West Brits.

West Brits.

I understand the concept.

I've been thinking about it lately, and its becoming more and more common as a term of abuse, especially today with Martin McGuinness using it to describe elements of the media who oppose his candidacy.

How does one qualify as a West Brit?

If one found the armed struggle of the IRA in the 30 years up to the GFA abhorrent, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed that the violence was unjustified, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed solely in peaceful demonstration and the power of persuasion, but aspired to a united Ireland, does that make one a West Brit?

If one, such as the above, views oneself as a republican, in the real, unappropriated sense of the word, but vehemently opposed the slaughter in the North, can one still be branded a West Brit?

Or is it as simple as this: If one views the IRA as criminal and opposes the candidacy of Martin McGuinness for the position of Uachtaran na hEireann, is one then a West Brit because Martin McGuinness says so?

Was John Hume a West Brit?

Or Seamas Mallon?

Can I get some clarification?
 
Mortin is well rattled by Fintan O'Toole in todays Irish Times and other media outlets.

Should a potential Irish President utter such comments ?

Funny from a guy administering Bratash rule in the North.

The Irish Times - Tuesday, September 20, 2011McGuinness push for park is a step too far

Should we appoint a head of State who could be liable to arrest for war crimes under international law?

ACCEPTING SOMETHING is not the same as welcoming it. Resignation is not enthusiasm. Setting aside the past for the sake of the future is not amnesia. Sinn Féin’s nomination of Martin McGuinness for the presidency suggests that it does not understand these distinctions.

Very few people would argue with the proposition that Martin McGuinness has been a crucial figure in the peace process. His personal transformation from diehard IRA leader to deputy first minister at ease with the Democratic Unionists is a remarkable story, requiring courage, skill and imagination.

That process, though, was one of getting the IRA out of a cesspit it had dug for itself. It has required of other people that they go along with a carefully poised act of moral evasion, an Irish version of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. The price of peace has been hypocrisy: keeping quiet when Sinn Féin (rightly) demands accountability for Bloody Sunday or the Ballymurphy massacre but not for Teebane Cross or Kingsmills, or contrasts its own moral purity to the deviousness of other parties.

It now seems, however, that this tacit arrangement has worked too well. Sinn Féin has taken uneasy resignation for complete compliance. It has decided to turn a quietly agreed reticence (don’t talk about the war) into an explicit endorsement (the war was legitimate). It has posed a question that goes far beyond McGuinness’s personal qualities. The question, to put it starkly, is whether we should have a head of State who would, in principle, be liable to arrest for war crimes under international law.

The IRA’s “armed struggle” was what the fourth Geneva Convention defines as an “armed conflict not of an international character”. Under the convention, the parties to such a conflict are bound to respect certain standards in their treatment of “persons taking no active part in the hostilities”, including former or non-active members of opposing forces. Such people must not be subjected to violence, “in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilized peoples”.

It should go without saying that the IRA, partly under the leadership of Martin McGuinness, consistently breached every one of these provisions. But apparently, it does not, so let’s put it on record again. The IRA killed 644 civilians, by far the largest category of its victims (by contrast, and contradicting its self-image as defender of the Catholic community, it killed just 28 loyalist paramilitaries). It incinerated, for example, the members of the Irish Collie Club at the La Mon Hotel. It killed children, including Nicholas Knatchbull, Jonathan Ball, Tim Parry and Paul Maxwell. It practised kidnapping, torture, and acts of naked sadism, such as forcing Patsy Gillespie to drive a van loaded with explosives at an army checkpoint. (Widespread revulsion did not stop the IRA from trying this tactic again.) It held kangaroo courts and imposed arbitrary sentences that included mutilation through so-called “knee-capping”. All of these are war crimes for which there is no statute of limitations. I don’t know what personal role McGuinness may have played in any incident. However, what is clear is that he was, for almost the entire period of the conflict, in a position of authority within the IRA. Legally and morally, this makes him responsible.

He actively denied this responsibility. His line was consistent – where civilians were killed by the IRA, it was the fault of the British. For example, on August 31st, 1988, an IRA booby-trap bomb in Derry killed two civilians, Seán Dalton and Sheila Lewis. McGuinness’s reaction was that, while the IRA should try not to inflict civilian casualties, “sadly . . . civilians will continue to suffer and die as long as Britain refuses to accept its fundamental responsibility for what is happening in our country.” He continued to portray himself and his comrades, not as perpetrators, but as victims of the conflict: “We are not the cause of this conflict; we are the victims of it. We are the product of decades of British tyranny and misrule.”

The IRA never stepped back from this line. Its parting statement in 2005 reiterated that “the armed struggle was entirely legitimate”. Entirely means the civilians, the children, the tortures, the mutilations – the lot. I would like to think McGuinness is haunted by some of the obscenities to which he was a party. But shouldn’t that private grief manifest itself in a certain tact, a reticence about pushing things too far? Shouldn’t he feel extraordinarily blessed to have been allowed to escape the consequences of the deeds he has been party to? Shouldn’t gratitude for that blessing make him think twice about the hubris of putting himself forward as the leading citizen of this State, the embodiment of its better values?
 
West Brits.

I understand the concept.

I've been thinking about it lately, and its becoming more and more common as a term of abuse, especially today with Martin McGuinness using it to describe elements of the media who oppose his candidacy.

How does one qualify as a West Brit?

If one found the armed struggle of the IRA in the 30 years up to the GFA abhorrent, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed that the violence was unjustified, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed solely in peaceful demonstration and the power of persuasion, but aspired to a united Ireland, does that make one a West Brit?

If one, such as the above, views oneself as a republican, in the real, unappropriated sense of the word, but vehemently opposed the slaughter in the North, can one still be branded a West Brit?

Or is it as simple as this: If one views the IRA as criminal and opposes the candidacy of Martin McGuinness for the position of Uachtaran na hEireann, is one then a West Brit because Martin McGuinness says so?

Was John Hume a West Brit?

Or Seamas Mallon?

Can I get some clarification?

^^^^^^

West Brit there la
 
Don't tempt '' '' God. Embrace the peace. Do not sully the name of those who would best serve it and Mother Erin. Martin is a good man, his past is irrelevant. Even Saul of Tarsus was forgiven for his crimes, mistakes were made(on all sides), Gerry declared this ages ago. James Connolly '' Let each communion detest disunion, in love and union join hand in hand'' Reap the bounty of goodness through goodness, don't fall by the wayside. The time for repentance is now, look at the frequency of natural disasters, not the Mayan thing.

You agnostics/atheists dismiss my bible bashing at your peril.
Embrace goodness in all things, not what you perceive to be best for your political allegiance/agenda.

Must go now and prepare my next sermon for the mass rock of old!
Slán for good (seriously) Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter
 
Sorry, one last thing. If the Mayan thing is tied in with Gods plan apologies to reading the philosphy wrong as I'm not familiar with it in it's entirety but I realise there are misconceptions. Perceived as crazy bible basher(90% of population) over and out....
 
So we are playing stereotype today? More so than usual.

Barstooler, Knuckledragger - they're fine but West Brit can't be used at all.
Rebelice knows very well what west Brit refers to and carefully chose his selected definitions.

I think Martin MacGuinness is the wrong choice for a few reasons but I'd pick him every day of the week ahead of Gay Mitchell but then I'd even consider David Norris ahead of Mitchell and I think Norris should not try to get back in as his credibility on certain issues is destroyed.

BUT what ever we do - let's not have a balanced objective discussion - let's stay in stereotype central where one side gets to mainstream lord it over the other.
 
So we are playing stereotype today? More so than usual.

Barstooler, Knuckledragger - they're fine but West Brit can't be used at all.
Rebelice knows very well what west Brit refers to and carefully chose his selected definitions.

I think Martin MacGuinness is the wrong choice for a few reasons but I'd pick him every day of the week ahead of Gay Mitchell but then I'd even consider David Norris ahead of Mitchell and I think Norris should not try to get back in as his credibility on certain issues is destroyed.

BUT what ever we do - let's not have a balanced objective discussion - let's stay in stereotype central where one side gets to mainstream lord it over the other.
 
So we are playing stereotype today? More so than usual.

Barstooler, Knuckledragger - they're fine but West Brit can't be used at all.
Rebelice knows very well what west Brit refers to and carefully chose his selected definitions.

I think Martin MacGuinness is the wrong choice for a few reasons but I'd pick him every day of the week ahead of Gay Mitchell but then I'd even consider David Norris ahead of Mitchell and I think Norris should not try to get back in as his credibility on certain issues is destroyed.

BUT what ever we do - let's not have a balanced objective discussion - let's stay in stereotype central where one side gets to mainstream lord it over the other.

When Martin used the term, are we to presume that he was not in 'stereotype central'? Was he in fact bravely rejecting any trading in stereotypes?
Help me out, I'm struggling here.
 
As I said I think he's the wrong choice but I can see one value in his candidacy.

I've said it before - when it comes to identity, nationhood, who we are and who we want to be and what our relationship should be with England or Europe - we've systematically avoided that discussion. Whether in the North or down here tribalism prevails. Protestant or Catholic, Unionists or Nationalists, FF or FG, united Ireland or rejoin commonwealth / union, pro-Europe or anti - we go with the media driven groupthink more often than not. We need to have that conversation urgently. Higgins is trying to foster it. What MacGuinness brings is the opportunity to evaluate our relationship with our Northern brethren of either persuasion and that in itself will be an important contribution even if he hasn't a chance of being elected. I expect Mitchell to go after him bald-headed and he will get a bump from that as the O'Reilly Rag, Red Tops and RTE all go on the murdering Provo route.

But maybe that's why they picked him. Maybe they picked him because SF have reached a glass ceiling electorally until they lance that troubles boil that the electorate down here can't get past, understandably in some ways.

I think MacGuinness using the term is no different to people calling him Provo or worse. It doesn't add anything positive to the debate but neither does bsrstooler or knuckledragger or Provo. We need to dispassionately assess our past on all sides with equal weight and respect. The pros and cons of armed struggle, role of state, military and loyalist paramilitary in opposition and the pain caused on all aides - that's a discussion that needs to be started and if his candidacy prompts that - fair enough.
 
EVENT GUIDE - HIGHLIGHT
Tombstome presents: Darsombra plus guest Magic Pockets
Coughlan's, Douglas St.

30th May 2024 @ 8:00 pm
More info..

Stand-up Comedy Club: Cork's Gong Show

The Roundy, Today @ 8:30pm

More events ▼
Top