By Jamie Bryson
Writing in the Belfast Telegraph Allison Morris provided a breathtaking glimpse into the extent by which nationalist supremacism has become the orthodox mindset even of those who would be generally thought of as rational, fair and balanced persons. The more concerning thing is such persons still believe their contributions carry all those characteristics, entirely oblivious to the sense of nationalist entitlement that drips from every word.
In her analysis Allison’s position basically resolves to this: the overt display of nationalism and Irishness by a supposedly independent and impartial police service is a good thing, because it will win the support of the nationalist community. That such abandonment of independence will consequently only further deepen detachment from the unionist/loyalist community, for whom issues around two-tier policing have caused a complete breakdown of trust with the PSNI, matters not.
As so often in the post-1998 NI, ‘community relations’ between statutory bodies and the community really means ‘nationalist relations’, and the public interest really means the nationalist interest. That any unionist/loyalist would object to such an approach is met with incredulity and the accusation that any objections are ‘anti-peace’. It is not permissible to move to the next logical stage and point out that such an approach means that the underlying ethos of peace is that nationalism must get, and unionism must give. An exploration of that reality must be prevented, lest it disrupt the ‘peace process’.
If we pause to consider the mindset underpinning Allison’s analysis, it provides a window into nationalist supremacism and entitlement. The much-repeated mantra of ‘equality’ is easily cast aside, so long that it is nationalism receiving preferential treatment.
Allison’s contribution is important- far more so than some of the characters to be addressed below- because it demonstrates the depth of the problem. In even more moderate and reasonable nationalists- including those who are known for their professionalism within journalism for example- the peace process has embedded a belief in an entitlement to preferential treatment. This belief is, within nationalism and indeed across much of the professional class (put another way, the liberal elite) now entirely orthodox. Indeed, those who hold it genuinely believe they are reasonable, fair and balanced contributors. Put simply: they know not what they do.
The response meanwhile of the more overt practitioners of nationalist supremacism, (the likes of activists Chris Donnelly, Joe Brolly, Tom Kelly and Amanda Ferguson) has been entirely predictable. They simply cannot understand why it would even be an issue. These are the same people who complained (and still relentlessly complain) about the RUC because, they claimed, it was a ‘unionist’ police force, see absolutely no issue in the PSNI behaving as a nationalist police force. In fact, they actually- if you scratch the surface- think that is precisely what the PSNI ought to be as part of the, as they see it, ‘transition’ into a United Ireland.
When it is calmly and rationally pointed out that many unionists have issues with the GAA, stemming from, for example, the naming of GAA grounds and competitions after IRA terrorists who murdered and maimed people from our community, they see no issue and anyone who raises such concerns are “deeply sectarian” or “bigots”. These are the same people who regularly go beserk about band parades named after those affiliated to loyalist organisations.
But of course, the sense of entitlement and supremacism creates the self-generating thought process which concludes that there is no comparison, because the IRA were good, and loyalists were bad.
If it is then pointed out that the GAA is clearly, viewed through even the most sympathetic and benign lens, rooted firmly in the nationalist identity (the political objective of a 32-county Ireland is in the GAA constitution for goodness sake) and the question is posed whether nationalists would equally find it acceptable if there was a comparative overt PSNI participation in an activity rooted in unionist/loyalist identity, the swift the reply is ‘oh but there is no comparison, because you don’t have anything like the GAA’. If it is then suggested that for example the Orange Order is a community based cultural organisation, the answer is ‘no but its not as good and decent as the GAA, the Orange Order are sectarian bigots’. At this point the realisation usually dawns that trying to argue with a nationalist supremacist is like playing chess with a pigeon.
We saw the mindset, even amongst purportedly rational and sensible people, last year in regards parading law. Nationalist campaigners broke parading regulations, but because they were nationalists and nationalists subjectively deemed their ‘cause’ as legitimate, the very fact such a breach would even be investigated was an outrage which caused convulsion amongst nationalism. It was pointed out unionists/loyalists felt equally passionate about causes for which there had been unnotifed marches and subjectively felt these were legitimate. But, of course, this was different.
Any effort to establish why a cause deemed subjectively worthy by one community warranted immunity from parading laws, but the same treatment ought not to apply to another community for their subjectively worthy cause was doomed to fail. The answer was of course simple: because nationalist supremacism seems no equilibrium between their identity and that of the unionist loyalist community. Therefore, preferential treatment is not only permissible, but required.
The Chief Constable is already coming under subtle pressure from the media establishment and nationalism to make this go away. It is a stark contrast from how the same movement reacted on the Ormeau Road in respect of wholly innocent officers who had dared to seek to enforce the Covid laws against nationalists. The subtext, and it is present within all contributions from the nationalist commentariat, is that any enforcement of the PSNI’s standards of independence will risk nationalist support for policing. That the logic of that is that nationalist support for policing depends upon preferential treatment for nationalists appears to have been lost on those subtly and not so subtly embarking on that propaganda and pressure campaign.
In 2022 Kate Hoey and I were slammed for writing about the informal but very active ‘nationalist elite network’ which pervades across civic society, the professional class and particularly elements of the media. Take the time to observe the response to Sunday’s PSNI partisanship: you will see we were right.