Sometimes I think I should offer a cash prize to the first person who can offer a single good reason for voting Yes on 2 October. Yesterday we had Fionnan Sheahan trot out the tired old mantra of our vote really being about whether or not we want to be in Europe, not about whether or not we accept a bad treaty. In today's Irish Times, IFA president Padraig Walshe gives three reasons why he is voting yes - none of which have anything to do with the Treaty at all.
"Mr Walshe said one of the reasons for voting Yes was that European membership has given Ireland access to an unrestricted market of over 500 million consumers. "As a food exporter, as a food island .... access to that market is crucial for us."
R-r-right. The common market has been in place for many years now, and how we vote on Lisbon is not going to change our access to it one way or the other. But he continues:
"Also, membership of the euro has kept interest rates low over the past few years, and it has benefited Irish agriculture."
Okaaayyy - but the referendum is not about the euro, it's about the Lisbon Treaty. When is Mr Walshe going to get around to talking about that? Well, never, apparently:
"The future of the Common Agricultural Policy is up for renegotiation in the next couple of years, and we feel it is much more important for us to be involved in the heart of those negotiations, that we can influence what is likely to happen going forward rather than being on the periphery as we might be if we were to vote No."
Nope, nothing about the content of the Treaty here either - just the usual "the other member states will give us the cold shoulder if we say no" speculation. In not one of Mr Walshe's three reasons for voting Yes is a single article or provision of the Lisbon Treaty invoked.
Incidentally, his reasoning on the last point is absolutely fallacious. Involved in the heart of CAP negotiations? What, you mean the negotiations that allow French farmers to receive 25 % of CAP funds, despite constituting less than 10% of the farmers in the EU? And that's despite the fact that France said no to the EU Constitution! Also, Mr Walshe should be aware that Lisbon will slash Ireland's voting weight on the Council of Ministers - not exactly an outcome that will allow us to "influence what is likely to happen."
So I'm still waiting for an argument from the Yes camp that does not consist of either vague speculations about the future or the nostalgic "but Europe has done so much for us!" palaver. And I suspect I'll be waiting for some time ...
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Who are the Scaremongers?
Well, exams have been sat (and, let us hope, passed) and I am now able to give more time to the campaign against the Lisbon Treaty. From now until 2 October, this blog will concern itself with that campaign and not so much with CSP issues.
And the campaign needs all the help it can get. On opening the Irish Independent this morning, I was greeted by the following platitude by Fionnan Sheahan:
"More than a vote on the Lisbon Treaty itself, it is a vote on Ireland's relationship with the Union".
This is utterly typical of the Euro-fanatics. They always go from the specific to the general in their arguments. Point out some grave flaw in an EU Treaty (like, you know, the slashing of Ireland's voting weight in the Council, the creation of a common European policy in areas like immigration and defence, the abolition of our right to appoint our own Commissioner) and they will reply with an impatient wave of the hand. "But you must look at the big picture" they insist. "This isn't about the Treaty, it's about whether or not we want to stay in Europe!"
Listen. We're IN Europe. We were evangelizing Europe some 1,400 years before the EU was ever dreamt of. But since we're talking about the EU: we're in that too. Voting No to Lisbon will not remove us from the EU. It will not remove us from the Common Market. It will not restrict our freedom of movement within the Union. End of story.
What infuriates me most about statements like Sheahan's above is that the Yes side are generally the ones who accuse the No side of "scaremongering", when the reality is the exact opposite. In fact, the Yes side's arguments consist almost entirely of scaremongering: loss of foreign investment, loss of jobs, some vague, unspecified retribution from other EU countries.
Recently a Yes-supporting colleague told me that the No side's arguments were also grounded in prophecies of doom. That may be true, but there is one major difference between us and the Yessers: We ground our arguments in the text of the Treaty, they do not. We know that Lisbon will result in less democracy, more militarisation, ECJ control over our human rights because the Treaty itself says that it will. The Yes side have no authority for their apocalyptic claims. That needs to be pointed out to people at every opportunity.
And the campaign needs all the help it can get. On opening the Irish Independent this morning, I was greeted by the following platitude by Fionnan Sheahan:
"More than a vote on the Lisbon Treaty itself, it is a vote on Ireland's relationship with the Union".
This is utterly typical of the Euro-fanatics. They always go from the specific to the general in their arguments. Point out some grave flaw in an EU Treaty (like, you know, the slashing of Ireland's voting weight in the Council, the creation of a common European policy in areas like immigration and defence, the abolition of our right to appoint our own Commissioner) and they will reply with an impatient wave of the hand. "But you must look at the big picture" they insist. "This isn't about the Treaty, it's about whether or not we want to stay in Europe!"
Listen. We're IN Europe. We were evangelizing Europe some 1,400 years before the EU was ever dreamt of. But since we're talking about the EU: we're in that too. Voting No to Lisbon will not remove us from the EU. It will not remove us from the Common Market. It will not restrict our freedom of movement within the Union. End of story.
What infuriates me most about statements like Sheahan's above is that the Yes side are generally the ones who accuse the No side of "scaremongering", when the reality is the exact opposite. In fact, the Yes side's arguments consist almost entirely of scaremongering: loss of foreign investment, loss of jobs, some vague, unspecified retribution from other EU countries.
Recently a Yes-supporting colleague told me that the No side's arguments were also grounded in prophecies of doom. That may be true, but there is one major difference between us and the Yessers: We ground our arguments in the text of the Treaty, they do not. We know that Lisbon will result in less democracy, more militarisation, ECJ control over our human rights because the Treaty itself says that it will. The Yes side have no authority for their apocalyptic claims. That needs to be pointed out to people at every opportunity.
Friday, April 17, 2009
1916 Commemoration tomorrow
The Christian Solidarity Party will hold its Commemoration of the 1916 Rising tomorrow, Saturday 18 April in the Garden of Remembrance, Parnell Square, Dublin, at 3 p.m. Everyone is welcome to attend!
The parallels between our own day and 1916 are too obvious to need pointing out by me. Now, as then, Irish sovereignty is being restricted; now, as then, Catholics suffer discrimination and Catholic values are trampled underfoot. The northern part of our island is still under foreign rule, and the southern part is ruled by a political class which laughingly tramples on the ideals of 1916 while selling more and more of our sovereignty away to Brussels. It's time to take a stand against this, and that's why we are meeting at the Garden of Remembrance tomorrow. Join us there!
The parallels between our own day and 1916 are too obvious to need pointing out by me. Now, as then, Irish sovereignty is being restricted; now, as then, Catholics suffer discrimination and Catholic values are trampled underfoot. The northern part of our island is still under foreign rule, and the southern part is ruled by a political class which laughingly tramples on the ideals of 1916 while selling more and more of our sovereignty away to Brussels. It's time to take a stand against this, and that's why we are meeting at the Garden of Remembrance tomorrow. Join us there!
Monday, April 13, 2009
I can't agree with Thought and Action on this
As most of you will know by know, last Thursday Prof Len Doyle, a proponent of euthanasia, was to give a lecture at UCC. The lecture was cancelled after protests from outside and inside the lecture hall.
The Thought and Action blog is pleased about this. "Euthanasia like abortion is not a matter for debate," it proclaims. But I can't help looking back on my own undergraduate days, and remember how furious I was whenever the leftists succeeded in getting a debate or lecture cancelled because a speaker was unacceptable to them. A debate involving the historian David Irving was cancelled after a naked threat of violence by the Socialist W**kers Student Society. When Joerg Haider attended a debate, leftists stood outside the window screaming and banging drums for two hours. Justin Barret was practically assaulted during a debate on immigration.
On each of these occasions, I was engraged at the arrogance of the protestors. Not just because of their contempt for Irving's or Haider's right to freedom of speech, but also because of their contempt for my freedom. Who the hell gave them the right to dictate who I could and could not go to hear on campus? And moreover - what were they afraid of? Why couldn't they just meet their opponents in rational and open argument? Could it be, perhaps, that they were afraid their opponents might just have the better arguments?
Imagine the situation: you're a student, on campus one evening. It's spring, exams are near, and you've had a long day. Hoping to unwind, you attend a debate being hosted by one of the societies on a topical issue, and featuring a controversial speaker. Maybe you agree with the speaker, more likely you don't, but you want to hear what he has to say anyway. You go inside the debating chamber. It's crowded, hot and stuffy. You think longingly of the pub, but reckon that since you're here now you might as well stay. Then, just as the debate begins, someone stands up and starts shouting. A few more join in. Pandemonium, scuffling, and then it is announced that the debate is being cancelled because a minority refuse to let it take place peacefully. You get up, trudge out of the hall wearily and go home. My question is: how are you going to feel towards the protestors? Are you going to think "My goodness, what fine fellows they were to prevent the debate from happening and make me waste my evening. They're definitely getting my vote at the next election!" Or will your thoughts be rather less friendly?
That, I am convinced, is one reason why the Socialist W**kers Party has never had any electoral success, despite its energetic campaigns, strong presence on university campuses and popular stances on some issues. People see its totalitarian undercurrent, and so hold back from giving it their support. Why would you vote for a party that doesn't trust you to make up your own mind about what debates to attend at university?
Preventing a debate or lecture by violent means is counter-productive. It turns every person in the room who is not already sold to your cause against you. It makes people wonder what you are afraid of. It makes them look up the censored speaker on the internet. Far more Irish people know the name Len Doyle now than would have known it if Thursday's disruption had not happened. Far more people have surely visited his website, if he has one. Many of these could well end up buying into what he has to say. Protesting against euthanasia is one thing. Trampling on people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembley is quite another.
Also: if we want to win ordinary people over, we will need arguments. If our colleagues, friends, children ask us why we are against euthanasia, it will not do us much good to shout "Euthanasia is not a matter for debate!" and storm off. We will need arguments, and by disrupting Prof Doyle's lecture, the protestors denied many people the opportunity to hear those arguments, or ensured that they will be hostile if they do hear them.
Let me be clear. I am a conservative. I do not believe that there is an unconditional right to say whatever we want. In an ideal world, promoting evil causes like euthanasia should be forbidden. But we do not live in that ideal world. We live in a democracy, where arguments are won and lost by debate and not by intimidation. And this democracy is full of people who would be happy to censor traditional Catholics. So we should be very, very careful about stooping to our enemies' level. If we claim the right to freedom of speech for ourselves, we should offer it to them too.
The Thought and Action blog is pleased about this. "Euthanasia like abortion is not a matter for debate," it proclaims. But I can't help looking back on my own undergraduate days, and remember how furious I was whenever the leftists succeeded in getting a debate or lecture cancelled because a speaker was unacceptable to them. A debate involving the historian David Irving was cancelled after a naked threat of violence by the Socialist W**kers Student Society. When Joerg Haider attended a debate, leftists stood outside the window screaming and banging drums for two hours. Justin Barret was practically assaulted during a debate on immigration.
On each of these occasions, I was engraged at the arrogance of the protestors. Not just because of their contempt for Irving's or Haider's right to freedom of speech, but also because of their contempt for my freedom. Who the hell gave them the right to dictate who I could and could not go to hear on campus? And moreover - what were they afraid of? Why couldn't they just meet their opponents in rational and open argument? Could it be, perhaps, that they were afraid their opponents might just have the better arguments?
Imagine the situation: you're a student, on campus one evening. It's spring, exams are near, and you've had a long day. Hoping to unwind, you attend a debate being hosted by one of the societies on a topical issue, and featuring a controversial speaker. Maybe you agree with the speaker, more likely you don't, but you want to hear what he has to say anyway. You go inside the debating chamber. It's crowded, hot and stuffy. You think longingly of the pub, but reckon that since you're here now you might as well stay. Then, just as the debate begins, someone stands up and starts shouting. A few more join in. Pandemonium, scuffling, and then it is announced that the debate is being cancelled because a minority refuse to let it take place peacefully. You get up, trudge out of the hall wearily and go home. My question is: how are you going to feel towards the protestors? Are you going to think "My goodness, what fine fellows they were to prevent the debate from happening and make me waste my evening. They're definitely getting my vote at the next election!" Or will your thoughts be rather less friendly?
That, I am convinced, is one reason why the Socialist W**kers Party has never had any electoral success, despite its energetic campaigns, strong presence on university campuses and popular stances on some issues. People see its totalitarian undercurrent, and so hold back from giving it their support. Why would you vote for a party that doesn't trust you to make up your own mind about what debates to attend at university?
Preventing a debate or lecture by violent means is counter-productive. It turns every person in the room who is not already sold to your cause against you. It makes people wonder what you are afraid of. It makes them look up the censored speaker on the internet. Far more Irish people know the name Len Doyle now than would have known it if Thursday's disruption had not happened. Far more people have surely visited his website, if he has one. Many of these could well end up buying into what he has to say. Protesting against euthanasia is one thing. Trampling on people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembley is quite another.
Also: if we want to win ordinary people over, we will need arguments. If our colleagues, friends, children ask us why we are against euthanasia, it will not do us much good to shout "Euthanasia is not a matter for debate!" and storm off. We will need arguments, and by disrupting Prof Doyle's lecture, the protestors denied many people the opportunity to hear those arguments, or ensured that they will be hostile if they do hear them.
Let me be clear. I am a conservative. I do not believe that there is an unconditional right to say whatever we want. In an ideal world, promoting evil causes like euthanasia should be forbidden. But we do not live in that ideal world. We live in a democracy, where arguments are won and lost by debate and not by intimidation. And this democracy is full of people who would be happy to censor traditional Catholics. So we should be very, very careful about stooping to our enemies' level. If we claim the right to freedom of speech for ourselves, we should offer it to them too.
Monday, April 6, 2009
The things I do for the Latin Mass!
It's well-known that traditional Catholics often have to go to great lengths to get to a traditional Latin Mass on Sundays. When I lived in Bayreuth, the nearest TLM was in Bamberg, 30 miles away (thanks to Summorum Pontificum, that's no longer the case). The train journey there and back cost €19 and took up a good chunk of my Sunday. I know trads who make really heroic sacrifices to get to a TLM.
But even when a TLM is in your own city, getting there can sometimes be a costly business. So it was with me yesterday. I had got up a bit late, as I had a ferocious hangover (some readers of this blog know why!). I left the house and struggled to the Luas stop, just in time to see the tram leaving. The next one wouldn't come for 10 minutes. That would get me in around the time of the Gospel - a bit too late for comfort. So I took a taxi.
The taxi cost €14, but since I had spent - well, okay, wasted - a lot more than that on booze,taxis and food the night before, it didn't seem like such a huge amount. I made it to Mass on time, and afterwards had a nice cup of tea with friends. Then it was on to the Christian Solidarity Party office for an afternoon meeting, and then I had to head home - relatives were coming over.
I have no explanation for what happened next. Maybe I'm losing it, or maybe I was just too tired after my long night. Basically: as I plodded towards the Luas, I assumed I had a return ticket in my pocket. I normally buy a return ticket every day when I'm going into town. I completely forgot that I had taken a taxi into town and so had no return ticket. You can see where this is going.
I got on the Luas, sat down, it started to roll. And as we pulled in to the Harcourt Street stop, I saw a group of orange-clad inspectors waiting to get on. A young mother beside me said to her toddler son "Oh, look - inspectors! Better get your ticket ready!" I reached into my breast pocket and found ... no ticket. What was this? Where had my ticket gone? I thought about it for a second, and then remembered ... of course. The taxi. I had no ticket.
I leapt out of my seat just before the doors opened. There was a golden moment when they did open, just before the inspectors got on. At that moment I could have bolted. I was respectably dressed in a suit and tie, no one would have suspected that I was fleeing the inspectors. But some perverse instinct, or fear of dishonour, made me stay where I was. The inspector got on, and mustering as much dignity as I could, I said to him: "I'm sorry, I've no ticket. I thought I had a return ticket, but actually I haven't."
With an exceedingly bored air, he got out his notebook, took my details and handed me a €45 fine. "Mammy, what's that man doing?" inquired the toddler.
"He's just taking notes, pet" came the reply.
I stayed on the tram until it reached my stop, and trudged up the hill towards my house. Making the 10:30 Mass had proved more expensive than usual. In future I'll try to go to bed earlier on Saturdays - or at any rate get up earlier.
But even when a TLM is in your own city, getting there can sometimes be a costly business. So it was with me yesterday. I had got up a bit late, as I had a ferocious hangover (some readers of this blog know why!). I left the house and struggled to the Luas stop, just in time to see the tram leaving. The next one wouldn't come for 10 minutes. That would get me in around the time of the Gospel - a bit too late for comfort. So I took a taxi.
The taxi cost €14, but since I had spent - well, okay, wasted - a lot more than that on booze,taxis and food the night before, it didn't seem like such a huge amount. I made it to Mass on time, and afterwards had a nice cup of tea with friends. Then it was on to the Christian Solidarity Party office for an afternoon meeting, and then I had to head home - relatives were coming over.
I have no explanation for what happened next. Maybe I'm losing it, or maybe I was just too tired after my long night. Basically: as I plodded towards the Luas, I assumed I had a return ticket in my pocket. I normally buy a return ticket every day when I'm going into town. I completely forgot that I had taken a taxi into town and so had no return ticket. You can see where this is going.
I got on the Luas, sat down, it started to roll. And as we pulled in to the Harcourt Street stop, I saw a group of orange-clad inspectors waiting to get on. A young mother beside me said to her toddler son "Oh, look - inspectors! Better get your ticket ready!" I reached into my breast pocket and found ... no ticket. What was this? Where had my ticket gone? I thought about it for a second, and then remembered ... of course. The taxi. I had no ticket.
I leapt out of my seat just before the doors opened. There was a golden moment when they did open, just before the inspectors got on. At that moment I could have bolted. I was respectably dressed in a suit and tie, no one would have suspected that I was fleeing the inspectors. But some perverse instinct, or fear of dishonour, made me stay where I was. The inspector got on, and mustering as much dignity as I could, I said to him: "I'm sorry, I've no ticket. I thought I had a return ticket, but actually I haven't."
With an exceedingly bored air, he got out his notebook, took my details and handed me a €45 fine. "Mammy, what's that man doing?" inquired the toddler.
"He's just taking notes, pet" came the reply.
I stayed on the tram until it reached my stop, and trudged up the hill towards my house. Making the 10:30 Mass had proved more expensive than usual. In future I'll try to go to bed earlier on Saturdays - or at any rate get up earlier.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Continental journalists should get their geography right
Radio France Internationale reports on the peace vigils taking place in the north. The reporter seems to think that the Real IRA (which in French bears the oddly attractive name l'IRA-Véritable) and the Continuity IRA are the same thing. He interviews a "young Catholic" woman who says she's on the march because she's part of "the new Northern Ireland." Well, if thats what she wants to call the six counties ... But the biggest howler lies in the name of the country that all of this is supposedly taking place in. According to the article, it's le Royaume-Uni.
Looks like the movement for Irish unity still has quite a bit of work to do in hearts and minds. Let's be at the forefront of it.
In other news, the site reports that in Iraq, Tariq Aziz has been sentenced to 15 years in prison along with "Chemical Ali" - "meme si jamais aucun témoignage n'a pu établir sa responsabilité directe dans ces crimes." The former foreign minister is, as you may know, a Catholic. How that fact ties in with the neocon myth that the invasion of Iraq was part of some glorious campaign against militant Islam is unclear. Especially since Saudi Arabia, which ruthlessly persecutes Christians and which I once heard a pious Iranian student describe as "a hell country", remains a cosseted US ally.
Looks like the movement for Irish unity still has quite a bit of work to do in hearts and minds. Let's be at the forefront of it.
In other news, the site reports that in Iraq, Tariq Aziz has been sentenced to 15 years in prison along with "Chemical Ali" - "meme si jamais aucun témoignage n'a pu établir sa responsabilité directe dans ces crimes." The former foreign minister is, as you may know, a Catholic. How that fact ties in with the neocon myth that the invasion of Iraq was part of some glorious campaign against militant Islam is unclear. Especially since Saudi Arabia, which ruthlessly persecutes Christians and which I once heard a pious Iranian student describe as "a hell country", remains a cosseted US ally.
Battrmaio?
The other day I was in a newsagents, browsing the newspaper rack, when a man approached the sandwich bar and asked for a roll.
"D'you want butter or mayo?" asked the Irish girl behind the counter.
"Eh, mayo please" replied the man.
My brow furrowed. Mayo? Have we always called it that?
Let me explain.
As many of my readers know, I used to live in Germany. The German word for mayonnaise is simply Mayonnaise, but everyone in Germany calls it Mayo (rhymes with "bio"). I presume Poles call it mayo too. I don't know, it's just a hunch. (Those two countries have quite a bit in common in many areas of their culture, including food. The German word for plate is Teller, in Polish it's talerz.)
So when I got back from Germany in 2007, I often heard Polish staff in delicatessens say "Battrmaio?" when someone ordered a sandwich. I assumed it was just their way of asking "Butter or mayonnaise?" and that they didn't realise that Irish people said mayonnaise, not mayo.
But this girl at the sandwich bar the other day was definitely Irish, and so was her customer. Yet they both said "mayo". Is this a Polish import? Have we had so many Polish sandwich bar staff over the past few years that we've picked up the infectious "mayo" from them? Or have Irish people always called it mayo as well as mayonnaise? I could swear I'd only ever heard it called mayonnaise before, but I could be wrong.
So have the Poles changed the way we speak English, or had I just not been listening properly all those years? Answers below please!
"D'you want butter or mayo?" asked the Irish girl behind the counter.
"Eh, mayo please" replied the man.
My brow furrowed. Mayo? Have we always called it that?
Let me explain.
As many of my readers know, I used to live in Germany. The German word for mayonnaise is simply Mayonnaise, but everyone in Germany calls it Mayo (rhymes with "bio"). I presume Poles call it mayo too. I don't know, it's just a hunch. (Those two countries have quite a bit in common in many areas of their culture, including food. The German word for plate is Teller, in Polish it's talerz.)
So when I got back from Germany in 2007, I often heard Polish staff in delicatessens say "Battrmaio?" when someone ordered a sandwich. I assumed it was just their way of asking "Butter or mayonnaise?" and that they didn't realise that Irish people said mayonnaise, not mayo.
But this girl at the sandwich bar the other day was definitely Irish, and so was her customer. Yet they both said "mayo". Is this a Polish import? Have we had so many Polish sandwich bar staff over the past few years that we've picked up the infectious "mayo" from them? Or have Irish people always called it mayo as well as mayonnaise? I could swear I'd only ever heard it called mayonnaise before, but I could be wrong.
So have the Poles changed the way we speak English, or had I just not been listening properly all those years? Answers below please!
Monday, March 9, 2009
Imaginary conversation with well-informed foreign friend
Friend: I've just been looking at the homepage of your ... what do you call him? Your Taoiseach. I wonder if you can help me, there's some stuff there I don't quite understand ....
Me: You're not the only one.
Friend: He made a statement on the killings of the two British soldiers in Antrim at the weekend, and it says he conveys his sympathy to the British Prime Minister. He also expresses the hope that those responsible will be brought to justice.
Me: Well, yes. The killings were pretty brutal, and have been condemned by all the major parties, north and south.
Friend: Yes, but when Gerry Adams condemned them, he added that he was nevertheless opposed to any British soldier's being in Ireland. He coupled his opposition to the killings with his firm hope of one day seeing Ireland free from occupation by a foreign power. But there was no such view expressed in Brian Cowen's statement.
Me: Should there have been?
Friend: I think so. You're Taoiseach calls himself a nationalist, doesn't he?
Me: Well, yes, but ...
Friend: ... He leads the political heirs of the anti-Treatyites of 1922, doesn't he?
Me: You have to make a disti-
Friend: ... He adorns his office with a portrait of a man who took up armed resistance against Britain and declared that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace", does he not?
Me: You can't take that too seriou-
Friend: ... He will in a matter of weeks take part in a state commemoration of the 1916 Rising, whose declaration called for the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the full and unfettered control of Irish destinies, won't he?
Me: Look, you have to understand that this is just political window-dressing. It doesn't really affect the way he exercises his political office. Commemorating events that happened 90 years ago is one thing, practicing Realpolitik today is something else.
Friend: Okay, look at it this way: does your Taoiseach see the Six Counties as part of Ireland, or part of Britain?
Me: As part of Ireland, I would hope.
Friend: So what business do British soldiers have there?
Me: None.
Friend: So they're a foreign occupying force?
Me: Well, the Taoiseach would probably see the occupation as a regrettable and temporary state of affairs, to be one day replaced by a united Ireland - but one to be brought about by peaceful means. It's not like he's in favour of British soldiers being there, but he tolerates it for the moment.
Friend: But why does he not say this? Why is he sending messages of sympathy to Gordon Brown and expressing the hope that Irish republicans will soon be hauled before the Queen's courts, but not giving the slightest indication that he wants Britain's occupation of the six counties to end, that every last British soldier should leave Ireland's shores, that Ireland should be re-united? Is he a nationalist or not?
Me: He is a nationalist, but -
Friend: - but he just doesn't let that influence the way he actually does politics.
Me: Not really, no. That's diplomacy.
Friend: In my country we call that hypocrisy, not diplomacy. How depressing. Tell me, is there any party in Ireland, apart from Sinn Féin and its more radical offshoots, that opposes Britain's occupation of the six counties? That calls in its manifesto for Britain to leave?
Me: Yes, as a matter of fact there is. The Christian Solidarity Party calls for a withdrawal of Britain from the north of Ireland in its 1997 manifesto. And that is still our position today.
Friend: Well, that's good to know. Hey, I hope you didn't invent this conversation just for a bit of publicity for your party, did you?
Me: No, not at all. But I want to stress for my readers that we are a genuinely nationalist party.
Friend: Hmmm, it sounds to me like you did -
Me: Begone!
Friend: (vanishes in a puff of smoke)
Me: You're not the only one.
Friend: He made a statement on the killings of the two British soldiers in Antrim at the weekend, and it says he conveys his sympathy to the British Prime Minister. He also expresses the hope that those responsible will be brought to justice.
Me: Well, yes. The killings were pretty brutal, and have been condemned by all the major parties, north and south.
Friend: Yes, but when Gerry Adams condemned them, he added that he was nevertheless opposed to any British soldier's being in Ireland. He coupled his opposition to the killings with his firm hope of one day seeing Ireland free from occupation by a foreign power. But there was no such view expressed in Brian Cowen's statement.
Me: Should there have been?
Friend: I think so. You're Taoiseach calls himself a nationalist, doesn't he?
Me: Well, yes, but ...
Friend: ... He leads the political heirs of the anti-Treatyites of 1922, doesn't he?
Me: You have to make a disti-
Friend: ... He adorns his office with a portrait of a man who took up armed resistance against Britain and declared that "Ireland unfree shall never be at peace", does he not?
Me: You can't take that too seriou-
Friend: ... He will in a matter of weeks take part in a state commemoration of the 1916 Rising, whose declaration called for the right of the people of Ireland to the ownership of Ireland, and to the full and unfettered control of Irish destinies, won't he?
Me: Look, you have to understand that this is just political window-dressing. It doesn't really affect the way he exercises his political office. Commemorating events that happened 90 years ago is one thing, practicing Realpolitik today is something else.
Friend: Okay, look at it this way: does your Taoiseach see the Six Counties as part of Ireland, or part of Britain?
Me: As part of Ireland, I would hope.
Friend: So what business do British soldiers have there?
Me: None.
Friend: So they're a foreign occupying force?
Me: Well, the Taoiseach would probably see the occupation as a regrettable and temporary state of affairs, to be one day replaced by a united Ireland - but one to be brought about by peaceful means. It's not like he's in favour of British soldiers being there, but he tolerates it for the moment.
Friend: But why does he not say this? Why is he sending messages of sympathy to Gordon Brown and expressing the hope that Irish republicans will soon be hauled before the Queen's courts, but not giving the slightest indication that he wants Britain's occupation of the six counties to end, that every last British soldier should leave Ireland's shores, that Ireland should be re-united? Is he a nationalist or not?
Me: He is a nationalist, but -
Friend: - but he just doesn't let that influence the way he actually does politics.
Me: Not really, no. That's diplomacy.
Friend: In my country we call that hypocrisy, not diplomacy. How depressing. Tell me, is there any party in Ireland, apart from Sinn Féin and its more radical offshoots, that opposes Britain's occupation of the six counties? That calls in its manifesto for Britain to leave?
Me: Yes, as a matter of fact there is. The Christian Solidarity Party calls for a withdrawal of Britain from the north of Ireland in its 1997 manifesto. And that is still our position today.
Friend: Well, that's good to know. Hey, I hope you didn't invent this conversation just for a bit of publicity for your party, did you?
Me: No, not at all. But I want to stress for my readers that we are a genuinely nationalist party.
Friend: Hmmm, it sounds to me like you did -
Me: Begone!
Friend: (vanishes in a puff of smoke)
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Labour in favour of discrimination
That is to say, Labour are demanding that candidates for political office be chosen not merely on the basis of merit, but also on the basis of their sex. Parties that do not ensure that at least 20% of their candidates are women are to lose their state funding, if Mr Gilmore has his way; after seven years the quota is to rise to 33%, after another seven years to 40%.
We are all familiar with angry newspaper articles decrying the fact that women are less represented in politics than men. But such pieces seldom state explicitly why this is so. The vague impression is given that it must be down to an attempt on the part of men - whether party members, or voters, or both - to exclude women from the political arena. But does anyone seriously believe this? Do we really think that male voters sit there saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, "I won't be voting for her - she's a woman!"? If anything, being female - especially an attractive female - might be something of an advantage for a politician. I specifically remember voting for a particular female candidate at a College election for no other reason than that she was better looking than her rivals. (I think the post was Welfare Officer. She didn't make it, alas.)
I can think of two possible explanations for "female underepresentation" in politics, and neither has to do with the attitudes of men, but of women themselves.
First, there is the plain fact that a great many women simply are not interested in politics. Many are, of course, and the Christian Solidarity Party is fortunate to have some very committed women in its ranks. But the fact remains that women are often impatient with the abstract theorizing and waffle that politics involves. I think it is telling that the gender balance, if we must use that term, is far more even in "issue politics" than in party politics. Women have no problem coming out in large numbers in favour of the right to life or against the slaughter in Gaza, but party politics, with its endless backslapping, compromises and U-turns, holds far less attraction for them.
Feminists will hold that this lack of interest in party politics in women is culturally conditioned; women grow up in a world where they are told that "women aren't supposed to be interested in politics" and therefore they convince themselves that they are not. But as with many other aspects of gender theory, the absurdity of this can soon be seen in the cold light of day. I know women from highly conservative backgrounds who are interested in politics, and I likewise know women from extremely liberal, enlightened backgrounds whose eyes glaze over whenever the P-word is mentioned.
The other reason is the reason comparitively few women rise to the top of the corporate world; because their nurturing instincts often lead them to interrupt their careers in order to have and raise children. And it seems to me that this is a quality we should encourage, rather than racing to get rid of it like the Labour Party.
I can think of a few female readers, conservative as well as liberal, who might find what I have written here insulting and pompous. I would like to assure them that I really have no problem with women in politics. I would support a superior female candidate over an inferior male one without the slightest, the slightest hesitation. But I think that the reasons for women's lower representation in party politics are the ones I have given here, and not any nefarious sexist conspiracy on the part of party establishments or voters.
We are all familiar with angry newspaper articles decrying the fact that women are less represented in politics than men. But such pieces seldom state explicitly why this is so. The vague impression is given that it must be down to an attempt on the part of men - whether party members, or voters, or both - to exclude women from the political arena. But does anyone seriously believe this? Do we really think that male voters sit there saying to themselves, consciously or unconsciously, "I won't be voting for her - she's a woman!"? If anything, being female - especially an attractive female - might be something of an advantage for a politician. I specifically remember voting for a particular female candidate at a College election for no other reason than that she was better looking than her rivals. (I think the post was Welfare Officer. She didn't make it, alas.)
I can think of two possible explanations for "female underepresentation" in politics, and neither has to do with the attitudes of men, but of women themselves.
First, there is the plain fact that a great many women simply are not interested in politics. Many are, of course, and the Christian Solidarity Party is fortunate to have some very committed women in its ranks. But the fact remains that women are often impatient with the abstract theorizing and waffle that politics involves. I think it is telling that the gender balance, if we must use that term, is far more even in "issue politics" than in party politics. Women have no problem coming out in large numbers in favour of the right to life or against the slaughter in Gaza, but party politics, with its endless backslapping, compromises and U-turns, holds far less attraction for them.
Feminists will hold that this lack of interest in party politics in women is culturally conditioned; women grow up in a world where they are told that "women aren't supposed to be interested in politics" and therefore they convince themselves that they are not. But as with many other aspects of gender theory, the absurdity of this can soon be seen in the cold light of day. I know women from highly conservative backgrounds who are interested in politics, and I likewise know women from extremely liberal, enlightened backgrounds whose eyes glaze over whenever the P-word is mentioned.
The other reason is the reason comparitively few women rise to the top of the corporate world; because their nurturing instincts often lead them to interrupt their careers in order to have and raise children. And it seems to me that this is a quality we should encourage, rather than racing to get rid of it like the Labour Party.
I can think of a few female readers, conservative as well as liberal, who might find what I have written here insulting and pompous. I would like to assure them that I really have no problem with women in politics. I would support a superior female candidate over an inferior male one without the slightest, the slightest hesitation. But I think that the reasons for women's lower representation in party politics are the ones I have given here, and not any nefarious sexist conspiracy on the part of party establishments or voters.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Shocking video shows barbarous assault on reporter who was peacefully going about his business making a nuisance of himself
naturally, within a short time this had become "Bishop Williamson shoved a reporter". But of course. If you pester an elderly man around a crowded airport, despite his clearly expressed wish not to talk to you, and then find yourself elbowed lightly so that you bang into a pole, what other explanation can there possibly be but that the wicked old traditionalist assaulted you?
I hope His Excellency finds a quiet haven where he can take a breather from these pernicious locusts, be it in England or the US or wherever he ends up. The liberals have used him as a convenient hammer with which to beat traditional Catholics, but in the way of these things, the hysteria hasn't lasted, despite the best efforts of the ADL and others. The fruits of the Pope's decision to lift the excommunications - reconciliation between the SSPX and the rest of the Church - will hopefully be with us much longer.
He's right
"[They] are entitled to a little guarded satisfaction. Guarded satisfaction, though, isn't their style."
- Daniel Hannan on the eurocrats, 13 January
"This was a huge historic step that put an end to the division of Europe, helped consolidate democracy and brought economic benefits for all EU countries."
- EU Economic Affairs Commissioner Joaquin Almunia on five years of EU enlargement, quoted in yesterday's Irish Times.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Generation gap
It's been a day of protest in Dublin, with reports of 100, 000 to 120, 000 taking to the streets over the cuts in public sector pay. The Christian Solidarity Party handed out our leaflet condemning cuts in vital areas, and instead calling for cuts in areas like pointless government trips abroad, outside the Divine Word conference.
When you hear the word "demo" you usually think of idealistic students with Arafat scarves and five o'clock shadow. But both my parents are civil servants, and this morning I had the surreal experience of hearing these two respectable, middle-aged people call "We're off to the demo now. There's some soup in the fridge if you want to heat it up."
Strange times!
When you hear the word "demo" you usually think of idealistic students with Arafat scarves and five o'clock shadow. But both my parents are civil servants, and this morning I had the surreal experience of hearing these two respectable, middle-aged people call "We're off to the demo now. There's some soup in the fridge if you want to heat it up."
Strange times!
The Taliban have landed in Ireland!
As far back as 1946, George Orwell remarked that the word "Fascism" had lost its original meaning and had become simply a label for "something not desirable." That is far more true now than it was then. The same has happened with the word "racism", with many of our friends on the Left using that brush to tar all manner of opinions and positions, not merely the (nowadays fairly uncommon) belief that one particular people is biologically superior to others. When polemicists want to brand something they dislike, they choose an inflammatory word, something universally hated and feared, something that will get decent people's blood up.
Only a few days ago the Cornell Society for a Good Time were compared to the Taliban by a reader. Today, I opened the Irish Daily Mail and found, over the familiar faces of Íde Nic Mhathúna and Eoghan de Faoite, the headline The Catholic Taliban.
Seeing that, I had just the tiniest inkling of a suspicion that someone in the Mail is not very fond of Youth Defence.
In fact, the article, by Brian Carroll, is not anything like as bad as that unbelievably silly headline would suggest. The upshot is that Youth Defence have been given a new lease of life by the UCC stem cell controversy, and that with Íde at the helm they have been mounting a vigorous poster and leafleting campaign in Munster. Íde is referred to as "the prodigal daughter" (has she been squandering her parents' money abroad or something? The article doesn't say) who apparently wants to "eclipse" the rest of her family in pro-life activism. Along the way, the article gives us some interesting facts. Referring to Tuesday's debate in UCC with Dr David Prentice and Wesley Smith, we are told that
"Youth Defence did invite Dr Deirdre Madden, the college board member who proposed the ESCR in the first place to debate with Prentice and Smith, but she declined. As such it became more of a rally than a debate."
Well, if your opponent refuses to debate with you, that's hardly your fault, is it? Given that Dr Madden was invited to the event (a courtesy rarely extended to Youth Defence by its pro-abortion opponents), and given the gravity of the issue as well as the depth of her involvement in it, I am astonished that she declined. It doesn't exactly fill you with confidence in the pro-ESCR lobby!
There are other little negative digs in the article. Youth Defence are "swamping" Munster with posters, their literature is "graphic and gut-wrenching". (Well, some of us would reply, abortion is a gut-wrenching thing.) Eoghan de Faoite, whom I have only ever known as a friendly, phlegmatic and good-humoured fellow, is called "a divisive figure". "[T]here are some conservatives who feel he and Youth Defence blur the message with their controversial campaigns." Who are these "conservatives"? What "message" are Youth Defence "blurring"? We are not told.
The article tries to conjure up the spectre of finances by telling us, in a meaningful tone, that "Youth Defence, in common with several pro-life organisations in Ireland, is very well-funded." That just might have something to do with the fact that most Irish people are, you know, pro-life.
Niamh Uí Bhriain is mentioned as being involved with Cóir, "a group accused by the Government of spreading "malicious lies" during the Lisbon Treaty Campaign about Europe forcing abortion, prostitution and euthanasia on Ireland." Anyone who took the trouble to read Cóir's literature could see quite plainly that its main argument against Lisbon was the issue of national sovereignty. It didn't make a big deal of the possible threat to morality if the Treaty was carried. Appearing on Questions and Answers shortly before the referendum, Niamh very eloquently stated that her main wish was that the Irish people, whatever their views on abortion, should be the ones deciding what the law in that area was to be - not the eurocrats.
For all that, the article is nothing like as mean-spirited as its headline (presumably not written by Mr Carroll) would have you believe. All it really tells you is that YD are a dynamic, determined group of people, that they mean business in the fight for the unborn, and that their opponents are running scared. Oh, and it also mentions that YD are asking supporters to contribute as little as €10 a month to their campaign. Why, thank you for the tip, Mr Carroll - since I've started a job these past two weeks, I am in a position to do just that. Hopefully my readers are too.
Only a few days ago the Cornell Society for a Good Time were compared to the Taliban by a reader. Today, I opened the Irish Daily Mail and found, over the familiar faces of Íde Nic Mhathúna and Eoghan de Faoite, the headline The Catholic Taliban.
Seeing that, I had just the tiniest inkling of a suspicion that someone in the Mail is not very fond of Youth Defence.
In fact, the article, by Brian Carroll, is not anything like as bad as that unbelievably silly headline would suggest. The upshot is that Youth Defence have been given a new lease of life by the UCC stem cell controversy, and that with Íde at the helm they have been mounting a vigorous poster and leafleting campaign in Munster. Íde is referred to as "the prodigal daughter" (has she been squandering her parents' money abroad or something? The article doesn't say) who apparently wants to "eclipse" the rest of her family in pro-life activism. Along the way, the article gives us some interesting facts. Referring to Tuesday's debate in UCC with Dr David Prentice and Wesley Smith, we are told that
"Youth Defence did invite Dr Deirdre Madden, the college board member who proposed the ESCR in the first place to debate with Prentice and Smith, but she declined. As such it became more of a rally than a debate."
Well, if your opponent refuses to debate with you, that's hardly your fault, is it? Given that Dr Madden was invited to the event (a courtesy rarely extended to Youth Defence by its pro-abortion opponents), and given the gravity of the issue as well as the depth of her involvement in it, I am astonished that she declined. It doesn't exactly fill you with confidence in the pro-ESCR lobby!
There are other little negative digs in the article. Youth Defence are "swamping" Munster with posters, their literature is "graphic and gut-wrenching". (Well, some of us would reply, abortion is a gut-wrenching thing.) Eoghan de Faoite, whom I have only ever known as a friendly, phlegmatic and good-humoured fellow, is called "a divisive figure". "[T]here are some conservatives who feel he and Youth Defence blur the message with their controversial campaigns." Who are these "conservatives"? What "message" are Youth Defence "blurring"? We are not told.
The article tries to conjure up the spectre of finances by telling us, in a meaningful tone, that "Youth Defence, in common with several pro-life organisations in Ireland, is very well-funded." That just might have something to do with the fact that most Irish people are, you know, pro-life.
Niamh Uí Bhriain is mentioned as being involved with Cóir, "a group accused by the Government of spreading "malicious lies" during the Lisbon Treaty Campaign about Europe forcing abortion, prostitution and euthanasia on Ireland." Anyone who took the trouble to read Cóir's literature could see quite plainly that its main argument against Lisbon was the issue of national sovereignty. It didn't make a big deal of the possible threat to morality if the Treaty was carried. Appearing on Questions and Answers shortly before the referendum, Niamh very eloquently stated that her main wish was that the Irish people, whatever their views on abortion, should be the ones deciding what the law in that area was to be - not the eurocrats.
For all that, the article is nothing like as mean-spirited as its headline (presumably not written by Mr Carroll) would have you believe. All it really tells you is that YD are a dynamic, determined group of people, that they mean business in the fight for the unborn, and that their opponents are running scared. Oh, and it also mentions that YD are asking supporters to contribute as little as €10 a month to their campaign. Why, thank you for the tip, Mr Carroll - since I've started a job these past two weeks, I am in a position to do just that. Hopefully my readers are too.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
If you're in Dublin tonight ...
This evening ethics expert Wesley Smith and stem cell expert Dr David Prentice will be delivering some home truths about embryonic stem cell research. Wynn's Hotel, 7:30 p.m. The staff at the YD office have been tireless in promoting the event, and it comes at a crucial moment in the debate about stem cell research in this country, so please go if you can.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Overheard in ... an internet café
Party Soldier is back in the blogosphere, after ten days or so devoted to more mundane matters, like putting food on the table. A major change in one's life - like starting a new job - has a way of making the world's problems seem somewhat less threatening. The world will limp along another day, you think, without my posting an article on this Irish Times editorial or that idiotic comment by the German Bishops' Conference.
However, the new day job having been successfully begun (and, so far, kept), I decided to return to the battlefield. This evening I seated myself in an internet café, feeling like I could take on all the bogeys of the web. Then someone else sat down beside me, and I heard a rustling noise that I knew only too well. Knew and dreaded.
I don't know why it is that when people sitting near me in public places are eating something, that something always has to be crisps. Crisps are the most irritating and most useless food imaginable. They make noise when their packet is being handled, and they make noise when they're being eaten. They smell strongly. They leave your fingertips all salty. They can make you hyperactive. And they don't even make you full. There's nothing to them. Bite into them (annoying everyone within a ten yard radius in the process) chew once or twice, and they're gone. You're left feeling just as hungry as before.
And yet all over the place - in internet cafés, on the Luas, on the bus, on trains, in the cinema, in the library, in the lecture theatre - people have to dig into these pointless things. As did the young man sitting near me on this occasion. I soon noticed, to my dismay, that he was a "relisher". That is, he didn't gobble the things all down at once, which would at least have brought a swift end to the torture, but ate them lingeringly, lovingly, over a long stretch of time. Every few minutes, in would go the hand, rustle rustle, crunch crunch, munch munch munch. Oh yes, he munched. With his mouth open.
I am ashamed to say this got my temper up more than any Tablet editorial or neocon war manifesto that could possibly have caught my eye on the web. "Cretin", I muttered to myself as I surveyed the Catholic blogs, "moron. Should be thrown out." Before long I was harbouring all sorts of uncharitable thoughts against my (literal, on this occasion) neighbour, and decided to put off the business of saving humanity from Bolshevism, Liberalism and the EU for yet another day.
However, the new day job having been successfully begun (and, so far, kept), I decided to return to the battlefield. This evening I seated myself in an internet café, feeling like I could take on all the bogeys of the web. Then someone else sat down beside me, and I heard a rustling noise that I knew only too well. Knew and dreaded.
I don't know why it is that when people sitting near me in public places are eating something, that something always has to be crisps. Crisps are the most irritating and most useless food imaginable. They make noise when their packet is being handled, and they make noise when they're being eaten. They smell strongly. They leave your fingertips all salty. They can make you hyperactive. And they don't even make you full. There's nothing to them. Bite into them (annoying everyone within a ten yard radius in the process) chew once or twice, and they're gone. You're left feeling just as hungry as before.
And yet all over the place - in internet cafés, on the Luas, on the bus, on trains, in the cinema, in the library, in the lecture theatre - people have to dig into these pointless things. As did the young man sitting near me on this occasion. I soon noticed, to my dismay, that he was a "relisher". That is, he didn't gobble the things all down at once, which would at least have brought a swift end to the torture, but ate them lingeringly, lovingly, over a long stretch of time. Every few minutes, in would go the hand, rustle rustle, crunch crunch, munch munch munch. Oh yes, he munched. With his mouth open.
I am ashamed to say this got my temper up more than any Tablet editorial or neocon war manifesto that could possibly have caught my eye on the web. "Cretin", I muttered to myself as I surveyed the Catholic blogs, "moron. Should be thrown out." Before long I was harbouring all sorts of uncharitable thoughts against my (literal, on this occasion) neighbour, and decided to put off the business of saving humanity from Bolshevism, Liberalism and the EU for yet another day.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Cornell Society for a Good Time breaks its silence!
I must admit I'd been waiting for a while to see what their take would be on the SSPX situation. (To all non-trads reading this who had never heard of Bishop Williamson until ten days ago: in our little world we've been following this saga for years, so forgive our seemingly bizarre and insatiable interest in the matter.) Clara does not disappoint, but attacks the subject with her usual vehemence:
It's actually terribly ironic when you think about it. If the Vatican were to make a practice of excommunicating people for holding erroneous historical views (say, academic historians who had spread misinformation about the history of the papacy or the lives of the saints) they would be excoriated for not respecting intellectual freedom. Now, because they won't penalize Williamson for his historical errors, they are accused of insensitivity to Jews.
And:
Finally, with respect to Catholic-Jewish relations, I can't quite overcome the impluse to ask... who cares? I mean, I have nothing against Jews per se, but it's not as if being on friendly terms with Jewish leaders is a central part of the Church's apostolic mission. Of course, we shouldn't antagonize them needlessly, but if they're going to throw tantrums about things that don't concern them, that's more their problem than ours.
Reading this piece, I am torn between two emotions: hearty agreement, and a nervous feeling that she might be underestimating the power of the media. Their knack of smelling blood in the air when their enemies are vulnerable. Their stubborn refusal to let facts get in the way of seizing any opportunity to write a headline containing both the words "Pope" and "antisemitism". And of course, their ability to influence the views of the man on the street. The post, however, is well worth a read.
Today news has emerged that the Vatican is requiring a public recantation by Williamson before things can move forward. The problem is that such measures only reinforce the false impression generated by the media that the Holocaust was a factor in the decision to lift the excommunications, and also that non-Catholics have some sort of right to dictate to the Pope what his dealings with his own Bishops should be. And do you think that such a generous measure will silence his critics for one moment? Think again.
For example, this evening when I glanced at the online editon of the German magazine Stern I was greeted by a photograph of the grim-faced Charlotte Knobloch, chairwoman of the Committee of Jews in Germany, with the headline: "Jews greet "first step." The article goes on
A first step in the right direction, but not more: the Jewish organisations have made it clear that they require more from the Vatican than a mere[!] demand that Holocaust denier Richard Williamson take back his comments. The Central Committee of Jews also called for a clear change of course from Rome.
There follow numerous denunciations from Germany's political establishment and liberal clerics. No attempt is made to give the traditionalists' side of the story, and of course the impression is given that the Bishop's historical views were the reason for his excommunication and hence also for the lifting of it. Does anyone seriously think that these people are acting in good faith? That they hold "Catholic-Jewish relations" in any real regard? That they will ever be satisfied?
It's actually terribly ironic when you think about it. If the Vatican were to make a practice of excommunicating people for holding erroneous historical views (say, academic historians who had spread misinformation about the history of the papacy or the lives of the saints) they would be excoriated for not respecting intellectual freedom. Now, because they won't penalize Williamson for his historical errors, they are accused of insensitivity to Jews.
And:
Finally, with respect to Catholic-Jewish relations, I can't quite overcome the impluse to ask... who cares? I mean, I have nothing against Jews per se, but it's not as if being on friendly terms with Jewish leaders is a central part of the Church's apostolic mission. Of course, we shouldn't antagonize them needlessly, but if they're going to throw tantrums about things that don't concern them, that's more their problem than ours.
Reading this piece, I am torn between two emotions: hearty agreement, and a nervous feeling that she might be underestimating the power of the media. Their knack of smelling blood in the air when their enemies are vulnerable. Their stubborn refusal to let facts get in the way of seizing any opportunity to write a headline containing both the words "Pope" and "antisemitism". And of course, their ability to influence the views of the man on the street. The post, however, is well worth a read.
Today news has emerged that the Vatican is requiring a public recantation by Williamson before things can move forward. The problem is that such measures only reinforce the false impression generated by the media that the Holocaust was a factor in the decision to lift the excommunications, and also that non-Catholics have some sort of right to dictate to the Pope what his dealings with his own Bishops should be. And do you think that such a generous measure will silence his critics for one moment? Think again.
For example, this evening when I glanced at the online editon of the German magazine Stern I was greeted by a photograph of the grim-faced Charlotte Knobloch, chairwoman of the Committee of Jews in Germany, with the headline: "Jews greet "first step." The article goes on
A first step in the right direction, but not more: the Jewish organisations have made it clear that they require more from the Vatican than a mere[!] demand that Holocaust denier Richard Williamson take back his comments. The Central Committee of Jews also called for a clear change of course from Rome.
There follow numerous denunciations from Germany's political establishment and liberal clerics. No attempt is made to give the traditionalists' side of the story, and of course the impression is given that the Bishop's historical views were the reason for his excommunication and hence also for the lifting of it. Does anyone seriously think that these people are acting in good faith? That they hold "Catholic-Jewish relations" in any real regard? That they will ever be satisfied?
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Because our public transport system is so wonderful
I do not know of any other European capital city without an underground railway. Most readers of this blog will have travelled on the London underground at some point. The Paris métro makes it possible to hop around that great city with ease. Berlin has one, which runs day and night. Bucharest has one. Warsaw also has one, the building of which began in the 1990's. And, indeed, other non-capital cities in Europe have underground railways too. When I lived in Bavaria I was often in Nuremburg. This unimportant provincial city, which has less than half the population of Dublin, has a state-of-the-art U-Bahn.
But Dublin? Seat of the Celtic Tiger? Capital of the country which was for years described as "the envy of Europe"? That city which boasts narrow one-way streets, large numbers of tourists and a rainy climate - a city, in other words, in which good and efficient public transport would be highly desirable? Not on your life. An underground, you see, requires foresight, planning and the ability to sacrifce now in order to reap the benefit later - all qualities which our politicians lack. The men and women whom the Celtic Tiger values are not the sort of people to worry their heads about public transport.
But in spite of this indifference, I was a bit taken aback when I saw that the government had chosen to axe 120 buses and 290 jobs in Dublin. That this was done by a government in which the Green Party is a coalition partner is even more shocking. How, in the government's opinion, are people to get around instead? If the two Luas lines were connected that would solve alot of problems, but of course they aren't, which complicates life for people like me who trudge accross town regularly.
Yes, of course, we knew the cuts were coming and we were warned they would be painful. But I wonder if the government is really saving money in the right areas. This morning I was in a bathroom in a university and, while drying my hands, was forced to stare at one of these idiotic posters, whose would-be hipness can't disguise their finger-wagging, nanny-state undertone. Are these Gutmenschen taking any cuts? It's about time they did.
The Christian Solidarity Party is opposed to cuts in areas that will badly effect the common good, and we are also in favour of an increased role for public transport in this country, particularly rail transport. Party President Paul O'Loughlin, who ran in Dublin North Central at the last election, has been very vocal on this topic. You'll be reading more about him in the upcoming months. Stay tooned.
But Dublin? Seat of the Celtic Tiger? Capital of the country which was for years described as "the envy of Europe"? That city which boasts narrow one-way streets, large numbers of tourists and a rainy climate - a city, in other words, in which good and efficient public transport would be highly desirable? Not on your life. An underground, you see, requires foresight, planning and the ability to sacrifce now in order to reap the benefit later - all qualities which our politicians lack. The men and women whom the Celtic Tiger values are not the sort of people to worry their heads about public transport.
But in spite of this indifference, I was a bit taken aback when I saw that the government had chosen to axe 120 buses and 290 jobs in Dublin. That this was done by a government in which the Green Party is a coalition partner is even more shocking. How, in the government's opinion, are people to get around instead? If the two Luas lines were connected that would solve alot of problems, but of course they aren't, which complicates life for people like me who trudge accross town regularly.
Yes, of course, we knew the cuts were coming and we were warned they would be painful. But I wonder if the government is really saving money in the right areas. This morning I was in a bathroom in a university and, while drying my hands, was forced to stare at one of these idiotic posters, whose would-be hipness can't disguise their finger-wagging, nanny-state undertone. Are these Gutmenschen taking any cuts? It's about time they did.
The Christian Solidarity Party is opposed to cuts in areas that will badly effect the common good, and we are also in favour of an increased role for public transport in this country, particularly rail transport. Party President Paul O'Loughlin, who ran in Dublin North Central at the last election, has been very vocal on this topic. You'll be reading more about him in the upcoming months. Stay tooned.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Media insist on having a last dig at Updike
John Updike has died, and the Indo printed a short article about him yesterday. The article mostly just gave basic information about his life and work, but contained one rather odd passage:
"Updike was a controversial figure, labelled a misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment during a tempestuous career. But his searing wit ensured that his writing, [sic] remained enduringly popular."
Misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment? Was Updike ever really accused of this? I purposely did not consult Wikipedia to find out before writing this post, because I wanted to ask the question from the point of view of an educated layman, and see what answer I came up with. I do not remember ever hearing anyone call Updike a racist or a misogynist. Not my father, on whose shelf I first saw his books. Not Mrs G, a very politically-correct, Irish Times-reading teacher who once gave us a passage of Updike's to study in class. Not the Marxist Terry Eagleton, who devotes a good deal of his Introduction to Literary Theory to analysing the first two sentences of Couples. Not Ian McEwan, who was discussing Updike with Jeremy Paxman on TV the other night. If Updike was accused of racism and misogyny, none of these people seem to have cared.
I myself have read two of Updike's novels, both fairly recent. Neither contained anything remotely racist or misogynistic as far as I could see. Indeed, one of them was told entirely from the perspective of a woman, no mean feat for a male writer. They were "pro-establishment" only insofar as they were about white people in small towns and suburbs. (The most objectionable thing about them, as far as I was concerned, was the embarrassing amount of space they devoted to sex. Page upon page of unbelievably tedious descriptions that might have provoked a few giggles from adolescents, but in the end would probably have had even them yawning with boredom. It was as if Updike was defiantly telling the world "I may be old, but I can still write dirty with the best of you!")
So where did the Irish Independent get this extraordinary claim? I suspect that once upon a time, hidden away in the bowels of some university English department, some ageing feminist lecturer with too much time on her hands wrote an article claiming that Updike's work supported patriarchal discourse by its focus on heterosexual relationships, or manifested a subconscious post-colonial fear of the Other by dealing mainly with white people, or some other such nonsense. That obscure tract is now the justification for the claim that Updike was "labelled" a racist/misogynist/reactionary. I may be quite wrong, but I suspect that's how the "controversy" came about.
But what disturbs me is the alacrity with which the newspaper seized upon this silly accusation, triumphantly calling Updike a "controversial" writer. I know, I know, newspapers have to sell copies, and they do so by means of attention-grabbing headlines. But it seems to me that if you truly believe racism and misogyny to be bad things, you will be careful not to ascribe them to people without good reason. You will not bandy the words about carelessly, for to do so is to rob them of their meaning, or at any rate their shock value. Eventually, like the villagers in the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people will just roll their eyes and sigh "Here we go again!" each time another accusation of racism/misogyny in high places is levelled. That cannot, in the long run, be good for the fight against racism and misogyny.
RIP anyhow.
"Updike was a controversial figure, labelled a misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment during a tempestuous career. But his searing wit ensured that his writing, [sic] remained enduringly popular."
Misogynist, racist and an apologist for the establishment? Was Updike ever really accused of this? I purposely did not consult Wikipedia to find out before writing this post, because I wanted to ask the question from the point of view of an educated layman, and see what answer I came up with. I do not remember ever hearing anyone call Updike a racist or a misogynist. Not my father, on whose shelf I first saw his books. Not Mrs G, a very politically-correct, Irish Times-reading teacher who once gave us a passage of Updike's to study in class. Not the Marxist Terry Eagleton, who devotes a good deal of his Introduction to Literary Theory to analysing the first two sentences of Couples. Not Ian McEwan, who was discussing Updike with Jeremy Paxman on TV the other night. If Updike was accused of racism and misogyny, none of these people seem to have cared.
I myself have read two of Updike's novels, both fairly recent. Neither contained anything remotely racist or misogynistic as far as I could see. Indeed, one of them was told entirely from the perspective of a woman, no mean feat for a male writer. They were "pro-establishment" only insofar as they were about white people in small towns and suburbs. (The most objectionable thing about them, as far as I was concerned, was the embarrassing amount of space they devoted to sex. Page upon page of unbelievably tedious descriptions that might have provoked a few giggles from adolescents, but in the end would probably have had even them yawning with boredom. It was as if Updike was defiantly telling the world "I may be old, but I can still write dirty with the best of you!")
So where did the Irish Independent get this extraordinary claim? I suspect that once upon a time, hidden away in the bowels of some university English department, some ageing feminist lecturer with too much time on her hands wrote an article claiming that Updike's work supported patriarchal discourse by its focus on heterosexual relationships, or manifested a subconscious post-colonial fear of the Other by dealing mainly with white people, or some other such nonsense. That obscure tract is now the justification for the claim that Updike was "labelled" a racist/misogynist/reactionary. I may be quite wrong, but I suspect that's how the "controversy" came about.
But what disturbs me is the alacrity with which the newspaper seized upon this silly accusation, triumphantly calling Updike a "controversial" writer. I know, I know, newspapers have to sell copies, and they do so by means of attention-grabbing headlines. But it seems to me that if you truly believe racism and misogyny to be bad things, you will be careful not to ascribe them to people without good reason. You will not bandy the words about carelessly, for to do so is to rob them of their meaning, or at any rate their shock value. Eventually, like the villagers in the tale of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people will just roll their eyes and sigh "Here we go again!" each time another accusation of racism/misogyny in high places is levelled. That cannot, in the long run, be good for the fight against racism and misogyny.
RIP anyhow.
What I like about the Irish Independent ...
... is that although it's a broadsheet, it's not too priggish to give us headlines like this.
Dismissing that sort of headline as "populism" does not get rid of the problem.
Dismissing that sort of headline as "populism" does not get rid of the problem.
Monday, January 26, 2009
Deo Gratias
So the excommunications against the four SSPX bishops have been lifted. What wonderful news, and what a wonderful answer to prayer. It should be a reminder that we can never aim our sights too high in prayer. It's one thing to pray that Gran gets over her illness soon or that Patrick does okay in his exam next week. But I always felt an inner reservation when praying "And let the Pope lift the excommunications and let there be unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church." It seemed like such a presumptuously big thing to be praying for. But now we've seen that prayer, the prayer of so many traditional Catholics, answered.
Of course, this is only the first step towards total "unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church". Fr. Z sets out how things stand, and how much ground is yet to be covered, here. But it's an amazing step, one that seemed unimaginable for so long.
Bishop Fellay's press release can be found here.
And of course, as you can imagine, the media greeted the news with typical lack of objectivity. They were not slow to pick up on Bishop Williamson's comments on the Holocaust (that is, his claim that the evidence points to a mere 200 - 300 000 Jews killed, and not six million). Indeed, the very media savvy Damien Thompson is convinced that the leaking of the Swedish interview with the Bishop was deliberately timed to coincide with the lifting of the excommunications, thus allowing the gleeful anti-Church press to print headlines like "Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust Bishop Richard Williamson."
The problem is that the average layman doesn't know the esoteric history of Catholic traditionalism and doesn't know that neither the excommunications, nor the lifting of them, had anything to do with the Bishop's historical opinions. They may well assume that he was declared excommunicated because he denied the Holocaust, and that the Pope has just decided that that's not such a serious matter after all. The media certainly aren't doing anything to enlighten them. Reading articles like this one from the London Times, one is struck by the mixture of outright error ("there are an estimated 500 levebvrist bishops and 600, 000 followers worldwide") and a total lack of context. There is almost no information about the SSPX in general, about the anguish and persecution suffered by traditional Catholics since Vatican II. There is no sense given that this was an earnest attempt by the Pope to reconcile Catholics to full communion with the Church; Bishop Williamson and his controversial views dominate the article entirely. Remarkable, too, is the implication that the lifting of excommunications should be dictated by policy considerations. If this or that special interest group is going to be offended at the lifting of an excommunication, then don't lift it - that's very much the tone of Richard Owen's article.
We should leave the media to their own stupidity and hope and pray for the talks between the SSPX and Rome which lie ahead - especially that both sides will enter into them in a spirit of humility and earnest desire for unity.
Of course, this is only the first step towards total "unity between the SSPX and the rest of the Church". Fr. Z sets out how things stand, and how much ground is yet to be covered, here. But it's an amazing step, one that seemed unimaginable for so long.
Bishop Fellay's press release can be found here.
And of course, as you can imagine, the media greeted the news with typical lack of objectivity. They were not slow to pick up on Bishop Williamson's comments on the Holocaust (that is, his claim that the evidence points to a mere 200 - 300 000 Jews killed, and not six million). Indeed, the very media savvy Damien Thompson is convinced that the leaking of the Swedish interview with the Bishop was deliberately timed to coincide with the lifting of the excommunications, thus allowing the gleeful anti-Church press to print headlines like "Dismay as Pope welcomes back Holocaust Bishop Richard Williamson."
The problem is that the average layman doesn't know the esoteric history of Catholic traditionalism and doesn't know that neither the excommunications, nor the lifting of them, had anything to do with the Bishop's historical opinions. They may well assume that he was declared excommunicated because he denied the Holocaust, and that the Pope has just decided that that's not such a serious matter after all. The media certainly aren't doing anything to enlighten them. Reading articles like this one from the London Times, one is struck by the mixture of outright error ("there are an estimated 500 levebvrist bishops and 600, 000 followers worldwide") and a total lack of context. There is almost no information about the SSPX in general, about the anguish and persecution suffered by traditional Catholics since Vatican II. There is no sense given that this was an earnest attempt by the Pope to reconcile Catholics to full communion with the Church; Bishop Williamson and his controversial views dominate the article entirely. Remarkable, too, is the implication that the lifting of excommunications should be dictated by policy considerations. If this or that special interest group is going to be offended at the lifting of an excommunication, then don't lift it - that's very much the tone of Richard Owen's article.
We should leave the media to their own stupidity and hope and pray for the talks between the SSPX and Rome which lie ahead - especially that both sides will enter into them in a spirit of humility and earnest desire for unity.
Friday, January 23, 2009
What exactly do YD have to do with all this?
The liberal élite are evidently determined that the horrific revelations from Roscommon must claim as many victims as possible. Not only must the Constitution be changed, as we heard yesterday, but those who have campaigned for the rights of the family in Ireland for decades must be smeared as well.
This article in today's Irish Times devotes a lot of space to the excellent Mina Bean Uí Chroibín as well as Youth Defence and Cóir - before admitting, so casually you'd barely notice it, that
"nothing was said in court this week to link any of these groups to the woman at the centre of the case."
The childcare manager contacted by Bean Uí Chroibín is also quoted as saying that there is "no evidence" she was involved with the woman's application.
Nothing? No evidence? Then why, for heaven's sake, devote an entire article to trying to smear these people? It's done incredibly subtly. One section begins with the words "Youth defence also provided the girl's father with a legal team ..." and if you were just skimming the article, you might think that Youth Defence were involved in the Roscommon woman's application. Only if you were reading carefully would you see that the case referred to here is the unrelated "C" Case. The context makes it look as if the Roscommon woman is involved.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time that Carol Coulter, one of the article's co-authors, has made out the facts of a case to be very different from what they really were, confining the truth to a single sentence buried away in the middle of an article.
But since the only "dirt" they manage to find on Bean Uí Chroibín is that she has helped run a post office for years, has campaigned tirelessly for the Irish language, is devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, has helped numerous families in north Co. Dublin and is one of the city's Unsung Heroes, I'd call it a pretty poor smear job.
This article in today's Irish Times devotes a lot of space to the excellent Mina Bean Uí Chroibín as well as Youth Defence and Cóir - before admitting, so casually you'd barely notice it, that
"nothing was said in court this week to link any of these groups to the woman at the centre of the case."
The childcare manager contacted by Bean Uí Chroibín is also quoted as saying that there is "no evidence" she was involved with the woman's application.
Nothing? No evidence? Then why, for heaven's sake, devote an entire article to trying to smear these people? It's done incredibly subtly. One section begins with the words "Youth defence also provided the girl's father with a legal team ..." and if you were just skimming the article, you might think that Youth Defence were involved in the Roscommon woman's application. Only if you were reading carefully would you see that the case referred to here is the unrelated "C" Case. The context makes it look as if the Roscommon woman is involved.
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised. This isn't the first time that Carol Coulter, one of the article's co-authors, has made out the facts of a case to be very different from what they really were, confining the truth to a single sentence buried away in the middle of an article.
But since the only "dirt" they manage to find on Bean Uí Chroibín is that she has helped run a post office for years, has campaigned tirelessly for the Irish language, is devoted to the Traditional Latin Mass, has helped numerous families in north Co. Dublin and is one of the city's Unsung Heroes, I'd call it a pretty poor smear job.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Is all this media fuss completely disinterested?
It is obviously intolerable that an unfortunate woman in Co. Roscommon kept her four children in filthy, inhuman conditions for several years while physically and sexually abusing them. It is shocking that no-one intervened. But at a time of global recession, a new US President, genocide in Gaza and a burgeoning energy crisis in Europe, does it really merit five articles in today's Irish Independent, including an editorial? Have some of our liberal élite seen this as a vindication of their view of how the state is really better at looking after children than parents are?
Take, for example, this piece by Dearbhail MacDonald in the Indo. She goes into the harrowing facts of the case in some detail, but she does not confine herself to them. At the end of the article, she notes crossly that
"[t]he Constitution places enormous barriers in the way of health boards removing children from dangerous situations in their family home. The now-shelved children's rights referendum sought to allow the State to intervene earlier when children are suffering abuse at the hands of their parents and care-givers."
Ah. The Children's Rights Referendum. Knew that was coming somewhere.
Mind you, the High Court did declare, in the case of G v. An Bord Uchtála in 1981, that children have a natural right under the Constitution to have their welfare safeguarded. I do not think the Constitution needs to be mutilated to make it any easier for the state to drag children away from their parents, and the Christian Solidarity Party would oppose such a move.
But not all my peers agree. This evening I overheard some of my fellow Law students on the matter. "They say she was financed by a right-wing Catholic organisation, I think that makes the whole thing really sinister," said one. Another told of a friend, a lawyer, who had said "They'd never have been able to send social workers in because of all that ****ing rights of the family stuff, so they should have gone straight down the Criminal route." [i.e. Criminal Law]
"All that ****ing rights of the family stuff". Indeed.
Take, for example, this piece by Dearbhail MacDonald in the Indo. She goes into the harrowing facts of the case in some detail, but she does not confine herself to them. At the end of the article, she notes crossly that
"[t]he Constitution places enormous barriers in the way of health boards removing children from dangerous situations in their family home. The now-shelved children's rights referendum sought to allow the State to intervene earlier when children are suffering abuse at the hands of their parents and care-givers."
Ah. The Children's Rights Referendum. Knew that was coming somewhere.
Mind you, the High Court did declare, in the case of G v. An Bord Uchtála in 1981, that children have a natural right under the Constitution to have their welfare safeguarded. I do not think the Constitution needs to be mutilated to make it any easier for the state to drag children away from their parents, and the Christian Solidarity Party would oppose such a move.
But not all my peers agree. This evening I overheard some of my fellow Law students on the matter. "They say she was financed by a right-wing Catholic organisation, I think that makes the whole thing really sinister," said one. Another told of a friend, a lawyer, who had said "They'd never have been able to send social workers in because of all that ****ing rights of the family stuff, so they should have gone straight down the Criminal route." [i.e. Criminal Law]
"All that ****ing rights of the family stuff". Indeed.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Dubious anglicisms
In between Law books I'm currently reading a book given to me by a Polish friend in Germany at the weekend. It's called Viva Polonia and is by Steffen Moeller, a German comedian living in Poland. When I heard the words "German comedian" I had a sinking feeling, but the book is actually very witty and also very informative. Moeller is actually a Kabarettist, which I suppose implies a more sophisticated form of humour than our "comedian."
In one chapter, he was discusssing the endless back-and-forth in airports and trains that ex-pats have to put up with, and which is the price they pay for living in a time when people can fly more often than they could in the past. He used a word I hadn't seen before: Betweener. What did that mean? It looked Dutch or Low German. I guessed it must be pronounced bet-VAY-ner. I looked it up in the big Collins, the best German-English dictionary in my opinion, but couldn't find it. (The nearest thing was betuetert, a new word for me; "tipsy, dazed.")
So I shrugged and read on. Then the word came up again, this time in a chapter about the Berlin to Warsaw railway line. Then it hit me: it's a fake anglicism. It's a word the Germans have borrowed from English and twisted for their own use, innocently thinking it to be a sophisticated English word, not realising that English-speakers don't actually use it. They use it to mean long distance commuter, an ex-pat on the move between two countries. I looked the word up in a few English dictionaries in the library, but it was not to be found in any of them.
Another anglicism the Germans use like this is Wellness. They use it to mean the whole sauna-reiki-massage therapy circuit. You see the word all over the place in Germany; on posters, in holiday brochures and in magazines. But do we use it in English like this? I checked the OED. There, wellness simply means "The state of being well or in good health." First recorded use is by one Sir A. Johnston in 1654: "I ... blessed God ... for my daughter's wealnesse." He could have been referring to a sauna voucher she'd just won in a raffle, but I doubt it somehow.
But the most amazing example of a fake anglicism I ever heard was when a Spaniard said something about "thubbing" with a remote control. Apparently, it means flashing from channel to channel with the remote.
"You mean thumbing?" I asked, holding up my thumb.
"No, thubbing."
I said I'd never heard of it.
"In Spain we think it's an English expression."
Anyone have any ideas how they came to think that?
In one chapter, he was discusssing the endless back-and-forth in airports and trains that ex-pats have to put up with, and which is the price they pay for living in a time when people can fly more often than they could in the past. He used a word I hadn't seen before: Betweener. What did that mean? It looked Dutch or Low German. I guessed it must be pronounced bet-VAY-ner. I looked it up in the big Collins, the best German-English dictionary in my opinion, but couldn't find it. (The nearest thing was betuetert, a new word for me; "tipsy, dazed.")
So I shrugged and read on. Then the word came up again, this time in a chapter about the Berlin to Warsaw railway line. Then it hit me: it's a fake anglicism. It's a word the Germans have borrowed from English and twisted for their own use, innocently thinking it to be a sophisticated English word, not realising that English-speakers don't actually use it. They use it to mean long distance commuter, an ex-pat on the move between two countries. I looked the word up in a few English dictionaries in the library, but it was not to be found in any of them.
Another anglicism the Germans use like this is Wellness. They use it to mean the whole sauna-reiki-massage therapy circuit. You see the word all over the place in Germany; on posters, in holiday brochures and in magazines. But do we use it in English like this? I checked the OED. There, wellness simply means "The state of being well or in good health." First recorded use is by one Sir A. Johnston in 1654: "I ... blessed God ... for my daughter's wealnesse." He could have been referring to a sauna voucher she'd just won in a raffle, but I doubt it somehow.
But the most amazing example of a fake anglicism I ever heard was when a Spaniard said something about "thubbing" with a remote control. Apparently, it means flashing from channel to channel with the remote.
"You mean thumbing?" I asked, holding up my thumb.
"No, thubbing."
I said I'd never heard of it.
"In Spain we think it's an English expression."
Anyone have any ideas how they came to think that?
Monday, January 19, 2009
The exile returns
I'm back from Germany, where I spent a very pleasant weekend with some good friends in Erfurt and in Frankfurt. The weather was bracingly cold, the food and drink were excellent (and cheap!), and the people as courteous and helpful as ever. Some other brief impressions:
Late on Friday night I went into a bar in Erfurt and ordered a beer. The barmaid brought it and asked me if I needed an Aschenbecher. An ashtray? In a bar? Oh yes. All around me people were smoking. I declined the offer, and sipped my beer thoughtfully as I watched the drinking, chattering smokers. The smell was not at all unpleasant. Everyone was in a good mood. No one had to go outside into the freezing cold if he wanted a smoke. I'm a tolerant non-smoker and I've always thought the smoking ban here in Ireland was a silly idea concocted by over-zealous self-appointed guardians of public health. An enjoyable beer in this perfectly cosy pub made me even more certain of that.
When I left my hotel in Erfurt early on Saturday morning, there was ice everywhere. The few people on the street were inching their way along gingerly, many of them slipping. I slipped and fell twice on the short walk to my friends' place. But en route I saw the council vans chugging along scattering gravel to make the ground less slippery. It wasn't yet 9:00 on a Saturday. That's what you call German efficiency.
There was a regional election in Hessen yesterday. Posters were all over Frankfurt. The Commmunists had issue-related slogans on theirs ("One school for all!" "Abolish the Casino!" [do they mean the banks?] The Christian Democtats and the Liberals, by contrast, had vague platitudes on their posters ("A sure bet!"). The Christian Democrats and Liberals won.
Traditional High Mass yesterday in Frankfurt. The most formal ceremony I've ever seen. Everything was done at half the normal speed, and with more bowing, hand-kissing and incense than I ever dreamed was allowed! I got sprayed no less than three times during the Asperges. This being Germany, there was also plenty of hymn-singing, although not during the Introit, as is often done there. The Mass is held in St Leonard's church at 6pm. It's in a central spot, near Frankfurt Cathedral, and well worth a visit if you're ever in the city.
Late on Friday night I went into a bar in Erfurt and ordered a beer. The barmaid brought it and asked me if I needed an Aschenbecher. An ashtray? In a bar? Oh yes. All around me people were smoking. I declined the offer, and sipped my beer thoughtfully as I watched the drinking, chattering smokers. The smell was not at all unpleasant. Everyone was in a good mood. No one had to go outside into the freezing cold if he wanted a smoke. I'm a tolerant non-smoker and I've always thought the smoking ban here in Ireland was a silly idea concocted by over-zealous self-appointed guardians of public health. An enjoyable beer in this perfectly cosy pub made me even more certain of that.
When I left my hotel in Erfurt early on Saturday morning, there was ice everywhere. The few people on the street were inching their way along gingerly, many of them slipping. I slipped and fell twice on the short walk to my friends' place. But en route I saw the council vans chugging along scattering gravel to make the ground less slippery. It wasn't yet 9:00 on a Saturday. That's what you call German efficiency.
There was a regional election in Hessen yesterday. Posters were all over Frankfurt. The Commmunists had issue-related slogans on theirs ("One school for all!" "Abolish the Casino!" [do they mean the banks?] The Christian Democtats and the Liberals, by contrast, had vague platitudes on their posters ("A sure bet!"). The Christian Democrats and Liberals won.
Traditional High Mass yesterday in Frankfurt. The most formal ceremony I've ever seen. Everything was done at half the normal speed, and with more bowing, hand-kissing and incense than I ever dreamed was allowed! I got sprayed no less than three times during the Asperges. This being Germany, there was also plenty of hymn-singing, although not during the Introit, as is often done there. The Mass is held in St Leonard's church at 6pm. It's in a central spot, near Frankfurt Cathedral, and well worth a visit if you're ever in the city.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
De Rossa shows how he values the opinions of dissenters (including his own countrymen)
When I watch videos like this I can understand the vehemence of a woman I once canvassed on a doorstep who hissed "That de Rossa's a horrible man - horrible!" The really amazing thing is that, as Daniel Hannan points out on his blog, the Czech Foreign Minister is actually pro-Lisbon. Yes, Mr Topolánek had just made a moderate speech which was guardedly in favour of the Treaty, but respected the decision of those who disagree with it. But for the Eurocrats, anything less than wholehearted endorsement of the European project is treachery.
(This might be a good point at which to remind readers that the Christian Solidarity Party totally opposes a re-run of the Lisbon referendum. We believe that the people have spoken and that the plan should be shelved.)
At one point the former Communist informs the Czech minister that unless he "parks" his "conservative" views, he's "going to be in constant conflict with this parliament." Just in case you thought the EU had no specific agendas ...
Tarot Update (last time I'm mentioning this subject, I promise)
I was in the aforementioned bookshop today, and although the wretched Tarot sets were still there, they were marked €6:99. I could have sworn they were €9:99 a few days ago. Plus, the pile still looks untouched. Evidently they're not being snapped up very eagerly. Deo Gratias!
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Foolhardy reader dares contradict Party Soldier
My good friend Valentina takes issue with my disapproval of Tarot sets being sold in bookshops. She writes:
"God has given us free will so that anybody should do whatever they want with their lives. "Seeing" and predicting the future should not be seen as a sin. It's just a way to see "on the other side of today" as one of my teachers said one day."
Now, I do believe from my own experience that some people do have the ability to see into the future. I've seen too many uncanny instances of predictions coming true to doubt that. One girl I knew in Germany was told by a fortune teller that her husband's name would begin with the letter Y; she was baffled as she didn't know any men's names beginning with that letter. Then she moved to Germany to study and met a Turkish student, whose name began with - guess what letter?
I don't think, moreover, that people who have this ability are sinning every time they have a presentiment or make a prediction. They can hardly help it. But seeking out such people and regularly consulting them is another matter, and I think it is this that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is talking about when it says:
"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practises falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to consult hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." (CCC 2116)
This may seem a bit heavy-handed (who hasn't glanced at his horoscope in the paper at least once or twice?) but we can safely say that not all of these astrological practises are equally grave; "recourse to Satan or demons" is presumably a lot more serious than having someone read the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup. Nonetheless, they are sobering words. The Catechism seems to have two main problems with them: that they deflect our devotion away from God, and that they feed a desire for power over the natural order and over others.
What's interesting (and what caused my anger when I saw these neatly packadged Tarot sets in a bookshop) is that recourse to these things comes out of a hunger. A hunger for power, but also a hunger for an object of "honour, respect and loving fear". Why is that hunger there? Why isn't it being fed with better food? Once upon a time, the Christian faith supplied that food. People believed in God and had a strong sense of the supernatural. People still have a strong sense of the supernatural, but that sense is no longer being nurtured by the Church. Most Catholic priests today are embarrassed by the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith, and play them down as much as possible. You know what I'm talking about: the parish priest who refuses to preach about the Incarnation at Christmas or the bodily Resurrection at Easter, and for whom the miracle of the loaves and fishes is really just "a story showing how important it is to share." The liberal Catholic who thinks the faith looks down on women, but who dismisses the Rosary and the veneration of Our Lady as reactionary. It should be noted that Valentina's own branch of Christendom, the Romanian Orthodox church, hasn't gone quite so far down that heretical slippery slope - yet - so she might be unaware of the bitter irony of Irish people turning to Tarot when their churches can offer them nothing but simpering commentaries of the nine o'clock news. But people do yearn for the supernatural and the mysterious, even as priests continue to turn away from these things. This is shown even by the success of attacks on the Christian Faith; the Da Vinci Code reaches far more people than the cold, rationalist pronouncements of Richard Dawkins.
That is what annoyed me in that bookshop yesterday. You want true religion? You won't hear it from many Catholic pulpits, and you'll even have a hard time finding it in the religion section of this bookshop. But the occult? No problem! We have it here, a complete set of Tarot cards, neatly packaged and with an explanatory book and DVD, price €9.99. No confused young person should be without one.
What a depressing state of affairs. But it doesn't have to be that way.
"God has given us free will so that anybody should do whatever they want with their lives. "Seeing" and predicting the future should not be seen as a sin. It's just a way to see "on the other side of today" as one of my teachers said one day."
Now, I do believe from my own experience that some people do have the ability to see into the future. I've seen too many uncanny instances of predictions coming true to doubt that. One girl I knew in Germany was told by a fortune teller that her husband's name would begin with the letter Y; she was baffled as she didn't know any men's names beginning with that letter. Then she moved to Germany to study and met a Turkish student, whose name began with - guess what letter?
I don't think, moreover, that people who have this ability are sinning every time they have a presentiment or make a prediction. They can hardly help it. But seeking out such people and regularly consulting them is another matter, and I think it is this that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is talking about when it says:
"All forms of divination are to be rejected: recourse to Satan or demons, conjuring up the dead or other practises falsely supposed to "unveil" the future. Consulting horoscopes, astrology, palm reading, interpretation of omens and lots, the phenomena of clairvoyance, and recourse to mediums all conceal a desire for power over time, history and, in the last analysis, other human beings, as well as a wish to consult hidden powers. They contradict the honour, respect, and loving fear that we owe to God alone." (CCC 2116)
This may seem a bit heavy-handed (who hasn't glanced at his horoscope in the paper at least once or twice?) but we can safely say that not all of these astrological practises are equally grave; "recourse to Satan or demons" is presumably a lot more serious than having someone read the tea leaves at the bottom of your cup. Nonetheless, they are sobering words. The Catechism seems to have two main problems with them: that they deflect our devotion away from God, and that they feed a desire for power over the natural order and over others.
What's interesting (and what caused my anger when I saw these neatly packadged Tarot sets in a bookshop) is that recourse to these things comes out of a hunger. A hunger for power, but also a hunger for an object of "honour, respect and loving fear". Why is that hunger there? Why isn't it being fed with better food? Once upon a time, the Christian faith supplied that food. People believed in God and had a strong sense of the supernatural. People still have a strong sense of the supernatural, but that sense is no longer being nurtured by the Church. Most Catholic priests today are embarrassed by the supernatural aspects of the Christian faith, and play them down as much as possible. You know what I'm talking about: the parish priest who refuses to preach about the Incarnation at Christmas or the bodily Resurrection at Easter, and for whom the miracle of the loaves and fishes is really just "a story showing how important it is to share." The liberal Catholic who thinks the faith looks down on women, but who dismisses the Rosary and the veneration of Our Lady as reactionary. It should be noted that Valentina's own branch of Christendom, the Romanian Orthodox church, hasn't gone quite so far down that heretical slippery slope - yet - so she might be unaware of the bitter irony of Irish people turning to Tarot when their churches can offer them nothing but simpering commentaries of the nine o'clock news. But people do yearn for the supernatural and the mysterious, even as priests continue to turn away from these things. This is shown even by the success of attacks on the Christian Faith; the Da Vinci Code reaches far more people than the cold, rationalist pronouncements of Richard Dawkins.
That is what annoyed me in that bookshop yesterday. You want true religion? You won't hear it from many Catholic pulpits, and you'll even have a hard time finding it in the religion section of this bookshop. But the occult? No problem! We have it here, a complete set of Tarot cards, neatly packaged and with an explanatory book and DVD, price €9.99. No confused young person should be without one.
What a depressing state of affairs. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Monday, January 12, 2009
If you've got €10 to spare ...
... You might like to pick up one of the Tarot kits on offer at Easons. Price €9.99. For that you get a set of Tarot cards, a book explaining how to use them and an hour-long explanatory DVD. I saw a stack of them there today. For the benefit of foreign readers, this is one of the major Dublin bookshops we're talking about.
A phrase beginning with the words "A man who stops believing in God ..." springs to mind.
The only remotely positive thing about this stomach-churning sight was that the stack of Tarot kits looked relatively untouched; not too many people seem to have been willing to splash out on one, even for such a low price.
My goodness, I thought, is there no hope for western civilisation? I went downstairs and browsed in the religion section (now rebranded "Spirituality"), but that did not improve my mood. That section contained outright attacks on Christianity (the Hitchens-Dawkins oeuvre), sensationalist accounts of the Secret Marriage of Our Lord and Mary Magdalene and the Sinister Vatican Plot To Cover It All Up, and various thought-for-the-day-type tomes by ageing 1960's relics like Fr Brian Darcy - but scarcely a single orthodox work. There were spiritual classics, of course, like the writings of St Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine, but there were hardly any books by a modern conservative writer. C.S. Lewis was about the only one - and he died in 1963! Is it any wonder that people, deprived of spiritual nourishment from the Christian churches, are turning to things like Tarot?
I thought of writing a cross letter to the manager of Easons; maybe I will yet. But I think the best way to react to things like Tarot kits with the pitying contempt they deserve.
A phrase beginning with the words "A man who stops believing in God ..." springs to mind.
The only remotely positive thing about this stomach-churning sight was that the stack of Tarot kits looked relatively untouched; not too many people seem to have been willing to splash out on one, even for such a low price.
My goodness, I thought, is there no hope for western civilisation? I went downstairs and browsed in the religion section (now rebranded "Spirituality"), but that did not improve my mood. That section contained outright attacks on Christianity (the Hitchens-Dawkins oeuvre), sensationalist accounts of the Secret Marriage of Our Lord and Mary Magdalene and the Sinister Vatican Plot To Cover It All Up, and various thought-for-the-day-type tomes by ageing 1960's relics like Fr Brian Darcy - but scarcely a single orthodox work. There were spiritual classics, of course, like the writings of St Teresa of Avila and St. Augustine, but there were hardly any books by a modern conservative writer. C.S. Lewis was about the only one - and he died in 1963! Is it any wonder that people, deprived of spiritual nourishment from the Christian churches, are turning to things like Tarot?
I thought of writing a cross letter to the manager of Easons; maybe I will yet. But I think the best way to react to things like Tarot kits with the pitying contempt they deserve.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A doctor's words
"We are wading in death, blood and amputees. Many children. A pregnant woman. I have never experienced anything so terrible. Now we hear tanks. Pass it on, send it around, shout it out. Anything. Do something! Do more! We are living in a history book now, all of us."
This is a text message sent by Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor working in Gaza, to friends back home yesterday. Courtesy of the Irish Independent. He asks people to send the grim news around, so I am.
Oh by the way, today the Israelis were kind enough to stop bombarding Gaza for three hours in order to give Médecins Sans Frontières the chance to go in and tend some of the wounded. The media are citing this act of extraordinary generosity as a hopeful sign that Israel is open to peace talks. I'm not so sure. I think yesterday's post was over-optimistic.
This is a text message sent by Mads Gilbert, a Norwegian doctor working in Gaza, to friends back home yesterday. Courtesy of the Irish Independent. He asks people to send the grim news around, so I am.
Oh by the way, today the Israelis were kind enough to stop bombarding Gaza for three hours in order to give Médecins Sans Frontières the chance to go in and tend some of the wounded. The media are citing this act of extraordinary generosity as a hopeful sign that Israel is open to peace talks. I'm not so sure. I think yesterday's post was over-optimistic.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Silver linings
Well, just when we seemed to be plunged into a bleaker January than usual - unemployment still rising, TD's claiming Independents' allowence despite no longer being Independents, Israel murdering civilians in Gaza, Bush refusing to condemn Israel's murder of civilians in Gaza, Waterford Crystal tottering on the edge of collapse - in the midst of all that, two faint glimmers of hope.
First, the news that the US has called for an immediate Israeli ceasefire. Only 720 or so Palestinians had to die before the Bush administration figured out that, on the whole, the random murder of besieged civilians was not, really, a very good thing. They certainly took their time. But the news is certainly welcome. Let's hope to God they're serious about it and that Israel let supplies in.
Then something even more unexpected: the news that Cardinal Archibishop Vingt-Trois of Paris has celebrated Mass in the extraordinary form - for the second time in two months. Remarkable, given that His Eminence was not seen as being friendly towards the old rite, and the liberalism of the French episcopacy generally. Who could have imagined this ten years ago? Bishop Fellay said that if Catholics were free to choose between the traditional rite and the new rite, they would eventually all choose the traditional; the new rite would simply "wither away." He said this by way of predicting that the French bishops would oppose making the old rite available tooth and nail. Well, it seems, Deo gratias, that they are not so hostile to the traditional rite as many of us imagined.
How wonderful it is to watch history in the making like this. The return of Tradition is well and truly afoot!
First, the news that the US has called for an immediate Israeli ceasefire. Only 720 or so Palestinians had to die before the Bush administration figured out that, on the whole, the random murder of besieged civilians was not, really, a very good thing. They certainly took their time. But the news is certainly welcome. Let's hope to God they're serious about it and that Israel let supplies in.
Then something even more unexpected: the news that Cardinal Archibishop Vingt-Trois of Paris has celebrated Mass in the extraordinary form - for the second time in two months. Remarkable, given that His Eminence was not seen as being friendly towards the old rite, and the liberalism of the French episcopacy generally. Who could have imagined this ten years ago? Bishop Fellay said that if Catholics were free to choose between the traditional rite and the new rite, they would eventually all choose the traditional; the new rite would simply "wither away." He said this by way of predicting that the French bishops would oppose making the old rite available tooth and nail. Well, it seems, Deo gratias, that they are not so hostile to the traditional rite as many of us imagined.
How wonderful it is to watch history in the making like this. The return of Tradition is well and truly afoot!
Friday, January 2, 2009
RIP Tony Gregory
Although we would not have seen eye to eye on many issues, Tony Gregory was a great politician. Anyone I ever spoke to who had any dealings with him had nothing but praise for the man. He was a firm patriot and a champion of his consituents.
Tributes have already been pouring in. Interestingly, while msn includes the tributes of Sinn Féin's Christy Burke and Gerry Adams in its article on Gregory's passing, the Irish Times article does not see fit to quote any member of Sinn Féin - despite the fact that Gregory was a staunch republican and knew Cllr Burke intimately. What a detestable snobbish rag it is.
Tributes have already been pouring in. Interestingly, while msn includes the tributes of Sinn Féin's Christy Burke and Gerry Adams in its article on Gregory's passing, the Irish Times article does not see fit to quote any member of Sinn Féin - despite the fact that Gregory was a staunch republican and knew Cllr Burke intimately. What a detestable snobbish rag it is.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
New Year thoughts
I was in party headquarters the other week, looking over bits and pieces. There are fascinating reminders of the Christian Solidarity Party's history lying around there. Old copies of the glossy newsletters with colour photographs that the party sent out in 1996 and 1997. Piled up copies of the manifesto, in both English and Irish and bearing Dr. Casey's picture, that were brought out at about the same time. The text of the National Secretary's address at the 1997 Ard Fheis, in which he states that the party has been going from strength to strength, that newspapers and radio stations are always looking for opinions and interviews, that the Irish political landscape has been shaken by the CSP's rise. "They know we mean business" he told the assembled members, that day in 1997.
How far away that all seems now. Today, most people in Ireland hardly know what the CSP is. The phone in the office stays eerily silent. Even one of its senior members described the party as "largely moribund" in a newspaper article in September. No one gives us the ghost of a chance at election time.
Nevertheless, Party Soldier is optimistic, and that's not just because of the no longer quite full bottle of Montepulciano sitting at his elbow. There is no doubt that the majority of Irish people are fed up with European bureaucracy, of the soft treatment of criminals, of the dictatorship of political correctness, the increasing threat to Irish neutrality, and of the erosion of the traditional family. And it is equally obvious that the mainstream parties can offer them no relief from these things, so thoroughly have they sold out to the liberal agenda. The two parties in the Dáil commonly called "conservative" are not remotely conservative. The Labour party does not even pretend to have different policies from either of them. The only party in the Dáil that is genuinely, idealistically patriotic, Sinn Féin, is dominated on family issues by a liberal, feminist agenda that must alienate most Irish voters. There is a yawning gap on the Irish political spectrum that is crying out to be filled. We need a conservative, patriotic and social party. The Christian Solidarity is that party. It only needs people in order to succeed.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". It's been many years since I first heard those words by Franklin Roosevelt, and I always considered them a bit vague and woolly. (In the "Change you can believe in" league of wooliness, in fact.) But I realised recently that that's exactly what we in the CSP have most to fear: fear itself. Fear that people won't take us seriously. Fear that the might of Fianna Fáil can't be shaken. Fear that we'd be wasting our time. Fear that people will take our leaflets, crumple them up, drop them in the mud and vote for the other parties. This is an irrational fear, because we know that the people are on our side on so many things. We only have to reach them.
Yes, my friends, if we pull together 2009 will go down in history as the year of the breakthrough, the year the CSP burst on to the Irish political stage and got candidates elected. We will get Paul O'Loughlin elected to Dublin City Council in May. We will get pro-life, patriotic candidates elected to the European Parliament in that same month. Ireland will sit up and take notice. I sit here, sipping my wine and looking into the fire in the hearth, and I see things burning there. Not coal. Tired old liberal Ireland. Copies of the Irish Times, EU directives, the Lisbon Treaty, Fianna Fáil brochures. It's all going up! Join me, join us and help bring about the Christian Solidarity Party's breakthrough in 2009!
Happy New Year!
How far away that all seems now. Today, most people in Ireland hardly know what the CSP is. The phone in the office stays eerily silent. Even one of its senior members described the party as "largely moribund" in a newspaper article in September. No one gives us the ghost of a chance at election time.
Nevertheless, Party Soldier is optimistic, and that's not just because of the no longer quite full bottle of Montepulciano sitting at his elbow. There is no doubt that the majority of Irish people are fed up with European bureaucracy, of the soft treatment of criminals, of the dictatorship of political correctness, the increasing threat to Irish neutrality, and of the erosion of the traditional family. And it is equally obvious that the mainstream parties can offer them no relief from these things, so thoroughly have they sold out to the liberal agenda. The two parties in the Dáil commonly called "conservative" are not remotely conservative. The Labour party does not even pretend to have different policies from either of them. The only party in the Dáil that is genuinely, idealistically patriotic, Sinn Féin, is dominated on family issues by a liberal, feminist agenda that must alienate most Irish voters. There is a yawning gap on the Irish political spectrum that is crying out to be filled. We need a conservative, patriotic and social party. The Christian Solidarity is that party. It only needs people in order to succeed.
"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself". It's been many years since I first heard those words by Franklin Roosevelt, and I always considered them a bit vague and woolly. (In the "Change you can believe in" league of wooliness, in fact.) But I realised recently that that's exactly what we in the CSP have most to fear: fear itself. Fear that people won't take us seriously. Fear that the might of Fianna Fáil can't be shaken. Fear that we'd be wasting our time. Fear that people will take our leaflets, crumple them up, drop them in the mud and vote for the other parties. This is an irrational fear, because we know that the people are on our side on so many things. We only have to reach them.
Yes, my friends, if we pull together 2009 will go down in history as the year of the breakthrough, the year the CSP burst on to the Irish political stage and got candidates elected. We will get Paul O'Loughlin elected to Dublin City Council in May. We will get pro-life, patriotic candidates elected to the European Parliament in that same month. Ireland will sit up and take notice. I sit here, sipping my wine and looking into the fire in the hearth, and I see things burning there. Not coal. Tired old liberal Ireland. Copies of the Irish Times, EU directives, the Lisbon Treaty, Fianna Fáil brochures. It's all going up! Join me, join us and help bring about the Christian Solidarity Party's breakthrough in 2009!
Happy New Year!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
