|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 3, 2021 21:41:51 GMT
I think our different perspectives might also have to do with the fact that I don't have any memories of prolife politics of the past. I didn't really have any preconceptions of Justin Barrett when he started the National Party. I personally think the result of the 2018 referendum was inevitable. Ireland did well to hold out as long as it did. We all know prolife politics for the foreseeable future is about persuading individuals not to have one, and perhaps trying to make our abortion regimes somewhat more restrictive. However it should also be plain that supranational institutions have a liberal social agenda, so nationalism is not irrelevant to social conservatism. That's fair. I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was always going to be a formidable task, and the extent of the defeat shocked everyone in the movement. I suppose the way I would look at it is that while you are correct that many supernational institutions are dominated by social liberals, such organisations are only as good as the people who run them. I believe that it is better to influence these groups from the inside, and oppose any harmful specific actions that they promote rather than taking an hostile attitude towards them in principle. Indeed, one effect of Trump's withdrawal of the US from world affairs was the increased influence of China in these bodies, the consequences of which can be felt today. I would also add that there are many on the nationalist side who are anti-life when it comes to ethnic minorities (cf. Richard Spencer's comments on abortion, and don't forget the roots of many abortion providers in the eugenics movement - Margaret Sanger supported the racist Immigration act of 1924 which effectively banned non-white immigration from outside the Americas on the grounds that it would "improve" the quality of the American population). There is also the issue that in order to end abortion in Ireland, we will need another referendum, which will only pass if we can get at least 50% (and preferrably more) of voters to agree with us. This means that we need to strive to be as mainstream as possible (though not to the point of moral compromise obviously) in order to get anywhere. On the topic of immigration/national identity, only 1-2% of the population see that issue as a priority for them in voting, whereas up to 13% of people here were born outside the Republic (many of whom would have Irish ancestry anyway), so we can assume that about 6-7% of the population could be classed as "New Irish". By linking the pro-life movement with anti-immigration politics, we are turning away 6-7% of the population (and more than that, if you include pro-immigration native Irish) to attract 1-2% of the population. I think it's fair to say that in our situation, this is a tactical mistake and therefore the two should not be linked. Now you might say that the media will link us anyway, so what do we have to lose? Well one, it is better to be accused in the wrong than accused in the right and two, we really ought not to be making things easy for the media.
|
|
|
Post by assisi on Jul 4, 2021 15:33:16 GMT
I think our different perspectives might also have to do with the fact that I don't have any memories of prolife politics of the past. I didn't really have any preconceptions of Justin Barrett when he started the National Party. I personally think the result of the 2018 referendum was inevitable. Ireland did well to hold out as long as it did. We all know prolife politics for the foreseeable future is about persuading individuals not to have one, and perhaps trying to make our abortion regimes somewhat more restrictive. However it should also be plain that supranational institutions have a liberal social agenda, so nationalism is not irrelevant to social conservatism. That's fair. I wouldn't say that it was inevitable, but it was always going to be a formidable task, and the extent of the defeat shocked everyone in the movement. I suppose the way I would look at it is that while you are correct that many supernational institutions are dominated by social liberals, such organisations are only as good as the people who run them. I believe that it is better to influence these groups from the inside, and oppose any harmful specific actions that they promote rather than taking an hostile attitude towards them in principle. Indeed, one effect of Trump's withdrawal of the US from world affairs was the increased influence of China in these bodies, the consequences of which can be felt today. I would also add that there are many on the nationalist side who are anti-life when it comes to ethnic minorities (cf. Richard Spencer's comments on abortion, and don't forget the roots of many abortion providers in the eugenics movement - Margaret Sanger supported the racist Immigration act of 1924 which effectively banned non-white immigration from outside the Americas on the grounds that it would "improve" the quality of the American population). There is also the issue that in order to end abortion in Ireland, we will need another referendum, which will only pass if we can get at least 50% (and preferrably more) of voters to agree with us. This means that we need to strive to be as mainstream as possible (though not to the point of moral compromise obviously) in order to get anywhere. On the topic of immigration/national identity, only 1-2% of the population see that issue as a priority for them in voting, whereas up to 13% of people here were born outside the Republic (many of whom would have Irish ancestry anyway), so we can assume that about 6-7% of the population could be classed as "New Irish". By linking the pro-life movement with anti-immigration politics, we are turning away 6-7% of the population (and more than that, if you include pro-immigration native Irish) to attract 1-2% of the population. I think it's fair to say that in our situation, this is a tactical mistake and therefore the two should not be linked. Now you might say that the media will link us anyway, so what do we have to lose? Well one, it is better to be accused in the wrong than accused in the right and two, we really ought not to be making things easy for the media. The 6-7% of the new Irish might surprise you. In America many Hispanics have stated that they oppose illegal immigration even if many of those will come from Mexico or other South American countries. When people immigrated legally to Ireland I'm sure they immigrated knowing and accepting it was a Christian country and that would entail free speech, Christian culture and welfare help, things that they would welcome. They didn't chose to go other cultures like Pakistan, Africa or China etc. But under our current liberal homogenising social engineering the country they have immigrated to will be changed dramatically and will no longer be the 'Ireland' they first came to. In my opinion that will mean bad news for the new Irish and the native Irish. The elites like to divide people so that they can 'intervene' with new laws and impose further control for their own gain. A country devoid of its culture is like a man falling into depression and taking to bed as he no longer feels motivated to do anything. The deliberate altering and destruction of a long lived culture which we witness now will be to nobody's advantage. If the motives are to kill the spirit of the Irish people (which I think they are) then they must be called out as wrong. Remember we have a duty to our own native Irish people first and foremost. If the elites are more than willing to extinguish the Irish spirit then they will do the same to the new Irish when their usefulness has run out. We aren't doing any long term favours to any new immigrants.
|
|
|
Post by Askel McThurkill on Jul 5, 2021 11:06:06 GMT
The problem with this mindset is that it can lead to a myopic support for groups that shouldn't be supported, which could actually result in more harm to the pro-life and pro-family cause than benefit. The fact that there are other pro-life candidates who do not have the baggage of Mr. Barrett only tilts the pendulum towards the former. The only way a vote for Mr. Barrett would make sense in this context is if national identity was a higher priority than life or family issues, a view that I don't share to put it mildly. I think our debate here really comes down to where disagreement ends and abhorrence begins. I disagree with Fintan O'Toole and abhor him, or rather, his views. I don't feel the same abhorrence for Justin Barrett or the NP. They seem to me to exemplify an understandable and even healthy reaction taken too far. Hibernicus (who I usually agree with) has expressed abhorrence for the NP a couple of times now and I think it's fair to ask why it's so intense. I don't want to second guess Hibernicus, but Justin Barrett's association with the German NPD, which is a matter of public record, is a matter apropos of which abhorrence is understandable. It's also a very dangerous connexion as invites guilt by association to nationalists standing outside the umbrella of these far right parties.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2021 11:51:14 GMT
I think our debate here really comes down to where disagreement ends and abhorrence begins. I disagree with Fintan O'Toole and abhor him, or rather, his views. I don't feel the same abhorrence for Justin Barrett or the NP. They seem to me to exemplify an understandable and even healthy reaction taken too far. Hibernicus (who I usually agree with) has expressed abhorrence for the NP a couple of times now and I think it's fair to ask why it's so intense. I don't want to second guess Hibernicus, but Justin Barrett's association with the German NPD, which is a matter of public record, is a matter apropos of which abhorrence is understandable. It's also a very dangerous connexion as invites guilt by association to nationalists standing outside the umbrella of these far right parties. And Pope Benedict XVI was in the Hitler Jugend, and Pope John Paul II endorsed Fr. Marcial Maciel, and St. Josemaria Escrivia wrote a warm letter to Franco, and De Valera gave his condolences to the German Embassy, and Obama's former pastor was Jeremiah Wright...the game of guilt by association could go on forever.
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 5, 2021 12:26:16 GMT
via mobile
Post by Alaisdir Ua Séaghdha on Jul 5, 2021 12:26:16 GMT
I don't want to second guess Hibernicus, but Justin Barrett's association with the German NPD, which is a matter of public record, is a matter apropos of which abhorrence is understandable. It's also a very dangerous connexion as invites guilt by association to nationalists standing outside the umbrella of these far right parties. And Pope Benedict XVI was in the Hitler Jugend, and Pope John Paul II endorsed Fr. Marcial Maciel, and St. Josemaria Escrivia wrote a warm letter to Franco, and De Valera gave his condolences to the German Embassy, and Obama's former pastor was Jeremiah Wright...the game of guilt by association could go on forever. No, it's not guilt by association. Justin Barrett willingly and knowingly attended NPD rallies since his time in Yoth Defence. He wasn't forced to go, as Pope Benedict was forced to join the Hitler Jugend and the NPD position is more toxic than anything to do with Franco. And he wasn't fooled by the NPD - they do exactly what it says on the tin - as Maciel did to John Paul II. Nor was he in the position of maintaining a delicate neutrality like de Valera. He was invited to a neo-Nazi rally in Germany, he didn't have to accept and if he was ignorant on his first visit, he knew full well what he was doing on subsequent visits. He only stopped when the attendance became public in this country.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2021 14:25:37 GMT
And Pope Benedict XVI was in the Hitler Jugend, and Pope John Paul II endorsed Fr. Marcial Maciel, and St. Josemaria Escrivia wrote a warm letter to Franco, and De Valera gave his condolences to the German Embassy, and Obama's former pastor was Jeremiah Wright...the game of guilt by association could go on forever. No, it's not guilt by association. wasn't Barrett willingly and knowingly attended NPD rallies since his time in Yoth Defence. He wasn't forced to go, as Pope Benedict was and the NPD position is more toxic than anything to do with Franco. And he wasn't fooled as Maciel did to John Paul II. Nor was he in the position of maintaining a delicate neutrality like de Valera. He was invited to a neo-Nazi rally in Germany, he didn't have to accept and if he was ignorant on his first visit, he knew full well what he was doing on subsequent visits. He only stopped when the attendance became public in this country. I just don't believe in holding people's past against them-- whether it's links with the far-right, some Trotskyist group in college, or even membership of a paramilitary organization. I read Joseph Pearce books even though he was once a member of the National Front. I go by peoples' stated and current beliefs, which seems the most sensible approach. I should repeat that I'm not a supporter of the National Party and I think Barrett is a bit of a jackass. I just think we should resist the endless pressure to push more and more conservative/nationalist/anti-PC viewpoints "beyond the pale".
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2021 17:53:42 GMT
No, it's not guilt by association. wasn't Barrett willingly and knowingly attended NPD rallies since his time in Yoth Defence. He wasn't forced to go, as Pope Benedict was and the NPD position is more toxic than anything to do with Franco. And he wasn't fooled as Maciel did to John Paul II. Nor was he in the position of maintaining a delicate neutrality like de Valera. He was invited to a neo-Nazi rally in Germany, he didn't have to accept and if he was ignorant on his first visit, he knew full well what he was doing on subsequent visits. He only stopped when the attendance became public in this country. I just don't believe in holding people's past against them-- whether it's links with the far-right, some Trotskyist group in college, or even membership of a paramilitary organization. I read Joseph Pearce books even though he was once a member of the National Front. I go by peoples' stated and current beliefs, which seems the most sensible approach. I should repeat that I'm not a supporter of the National Party and I think Barrett is a bit of a jackass. I just think we should resist the endless pressure to push more and more conservative/nationalist/anti-PC viewpoints "beyond the pale". Joseph Pearce quit politics and has explicitly repented of his racist past. If Barrett had a similar change of heart, I would have no objection to him being welcomed back. The problem is that while Barrett's views have changed to some extent, they are still abhorrent and they would need to change a lot more in order for me to be comfortable working with him. Your position amounts to saying that he is our ally and that an attack on him is an attack on us effectively. The problem with that is that this will scare away many potential pro-life and pro-family voters who find Barrett's brand of ethnonationalism abhorrent.
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 5, 2021 19:00:20 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 5, 2021 19:00:20 GMT
I just don't believe in holding people's past against them-- whether it's links with the far-right, some Trotskyist group in college, or even membership of a paramilitary organization. I read Joseph Pearce books even though he was once a member of the National Front. I go by peoples' stated and current beliefs, which seems the most sensible approach. I should repeat that I'm not a supporter of the National Party and I think Barrett is a bit of a jackass. I just think we should resist the endless pressure to push more and more conservative/nationalist/anti-PC viewpoints "beyond the pale". Joseph Pearce quit politics and has explicitly repented of his racist past. If Barrett had a similar change of heart, I would have no objection to him being welcomed back. The problem is that while Barrett's views have changed to some extent, they are still abhorrent and they would need to change a lot more in order for me to be comfortable working with him. Your position amounts to saying that he is our ally and that an attack on him is an attack on us effectively. The problem with that is that this will scare away many potential pro-life and pro-family voters who find Barrett's brand of ethnonationalism abhorrent. Everything isn't strategy. Some things are principle. I viscerally believe in the principle of freedom of speech and thought.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 5, 2021 20:25:32 GMT
Joseph Pearce quit politics and has explicitly repented of his racist past. If Barrett had a similar change of heart, I would have no objection to him being welcomed back. The problem is that while Barrett's views have changed to some extent, they are still abhorrent and they would need to change a lot more in order for me to be comfortable working with him. Your position amounts to saying that he is our ally and that an attack on him is an attack on us effectively. The problem with that is that this will scare away many potential pro-life and pro-family voters who find Barrett's brand of ethnonationalism abhorrent. Everything isn't strategy. Some things are principle. I viscerally believe in the principle of freedom of speech and thought. Surely there are better ways to defend that principle than making excuses for someone who has in the past openly argued for that principle to be curtailed?
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 6, 2021 10:44:09 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 6, 2021 10:44:09 GMT
I think it's ironic that there's all this angst about Justin Barret's past when Aontú's leader was a member of Sinn Féin, a party who upholds the legitimacy of the IRA's "armed struggle". I presume Toibín still subscribes to this view. I wouldn't hold it against him, but I'm being consistent to my own logic.
I bet the IRA murdered far more people than German neo-Nazis.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2021 17:12:43 GMT
I think it's ironic that there's all this angst about Justin Barret's past when Aontú's leader was a member of Sinn Féin, a party who upholds the legitimacy of the IRA's "armed struggle". I presume Toibín still subscribes to this view. I wouldn't hold it against him, but I'm being consistent to my own logic. I bet the IRA murdered far more people than German neo-Nazis. That was the very reason why I hesitated to join Aontú before I eventually did. You're right that it is a concern, however 1) they do not have an armed wing and the party is totally constitutional and 2) they have what all the other parties do not - a Dáil seat and three sitting councillors. With these in mind, Peadar's past links with SF, while concerning, are not sufficient enough to stop me supporting them. On the other hand, a National Party member was recently convicted of assaulting a lesbian activist with a flagpole at a demonstration last September: www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/protester-beat-activist-with-tricolour-on-plank-39660339.htmlCan you show me any examples of Aontú members engaging in violence during the period of the party's existence?
|
|
|
Prolife.
Jul 6, 2021 18:13:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by maolsheachlann on Jul 6, 2021 18:13:39 GMT
I think it's ironic that there's all this angst about Justin Barret's past when Aontú's leader was a member of Sinn Féin, a party who upholds the legitimacy of the IRA's "armed struggle". I presume Toibín still subscribes to this view. I wouldn't hold it against him, but I'm being consistent to my own logic. I bet the IRA murdered far more people than German neo-Nazis. That was the very reason why I hesitated to join Aontú before I eventually did. You're right that it is a concern, however 1) they do not have an armed wing and the party is totally constitutional and 2) they have what all the other parties do not - a Dáil seat and three sitting councillors. With these in mind, Peadar's past links with SF, while concerning, are not sufficient enough to stop me supporting them. On the other hand, a National Party member was recently convicted of assaulting a lesbian activist with a flagpole at a demonstration last September: www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/protester-beat-activist-with-tricolour-on-plank-39660339.htmlCan you show me any examples of Aontú members engaging in violence during the period of the party's existence? No, I can't. This is obviously despicable behaviour and completely unacceptable. I have been contemplating joining Aontú myself. It's probably not the time now but I may do so down the line.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 6, 2021 21:29:34 GMT
He got thrown out of the Pro-Life movement (he was associated with Youth Defence at one time, but I'm not sure of the exact group he was with) because he attended rallies of the youth wing of the German NPD, which is generally regarded as being as near as you get to neo-Nazi in the Bundesrepublik's system. (The Alternative fur Deutschland has some unsavoury people in it, but is not neo-fascist in that sense). He then denied on TV that he knew that the NPD was regarded as neo-nazi, after RTE showed film footage of an event he attended which clearly imitated without copying a Nuremberg Rally. (Imitated without copying because public displays of actual nazi symbolism are illegal.) I make the charitable assumption that he is extremely stupid and did not see what the viewers could see for themselves. THE NATIONAL WAY FORWARD explicitly advocates a dictatorship and the abolition of political parties, and calls for the exclusion of all immigrants. It really contains no coherent arguments at all, but a series of assertions which the reader is expected to accept without question because Barrett says them. He has carried over this mindset into his present incarnation - I remember being given a NP leaflet at a pro-life rally and it consisted of attacks on other pro-life groups as being compromisers and claims that a vote for the NP would achieve victory, because he says so. I would be willing to vote for pro-life candidates with whom I have some disagreements (my views on Northern Ireland would be different from Aontu's, and I think Renua had too much of a free-market wonk element in it), but the NP just strikes me as being outside the pale.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jul 6, 2021 21:45:10 GMT
He in the previous post is Justin Barrett. I hadn't heard about Michael Quinn's latest development but this is part of an ongoing tragedy. He ran as an orthodox Pro-Life Independent in Dun Laoghaire in 1992 after the X Case and did quite well. He didn't have these views then, but about 10 years ago he was spouting rhetoric in an interview with the SUNDAY WORLD that came very close to incitement. This is a step further down. (BTW a brief search shows that he has in fact pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in October.) This is another reason why pro-lifers should steer clear of far-rightists; such people are often on the lookout for opportunities to ensnare the vulnerable and naive and we ought to work to minimise those opportunities.
|
|
|
Post by Young Ireland on Jul 6, 2021 22:05:24 GMT
He in the previous post is Justin Barrett. I hadn't heard about Michael Quinn's latest development but this is part of an ongoing tragedy. He ran as an orthodox Pro-Life Independent in Dun Laoghaire in 1992 after the X Case and did quite well. He didn't have these views then, but about 10 years ago he was spouting rhetoric in an interview with the SUNDAY WORLD that came very close to incitement. This is a step further down. (BTW a brief search shows that he has in fact pleaded guilty and will be sentenced in October.) This is another reason why pro-lifers should steer clear of far-rightists; such people are often on the lookout for opportunities to ensnare the vulnerable and naive and we ought to work to minimise those opportunities. To be fair, this is a different Michael Quinn, as the perpetrator here is a relatively young man, while the elder Quinn must be nearing his sixties at this stage.
|
|