A Tangled Web

Feeney Watch - 02.09.04



Bigoted Bri has excelled himself this week! After last week's tentative foray into the realm of relative journalistic moderation, he returned with his familiar no holds barred poison on Unionism in general and Unionist representatives in particular. His central theme is the apparent refusal of Unionists to share power on the basis of 'equality' (could have some straight out of the Sinn Fein handbook that one, Bri!).



I am very much against sharing power. I believe that sharing power with politicians who harbour a desire to destroy the state they are entrusted to govern is a recipe for disaster. My opinion on this has never wavered, nor will it do so. That said, I am prepared to admit that I articulate a minority opinion within the broad Unionist family. Most Unionists will accept power sharing if nationalism eschews violence and the threat thereof, and works for the practical good and stability of Northern Ireland. They will not accept power sharing with a group who retain an illegal army intact whilst, simultaneously, hollowing out the political fabric of the Province from the inside.



BB starts off by informing us that 'ten years ago, nationalists woke up in hope and expectation that a new political landscape had opened up with the IRA cessation announced the previous day.' Mmmm, what is remember that day is waking up to the news that a triumphalist parade involving a convoy of vehicles sporting Irish tricolours was making its way down the Falls Road. If this display summed up the feelings of nationalists in the round then they were not waking up in hope and expectation, they were waking with a sense of hubristic triumphalism and a desire to rub the noses of the Unionist majority into the proverbial dirt.



I will only dwell cursorily on the question of loyalist and republican atrocities committed since that time: for as we know, loyalist terrorists have no electoral support from the community. Thus, BB's analogy is utterly baseless and distracting. Anti-agreement Unionists were as much against the release of loyalist terrorists as they were against the latitude given to the IRA. BB then goes on to inform us that 'few nationalists would have imagined on September 1st 1994 that the IRA cessation would have been followed by 10 years of Unionist prevarication, excuses, ultimatums, walk-outs, anything to avoid power sharing on equal terms.' What BB is actually saying is when the IRA took the supposedly commendable step of not blowing people to kingdom come, it was entirely unreasonable for democrats with a proven track record of constitutionalism to demand tangible evidence that the cessation was permanent. Is BB sick or what!!



BB further demonstrates his vacillation on points of sacred democratic principle by chiding David Trimble for 'refusing to share power without conditions.' Would these 'conditions' by any chance involve the ending of murder and mayhem in exchange for a huge pile of concessions, BB? Well, as an Irish nationalist, you couldn't possibly entertain that could you!? What you and your ilk actually wanted was the concessions without any reciprocal moves to comprehensively consign the IRA to the dustbin of history. And you have the cheek to talk about 'equality'!!!



In his conclusion, BB looks forward to the Nirvana of joint authority. Again, what he is actually advocating is an equal input from a country which gives no financial or economic support to Northern Ireland; is partisan in its defence of one community over the other; and a country that a clear majority of Northern Ireland's citizens don't wish to be a part of. My only response to that is - 'dream on!!'