Karine Maucourt ([email protected])
Wed, 01 Jul 1998 13:55 +0200 (MET)
About the message sent by Liz to Nev, i just want to add a few
suggestions here.
Liz wrote:
>Also, take another look over what I posted--material from The Nation (a
>respected, left-leaning mag, if you're not familiar with it), various wire
>services (including Reuters and the PA news service, both _British_ wire
>services!), and a number of articles from the likes of Andersonstown News,
>Irish Voice (New York), etc., which I hoped would help list members get a
>better sense of some of the differing opinions and positions surrounding
>the Good Friday Agreement. What's so one-sided or alarming about this?
I know Liz, you send us official informations (i know The Nation
magazine) but it's easy to send only parts of informations because there are
many informations all over the world and you can't send them all. I mean,
you can easily choose the informations which are connected with what you
think and let away the others ones. And it's why i thought you didn't listen
to the others points of view. I mean, you can act like a censor and send to
Wire only the informations which justify your positions. NOTICE i say "you
can", right ? And maybe it's what scared Nev.
>Zeek's site is fine--in fact, I couldn't help but notice that he also
>included at least one PA News article on his site; so how come when I send
>over something from PA, Reuters, etc., it's suddenly "one-sided"?
Maybe it's not what he meaned. I didn't understand this like that,
like i've said above.
>> I believe that U2 would much rather have "fans" who discuss the
>> important political and social issues
>
>That may be true, but political discussion is not what Wire was intended
>for.
>Sorry, but the only thing that Wire was intended for is discussion that is
>relevant to U2 and U2 fans--and to be honest,....
And each time someone said what to post or not post on Wire he/she
is flamed by another wireling. ;-) That's life...
>Take this as an example (I'll not add the writers name)
>
>> As long as England has military and political forces of ANY KIND
>> in Northern Ireland, Ireland will not be united. Ireland not united
>> will never be at peace.
>
>What use is a united Ireland if you have a divided people?
If i good remember, it was another wireling who wrote this (i mean
not Liz). I understood this remark from Nev that he wanted to point out that
to unify people is more important that to unify the country, i mean people
unity must be done first. Obviously i agree with the fact all people must
have the same rights. I've always considered North-Ireland not to be a real
democracy because of that. Notice in our constitution here in France (which
comes from our human rights declaration in about 1793), the first article is
about the equality of rights for all human being (as it's also the first
article of the universal human rights declaration). And i think the
countries which don't respect these rights are not democracies.
BTW, can Liz explain to me how to reunify Ireland before reunifying
people in North Ireland ? Except to justify possible protestant extremist
actions, which means violence, pain,...anybody want this in NI. And i don't
think taking the example of the black segregation in USA is a good example.
Because this isn't the same situation and there are less violence in USA
(and not soldiers in the streets). And i agree to the fact protestants and
catholics have to learn to get along (like black and white people in USA),
it means IMO reunify people and it's exactly what Hume said. I also think
apologies are just to be taken as symbols. And symbols are need sometimes.
In the name of love and peace
Karine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Wed Jul 01 1998 - 04:42:23 PDT