The news was met pretty enthusiastically in most places, although local councillor Gerry Mullan took a more cautious view:
“I think it’s going to cost extra money to have a larger statue and I would fear it may be interpreted as an antagonistic gesture which may encourage further vandalism,” said Colr. Mullan. “Personally, I would be happy to see Mannanán back and replaced in his original form.”
Derry Journal: Manannán Mac Lir statue could be replaced
I think this is a very valid concern and certainly something that needs to be considered. A larger statue could very well be seen as antagonistic, although given the extremes that the thieves went to in removing the statue in the first place, any kind of replacement could be interpreted as antagonistic.
For now it seems that any decision for moving forward is less than certain at the moment, but the prospect of a replacement are not completely hopeless. The proposals to replace the current remains of the statue with something bigger have been voted down, as has a proposal to reinstate an almost exact replica but this time with a full-sized boat. Instead:
For now it seems that any decision for moving forward is less than certain at the moment, but the prospect of a replacement are not completely hopeless. The proposals to replace the current remains of the statue with something bigger have been voted down, as has a proposal to reinstate an almost exact replica but this time with a full-sized boat. Instead:
In the end, it was agreed, in principle, Council would like to see the sculpture replaced as close to its original form as possible, hopefully costing no more than the original £10,000; that it would be funded by the public as much as possible and it would be reinforced as much as possible. It was agreed that Council officers investigate what is involved in setting up a public fund and bring the costs, and any other information after having spoken with sculptor Darren John Sutton, back to members at the final Limavady Council meeting in March.
Derry Journal: Public may have to fund new Manannán Mac Lir sculpture
A report from the BBC has suggested that the decision to replace the statue is more definitive than the Derry Journal has reported, but according to the Bring Back Manannán mac Lir the Sea God Facebook page, this isn't correct. So as it stands at the moment, councillors will be looking into the potential costs of replacing the statue -- as close to the original as possible -- and will be investigating the logistics of setting up some kind of fundraiser. Any decision based on the outcome of either of these considerations isn't likely to happen until the next council meeting on March 10th, however, and there are no guarantees that any enquiries will follow through into being actioned.
After the news began reporting that there were proposals for a larger statue, there came some rather concerning reports from local papers, just before the meeting took place, where some of the councillors seemed to be less than enthused about replacing the statue:
(At the meeting, Councillor Douglas suggested siting some sort of statue at the find spot of the Broighter Hoard as an alternative to replacing the statue at Gortmore Viewing Point, incidentally). But in the end it seems only one councillor voted against replacing it at all -- not the councillor quoted above -- and even then the objection came down to the fact that the statue may well be vulnerable to further theft in future, given its remote position, and as such it would be a waste of money.
So all in all, there seems to be good cause for tentative optimism here. I do think it's important that the statue should be replaced, even if it ends up costing a little more than the original in an effort to make sure it's harder to remove this time. Not replacing the statue gives the opinions and illegal actions of an extreme minority more weight than those who've spoken out in shock and support for the community of Limavady, and it would legitimate this theft and vandalism, and send a very wrong message to not just the people of Limavady, but to the many thousands of people around the world who've been following this story and have overwhelmingly expressed a desire to see the statue replaced.
Ultimately, however, replacing the statue is not a decision that any of us outside Limavady can make: It's up to the councillors and the people in the area who've lost a local landmark and beautiful piece of art. There's certainly the willingness to contribute financially to the replacement, from the good majority of people who've been commenting in the Facebook group, and some have already tried setting up pages on fundraising sites in anticipation of some kind of official word that that all hopes of finding the statue are dashed (to my knowledge, none of these have actually taken any money, though, and have since been removed). But as Mari Ward, who set the group up, has said, this is something that has to be decided by the council first, and I think it's something that should ideally be managed by them as well. They are, after all, best placed to put the funds to proper use and make sure the job gets done.
Getting the job done is going to take some time, though, and until the next meeting in March there's probably not going to much going on that's worthy of note -- not unless the statue is recovered or the thieves are caught. So the risk is that this is a story that will end up out of sight, out of mind. So far, it's been noted that the council have taken on board the outpouring of support from all over the world, and hopefully that will continue on both sides.
In the meantime, there's also growing concern that proposals for a wind farm nearby are going to have a hugely detrimental environmental and visual impact on the area, which is officially designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While personally I'm all for renewable energy, I think it should be appropriately located and a wind farm seems incongruous with an area that's supposed to have protections in place to preserve the natural beauty of the area. You can find out more about the campaign here.
After the news began reporting that there were proposals for a larger statue, there came some rather concerning reports from local papers, just before the meeting took place, where some of the councillors seemed to be less than enthused about replacing the statue:
TUV Colr. Boyd Douglas isn’t enthusiastic about replacing the statue in any shape or form.
“I felt the original statue was paganistic and I felt it should never have been erected under those terms. We were told at the time the statue wasn’t costing Council much money,” said Colr. Douglas, who said if replaced using steel it may well become a target of metal thieves. “I can’t see any point in putting a statue on top of a mountain where there is no one around and where it is vulnerable from the start. To replace it would cost Council money and I wouldn’t be in favour of spending ratepayers’ money on this, so I’m not enthusiastic about replacing it.”
(At the meeting, Councillor Douglas suggested siting some sort of statue at the find spot of the Broighter Hoard as an alternative to replacing the statue at Gortmore Viewing Point, incidentally). But in the end it seems only one councillor voted against replacing it at all -- not the councillor quoted above -- and even then the objection came down to the fact that the statue may well be vulnerable to further theft in future, given its remote position, and as such it would be a waste of money.
So all in all, there seems to be good cause for tentative optimism here. I do think it's important that the statue should be replaced, even if it ends up costing a little more than the original in an effort to make sure it's harder to remove this time. Not replacing the statue gives the opinions and illegal actions of an extreme minority more weight than those who've spoken out in shock and support for the community of Limavady, and it would legitimate this theft and vandalism, and send a very wrong message to not just the people of Limavady, but to the many thousands of people around the world who've been following this story and have overwhelmingly expressed a desire to see the statue replaced.
Ultimately, however, replacing the statue is not a decision that any of us outside Limavady can make: It's up to the councillors and the people in the area who've lost a local landmark and beautiful piece of art. There's certainly the willingness to contribute financially to the replacement, from the good majority of people who've been commenting in the Facebook group, and some have already tried setting up pages on fundraising sites in anticipation of some kind of official word that that all hopes of finding the statue are dashed (to my knowledge, none of these have actually taken any money, though, and have since been removed). But as Mari Ward, who set the group up, has said, this is something that has to be decided by the council first, and I think it's something that should ideally be managed by them as well. They are, after all, best placed to put the funds to proper use and make sure the job gets done.
Getting the job done is going to take some time, though, and until the next meeting in March there's probably not going to much going on that's worthy of note -- not unless the statue is recovered or the thieves are caught. So the risk is that this is a story that will end up out of sight, out of mind. So far, it's been noted that the council have taken on board the outpouring of support from all over the world, and hopefully that will continue on both sides.
In the meantime, there's also growing concern that proposals for a wind farm nearby are going to have a hugely detrimental environmental and visual impact on the area, which is officially designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. While personally I'm all for renewable energy, I think it should be appropriately located and a wind farm seems incongruous with an area that's supposed to have protections in place to preserve the natural beauty of the area. You can find out more about the campaign here.
5 comments:
I think this is a very valid concern and certainly something that needs to be considered.
This is the exact opposite of a valid concern. The people who stole the original statue are CRIMINALS. They unquestionably violated a number of criminal laws and there are several cases to be made that they violated civil and human rights laws (re: hate speech {which explicitly exists in Northern Ireland law for religious grounds}).
We don't concern ourselves with whether or not an act is "antagonistic" to people who have shown no concern for the rights of others. We arrest them
This is victim blaming. And it is utterly inappropriate.
Thanks for the update Seren!
Victim blaming, really? Maybe you missed this part: "I do think it's important that the statue should be replaced, even if it ends up costing a little more than the original in an effort to make sure it's harder to remove this time. Not replacing the statue gives the opinions and illegal actions of an extreme minority more weight than those who've spoken out in shock and support for the community of Limavady, and it would legitimate this theft and vandalism, and send a very wrong message to not just the people of Limavady, but to the many thousands of people around the world who've been following this story and have overwhelmingly expressed a desire to see the statue replaced.
Victim blaming, really? Maybe you missed this part?
No, I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant.
Saying that the "concern" that putting up a non Christian icon might "antagonise" the criminals to do more crine is victim blaming. "You, the victim, are responsible for antagonising (or not antagonising) the criminal".
So, yes. Victim blaming. Wherein the responsibility for the crime is placed upon the victim and not the criminal. Or blaming the victim for the crime.
Also, phrasing your "I don't think you read this part, and somehow it is relevant to your claim" as a rhetorical question and not explaining the not implicit connection is a little condescending. Please don't do it again.
Perhaps I should try and clarify my comments here.
I think the councillor raised a point worth considering because he's a politician of some sort and he has to consider how best to represent the people who elected him (and those who didn't), and how best to respond to the issue at hand. I'm not saying "if they put a bigger statue up, it's just asking to be vandalised" (if that's what you think I'm saying?). I'm saying that if it's a possibility then shouldn't the council consider it as part of their discussions in deciding the best way to move forward? That doesn't mean I think that they should decide against a larger statue (personally, I'd like to have seen the full boat option get more support). But at the point those comments were made the news was still talking about the replacement being funded by the ratepayers and they were clear that they have to make use of those funds in the best possible way. In that respect I don't see why they shouldn't consider possible outcomes, because whatever decision they make may have to be defended at some point. To be fair, the same goes for if it's funded by donations, as it seems it will be.
It's already been noted that there's a concern that any kind of replacement might be vandalised, and that too is a possibility (however remote, however likely, however wrong it may be). So there are clearly many angles that the council have considered, and are considering. I don't think it's victim blaming for anyone to say that installing a larger statue *could* have made it a target for vandalism because of the potentially negative reaction to it from a minority of people. If anything I think the fact that it seems like even a remote possibility illustrates just how vile and wrongheaded the thieves' actions are, or for anyone who might think that sort of response is appropriate in any way. Yes, they are criminals, and anyone who would vandalise a statue is also a criminal. I want to be clear that I didn't, at any point, say they weren't, and I think that's one of the points Marsaili was responding to in her comment to you (if I'm wrong, I apologise Marsaili!).
I'm not saying I agree with any kind of vandalism or theft, or that I think it would be even remotely justified to target it in any way if it had been decided to erect a larger statue. The same goes for whatever replacement they do decide on.
But ultimately no, as far as what may or may not be "antagonistic" here, it's not my concern because deciding the future of the statue isn't my job and it has nothing to do with me beyond the fact that I'm a strong supporter of a replacement and would be happy to contribute towards any fundraiser that's set up by the council. But I do think it's the concern of the council to consider all angles of the issue, right or wrong as I or anyone else might consider them to be, so that they can make an informed decision that benefits and satisfies the majority of the community they serve, in as much as they can. They're never going to please everyone, that's for sure, unfortunately.
I hope that helps explain things a little better, Wing. If my initial comments were unclear then I'm sorry.
Wing, I was not being rhetorical - I was asking if you had read the entire entry. In my experiences on the internet people will often comment about one aspect while failing to internalize the broader message. I certainly was not trying to be condescending. I quoted that passage because I thought this line, "Not replacing the statue gives the opinions and illegal actions of an extreme minority more weight than those who've spoken out in shock and support for the community of Limavady, and it would legitimate this theft and vandalism, and send a very wrong message to not just the people of Limavady, but to the many thousands of people around the world who've been following this story and have overwhelmingly expressed a desire to see the statue replaced." was particularly relevant, as it seems to be the exact opposite of your accusation of victim blaming.
I'd also like to point out that the *actual* victims of this crime are the community of Limavady and the council which commissioned and paid for the statue. I'm certainly glad to see so many people around the world that love and support this statue, but as most of us (and apologies if you are a local of Limavady, I have no way of knowing that at this moment) are not members of that community our disappointment, while still valid, is not quite the same as having such thieves in the community. The victims, in this case the council members, are bringing up THEIR concerns about replacing the statue ... so how is that victim blaming when they're the victims? The council will have to pay to replace it and, like any other decision, must carefully weigh the pros and cons, taking consideration if this will be a wasted effort and expense. In that regard I agree with Seren that it's a valid concern. Yes, it sucks that those things have to be thought about, and it would be nice to live in a world where everyone respected public art (be they metal thieves or religious extremists), but I see why that councilman said that and why he's worried.
Let's hope that the community supports the replacement; I've heard that they may look into doing some kind of fundraising which I think would be fantastic, and would offset the cost to the council (and hopefully help allay some of these fears).
Post a Comment