Petrol bombs thrown in Belfast during second night of rioting

[alp227]

Source: The Guardian

Petrol bombs have been thrown at police during a second night of rioting in north Belfast connected to loyalist paramilitaries officially on ceasefire.

A bus was also hijacked and set on fire in the Newtownabbey area of the city at about 7pm last night. The driver, a woman, was pulled out of the cab but was uninjured. There were no passengers on board at the time and all services to the area have since been suspended.

Michael Dornan from the Unite union, which represents some bus drivers, said he was disgusted by the latest attack.

"The easiest thing to do would be to withdraw the services," he said. "But it is not the fault of the people who depend on the bus for their job, it is not the fault of the people who depend on the bus to go shopping.

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/oct/27/petrol-bombs-belfast-rioting

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Checking calendar

This is not close to the usual days for this. Hope it clans down.

[Ghost Dog]

3. "Clans"

is the right word <g>.

Stay calm.

[Kolesar]

2. We Americans romanticize Ireland, but...

Divorce is illegal, bombings, they beat children, abortion is illegal, bombings, religious war, pedophiles infest the Church...

Not 100% sure about abortion

[Ghost Dog]

4. In the Republic: Divorce is not illegal. Abortion is available

under fairly strict medical conditions (otherwise, it's still the boat to London or, say, Amsterdam).

And (gracias a díos) contraception was legalised a generation ago (which decimated the smuggling trade <g>).

And, I think the standing and political role of the Catholic Church has been greatly diminished in recent years, for obvious reasons.

[Kolesar]

5. thanks...eom

[iverglas]

6. give me a fucking break

"Abortion is available
under fairly strict medical conditions"


Care to elucidate?

You might want to read the Constitution of Ireland, for starters.

The "fairly strict medical conditions" (quite a meaningless word salad there) are that the pregnant woman's (or girl's) life be in danger. Fairly strict, that.

Ireland has a ways to go yet before the "standing and political role of the Catholic Church" have been diminished to where they ought to be, or even to where they are in comparable western countries. Not that all Protestant legislators have been champions of women's rights; they very much haven't. The day will come, though, and probably before not too long.

As for divorce, requiring separation for 4 out of the 5 years preceding the application isn't exactly in line with divorce legislation in comparable countries, but hey, it's legal.

[Ghost Dog]

7. You're clearly better informed than I am, iverglas.

It's over 20 years since I last hung out closely with Irish friends.

In the UK, the original (1969, was it?) abortion law left a looophole, on which all was based when I was last paying attention to the issue: most doctors would agree that there is greater risk to a mother's life giving birth under correct medical supervision than there is to a mother's life undergoing an abortion under correct medical supervision (up to 24 weeks - and I agree that should normally be "easy" only up to 12 weeks and be taken very, very seriously).

Then, of course, there are potential psychological and social and economic considerations that really, really have to be taken into account by well-informed parties on all sides.

As for the 'breathing space' period regarding divorce, if it's as you say: perhaps not unreasonable? If a little long (5 years, really?)?

The Catholic Church? Yeah. Has a way to go. But still makes a hell of a lot more sane than a whole bunch of your extremist Protestant weirdoes.

[iverglas]

8. Oh, lord

typo fixed


I'm afraid I can't really even follow what you're saying ... although there are clues. I'll just note:

- pregnant women are women, not mothers (unless they already are, whichi is irrelevant anyway)
- it doesn't matter who agrees or disagrees that women should have "easy" access to abortion, you included
- it doesn't matter who thinks that any decision about a pregnancy should "be taken very, very seriously" -- that would be by the woman, presumably? -- you included; I can only read this as patronizing, interfering noise, I'm afraid
- any potential psychological and social and economic considerations there might be really, really have to be taken into account by the woman in question and only the woman in question; there are no other "parties"

As for a requirement of separation for four out of the five years preceding a divorce: do any comparable countries have such a requirement? Nope, not that I'm aware of. One year would be standard, I think. It was once 3 years in Canada, but is no more. That kind of waiting period is simply punitive, with a hint of paternalistic, but is undoubtedly disguised under some veneer of encouraging reconciliation or some such. Nope, not "not unreasonable". Not for the real human beings affected, that is.

"Extremist Protestant weirdos" are certainly a problem in many places. The RC Church wields power and authority, and has succeeded, where it lives (let's not forget Mexico and most other countries in Latin America) and well outside its sphere of direct influence (consider Africa and the RC Church's obstruction of efforts to combat HIV/AIDS and deliver reproductive health care, in strange partnership with extremists of both the Muslim and Protestant varieties), beyond the Protestant weirdos' wildest dreams, however.

[Ghost Dog]

9. I badly phrased, my fault. I also should have corrected typos.

Let's drop it, I suggest. It's not my patch: I am not a woman, nor do I have kids, although I have been in an (unmarried) partnership with one woman these last 26 years.

One of my points should clearly be: of course most terminations of pregnancy are sought for, essentially, economic reasons. Would anyone really like to return to the "backstreet abortion" days around here?

What's the big deal about divorce, these days around here, anyway? In order to re-marry? Surely the important thing is that no woman (nor man, indeed), should feel economically-enslaved to another person. And that people can, simply, get together as we will with or without "papers". That one can just walk out and be (psychologically, socially and economically) free, if needs be. With or without children, the nurture of whom is of course, part of the whole complicated issue.

Let's just forget "Catholicism" for a moment, or any other denomination. What modern (in a millenial perspective) organised religion can you think of that is not, in it's political, socioal and economic expressions, essentially Fascist? Sometrhing else is what comes from the human "heart". And something else is what really holds a society together.

But, maybe we are traveling far, too far away from the subject of what the hell is going on right now, socially and economically, in the Republic of Ireland and amongst the most recent diaspora of (again) exploited, used and abused, sucked-dry and spat out Irish.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. The standards for abortion in Great Britain and Ireland are very different

The GB requirement for abortion up to 24 weeks is

* having a baby would upset your mental or physical health more than having an abortion. This means you need to explain how you feel the pregnancy would affect your life to a doctor.
* having the baby would harm the mental or physical health of any children you already have.

http://www.brook.org.uk/pregnancy/abortion

Note that is not 'risk to life'; 'upsetting mental or physical health' is a pretty broad category, which can include likely stress or depression if you have to interrupt your education/career to look after a baby and so on. To have an abortion after 24 weeks, it has to be "serious permanent harm" to your health, or a high risk the baby will be seriously handicapped.

You can compare that to the Northern Ireland laws, which basically use the 'serious permanent harm' rule at all times, so that abortion is next to impossible there.

The Republic of Ireland even has a clause in its constitution asserting "the right to life of the unborn"; the result is that only an immediate risk to the life of the woman (and thus to the existence of the foetus) might possibly be usable as a legal reason for abortion.