Bigotry in Britain and Northern Ireland

There is a lot of  political news at the moment and I am trying to catch my breath – the resignation of Alan Johnson, Shadow Chancellor and the announcement of a General Election in the Republic of Ireland.   As I write, Tony Blair is giving evidence to the Iraq enquiry.  Posts on those subjects will follow shortly.

Meanwhile, yesterday, TV coverage was also given to Baroness Warsi, the co-Chairman of the Conservative Party after she highlighted the problem of Islamaphobia in Britain.  It is very important Conservatives across the country show their solidarity with Baroness Warsi.  The message will be all the more powerful if senior conservatives, who are non-muslims, express their public support.    

Bigotry in Britain is not discussed as much as it is in Northern Ireland.  Nonetheless, Baroness Warsi’s public comments are to be welcomed by anybody in Northern Ireland who is interested in tackling bigotry against groups of people, whether it is sectarianism, homophobia or any other act of prejudice which is demeaning, divisive or stigmatising.

Northern Ireland’s problems are compounded by the institutionalization of some forms of bigotry.   If the leader of an institution, religion or any other body fails to take moral responsibility for the problem of bigotry, then it is so much the harder for individuals, who are members of that institution, religion or other body to tackle it themselves. 

I come across bigotry by individuals on a regular basis.  Recently, I heard somebody say, ““X” is a Prod but his shop does some very good bargains.”  This is not acceptable.  This is not some phenomenon which we can just brush aside as being a harmless conversation within a community.  At the extreme end of the continuum, somebody will be sufficiently influenced by it to commit a hate crime.  Anybody who notices it in their own community has a moral duty to clamp down upon it and set an example. 

In my various posts, I have highlighted the fact that institutions or bodies have not done enough to tackle bigotry. This includes not just the Orange Order but also the GAA and the Churches.   What Northern Ireland needs, particularly, is for leaders of those institutions to be courageous and challenge bigotry within their own community.

The future is bright but it certainly isn’t Orange

The Orange Order is back in the news again, following the announcement that it has a new Grand Master, Mr. Edward Stevenson. A typical Nationalist reaction to such news was “there goes the new head-honcho bigot”

We all need to be careful about our choice of words. All of us are imprinted with varying degrees of bigotry as we grow up. If your place of birth is Northern Ireland, the chances are that you have more religious bigotry to deal with than in most regions of Europe. Conquering one’s own bigotry, in relation to all forms of prejudice and intolerance, is just as much about developing an open mind as it is of being tolerant of the bigotry of others.

I do not have a problem with religious bigotry which is confined to doctrine or dogma. It follows that I don’t mind being told that I will “not be saved” or that I am following a “hellish path” if I abide by the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. It is all the sort of stuff which Protestants generally believe about Catholicism, whether or not they are members of the Orange Order. Where bigotry hurts is when it leads to inhumane behaviour such as avoidance, shunning, unkindness, intolerance, discrimination and, at the worst extreme, religious hatred.

On paper, at least, the Orange Order tells its people to show kindness and neighbourliness to Roman Catholics. Some Orangemen do just that and I am privileged to know some of them as my friends.

Unfortunately, these people do not represent the majority in that organisation. The majority of Orangemen are law-abiding citizens. They are also generally polite to Catholics and happy to do business with them. However, in their minds, Catholics are still “themuns." In their hearts they still can not go as far as completely trusting them.  They also find it very difficult to think non-communally. Real neighbourliness, which falls short of public duty, is hard to come by. This kind of thinking leads to discrimination and isolationism. It is not conducive to a shared future.

So far as Northern Irish politics is concerned, the Orange Order continues to dabble in politics, refuses to endorse political or religious pluralism and refuses to take responsibility for its role in past oppression of Catholics. At present, most UUP MLAs and most of its membership are still either members of the Orange order or very supportive of Orangism. The combined effects of these circumstances represent huge obstacles to progress for those Ulster Unionists who wish to move their party towards a more liberal position.

Tom Elliot has gone on record as saying that he wants the Orange Order to stay out of politics. Perhaps this is a recognition that an increasing number of Protestants are being turned off by the Orange Order and what it represents. Nonetheless, the appointment of a new Orange leader did not stop him from making a political gesture of ingratiation.

Meanwhile, the new leader of the Orange Order, Mr. Stevenson, did not disappoint his brethren when it came to stirring the pot. Outside Ballykelly hall, Mr. Stevenson announced that he would not be talking to Sinn Fein or the Parades Commission or attending GAA matches. There was nothing new in that. This was a leader of an intolerant organisation practising what it preaches.

The Conservative Party, if it has any ambition left in Northern Ireland politics, should avoid any association with Orangism. Unfortunately, the present link up with the UUP puts in jeopardy the Conservative Party’s non-sectarian credentials (more about that in a future post).

Meanwhile, the Orange Order’s declining membership roll can only be a good thing for Northern Ireland politics. The future is bright but it certainly is not Orange.

NI Centre Right Campaign strengthened by events of the last week

Child abuse comes in many forms. Nearly all child abuse falls into one of three categories: neglect, physical harm and emotional abuse. All forms of abuse by a parent or carer involve some form of emotional abuse.

Not all child abuse by Parents is driven by wickedness or selfishness. Sometimes, the root cause of child abuse is illness by the parents or parents simply not being able to cope.

If the abuse is severe enough, it falls into the category of ‘significant harm.’ If a child is suffering, or likely to suffer, significant harm, the child protection authorities are obliged to intervene. In the worst of these cases, if the parents show no sign of wanting or being capable of providing a suitable upbringing for the child, the child will go into care. In exceptional cases, more likely with infants, the authorities will place the child for adoption. Metaphorically speaking, “child abuse” has occurred in the Conservative and Unionist family.

The Conservative Party is more than 300 years old. The Orange Order is more than 200 years old. In the earlier years of Orangism, these two organisations did not like each other. Relations were at their lowest ebb when, in 1829, legislation for Catholic Emancipation was passed under a Tory Government. However, they had one thing in common. They were unionists. The rise of the Parnellites brought them into a relationship.

In 1905, the Ulster Unionist Party (the UUP) was born. The UUP was a bastard child of the Conservative Party. The Other parent was the Orange Order. From the time of that birth, the Conservative Party were content to leave the care and upbringing of the UUP to the Orange Order whilst continuing to acknowledge it as its child.

The Orange Order was a bad parent. It engendered an attitude of antipathy and mistrust towards Catholics. The UUP became papaphobic, just like its Orange mother. Its Conservative father neglected it by not being involved in its upbringing. The UUP became a bully but its Conservative father, proud to acknowledge it when they met in the UK Parliament, could not see that it was doing anything wrong.

The UUP then got into trouble. When the civil rights riots broke out, the Conservatives were obliged to take some responsibility. When the Conservative father asked the UUP to accept some Sunningdale treatment, its mother objected. For a short period, the UUP was torn between the wishes of its mother and its father. Papaphobia was still a dominating influence. Inevitably, the UUP rejected Sunningdale. Like a sulking teenager, the UUP stopped talking to its father. The father attempted to talk sense with its son but to no avail. The combined effect of the political power vacuum and the deteriorating security situation led the father to signing the Anglo Irish Agreement. This caused so much anger that the UUP cut off all remaining ties with its father.

Shortly afterwards, the Conservative Party fathered another child. This child was a legitimate non-sectarian daughter. The Northern Ireland Conservatives had been born. For a short time in its early life, this child was encouraged to survive and thrive but soon suffered from neglect. It was hungry and undernourished. Because it achieved nothing, it was ignored by its father. Nonetheless, the daughter was dutiful and did what it was told by its father.

The UUP’s mother started to become frail and weak, suffering from a debilitating long-term illness which will eventually lead to its death – secularism. With the mother’s influence declining, the UUP drifted slowly towards moderation and signed the Belfast Agreement. When the Northern Ireland Conservatives saw that its father approved this development, it became jealous. In a desperate attempt to get its father’s attention, it opposed it. Still the Conservative Party ignored its daughter.

The UUP, having been badly beaten by an ever strengthening DUP, sought to get back on terms with its father. Reconciliation then occurred. However, the father wanted the UUP to be locked permanently into the family. The UUP was asked to enter into a marriage with the Northern Ireland Conservatives. The marriage proposal was rejected. Instead, an agreement was made that they live together. The result of this relationship was the birth of UCUNF.

The relationship between the UUP and the Northern Ireland Conservatives did not work out and the UCUNF child was abused by the UUP when it decided to equivocate over possible candidate deals with the DUP and internal wrangles over candidate selection resulting in crucial delay. Going into the 2010 General election, a sole unionist candidate was selected for Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Northern Ireland Conservatives were traumatised. The UCUNF child, already unhealthy going into the 2010 General Election, had been severely abused by its father and grandfather.

The UCUNF infant later died. The UUP walked away from its relationship with the NI Conservatives and told its father that it wanted the NI Conservatives out of the house.   The Northern Ireland Conservatives did not want the relationship to continue either.   The UUP’s rejection of a continuation of the link, or any future election pact, gave rise to confidence of Northern Ireland Conservatives that it would, at last, receive the support it deserved from its father.  The father had to choose between one of its children to decide who would represent National policy in Northern Ireland. In the end, a parent’s selfishness played a crucial part in the decision.

This brings me to the end of this sorry mythical tale. I apologise for the very few historical distortions which have appeared. It is sometimes appropriate to use a little bit of artistic licence to illustrate an important point.

The Northern Ireland Conservatives have been rejected, in my opinion, to a point where it is not possible for them to continue as a regional branch of the main Conservative Party. The position of trust and confidence is not something that is capable of being restored.

Alex Kane likens this position to something akin to inevitable political infanticide. I completely agree. That being the case, there is only one way for the Northern Ireland Conservatives to go. It should become an independent party. An independent party needs a political niche. That niche is a centre-right party which would take no position if there was a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland. Admittedly, there may still be a battle of persuasion ahead in relation to that last point.

As a lifelong Conservative supporter, I deeply regret what has happened. However, every cloud has a silver lining. The civilised campaign that I was conducting was always likely to be difficult, so long as there was such a strong attachment between local conservatives and the main party. With the severe weakening of that attachment, there is no doubt that the Northern Ireland Centre-Right campaign has been strengthened.

In time, as Northern Ireland Conservatives lick their wounds, they may well conclude that the events of the last few days were all for the best.

A higher morality than taught by the Bible

Here we go again.  Philip Lardner, the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for North Ayrshire and Arran has been suspended for homophobic remarks, as just reported on Sky News.

Just to put Mr. Lardner’s remarks into context, he has tried to appear reasonable by holding out that he respects equality for gay people but refuses to acknowledge that their behaviour is normal or encourage children to indulge in it. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Larder is not alone in his views.  If you asked for the view of a Priest, Minister or Rabbi on this subject, you would not find much of a difference between the opinions of the clerics and Mr. Lardner.

If you scratch the surface further, you will find more politicians who privately agree with Mr. Lardner but will not say so in Public. 

Unfortunately for the Gay Community, there is one huge obstacle in the way of a post-homophobic society.  It is the Bible.  The most well-known reference against it is Leviticus 18:22   At various times, when a politician is accused of being an anti-gay bigot, he or she uses the Bible to defend his/her view.  Peter Robinson did just that a couple of years ago, following remarks made by his wife.  Philip Lardner has just made his own reference to his Christian beliefs.

For the Conservative Party, this is an ongoing problem but it should not be beyond their control.  We have a Parliamentary Assessment Board.  As an immediate measure, we must ensure that all of our candidates are properly screened so that their private religious views are exposed in that process.  When those views are exposed, they should then demonstrate a willingness not to air any view which could be regarded as being homophobic and understand that it is a breach of the party code of conduct if they do that.   I am not a party insider.  Perhaps that code exists and Mr. Lardner is clearly in breach of it.

Meanwhile, we as a society need to acknowledge, much more than we do at present, that as far as the law is concerned, it is not simply there to protect gay rights and promote equality.  It is much more than that.  The critical mass of our society has now moved on to embrace a higher form of morality, which is based upon humanist tolerance and decency.   To put it bluntly, as far as homosexuality is concerned, we are a post biblical society.

The non-sectarian way is the only proper way to oppose Sinn Fein

In my previous post, following the Hatfield House meeting, I invited Owen Paterson to “clear the air” on speculation that the Conservatives may be agreeing to or acquiescing in a pan-unionist pact involving the DUP, which amounts to an entrenchment of sectarian politics. 

Before I go on, let me repeat that there were perfectly legitimate reasons for having the talks between the parties concerned.  The possible collapse of the Executive is a worry.  The Conservatives, acting as the party about to form a Government, would be absolutely right to explore ways to save to the Peace process.  

I do not claim to have any influence over Owen Paterson, let alone David Cameron.  What is perfectly obvious though is that with neither of them having spoken further about the talks, there remains a stench in the Northern Irish political air.   Unfortunately, the stench has become worse as the week has progressed.  Peter McCann and Sheila Davidson have now revealed that part of their reason for resigning as candidates was a fear that the UUP would do a separate deal with the DUP.   Furthermore, as The Times indicates, Mr. Paterson has not yet held talks with the Nationalist Parties. 

The result is that Conservatives are now left with a credibility problem as far as their non-sectarian credentials are concerned.  That problem is now being compounded by the ill-informed writings of journalists and bloggers from across the water.

Once the Labour Party weighed in with their criticism of the Hatfield House talks, it was inevitable, as the night follows the day, that some Conservative journalists would rise to the bait.  Benedict Brogan of the Daily Telegraph seems to have been the first fish to bite this worm. His piece is clearly written without any discussion of one of the central aims of the Tory / UUP pact, which is to drive sectarianism out of Northern Ireland Politics. 

A much more thoughtful piece was written on Conservative Home by Paul Goodman.  Much of it contained entirely sensible reasons why the Hatfield House meeting should have taken place.  It is therefore a pity that he wrote this sentence in support of Ben Brogan.

“It’s essential, Ben wrote, “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner as the result of the failure of Unionism in Northern Ireland to get its electoral act together” (and such ways, incidentally, don’t necessitate a DUP/UUP merger).

This is the first reason why we were right to promote the recent talks between pro-Union parties.”

The words “to find political ways to ensure Sinn Fein doesn’t end up the winner” have not been fully explained but it is difficult to read those words in any way other than that the Conservatives should be prepared to embrace a pan-unionist pact. 

I reject that notion.  It is worth repeating the fourth paragraph of the pre-amble to the Memorandum of Understanding which the Conservatives and the UUP signed up to on 20^th November 2008. 

“Both parties recognize the need to change politics in Northern Ireland, are committed to reaching out to the increasing numbers of alienated voters, and developing non sectarian politics in Northern Ireland.”

There is only one, non-sectarian, way to oppose Sinn Fein.  That is to fight for the votes of people from all communities at elections.  That may look like an insurmountable task to some.  It is not, so long as Conservative and Unionist politicians are prepared to take a very long – term view of politics.

UPDATE

I have just stumbled upon an email circular which was sent to me on Friday 22nd January by David Fry, the Conservative Agent for Northern Ireland.  It reads

“During his two day visit to Northern Ireland this week Mr Paterson met with deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness MP MLA to discuss the ongoing political instabilities in Northern Ireland”

That partially answers the criticism  in “the Times ”  reporting on the comments of Alasdair McDonnell.  Perhaps Mr. Paterson should be talking to the SDLP as well.

Mr. Paterson, will you please clear the air for us

Last Weekend, the Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Owen Paterson, held a “secret” meeting with leaders of the DUP and the UUP.

At first sight, such a meeting would have seemed logical and sensible. With Sinn Fein threatening to bring down the Executive over Policing and Justice, seemingly more likely as a result of the Iris Robinson scandal, it would make sense to have these meetings to enable Mr. Paterson to be on top of his game when he assumes office as the New Northern Ireland Minister.  

According to a report by Henry McDonald in the Observer today, three of our prospective parliamentary candidates have resigned from the Party nomination because the talks were about entering into a political pact.  That is certainly a loss to the Conservatives and to the Northern Ireland electorate.  Of the three, I do know Sheila Davidson.  She would have made an exceptionally good candidate.   In response to the Observer report, Ian Parsley, who was present when the three resigned their nomination, has denied that the withdrawal of these three were anything to do with a prospective pact with the DUP.   Two of the three were Catholics.  That seems to be nothing more than an unfortunate co-incidence.   Perhaps Henry McDonald will have egg on his face for latching on to an assumption. 

I find it difficult to believe that Northern Ireland Conservatives are calling for Mr. Paterson’s head.  Mr. Paterson has done so much good work to give meaning to the Conservative cause in Northern Ireland.  He would not throw all that away in a “sectarian carve up.”  However, there is no doubt that Conservatives in Northern Ireland have been unnerved by the talks with the DUP. 

A statement from a conservative spokesman did indicate that the Conservatives would not be entering into any sectarian pact. I quote from the Observer report

“We remain absolutely committed to putting up 18 Conservative and Unionists candidates at the next general election to offer the people of Northern Ireland national, non-sectarian normal politics. Nothing that has happened in the past 24 hours deflects us from that,” the spokesman said. “We are absolutely clear that we will not be entering any sectarian pact. We remain committed to our existing pact with the Ulster Unionists, but David Cameron will do absolutely nothing that undermines political stability or puts the peace process at risk.”

So what exactly have the Conservatives agreed with the DUP that might be so unpalatable?   What does the last phrase in that statement mean exactly?

An agreement over the contesting of seats at the General Election? – The Conservatives have always consistently stated they would field 18 candidates.  They will not change that position.  It has been suggested that the DUP have offered not to field candidates in two of the seats in return for something else.  This is unlikely.  It would amount to a sectarian pact by the back door.    

An agreement not to vote against the Conservatives in the Commons if there is a hung Parliament?

There is nothing wrong, in principle, with negotiating terms with another party given this scenario, so long as the price is right.  If the price means adopting a policy which is inherently sectarian, such as the DUP position on parades (see below), it most certainly is not.

An agreement over the terms for devolution of Policing and Justice? – It is worth noting that as the UK Government, the Conservatives will have to take a neutral position on P & J with the object of bridging the gap between the DUP and Sinn Fein, if that is possible.  However, if Assembly elections are imminent, the Conservatives and the UUP are going to have to declare their hand in relation to the terms under which P & J should be devolved.

No matter how reasonable the Ashdown proposals may sound to people who do not live in Northern Ireland, they do not justify the abolition of the Parades Commission on merit.  The Commission now has years of experience and expertise behind it.  Support for the Parades Commission has grown within the Unionist community as they note its contribution to peace on the streets. 

Thirty seven of Northern Ireland’s 54 MLAs are members of the Orange Order.  The DUP policy on parades (and probably that of the UUP) has the stamp of Orange influence.  It is not a policy which is beneficial to Northern Ireland.  Furthermore, adoption of such a policy would be perceived as being sectarian.  The Conservative Party can not afford to be associated with it.

An agreement not to go into the Northern Ireland Government if Sinn Fein are the Largest Party at Stormont?

It is now possible, perhaps even likely, that the UUP will once again be the largest unionist party at Stormont after the Assembly elections but not necessarily the largest party.  The OFM and ODFM are equal in terms of power.  It does not surprise me that the DUP would refuse to nominate a DFM but what about the UUP?   If that is the UUP policy, it is wrong.  The Conservatives should be above that kind of childish nonsense.  They can not afford to be seen to support it.  In any event, it would be inconsistent with advancing the peace process. 

There are now rumours that the UUP is to enter into a compact agreement with the DUP in order to ensure they are the largest “party” at Stormont – thus preventing Sinn Fein from being able to nominate First Minister.  Well, that one would also have to go through the Courts, including the Appeal Courts and could fail in them.   Such an agreement, even if legal, would be the most sectarian of sectarian agreements.  If that is what the UUP want to do, it is hard to see how the Conservatives can enter into any agreement with the UUP on assembly elections. 

Has the Conservative leadership sold its soul in order to get more seats or buy an insurance policy for a hung parliament?  Without the information in the public arena, it is too early to judge but Owen Paterson now needs to answer those questions in detail in order to clear the air.

Could a change to the Act of Settlement be a threat to Orangism?

The Times today reports that Gordon Brown is pushing Commonwealth leaders to change the law so that a Royal can marry a Roman Catholic without losing the right to succeed to the throne.

When this issue was discussed on this Blog earlier this year, the only opposition of note came from Jeffrey Donaldson.  He argued that a Roman Catholic spouse of a monarch would have a conflict of loyalty between Rome and the Crown.  

The argument was utterly non-sensical but Donaldson’s intervention left many observers with the suspicion that the real reason for opposing the proposed change to the constitution was that it would cause a structural weakness to one of the pillars of Orangism – the glorification of the Battle of the Boyne which ensured that a Catholic would never again become a British Monarch.  

If the law is passed, to what extent would the Orange Order be under pressure to change its own rules?  Could such a law change perhaps inspire a rule change to allow a Catholic to be married to an Orangeman? 

Maybe an Orangeman would like to answer that one.

The GAA, Nationalist Identity and Sectarianism

In recent times, the GAA has been compared with the Orange Order as being its Republican equivalent.  At the end of the continuum of sectarian bigotry where criminality festers, a GAA clubhouse is just as likely to be damaged as an Orange Hall. 

Just over a year ago, Margaret Ritchie MLA and Minister for Social Development set the cat amongst the pigeons when she attended a GAA conference in Belfast.  At the conference, she addressed sectarian attacks on Orange halls and GAA venues.  Her remarks on that subject were reported in the press and went down badly with members of the Orange Order.  In response, they handed her a letter of protest. 

On December 3, 2008, the Belfast Telegraph reported as follows:

 “The minister condemned all such attacks, but reportedly said that the GAA and Orange Order could not be described as reflections of each other, insisting that the GAA had reached outside its nationalist heartland towards other communities.

She was quoted as saying: “While the loyal orders have some progressive people around who wish to move them forward to a better place, they remain unlike the GAA, sectional and sectarian and deeply divisive in our community.”

At first sight, Margaret Ritchie’s viewpoint is not an unreasonable one to arrive at when one compares the big differences between the two organisations. If one organisation is about religion and the other about sport, they cannot possibly be opposites.  Furthermore, there is no rule against a person from any particular religion from joining the GAA.  In the case of the Orange Order, Catholics are excluded from membership. 

I differ with Margaret Ritchie’s remarks in two respects.  It is wrong to say or imply that the GAA does not have any connection with sectarianism.  I also take issue with her comment that the GAA had reached outside its heartland towards other communities.  The reality is that their success in this area has not been more than minimal and whilst it is fair to say that some Protestants have been involved in Gaelic sports, the GAA certainly has certainly not integrated with the Unionist Community.  At this point, I would like to discuss another sport played widely in Ireland which does integrate Nationalists and Unionists – Rugby Union.

Lord Maginnis is a well known member of the UUP.  He is my former MP.  He identifies himself as British.  Many years ago, Maginnis also used to call himself Irish.  That he felt the need to suppress the Irish part of his identity was part of the tragedy of the troubles.  It was a reaction not simply to terrorism but to part of the Republican campaign which was to squeeze out and eliminate the British identity from Northern Ireland.  Yet Ken Maginnis is still an Irishman.  He is also a fan of rugby and devotedly follows the Irish team.

The Irish international rugby team represents the 32 Counties of Ireland internationally.  It is not the only sport which represents both parts of Ireland but certainly the only major one in Ireland.  Before the match, the National Anthem Amhrán na bhFiann is played.  Though it was tolerated by them, Irish Unionists did feel somewhat excluded by its inclusion.  In 1995, the IRFU commissioned Phil Coulter to write a politically neutral anthem for the Irish Rugby team.  The song, Ireland’s call has been proudly adopted by all Irishmen.  By that action, the IRFU effectively nailed any identity problem that it might have had with its National team.  Ireland’s Call has now been adopted by the Irish Hockey, Cricket, Rugby League and A1GP international teams.

Unlike the IRFU, the GAA’s identity is tied to Nationalism.  This is not surprising given its history.  At the time of its inception, it formed part of a wider movement of cultural Irish Nationalism which now forms part of the history of the birth of the 26 county Irish State.

Throughout its existence, the GAA has nurtured its Nationalist identity through pre-match rites, its rules and its literature.  Rule 15 requires that the flag of the Republic of Ireland is flown and that Amhrán na bhFiann is played at all matches.  It was also an isolationist institution until relatively recently.  At one time, a player of Gaelic sports was banned from playing other sports.  Some of its past rules such as the ban on British security forces playing GAA games were undoubtedly sectarian. 

Unofficially, the GAA has been linked to Republican terrorism.  In the past, there have been allegations that it funded the IRA.  It is also alleged that some clubs continue to glorify IRA men. 

I would certainly not wish to brand all GAA supporters as IRA supporters or sympathisers.  Many of the people I know who are also GAA members would have nothing to do with the IRA or its memory but it is a fact that every now and then, some members of the GAA organisation make overt gestures of sympathy for the IRA in the name of that organisation. 

Rule 7 of the GAA rules strictly forbids sectarianism. Unfortunately, the rule on its own is impotent.  The GAA has failed to prevent a culture of sectarianism from having developed in its own following, hence the appalling case of Darren Graham, a protestant who, in 2007, felt compelled to give up playing GAA sports.  He later returned to his club after receiving an apology from the Fermanagh GAA Board. 

For all of the above reasons, it is hardly surprising that the GAA is perceived by many as being a sectarian organisation and one which the Unionist Community is generally alienated from.  

The GAA carries with it the nurturing of the ancient Irish sports, such as hurling.  These sports are a part of Irish heritage.  Elsewhere on this website, I have argued that the Irish Language should not be allowed to be hijacked by Republicanism.  That argument extends to all other parts of Irish heritage.   No part of Irish heritage should be the preserve of a single community. 

So can the GAA move forward from here?

In a sense, only they can answer that.  It all depends upon what they want from their longer term future.  Do they wish to enhance the interest in their sport?  Do they wish to adopt a modern sporting ethos by removing politics from its aims and objects?  Do they wish to improve community relations in Northern Ireland and combat sectarianism?  I believe that they can achieve all of those things by doing one thing.  That is that they follow the Irish Rugby Football Union model and take measures to change their identity to a cross-community one.  For example, could they eliminate rule 15? 

I am not the first person to make this argument.  Ed Curran of the Belfast Telegraph has reached a similar view about the GAA.  Whether anybody inside the GAA will give these issues serious thought is another matter.  We can but hope that matters will change for the better.

How Sinn Fein uses anti-sectarianism to sustain sectarianism

Yesterday, I discussed remarks made by Gerry Adams which purported to support ending sectarianism in Northern Ireland politics. 

Sinn Fein depends for its existence as a political force in Northern Ireland for people to continue to vote along sectarian lines.  You will not hear Sinn Fein making remarks about the religious beliefs of Protestants.  They do, however, contribute to the continuation of sectarianism by being anti-sectarian. 

Over the weekend, Martin Maginness made a “plea” to Orangemen to avoid parades through Catholic areas.  He said

“It means a declaration from the Orange Order that, in future, it will no longer seek to force parades through Catholic areas and risk bringing violence on to our streets.”

I am not going to debate here, whether Orangemen should or should not march through one particular area or another or to what extent the Orange Order is a sectarian organisation.  Let us leave it for now that most Catholics in Northern Ireland perceive it to be a sectarian organisation. 

The real problem is that by making his statement, Maguinness achieves two things.  Firstly, the statement increases the risk of violence because it encourages thugs from the Catholic Community looking for an excuse to attack.  Secondly, it provokes outrage amongst Orangemen and their supporters.  Positions become even more entrenched and feelings run higher all around.

In this particular example, the counter-criticism came from Peter Robinson of the DUP and Mr. Harbinson of the TUV.  I am glad to say that the UUP did not make similar comments.  My purpose in commenting is to expose Sinn Fein’s gambit. 

I have previously highlighted an example of how Sinn Fein continually demonises the Orange Order. 

In the book entitled “Moving Beyond Sectarianism,” [Liechty and Clegg 2000] the authors explain, scientifically, how anti-sectarianism can end up becoming sectarian aggression.

“..much of what passes for anti-sectarianism is actually a mirror image of sectarianism; in fact, we could go further and say that anti-sectarianism can easily become a form of sectarianism.  The process works like this.  When sectarianism encounters difference, that encounter often runs in sequence to something like this: Encounter – judge –condemn – reject – separation / antagonism  This sequence would be one way of naming the dynamics of sectarianism.  But note what can all too easily happen when liberalism encounters what it regards as sectarian.  The content of the judgment is different, but the process often looks much the same:  Encounter – judge – condemn – reject – demonise – separation / antagonism.  In other words, the dynamics of supposedly rejecting sectarianism can be identical to the dynamics of sectarianism, although the person rejecting sectarianism is likely to be totally unaware of this. This is one source of what we call liberal sectarianism.”

 There is no doubt that every time a Sinn Fein politician opens its mouth about the Orange Order, it re-inforces sectarianism.  Do Sinn Fein politicians understand this?

If you believe what Gerry Adams has said, you have also got to believe that he does not understand the point I have just made.  I would suggest that Sinn Fein know exactly what they are doing.  Their leaders are too seasoned in the game of Northern Ireland’s troubles not to have leaned that.

Liberal sectarianism or what I would call anti-sectarianism sectarianism, is one evil which is not easy to combat.  It is like trying to treat a disease caused by the failed cure of another disease.

If Sinn Fein’s conduct is not read properly, it could easily be interpreted as being morally right.  Martin McGuiness has disguised his anti-sectarianism sectarianism by linking (very unfairly) the Orange marches with the recent racist attacks against 100 Romanians in Belfast.  As one blogger has pointed out, he may have won a propaganda victory in the media.

How the UUP should deal with DUP taunts over “splitting the unionist vote”

Many Conservatives are bewildered by the fact that continually, references are made to the constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone in terms of “splitting the unionist vote”

Regrettably, it cropped up again, yesterday after the UUP rose to Arlene Foster’s bate.  In yesterday’s edition of The Newsletter, Mrs Foster criticised the Conservatives and Unionists for their decision to field 18 candidates at the General Election.

The UUP’s response was to hark back to what happened in Fermanagh and South Tyrone in 2001.  In that election, Sinn Fein took the seat with a majority over the UUP candidate, James Cooper, of only 53 votes.    James Cooper was opposed in that election by an independent unionist candidate, Jim Dixon who polled more than 6,000 votes.  Dixon was endorsed by the DUP.    This is not the first time that the UUP have retaliated to taunts by the DUP of splitting the vote by making a reference to Fermanagh and South Tyrone.  Sir Reg Empey referred to it on the Politics show on 7th December.  I saw another reference to it on a previous post on the UUP website.

Whenever the UUP retaliate in this way, they expose themselves in a very negative light.  The clear subliminal message is that they would be in favour of deals over vote splitting if the DUP had not acted in bad faith.    It also makes the UUP look as if it is getting sucked back in to sectarian politics.  That is entirely the wrong message to give to the electorate.

The UUP’s proper response to this kind of taunt should be to make it clear that we are presenting the electorate with a choice which is different from the DUP.  We are presenting a brand of unionism which is entirely different to the UUP.  We are not a party which is wedded to sectarianism.   We are a party of tolerance.  We are progressive.

If anybody wishes to emphasise the DUP’s sectarian credentials, here is a quote of Sammy Wilson at the beginning of December 2008 reacting to comments by David Cameron and the announcement of the Conservative/UUP link.

“The comments made by David Cameron that he would never side with one part of the community over the other raises questions for Reg Empey. In Northern Ireland, like all societies in the world, there are occasions when a side has to be picked, when people have to stand up and be counted for what they believe in. In Northern Ireland there are times when someone has to decide whether they are on the Unionist side of the debate or the Nationalist side of it.”

I rest my case