raising a riot
TRANSCRIPT
Fortnight Publications Ltd.
Raising a RiotAuthor(s): Brian GarrettSource: Fortnight, No. 11 (Feb. 19, 1971), pp. 9-10Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25543349 .
Accessed: 28/06/2014 08:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 91.238.114.72 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:04:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
FORTNIGHT Q patrols. There was no evidence of the wholesale gun-battles seen on the Lower Falls last July when the Army engaged the Goulding I.R.A.
A key to what did happen might be gained from a state ment issued by the Provisional
I.R.A. last December in reply to the aC.D.C. "Stop. Stop. Stop." appeal.
"The position of the Irish Republican Army is as follows: 1 It will continue to honour its
pledge to defend Irish people against extreme Unionist and Official Stormont violence and against marauding British
troops. 2 It will not allow those same
British troops to brutalise or shoot Irish people-whether on the Falls or the Shankill ?
with impunity. Retaliatory action has been and
will be taken." It is interesting that a similar
statement about the recent vio lence has been issued by the
Provisionals in Dublin. From this it may be concluded
that the Provisionals regarded the arms searches in Clonard and the succeeding riots as sufficient grounds for retaliatory action. The Brougher mountain
explosion, and scattered in
cendiary attempts, if I.R.A. work, can be seen as intended retalia tion against the Army for the Belfast shootings.
There is also some evidence to
suggest that the Army, with the Government under increasing pressure from the Unionist righ wing of the Law and Order
issue, might have wanted some kind of showdown with .the Provisionals as it had with the
Goulding I.R.A last July. What
began as civilian protests against arms searches, probably organised and designed to hinder and harass the soldiers, escalated to riot and finally to shoot-outs once the I.R.A. became involved in
"retaliatory action." Some other factors might be
added to this. Despite strict
discipline, there is an undoubted
impatience among some young I.R.A. recruits to see some action and there is the continual rivalry in Belfast between both I.R.A.S
with defections from each side to the other which forces each group always to be on its toes,
(see the Goulding I.R.A. state ment on the recent events).
It is accepted that journalists, because of the dangers involved, are not always able to get accurate on the spot information
during a riot. And indeed no-one
except those actually involved, knows for certain the full facts behind the recent violence. What is distressing is the willingness to give credence to exaggerated claims which can easily be seen
to have little basis in fact. If there is a war being fought at the moment, it is still in the
propaganda stage and judging by the standard of some reporting, the main casualty might well be the truth.
^S^( \ TZ
Raising by Brian Garrett ?| f\IO 1
"This bill is directed against me. It is directed against me and the
Attorney knows it. The Prime Minister let it out of the bag."
The Member for Bann
side, Rev. Dr. I. R. K. Paisley, was thundering against the Prevention of Incitement to Hatred Bill at Stormont. Well, well. Now seven months after it became law, and without a single prosecution as yet even in sight, it is fair to assume that the article in question which the Prime Minister let out of the bag has proved a most perishable commodity.
It cannot come as a great surprise. After all those years
when incitement to hatred was the essential characteristic of
Northern Ireland politics, it was
suspicious to find the high priests of that political gospel
Breparing to outlaw their cult,
[oreover the whole thing was done in just over five hours of debate in the early hours of the
morning on 30th June, 1970. The bill was given its Second Reading,
Reading all in rapid succession ?
quicker in Parliamentary terms that most MPs, at that dead hour, could have remembered to urge inter course or perdition according to their wont, on either His Holiness or her Brittanic Majesty.
Of course it is "not as simple as that. There are no magic
wands to dispel hatred in Northern Ireland or elsewhere. Nor is a jaundiced view of the bona fides of the Northern
Ireland Government or the Unionist Party or the Opposition an adequate reaction. In my view the Act suffers at root from a failure to identify and take account of the problems which
must inevitably jeopardise the success of any anti-discrimination
legislation prepared in this form. The basic defect of the Act
stems from the lack of determi nation to ensure that hatred shall no longer be the main
weapon of political combat in Ulster. The enforcement proce dure is patently unrealistic, and in the final analysis the Act
mistakenly focusses attention on the question of incitement rather than the more important oneoi
eradicating, or at least outlawing, discriminatory practices as such.
The Act is modelled very largely on the anti-incitement provisions incorporated in the British Race Relations Act of 1965 which does not apply here. But it does include two additional features which were introduced to take account of local problems and
which are shown in dark print.
'Section 1. 'A person shall be
guilty of an offence under this Act if with intent to stir up hatred, or arouse fear of, any section of the public in
Northern Ireland:? (a) he publishes or distributes
written or other material which is threatening, abusive or
insulting; or (b) he uses in any public place
or at any public meeting words
This content downloaded from 91.238.114.72 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:04:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 FRIDAY, 19th FEBRUARY, 1971
which are threatening, abusive or insulting; being matter or words likely to stir up hatred against or arouse fear of,' any section or the public in Northern Ireland on grounds of religious belief, colour, race or ethnic or national origins.'
The essential difficulty which arises from this is that of
establishing that an accused party actually did intend to stir up hatred or arouse fear. As Gerry Fitt was quick to observe in the debate on the Bill, 'The Hon. Member for Bannside would be the last to admit that it was
with intent that he stirred up hatred within this community.' One needs a very limited
imagination to dream up all sorts of defences to a charge: 'You're
quite wrong, its Roman Catholic ism or Protestantism I oppose,
not Roman Catholics tjor>- Protes
tants?I said in my speech I do
not hate Roman Catholics ?
Protestants.' or 'No, I didn't intend to stir up anything; there
was no need; it was well stirred
up already.' Some lawyers might be anxious
to point out that the answer to this difficulty is simply that intent can be presumed to exist in certain circumstances and that the question is really one of
proof. My own feeling is that this notion of presumed intention, used in other criminal cases, will be of little help in incitement cases, whatever its theoretical
validity. Add to this the fact that prosecutions can only be brought with the consent of the Northern Ireland Attorney General (an office not always distinguished by its impartiality or consistency) and the Act has been neatly neutralised. In passing it is worth mentioning that there is a
growing desire in many circles, not least in the Hunt Report on
the RUC and in a recent report of Justice in Britain, to see the
prosecution process in all crimin al cases conferred on a non
political, impartial legal officer. If this were to be done here, in the cases of incitement there
would be something to be said for also involving the Community
Relations Commission % in the decision making process.
But the lack of incitement
prosecutions is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. Even the 1965
provisions in Great Britain are
rarely enforced. There too the
evidential problem exists. But
phasis is placed in Great Britain on
policing their anti-discrimination code.
That there is need for anti incitement legislation in Northern Ireland is, in my view, beyond
dispute. But there would be
advantage in such legislation concentrating on the fact of incitement rather than the sub
jective issue of intention to incite. Not that one should
readily abandon the idea of
subjective guilt in criminal matters. Rather the individual's attitude in incitement cases should surely be made subsidiary to the effect on the public. It
might be more appropriate there fore to confine the offence of incitement to hatred to those situations where a breach of the
peace occurs or is threatened using the question of the accused's intention as a determining factor in the punishment rather than the offence itself. As it is incitement to hatred as an offence unrelated
directly to the question of public order becomes a farce in the
public mind particularly when all
around hatred can be heard openly preached and the preachers go scot
free.
To neglect the question of
tackling discriminatory practices within the civil law is, however, a
very serious error and must tend to defeat the sense and force of
any criminal anti-incitement legis lation. Many people now assume there is law in Northern Ireland to deal with discrijjiinatiQn ?in the
public sector and accept that the private sector is completely untouched. In fact even the
public sector has little or no anti-discrimination law since the Callaghan reform package
merely introduced a voluntary system of restraints and checks in the public sphere. A comprehensive anti-discriminatory practices code for both the public and private sectors is urgenty needed in
Northern Ireland. A Kick the Pope band, an issue of the Protestant
Telegraph or some Republican hate trash is ultimately less pernicious than the everyday direct and
personal offence which results when
jobs and opportunities are dished out unchecked on the basis of discrimination.
XlliS UlStOV Compiled by Eugene McEldowney
If for some odd reason, you
enjoy being kicked about the
streets, then you would be well
advised to stay away from Enniskil
len.
At a recent case, Ennkskillen
court was told by a police-constable
that he was driving along the main
street in a police car when he saw
a young man lying in the road.
"He was being kicked by three
men. I stopped the police car and
the three men walked to another
car and got into the back of it.
While I was talking to them the
first youth got up off the ground
and used filthy language. He also
tried to strike one of his assailants.
I arrested him and took him to the
police-station." The man was fined
?3 for being drunk and disorderly.
The magistrate was told that the
other people were not interviewed.
Impartial Reporter 4th Feb.
* * *
A man who was charged at
Letterkenny with the larceny of a
cooker, gas cylinder, gas burner
and regulator told the court that
he had only borrowed them as he
had run out of gas at home.
Frontier Sentinel 6th Feb.
And a court in Derry was told j that a 57 year-old labourer stole a
kettle worth ?8-2-4 from a shop in
Bishop St. and then proceeded to
kick it along the street damaging it
to the extent of ?6-2-10.
Derry Journal 5th Jan.
* * *
Inquiring if there was a go-slow
among the bin-men because his bin
hadn't been lifted on the usual day, one member of Armagh City
Council was told by the Surveyor that this was a matter between
himself and the binmen and he
didn't think the council should
enter into it.
Ulster Gazette 4th Feb.
* * *
The jolly atmosphere of a singing
pub was shattered when a glass came whizzing through the air
causing lacerations of the forehead
to the woman who was singing. Newtownards court was told that
a young wife threw the glass when
her husband couldn't get a chance
to sing because the first woman
wouldn't shut up.
Irish News 12th Feb.
This content downloaded from 91.238.114.72 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 08:04:11 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions