Ulster Unionist deputy leader Robbie Butler MLA tells loyalist activist Jamie Bryson not to 'misuse' Biblical quotations in arguing against the Protocol / Windsor Framework

Robbie Butler MLA and the north Down loyalist engaged in an extended Twitter exchange on the issue, following the publication of the essay by Mr Bryson in the News Letter’s letter section.

You can read it in full here – Jamie Bryson: 'Forgive them for they know not what they do' no longer applies when it comes to the Protocol / Windsor Framework

Mr Butler’s bone of contention was that Mr Bryson had written that “the old Biblical phrase ‘forgive them; they know not what they do’ may have been an arguable retrospective defence, but the Government – or, indeed, any unionist negotiating with them – can no longer claim to be blind to this issue, or the constitutional effect it brings about”.

Mr Bryson was invoking Luke 23:34, on the torture and crucifixion of Christ, which reads in part (KJV): “Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”

Here is a (slightly) abridged summary of how the whole spirited exchange flowed:

• Robbie Butler, 12,400 followers (RB): Why do you feel it appropriate or that you have the authority to misuse a biblical phrase in that article? Write whatever on earth you like, as you do, but for goodness sake have the grace to leave scriptures out of your musings.

• Jamie Bryson, 45,200 followers (JB): Hi Robbie, I shall deploy whichever phrase I so wish. Are you the authority for whether Biblical phrases can be used, or not? In any event, it’s quite apt. For example, the UUP can no longer claim they know not what they do: the constitutional consequences have been explained.

• RB: I’m sure you will Jamie. I really do wish that you had a “brake” at least when it came to scriptures. But hey ho there ya go I will file your understanding and heart for the Word under the same file I believe you have for Northern Ireland and its future.

• JB: Why? Do you decide who can use scriptures? As I keep pointing out to you Robbie, there is only one of us chomping at the bit to collaborate in implementing the subjugation of the Union. And it isn’t me.

• RB: The collaboration you’re interested in Jamie is diminishing the appeal and value of Northern Ireland as part of the Union. Sure there’ll be an election or two coming up, put yourself up for the vote and maybe you’ll surprise us?

• JB: No Robbie, you’re confused. My interest is in preserving the Union; I just find that interest is unreconcilable with implementing it’s subjugation. As I say, there’s only one collaborator here. I might just do that.

• RB: You really should stop, not only with misuse of scriptures, but in this provocative and untruthful mislabelling. On the election front I hope you do.

• JB: Is the Act of Union the Union? Yes, according to Lord Trimble. Does the Protocol/Framework subjugate the Acts of Union? Yes. Is a NI Exec legally obligated to implement that subjugation? Yes. Therefore, urging returning to Stormont is to collaborate. Which part is wrong?

• RB: I believe the people are the Union (Robbie Butler). I believe the UK Govt is sovereign. They got it wrong with Brexit and with its offspring the Protocol and WF. It is not Union persuading or winning practice to use people and services as leverage for Political mistakes. Making Northern Ireland unworkable is collaborating IMO. Which part is wrong?

• JB: ‘The people are the Union’- which people? It can’t be the people of the Union, because only the people of NI have a say on the future of the Union. So it must be a discrete group of ‘people’. This clever catchphrase (which is an obvious effort to move swiftly past Lord Trimble’s inconvenient statement of legal reality, namely that the Union is a legal construct) doesn’t work when the principle of self determination has been butchered & applies differently vis a vis NI with one part of the Union having the unilateral right to secede…

Several more messages ensued, until Robbie Butler exited the conversation with this:

• RB: And with this last X I’m away to watch Uncle Buck. So as a sign off please don’t misuse the Word again, thanks.

• JB: I will continue to use Biblical references when appropriate & the gravity of the situation dictates. My use of the biblical reference was entirely appropriate & apt. Enjoy your evening and, if I may say so genuinely (and I do mean this genuinely), credit to you for always engaging with those you disagree & challenging.

• CRITICISM OF LANGUAGE CONTINUES •

On a related note, Mr Butler then went on to take issue with the content of a tweet by Alex Armstrong, a commentator with GB News.

Mr Armstrong had opined that the stand-up comedienne Rosie Jones “isn’t funny”.

Mr Butler said that such a comment was “unnecessary and mean”, prompting the following exchange:

• AA: What was specifically mean Robbie?

• RB: What was the point? Are you a comedian critique perhaps? Is this part of a wider thread you’ll be doing? IMO Rosie has shown huge levels of courage and determination in the face of personal and societal challenges (like your tweet) to do what she does.

(Rosie Jones has ataxic cerebral palsy.)

• AA: It’s just an opinion, the whole point of Twitter. I’m sure she has, I’m also sure that she’d rather not be treated differently because of her disabilities, which is exactly what you’re proposing people do. Positive ablism. Comedy is an art, it’s subjective. Stop being so unnecessarily sensitive, I’m sure she can handle feedback better than you can.

• RB: I chair the Disability All Party Group at Stormont and know only too well the daily barriers faced by people with disabilities. Whether Rosie is funny or not really isn’t the point Alex, your list could have been long and deliberately inclusive. But hey that would’ve defeated the purpose, right?

• AA: Again, me finding her jokes funny has nothing to do with her disability, you’re making it about identity politics to suit your agenda for votes. My grandma had MS I know all too well how disabled people hate being treated differently, perhaps you should step out of the committee room echo chamber.

• RB: An advocacy group for a disadvantaged part of the community ain’t an echo chamber Alex.