Pat Darcy v Gregory Campbell

[Minder]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

Oh im sure we have met him before Pints..........

[Myles Na G.]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

[pintsofguinness]

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

So you've no issue with clubs being named after those who fought in the war of independence or before it, why not? Why are they different than those who fought in the last 30 years? 
I can only think of one club you'd disagree with the naming if that's the case, and that's Kevin Lynch's in Derry.  I can't think of any grounds.  So that's one club when there's what? a couple of thousand GAA clubs? You think they're terrorists, so what? A lot of people don't think they were terrorists. Basically what you want is an monopoly on what communities name their clubs, wake up, it's not 1969 anymore. 

[stibhan]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

I'd suggest to you that the negative impact that James Craig had on the north was probably more pronounced than Kevin Lynch or Bobby Sands', neither of whom were convicted of killing or attempting to kill anyone. Craig's impact has lasted to this day--neither Sands or Lynch's 'violent' contributions have had any long-lasting effect.

In any case I'm not sure a large section of the unionist community can talk about affiliations with terrorism, and I do not think that these clubs have been so named because the people they commemorating were trying to kill people either.

[Myles Na G.]

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

So you've no issue with clubs being named after those who fought in the war of independence or before it, why not? Why are they different than those who fought in the last 30 years? 
I can only think of one club you'd disagree with the naming if that's the case, and that's Kevin Lynch's in Derry.  I can't think of any grounds.  So that's one club when there's what? a couple of thousand GAA clubs? You think they're terrorists, so what? A lot of people don't think they were terrorists. Basically what you want is an monopoly on what communities name their clubs, wake up, it's not 1969 anymore. 

They are different for one simple reason and that is time. There is noone walking around today still traumatised by what happened 90 years ago. There are still many people, on the other hand, living with the legacy of the recent conflict, people who had family members killed or injured by those Kevin Lynch would have considered his comrades. The GAA needs to recognise this. If it doesn't want to recognise this, fine. But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

[Myles Na G.]

Yet another bigot on the gaaboard

Why on earth would young unionists choose to play a game against teams or in sports grounds named after people who, not so long ago, were trying to kill their fathers / uncles / brothers, etc, etc? Seems a no brainer to me.

Pat Darcy's response

"If we can live with the Craigavons, Mountjoys, Kings, Queens, Windsors and Royal Victorias, then I would ask the Minister to tolerate the Casements, Wolf Tones, Kevin Barrys, Pearses, Sam Maguire and the Clarkes."

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

I'd suggest to you that the negative impact that James Craig had on the north was probably more pronounced than Kevin Lynch or Bobby Sands', neither of whom were convicted of killing or attempting to kill anyone. Craig's impact has lasted to this day--neither Sands or Lynch's 'violent' contributions have had any long-lasting effect.

In any case I'm not sure a large section of the unionist community can talk about affiliations with terrorism, and I do not think that these clubs have been so named because the people they commemorating were trying to kill people either.

You're hair splitting. Whether or not Sands or Lynch personally killed anyone is irrelevant. They were paid up members of an organisation which killed many people, unionist and nationalist alike. Likewise, it is the impact of the organisation you have to measure. The 'long lasting effects' of the IRA are still being felt by many families on this island and in Britain.

[tyrone86]

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

Sure while we're at it, how about we change the names of the St. Pat's, St John's, St Michaels because they might offend Atheists.

And the Fr Devlin and Fr McGuigan parks because they might offend all the various non-catholics as well.

Give me a break. Out of the 2500 plus clubs in Ireland, Unionists continue to site examples of a handful of clubs which cause 'offense'. Fair enough, but as Darcy noted in his speech, these clubs are microcosms of the communities they represent. Instead of chastising the wider GAA, why don't they express their concerns to the clubs and communities in question to see why people are honoured and for what reason? It's very disingenuous of the DUP politicians to keep up these public proclamations with the sole intent of depriving GAA clubs throughout the North with money from Funders.

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

[Myles Na G.]

My apologies - I should've been clearer. I was referring to the naming of clubs after people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years, rather than those from the war of independence. Also Darcy's response is a case of comparing apples with pears. If the GAA were naming clubs after old politicians, former Irish presidents, and so on, there probably wouldn't be a problem. But they aren't. They're naming them after people the wider unionist community - including those Darcy wants to see taking up the game - would view as terrorists. And what's your definition of bigot, BTW? Someone who holds a different view than yourself? Very liberal, I'm sure.

Sure while we're at it, how about we change the names of the St. Pat's, St John's, St Michaels because they might offend Atheists.

And the Fr Devlin and Fr McGuigan parks because they might offend all the various non-catholics as well.

Give me a break. Out of the 2500 plus clubs in Ireland, Unionists continue to site examples of a handful of clubs which cause 'offense'. Fair enough, but as Darcy noted in his speech, these clubs are microcosms of the communities they represent. Instead of chastising the wider GAA, why don't they express their concerns to the clubs and communities in question to see why people are honoured and for what reason? It's very disingenuous of the DUP politicians to keep up these public proclamations with the sole intent of depriving GAA clubs throughout the North with money from Funders.

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

Don't think jealousy has anything to do with it, with respect. I think it's more that the GAA portrays itself as an apolitical, non sectarian organisation, while at the same time allowing its members to name clubs after hunger strikers, allowing its teams to use GAA facilities for competitions honouring IRA men killed 'on active service', allowing commemorations to take place on its premises, etc etc. If unionists / loyalist football teams were honouring the Billy Wrights or Lennie Murphys in a similar fashion there'd be a huge outcry amongst nationalists. Why the double standards?

[pintsofguinness]

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

You're right, jealously and bigotry.  If we did rename Kevin Lynch's club the bigots like myles would go after clubs named after saints, there would always be something.  These people have no interest in the GAA, they see clubs thriving and they can't take it. I think the have only realised a few years ago, after they were finished trying to kill us, what a thriving force the GAA is and it kills them. 
It also kills them that people like the hunger strikers would be remembered because it reminds them of what they've done, they use the word "terrorist" at every opportunity in an attempt to avoid the blame for what they've done. 

They are different for one simple reason and that is time. There is noone walking around today still traumatised by what happened 90 years ago.

So you think it's all forgotten? You'd like that wouldnt you?

But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

Of course it is, you seem to know a lot about the GAA, wake up myles, it's not a nightmare you're having, nationalists are really on an equal footing with you. 


btw myles, what makes you think you've a right to dictate to a community how to remember a deceased member?

[Myles Na G.]

From where I'm sitting, jealousy seems to be the root cause for most of these attacks because of the community infrastructures that the GAA has built up in the 6 counties and that they're miles ahead of their Unionist counterparts in this regard.

You're right, jealously and bigotry.  If we did rename Kevin Lynch's club the bigots like myles would go after clubs named after saints, there would always be something.  These people have no interest in the GAA, they see clubs thriving and they can't take it. I think the have only realised a few years ago, after they were finished trying to kill us, what a thriving force the GAA is and it kills them. 
It also kills them that people like the hunger strikers would be remembered because it reminds them of what they've done, they use the word "terrorist" at every opportunity in an attempt to avoid the blame for what they've done. 

They are different for one simple reason and that is time. There is noone walking around today still traumatised by what happened 90 years ago.

So you think it's all forgotten? You'd like that wouldnt you?

But it should then stop pedalling the 'we want to reach out to unionists' crap and acknowledge that, in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

Of course it is, you seem to know a lot about the GAA, wake up myles, it's not a nightmare you're having, nationalists are really on an equal footing with you. 


btw myles, what makes you think you've a right to dictate to a community how to remember a deceased member?

If an organisation receives public funding, which the GAA does, then there are certain obligations which go with that money. One such obligation should be not to cause offence to a large section of the community by celebrating the memory of people who killed their friends and relatives. The GAA ignores this obligation. The GAA is supposed to be a sporting body. It should stick to sport and leave the politics to others.

[tyrone86]

Don't think jealousy has anything to do with it, with respect. I think it's more that the GAA portrays itself as an apolitical, non sectarian organisation, while at the same time allowing its members to name clubs after hunger strikers, allowing its teams to use GAA facilities for competitions honouring IRA men killed 'on active service', allowing commemorations to take place on its premises, etc etc. If unionists / loyalist football teams were honouring the Billy Wrights or Lennie Murphys in a similar fashion there'd be a huge outcry amongst nationalists. Why the double standards?

Don't kid yourself, the Gaelic Athletic Association isn't apolitical. See Rule 2 - "The Association is a National Organisation which has as its basic aim the strengthening of the National Identity in a 32 County Ireland through the preservation and promotion of Gaelic Games and pastimes".

Now look at Rule 7

(a) The Association shall be non-party political. Party political questions shall not be discussed at its meetings, and no Committee, Club, Council or representative thereof shall take part, as such, in any party political movement. A penalty of up to twenty four weeks suspension may be imposed for infringement.
(b) The Association shall be non-sectarian.

Despite your belief that the GAA is "Sinn Fein in football boots" and despite the appearance many of my provincial comrades many project, the GAA isn't Ulster centric. I'm sure there are Fianna Fail, Fine Gael and even a few SDLP cabals up and down the country. However, the fact remains, whatever the political viewpoint of the various clubs at local level, the organisation as a whole is non party political.

As for the GAA "allowing" clubs to name themselves after Hunger Strikers, you ignored the thrust of my last point. Clubs are based upon the parishes and communities where they come from. No one can presume to tell the people of Dungiven who they can and can't name their club after, just like they can't tell the people of Loughmacrory or Galbally who they can and can't honour. Likewise, the old Rule 21 is now gone and whether I would regard the recruits of Garnerville to be Gaels or not is irrelevant, they are entitled to to call themselves Garnerville Gaels.

As for the Billy Wright / Lenny Murphy thing, we've been told for 40 years that the Unionists of "Ulster" are law abiding and God fearing people. They had their RUC, their B Specials and their UDR/RIR and they're regarded as heroes by Unionists. None of those organisations were exactly friends of the GAA or the Nationalist community for the duration of the troubles and I'm sure many on the board can regale you with the numerous encounters with said organisations on their way to and from matches. Yet Rule 21 is gone, the GAA has moved forward. You're the one that was talking about naming clubs after "people who were 'active' in the conflict over the past 30 years". How do you think the McAnespie family feel about the comrades of the Solider who murdered Aidan being able to partake in GAA activities now, 20 years after his death? Let's be perfectly fair, Unionist politicians in the North have very little room to be pointing the finger of double standards in the North at the GAA

[Maguire01]

in the north of Ireland at least, it is basically Sinn Fein in football boots.

That's one of the most ridiculous comments i've read. So far removed from the truth.

[ardmhachaabu]

Well said Tyrone86

This whole thing of unionism and the GAA - it's time the GAA took the blinkers off and realised once and for all that no matter what changes are made to the constitution and no matter what attempts are made to 'reach out' to the unionist community, certain sections of political unionism will always find a problem with the GAA.  Unionists will still support GAA teams, both at club and IC level.  They just don't make it too obvious depending on where they live as the same sections of political unionism may find it objectionable.

What I'm saying is people either like the sport and get behind it or they don't.  No amount of changing what the GAA is about will ever change that.

[Rossfan]

"Myles" is another of those blinkered one eyed thick Unionists who think the 6 Cos was a perfect Heaven for everyone till about 1970 or thereabouts when some crowd of "Terrorists" called the IRA started a campaign of violence for no apparent reason.
The Myleses and the like - Allister and his one voice backwoodsmen,Frazer and the like-  need to realise that 1922 to 1967 is gone and will NEVER come back.
They also need to  confront and come to terms with Unionism's evils over those years and before they start on the GAA realise too that for Nationalists( 45% of the pop of the 6 Cos) the use of totally British names on public buildings,roads,bridges towns  is annoying at best,downright insulting at worst and is of course the result of the awful violence and land grab inflicted on the Irish in the past.
As for complaining about the GAA getting public funding -- are GAA people and Nationalists in general in the North exempt from paying tax/VAT/Excise etc?
Myles -public funding is exactly that PUBLIC. In the North the public = 55% Unionist and 45% Nationalist. Or are you such a backwoodsman that you still think it's a case of Unionists handing out money to "them"

[Maguire01]

As for complaining about the GAA getting public funding -- are GAA people and Nationalists in general in the North exempt from paying tax/VAT/Excise etc?
Myles -public funding is exactly that PUBLIC. In the North the public = 55% Unionist and 45% Nationalist. Or are you such a backwoodsman that you still think it's a case of Unionists handing out money to "them"

Point well said.