The Traditional Unionist Voice, has published its response to the draft Programme on Cohesion, Sharing and Integration, and I have taken this opportunity to make some comment upon it.

TUV welcomes the opportunity to respond to this consultation. We will go through the document and highlight areas of particular interest or concern to our party and supporters.
TUV finds it ironic in the extreme that this document should have a forward written jointly by the co-First Ministers. Had it not been for the brutal campaign of violence in which the deputy First Minister played a key role we would not have to “build a peaceful, … future” (page 2).

It is clear that the TUV have forgotten that there was violence from both Irish Republicans and Ulster Loyalists.

Similarly, TUV finds objectionable the idea that responsibility for implementing the CSI programme will could lie with a Ministerial Panel chaired by OFMDFM Ministers (10.6). We believe that Martin McGuinness and Gerry Kelly’s notorious involvement in violence makes them supremely unfitted for such a role.

Yet it is perfectly okay for The Rt Hon. Peter Robinson MLA to be involved considering his conviction in the Republic of Ireland for “unlawful assembly” following an invasion of the County Monaghan village of Clontibret.

We find it ironic that the CSI should state that “Now, as in the past, some young people have made flawed judgments about their futures and have taken, or been led down, paths that they might not have taken had they grown up in a society free from conflict. Often, these flawed judgments can result in engagement in civil disturbances, antisocial behavior or interface violence. We want to help prevent our young people at risk from becoming disaffected and empower them to engage in positiveactivities and programmes that will have beneficial impacts and outcomes for them” (4.2) when one of the authors to the forward led many young people down the road of terrorism and continues to argue that he was justified in so doing.

Only one of the authors? See previous comment re Clontibret.

TUV objects strongly to the commitment within the CSI programme to publish a sexual orientation strategy (1.9).
TUV is astonished that there is not one word of recognition of the contribution which nurturing the traditional family unit can make to a cohesive society within the CSI programme while at the same time there is a commitment to publish a sexual orientation strategy (1.9).

TUV seem to forget that a ‘sexual orientation strategy’ will have to take into account the heterosexual orientation as well as the homosexual and bisexual orientations.

It is patently obvious that there is already a more than enough legislation to protect and promote this interest group.

Those of us who live in Northern Ireland and self-identify as LGBT are not an ‘interest group’: we are part and parcel of society as a whole and most of Northern Ireland thankfully recognises this. Certainly, the vast majority of the 17,000 plus people that were in Belfast City Centre for Belfast Pride Parade in August were applauding the parade not with the fewer than one hundred protesters.

There is no statutory justification or requirement for the proposed strategy.

I trust that TUV are not aware of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c.47), then. If not, I suggest that they go and read it.

It is an obvious sop to the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) lobby demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA and meekly accepted by the DUP – in spite of the latter’s past stance on such issues.

‘sop’ – this language is not helpful. ‘demanded by Sinn Fein/IRA’ – it would be more helpful if TUV would move on and recognise that Sinn Féin and the Provisional IRA have moved on and are working for peace. The language used by the TUV is definitely not rooted in looking for peace. It is very much the language of conflict and aggression.

TUV sees potential dangers in the loose and fluffy language which characterises much of this document. While on the face of it no one could take issue with the statements like “it is recognised that a cohesive society is one in which every one can live, work and socialise together free from intimidation and prejudice in the context of the fairness, equality, rights, respect and responsibility” (1.7) TUV believes there could be dangers in how these words are twisted by interest groups. For example, the Belfast Agreement stated that everyone has “the right to live free from sectarian harassment” – a phrase which is almost repeated word for word in this consultation document (5.2). TUV wholeheartedly agrees with this laudable objective. However, the phrase has been twisted by sectarian “residents’ groups” and Republicans in order to justify their efforts to ethically cleanse areas of any form of cultural expression which is not Irish and Republican.

I am guessing that the TUV do not mean ‘ethically cleanse’ but ‘ethnically cleanse’. Some examples would have been useful to be quoted.

It is obvious that parading – a key feature of the public expression of Unionist and Protestant culture in Northern Ireland – featured in the minds of those who drew up this document because the creation of a “new and improved framework for the management and regulation of public assemblies including parades and protests” is listed as a “key goal” of the CIS (2.3).
TUV strongly believes that respect for the Unionist/Protestant marching tradition is a key indicator of whether or not this country is genuinely moving forward. Time and again Unionists hear grand words from Republicans about how we need to see toleration and accommodation while at the same time they openly oppose expressions of Protestant and Unionist culture.
TUV believes that one of the signs of “a greater sharing and understanding of the diversity within our community and respect for cultural manifestations where they are compatible with human rights norms” (5.3) would be an acceptance of the right to demonstrate ones culture on the Queen’s Highway without having to be escorted by the police and running the gauntlet of stone throwers and petrol bombers.

I was in Donegall Square on Sunday lunchtime when an Orange parade made its way along Donegall Place through Donegall Square, passing the Cenotaph, and on into Bedford Street. It had only one band, and was dignified. I am not convinced that the many parades for apparently little reason with many many bands can be justified. When members of the Loyal Orders parade with dignity, there is no problem. I saw no problem on Sunday – it is when they do not engage with their fellow citizens of this country that there is often a problem.

It is meaningless to quote Life and Times Survey figures saying that 95% of both Protestants and Roman Catholics respect the other’s culture and that “we want to build on these positive findings to ensure that this is translated on the ground” (5.5). Very few people will admit to not having respect for others in a survey. The reality on the ground, however, reveals the true state of affairs where Protestant and Unionist culture is opposed in many places every year, often with violence.

Could the TUV please give proper evidence again.

We note with interest that the CIS [sic] refers to the need to “create a new and improved framework for the management and regulation of public assemblies” (2.3), that 5.13 refers specifically to the consultation paper outlining proposals on Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests and that 5.15 states:
“We fully recognise that support from all sections of the community has the potential to create a new and improved framework for the regulation of public assemblies and our approach will be based on the principles laid out in the Agreement at Hillsborough Castle, which are:
• Respect for the rights of those who parade and respect for the rights of those
who live in areas through which parades will pass;
• The right of everyone to be free from sectarian harassment;
• The right of citizens to be free from all forms of harassment; and
• Recognition that at times there are competing rights.”
TUV welcomes the fact that (a) Following a public outcry the Draft Public Assemblies Bill’s outrageous attacks on freedom of peaceful protest and religious freedom were scraped [sic] and (b) The Orange Order has refused to bow to intense political pressure to accept a system which would have in effect resulted in mandatory dialogue between self-styled residents groups and marchers before any parade could take place.

“Self-styled residents groups?” How would the TUV like groups to be set up? Do such groups have to seek permission from others before they are formed? I think not. The right of freedom of assembly and the right to form a society are surely two rights which the TUV are wanting to uphold. Or do these rights only apply to people who have sworn the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty? (That is, if the TUV have even done this!)

TUV comprehensively outlines its own vision of the way forward in relation to parades in our response to the consultation on the Draft Public Assemblies Bill which is online here.
TUV welcomes the fact that the CIS [sic] recognizes the continuation of arson attacks on Orange Halls (5.9). Events in Orange Halls form the backbone of the social calendar for many in Northern Ireland.

What about mentioning the many halls AOH Halls and GAA clubs that form the backbone of the social calendar for many in Northern Ireland as well?

TUV notes with interest the comments on flags, emblems and memorials within the report.
3.43 states that “Displays of flags and emblems, graffiti or murals, parades or public assemblies or festivals should be held in an environment which respects individual and community rights.”
TUV believes that the democratically expressed will of the people of Northern Ireland to remain part of the UK should be respected and that flags and emblems reflecting this, including those displayed in District Councils (3.43) should be retained.

Democratically expressed will? When? The last ‘Border Poll’ was in 1973, are the TUV now asking for an additional poll in May 2011 – why not have a fourth poll on the one day next year. That would really help thing wouldn’t it?

TUV strongly objects to the symbols of Britishness being stripped from our public buildings as has been the case in some areas of late.
TUV welcomes the desired goal to “adopt a zero tolerance approach to all incidences of, and reasons for, attacks motivated by sectarian, religious, racist or hate prejudice, including those on symbolic premises, cultural premises and monuments” (2.3). We would, however, also like to see a firm commitment to remove the proliferation of illegal and divisive monuments to terrorists in Northern Ireland.

Surely, there must be some recognition of the deaths of those who were killed on all sides of the days of violence here?

TUV believes that far from helping to “contribute to the Executive’s goal of a shared and better future for all citizens living here” the proposed Regional or Minority Languages Strategy (5.16 and 5.17) has the potential to foster division in Northern Ireland.
This is part of the outworking of the atrocious Hillsborough Agreement. TUV opposes this suggestion because it will see the rampant promotion of Irish in our Province with, no doubt, a few crumbs for the Ulster-Scots sector in order to spare the blushes of those Unionists involved in the process.
The promotion of the Irish language has always been a feature of Nationalism going right back to the 19th century not because of any genuine interest in linguistics or the literature of the language but rather to simply stress Irishness in opposition to links with Great Britain. As one Republican memorably put it, every word spoken in Irish is “an other bullet in the freedom struggle”.

The TUV seem to have forgotten that it was the Irish Presbyterians who were at the forefront of the Irish revival in Ulster. No language is of itself political. After all, I am sure that they would have no problem with the following phrase: “Dia léis na Bhanríon!” It is the sentiments that are the political ones, not the language itself.

TUV is unashamedly pro-British and wants to see our links with the rest of the UK strengthened so we make no apology for opposing the introduction of a Regional or Minority Languages Strategy. Irish is, sadly for those genuinely interested in it, as much more a cultural weapon – frequently used to mark territory – than a language in Northern Ireland.

Really? And how do we tell my friends that are primarily Gaeilgeoirí that their use of their mother tongue is a weapon? It is an expression of the diversity that exists within our society that there are many differing languages all in use.

TUV welcomes the recognition that “cultural tourism can have a positive impact on the wider community and specifically can make an important contribution to the economy“ (5.27). We look to the Executive promoting one of the largest cultural festivals in Europe – 12th July Orange parades – more aggressively and marketing Ulster’s historic links with the United States and Scotland to promote tourism.
TUV notes the references in the document to the encouragement of north/south and east/west links throughout the CSI. We look forward to a redressing of the imbalance which has seen north/south links fostered with no regard to cost while east/west links have been neglected in recent years.

The 12th July Orange parades could be a welcoming event if the same restrictions that are adhered to by the Belfast Pride parade were actually enforced by the marshals on the day. That is, no alcohol, no drunkeness, and remembering what they are about. Sadly, this doesn’t always come across as being enforced – and the mess that many town centres are left in afterwards is nothing less than shocking. To say nothing of the disgusting habits of ‘parade followers’ in urinating in people’s gardens or just on the street.
I would suggest that the TUV considers whether or not this is something that can be seriously marketed as a tourist attraction.

LibDig This!