UCUNF can expect more pounding in the media after Orange talks

Yesterday probably marked the lowest point for the Conservative / UUP pact since its inception 14 months ago but it could yet go lower to the point where the pact collapses.  

The Flare-up began on Thursday evening when it was revealed on Hearts and Minds that during December at Schomburg House, there had been a “confidential” meeting between the DUP and the UUP to discuss unionist unity, organised by the Orange Order. The meeting was attended by Sir Reg Empey and David McNarry of the DUP and by Peter Robinson and Nigel Dodds of the DUP.   

In the course of the programme, it was revealed that the discussions included candidacy at the Westminster Elections and the likelihood that Sinn Fein would hold the office of First Minister after the next Assembly elections.   

On Thursday night, Nigel Davenport continued to stir the pot on behalf of the BBC.  After taking soundings from Conservatives on their reaction to the Broadcast, he used rugby union analogy to describe how they had been let down by the UUP   

“More spooked I would say are the Conservatives who were blind sided by their partners the Ulster Unionists. Owen Paterson need not have gone to all that trouble booking Hatfield House if he had been aware that Bobby Saulters was already doing the job of bringing unionists together. The Conservative sources I spoke to tonight expressed some concern and dismay and said they would be looking for an explanation from Sir Reg Empey who attended the talks alongside Peter Robinson.”   

By Friday morning, all eyes were on Owen Paterson.  Writing for the BBC again, Michael Crick reported that Owen Paterson was seeking urgent clarification from Sir Reg Empey. He said  

“The Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Paterson is seeking an urgent meeting with the Ulster Unionist leader Sir Reg Empey today over the future of the Conservatives’ pact with the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP).”   

Owen Paterson’s objective in having that meeting was clearly damage limitation.  By 3.45 pm on Friday, Owen Paterson released the following statement:   

“In his capacity as Ulster Unionist leader, Sir Reg Empey regularly meets all strands of opinion throughout Northern Ireland. He referred ‘in passing’ to a meeting, requested in October and held in December, but I was not aware of the content or the participants.   

“As there was nothing of consequence arising from the meeting he did not mention it to me again. Sir Reg Empey has made clear to me that it has no bearing on our joint determination to stand together as ‘Conservatives and Unionists at the forthcoming Westminster elections to bring national, mainstream and non-sectarian politics to Northern Ireland.”   

By 5.00 pm, Sir Reg issued his response to the crisis (source Conservative Home)

 “The Ulster Unionist Party was invited in October 2009 by the Orange Order to a meeting with their Grand Master. On behalf of the UUP I accepted the invitation. Mr Saulters wanted a private and confidential meeting to discuss ‘ways and means of finding co-operation on the way forward.’ I have respected his request for confidentiality. Sadly this was not respected by others. Despite a conversation and discussion on the issues that Mr Saulters wished to raise, no agreements were reached.

 ”We are often asked to talk about Unionist cooperation where possible and about how best to provide stability for the future of Northern Ireland.  However the UUP is very much aware, given past history, that cooperation is not always achievable. Indeed it makes it much more difficult when a significant aim of one of the organisations you are dealing with is to destroy you. The Ulster Unionist Party will continue to have discussions with organisations on issues that are of benefit to the Union, but we will not be used as an escape route for others who have significant political difficulties.

“Let me also reaffirm my commitment to developing our relationship with the Conservative Party.  Along with our Conservative colleagues we will do all we can to promote, protect and preserve the Union and bring national politics unto the Northern Ireland agenda. The spectacle of recent days in our political journey at Hillsborough illustrates the need to get back as soon as possible to dealing with the issues that matter to people such as jobs, health and education.”

The question now is whether these press releases represent an an attempt to repair a hole in a sinking ship.  Before Crick’s update was posted, Jeffrey Peel and most of the commenters who contributed to his blog yesterday were of the view that the pact could not survive.  Meanwhile, on the Ulster Unionist side, Chekov published a scathing criticism of the conduct of the UUP leadership while Boballs insists that the UUP must clear up the mess.   In his last post, he has expressed his belief the pact can not survive.

This morning, the Belfast Telegraph reports that Sir Reg Empey is blaming the DUP for trying to destroy his party.  Is that news?  After all, why else would the DUP have negotiated at St. Andrews for the largest party to hold the first minister’s position?   Few are likely to be impressed with Sir Reg’s response to this crisis.  It  is unlikely to suppress rising anger within his party or more press speculation that the pact will unravel.  

This morning, David Gordon began the tomato throwing on behalf of the Belfast Telegraph.  Expect a pounding from other sections of the media over the next few days.

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.

What if Gladstone’s bill on Home Rule had passed into law?

Simon Heffer of the Daily Telegraph has written an article to celebrate the forthcoming 200^th anniversary of the birth of William Gladstone, four times elected the prime minister of the United Kingdom and perhaps rightly credited as the greatest prime minister of the Victorian era.

A small part of his article focuses on his vision relating to Ireland.   Heffer says this about Gladstone’s attempt to introduce Home Rule to Ireland. 

“Had home rule been granted at either attempt by him, in 1886 or 1893, there would have been unrest: but would an independent Ireland under the Crown have caused Britain such trouble over the following 120 years as was otherwise the case? Of course it would not.”

This, of course, is one of the biggest “what ifs” in Irish History and since we are near to Christmas, it is time to have a bit of fun.  At the end of this post, historians (amateur and professional alike) are asked two questions about what would have become of Ireland if one of those bills had passed into law.

We have the following clues

(1)  The Orange Order.  It had already been established since 1795 and was vehemently opposed to Home Rule. 

(2)  There was a small Irish Unionist Party, founded in 1891, originally led by Colonel Edward James Saunderson.  The forerunner to the Ulster Unionist Party (the Ulster Unionist Council) did not exist until 1905.  Further strengthening of Unionism later took place in 1912 with the formation of the Ulster Volunteer Force and the signing of the Ulster Covenant. 

(3)  Sinn Fein was formed under Arthur Griffith in 1905

(4)  The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB) was in existence at the time of the passing of the two bills.

At the time of the passing of the second Home Rule Bill in 1893, there was much anticipation in Ireland.  Writing for the BBC, Dr James McConnel of the Ulster University said.

“As one English journalist visiting Ireland in 1893 (the year of the second Home Rule Bill) recorded: ‘self-government was the only topic of conversation in hotels, railway carriages, tramcars, and on the steps of the temples, at the corners of the streets, in the music halls.’

Simon Heffer might be regarded as being slightly inaccurate when he says “an Independent Ireland under the Crown.”  Home rule would have been a form of devolution.  Reserved matters would have included Defence and Foreign policy.  The Royal Irish Constabulary was to be devolved at a later stage (echos of today’s position in Northern Ireland)

The following questions are posed:

(a)   Is Simon Heffer’s conclusion correct? 

(b)  Would Ireland or any part of it have drifted towards being a Republic if one of the two Home Rule bills passed into law?

(c)   Would partition have taken place through another route?

For Peter Robinson, conceding on parades might be the lesser of two evils

Imagine a passenger aeroplane which is in deep trouble.  Three out of its four engines have ceased to function.  The fourth is badly damaged and could also malfunction soon.  The plane was originally on its way to a different airport but had to be diverted because of a bad winter storm but it might never reach its diverted destination.  Weather conditions are still very bad and the storm is threatening again.  At the moment, visibility is poor.  The pilot can not even see the ground.  Things are rather desperate.  If they can not land soon, they risk losing that last engine followed by disaster and tragedy.

Now let’s call that Aeroplane “the DUP”.  Had it flown to its original flight path, it would have topped the poll in the Euro Election and landed safely at its originally planned destination airport.  As it was, a storm broke out which we call “the TUV.”  As well as preventing the plane from landing, the storm caused the damage to  the plane’s four engines after it was diverted.   The pilot wishes desparately to land.  There is only one airfield nearby.  The airfield is called “police and justice.”  If they can land there, get time to refuel and fix the plane, they could all survive.  But there is just one other problem.  The airport has been taken over by a group of gangsters called Sinn Fein.  Sinn Fein want the DUP to land at their airport but they will only allow them supplies and time to fix their plane if they agree to certain conditions. 

All right, I am not the most talented story-teller when it comes to inventing make-believe and drama description.  However, this analogy does highlight a number of real political incidents that are happening to the DUP.  The certainties in this drama are that the DUP has been damaged but not yet finished.  It still holds out a slim hope of a recovery and being able to weather the TUV storm.  Much of that hope is now dependent on getting Policing and Justice devolved in a way which satisfies the majority of hard-line unionists.

A month ago, Liam Clarke wrote an article in the Sunday Times entitled “First Minister has played his cards right.  If you read it, you would think “hey presto, Peter’s done a blinder and can look forward to the spoils.”  However, within a week of that article, it was obvious that it was flawed as well as written prematurely.  Consider particularly these comments:

“The DUP is now in a position to push for a series of side deals under the guise of measures to build confidence among unionists. These include the abolition of the Parades Commission, the retention of the PSNI full-time reserve, a more relaxed regime on the issuing of personal protection weapons to retired members of the security forces, and a gratuity package for members of the RUC’s former part-time reserve.”

Well, we now know that the full-time reserve will not remain and that Jeffrey Donaldson is still snarling.  We also know that Parades Commission is still a huge sticking point.  In fact, it is looking increasingly as though the lack of agreement on parades could be the sole reason that this crisis is not resolved.    

Why mention Liam Clarke’s article at all then?  Clarke should have waited until there was a formal announcement that the negotiations had concluded.  However, in many respects, Clarke’s article was right.  Peter Robinson had indeed played a ‘blinder’ on almost all aspects of the negotiations up to that point.  Even now, if he can put together a package which satisfies most of the unionists (including most hard-line unionists) he could well survive to see off the threat from the TUV. 

Unfortunately for Peter Robinson, the old proverb “a miss is as good as a mile” applies appropriately to his good work on Police and Justice.  If he fails on this, his failure will be absolute.  

His prospects of success do not look good.  The issue of parades seems to be one which the parties will not be able to resolve between them.  In the larger scheme of things, the DUP’s demands are unreasonable at the present time.  A lot of good and difficult work has been carried out by the Parades Commission.  Many streets and communities are safer and many parades are now peaceful because of its existence.  In an earlier post on this subject, I argued that Policing and Justice could be devolved without parades and that the latter could be devolved at a later time to give the best chance for public confidence in the new ministry to build.  Perhaps that is a concession that Sinn Fein could agree to.

That is not how Peter Robinson sees it, and with good reason.  Much of the support that was lost to the TUV in the European elections would be of Unionist voters who regard the Parades Commission with contempt.  Therefore its abolition would certainly be a feather in Robinson’s cap in his competition with Jim Allister.

Abolition of the parades commission is also too much of a concession for Sinn Fein to make.  Speaking to the BBC a few days ago, Martin McGuinness repeated Sinn Fein’s position

“it was “absolutely preposterous” to make a demand on behalf of the Orange Order for the abolition of the Parades Commission”

From its own political perspective, Sinn Fein can not afford to concede to the DUP on parades.  It has even rejected, out of hand, the recommendations contained in the interim report on the strategic review of parading headed by Lord Ashdown.   Taking these two positions together, it seems unlikely that we will see the devolution of Police and Justice during this Assembly – or is it?

Martin McGuinness is now blackmailing the travellers on that DUP aeroplane.  He has given the DUP until Christmas to set an actual time for the devolution of Police and Justice.  It is the equivalent of saying “If you don’t land on our terms within this time limit, you will not be able to repair your plane and you will have no supplies.”  It is still foggy and now a snow storm and blizzards are affecting the runway.  So what does Robinson do?

He really has no choice but to land that plane.   To him, it may be the lesser of two evils.  If he does not, Martin McGuinness will probably carry out his threat to bring down the Executive and force fresh elections.  Robinson could be ousted as first minister within weeks.  It would leave the DUP in complete disarray.

Is Sinn Fein bluffing?  I dont think it is this time.  With the SDLP not knowing who its new leader will be until February, the timing of the ultimatum is perfect.

As we cast our minds back to just over a year ago, we remember Sinn Feins’s boycott of the Executive over the issue.  They were forced to give up their boycott without apparently having extracted any clear commitment from the DUP on the timing of P & J devolution.   They gave up their boycott after calculating that they would suffer electoral damage if they did not get down to the business of government.  So what has changed to embolden Martin McGuinness? 

The answer appears to be the change of the political landscape brought about by the TUV.   Sinn Fein now see a vulnerablility in the DUP which was lacking a year ago.  If the Executive is brought down, that brings fresh elections followed by Sinn Fein becoming the largest party at Stormont with McGuinness as First Minister.  If the Unionist Parties refuse to go into government with a Sinn Fein First minister, who gets the flack?  It would be the Unionists for being intransigent.  Sinn Fein then comes out “whiter than white” within the nationalist community having also gained an electoral mandate to push through P & J.

Peter Robinson is in a perilous position.  Perhaps his best option is to fudge the parades issue by asking Sinn Fein to commit to “considering” the final Ashdown report when it is made.  In practice, it would be no concession at all but it might save Robinson from complete humiliation.  Following that, he would then close his eyes and hope that his party can hold onto most of its existing parliamentary seats at the forthcoming General Election.  That might just give him enough time to get that plane repaired.  However, he still has to negotiate that storm and land it without crashing it!

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.

Should Parades be devolved with Police and Justice?

Yesterday, I was kicking myself.

On Slugger O’Toole yesterday, there appeared two posts relating to the consequences about decisions relating to Parades. I was kicking myself because I had not thought about the impact of evolution of Police and Justice on decisions made relating to parades.

The Powers of the parades commission arise out of the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998. That Act sets out the powers of the Parades Commission and the Supervisory and Complementary Powers of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is not difficult to foresee a future Police and Justice Minister coming under attack and flack.  If, following devolution on parades,  a decision by the Commission or the new Minister goes against an interested party, it has the potential to undermine the building of confidence in the new Ministry.  I foresee the Minister being lobbied and pilloried in a stream of attacks at Minister’s question time by MLAs representing either the Orange Order or Resident’s Associations and making sectarian political mischief.

I am not saying that the Assembly is not the appropriate place to air political discord.  It does that already. Indeed, it has the ability to soak up sectarian issues and sometimes clear the air.

My fear is that a transfer of responsibility relating to parades is too much in one go.  It will need a minister of exceptional skill and ability to diffuse difficult issues without the added problems of parades.  I would like to see powers relating to parades being devolved sometime later in the future to enable public confidence in the new ministry to set in. 

Perhaps that proposal is no longer feasible.  Perhaps that would unravel the deal which has been made between the DUP and Sinn Fein to transfer these powers. Perhaps this is another reason why the Government should have included all the parties in the negotiations.

My wish now? – That my fears are unfounded.

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.

Does Sinn Fein really want sectarianism to end?

Readers may choke over their coffee when they read this.   Gerry Adams made a comment which I agree with.  Now it is obvious to anybody who knows Gerry Adams that he would not say anything true unless it was in the interest of his party for that to be said. 

Adams was speaking to the Belfast Telegraph about sectarianism.

Mr. Adams discussed recent Unionist overtures about ending power sharing.  My view on the present power-sharing structure is that we should not dismantle it until sectarian voting patterns fundementally change.  Since that is not going to happen in the short term, I leave that subject for now and move onto the wider point that Adams makes about sectarianism.

The following is what Adams says in the rest of the interview.  The comments are so moderate that they could have been said by Naomi Long or any of her colleagues in the Alliance Party.

Mr. Adams called for cross-party support for a new future, with united opposition to sectarianism and racism.He said sectarianism had kept Catholic and Protestant communities apart in the past and it was time for politicians to embrace a shared future.”The truth is if the new political dispensation is to deliver for everyone then it will do so because all political parties have entered into the spirit as well as the letter of power sharing,” he said. “Any suggestion that the compulsory nature of the power sharing arrangements can be changed is dishonest and misleading. Those who argue for this position know that it is unattainable.” All politicians have a duty to set their faces against sectarianism.” The recent spate of shameful racist attacks shows another unacceptable aspect of our society. “Racism and sectarianism are two sides of the one coin. “If there is any tolerance for sectarianism, and in my view there is, it is little wonder that racism thrives. It also needs to be confronted.”

Let’s be fair to Adams.  He probably dislikes both racisim and sectarianism.   He is certainly not religiously bigoted and, it should also be noted, the some of the most famous nationalist and republican people in from Irish History were protestant. 

Should we welcome what Adams has said?

Perhaps – even if his words do not sound genuine – to at least flush him out.   As I see it, Adam’s apparent desire to end systematic sectarianism is utterly disingenuous.  

Adams and Sinn Fein need sectarianism to sustain their party’s support.   If they want any credibility on this particular aspect of Northern Ireland politics, they need to earn it.   They could make start by avoiding anti-sectarianism.  

In my next post, I will explain anti-sectarianism, how anti-sectarianism feeds the sectarian system and how Sinn Fein achieves this by continually criticising the Orange Order.

Incremental evolution – not revolution – is the way forward for the UUP

A situation that has worried Northern Ireland Conservatives for some time, both before and since the Conservative-UUP pact, is the relationship between the Ulster Unionists and the Orange Order.   

Only three months ago, I was amongst the “hawks” in the Conservative Party who wanted to see every available measure being taken, as quickly as possible, to decontaminate the UUP from its association with sectarianism.  That included ensuring that all candidates selected for the Westminster Parliament were not members of the Orange Order.   

Yesterday, in Jeffrey Peel’s diary, the issue was raised again.  It began with an interview that David Cameron had with the Belfast Newsletter.  The Newsletter asked David Cameron to comment on remarks made by Jeffrey Peel last year.  In response, Mr. Cameron said this:  

“I think the point is that the Ulster Unionist Party has broken its links with the Orange Order and what I’m trying to do with the UUP is not look backwards, but look forwards and say we can build a new force in Northern Ireland…which can attract people irrespective of which church they go to or how they worship God or which part of the community they come from.”   

By alluding to the fact that the UUP is no longer formally linked with the Orange Order, David Cameron is acknowledging a problem.  However, he does not go as far as to say that Members of the Orange Order cannot or should not be selected as Candidates.

Jeffrey Peel, on the other hand, has tied in David Cameron’s comment with a challenge to the UUP and the joint committee over selection.  He says this: 

“The key question to ask, of course, is whether the candidates will adequately reflect this ambition.  The joint committee has an important part to play in ensuring that sectarian candidates are not selected.  

“Moreover the UUP can show that it understands the political imperative and does not put forward candidates from the Orange wing of its Party”

The Candidates for Parliament have not been formally announced by either the UUP or the Conservatives.  My understanding is that the selection process is still continuing with most of the constituencies.  It seems, however, that one Orange Order member may already have been informally selected as a Westminster candidate.   

At this point, I want to make it very clear that I do not regard somebody as a “sectarian candidate” just because he happens to be a member of the Orange Order.  On the other hand, I agree with Jeffrey that sectarian candidates should not be selected.  I am confident that the UUP would also agree with that.  

That should not, however, stop the Conservatives and Unionists selecting the best available candidate to represent a constituency.  If that happens to be an Orange Order member, we must accept that.   

The Ulster Unionists are completely behind David Cameron’s commitment and determination to build a truly cross-community political force.  However, Conservatives also have to accept that de-contamination of the UUP brand will not happen as quickly as they would prefer.   

David Cameron has said that he wants to look forwards.  That also means giving the UUP enough time and space to evolve into a party which is on “all fours” with the Conservatives.  That means incremental evolution – not revolution.