Willie Frazer threatens protests and riots if not allowed see Queen in Dublin

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

"Whataboutery" is where someone tries to defend their (or someone else's) wrongdoing, even claim that it is not wrong at all, on the basis that someone else did something worse.

Which is exactly what you did above, albeit in a rather circuitous way (claiming that Frazer might say... yeah, right).

Here is the sequence:
1. Frazer "goes off on one" (via a Press Release to a newspaper etc);
2. Broken Crossbar states he should be arrested etc;
3. I point out that doing so would (a ) be a waste of time/resources, (b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc; and (c ) would give a spurious "credibility" to Frazer's agenda;
4. On that basis, I formed the opinion he should not be arrested.

In other words, I was contesting Broken Crossbar's original point about the need to arrest him etc.

How does any of that constitute defending what Frazer originally said?

Just to simplify it: 'whataboutery' (and the clue is in the term) is when someone responds against a particular allegation against someone or other with a 'What about... someone or other else'

Ergo, despite your elaborate attempt at a mea innocentia, you did come back against BC1's assertion in the first instance that the wee madman be arraigned for incitement with:

For if he were arrested and charged etc, his first "defence" would be to question why eg this shower [RIRA] are allowed to demonstrate with complete impunity:...

Which can be neatly summarised as 'What about the RIRA...'

[imtommygunn]

(b ) would demonstrate a skewed sense of priorities when eg the Real IRA go unchallenged etc

How do they go unchallenged? The perpetrators haven't been caught which is hardly unchallenged. That's a bit of a slight on the PSNI there.

I was referring to the recent "Commemoration" in Derry, where the Real IRA were able to stage a paramilitary display without being challenged by the Security Forces, that's how.
And unless they (PSNI) were instructed to take no action by the Secretary of State (or someone), which is always a possibility, then I consider that to be a dereliction* of duty by them.
And such dereliction would be further heightened were they to arrest gombeens like Frazer for his latest rant, as Broken Crossbar advocates.


* - Or were you not disturbed, even outraged, at the sight of vermin like the Real IRA being able to publicly threaten more murders like that of Const. Kerr?

It is hardly a skewed sense of priorities when they arrest someone for breaking the law - do you expect that they down tools and don't arrest anyone for any crime until the real IRA are caught?

No.

Nor may that be reasonably inferred from my posts, either.

Poor poor post with little rationale except to just try and mention other "side" wrongdoings to try and get some cheap digs in.

Who do you mean by "the other side", then?
I had hoped we were all on the same side when it comes to the Real IRA 
And whilst you may disagree with it, I fail to see how my original point (i.e. that it's best to ignore Frazer, until he goes away) constitutes a "cheap dig" at anyone (except, perhaps, Frazer himself?).

Sadly, you appear to be yet another of those Members of this Board who only have to see my name on a post  to automatically ascribe a (pre-conceived) position or motive towards me, without bothering to read or understand what it is I'm actually saying. 

I know very little about you as I generally avoid the political posts due to it turning into cheap point scoring exercises Simply pointing out your post was c**p and don't try to drag things in about me advocating this or that because of what I think of your post - I advocate none of it

[mylestheslasher]

Ye are all missing the point, would queen Elizabeth like a little Willie she comes to make her feel at home

[Pangurban]

EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him

[Lar Naparka]

EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him

+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow  loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder. 

[brokencrossbar1]

EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him

+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow  loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder.

He does have a valid point, that we should ignore Willie, he does in my view tend towards the whataboutery with his replyn in a somewhat proxy way but we'll let it slide. On the substantive point though I can understand why he says to ignore Willie. The thing is maybe it is time to start taking idiots like him out of the equation. We are supposed to be living in a civilised society yet lunatic fringes like him can still spout sectarian bile and ignore the law when it suits him. He is so determined to get his point across that he will never fade away. He has the medium of youtube to put his diatribes on so it doesn't even have to be through main stream media. I simply feel that the let it be attitude needs to change abd people need to stand against the extrtemities.

[Lar Naparka]

EG has made a valid point, he is correct in his analysis, and nothing in his origianal post justifies a charge of whataboutery being levelled against him

+1
Willie is coming with the sole intention of getting himself into a spot of bother. I'm certain he is hoping to be arrested and/or roughed up by the public at large so he can go back to his fellow  loyalist loonies and scream bloody blue murder.

He does have a valid point, that we should ignore Willie, he does in my view tend towards the whataboutery with his replyn in a somewhat proxy way but we'll let it slide. On the substantive point though I can understand why he says to ignore Willie. The thing is maybe it is time to start taking idiots like him out of the equation. We are supposed to be living in a civilised society yet lunatic fringes like him can still spout sectarian bile and ignore the law when it suits him. He is so determined to get his point across that he will never fade away. He has the medium of youtube to put his diatribes on so it doesn't even have to be through main stream media. I simply feel that the let it be attitude needs to change abd people need to stand against the extrtemities.

You are dead right; we should try to ignore Willie and his likes. I certainly don't agree with everything that EG posts but I think he was right to mention the possibility that Willie will try and milk the occasion for what it's worth.
I mean that the said Willie isn't too fussed by the Queen's visit; his true motive is to get himself and his followers rough up by the security forces and, better still, to get themselves abused by other spectators.
You have to remember that he isn't looking for sympathy from the public at large. He is trying to drum up support from the loony Loyalist elements that share his views.
Yep, he is certain to have videos of his treatment put up on YouTube for his crowd to see.
I think it's reasonable to expect him to have a go at security forces north and south also.
Stuff the GFA!
Honest to goodness subjects of her Majesty can't turn up at a parade to show their support for their  Gracious Sovereign without being roughed up while masked and armed Republican terrorists can freely walk about without interference from any quarter.
Nah, I know that's crazy—but so are Willy and his types. They don't need logic to stir the sh1t.
Your final point is equally valid; people have to stop letting it be. Evil will thrive whilst good people stand idly by—with apologies to both JFK and Jack Lynch.
(I think there is a mixture of quotes by the pair of them mixed up in there.)
In the case of Willie and his antics, this is where the Unionist majority should stand up and be counted. I see no evidence so far to suggest that Unionists in general are showing any signs of disapproval of what he plans to do.
That's just not good enough.
That's where the spancil must be put on Willie & Co.
Back in Paisley's demagogic days, I'm told the vast majority of Unionists didn't approve of his behaviour but they didn't try and distance themselves publicly from him either.
It's a case of the Three Monkeys Syndrome, isn't it? ""See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil"
I accept what EG has to say about the need for Nationalists to reach out to their old enemies but this has to be a two-way process. Bridge building is best carried out from both ends of the chasm.
Until mainstream Unionism tells Willie to grow up and f**k off, we are going to have him and his likes causing trouble.

[Evil Genius]

In the case of Willie and his antics, this is where the Unionist majority should stand up and be counted. I see no evidence so far to suggest that Unionists in general are showing any signs of disapproval of what he plans to do.
That's just not good enough.
That's where the spancil must be put on Willie & Co.
Back in Paisley's demagogic days, I'm told the vast majority of Unionists didn't approve of his behaviour but they didn't try and distance themselves publicly from him either.
It's a case of the Three Monkeys Syndrome, isn't it? ""See no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil"
I accept what EG has to say about the need for Nationalists to reach out to their old enemies but this has to be a two-way process. Bridge building is best carried out from both ends of the chasm.
Until mainstream Unionism tells Willie to grow up and f**k off, we are going to have him and his likes causing trouble.

So Unionists need to "stand up and be counted" over Frazer, do they?

Frazer stood for election to Westminster in his home Constituency of Newry & Armagh last year:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/constituency/711.stm

And as you can see from the, ahem, count, out of a total turnout of 44,906 voters, Frazer received the grand total of 656 votes = 1.5% = Lost Deposit. (Or, out of a total of 14,978 Unionist voters, his share amounted to 4.4%.)

Meanwhile, the poll was topped by Conor Murphy with 18,857 votes = 42.0% (or 64.2% of the total Nationalist vote). Murphy is a former IRA member who served time for possession of explosives. We may safely assume that he didn't have these for dealing with troublesome tree stumps on his land:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/4309568.stm

Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.

As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.


* - Achieved without so much as a 10th preference from me at any time, I am proud to add...

[Eamonnca1]

Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.

Ah, the old "only fenians vote for terrorists" myth. Haven't seen that in a while. Of course it conveniently overlooks the subtle "same but different" way in which unionism has always related to terrorism. While SF's association with the provos was never a secret, mainstream unionist parties have always worn a veneer of respectability when it comes to the use of force, but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only major party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.

The only difference between the unionist parties and the republican movement is that the unionists historically outsourced violence to organisations which were supposedly "out of their control", and hence they could strictly speaking wash their hands of it.  But unionism has never been shy about using the threat of loyalist violence to advance its arguments. They've even flirted with direct involvement in violence and procurement of arms for loyalists.












Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy.  The idea of loyalist violence being a purely reactionary phenomenon has no basis in fact, yet that is the image that unionism has successfully painted of it.  And any unionist condemnation of loyalist violence was always muted by comparison to their condemnation of republican violence. Oftentimes it was just used as a means of having a go at republicans, it was as if they were incapable of condemning the latest loyalist atrocity without having a go at republicans while they were at it. (I have to bring that up because we all know how important the practice of condemnation is to our unionist friends - it means a great deal to them.)

As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.

The exact same thing could be said of SF.  They were always second fiddle to the SDLP until quite some time after the ceasefire.  It took a long time for them to build the trust of nationalist voters in large numbers. Your slur on the nationalist community is completely bogus.

[Denn Forever]

I fail to see what is the problem people have with EG. 

He make points and backs them up with reasoned analysis.  You may not agree with the analysis but see where hes coming from.

[armagho9]

Now before anyone jumps on me with charges of "whataboutery" etc, my point is that Unionism has traditionally declined to vote for the more fringe, extreme elements of "Loyalism" [sic], whereas Nationalists have been regularly prepared to vote in large numbers for people who have been heavily and directly involved in killing people.

Ah, the old "only fenians vote for terrorists" myth. Haven't seen that in a while. Of course it conveniently overlooks the subtle "same but different" way in which unionism has always related to terrorism. While SF's association with the provos was never a secret, mainstream unionist parties have always worn a veneer of respectability when it comes to the use of force, but you only have to scratch the surface to see that the only party in the north which has actively and 100% opposed violence since its inception is the SDLP.

The only difference between the unionist parties and the republican movement is that the unionists historically outsourced violence to organisations which were supposedly "out of their control", and hence they could strictly speaking wash their hands of it.  But unionism has never been shy about using the threat of loyalist violence to advance its arguments. They've even flirted with direct involvement in violence and procurement of arms for loyalists.












Indeed, "respectable" unionism's opposition to loyalist violence was half-hearted at best and fake at worst. Any description of loyalist violence was always explained in terms of being "in retaliation for" some republican atrocity, the implication being that it was really republicans who were responsible for loyalist violence - the old "complicit victim" fallacy.  The idea of loyalist violence being a purely reactionary phenomenon has no basis in fact, yet that is the image that unionism has successfully painted of it.  And any unionist condemnation of loyalist violence was always muted by comparison to their condemnation of republican violence. Oftentimes it was just used as a means of having a go at republicans, it was as if they were incapable of condemning the latest loyalist atrocity without having a go at republicans while they were at it. (I have to bring that up because we all know how important the practice of condemnation is to our unionist friends - it means a great deal to them.)

As for Paisley, it is also notable that during what you describe as his "demogogic days" (I prefer the term "out-and-out bigoted days" myself), he and his party were always the minority within Unionism. Indeed, it is only since they moved towards the centre from the extremes that they become the dominant* force within Unionsim.

The exact same thing could be said of SF.  They were always second fiddle to the SDLP until quite some time after the ceasefire.  It took a long time for them to build the trust of nationalist voters in large numbers. Your slur on the nationalist community is completely bogus.

100% correct. 

[stew]

The problem with you eg is that you are always at the same shite, some loyalist sc**bag does something or says something and you come out with some shite totally unrelated to the issue at hand and make it out to be one is as bad as the other.

If this tr**p frazer is inciting rioting and hatred the peelers have a duty to arrest him, end of discussion. Just once i would like to see you write something and give your opioion without resorting to proving that fenians are just as bad.

[Eamonnca1]

If this tr**p frazer is inciting rioting and hatred the peelers have a duty to arrest him, end of discussion. Just once i would like to see you write something and give your opioion without resorting to proving attempting to prove that fenians are just as bad.

Fixed that for you.

[gallsman]

It was asked on the first page and has been forgotten all about - Willie brought this up out of the blue, nobody has banned him or spoken about banning him from doing anything.

One suspects that his main objective is to find some way of causing trouble, end up arrested or turfed back up the motorway and then enjoy his airtime afterwards. Just ignore the little bollocks. We all know what a bigoted little p***k he is. Must have come from his da.

[Eamonnca1]

Oh and another thing. Unionists probably weren't as inclined to overtly support terrorism because they had instruments of the state (B-Specials, UDR, RUC) that could do more or less the same sort of work but with the added backup of the courts to enforce their will. That kind of work could be justified as "counter terrorism" operations.  For the really dirty work then you just outsource that to the loyalist death squads, and let the forces of the state give them just enough collusion to help them get the job done, but keep it all under wraps of course.

Republicans didn't have that kind of taxpayer-funded infrastructure behind them, so they had to improvise a little.

The only thing that makes the loyalists better than the republicans (and that is the heart of the point that EG is trying to make after all) is that the forces of the state had nicer looking uniforms.