Bankrolling bigotry – another example

Another example of the official promotion of sectarian (one of the key elements of the peace process) came to light this week when it was revealed that public bodies were helping to finance loyalist marching bands.

In response to a freedom of information request, Stormont’s Department of Culture revealed that sixty five bands received funds totally more than £166,100 last year. The Arts Council gave about £102,500 to 24 bands; the Ulster Scots Agency gave £56,000 to 38 bands; and the Big Lottery Fund gave £6,980 to three bands (this was under its Awards for All scheme).

Among the bands receiving support (£4,600 from the Lottery) was the Pride of the Ardoyne. It takes part in the flashpoint parade past the Ardoyne shops every year displaying a banner bearing emblem of the Young Citizen Volunteers – the UVF’s youth wing - and the names of two deceased UVF members. The Mourne Young Defenders Flute Band received £1,800 from the Ulster Scots Agency for musical tuition and a further £1,219 for an ‘Ulster Scots summer school’ run by its members. In 2006 it took part in the Love Ulster parade in Dublin that provoked a riot.

That loyalist bands should be involved in sectarian intimidation is hardly a surprise – this is the very reason for their existence. The most sinister element is that they are being legitimised by the state; their coat trailing antics repackaged as cultural expression.

In justifying this the funding bodies corrupt the very principles they are supposedly there to promote. For example, on its support for loyalist bands, a spokesman of Arts Council claimed that it “monitors the artistic quality of applicants and is aware of its obligations under ‘Good Relations’ and Section 75 legislation.” He also claimed that the Council was “actively encouraging applicants to develop and expand their audiences and to break down barriers in society, in line with the aspirations of the Good Friday Agreement”. A spokeswoman for National Lottery said that it helped “organisations to run projects which will bring people together and increase community activity”. Of course the whole ethos and activity of loyalists stands in direct opposition to breaking down barriers and bringing people together. They are there to fan sectarian sentiment and maintain divisions.

The reason for this apparent contradiction is revealed by the Arts Council spokesperson when he said that it was acting “in line with the aspirations of the Good Friday Agreement”. The official bankrolling of bigotry is an inevitable consequence of the politics that underpin the peace process - that the struggle in the north is not about self determination or imperialism but the competing aspirations of two communities. Once this has been accepted, as it has by Sinn Fein and the SDLP, how can the demands of loyalists, such as the right to march anywhere they please, be denied? Sure isn’t part of their culture?

UDA make over – from the Grim Reaper to King Billy

Taken on face value, reports that a notorious UDA mural in south Belfast was to be removed, may have been welcomed. However, when the story is examined further we find yet another example of the legitimisation of sectarianism and loyalism. It turns out that the “Grim Reaper” mural in the Village area of Donegal Rd is to be replaced by a portrait King William of Orange (hardly a step forward). Moreover, we find that this only came about as a result of negotiations with the UDA!

The most significant aspect of this story is that the negotiations with the UDA were being conducted out by two statutory bodies - Greater Village Regeneration Trust (GVRT) and the Arts Council. Paula Bradshaw of the GVRT was quite open about the nature of these talks. She said that the UDA had only agreed to the replacement of the mural when the Arts Council offered an inducement of £18,000. Of course the UDA’s agreement was not unconditional. According the Paula Bradshaw it came "with the proviso that they decided what would be the replacement”. Despite this the GVRT and the Arts Council “went along with their wishes”.

The Council's Chief Executive, Roisín McDonough, claimed that the replacement of the mural was a “huge first step in a very positive transformation process.” She further claimed that its replacement by King William was “not an act of triumphalism" as “King William is not offensive to people in this area.” Rather it was a “part of their legitimate Orange cultural heritage.” The unstated yet obvious corollary is that people who don’t belong to this “heritage” have no place in that area.

This episode exemplifies the thoroughly reactionary nature the peace process. We have official state sanction being given sectarian intimidation and the organisations that are responsible for it. Money is thrown at loyalists to erect murals that have no other purpose than to mark out territory and warn off nationalists from moving there or even passing through. Indeed, it’s not just nationalists. In recent years the Village area has seen numerous attacks on racial minorities and migrants. To define a whole area as part of an “Orange cultural heritage”, as Roisín McDonough does, can only legitimise sectarianism and racism. In this she is articulating the assumptions that underpin the peace process as a whole.

Between a rock, a hard place and a Stonyford

Yet more evidence of the fragility of the St. Andrews agreement and its inability to provide a solution to the endemic sectarianism of the Northern statelet was provided by the departure of a Catholic family from Stoneyford, just outside Belfast.

The family were the latest victims of a long campaign of ethnic cleansing organised by local loyalists – a campaign so blatant that the organiser is a minor celeb, known by name to the press, political activists and many members of the public across the North. The latest campaign culminated in a death threat against the young son in the family and a threat that their home would be bombed.

The reactions of local politicians reflected their role in the sectarian set-up. Jeffrey Donaldson, confronted with this coercion, washed his hands of it. Apparently the family had had the cheek to suggest that DUP supporters were involved in the intimidation.

The local RUC/PSNI expressed regret. Despite the threats extending over many years in a small village, with the leading perpetrator publicly known, they had been unable to obtain any leads.

Perhaps the most pathetic response was from the local Sinn Fein representative, Paul Butler. Pleading with the police to ‘do their job’ he might have been any nationalist politician from the original Stormont parliament or from the generations before that.

But it is not enough to observe these events. It is necessary to understand them and to do that you have to observe the context. The context of the various interviews that took place was the background of a new build housing development bedecked with Union flags and loyalist regalia. It was pretty evident that these were warnings to Catholics not to settle here.

No-one asked who had erected the flags. No-one suggested that the symbols of sectarian hate be taken down. Despite all the rhetoric the new society, the new police force, are not disposed to repress loyalist bigotry or protect the victims.

For all that the PSNI are not exactly the RUC. The RUC would have advised the Catholics to go. It was a single RUC station that, along with the local loyalists, emptied Rathcoole of its large Catholic population in the ‘70s – an episode of ethnic cleansing that, for the size of population, ranks with major historic episodes in Europe.

In the new society everyone has some sectarian rights (not equal ones of course). Sectarian intimidation is simply someone expressing their culture and the task of the police is conflict resolution. So it is not surprising that, when a Catholic priest took down a flag nailed outside his church, he was advised to return it. When a father complained that his dead son’s name had been raised on an Orange bonfire as a sectarian taunt, he was advised to see community relations. It is hardly surprising that the police in Stoneyford organised a meeting between the Catholic victims and the chief loyalist intimidator. Perhaps the answer in another grant for loyalist groups or the Orange order – maybe funnelled through the Irish government or the president?

The situation in the North is kept stable by the willingness of Sinn Fein to accept anything that is thrown at them and by a tremendous complacency on the part of their constituency. It is not a stability that can last forever. When it wears off the Provo supporters will want to know why Sinn Fein, through the policing boards, are party to a system that placates loyalist thugs and turns a blind eye to sectarian intimidation.

Bank rolling bigotry

A major feature of the peace process has been the legitimisation of sectarianism. One of the main beneficiaries of this process has been the Orange Order. Its sectarian agitation has been rewarded with lavish patronage from the state. This has ranged the from public funding for parades – money to promote the 12th July as some kind of family fun day – to the appointment of its members to various public bodies. Two Portadown members involved in the Drumcree protest were even put on the Parades Commission.

Another example of the mollycoddling of the Orange Order came this week with the announcement from the Irish government that the Order was to receive almost 250,000 euros in funding. This will go to a company, Cadelmo Ltd, set up to support an initiative in the border counties to promote and organise the Orange institution in the south. Community, Rural and Gaeltacht Affairs minister Eamon O'Cuiv said he was “delighted to be in a position to provide funding".

Despite its claim that Protestants in the south were a persecuted minority who had to “keep their heads down” in order to survive, the Orange Order was happy to pocket this money. And this is just the tip of a large financial ice berg. A £10million centre commemorating the Battle of the Boyne, is due to open in three months. This centre, which is located at the site of the battle near Drogheda, will encompass a museum and an interpretive centre on the theme of the “Williamite revolution”. The Irish Government has also said it is committed to helping fund a “Williamite Trail” to run from Carrickfergus to the Boyne.

All this is part of the process of sanitising the Orange Order and portraying it as just another aspect of Irish culture. Yet even a cursory glance at the history of the Order would reveal it be a thoroughly reactionary organisation that has been, and continues to be, instrumental in denying democratic rights to the Irish people.

By coincidence, a small example of the true character of the Order was on show the very same day as the funding announcement was made when several hundred of its members picketed Banbridge Council. This was in response to the removal of a number of overtly political and militaristic symbols from public display at the Council’s headquarters. The items included a painting of an RAF vehicle checkpoint, entitled 'Freeze all Movement', an oil painting of an Orange lodge, and plaques presented by the RUC Male Voice Choir, the Royal British Legion, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Ulster Special Constabulary, the Royal Irish Rangers, the Royal Irish Rifles, the Royal Irish Fusiliers, the Hampshire Constabulary and the Royal Air Force Irish Guards.

These items have not been removed altogether, but merely moved to another room.
Yet even this meagre gesture towards not offending nationalists is too much for the Orange Order. Its Grand Secretary Drew Nelson, who led the protest, described the shifting of the items as a "determined effort to wipe the face of Britishness from the council and its property". The fact that they picked the building in such numbers can only be seen as act of intimidation to reverse the Council’s policy on symbols. And all this over a few plaques! How much more agitated would they be if there were any moves towards real equality.

Not that the Orange Order has any fears of being challenged. Certainly not by Sinn Fein. The reaction of Gerry Adams was to offer to meet Orange leaders to discuss their concerns. But if you accept Orangeism as a legitimate cultural expression what other reaction can there be?

DUP advisor denounces “Popery”

Anyone that helps dispel the myths surrounding the settlement in the north is undoubtedly performing a useful service. If they manage to puncture the smug and self satisfied public consensus that prevails in the south then they deserve a double commendation.

So step forward and receive your accolade - Wallace Thompson. Never heard of him? Well never had anyone else before his barnstorming appearance on the Joe Duffy radio phone in show. Listeners were treated some of that good “old time religion” that many had believed was on the wane in the era of peace. But here was Wallace to demonstrate that there was some life in the old tunes yet.

He had been invited onto the show as a spokesperson for the Evangelical Protestant Society. They had stirred some controversy by denouncing the Church of Ireland for selling rosary beads in the shop attached to St Patrick’s Cathedral. Thompson claimed that it was wrong for a Protestant church “to be selling things that are Roman Catholic.” So much for ecumenism! Warming to his theme Thompson went on to castigate listeners for adhering to a corrupt and idolatrous creed that demanded the turning of Protestant partners in mixed marriages. To top his performance off he denounced that People as “the anti-Christ” and said that he would be doing everything in his power to prevent a papal visit to the north.

These opinions and the people that hold them are often dismissed as marginal – bigoted no doubt, but fortunately with little influence. However, when we look at the background of Mr Thompson we actually find that the contrary is true. As a former career civil servant who is currently employed as a special adviser to the DUP minister Nigel Dodds, he is very close to the centre of power in the north. Such posts are among the most prized items of political patronage that Stormont has to offer. For Mr Thompson to occupy such a position he would have to share a broad political perspective with the DUP leadership. What he obviously doesn’t share with them are some diplomatic skills. That people such as Thompson occupy positions at the heart of the Executive is more evidence of its thoroughly reactionary character.

Also cutting against the perceived wisdom were unionists in Limavady. As a means of creating a more neutral environment in council buildings, nationalists made the modest suggestion that some militarist and royalist symbols be removal. In response unionist councillors, one of who had literally wrapped himself in the Union Jack, whipped up a lynch mob which invaded the chamber and forced the abandonment of the council’s monthly meeting. This harassment was endorsed by the local MP – the DUP’s Gregory Campbell.

The ideology surrounding the settlement, propagated by Sinn Fein in particular, holds that things are changing. But the episodes above suggest otherwise. They demonstrate that sectarianism, rather than diminished, is actually being entrenched and legitimised. They also show the severe limitations on any prospect of progressive change. If unionists can get so agitated over things such as rosaries and a Charles and Diana mug, how must more resistant would they be towards anything that pointed towards real equality!

What the ****'s an ethos?

The sectarianism that is so much a part of Irish society now and then proves embarrassing. The most recent example is the reaction of Protestant schools in the South who have objected to a provision in the latest social partnership deal. This allows for the Department of Education to fill vacancies in schools from a list of teachers displaced by the closure of other schools. The department looks at the vacancy and then matches the teacher from the list who most closely tallies with the vacant post. One of the bodies representing Protestant controlled schools has objected to this and is going to take its case to court to challenge the process, claiming it was never consulted and never agreed to it, although another body representing these schools was part of the process.

Their complaint is that the process stops them from selecting teacher candidates that will foster and protect their ‘ethos.’ In other words they want to retain their prerogative to select teachers on sectarian grounds. Either the teacher will have to be a Protestant or they will have to accept that Protestantism will be the distinctive character of the school. They must accept this, no matter what their own religious views are, or indeed whether they have any religious views at all. Just what this ‘ethos’ adds to a child’s education in maths, English, geography, and physics etc. is never spelt out, except that it is usually claimed that some moral content will be given to their education through this ‘ethos’.

This moral content seems to differ little between the churches although they all of course think that others are in error or are heresies. No one is under any illusion but that the real purpose of church control is to inculcate a particular religious dogma into the impressionable brains of young children. They are however far too calculating to admit this, or to go about asserting their own claims to moral superiority too loudly. The distinctive morality at play is therefore hypocrisy.

A couple of years ago the Catholic Church in the North was also making public warnings about its intent to defend the ‘ethos’ of its schools, how this taught the children a distinctive and morally right way of living. A week later a report revealed the record number of very young women who had become pregnant or were single parents coming from the very areas dominated by Catholic schools.

The same reactionaries who defend sectarian schooling are also the most vocal condemning the pereceived widespread delinquent and anti-social behaviour of young people. But of course sectarian schooling has nothing to do with sectarianism and these schools have nothing to do with young people’s behaviour, and organisations exposed as perpetrators of institutionalised child abuse are just the right ones to be entrusted with children’s care and education.