Messages

Ludermor,

It is not that, and again it seems some people spend more time nitpicking than thinking about the bigger picture.

I will write about more GAA-centred topics when I feel like doing so, today, next week, next month or whatever. It just happens that I think this subject more significant right now than 'predict the score' or other subjects trending elsewhere. No need to act like the thought police.

It is a well known tactic of Marie Stopes to move into a country where abortion is illegal or tightly restricted and to push out the boundaries.

At a Stopes Conference in London in 2007 their Programme Director in South Africa Paul Cornellisson  admitted that Stopes would perform illegal abortions to help local pro-abortion campaigners liberalise the abortion law in namibia where abortion is restricted. You can actually google this video if you wish.

Key quote by Cornellisson: "I mean...we perform illegal abortions all over the world."

Glens, I already did the math on that one in an earlier post.

Maguire, no it's not my problem. It is a problem for society that an organisation masquerading as a charity and having been accepted by some loose definition as same is prepared to break the law and cause unnecessary deaths.

Maguire, the distinction between Unionists and Nationalists was merely to prove that - as far as can be done in the absence of more accurate statistics - most Northern Nationalists oppose a Marie Stopes-type regime and so SF are not truly reflecting that body of opinion.

I cannot accept that a treatment which results in the death of another being is an act of charity.

Glens, the problem is that SF's statement is wishful thinking.

There is no surer way of allowing the 1967 Abortion Act to apply in the North of Ireland and abortion on demand than to allow Marie Stopes to operate here. Operating within the law is the least of the concerns. As addressed in a previous post, the elastic term 'mental wellbeing' has been the spurious pretext of millions of abortions in Britain.

SF have spurned perhaps the best chance in a lifetime to protect against the 1967 Act. I accept some of the parties may have wanted to embarrass SF with the motion, but SF should be supporting it. The reasons SF are not supporting is less to do with actual problem with the legislation than with maintaining a vestige of unity and placating Caitriona Ruane and the pro-abortion element in the party south of the border.

Maguire, you misrepresent me straight out of the blocks.

I never said Unionists are more 'pro-choice' than Nationalists in numbers. Nor do I 'bluster'. Unravelling SF's doublespeak on this issue takes a bit of explanation.

And Marie Stopes is no more a charity than my arse. It is a private business seeking to make money out of this sensitive subject. Nothing it does is upfront. Euphemistic language is the rule. Rarely has anyone been evasive as the Marie Stopes representatives before the Health Committee at Stormont. Numerous women have died as a result of abortions in Stopes clinics over the years. An Irishwoman nearly died in one in 2011. Doesn't sound much like a charity to me.

I also think a lot of people in the North are beginning to question their previous adherence to SF. This may or may not work much to the advantage of the SDLP, but in the long term it will probaby be one of a number of factors eating away at SF's current dominance in the North.

Johnney, you have raised a point from before I don't fully accept:

Lets not kid ourselves, he's churned out the RC's stance so any knowledge he's garnered is from the pulpit. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but he hasn't brought anything new to the debate.

Brian Feeney has adopted this simplistic outlook today in the Irish News today. But Harte's statement did not deal with religion. Do not always presume that one thing automatically explains an other. It is possible for people of faith to oppose abortion for reasons beyond the pulpit. I am Catholic, and that has helped to shape my views, but it is not just because I am Catholic that I oppose abortion. I do not adhere to every rule of the church. If asked which were more important to me, the sanctity of human life or Catholic preaching/institutions, I would choose the former. In fact, it is very logical to be pro-life for humanitarian reasons or as a pacifist. Groups such as 'Atheists against Abortion' exist.

Not so Deiseach. I am a lifelong GAA member who has read this board for years who is disgusted by personal attacks on Mickey Harte, the duplicity of Sinn Fein, and finds the importance of the abortion issue completely undermined by smart comments on this board and the selective choice of facts put forward by the 'pro-choice' lobby.

To suggest I have am some sort of infiltrator whose only interests are the politics of the abortion issue is another gross distortion.

Fixed that, punctuation junkies.

Lawnseed, pro-corruption or a sycophant of any party I ain't.

Fionntamhnach, your point is fair enough. But just look at it like this, a lot of the opinion-formers out there use Twitter, especially on issues such as this one. Through social media everyone can now voice their opinion, and millions do. Mickey Harte doesn't use Twitter, so he issues a press-release or one is issued for him. If he had announced the same opinion via Twitter, would it be wrong for him to do so?

Cheers Mup and Tony. I'll stay around as long as Lawnseed and Orior permit. They seem to advocate refusing food to six billion inconvenient people, so there's an 85% chance I will perish.

Welcome, Lurker. Interesting first post, but I am confused.

Thanks Muppet. To answer

Is this a pro-Harte crusade? No. I disagree with him on many subjects.
Or an anti-Shinner one?  I am traditionally a Sinn Fein supporter. I am only anti-Shinner because their sheer dishonesty on this issue shows up their true colours and the lack of real character in the party.
Or a call to shoot bile at Colm O'Rourke? Certainly not.
Is it support for Gaa people using their Gaa profiles to speak out? Freedom of speech I support for any sportsperson, except where it involves advocating injury on another.
Or an attack on politicians who use the Gaa in this way? Politicians who have a track record of real involvement in sport I don't mind.
Is it an attack on southerners in SF in the North? No, just Caitriona Ruane.
Or a lash at SF Northerners following the lead of SF Southerners? Wasn't meant that way, but now you mention it...
Is it an attack on Southern institutions for having an opinion? Somewhat. They are not supposed to be elected to discuss issues of this nature. They deal with labour relations etc, not health and moral issues. But if they are entitled to speak up on such issues, it should be open season for any citizen.

Or is it simply a pro-life manifesto disguised as all of the above? No. I think it's pretty evident I am a GAA member.

[Britain]

Actually Ball de Beaver, I think Nally Stand isn't a bad fellow. A bit too loyal to the leadership maybe, but I actually agree with him on many issues.

Now a few facts on abortion that the Twitterati chooses to ignore.

Whereas Ireland remains one of the safest countries in the world to have a baby, and we are told by Caitriona Ruane we need Marie Stopes to protect Irish women:

Britain - For every four live births in Britain now there is an abortion. Over 95% of these are performed because the woman's mental health is supposed to be in danger. They are more to do with reasons of convenience. As shown by Panorama recently, some women have up to five or six abortions in a decade.

India - Around 20,000 women die in India each year due to abortion-related complications. There are about 11 million abortions in India each year. E.g. on 28th February a woman in Hyderabad died as a result of an abortion her family forced her to undergo on a five-month-old foetus.

China – 13 million abortions per year, plus 10 million abortion pills sold. Families with one child already are punished if a second pregnancy is not aborted. For this reasons China is the only country in the world where female suicide is more frequent than male suicide. Google for example the death of 38 year old Ma Jihong in 2011, who was caught at her home by 10 family planning officials after a chase, taken into hospital for a forced abortion, and died eight hours later. How can Anna Lo to lecture us about the necessity of abortion?

Gendercide - India - One in five preborn baby girls is aborted. China – For every 100 girls born, 117 boys are born. These cause serious problems for society, such as a shortage of women as partners for men, which in turn leads to a serious in prostitution. In Britain, there is increasing evidence of gendercide in abortions, especially among immigrant communities. Remind me again, where are the women's rights here?

USA - About 1/3 of pregnancies among black women end in abortion.

It seems quite obvious that as with several other causes, Harte joined the pro-life platform publicly because he was asked by people within the ranks. And it seems equally obvious that not only does he believe in that cause, but he believed that the pro-life views that are shared by many citizens are not being truly represented by those in public office. The Belfast Telegraph, which adopts a pro-abortion/pro-choice stance, made a big deal lately that 24% of people in a survey wanted a change in the law – i.e. Marie Stopes etc to be legalised. But that leaves 76% who do not want a change. Factor in the many from Unionist backgrounds who believe it should be legalised, and you are still left with a huge majority of Nationalists who do not want it.

Yet the main Nationalist party in the North is neither representing these views nor being honest with its electorate. When Marie Stopes opened in Belfast Martin McGuinness spoke with disgust and claimed Sinn Fein was a 'pro-life' party. This week there is a readymade chance to show that by passing the motion at the Assembly. But the truth about SF is beginning to emerge to the public at large. SF have now decided to vote en bloc to allow this notorious British abortion business to operate practically at will. SF are neither a pro-life party nor the united all-Ireland party they pretend to be. They have two very different bases and emphases either side of the border, and are more accurately two parties operating under the same banner. North of the border their supporters are mostly the died in the wool nationalists and republicans that have long been the backbone of the party. South of the border they are more neo-Marxist and militant feminist than they are nationalist. A recent survey found that even more Fine Gael voters than Sinn Fein voters in the South want a united Ireland. Even Fine Gael! Yet the southern tail is wagging the dog in SF with regard to social issues. McGuinness and co should remember that the southern socialists and feminists are more fickle than the party's solid base in the North, and they will jump ship very quickly back to the Labour or whatever other neo-Sticky party is flavour of the month when the chance arises.

SF are obsessed with the appearance of unity. But on an issue of conscience like abortion there are more important considerations than appearance. In an effort to support 'choice', no choice or freedom of expression is given to the politicians who are pro-life. Peadar Tobin in Meath was publicly disciplined for supporting the pro-life cause that McGuinness claims the party support. It is reported that TDs such as Jonathan O'Brien, Pearse Doherty and Martin Ferris are also uncomfortable with voting for new legislation based on the threat of suicide, but fear the party whip. No doubt the same applies to some of the 29 MLAs in the North who are going to carry through with their treacherous act tomorrow. So by default Caitriona Ruane, a tennis-playing arch-feminist from Mayo who was fasttracked through SF under the guise of Feile an Phobal and the Colombia Three but whose electability remains inferior even to the charmless Margaret Richie, becomes the main spokesperson for Northern Nationalism on this issue by speaking directly counter to the views of Northern Nationalists.

SF are a pathetic excuse for a party in the North. It is sad reflection that it is the old figureheads who are the most capable spokesmen of the party: McGuinness, Adams, Kelly. The party is awash with puppet politicians, shifty characters, colleagues of informers and more. Look through the Assembly crew, a sorry lot. They are promoted on the basis of loyalty to the 30 year old leadership, not competence. Anyone whom the leadership deems hard to handle is sidelined. Once the current top dogs go, there will be a fair mess. (The SDLP are obviously severely limited in the first place.) SF's main tactic to win popularity is to hijack every GAA occasion and platform going but their GAA credentials are weak or fake altogether. They seem to spend half their days butting into the conversations of GAA members on Twitter. Cringe. Only one SF MLA I can think of (McElduff) has a real GAA pedigree, and he milks that to no end.

So while it seems to be deemed acceptable for SF to take advantage of the GAA platform, when Mickey Harte feels compelled to speak out to highlight the cowardice and dishonesty of SF politicians on the abortion issue, it is suddenly a terrible thing. Reading through Twitter this week is fascinating. A clutch of journalists are shrieking horror at Harte's audacity. Andrew E Quinn in the Derry Journal yesterday, a big GAA fan clearly. Even Emma Canavan, Journalist BBC NI, Glencull/Belfast, writing after Paul Givan MLA of the DUP cited Harte's comments, 'can the GAA represent its members views on this?' Judging by her credentials I'm judging she's a relative of Peter Canavan and a neighbour of Harte. Does she ask whether GAA members views are fairly represented when SF use GAA stars to promote their party? Perhaps I grant her too much respect. Scroll further down to see her retweet an article proclaiming 'The Pope's Entire Career has the Stench of Evil About It'. Too many Dan Brown novels read there it seems. Perhaps she realised like many before her that in order to be accepted into the inner circles of the media nowadays you have to be a card-carrying 'liberal' who disdains all things traditional or religious. It seems that just about any image is acceptable viewing on TV nowadays but that of an aborted foetus.
Let's just look at some of those supposedly non-political bodies which are publicly advocating increased access to abortion:

Irish Congress of Trade Unions, SIPTU,
Union of Students in Ireland, Several university students' unions
The so-called (and public-funded) National Women's Council of Ireland

Individuals who have put their names to 'Action on X': Prof Seamus Deane, Maeve Higgins the 'comedian', Ken Loach the film director, Fintan O'Toole the journalist, etc

Michael D Higgins has even spoken beyond his presidential remit on this issue twice, but because he was on the 'right' side of the debate the media have not taken him to task. (The Penguin will be swanning around the GAA Congress next weekend, but he is anything but a GAA man; his chief contribution to sport has been as a President of Galway United FC.)

So if it is alright for all the above to express views on matters for which they were not elected to speak, nor could they represent all their members' views, nor do they all have wombs, why is it not alright for Mickey Harte?

For a long time I've read this site for amusement without ever joining in. The rather disturbing and suddenly vanished Mickey Harte thread, along with the seriousness of the subject he raised, motivate me to throw in my tuppence worth. In case anyone says I am dragging up a mothballed subject, there is still sniping at Mickey on Twitter and even in the Sunday Derry Journal. But the whole episode, and Sinn Fein's dishonesty with its own electorate as shown this very day by signing en bloc the petition of concern at Stormont, raise very awkward questions about Irish nationalism in general which deserve proper debate rather than the petty name-calling into which the last thread descended.

Time for a bit of a reality check. Harte first. Nearly every dimension of his life changed just over two years ago. It really seems only a small number of posters realise the significance of this. Even less on twitter and other online forums. Yes he always been his own man, long before 2011 – a leader and manager of even presidential quality in some people's eyes, or as some others saw him a headstrong and belligerent man who sought too much attention by writing books.

But everything was bound to change for him and his family after the tragedy of Michaela. Let's set aside the share grief and the protracted fiasco in Mauritius and think of the practicalities of domestic life.  Whatever brave face he put up, the burden of suffering so publicly must weigh heavily on all. Family life would have to operate differently after a tragedy of that magnitude. Working 9 to 5 as before in the world of property was never a runner. Besides, the way he would see the world, and even more so the way the world would see him, would never be the same. His options were to retreat from public life altogether, or to turn his public tragedy to some good as he would see it. There wasn't really an in-between option. Was he going to maintain a public role in football but ignore all the many requests he would receive nationwide for help after local tragedies, for inspirational talks, for charitable endorsements and much more? It was never in his nature, and he appears to have seen such things as the only positive to be taken from Michaela's death.

Some people don't like what Harte has to say, but he hasn't killed anyone, and I doubt he has hurt many either. He has strong opinions on football. So what? Don't we all? He made a case for Brian Carthy, putting himself out for a friend. Was RTE's response in proportion? He attended a Quinn rally. Big deal. Obviously his arm was twisted to attend, like a string of other GAA personalities. (Colm O'Rourke seems to have as many platforms and opinions as Harte, but somehow he doesn't inspire as much bile online.) The reference used by the defence of Ronan McCusker in his sexual assault case appears a more dubious call, on the face of it. It is certainly disturbing that Harte's name was used in court to try to lessen his crime and punishment. But do we really know the full facts of the case? One story now circulating is that the reference was actually provided for a job application before and then dragged up in court out of context. Perhaps this isn't true, but few of us really know enough to say any better.

It is farcical to claim Harte is abusing his public position by talking about certain subjects. With microphones thrust in front of him he could have said much, much more over the last two years. Rather than condemn his daughter's killers he chose to speak publicly about mercy and forgiveness. He did not speak with anger about Mauritius, when it was the natural human condition of many observers to call for a boycott of the island. He tried to show the Christian and tolerant example which he believed in. Quite the opposite of abusing his position.

Before saying another harsh word about Mickey Harte or anyone else for that matter, they should recall how many harsh things were said about Michaela on this forum and elsewhere when she was alive. Some of the criticisms were completely over the top and often quite vicious. After she died, the same people seemed to conveniently forget their previous bilious commentary about her. If there is a lesson in all of that, it's that we should keep all criticism in proportion, and not demonise those we disagree with.

Now, as for Harte's part in the abortion debate...