According to Danny Treacy (November 7) my analysis of our sectarian problem is unbalanced and Fr McManus has a slanted view of the Act of Settlement which he claims has no meaningful relevance in England or Ireland today.
He tells us also that since 1922 the Southern State was a cold house for Protestants who are still psychologically impacted by the massacre of Protestant settlers in the 1641 rebellion in Ulster and refers to the historic involvement of the Catholic Church in sectarian conflict.
If any evidence exists that the massacre in 1641 ever happened, I have never seen it. But the settlers he refers to were not hard-working immigrants who wanted a new life in a new country, living according to its laws, cultures and customs. These were land thieves from England and Scotland who gorged themselves on the spoils of the exiled Gaelic chieftains and who robbed and dispossessed the native population. It’s not surprising if many perished in the bloody conflict they created.
But Danny must know that in the 21st century the Act of Settlement still excludes Catholics from the highest offices in Britain and places the sectarian hatred of Catholics at the very heart of the English [albeit unwritten] constitution. It is the raison d’être of the Orange Order.
The English monarchy is also a focus of adulation for the multiple unionist gangs who were set up and armed to the teeth here to murder Catholics. And when the Civil Rights movement were beaten and shot on the streets by the RUC and the British army, sectarianism was built into the structures of this unionist statelet. Discrimination in employment and housing was endemic, some unionists had multiple votes and elections were rigged. And throughout the whole appalling history of the exclusion, discrimination and sectarian murder of Catholics here, there has never been even one disclaimer from any member of the Royal family. How then is the Act of Settlement irrelevant today in England or Ireland?
The Republic was certainly a confessional state, but Protestants there were never excluded from anything including the presidency.
And I did acknowledge that nationalist Ireland is not free from sectarianism. But nowhere does it have any popular support.
JACK DUFFIN
Belfast BT11
Reasons why many find wearing a poppy offensive
Since Leo Varadker wore his ‘Irish poppy’ in Leinster House we have been, yet again, subjected to numerous commentators muddying the waters in relation to the wearing of the poppy in Ireland. We are told again and again that it is to remember the Irish men who died in the First World War. These men certainly should be remembered. Those confused and mystified young Irishmen, tricked and lied to by people like John Redmond and Edward Carson into sacrificing their young lives in the most appalling and pointless bloodbath of modern history.
Let’s be absolutely clear about the wearing of the poppy. The poppy is promoted and sold by the Royal British Legion and only the Royal British Legion (including the ‘Irish poppy’ worn by Leo Varadker). The Royal British Legion is a proud, straight forward and honest organisation. They clearly spell out again and again why one should wear the poppy. It is to remember and honour all British service personnel who fought in all conflicts and for ‘our armed forces community living on today’. There is no room for ambiguity.
The vast majority of British people today seem to be blissfully unaware of the enormous and numerous atrocities committed in their name, by their armed forces in various parts of the world.
But we here in Ireland have a better knowledge of them, at least in relation to our own history. We know who the Black and Tans were and some of what they did. We know who the Paratroopers in Derry on Bloody Sunday were and the British soldiers in Croke Park on another Bloody Sunday.
To wear the poppy honours all of those. It also honours the soldiers who carried out slaughters like Amritsar and the soldiers who rounded up men, women and children and put them in the concentration camps of South Africa. It is a long and disturbing list.
If people, with full knowledge of what they are doing, wish to honour all of those men here in Ireland by wearing the poppy, that is their right. But please understand why so many of us find it offensive.
SEAN WHELAN
National Graves Association, Dublin
Honouring war dead
Nationalists in the Six Counties should have the same right to wear the Easter lily as the unionists do the poppy. However, I always understood parity of esteem to mean that nationalists should have their traditions and culture respected as they have always lived in such a cold house surrounded by British symbols and traditions.
I do not believe that this entails seeing the poppy and the lily as two sides of the one coin.
The Easter lily represents the progressive republican tradition, while the poppy for the most part represents the reactionary colonial tradition – especially in the north.
I do not therefore think it is appropriate for an Irish Taoiseach to wear one and believe that putting it in a shamrock coat and focussing on the Irish who fought for Britain in the First World War is an insidious attempt to make the poppy more acceptable to the Irish – most of them do not wear the conventional poppy largely due to its honouring, without qualification, all actions of the British forces including those in colonies like Ireland and India, and today in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The shamrock poppy is still an emblem of the Royal British Legion. There is already a ceremony in July which honours the fallen Irish soldiers of all campaigns.
As for gestures from the Irish establishment towards UK Remembrance Day, the president’s approach – a bare lapel and the dignified laurel wreath – is ample.
JUDY PEDDLE
Charleville, Co Cork
Damning indictment to position of authority
The British Tories have been rocked and buffeted from pillar to post by the latest allegations of inappropriate behaviour by senior members who sit at the big table, allegations which resulted in one minister resigning fearing the unleashing of a hornets’ nest of misconduct in pursuit of the truth over his past behaviour. Other ministers under investigation await their fate. And similar to two red buses at once another minister who rode the path of the lonesome dove jumped before she was pushed.
In her resignation letter the secretary for international development admitted ‘she didn’t live up to the high standards expected from ministers in public office’.
If one cares to compare and contrast the behaviour of unionists in the former administration that was Stormont the parallels of misfeasance are acutely similar – so-called ministers of little or no experience going on solo runs making bad decisions that showed total disregard to the impact these same decisions had on those directly affected. It is clear the absence of high standards which cost Priti Patel her ministerial post were lacking in certain Stormont ministers who displayed a sneering disrespect to the office they were elected to.
Equally missing was the assertive qualities required from a party leader who appeared detached digging her heels in and ignoring the obvious – a damming indictment to any position of authority.
KEVIN McCANN
Belfast BT1
