Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Personally Speaking: Commission's Remit Is RestrictionAuthor(s): George DawsonSource: Fortnight, No. 369 (Mar. - Apr., 1998), p. 11Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25559435 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:41

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.191 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:41:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

-~~~~~~~ ---

- w " ~~~~999&

no q- __ m e S |

co>

aMc=

agsM9,

3eB F

Conmilssion's remi

Is restrietion

George Dawson Mr Alistair Graham, chairman of the daily more

discredited Parades Commission, writing in Fort night 368, is somewhat economical with the truth in his description of the role and function of the Parades Commission. Any reasonable person read ing the parades legislation or the documents pub lished by the Parades Commission will inevitably come to the conclusion that they are in existence to put restrictions on parades.

The plain fact of the matter is that the Commission has been put in place to placate a vociferous, and often violent, minority who have no wish to allow a people of a different religious identity the freedom to express that religion in a peaceful, non-confron tational and traditional manner.

The whole panopoly of publications, evidence gathering, new processes and criteria have only one aim and that is to limit the right of free assembly and parade. It is little comfort to learn, from Mr Graham, that "the Commission . . . will not therefore seek to

raise objections to the exercise of those rights unless there are compelling reasons to do so." The Com

mission definition of compelling reasons are the objections of so called residents groups. Thus the Commission will inevitably become the focus of malcontents, troublemakers and political activists who are intent upon the disruption of Human Rights and the creation of community tension and strife.

Overall the existence, publications and opera tions of the Commission are an open invitation to those who oppose parades to create public disorder, disruption, contest routes, claim offence, and re striction and in any and every possible way raise objections to parades in the knowledge that Mr Graham and his tyrannical 'Star Chamber' will en force the organisers of parades to "address the con cerns of others", whether real, imagined, or deliberately manipulated. In this way the threat of the use of force is dangerously legitimised. A culture of concessions following the threat of violence is being created thus damaging the concept of democ racy.

Chairman Graham labours under the misunder standing that "balanced decisions", "dialogue", "openness" and "fairness" will placate those who object to parades. The objectors simply wish to banish the very concept of protestant expression and those who participate in it. The Portadown situation demonstrates this very clearly.

In Portadown, a parade, in silence, on one side of the road, with one bannerette, once a year, at lunch time, on a Sunday, along a main arterial route, lasting about fifteen minutes seems to cause im

mense offence. The simple fact of the matter is that those who object to the parades by the Loyal

Orders, do so because they object to the people on parade, their religion and their rights. The

motivation of such objectors is the basest form of sectarian hatred. With such it is not possible to do business. Orangeism is right to stand aloof from this dangerous escapade.

The North Report, Parades Legislation and the documents published by the Parades Com

mission make absolutely no attempt to meet any "Fair Treatment" criteria. The protestant tradi tion has a much greater marching culture and thus will suffer greater restriction as a result of this legislative nightmare. In the case of the Independent Loyal Orange Institution; we are a "religious and loyal brotherhood" dedicated to the promotion and defence of the protestant religion. We are not, and never have been, allied to any political party. The parades in connection

with our Institution are, in themselves, an ex pression, a public witness, of our religion. With out exception they are to a religious service, either in church or the open air. Our banners, flags, regalia and often band uniforms and in struments have been dedicated to the Glory of

God by Ministers of religion. In what other democratic country are there

such restrictions on the expression of religion as outlined in the various new parading measures?

Chairman Graham rightly points out that his authorityflows directlyfrom the North Report. It is a pity the Orange Order was so willing to co

operate in the formulation of that report. They are, in part, responsible for the difficulties they now find themselves in. Therefore, their rejec tion of the Parades Commission, while welcome, is somewhat like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The Independent Loyal

Orange Institution has been consistent in refus ing to meet the North Review team and the Pa rades Commission.

Mr Graham declares that he does not have a "disregard for the right to march" or a "lack of respect for Orangeism". Those are his words, we

will expect to see them matched with his deeds in the coming weeks.

Unfortunately, the sad fact of the matter is, that the existence of the Parades Commission will lead to an undermining in the right to parade and a

reduction in the number of routes along which it is possible to parade. Surely it is time for Mr Graham to be truthful with us arnd simply admit that.

MARCH/APRIL 1998 F o R T N I G H T 11

This content downloaded from 91.220.202.191 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:41:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions