Thursday, 10 January 2008

Brian Feeney: "because I say so"

Brian Feeney really is becoming almost a parody of himself. He is a venomous little snake, basking in the sunshine of his own conceit, firing off poisonous invective haranguing everyone who isn’t Brian for their rank stupidity. Feeney never provides evidence for anything because the fact that Feeney says it should be authority enough.

Now whether Brian is a bigot or not is a judgment which I shall leave to your own discretion, but what is perfectly clear is that he detests unionists. There is no trace of a desire for understanding and tolerance in Feeney’s nationalism. He is of the old fashioned school that views unionism as an illogical aberration born only of stupidity. His rationale seems to be along the lines that if he and his ilk berate unionists for their stupidity for long enough, we will finally see the error of our ways.

Feeney’s latest column is certainly a classic of the genre. He lectures unionists for opposing a Human Rights Bill but his argument boils down to ‘you can’t oppose something with human rights in the title’. Maybe it’s just me. Can someone else read the article and actually find a single point Feeney adduces to support the idea that separate human rights legislation is needed in Northern Ireland? I’d happily address such a point, but damn it I cannot find one!

Instead of actually dealing with the substance of the argument, little Brian then commences a long an incoherent rant against Britain, the United Kingdom as a whole and, of course, the stupidity of unionists. He concludes with the scrupulously offensive contention that the UK is an “imaginary state”.

So my challenge for the day, to anyone who might chose to accept it, is please – read Feeney’s article and summarise any point that Feeney makes for a human rights bill or devolution of policing and justice that cannot be summarised in the phrase “unionists are stupid and shouldn’t oppose these things”. It is absolutely shocking that this man is regarded as an opinion forming columnist.

No comments: