BOTH loyalist parties in Londonderry have given broad support for calls to constitute a unified unionist forum to combat the dilution of Protestant culture and British identity in the city.A "unified Unionist
Representatives of both the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) last week expressed heavy concerns that Protestants in Londonderry are at the thin end of the wedge with respect to recognition of, and respect for their heritage and history.
Whilst Terry Wright, Chairman of the Foyle Unionist Association called for the establishment of unified unionist forum, DUP MLA William Hay went on record to state he was "prepared to take risks" in order to secure a truly inclusive city.
Now, the Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) and the Ulster Political Research Group (UPRG) have given their backing to the idea.
And that’s before you even take the PUP's and UPRG’s proposed involvement into account...
5 comments:
Whatever your opinion on the ins and outs of this, Londonderry is certainly NOT a unionist friendly city despite the empty rhetoric from Derry City Council. Something needs to be done IMHO. Meanwhile while the two main parties bicker, areas like the Fountain are neglected and the "pogram" continues.
Whatever your opinion on the ins and outs of this, Londonderry is certainly NOT a unionist friendly city despite the empty rhetoric from Derry City Council.
Attacks, be they physical or cultural, on any minority should be addressed but obviously what councils or political parties promise or state in the end is 99% of the time always empty rhetoric.
The sectarian attacks faced by the Fountain residents and the vandalism of protestant churches and owned property on the cityside can only ultimately be solved by effective policing.
For any other problems, the equality legislation is there to address cases of council discrimination on either religious or "communal" grounds. Unionist representatives simply don't have a knowledge of or apply it to the same extent that Sinn Fein does for their voters.
Something needs to be done IMHO.
Short-term the two solutions I think are as I've listed above. More effective PR/propaganda (again check out how McKay "bent" the truth from last Friday's events in Rasharkin or, to go further back, how the Short Strand republican activists have now *rewritten* the history around the republican attacks on Cluan Place) would also help.
But dealing long-term with these problems is not something which is helped by the UUP/DUP rounding up the wagons. Cameron and Empey have promised to set up a new form of politics that transcends the old communal boundaries. If that is to happen, then how we as Unionists deal with these problems has to change. Eg why not enlist the help of local, national and international human rights organisations in these cases? if they don't want to help, make sure it is made as public as possible their reasons for not doing so; if they do however, it will achieve much more than any "Unionist" pact because it is pushing the argument beyond the communal.
Oneill
This is one of the practical barriers to successfully developing the new narrative. Large swathes of Northern Ireland have minorities were Unionist and protestants are pretty much co-terminus (even co-determinant) in this case 20-25% of the population and the nationalist controlled councils do as they wish.
With those type of differentials in size new narratives have a massive task as there is little room for nuance or maneouvre its a zero sum world with one section always with the zero. Although in your thread you do wrestle with how those circles could be squared.
As regards the human rights angle don't hold your breath, BIRW are only interested if the government can be blamed somehow and Amnesty will defend the gay pride parade to the hilt under freedom of assembly but strangely silent the rest of the time. Although with Patrick Corrigan moving on maybe they'll be a bit more openess but the rights world in NI tends to be a closed shop so I wouldn't hold my breath.
Also the most relevant protections, 'minority' rights protections, only apply to national minorities so Ulster prods would have to be accepted as a UK national minority. There is a legal test for this and it would be hard for Ulster prods to pass it. There is the ulster-Scots route but this is not limited to the prod community nor does it include all the prod community.
What is more likely to have some impact are the minority protections proposed under the RPA. However, that too will involve close co-operation with the DUP and councillors knowing how to use them to their full effect.
"This is one of the practical barriers to successfully developing the new narrative."
The biggest practical barrier at the moment is the lack of any coherence whatsoever on this from the UUP hierarchy- there are no conflicting signals because all the signals that are coming out (eg Kane's article this week, Elliott's selection as FST canditate and this) are in one direction, they are content to remain as a DUP B Team in order to fight for Protestant rights.
"With those type of differentials in size new narratives have a massive task as there is little room for nuance or maneouvre its a zero sum world with one section always with the zero."
I've got seriously no idea how they should set about selling the new narrative in the west of NI, but its a problem which doesn't seem to even feature in the equation anymore anyway- which begs the question, are we going to see a partitionist UUP-Conservative effort with a completely different mesage being sold on the eastern side? (I know that's not for you to answer btw;))
"As regards the human rights angle don't hold your breath, "
In terms of what they can, or more importnat are prepared to achieve for people living under conditions like those presently being experienced in the Fountain, I'd agree with you. In terms of propaganda and PR effect however, putting them on the spot with cases which fall under their supposed area of concern could be effective surely? Just as an irrelevant sidenote, Patrick Corrigan has given the blog a bit of publicity in the past and it does actually feature on the Amnesty links list.
"Also the most relevant protections, 'minority' rights protections, only apply to national minorities so Ulster prods would have to be accepted as a UK national minority."
What would be the rights guaranteed under that kind of legislation which wouldn't be covered elsewhere? (Genuine questions).
"However, that too will involve close co-operation with the DUP and councillors knowing how to use them to their full effect."
That last phrase is the key I think and going on past experience I'm not confident that we'll move beyond soundbite territory.
"(I know that's not for you to answer btw;))"
I could offer an answer to that quandary but I'll let UUPCon wrestle with it ;)
"putting them on the spot with cases which fall under their supposed area of concern could be effective surely?"
They'll be nice and concerned but retreat into balance of rights, non-state actors etc (to be fair to Amnesty they are better on the non-state actors stuff)
"What would be the rights guaranteed under that kind of legislation which wouldn't be covered elsewhere?"
Some are comparable with what exisitng rights but others aren't. It was argued that some broad rights were providing insufficient protection therefore national minorities had to be created as a specific protected class. That said as rights documents go the FCNM is far from an arduous one.
Here's the text:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/EN/Treaties/Html/157.htm
Leaving aside whether it is a good idea, a NI bill of rights had scope to do something useful on this front but was fecked up with the rest of it.
Post a Comment