Letter: Parades Commission alienated the law abiding and rewarded the anti-social in society

In 2015/16 the Francis Hutcheson Institute was asked by the Orange Order to conduct an inquiry into the disputed July 12 parade along the Crumlin Road/Woodvale Road (also known as the Twaddell Avenue dispute).

This was conducted by a panel of three (an Anglican, Presbyterian and a Catholic) who produced a unanimous report after interviewing all the main participants in the dispute, including the Parades Commission (excepting residents’ groups which would not cooperate).

I quote from the report: ‘A democracy requires accountability, and accountability requires transparency’ – US president Barack Obama.

Accountability: currently the Parades Commission, in the discharge of its functions, is accountable to no one. The panel believes that the commission should be made accountable both to Parliament and the public.

Openness and transparency: currently there is none. The panel believes that the evidence, its sources and reasoning for the commission’s determinations should be placed in the public domain, so that those who need to know, those affected, the general public and Parliament, can be made fully aware.

The panel believes there should be Parliamentary accountability and scrutiny of the discharge of the Parades Commission’s functions and the way it carries them out.

The panel believes that the suggestions made, above, in relation to accountability, openness and transparency would greatly enhance the commission’s acceptability, credibility and legitimacy.

Legislation: if the government wishes to honour its international treaty obligations, such as OSCE (2010), it may need to amend the current parades legislation.

Amendments to guidelines and procedural rules: it is over 10 years since these were reviewed - the OSCE (2010), the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law and considerations of natural justice, would indicate that the guidelines and rules require urgent revision and Parliamentary scrutiny.

OSCE (Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, to which both the UK and RoI are signatures) specifically affirms the right to peaceful assembly and freedom of speech, which should be protected from violent intimidation, something enforceable under the European Convention on Human Rights. Yet the commission appeared not to even know about the OSCE or the UK’s obligations (and presumably theirs) under it.

This calls into question what training, (lack of) staffing and support services to aid commissioners ever existed. Equally, what remits or guidance were given to the commissioners from the beginning?

After all, this was a publicly funded body, acting on behalf of the public (and Parliament), making decisions having significant public consequences, yet it was accountable to no one but itself.

Further, the commission was not obliged to keep minutes or records of its meetings and decision-making process, nor to maintain any consistency in it to establish clear principles and guidelines that could be followed by themselves or the general public.

This is fundamental for a liberal-democracy and the rule of law because it identifies what is acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour, who any wrong-doers are and why.

This latter point was fundamental, especially in relation to media reporting of violent incidents.

Careful reading of police reports indicated that most ‘contentious’ parades were non-contentious until republican elements moved into an area and began deliberately provocative and intimidatory behaviour, from which the parades should have been protected under OSCE obligations.

Any ensuing violence was therefore largely a result of anger and frustration at the failure of the commission to protect lawful peaceful assembly.

What a mess!

The commission has alienated the law abiding and rewarded the anti-social in society. But this is not the individual commissioners’ fault, that lies with the original legislation, legislators and a dismal failure of government to establish clear principles of law and rights and enforce them equally, instead of surrendering to those who threaten most violence.

James Dingley, Chair, Francis Hutcheson Institute, Belfast, and former academic and Nato instructor on terrorism