Jamie Bryson
In Belfast, a mere 15% of a street is all that is required to lead to the imposition of Irish Street signage. Put another way, if 85% of any particular street venomously objects to Irish street signs, it is nevertheless foisted upon that area.
That policy- actively championed by Sinn Fein, SDLP, Alliance- is a complete answer to those same parties complaining about the erection of lawful flags over the marching season. It seems to neatly expose the hypocrisy and supremacism that underpins much of the approach taken to unionist expressions of culture when it is not only deemed legitimate but it is positively encouraged to impose- not only for a matter of weeks but permanently- Irish language signage in an area where 85% of people object, but to simultaneously argue that if a minority of persons object to the flying of flags during the marching season, then such flags must be removed from the area.
How is that a logically sustainable position? The reality is that it is not, but sadly much of the media (Newsletter excluded) have failed to highlight that obvious hypocrisy and to critically analyse what it illustrates.
It seems obvious to me that when it comes to expression of unionist culture and tradition, the same standards do not apply as that applied to similar nationalist expressions of their identity via, for example, Irish language signage or GAA.
To take a topical issue, the Parades Commission, for example, has consistently rewarded often violent opposition from a minority as justification to ban traditional Loyal Order parades from main arterial routes walked for decades.
In even seeking to be afforded the basic right of being able to have a return parade in North Belfast or a church parade at Drumcree, Loyal Orders are branded ‘regressive’ and ‘divisive’ by nationalist supremacists who accuse peaceful law-abiding Orangemen of ‘raising tensions’ for even daring to raise the prospect of parading an a so called ‘shared arterial route’.
Last week Lodges in North Belfast put forward a very reasonable plan to enable them to complete their return parade up the Crumlin Road (where many more than 15% wish to see the parade pass) by doing so on the morning of the 13th of July. This was a significant compromise, which remained faithful to a matter of fundamental principle, but sought to be as flexible as possible. It was met with the inevitable rejection from nationalist residents and, I would bet my life, will be equally rejected by the Parades Commission who have never rewarded good behavior, but consistently rewarded the threat of violence. There can be no credible dispute as to that proposition, given that the threat of violence is regularly cited as a consideration.
It appears perplexing to me why there has never been a legal challenge on Human Rights grounds to that consideration forming part of the proportionality assessment. It is plainly inconsistent with all the legal authority on qualified convention rights; it is not a reasonable consideration when restricting the lawful exercise of convention rights to consider that those opposed to the peaceful and lawful exercise of rights may manifest that opposition by violence. That de facto gives a veto to those who would engage in unlawful violence.
Whilst obviously a matter for the people and Lodges of North Belfast rather than me or anyone else from outside the area, I have always felt that the 2016 deal was a major error. It was premised upon the notion that nationalism can be reasoned with and that compromise will provide the means of working toward a fair and equitable settlement. Rather, nationalism pocketed the moratorium and used it as the basis to argue the compromises therein should be the new baseline; i.e., discussions should focus only on what more unionism must give, rather than any consideration of returning that which has already been taken.
And, as aforementioned, I have no doubt their refusal to even engage in discussions around a return parade will be roundly rewarded by the Parades Commission. What nationalism wants, nationalism gets when it comes to statutory bodies, and so it will come to pass again this marching season. The decision, I suspect, will be as threadbare and devoid of proper reasoning as all the rest, but I do look forward to seeing how the Parades Commission discharge their statutory duty of taking account of the North principles, including the need for dialogue, in circumstances whereby nationalist residents have steadfastly refused to talk about the central issue.
Since its inception, the Parades Commission has in my view never made a decision which weighs in favor of the unionist community. Rather, it has consistently and progressively placed ever more rigorous restrictions on the parading tradition. It is never the case whereby a parade has less restrictions imposed, but the trajectory is always toward more. Put simply, what is taken is never returned.
Nationalism, as I have long argued, has no interest in equality. Their ‘equality agenda’, and the linguistic bells and whistles accompanying it, is and was always only a stepping-stone toward their ultimate objective of supremacy. I often found myself in disagreement with Arlene Foster, but when she compared offering concessions to nationalists to feeding a crocodile which will keep coming back for more, she was absolutely correct, and history will show her to have been so.