Date post: | 20-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | allan-leonard |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Briefing from the Community Relations Council to the Panel of Parties established under the strategy
Together: Building a United Community
September 2013
2
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Role of the Community Relations Council
3. Policy Background
4. Conclusion
5. Summary of CRC papers on flags, parades and dealing with the past
Annexes
Annex 1 Flags and related matters
Annex 2 Parades and protests
Annex 3 Dealing with the past
Annex 4 Examples of CRC’s work and achievements over recent years
3
1. Introduction
The Community Relations Council (CRC) wishes the Panel of Parties, under the
Chairmanship of Dr. Richard Haass, every success in its endeavours to constructively
resolve the outstanding contested issues which still pervade our society. CRC offers its full
support based on three decades experience of addressing community relations issues.
CRC believes that it is essential to view the immediate issues around flags, parades and
dealing with the past in the overall context of the deep, complex and multi layered divisions
in this community. Hopefully your work can help us to handle the flags issue better, manage
the parades and protests problems more effectively, and move us towards a widely
acceptable approach to dealing with past events.
CRC has outlined its many years of work within its submission (annex 4) and also wishes to
acknowledge that throughout the years of violence, some of the most important community
relations work was, and continues to be, kept alive through the work of the voluntary and
community sector. Academics, funding bodies, Trade Unions, Churches and others have
also played an important policy, research and support role contributing to a regional
approach to peace building.
However, progress in these areas, very welcome though it would be, will not in itself remove
the deep underlying divisions. All our experience suggests that fresh divisive issues will
emerge or old ones will resurface. We believe passionately that a very strong focus must be
maintained on all aspects of the long term process of healing community divisions, tackling
inequalities, addressing honestly the issues that continue to divide us and building on those
areas that can unite a divided society.
The reduction in violence and especially the creation of devolved institutions are very
significant advances. But it has to be recognised more frankly that the political structures
tend to reinforce division by obliging the political parties to maintain and defend their position
within their part of the community, rather than seek support from other parts of the
community. The low voting turnout and opinion poll evidence about public attitudes to the
Assembly are alarming trends.
2. Role of the Community Relations Council
CRC was formed in January 1990 with the purpose of supporting and promoting community
relations work at all levels within the community, a role which it continues to carry out. It
4
originated from a proposal of a research report commissioned by the NI Standing Advisory
Committee on Human Rights titled ‘Improving Community Relations’ (Frazer & McDuff,
1986). CRC is the regional body for community relations in Northern Ireland, established as
an independent charity and acting as an arm’s length body through sponsorship by the
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister (OFMDFM). The board is appointed
through a supervised public appointments process and the Memorandum and Articles
provides for up to one third of the Board to be appointed by the Government.
Since its establishment in 1990 CRC has supported practical initiatives underpinning
progress towards a society whose principles are fairness and justice, the peaceful
celebration of variety and difference, and the importance of sharing, trust and inclusion. By
supporting partnerships, co-operation, dialogue, meeting and friendship, and by promoting
better practice and policy, CRC is the leading independent voice championing change to
achieve and maintain a shared and open society based on fairness, the celebration of
diversity and variety, and genuine reconciliation and interdependence.
As the regional body for community relations CRC has an obligation to challenge across the
system to promote a shared and better future throughout government and society. The
consultation responses to A Shared Future clearly indicated that there was widespread
support for such a regional body, independent of government and capable of commanding
support to promote good relations throughout government and society, support
organisations through funding, training and development of good practice and to provide a
challenge function across the public sector and wider civic society through research, best
practice and policy development.
Since its inception CRC has developed significantly in its approach to this work, and in it
support and implementation of actions and programmes that seek to proactively
acknowledge and deal with the legacy of our conflict and the continued impacts of division
so as to ensure a better quality of life for all in our society.
CRC’s vision is of a peaceful, inclusive, prosperous, stable and fair society founded on the
achievement of reconciliation, equality, co-operation, respect, mutual trust and good
relations, of an open society free from intimidation and threat, where peace and tolerance
are considered normal.
To support the securing and attainment of this vision CRC’s responsibilities as a regional
body are
5
• Advocating and challenging progress towards a better, shared and prosperous inter-
community partnership and inter-cultural co-operation
• Increasing awareness of community relations work and encouraging the flow of ideas
and practice on North-South, East-West, European and international levels through
commissioning and undertaking research
• Developing, supporting and disseminating best practice examples of peace-building
and facilitating constructive debate on difficult, sensitive and controversial topics,
whilst acknowledging and promoting good relations actions
• Providing support for local groups and organisations (finance, training, advice and
information) to develop opportunities for cross-community understanding
• Providing practical opportunities for inter-community and inter-cultural partnership
understanding and interventions
• Assisting central and local Government in the development, implementation, and
delivery of policies, programmes and actions by connecting community relations
issues through learning from research and programmes at regional, sub-regional and
local level
3. Policy Background
The board of CRC welcomed the publication of the OFMDFM policy document, Together:
Building a United Community (T:BUC), which was launched on 23 May 2013 and will work
strenuously to assist in the development and implementation of many of its proposals.
The agenda to be tackled by the T:BUC policy is complex. The initiatives referred to in the
policy document include housing, education, projects aimed at young people, flags,
parades and protests, marking anniversaries and how to deal with the past. CRC believes
that, provided there is sufficient commitment along with adequate resources, the initiatives
outlined in the policy can build on the excellent work that already goes on in many
communities, supported by CRC and other organisations such as the District Councils. CRC
believes that the very visible and long standing difficulty in dealing with these issues on a
cross-party basis in the Assembly has contributed to the sense of ambiguity which affects
community relations work at all levels. CRC believes that consensus on the way forward at
Executive level is vital; otherwise it will appear that the community is expected to achieve a
level of unity which is beyond political leadership.
6
CRC is uncertain whether the proposals, as they stand, will be capable of addressing the
complex mix of issues that link community relations to poverty and long-term social
disadvantage. The issues of education, regeneration and community safety are inextricably
linked to the more fluid issues of identity, cultural expression and community division. CRC
believes that the initiatives announced in Together: Building a United Community have the
potential to make an important contribution. In particular, CRC welcomes the focus on young
people. The reference in the document to other separate policies on victims and survivors,
children and young people, older people, race equality etc is welcome. The links between
these other policies and Together: Building a United Community need to be scoped, clearly
understood and monitored.
CRC also notes the intention of the policy to create a new independent and statutorily based
body called the Equality and Good Relations Commission. The role of the body will be to
provide advice to government and it is proposed that it will bring together the work of the
Equality Commission with some of the work currently undertaken by CRC. One of the
important features of CRC is its independence with which comes the responsibility, and need
for courage to speak the truth to power. CRC continues to believe that there is a need for
independence of thought to challenge public policy and programmes, but also to challenge
society as a whole to play its part in building and sustaining peace. CRC remains to be
persuaded that the current Executive proposals will do that.
CRC further notes that the term Good Relations is not defined in the document. This will
need to be addressed since ‘good relations’ is the goal of the policy and the rationale for
initiatives and methods that will be deployed. A shared understanding of what success
should look like will be essential. CRC awaits the details of these proposals and believes
that the changes must be tested to ensure that, at minimum, there will be no dilution of the
focus on equality or good relations as the new arrangements are put in place or thereafter.
Finally CRC was disappointed that the document made scant reference to the work of the
Council and the bodies it has supported over the last 23 years. It is important that the new
policy builds on the experience that is already available.
4. Conclusion
The Panel of Parties is taking place at an important time in our peace process. Much of
what we have achieved during the years since the peace agreement was signed has been
7
based on pragmatic negotiations on a case by case basis. There are two general points that
we wish to make before dealing with the specific areas of concern to this submission.
Agreement on overarching principles – CRC believes that our society is reaching the
limits of what can be achieved by pragmatic negotiation on a case by case basis. To move
beyond the management of our difference to the acknowledgement of our diversity, CRC
believes it is time to enshrine principles that form the basis of our collective rights and
responsibilities to each other in relation to the remaining matters. Such a document could
form the foundation for the approach we take to many of the issues which the Panel of
Parties will be considering. If these principles were to be agreed across the three strands of
our peace settlement, it might provide security for all identities without prejudice to the wider
constitutional question.
Structures for sustaining peace – It can be as difficult to live within a peace settlement as
it is to negotiate it in the first place. CRC believes that our society has underestimated the
implications of this important point and that the negotiating structures for sustaining peace
should be revisited. Tensions and divisions will remain within Northern Ireland for the
foreseeable future and sporadically lead to violence and disturbances in the street.
Acknowledging this is not to be fatalistic, indifferent or undemanding of our peace process. It
is simply the reality of the difficulties of transforming a deeply divided society. Therefore we
suggest that the Panel of Parties should consider whether the ad-hoc approach taken to
these inevitable issues is, in itself, creating instability and an erosion of trust.
5. Summary of CRC papers on flags, parades and dealing with the past
This submission provides considerations and comment on issues which the Panel of Parties
has been asked to consider:-
Annex 1 Flags and related matters
Annex 2 Parades and protests
Annex 3 Dealing with the past
Flags and related matters
Flags are an emotive issue and we know that there are many factors that play a part in our
response to flags as individuals and communities. Context and shifting meanings or
interpretations over time make this a complex issue. Whether we choose to respond by
calling for a blanket ban on the flying of flags, a regulated approach that qualifies our
8
freedom to fly flags, or negotiated settlements at the local level, it is increasingly clear that
doing nothing will be neither an effective nor a sustainable solution.
On the 3rd December 2012 when Belfast City Council voted to fly the union flag on
designated days few can have expected the level of unrest that followed. Responding to
the flag dispute the Northern Ireland Assembly affirmed the “absolute and unconditional
commitment of all its members to respecting and upholding the rule of law and the pursuit of
their political objectives by purely legal and political means”. This was an important unifying
statement but it was not sufficient to secure enduring peace and stability in relation to
cultural expression. The need for an all party Assembly agreement on the approach to flags
was recognised when OFMDFM produced its policy document Together: Building a United
Community. In relation to cultural expression, the policy document stated a commitment to
“...developing an open and tolerant society in which everyone is free to mark and celebrate
their identity, or indeed identities, in a peaceful and respectful manner.”
It recognised that “addressing the challenges will require a new emphasis on both tolerance
and respect and an active willingness on behalf of all those involved in celebrating their
tradition to acknowledge that we live in a society that is diverse in its make-up. Respect and
tolerance are important principles in any democratic society. These principles apply to both
those involved in celebrating their traditions and those who are not active participants. It is
vital that cultural expression is peaceful”.
The policy also recognised that “The fabric of our society is made up of many diverse parts –
representing different cultural backgrounds and identities. Within the context of an
increasingly diverse community, we must learn that expression of one cultural view is not a
direct or indirect threat to the expression of another.”
Local negotiations will always be important in implementing any overarching agreement and
in sustaining good community relations. However they cannot take the place of an
overarching agreement because they can too easily descend into a tit-for-tat show of
strength at the neighbourhood level. The Community Relations Council believes that the
development of the overarching policy is a very important aspect of the issues related to
flags.
Over the last ten months Community Relations Council has been meeting with the statutory
bodies, agencies, local government officers and voluntary/community organisations involved
9
in issues pertaining to the display of flags in the public space and it is clear that information
is also needed on a number of other related aspects of this issue. These include
• The need for better understanding of the current legal and administrative
arrangements
• More information on the range of approaches to the display and removal of flags in
the public space taken by local authorities across Northern Ireland
• Ideas and options available to those negotiating local community agreements on the
flying of flags
CRC has worked with those engaged in this area to explore the issues and in response has
developed a document Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space (Annex 1). The
first section deals with law and administration and the second deals with practical responses.
Whilst this document does not attempt to address the higher level policy framework, the
need for this was widely accepted in the discussions. CRC is finalising a paper which
collated the emerging policy issues. combined with analysis of the potential options for
change (legislatively, structurally and practically). CRC will forward this paper when
completed.
Parades and Protests
In a society that values freedom, any discussion on parades and protests must start by
saying that violence is condemned and attacks on the police are also unacceptable. The
quality of our democracy and our freedom to safely express different opinions depends, in
part, on the rule of law. Police officers, upholding the law on our behalf, should be supported
by the whole community, including those who wish to have their own way in a parade or
protest.
The discussion must also acknowledge that the images of conflict and violence do not depict
our whole story; they are not even the bigger part of it. Most parades, public
commemorations and protests pass off peacefully. In the same weekend that brought us the
violent images from Belfast city centre, the World Police and Fire Games held its closing
ceremony. The UK City of Culture programme continued in ‘Legend- derry’ with the All-
Ireland Fleadh officially opened by President Higgins. These are examples of a future which
could transcend the zero sum model of identity that has bedevilled us. It is very important
that the Panel of Parties discussions recognise that the majority of people who live here take
10
no part in the zero sum game, are prepared to live and let live, are shamed by the images
that we are sending around the world and enraged that we are teaching our children to hate
again.
CRC believes that we cannot sustain peace that is built on “victory” for one side over
another. Whether we live in a United Kingdom or a united Ireland there will need to be a
place for everyone and all sides of the constitutional debate and the cultural clashes need to
demonstrate the leadership to help us grasp that point. Otherwise we will spend our lives,
and those of our children, holding our ground and shouting rights at each other. We should
not rely on others to adjudicate between us and subsequently to take the blame for our
behaviour when we are displeased with the outcome.
CRC has been less directly involved in this issue but it has often supported work to develop
good relations in areas where parades have been contentious. The Council has also dealt
with the aftermath of situations where community relations have been damaged. On the
basis of this experience we are forwarding a paper (annex 2) which we hope will assist the
work of the Panel of Parties and the organisation hopes that the current discussions will help
us to find a voluntary accommodation of our varied cultures.
Dealing with the past
Whether we choose to adjudicate the past, collect the stories of the past without judgement,
support those who have been hurt in the past, or reconcile with the past, we do not have the
options of ignoring it. This issue has been understandably difficult to address when we are
trying to maintain equilibrium in the present. Remembering and commemorating those who
died or were injured, whether in foreign war or civil conflict, is an important part of our
community acknowledgement of the sacrifices of previous generations. However those who
died in the conflict here are fresh in our memory and we carry with us the suffering and hurts
of the recent past as a real challenge in the present. This is all the more difficult when we
know there are still people in our community (across the constitutional divide) who believe
that violence is a justifiable means to the achievement of their political objective.
For over ten years the Community Relations Council has been able to provide financial and
development support in the form of grant schemes to those supporting victims and survivors
of the conflict with funds provided by OFMDFM (prior to the establishment of the new
Victim Support Service) and with the assistance of the European Union’s Peace Programme.
11
This has been a volatile environment in which to work with many feeling hurt, pain, mistrust,
fear, suspicion and anger that victims have not received true acknowledgement or
recognition for the suffering they have had to carry. The challenge has been to help build
trusting relationships, to reduce the isolation felt by victims and survivors and to work
towards their integration into the everyday life and fabric of our society.
While for many reconciliation may be a step too far, the healing of broken relationships,
particularly at the community level, is an essential part of dealing with the past. Allowing
opportunities for those who have suffered most in the conflict to talk about their experiences,
to be heard, and to listen to the stories of others is important and a fundamental part of
moving forward both as individuals and as a community.
As we know it takes a big act of self denial to “live and let live” and not to feel that you have
betrayed your dead and injured; to be beside your former enemies. Our conflict was very
local and often very personal and people remember. In a small place we live near to those
that caused us hurt. Coming out of a long history of conflict, our troubles and our grief
should make it obvious that we are all different. We have different stories and we want to
remember different things. Antagonisms remain despite the long established political
settlement. There is pain, grief, anger and disappointment all around us. Memories are
personal whether we respond by public acts of remembrance or by our many quiet
moments.
Peace is therefore about the constant, daily, persistent acts of self-control. It has to be
created, day by day, by deliberate acts of forbearance and by finding positive ways of doing
things differently, to demonstrate to ourselves and others that we can be something new.
Dealing with a divided past when we are trying to build a shared future we regularly see
evidence of the risks we face but in the same events we can also see the possibility for
change if we choose to make it. Whether we like it or not, diversity is intrinsic to who we
were, who we are and who we will be in the future. If we accept this, we can choose to be a
society that will tolerate difference, acknowledge the value of freedom of expression, and
place respect for ourselves and others at the heart of all commemoration.
Since last year the Community Relations Council and Heritage Lottery Fund have been
working together to promote an open conversation about how we remember our past in the
12
public sphere. At the outset we recognised the need for shared values that might underpin
our approach to remembering.
In the end we came up with a set of principles:
1. Start from the historical facts;
2. Recognise the implications and consequences of what happened;
3. Understand that different perceptions and interpretations exist;
4. Show how events and activities can deepen understanding of the period;
5. See the act of remembering in the context of an ‘inclusive and accepting society’
The principles are simple but they set a challenge for all of us, whether we are organising a
commemoration event or reacting to one. The purpose is not to make us all the same, in
what we think or do, but to help us recognise that we are different and that we should be free
to express our differences whilst being respectful of others. That is the underpinning social
contract that will allow difference to flourish in a shared space. If we can come to an
agreement about that, at all levels of society, we have the basis of moving forward without
fear of loss of identity or culture.
Earlier in 2012 the Community Relations Council and the Heritage Lottery Fund made a
practical contribution to the forthcoming decade of centenaries with a series of talks entitled
“Remembering the Future” which examined the period from 1912 to 1923, a time that
shaped many of our political and cultural allegiances today. Over the 10 weeks of the talks
we looked at many strands of our identity and the relationships that cross these islands
which were, and remain complex and intertwined. The recordings of the talks and many
other resources can be found on the webpage of the Community Relations Council
(www.nicrc.org.uk). Based on our work in this area annex 3 contains a paper which we
hope will be useful to Panel of Parties discussions.
CRC would welcome an opportunity to discuss this submission.
13
Annex 1
Flags and Related Matters
14
Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space
September 2013
15
Introduction
Flags are an emotive issue and some of the issues associated with them are a legacy of our
conflicted past. We know that there are many factors that play a part in our response to
flags as individuals and communities. Context and shifting meanings or interpretations over
time make this a complex issue. Whether we choose to respond by calling for a blanket ban
on the flying of flags, a regulated approach that qualifies our freedom to fly flags, or
negotiated settlements at the local level, we can probably all agree on one thing, doing
nothing will be neither an effective nor a sustainable solution.
Many people have worked hard to build a shared and reconciled society and to present us
as an attractive, safe and welcoming place to live, work and invest. At the same time
images of unrest are regularly transmitted on the internet, TV and newspapers. On the 3rd
December 2012 when Belfast City Council voted to fly the union flag on designated days few
can have expected the level of unrest that followed – peaceful protests, rioting, intimidation,
attacks on elected representatives and the police, and the loss of visitors to the restaurants,
bars and shops of Belfast as people adapted, altered their plans and left the city to avoid the
unrest. For a time the level of anger appeared to be beyond a political response, an
expression of rage that heritage and identity was being erased.
In response to the flag dispute earlier in the year the Northern Ireland Assembly affirmed the
“absolute and unconditional commitment of all its members to respecting and upholding the
rule of law and the pursuit of their political objectives by purely legal and political means”.
This was an important unifying statement but it was not a sufficient response to the issues
raised during the flag dispute nor could it secure enduring peace and stability in relation to
cultural expression. The need for an all party Assembly agreement on the approach to flags
was recognised when OFMDFM produced its policy document Together: Building a United
Community on 23rd May 2013 to “reflect the Executive’s commitment to improving
community relations and building a united and shared society”. In relation to cultural
expression, the policy document stated a commitment to –
“...developing an open and tolerant society in which everyone is free to mark and celebrate
their identity, or indeed identities, in a peaceful and respectful manner.”
It recognised that “addressing the challenges will require a new emphasis on both tolerance
and respect and an active willingness on behalf of all those involved in celebrating their
tradition to acknowledge that we live in a society that is diverse in its make-up. Respect and
tolerance are important principles in any democratic society. These principles apply to both
16
those involved in celebrating their traditions and those who are not active participants. It is
vital that cultural expression is peaceful”.
The policy also recognised that –
“The fabric of our society is made up of many diverse parts – representing different cultural
backgrounds and identities. Within the context of an increasingly diverse community, we
must learn that expression of one cultural view is not a direct or indirect threat to the
expression of another.”
These statements and the commitment to “Establish an All Party Group, with an independent
chair, to consider and make recommendations on matters including parades and protests;
flags, symbols, emblems and related matters; and the past;” are very welcome if we are to
stabilise the situation in relation to cultural expression and create an open, welcoming and
united community.
Local negotiations will always be important in implementing any overarching agreement and
in sustaining good community relations. However they cannot take the place of an
overarching agreement because they can too easily descend into a tit-for-tat show of
strength at the neighbourhood level. The Community Relations Council believes that the
development of the overarching policy is a very important aspect of the flags issue.
In discussion with many of the agencies currently involved in flag issues it has become clear
to the Community Relations Council that information and guidance is also needed on a
number of other related matters. These include –
• The current legal and administrative arrangements
• The range of approaches to flying flags taken by local authorities across NI
(appendix 1)
• The options and best practice available to those negotiating local community
agreements on the flying of flags
Managing the Display of Flags in the Public Space was developed in response to these
issues and to assist those working on flag disputes at the local level. The first section deals
with law and administration, and the second deals with practical responses.
17
We would like to thank Dominic Bryan for his assistance to our staff with consultations and
his invaluable input to the content of this document. Thanks are also due to Bebhinn
McKinley, our policy officer who played a leading role in co-ordinating this work and to all the
agencies that took part in the discussions which further informed the contents of this paper.
We hope it provides useful information which can be updated as new ideas and methods
emerge to support our diverse expressions of identity.
18
Part One: Context – the legislation, law
1. Legislation relating to the display or removal of the display of flags in public space
There are a range legislative powers which may affect the flying of flags in the public space.
Responsibility for such legislation rests with the legislature (Northern Ireland Assembly)
though the implementation and enforcement of legislation largely rests with the Executive
and relevant departments or agencies. It should be noted that the list provided below is as
comprehensive as possible but may not be exhaustive. The key pieces of legislation are
• Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 13)
• Public Order (NI) Order 1987 (Sections 9. 18, 19 and 23)
• Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1992 (Rule 4)
• Roads (NI) Order 1993 (Section 87)
• Public Processions (NI) Act 1998
• Fair Employment and Treatment (NI) Order (Amended 2003) (Article 3A)
Other legislation has been referenced as being potentially relevant. The following have been
referenced by stakeholders but none have been legally tested. Councils believe that there is
no legislation which directly addresses flag issues but legislation currently being developed
under Local Government Reform could.
• Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Sections 75 and 76)
• Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1998 (Schedule 3, Class 7)
• Planning (NI) Order 1991 (Article 67)
• Protection from Harassment Order 1997 (Articles 3, 4 and 6)
• Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973
• Protection of the Person and Property (NI) Act 1969 (Section 1)
• Local Government Act (NI) 1972
• The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) (NI) Order 1985 (Article 18) (as
amended by Section 36, Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (NI) 2011
Further information regarding some of the above legislation is provided below
Roadsides: Communication from Department of Regional Development (Oct 2011) clarifies
that there is no process for obtaining permission to fly flags or emblems on Road Service
property including lampposts, trees and other structures adjacent to roads. Further Section
19
87 of the Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 19931 gives the Roads Service authority to remove
‘advertisements, pictures, signs, etc.’ erected ‘without lawful authority’2. The Roads Service
can also provide support facilities to take down ‘unwanted flags where there is agreement
within the local community to do so’.
Private Property: In relation to private property, there is a clear link with current planning
legislation, under which flags and emblems are currently defined as ‘advertisements’3.
Therefore under this definition the consent to display a flag or emblem requires consent from
the DoE under Section 4 of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 19924. This however does not apply to the ‘national flag of any
country’ which can under Class I of Schedule 2 be displayed ‘on a single flagstaff’.
The Terrorism Act Under the Terrorism Act 2000 those displaying symbols of proscribed
organisations could be prosecuted. It states that:5
13.—(1) A person in a public place commits an offence if he—
(a) wears an item of clothing, or
(b) wears, carries or displays an article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to
arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed
organisation.
List of Proscribed Organisations of which it is an Offence to Display Flags of
Emblems (for further detail on the proscription process and full list of proscribed
organisations and see Appendices 2 &3)
• The Irish Republican Army.
• Cumann na mBan.
• Fianna na hEireann.
• The Red Hand Commando.
• Saor Eire.
• The Ulster Freedom Fighters.
• The Ulster Volunteer Force6. 1 Roads (Northern Ireland) Order 1993: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/1993/3160/contents/made. Section 87 is reproduced at Appendix 1. 2 AQW 539/11-15 answered 24 June 2011. 3 AQO 631/11 answered 30 November 2010. 4 Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1992: http://www.planningni.gov.uk/index/advice/advice_legislation/advice_all_legislation/sub-legislation-1992-448.pdf. 5 Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/pdfs/ukpga_20000011_en.pdf.
20
• The Irish National Liberation Army.
• The Irish People’s Liberation Organisation.
• The Ulster Defence Association.
• The Loyalist Volunteer Force.
• The Continuity Army Council.
• The Orange Volunteers.
• The Red Hand Defenders.
2. Key agencies that currently have operational involvement in the removal of flags
Ultimately those who are responsible for the removal of flags being displayed in the public
space are those engaged in their erection. However it should be recognised that on many
occasions other agencies are required to provide this role. Below are some of the
circumstances when particular agencies have operational involvement.
Police Service of Northern Ireland: Leading organisation in the implementation of the Joint
Protocol. Flags and emblems of a proscribed organization; where disorder is likely to occur;
Roads Service of the Department for Regional Development: On or adjacent to a public
road
Northern Ireland Housing Executive: On Housing Executive Property; as part of a broad
environmental improvement project; Where requested by local representatives
Department of the Environment Planning Services: In relation to advertisements
regarding private property
Local Council: On council owned property such as facilities and amenities
NIE: On Northern Ireland Electricity equipment
BT and other Telecommunications Companies: On own property
3. Interrelated Human Rights
In relation to the flying of flags and the restrictions that may be placed upon such displays,
there are several international human rights obligations which may be pertinent.
• Right to Culture/ Cultural Identity
• Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
• Freedom of expression 6 There is some debate in regards to whether UVF with the date 1912/1913 are historical rather than proscribed
21
• Right to Equality & Non- Discrimination
• Right to Property
• Right to Family and Private Life
• Promotion of Tolerance, Mutual Respect and Understanding
• Protection of Minorities
There are specific human rights instruments which may enable or restrict the ability to
display flags in the public space such as
• Human Rights Act 1998
• European Convention Human Rights
• International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966
4. Policy Context on Display of Flags in Public Space (NI) Joint Protocol in relation to
the Display of Flags in Public Areas (for full version see Appendix 4)
The first policy document to explicitly deal with the contentious display of flags, was ‘The
Joint Protocol In Relation To the Display of Flags in Public Areas’ (2005). This aimed to
provide a basis on which the removal of all flags from arterial routes and town centres could
be dealt with effectively. It included
• the removal of all paramilitary flags and displays
• the control of the display of flags in certain areas
• the limitation on when flags could be flown and for how long
• to secure local agreement that tattered flags don’t enhance the local environment
The “Flags Protocol” is a joint agreement by
• Police Service of NI
• Department of Social Development
• Department of Regional Development - Roads Service
• Department of the Environment – Planning Services
• NI Housing Executive
• Office of the First Minister deputy First Minister
22
The Joint Flags Protocol references the need to ‘take cognisance of the contents of the
Human Rights Act 1998’ specifically referring to European Charter of Human rights,
including
Article 5 - Right to liberty and security.
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial.
Article 7 - No punishment without law.
Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 10 - Freedom of Expression.
Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination.
Protocol 1 of Article 1 - Protection of Property.
The “Flags Protocol” has never been fully implemented and it has been largely considered
ineffective in coordinating action by statutory bodies. Research by QUB also indicates that
there has been a lack of communication regarding the “Flags Protocol” with those either
displaying flags or those with responsibilities for their removal.
The implications of the absence of an implemented, co-ordinated and monitored “Flags
Protocol” are evident in the 2010 QUB Monitoring Report which indicates that about 30% of
flags remain up for longer than 3 months and the number of flags in absolute terms remains
relatively constant. In addition the location (outside public amenities), content and the length
of time they are on display are of significance.
This affects personal safety and access to public amenities, housing and workplaces.
Having now entered what is referred to as the “decade of commemorations” the issue of
flags, their location and duration of their display, is likely to become an ever greater issue.
The draft Cohesion, Sharing and Integration Strategy (2010) also highlighted the importance
of addressing the issue of flags and working for the removal of “threatening and divisive
symbols such as paramilitary flags, racist and sectarian graffiti, paramilitary murals and
territorial markers, where these are used in an attempt to intimidate.”
23
Part Two – Developing a Local Approach
As highlighted in the A Shared Future Policy document (2005), “legislation, whilst important,
is only one element of a comprehensive response. The removal of “inappropriate and
aggressive” displays of flags (specifically paramilitary flags and any other displays which
have the effect of intimidating or harassing) requires a collective response. It also
recognised that any approach to the management of displays of flags in the public space
requires an approach of a “common project with agencies working collaboratively with the
police, elected representatives and local communities as part of environmental
improvements with a view to enhancing the areas economically and building trust.”
1. Potential Principles
While this document is not intended to offer guidance on the official display of flags on
government or local authority buildings a useful starting point for those engaged in the
display or removal of flags in the public space is perhaps an examination of the official flag
flying protocols across the UK and Ireland. (See appendix 3) In relation to the display of
flags in the public space, the Community Relations Council would suggest that a useful
starting point should be developing core principles to shape and guide such a process.
Below are some of the core principles with have emerged through discussions with
stakeholders:
Overarching principle
In this multi-cultural society, rights have to be balanced by responsibilities. All celebrations of
identity must be lawful and those wishing to display flags or emblems in public space need
to be mindful of the potential impact this may have on community relations in the vicinity and
further afield. Everyone has a right to celebrate their culture but it is paramount
that all citizens should be able to enjoy a life free from provocation or intimidation.
Core Principles to shape approach and practice
• Acknowledge – freedom of expression and the importance of expressing cultural
identity in the public space/shared space in cities, towns and villages
• Respect – for governance, law procedures, appropriate authorities and citizens
24
• Cultural celebration – should acknowledge flags/symbols particularly significant for
those in community, and also challenging for others in the same community
• Consider – the perceptions and impacts of flag flying on others
• Recognise - the relevant rights and responsibilities but be mindful that these rights
are not absolute
• Ensure – that flags are treated with respect, from erection to removal and/or disposal
• Freedom from intimidation – those engaged in the display of flags in the public
space should ensure that the type, association and location of the flag and duration
of the display does not impinge on another’s freedom from intimidation
2. Developing Practice
Approaches and Local Protocols
Part one of this document set out the current legal and administrative arrangements. This
section attempts to highlight different approaches and practice.
CRC considers that any future overarching inter-agency action plan or Protocol that is
developed should take cognisance of the enhanced role of local councils following the
implementation of Local Government Reform specifically regarding
• the power of general competencies,
• the community planning model.
It is important to recognise that those within communities who engage in the display of flags
in public space are responsible for resulting actions. It is also important to recognise that
any approach requires attitudinal and behavioural shifts which can take a period of time to
develop. Central to the latter, attitude surveys conducted by Northern Ireland Life and Times
have consistently demonstrated that from 2006 onwards the majority (over 70%) of
respondees did not support the display of flags from lampposts in neighbourhoods.7
7 NILT, 2006, 2007,2008,2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 http://www.ark.ac.uk/nilt/results/comrel.html
25
In supporting those individuals, groups, organisations and agencies seeking to engage in
developing a local approach, agreement or negotiation, there are a broad range of examples
of differing approaches listed below
Approach
Agencies directly attempting to mediate and negotiate with those either directly responsible
or those that have lines of communication with those who are responsible for erecting flags
Engaging independent facilitators or mediators to facilitate agreements or removal
Developing local community relations/ cross community flags forums to bring a range of
actors around the table to discuss the issue of the contentious display of flags and seek
approaches through consensus to put in place resolutions
Developing single identity flags forums with council officers or political representatives acting
as conduits to agree dates for flag flying and their removal
Developing local community flags protocols which have an informal standing.
Putting in place programmes to increase community capacity and create dialogue
opportunities regarding perspectives on flag flying
Supporting the establishment of community/residents groups within areas where internal flag
flying was high to enable members of the wider community to have a voice regarding the
nature of the flag flying with those responsible for their erection.
Developing formal flags protocols at the district council level
The merits of developing an effective approach include:
• Direct engagement helps to build relationships with key community representatives
and develops engagement on contentious issues
• Provision of incentives to communities to consider alternatives to both the flying of
flags associated with proscribed organisations and the flying of flags without
permission could support engagement and dialogue
26
• Ensures all relevant stakeholders are involved
• Supporting and enabling local agreements to be reached
• Ensures equal treatment of all community affiliated flags
• Engages those who erect flags and who may not normally be involved in formal
protocols
• Skilled impartial external mediators can support resolution and agreement
• Inter-agency approaches can support cohesive, joined up approach and
communication.
There are of course challenges involved in developing an effective approach. Whilst those
noted below may not be mitigated in their entirety, they should be given due consideration to
enable steps to be taken to attempt to address them.
Some challenges identified may include:
• Sustaining engagement with key individuals and wider community
• Ensuring incentives provided to stimulate dialogue and agreement regarding the
display of flags do not become misused
• Cost and resource implications for those engaged
• Lack of strong leadership either at community or statutory level
• Difficult to both firstly achieve and then maintain local agreements
• Lack of awareness and ownership either for the display of flags or those with
responsibility for the removal at local level
• Some community representatives not being engaging of having limited desire to
engage in discussions or action to manage the display of flags
• Role of media in reporting stories accurately
• Ensuring strong and consistent support of local elected representatives
• The imposing of a generic protocol across the district council area could be
counterproductive and divisive.
Other matters for consideration
While there are many positive examples to address these issues what has clearly emerged
is that there is a lack of consistency of approach across the region between district councils.
While it is important to recognise that a one size fits all approach may not be appropriate, the
lack of a consistent approach is also problematic. Where change has been attempted,
27
progress has been dependent on a number of factors:
• the scale and scope of the level of such displays
• the relationships between individuals within community and/or between agencies at a
local level
• the demographic features within areas
• understanding both at community and statutory level of the current Joint Flags
Protocol
• level or appetite for creating change
• current local and/or regional political and social environment.
Through discussions engaged in the development of this guide it emerged that there is a
broad consensus that some form regulation is required, but limited agreement on what
shape or form regulation should or could take.
Also whilst there is clearly a significant level of activity taking place to support resolving
contentious flag flying, the necessity for a an overarching protocol for all agencies and their
officers to work within remains critical.
3. Key Agencies who could contribute to developing a local approach
The Community Relations Council recognises that there are a broad range of organisations,
departments and agencies that have a remit for managing the display and removal of flags
in the public space. It is recognised that to ensure dialogue and discussions, agreements
and actions are carried out in an effective way requires the engagement within a coordinated
approach and process.
In developing a localised approach in addition to those with an operational involvement
remit, it would be useful to also seek representation from key organisations that could
provide support and guidance to the development of any process (see appendix 6).
4. Further Information and support
While this document seeks to provide information to support those engaged at a practical
level in this area, there are other external issues that need to be included. A core element to
the success of any initiatives will be the existence of significant political and community
leadership and commitment at all levels. This must be actively and sincerely demonstrated.
28
This political and community leadership needs to bring forward a new vision to enable the
important right of celebration of identity and culture to be assured, but which also protects
others where such displays transcend beyond these rights and become an overt display of
territory, intimidation, threat and power. If such actions are not taken, these displays will be
persistently damaging to the economic and tourism potential of our society, and if cannot find
resolution our communities and society will continue to be caught in the legacy of the past,
from which there will be no escape even for future generations.
We have a finite opportunity to tackle, address and overcome these issues. It will require to
us all to make difficult accommodations, but it is imperative that we seize this opportunity to
ensure a positive legacy for all our futures.
29
Appendix 1: Policies of Northern Ireland Councils (Belfast City Council Policy on the
Flying of the Union Flag EQIA June 2012
Union flag flown
Council Frequency Location Alternative policy
1 Antrim every day 2 buildings
2 Ards every day HQ + 4 other
buildings
3 Armagh designated days HQ
4 Ballymena every day HQ + 2 other
buidlings
5 Ballymoney designated +2 3 buildings
6 Banbridge every day HQ
7 Carrickfergus every day HQ
8 Castlereagh every day HQ
9 Coleraine every day
when building is in use
2 buildings
10 Cookstown No flags
11 Craigavon designated + others HQ + others
12 Derry No flags
13 Down Neutral flag
14 Dungannon designated HQ
15 Fermanagh No flags
16 Larne every day HQ
17 Limavady No flags
18 Lisburn designated +2 HQ
19 Magherafelt No flags
20 Moyle No flags
21 Newry &
Mourne
No flags
22 Newtownabbey every day every building
23 North Down every day 3 buildings
24 Omagh Neutral flag
25 Strabane No flags
30
Appendix 2: Terrorism Act 2000 Part II Section 3 Proscription
(1) For the purposes of this Act an organisation is proscribed if—
(a) it is listed in Schedule 2, or
(b) it operates under the same name as an organisation listed in that Schedule.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) shall not apply in relation to an organisation listed in Schedule 2 if its
entry is the subject of a note in that Schedule.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order—
(a) add an organisation to Schedule 2;
(b) remove an organisation from that Schedule;
(c) amend that Schedule in some other way.
(4) The Secretary of State may exercise his power under subsection (3)(a) in respect of an
organisation only if he believes that it is concerned in terrorism.
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4) an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it—
(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
(b) prepares for terrorism,
(c) promotes or encourages terrorism, or
(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.
(5A) The cases in which an organisation promotes or encourages terrorism for the purposes
of subsection (5)(c) include any case in which activities of the organisation—
(a) include the unlawful glorification of the commission or preparation (whether in the
past, in the future or generally) of acts of terrorism; or
(b) are carried out in a manner that ensures that the organisation is associated with
statements containing any such glorification.
(5B) The glorification of any conduct is unlawful for the purposes of subsection (5A) if there
are persons who may become aware of it who could reasonably be expected to infer that
what is being glorified, is being glorified as—
(a) conduct that should be emulated in existing circumstances, or
(b) conduct that is illustrative of a type of conduct that should be so emulated.
31
(5C)In this section—
• “glorification” includes any form of praise or celebration, and cognate expressions are
to be construed accordingly;
• “statement” includes a communication without words consisting of sounds or images
or both.
(6) Where the Secretary of State believes—
(a) that an organisation listed in Schedule 2 is operating wholly or partly under a
name that is not specified in that Schedule (whether as well as or instead of under
the specified name), or
(b) that an organisation that is operating under a name that is not so specified is
otherwise for all practical purposes the same as an organisation so listed, he may, by
order, provide that the name that is not specified in that Schedule is to be treated as
another name for the listed organisation.
(7) Where an order under subsection (6) provides for a name to be treated as another name
for an organisation, this Act shall have effect in relation to acts occurring while—
(a) the order is in force, and
(b) the organisation continues to be listed in Schedule 2,
as if the organisation were listed in that Schedule under the other name, as well as
under the name specified in the Schedule.
(8) The Secretary of State may at any time by order revoke an order under subsection (6) or
otherwise provide for a name specified in such an order to cease to be treated as a name for
a particular organisation.
(9) Nothing in subsections (6) to (8) prevents any liability from being established in any
proceedings by proof that an organisation is the same as an organisation listed in Schedule
2, even though it is or was operating under a name specified neither in Schedule 2 nor in an
order under subsection (6)
32
Appendix 3: Terrorism Act 2000 – Schedule 2 Proscribed Organisations (Full List)
Egyptian Islamic
Jihad
Lashkar e Tayyaba Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(Partiya Karkeren Kurdistan)
(PKK)
Al Ittihad Al Islamia
Al-Gama’at al-
Islamiya
Liberation Tigers of
Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Revolutionary Peoples’
Liberation Party—Front
(Devrimci Halk Kurtulus Partisi-
Cephesi) (DHKP-C)
Ansar Al Islam
Armed Islamic Group
(Groupe Islamique
Armée)(GIA)
The military wing of
Hizballah, including
the Jihad Council
and all units
reporting to it
(including the
Hizballah External
Security
Organisation).
Basque Homeland and Liberty
(Euskadi ta Askatasuna) (ETA)
Ansar Al Sunna
Salafist Group for Call
and Combat (Groupe
Salafiste pour la
Prédication et le
Combat) (GSPC)
Hamas-Izz al-Din
al-Qassem
Brigades
17 November Revolutionary
Organisation (N17)
Groupe Islamique
Combattant Marocain
Babbar Khalsa Palestinian Islamic
Jihad—Shaqaqi
Abu Sayyaf Group Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami
International Sikh
Youth Federation
Abu Nidal
Organisation
Asbat Al-Ansar Harakat-ul-Jihad-ul-Islami
(Bangladesh)
Harakat Mujahideen Islamic Army of
Aden
Islamic Movement of
Uzbekistan
Al-Ghurabaa
Al-Qa’ida Lashkar-e Jhangvi Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan
Islamic Jihad Union Jamaat ul-Furquan Jundallah Khuddam ul-Islam
The Saved Sect Baluchistan
Liberation Army
Teyrebaz Azadiye Kurdistan. Jammat-ul Mujahideen
Bangladesh
Tehrik Nefaz-e
Shari'at Muhammadi
33
Appendix 4: Joint Protocol in Relation to the Display of Flags in Public Areas
1.0. INTRODUCTION
1.1 The display of flags, in the Northern Ireland context, is an emotive issue, which has
existed for some time. Flags may be used for many purposes which can include:
(a) celebration of cultural identity;
(b) marking a festive event;
(c) sectarianism or intimidation;
(d) marking out of territory.
1.2 The use of flags in instances such as celebration or festivity are not normally an
issue. However, the use of flags for other more sinister purposes is of more concern
and is unacceptable in a peaceful and tolerant society.
1.3 The issue of flags supporting proscribed organisations is clearer in that the display of
such flags is illegal. What can be less clear is what constitutes such a flag in the
eyes of the law.
1.4 Often the reason for the display of flags is perceived in different ways by different
members of the community. What seems perfectly acceptable to one side is an
insult or worse to the other side.
1.5 There are often misconceptions regarding the powers of police and other agencies in
dealing with flags issues. In particular, police are mainly concerned with the display
of flags supporting proscribed organisations, where flags are likely to cause a breach
of the Peace or for other possible criminal intent. It is reasonable to say that in
recent times there has been a willingness, in some areas, to adopt a new attitude to
the display of flags and related issues, which has helped improve the environment in
these areas. However, there are many examples of aggressive displays which aim
to intimidate and harass.
1.6 This protocol sets out an agreed partnership approach in dealing with flags issues
between the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Department of the Environment,
Department for Regional Development, Department for Social Development, Office of
34
the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the Northern Ireland Housing
Executive. In time it is hoped that all local councils will examine this protocol and
adopt it as a way forward for the community in Northern Ireland.
2.0 JOINT AIMS
2.1 To improve the environment by removing the display of paramilitary flags or flags of a
sectarian nature.
2.2 To develop a partnership approach, which allows the agencies involved to impact on
the flags issue in a cohesive manner.
2.3 To develop a strategic and graduated response to the flags issue which involves
consultation, shared understanding, negotiation and, if necessary, proportionate and
legal use of enforcement methods.
2.4 To provide a proactive approach, with the support of communities and their
representatives, to address:
• The removal of all flags and emblems from arterial routes and town centres;
• The removal of all paramilitary flags and displays;
• The control of displays of flags and emblems in particular areas: e.g.: mixed and
interface areas and near buildings such as schools, hospitals, places of worship and
community halls;
• Flag flying should be limited to particular times and particular dates; and that:
• where flags are displayed for a festive or other occasion, that the display
is reasonably time-bounded and that:
• flags, including plastic ties, tape and poles, should be removed by the
community after the agreed period;
• To encourage communities to accept that flags displayed which are tattered and torn
or discoloured do not enhance the environment and should be removed.
3.0 CORE ISSUES
3.1 This protocol and any actions arising therefrom will take cognisance of the contents
of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, in particular:
35
Article 5 - Right to liberty and security.
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial.
Article 7 - No punishment without law.
Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life.
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.
Article 10 - Freedom of Expression.
Article 14 - Prohibition of Discrimination.
Protocol 1 of Article 1 - Protection of Property.
3.2 In particular, any actions under this protocol must be necessary, proportionate and
legal in line with the general principles of Human Rights.
3.3 Whichever agency is placed in the most effective position to consult, negotiate or
resolve situations will take the lead and will be supported by the other partners within
their remit and specialism. Where the display is one that is causing community
tension or is affecting the quality of life for a community, then the police will take the
lead.
3.4 In addition, in carrying out their functions under this protocol, the various partners will
take cognisance of their statutory duties under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act
1998 and, in particular, their duty of promoting good relations between persons of
different religious belief, political opinion or racial group.
3.5 Each partner agrees to keep other partners abreast of changes in policy, operations
or actions, which may affect this protocol or operational decisions deriving from it.
3.6 Each partner will provide its support or services, for operational action, within its own
budgets in a spirit of mutual operational support.
4.0 KEY RESPONSIBILITIES
4.1 The Police Service will support partners and, where best placed, will take forward
consultation and negotiation with local community representatives where the display
of flags is an issue.
36
4.2 Where necessary, the Police Service will take the lead in the removal of flags where
the partner agency is unable to take action, and where negotiation and consultation
have failed or where such items must be seized as evidence for Court purposes.
4.3 Where other partners seek to remove flags and any disorder or other criminality is
evident or likely to occur, the Police Service will provide support or take the lead,
where appropriate.
4.4 Where the Police Service seek to take action or initiate prosecution regarding flags
issues, partner agencies will provide any evidential material, which they have, to
support such action or prosecution.
4.5 Roads Service, when called upon by a lead Agency, will provide partnership support
facilities such as Mobile Extendable Working Platforms (‘Tower Wagons’) to take
down unwanted flags that have been agreed but not removed by the community
themselves.
4.6 The Northern Ireland Housing Executive will take the lead where it is proposed to
address the removal of flags as part of a broader environmental improvement project;
or where requested by local community representatives.
4.7 The role of the DOE Planning services in relation to flags will stem from the
application of the Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations (NI) 1992 and
action will be taken, in consultation with the PSNI and other partner agencies, where
circumstances permit.
5.0 INFORMATION EXCHANGE
5.1 Each partner agrees to provide relevant and necessary information to other partner
agencies, to support actions being taken in relation to flags issues.
5.2 The exchange of information will be subject to confidentiality, where so indicated.
5.3 No exchange of information will take place where this is likely to contravene the Data
Protection Act, or similar legislation or a confidentiality agreement.
37
6.0 MEASURING SUCCESS
6.1 It is difficult to measure success in these matters as a result of this protocol and its
operation. There are many extraneous factors, which can influence these situations.
6.2 The qualitative measure of success will be an improvement in the environment
leading towards a more peaceful and tolerant society.
6.3 Quantitative measures may include the number of complaints regarding flags, the
number removed voluntarily, the number removed by enforcement and the number of
prosecutions.
7.0 REVIEW
7.1 This protocol will be subject to review after its first year or earlier if necessary.
38
Appendix 5: Official Flag Flying Protocols
1. UK England, Scotland and Wales
In England, Wales or Scotland the flying of flags is not the subject of statute law. However
responsibility for issuing guidance on the flying of national flags on government buildings
falls to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS apart from those which are the
responsibility of a devolved administration. There are 15 appointed days each year and 4
additional saints’ days when the Union Flag is flown in the respective units of the UK, in
England there are 16 days, including St George’s Day.
Additionally the Union Flag is flown for the State Opening of Parliament and the prorogation.
The Union Flag may be flown on all days of the year from government buildings and is also
flown for visiting Heads of State or the death of Heads of State. When Parliament is sitting,
the Union Flag is flown from the Victoria Tower of the Palace of Westminster. The Union
Flag is not flown while Parliament is in recess and will only be hoisted on the appointed
days.
2. Republic of Ireland
The Department of the Taoiseach has general responsibility in relation to the National Flag
and is primarily concerned with the protocol for the flying of the flag and its role as such
therefore, is an advisory one.
Guidance from the Department of the Taoiseach also details that when the National Flag has
become worn or frayed it is no longer fit for display, and should not be used in any manner
implying disrespect.
It further details that the National Flag should be displayed in the open only between sunrise
and sunset, except on the occasion of public meetings, processions, or funerals, when it
may be displayed for the duration of such functions.
It is the normal practice to fly the National Flag daily at all military posts and from a limited
number of important State buildings. The specified dates that the National Flag is flown on
St Patrick’s Day (the National Holiday), Easter Sunday and Easter Monday (in
39
commemoration of the Rising of 1916), and the National Day of Commemoration on the
Sunday closest to 11 July (the date of the Anglo-Irish Truce in 1921).
On these occasions the National Flag is flown from all State buildings throughout the country
which are equipped with flagpoles. However it is also flown on the occasion of other
significant national and local events such as festivals and commemorations.
3. Northern Ireland
In Northern Ireland the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000 came into force on 11 November
2000 and gave the Secretary of State the power under Article 3(1) ‘to make regulations
regulating the flying of flags at government buildings ’which would remain in force for as long
as the Order was in force’. Under Article 3(2) a “government building” is defined as a building
wholly or mainly occupied by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service.
Article 2(1) of the regulations state that ‘the Union Flag shall be flown at the government
buildings specified in Part I of the Schedule to these Regulations on the days specified in
Part II of the Schedule’. Part I of the Schedule is a list of specified government buildings on
which the Union Flag must be flown and Part II of the Schedule refers to the days on which
the Union Flag must be flown. The flying of flags at government buildings, otherwise stated
in the Regulations, is prohibited.
40
Appendix 6: Additional Agencies and Organisations that could contribute to
developing a localised approach
Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Department for Social Development
Department of Agriculture and Rural Development
Department of Justice
Department of the Environment – Planning Service
Arts Council of Northern Ireland
Parades Commission
Community Relations Council
Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission
Equality Commission Northern Ireland
Department of Education and Local Education and Library Boards
BT and other telecommunications providers
Policing and Community Safety Partnerships
Local District Councils
41
Annex 2
Parades and Protests
42
Introduction
A fundamental challenge facing a society emerging from conflict is to move from antagonism
to a peace based on real justice for all, trust, and recognition of the value of diversity and the
contribution to be made by people from different backgrounds.
There are a number of what CRC has called matters of culture, touching on allegiance,
identity and security, which ‘have the capacity to draw whole groups into hostility and set off
a cycle of action and reaction which gives fuel to deeper fears and angers’. Parades are one
of these matters of culture that can have a significant impact on community relations. For
many, parades play an important role in cultural celebration, remembrance and
commemoration, yet there some parades that remain sources of dispute and have the
potential to threaten peace, stability, prosperity and the creation of a shared and better future
for all. The recent Peace Monitoring Report (Nolan 2013) highlighted that the ‘continuing
absence of any agreed strategy for flags, parades or dealing with the past left the political
establishment vulnerable’, and that ‘public order and the rule of law was undermined by the
lack of shared commitment to existing institutions like the Parades Commission and by the
absence of clear agreed understandings on the legislation governing public protest’.
Parading and its associated problems is a concern not just for those parading and those
protesting, but for the entire community. The contested nature of some parades and
protests are a symptom of much wider issues, but also a contributory factor to them. It is
critical that we seek to resolve the deep underlying issues which continue to produce cultural
antagonism. Cultural displays need to be entirely free of intimidation and threat to any
person or community. Protests need to be peaceful and based on a respect for the people
on parade and their rights. Freedom of speech and peaceful assembly should be a reality
which everyone enjoys, without fearing that their safety or their fundamental rights are at
risk.
Context
These talks offer a new opportunity for dialogue for civic and political society to agree a new
tone and understanding of parading. The North Inquiry (1997) established the current
structures to adjudicate on parades. There has been mixed reaction to the Parades
Commission and this has resulted in calls for either a new structure or new legislation. The
43
Strategic Review in 2008 and the 2010 public consultation on a proposed Public Assemblies
and Protest Bill struggled to achieve an alternative consensus based solution8.
Furthermore, we are now in a very intense period of remembering. This comprises the
‘Decade of Centenaries’ but also the very recent past. It is this recentness and the fact that
we have not yet been able to reach a consensus on how we deal with the past that could
prove very difficult in terms of parading. The recent parading dispute in Castlederg revealed
the complexity of feelings around parading such as the deep trauma experienced by a small
community as well as the desire for individuals and groups to remember. The emotions that
transpire at these events reveal the hearts and minds issues that need to be tackled as well.
Next Steps
What needs to happen over the next few months? CRC believes the Panel of Parties talks
offer a critical opportunity. If parading is to be resolved, we need to see a new climate of
accommodation and tolerance which impacts on public space, cultural celebration and our
cultural and educational institutions.
These deliberations should be far-reaching and enable a diversity of voices to speak into the
debate. It would be particularly useful to hear from groups who whilst not directly involved in
arranging parades or protest can experience both positive and negative impacts. CRC has
links with a range of groups, either directly or through signposting, and we would be keen to
facilitate such meetings with the working group.
CRC Contribution
Our submission sets out Council’s involvement in assisting others to find solutions to
problems surrounding parades and protests, and will highlight key policy comments made by
CRC under a number of key headings. Finally, the submission will draw attention to some
other issues that need to be considered by those involved in the Panel of Parties talks.
8CRC has made policy comment in submissions to OFMDFM’s Public Assemblies, Parades and Protests Bill (2010); the Strategic Review of Parades (2007 & 2008); and an evidence session with the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in relation to the Quigley report.
44
CRC Policy Position
The following section will outline the Council’s key policy positions regarding this issue.
Protection of Human Rights
It is the task of a democratic society to seek to ensure that the rights of everyone are upheld
and respected at all times. Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the
Right of Freedom of Peaceful Assembly9, must be upheld and should be the basis for any
discussion on parades.
The role for community relations is to bridge the complicated and misinterpreted landscape
and legislation and take us beyond stalemate.
Community Engagement
Local communities are a crucial element in this search for a solution. CRC advocates
support for structures and programmes of engagement that build support and understanding
at a community level. This should include an understanding of the relevant human rights
obligations, as well as the restrictions and limitations that may be placed on these rights if
they affect the rights of others. This rights and responsibility discourse needs to be
widespread right across civic society.
Mediation
If the right to assembly is questioned then mediation will play an important function, both at a
formal and informal level. Protecting the freedom of peaceful assembly can be achieved by
minimal enforcement or arbitrary regulation and CRC would prefer a strong emphasis on
participatory regulation, compromise, negotiation and increased understanding as the basis
for moving forward.
CRC is strongly supportive of local discussion, local agreement, and formal mediation as a
way towards resolving disputes. Therefore CRC wants any solution to maximise
opportunities for dialogue as well as enabling different methods of interventions. Ideally we 9 http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf
45
need a model which allows sustained mediation. CRC does not believe that mediation
should only be applied in extreme circumstances, or centred on the containment or
management of emergency situation; rather, it should be applied throughout the year to
assist dialogue and negotiation around these thorny issues.
Finally, local accommodation is best built when all parties are sure that agreements reached
are just and fair and fit a framework of principles which is agreed and applies universally to
all.
Mediators
Mediators have a critical role to play. The involvement of mediators can help instigate
dialogue or help sustain contact either at key stages of the process or at specific times of
tension. It is therefore important that mediators are trained to a professional standard and
are acceptable to communities as honest brokers. CRC believes that appointment should
be through an open and transparent process, compliant with advertising standards and
accessible to a wide range of qualified mediators. Additionally, good quality training for
mediators should be provided alongside a robust monitoring and evaluation service to keep
abreast of issues, assess impact and constantly improve on service.
Adjudications
In the absence of agreement on cultural issues the legal framework must come into play.
The development of a law10 for parades and protests is basically a substitute for agreement,
and as it stands it remains focused on managing rather that resolving the wider issues.
CRC believes that when no solution is forthcoming then the adjudications of parades and
protests must be clearly based on a rights approach. Adjudications should be framed in a
consistent and transparent manner in which the balance of rights and international
obligations applied in each case is explicitly identified.
It is important that there is clarity on competing rights. In spite of years of decision-making,
the issue of the balance of rights to be applied in relation to parading remains contested and
it is therefore imperative that determinations should seek to create greater consistency and
10 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/2/crossheading/general-regulation-of-public-processions
46
clarity around the issues of competing rights. There are obvious roles here for statutory and
non-statutory organisations in helping to raise public awareness about the rights framework
relating to peaceful assembly and the rights of others.
Adjudicating Structures
In the absence of voluntary agreements and the continued contentious issue of parading in
Northern Ireland CRC believes that an adjudicating body is probably still needed. It should
be independent and impartial. Membership should be drawn up through an open and
transparent process, and any appointments made should meet the highest standards of
public appointments and consistent with OCPANI guidance. Finally the body should be
broadly reflective the whole community.
Monitors
Monitors play an important role in supporting those who have organised a parade or protest,
and the information they feedback can be used to improve future parades/protests. Monitors
should be independent and should be required to adhere to a Code of Conduct11.
Young People
Finally special attention should be paid to young people. Too often young people are caught
up at parade flashpoints and blamed for creating tension. It would be appropriate for the
Panel of Parties to proactively seek to engage with young people and those who work with
and support young people to ensure their views are captured during this important period.
Long-term, relevant bodies should engage with young people’s groups and organisations,
and specifically young people themselves, throughout the year to help protect them during
period of communal tension.
11Code of conduct of the Network of Independent Monitors in the Cape Town Model these include: be committed to the principles of the UN Declaration of Human Rights; be committed to independent monitoring; be accessible to all parties being monitored; pledge to promote peace and work to end violence; be committed to non-violent action and methods of monitoring; report truthfully and accurately on situations; strive to act confidently, calmly and diplomatically; display sensitivity and empathy for the vulnerability of victims of violence; respect the need for confidentiality; not publicly display any party preference (in word, by action or by wearing party badges or clothing) while monitoring; Democratic Dialogue;
http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/dd/report12/report12b.htm
47
The above section has reflected on various positions CRC has taken over the years in
relation to parading and protest. Fundamentally there is a need to protect the right to
assembly, and to ensure all efforts are made to uphold this right. The invoking or restricting
of this right to protect the rights of others is another critical element. How decisions are
taken regarding any restrictions should be clear and concise thus creating an opportunity for
enhanced understanding and acceptance. Finally interventions that can help find a local
resolution are critical and must be supported on an ongoing basis.
Support and Intervention
The CRC has a long history of involvement in the parading issue. Our approach is multi-
dimensional and consists of supporting organisations and communities to engage on the
hard questions, either through direct involvement or providing grant-aid to support this
work12. This developmental work has the potential to result in positive outcomes such as
building trust between parade organisers, police, and the wider community including
residents and business community. (Current CRC support is listed in Appendix A). At other
times the work has to be halted due to tensions at local level, but at all times the opportunity
for dialogue remains the goal.
Yet, despite progressive interventions and local solutions13 it is very clear the issue is not
easily solved, and quite often solutions remain fragile. Yet, it is important to note that there
have been significant achievements. Much of this has taken place behind the scenes and
often goes unreported (perhaps only those involved will know the true efforts). Therefore it
can be quite difficult to list successes in the apprehension of breaking confidences. Yet,
there are some that have been indentified for the purposes of research and are in the public
domain. It would be useful to reflect on these models of good practice during these
negotiations.
Other matters for consideration
This section will quickly draw attention to a number of issues that should be examined over
the coming months.
12CRC has, and continues to support and work on issues relating to parades and protests; in particular our core grant and small grant schemes have invested money directly in mediation, research and broader conversations of cultural diversity e.g. Peace and Reconciliation Group (PRG), Mediation Northern Ireland, Ulster Band Association as well as Diversity Challenges.
13 Apprentice Boys Parades in Derry/Londonderry, Covenant Parade 2012, St Patrick’s Day Parade Belfast.
48
Tensions
Outside of the legal and human rights setting is the practice of parading in NI. It is this
practice, which can be most damaging to community relations. Some dispute the use of
community relations as a consideration in the adjudication process yet as it stands this is
within the parameters of the legislation. It would therefore be useful to discuss how human
rights and community relations are used in the parading discourse and how this could be
improved. There is no denying that the fall out of contentious and un-resolved parading
requests can have disastrous effects on both local and wider community relations. We must
find a new way of having this debate without positioning human rights and community
relations against each other.
Dialogue
Outside the legal framework, it is sustained engagement and dialogue that can ameliorate
tensions. This dialogue does not happen by itself. Sometimes, like these Panel of Parties
talks themselves, it requires an external voice, a fixer, who can keep the channels open. It is
a local negotiating tool that needs time to build trust and understanding.
During the talks period it would be extremely important that participants hear from a range of
communities who have successfully managed to work out an agreement. It would be
beneficial to reflect on:
• how inclusive talks were achieved;
• what guided successful interventions;
• how everyone remained at the table at difficult periods - what and who kept the talks
focused;
• what values and principles were agreed from the outset and what commitment they
gave one another.
None of the above is new. This dialogue will continue to happen regardless of what comes
out of these talks but it would be useful to look at how it works in other areas, who is at the
table, who keeps them at the table, mechanisms for dealing with disputes, and the long term
49
vision of those present. It will certainly not be a one size fits all, but it is a sound structure for
making further progress. The dialogue element of dealing with the parading issue cannot be
over-emphasised and the effects of non-participation can have disastrous effects.
If adjudication is required it would be good practice if the body not only received
representations but also actively sought to hear from a wide range of stakeholders in the
area.
Rights and Responsibilities
The language of parading and protests is heavily weighted with ‘losing’, ‘winning’, ‘not being
allowed’. Yet what seems to be missing from this discourse is that with rights comes
responsibilities. Whilst there might be a growing recognition that everyone has rights it can
frequently result in a prioritisation of rights conversation resulting in a debate on who has
more rights, or whose right is more important. We need to find a better way of enhancing an
understanding of these issues – developing this base could open new opportunities for local
engagement and mediation.
Shared Space
CRC defines shared space as a space that is welcoming, accessible and safe. It would be
helpful if the discussions sought to focus on how the rights of different identities are
facilitated in different spaces e.g. commercial verses residential.
In having this conversation CRC would draw the group’s attention to the legislation and
practice in Scotland. Glasgow City Council’s Policy and Code of Conduct on Public
Processions14 sets out some of the following conditions i.e. only allowing parades between
7.30am – 9.00pm; no music played before 9.00am and after 6.00pm (further restrictions may
be required after considering the type of premises on the proposed route e.g. residential
developments, places of worship(irrespective of whether a service is in progress), football
grounds and public houses); the presumption is that processions will avoid residential areas
and should, where practical, keep to main arterial routes; and organisers are required to
detail reasons why it is necessary to pass through the city centre.
Impromptu Assembly
14 http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=6918
50
CRC’s response to OFMDFM’s consultation on Public Assemblies, Parades & Protest Bill
(Northern Ireland) raised the importance of being able to arrange an impromptu assembly.
CRC was concerned at the proposed restriction of 50 people and believed any move to
restrict this spontaneous practice could have unintended consequences. In the past CRC
has supported numerous gatherings which have had a community relations focus. These
are both necessary and legitimate events for a democratic society and CRC would be
uneasy about changes that would extend the role of the criminal law into new areas, with
potential consequences for community relations.
Law & Order
The parties need to discuss how they can come together collectively as one voice to
condemn attacks on law and order. Civic society wants to hear a united strong voice from
the political leadership of the Assembly. Too often that collective voice is absent and
emerges as a fragmented message. It would be extremely positive, if coming out of these
talks, the parties would commit to developing and publishing a ‘statement of expectation’
along with other strategic stakeholders in advance of the parade season.
Conclusion
In the context of international human rights standards and obligations the CRC believes that
the parading and protests issue can be resolved. A new climate of accommodation and
tolerance impacting on public space, cultural celebration and our cultural and educational
institutions could have far-reaching achievements.
51
Appendix A: CRC Support and Intervention
• Interaction
• Institute of Conflict Research
• React
• North Belfast Interface Network
• Peace & Reconciliation Group
• Belfat Interface Project
• Intercomm
• Ballynafeigh Community Development Association
• Groundwork
• LINC
• Rural Community Network
Often the work these organisations are engaged in parading as a specific issue, or can
involve work of a more single-identity nature which includes working with Bands Fora to
provide them with the skills to manage parades and minimise negative impacts.
52
Annex 3
Dealing with the past
53
Background
In 1998 the Agreement 15cemented the values of reconciliation and mutual respect in an
international peace treaty.
In the Declaration of Support, the signatories committed themselves to ‘partnership, equality
and mutual respect as the basis of relationships within Northern Ireland, between North and
South, and between these islands’. There was a specific reference to the tragedies of the
past with the following commitment made:
‘We must never forget those who have died or been injured, and their families. But
we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves
to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust, and to the protection
and vindication of the human rights of all’.
In addition to this the signatories to the Agreement committed themselves to ongoing actions
in relation to reconciliation and victims of violence and ‘recognised that victims have a right
to remember as well as to contribute to a changed society’.
The aftermath of the Agreement witnessed many political ups and downs, with intermittent
devolved and direct rule administration. However, the current devolved administration has
given society new hope that power-sharing in government can work and that reconciliation
may be possible. What this all points to is that political stability brings with it many
expectations in relation to the development and implementation of public policy bringing the
possibility of real change to communities and personal life chances as well as to institutions
and structures. This has created a huge opportunity to tackle the legacy of division and to
create a cohesive, shared and integrated society, open and welcoming to all, resolving
conflicts on a purely peaceful basis. The Together: Building a United Community16 strategy
has emerged against the backdrop of years of community effort and an unsurpassed level of
international investment and in the context of an existing policy.
15 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/136652/agreement.pdf 16 http://www.ofmdfmni.gov.uk/together_building_a_united_community.pdf
54
Context
Recently there has been significant political and public interest, commentary and debate in
relation to the area of dealing with past. The symbolism derived from the increasing
discourse and analysis may be two-fold, either that the current approach has faltered or that
as a society we have reached an evolutionary point within the peace process whereby we
recognise that the necessity of addressing the issues of dealing with past can no longer be
deferred.
Yet the difficulty is that there is a lack of political and societal consensus as to how we
understand, interpret or address the past. Consequently, this indecision has resulted in a
piecemeal approach to dealing with very serious issues. The busy landscape of legislation,
structures and policy frameworks is reflected in a Strategy for Victims and Survivors (2009),
Commission for Victims and Survivors (2008), and the Victims and Survivors Service (2012)
which are all tasked with promoting the interests of victims and survivors and offering
financial support to individuals and groups.
Furthermore the critical issue of searching for truth recovery and justice is under the remit of
a number of bodies such as the Police Ombudsman (1998), the Historical Enquiries Team
(2006) and the Attorney General. In addition, Public Inquiries have also formed part of this
approach for dealing with this aspect of the past.
What has emerged, despite the spirit and intention of addressing some of the issues, is a
complex and complicated environment. This multi dimensional approach, with no over-
arching strategic intention or vision, has created a perception of paralysis. Merge this with
varying perspectives of the past e.g. drawing a line under the past, continued pursuit for truth
and/or justice, the development of truth commissions, the introduction of amnesties, or a
combination of a number of these and you quickly sense the magnitude of the task.
A growing number of matters and events have brought this area firmly back onto the political
and public agenda in relation to how we deal with components of the past, and the need for
an overarching framework, namely the HMIC Report into the Historical Enquiries Team, Civil
Service (Special Advisers) Bill17 , the Castlederg Volunteers commemoration, postponement
17 http://www.niassembly.gov.uk/Assembly-Business/Legislation/Current-Non-Executive-Bill-Proposals/Civil-Service-Special-Advisers-Bill/ and http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/inspection-of-the-police-service-of-northern-ireland-historical-enquiries-team-20130703.pdf
55
of plans for the Maze, the rejection of the call for an Omagh Public Inquiry and the releasing
of coroners’ reports into several conflict related deaths. These have brought to the fore
many of the issues of commemoration and remembering, reconciliation, truth recovery, re-
integration of prisoners and victims and survivors.
The combination of these with other legacy issues, such as flags, emblems, interfaces and
parades bring us to a difficult fork in peace process. It is likely that the very decisions that
are made will set the trajectory for how as a society we approach the multiple layers of the
past and critically how we go forward towards building a shared and cohesive society.
Within this context, the Community Relations Council (CRC) works to bring constructive and
balanced considerations, commentary and advice to the process of dealing with the past.
CRC – Contribution to the Discourse
CRC has been engaged in the issues stemming from the legacy of the past at a discourse,
policy development and funding delivery levels since its organisational formation. From this
the council has developed a considerable level of knowledge and practical experience in
relation to the sensitivity and challenges involved.
Policy
CRC’s overarching thinking, messages, recommendations and statements regarding the
legacy of the past is contained within the Council’s response to the Eames/Bradley
Consultative Group on the Past (2008). These comments continue to be pertinent to the
current discussions.
Primarily CRC believes that, as a society emerging from conflict, dealing with our troubled
and conflicted past is an unavoidable and necessary moral obligation. Whilst recognition
must be given to the huge political and societal progress the shadow of the past continues to
haunt the future. CRC believes that the legacy of the past must deal with the specific issues
of victims and survivors, and truth recovery and justice. However, we feel any solution must
embrace wider society. Sectarianism and division have not yet disappeared and continue to
impact on the present day; individuals, communities, towns, villages, the workplace and
service delivery continue to experience the social, economic, physical and emotional
legacies of the past. Unfortunately for too long public policy accepted the principle that we
56
are a divided society without acknowledgement or comment, 18 and Council has
subsequently argued for a ‘regional peace plan’. This has emerged in the shape of the
Together Building a United Community strategy and it is therefore important that
recommendations emerging from these current talks consider the current policy landscape.
What follows is a number of key policy positions that have shaped our thinking on how to
deal with the past:
• Support for victims and survivors groups must be needs-based and strategic, with
proper evaluation and distillation of good practice. (Whilst, it is recognised that
OFMdFM has responded to this recommendation through the establishment of the
Victims and Survivors Service, it is too soon to assess if this has been fully
achieved).
• Truth and justice should be pursued through appropriate formal legal structures.
• A process of truth recovery should combine bottom-up story-telling initiatives and a
Commission of Historical Clarification.
However the area of the legacy of the past should not be seen as one singular thematic area
but rather as a series of sub themes. Yet it is the culmination of the many issues in each of
these sub thematic areas that can give the perception that the issue of the legacy of the past
is intractable. CRC has put forward both commentary and recommendations in relation to a
number of areas including:
• Definition of a victim/survivor
• Processes for dealing with the past and/or truth recovery
• Structures
• Remembering
Definition of victims and survivors
Who is a victim? This issue frequently emerges as a thorny issue in political debates, and is
one that despite legislation seems the most intractable. CRC currently supports the current
definition as set out in the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006 as someone
who has been physically or psychologically injured as a result of a conflict-related incident;
18 CRC Submission to the Consultative Group on the Past 2008; http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/Response%20to%20Consultative%20Group%20on%20the%20Past%20-%2025%20Jan%2008.doc
57
someone who provides a substantial amount of care on a regular basis for a person who has
been physically or psychologically injured as a result of a conflict-related incident; and
someone who has been bereaved as a result of a conflict-related incident.
This lack of political consensus is unsettling. CRC is aware that the Commission for Victims
and Survivors have a number of forums with membership from the victims and survivors
community. These groups discuss a range of issues and it would be proper that those
engaged in the talks hear from this membership on this divisive issue.
Processes for dealing with the past and/or truth recovery
CRC believes that “dealing with the past is a process rather than an event and therefore
should be supervised by a commission” and our response to the Consultative Group on the
Past recommended that any commission should be independent of government in order to
ensure the credibility of the process based on the universal principles of democracy, human
rights and the rule of law.
Our response also reflected on HTR’s five options for dealing with the past19 which are
outlined below.
1. “Drawing a Line Under the Past” (essentially do nothing new)
2. Internal Organisational Investigations
3. Community-Based “Bottom-Up” Truth Recovery
4. A Truth-Recovery Commission
5. A Commission of Historical Clarification
CRC has advocated a combination of options three and five which included ‘bottom-up’ local
initiatives such as story-telling by victims allied to a ‘top-down’ Commission of Historical
Clarification. This Commission would focus on the broad sweep of the ‘troubles’ identifying
the differentiated responsibilities of a range of social actors with a view to preventing a
recurrence of large-scale violence in the future.
CRC also asserted that a ‘victim-centred’ approach, stemming from (option three) the
Community – Based “Bottom- Up” Truth Recovery, would allow stories to be told in public,
19 Kieran McEvoy, Making Peace with the Past: Options for Truth Recovery regarding the Conflict in and about Northern Ireland (Belfast: Healing Through Remembering, 2006, www.healingthroughremembering.org/images/pdf/Making%20Peace%20with%20the%20Past.pdf)
58
with appropriate counselling and support. This was preferred over (option four) a Truth
Recovery Commission as it “would suppress and restrict other valuable processes to be
pursued.”
In relation to Public Inquiries CRC noted its concern about the proposal that there should be
no more public inquiries, pointing out that the opportunity to find out the facts about what
happened to a loved one is profoundly important. CRC felt that disallowing public inquiries
was too absolute and would close this avenue for families wishing to pursue this approach –
CRC believe this should remain an option. CRC recommended that rather than concluding
that public inquiries should cease, the report should instead have made recommendations
on how to manage future inquiries.
The Council also stated that the work of the Historical Enquiries Team and the Police
Ombudsman should continue as vehicles to attaining truth and justice20 and the importance
of supporting mechanisms to continue to bring closure (the recent report on the HET has
raised issues which need to be addressed).
In relation to a proposed reconciliation forum a qualified welcome was made, though it was
noted that there was a potential risk of duplication and with this a need for clarity regarding
the role of the Commissioners for Victims and Survivors and the relationship between the
proposed Reconciliation Forum and that of the now established Victims Forum.
The overarching issue here is that whatever proposals are forthcoming from this current
initiative, there is a need to consider the work of other stakeholders.
Wider Society
This next section examines the issues that could have a positive impact on wider society and
support civic society to deal with the past.
20 CRC’s response to the NIO Dealing with the Past Committee http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/NIODealPast2009.pdf )
59
Remembering
With regard to the critical and topical question of how we remember, CRC’s and Heritage
Lottery Fund’s (HLF) ‘Remembering the Future’21 discussion paper makes a significant
contribution to this discussion. It indicates a number of components that could help frame
how we might approach this issue in an ethical and sensitive manner:
• We should approach anniversaries as an important opportunity to develop our
understanding of how such events could be marked in the public space.
• The principles that underpin this should aim for deepening understanding and
respect as well as a welcome for difference, complexity and debate.
• We should acknowledge that these centenaries are significant for all of us in different
ways, but also that the way in which we remember and mark them is not only
remembering ‘then’, but defining us ‘now’.
• We should recognise the importance of work within communities and initiatives which
provide opportunities for communities and groups to reflect on and address issues of
identity within a safe space and the value of promoting many particular contributions
to the public realm.
• Cultural displays should occur in the context of civil and political liberties and in
accordance with international human rights norms.
• The possibility of remembering ethically and in a global context should not be
overlooked.
This discussion paper is aligned to the Council of Europe’s “White Paper on Intercultural
Dialogue” (2008)22 which suggests that civic participation and dialogue are vital elements in
any healthy inter-cultural dialogue, and enables us to move forward together, to deal with our
different identities constructively and democratically on the basis of shared universal values.
The white paper states that “we also need to be mindful and provide opportunities to include
different perspectives and those that reflect the increased diversity in the population”, and
also highlights the need to recognise plurality and responsibility in remembrance or
commemoration in public space and to promote greater understanding of the complexity and
interest of complicated identities.
21 http://www.community-relations.org.uk/fs/doc/Remembering%20the%20future%20discussion%20paper.pdf 22 http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/white%20paper_final_revised_en.pdf
60
Day of Reflection
CRC has also made a number of recommendations in relation to more societal based
processes and mechanisms for remembering the past. These included support for Healing
through Remembering’s (HTR) Public Day of Reflection. This original private day has
become more public and whilst it has not received official status, it would be useful to
discuss how this day could be developed further. In discussing this it is important to ensure
it remains ‘inclusive and sensitive’ and that no one feels obliged to take part.
Memorials
In relation to memorials CRC has advocated that there should be a regional societal
memorial to mark the ‘troubles’, and that localised memorials should be framed in the
context of promoting shared space.
Understanding Plural Voices
Enabling a conversation about the past is critical. CRC feels that museums have a central
role in supporting this approach. CRC’s response to DCAL’s Draft Museum (2010)23
highlighted the role museums have in generating pluralist and reasoned debate about the
region’s past - ‘museums have the vital task of reflecting and reframing debates on key
issues and events, through demonstrating a commitment to plural voices, encouraging
active engagement with the stories and experiences of self and of others, and providing an
open, safe and shared context within which that discussion can be validated in the public
realm’.
Young People
Finally, research supported by CRC showed that there was an unsatisfied appetite among
young people for understanding the ‘troubles’ as such, as this period was seen as more
immediate to their lives and not simply history’.24 The research urged that there was a focus
23 DCAL—Draft Museums Policy’, at www.community-relations.org.uk/about’-the-council/background-info/policy-and-development/responses/2010. 24 John Bell, Ulf Hansson and Nick McCaffery, The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past (Belfast: CRC, 2010),
61
on ensuring the young people could ‘hear the perspective of the ‘other’ through historical
narratives about the recent past.25
CRC – Support and Intervention
In addition to contributing to the policy analysis and discourse, CRC has played a significant
role as a funding and development body, which has developed significant knowledge,
understanding, skills and experience at an organisational level.
25Ibid, 100
62
Funding
From 2002 – 2012 CRC acted as an Intermediate Funding Body for Victims and Survivors
Groups through OFMdFM funding (to groups working with victims and survivors) and more
recently managed Peace III funding stream 1.2 Acknowledging and Dealing with the Past
which encourages dialogue and participation through the sharing of practice, events,
conferences and seminars. This funding role has given the CRC members and staff great
awareness of the sensitivities and extreme difficulties associated with addressing the legacy
of the past both in relation to definition, approach, policy, and supporting initiatives.
Research
CRC has commissioned relevant research. A 2006 report entitled “Who Cares for the
Carers? (CRC 2006) highlighted the isolation and loneliness felt by carers (identified by
groups working with victims and survivors). Other findings in the report revealed that carers
involved in the study displayed high levels of burn out and stress; levels of emotional
exhaustion were found to be 43% higher than the threshold for high burn out, and financial
difficulties for both carer and victim and physical difficulties regarding mobility for those
caring for injured/disabled.
Furthermore, a 2010 independent review of CRC’s Victims and Survivors Funding was used
to inform the Commission for Victims and Survivors NI’s Comprehensive Needs Analysis
(CVSNI). Notable in the findings was that mental health and well-being services were
significantly higher in cost than other services and the wide spread need for respite support
and befriending services.
CRC was also been represented on the pilot Victims Forum and Forum Transition Group.
Commemoration
In addition to this CRC and the Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) from late 2010 began to work in
partnership in order to stimulate a conversation which sought to raise the issue of
remembering in public space and to promote a process that leads to the development of
practice models and principles. The collaboration agreed a set of principles in relation to
commemoration:
63
1. Start from the historical facts;
2. Recognise the implications and consequences of what happened;
3. Understand that different perceptions and interpretations exist; and
4. Show how events and activities can deepen understanding of the period.
All to be seen in the context of an ‘inclusive and accepting society’
CRC and HLF continue to promote discussion and proactive engagement that include
community based approaches and an emphasis on:
• Promoting collaborations
• Uncovering the hidden stories, the “quirks” and “what ifs” of history to provide a more
complete understanding
• Engaging young people
• Recording stories
• Broad circulation and access
• Capacity building work
• Local exploration of people and places
• Creative methods
• Uncovering local history - creating resources
• Lectures, dialogue, safe and open spaces for cross identity work
• Individual exploration of our complex identity (in the manner of “Who do we think we
are?”).
CRC and HLF support a broad and inclusive approach to commemoration -
◦ from the local (of people and places) ,
◦ to the international (Empire, war, migration),and
◦ the modern (protecting minorities, why people migrate, identity, war and
solidarity).
Promoting inclusive discussion, dialogue in exploring history and identity
Ethical-Forward looking – what shape society?
Practising how to mark anniversaries in public space as we approach the 50th
anniversaries of the recent conflict
64
Overall, the focus of joint work for CRC and HLF for 2012-2013 broadly involves working at
the sub regional level, disseminating the resources utilising the networks of both HLF and
CRC to create synergies on the ground, with a particular focus on young people.
Conclusion
CRC has and will continue to play an active role in discussions about dealing with the legacy
of the past. Based on a strong track record of engagement in strategic partnerships and
supporting the work of groups on the ground and individuals engaged in addressing legacy
of the past issues.
CRC continues to be involved in developing and implementing a programme of work that
acknowledges the significance of commemoration, as well as supporting projects aimed at
marking anniversaries in public space. This work has been initiated at both a strategic and a
local level.
Our experience suggests that it is time for a collective, inclusive and cost effective approach.
1 CRC’s principles and values The CRC is founded on the following values and principles: Equity and Equality: CRC is committed to fair treatment for all, through open access to resources, structures and decision-making processes at all levels of society, as an essential basis for good community relations. Human Rights: The CRC is committed to upholding the human rights of all as a fundamental basis for good community relations. Diversity: CRC is committed to the promotion of inter-cultural respect and freedom of expression and movement (whether expressed through religious, ethnic or political background) and supports the peaceful expression of variety and difference. Interdependence: CRC recognises and affirms the interconnectedness of the personal and community experiences of all those living and working in Northern Ireland. CRC exists to promote good relations based on trust, respect and inclusion. Non-violence: CRC recognises non-violence as an essential condition for the growth of trust, dialogue and conflict transformation. Openness, Transparency and Accountability: As a provider of public services, CRC will uphold this principle in all its work. All of our work is conducted on the basis of these values
65
Annex 4
Examples of CRC’s work and achievements over
recent years
66
a) The development of a sustained and vibrant regional infrastructure for community and good relations work across the region through OFMDFM core funding, PEACE II, PEACE III and IFI Community Bridges Programme is recognized as being of world class. This includes the development of capabilities and key skills such as mediation, training, public dialogue and work with public institutions. CRC has also shaped the development of community relations work in key thematic areas such as the workplace, sport and churches. CRC has taken a keen interest in ensuring that this work builds on the enthusiasm of a variety of constituencies, including young people and women. CRC has invested in volunteer and residential capacity as well as community relations work in the most contested areas, such as interfaces, and in local areas across the towns and cities of Northern Ireland and beyond. It also includes the development of CRC as a leading agent for the support and development of cross-border peace building in Ireland.
b) The establishment, support and development of a dense network of interface peace projects across Belfast including programme, practical support and innovation. Practically all of this work has been undertaken through schemes managed by CRC. This has become the core for inter-community dialogue in the most contested areas of the city and beyond and a vital resource for stability.
c) Development of innovative community projects which have become exemplars of best practice in community relations and the base for wider initiatives- e.g. Springfarm Shared Neighbourhood Programme, Hazelwood Partnership, Rural Enablers Programme.
d) Development and co-ordination of statutory-voluntary partnerships to tackle the most difficult residual issues in peace building: the Interface Community Partners Group and the Beyond Belfast project into rural segregation and acting as a key partner in the Department of Justice led Interagency Group.
e) The sensitive and professional development of systematic and inclusive advocacy and service delivery structure by victims for victims of the conflict.
f) Development of important services for victims and survivors such as volunteer befriending, caring and respite for carers and engaging victims in the most sensitive complex issue of peacebuilding and a shared future
g) Support and development for the establishment of 14 local PEACE Partnerships covering all of Northern Ireland and the 6 Border counties. (in consortium with Pobal)
h) One of the most innovative, creative and responsive small grants programme for community relations, cultural diversity and emergency response in Northern Ireland.
i) Co-operative institutional partnership on critical issues such as Re-Imaging Communities, Creating Common Ground, Shared Neighbourhood Scheme, Good Relations Forum, Shared Education Programme, North Belfast Community Action Unit and Belfast City Council Good Relations Unit.
j) Systematic policy response to shared future, community relations and cultural diversity issues.
k) Participation in reviews of some of the most difficult topics e.g. the Ashdown Review on Parading, the Crumlin Road Gaol/Girdwood Advisory Panel and the Sentence Review Commission.
67
l) Establishment of broad public platforms for a shared future and against hate crime, such as Community Relations Week, Unite Against Hate and the One Small Step campaign
m) Practical and intellectual support for community relations work and policy.
n) Establishment of Shared Space Research journal.
o) Numerous research publications on key topics such as interfaces, education, young people, planning and shared space and the embeddedness of sectarianism.
p) Public conferences on key themes including parades and protests; legacy of the past; flags and emblems; cohesion, sharing and Integration, the regeneration of interfaces; business and economic development, young people and a shared future; sustainability in community relations work and the future of victims and survivors work.
q) Training events ranging from support for financial and programme management, evaluation and monitoring, to sectarianism and racism.
r) Seminars on key research and core themes such as shared space, housing, education, cohesion arts and community relations, and the work of key thinkers on peace building.
s) Annual Community Relations Week which includes the annual Policy Conference and Community Relations Award.
t) 5 Practitioners forums per annum.
u) Public challenge, newspaper and journal articles and advocacy across Northern Ireland and the border region.
v) International learning support through the AMBIT programme and the Outward and Forward-looking Region programme of EU PEACE II extension.
w) Advice to government departments on numerous issues of inter-community concern including Ministerial working group on North Belfast, Flags Protocol Monitoring Group, North Belfast Community Action Group, Good Relations Panel, DE Shared Future Advisory group, DoE Migration Advisory group, DSD, BRO, DCAL and numerous District Councils.
x) Establishment of the Rowntree Peace Monitoring Report Monitoring project on the progress of peace (copies enclosed).
68
Research
The Community Relations Council has commissioned research, published and highlighted other’s research. The following is an example of this work.
General
Community Relations Council (2011), Towards a Shared Society, Community Relations Council.
Community Relations Council (2008), What Made Now in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.
Flags
Noelle Donnell (2009), Flags & Emblems - Fields, Flags and future sharing: an overview of the rural perspective of community relations, Shared Space Issue 7, Community Relations Council.
Dominic Bryan, Clifford Stevenson & Gordon Gillespie (2007), Flagging Identities: assessing the display and regulation of political symbols across Northern Ireland in 2006, Shared Space Issue 4, Community Relations Council.
Clem McCartney & Lucy Bryson, Flying the Flag. A Report on the Use of Flags, Anthems and other National Symbols in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.
Parades
Neil Jarman & Geraldine Scullion (2013), Protecting Rights or Limiting Disorder? Freedom of Assembly and the Right to Protest, Shared Space Issue 15, Community Relations Council.
Neil Jarman, John Bell & Mary-Kathryn Rallings (2009), Dialogue or Disengagment? Responding to Disputes over Parades, Shared Space Issue 8, Community Relations Council.
John Bell (2007), Parades & Protests An Annotated Bibliography, Institute for Conflict Research.
Dominic Bryan & Neil Jarman (1999), Independent Intervention, Democratic Dialogue & Community Development Centre, North Belfast.
Springfield Inter-Community Development Project (1998), Report of a Series of Seminars organised by Springfield Inter-Community Development Project, Interface Issues-Tackling Anti Social Behaviour-Marching and Rights; Community Relations Council.
Tom Hadden & Anne Donnelly (1997), The Legal Control of marches in Northern Ireland, Community Relations Council.
Dominic Bryan & Neil Jarman (1997), Parading Tradition, Protesting Triumphalism: Utilising Anthropology in Public Policy, The Institute of Irish Studies, QUB.
69
Neil Jarman (1997), Material Conflicts-Parades and Visual Displays in Northern Ireland, BERG.
Dealing with the past
Community Relations Council (2013), Remembering the Future, Understanding our Past, Shaping our Future, NICRC and Heritage Lottery Fund.
Community Relations Council (2013), Decades of Anniversaries – Toolkit, NICRC and Heritage Lottery Fund.
Neil Jarman (2012), ‘Hope and History: Looking Backwards to Move Forward’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.
Máire Braniff (2012), ‘After Agreement: The Challenges of Implementing Peace’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.
John Bell (2012), ‘The Dynamics of Religious Difference in Contemporary Northern Ireland’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.
Laura Fowler Graham (2012), ‘Northern Ireland’s approaches to Social Cohesion: A case study of social capital in victim support groups’, Shared Space Issue 14, Community Relations Council.
Thomas G Fraser (2012), ‘Historical Legacies and the Northern Ireland Peace Process: Issues of Commemoration and Memorialisation’, Shared Space Issue 12, Community Relations Council.
Nick McCaffery and Ulf Hansson (2011), ‘The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past’, Shared Space Issue 11, Community Relations Council.
South East Fermanagh Foundation (2011), An Evaluation of The Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies on Trauma Related Illnesses.
John Bell, Ulf Hansson and Nick McCaffery (2010), The Troubles Aren’t History Yet: Young People’s Understanding of the Past, Community Relations Council.
Mick Byers (2009), Pandora’s Box? Engaging with our pasts: Initial explorations from the victims sector and republican community, Shared Space Issue 8, Community Relations Council.
Katy Radford and Sarah Templer (2008), ‘Women and Relationships: Experiences from the ‘victims’ sector’ in Shared Space Issue 6, Community Relations Council.
Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2008), ‘Attitudes towards a Truth Commission for Northern Ireland’ in A Sustainable Peace?, Community Relations Council.
Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2008), ‘Community, Truth-Recovery and Conflict Transformation ‘From Below’’ in A Sustainable Peace?, Community Relations Council.
Sara Templer and Katy Radford (2007/08), Hearing the Voices - Sharing Perspectives in the Victim/Survivor Section, Community Relations Council.
70
Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2006), Attitudes towards a Truth Commission for Northern Ireland – Research Report, Community Relations Council.
Katy Radford (2006), ‘From Major to Minor – The Therapeutic Role of Music in Northern Ireland’s Victim/Survivor Sector’ in Shared Space (Nov 2006) Issue 6, Community Relations Council.
Patricia Lundy and Mark McGovern (2005), ‘Community-based Approaches to Post-Conflict ‘Truth-telling’: Strengths and Limitations’ in Shared Space Issue 1, Community Relations Council.
Jane Leonard (1997), Memorials to the Casualties of Conflict, Northern Ireland 1969 to 1997, Community Relations Council.
Gordon Lucy and Elaine McClure (eds) (1997), Remembrance, Ulster Society (Publications) Ltd.