|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2011 11:56:27 GMT
Can Askel please give us reasons why these candidates should be supported, so we can assess them for ourselves rather than going on his say-so? I know something about Marc Coleman but nothing about Mick Langan - Askel should bear in mind that not everyone may be so well-informed as he is.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 11, 2011 12:05:51 GMT
Two points about the new Cabinet: (1) Ruairi Quinn as Minister for education - given that Ruairi Quinn has publicly and repeatedly advocated the secularisation of all church schools (to offset the state compensation bill for clerical abuse and to remove the possibility of schools being handed to "Catholiic fundamentalists") this could be very bad news indeed. (2) Alan Shatter, whose support for the liberal agenda is well known, as Minister for Justice.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Mar 12, 2011 21:27:49 GMT
Mick Langan was heavily involved in the UCD pro-life society at the time of the X-Case and was active in keeping the Students Union in UCD on the straight and narrow for those couple of years. He has remained since a totally committed Catholic - he spends a portion of every summer in Lourdes and he has been to the traditional Mass in St Audoen's/St Kevin's on and off over the years - he actually did the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage one year.
Need more info?
|
|
|
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Mar 13, 2011 17:58:49 GMT
I should add Mick Langan is not a traditionalist (even if he attends the traditional Mass from time to time), but he is a committed Catholic. At different times in his studies in UCD he has been in the same classroom as Éamonn Gaines (whose best man he was), Niall Brady and Peadar Laighléis. He trained as a religion teacher, but spent most of his subsequent career in promotion of heritage tourism, so there will be a strong commitment to heritage in his campaign.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 14, 2011 11:01:47 GMT
That's good - can anyone who is in a position to do so spread the word about him?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Mar 28, 2011 16:03:01 GMT
Have just voted in Seanad election - won't say how. These threads may be useful in helping to assess candidates: www.politics.ie/oireachtas/154784-candidates-nui-panel-seanad-eireann-published.htmlwww.indymedia.ie/article/99163Note that the trolls on Indymedia have picked up Mick Langan's pro-life record. Also worth noting, for people you may not wish to vote for: Peter Mooney states on his leaflet "I will be an advocate for legalising stem cell research. I will campaign for full civil marriage for all." Helen Keogh emphasises her connection with the Well Woman Centres and her "courage" in the key social referenda over the last two decades. James Doorley is a Labour Party member - I would have given him a higher preference than I have done were it not for that party's "pro-choice" policy (though I do not know his personal position on it).
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 7, 2011 10:09:26 GMT
The latest BRANDSMA REVIEW has an article by Peadar Laighleis commenting on the election results. I would recommend that you all read it.
He suggests towards the end that this might be a good time to join Fianna Fail and try to influence it from within. I confess I have my doubts about this strategy for the following reasons: (1) It has been tried already - I remember reading a selection of Mary Holland's IRISH TIMES articles recently and coming across one (post-Robinson election, pre-X Case) in which she remarks that getting Fianna Fail to embrace the liberal agenda will be difficult because FF activists know pro-lifers and conservative Catholics are among their most zealous election workers. This didn't stop the party's big U-turns a few years later.
(2) Modern political parties have developed in a way which means that the grassroots have much less control over the leadershp than they used to have, and that the leaders actively dislike having to answer to a mass membership. In Britain, for example, both New Labour and David Cameron's "decontaminating the Tory brand" were about crushing the influence of a party membership who were seen as having views which were diffcult to sell to the wider electorate (old-style leftism for Labour, social conservatism for Tories). Fianna Fail, which was always very centralised, has undergone a similar process - if you don't believe me read the description in the book THE DRUMCONDRA MAFIA of how the leadership blocked the Ard Fheis from formally committing the party to oppose the 1995 divorce referendum, even though the rank and file predominantly favoured a No campaign. Bertie Ahern's transfromation of the ard Fheis into a one-day glitzfest and the decay of FF grassroots organisation under his leadership were not incidental - they were part of this strategy, and it will be very hard to reverse because any leadership will like control. It will not be enough to have memebrs at rank and file level - the only way to influence policy is to have people at leadership level and we just don't have the sort of educated and articulated spokespeople who could achieve this.
(3) Despite its rout FF still sees itself as a party of power and hopes to make an electoral comeback. The Dublin floating voter, both middle-class and working-class (who are also the most secularised part of the electorate) are key to this, and they won't want to antagonise them any more than they have done already by their economic mismanagement. Remember that in the 80s there was a certain electoral gain to be made from being the Catholic party - now the Church is much weaker and more discredited and the secularist constituency is much stronger and more self-confident.
(4) Infiltration requires a degree of co-ordination and ideological clarity which quite frankly I don't think Irish social conservatism has shown itself up to. When far-left groups infiltrated the Labour Party they were able to keep in touch and lay down a "party line" through their papers. The Irish traditionalist Catholic media don't impress me as up to this task. I know of instances where Catholic Action groups in the past infiltrated political parties, but again this required a good deal of organisational cohesion which we just don't have. I fear the infiltrators will either become excessively influenced by the party rather than the party influencing them, or else they will be out and out zealots who will never compromise on anything and will be kicked out of the party before they can influence it.
My own view is that what we need above all is movement-building through education and organisation. We have got too many knee-jerk amateurs who not only don't think but don't want to think, and too many cranks who see their own agenda as part of the deposit of faith. (I'm thinking of the purist sovereignty-obsessives in particular.) We need to understnd how we got into our present situation and what we can do to address it - to develop a historical consciousness and stop making the same mistakes over and over again - to make use of the resources that ARE there, to squash the sort of personality cults that have wrecked so many endeavours in the past, and to learn how to disagree on some issues while coming together on the core values.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Apr 28, 2011 12:49:24 GMT
Up North we have an election on May 5th, the Assembly and Local Council elections on the same day.
For Nationalists SDLP are anti-abortion.
Sinn Fein's views appear more ambivalent:
Sinn Féin is not in favour of abortion, nor do we believe that the 1967 British Abortion Act should be extended to the Six Counties. Instead, all possible means of education and support services should be put in place to prevent crisis pregnancies. Irish society has a responsibility to not only address the issue of abortion but also to address the fact that between 5,000 and 10,000 Irish women travel to Britain each year for abortions. In our view the way to tackle the related issues of crisis pregnancies and abortions is through comprehensive sex education, full access to child-care and comprehensive support services, including financial support for single parents. Sinn Féin is opposed to the attitudes and forces in society which pressurise women to have abortions, and criminalise those who make this decision. In cases of rape, incest or sexual abuse, or where a woman’s life and health are at risk or in grave danger, we accept that the final decision must rest with the woman
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Apr 29, 2011 17:29:32 GMT
SF are mealy-mouthed equivocators as usual. This is another reason why the CSP were utter idiots in calling for transfers to them. I would say the SDLP is probably the best of the major parties on this issue, but there are pro-aborts in all the major parties, and certain whited sepulchres especially in the DUP cannot be trusted whatever they say. It's best to vote for or against individual candidates; wish there was more info available on this basis. Alliance used to have some pro-lifers but I think overall they tend to be pro-abort.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Apr 30, 2011 10:54:42 GMT
SF are mealy-mouthed equivocators as usual. This is another reason why the CSP were utter idiots in calling for transfers to them. I would say the SDLP is probably the best of the major parties on this issue, but there are pro-aborts in all the major parties, and certain whited sepulchres especially in the DUP cannot be trusted whatever they say. It's best to vote for or against individual candidates; wish there was more info available on this basis. Alliance used to have some pro-lifers but I think overall they tend to be pro-abort. You will get a bit more info here, by constituency: www.preciouslife.com/?pid=pages&va=189&vb=192&vc=3&at=2&ac=3&ai=1406#EastAntrim
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jun 26, 2011 18:35:02 GMT
The latest CSP advertisement is claiming that the party deserves the credit for the defeat of Ivana Bacik in Dun Laoghaire in the 2011 General Election. I wish this was true, but unfortunately it strikes me as sheer fantasy, and claiming imaginary victories is a sure way to go on suffering real defeats. The only ways this could possibly be true IMHO would be if (a) The CSP voters would all otherwise have voted for Bacik and their votes made the difference between defeat and victory for her OR (b) The CSP campaign educated voters who were previously unaware of Bacik's position and would otherwise have voted for her. The first strikes me as being extremely unlikely - given that pro-life candidates polled 1700 votes in 1992 and 2000 votes in 1997 (though only 265 CSP in 2002 and no clearly identifiable pro-life independent/small party in 2007) there is clearly a potential pro-life vote strong enough to account for the 434 CSP voters of 2011 - these people would hardly have voted for Bacik. The second is also IMHO unlikely given that Bacik makes no secret of her views and actively campaigns for them. She had 5749 first preference votes (13 times as many as the CSP) despite her views, and Dun Laoghaire is one of the most liberal constituencies in the country. Her real problems were her carpetbagger status - she had contested a different constituency the previous year - and the number of strong competing left candidates - she was the second Labour candidate. The only way in which the case can be sustained is to claim that if the CSP voters had all transferred to her en bloc she would have passed out Richard Boyd Barrett the Trot and been elected on his transfers. Given that Boyd Barrett is almost as bad from the point of the pro-life pro-family agenda (it is his pals in the Socialist Workers Party who mount counter-pickets at pro-life demonstrations) this would be a pretty hollow victory even if it were the case - It would also have required CSP transfers to go to the two left candidates in preference to Mary hanafin who was clearly preferable to either. I wish the CSP had made more differencce in the election, but t didn't and pretending it did will not help to make it stronger. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BAn_Laoghaire_(D%C3%A1il_%C3%89ireann_constituency)#2011_general_electionHere is the Wikipedia link to the 2011
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 13, 2011 9:36:42 GMT
Before FG chose its presidential candidate Richard Greene issued the following statement which he put up on the CSP-CC website. I am sorry to say that it suggests he is even more delusional than I feared and offers little prospect of his making the CSP an effective force. As it happens, I do think Mitchell is the better candidate - however, Greene does not offer any sort of detailed analysis of their positions and record; he just denounces Cox for being an Eurocrat liberal. MItchell makes some vaguely Christian Democrat noises but I don't think there is really much difference between him and Cox on the issues (even if you equate Europhilia with being pro-abortion as Greene appears to do). Furthermore, he seems to assume that Cox is the worst candidate and must be opposed to the utmost - but suppose (for example) Cox had been nominated and the election had developed into a Cox v. Norris race with the rest trailing, would Greene really have prefer Norris to Cox? I don't like Cox but Mr Greene is hardly in a position to denounce him for changing parties, given that he himself has been FF, Independent, Green, Muintir na h-Eireann, People's Party and now CSP during his career. Surely someone should explain to Mr Greene that if you become the leader of one political party you can hardly start telling another political party which candidate it should nominate? Here is MR Greene's statement with my comments in capitals and square brackets. THE MESSAGE Richard Greene has e-mailed the following to Enda Kenny in support of Gay MitchelL Dear Taoiseach,
I am writing to inform you that there is widespread concern that Fine Gael will reject its lifetime member and major vote-getter Gay Mitchell for the Eurocrat liberal wetday member of your party Pat Cox.If your candidate is Gay Mitchell I guantee you that he will get the active support of the prolife/profamily organisations throughout the country and many of them will actively support his campaign. [ON WHAT BASIS DOES GREENE COMMIT THE PROLIFE/PROFAMILY ORGANISATIONS TO SUPPORT MITCHELL? HE SEEMS TO THINK THAT BEING CSP LEADER AUTOMATICALLY MAKES HIM LEADER OF THE WHOLE PROLIFE/PROFAMILY MOVEMENT. DID HE CONSULT ANYONE OUTSIDE THE CSP BEFORE SENDING THIS MESSAGE? WHAT WILL HE DO IF MITCHELL NOW MAKES SOME OUTRAGEOUS STATEMENT, OR IF A BETTER CANDIDATE EMERGES?] The organisation I am involved in [PRESUMABLY COIR NOT CSP] put over 7,000 people on the streets of Dublin last satuday and with all of the E.U establishment and all the media behind them,the pro-choice people could only muster 70 screaming ladies and a few male supporters (Garda estimate) [THIS IS AGAIN DELUSIONAL, THE PRO-CHOICERS WERE NOT PUTTING FORWARD ANYTHING LIKE THEIR FULL STRENGTH. PRETENDING THEY ARE WEAKER THAN THEY ARE IS DANGEROUS - IT BLINDS US TO THE REAL DANGER].You promised to support the prolife majority in this country.If your party shafts Gay Mitchell and supports Pat Cox it will alienate all of that support and make difficult for Fine Gael to get Cox elected.Prolifers will work around the clock to defeat him and ensure that if Europe owns us financially,they will not murder our unborn future citizens.I will urge them to work with the same partriotic zeal and intensity as they did in both the Lisbon campaigns for Gay Mitchell if the Fine Gael candidate and against Cox if he is the chosen one. [AGAIN HE IS NOT JUST OPPOSING COX, HE IS DIRECTLY ENDORSING MITCHELL. SEE ABOVE FOR WHY THIS IS A BAD IDEA.] I might remind you that the intervention of the prolife/profamily movement and our party in the most liberal constituency Dunlaoghaire/Rathdown ensured that Ivana Bacik failed to get elected to the Dail [IT DID NOTHING OF THE KIND - IT WAS DOWN TO BACIK'S STATUS AS SECOND LABOUR CANDIDATE AND CARPETBAGGER WHERE THERE WAS A STRONG LOCAL LEFT CANDIDATE.] .We will do the same with Cox. > Yours Sincerely, > Richard Greene(Leader of Christian Solidarity Party and Chief Spokesperson for Coir during the two Lisbon Campaigns)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 18, 2011 21:55:32 GMT
Today's IRISH DAILY MAIL has a piece attacking Mitchell on the grounds that he associates with pro-lifers. It presents his appealing to the Governor of Florida not to execute Paul Hill, who murdered an abortionist (an appeal presumably made on the basis of general opposition to capital punishment - Irish public figures appeal against pending executions in America quite regularly) as if he supported Hill's crime, and then refers to his meeting the "controversial" pro-lifer Dr Alveda King in a manner which could be read as insinuating that Dr King approves of shooting abortionists, which she does not. THis is a very bad sign - an attempt to portray all pro-lifers as outside the pale.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 19, 2011 21:40:03 GMT
I get the distinct impression BTW that Fianna Fail is trying to play up its liberal credentials in order to compete for the secular middle-class vote, rather than trying to provide a haven for dissatisfied traditionalists. Senator Averill Power, who was attacked by some in the last election on suspicion of social conservatism, made a speech in the Seanad recently favouring full gay marriage - or, to put it another way, she believes that the state should announce that marriage is completely unconnected with procreation and that the state can redefine it unilaterally whenever it wishes to do so. Deputy Dara Calleary fell over himself in the Dail recently to praise "civil partnerships" and last Sunday there was what looked suspiciously like a trial balloon suggesting FF might endorse David Norris.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Aug 11, 2011 18:49:53 GMT
The new PHOENIX out today has some pretty concerted attacks on Gay Mitchell for his association with the Iona Institute and repeats the canard that his appeal against Paul Hill's execution involves sympathy for the murders committed by Paul Hill. (In fact the mainstream pro-life movement in the US denounced Hill's murders and I can even think of a few who advocated his execution - it was only the most demented fanatics who endorsed his actions. The policy of the pro-aborts is of course to tar all pro-lifers with these sort of murders and use them to imply that all pro-lifers are terrorists; when Janet Reno was Bill Clinton's attorney-general she spent a great deal of fruitless effort trying to present all pro-life organisations as being a concerted terrorist conspiracy.) The PHOENIX claims that it cannot find evidence of Mitchell issuing appeals for other death-row prisoners, though I seem to remember a paper (either the Business post or the Irish Times) reporting a few days ago that they had found such instances. This sort of coverage makes me think that unless Dana gets nominated we should support Mitchell as the best of a poor bunch, and if Dana is nominated Dana voters should give their No. 2 to Mitchell. I say this with low expectations concerning Mitchell, but we should be aware that the media always try to scrip elections as a drama in which the forces of modernity represented by the Children of Light are routing the forces fo Papist superstition and backwardness led by the designated Children of Darkness. The Norris campaign was being presented by its media supporters as another such social advance, with Norris embodying the Children of Light; if Mitchell is defeated I strongly suspect they will go out of their way to attribute his defeat to public hostility to his association with the Children of Darkness and present it as a message that Fine Gael cannot expect any mileage from appealing to traditionalists. (If he wins they will make some noises about proving his liberal credentials a la Mary McAleese at Christchurch, but they will never suggest any electoral benefit might be gained from appealing to traditionalists.) The Phoenix BTW is claiming the FG leadership are already leaning towards shafting Mitchell in favour of Higgins or some other candidate - we should bear this in mind and strongly consider voting for Mitchell for want of anything better. (John Brown's CATHOLIC VOICE articles calling for Dana or another Independent, while all to the good, can be harmful if they encourage voters to plump for Dana rather than giving a number 2 or number 3 to Mitchell. We should try to keep out the worst if we can't elect the best.)
|
|