What The Carver Missed

Published on September 5, 2005 By O G San In International

As you enter through the grand brass gates of Stormont estate, you are confronted by the statue of Edward Carson. Portrayed in full flow, the father of unionism’s hand is thrust upwards to the heavens, as if imploring the Almighty to come to Ulster’s help. At the base of the statue are small carvings depicting scenes from the Home Rule crisis era. There is Carson et al signing the Covenant at Belfast City Hall in 1912. Being gentlemen, the leaders of unionism made their mark in ink rather than blood.

There too is a depiction of the illegal Ulster Volunteer Force marching in formation. But there is one vital detail missing - the UVF’s weapons - brought into the country illegally to resist a legitimate act of the British parliament – are not recorded for posterity. Obviously the statue’s commissioners preferred not to draw attention to this aspect of unionist history.

So much of unionists’ self-image revolves around the notion that they are law-abiding, loyal, peaceful people in contrast to the criminal, treacherous, savage nationalists who live amongst them. Thus it is inevitable that unionism should develop a blind-spot towards loyalist violence, whether it be the threatened violence of 1912 or the all too real violence of the last few decades. Few unionists have been willing to confront the sectarian bloodlust in their midst.

This attitude was well demonstrated last week by DUP councillor Ruth Patterson. Following a debate on Belfast city council about recent violence in the city, Ms. Patterson appeared on the BBC to describe Sinn Fein as “scum” for failing to support a motion encouraging witnesses to these crimes to contact the police.

Would she, the interviewer wondered, use the same adjective to describe the PUP, whose buddies in the UVF were actually responsible for some of these crimes? “That’s a good question” she blathered, desperately playing for time as the little hamster in her head ran furiously round its wheel. We ended with the conclusion that no, she would not describe her fellow loyalists as “scum” - an interesting moral choice to say the least.

Last week also saw the launch of the “Love Ulster” campaign aimed at mobilising unionists to oppose a united Ireland which, we are told, is at hand. As part of the new campaign, the Shankill Mirror has brought out a “newspaper” chronicling Protestant victims of republican violence. The first batch of papers arrived by boat from Scotland in a conscious echo of the 1912 importation of arms by the UVF.

And who should be on hand to help unload these papers but senior members of the UDA, fully paid-up supporters of this new campaign. Will this new “paper” also chronicle loyalist crimes against the Protestant people - the drug-dealing, the racketeering, the intimidation? The answer is obvious. Those who “Love Ulster” are opposed, not to violence, but to republican violence. Loyalist activity as ever, is overlooked.

When they have addressed loyalist violence, the “respectable” unionists of the UUP and DUP have often explained away the murders of the UVF and UDA as “retaliation”, a regrettable but understandable reaction to the IRA’s killing. Such a line of reasoning conveniently ignores the fact that the first loyalist murders of the modern era took place in 1966, three years before the Provisional IRA came into existence.

Neither can the “retaliation” model explain the situation post-ceasefires in which loyalism has been by far the more active brand of paramilitarism in Northern Ireland (NI). With the IRA yet to murder a Protestant this millennium, what exactly are loyalists “retaliating” against with their constant bomb attacks on Catholic homes? Is it possible that loyalism’s ethnic cleansing campaign in Ahoghill is driven not by a desire to “hit back” against republicans but rather by a base hatred of Catholics of any description? Once again, the answer seems obvious.

Whatever the limits of the “retaliation” mindset, it was at least premised on the notion that loyalist violence was wrong. Yet, at some stages of the Troubles, the unionist parties wouldn’t even bring themselves to condemn loyalist savagery. The random sectarian atrocities - Sean Graham’s bookies and the like - were typically condemned by the DUP and UUP in no uncertain terms (not least because a large number of their voters found such murders abominable).

But condemnation was often not forthcoming when the victims of loyalist violence were members of republican groups. In NI, when elected politicians refuse to condemn an act of violence, they give implicit support to those who committed the act. By biting their tongues, the Molyneauxs and Paisleys sent out the message to the wilder elements of their community that killing Catholics was not wrong, as long as they were the “right” Catholics.

At some stages of the Troubles unionist parties went further than implicit support of loyalist violence into an unholy alliance with the hard men. When the UUP and DUP have considered their wee Ulster to be in peril they have turned to loyalists for help. In 1974, in 1985 and several times in the 1990s unionists launched campaigns of mass civil disobedience to attempt to overturn a government policy. These campaigns were backed up by the threat (and use) of violence by loyalist paramilitaries.

Added to this, one must remember the history of quasi-paramilitary organisations set up by “respectable” unionist figures, from Bill Craig’s Vanguard with its military trappings and his talk of “liquidating the enemy” through to Paisley with his red berets and his gun licenses.

This is to say nothing of Paisley’s long record of stirring up loyalist emotions with his constant warnings that the British were about to abandon NI to Dublin’s tender mercies. Countless loyalist paramilitaries have attested, many with deep regret, to the role that Paisley played in their decision to take up arms. But the Doc refuses to accept his share of the blame, claiming that he never intended people to go out and kill after listening to his alarmist rhetoric. This may or may not be the case but, as a senior politician, Paisley had a duty to act much more responsibly.

Rather than opposing the sectarian bloodlust which poisons their own community, Paisley et al have consistently demonstrated an emu-like attitude to loyalist violence, not unlike those who commissioned Carson’s statue all those years ago.

Comments

Manopeace

on Sep 05, 2005

This is to say nothing of Paisley’s long record of stirring up loyalist emotions with his constant warnings that the British were about to abandon NI to Dublin’s tender mercies.

Don't you mean bigoted emotions? The guys' a bloody fascist.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!