If they act like thugs, and join an organisation devoted to thuggery, safe to say, they're thugs.
‘When Tory politician William Hague referred to loyalists as ‘thugs’, my heart sank’, claims Roy Garland, in his weekly diatribe against ‘English’ Conservatives. ‘No group of people’ should, he contends, be dismissed in such a way. Not even, apparently, groups whose activities conform to the very definition of thuggery.
First, I don’t believe that Garland’s ‘heart sank’ when the Foreign Secretary attacked loyalist paramilitaries. On the contrary, his communal instincts kicked in, ‘he’s having a go at ussuns as well as themmuns, what an opportunity’ (or words to that effect).
Second, his latest article contains a heart rending tale of a nice young man who joined a paramilitary organisation and then began to change it. Indeed it is positively glowing on the topic of loyalist groups and their stout community work in general.
What a load of twaddle! This is the same narrative, told from a different perspective, which we get from Republicans. Fine young men, compelled by extraordinary circumstances to commit dreadful deeds.
Nobody would claim that paramilitaries are irredeemable. They can gain acceptance by leaving paramilitary groups and joining the lawful society which they have previously terrorised. Attitudes like Garland’s just entrench the influence of shadowy groups within the very communities which he purports to care about.
Loyalist thugs have used guns and intimidation to run areas which, rightly or wrongly, felt under siege. William Hague is absolutely right to pledge to oppose them at every opportunity. Roy Garland, in contrast, demonstrates precisely the moral ambivalence to Protestant terrorists which has undermined unionism over a series of decades.
No group of people deserve to be labelled thugs? How about the morons who murdered Kevin McDaid.
First, I don’t believe that Garland’s ‘heart sank’ when the Foreign Secretary attacked loyalist paramilitaries. On the contrary, his communal instincts kicked in, ‘he’s having a go at ussuns as well as themmuns, what an opportunity’ (or words to that effect).
Second, his latest article contains a heart rending tale of a nice young man who joined a paramilitary organisation and then began to change it. Indeed it is positively glowing on the topic of loyalist groups and their stout community work in general.
What a load of twaddle! This is the same narrative, told from a different perspective, which we get from Republicans. Fine young men, compelled by extraordinary circumstances to commit dreadful deeds.
Nobody would claim that paramilitaries are irredeemable. They can gain acceptance by leaving paramilitary groups and joining the lawful society which they have previously terrorised. Attitudes like Garland’s just entrench the influence of shadowy groups within the very communities which he purports to care about.
Loyalist thugs have used guns and intimidation to run areas which, rightly or wrongly, felt under siege. William Hague is absolutely right to pledge to oppose them at every opportunity. Roy Garland, in contrast, demonstrates precisely the moral ambivalence to Protestant terrorists which has undermined unionism over a series of decades.
No group of people deserve to be labelled thugs? How about the morons who murdered Kevin McDaid.
Comments
Thugs remain thugs, no matter whether they are working or not. It must be in their nature.
It just shows what an apalling journalist Garland is. Had he a connection in loyalist groups at some time?
My second point is you use the term "Protestant" terrorists!!!! Come on Chekov! I can almost bet my life on it that these terrorists ARE NOT Protestant, for where does in state in the Bible (the only authority) for Protestants that "thou shall kill"? That terminology is depressing and more offensive that anything I could hear!!
Just my thoughts on it mate.
First - your definition of loyalist is one thing. When William Hague referred to 'so-called loyalist thugs' it was quite clear that he was referring to paramilitaries, rather than working class unionists. Garland has deliberately chosen to obscure the issue. Perhaps 'loyalist' should not carry the connotations which it does, but I'm afraid that, for the vast majority of people, it is freighted with certain associations. Because 'unionist' describes a political belief, it doesn't carry the same connotations. It's unfortunate for people who do want to define themselves as 'loyalist' but don't have paramilitary sympathies, but I'm afraid it has become shorthand for those sympathies. Republican is a term which has become similarly loaded and few of us our particularly precious about using it to describe a militant form of nationalism.
Whether the terrorists to whom I refer are 'bible believing' Protestants are not, they often identify them as such. I use the term because Garland in particular, when he was associating himself with these people, was doing so because he was wedded to a particularly extreme form of Protestantism.
Often things are not black and white, but a shade of grey.
David
The birth of our country was 'grey' and equally so much of our recent history.
David
Please elaborate and I'll answer the question.
David