🚀 go-pugleaf

	Yes Martin, I think you've been asking the question the wrong way
around. What we should really be asking ourselves very seriously is "Does
pro-English mean anti-Celtic?" Celtic speaking students at English-run schools
have been severely punished for speaking even a single word of their native
language. At other times ALL SCHOOLS OF ANY KIND WERE PROHIBITED UNDER ENGLISH
LAW. After the battle of Culloden the wearing of tartans in Scotland
was outlawed by the English while they carried out "search and destroy"
operations for TWENTY YEARS after that battle. These facts can be confirmed
by viewing the BBC-TV film "Culloden" which can be borrowed free from many
public libraries. Certainly there have been countless efforts by pro-English
people to undermine Celtic culture and ridicule it as impractical or outmoded.
In the past one particular fellow who had some sort of connection with the
British Consulate used to show up at Celtic language classes in New York and
vent his hate and ridicule on people who attended classes. Finally after
repeated incidents he was asked to leave.
	As far as the laws of Canada regarding limitations on the freedom of
speech are concerned, the first step in eliminating someone else's freedom of
speech is to have his/her views declared offensive. The British have a long
history in this practice, so it comes as no surprise to me that such a law
has been passed on to the Canadian people by the English. Such a law would
certainly be declared unconstitutional in the U.S. because whatever was
allowed to be printed or not allowed would certainly be determined by the
individual prejudices of the judge. The history of the U.S. started out
with the legitimate political views of the colonists being suppressed by
the English. That is why our constitution takes such a strong stand on this
issue as well as the issue of the prohibition against cruel and unusual
punishment which was widely practiced under British rule.
	The British armed forces regularly resorted to flogging and keel
hauling among other things to keep their own troops in line. One of the
great advantages the colonial forces had was that they refused to allow the
flogging of soldiers as the British did.
 	As far as the British sufferings under Cromwell are concerned, I
cannot understand how the British would allow an equestrian statue of Cromwell
to be erected outside the Houses of Parliament (where it now stands) if they
really have negative experiences and feelings about him. British people that I
have talked to have stated that they actually admired Cromwell, in spite of the
fact that he acted as a dictator over the British people, and felt that he was
"misunderstood" and "underrated". This is very similar to the way neo-Nazi's
speak of Hitler.
	Furthermore your accounting of the so-called "Potato Famine" is
completely at odds with the version put out in the BBC series on Ireland by
Robert Kee. You should at least try to get in step with the propaganda line
coming out of London, Martin! Even they admit that vast amounts of food were
EXPORTED from Ireland during the so-called "Potato Famine" while relief efforts
from other nations were ACTIVELY DISCOURAGED. Meanwhile, food was being
IMPORTED into England because that country hasn't been self-sufficient in food
production for centuries. You see, Ireland produced many different crops:
various grains, vegetables, beef and dairy products, but these were reserved
by the English landlords as cash crops for export only. Ireland has been the
"breadbasket" of the British isles for a long time. Even today, Ireland is one
of the best-fed nations in Europe. It is really England which is overpopulated
and which should have experienced food shortages. The potato itself as a crop
was introduced into Ireland by Sir Walter Raleigh after he brought it back from
America. Sir Walter Raleigh will also be remembered for introducing the
European world to tobacco smoking. He should have gone down in history as the
patron saint of cancer. This "Potato Famine" must be the most notorious case in
history of mass murder in which the murderer/coroner pronounced the victim dead
of "natural causes".
	Martin Taylor's statement about this being an example of aristocratic
cruelty to peasants just doesn't hold water. There was no withholding of food
from "peasants" in England at the same time and there was also an ample supply
of food available for those who converted to a more acceptable religion in
Ireland. Even the English poet/author Thackery stated:
		"It is a frightful document against ourselves - one of the most
	melancholy stories in the whole world of insolence, rapine, brutal
	endless persecution... There is no crime ever invented by eastern or
	western barbarians, no torture of Roman persecutors or Spanish
	inquisitors, no tyranny of Nero or Alva but can be matched in the
	history of the English in Ireland".
	Finally the Irish or the Scottish or any other Celtic people cannot be
faulted if half of their recorded history consists of being starved, shot,
hanged or otherwise murdered on a massive scale by the English. It is not hate
propaganda; it is history. If that history offends you then do something to
stop the oppression and murder!
	In a sermon delivered in Westminster Cathedral, London in December 1980
John Baker said:
		"No British government ought ever to forget that this perilous
	moment, like many before it, is the outworking of a history for which
	our country is primarily responsible. England seized Ireland for its
	own military benefit; it planted Protestant settlers there to make it
	strategically secure; it humiliated and penalised the native Irish and
	their Catholic religion; and then, when it could no longer hold onto
	the whole island, kept back part to be a home for the settlers'
	descendants, a non-viable solution from which Protestants have suffered
	as much as anyone.
		Our injustice created the situation; and by constantly
	repeating that we will maintain it so long as a majority (sic) wish it,
	we actively inhibit Protestant and Catholic from working out a new
	future together. That is the root of violence, and the reasons why the
	protesters think of themselves as political offenders".