Usual hypocrisy shows up in attitudes to past
If ever the dysfunctional nature of our collective attitude to the past was shown up for the total hypocrisy that it is, then it is writ large in the response to two events glorifying terrorists. Yet the attitudes to both have been very different.
The appearance of a poster glorifying Billy Wright has caused outrage among some, but the police are right; not all who saw it were offended - "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". At the same time, a film glorifying the life and death of Bobby Sands is funded using public money. How can this be?
Surely, if a poster about Billy Wright is offensive and must be removed, then surely a film about Bobby Sands is equally offensive and, if equality means anything, then the police must act in the same way. The fact that one was publicly funded only complicates the matter. I in no way support, or agree with, the erection of memorials, or posters, or murals, to former terrorists of any sort. But neither do I support the hypocrisy of politicians who only complain on behalf of their own side and either support, or acquiesce in, the glorification of their own "boys".
So, let's have some equality. Will the SDLP representatives who intend to question the Chief Constable about the Billy Wright poster question him about what action he is likely to take about the Bobby Sands movie? And, when the DUP rail against the funding of the film about Bobby Sands, will they also condemn public funded "community groups" when they gather to glorify the likes of Billy Wright?
Of course they won't, because we do a great line in hypocrisy here.
Portadown, Co Armagh