An analysis of the rationale for the Union Jack protest

Last night I posted part 1 of my evaluation of recent events in Belfast arising from Belfast City Council's majority decision (December 3 2012) to amend its policy on the flying of the Union Jack.  

It summarised the background to correspondence which I initiated with officials in the Office of the First and Deputy First Ministers (OFMDFM).

This post, Part 2, is the text in italics of my follow-up letter to the OFMDFM's head of community relations (with a non-italicised post-script of updates at the end):

It is my opinion that our regional Government’s failure to address the issue of community relations is one of the main reasons for the flare-up in violence and intimidation of recent weeks.

It is almost two and a half years since OFMDFM published the draft strategy for community relations.  Recent events ranging from widely-condemned disturbances in the summer (Belfast Telegraph 3 Sept 2012 p25 Ed Curran) to the protests about the Union Jack flag provide empirical evidence of the consequences of a policy vacuum.

Those who are so incensed by what they say is an erosion of Britishness do not realise that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the UK has never been safer.

Opinion polls commissioned by the Belfast Telegraph (May 2012) show substantial numbers of Roman Catholics who are content to be part of the UK.  I know many of them and share the stance.

The publication last month of the Population Census report, statistically a more significant report than opinion polls, endorses the same point.

For the first time, the Census also included questions about identity, not just in Northern Ireland but also in Great Britain.

The data show that 40% of Northern Ireland’s population identify as British.  Even adding on those who consider themselves British and Northern Irish, and adding those who are British and Irish, the overall position is that less than half of the Northern Ireland population considers themselves to be British.
Perhaps the loyalists don't accept the Census results.

Unionists and loyalists are complaining about the erosion of their Britishness, whatever its so far undefined characteristics may be.  A loyalist said on radio (181212) that the issue is now about that erosion rather than about flags.

If, however, less than half the population identifies itself as British, who or what exactly is eroding that identity?

Rev Chris Hudson, a proven peacemaker and Presbyterian Minister from Dublin and now based in Belfast observed astutely that the Union Jack does not belong exclusively to Protestants in Ulster.

Is it fanciful to suggest that Unionist leaders might remind their constituents who are parading their loyalty that many of their compatriots are content to be British - it's not just Irish golfers who are happy to be called UK citizens.

Statistics apart, four decades of republican violence have banished any notion of reuniting Ireland.  The Republic’s constitution has also been changed.

Moreover, Ireland can't afford Northern Ireland especially in the same way that Britain does.

More importantly, they have no remote interest in trying to rule Northern Ireland, if they could afford to.

So, would the First Minister extend his assertion about attracting masses of Catholics to the DUP by telling his constituents that nobody is threatening the position of Northern Ireland within the UK?

He could add that it is only lawlessness and intimidation which threatens our status within the UK.

I read in the Times (151212) of an attack on the house of Linda Cleland in Newtownards.  I know her.

Linda was the manager of the cross-community not-for-profit company in Portaferry which is responsible for the town’s regeneration.  She later became an Alliance Party Councillor on Ards Borough Council.

On 8 December she was woken up at 1 15 am by someone on her roof.  In succession, four hooded men smashed the windows of her house and car.

Is this legitimate protest or is it terror?

If the protesting has no cause that can be justified by empirical evidence, could there be some other rationale to explain the protest?

Perhaps the threat comes from outside Northern Ireland.

The party of Government in Scotland, the SNP, is preparing assiduously for a referendum hoping to end Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom.

It was noticeable that among the people who stormed Belfast City Hall on the night of the vote on 3 December were wearing Glasgow Rangers FC regalia.

They might not be enjoying the relative success of rivals Glasgow Celtic FC in Europe. They may be disaffected by their beloved club’s banishment to the lowest league as punishment for financial misdemeanours.  Is this the erosion that is irritating loyalists?

If Scotland is not the influence, perhaps loyalism is concerned by what the BNP and UKIP see as the erosion of British sovereignty to the EU?

Or could the outside influence be opposition to the Prime Minister’s proposals to legislate for gay marriage, or perhaps the pressure being put on the Established Church to lift its ban on women bishops?  Or could it be the Government’s withdrawal of welfare benefits to reduce the nation’s deficit?

As I cannot find a just cause to rationalise the protesting and its impact on community relations, perhaps the OFMDFM’s head of community relations could provide me with one.  To address a serious problem, one which has security implications, the regional administration and its advisers must have a view about its cause.

Unionism needs to define what has been eroded and who is carrying out the erosion that so irks them so that they have to block roads, attack innocent police-men and women and politicians, and property for several weeks.

The First Minister originally declined to call for the protests to end, asking for their suspension instead.  It took almost two full weeks for Unionist leaders to call off the protests.  Despite their belated call, protests continue, and DUP MLAs argue emphatically that their attendance at protests accords with party policy.

Today’s editorial (070113) in the Belfast Telegraph says:

“No other part of the world would allow a violent minority to usurp the rule of law, to frighten and inconvenience its citizens, and to threaten the political process itself....Those politicians and others who unleashed this monster have much to answer for.”

When major disruption of rush-hour traffic recurred again on the Friday night before Christmas, I asked myself could this be why the Mayans’ projected 21 December as the end of the world as we know it.

If protesters aren’t listening to their elected leaders, as the Minister for Finance admitted on radio, the question is has the main party of Government lost its mandate?

Why are the politicians tolerating tribalism and flag-waving to be put ahead of issues like the state of the region's economy, youth unemployment, loss of business, and falling visitor revenues?

Do people who aggressively and menacingly display their "loyalty" realise that loyalty is reciprocral, it works two ways?
Are the people of England Wales and Scotland impressed and moved by protesting displays of loyalty?

Perhaps loyalism thinks that people in GB will be endlessly happy for the Government at Westminster to continue spending their taxpayers’ money in Northern Ireland, subsidising us in a time of austere economics.

What a contrast there is between the constructive work of the Northern Ireland Children for Lapland Trust (Belfast Telegraph 21 Dec) and the obstructive behaviour of road-blocking protest.

Have the events of the last month and more been about providing training for the paramilitaries of the future?

Sinn Fein's so-called peace strategy has been exposed as something else entirely; and the DUP's equivocation on violence has alienated the masses of Roman Catholics it claims it is now attracting.

Why should anyone take Sinn Fein seriously when they miscalculate working-class reaction to their policy?
Why should Catholic unionists join a party which orchestrates action that has provoked loyalist paramilitary activity?

We know that the DUP is still furious about losing their East Belfast seat in the last General Election, which is part of the rationale why they printed and circulated 40,000 leaflets (personating the Alliance Party) inciting people to protest at the City Hall on the day of the vote December 3.

The equivocal condemnation of violence by politicians who continue to find excuses to justify it is exasperating and not what Northern Ireland deserves from them.

Complacency exists among many middle class people living in Northern Ireland. They consider that the disturbances have nothing to do with them, that there is nothing that they can do, and that the violence will peter out.
Some believe that the protesters are small in number and will go away soon.
A Mayan prediction, I suspect.

I am reminded of the maxim - evil flourishes when good men sit back and do nothing.

I heard a couple jokingly referring to the rioters as "the Anti-democracy" protest, a satirical allusion the Pro-Democracy movement during the Arab Spring.
The only thing we share with the Middle East is the issue of fatwas against certain people.
But this is not the Middle East - or is it?

If Northern Ireland aspires to be a sustainable political unit, it has to become a tolerant society.

Community workers, civil servants (who are paid to brief and advise Governing politicians) and capable politicians could begin by reminding those who demonstrate their Britishness to act like they were British.

Protesters can and do protest legitimately, but loyalism seems to ignore British manners and acting like civilised British citizens.

How can we expect our public-sector economy to be sustainable and the region's private sector to do business when events are allowed by sectarian interests to spiral out of proportion?

Politicians need to take risks, be creative, lead rather than being led.  Prospects, however, do not inspire confidence.
They can't even write or agree on a community relations strategy, the outstanding issue to be addressed in the peace process.

A few years ago I explained to an expat Ulster friend that, despite the welcome progress and transformation of the last 10-15 years, I was pessimistic about the future.
That is because, in my opinion, if and possibly when the population begins to balance out religiously, I fear that the new minority will become unsettled. The current crisis looks rather like a symptom of what may lie ahead, rearing its head years earlier than I would have anticipated.

Apart from the damage to the economy, our reputation abroad, and the effects on daily life, many people do not want to live in a place where stupidity and bigotry are like a rampant disease.

I am happy that my children have all left Northern Ireland, preferring to work and bring up new families away from prejudice and intolerance.
I have friends who have previously left these shores for the same reasons.
Northern Ireland’s exports include the haemorrhaging of a lot of talented people, many of whom become business and civic leaders abroad rather than at home.

Does the body politic in Northern Ireland care?  If it does, it needs to act rather than talk.  People want a happy new year.  Times are difficult enough coping with recession and austerity.

We do not want all of the hard work that has been done to make Northern Ireland peaceful and attractive to be undone by people who are disloyal.

We do not subscribe to the two-community model of division espoused in the OFMDFM's 2010 draft community relations strategy. We want non-violence, we want to be one community.

My plea is that a message needs to be broadcast loud and clear that Northern Ireland's British and Irish people can neither afford, accept, or justify tribal intolerance in our home city or region.

Post-scripting the above analysis, I could add that the more that loyal people protest their undying allegiance to Britain and the more their activity is tolerated, the less comfortable I feel about being part of the their vision of a UK.

In any event, I suspect that many of our citizens do not particularly want to be beholden to British taxpayers, but are pragmatic enough to realise that uniting Ireland is an impossible objective.  In this regard, it is interesting to read the quotation in the Belfast Telegraph (290113) from our Nobel laureate, Seamus Heaney, making a similar point.

When I listen to elected politicians debating the arguments for and against a border poll, I wonder why they are not talking instead about important issues such as the economy, youth unemployment, teenage suicides, the brain drain, climate change, and community relations.

Only the Secretary of State has had the nerve to assert (see Belfast Telegraph 310113 page 8) that 

"the actions of those involved in riots are intolerable, they are dishonouring the flag, damaging the economy and risk weakening support for the Union."  

She adds that following the changes to the Irish Constitution, 

"Northern Ireland's place in the UK is probably stronger now than at any point in its history... so that the claim that Britishness is being eroded is simply untrue." 

I welcome her unequivocal comments.  

It is precisely the argument which I have been putting to OFMDFM for weeks.

©Michael McSorley 2013