Speech at the “Towards a new Ireland” conference by Patrick Yu

Introduction

2013 marks the 15th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement. It is the time to have a quick look at what have been achieved under the GFA. For the Good Friday Agreement, Strand 1, 2 and 3 of the institutions, except the Civic Forum have been implemented. Chapter 6: Rights, Safeguards and Equality of opportunity, which is the essential part in any post-conflict society nation building.

However the crucial part is partially implemented. A new set of institutions such as the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, the Equality Commission, which merged the previous 3 Commissions and one body into a single Commission in 2000 along with the Human Rights Act.

But for the Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland (the advice by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission), the legacy of the past (the Eames Bradley Report), gender equality and participation, economic, social and cultural rights (poverty reduction plan and action), the Single Equality Bill for Northern Ireland and the Irish Language Bill under St. Andrew Agreement, etc. and etc., which are the key components in any transitional justice that need to heal, to reconcile and to reconstruct a new society are still missing.

Both the British and the Irish government are the guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The people in the North and the South, as well as Irish in Britain, have a right to ask both governments to take political leadership and commit to implement the Agreement in full. This is the only way to secure our shared future for the next and future generations.

For the Human Rights Act the British Prime Minister has tried to dismantle it without great success through the Bill of Rights Commission process in Great Britain. Due to the devolved constitutional arrangements in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, the ECHR and EU law have been enshrined in the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Scottish Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006. Any dismantlement of the Human Rights Act would create a constitutional crisis for Great Britain as it leaves the little England in an isolated position, both outside and inside the British Isles.

This can be regarded as a prime objective of the British Prime Minister as it could create an opportunity to exit both the European Union and the Council of Europe through a future referendum. This election mode strategy of a future referendum would make Great Britain pay a very heavy price. It will create xenophobic sentiments to attack foreigners on one hand, and any public services will be subjected to further immigration control on the other. We wait and see the European Election next year.

Any changes on the status of the European Union of the United Kingdom will have an extremely negative effect on the island of Ireland in terms of the economy, border control, and of course the political relationship between the British and Irish. Therefore the East and West relationship is an important area that should be considered for a progressive Ireland.

The British Prime Minister, when he addressed the CBI last November, set forth a political agenda that seeks to restrict rights, equality and crucially judicial review through a number of consultations and policy papers. The infringement of such a basic right for people to challenge the government on any abuse of power by the state is a worrying development.

Parallel to the British Prime Minister, the decision was made by the elected representatives of the Belfast City Council in December last year to put the Union Jack on selected days instead of every day. The motion adopted, immediately riots broke out and ongoing protests outside City Hall. It is completely out of control for months in the heart of the city centre and in the east side of the Belfast. This backdrop inflames the annual parade season this year.

In general the violent portrayal of Northern Ireland has once again become an international focus. The police were attacked, private and public property was damaged, our economy suffered, and politicians started to play the blame game. Our common experiences as ethnic minority people living in Northern Ireland during any political stalemate is that ethnic minorities and foreigners will become targets of hate and we have witnessed the increasing of racist attacks in certain areas as result of the ongoing flag and parade stand-off. Where is the democracy and the rule of law?

With the US government intervention by appointing the former envoy to Northern Ireland Dr. Richard Haas and Dr. Meghan O’Sullivan to start an all-party talks process – the creation of a Panel of Parties in the NI Executive in July 2013 on a government flagship strategy was published in May this year, “Together: Building a United Community” (TBUC). At the same time the First Minister has made the decision to unilaterally to shut down the plan to build a reconciliation centre inside the Maze Prison, a plan that was agreed by the two major parties in government inflames another political stalemate.

These trends and development consolidate the importance of international human rights law to set the standard to maintain democracy, the rule of law and human rights protection. Today I will specific focus on the concept of fraternity and democracy which links to rights-based social justice.

What is equality?

Equality is a common word that means different things to different people. Some sees equal opportunity is equality. Of course equality is also a common term used by politicians, civil society, such as NGOs, employer organisations, trade unions, etc. to promote their own particular values or interests.

In this sense, equality is also an ideological concept that involves the power of ideas being used to reinforce and legitimise existing power relations or the status quo. In a divided society like Northern Ireland, equality becomes a subject of social division. It is based on the zero sum games of victimhood. It is about my rights and using it to trump other’s rights.

Equality, in a simple term, is to treat everyone equally. The problem in using such a concept is that it refuses or denies differences in our society. It is the power relationship to shape what are the acceptable norms and identity (male, white, middle age, able-bodied with distinctive Christian faith or values, orange or green) in our society in order to fence off or assimilate the differences.

It is also the process of exclusion of others within a social structure in our society. Simply it ignores the special needs of certain social groups and their disadvantaged position in our society. The classical example is one size to fit all (both inter groups and intra groups). It is not just an individual issue. It is the structural inequality in which individuals of that group identity or cultures will be excluded or discriminated against. Therefore it highlights the limitation of the liberal conception of individual rights.

Individual identity is made up of biological and social factors such as gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation. A good example is a Pakistani disabled young woman (gender, race, religion, age and disability). She might be a lesbian, too. People find themselves have more than one social grouping or identity.

Multiple identities and membership of more than one social group structure makes the unique experiences and identity of individuals. And in fact policies for service provision and organisation of work practices have often not been designed to take account of these multiple differences, resulting in exclusion and compounded or multiple discrimination.

We have asked whether, why and within what limits all human beings should be treated equally, but have not raised these questions in relation to cultures. If we interpret human beings and their actions, choices, preferences in terms of the system of meaning characteristic of their cultures (not limited to ethnic, linguistic or religious, including other group cultures such as woman, disabled people, gay or lesbian, different age group, single parent, etc.) we have great opportunity to do them justice.

The key issues are: How to accommodate differences without losing social cohesion? How to reconcile the apparently conflicting demands of equality of treatment and recognition of cultural differences whether it is orange or green or it is rainbow of all colors? How to create a spirit of brotherhood or sisterhood and solidarity among culturally diverse members?

If we are to ensure fairness and equality in culturally diverse societies, we need to do two things:

1. We must appreciate that equal treatment might have to be different and not identical to its content.
2. We need to develop appropriate conceptual and institutional tools to ensure that different treatment does not lead to unfair discrimination or privilege.

Liberty, Equality and Fraternity: core values of our society

Equality is not just a social concept. The issue is, what equality means in our society? And what is the institutional means to deliver equality? The means – whether it is equal opportunity, positive discrimination, equality outcome, mainstreaming, etc. – and ends – such as fraternity – of equality are links with the core values of our society such as social justice, human rights protection, democracy and the rule of law. Ten years ago I read an article of Mr. Justice Gonthier, Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, about Liberty, Equality and Fraternity: “Fraternity – the Unspoken Third Pillar of Democracy”. I will use his conception on fraternity to share my insight on the equality debates in Northern Ireland and beyond.

The motto of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity has new meaning in the 21st century. Fraternity is together with liberty and equality in the very first article of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. (In French, “esprit de fraternite”.) This is the universal core value of any society.

Fraternity advances goals of fairness and equity, trust and security, and brings an element of compassion and dedication to the goals of liberty and equality. Liberty and equality are antithetical to fraternity. Whereas liberty and equality emphasise the rights of individuals, fraternity emphasises the rights of the community (communal and/or group rights). Whereas liberty protects the right to live free from interference, fraternity advances the goals of commitment and responsibility. Fraternity is the necessary adjunct of liberty and equality that imports these values into community.

The first value of fraternity recognises that there are certain people within this community who require special protection and to whom we have a commitment. Certain vulnerable groups need extra measures to play a meaningful role in our community. In this aspect fraternity informs our understanding of equality – the state may be discriminating against individuals by failing to accommodate their special needs. This aspect of fraternity – that of inclusion – is essential for the proper functioning of the state. As a result, the law is filled with examples of duties imposed on individuals to take positive steps to assist persons who are disadvantaged or in need of care or protection (positive action).

Fraternity also recognises that in certain interactions with other people, one must do more than just treat them equally or in a manner that respects their liberty and freedoms. Rather, in certain circumstances, one cannot abuse their position in an unfair manner. Fraternity informs the notion that we as a community cannot rest solely on our “liberty” rights in a manner that is unfair to others. The backbone of civil society rests on treating each of our neighbour in a fair manner and with a degree of trust. Justice, equity, fairness, and trust operate simultaneously to guarantee the smooth functioning of a community in a way that is in accordance with the community’s conscience.

In that sense, freedom of expression is not a license to hate. In other words, freedom of expression does not mean to vilify. Freedom of expression is also not regarded as too important or valuable to be interfered with. It is an established norm that freedom of expression or religion and conscience is not an absolute right.

In this regard it reminds me the 1993 UN Vienna Declaration, which states that “All human rights are universal, indivisible, interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.” On the other hand, Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms that the exercise of my rights must be done in a manner consistent with the protection of other rights. This norm also reflects in Article 17 of the ECHR which provides that:

“Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.”

Moreover, international obligation prohibits all advocacy that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (“incitement” or “incitement to hatred”), as mandated by Article 20(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”). The recommendations also apply to some of the provisions contained in Article 4 of the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”).

Another aspect of fraternity is that of cooperation. The difference between liberty and equality, on the one hand, and fraternity on the other, is that the former values promote the free association of individuals, whereas the latter promotes the cooperation of individual in the community. Cooperation is inspired by the commonality of interests and gives rise to the pooling of resources in pursuit of a common goal. Cooperation requires people who are connected with one another to work together to advance common interests. However, fraternity implies or suggests formal knowledge of the common good sought by the cooperation, and a desire to arrive at that common good.

In conclusion, the values of fraternity in a community are crucial to bring liberty and equality in practice. It is the spirit of brotherhood, sisterhood and solidarity that we are missing in the divided society in Northern Ireland.

Finally, for a progressive Ireland, North and South, we need to have universal values of not only human rights but also democratic pluralism, rule of law, transparency and accountability. We all have a role to play to cherish these universal values and direct our society towards a shared, reconcile and healing future. In that sense we need to acknowledge, accept and address the legacy of the past. For the sake of our next and future generations, the Good Friday Agreement should be implemented in full.

Good relations trump equality

Democracy, rule of law and human rights protection are the intrinsic value system in any human society. Human rights protection have no meaning unless it is enforceable through the rule of law, i.e. the judiciary adjudicate the State whether it infringes the rights of an individual. It is the fundamental principle of democracy to have the separation of power between the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. Therefore, without democracy rule of law will have no meaning as dictator could abuse his power over and above the law. In a modern democratic society like in UK and Ireland, increasingly in this country the politicians openly attack human rights judgment, in particular  judges and using the majority in the Parliament

Fairness and social justice are the core values of our society on the island of Ireland.

Rights and equality are being eroded over the last 15 years in the North as result of non-implementation of the key parts in Chapter 6 of the Good Friday Agreement. This is under Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity.

We have the situation in the North: we all pretend to play the victimhood game to fence off the others. It is not uncommon today to see using good relations to trump equality in policy formulation, in particular if one side has such a needs and the other side don’t. For ethnic minorities, we are not being recognised, as government has no data on race except the census. It gives them a good excuse not to do anything for ethnic minorities in policy development nor do they conduct more research to fill the vacuum. They don’t!

Increasingly politicians politicise rights and equality by their own interpretation. The current flag protest and the past parade season as well as the ongoing stand-off in Woodvale where a camp set up for civil disobedience using democracy to trump equality and rights.

Chapter 6 of the Agreement lists a lot of outstanding issues 15 years ago. These issues still remain the same today. I quote the following:

• The right to equal opportunity in all social and economic activity regardless of class, creed, disability, gender and ethnicity
• The right to freedom from sectarianism harassment; and
• The right of women to full and equal political participation.

Discrimination on the basis of race, colour, nationality, religion, political opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability, age, etc. and etc. is still the daily life battle of ordinary people in the North. The figures from the NI Industrial Tribunal show these upper trends.

Conor Murphy’s speech from the final plenary of the conference

The title of today´s conference includes the phrase “A new phase of the peace process” and I think that that is very apt when we come to discuss the issues Michelle has outlined.

We have a political process, with all its ups and downs, and disagreements and frustration – and of course its many successes – but we also have a wider process, a peace process, as we try to move our whole society from the past through the present and towards a better future for all.

Since 1998 profound and far-reaching changes have taken place in Ireland, and in relationships between the British government and the people of Ireland nationalist and unionist.

New political institutions are in place in Ireland. These institutions are based on the principles of power sharing, equality and respect for cultural diversity.

For the first time in over eight centuries of troubled history the people of these islands, British and Irish, and their representatives have placed dialogue and not coercion at the centre of their relationships.

These changes mean that no more people from either Britain or Ireland need risk the lives of other people or their own lives over political differences.

The Irish peace process is rightly held up as an example of a successful model. Myself and other peace negotiators from Ireland have travelled to conflict torn regions all over the world, to outline the story of the Irish peace process. My party has contributed to embryonic political settlements and peace processes in recent times in the Basque country, Philippines, Columbia and Burma.

And while we can, and perhaps should, be proud of our work beyond our own shores, we should not forget that we have much more to do at home to secure and build the peace.

We still have many challenges, including the need for everyone around our Executive table to fully buy into the concept of power-sharing and partnership government.

And a key issue which has the potential to continue to trip us is the past, how we speak about it, how we present it, and how we address it.

And the role which dealing with it has in reconciliation.

Truth recovery and acknowledgment are critical to dealing with the past. They can breathe life into the quest for reconciliation.

Building a harmonious society demands that these difficult issues are dealt with. A process within which to comprehensively deal with the past is a means to that end.  That self-evidently will not be gained in one fell swoop.

But we can make progress now with a view to addressing the legacy issues over time.  This means recognizing the limits at this point. I do not believe we will achieve a consensus on a narrative of the conflict.  We can however reach agreement on the reality that there is no single narrative but there are several.  I do not believe we will find a consensus on equivalence between the physical protagonists in the conflict.  Indeed we do not need to.  What we do need to find is a consensus on ensuring that this is not erected as a barrier to progress.

Any lasting beneficial address of these issues needs to encompass the reality that there can be no hierarchy of victims. Protagonists on one side need to be addressed and dealt with on an equal basis with protagonists on the other. This need not mean conferring political legitimacy on one side and withholding it from another. It does mean accepting that whatever the pros and cons of that argument that human beings have died and are mourned by those who miss them, and that our common humanity should acknowledge that. It means that all victims regardless of the agency of their victimhood are addressed and dealt with equally.

A benchmark of where any or all of these things might go is of course the view of those who have lost loved ones or who continue to suffer.  Even the most casual observer will have detected a whole series of different opinions on what should happen.  Some families want the truth about what happened to their loved ones and nothing more.  But there is no legal framework within which this can happen. Others want recourse to the courts. Both opinions are entirely valid and those who hold them are entirely within their rights to pursue either or both courses.

The British authorities to this point have taken every measure possible to avoid charges being brought against members of their forces.  The few who slipped through the net of legal protections such as Public Interest Immunity Certificates invariably served only short times in prison before returning to duty and sometimes with a promotion. Perhaps they will address this in the course of the all-party talks taking place chaired by Dr. Richard Haass. Sinn Féin will certainly recommend to Dr Haass that he talk to the British authorities about these matters.  And the Irish Government should of course press the case for truth about the Dublin/Monaghan bombings.

So where then are the possibilities for progress.  In my opinion they exist in a number of areas. Measures which could be addressed and dealt with now which could help create conditions to make progress possible.  But all require partnership and dialogue.  I believe that a consensus, a part of a building process on legacy issues, can be found provided there exists the political will to do so in the areas of: acknowledgement, truth recovery, services for victims and survivors and remembrance.

Dealing with the past will help and guide us in our building of the future. And building for the future will enable us to deal with the past.

We have an ability to develop strategies on reconciliation, mutual respect, tolerance and measures to eradicate sectarianism.  We need to activate it. I am glad to say that our Executive recently outlined it´s strategy on “Together – Building a United Community”, looking to deal pro-actively with issues such as the proliferation of peace walls, mostly in Belfast, and segregation in housing, education, and the need for young people to mix with and become familiar with those in the ´other´ community.

The thinking which brought us all to the negotiating table must be maintained and must drive us forward. That is, there can be no winners. And that means there must be no losers. If we move forward on this premise then we are duty bound to acknowledge and respect our differences and to compromise. There is no other way.

Relying on old certainties will only produce old results. We need new approaches, new relationships and new results.

Within Ireland it means building new relationships and meeting challenges in a positive way with at all times an eye on building the peace and promoting reconciliation. With Britain it means building an understanding of our historical difficulties without letting them become an obstacle to good relations in the future.

Creating a new society at ease with itself is the challenge facing us now. I believe in the unity of the people of the island of Ireland. There is a democratic and peaceful way to achieve that or to reject that. It is for the people to decide.

Dialogue, building trust, making political compromises are the seeds to achieving this new beginning.

Compromise is not a dirty word. I am proud of the compromises which republicans have made in the pursuit of building peace.

But republicans cannot build progress on our own. We need unionist partners. We need civic partners. We need to agree a direction of travel for our society and stick to that road map despite the attacks from the rejectionists be they unionist or so called dissident republican.

At times people get frustrated, myself included, at some of the political log jams which crop up from time to time in our process. And at times people can focus on the negativity which flows from these and miss the reality that the job of government continues – ministers are taking decisions everyday, the All-Ireland and East West political architecture continues – everyday that this happens is another brick being laid on the path to a new future.

So, to finish, we need to find a way of dealing with the past, and we need to put plans in place that ensures that the marching season doesn’t become a by word for street violence every summer.

All of that is doable.

Let that spirit of hope and optimism be what guides us through the next period. Let it be the principle which underpins our political engagement going forward. Let that be the road map to a future built upon genuine reconciliation and progress.

Ireland has long been a totemic issue for the left in Britain. I have been proud to support the cause all my political life. It is one the oldest and most important international liberation struggles.

The President of Sinn Fein observed earlier that twenty five years ago Mrs Thatcher imposed a broadcasting ban which meant that pictures of Sinn Fein leaders could be shown on television but the broadcasters could not use their actual voice. This resulted in the absurdity of actors dubbing the voices of Gerry Adams, Martin McGuiness and others.

But so many things have changed in that period in relation to the Irish struggle. Thames Television lost it television licence because it broadcast “Death on the Rock” a documentary about how three IRA were slaughtered in cold blood by British operatives in Gibraltar. Sinn Fein was routinely vilified at the very top of the Labour Party. Labour MPs like Chris Mullin who took up the cause of the Birmingham Six got no support from Labour party leaders. And you were never allowed to forget that the Tories were the Conservative and Unionist party.

That the climate of opinion in British politics on the Irish struggle has changed so much is obviously due to the work of the nationalist struggle but it also due to the work of the many activists and supporters in this room.

I give all respect to the work of skilled diplomats like Jonathan Powell, former Number 10 Chief of Staff, who is on the panel with me today. But without the grassroots struggle the Republican cause could never have made the progress that we have seen.

My parents were born in Jamaica when it was still a British colony. Perhaps in consequence I have always believed that the Irish struggle is best understood as an anti-colonialist one.  And one thing we know from the history of British colonialism in Africa and the Indian subcontinent is how much suffering the completely arbitrary national borders imposed by the colonialists have caused. All over the world these borders have divided nations. They may have served the interests of colonialist, international capital and national elites. But arbitrary colonialists’ borders have caused untold suffering and bloodshed in the post-colonial era. That is why the border poll that Sinn Fein is campaigning for is so important. Nobody here needs reminding of the process b y which the border between the six counties and the rest of Ireland emerged.

Only when that border is removed can the whole island of Ireland come together to seek its social and economic destiny. Just as in colonies all over the world, the border is one of the final legacies of the British occupation. The current economic crisis means that it is particularly important that the whole island of Ireland can come together in a concerted push against the politics of austerity. A return to the sadness and personal tragedies of forced migration cannot be the answer to the economic challenge faced by the island of Ireland today.

It is also important that in working for a “New Ireland” to have a debate about women’s right. Women have played a key role in a nationalist struggle. But there is still more to do on women’s rights in general and reproductive rights in particular.

Those of us who have always supported the Irish nationalist struggle, will continue to offer our support as it enters a new phase. And I am proud to be on this platform today.

We are talking here about the march towards a new Ireland. But the future also depends on settling accounts with the past. We need to know so much about what happened during the years between 1968 and 1998 before we can move forward, so I make no apologies for looking backwards for a moment. Fifteen years ago, just a couple of months after the people of Northern Ireland had approved the Good Friday Agreement, I spoke in Belfast in memory of a 17-year-old called Damien Walsh. [Damien’s uncle, Breandan O Lochlainn; mother and father, Marian and Peter Walsh.]

On 25 March 1993, he had been shot dead while working – on a youth training scheme – at the Dairy Farm coal depot in Twinbrook, on the outskirts of West Belfast. He had been shot several times – in the back. Gradually, information came to light that pointed to collusion between the perpetrators, the UDA/UFF, and the security forces – notably the British army’s Force Research Unit and the RUC. I can’t go into all the details here but I can tell you there were several interlocking parts to the jigsaw – the hijacking of a car on the Lower Shankill, a timely lifting of an RUC checkpoint, the weaponry used, the presence of undercover soldiers, the abandonment of the killers’ car in Andersonstown, the later “discovery” of bomb-making material close to the scene. According to a report by the Historical Enquiries Team (HET) in September 2010 undercover soldiers were watching when Damien was murdered. And the same report revealed that one of the two guns used in the attack was later used in another murder, four attempted murders and a further four shooting incidents between 1990 and 1996.

What, you might ask, is the significance of this single murder among so many? Because none of it has ever been reported by the London-based British media. Because, in fact, there are at least 120 cases like it, maybe more. Because, at its heart, is collusion between the agents of the British government and gangs that, to give them their right description, were “death squads.” And because collusion is the great untold story outside of the north of Ireland. And it is that aspect, because I’m a journalist, that I continue to find so disturbing. Next Friday sees the publication of a book by one of my friends, Anne Cadwallader, called Lethal Allies: British collusion in Ireland. Someone who has had the chance to read it calls it “a revealing and forensic insight” into the nature of collaboration between loyalist paramilitaries – the death squads – and shadowy agencies of the British state. But here’s the grim irony. Anne, a journalist for 20-odd years, was not a journalist when she wrote the book. She told me yesterday: “I would never have been able to write this book as a journalist because no-one would have commissioned me to do it.” Instead, she joined the Pat Finucane Centre, the human rights organisation named after a man who was also murdered by loyalists colluding with the security forces. And it was there she met Alan Brecknell, who had spent 15 years painstakingly researching scores of murders.

I’d like to tell you more but the book it’s under a tight embargo. I can tell you there’s due to be a Channel 4 documentary based on it next Thursday evening. I am also hopeful of a Guardian serialisation. And I can tell you the book is explosive. What I fear, however, is that its substantive content – its explosive content – will be ignored by much of the British mainstream media. Why? Because that’s how it is. Because the British national press and broadcasters have been locked into a narrative about Northern Ireland that eschews all deviations from one that harks back to the late 1960s. You know it all too well. Its the one about the two-tribes, each-one-as-bad-as-the-other, with the poor British government cast as the reluctant, impartial, despairing piggy-in-the-middle.

Despite the changes wrought by the peace process, the only story the media care to tell is always about conflict. Those journalists who work outside the London-centric press – meaning British government-centric press – are baffled by this scenario. For example, on Wednesday this week, the Dublin-based correspondent of the international news agency, Reuters, filed what we in the business call a news feature. He told of the wonderful summer enjoyed by the people of Derry as tourists flocked to the city, the city of culture. He told how more than 400,000 people visited during a single week in August for the Irish musical festival, the fleadh cheoil [kuwl]. He explained how businessmen helped to build the foundations of a cross-community infrastructure and the benefits of direct dialogue. Having attended both the fleadh and the “walled city tattoo”, I can testify to the veracity of his report. Derry rocked during August.

So I looked to see who had picked up on the upbeat Reuters report. I found it on US newspaper websites: the Chicago Tribune and the Baltimore Sun, for example. On Italy’s La Repubblica and even the Oman Daily Observer. But in Britain? Not one. It was ignored. Why? Well, I concede that “normal” news values do dictate that good news is not news while bad news is almost always news. So the murders on 10 October of Barry McGrory in Derry and Kevin Kearney in Belfast – allegedly by dissident republicans – were covered. But, of course, those killings fit into the Northern Ireland narrative. Only violence and division count. Last winter, the Belfast flag protests got big coverage. Otherwise, the “national press” turns a blind eye to events in the six northern Irish counties.

And I must add, lest anyone misunderstands me, this media silence or media ignorance or media apathy – whatever you want to call it – is as bad for those of a loyalist persuasion as it is for nationalists. What is undeniable is that national newspapers, which remain the big opinion-formers within Britain, are heavily influenced by the need to retain readers. And there is a belief that Northern Ireland news is a turn-off. It’s just not commercial. This belief is the reason for the old editorial mantra: “Ulster doesn’t sell”. But we’re facing something even worse than that because the lack of coverage, the withdrawal of media staffing from the north, implies a return to the pre-1968 situation and a much more sinister media mantra: “Ulster doesn’t matter.” It’s sinister because the absence of British-based media coverage of a peaceful Northern Ireland is problematic in trying to forge a new future. Without any reporting of the positive aspects of the past 15 years people in Britain lack the information to pressure the government to take the peace process on to the next level. There is nothing for the people in Britain to work with, to think about. Denied knowledge of the situation, and blinded by years of misinformation and disinformation, they have no stomach to call on Westminster to do something positive and innovative about the north of Ireland. Now, I’m aware that publishers and editors are constantly reminding us of their historic mission to report freely and fairly, especially in this fraught period when the press believes itself under attack from politicians. But they have to be embarrassed into holding their press freedom banners aloft on behalf of the people their papers affect to serve across what they like to call the United Kingdom. We have to find a way to make them live up to their obligations.  In other words, we have to convince them that Ulster does matter. And perhaps, for people like me who live in the uncolonised part of Ulster, that we would like the other six counties to join us as soon as possible.

Support the border poll.

Extracts from Sinn Féin Leader Gerry Adams’s speech to the opening panel of ‘Towards a New Ireland – A new phase of the peace process’

‘The situation in the north has changed out of all recognition. Today power sharing and peace, have replaced inequality and conflict. The Good Friday Agreement has created a new dynamic, a new political dispensation. For the first time we have an agreement that is comprehensive and inclusive.

‘Unfortunately there are still those – within the unionist leaderships and the British political system and on the fringes of nationalism – who are resistant to change. Since the Agreement was reached 15 years ago they have fought a rearguard action seeking to destabilise, to dilute and to obstruct its implementation. For example, there is no Bill of Rights for the north to protect the rights of citizens; there is no Acht na Gaeilge; there is no north-south consultative forum, and in the week that saw the Finucane family bury their mother Kathleen – the British government has reneged on the commitment to hold an inquiry into the murder of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane.

‘Recently in parts of Belfast we have seen the most naked sectarian elements of unionism stirred up for short term political purpose. There have been months of organised sectarian violence on the streets of Belfast.’

In his speech Mr Adams also spoke about recent tensions in Belfast, stoked up by the Orange Order in alliance with the UVF and the PUP at interface areas with provocative marches:

‘Hundreds of members of the PSNI have been injured, some seriously. Three weeks ago a young woman was shot five times by the UVF in East Belfast. The PSNI have accused that organisation of “involvement in drug dealing, all forms of gangsterism, serious assaults and intimidation.”

‘Unionist leaders failed to stand up to this at a time when decisive positive leadership may have made a real difference. In stark contrast when so-called dissidents killed PSNI officers and British soldiers Martin McGuinness stood shoulder to shoulder with Peter Robinson and the Chief Constable to condemn those actions in assertive, clear and robust language. There was no equivocation by Martin. No delay. He showed leadership.

‘That’s what unionism needs. Positive leadership to build the process; to take a stand against illegal marches, sectarianism and violence, and the provocative actions of the Orange Order in Belfast. I retain the hope that such leadership will develop.’

The Sinn Féin Leader welcomed remarks by DUP Leader and First Minister Peter Robinson on Thursday night at a Co-Operation Ireland event which acknowledged the GAA’s contribution to better community relations and emphasised that: ‘Sinn Féin holds out the hand of friendship to unionists, including the Orange, and former unionist paramilitaries.  We do so on the basis of equality and partnership.

‘There is a need for the First Minister to join with the Deputy First Minister and others to build an entirely new dispensation.

‘Sinn Féin is committed to building a new society and achieving a new Ireland that is representative of all the people of our island. That includes the unionists. Peter Robinson expressed the need for respect. I agree with him completely. The GAA has indeed played a very significant role in encouraging better community relations. One thing that most sportspeople have for their rivals is respect. Politicians could learn a lot from that ethos.’

On the Haass talks he said:

‘Notwithstanding the expertise and standing of Richard Haass and Megan O’Sullivan they would be the first to acknowledge that the only people who can resolve these issues are the people who live in the communities affected and their leaders. The first question to be asked therefore is: what is acceptable behaviour? Is it acceptable that there can be public displays and in some cases saturation of public thoroughfares, of flags or emblems of illegal organisations responsible for killing hundreds of people, mostly because they were Catholic? Is it acceptable that places of worship are targeted? That there are regular incitements to hatred? Is it acceptable that the union flag is used in an offensive way? I would certainly wholeheartedly condemn the use of the Irish national flag if it is used in any disrespectful or offensive way. Is it acceptable that young people are actively encouraged to hate their neighbours on the basis of their religion? Is it acceptable that there should be a tolerance of gangs engaged in criminality because they masquerade as either loyalist or republican? I believe it is not. I believe that it is contrary to the wishes of the vast majority of people.I believe it is also unlawful.

‘Citizens of London or Dublin would not have to endure that which is foisted on the citizens of Belfast and other places and defended or tolerated by some political leaders. Solutions are needed to resolve these difficult issues of symbols, marches and the past. But this will only be done if leaders lead. It needs political will. I believe this is a time to refresh the peace process; to develop a new phase. A new phase which tackles the past; seeks to repair broken relationships; promotes reconciliation and maps a new course for the future. Mr Robinson spoke of the need for respect for constitutional choice. I agree with that also.

‘There is now a peaceful and democratic way for everyone to pursue political goals. There is no excuse or reason for violence from any quarter. The people can decide on the future.’

The Sinn Féin leader also called for the two governments to set a date for a border poll:

‘If the British government or unionist leaders are so convinced of their position then they should have no objection to letting the people have their say – that’s democracy. I believe that a border poll provides an opportunity to focus on the future; to build a modern, dynamic new Ireland in which there is genuine reconciliation and a more equitable society.’

He also addressed the issue of the Irish diaspora in Britain:

‘The recent decision by the Constitutional Convention to recommend that Irish citizens in the north and overseas can vote in Presidential elections is a positive development. There is now a clear onus on the Irish government to act on this recommendation. Citizens in the north who wish to vote in Presidential elections should be accorded that right. But that is only part of what is needed. This new phase of the peace process means harnessing the power and influence and expertise of the diaspora. It also means giving the diaspora its right, like citizens of other states, to vote in Presidential elections.  I invite all of you and who of you who are not Irish but would like to be to join with us in this great historic task of building a new Ireland that this new phase of the peace process is opening up.’

Speech by Kathryn Reilly, Sinn Féin senator, on the ‘Democratic Ireland – for an island of equals’ seminar

Ireland has come so far since I was born – the Good Friday Agreement, Sinn Féin in government in the North, as the second largest opposition party in the South, the legalisation of divorce, decriminalisation of homosexuality, civil partnership, finally legislating for the X case – that I can only guess where we might be in another 25 years.

Some of the most advanced and progressive social movements anywhere in Europe, or indeed the world, have emerged when the struggles for Irish freedom and self-determination have been at their peak. The first female MP elected to Westminster was a republican. And back in 1909 during one of her speeches, Countess Markievicz challenged those opposed to women’s suffrage  believing the “old idea that a woman can only serve her nation through her home is gone” declaring “now is the time, on you the responsibility rests. It may be as a leader, it may be as a humble follower… perhaps in a political party, perhaps in a party of your own… but it is there.” As a republican two issues motivate me above all else. Irish unity and equality. I believe that a truly democratic Ireland is a united Ireland. Not just the reunification of the two parts of the island, but the unity of our people, whatever their national, ethnic or religious background. I also passionately believe in equality. Not just equality of opportunity but equality of condition. Equality is not just about voting or having equal rights before the law. People need more than the right to participate fully in society; they must have the means to participate fully in society.

That means that every person must have the right to high quality education, to first class health care, to meaningful and fulfilling employment. Political and legal equality are meaningless without social and economic equality. That means actively dismantling the barriers to participation in public life that block access for women, minority ethnic communities, people with disabilities and other sections of our society. It also means addressing poverty and income inequality. Poverty, inequality and other barriers to participation in public life are not just an accident of life; they are not naturally existing phenomena. They are a direct result of the policies and programmes of successive governments here and abroad over many years. Reducing poverty and inequality and increasing people’s participation in public life requires political and policy alternatives. It requires government to do things differently. To design and implement policies and programmes that make equality a reality.

Economy

Martin Luther King once said: Many white Americans of good will have never connected bigotry with economic exploitation. They have deplored prejudice but tolerated or ignored economic injustice.

This week the Fine Gael/Labour government announced their third austerity budget. Like the five Fianna Fáil budgets before, it attacked young people, pensioners, people with disabilities and women.

Not only did it highlight the poverty of ideas in government circles – it showed the lack of vision for building a better fairer Ireland. It showed entrenched disdain for certain sectors of society who traditionally could not defend themselves from the consensus and political establishment.

Fundamental change is absolutely essential in ensuring a sustainable, peaceful future in which people can exist free from fear of poverty, discrimination, conflict and division. Sinn Féin has been arguing for this approach for some time.

In terms of the economic crisis, we have long been fed the mantra there is no alternative to austerity and cuts. Economic exploitation, as Martin Luther King puts it, has come at the hands of fiscal retrenchment.

We replaced one right wing Fianna Fáil-led government with the current Fine Gael/Labour one – and in following the same policies, the economic crisis has continued to deepen.

Unfair regressive taxes and cuts in services are seeing families suffer across Ireland. In the north, Tory-government imposed cuts and broken promises in terms of any ‘peace dividend’ are seeing the same story there.

The social and human consequences of such policies are clear. Poverty and child poverty rates have increased. Recession related suicides in the south of Ireland are amongst the highest in the European Union. Youth unemployment has hit a shocking 30%. One in four families is unable to pay their mortgage.And 1,700 people are leaving the state every single day.

We are not just living through the deepest economic crisis in our history but the deepest social crisis.

We need a completely different framework – one where the state decides it is going to invest in infrastructure, to create jobs and stimulate growth. A model which combines sustainable economic growth with meaningful social change.

Sinn Féin have produced countless costed, alternative budgets based on this central premise, and a promise to protect essential services and bring in a more progressive level of taxation.

Our proposals do not just focus on the economics of budgets but the social and human side – we want to build a just society not just a growing economy.

One of the battles being fought in recent months has been the need to equality-proof all budget decisions. This is not just a slogan – it is a practical task to ensure that all decisions by government are tested for the social and human impact. Regressive budgets do not just hit low income families hardest – they hit women, young people and minority ethnic communities hardest too. Equality budgeting seeks to break the cycle of poverty and inequality – and to give people a real chance of a better life.

Of course, one huge benefit to the economy would be to re-unite the country. Ireland’s economic development has been hugely held back by partition and the obvious divisions and duplications which occur on a small island with two economic and political systems.

Sinn Féin would like to see an Ireland based on economic equality and an investment to ensure a civilised society, without the kind of social dislocation which comes out of poverty.

We also have to ensure social equality and that we take Ireland forward in the 21st century on that basis. The division of Ireland continues to stunt Ireland’s potential – politically, socially and economically.

Social equality

Sinn Féin’s vision is of a New Republic for the 21st century which guarantees religious and civil liberty, equal rights and equal opportunities for all citizens, cherishes all the children of the nation equally and is anti-sectarian.

In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, he said: “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

I’m a member of the Constitutional Convention and I was there when the call for same sex marriage was made. I was there when some stood up and believed there should not be marriage equality because it would undermine the sanctity of the institution.

But remember the lyics of Macklemore when he talks about gay rights when he says that such inequality:

It’s the same hate that’s caused wars from religion, gender to skin colour. The same fight that led people to walk-outs and sit-ins. It’s human rights for everybody, there is no difference!

This means equal rights for those in same-sex relationships, ethnic minorities and those of all creeds and none. Sinn Féin has been to the forefront of the marriage equality campaign across Ireland. We have tabled motions in local councils from Cork to Belfast and Dublin to Derry. We are actively supporting the LGBT movement in their on-going struggle for full equality before the law.

It means rights for women and for people with disabilities and a society where elderly people are treated with dignity and where our young people have jobs and a future.

Again Sinn Féin has been to the fore in securing the passage of the X-case legislation; in opposing those cuts to maternity benefit and child benefit; and in ensuring that gender quota for general elections was passed in order to increase women’s participation in political life.

We have also worked closely with the trade union movement – and in particular with the fighting unions such as Mandate and Unite – campaigning for the protection of workers’ rights and a decent living wage. Our TDs have brought forward legislation to protect wage rates and we continue to campaign for legal recognition of collective bargaining.

The new, agreed Ireland we seek to build is inclusive, where all the elements of the Irish nation, from whatever background or tradition, can find the fullest expression of their identity.

Now is the time for progressives of all shades of opinion to up our game. Now is the time to win the battle for hearts and minds, to convince people that there is a better fairer way. We have an alternative. The quality of people lives would be better under that alternative. Our task, in Ireland and Britain, is to convince people of this.

Sinn Féin, and Irish republicans in general, cannot do this on our own. We need to strengthen our links with the trade union movement, with the women’s movement, with all of our new Irish communities.

We need to build a social and political majority for change.

As we approach the centenary of the 1916 rising, there has never been a better time to advance our objectives, not just of a united and free Ireland – but of an Ireland based on the principles of equality and solidarity.

Now is the time for an Ireland of equals. And again as Macklemore says:

‘No freedom till we’re equal, damn right I support it!’