|
Jennie
Lee, lifelong socialist and champion for social justice,
remarked that, "In matters of great moment,
right or wrong depends largely on the point of the
political compass from which events are viewed".
A favourite remark of her husband, Aneurin Bevan,
was "This is my truth; now tell me yours".
What
Jennie and Nye were saying is that there are two,
or more, sides to every story. We need to examine
them all. It is impossible to deal honestly with common
issues if we are only content to tell our truth and
ignore the other person's truth. Nationalists and
unionists look at the interface violence in North
and East Belfast from different points on the political
compass, and both appear only to listen to the "truth"
as they have experienced it.
Hazel
Croft’s (Sectarianism
and How it Can be Fought) search for answers to
sectarianism and interface violence looked only for
a nationalist perspective. Her interviews were only
with ‘socialists’ who appeared to examine
sectarianism through nationalist lenses only, and
she got what she obviously wished for - a pro-nationalist
analysis of loyalist sectarianism. One would have
thought that an honest desire to examine sectarianism
and sectarian violence would have required a more
balanced process.
Perhaps
Hazel does not know any pro-unionist socialists. Even
if she adheres to the sectarian notion that one cannot
be a socialist while rejecting the concept of Irish
nationalism, she could have interviewed a number of
trade unionists who hold pro-unionist views and who
have experienced sectarianism from a different perspective.
Has Bob Gourley of USDAW, who has been the victim
of several sectarian bomb attacks, not got something
to say about sectarianism? Has Shop Stewart Jackie
Nichol, whose little baby was killed in a no warning
sectarian bomb attack, got nothing to say on the subject
of sectarian violence? Have the workmen who were shot
in the back while boarding up damaged homes in Cluan
Place a few weeks back nothing to say about sectarian
violence?
Each
of Hazel Croft’s respondents lay sectarianism
squarely at the door of loyalists. Those within the
unionist community who have suffered as a result of
sectarian violence and intimidation coming from the
nationalist community are written out of the script
as if their experiences and suffering are of no consequence.
The killing of Trevor Kells, Thomas Mc Donald and
William Morgan by nationalists are written off without
a word of protest. The wounding by gunfire of seven
Protestants in North Belfast and five in East Belfast
between January and July of this year appear to have
no significance for Hazel Croft of her respondents.
The token turnout by trade unionists in Derry to protest
against the killing of Mr. Caldwell shows just how
many trade unionists in the maiden city really care
about anti-unionist violence. While Niall Morton flags
up the picket of a doctors surgery in East Belfast
he neglects to mention the physical assault of a female
patient and her daughter that led to the picket. None
of these incidents justify what has been happening
to members of the nationalist community and we could
get into a cycle of whataboutery and blame and counter-blame
that would take us nowhere.
Surely
there is a case for balanced investigative approach
which seeks out all points of view and gives a balanced
response. By ignoring the unionist experience of sectarian
attacks Hazel Croft and her respondents appear to
be suggesting that there is no valid unionist point
of view, that truth is on the side of nationalists
only. The fact is, unionists and nationalists both
have legitimate experiences to record and neither
will be complete until we have heard and validated
the truth of the other.
It
is too simplistic to lay all the blame on loyalist
paramilitaries. If there were no loyalist paramilitaries
we would still have sectarianism. Sean Smyth, to his
credit, seeks to analyse some of the social and economic
reasons behind sectarian violence. To my mind his
analysis does not go far enough. Interface problems
have more to do with issues around contested space
and the ever-shrinking unionist enclaves. The unionist
population of North Belfast is shrinking with each
passing year and the people of Torrens, Westland,
Glynbryn, White City, Mountcollyer and Tiger Bay increasingly
feel isolated and threatened. They are not so much
concerned about economics as they are about the survival
of their communities. Many of these enclaves have
no social amenities and, because of nationalist sectarianism,
it is not safe to use amenities in neighbouring nationalist
areas. When people have to travel by car, sometimes
in convoy, to friendly areas in order to do their
shopping, it brings home to them the real nature of
sectarianism and marginalisation.
Hazel
Croft’s respondents all place great faith in
the trade union movement as a vehicle for addressing
sectarianism. As the single largest organisation in
civil society, with some 250,000 members in Northern
Ireland, the trade union movement ought to have the
potential to address sectarianism. Yet the movement
is not representative of both communities at leadership
level. Peter Bunting (Northern Committee ICTU) has
noted that “Our own anecdotal evidence points
to a situation where protestant shop stewards and
activists are no longer emerging as they did before”.
If protestants are twice as likely to secure employment
as Catholics one would expect this to be reflected
in the strength of protestant representation in the
trade union movement. Protestants are either not joining
the trade union movement as they did in the fifties
and sixties or they are joining but are not being
adequately represented at activist level. This augurs
bad of the movement as a whole. Again, to quote Peter
Bunting, “If one community ceases to be significantly
engaged at this activist level, the repercussions
will be seen down the line at senior leadership levels”.
If
the ICTU is to effectively address sectarianism, not
just in the workplace but across society, it must
address the perception that it is controlled by nationalists
and that it is only concerned about anti-nationalist
sectarianism. It must be said that non-sectarian nationalists
like Peter Bunting and Brendan Mackin are seriously
seeking to address some of these issues and their
decision to meet with both the Loyalist Commission
and the UDA is to be commended. They are clearly trying
to understand loyalism as opposed to constantly demonising
loyalists. It is time that more trade unionists followed
suit and engaged in a process of dialogue rather than
selective condemnation and prejudicial point scoring.
The
Trade Union Movement also has to address the new class
prejudice that has been developing within certain
professions represented mainly by NIPSA. The crass,
uncaring and dictatorial approach by many (un)civil
servants, social workers and housing officers towards
people living in socially deprived marginalised areas
is as responsible for as much human hurt and stress
as sectarianism. About 30% of the work of our community
mediation service relates to conflict between ordinary
people and so-called public servants who treat them
like dirt. What confidence can those living in marginalised
communities have in the trade union movement when
they are regularly treated as ignorant “poor
white trash” by trade unionists. Is prejudice
against unionists or nationalists any worse than prejudice
against the socially deprived and the educationally
disadvantaged?
The
author is a member of UNISON (and some of our members
are just as prejudiced).
Index: Current Articles + Latest News and Views + Book Reviews +
Letters + Archives
|
