One-sided-ism - Nil by Mouth

[Ergatrude 0]

The examples of Sectarianism on this so called anti-sectarianism page seems shockingly one-sided.

 

http://nilbymouth.org/what-is-sectarianism/

[Zappa 0]

Nil by Mouth are certainly not our friends, that's for sure. They've previously been outed as specifically having a pro-Celtic and anti-Rangers agenda.

[GovanAllan 0]

Welcome to modern day Scotland mate.

[26th of foot 6,220]

Back in the day, Nil by Mouth's first full time organiser was Helen Miller. We are talking 8-9 years past. A well kent poster on a number of Rangers forums sent off two letters to Helen, one saying he was a Rangers supporter subjected to sectarianian abuse, the other purporting to be a Sellik fan suffering similar distress.

 

He received a reply to the latter correspondence with alacrity, informing him of the necessary action. Months later, he had still NOT received a reply as a Rangers supporter; despite constant reminders.

 

Things have not changed, NBMs funding was going to be discontinued by the SNP administration. There was an outcry from the usual suspects. Funding re-established and Nil by Mouth is actively engaged in compiling the desired statistics required by the ;ord Advocate. Sectarianism is a one way street, they are determined to prove it so.

[Ergatrude 0]

I've never paid much attention to Sectarianism or really the debate about it. It strikes me as truly remarkable that the official website of the main anti-sectarianism organisation in our country appears to be showing a clear bias to one side.

 

They even shoot themselves in the foot by quoting this as their definition of sectarianism;

“Narrow-minded beliefs that lead to prejudice, discrimination, malice and ill-will towards members, or presumed members, of a religious denomination.”

 

& then giving several examples that are narrow-minded & presumtious.

[biggordy 0]

This organisation's life blood consists mainly of unsubstantiated and perceived "sectarianism".

In my opinion it is responsible for grossly exaggerating our (Scotland's) problem in order to justify it's very own existence: re. funding applications for example.

It is very easy to wheel out mythical anecdotal "evidence" which can't be challenged. Subsequently the Press lap it up.

The Government caved in to their funding request to absolve themselves of being accused of false bias, hence the relatively small amount.

 

Remember, the non Catholic population in Scotland is about 85%, and most of the remaining 15% don't give a toss about "sectarianism".

Therefore, it is only a very small percentage of the population who actually buy in to the "anti Irish/Catholic agenda" and for NBM only able to provide fictional, anecdotal evidence is quite pathetic.

Don't get carried away with the importance of this insignificant organisation, although, it is quite disturbing that their stories get wheeled out occasionally for public consumption and are always unchallanged.

[Guest Dutchy]

I've had many arguements of bias in favour of protestants in the past by moaning catholics, so I just point out the political bias from Monklands from the 90's and they all soon shut up. But not for long. As far as I'm concerned, it takes two to tango.

 

Best thing to do is change the present schooling seperation in for the future, then there will be no reason on the what school you attended, but I don't hear Nil by Mouth ever espousing this idea?

[GovanAllan 0]

I've had many arguements of bias in favour of protestants in the past by moaning catholics, so I just point out the political bias from Monklands from the 90's and they all soon shut up. But not for long. As far as I'm concerned, it takes two to tango.

 

Best thing to do is change the present schooling seperation in for the future, then there will be no reason on the what school you attended, but I don't hear Nil by Mouth ever espousing this idea?

 

I actually thought when all this started it would eventually lead to a sensible debate about separate schooling. More fool me only in Scotland can you debate sectarian issues and leave out the biggest enabler of said sectarian issues. A bit like debating the weather without mentioning the rain.