefs would have made a better king than either of them, but that was never going to happen either.

    [ Parent ]

    holy cow (4.66 / 3) (#86)
    by scatbubba on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 10:13:39 PM EST

    "some of Williams orders are recorded as being brutal far beyond the normal levels of violence. The reader is invited to google on the Massacre of Glencoe."

    I did just that. I found This article Which puts the slaughter death toll at 38 people, mostly men. I don't know what normal levels of violence you are talking about, but i would think a 38 person massacre would be a minor footnote in most conflicts.

    [ Parent ]
    The order (4.66 / 3) (#99)
    by rasilon on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 03:43:19 AM EST

    specified the death of every McDonald of Glancoe under the age of 70. Whilst the total death toll would not have been comparable to a major battle even had the weather not held back the main force, it is the methods that made Glencoe famous. It was far from the only massacre that took place, and violent death was not uncommon in those times. Had it been either a stand up fight, or a judicial matter then those 38 would, as you say, have been a footnote in history.

    [ Parent ]
    The Orange Order isn't just in Northern Ireland. (4.83 / 6) (#31)
    by haflinger on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:28:32 PM EST

    True, the largest branches of the Orange Order are in Northern Ireland and Scotland, but it exists all over the world. Of course, it comes from the Netherlands originally.

    However, apparently, the Canadian, Australian, American, Dutch, and English men in bowler hats are not targetted by the international US/Eire/London conspiracy. How can this be?

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey

    In the USA (4.87 / 8) (#111)
    by wiredog on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 07:27:26 AM EST

    they wear bedsheets, rather than bowlers, on their heads.

    Earth first! We can strip mine the rest later.
    [ Parent ]
    Incorrect, well sort of. (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:20:55 AM EST

    I know what you meant; the bedsheets are the spiritual cousins of the Irish in bowlers.

    However, see here. Americans do wear bowlers, well some of 'em anyway.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    You don't convince me, unfortunately. (4.30 / 13) (#35)
    by Frank Wustner on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:36:31 PM EST

    Your article sounds like little more than an anti-Catholic rant, with a bit of "we're so pure" rabble-rousing thrown into the mix.

    Equating Catholicism with totalitarianism and terrorism is rather disingenuous considering the numerous protestant terrorists and despots that could be mentioned (many of them right here in my home nation of U.S.A.). And complaining about resistance to your demands that you be allowed to use your traditional marching routes is childish. Freedom of assembly and expression does not mean that you are allowed to assemble and express wherever you please.

    +1 anyway. I had never heard of your group before. It was interesting to learn something new, even if it did have to be from such a one-sided "holier than thou" rant.



    No (3.33 / 6) (#41)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:55:29 PM EST

    I have no real problem with Catholocism. I was investigating the historical origins of Orangeism during the passages where I was critical of the Catholic monarchs and style of government, not Catholicism itself. I think it is reasonable to be critical of aspects of Catholic Europe's style of government in the 18th and earlier centuries - it is not particularly unusual or controversial to state or think that Catholic Europe had a strong belief in the tyranny of the divine right of Kings, and that Northern Europe and many Protestant sects and beliefs and indeed, to an extent, Protestantism itself, was a reaction to that unfortunate fact. it is a historical commonplace, and I feel you are bending over backwards to feel insulted if you think criticising this is somehow an "anti-Catholic rant".

    Cheers!

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Your tone belays that. (4.44 / 9) (#61)
    by Frank Wustner on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:34:53 PM EST

    I quote:

    ...add the simple fact that Catholic monarchs stood for absolute rule and tyranny, as compared to the edging towards democracy of the more advanced, northern European, protestant governments...

    This is blatant propaganda that clearly marks a divide between Catholicism and Protestantism. It and the paragraph it comes from sets the tone for your entire piece and makes it appear to be an anti-Catholic rant. It is also largely false. Real democracy and rights of the middle and lower class was no more popular in Protestant lands than it was in Catholic ones.

    In any case, kindly don't jump to the conclusion that I am insulted simply because I dare to disagree with you. I was merely describing the impresion that I got. I am not Catholic, not religious at all actually, so I do not have nearly enough emotional attachment to get insulted by anyone's observations about Catholics or any other religious group.

    Also, please note that in my original comment, as well as in this reply, I specifically say that your article appears to be an anti-Catholic rant, not that it actually is one.



    [ Parent ]
    You're French, Right? (1.20 / 5) (#71)
    by Jesus Christ on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:38:24 PM EST

    Real democracy and rights of the middle and lower class was no more popular in Protestant lands than it was in Catholic ones.

    Your qualifications of "Real" and "middle and lower" may allow you to ignore the fact that modern man owes his unprecedented freedoms to the English and their legal tradition, but it doesn't change that fact. Nor does it change the fact that Catholicism has long been an enemy of Christian values.

    Your elder brother,
    JC

    [ Parent ]

    Yo, JC (4.50 / 2) (#91)
    by theElectron on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 11:28:10 PM EST

    Is Orthodox Christianity ok, or are they just as bad the papists?

    --
    Join the NRA!
    [ Parent ]
    No, I am American. (4.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Frank Wustner on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 11:51:50 AM EST

    Your qualifications of "Real" and "middle and lower" may allow you to ignore the fact that modern man owes his unprecedented freedoms to the English and their legal tradition, but it doesn't change that fact.

    I trust you plan to explain what this has to do with the matter under discussion. When and if you do, are you going to conveniently ignore the long history of Catholicism in England?

    Nor does it change the fact that Catholicism has long been an enemy of Christian values.

    Catholics would likely say much the same thing about you. Considering that, as I said, I am not a Christian, I have no reason to believe you over them. But then again, since I am not a Christian, I do not care anyway. Cat fights between Christian sects do not interest me, because I am an outsider to the conflict.



    [ Parent ]
    Hmm, yes, the English... (5.00 / 2) (#196)
    by PixelPusher on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:37:46 AM EST

    Who might very well still be catholics, had Henry VIII not wanted a divorce?

    [ Parent ]
    Hmm (5.00 / 1) (#225)
    by CENGEL3 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:25:19 PM EST

    I was under the impression that Protestantism, in England at least, was pretty much a reaction to Henry VIII desire to trade in wives every few months.

    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps at first, in England (none / 0) (#228)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:32:44 PM EST

    But after a succession of wars with Catholic countries and the activity of missionaries and thinkers, the Low Church in particular rejected many of the tenets of the Catholics.

    However that is just a tiny part of the Protestant world. In Scotland, the far more noble Church of Scotland was formed from a righteous reformation, and stands true to Calvinist principles. Most Northern irish immigrants were from SW Scotland, and the hands across the water between the two communities are friendly to this day.

    Every year I go to the bonfire that is lit near Stranraer, to send a beacon of hope to our Northern Irish brothers. Really, the Ulster Scots are one people, divided by the Irish Sea, but together in the true Reformed Religion.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    marching routes (4.42 / 7) (#36)
    by wilton on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:36:32 PM EST

    Is keeping to traditional marching routes _really_ that important when you know there is going to be violence ?

    I think it is perfectly OK for marching routes to be altered to prevent violence. Is it really worth while risking death/injury to walk down a certain road ?

    The Orange Order bends over backwards (3.66 / 6) (#39)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:50:48 PM EST

    To accommodate demands they change march routes in Ulster.This should show you a few of the changes they have made, and get you up to speed a little on the issues involved.

    The most contentious march is the Drumcree parade, which goes down the Garvaghy Road, an old protestant community that after a campaign of IRA violence and intimidation has become predominantly Catholic in the immediate area around the march route, which opponents of the Lodge's right to self assembly use as puppets in an attempt to roll back all marches. The Drumcree parade is the oldest march, being over 200 years old, and one of the most central.

    Despite this, there used to be eleven marches down that street, and the order has gladly scaled that back to just the one over the last few years that takes that route - the Drumcree Parade.

    The problem is that the parade specifically celebrates Civil and Religious liberties, among other things - so the state or anyone else using force to stop it is highly contentious.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Liberty to torment and oppress? (4.22 / 9) (#40)
    by it certainly is on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 05:54:35 PM EST

    I'm new to this freedom thing. Tell me, how does it work?

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    Godwin descends... (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by MadDreamer on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:38:17 AM EST

    From the linked page:

    Sinn Fein, like the German Nazi party, has always understood the value of propaganda. Indeed, the comparisons with Nazism do not stop there...



    Now I'm not an expert on Godwin's Law, but doesn't that mean that all hell should break loose at this point?


    [ Parent ]
    So You Approve of Using Intimidation? (3.00 / 10) (#54)
    by thelizman on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:03:30 PM EST

    If this group is truly peaceable, and merely wishes to march, then you cannot fault them for taking any route they wish. What you have here (if the author is to be believed) is a vocal group who use intimidation and violence to restrict the right of another group to peaceably assemble and engage in free political activity. Seems to me asking them to switch their route is rather like asking a rape victim to wear a chastity belt next time.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Well (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:12:22 PM EST

    There is a patina of violence. The actual marches themselves go off peacably, but when they are stopped by police cordons etc, then it has been known to get ugly.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    but then.... (4.66 / 6) (#62)
    by r1chard on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:36:06 PM EST

    it is plain common sense to avoid places where there is likely to be a problem.

    dis-engagement is perhaps a bigger thing. it's not about winning and losing, it's about people not getting hurt.

    this weary battle has been going on for a long time.

    read Kevin Toolis book Rebel Hearts.

    [ Parent ]

    Common Sense (3.50 / 2) (#87)
    by DarkZero on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 10:28:41 PM EST

    it is plain common sense to avoid places where there is likely to be a problem.

    Yes, that is common sense... for anyone that does not believe in the right to freely assemble, the right not to be intimidated and controlled by a violent minority, and the right to do whatever the Hell you want within the scope of democratic law.

    "It is plain common sense to avoid places where there is likely to be a problem. It's not about winning and losing, it's about people not getting hurt." - I think I'll dub this "The Bitch's Creed".

    [ Parent ]

    Consider That One Stolen : P (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by thelizman on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:32:08 AM EST

    Mah new see yig...
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    "bitch"? (none / 0) (#363)
    by turmeric on Sun Nov 17, 2002 at 12:51:16 PM EST

    why would you say "bitch" ??!?!?

    [ Parent ]
    ...and then again... (4.00 / 3) (#96)
    by thelizman on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:27:11 AM EST

    it is plain common sense to avoid places where there is likely to be a problem.
    What happens when you run out of places where there is likely to be a problem? Freedom isn't free, sometimes you have to earn it all over again.
    --

    "Our language is sufficiently clumsy enough to allow us to believe foolish things." - George Orwell
    [ Parent ]
    Ahem (4.88 / 9) (#124)
    by Betcour on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:43:41 AM EST

    It sounds to me like the KKK doing a "peaceful" march in a Washington poor black neighbourhood. A "peaceful march" cannot be peaceful if it is specifically made to insult other people and generate violence.

    [ Parent ]
    Why Bother (4.76 / 13) (#52)
    by An El Haqq on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:00:07 PM EST

    You join an order that people don't like, and then you want to convince everyone that they should like it. That's pretty much a textbook example of self abuse. Hope that's working out for you.

    People like being martyrs (4.62 / 8) (#83)
    by the on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:47:20 PM EST

    They like picking really dumb things to do, like going on marches in politically and religiously sensitive areas, so that when people complain about it they can get up on their high horse and moan about their rights being curbed. People do that sort of thing all over the world and they love it.

    --
    The Definite Article
    [ Parent ]
    why? (4.00 / 3) (#59)
    by unstable on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:23:53 PM EST

    ...of men in bowler hats, wearing orange and playing flutes...

    ...Why does it have such a huge coalition of enemies...

    ok, bowler hats i can see,  orange .. now its a bit much, throw in the flute and then its just becomes funny.

    I think you answered your own question there :p

    but seriosly I want to start a Purple group,  one that doesnt give a fsck what you worship, where you came from, or who you are, and just go for fscking peace.

    I hear about BS going on over there I just want to swim my lazy ass over there and start "beating some smarts into people".

    no "group" or "club" or whatever is going to solve the problems over there, no matter how "peaceful", you all need to work together.

    Until then it's not gonna happen.



    Reverend Unstable
    all praise the almighty Bob
    and be filled with slack

    Violence (none / 0) (#319)
    by GrassyKnoll on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:10:05 PM EST

    "beating some smarts into people" is the reason the 'war' in NI is perpetuated. It seems to be motivated by revenge (and greed - the main paramilitary groups are also successful criminal organisations who want to maintain their status, but that's a different story...)

    [ Parent ]
    Interesting... (4.35 / 17) (#63)
    by 0xdeadbeef on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:42:07 PM EST

    You know, these guys sound very much like the "good ol' boys" we have here in the USian South. They too have a semi-secret fraternal organization that espouses freedom from tyranny, considers themselves defenders of the true faith, and make a big stink when their rights to parade are curtailed by couter-protesters and bureaucratic stalling.

    I'm left wondering if the constituents of this Orange Order are like the people with which I am familiar. That is, are they stupid and ineffectual losers, likely drunkards and quick to start a fight? Do they blame their inept state on a conspiracy of their enemies (most of them imagined), and does that resentment of defeat become such a part of their identity that they can't contextualize their strength without relating it to their victimhood?  Are they, in a sense, nothing more than bored bullies, cowards by nature, addicted to the feeling of power gained by intimidating people while protected by secrecy, the state, or just the numbers of their own mob?  Is their political affiliation nothing more than an excuse to act like complete twats?

    Eh, maybe they're nothing like that.  Perhaps they are true patriots and gentlemen.  We had some of those too, but then they lost the right to own people, and these cretins are all we have left.

    I was thinking the same thing (3.00 / 3) (#66)
    by johnny on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:49:21 PM EST



    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]
    "semi-secret"??? (3.16 / 6) (#68)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 07:58:10 PM EST

    A semi-secret organisation that holds marches in broad daylight through cities and has outreaches to the local community and gets involved in every way it can and whose every aim and internal structure is publically available and which it is easy to join? I don't see how that follows, quite.

    I think the organisations you speak of in the deep south are entirely different, really. A better similarity would be a simple social club - when it comes right down to it, that's all the orange lodge is, in it's day-to-day affairs.

    The only "secret" part of the orange lodge is that non-members can't drop into the lodge bar on a thursday night, and that you can't ask the Lodge for a list of members. This is no different to your local gym, or Golf Club, or Squash club, or...

    As for what people in the Orange lodge are like, they are like you and I. They are people. it is a community of normal and varied people, that's all. Nothing sinister about it.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Easy to join? (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:18:02 PM EST

    Perhaps I could join, then.

    Whoops, I've never been baptized. Which church do I have to join first?

    Do I, perhaps, need a reference to join? I thought so.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Here (3.00 / 1) (#137)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:36:25 PM EST

    Join online.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    Or, more accurately. (5.00 / 3) (#140)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:48:42 PM EST

    Beg to be allowed to join online. Here's what they want (at least from Canadians): Full Name; Street/Road; Town; City; Province; Post Code; Tel; E-mail; and Supporting Statement. Supporting Statement I guess is where you put in the details of how your daddy was a billy-boy too.

    Huh. The Orange Order is a secret society, and Protestant evangelists agree with me.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Free Hat? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Katt on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:08:27 AM EST

    Do we get a free hat for joining?

    For a bunch of wacky troublemakers, they definitely have cool hats.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, the KKK does get involved in community (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:35:53 AM EST

    From what I understand they do do volunteer work and stuff. If the Orangemen do the same thing then I don't think it's much of an excuse.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Lion's Club (4.00 / 1) (#247)
    by Kintanon on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:10:24 PM EST

    The Orangmen, based on your description of them only, bear more resemblence to the Lion's Club than to the KKK. The Lion's Club is still a sort of Good ol' boy club, but with no overt racial issues. You just don't see a lot of black Lion's Club members... They also do parades, sponsor community events, etc... etc...

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    Well (3.75 / 4) (#69)
    by Psycho Les on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:31:06 PM EST

    bc is a thinker and writer who has been involved in the orange order since he was a boy.

    Just like Lenny Murphy.

    Hearsay evidence (4.82 / 23) (#73)
    by johnny on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:41:35 PM EST

    My mother, who is 77 years old, came to the USA from Scotland after WWII. She's a very easygoing person (which I guess you have to be when you have seven children), and I don't think there's a bitter bone in her body.

    She grew up Catholic in the town of Renton, on Loch Lomond, (which is not far at all from bc's current home according to a quite wonderful diary entry that he wrote recently (easy enough for you to find.))

    I remember that when I was a child my mother had great sympathy for the "Freedom Riders" and everybody in the USian Civil Rights movement. "The Catholics in Renton and the Blacks in the South: it's no different; it's the same," she would say. She told of the taunting she put up with during her childhood, and how she was the first Catholic telephone operator hired in her home town. The only reason she got the job was that a war was going on. Before that Catholics were excluded from all but the most menial of jobs. The signs said, "Catholics need not apply." At least that's her memory, and I don't think she's lying.

    My mother married a Finno-Irish Yank, but her brothers and sisters (who all came to the US, as did my grandmother) married first-generation Scots or Irish. So I grew up with brogues and burrs at family gatherings, and talk of the IRA. My late Uncles Tommy and John, my mother's brothers, were a big supporters of the IRA and of Scottish nationalism. They would try to talk Irish or Scottish politics to my mother, which generally made her laugh. Tommy was the most rabid, and he was always going on about the evil Brits.

    "Forget it Tommy," my mother would laugh. "I'm an American. You're an American. Let the Scots and the Irish figure it out for themselves. They don't need my help."

    "Och, Margaret," Tommy would say. "Do ye nae remember the Orangemen?"

    And then the smile would go from my mother's face, and she would look sad, and she would say, "Aye, I remember the Orangemen."

    So, as I said, this is hearsay evidence. I've never been to Scotland (I'm quite sad to say). I don't have any direct experience with Orangemen. And bc's brief seems quite reasonable. But I suspect that the Orangmen and their culture are a good part of the reason that my mother and her mother, brothers and sisters all got out of Scotland as soon as they could. I suppose I should be grateful to the Orangemen for driving my mother out of Renton; evidently it's a depressing place these days. But ever since my childhood I've associated the Orangemen with the louts who tormented my mother when she was a schoolgirl and kept my grandparents trapped in dead-end jobs.

    I find nothing at all objectionable in bc's post. I believe that people should be able to parade without intimidation. But I do hope that the day will come when Orangemen and Catholics and everybody else in Belfast will walk down the road arm and arm in celebration of peace. I wonder if the current parade traditions will help or hinder that development.

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.

    Precisely (3.40 / 10) (#74)
    by bc on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 08:58:50 PM EST

    I don't intend to claim that the Orange Order is in any way a perfect institution. There are and have been associated with it a lot of bigotry and sectarianism. In theory, the Order is predicated upon notions of civil and religious freedoms, it is very much a product of its late 18th century times. It does have some unpalatable aspects in some ways that many people are trying very hard to address, and a fundamental problem that is much smaller nowadays, at least in SW Scotland, than it was, is that the Order will reflect the general climate of Protestant bigotry through its memebers, even while not being predicated upon it.

    So, for example, in Glasgow and satellite towns such as Renton there have always been problems with discrimination. The situation in SW Scotland is not nearly as bad as in Belfast. There has never been a legal apparatus (well, no since the 18th century) discriminating against Catholics, and the city of Glasgow has mostly been run by men called Kelly. An example is that there are catholic state schools in Scotland now, but not protestant ones. There s no notion of "keeping religion out of state schools" because a good proportion of those schools are administered by the Catholic Church using state money. This is a problem - many, myself included, would prefer it if state education were not affiliated to any religion, and it creates more problems than it solves by creating a wedge between communities, cutting them off from each other. But it is not such a big problem that it devolves from the democratic process into bombs and chaos, as in Ulster.

    The main problem for Catholics in SW Scotland has always been in the workplace, though in some sections more than others. The shipyards in Glasgow, which use to employ a fair proportion of the city, had strong connections to the protestant community and would frequently be "protestant only". Other sectors would be the opposite way inclined, while many had no particular preference. Nonetheless, all that was swept away mostly during the 70's, greatly helped by the collapse of the shipyards, which was well motivated by the reputation of "Red Clydeside" as being very strike-ready and innefficient.

    The Orange Order would do very well to work hard at stamping down on members who vary from it's founding ideals.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Well I think that (4.66 / 3) (#77)
    by johnny on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:04:21 PM EST

    If I ever get to the Clyde Side, you and I should buy each other a few pints, and surely we shall put all to rights.

    yr frn,
    jrs
    Get your free download of prizewinning novels Acts of the Apostles and Cheap Complex Devices.
    [ Parent ]
    Ya' know, sometimes the KKK runs food drives [nt] (5.00 / 8) (#89)
    by WindyCity on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 10:50:26 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Stick it up yer arse. (4.60 / 10) (#106)
    by Craevenwulfe on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 05:58:56 AM EST

    My eye. I've never met a orangeman who wisnae a bigot.

    An example is that there are catholic state schools in Scotland now, but not protestant ones.

    Umm.. ALL the state schools except for the seperate roman catholic schools are protestant schools. Or do you not remember school?

    There s no notion of "keeping religion out of state schools" because a good proportion of those schools are administered by the Catholic Church using state money.

    Again, I remember my religious education at school. I remember my morning assembly. I remember the little asian kids having to get notes from their parents so they didn't have to be there. I remember the default assumption that all catholics would be at the "other" school.

    I was born and raised in Glasgow, i'm protestant and the kid next door was catholic and went to a seperate school.

    You talk of the origins of the Orange Lodge to be but to safeguard the protestant faith and people against aggression

    But you've never quite said why the fuck someone in the SW of Scotland who's never done dick in his life to safeguard the protestant faith and people against aggression would be in the Orange Lodge some 200 years after it's founding.

    Perhaps that swedge you got into with the Celtic fan last week counted as 'doing your duty'.

    I bet you think the masons are great too.

    [ Parent ]
    Stop the bigotry please (1.00 / 3) (#135)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:26:26 PM EST

    You can hurl invective all you like, you can call me and all my kind "haters" and "bigots" and "sectarians" as much as you wish, but just be aware that it is you spreading the hatred, you making a judgement on all Orangemen just on the basis of one simple fact about them - that they are orangemen, regardless of what they believe or what they say, you profess to hate them. Well I for one am not a bigot, and I hold up a bloodied, red hand as I lie beleeding on the ground from invective and prejudice and I shout "NO!" to your sectarian insults.

    The Order, like it or not, was founded to promote religious freedom, and celebrate the victory of William III, Prince of Orange in attaining that freedom. Certainly, some members may be beyond the pale. The same is true of any institution. But claiming we have no right to celebrate our heritage and playing up your feelings of being insulted and trod upon for those political ends is as absurd as claiming that singing the national anthem is a thing of hatred and bigotry.

    I myself have suffered from this playing up of hatreds. When I was a lad, I sang the sash in a public place (Kilmarnock town centre, actually), in an expression of my civil liberties to sing a song that describes my people and has not one word of anticatholocism or hatred in it. And yet this song is violently hated, and I was picked up by the police and imprisoned for the evening. Now that is oppression, that is hatred. And I feel it emanating from you, this blind hatred and bigotry, and it makes me cry.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    The Sash is anti-catholic. (4.75 / 4) (#136)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:34:16 PM EST

    It celebrates four of the major battles which were fought by Protestants against Catholics. It talks about how great it is that Protestants don't have to give up what they fought for.

    It's not as in-your-face as your typical billy-boy song, but it's in the litany alright.

    And finally. William III was after his own religious freedom. He went about getting this freedom by slaughtering people who wanted him to change his mind. No question, there are bad guys on the Catholic side too; just check out the Borgias, Billy had nothing on them. But the Reformation was a bloody, bloody, bloody time.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Nonono (2.20 / 5) (#158)
    by bc on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 04:12:29 PM EST

    It talks about "how great it is that protestants don't have to give anything up" because those battles were about religious freedom. And I hope you'll start advocating that July 4th celebrations in America be banned, they celebrate all sorts of battles there, against natives and the British. And frankly, I find it offensive! July 4th is as inherently "anti-British" and prejudiced as the sash and the Orange Order.

    William III, through the Glorious Revolution, established the basis of the modern democratic state. His victory was crucial to the subsiding of government and royal power and the establishment of equal rights of worship, eventually. A very significant event, and one that should be celebrated.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Modern democratic state? (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 09:10:47 PM EST

    Bah. I nominate the Althing as the foundation, a good seven centuries before crazy ol' William.

    However, I don't live in a country where July 4th is a holiday. Here, we go on holiday three days earlier, in celebration of the anniversary of the day when your Parliament deigned to make ours. And the point isn't that people should - or should not - march on July 1st, the 4th or the 12th. The point is that people should march with the consent of the people in the area that they're marching. Let's face it, there ain't nobody in the U.S. who objects to people marching on the 4th. (Nobody marches here in this country on the 1st, we're just not that sort of country. But I digress. We do have pretty fireworks displays in some cities though, which are mostly just a place teens can sneak off to to smoke dope. That's what kind of country we are. :)

    If you want to march all over the place on the 12th, the answer is simple: get everybody in your country to celebrate the 12th.

    What? You can't? Oh right. I forgot. I live in a peaceful country. Maybe you should work on that part first.

    For what it's worth, though: You live in a rather small little country that had 3,500 marches in 1995. Source. Where I live, I get maybe 2 or 3 parades a year. Why the obsession with parades? I mean, you'd think with so many you'd at least get cool floats or something.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    I guess (4.00 / 1) (#270)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:04:47 PM EST

    that gay pride should ask the locals permission to march through downtown sydney, or Toronto.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    Can't say for Sydney. (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:21:55 PM EST

    But in Toronto, they do. They come to City Council, ask for permission, and get it every year because all they do is romp around the streets, acting silly. :)

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    But isn't... (4.00 / 1) (#278)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:01:55 PM EST

    ...sucking up to City Hall a tad different to asking permission of the people who live neighbourhood they intend prancing through?
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    Sort of. (4.00 / 1) (#280)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:12:28 PM EST

    I mean, Toronto's a big city. The Garvaghy Road people are an unorganized area.

    However, their reps are democratically elected. They may all be, well, republicans, but that's because that's mostly who lives in the area. Toronto's council is similarly representative of much of the population, much as I shudder to recall all the Lastman voters. Sigh.

    Anyway, the point is that the Garvaghy Road people have elected representatives. The Orange Order may not like these representatives. All of the Gay Pride people hate Lastman passionately (and many with good reason). But they deal with him, 'cause that's the way you do things in a civilized country. You know, one of those great old outposts of the British Empire, whose values the Orange Order supposedly defends.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Though in NI... (4.00 / 1) (#282)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:56:09 PM EST

    ...its not the elected representitives that are involved, its the independent Parades Commision, which talks directly to the people who live in the streets the march is going down.

    They are more focused on the local issues than City Hall representatives, with all their political shenanigans and payola, could ever be.

    Thus, to be comparable the Gaypriders should ask the people who are living along the route for their permission directly.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]

    The Parades Commission is a branch of the gov't. (4.00 / 1) (#283)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:14:59 PM EST

    Ultimately, they're accountable to elected officials. I'm sure that if Toronto had anywhere close to 3,500 marches a year to administer, it'd set up an independent body to deal with them. It doesn't. More like high single digits. And BTW, it has roughly twice the population of Northern Ireland.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    But not accountable to the NI politicians (4.00 / 1) (#287)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:32:10 PM EST

    it can piss them off as much as it likes. It's remit is to balance offence to the residents, with offence to the marchers.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    Right. (none / 0) (#290)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:41:20 PM EST

    Isn't it setup by Westminster?

    Well, theoretically Westminster of course represents Northern Ireland. Of course, in practice we all know how many Labour, Tory or even Lib Dem MPs there are in the North. (Another reason why it's confusing to hear unionists call themselves British. My mother comes from Wales; she always shakes her head when she hears Paisley declare his British identity. He'd have a hard time even getting elected as a town councillor in most of the UK; in the North, he's an MEP. Nutty.)

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Yes it is a Westminster setup. (4.50 / 2) (#303)
    by walwyn on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:19:54 AM EST

    Because sometimes the Adults have to seperate the kids in the sand box.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    July 4th (4.50 / 2) (#206)
    by zaphod46 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:58:05 AM EST

    The fourth of July is a wonderful example for comparison here, let's explore it some more: Similarity #1) In 1776 the Brits and the Americans were having a disagreement, so the Americans kicked their ass out. In 1795 the Protestants and the Catholics were having a disagreement, so the Protestants kicked their ass out. Similarity #2) There were periods of retaliation and celebritory ass-kicking after each group's respective victories. While not nice, this is the status quo for most wars. Difference #1) Americans now welcome Brits to the country with open arms, don't steal their land or possessions, and treat them much more decently than they treat lots of other immigrants, despite the 200 year old disagreement. The Orange Order and its descendants/off shoots don't quite get along so well with the descendants and offshoots of the Catholic Defenders. Conclusion #1) Both sides need to get their asses to the present and stop bickering. Conclusion #2) Hmm, maybe wasn't such a perfect comparison after all.

    [ Parent ]
    Re: July 4th (5.00 / 2) (#265)
    by jazman_777 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:35:42 PM EST

    Americans now welcome Brits to the country with open arms, don't steal their land or possessions, and treat them much more decently than they treat lots of other immigrants, despite the 200 year old disagreement.

    It helps that Tony Blair is GWB's poodle.

    [ Parent ]

    You should find the 4th of July offensive. (4.00 / 1) (#233)
    by jforan on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:55:13 PM EST

    Brits suck ;)

    It should be noted, however, that we don't all pick up some fireworks in the midwest, hop on planes, and celebrate 7-4 in london.

    There are no british who live in america; or, if people still consider themselves british who live here - too bad - you will just have to suffer through our celebration of your defeat ;)

    Nowadays, in any case, the 4th is (at least to me) a celebration of existence, not an in-your-face brag fest.  Just like christmas is to christians.

    I would be interested to hear of any christmas parades that run through predominantly non-christian neighborhoods.

    Jeff

    PS - Is 11-9 as prevalent a term in britian as 9-11 is here?

    I hops to be barley workin'.
    [ Parent ]

    Very common where I am from (3.66 / 3) (#259)
    by the womble on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:46:46 PM EST

    I would be interested to hear of any christmas parades that run through predominantly non-christian neighborhoods.

    Most Christmas parades (and other Christian events) in non-christian countries do precisely that every time. In Sri Lanka there are Christian festivals of some size held in predominantly Budduist and Hindu areas.

    I suspect it would not be hard to find examples of Christian events that take place in non-christian areas of the UK (e.g. where an event is held in a traditional location even though the demographics of the area have changed although I can not think of an example.

    [ Parent ]

    Err! (4.00 / 1) (#268)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:58:31 PM EST

    Doesn't the Salvation Army bang the tambourine in Glasgow.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    The national celebration against the catholics... (4.75 / 4) (#161)
    by walwyn on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 06:08:22 PM EST

    ...takes place throughout the British Isles on November the 5th where the pope is burnt in effigy to the delight of the crowds.

    Catholics are well advised to remain indoors.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]

    Brighton can do its own thing (5.00 / 3) (#172)
    by it certainly is on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:49:40 PM EST

    but in the rest of the country, we burn effigies of Guido Fawkes, not his papal master.

    In case any curious foreigners are reading, the bonfire night burning is not a symbol of proddy religious intolerance, it's symbolic of Britain thwarting a dastardly act of political terrorism -- the 9/11 of its day, an attempt (by agents of the Roman Catholic church) to blow up the Palace of Westminster (Houses of Parliament), which I think was still the official residence of the King at the time.

    I think we should start referring to the 5th of November as 5/11. What do you think? Penny for the Guy, anyone?

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    You forget... (none / 0) (#195)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:37:15 AM EST

    ...the Gordon Riots, the Murphy Riots.

    Bonfire night has always been an anti-catholic affair, the bonfire being a reference to the defeat of the Spanish Amarda, and the burning of the effigy a reference to the burning of Archbishop Cranmer, remember Fawkes himself was not burnt.

    The whole ceremony reeks in anti-caholicism, the roots and symbolism may nowadays be obscure but are still there for all to see. Why do you think one of the most poular types of fireworks sold is called a 'Roman Candle'?
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]

    Are you sure he wasn't burnt? (none / 0) (#229)
    by DodgyGeezer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:38:42 PM EST

    On a tour I had once of The Tower, the Beefeater guiding us claimed Guy Fawkes was hung, drawn (dragged around the city behind a horse and cart) and quartered, and then the bits were burnt in a bonfire.  Was he wrong?

    [ Parent ]
    The normal form of execution... (none / 0) (#256)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 03:31:02 PM EST

    ...for a traitor was that the prisoner be hanged from the neck and then cut down alive. His stomach was cut open and his intestines were pulled out and burned before his eyes, while he was still alive. Then his head was cut off and his body cut into four pieces.

    None of this could have been achieved if you tossed the victim onto the top of a bonfire, which is what effigy burning is all about, and is reminisant of burning at the stake which is what befell Cranmer for being a protestant in catholic Mary's England.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]

    What a bizarre angle on it (none / 0) (#214)
    by ukryule on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:58:59 AM EST

    Hmm ... when I was a kid I thought it was a cool evening with fireworks and food.

    Then I got a little bit of education and found out it was about someone called Guy who tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament - and thought how cool it was to live in a country which celebrates attempts to blow itself up.

    And now, through the wonders of k5, I find out it was a wonderful opportunity to find some Catholics (hmm ... how do I find out who is and isn't? think i'll hand out a questionnaire to my friends) and abuse them. I feel slightly embarrassed about all those wasted years where I could have been usefully promoting religous bigotry and instead was too busy having fun. Sorry.

    [ Parent ]

    You'll find... (5.00 / 2) (#215)
    by walwyn on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:16:56 AM EST

    ...more references here But just ponder that Saint Catherine is highly respected figure of catholicism and her death celebrated by a type of firework. Also a traditional salutation amongst the firework fraternity is 'stay green' - meaning to stop or halt fenians.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    Live and learn (none / 0) (#250)
    by ukryule on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:24:53 PM EST

    I don't doubt you're right, but in over 20 years of going to Guy Fawkes nights I haven't once heard a reference to it being anti-Catholic, or been told to stay green (except in reference to litter).

    But then again, before reading this article I would have guessed that a 'fenian' was someone from Cambridge ...

    At least now I can say I know where Catherine Wheels come from.

    [ Parent ]

    reply (4.40 / 5) (#147)
    by Craevenwulfe on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:18:47 PM EST

    HA HA, FUCKING HA!
    I'm truly curious to know if you actually believe every single word of what you've written.

    [ Parent ]
    Encore! Encore! (5.00 / 6) (#190)
    by Rogerborg on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:52:13 AM EST

    Splendid stuff!  You poor oppressed victim.  Perhaps you could spin being up to your knees in Fenian blood as the beginning of a diabolical plot to drown you?

    Of course, you've never sung Billy Boys, nor do you condone it, nor does it form a part of the Orange Order's repertoire, nor can they control the actions of all (or seemingly any) of the hangers on or bystanders at their events.  There, now you don't have to [insert standard disclaimer].

      The Order, like it or not, was founded to promote religious freedom

    Really?  What part of your gang oath mandates that you protect the religious freedom of Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists and, uh, what's that other group?  Roman Catholics.

    Oh, wait, you meant your freedom to practice your own Protestant brand of the Catholic cult and denigrate the Roman Catholic branch.  That's what the Orange Order was about.  That's - at best - all that it was ever about.  Now that there's no need for that, it has no purpose other than as a gang for angry men who feel the need to obey orders to hate and villify another gang for things that happened over 200 years ago.

      When I was a lad, I sang the sash in a public place [...] [it] has not one word of anticatholocism or hatred in it

    Well gosh, how about that.  I guess that makes it all right then, because of course we're not allowed to consider the context or the intentions, only the technical facts of the lyrics that you actually sung at that exact moment in time.

    I'll try that out on my boss, shall I?  "Hey, uppity nigger" would get me sacked, but surely "Hey, rapidly promoted negroid" couldn't possibly offend him, because it's absolutely technically correct, right?  I'll just explain that the dictionary meaning of the words that I say are far more important the intended or actual effect.

      And yet this song is violently hated, and I was picked up by the police and imprisoned for the evening

    By which you'd like us to infer that this was cause followed by unfair effect, without regard to the context or your intentions or other actions.

    Tell me, this public place that you were singing in wouldn't by any chance be outside a public house frequented largely by Roman Catholics, would it?  And of course you didn't march straight there (pausing only to chant your mantra outside any other Roman Catholic areas) then deliberately halt there and sing it, did you?

    Oh, I'm sure that there's a very good and sensible and technically explainable apology (in the 2nd sense) for your route and your stops and starts.  Viewed out of context, you can paint yourself as the victim if you like, and claim the moral high ground.  You can win the argument - through bloody minded persistence if nothing else - but you can't be right.

    We both know better.  We know why you march, and why you sing, and it's got little (not nothing, but little) to do with religious freedom.  It was in 1795, when the peace loving peasants and workers "Protestant weavers and farmers" had to fight or die.  But it's not 1795 any more.  Let's try that again for luck:

    It's not 1795 any more.

    The need has gone.  You're marching now not to protect religious freedom (not even your own).  Your outstanding issues with housing arrangements in another country could better be solved by inclusive dialogue.  You're marching now because when you were a little Orange baby you were indoctrinated by your Orange daddy that you must hate Fenians, and so you do, and so you'll teach your own little Orange children.

    If you honestly, truly believe that this isn't so, then I wont argue with you any more.  But if so, then who exactly is it that's singing Billy Boys in Ibrox every weekend?

    I know.  Nothing to do with you, the Orange Order does not officially condone, no provable overlap, blah blah blah.  Sell it to the lawyers and those who haven't seen an Orange March, because anyone who's seen one first hand isn't going to buy it.

    "Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs
    [ Parent ]

    It's the land (5.00 / 1) (#253)
    by imrdkl on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:47:07 PM EST

    The problem goes back a lot further than 200 years, in spite of the historical perspective provided by the author. In fact, the basis of the argument goes back 2000 years, or at least to Martin Luther's time, I'd say. But the oppression and dominance of the Irish was only peripherally about the religious differences.

    It's always been about the land - and the british desire for it down through the centuries. The order, despite their assertive beginnings, has very little to do with religion, imho. And the author is likely just as clueless about how to make a defense of the religious beliefs inherent to true protestantism.

    Why, I doubt he even knows that Jesus (still) loves him.

    [ Parent ]

    Well said (3.00 / 2) (#210)
    by Arker on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:39:34 AM EST

    I can tell you are a reasonable and honourable man, it's a good thing that you can defend what you see as your own without denying that others have reasons to feel differently, though it would have been better, perhaps, to have made that stipulation from the start... reading the article one gets a very different impression.

    As an aside, are you familiar with the phrase, 'croppies lie down' and how it came to be associated with the Orange Order?



    [ Parent ]
    Somewhat incomplete article (4.08 / 12) (#80)
    by Stereo on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:17:58 PM EST

    You should mention that the French, in an effort to apologise for Louis XIV's genocide, bought Orange through their national phone operator France Telecom

    One would probably want to note that only Protestants are allowed to wander around with an Orange phone in Britain. You may leave your Orange phone on during mass in protestant churches. O2 is reserved for Tories and smurfs. Since Tories tend to be quiet men and smurfs quite small men, O2 makes outgoing calls extra louder. T-Mobile, the magenta fraternity, is especially suited for 80's nostalgics and girl teenagers. Yours truly, being some kind of a leftie, chose a Vodafone card.


    kuro5hin - Artes technicae et humaniores, a fossis


    The comment is,.. (3.75 / 4) (#95)
    by seeS on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:01:30 AM EST

    That comment was a large pile of smurfing, smurfy smurf. I think most people think, who are those wierdos? (smurfs and orange people, no not The Orange People, though people thought they were weird too)
    --
    Where's a policeman when you need one to blame the World Wide Web?
    [ Parent ]
    Man, those bowler hats look cool! (4.00 / 4) (#85)
    by xriso on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 09:49:59 PM EST

    I bet they're gonna be the new fad here in north america within 10 years. Just you watch.
    --
    *** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)
    Hm, I dunno ... (5.00 / 4) (#114)
    by Conspir8or on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 08:58:06 AM EST

    If they didn't take off after "A Clockwork Orange," what makes you think any other Oranges are gonna make bowlers big this side of the pond?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah but... (none / 0) (#324)
    by Woundweavr on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 09:35:09 AM EST

    ...only after a pop star wears one (placement is key) to cover her nipples. Oh wait, you mean as hats?

    [ Parent ]
    Why does everyone hate us? (4.57 / 14) (#88)
    by ukryule on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 10:48:10 PM EST

    But what is the Orange Order really? Why does it have such a huge coalition of enemies, enemies that include the Irish State, the British State, and the American State?

    A interesting read. However, do you really believe that it's universally hated? As with 90% of these 'why do they hate us' questions, the answer is "They don't".

    As you point out, the only time the Orange Order hits the news is during the marching season in NI, and you're going to get polarised views then - but to characterise them as hatred for your order is a bit like claiming that all the Orangemen hate all Catholics. As for the British State hating you - that's even more off-base. A desire to stop the most controversial part of the march (a very English view of "please don't create a scene; people will stare!") can hardly be construed as hatred.

    What there is (which this article goes a way to dispelling) is a lack of understanding: "Oh the Prods are causing trouble again with their marching." - and it isn't immediately clear from the outside why the route chosen has to be that one.

    -1; Repeat after me, bc... (3.47 / 19) (#90)
    by buck on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 11:18:11 PM EST

    Adequacy.org is dead. I will get over it.
    Adequacy.org is dead. I will get over it.
    Adequacy.org is dead. I will get over it.
    Adequacy.org is dead. I will get over it.
    Adequacy.org is dead. I will get over it.

    Feel better, now? Good. Now, maybe the next time you feel the urge to return to your old Adequacy habits, you'll do us all the common courtesy to shut what is common referred to as the fuck up.

    -----
    “You, on the other hand, just spew forth your mental phlegmwads all over the place and don't have the goddamned courtesy to throw us a tissue afterwards.” -- kitten

    Preach it! (nt) (2.66 / 3) (#92)
    by BinaryTree on Mon Oct 14, 2002 at 11:51:43 PM EST



    helpful sed script (4.83 / 24) (#98)
    by vitriol on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:54:11 AM EST

    s/Orange/Klan/g                      
    s/Britain/The United States/g
    s/American State/State of Disarray/g
    s/Northern//g
    s/Irish/American/g
    s/Prime Minister/President/g
    s/Tony Blair/George Bush/g
    s/IRA/Black Panthers/g
    s/Sinn Fein/Nation of Islam/g
    s/pub/bar/g  
    s/ire/anger/g
    s/bowler/pointy/g

    ----
    6 of one, half dozen of the other.

    Protestant supremists (4.86 / 22) (#102)
    by LQ on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 04:57:23 AM EST

    All candidates wishing to join the Orange Order are asked to make the following promise:
    Do you promise, before this Lodge, to give no countenance, by your presence or otherwise, to the unscriptural, superstitious, and idolatrous worship of the Church of Rome? And do you also promise never to marry a Roman Catholic, never to stand sponsor for a child when receiving baptism from a priest of Rome, nor allow a Roman Catholic to stand sponsor for your child at baptism? And do you further promise to resist, by all lawful means, the ascendancy, extension and encroachments of that Church ...
    The Orange Order exists as a protestant-supremist, anti-catholic organisation.

    Bullshit (4.95 / 22) (#105)
    by GRiNGO on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 05:53:00 AM EST

    You're article is, quite simply, a lame attempt at painting a rosy picture of an inherently bigotted and sectarian institution.

    We are often shown members of the Order marching, and told that it is disgraceful that they march on certain routes, and that they must be stopped by the police and the state despite this being strangely in opposition to the fundamental human rights of every man to self assembly.
    I think most people would accept that there is a fundamental right to peaceful assembly. No one refutes the Order's right to assemble, or to walk. The problem is however, that their assembly is often seen as provocative in nature due to the sectarian songs they sing, the banners and emblems they carry and the actions of many of the people on the march. I do not believe it is acceptable for a march to proceed through a nationalist area, playing such songs as The Billy Boys ( part of the lyrics to this are: "we're up to our necks in Fenian blood" ) or carrying murals and flags of paramilitary organisations such as the UVF & UFF. Many people in nationalist areas have been murdered by such paramilitary groups and to blatantly walk through their area waving those flags is sheer provocation. Also, the conduct of Orange Order members on many occasions has been less than wholesome. On marches past Sean Graham's bookmakers on the Ormeau Road, members of the Order have been seen on TV giving the finger and even mimicking firing a machine gun. ( Note: In Feb 1992, 5 Catholic civilians were shot dead in the bookmakers shop by the UFF ).

    However, the very principles of the order are against discrimination against Catholicism or any other creed, so it is hardly institutionally biased.
    I dont see how this is true. Surely the principles upon which the RUC were founded were against bigotry and sectarianism, and surely there was, for a time during the troubles, institutional bias towards the nationalist poplation? The stated principles of an institution cannot be used as proof that the said institution is not biased.

    The Orangemen, being a traditional group of people, refuse to alter their route, leading to strife and chaos every year. The problem is that the British state has unwisely pushed its way into these affairs, and tries to stop Orange walks from taking the route they would like and have done for over a hundred years.
    Oh, bollox. The geography of Belfast is ever changing. The reason some marches are banned and some are given the go ahead is to force the hand of play towards the situation that is likely to cause the least amount of public disorder. Imagine if the state didnt 'push its way into your affairs' and just let you go off and march wherever you liked. Would you really feel safe, marching through Ardoyne unaccompanied by the PSNI?

    It is hard to see how a swift march can irritate Catholic communities so much, especially when they are being coerced by Sinn Fein and the IRA to oppose their fellow's civil rights to self-assembly at any opportunity.
    Yes, very hard to see. Especially considering you've never been to Northern Ireland, never mind lived here.

    ...extremist paramilitary groups such as the UDF...
    The UDF? Surely you mean the UDA/UFF?

    ..frustrated by the simple fact that 70% of the Northern Irish population wishes to remain British...
    Do you have a source for this absurd claim, or is this just what they tell you over there in bonnie Scotland?

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    Election results in NI. (5.00 / 3) (#121)
    by rasilon on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:26:25 AM EST

    The government websites contain all the relevant figures, but unfortunately don't appear to contain any useful summary, but the Ark project, between Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster, provide a nice summary.

    [ Parent ]
    Two things (4.50 / 2) (#126)
    by Simon Kinahan on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 10:54:36 AM EST

    1. I'm sure there's a UDF. The fissiparousness of loyalist paramillitary groups make Trotskyites look unified. Pretty much anything meeting [LU][DV][FA] describes one.

    2. Regarding the Unionist majority in Northern Ireland. I don't know about 70%. I think its closer to 60%, but contrary to the impression you might get from certain foreign sources, there still very much is a unionist majority. That's why Trimble was first minister, and Seamus Mallon (of the nationalist SDLP) only his deputy.

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    Two Things (4.66 / 3) (#127)
    by GRiNGO on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 11:18:02 AM EST

    There was a UDF. Ages ago. But the fact that he wrote "extremist paramilitary groups such as the UDF" instead of something more in keeping with the times like "..such as the RHD, UFF or LVF" shows he hasn't really got a clue.

    I never implyed there wasn't a unionist majority. I was simply bringing light to the fact that he made an absurd unsupported claim, which other less knowledgeable readers might have mistaken for fact. Latest census figures show that NI is now composed of approx 45% catholics. This figure, however, would likely be different if only those of voting age were counted.

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    UDF could be a typo. (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:01:11 PM EST

    The UDA still exists (it's referred to as the UDA/UFF in most sources); perhaps he got the two acronyms swapped together.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Yeah (4.50 / 2) (#132)
    by Simon Kinahan on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:16:34 PM EST

    1. Fair point. Given it's bc, I suspect he's never been a member of the Orange Order, doesn't live in SW Scotland, and is actually Hindu. However, as trolls go, it is well done, and does present the kind of views you would here from a more-educated-than-average Orangeman.

    2. Also a fair point. The other thing to take into account, I guess, is that rather more Catholics seem to vote Unionist than Protestants Nationalist. I've only anecdotal evidence for that, mind you, and it might due to the way the constituency boundaries are drawn.

    Simon

    If you disagree, post, don't moderate
    [ Parent ]

    Catholic/Protestant vs. Nationalist/Unionist. (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by haflinger on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:38:58 PM EST

    It's a complicated split. Quite a few Catholics vote Alliance (although not nearly as much as they used to), and Alliance is a kind of confused unionist party. However, virtually no Catholics vote UUP except as a tactical measure (to stop the DUP from getting seats), and I can't imagine any Catholics voting for Mr. Paisley.

    However, there is a significant, although rather small, group of Protestants who vote Sinn Féin. They're a kind of historical hangover, leftovers from the old United Irishmen that Sinn Féin sort-of grew out of. Also, Sinn Féin has a (small again but) significant number of atheist and other hardline Communist voters.

    Ulster politics are weird.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]

    Ballot box or the sack (3.50 / 2) (#157)
    by walwyn on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 04:11:47 PM EST

    The demographics are such that within the next twenty years the catholic community will outnumber the protestant community.

    Much of the present day conflicts are in the areas where catcholics are beginning to outnumber and supplant protestant. It also explains why both sides are so opposed to family planning and abortion.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]

    Gee, this is a tough one (4.96 / 28) (#107)
    by Rogerborg on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 06:00:57 AM EST

    Forgot a bit, did we?  The right peacably to assemble.

    And marching "respectfully" through Catholic areas is just too big a whopper to swallow.  It's a lie, a huge, fat, stinking lie.  Yes the Orangemen were marching there before they were Catholic areas, but that does not automatically give you the high moral ground.  The houses can't move out of your way, the people can't uproot and give you back your routes.  You're not welcome there, and continuing to march is more bloody minded provacation than celebrating your cultural heritage.  The situation has changed, and if you don't, then you're no more relevant than the Inquisition.

    I know not of what I speak?  Guess again.  I was brought up to be a good Billy Boy, which - your vile dissembling aside - means to hate and fear Feinans (word used advisedly).  There was no celebration, no joy, only contempt and provocation.  Fortunately, unlike so many Billy Boys, I grew up.  But I can't shed all of the ingrained habits, and I'd like to demonstrate that by making a point.

    If the Orange order is about celebration and not hatred, then Orangemen would have no possible problem buying green cars and wearing green clothes, right?

    Right?

    "Exterminate all rational thought." - W.S. Burroughs

    There's only one good thing about an orange march (4.33 / 3) (#108)
    by Craevenwulfe on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 06:11:12 AM EST

    Sometimes it's just nice to hear those big old drums getting thumped. The music can be quite nice.

    In the UK (4.92 / 13) (#113)
    by walwyn on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 08:39:34 AM EST

    despite this being strangely in opposition to the fundamental human rights of every man to self assembly.

    You have no right to march down the street.

    • If you do so at a run then you are a tumultuous assembly.
    • Should you do so slowly, you are obstructing the highway.
    • If you look to the left or right you are leering offensively, or threateningly.
    • And by banging drums and blowing fifes, you are clearly creating a breach of the peace.
    that your soveriegn, on occassions, allows you to act in the above manner, is a priviledge for which you should thankful not piss and moan about.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    -1, some parts are baiting (4.44 / 9) (#139)
    by Pihkal on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 12:42:17 PM EST

    My experience relating to the Orange Order, the marches, and everything around it, was not exactly peaceful. One summer many years ago, I travelled across Ireland and Northern Ireland, and happened to be in Derry/Londonderry the night before the Orange Order was scheduled to march. Their planned route was going to take them through the predominantly Republican (NB: see below if you're wondering about Republicans) section of town, and the march had not been diverted as of the night before. What I saw in Derry/Londonderry the next day on the news was people marching through the Republican section of town, while the actual residents of the neighborhood shouted at them and stood uneasily by, a massive police presence holding them back. The night before, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (the paramilitary-like police force of NI) was sent in en masse to quell a riot. There was no riot, though, until their presence started it. Fires raged all night. I saw a car that had been overturned and burnt.

    That's my anecdote, anyway. I understand bc's annoyance, as he puts it, with slandering the movement as a whole by the actions of a few members, and he may even be right - I have never met any other Orange Order members to judge. But I think he is mistaken in his assessment of the Northern Irish Orange Order's actions and motives. For starters, I can personally say that the anger against the Order was present in more towns than just Belfast. The whole month of the marching season I saw news reports about this and that town's Republicans protesting angrily about the marches.

    Also, the talk of their "traditional" routes is extremely disingenuous, when the routes are known by all parties to be antagonizing. If the Order is not a "brutish den of bigotry" (at least in Northern Ireland), then why do the routes pass through Republican parts of town, neighborhoods where they are likely to have few members? Are the NI Order's leaders saying, "Sorry, we know it's upsetting, but we have to follow the same route we did 100 years ago."?

    Likewise for your reference to the rights of men to free assembly. What you seem to be arguing for in the bulk of your op-ed is that the Orange Order is misunderstood, and then you talk about Order opposition to state tyranny in the form of restricting your assembly rights. However, even if they can legally do so, (and I think they should be allowed to), this makes them no less intolerant and aggravating for engaging in the same behavior year after year. What you seem to be upset about is the public perception of the Order, and what I am saying is that, in regards to NI, that perception is justified by the Order's actions.

    NB to my fellow Americans: Republicans wish to join the Republic of Ireland, Loyalists wish to remain part of GB. The Troubles are not primarily a religious dispute in modern times, despite the US media constantly referring to "Catholics" and "Protestants." While bc talks about the Orange Order's religious heritage, I think the problem, at least in Northern Ireland, is the Order's decidedly non-religious political stance.

    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
    -- Number 6

    Hahah (2.50 / 8) (#146)
    by Craevenwulfe on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 02:11:20 PM EST

    I once went on a weeks holiday to Israel, blah blah blah.

    [ Parent ]
    Which brings up something... (none / 0) (#293)
    by cdyer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:39:50 PM EST

    I've been wondering about this for a while, and I think I finally got it figured out but I need someone to confirm it for me.

    My basic question is what is the difference between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom?

    As I understand it, Britain is one of three countries (or I guess kingdoms) on an island, along with Wales and Scotland. Great Britain is that big island, which along with Ireland and a number of small islands forms "the British Isles." The United Kingdom is the short form for "The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland," and is the nation made up of the four basic kingdoms: England, Wales, Scotland, and N. Ireland.

    Is this more or less correct? Is Britain synonymous with England or with Great Britain. If you say you are British is that the same as saying you are English? What are the political connotations of this terminology. Is it contentious to talk about the UK as distinct from Great Britain in N. Ireland? Is Great Britain used to talk about political divisions, or just geographic? Etc., etc., and so forth.

    Basically, I'd just like to understand this terminology better, and if anyone can explain, I'd be much obliged.

    Cheers,
    Cliff

    (an American)

    [ Parent ]

    What constitutes the UK? (5.00 / 1) (#301)
    by DodgyGeezer on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 12:22:55 AM EST

    Firstly, the English have a tendency to use the words "England" and "Great Britain" and "UK" interchangeably.  Obviously this annoys the non-English, such as the Scots.

    "British Isles" - all the islands including Great Britain, Ireland, channel islands, Isle of Man, Scilly Isles, etc.  I guess politically the Republic of Ireland ceased to be part of the British Isle some time ago.

    "Britain" - my guess is England and Wales, as per Roman times.  These days it is probably used by most people as a short-form for "Great Britain"

    "Great Britain" - England, Wales and Scotland

    The kingdoms:

    • England and Wales (last 500 years or so)
    • Scotland
    • Ireland (not really a kingdom anymore as part of it is a province in the UK, and the other larger part is a Republic).
    Thus we have the United Kingdom consistenting of:
    • Kingdom of England and Wales (Wales is a principality)
    • Kingdom of Scotland
    • Province of Northern Ireland
    "British" - anybody from Great Britain is British, although a Scot might claim he is Scottish first, just like a Texan might claim they are American second.  I often hear people from N. Ireland described as British, but I would guess that isn't correct.  BTW, the singular of "British" is "Briton", not "Brit".

    From an international political perspective, the UK is the soverign entity.  Domestically though, some people feel a stronger affinity for their historical country (England, Scotland, etc) than the UK.  In some sports events such as the football (soccer), the individual countries are represented (this is why there is no British soccer involvement in the olympics - they don't want to lose this status by setting a precedent of fielding a unified team).

    I hope I've answered your question.  More importantly, I hope my statements are correct!  Perhaps a clued in Briton can correct me.  Many people in the UK can't answer this question, so it's little wonder why foreigners would be confused!


    [ Parent ]

    Greatly appreciated! (none / 0) (#361)
    by cdyer on Mon Oct 28, 2002 at 09:15:55 PM EST

    Thanks to both of you who responded to this. One tiny follow up (should be comparatively simple, if anyone's still reading...)

    Is "Briton" pronounced the same as "Britain"? In my (generic American) dialect, I would assume they are both pronounced /brit'n/.

    [ Parent ]

    Is this Yurp? (none / 0) (#362)
    by it certainly is on Tue Oct 29, 2002 at 05:49:49 PM EST

    Are these Yurpeens?

    I don't know how your American accent is, but "Briton" has a definate "o" sound, like the "ton" in "Newton", whereas "Britain" has more of a "tan". Both can be mangled to to "tin" depending on how much you're willing to slur your speech.

    But anyway, using the word "Briton" (as in "they are Britons" or "he is a Briton") is considered archaic. The contraction "Brit" is preferred.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    The gory details (5.00 / 1) (#327)
    by scorchio on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 11:40:02 AM EST

    My basic question is what is the difference between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom?

    England is one of three countries on (Great) Britain, the other two being Scotland and Wales. Therefore "British" refers to English people, Scots and Welsh (though the Welsh might claim to have a prior claim).

    The United Kingdom is a political entity, created in the 18th century and consisting of England, Scotland, and Wales. The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England had the same monarchs ever since James VI of Scotland became James I of England on the death of the last of the Tudors, Elizabeth I. The two kingdoms were formally united in the 1770s (I think). Ireland joined following the Act of Union in 1801, whereupon it became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

    Therefore no-one born on the island of Ireland can be British, though they can be UK citizens. This affords me great amusement, when I see Ian Paisley and the rest of the Alabama-style Presbyterian buttfucks ranting on about their desire to be British. Impossible, I fear.

    In 1922 three-quarters of Ireland got partial independence -- the 26 counties seceded from the UK (and British Commonwealth) completely in 1949, whereupon the UK was retitled as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (current designation).

    And now a question/challenge. Who was the last English king of England?

    [ Parent ]

    Did I miss something? (none / 0) (#316)
    by Pihkal on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 11:44:57 AM EST

    A comment that consists of a single sentence ending in "blah blah blah". I can't tell if this is an insult, a commentary, or a joke that I don't get. It seems vaguely insulting or derogatory, but it's not doing a very good job of that.

    All I can think of to say right now comes from Meg Ryan's character in Joe vs The Volcano, the jaded older sister. Several times, Joe says something, and she replies in a flat manner, "I have no response to that."

    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!"
    -- Number 6
    [ Parent ]

    Nitpick: UK, not GB (n/t) (none / 0) (#227)
    by DodgyGeezer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:27:23 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    See above (or below...) (none / 0) (#294)
    by cdyer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:41:49 PM EST

    I posted a response to this under the sibling comment to this comments parent. It was meant to go here. I apologize for the confusion.

    [ Parent ]
    you stupid liberal (1.38 / 13) (#159)
    by turmeric on Tue Oct 15, 2002 at 04:16:02 PM EST

    all those people should just kill each other and get it over with. this has nothing to do with america. we should build a wall around ireland or england or wherever the hell it is you people are killing each other for the past thousands of years.

    Shal we build a wall around america (4.00 / 2) (#175)
    by scrantic on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:36:12 AM EST

    Why not do the same to america they seem to involve the rest of the world in their "WAR ON TERROR" i dont really give a shit about it but i still ahve to hear about it every fucking day.

    And i dont see it stoping any time soon so go why dont you give your advice do americans and kill each other.

    [ Parent ]

    hear hear (none / 0) (#179)
    by daragh on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:08:26 AM EST

    much in agreement with this.

    No work.
    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (4.00 / 1) (#182)
    by carbon on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:59:13 AM EST

    Me too, and I'm an American (or, is it USian?). Just, before building that wall, lemme get out and change citizenship to Finland or someplace along those lines...


    Wasn't Dr. Claus the bad guy on Inspector Gadget? - dirvish
    [ Parent ]
    War On XXXX is stupid (none / 0) (#213)
    by Quila on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:51:50 AM EST

    American politicans are always putting their programs in this context. War On Drugs, War On Poverty, etc. Even though lesser in magnitude, Germany had this same problem in the 70s and 80s. They didn't declare "war" on anything, but considered it a police and intelligence matter. Same with the Israelis.

    The only thing that makes the "War On XXX" terminology different is that it's a good keyphrase for making sure the American public gets shafted in the end.

    Don't get tired of hearing about fighting terrorism though. America once thought it was immune to being attacked, and I'm sure Indonesia didn't think it would happen. Your country may be next.

    [ Parent ]

    Amazing insight. Most conservatives are trolls (4.28 / 7) (#174)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:03:38 AM EST

    I can't believe I never though about it before. It makes perfect sense. Most conservative commentators and what have you are just "real world" trolls.

    It makes sense with these Orangemen. It also makes sense with Jerry Falwell. Have you ever seen him arguing with a flustered opponent? He looks like he's about to crack up.

    The Orangemen and the Klan use the same lame excuse, "We're not against you; we're for our own group." Weak arguments are a favorite troll tactic to elicit responses.

    That's why trolls always argue conservative positions, because almost everyone that holds those positions is doing it, in part, to troll, whether they are conscously aware of it or not.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour

    Most lefties are trolls too in that case. (4.50 / 2) (#240)
    by Phillip Asheo on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:30:21 PM EST

    Since nobody could sincerely believe in 'dialectical materialism'.

    --
    "Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
    -Earl Long
    [ Parent ]

    That means you fell for a troll. HA HA HA!!! (2.00 / 1) (#281)
    by Big Sexxy Joe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:18:55 PM EST

    All I believe in is being practical and flexible, anyway.

    I'm like Jesus, only better.
    Democracy Now! - your daily, uncensored, corporate-free grassroots news hour
    [ Parent ]
    Perhaps you could explain (4.66 / 6) (#178)
    by fraserspeirs on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:05:40 AM EST

    There's something about the Order that I've always been curious about, and your article provoked me to think about it again:

    If the Order isn't really antagonistic towards catholics, why is it that their marches in Glasgow pass almost every Catholic bar in the area, and often come to a halt outside these bars playing The Sash for minutes on end?

    Y'know, if it's all about your 'faith' then why do things like that?

    So, I'm from Glasgow and my wife's from Belfast - I know about the things you talk about and I know about them as an outsider to both the Order and the Catholic community.

    What the order is really about is a bunch of marginalised unemployed 50+ white guys trying to make themselves feel important and valued by putting on a show of supposed strength and solidarity.  It's pathetic and it's childish in the extreme to claim 'traditional' rights to walk down a street, and to throw stones and stamp your feet when you don't get what you want.

    So not far from my house, there's a stadium called Ibrox Park where frequently one can hear the famous Billy Boys song:

    "Hello, hello, we are the Billy boys,
    Hello, hello, you'll know us by our noise,
    We're up to our knees in Fenian blood,
    Surrender or you'll die,
    For we are the Brigton Derry boys."

    Not only is that the fans' song, but it even gets played over the PA system, with a flute delicately covering up the line "we are the Billy boys" and "we're up to our knees in fenian blood".

    Your article is total BS in every possible respect.  You're one of these people that will do anything for Northern Ireland except live there.  Pathetic.

    Haha (3.75 / 4) (#180)
    by Grey Day on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:23:16 AM EST

    The Orange order is fulled of bigoted mindless thugs who hate Catholics and praise the murdering of them. Here in Scotland Rangers Football Club(a predominatly Protestant supported club) have sold Orange away tops and their fans wear this with other Ulster, British and Bigoted clothing and flags to show a distinct hate of the Catholic community of both Scotland and Ireland. I find it laughable that in this day and age people can support this club of Catholic haters. I have come across many men who have ceased talking or even making eye contact with because I was brought up with a Catholic background. In some cases people have grown to hate me overnight after finding out I belong to the Catholic faith. Many men die because of this hate and you sit behind your computer and say it upholds "principles of Liberty and Natural Rights". I do not know if you are ignorant or are looking to cause an argument.
    ----

    A

    Hey, can I join (4.25 / 4) (#181)
    by daragh on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:54:04 AM EST

    I've just read your article and I've decided to join your order. Do you think a nice little Irish lapsed Catholic boy like me would fit in at your "inclusive" and "liberal" organisation? In a manner that didn't threaten my personal safety, that is?

    No work.

    (183 comments, 183 new, 1488 words in story) (4.33 / 3) (#184)
    by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:14:35 AM EST

    Hmm.. I find it highly amusing that there should happen to be 1488 words in this story.

     

    Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    Explain [n/t] (4.00 / 1) (#187)
    by GRiNGO on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:58:47 AM EST



    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    1488 (4.50 / 2) (#189)
    by kuro5hinatportkardotnet on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:39:16 AM EST

    1488 is a slang number used by skinheads and various neo nazi types.  

    see 14 words:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=14+words

    Also 88

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=88+nazi

     

    Libertarian is the label used by embarrassed Republicans that long to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
    [ Parent ]
    pointless anecdotes (4.50 / 4) (#185)
    by kstop on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:19:26 AM EST

    The Scottish Orange Order is pretty much declawed these days, by comparison with the NI Order. When my Scottish Catholic aunt married a Protestant, his older male relatives (all Orangemen) refused to enter the church, but had no problem going to the reception! I had a pretty intense debate with one of them about the whole thing, but no blows were struck. It was actually quite amicable.

    By comparison, when I went to a predominantly Protestant university and stayed in College accomodation with a bunch of young NI Orangemen, they more than once tried to beat me up because I was a) Catholic (in their eyes) and b) mouthy. You can't argue with an NI Orangeman. They are not a peaceful organisation, they are not a historical society. They're the parade club of a group of people intent on maintaining a status quo that leaves them in control. Religion may be the distinguishing factor, but they don't care about points of doctrine. They care about money and power.

    I think you might be a bigot. (none / 0) (#197)
    by lugumbashi on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:44:49 AM EST

    Generalisations based on some people you met, absolutely no justifications cited.

    they don't care about points of doctrine. They care about money and power

    Yes I think you might be an anti-Orange bigot.
    -"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"
    [ Parent ]

    or you could just be an idiot (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by kstop on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:14:03 AM EST

    I cited only one case in my many dealings with Orange Order members. I just thought it was interesting because it shows their attitude, shows they start young, and shows they maintain that attitude even in small numbers and transposed to other countries.

    Also, did you read everything, or just that one line? I'm related by marriage to Scottish Orange Order members, and don't consider them as bad. (Though they were when my mother was young. Most of her family were attacked by Orange gangs at one time or another, in the days.) In fact, it was our family (myself included) that invited in my Protestant uncle with open arms, while his own family gave him nothing but grief over the marriage.

    [ Parent ]

    You know (3.00 / 1) (#186)
    by Craevenwulfe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 06:24:55 AM EST

    I'd never heard of inadequacy.org until the other day..

    Which would all be fine and well... (4.50 / 2) (#188)
    by Sartori on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:24:05 AM EST

    ...if not for the fact that Orange order marches are always a source of trouble. Admittedly, it is usually caused by the idiots who follow the march, rather than the guys in hats or the guys with flutes, but then the peaceful ones don't do anything to combat the violence. And that includes speaking out against it. For what its worth, I live in Glasgow, Scotland, and have seen many marches in my time.
    --
    Sartori
    "What is now real was once only imagined..."
    I know ones who have tried to stop it (none / 0) (#200)
    by Stick on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:02:52 AM EST

    Unfortunatly there aren't enough like them.


    ---
    Stick, thine posts bring light to mine eyes, tingles to my loins. Yea, each moment I sit, my monitor before me, waiting, yearning, needing your prose to make the moment complete. - Joh3n
    [ Parent ]
    Does this right to "self assembly". . . (4.50 / 2) (#192)
    by kfg on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:20:16 AM EST

    have anything to do with the "Is there a God" thread?

    KFG

    Analogy (4.50 / 4) (#193)
    by The Smith on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:25:52 AM EST

    Imagine if, every August 6, a crowd of Americans flew over to Japan and marched through the streets of Tokyo waving US flags, carrying mushroom cloud banners with the caption "HIROSHIMA 1945" and singing traditional American military songs, with the general undertone of "we gave you one that time, you slitty eyed bastards".

    That would be a pretty accurate analogy of the attitude of the Orange Order marchers. For all I know, bc may be right about the historical background of the Order and the battle of the Boyne, but the fact remains that the sole purpose of the marches now is to mock and provoke Catholics.

    Because the marches have inevitably lead to violence in the past, the UK government has quite reasonably prevented them from entering the predominantly Catholic areas. The right to freely assemble stops when an assembly is doing things calculated to incite violence.

    One bit really bothers me (3.00 / 2) (#198)
    by Quila on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:46:47 AM EST

    If Catholics did force out Protestants along historical routes, then a Hiroshima connection doesn't stand. The Orange Order had been marching there for years, then the Catholics take over the routes and start claiming they're being provoked?

    It's worse than the locals by an Army airfield in Heidelberg who are always complaining about the noise (and they're being paid, too). I saw an aerial photo of that airfield, and there wasn't a house anywhere near it 30 years ago.

    So everyone who knowingly moved in next to an airfield should just shut the hell up, as should any Catholic who moved in along an established Orange Order marching route.

    [ Parent ]

    I expected more sense from you (none / 0) (#203)
    by GRiNGO on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:21:44 AM EST

    Dude, to be quite blunt, you don't have a fucking clue. Catholics dont just move in along an established marching route. The sectarian geography of Belfast is ever-changing, not because as has been suggested, catholics force-out protestants but because of the ever present violence at interface areas. Both sides have been involved in the burning of each others homes over the years, and I wouldn't be as silly to propose one side has been worse than the other in this respect.

    One must ask ones self that if the Orange Order really do want to show off their culture and have a good day out, then why are they so insistent on walking in areas where they are plainly despised?

    And all this nonsense about historical routes. Historically, men were hung for treason. Historically, women didn't have the right to vote. But time moves on, eh?

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    They shouldn't have to change (none / 0) (#211)
    by Quila on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:43:43 AM EST

    First, I was going off of the information in the article ("IF Catholics..."). Following that, they shouldn't have to change a historical route just because some people who don't like them have moved in. Those people who moved in should simply realize they are on other peoples' turf. I'm in Germany, so I know I don't dare going around spouting Hitler gibberish, where I could do that freely in America.

    I like the old saying that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, but I love the addendum that it's my fault if I stuck my nose out so that your fist hit where it otherwise would have missed.

    Aside from that, why do we blame the Orange Order for the violence? They were provoking? Some people think we still play by schoolyard rules where you hit when taunted?

    There's a nice parallel to that in which the racists were demonstrating in Denver on (IIRC) Martin Luther King day. They had a permit, and coached every member on non-violence, even searched them for weapons. They had their nice little peaceful (if totally BS) demonstration going for a while when the counter-demonstrators came along and started the violence. The counter-demonstrators even attacked a pro-MLK group because they got confused as to who was who. The racist group simply ran away.

    So who's wrong, those who taunt or those who actually attack? I believe in freedom of speech and personal restraint myself.

    [ Parent ]

    Analogy (none / 0) (#205)
    by GuyZero on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:40:19 AM EST

    Another analogy I've heard is to imagine English Canadians heading over to the Plains of Abraham every Sept 13th and marching about chanting about how great it was that we kicked the French's ass all over the place. Yay Wolfe, boo Montcalm.

    Oddly enough, Candians have somehow managed to get over their hatred of one another (mostly) and instead manage to get along.

    Maybe the Irish are all just too retarded to figure peace is better than war. I suppose I couldn't really say.

    [ Parent ]

    Some problems (5.00 / 7) (#194)
    by lugumbashi on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:29:01 AM EST

    Your figures for the Spanish Inquisition are way off and have to be set agains the hundreds of thousands of witches burned to death in the supposedly more advanced, northern European, protestant governments. At least in Spain they gave them a trial, which, however corrupt is better than "sink or swim".

    "More advanced" is a dead giveaway of your reading of history which must be seen as propaganda in this context

    The Orange order is not so much of a problem except for the fact that every Unionist politician is a member and it excludes Catholics. The Unionist parties may say that it is not necessary to be a member of the order but I don't believe them. Until they manage to prove this then the notion that the Order is a exclusive protestant cabal for the ruling elite is going to persist.

    Say you want to have a say in the running of your country. However you belong to a group which is excluded from the ruling party. The ruling party has a long history of regarding your group with hostility, suspicion and discrimination. There is no point voting for your own party because they are excluded from goverment by virtue of parliamentary majority.

    This was the situation that the Good Friday Agreement was meant to fix, by ensuring that minority parties must be included in government. Along with this agreement an independent Parades Commission was set up to arbitrate between the different sides to find a compromise between the right to march and those who see the marches equivalent to a Neo-Nazi parade in Tel Aviv. They are wrong of course, it's not equivalent but what does that matter? If it is going to cause that much hatred and aggravation then some compromise must be sought.
    -"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"

    We found a witch. May we burn her? (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by IHCOYC on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:10:40 AM EST

    Your figures for the Spanish Inquisition are way off and have to be set agains the hundreds of thousands of witches burned to death in the supposedly more advanced, northern European, protestant governments. At least in Spain they gave them a trial, which, however corrupt is better than "sink or swim".
    My understanding is that the worst area of Europe for witch persecutions was in fact the valley of the Rhine and its tributaries, an area now mostly divided between eastern France and western Germany. During the period where the persecutions were at their peak, the area was divided between Protestants and Roman Catholics. The German areas especially were divided between many tiny principalities.

    The great manual of witch persecution, the Malleus Maleficarum, was written by two German Dominicans from this very area. Compared to the persecutions in the Rhine valley, which claimed thousands of victims, the witch-mania in England was relatively mild. It was somewhat worse in Scotland, but still nothing like what went on in the Continent. We know more about these persecutions largely because the original sources are handier for English speakers, and more about them has been written in English.

    GraySkull is home to the anima, the all-knowing woman who gives power to the otherwise ineffectual man. -- Jeff Coleman
    [ Parent ]

    How did this troll article make the front page? (2.00 / 4) (#199)
    by davidmb on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:49:00 AM EST

    Is this Adequacy.org?
    ־‮־
    Is this adequacy.org ? (3.66 / 3) (#239)
    by Phillip Asheo on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:25:36 PM EST

    If you are very lucky, k5 may become a bastion of crtitical thinking like adequacy.org. Lord knows we could do with a bit of critical thought around here.

    --
    "Never say what you can grunt. Never grunt what you can wink. Never wink what you can nod, never nod what you can shrug, and don't shrug when it ain't necessary"
    -Earl Long
    [ Parent ]

    It is now. (none / 0) (#358)
    by dipipanone on Thu Oct 24, 2002 at 01:35:56 AM EST

    If you are very lucky, k5 may become a bastion of crtitical thinking like adequacy.org

    I've noticed a significant improvement in the quality of critical thought there recently, that's for sure.

    --
    Suck my .sig
    [ Parent ]
    IRA/Sinn Fein UDA/Orange Order (4.33 / 6) (#201)
    by lugumbashi on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:07:27 AM EST

    You know you are very quick to make the link between IRA and Sinn Fein. Perfectly true or course but then you deny any link between the Orange Order and loyalist paramilitary groups. If you believe this then you are deceiving yourself in exactly the same manner as someone who thinks that Sinn Fein has no link to the IRA.

    The Orange Order may forswear violence, but so has Sinn Fein, haha. It is not as tightly coupled to the terrorists as Sinn Fein but the order has many members who are linked to loyalist paramilitary groups. Any aspiring unionist politician who is not a member is never going to get selected as a electoral candidate.
    -"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"

    Unionist Politicians (4.50 / 2) (#273)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:50:38 PM EST

    Ian Paisley is the most successful Unionist politician (in terms of votes received for the European Parliament he gets more than anyone else in Europe).

    He resigned from the Orange Order in September 1962 because it wouldn't expel the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Robert Kinahan for going to a Catholic funeral mass.


    [ Parent ]
    The exception proves the rule (5.00 / 1) (#304)
    by lugumbashi on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:53:36 AM EST


    -"Guinness thaw tool in jew me dinner ouzel?"
    [ Parent ]
    Do you mind if I pull you up on your history (3.50 / 2) (#204)
    by rcs1000 on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:29:03 AM EST

    "Their name comes from William III, Prince of Orange, whose victory over the despotic power of James II (who believed in the Divine Right of Kings) at the Battle of the Boyne established the foundations for a constitutional democracy in the British Isles." OK. Constitutional democracy was the result of the 1688 'settlement' between the British parliament and the new British monarch(s) William and Mary. The bulk of this was agreed *before* William & co. were 'invited' to invade England. William landed in England with a small army. James II fled the country. Only later did he attempt to rally the Irish to his cause. Why was James II kicked out? Why did the population support an invading army? James II was Catholic. This did not go down well. William was Protestant. The Protestants at that time made the 'Reverand' Ian Paisley look like a liberal. James II was also (frankly) stupid. Did he believe in 'the divine right of kings'? Well, find me a monarch who didn't? Those - like William & Mary - who didn't openly preach it were probably merely politically aware that their career as monarch was over if they started getting antsy. The concern of many Englishman was that William would lead them into a European war on the side of either the hated French or the loathed Spanish. (Both Catholic nations, note.) Parliament therefore made overtures to the Protestant Prince William and his wife Mary. They came. And the Battle of the Boyne... an afterthought.

    And what was the first thing that William did? (3.00 / 4) (#216)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:19:12 AM EST

    Why, this, of course. This "afterthought" formed the cornerstone of the modern world and guarranteed many freedoms.

    As for the afterthought of the Battle of the Boyne, I invite you to imagine the consequences had it been lost. A return to Catholic tyranny, and a Britain more in line with France, which to this day remains a coercive state and no friend of individual rights.

    Like it or not, this is true:

    magna carta + John Locke + the Bill of Rights +Adam Smith + James Watt = the modern world and everything in it, all the freedoms we hold dear.

    Derrida + Voltaire + Foucalt + Loius XIV + Catholicism + Rousseau = nothing. Nothing whatsoever but a bunch of totalitarian claptrap.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Wow. Just... wow. (5.00 / 4) (#251)
    by dnix on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:27:47 PM EST

    You lump some of the greatest thinkers in continental philosophy together with Louis XIV and claim they are "totalitarian." Amazing, simply amazing. Do you have an argument for this, or is it just another piece of unfounded rhetoric?

    Hint: take a look at Foucault and Derrida and the tradition from which they arise some time. You will be surprised to learn that they come from a long line of anti-totalitarian thinkers, educators, resistance fighters and so on.



    [ Parent ]
    Who did it? (none / 0) (#289)
    by Woundweavr on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:38:00 PM EST

    As part of their oaths, the new King William III and Queen Mary were required to swear that they would obey the laws of Parliament. At this time, the Bill of Rights was read to both William and Mary. "We thankfully accept what you have offered us," William replied, agreeing to be subject to law and to be guided in his actions by the decisions of Parliament.

    The Bill was formally passed through Parliament after the coronation. On December 16, 1689, the King and Queen gave it Royal Assent which represented the end of the concept of divine right of kings.

    Parliament invited a foreign noblemen in because a) they could control him and b) he was the religion they wanted the country to be. When W&M they were given the thrown conditionally, in that they did not have 'divine right' and had to follow Parliament. Parliament then wrote the Bill and it was rubber stamped by the still insecure monarch. Exactly what was said by rcs1000, and exactly what your source said. So why do you disagree?

    [ Parent ]

    Do catholic children have the right to walk? (4.62 / 8) (#212)
    by Paul Johnson on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 10:47:08 AM EST

    ISTR that last year there was a big kerfuffle over the right of some catholic primary school children to walk down a protestant road. It was simply the most direct route to their school. The police and army turned out to protect the children from stone-throwing mobs. The Orange Order were very quiet about their right to walk (not even assemble or march, just walk) down the street.

    Paul.
    You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.

    Kerfuffle?? (4.66 / 3) (#220)
    by Craevenwulfe on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:53:27 AM EST

    Pipe bombs were thrown.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, but not many (5.00 / 7) (#234)
    by Paul Johnson on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:59:32 PM EST

    As I'm sure that the Orange Order would point out, the pipe bomb throwers were a small and unrepresentative minority who give the honest stone-throwers a bad name.

    Paul.
    You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
    [ Parent ]

    a response (2.00 / 1) (#295)
    by pandajon on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:43:19 PM EST

    In recent years, parents from the catholic community have failed in their age old duty to educate their children as second class citizens.  

    Good god man, if we don't who will?  

             yours in christ, The Tangerine Order

    [ Parent ]

    Orange order - a anachronism in bad taste (3.50 / 2) (#217)
    by valen on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:26:02 AM EST


     Imagine if people elsewhere were as nasty as the orange order - VE day (Victory in Europe, end of WWII) would be celebrated in Berlin instead.

     Japanese people would do fly-bys of Pearl Harbour to celbrate their military history.

     Give it over people.

    Thanksgiving (5.00 / 4) (#221)
    by endah on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:54:06 AM EST

    I hear something takes place in America called 'thanksgiving'.  Something to do with the slaughter/screwing over of masses of aboriginal people...

    I suppose the two scenarios aren't all that different.  Except I hear thanksgiving generally tries to forget about the slaughter aspect, whilst even today the Orange Order's issues centre around conflict.

    [ Parent ]

    What? (none / 0) (#271)
    by bolix on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:39:59 PM EST

    Nope.

    Thanksgiving celebrates the supposed gift of food by Native Americans to English Puritans.

    The N.Ire. conflict mentioned above, your reference to the Native North-American Indian slaughter, India/Pakistan, Iran/Iraq, Isreal/Paletine and on and on are conflicts that can be solely laid at the feet of misguided racist British colonial policies to agitate ethnic populations and divide-and-conquer.

    [ Parent ]

    Oops - correction. (none / 0) (#274)
    by bolix on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:55:08 PM EST

    Not misguided. Definitely guided.

    [ Parent ]
    Sorta like the KKK? (4.66 / 6) (#218)
    by hans on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:35:47 AM EST

    Prior to reading this article, I don't think I had ever heard of the Orangemen.  It was an interesting read.  From what I gather from the comments, it seems these men like to march through sensitive areas?

    How is this different from Klan members & other racists marching through black neighborhoods?  While this activity is probably allowed here in the states, I don't think even the KKK is ignorant enough to try it.  They won't be convincing black people to kill themselves, nor will the Orangemen be convincing Catholics to convert to Protestantism (which probably wouldn't make them acceptable anyway).  Wouldn't it be more effective to march through areas where the residents are not members, but not opposed to them?

    It seems that the justification of marching as an expression of natural rights and tradition is just a cover-up to stir up some noise.

    Traditional (4.00 / 1) (#238)
    by Kintanon on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:24:06 PM EST

    The Orange Orders has been marching the same routes for around 100 years. They don't want to change their routes. They didn't alter the routes to move through controversial areas, people moved onto the routes who happened to disagree with them.
    This is my understanding of the situation.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    KKK is 150, seems irrelevent -nt- (5.00 / 1) (#285)
    by Woundweavr on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 08:28:26 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    I support their rights as well. -NT- (3.00 / 1) (#291)
    by Kintanon on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 09:32:46 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Doesn't mean they are good guys -nt- (none / 0) (#323)
    by Woundweavr on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 08:51:09 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    Beside the point. Freespeech for all! -NT- (none / 0) (#326)
    by Kintanon on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 10:41:44 AM EST



    [ Parent ]
    You miss the point (none / 0) (#336)
    by Woundweavr on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 03:20:45 PM EST

    You've missed the point. The article didn't say anything about denying them free speech. It claimed they were misrepresented and were a good group. Also, free speech!=free assembly, and free assembly only pertains to peaceful assembly. Tradition does not override the peaceful part.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok, then... (none / 0) (#345)
    by Kintanon on Sun Oct 20, 2002 at 07:48:28 PM EST

    Here's the deal. If I am peaceably assembling on the sidewalk, and some group of assholes comes up and starts throwing rocks at me. Who is in the wrong? Should I dissolve my peaceful assembly because someone who disagrees with me became violent? If the Orange Order isn't throwing the stones then they are still in the right. Just because I say something you don't like doesn't give you the right to shut me up with violence. The people actually doing the attacking are in the wrong here, not the ones expressing an unpopular opinion.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    Flaws (none / 0) (#359)
    by Woundweavr on Sat Oct 26, 2002 at 10:16:16 PM EST

    There are two flaws to your argument.

    1 - The ones throwing the rocks are part of the Orange Order.

    2 - Im not sure what you mean by attacking. If you mean throwing rocks, see 1. If you mean those verbally not physically "attacking" the Orange Order, then you are attacking their right to express themselves and are not internally consistant.

    [ Parent ]

    Hrmm? (none / 0) (#360)
    by Kintanon on Mon Oct 28, 2002 at 03:54:54 PM EST

    If it was the orange order throwing rocks (I said this quit a while ago by the way) then the orange order is in the wrong. It is only by commiting physical violence that they lose their right to express their view. If people wish to protest their march, that's fine, so long as they do so peacefully. If the orange order is attacking people or throwing stones then they should certainly be prevented from marching. But as yet I have not been presented with any evidence that this is the case.

    Kintanon

    [ Parent ]

    How in the hell... (2.00 / 6) (#223)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:12:13 PM EST

    did this crap make the front page??!!!???
    It's been sitting in the quene for 2 days, not exactly front page material...

    At any rate, this is a bullshit attempt at disguising an organization that is every bit as evil and vile as the IRA.

    It amounts to nothing more to propaganda... I should've bothered to read it while it was up for vote so I could've -1'ed it.

    Btw, If there's ever a place that I'd support Dubya invading, Northern Ireland would be it. They could use a little iron fist rule up there...


    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown

    "As evil as the IRA" (2.30 / 10) (#224)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:21:54 PM EST

    Yeh, yeh. No doubt you're an "irish-american" who spends his time thinking about leprechauns and the "poor, opporessed irish" under the "evil British".

    I'll have you know that where the IRA is fond of planting bombs that kill random innocents and is directly responsible for 5000 civilian deaths in the last 25 years, the orange order can't be pegged for more than a blister or two on it's members feet, picked up from marching.

    This is the problem with Catholocism. The sentiment. I actually rather like a lot of things about Catholocism, but one thing I dislike is the sentiment it promotes among it's people - all that mary-worship leads to a distorted, sentimental view of the world that lends itself to terrorism and the funding of terrorism.

    It's no wonder that most Catholic countries are effectively banana republics and hugely coercive even to this day. Most of South and Central America, the history of the continent and the present terrible encroachment of the anti-democratic, fascist EU, it can all be laid at the doors of sentiment, and sentiment is the one defining feature of Catholocism shared by all its worshippers and cultures. It's a real pity, I wish they would just have a hard, realistic heart with a good work ethic, and stop being ruled by their hearts, and instead have an appreciation for fundamental rights.

    In your post I detect all this, it's a shame. Sentiment leading to a backing of invasion of another country and widespread coercion and a denial of facts and realistic outlook.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    I rate this zero (2.42 / 7) (#230)
    by GRiNGO on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:47:38 PM EST

    Dude, I'm rating this comment as zero because you made another absurd, unjustified, unsupported and downright wrong claim.

    [the IRA] is directly responsible for 5000 civilian deaths in the last 25 years

    This is nothing more than pure bollox. Somewhere in excess of 3000 people have died as a direct result of the troubles over the last 30 years. I fail to see how your the IRA can thus have killed 5000.

    Please explain.

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    Fuck off (2.66 / 6) (#231)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:52:12 PM EST

    I'm not holding a dialogue with a self righteous prick who insists on censoring my comments from view because he disagrees. 0 is for spam.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    My 0. (2.00 / 5) (#235)
    by haflinger on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:06:13 PM EST

    it's for this:
    No doubt you're an "irish-american" who spends his time thinking about leprechauns and the "poor, opporessed irish" under the "evil British".
    I'm leaning towards zeroing all ad hominem arguments. This kind of comment is the reason why.

    Did people from the future send George Carlin back in time to save rusty and K5? - leviramsey
    [ Parent ]
    Its not because I disagree. (2.25 / 4) (#236)
    by GRiNGO on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:08:57 PM EST

    Its because its simply wrong. Try using facts next time instead of spouting shite in order to further your flawed arguments.

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    When you include (2.00 / 5) (#237)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:15:46 PM EST

    the numersous deaths the IRA causes among the Catholic population in defense of its drugs turf under the excuse of providing an "alternative police force" then the picture is not as rosy as you claim it is. Regardless, the point is that the IRA deals in indescriminate death and destruction as a primary aim, where the orange order does not. The IRA is the Al Quaida of the British isles, and Gerry Adams its fanatical bin Laden.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]
    BS of the highest accord (4.66 / 3) (#241)
    by Grey Day on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:32:15 PM EST

    the numersous deaths the IRA causes among the Catholic population in defense of its drugs turf
    Not unlike loyalist paramiltaries, who have even breached their own "turf" and advanced into Scotland.
    The IRA is the Al Quaida of the British isles
    Although the IRA have committed some dreadful crimes, they cannot be put in a similar footing as Al Quadia. They have disarmed and apoligised for previous acts(which I know is too late for the dead, but is at least a start).
    ...and Gerry Adams its fanatical bin Laden.
    Gerry Adams has frequent meetings with the British Prime Minister and has attended meetings in the same room with his political "enemies". Both of the last two comments are grossly exaggerated and shows the sort of ignorance which helps hold back peace in Ulster.
    ----

    A
    [ Parent ]

    Disingenuous (2.50 / 4) (#243)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:52:27 PM EST

    Not unlike loyalist paramiltaries, who have even breached their own "turf" and advanced into Scotland.

    Yeh, not unlike them at all. So? Do you think I defend loyalist paramilitaries? You're wrong.

    Although the IRA have committed some dreadful crimes, they cannot be put in a similar footing as Al Quadia. They have disarmed and apoligised for previous acts(which I know is too late for the dead, but is at least a start).

    They can be, and they are. Just because they are at a different stage of evolution, does not mean they are different. One day Al Quaida too will be negotiated with. I suppose that'll make them lovely, too. Hell, for a lot of the left, they already are lovely - they are the "oppressed", so whatever they do must be right.

    As for Gerry Adams/bin laden, there really is no difference. I'm quite sure the only reason bin laden doesn't negotiate and meet with his enemies is because they would put him up for trial or kill him. Incidently, this is the just thing to do with Gerry Adams too, for he too is a criminal terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths who, if there were any justice in the world, would be put on trial tommorrow and sentenced to a gruesome death.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (4.00 / 1) (#244)
    by Grey Day on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:59:30 PM EST

    Both the IRA and Sinn Fein have Protestant members. Gerry Adams is involved in constant dialogue with the British Prime Minister in order keep the peace. Give me one shred of evidence that Gerry Adam wages a relgious war against Britain.
    ----

    A
    [ Parent ]

    We're too good for state-sponsored murder (4.00 / 2) (#279)
    by DodgyGeezer on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 07:09:49 PM EST

    As for Gerry Adams/bin laden, there really is no difference. I'm quite sure the only reason bin laden doesn't negotiate and meet with his enemies is because they would put him up for trial or kill him. Incidently, this is the just thing to do with Gerry Adams too, for he too is a criminal terrorist mastermind responsible for thousands of deaths who, if there were any justice in the world, would be put on trial tommorrow and sentenced to a gruesome death.

    Except that the UK is more enlightened than that these days.  We don't need to lower ourselves to the same level as the terrorists with state-sponsored murder, let alone state-sponsored torture too.

    [ Parent ]

    They are the same... (none / 0) (#330)
    by duffbeer703 on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 08:56:59 PM EST

    Where do the ranks of the paramilitaries come from?

    Would you have supported the non-violent "Citizens Coalitions" that used local ordinances and political contributions to deny black americans in the south the right to vote? In public, these coalitions all opposed the actions of the KKK and other hate groups, while taking no action to stop their terrorist activity.

    [ Parent ]

    Please! Get your facts straight! (4.00 / 1) (#308)
    by HereticMessiah on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:08:13 AM EST

    The IRA have a lot of illegal rackets, but it's the Loyalists that control the drug trade.

    --
    Disagree with me? Post a reply.
    Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
    [ Parent ]
    ...in Northern Ireland (4.00 / 1) (#310)
    by it certainly is on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 07:00:33 AM EST

    ...and the IRA control the drugs in Eire.

    kur0shin.org -- it certainly is

    Godwin's law [...] is impossible to violate except with an infinitely long thread that doesn't mention nazis.
    [ Parent ]

    'Eire' is a rather ambiguous term. (none / 0) (#318)
    by HereticMessiah on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 12:26:30 PM EST

    It can mean both the Island and the Republic. Anyhow, nobody really refers to it as 'Eire' except in the Constitution, in legal documents, and by some foreigners. 'Republic of Ireland, 'The Republic', 'Ireland' are the usual terms in English with 'Poblacht na hEireann' being the usual term in Irish.

    But in respose, the drugs trade is rather more splintered. The IRA controls part of it, but they're not the major player. That 'honour' falls to criminal gangs, some of which have connections with the Provos, but not all of them.

    --
    Disagree with me? Post a reply.
    Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
    [ Parent ]

    Don't go back 25 years then... (none / 0) (#329)
    by duffbeer703 on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 08:53:10 PM EST

    Go back 80 years, when the royalists were burning out families in the countryside and slaughtering citizens wholesale in the streets.

    Maybe you should consider the millions of catholics forced to flee their land because members of the Orange Order locked them out of the skilled trades.

    [ Parent ]

    hmm... (4.00 / 1) (#245)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 01:59:49 PM EST

    No doubt you're an "irish-american" who spends his time thinking about leprechauns and the "poor, opporessed irish" under the "evil British".

    No, I'm a Canadian of Scottsh/Italian decent. Which is probably why I don't spout one sided bullshit as fact.

    I'll have you know that where the IRA is fond of planting bombs that kill random innocents and is directly responsible for 5000 civilian deaths in the last 25 years, the orange order can't be pegged for more than a blister or two on it's members feet, picked up from marching

    I never said the IRA were angels... but if you honestly believe the Orange Order are then you have you head so far up your ass that it's probably stuck there permenantly.

    As for the rest of your post, although I myself am not Catholic, (anymore) I find your hatred towards another religion offensive and vile, and refuse to engage in conversation with you since none of it will have any substance, 0 until you grow up, because until then what you say and spam are synonomous in my books.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    hmm... (4.00 / 1) (#246)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:01:14 PM EST

    No doubt you're an "irish-american" who spends his time thinking about leprechauns and the "poor, opporessed irish" under the "evil British".

    No, I'm a Canadian of Scottish/Italian decent. Which is probably why I don't spout one sided bullshit as fact.

    I'll have you know that where the IRA is fond of planting bombs that kill random innocents and is directly responsible for 5000 civilian deaths in the last 25 years, the orange order can't be pegged for more than a blister or two on it's members feet, picked up from marching

    I never said the IRA were angels... but if you honestly believe the Orange Order are then you have you head so far up your ass that it's probably stuck there permanently.

    As for the rest of your post, although I myself am not Catholic, (anymore) I find your hatred toward another religion offensive and vile, and refuse to engage in conversation with you since none of it will have any substance, 0 until you grow up, because until then what you say and spam are synonomous in my books.


    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    You'd be wrong to think that (1.80 / 5) (#249)
    by bc on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:19:50 PM EST

    It is not the Catholic religion itself I dislike. There are many things I like about it - it's lineage back to the Roman Empire, the beauty of its churches can be magnificent compared to the presbyterean drabness I am used to. While I am no fan of the worship of idols, I respect the wishes of the Catholics to worship them and find their worship of Mary and the pope to be quite an emotional, beautiful spectacle.

    however, there is no doubt that all this creeping emotion and beauty, so at the heart of Catholocism, leads to the ruling of the heart over the head, and leads to a terrible sentiment, and it is this I abhor, not the religion itself. From the latin temperament shaped by this, to the IRA bomber, to the generals of Argentina and Castro's terrible treatment of the Cuban people, the drug lords of Colombia and the rise of fascism in Italy, all these things can be laid squarely at the door of sentiment, and sentiment in the wider culture of the nations that produced these things is caused by Catholocism. This is a simple fact, nomatter how good Catholocism may be in theory, it's beauty has a terrible price.

    I should have held my wheesht, but it was this sentiment that I detected in your post, excellently indicated by your closing line. And it seems I was right, as you describe yourself as an "ex-catholic". I'm truly sorry for any offense caused.

    ♥, bc.
    [ Parent ]

    delusions.... (4.50 / 2) (#252)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:42:02 PM EST

    You said:

    No doubt you're an "irish-american" who spends his time thinking about leprechauns and the "poor, opporessed irish" under the "evil British".

    I am in fact:

    1. Not Irish
    2. Not Canadian
    3. Not Catholic - what you are born into you have no control over, nor does it define you...something people like you fail to understand. I actually think Catholism is probably the most hypocritical religion out there today.
    How exactly are you correct, then?

    Let me explain how you are judged by myself and others as being an idiot.

    It is not the Catholic religion itself I dislike. There are many things I like about it - it's lineage back to the Roman Empire, the beauty of its churches can be magnificent compared to the Presbyterian drabness I am used to. While I am no fan of the worship of idols, I respect the wishes of the Catholics to worship them and find their worship of Mary and the pope to be quite an emotional, beautiful spectacle.

    You know full well that Catholics don't consider themselves Idol worshippers, yet you "respect the wishes..." of them.

    This is called being a troll... and not a very good one at that. No doubt you wrote that with a smirk on your face.

    You second argument is absurd, and shows that you cannot see past you hatred to form valid conclusions, similar to the racist, which I'm afraid you have a lot in common with.

    Shall I start by listing the evils of Protestants?
    Maybe the murders of Henry the IIX, or the Slavery of the African in America... no, because that would be as utterly ridiculous as your arguments were.

    I feel for you. You have been brainwashed by a lifetime of propaganda and half-truths. I can only hope that one day you will learn the errors of your ways.

    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    sorry.. (4.00 / 1) (#263)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:15:58 PM EST

    Not American... I am in fact Canadian.


    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]
    What? Remember Vanguard? (4.00 / 1) (#307)
    by HereticMessiah on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:05:17 AM EST

    And what about the Protestant paramilitaries that control NI's drug trade? One of the big problems with the seriously faltering peace process is that Unionists have been focusing exclusively on getting the IRA to disarm, not on all the paramilitaries.

    You'd almost think they're biased...

    --
    Disagree with me? Post a reply.
    Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
    [ Parent ]

    Do you realize... (none / 0) (#328)
    by duffbeer703 on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 08:45:42 PM EST

    That obnoxious, ignorant shits like you are the reason why millions have died in Protestant vs. Catholic conflict?

    Maybe you should drop your smugness and get a clue?

    I suppose that the military juntas that have ruled Japan, North and South Korea, southeast asia and Africa are also fueled by Catholic sentiment?

    [ Parent ]

    Bigot (none / 0) (#357)
    by dipipanone on Thu Oct 24, 2002 at 01:16:08 AM EST

    however, there is no doubt that all this creeping emotion and beauty, so at the heart of Catholocism, leads to the ruling of the heart over the head, and leads to a terrible sentiment, and it is this I abhor, not the religion itself. From the latin temperament shaped by this, to the IRA bomber, to the generals of Argentina and Castro's terrible treatment of the Cuban people, the drug lords of Colombia and the rise of fascism in Italy, all these things can be laid squarely at the door of sentiment, and sentiment in the wider culture of the nations that produced these things is caused by Catholocism.

    What was it that you were trying to have us believe? That Orangeness has nothing whatsoever to do with bigotry and ignorant prejudice? I *knew* a true Orangeman couldn't sustain that sort of nonsense for long without showing his true colours.

    Bobby, bobby don't take me,
    Take that fellow behind the tree,
    He belongs to popery,
    And I belong to King Billy,
    Ee-eye, Paddy was a bastard,
    Paddy was a bastard,
    Paddy was a bastard,
    Ee-eye, Paddy was a bastard,
    Paddy was a bastard,
    Ee-eye-oh!


    Paddy=St. Patrick, Patron Saint of Ireland.

    --
    Suck my .sig
    [ Parent ]
    The IRA is responsible for 1706 deaths out of 3523 (4.66 / 3) (#272)
    by the trinidad kid on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 05:46:43 PM EST

    Here is the tabluation from the master index of casualties from the Ark project


    [ Parent ]
    My God! You're terribly bitter! (3.00 / 1) (#306)
    by HereticMessiah on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:00:41 AM EST

    And I'd but this forward: if a bunch of catholic school children can't get there without being harassed, what right does the Orange Order to march down the streets of those who don't want them there? The problem with the Orange Order is that it's essentially triumphalist. It's myths are also terribly inaccurate - William of Orange was supported by Catholics in Ireland, James by Protestants. Jeeze!

    --
    Disagree with me? Post a reply.
    Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
    [ Parent ]
    This was almost a good comment (3.00 / 1) (#232)
    by GRiNGO on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 12:54:22 PM EST

    Up until the last sentence.

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    It was a JOKE... (3.00 / 1) (#248)
    by Run4YourLives on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 02:14:21 PM EST

    you yanks are sometimes way too sensitive...

    And I actually would support the US if it did decide to march into N. Ireland... the could use a third party to tell doorknobs like bc here to quit the bullshit.


    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]

    Yank?? (4.00 / 1) (#305)
    by GRiNGO on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 05:12:55 AM EST

    Are you inferring I'm an American? I hope not

    --
    "I send you to Baghdad a long time. Nobody find you. Do they care, buddy?" - Three Kings


    [ Parent ]
    perspective (4.00 / 4) (#264)
    by Skippysaurus on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:27:59 PM EST

    You know, after the whole discussion I can't help but think of a town near me. The Catholic church in town was destroyed by a tornado. The Lutheran church in town offered to let them use their building and for a good year and a half or more the sign out by the street read "First Catholic and Lutheran Church". (Yes, the Catholic part even came first.)

    The new Catholic church was finished recently and they're now in separate buildings, but while they together I didn't hear of a single problem.

    Wow, religion working as it should (4.00 / 1) (#314)
    by Quila on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 08:20:02 AM EST

    It's too rare, but when it happens it is quite cool.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually not as rare as you think. (none / 0) (#315)
    by graal on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 09:31:17 AM EST

    It's just not very well publicized, unfortunately.

    --
    For Thou hast commanded, and so it is, that every
    inordinate affection should be its own punishment.
    -- St. Augustine (Confessions, i)
    [ Parent ]

    It's about the Order's history (4.80 / 5) (#266)
    by 0xA on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 04:50:07 PM EST

    My local lodge is in southwest Scotland, and has no truck with sectarianism or bigotry of any kind, and yet we are viewed as pariahs.

    First thing, I don't doubt the above statement at all. I have no reason to think that you are not a very nice person.

    The Orange Order on the other hand I am not fond of. I am not especially familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland or Scotland, I have to base my opinion on the history of the Orange Order in western Canada. This history is not exactly pleasant, the order was a powerful political force in the 20s and 30s. They fought to "protect" western Canada from any influence that was not British and Protestant. Meaning of course French (catholic) Candaians, imigration and whatever anoyed them at the time. They maintained a very cordial relationship with thier Protestant brothers from the south, the Klu Klux Klan, as well.

    During WWII my German imigrant grandfather took a fair amount of abuse from these guys. He lost his business and worked as a janitor in the local hospital. At one point he was accused of trying to blow up the boiler and destroy the hospital. Of course no evidence was ever found and my grandmother was giving birth to my aunt in the very same hospital when the accusation was made so it was dropped.

    I also think my great grandfather on the other side had some problem with the Orange Order. He was Protestant Scots but married a native woman. Nobody in my family really knows what happened anymore but there was trouble.

    So you see, I will freely admit that none of this really has anything to do with you or your lodge. However people don't run on logic all the time, emotion plays a big part in thier views of the world. In the eyes of many people your order will always be viewd as biggoted scumbags as some of you members past and present are biggoted scumbags . It's not fair but hardly surprising that some feel the way the do.

    If you really are the decent type of person you are trying to represent yourself as here I suggest you abandon the Order. Start a new one called "Nice Protestant Fellows" or something. The history and unsavory elements of the Orange Order will always hang around your neck if you don't.

    Escaping Past Horrors (5.00 / 1) (#297)
    by weston on Wed Oct 16, 2002 at 11:08:33 PM EST

    The most interesting thing I see about the contrast between the authors portrayal of the orange order and the comments here is that I think the author is sincere -- he really wants the Orange Order to be what he claims it is. This is a contrast with the equally real expressions of the Orange Order's checkered past and possibly present.

    My question: is there some way for an organization to change its destiny and get away from its past problems? A "Truth and Reconcilliation" Commission like progress? Or are organizations doomed by the weight of past crimes?

    Actually (none / 0) (#302)
    by Craevenwulfe on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 04:12:34 AM EST

    It turns out he's just a troll. Ex-inadequacy.org. If you notice, he's not replied to any posts since he got the ball rolling.

    [ Parent ]
    not true... (5.00 / 1) (#317)
    by Run4YourLives on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 11:53:48 AM EST

    as brainwashed as he is... he replied to mine.


    It's slightly Japanese, but without all of that fanatical devotion to the workplace. - CheeseburgerBrown
    [ Parent ]
    Some people think... (none / 0) (#321)
    by walwyn on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 03:37:13 PM EST

    ...that the original poster is obliged to respond to every post.
    ----
    Professor Moriarty - Bugs, Sculpture, Tombs, and Stained Glass
    [ Parent ]
    Ladies and Gents, we are entering Northern Ireland (4.75 / 4) (#309)
    by HereticMessiah on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 06:15:30 AM EST

    Please adjust your watches to 1798.

    --
    Disagree with me? Post a reply.
    Think my post's poor or trolling? Rate me down.
    Sugar coating (3.00 / 2) (#320)
    by Pig Hogger on Thu Oct 17, 2002 at 01:16:14 PM EST

    All that sugar coating does not remove the fact that my country, who had been occupied by the britshit for close to the last quarter millenium, has suffered greatly at the hands of orangemen, who on one occasion burned-down parliament (which housed the first democratic legislative assembly of North-America, the one who admitted jews thirty years before the britshit empire did) when it voted to indemnize victims of orangemen-led army depravations. And until very recently, many profession were orangemen strangleholds in which you didn't have a chance if you were not protestants.

    So much about fostering tolerance...
    --

    Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing it's idiot

    meta: General observation about this story (3.66 / 3) (#322)
    by OzJuggler on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 12:54:49 AM EST

    Stories lending support to organisations whose identity and purpose are derived solely from religious fundamentalist dogma are not ever welcome on kuro5hin.org.

    If you can find a counter example, I'd be surprised.
    I'm not saying that's how it should be, just saying that's how it is.

    OK, bugger it, yes it should be that way too. Life is just too short to waste time arguing religious axioms.
    "And I will not rest until every year families gather to spend December 25th together
    at Osama's homo abortion pot and commie jizzporium." - Jon Stewart's gift to Bill O'Reilly, 7 Dec 2005.

    Orangemen and Freemasons (5.00 / 1) (#325)
    by RavenDuck on Fri Oct 18, 2002 at 09:57:12 AM EST

    Whilst this general topic has been thrashed to death before it hit the front page, and the author doesn't seem to have responded to any recent posts as far as I could tell, I could't help but wonder at the similarities between the Orangemen and the Freemasons.

    I really don't know anything much about the Freemasons (my grandfather is one, but it's not something I've ever really quized him on), but it seems like both of these organisations are composed of conservative old white males who are into secret cerimonies and dressing up in decorated black suits. They seem pretty secretive and sinister, but I suspect that they mainly serve as a social club for lonely old men.

    Is there any relationship/similarity between them other than the obvious superficial ones? And how do both of them relate to the Stone Cutters?

    --
    For murder, though it have no tongue, will speak
    With most miraculous organ.

    I grew up in NI. (5.00 / 1) (#337)
    by pelorus on Sat Oct 19, 2002 at 05:10:49 PM EST

    When I was a kid, the 12th of July was like a party day. It wasn't long since the school holidays had started and there were bands, street entertainers, confection stands and a good atmosphere. My uncle was a bandsman as well. Life was good. I was proud of my heritage and my identity.

    These days, the Orange Order is different.

    Was it five years ago when the Loyalists destroyed their own neighbourhoods when the Orange Order was not permitted to march through a nationalist area. I remember it because I couldn't get home that day. I was stuck in work because civil disobedience had caused the trains to be off, buses to be canceled and motorways closed. Friends of mine had their cars hijacked by armed youths and burned. Those who could prove they were protestant were sent on their way, those who couldn't were beaten with sticks. Every year since then it's been the same.

    Let's get one thing straight. The Orange Order has no enemies. In the Republic of Ireland, the Order has marches that cause no problem. Don't believe me? Go to Rossnowlagh in County Donegal. The Orange Order in Northern Ireland has brought a lot of pain upon themselves and every time they incite to riot they just raise the ire of the British government and the security forces. It was the same year of the first civil disobedience that:

    a. Trimble and Paisley danced hand-in-hand down the Garvaghy road when the Orange Order got their own way anyway when the British Government capitulated to the Loyalist show of force.
    b. A Captain in the British Army said to the chief constable, "I can stop this riot. But people will die."

    I've lived in NI my whole life. I don't want to live here any more. I don't want to raise my daughter here.

    Identity and the Orange Order | 363 comments (324 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!