Social Items

TPQ
Showing posts with label John Coulter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Coulter. Show all posts
Dr John Coulter ✍ If you call yourself a Christian, then you can’t complain if voters elect a candidate with non-Biblical views because you didn’t bother to vote on polling day!

Ireland, north and south, is set to witness a raft of elections in the coming months - council, European in the Republic, possibly two general elections for Westminster and the Dail.

Unfortunately, many Christians - especially from the evangelical and fundamentalist traditions - take the outdated view when they misinterpret Scripture that when you become a born again believer, this means the ‘come ye out from amongst them’ states you don’t vote!

We Christians are constantly moaning about the state of the world; about the development of the secular society, and the advance of pluralism. But let’s take some of our own Biblical medicine by taking the moat out of our own eyes before we take the beam out of others’.

Put bluntly, how much of what is happening in society is down to the inactivity of the Christian Churches, either Christians burying their heads in the social sand by staying in their pews and not mixing with the public, or refusing to vote on polling day?

I have often made reference for the need for Christians to mobilise the flocks, not just to register to vote, but to actually vote. Here’s a link from February 2023: 

Imagine how the political landscape of Ireland would change if everyone who called themselves a Christian of whatever denomination voted in the forthcoming elections on the polling days.

But here’s the reality check as I warned in my recent column of the need for Christians to unite to combat the introduction of any laws on assisted dying:.

Too many Christians get bogged down in arguing over petty issues or man-made rules and they miss the big picture of how society is changing around them.

Society faces huge challenges from social injustices - hunger, the cost of living crisis, addictions, homelessness, mental health and well-being to name but a seemingly growing list.

Jesus Christ Himself gave us Christians an agenda for social action when he unveiled the Beatitudes during his famous Sermon on the Mount in the Biblical New Testament. But what practically are we Christians doing to put Christ’s sterling guidance into action in this third millennium?

Can each and every Christian place of worship say they are implementing the Sermon on the Mount to the maximum? If a drug addict or homeless person turned up at our place of worship on a Sunday morning, what would our attitude be?

While some churches are getting involved in their local communities, many Christians are quite content to be spiritual sponges; they are happy to sit in their pews on Sundays or the mid week Bible study, soak up what the speaker is saying, maybe throw a few quid into the collection plate, and then retreat to the warmth and safety of their homes.

Likewise, while many churches contribute generously to community food banks, could places of worship do more? For those who are facing challenges, pious words are meaningless; practical action is urgently required.

As well as churches providing food banks, places of worships could establish clothing and footwear banks. How many Christians when clothes or shoes no longer fit, simply throw them in the bin? Some Christians may donate them to charity shops, but many charities are themselves also facing a funding crisis.

Many families, especially the elderly, are also facing a heat or eat crisis, whereby budgeting is focused on either heating a room or cooking a meal. So could the churches combine to form energy clubs for electric, gas or home heating oil?

As for the homeless, could more of our places of worship be opened as shelters to prevent a cardboard home culture developing in our towns and cities?

Of course, many churches are themselves facing a cost of living crisis in this past pandemic society as they struggle to pay bills with dwindling numbers in the pews or folk not having enough cash to put in the collection plate as they did before Covid struck.

Churches have a lot of serious questions to ask in the coming months. One factor is certain, churches can no longer afford the luxury of being holy huddles keeping themselves distance from the communities in which they are based.

It is time for all places of worship, irrespective of denomination, to start putting the Sermon on the Mount into practical action in the communities they serve. By adopting such a pro-active approach to social injustice, the churches can maintain their relevance in society. Remaining aloof is not an option anymore.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Churches Need More Proactive Agenda In Tackling Social Injustice

Dr John Coulter ✍ The Christian denominations in Ireland need to swallow the bitter medicine that they are facing a Custer’s Last Stand when it comes to opposing any laws to legalise assisted dying in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.

Christian churches have already lost battles to stop the legalisation of homosexuality, the introduction of same sex marriages, more liberal abortion laws, and the introduction of safe access zones at abortion clinics.

Likewise, they face a tough uphill fight to combat the extension of Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) across all schools in Northern Ireland.

Ireland, north and south, used to have the reputation where church and state were fused together in the running of political and social affairs. But this is a very different island compared to the days of Eamon de Valera in the South, and James Craig in the North.

Put bluntly, the churches will need a united front with a strongly pro-active campaign to lobby politicians if they are to prevent assisted dying being legalised throughout the island. Clerics have a moral and Biblical duty to mobilise their flocks against any introduction of assisted dying.

Loose this battle, and the relevance of the churches will be radically diminished. There is also the very real danger the assisted dying debate among the churches will become yet another Orange and Green argument.

Sinn Féin and the SDLP both say they would consider supporting a change to the law to allow assisted dying for people with a terminal illness. Could this see a boost for the pro-life republican party, Aontu; a movement founded by disillusioned Sinn Fein supporters unhappy with the latter’s support for abortion?

Within the Unionist community, both the DUP and TUV would oppose assisted dying, as would the so-called evangelical wing of the UUP.

Sinn Fein and the SDLP have make it clear there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure any new laws were not abused.

While assisted dying is currently illegal in Northern Ireland, there are moves in the UK, and the Republic of Ireland, to bring in new legislation on the issue.

A bill to legalise assisted dying for terminally-ill people in Scotland was introduced at Holyrood last month.

Christians need to hammer home the point that when it comes to the subject of death, it is God who decides when a person dies and enters eternity.

Surely with the developments in science and medicine over the decades, better pain relief drugs have been developed in terms of end of life care.

Many Christians believe passionately in the power of prayer and divine healing. But to legalise assisted dying must be branded for what it truly is - people playing God.

Those who advocate assisted dying may point all they want to the many safeguards they claim will be put in place, but ultimately a human has to take the decision to end someone’s suffering.

For Christians to simply roll over and accept assisted dying is to Biblically bin the concept of divine healing. Of course, supporters of assisted dying may argue - what about the folk that God does not heal and end up dying?

Some folk may even argue the point - what is the difference between assisted dying and capital punishment? The end result is the same; the death of an individual.

However, the real danger with assisted dying is that a decision is taken once a diagnosis of a potentially fatal illness is made before that person deteriorates into becoming terminally-ill.

In spite of all the so-called safeguards, checks and balances which supporters of assisted dying may claim will be put in place, at some point someone will suggest the use of assisted dying could be applied to physically and mentally handicapped people based on their quality of life.

If that situation should ever occur, society would be no better than the Nazis who butchered millions in their death camps during the Hitler era.

Another problem for the churches in opposing assisted dying is that many denominations are so busy bickering about pedantic issues, such as music at worship, translations of the Bible, women’s fashion in church, that they will miss the big picture.

Similarly, some denominations may not want to work with other churches for the simple reason they view such co-operation as some form of ecumenism and don’t want to be branded by militant fundamentalists as being part of the ecumenical movement.

One thing is certain; if the churches lose this battle on preventing assisted dying laws being introduced across the island, Christian denominations will also see what influence they still have radically reduced to the point where politicians simply ignore the views of the churches.

If that situation becomes a reality, the churches have only themselves to blame. Like it or not, the churches must form a united front on stopping any potential assisted dying laws.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Churches Need To Mobilise Against Any Assisted Dying Laws

Dr John Coulter ✍ The recent BBC documentary, The Secret Army, about life in the Provisional IRA in the early 1970s, has sparked the very real question - who really works for whom in the murky world of intelligence gathering?

That particular documentary raised issues in relation to the British intelligence community, especially MI5 and MI6, as well as the American Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and even the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, and their relationships with the Provos.

Once again, it lit the flames under allegations that former Derry IRA commander Martin McGuinness, later Sinn Fein’s Stormont deputy First Minister, was himself a British agent.

During my time as Northern Political Correspondent for the Dublin-based Irish Daily Star, sources within the dissident republican movement would constantly make such unsubstantiated allegations about McGuinness being a British asset. These were always formally and informally denied by Sinn Fein.

I always found McGuinness a polite conversationalist. I worked as a part-time press officer and research assistant at Stormont between 1998 and 2023. From time to time when McGuinness was education minister in the power-sharing Executive, he would sit with me in a packed basement restaurant at lunchtime in Parliament Buildings.

We shared a common interest in fishing - he in fly fishing, me in sea fishing. The conversation was never about the future of the 11 Plus, or even his time as Derry Provo commander.

Watching The Secret Army documentary, it was hard to fathom the McGuinness showing bullets to children and overseeing the priming of a bomb was the same McGuinness I had chatted amicably with in Stormont.

Could this man who went on to become one half of the successful devolution act known as the Chuckle Brothers really be an asset or agent for one of the intelligence organisations?

Then again, I recall another prominent Sinn Fein activist I had a very cordial relationship with at Stormont - Denis Donaldson (no relation of the former DUP leader!)

Denis Donaldson became a head of administration for Sinn Fein at Stormont and was investigated as part of the alleged republican spy ring in Parliament Buildings in 2002. In December 2005, he admitted his role in being a British spook and was murdered the following year whilst living at an isolated cottage in County Donegal.

Whilst we never had an in-depth conversation, Denis Donaldson would always have a polite greeting for me when we passed each other in Stormont corridors.

But allegations of intelligence assets and agents were not limited to republicanism. It can be safe to assume the intelligence community had also heavily infiltrated loyalist organisations as well, the late Brian Nelson being a prime example of an intelligence agent working within the UDA.

However, the question must always be posed - did the reach of the intelligence community extend beyond the various republican and loyalist paramilitaries into the political parties?

If the intelligence community can have a spook operating within Sinn Fein, could it also have assets placed within political Unionism and loyalism?

In terms of Unionism, I recall the unsubstantiated whispering campaign naming certain individuals that I was told to be careful what I talked to them about. No evidence was ever produced to me to in any way substantiate those allegations. It was entirely word of mouth.

During my time at Stormont, six names were given to me from Unionism in general alleging these people were passing information to the intelligence community about developments within specific political parties or the political process as a whole.

Two were identified as being MI5; two were identified as MI6; one was CIA, and one Mossad.

With no legally concrete evidence to support these allegations, I regarded them as merely defamatory comments and ill-judged gossiping; the sort of stuff more akin to the judgemental church pews than Parliament Buildings.

It was always along the lines of: “Watch what you say to “X”, they’re MI6!”

At one time, there was even a rumour that one person within the broad Unionist designation who worked at Stormont was also linked to the Russian intelligence community, the Federal Security Service or FSB, and would brief Moscow on developments in Parliament Buildings! In this rumour, no names were ever mentioned.

I tended to dismiss such unsubstantiated allegations as James Bond movie fantasy. But after watching The Secret Army documentary, could my dismissive cynicism of such rumours have been a wee bit too hasty?

This year, I clock up 46 years in journalism. When I look back on my career to date and some of the paramilitary and political interviews I’ve done both on and off the record, it makes me wonder if any of the folk I chatted with were part of the intelligence community and the information they provided me with had first been approved by their handlers within that intelligence community? Or maybe as I close in on state pension age, have I fallen into the pitfall of conspiracy theory?

Then again, when reading of the activities of the British agent Stakeknife, the actions of Brian Nelson, allegations of collusion, perhaps those who maintain that the intelligence community has agents inside paramilitaries, political parties and political groups should not be dismissed as delusional Walter Mitty characters.

Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Should Stormont Form Spooks Anonymous?

Dr John Coulter ✍ If Unionism is to re-emerge with the largest tally of MPs after the expected Westminster General Election later this year, it will require a Coalition of the Right - similar to the Seventies’ Unionist Coalition - to achieve that goal.

While Unionism is now bitterly divided between the pro-Donaldson deal faction within the DUP and the Ulster Unionists on one hand, and the anti-deal faction represented by the TUV and sections of the loyalist and Loyal Order community on the other, there is the real danger that an ancient proverb could haunt Unionism politically.

The proverb warns that too many cooks spoil the broth, and in Unionism’s case, too many candidates will fatally split the vote and allow traditionally fairly safe Unionist constituencies to return MPs from the so-called Pan Nationalist Front - Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Fein.

Unionism needs to look to its history to prevent this electoral nightmare. In the February 1974 Commons General Election, three different parties combined under the banner of the United Ulster Unionist Council, or Unionist Coalition, and more affectionately known as the Treble UC.

The UUUC represented the DUP, UUP and Vanguard Unionists, winning 11 of the 12 Commons seats, leaving the SDLP’s Gerry Fitt to hold West Belfast.

The foundation of the new Unionist Coalition has already been created with the TUV unveiling its partnership with the GB-based Reform UK party, which emerged from the former Brexit Party.

Given the utterances from the TUV/Reform partnership, while it has been created primarily as a voice for anti-deal Unionism, it should use the Westminster campaign to build a Coalition of the Right for future Assembly and Council elections.

The Coalition of the Right’s primary aim should be to mobilise the pro-Union community electorally. How many Assembly, Council and Commons seats have been - or could be - lost simply because voting Unionists have abandoned the ballot box?

In 1974, the Right-wing Vanguard pressure group was able to mobilise grassroots Unionist opposition to the Sunningdale Executive. In 1985, the Ulster Clubs movement - based on the Unionist Clubs movement which opposed Home Rule for Ireland in the early 1900s - mobilised grassroots Unionists against the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

When the UUP was the largest Unionist party, one of the most powerful pressures groups within its ranks was the Right-wing Ulster Monday Club, which once boasted four MPs and numerous councillors.

A Coalition of the Right should have as its motto - SOS - Save Our Seats, to ensure that as many pro-Union MPs are returned in the forthcoming General Election.

Yes, there are serious rifts within Unionism on how and where the Irish Sea Border should be eradicated. Unionism’s problem is not one of ideology, but an issue of strategy between those Unionists who feel the Irish Sea Border could be smashed from inside Stormont and those who believe the Donaldson Deal does not politically neutralise the Windsor Framework.

But all of Unionism does agree a number of key points - that the Union must be strengthened, that the pro-Union voting base must be mobilised, and that Unionists must co-operate to save existing Commons seats from falling to the Pan Nationalist Front parties.

If a Coalition of the Right adopts this agenda, it will pull in the vast majority of the DUP and the Right-wing of the UUP, leaving only a small rump of so-called liberal Unionists who can be likened to the liberal Pro-Assembly Unionists led by former Northern Ireland Prime Minister, the late Brian Faulkner, before he formed his Unionist wet, moderate movement, the now defunct Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

But the key question will remain - do the various factions within Unionism have the courage and convictions to set aside their differences over the operation of the Windsor Framework and effectively build an electorally successful Coalition of the Right to hold Unionist seats?

Generally speaking, many pro-Union District Electoral Areas (DEAs) are averaging a turnout of just over 40 per cent on polling days, compared to just over 60 per cent in nationalist DEAs.

The first aim of the Coalition of the Right is to see that pro-Union turnout tops at least 80 per cent plus. It will not only require the Unionist parties to get voters registered, but also to ensure they actually make the effort to get to the polling station and vote.

Apathy, not a split Unionist vote, is the political malaise which is hounding the pro-Union community.

The Coalition of the Right must become a Vanguard-style grassroots pressure group operating at the key pro-Union target audiences - the Unionist middle class, the loyalist working class, the Loyal Orders, the Christian denominations and marching band scene. Its ethos must be the slogan - Your Vote Counts.

Only through this agenda can a Coalition of the Right prevent fragmentation of the Unionist vote, or voter apathy. More significantly, it can burst the so-called Alliance bounce and derail the so-called Sinn Fein bandwagon.

This is an agenda which many in the pro-Union community should be pondering on this Easter Monday as the traditional marching season for 2024 shifts into top gear.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Right-Wing Unionism Radically Needs A New ‘Treble UC’

Dr John Coulter ✍ With the benefit of hindsight, outgoing Taoiseach and Fine Gael party leader Leo Varadkar had only one political card to play after losing the two recent referenda in the 26 Counties - quit both posts!

While the public did not get any hint of his looming resignations during the recent St Patrick’s celebrations in the United States, perhaps Varadkar’s time in Washington gave him space away from Leinster House to consider his future - and the future of any cross-party coalition in the Dail capable of outgunning the Provisional IRA’s political wing, Sinn Fein, at the next Dail General Election.

If past opinion polls over several months are taken as a sounding board, Sinn Fein could be set for its best electoral achievement on the island since the 1918 Westminster General Election when it notched up the majority of the 105 Commons seats on offer when Ireland was still all under British rule.

If those opinion polls are correct, Sinn Fein could either be on course to form a majority government in Leinster House, or be the largest party in a coalition government - but with whom? In either scenario, Sinn Fein boss Mary Lou McDonald is tipped to become Taoiseach.

Such an outcome would leave Sinn Fein holding the two top political posts on the island - Taoiseach in Leinster House and First Minister at Stormont.

It’s no wonder Sinn Fein is chomping at the bit politically to ensure the partitionist parliament at Stormont delivers effective power-sharing. The Provos’ political wing needs to convince Southern voters that it is not merely an apologist for IRA terror, but a party of responsible government capable of making key financial decisions.

Sinn Fein will have a chance to see if the lipstick and ballot box strategy is working in a few months’ time when Southern Irish voters go to the polls in the European elections to decide who their MEPs in the European Parliament will be.

If Sinn Fein increases its European vote and number of MEPs, then the Stormont lipstick and ballot box strategy is working and the republican movement has been successful in airbrushing the Provos’ terror campaign out of the political debate.

This leaves the non-Sinn Fein parties and Independents with a massive political migraine - how to stop Mary Lou becoming Taoiseach?

Sinn Fein, like Varadkar, championed the Yes campaign in those two recent referenda. Southern voters delivered a decision No/No. Could this be interpreted as a socially conservative Right-wing backlash against the Dublin political establishment?

Like then British Prime Minister David Cameron in the 2016 EU referendum in the UK, Taoiseach Varadkar totally misread voters’ intentions in 2024.

Cameron was a champion of the Remain campaign. He lost and quit as PM. Cameron set the pace; Varadkar had no obvious choice. He had to quit.

It was clear that in trying to stop the Sinn Fein bandwagon, Varadkar wanted to use the two referenda to make the 26 Counties an even more liberal, secular and pluralist society than Sinn Fein could ever promise. The plan backfired considerably.

To keep Sinn Fein out of power in the last Dail general election, the two bitterly rival Dublin establishment parties - Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil - had to form an historic coalition.

With that crucial Dail general election looming within a year, will Fianna Fáil try to out-green Sinn Fein in terms of a nationalist agenda, and will Fine Gael swing to the socially conservative radical Right to reverse Varadkar’s defeat in the referenda?

However, in doing so, could it put such a strain on the current FF/FG coalition that it falls apart during the election allowing Sinn Fein to electorally dander into power in Leinster House?

The Southern parliament has a long history of electing a significant crop of Independent TDs and minority parties. Ironically, they could hold the balance of power in the next Dail should the Sinn Fein bandwagon not deliver enough TDs for Mary Lou to form a majority government.

And given last November’s Dublin riot and the underlying problem of immigration in the 26 Counties, could Hard Right-wing parties or candidates make a break-through into Dail politics?

Indeed, is Sinn Fein so desperate to get into power in Leinster House that the party will climb into bed politically with anyone or any party in the Dail simply to gain that coalition government majority?

In the last Dail election, it could have been worse for the establishment parties. The only reason that Sinn Fein was not part of a coalition government was that the republican movement did not run enough candidates. Sinn Fein has learned its lesson and will not make that mistake again come the next general election.

The non-Sinn Fein candidates and parties cannot afford to wait until after the votes have been counted to see if Sinn Fein emerges as the largest party.

They have to act now. They must form an electoral pact and formally announce a political rainbow coalition of candidates and parties opposed to Sinn Fein under the banner that a Sinn Fein Dail government will see another collapse of the Celtic Tiger economy as Sinn Fein’s social housing policy will financially bankrupt the Southern economy.

At the polling stations, Southern voters will have to adopt the Northern Ireland ethos of ‘themuns’ and ‘usuns’ and vote tactically with transfers to keep Sinn Fein out.

Granted, there is a severe social housing crisis in Southern Ireland. But economically, Sinn Fein is still anchored to the outdated Far Left agenda of communist James Connolly’s Irish Socialist Republican Party.

In financial policy terms, Sinn Fein is still stuck in its foundation year of 1905. After all, it was only in 1986 that Sinn Fein eventually voted to allow its TDs to take their seats in Leinster House.

There is no doubt that under a Mary Lou premiership, the now whispering campaign for a border poll will become loud shouts. But Sinn Fein in government in Leinster House does not mean Irish Unity is a certainty.

Perhaps a five-year term of Sinn Fein’s looney Left economic policies - and especially on social housing - will be the killer financial blow to any genuine hopes for a united Ireland, leaving Southern Ireland as a third rate banana republic located geographically on the extremes of the European Union.

In this scenario, that leaves Irish Unity politically binned for at least the remainder of this century. 
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Leo Has Left The Anti-Shinner Coalition In A Political Pickle

Dr John Coulter ✍ Today is my 35th wedding anniversary and a chance to reminisce once more over our marriage photos from 1989.


There were relations and friends who could not come to the wedding even though they were invited, so I wonder what would have happened if we’d asked our wedding photographer to photoshop them into the family photos?

Former UUP leader, the late Jim Molyneaux, was a guest at our wedding and appeared in wedding album photos. Could you imagine if I was to photoshop Jim out of those photos and, when showing the album today to family and friends, replaced Jim with an image of current UUP boss Doug Beattie?

I don’t think there would have been all the fuss and furore which has engulfed the Royal Family over the Princess of Wales admitting she had edited the picture of herself and her children.

If ever there was a storm in a teacup, it was the near hysterical reaction to the evidence that the Royal snap had been supposedly ‘doctored’. It forced Kate into making a grovelling apology and reignited the speculation about her health.

We’ve had to listen to loads of moaning about trusting the Royals. But what was the big deal? It wasn’t as if Kate had edited in Prince Harry’s youngsters or changed the backdrop to a ski resort in the Alps. All she did was - albeit in a fairly amateurish way - adjust a few bits of the photo. It still remained a photo of her and the kids.

Then again, given the looney woke society in which we now live, there seems to be a body of opinion which looks for any chance to bash the Royals and especially the monarchy.

Basically, we could dismiss all the who-ha about Kate editing her photo as a bunch of eejits with nothing better to do with their time. Then again, were there more sinister undertones to the criticism over Kate’s actions?

Even in asking this question, have I too fallen into the wokery pitfall of seeing an issue where none exists? Have I too inadvertently become a conspiracy theorist?

What for Kate was simply a do-it-yourself tidy-up exercise of a family photo, has turned into a full-scale political row questioning the very future of the monarchy!

Given all the pomp and pageantry of the late Queen Elizabeth’s Platinum Jubilee celebrations in 2022 and King Charles’ Coronation events last year, it is clear the British Monarchy is as popular as ever. So where is all this anti-Royal clap-trap coming over an edited photo?

The hard reality is that there is a republican element within British society which just want any excuse to call for an abolishment of the Monarchy.

Ironically, because one of the hallmarks of British democracy is freedom of speech, the anti-Royalists can have a platform to churn out their honestly held, but totally nonsensical rants.

Whether this small band of vocal republicans like it or not, the British Royals - and indeed Monarchy throughout the globe - are big business.

It’s been one of the main planks of the United Kingdom culture and heritage since the Monarchy was restored by King Charles II in the 1660s following the brutality of the earlier English Civil War of the 1640s, the execution of King Charles I and the Cromwellian era in British politics.

Then again, because of the evolvement of the so-called snowflake society, those folk classified as celebrities, or who live their lives in the glare of publicity and the public domain, can now expect to have every aspect of their lives poured over with a fine judgemental tooth comb looking for an excuse for someone to either criticise or be offended.

Politicians are having to watch off the cuff remarks; clerics are having to monitor the language used in live-streaming sermons; sporting stars are having to think about where and how they are being photographed - and now the Royals have to watch how what many of us ordinary folk indulge in, using modern technology to adjust family pictures.

Kate’s trivial editing of a photo is now being branded as a public relations disaster for the Royals. It has sent the memes industry into hyper-drive as folk make their own editing adjustments to the photo and share them online.

Maybe it says something about the kind of society the snowflake brigade have converted our once forgiving communities into. Are folk being hounded by the so-called wokerati who would be offended if a pin fell the wrong way onto a floor?

Is this happening to such a degree that people in the public gaze have to say sorry for comments or behaviour which a decade ago would have been laughed off as silly?

And not content with the present day, the snowflakes are trawling back over years, even decades, to find material to be offended about by challenging people in the public domain if they still held these views.

Unfortunately, it will deteriorate to a situation where people in the public arena will have to employ a new post know as a Comment Censor to vet every word uttered.

It won’t be just the concept of freedom of expression that will be under threat; the very idea of freedom of thought will also come under the scrutiny of the snowflake society.

Perceptions will merge with reality. Snowflakes will say - that person looks like they could make a racist or offensive comment! False stereotypes will be created and folk could end up having to apologise for wearing the wrong colour of clothing.

Wait, I’m bald! Maybe I should start wearing a wig or toupee. The snowflake society might perceive my baldness to be a sign that I’m from the skinhead culture, that I’m a fascist, racist, transphobic, homophobe! Dare I say it - Bald Folk Matter!
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Wokery Has Gone Ultra Woke Over Royal Snap!

Dr John Coulter ✍ Those Europhiles across Northern Ireland who are banking that any future Labour Government at Westminster will lead the UK back into the European Union need an urgent reality check.

The make-up of the European Parliament which will emerge after this year’s forthcoming elections will be a radically different political beast from the parliament at the time of the 2016 referendum.

Put bluntly, in 2016 when the UK voted to leave the EU, the Far Right grouping in the European Parliament was merely a noisy fringe movement. If the opinion polls are correct, the Far Right will become a significant player in the European Parliament after this June. Populist politics and Eurosceptism will become the order of the day.

While Northern Ireland voted ‘remain’ in the 2016 referendum as a region of the UK, those Remainers in the Province need to remember the non-Biblical proverb - be careful what you wish for!

Forget the convenient and cosy trading arrangements which existed under the old European Economic Community (EEC). The modern day European Union, and especially the European Parliament, which will emerge from the elections in June will be a different cumbersome beast whereby nationalist and populist movements in the respective EU member states will adopt a ‘put the nation first’ rather than a ‘put Europe first’ approach.

France, Germany and Hungary are already major players within the EU. It is expected that the European Parliamentary elections in all three nations will return a substantial number of Far Right MEPs who will form the core of a new Far Right grouping.

It would be easy to adopt a flippant view of this impending development by the Far Right. After all, the UK has quit the EU, and surely the Republic of Ireland as the UK’s nearest EU neighbour has always been a welcoming place for migrants and the ethnic communities?

But let’s not forget about the late November 2023 riot in Dublin which allegedly had a racial undercurrent to it.

Whilst the Far Right may not yet be politically organised to the degree that it could win European seats in the Republic, Southern voters should not forget the experience of the UK in the 2009 European poll when the Far Right British National Party (BNP) won two European seats.

Remainers seem to be living in the political cloud cuckoo land that the cost of living crisis and all the financial woes which the newly formed Stormont Executive face will magically disappear if the UK rejoins the EU and all that supposed European cash starts flowing again.

What Remainers fail to fundamentally understand is that the UK will have a pay a major financial ‘buy-in’ bill for the price of rejoining. Before Brexit, the UK was a massive contributor to the EU’s coffers.

And Southern voters should not forget it was British millions which bailed out the Republic financially following a past collapse of the once thriving Celtic Tiger economy.

And what would be the fate of the Windsor Framework, Stormont Brake and Irish Sea border if the UK was back in the EU? There would be no doubting that the Eurocrats in Brussels would replace the Framework with such draconian legislation that the UK would never again consider the concept of British withdrawal from the EU.

Such legalisation would be so binding that it would serve as a warning to the Eurosceptic movements in other EU member states - look what has happened to the UK, do you want the same if you try to leave?

And then there’s the Ukraine crisis. Should the war with Russia ever end, it will require a massive rebuilding programme in Ukraine.

There’s no doubting any Ukrainian politician with a titter of wit will push for EU membership to try and milk those European euros to rebuild the devastation caused by the war with Russia. And that means less funding for the UK and Ireland.

Southern Ireland has benefited substantially from EU membership in terms of project funding. But at what point will Brussels decide the Republic must become a substantial giver towards the EU’s bank balance.

It will not have gone unnoticed in Brussels the millions which the Republic has promised to invest in Northern Ireland. If the Republic can pour such cash into a region of the UK which is not in the EU, maybe the Republic should pay much, much more into the EU?

Any new influential Far Right grouping in the European Parliament will want that funding to ensure an effective solution to the migrant crisis sweeping across Europe.

Europhiles may dream of more European integration in terms of the flow of goods between member states, but Far Right MEPs will want to see even tougher border controls to greatly restrict the flow of migrants.

Put bluntly, which member state will become the political dumping ground for Europe’s migrants? Could a price for the UK rejoining the EU be that it must massively increase the number of migrants it must take, making the current small boat crisis seem like a Sunday school picnic in terms of costs to resettle those migrants in the UK. And no doubt, Northern Ireland will have to take its allocation of migrants under any new EU joining terms.

If the recent incidents involving racist posters in Belfast is taken as a benchmark, the consequences of rejoining the EU could see an alarming and clearly unwanted increase in hate crimes against the migrant and ethnic communities in Northern Ireland.

Could the unthinkable happen - that generations of sectarianism in the Province could be replaced by a generation of racism?

Likewise, if any migrant crisis in the Republic does spark a BNP-style political kickstart for the Far Right, could the island witness the rejuvenation of the Far Right Blueshirt movement of General Eoin O’Duffy from the 1930s?

The Far Right has never had a political foothold of any significance in Northern Ireland. But if such a movement was to emerge in the Republic, could its ethos spill across the border into the Province?

In short, Remainers need to have a long, hard think before they go chomping at the bit to rejoin the EU. Remember another secular proverb - what goes around, comes around!
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Does Northern Ireland Really Want To Be In An EU Influenced By The Far Right?

Dr John Coulter ✍ As a born again Christian since January 1972, a theological issue I have often struggled to get my head around is the concept that killers, especially terrorist serial killers, will end up in heaven whereas many of their victims could be sent to hell because they were not ‘saved’, according to Scripture.

After all, one of the 10 Commandments given to Moses in the Old Testament is the Sixth - thou shalt not kill. These Commandments are the foundation stones of the Christian faith.

Then again, in the New Testament Gospel of St John, especially the text of Chapter 3 verse 16, states:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This is the core of the doctrine of Salvation that if we accept Jesus into our hearts, it will guarantee that Christian a place in heaven, provided they have repented in the first place.

So does this gift apply to killers if they repent? According to Christian teaching it does. The benchmark for this contentious theological view is Christ’s crucifixion. Jesus was not crucified alone; two thieves were executed along with him.

One mocked him, and presumably ended up in hell. The other asked Christ to remember him when Jesus went to heaven. Christ’s response was that that thief would join him in heaven. In modern theology, this can often be referred to as a death-bed conversion.

Ironically, the Apostle Paul, who wrote many of the great chapters of the New Testament, before his road to Damascus conversion to Christianity, was known as Saul of Tarsus and was a hunter of Christians. Yet after Paul’s conversion, he spread the Gospel of Christianity before his own execution in around 64AD.

The real challenge for me as a working journalist for the past 46 years has been the New Testament book of Acts, and especially Acts Chapter 2 and verse 21: “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.” These were the words of St Peter himself quoting the words of the prophet Joel.

The issue if serial killers can get into heaven really raised its head substantially in 2007 when I was Northern Political Correspondent for the Irish Daily Star and wrote a piece to mark the 10th anniversary of the murder of loyalist godfather Billy Wright inside the Maze prison in December 1997 by the INLA.

Wright had been one of the founders of the breakaway dissident loyalist terror group, the Loyalist Volunteer Force.

At one time, Wright had been a senior figure in the Mid Ulster Brigade of the UVF, but had fallen out with the organisation’s Belfast leadership. As a dissident loyalist, Wright had also disagreed with the Combined Loyalist Military Command’s 1994 ceasefire.

A cleric who knew Wright said the loyalist terror boss had been a Christian until the Spring of 1986, when the latter become a backslider (a Christian term for someone who has been a born again believer, but has walked away from their faith).

As the 10th anniversary of Wright’s murder approached, the cleric told me in an interview for the Irish Daily Star: 

I believe Billy Wright is in heaven right now - perhaps even sat next to the ‘repentant thief’ who died on a cruel Roman cross next to Christ on the day of Crucifixion.

The report caused uproar, especially among the nationalist community, with one reaction piece having the headline: ‘That f**ker got what he deserved.’

My original interview with the cleric was also illustrated with a photo of Wright lying dead in the prison van where the INLA had ambushed him.

I have spoken to another evangelist who knew Wright from the terror boss’s days as a born again Christian and how they did evangelical outreach together in the Irish Republic.

Before he died in that prison van, did Wright have the chance to make his peace with God as stated in Act 2:21? Given the number of terrorist murders Wright was responsible for, how could he be in heaven? Was this a case of a death-bed type conversion?

While Wright’s killing was carried out by the INLA, it was the death of another former senior figure within that organisation that has posed the theological dilemma of a death-bed conversion by a serial killer.

I was working in the BBC Belfast newsroom on the night in February 1994 that former INLA Chief of Staff Dominic McGlinchey was shot dead in Drogheda.

According to one eye witness, McGlinchey’s last words were reported to be: “Jesus, Mary, help me.” This was from a terrorist serial killer personally responsible for the deaths of dozens of folk.

One question has bugged me ever since that night in the BBC when I heard what his final words were - under Acts 2:21, could McGlinchey have cried out to Jesus as he lay dying and earned himself a place in heaven in spite of the terrorist atrocities he inflicted on people during the Troubles?

There would be many families who lost loved ones to McGlinchey who - like the cleric’s comments on Billy Wright - would view the notion of the former PIRA and INLA terrorist in heaven as totally repulsive.

In both the McGlinchey and Wright cases, we shall never know the answer until all of us stand before God on Judgement Day.

The major theological problem with McGlinchey calling out to Jesus for help - did many or any of his victims have that chance? Put bluntly, how can McGlinchley be in heaven under Act 2:21, yet many of his victims end up in hell because they were not ‘saved’ or were given a chance to cry out to Jesus for help?

This remains a very difficult theological circle to square.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online.

Can Serial Killers End Up In Heaven?

Dr John Coulter ✍ All this Dublin dosh coming to Northern Ireland is merely the Leinster House establishment trying to buy the next Southern general election in a last ditch bid to outmanoeuvre the growth of Sinn Fein.

Ironically, Sinn Fein should already be in government in Southern Ireland, but the movement made one fatal electoral flaw during the last Dail showdown in 2020 - it didn’t run enough candidates!

No doubt the instructions coming to the party from the republican movement’s ruling Provisional IRA army council will be to ensure it has sufficient candidates on the ballot paper in the hope that enough TDs are elected to give Sinn Fein at least an overall majority in the next Dail general election, expected either later this year, or early in 2025.

Indeed, Sinn Fein was only kept out of power in 2020 because the two rival establishment parties - Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael - set aside their differences and formed an historic coalition pact in the Dail.

Sinn Fein boss Mary Lou McDonald will be hoping she has enough TDs elected to give her party an overall majority - a situation Sinn Fein has not enjoyed electorally since the 1918 Westminster General Election - which will guarantee she becomes Taoiseach.

Plan B would either be to persuade Fianna Fáil to break its pact with Fine Gael and enter a coalition government with Sinn Fein, or persuade enough Independent or Left-wing party TDs to prop up a Sinn Fein-led coalition government.

Sinn Fein was so keen to get the DUP back into Stormont this month, not because the republican movement has had a Biblical-style Road to Damascus political conversion to the existence of Northern Ireland and its partitionist parliament, but because it needs to convince Southern voters that it can become a responsible party of government.

The Sinn Fein back door plan to Irish Unity is to show to Southern voters, especially those who vote Fianna Fáil and particularly first time voters, that it can run a parliament in the hope that those Southern voters return Sinn Fein to power in Leinster House.

The real test of this republican strategy will come later this year in the European elections when Sinn Fein will be standing candidates in the Republic, which for the time being, remains part of the European Union.

The kick starting of Stormont has triggered the British Government’s promised £3.3 billion package with possibly more Westminster cash coming down the pipeline.

Southern voters will be watching Sinn Fein carefully to see how the republican movement spends those billions before definitely opting to give Sinn Fein the reins of power in the Dail.

In a bid to derail Sinn Fein’s spending spree in Northern Ireland, the current Fine Gael/Fianna Fáil administration has embarked on its own spending spree north of the Irish border.

But this could also be a Trojan horse for Sinn Fein, not for Unionism. If Sinn Fein does become a majority government in Dublin, it too, will embark on a massive spending spree in a bid to alleviate the huge lack of social housing in the Republic - a spending spree which could easily bankrupt Southern Ireland, with the so-called Celtic Tiger economy facing a collapse which it endured several years ago.

In this event, there will be no British millions to bail out the Southern economy as happened when the UK was still a key member of the EU.

Five years of Sinn Fein rule in the Republic could well wreck the state financially in the short-term, but it could guarantee long-term that Sinn Fein’s Irish Unity plans would be in the political dustbin for generations to come.

Southern voters may not be so forgiving of Sinn Fein if the party’s high-spending social housing policy results in soaring taxes and an economic wilderness.

It is becoming clear the current Fianna Fáil/Fine Gael spending spree for Northern Ireland is a double-edged political sword - showing how financially generous the present Dail government can be, and spending as much money as possible so that Sinn Fein has a very small budget if its happens to win the next Dail election.

And even if Sinn Fein makes gains in the European elections, its MEPs will be going back to an expected parliament which will have increased representations from both the centre Right and Far Right movements.

A thriving Far Right group of MEPs in the next European Parliamentary mandate will operate a rigid populist agenda, meaning they will keep the EU cash for their own member states rather than give it to the Republic to help with any Sinn Fein needed bail out because the republican movement drastically overspent on providing social housing.

But bluntly, Unionism should not be alarmed by the current Southern establishment spending spree in Northern Ireland. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are not trying to buy Irish Unity. In reality, they are setting up Sinn Fein for a financial fall.

The late Rev Ian Paisley, when he was a DUP MEP, said he was going to Europe to milk the European cow. Unionism and Loyalism should milk every penny from the current Southern administration because if Sinn Fein has any say in the next Dail government, as in the 1920s, the republican movement will inevitably spark a second civil war in the South - only this time not with guns and bombs, but with social housing, jobs and the Republic’s Celtic Tiger economy.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Dublin Parties’ Irish Unity Deposit Is Really Bid To Out-Spend Sinn Fein!

Dr John Coulter ✍ Earlier this month, I was having a relaxing Saturday when a headline in a national newspaper story hit me like a brick on the head - “Stop bullying us, ‘hounded’ clergy tell parishioners”, it read!

As a preacher’s kid married to a preacher’s kid, I’ve heard some horrific tales over the years about the treatment which some parishioners can dish out to their local clerics.

Forget all the schoolboy jokes that ‘yer da only works one day a week!’ And ‘Sure, you all live in a grand free house!’ Nothing could be further from the truth.

However, if that north east Ulster Bible Belt was taken as a benchmark, especially in the Seventies, many inbred Rednecks took the view that simply because they gave a few quid to the offering on Sundays, they owned the cleric and when they shouted ‘jump’, the cleric must respond with ‘how high?’

Just because becoming a cleric is seen as a calling or vocation from God, that must not mean the clergy should be denied a trade union to represent their interests, especially when faced with a deliberate intimidation campaign from parishioners.

Last month just before the Stormont Executive was reformed after a two-year gap, Northern Ireland witnessed probably the largest walk-out by public sector workers in the history of the state. It is estimated some 170,000 workers took part.

Among all the banners and flags, I could not see one bearing the title - National Clergy Union. Maybe the time has come for clerics to form an independent trade union to represent their rights.

I personally have been a trade unionist since my teenage days; firstly with the National Union of Students/Union of Students in Ireland (NUS/USI); then the National Union of Journalists (NUJ), and also with the University and College Union (UCU). Put bluntly, I know at first hand the benefits of being in a trade union.

Many Christian denominations are complaining that not enough folk are coming forward to train as clerics. This trend cannot always be blamed on the growth of the so-called secular society and a more pluralist attitude among folk where participation in church life has a lot more distractions to compete with.

Granted, there are numerous clerics today who will maintain they are experiencing a spiritually, personally, and professionally rewarding ministry. That’s all very well … until they face the blazing row in the flock.

Some clerics take the view - such persecution comes with the job! But even Jesus Christ in the New Testament physically hounded the money changers out of the temple. So if it was good enough for our Lord to organise against his critics, then it should be good enough for clerics to form their own trade union.

I have often written about my own upbringing in the north east Ulster Bible Belt where there would be occasions when I was made an example off verbally and physically simply for being the preacher’s kid.

But what about the assholes who deliberately target our mums and dads? My late parents did what they could to protect me from these arseholes, but who protects our parents who are clerics? This is a question that numerous preachers’ kids have asked.

While the north east Ulster Bible Belt contained some of the most Godly, Christian souls I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing, it also contained some of the most judgemental, vicious, gossiping scumbags Our Lord ever puked onto this earth. The latter seemed to take a real delight in making the lives of clerics as difficult as possible.

Even if the cleric was a ‘tough old boot,’ some of these inbred Rednecks would then target the spouses and children of the clergy - simply to make their points.

Some of the horror stories included:
 
  • Waiting until the cleric was away at a family function, then sneaking up to the home and pinning a notice containing foul language on the front door - basically telling the cleric to get out of the place of worship.
  • A person in the leadership of the church organising a stipend strike (not giving to the cleric’s salary) so that ‘we can starve them out!’
  • Threatening a cleric that if they went to work in another church, they would go there to disrupt the cleric’s services.
  • Targeting a male cleric’s wife to try and force her into having a nervous breakdown.
  • Trying to get the denomination to bring in a rule that when a cleric left a place of worship, the cleric should not be allowed to build or buy property within the parish boundaries.
  • Constantly ringing the cleric in the wee small hours to disrupt the cleric and the family’s sleep patterns. Many clerics would keep their phones beside the bed in case a parishioner took ill during the night; how is the cleric to know what is a fake call from a real one.
  • Cleric’s family members being put on anti-depressants and tranquillisers by the GP because of the harassment campaign against the cleric.
  • Spreading defamatory and malicious rumours about the cleric’s children.

Such examples resemble an intimidation campaign that any paramilitary group would have been proud to own.

If the list of actions above was directed at, for example, a public sector employee, there is no doubt that trade unions, solicitors and police would be involved.

Such an intimidation campaign would result in either an industrial tribunal, court action, or both. If public sector workers can have these rights in their place of work, why can’t clerics have the same legal protection in their place of worship?

Perhaps one of the reasons no such National Clergy Union has ever emerged is because of the fallout from the various clerical sex abuse scandals which have rocked many Christian denominations.

Unfortunately, the actions of these clerical abusers (convicted by the courts or not) have tarred the institution of the clergy with the one brush - that to become a cleric calls into question either your sexual orientation or sexual fantasies.

Too many clerics will not take their challenges to the police or the media, not primarily because they are forgiving like Christ as Jesus told Peter in St Matthew Chapter 18, but because they have no organisation to represent them.

The bottom line is simple. If the Christian denominations want to see a significant increase in folk wanting to embark on a clerical vocation, they will have to put in place measures and organisations which guarantee the rights and protection of clerics.

 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Clerics Need Their Own Trade Union!

Dr John Coulter ✍ It may be St Valentine’s Day this week, but there’s still no love lost for the Windsor Framework by the vast majority of Unionism.

While hardliners are branding those Unionists who support the return of Stormont as so-called protocol implementers, apart from shouting from the sidelines, the Hard Right of Unionism and Loyalism has no effective workable strategy to completely eradicate the Windsor Framework.

If you go by the Donaldson deal, there is no Irish Sea border; if you follow the political logic of the hardliners, the Irish Sea border still exists.

Unionism remains a minority ideology in the up and running Stormont, so pro-Union MLAs will have to box clever if the Windsor Framework is to be politically eradicated in terms of its effects on Northern Ireland and the state’s place in the United Kingdom.

One thing is certain - the Windsor Framework’s out-workings will not be eliminated by wee meetings in Orange or community halls, street parades, or even a campaign of civil disobedience which involves blocking roads or putting up posters and banners on bridges and signposts.

The operation to politically and economically neuter the Windsor Framework must be performed in the Assembly Chamber and committee rooms of Stormont’s Parliament Buildings.

While this May marks the 50th anniversary of the Ulster Workers’ Council strike which crippled the Sunningdale power-sharing Executive, so-called loyalist muscle on Northern Ireland’s streets will have no impact on the Windsor Framework.

Anti-deal Unionism and Loyalism needs to remember that the Ulster Says No and Ulster Still Says No street protests of 1985 and 1986 had no impact whatsoever on the November 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Even around 170,000 public sector workers recently marching about pay in the largest strike Northern Ireland has witnessed since 1974 did not unlock the £3.3 billion which the British Government had set aside for the Province. It took MLAs walking back to Stormont, electing a Speaker, First Minister and deputy First Minister.

While bobbies’ boots on the street may be the solution to any policing crisis, Loyalist hobnail boots prancing around roads will have no impact on the operation of the Windsor Framework, except to get a few previously innocent loyalists a potential criminal record for street disturbances.

Put bluntly, no matter how politically stomach-churning the Windsor Framework appears to Unionism and Loyalism, it can only be confined to the dustbin of history by economically poisoning it from the inside - and that can only be achieved through Unionist MLAs effectively working the newly-formed Windsor Framework Democratic Scrutiny Committee at Stormont.

The chair of this new committee is Sinn Fein’s Declan Kearney, with the DUP’s David Brooks as deputy chair. Now is the time for the various groups in society which vehemently oppose the Windsor Framework to park their marching boots, and don their thinking caps by making clear, logical arguments to that committee.

The Windsor Framework was born out of democratic negotiations. It can equally be terminated through that same process. Yes, Unionism and Loyalism must understand this process may be long-term, just as it took several years until 1998 when the Good Friday Agreement eradicated the effects of the 1985 Hillsborough Agreement.

Unionism may not be able to immediately before Easter inflict the politically fatal single dose of cyanide to the Windsor Framework, but it can use this new Stormont scrutiny committee to initially give the Windsor Framework an upset tummy and slowly poison the Framework document by degrees.

However, that will not involve another suspension of Stormont. Sinn Fein played its veto ‘joker’ card for three years; the DUP for another two years. Vetos are now off the agenda. Only democratic persuasion and mature lobbying, not meaningless rants and empty rhetoric, will unlock the Achilles heel of the Windsor Framework.

Unionism and Loyalism must go on the ideological offensive against the Windsor Framework by asking the initial question - why would the European Union fear any termination of the Windsor Framework?

The answer may come later this year and before the summer when the next round of European elections are scheduled in the other EU member states. If opinion polls are correct, Europe’s Right-wing parties - and especially the Far Right - are expected to make significant gains.

Dedicated europhiles fear the emergence of an influential eurosceptic movement in the heart of the European Parliament leading to a surge in populist politics.

The last thing the europhiles want is the Far Right chanting - ‘look what the Brits got through Brexit; we want our own exit, too!’

The Donaldson deal with the British Government may have sparked a political realignment in Unionism, but it also served as a basic blueprint for other EU member states considering either loosening their ties with Brussels, or like the UK, severing formal links through Brexit.

The europhiles must be quietly, but considerably worried that any significant growth in the EU’s eurosceptic lobby of MEPs could see that faction campaigning for the EU to be reformed into its original format of the old European Economic Community (EEC), which was a very effective trading organisation in its prime.

Europhiles may herald the Windsor Framework as the solution to calm the Brexit storm specifically with Northern Ireland and generally with the UK.

But like a pack of political dominos, could the reality be - knock down the Windsor Framework using the Stormont Assembly and the whole of the EU may eventually crumble?

The so-called battle a day at Stormont is not going to be between Sinn Fein and the DUP, or the Stormont Executive versus Westminster, but it will be the Windsor Framework versus the future long-term stability of the EU.
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Windsor Framework Can Be Poisoned From The Inside!

Dr John Coulter ✍ The new Stormont Sister Act of Sinn Fein’s Michelle O’Neill and the DUP’s Emma Little-Pengelly needs to seriously politically outshine the past Chuckle Brothers routine of the late Rev Ian Paisley and Martin McGuinness if the Assembly is to avoid another life-threatening collapse.

The words of my headline and intro may sound like a musical critique, but simply because Stormont is back in business after yet another lengthy suspension does not mean the future of devolution is secure in Northern Ireland.

The Chuckle Brothers was an affectionate term for a short period of devolved government beginning in 2007 when firebrand fundamentalist preacher, Rev Ian Paisley, the founder of the DUP, in his role as First Minister, teamed up with the former Provisional IRA commander in Londonderry, Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein, a man responsible for giving the nod to numerous IRA atrocities, and who served as deputy First Minister.

In spite of their vastly differing ideological backgrounds, the Chuckle Brothers delivered one of the most stable periods of devolved government in Northern Ireland, not just since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, but historically since the formation of Northern Ireland in the 1920s.

Setting aside all the fancy speeches, soundbites and snuggly rhetoric from Saturday’s first restoration of the devolved institutions in two years, the blunt challenge for the Sister Act of O’Neill and Little-Pengelly is - can they politically outshine the Chuckle Brothers?

In the short-term, it will be the social communication skills, not just of these two women, but of all members of the newly formed Stormont Executive to work together as human beings which will guarantee that the Assembly remains in business.

Long-term, the Good Friday Agreement will require a radical political MOT to ensure that no one party can again use a veto to collapse power-sharing. Bluntly again, devolution in Northern Ireland is at the political Last Chance Saloon.

If the Assembly collapses again, just as when it was prorogued in 1972, that will be the end of a Stormont Parliament for at least a generation.

During the past seven years, Sinn Fein has collapsed the Assembly for three years and the DUP for two years. The question is - can this scenario be avoided? As an eternal political optimist, my answer is Yes.

For the DUP, in spite of the verbal spats on Saturday with North Antrim MLA Jim Allister, the leader of the hardline Traditional Unionist Voice party, and the threat of street protests from loyalists, the Donaldson Deal - aptly entitled Safeguarding the Union - with the British Government must be seen to be working.

The pro-deal DUP faction has squeezed every pip it could out of the British Government using the Stormont boycott tactic. Whatever view is taken on whether the so-called Irish Sea border exists in reality, the final political bullet to the head to the Windsor Framework can only be delivered by the DUP from inside the Stormont Chamber.

To use a soccer analysis, the winning penalty (in this case a political coup de grace to terminate the Windsor Framework’s effects) can only be scored by the player on the pitch, not the supporter yelling from the stands.

The real worry for the DUP is that unionist grassroots anger at the party restoring Stormont could manifest itself at the next Westminster General Election this year, with anti-deal candidates costing some DUP MPs their seats in a split unionist vote.

That could be one reason why surprisingly during the Executive ministerial selection, the DUP opted for the education and communities portfolios. Both ministries give the party ample opportunities to both mix with the people on the ground and implement popular policies. Both portfolios are potential mega vote winners in the event of any forthcoming bruising election campaign.

As for Sinn Fein, why would the political wing of the republican movement want to see a so-called partitionist parliament remain stable when O’Neill has already hinted she would like to see an Irish Unity border poll within a decade?

Again bluntly simple - Sinn Fein needs to convince voters in Southern Ireland that it can be a responsible and mature party of government and not simply a loud-mouthed protest movement against the establishment parties of Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Sinn Fein has no credible track record in government in Dublin’s Leinster House. The last time Sinn Fein had such a Stormont-style mandate on the island was in 1918 following the Westminster General Election when it clinched around 70 of the 105 Commons seats on offer when Ireland was all one under the flag of the British Empire.

But what did Sinn Fein do with that mandate? Certainly not stable governance after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Treaty in the 1920s. Sinn Fein started the bloody Irish Civil War which saw republican butcher republican in a manner which made the notorious Black and Tans seem like a respectable regiment of the British Army!

Sinn Fein has an historical credibility problem. By taking the economy and finance portfolios in Saturday’s Stormont carve-up, it hopes to convince Southern voters that Sinn Fein can become a worthwhile party of government following the next Dail general election in the republic.

Sinn Fein needs Stormont to work to this end. Before that general election, it will have the chance to test if the republican movement’s strategy is working with European elections in the republic later this year.

Fears of what a Sinn Fein government in Leinster House might unleash on Southern Ireland were abundantly clear after the past Dail general election where in spite of gains by Sinn Fein, the rival establishment parties formed an historic coalition to keep Sinn Fein out of government.

Opinion polls suggest Sinn Fein is on course either to have a majority government or form a coalition with either Fianna Fáil or Independent TDs.

In the coming weeks, how Sinn Fein Stormont ministers spend the British budget will dictate the outcome of the next Dail battle.

The real fear on both sides of the border is that Sinn Fein hands on the purse strings will economically bankrupt both the Assembly and Southern Ireland.

Is this a price the unionist community and Dublin establishment is prepared to pay to confine the republican movement’s influence to the dustbin of history?
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Stormont Sister Act Must Play Pitch Perfect To Outshine Chuckle Brothers!

Dr John Coulter ✍ No matter what side you take on the British Government’s deal to the DUP to kickstart Stormont, Unionism should read up on the history of republicanism when the Dail voted on the Treaty terms in the early 1920s.

In that era, Sinn Fein split into two clear factions - the pro and anti-Treaty elements which simply could not come to an accommodation on the Treaty terms which partitioned Ireland.

The end result was a bloody Irish civil war between the anti-Treaty IRA and the pro-Treaty Free State forces which saw more IRA members executed by the Free Staters than were killed by the Black and Tans in the previous War of Independence against the British.

More than a century later, that post-civil war bitterness is still to be found in Southern Irish politics. While the civil war spawned the big two Dublin establishment parties, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, these bitter rivals came together after the last Dail General Election to keep Sinn Fein out of power in Leinster House.

As for the DUP in 2024, party leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson finds himself in yet another Yes/No confrontation over the current deal as he did in 1998 in the UUP during the Yes/No confrontation over the Good Friday Agreement.

While the UUP went into the Stormont Assembly in 1998, the political seeds were sown in the party which ultimately led to both the leader, the late David Trimble, and the party’s demise. The UUP lost its place as the lead party in Unionism to the rival DUP in the 2003 Assembly poll.

Put bluntly, Trimble personally and the UUP politically paid a heavy price for endorsing the Good Friday Agreement in spite of effective devolution returning to Northern Ireland for the first time since the original Stormont Parliament was prorogued in 1972.

The key question which the pro-deal supporters in the DUP must answer - what price will the party have to pay if it decides to accept what the Government has offered, in spite of the Irish Sea border still in place?

In 1998, in spite of a split party, Trimble put the best interests of Northern Ireland first and kick-started devolution. That split sparked a very significant realignment in Unionism.

While the majority of the UUP MLAs in 1998 were in the Yes camp, the Unionist family’s No camp included UUP dissidents, the DUP and new Stormont movements such as the United Kingdom Unionist Party and the United Unionist Assembly Party.

The Yes/No divide in Unionism over the Belfast Agreement also bled into the Protestant religious denominations. Generally speaking, many in the mainstream denominations - the Church of Ireland, Irish Methodism and the Presbyterian Church - backed the Agreement.

However, in hardline evangelicalism and fundamentalism, there was a move to rally a number of the smaller denominations behind the No camp.

Fronting this was a movement launched in late 1998 called the Caleb Foundation, named after the Biblical Old Testament Israelite spy, Caleb.

While the Caleb Foundation was initially an attempt to rally fundamentalist opposition to the Evangelical Prayer Breakfast movement, the participation in Caleb of leading members of the Independent Orange Order gave the perception that Caleb was nothing more than the No camp at prayer.

For example, Caleb’s first chairman was the late George Dawson, then in 1998 the Grand Master of the Independent Orange Institution, and later an East Antrim DUP MLA at the time of his death in 2007.

Practically, can the DUP accept the current deal, kickstart the power-sharing Stormont Executive and ride out the realignment storm within Unionism.

Pro-deal Unionism does not have a good track record historically. As well as the demise of the UUP in the years after the Good Friday Agreement, pro-Sunningdale agreement Unionism was comprehensively defeated in the two Westminster General Elections in 1974.

Two years earlier, liberal Unionism under Northern Ireland PM’s Terence O’Neill and James Chichester-Clark could not save the original Stormont Parliament.

The unpalatable reality which Unionism must now face is that it is already split. All that needs to be decided is who will win the realignment battle and how bitter that fight will be.

In voting terms, could contests between pro- and anti-deal Unionist candidates at the next Westminster General Election cost Unionism seats, with traditionally Unionist constituencies returning either Sinn Fein or Alliance MPs on a split pro-Union vote?

In reality, pro-deal Unionism must starting preparing for a Plan B after the latest so-called Ulster Says No campaign inevitably fizzles out. Historically, in spite of the so-called monster rallies at Belfast City Hall in 1985 and 1986 and across Northern Ireland, the Ulster Says No and Ulster Still Says No campaigns did not halt the workings of the Anglo-Irish Agreement or the Dublin-run Maryfield Secretariat near Belfast.

Remember the Union flag protests? A lot of marching and stomping about as in 1985/86, but to no avail.

Pro-deal Unionism must be prepared to face down the No camp, whether that be at the ballot box, in the Assembly (if there is one!), in the council chambers, and even in the church pews.

Pro-deal Unionism must come up with a constructive ideological way forward for the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland.

It has one small advantage over the No camp. The latter will always be ‘agin’ anything and everything; they will moan, huff and puff, but ask them what they are prepared to offer in terms of something constructive - and the silence will be deafening!

Then again, has pro-deal Unionism the political courage to face down the No camp splitters, or worse still, like the late Sixties and early Seventies when the Paisleyites were lambasting O’Neillite Unionists, the latter withdrew from politics completely.

The last thing pro-deal Unionism needs is its supporters and thinkers walking away from the political arena, leaving the field open to the Pan Nationalist Front of Dublin, the SDLP, Sinn Fein and Alliance.
 
Follow Dr John Coulter on Twitter @JohnAHCoulter
Listen to commentator Dr John Coulter’s programme, Call In Coulter, every Saturday morning around 10.15 am on Belfast’s Christian radio station, Sunshine 1049 FM. Listen online. 

Unionists Must Learn Lessons From Republican Treaty Split

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)