For Queen and Country?

A nation’s anthem can inspire. A stadium can erupt into song and carry a team to victory. The respect and loyalty displayed by players and fans alike during the exchange of anthems is testament to the power of sport.

The anthem of the Northern Ireland Association Football club is “God Save the Queen”, which is the Anthem of the State of the United Kingdom. This is also the anthem for the England Association Football team, meaning that when England plays Northern Ireland, both sets of fans share their team’s anthem. Though part of the United Kingdom, Wales and Scotland pride themselves on their own, distinct anthem. The current Northern Ireland anthem links the team inextricably to the Queen of England, despite the fact that the Monarch is not the Head of State of a significant proportion of people who live in Northern Ireland. This, in itself, is divisive.

Until the partition of Ireland in 1921, the Irish Football Association (IFA) had governed soccer across the island. It was a decision by clubs in Dublin to form the Football Association of Ireland (FAI) that instigated the division in the island’s sporting unity. Since this schism, the chants throughout Windsor Park have come to be perceived by some as hostile towards other cultures within the region. Of course, this attitude is not unique to the IFA; most soccer stadiums across the world involve such behaviour. However, the relevant question for the IFA now is how to run a truly representative sports club.

Gerry Armstrong, a veteran of Northern Ireland football, has said this week that there should be a debate about the choice of anthems played before Northern Ireland matches. It is argued that an anthem should be inclusive of the present demographic in the region and more sensitive to its shared heritage. Indeed, many sports in Ireland are today thriving with a cross-community fan base – golf, rugby and, increasingly, cricket. In fact, it is only a minority of sports that are not organised on an all-island basis.

In the upcoming London Olympics in 2012, an agreement between the British Olympic Association and the Olympic Council of Ireland stipulates that athletes from Northern Ireland may represent either Team GB or Team Ireland. Team GB refers to Great Britain in its title, but extends its claim to include willing competitors from Northern Ireland. Team GB thus claims to represent all of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, and so to be impliedly subsumed into Team GB is nominally incorrect. Team Ireland welcomes athletes from Northern Ireland, but principally refers to the Irish Republic. The ultimate choice lies with the athlete, though it does seem misleading that a person from Northern Ireland should compete under the name of Great Britain, a distinct island. If the British camp were to call itself Team UK – indeed if ‘Britain’ and ‘the UK’ were not erroneously treated as synomymous by politicians and press – this territorial confusion would be avoided.

Gerry Armstrong’s comments come in the same week as Peter Robinson’s message of a “new Northern Ireland”. In a more inclusive and less sectarian society, a wonderful opportunity to share culture is in the celebration of sport. In light of the controversial switching of players' allegiances between the two teams on the island, the IFA and FAI will have to discuss the growing difficulties sooner or later. The spirit of pride evident during the most recent Rugby World Cup demonstrates how a single Irish team can be a positive and successful ambassador for this island on the international stage. The debate on an appropriate national anthem for Northern Ireland is a necessary first step towards a more inclusive representative, but it is hoped that the advantages – both sporting and cultural – are realised before long.

Time is a Healer...

Over on lawthink, I have published another blog on the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland (OPONI):

http://www.lawthink.co.uk/2011/11/time-is-a-healer-–-but-only-when-the-truth-comes-out/

It deals with the apparent legal loophole restricting Al Hutchinson's office from carrying out investigations into killings at the hands of State forces.

International Restorative Justice Week

Hello all,

I have published an article on Restorative Justice, entitled "Restoring Human Dignity", over on www.lawthink.co.uk. To view it, click here.

Dónal

Other blogging

My most recent blogs on www.lawthink.co.uk were on:

• the proposed demise of the International Criminal Court (23 October 2011); and
• the legality of the Occupy movement in the United Kingdom (3 November 2011).

A defence of the Rule of Law (not dissident Republicanism)

Just because someone may be accused, or even convicted, of a heinous crime does not render him undeserving of legal counsel. The law functions to uphold justice and lawyers facilitate access to that justice. It is essential that the system convicts guilty offenders and treats them accordingly. However, in order to establish guilt, lawyers must debate the admissible evidence before a judge. The integrity of the court is vital to this procedure, and only with cogent discussion can legal proof be established. Otherwise, there is the risk of miscarriage of justice.

Colin Duffy is on remand in HMP Maghaberry, charged with the murder of Sappers Mark Quinsey and Patrick Azimkar in March 2009. His family claims that it has been subjected to abuse as the hands of the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) for years. It believes that it has been systematically harassed by police officers in the region, by members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and now of the PSNI. The political party, éirigí, has campaigned on this issue with assistance from Pádraigín Drinan.


The guilt of an individual before the law is indeterminable until a trial or hearing has ended. The lawyers conducting the case must act professionally and fairly in espousing their respective arguments. Just as lawyers must treat their clients indiscriminately, so too must the State treat individuals over which it has jurisdiction without discrimination. In instances of State brutality, the integrity of government agents is itself damaged.


Regardless of what he is charged with, or what he may eventually be convicted of, Colin Duffy should not be treated inhumanely. Degradation of the nature experienced by hundreds detained in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Kenya and Guantánamo Bay is wrong. It is wrong on many levels.

The principle reason that such treatment is wrong is the existence of the Rule of Law. This is the concept that certain things are fair and right. It upholds a system of justice prioritising the dignity of the person and fairness in the administration of the law.

Second, State brutality breeds resistance. It can be seen in reactions to the many examples of Metropolitan Police actions (most recently, the death of Mark Duggan). Unless individuals view the government as fair, they will obey the laws of the State with reluctance. Particularly in situations of oppression – familiar to Britain’s imperial history – violence begets violence. Whether committed by native rebels or by colonial/governmental forces, human nature ensures a cycle of violence.

Third, the United Kingdom today has legal obligations. Internationally-binding treaties require the State to uphold certain standards of human rights and civil liberty. This is widely known and is often taken for granted.

Fourth, for the State to act in this way towards individuals in its custody is an abuse of power. Just as a prisoner may have broken the laws of the land, so does the State in mistreating that prisoner. The State cannot expect to be respected while treating individuals in this way. Capital Punishment is wrong for the same reason.

Thus, regardless of what someone has done, it is not the State’s role to punish arbitrarily. It is the Rule of Law, as exercised by the judiciary, that dictates how someone should be punished. Even if Colin Duffy did murder members of the British army or the PSNI, the allegations surrounding the conditions of his detention, if true, are disgraceful. To protect his human rights is not to support his cause; it is to defend the Rule of Law.

lawthink

I have been blogging for the past few months over on www.lawthink.co.uk. The website discusses mostly human rights law issues.

The newest blog is on David Cameron's decision not to grant an inquiry into the murder of Pat Finucane.

Community Groups Condemned

This week, Jim Wells MLA complained about the Bryansford Ladies GAA collecting money at a supermarket in Newcastle, County Down. Mr Wells is a DUP councillor in the area, and is vocally opposed to public fundraising by members of the local Gaelic Athletic Club. On BBC Radio's Talkback, Mr Wells made clear that Unionists in the area would not be comfortable donating to an organisation with historical links to the Republican movement. He explicitly made reference to a GAA trophy named after IRA hunger striker, Bobby Sands.

Representatives from Sinn Féin and the Alliance Party have spoken out against Mr Wells' "churlish and negative" comments, supporting the work done by the GAA in the community. Recently, I went to a panel debate hosted by the Young Unionists entitled " The GAA and the Orange Order are part of the problem in Northern Ireland, not the solution". A deliberately provocative motion, there were a few heated exchanges. Nonetheless, it was an interesting debate.

The GAA, as recognised broadly across the community, is fundamentally a community and sporting organisation. The repeal of GAA Rule 21 permitted members of the British armed forces, including the Royal Ulster Constabulary, to play Gaelic Games, and rule 1.12 stipulates that the GAA is a specifically anti-sectarian and anti-racist organisation. It has gradually adapted to 21st century Ireland and has severed ties with its Republican past. There remain elements of Irish Nationalism in the sport; the Irish language, National Anthem and tricolour are core facets of this sporting culture. Of course, there is no denying its roots, but the GAA - especially the Ulster Council - has done its part to modernise the organisation. Now it is up to society to see it in that light.

The Orange Order is explicitly pro-biblical Protestantism and its membership is limited to Protestants. Though conflicting with the DUP's leader Ian Paisley for years, the Orange Order has been very much involved in Unionist politics in Northern Ireland. The Orange Order runs a number of charitable ventures and fundraises to this end. Its parades celebrate the Order's civic and religious freedom. Although the Orange Order has been compared to the Ku Klux Klan, it has many virtues - mostly Christian, Unionist and its own sense of community cohesion.

Jim Wells' complaints about community groups fundraising in supermarkets must be viewed as complaints about community-based and community-orientated activities. Two parallel community groups - the GAA and the Orange Order - should be allowed to fundraise where they wish, so fulfilling an invaluable service to their membership. It is important to look at the benefits. The GAA benefits all its members, from whatever background. Jim Wells should bear this in mind when stirring up bad feeling towards what is principally a sports team.