Come on Arlene (DUP leadership)

So apparently Arlene Foster is facing a pretty serious leadership threat. I think the party objects to her as not being sufficiently hard-line and intransigent, or at any rate not effectively so...

Predictions? I think she's toast, unfortunately. Replacement likely to be (even) more intransigent and (even) less effective. Ian Paisley Jnr. anyone?

Next Stormont election (if any) will see SF as largest single party though total unionist vote still exceeding total nationalist vote.
«1

Comments

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    My initial comment is that Peter Weir has fantastic hair. I am generally against pony tails for balding men, but I encourage it most fervently in Mr Weir's case strictly on the condition that he lets it out on windy days.

    Thanks for posting TT.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Looks less like 'Come on' and more like 'Good night Arlene'.

    I commented at one point last year that Mr Johnson had achieved the remarkable in making her look like a great leader.

  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited April 28
    Enoch wrote: »
    Looks less like 'Come on' and more like 'Good night Arlene'.

    I commented at one point last year that Mr Johnson had achieved the remarkable in making her look like a great leader.

    I think he.... has not done that.

    He has made her look like a patsy.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Looks less like 'Come on' and more like 'Good night Arlene'.

    Well yeah, but there's no 80s celtic pop hit that sounds like "Good night Arlene".

  • Incredible that Arlene complains about the protocol in her resignation statement, after the DUP voted against Teresa May, and gave a rousing welcome to Boris. Admittedly, he sold them down the river, or the Irish Sea, but that's priced in with Boris.
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Fatewell, Snarlene.
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    Enoch wrote: »
    Looks less like 'Come on' and more like 'Good night Arlene'.

    I commented at one point last year that Mr Johnson had achieved the remarkable in making her look like a great leader.
    I think he.... has not done that.

    He has made her look like a patsy.
    Sorry @TurquoiseTastic I think I might have been too clever.

    Arlene Foster has never appeared to be anything more than very mediocre. The point I was making was Johnson, who does see himself as a great leader, has been consistently so bad that he'd achieved the impossible task of making her seem great in comparison to his lack of talent.

  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    I can foresee the day when the UK government will offer to pay Dublin to take NIreland (SNarland?) off its hands. Doubt if the South would be willing to do so, though.
  • CathscatsCathscats Shipmate
    Apposite sketch from the excellent Foil, Arms and Hogg today.
    https://facebook.com/foilarmsandhog/videos/299702754952628
  • Alan29Alan29 Shipmate
    Apparently she is seen as a moderate.
    Sweet Jesus!
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    edited April 29
    Yeah. You've got to wonder what the inside of some people's minds is like when they oppose their leader because she abstained rather than opposed a measure to make a damaging pseudo-scientific psychological practice illegal.
  • She seems to be another *victim* suffering the consequences of getting into bed with the tories.

    Clegg? Milliband?

    Who they?
  • "Poots odds-on to be next DUP leader" says Belfast Telegraph.

    Hmmm. I think if Edwin Poots is the answer then the question may need to be designed a little more thoughtfully. They could quite easily do worse though.
  • Good grief - the man's a young earth creationist, and believes gays should not be allowed to give blood...
    :open_mouth:

    OTOH, he's had Covid-19, and the Wiki article says he also has cancer - so maybe he really isn't the best man for the job.

    Which begs the question - which of them is a worse choice? Enquiring minds need to know.
  • Oh, there are loads of worse choices! For example, the aforementioned Ian Paisley Jnr. (not at all like his father, but that turns out not to be as good a thing as you might think), or Sammy Wilson besides whom Poots probably towers as an intellectual genius, or another former UUP stabber-of-Trimble-in-the-back like Jeffrey Donaldson... Actually Donaldson probably wouldn't be too bad but he probably is too sensible to want the job (any more) and not hardline enough for those doing the choosing....
  • Hmm. It's not boding well for the future of Norn Iron, is it?

    Maybe Johnson will indeed decide to sell the province to the Republic. The proceeds might cover the cost of his next refurbishment of quasi-Royal premises...
  • Hmm. It's not boding well for the future of Norn Iron, is it?

    Maybe Johnson will indeed decide to sell the province to the Republic. The proceeds might cover the cost of his next refurbishment of quasi-Royal premises...

    While the Republic may be prevailed upon to absorb Northern Ireland (not cheerily, I would think), do not count on it reimbursing Britain sufficiently to meet the cost of refurbishing the cloakroom at No 11. Indeed, expect the Republic to exact a good price to pay for transferral and maintenance costs.

    One possible solution would be to transfer it to Greenland, which I think has an agreement with the European Community. A regular trawler shuttle to Nuuk would facilitate attendance in the new parliament house there.
  • :lol:

    It is, however, a sobering thought, that Northern Ireland appears to be *governed* by a bunch of swivel-eyed loonies, who seem to live in some sort of parallel universe.

    I wouldn't wish them on Greenland or anywhere else, for that matter.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited April 29
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic,

    My ability to accept that lasts only as long as it is limited to "thinks".
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...
  • Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?
    Some thoughts on this at Slugger O'Toole. DUP losing support in both directions as moderates go to Alliance and hardliners to TUV; falling apart as a "unionist coalition".

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)
  • stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    My view of the Orange Order is not much different from yours, but not all unionists, even "loyalist" headbangers, are Orange Order types. At some point "identity" becomes it own reason.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Shipmate
    edited April 29
    stetson wrote: »

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    There are lots of genuinely moderate Unionists. Unfortunately they were outflanked by Paisley who created the DUP in the 1970s. They always regarded the DUP as embarrassing and extreme but failed to see off its challenge. Eventually the DUP became the dominant unionist party and "the only game in town" for Unionists who actually wanted political influence. Hence former UUP figures like Foster and Donaldson who jumped to the DUP in early 2000s. Similarly many DUP voters are not really extreme but feel they have to vote for "main unionist party".
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Thanks for gifting me with some nuance, Arethosemyfeet and TurquoiseTastic.

  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited April 29
    FWIW, I was using "Orangemen" to mean N. Irish protestants generally.

    (Which was probably a naughty thing to do, but in my defense, that's sort of how the term was used in Canada, when sectarianism was still a thing. People used to double-nickname the Ontario Tories' Big Blue Machine "The Big Blue And Orange Machine", even though most of the voters probably weren't Lodge members.)
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...

    Possibly. But then, we could ask...

    How many Ulstermen who worry about being murdered in their bed by rampaging papists are atheists?

    And of those who are NOT atheists, what style of Christianity would they be following? Closer, for example, to Pat Robertson, or closer to Matthew Fox?

    (And to once again be my own shadow-cabinet, I seem to recall reading an article in The New Statesman about a moderate loyalist leader, who was described along with his mates as people who would rather "spend Sunday morning having a pint at the pub then sitting in church". So I guess maybe there are some who just view protestantism as a culture, not a faith, the way many Jews view Judaism.)
  • Fawkes CatFawkes Cat Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...

    Possibly. But then, we could ask...

    How many Ulstermen who worry about being murdered in their bed by rampaging papists are atheists?

    And of those who are NOT atheists, what style of Christianity would they be following? Closer, for example, to Pat Robertson, or closer to Matthew Fox?

    (And to once again be my own shadow-cabinet, I seem to recall reading an article in The New Statesman about a moderate loyalist leader, who was described along with his mates as people who would rather "spend Sunday morning having a pint at the pub then sitting in church". So I guess maybe there are some who just view protestantism as a culture, not a faith, the way many Jews view Judaism.)

    Do people in Ulster worry about being murdered because of their (variety of) faith or because of their political beliefs?

    It's a difficult one to untangle because it's generally assumed that Loyalism maps pretty precisely against Protestantism, and Nationalism/Republicanism against (Roman) Catholicism - and indeed my recollection is that the BBC would use the terms interchangeably and that terrorists in both sides would do the same. But my best guess (and my personal knowledge of Northern Ireland extends to maybe three or four short holidays and day trips, so is essentially no more than what one gets from the British press) is that it's the politics that's the driver rather than the religion. If you fear terrorists attacking you, it's not directly because of the church you go to - but because of the politics that either you espouse, or stereotypically your church is seen to espouse.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Weren't the murderously polarized racketeering community representatives united in anti-abortion homophobia even it the height of the Troubles? Two sides of the same coin?
  • LuciaLucia Shipmate
    Cathscats wrote: »
    Apposite sketch from the excellent Foil, Arms and Hogg today.
    https://facebook.com/foilarmsandhog/videos/299702754952628

    Tangent - just to say I'm very happy to see Foil, Arms and Hogg referenced here! They bring me cheer every Thursday with their sketches!
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Weren't the murderously polarized racketeering community representatives united in anti-abortion homophobia even it the height of the Troubles? Two sides of the same coin?

    No, the IRA prisoners who died of hunger strikes did so for gay rights apparently https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hunger-strikers-died-for-gay-rights-claims-sinn-fein-senator-fintan-warfield-34965230.html
  • GarethMoonGarethMoon Shipmate
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...

    Possibly. But then, we could ask...

    How many Ulstermen who worry about being murdered in their bed by rampaging papists are atheists?

    And of those who are NOT atheists, what style of Christianity would they be following? Closer, for example, to Pat Robertson, or closer to Matthew Fox?

    (And to once again be my own shadow-cabinet, I seem to recall reading an article in The New Statesman about a moderate loyalist leader, who was described along with his mates as people who would rather "spend Sunday morning having a pint at the pub then sitting in church". So I guess maybe there are some who just view protestantism as a culture, not a faith, the way many Jews view Judaism.)

    Do people in Ulster worry about being murdered because of their (variety of) faith or because of their political beliefs?

    It's a difficult one to untangle because it's generally assumed that Loyalism maps pretty precisely against Protestantism, and Nationalism/Republicanism against (Roman) Catholicism - and indeed my recollection is that the BBC would use the terms interchangeably and that terrorists in both sides would do the same. But my best guess (and my personal knowledge of Northern Ireland extends to maybe three or four short holidays and day trips, so is essentially no more than what one gets from the British press) is that it's the politics that's the driver rather than the religion. If you fear terrorists attacking you, it's not directly because of the church you go to - but because of the politics that either you espouse, or stereotypically your church is seen to espouse.

    The infamous story of when Jewish people moved to Belfast and were asked if they were protestant or catholic and met with blank expressions when they said they were Jewish. "Yeah, but are you catholic Jews or protestant Jews?"
  • GarethMoon wrote: »
    Fawkes Cat wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...

    Possibly. But then, we could ask...

    How many Ulstermen who worry about being murdered in their bed by rampaging papists are atheists?

    And of those who are NOT atheists, what style of Christianity would they be following? Closer, for example, to Pat Robertson, or closer to Matthew Fox?

    (And to once again be my own shadow-cabinet, I seem to recall reading an article in The New Statesman about a moderate loyalist leader, who was described along with his mates as people who would rather "spend Sunday morning having a pint at the pub then sitting in church". So I guess maybe there are some who just view protestantism as a culture, not a faith, the way many Jews view Judaism.)

    Do people in Ulster worry about being murdered because of their (variety of) faith or because of their political beliefs?

    It's a difficult one to untangle because it's generally assumed that Loyalism maps pretty precisely against Protestantism, and Nationalism/Republicanism against (Roman) Catholicism - and indeed my recollection is that the BBC would use the terms interchangeably and that terrorists in both sides would do the same. But my best guess (and my personal knowledge of Northern Ireland extends to maybe three or four short holidays and day trips, so is essentially no more than what one gets from the British press) is that it's the politics that's the driver rather than the religion. If you fear terrorists attacking you, it's not directly because of the church you go to - but because of the politics that either you espouse, or stereotypically your church is seen to espouse.

    The infamous story of when Jewish people moved to Belfast and were asked if they were protestant or catholic and met with blank expressions when they said they were Jewish. "Yeah, but are you catholic Jews or protestant Jews?"

    I've usually heard that joke with atheists rather than Jews, and as often about Glasgow as Belfast.
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    edited April 30
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    stetson wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Well, they seem to attract votes - hopefully, not enough in the future to give them any opportunity to *govern* - so someone must agree with at least some of their views...

    When I first read Ricardus' opening question, I was kinda like "Umm, is there any doubt that they would?"

    It would seem to follow that someone who doesn't want to live near Catholics because he thinks they're the whore of Babylon, isn't gonna have much greater tolerance for gays or the Higher Criticism.

    (Granted, I can acknowledge that my view of opinion among Orangemen might be a bit lacking in nuance. Outgroup homogeneity and all that.)

    I get the impression that in practice anti-Catholic sentiment is based less on a fully worked out theology of Scriptural sufficiency than by a belief that Catholics are those people who did this to us and would do even worse given half a chance ...

    Possibly. But then, we could ask...

    How many Ulstermen who worry about being murdered in their bed by rampaging papists are atheists?

    And of those who are NOT atheists, what style of Christianity would they be following? Closer, for example, to Pat Robertson, or closer to Matthew Fox?

    (And to once again be my own shadow-cabinet, I seem to recall reading an article in The New Statesman about a moderate loyalist leader, who was described along with his mates as people who would rather "spend Sunday morning having a pint at the pub then sitting in church". So I guess maybe there are some who just view protestantism as a culture, not a faith, the way many Jews view Judaism.)

    The DUP has one openly gay councillor (link), so at least some people are able to combine gay rights with DUP-style unionism.

    More to the point - and I'll admit I'm speaking as someone with no connection to Northern Ireland - I know Ulster has its own unique culture and circumstances, but I doubt it's completely immune to the social changes in either Great Britain or the Republic. If the DUP are lurching into homophobia (or if you prefer, further into homophobia), then they are tying themselves to a dying set of attitudes.

    (Unlike Sinn Féin, who have managed to convince at least one Grauniad columnist that they have morphed into Ireland's genuine progressive force - leading to the odd circumstance that the notionally 'Catholic' party is now the one arguing for abortion and gay rights ...)
  • GarethMoon wrote: »
    The infamous story of when Jewish people moved to Belfast and were asked if they were protestant or catholic and met with blank expressions when they said they were Jewish. "Yeah, but are you catholic Jews or protestant Jews?"

    I've usually heard that joke with atheists rather than Jews, and as often about Glasgow as Belfast.

    And actually the joke isn't realistic, because Jews count as Protestants in Ulster...
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Weren't the murderously polarized racketeering community representatives united in anti-abortion homophobia even it the height of the Troubles? Two sides of the same coin?

    No, the IRA prisoners who died of hunger strikes did so for gay rights apparently https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hunger-strikers-died-for-gay-rights-claims-sinn-fein-senator-fintan-warfield-34965230.html

    Riiiiight. So Sinn Fein championed gay rights all along?
  • GarethMoon wrote: »
    The infamous story of when Jewish people moved to Belfast and were asked if they were protestant or catholic and met with blank expressions when they said they were Jewish. "Yeah, but are you catholic Jews or protestant Jews?"

    I've usually heard that joke with atheists rather than Jews, and as often about Glasgow as Belfast.

    And actually the joke isn't realistic, because Jews count as Protestants in Ulster...

    Which, when you consider the thread joining Orangeism to Whiggism, and ultimately the Protectorate, should come as no surprise.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Martin54 wrote: »
    GarethMoon wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Ricardus wrote: »
    Does the ordinary loyalist Protestant voter actually want homophobic* creationists to represent them? My impression is that the DUP are losing more ground to the UUP and the Alliance Party than to TUV. Wouldn't this just push more people away?


    (* I'm prepared to accept that 'thinks gay sex is wrong' =/= homophobic, but Mr Poots and friends definitely seem to be on the wrong side of that line.)

    Weren't the murderously polarized racketeering community representatives united in anti-abortion homophobia even it the height of the Troubles? Two sides of the same coin?

    No, the IRA prisoners who died of hunger strikes did so for gay rights apparently https://belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/hunger-strikers-died-for-gay-rights-claims-sinn-fein-senator-fintan-warfield-34965230.html

    Riiiiight. So Sinn Fein championed gay rights all along?

    Right after Bobby Sands died, a Canadian morning show, probably thinking they had a real scoop on their hands, ran a telephone interview with his brother.

    The interview was heavily laden with what I would later come to recognize as marxist jargon, eg. he seemed to be talking more about the working-class than about the Irish people, and the host of the show(along with I'd guess most of the audience) seemed suitably bewildered.

    Point is, depending on what type of marxist Bobby Sands was, it's possible that his faction would indeed have at least expressed solidarity with gays and lesbians as an oppressed group.

    And again, that's contingent upon the brand of Marxism they were espousing, eg. Moscow-line Communists at the time would have been pretty anti-gay, but a lot of trotskyists were socially progressive.

    (I'm guessing that the staffer who swung that interview with Sands' brother ended up fetching coffee for the rest of his time at the network.)
  • Apparently Foster is planning to leave the DUP saying that it is "moving in a different direction" from what it was in 2004 when she joined.

    That suggests that this is indeed a bid by the hardlines of "we want the old-style DUP back, before we went all liberal and moderate"...

    I think Foster will go back to the UUP and maybe people like Donaldson will too. Uncharitably one might say "rats rejoining the half-submerged ship"...
  • stetson wrote: »

    Point is, depending on what type of marxist Bobby Sands was, it's possible that his faction would indeed have at least expressed solidarity with gays and lesbians as an oppressed group.

    And again, that's contingent upon the brand of Marxism they were espousing, eg. Moscow-line Communists at the time would have been pretty anti-gay, but a lot of trotskyists were socially progressive.
    I'm pretty sure LGBT+ rights weren't really on the radar in N.I. in the 1980s for any group.
  • EirenistEirenist Shipmate
    Governed by swivel-eyed lunatics? Surely that's following thee lead of Westminster? (A thought: every country gets the government it deserves.)
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    stetson wrote: »

    Point is, depending on what type of marxist Bobby Sands was, it's possible that his faction would indeed have at least expressed solidarity with gays and lesbians as an oppressed group.

    And again, that's contingent upon the brand of Marxism they were espousing, eg. Moscow-line Communists at the time would have been pretty anti-gay, but a lot of trotskyists were socially progressive.
    I'm pretty sure LGBT+ rights weren't really on the radar in N.I. in the 1980s for any group.

    Well, the Belfast Telegraph article linked above quotes Fintan Warfield as quoting a "Prisoner Of War" as making pro-gay equality statements "a quarter century" before marriage equality was achieved in the Republic. So, that 8would be around 1990, which misses the era of the hunger strikes by a little less than a decade.

    Assuming that Warfield wasn't fabricating the quote, that would mean we have evidence for militant republicans endorsing gay rights in the late 80s or early 90s, but nothing earlier.
  • stetson wrote: »

    Point is, depending on what type of marxist Bobby Sands was, it's possible that his faction would indeed have at least expressed solidarity with gays and lesbians as an oppressed group.

    And again, that's contingent upon the brand of Marxism they were espousing, eg. Moscow-line Communists at the time would have been pretty anti-gay, but a lot of trotskyists were socially progressive.
    I'm pretty sure LGBT+ rights weren't really on the radar in N.I. in the 1980s for any group.

    By the early 80s, identity politics (to use an umbrella term) were key parts of every left-wing group in GB, except for those 'revolution first' groups who considered that class solidarity far outweighed race, gender and sexuality issues - these could even distract the faithful and lead them to becoming a class traitor, by making common cause with the bourgeoisie. I believe that the INLA (Irish National Liberation Army) subscribed to the latter view. As the Provisional IRA was not as 'left wing' as the INLA, perhaps there was some sympathy for 'gay rights' in the H-Blocks? It seems unlikely but not impossible.
  • edited April 30
    I cannot speak for gay rights as an issue in the North in the 1980s, but I would suggest that in the 1970s it had not been heard of by more than a handful. In conversations with northern Republicans, it was never ever mentioned. Among Unionists/Protestants, it was a distasteful subject, and a practice only found in a certain underworld at Portora and Campbell (private schools), or among RC clergy. I note that Senator Warfield did not name the prisoner whom he quoted.

    However, I never had the impression that issues or policies were ever on anyone's mind in Northern Ireland in the 1970s, with some honourable exceptions in Alliance (women's issues) and Official Sinn Fein (housing).

    Most of those who participate in politics in Northern Ireland do not choose their affiliations to one side of the other, but have them from birth as a matter of identity. A great number will be closer to one of their own community with strongly different views than they would be to one of the other whose views coincide with theirs.

    The factionalism among Unionists sugggest that this is perhaps breaking down. In the meanwhile, they run the risk of a fresh election with a possibility of SF becoming the largest party, and a SF chief minister. I'm not sure if they've figured this out.
  • My memory is that many Republicans refused to accept that Roger Casement was gay, or that his diaries (describing sexual encounters with young men), were not forged. I think he was largely written out of Irish revolutionary history. Of course, this has changed, not sure when, he is now called a gay icon.
  • My memory is that many Republicans refused to accept that Roger Casement was gay, or that his diaries (describing sexual encounters with young men), were not forged. I think he was largely written out of Irish revolutionary history. Of course, this has changed, not sure when, he is now called a gay icon.

    The diaries were used by the British to dissuade the great and the good (including Americans) from petitioning the King for clemency for Casement. Given the history of using forged documents to influence people (and, a few years later, the 'Zinoviev letter' to help bring down the first Labour Government), it's perhaps not surprising that people may have thought the diaries were concocted to discredit Casement. And the conservative nature of the post-independence Free State and Republic means that the powers-that-be would have preferred to ignore his homosexuality.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    My memory is that many Republicans refused to accept that Roger Casement was gay, or that his diaries (describing sexual encounters with young men), were not forged. I think he was largely written out of Irish revolutionary history. Of course, this has changed, not sure when, he is now called a gay icon.

    In Canada, the FLQ(sort of a failed IRA) denounced the supposed traitor Pierre Trudeau as a "tappette" in the communique they issued at the time of the October Crisis. One of their leading theoreticians, Pierre Vallieres, later came out as gay.

    By the late 70s, the Parti Quebecois government of Rene Levesque (something like the SDLP) had added sexual orientation to the province's human-rights legislation.
  • My memory is that many Republicans refused to accept that Roger Casement was gay, or that his diaries (describing sexual encounters with young men), were not forged. I think he was largely written out of Irish revolutionary history. Of course, this has changed, not sure when, he is now called a gay icon.

    The diaries were used by the British to dissuade the great and the good (including Americans) from petitioning the King for clemency for Casement. Given the history of using forged documents to influence people (and, a few years later, the 'Zinoviev letter' to help bring down the first Labour Government), it's perhaps not surprising that people may have thought the diaries were concocted to discredit Casement. And the conservative nature of the post-independence Free State and Republic means that the powers-that-be would have preferred to ignore his homosexuality.

    Yes, I think it's the conservative and Catholic politicians such as de Valera who semi-erased Casement. Not sure about his links with Germany, was that played down?
Sign In or Register to comment.