The Ashdown Alternative to the Parades Commission

[An Fear Dubh]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7366380.stm

[An Fear Dubh]

I think the full report does not get published till Tuesday but enough has been leaked that opinions are being formed.

[An Fear Dubh]

Paddy Ashdown was handed the poison chalice that is the ‘Parading Issue’. And based on the glowing recommendations that he received for his work and contributions in Kosovo it was hoped that he might bring something new to the issues.

While it is premature to totally dismiss this report before it has been published. Given the large amount that has already been leaked it does seem to be lacking in understanding of the issues involved. And has very much missed the obvious pitfalls of its proposed solutions.

The reason for ‘The Parades Commission’ was to find an independent arbitrator to adjudicate on disputed or ‘controversial’ parades. As local politicians and local groups involved could not even agree on what the issues were. For the Orange Order this whole concept was false as some of or all of these disputed/controversial parades were politically engineered for political ends. And so they resolved to abstain from such a process, thus isolating themselves.

Paddy Ashdown’s solution seems to be to return this paralyzing issue back to local representatives. Which given the display of the ‘Victims Commissioner’ who turned out to be four Commissioners and a dispute over a head commissioner. Does not seem to be a feasible solution. And may even threaten the infant institutions set up here.

I would like to review Paddy’s contribution in Kosovo and re-appraise his contribution there.

[An Fear Dubh]

Let us remember that Paddy Ashdown did not reach this conclusion on his own. He had help from
Mervyn Gibson (see link below),
Sean (Spike) Murray (see link below),
Mervyn Rankin,
Geraldine McAteer,
Garvan O'Doherty,
Sammy Douglas.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7372822.stm

Mervyn Gibson at the press conference warns against the issue being used as a "political football", but he wants to give it to politicians to arbitrate over!! Surely this makes it a political football!!

I can see why Mervyn Gibson and the Orange Order might think that Craigavon Council (and othe Unionist dominated councils) might be the best forum for deciding on contensious parades. But I can not see why Sean (Spike) Murray would agree with that conclusion. Unless there is a political side deal.

[An Fear Dubh]

The rumours in the local bars suggest that 'Spike' is distancing himself from the complete report, but can not deny some imput. And the suggestion is that Paddy is the only one 100% behind the interim report, eveyone else has reservations about aspects. But anything that might appeal to Unionism is being linked to the devolution of police and justice powers, and the Bill of Rights. I am not sure if that is on offer but more a suggestion that it might be if those two are in place.

[Harry]

I fully support the idea of Parade Organisers and Protestors sitting down in face to face talks. This must be the basis of any future arrangements. The parades commission has been rubbish. Altough they are doing a near impossible job.

It looks to me like we are heading towards tribal politics. Where marches will be allowed or stopped depending on the majority of the council?? There is some good within it and if the offices of Paisley and Marty appoint representatives then perhaps meaningful negotiations may take place.

My concern is what happens when agreement isn't reached?? I'm also waiting for reasons from the OO why they can't talk to certain people. This excuse doesn't wash anymore with me. I understand the issues they have but they are crippling themselves by refusing to talk. They are biting their noses off to spite their face.

Likewise AFD i'd also like to review what was achieved by Mr Ashdown in Kosovo because i feel that could be misleading.

[An Fear Dubh]

Spike has been under some pressure to explain his stance so much so he has written to the local paper to explain some points. I will quote from the article.

"I joined the strategic review body at the request of many of the residents' groups.
My focus was and remains, on shaping any proposals in consultation with the residents' groups to their advantage, by exploring the possibility of creating a more transparent effective, and acceptable alternative to the NIO-controlled and appointed Parades Commission which currently has no working relationship with any residents' group. While nationalists have long supported the concept of the Parades Commission, the current regime under Roger Poole have undermined that concept to a dangerous and worrying level."

This for me is the core of the article but it is much longer. So I hope I have selected the important points.

After reading the article I must say that I find myself agreeing with Spike. There were a number of decision of the Parades Commission and those appointed to it and how they are appointed that I found illogical and cases in the courts proved them to be illegal.

The Parades Commission made various rulings one year and overturned those rulings the next year. Moved goal-posts and set requirements. That made it difficult for both the Orange Order and residents groups to understand where and what the necessary conditions might be.

Like Harry I think the only real solution is face to face talks between local OO and Local residents.

My fear is also the same as Harry's as we have seen in the past how such issues can polarize communities and draw lines in the sand that no side can win and everyone loses.

As some have said in this forum that the time is not right to devolve policing and justice powers until the present institutions have bedded in. Given that the parades issue can be a dividing and polarizing issue, how then can we expect such fragile institutions to be able to be strong enough to resist the dividing force of the parades issue? And how do we judge when our institutions will be strong and mature enough to judge fairly on such issues?