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 support@jstor.org.

.

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