Row after Sinn Fein’s Martina Anderson refers to IRA terrorists as ‘soldiers in a war
July 17 2019
The DUP has hit out at comments made by Sinn Fein MEP Martina Anderson referring to IRA terrorists as “soldiers” in a “war”.
Ms Anderson, posting on Twitter in a conversation with former soldier and UUP MLA Doug Beattie, said they were both soldiers in a war that is “thankfully over”.
The convicted IRA bomber was defending former Sinn Fein councillor Patrice Hardy after she said on social media that she “couldn’t get her head round” the fact Irishman Eoin Morgan wanted to captain the English cricket team.
Morgan recently captained England to victory at the Cricket World Cup.
The tweet by Martina Anderson.
DUP MEP Diane Dodds called the comments “disgraceful” and an “affront” to innocent victims of terrorism and their familes. Sinn Fein has been approached for a response.
“Sinn Fein seek to commemorate and glorify on an almost daily basis while having the brass neck to barrack others in the name of equality and integrity,” Mrs Dodds said.
“The stark truth is that there was no war in Northern Ireland, only a brutal and ruthless terrorist campaign met by the courage and sacrifice of our security forces.
“While soldiers and police officers adhered to high standards of practice and professionalism, acting lawfully in a vast majority of cases, those like Martina Anderson brought only wanton destruction and indiscriminate murder and violence to innocent men, women and children across our Province. “
Ms Dodds said the party would always call out those seeking to “justify and glorify terror” and “revise history”.
“There will never be a comparison between the terrorist perpetrator and the innocent victims.,” the MEP added.
Starch your shirt and shine your shoes,
Today is the day when everything you stand for falls into place.
All the anger, hatred and venom you have masquerading itself as culture.
Attempt to trample on the indigenous as lambeg drums try to drown out your sectarian songs.
Orange sashes, stomping into areas to antagonize.
Flags of hate, a supposed union that is singing its swan song.
To pledge allegiance to a place where they mock you.
You truly are lost, geographically and politically.
The drinking from the night before is beginning to bite as you press on.
What a glorious night that was, it really exposed what you now walk for.
Effigies, flags and even children burned.
Not long to go now, you can cure your hangover soon but you cannot cure your hate.
You pass by the crowds that put down their cans of beer so they can applaud.
Some seem to be wobbling ever so slightly as the quickly retrieve their containers of aluminium refreshments as soon as you pass.
Almost there, just a few more unsteady steps.
For God and Ulster, for Queen and country?
No, it stands for hatred and bigotry, ignorance and intolerance, everything that should shame your very self.
You horrible hateful humans that are as unwanted in Ireland as you are in the place you pretend to claim loyalty to.
How very embarrassing that must feel.
Your pint arrives and you struggle to swallow it with shaky hand.
Enjoy, it no longer tastes of Irish tears.
We told you, again and again, we will never stop, never be beaten, never again will we let bigots dictate anything to us.
Get yourself another drink, you never know, it might soon be your last.
No to time limits or unilateral escape hatches or all these elaborate devices, glosses, codicils and so on that you could apply to the backstop,” he told a debate hosted by The Sun on Monday.
Mr Hunt agreed, adding: “The backstop, as it is, is dead … I don’t think tweaking it with a time limit will do the trick, we’ve got to find a new way.”
Now that the “backstop is dead” the Johnson camp are pinning their hopes on a
new divorce deal ( that) may allow a future PM to delay paying the full £39billion until a free trade agreement with the EU is thrashed out. That would be a huge boost for Boris – who has said the UK should withhold part until the EU completes a trade deal, according to The Sun.
Our key local analyst Katy Hayward reminds us of the potential costs this side of the water that both candidates are ignoring.
It is estimated 55,000 jobs will be at risk in Ireland if the UK crashes out of the EU. In Northern Ireland, the cost of no deal could be over 40,000 jobs (equivalent to more than 1 in 20)
No doubt this will be dismissed as “project fear”.
But let’s stick to the politics of it for now.
Assume for a moment a majority of MPs are unable to prevent it Leave on 31 October. This creates a host of new political problems. The former Conservative leader William Hague argues that a Johnson government on a No Deal ticket would be unable to get the necessary legislation through this parliament. A reliable majority just isn’t there. A general election would be necessary.
The entirely plausible case is made that Labour are so divided over Leave v Remain, the basic Corbyn split and now over anti-semitism that the Tories would emerge as at least as the largest single party. Labour may have missed the boat. The momentum deplore it you like , is with the rather less divided Conservatives.
An election called by the new prime minister in September would cut through several problems in their present form. Prorogation of parliament for the election of new parliament would not attract the same constitutional ignominy as temporary suspension to allow Leave to happen without challenge. He wouldn’t have to face the threat of an immediate defeat in a vote of confidence supported by anti-No Deal Tories headed by the outgoing chancellor Philip Hammond and Dominic Grieve – or if he did due to an accident of timing in the autumn, he would accept the challenge on the front foot.
None of this would be the answer to all the new PM’s prayers however.
The Conservatives would be seriously split over the manifesto and candidate re-selection.
A postponement of a few weeks of the 31 October deadline would surely be necessary, forcing Johnson to eat his words.
The new parliament would likely be hung with an even more complicated mix than before, with a selection of Brexit party MPs on the No Deal side and more Lib Dems for Remain and SNP MPs demanding a second independence referendum as the price of a second Brexit referendum favouring Remain, if that was the keystone of Labour’s manifesto. Any Brexit policy could hang by a thread.
The abortion and equal marriage amendments of the NI Executive Formation Bill would fall – (will they pass the Lords in time before the summer recess on 25 July anyway?) – as Parliament cannot bind its successor.
If Stormont had not been restored and the courts did not rule against it on constitutional grounds, there might be nothing except the DUP to inhibit cross party support for a new all UK Abortion Act along the lines of the GB 1967 Act and repealing the 1861 Act criminalising abortion throughout the kingdom.
While the constitutional arguments against “driving a coach and horses through devolution” have force, their critics are attacking the wrong target, leading with constitutional grounds rather than their real objection to ” abortion on demand.” The objections are likely to be further weakened by the imposition of temporary Direct Rule in the event of No Deal and even possibly even with a deal. Suzanne Breen’s report is correct. Ministers of some sort will be needed to take on extra powers in the event of Brexit; if not Stormont ministers, then UK ministers. This move would require the support of the Irish government. And despite all the surrounding chaos, it would be likely to get it provided it was regularly endorsed by the British-Irish intergovernmental council.
DUP Leader Arlene Foster. A legal challenge over the Electoral Commission’s refusal to investigate EU referendum spending by the Democratic Unionist Party has reached the High Court.
In the British Parliament last week political frustration drove the debates on marriage equality and abortion.
Much of that frustration is directed at MPs from the Democratic Unionist Party. And yes, there is also frustration that our democratic structures are simply not working and therefore create a democratic deficit.
That deficit does not mean we should remain ungoverned. Or that we should not have necessary legislation passed. Or that we should be ignored. Campaigners for reform deserved political support and Westminster was their last refuge.
Frequent visitors to the House of Commons can witness the behaviour of certain DUP MPs when Lady Sylvia Hermon speaks. It is a spectacle which is silly, senseless and sexist.
This is not an accusation against all DUP members of parliament but is a regular feature of some. Other MPs see and hear it. Female MPs from all parties detest it.
Last year I watched in bewilderment as Sammy Wilson effectively stunned the Commons with an unnecessarily aggressive anti-abortion speech just after Tory MP Heidi Allen gave a very emotional and personal testimony about her own experience of abortion. His actions reinforced the view of many parliamentarians that the DUP were antiquated and out of touch.
The DUP’s verbal assaults on the prime minister over the Withdrawal Agreement were not only at times offensive and rude but antagonistic. One Brexit supporting minister who resigned over the same Withdrawal Agreement told this columnist: ‘The DUP’s treatment of the prime minister was appalling and won’t be forgotten by members on these benches’.
So the votes taken last week were not all about caring for the people of Northern Ireland and rights denied. The scale of victories also reflected the frustration of all parties within the Commons towards the DUP. The DUP style doesn’t go down well with the decorum of the House.
One of the problematic issues about last week was the conflation of two different sets of issues – abortion and marriage equality. (Why the overdue compensation to victims of historical abuse couldn’t have been added on is also baffling).
Marriage equality should never have been denied in the first place. Some of those opposing it were hugely hypocritical. Faith based groups are entitled to proper safeguards against vexatious attempts to use their properties/services. After that, the maxim is live and let live.
Remarks from some evangelical quarters that next we would see marriages between siblings are typical of the nonsensical claims made against marriage equality. There was a clear majority in the last Assembly (and therefore the public who voted for them) in favour of marriage equality. That’s the will of the people.
Abortion is a completely different matter. It is more complex. A simple motion however well intentioned is not the way forward.
The case for abortion reform is well made and the medical profession need clear guidance. It is not a black and white issue – it’s an area with considerable grey. This writer is well aware that for some, men speaking on abortion is only acceptable if one supports pro-choice. I respectfully disagree.
But in the main for life to start it requires two individuals and where a relationship exists the decision to terminate should also require the input of two.
That said having an absolutist position on abortion is not the way forward either. Sensitivity and compassion should be the watch word on either side of the debate. Remember, those who for whatever reason opt for an abortion don’t do it casually. They certainly don’t use abortion as a contraceptive as some claim.
The Westminster motion passed on abortion is too general. It is clear that abortion on demand is not something people in Northern Ireland want. A majority in the Assembly were against it.
To put this into perspective, if the Westminster motion as proposed proceeds into law, it makes the abortion reforms of the Dail seem positively conservative. Change is good when crafted with compassion.
