|
THE
RITES OF DRUMCREEE
In a review of the Parades Commission in February 2000, the Secretary
of State, Peter Mandelson stated that all sides in the Drumcree issue
emphasised a rights-based approach - 'different sides had their own interpretation
of what the rights at issue were'. As a Christian who is also an Orangeman
and therefore involved in the dispute it is important I am clear as to
which rights are being infringed. My conclusions are arrived at through
my experiences and interpretation of events and legislation as a citizen
of the United Kingdom, but more importantly my witness as a Christian
and a stranger in this world must influence my response to this analysis.
The situation that has
emerged at Drumcree over several years is complex, acquiring the baggage
of many other agendas and evolving against a dramatically changing political
and social landscape. Unfortunately the motives, actions and selfish interests
of many involved serve to broaden the dispute. Some make it an anti-Belfast
Agreement issue, some to propagate an ecumenical agenda, and some use it
as an extension of their terrorist campaign against the indigenous British
population. Therein lies a fundamental difference of approach to the 'rights'
involved. The Orange Institution views the issues as principals, whereas
for many in the Republican community the whole affair is merely a tactic.
As a citizen I believe
there are clear infringements of rights. Injustices have to be identified
and addressed. The Parades Commission, in practice if not conception, seeks
to restrict, police and shape the expression of one particular identity
and culture. Many of the Commission's decisions refuse Orangemen permission
to walk based on the fact that to give such consent would produce violent
responses from the residents and their supporters. To react to the threat
of violence and lawlessness by making a decision that accommodates those
who threaten it is morally unjustifiable.
I would contend that
the core issue of the parading dispute in its purest sense is about a civil
right, specifically the refusal to accept the right of Orangemen to walk
quietly and peaceably along the public highway. The fact that they are returning
from a service of worship is incidental, the opposition is equally intransigent
no matter what the purpose of the parade. When all else is stripped away
the issue under dispute is where Orangemen can walk. This is the logical
core of the dispute, but logic seldom permeates the heat surrounding such
an emotive issue.
The claim that these
disputed parades are traditional does not legitimise their right to occur
anywhere, but rather offers evidence that the parades are not intended to
offend. When protests against parades occur they are historically and experientially
extremely violent. Sadly, and inexcusably, the peaceful protests organised
by the Orange Institution to highlight the injustices now attract an element
who offer violence as an unwanted addendum to the Order's non-violent civil
disobedience approach as practiced by Martin Luther King Junior. Any protest
that is not peaceful is to be condemned unreservedly. All have a fundamental
right to live free from the fear of intimidation or violence.
During a speech on 25th
July 2000, the Secretary of State, Peter Mandelson MP stated that from 2nd
October this year the Human Rights legislation … 'will be in force allowing
this conflict of rights to be tested in the courts, rather than on the streets'.
I welcome an Act that does not support territorial apartheid or reward the
threat of violence but enshrines the principal that protest takes second
place to the right of free assembly as articulated in Article 11 of the
Convention of Human Rights. As an organisation the Orange Institution ask
for no privileges, no special rights, but as citizens we claim the same
rights from the same government as every other part of the United Kingdom.
As an individual Christian
I seek to measure all I do and say against the grace granted to me through
faith in Jesus Christ. We all live our Christianity in the reality of this
world and our theological preferences and conscience will drive our choices.
We will arrive at different interpretations of events and often take stances
on opposite sides of an argument. It is how we respond to these differences
and react to those with whom we disagree that will test our Christian witness.
The parades dispute is no exception. The question, "What would Jesus do?"
is constantly being asked of those involved in the situation. My honest
answer is I don't know. I am not the Son of God, but I seek to frame my
actions in accordance with His teaching, although I regularly meet fellow
Christians who claim clear insight that allows them to play the 'blame game'
and make clear unambiguous pronouncements on the situation.
God provides his Holy
Spirit to guide and direct our paths in all the complexities of life. God
has given us reason, intellect and a free will. He has gifted us the Bible
and His son Jesus Christ as standards to inform and influence our existence
on this planet. As a Christian who is commanded to love his enemy, I struggle
to do so, particularly in this case when the war is not over. It is said
love considers nothing its right and everything its obligation, but that
includes the obligation to seek truth and stand up against injustice. I
put neither rights nor rites before my responsibilities as a Christian,
responsibilities that have to be all the more finely honed when one confesses
a faith as a follower of Jesus Christ. Many of us on all sides have failed
some of the challenges such a living faith presents us, but that does not
negate our position, it simply requires that we pray and work harder for
the restoration of civil and religious liberty for all and special privileges
for none.
Mervyn
Gibson is a member of the Education Committee of the Grand Orange Lodge
of Ireland, and an assistant minister with the Presbyterian Church. |
