tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post5587561887164728000..comments2024-02-21T17:37:37.993+00:00Comments on Tairis: Decision to be made on ManannĂ¡n statueSerenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15106896818087205418noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post-14873263426724851982015-02-18T00:13:04.493+00:002015-02-18T00:13:04.493+00:00Wing, I was not being rhetorical - I was asking if...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.<br /><br />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. <br /><br />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).Marsailihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12642850838645697698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post-1630451945230836462015-02-17T01:11:39.865+00:002015-02-17T01:11:39.865+00:00Perhaps I should try and clarify my comments here....Perhaps I should try and clarify my comments here. <br /><br />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 <i>should</i> 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 <i>shouldn't</i> 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. <br /> <br />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!). <br /><br />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 <i>had</i> been decided to erect a larger statue. The same goes for whatever replacement they do decide on. <br /><br />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. <br /><br />I hope that helps explain things a little better, Wing. If my initial comments were unclear then I'm sorry.Serenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15106896818087205418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post-35585723039676079982015-02-16T20:43:19.785+00:002015-02-16T20:43:19.785+00:00Victim blaming, really? Maybe you missed this part...<b>Victim blaming, really? Maybe you missed this part?</b><br /><br />No, I didn't miss it, it's just not relevant.<br /><br />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".<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Also, phrasing your "I don't think you read this part, and somehow it is relevant to your claim" as a rhetorical question and <b>not</b> explaining the <b>not</b> implicit connection is a little condescending. Please don't do it again.Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16957680981572276827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post-122435440998524562015-02-15T09:08:10.611+00:002015-02-15T09:08:10.611+00:00Thanks for the update Seren!
Victim blaming, real...Thanks for the update Seren!<br /><br />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.Marsailihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12642850838645697698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7758267616106239950.post-71145166274947371262015-02-14T03:37:58.804+00:002015-02-14T03:37:58.804+00:00I think this is a very valid concern and certainly...<b>I think this is a very valid concern and certainly something that needs to be considered.</b><br /><br />This is the <b>exact opposite</b> of a valid concern. The people who stole the original statue are <i>CRIMINALS</i>. 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}).<br /><br />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<br /><br />This is victim blaming. And it is utterly inappropriate.Winghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16957680981572276827noreply@blogger.com