SECTARIAN ATTACKS IN THE NORTH

Sir, - The most interesting aspect of the correspondence on sectarian attacks is the lack of sympathy by anyone (to date) from…

Sir, - The most interesting aspect of the correspondence on sectarian attacks is the lack of sympathy by anyone (to date) from the South for any of the views expressed by David Rose of the Progressive Unionist Party. Indeed, those who have engaged in debate so far have been intent on demolishing any possible credibility in his argument.

Sir, - The most interesting aspect of the correspondence on sectarian attacks is the lack of sympathy by anyone (to date) from the South for any of the views expressed by David Rose of the Progressive Unionist Party. Indeed, those who have engaged in debate so far have been intent on demolishing any possible credibility in his argument. I have no sympathy with a sectarian party such as the PUP which masquerades under the banner of democracy, but I recognise that it is not alone in its hypocrisy and that it has counterparts on the nationalist side. I also accept that there is much validity in most of Mr Rose's arguments and that they should be taken seriously, instead of being used as another opportunity to justify nationalist elitism.

Few contributors could have read the original letter too closely or the subsequent remarks by Mr Rose (September 9th) in which he states that "the KAT slogan is outrageous. . .I unreservedly condemn the slogan and those who wrote it." He states further in the same letter: "We are a legitimate people with the right to cultural expression and self-determination" - and who could quarrel with that? Damien Flinter (September 16th) takes up his point about de Valera's fascist tendencies but unfortunately rambles on about neutrality, thus missing the point altogether.

The reference to de Valera was surely to highlight his ambitions to annexe the North, and he might have even attempted it, if economic decline in the Free State and world events had not discouraged him. Nevertheless, he personified what Mr Rose describes as "green imperialism". My own belief is that the views of someone such as Mr Rose should be welcomed and further expression encouraged, because it is seldom that people such as he put pen to paper to enlighten the world about their true beliefs and prejudices.

READ MORE

How easy it is for Tom Cooper (August 27th) to decry "Taig Free" areas in Belfast and ignore the reality of the many "Prod Free" areas in the same city. Unfortunately, much of the housing in Belfast is segregated, as are education and other things, so it isn't difficult for paramilitaries to create no-go areas for their opponents. Likewise, Mick Finnegan (August 28th) writes of the "loyalist enthusiasm for sectarian attacks", as if no such enthusiasm existed on the (extreme) nationalist side, at times. Even "Brits Out" is excused by Damien Flinter as a slogan directed against military force and not against all those who support the British connection. Is this mere naivety?

Without doubt sectarianism is one of the North's greatest problems, but that cannot be ended by irrational criticism of Northern attitudes when they appear in print. Indeed, this only exacerbates the problem because the original writer, in this case David Rose, is probably left with the feeling that his own suspicions have been confirmed - i.e. , that Catholics in general are anti-Brit.

How often have we been told that dialogue is good and that debate should be encouraged if agreement is to be reached? Mr Blair and his Irish pro-Agreement following are fond of this advice, but when debate is stimulated Protestants can surely be forgiven for their scepticism when nothing they say is taken seriously. - Yours, etc.,

SEÁN KEARNEY,

Glantane Drive,

Belfast 15.