This House Believes Internment was a Necessary Evil

internment

The 17th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 6th of March in the Senate Room. Our guest chair for the evening, Professor John Brewer, had a few opening remarks.

Ryan Jones and Andrew Carruthers proposed the motion. Jones argued that internment is a legitimate tool of war and that the only more effective alternative is extermination. He said it may have been evil but there was no other way to deal with insurgency. Carruthers said that interment showed the people the immorality of Britain and that this forced them to make their voices heard. t forced the people to demand more.

Katy Waller and Harry Adair took centre stage to staunchly oppose internment. Waller told the House that internment took away the rights of stability and movement. Instead of protecting the people, it encourages them to see the state as something to be feared. She said that something that takes rights away should never be seen as necessary. Adair then closed the debate. He said internment was detrimental to community relationships.  The alternative to internment, he argued, was to not put innocent people behind bars.

Professor Brewer then summarised and commented on the speeches. Closing statements were heard and the House then went to a vote. The motion was defeated.

This House Supports Drone Warfare

 

drone

The 13th Ordinary meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 6th of
February in the Senate Room.

Alex Horkan and Ryan Jones supported the motion! Horkan argued that no weapon can be said to be used ethically but that war is inevitable so drone warfare must be considered. While warfare should be a last resort, drones allow better and more informed decisions when it comes about. Ryan Jones continued saying he hearts drones. There were some memorable quotes *cough* ‘whether your beliefs are communism, fascism or feminism’ *cough*.He said that like all advances in warfare, drones are necessary as it’s not about how many men you have in war but about how advanced your weapons are.

Henry Adams and James McAlister took the floor in opposition! Adams compared the cause and effect of the situation.  He argued that staying silent about the use of drones and having a lack of transparency would result in dangerous consequences due to an indifference to casualties. McAlister closed the debate. He told the House that it is just a way of allowing the government to make a kill list and carry out secret executions instead of giving trials and that it could escalate to a point where there is a disregard for human life.

We then went to the floor, a vote and the motion passed.

This House Would Have a New Northern Irish Flag

NIflag

 

The 12th Ordinary meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 19th of December in the Elmwood Hall. It began with an opening address from the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers. She talked about the importance of a united community – her entire speech is here as we probably could not do it justice.

Derek Crosby, Dr Dominic Bryan, Ciaran Gallagher and Tina McKenzie spoke in proposition of the motion. Crosby argued that the Union Jack and tricolour both cause divides in the community and suggest there is no Northern Ireland. Dr Bryan said that while dealing with the past was more important, a new flag would do little harm. Mr Gallagher decided that a flag would be a good foundation for progress, for harmony and peace. He commented that a flag is easier to change than the population. Tina McKenzie, NI21, said that the people of Northern Ireland are united in character and that the real problem is Stormont. She told the House that politicians wish to promote segregation.

Nigel Macauley, Conor Conneally, Trevor Ringland and Andrew Carruthers all spoke for the oposition. Macauley countered the idea that leadership needed to bring both communities together through a flag does not exist, that both communities are separated at birth and trying to force them together would cause riots. Conneally said that flags are boring and if both flags cannot be flown with both communities respecting each other then there should be none. Mr Ringland stated that instead of a flag, he asked that real change be made to tackle sectarianism. Carruthers agreed that time should not be wasted on a flag but to instead spend time to make real change, that a flag would just distract from the real problems.

The debate then went to the floor.
We then went to a vote, there were 34 nays, 4 abstentions and the motion passed with 38 ayes.