on aspects of sectarian division in Derry Londonderry
Templegrove Action
First published 1996
© Templegrove Action Research Limited
Printed by RCD Print Limited, Racecourse Road, Derry Londonderry
IN DERRY LONDONDERRY
RUTH MOORE
MARIE SMYTH and PAULINE COLLINS
RUTH MOORE
and project director MARIE SMYTH
We wish to thank all those who took part in the public discussions,
in particular Anne Doherty and Alistair Wilson who opened the
series of discussion by presenting their personal views in a public
place. We are grateful to our speakers: Brian Lacey, Brendan Murtagh,
David Holloway, Jackie Redpath, Gerry Doherty and Andrew Hamilton.
We would like to thank the many people, whose names we do not
have, who came along and assisted in opening up topics for discussion
by their participation. We wish to thank Maureen Hetherington,
Community Relations Officer of Derry City Council, who chaired
the meeting on population movement. We wish to thank Gary Mitchell
and Roy Arbuckle for permission to use their theatrical pieces,
and Ann Corr and James King for performing these pieces. We also
are indebted to the people who facilitated the small group discussions
in the public meetings and provided feedback. Special thanks to
Ken Rooney of the Fountain Partnership, and to our Advisory Group,
particularly Barney Devine, Denis McCoy, Brendan Murtagh and Donnie
Sweeney. William Temple of the Board of Directors gives constant
advice and feedback. Allen Kennedy provided photographic records
in his usual unobtrusive and professional manner.
Our thanks to BBC Radio Foyle, Highland Radio, The Belfast Telegraph,
The Londonderry Sentinel and the Derry Journal for covering the
events as they occurred and to unnamed individual journalists
who took a particular interest in our work. We would also like
to thank the staff of the Central Library and the Foyle Arts Centre
for their co-operation in organising meetings. Finally, thanks
are due to the funders of this project, Derry City Council, The
Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, and The Community Relations
Council, and to the funders of the overall project, the Central
Community Relations Unit, the Joseph Rowntree Trust, the Ireland
Fund, and the Londonderry Initiative of the Department of the
Environment, without whose financial assistance none of this would
have been possible.
CONTENTS First Public Discussion: The Name of This City
The Historical Context: Brian Lacey Submission from the floor: William Houston Letters received Letters sent by Templegrove Action Research
Letters in response
Second Public Discussion: Is Segregation Desirable?
Dr Brendan Murtagh
Responses to the presentations
Excerpt from Exodus written by Gary Mitchell (from a concept by Roy Arbuckle) performed by Ann Corr Population Movement: The Statistics: Marie Smyth Monologue written by Robert Herdman and performed by James King
Responses to the presentations Fourth Public Discussion: Loyalism
Responses to the presentation Fifth Public Discussion: The Shankill and the Falls:
The Shankill: Jackie Redpath The Falls: Gerry Doherty
Responses to the presentations Sixth Public Discussion: Violence in Communities
Responses to the presentation
Appendix 2:The budget for the series
When we began the research project on sectarian segregation in
September 1994, the cease-fires were only weeks old, and the atmosphere
in the city was a mixture of excitement and nervous tension. We
had planned the Templegrove research project when the violence
of the troubles had been ongoing. That the violence should end
just as we were beginning work was a challenge to our ability
to respond to a changing political climate. Sectarian division
and violence did not merely provide the backdrop to our research,
they were central concerns, and at the very beginning of our
work a major change had occurred - apparently the violence had
ended. This cessation of violence seemed laden with significance,
not only for our work, but for our daily lives, and for the country
as a whole. We wanted Templegrove's contribution to this new and
unprecedented situation to be relevant, positive and useful. We
discussed how we could contribute to wedging open the windows
of opportunity that the cease-fires represented.
If, in times of war, truth is the first casualty, then dialogue
is the second. In those early days of the cease-fires, talking
amongst politicians was posed as an alternative to violence. We
noted that topics of conversation related to politics were beginning
to open up a little. During the violence of the last 25 years,
silence, avoidance of certain topics, and denial of true feelings
or opinions were strategies we all used to manage our identities
in a situation where revealing our identities could attract violent
attack. We had learned to live within the confines of this situation,
had become used to self-censorship, and certain topics of conversation
being considered taboo, especially in the company of strangers
or in "mixed" company. Living in a society fractured
by violent division had robbed us of the opportunities - and eventually
some of the capacity - for dialogue and discussion about our differences.
Where such discussions did take place, they were carefully managed,
and time and energy had to be devoted to building trust among
participants before any depth of discussion could be embarked
upon.
Faced with the removal of the threat of violence, even, as we
thought at the time, briefly, - we wanted to create an opportunity
for open public discourse in which citizens from both of the two
major traditions in the city could participate in discussing the
issues which most divided them -aspects of sectarian division.
We planned a series of public meetings, which were publicly advertised.
The took place largely in city centre venues, and each topic and
speaker was selected in order to offer information and informed
perspectives on the topic under discussion. With the exception
of the first meeting, we structured the public discussion in small
groups, so that the participation of those attending was maximised.
A plenary session and general discussion drew each meeting to
a close. We documented the content of each discussion, we recorded
the main points emerging from the public discussions in almost
all the meetings and summaries of those records are presented
here.
I will never forget my feelings prior to that first meeting. The
topic was "The Name of the City" and Ann Doherty, Alistair
Wilson and Brian Lacey were the speakers. Whilst reassuring participants
about their contributions I had my own usual anxieties about no-one
turning up, this being the first public venture undertaken by
Templegrove. I was also nervous that the meeting would degenerate
into verbal abuse between people of different views. My anxieties
were ill-founded. A range of views, some of them conflicting,
were expressed, in a respectful manner. In subsequent meetings,
conflictual subjects were similarly discussed successfully. By
the end of the series of meetings, some people had attended many
of the meetings and knew what to expect. Each meeting was attended
by between forty and fifty people, from both communities. Discussions
were informative and seriously engaged in by participant, and
many view points were aired and examined. What follows is an account
of those meetings.
In September, 1994, Templegrove Action Research Limited, a community
based research company with directors drawn from both sides of
the community, began a two year action-research project on aspects
of segregation and sectarian division in Derry Londonderry. Just
as the project began, the IRA and shortly afterwards the Combined
Loyalist Military Command announced cease-fires. Templegrove's
research field was substantially altered by these developments.
In recognition of the possibility of more open political dialogue,
Templegrove embarked on organising a series of public discussion
on aspect of sectarian division - the subject that was most difficult
to address when violence was ongoing. A series of topics was
identified and, in all, six public discussion were organised on
the following topics:
1: The Name of This City: Derry or Londonderry?
2: Is Segregation Desirable?
3: Changing Population Balance and Protestant Drift
4: Loyalism in Northern Ireland Today
5: The Shankill and the Falls: Minority Experiences of Two Communities
6: The Effects of Political Violence
The meetings took place in city centre venues for the most part,
with one meeting - the one on segregation, being held in two parts.
The first part was a meeting in The Fountain attended by Fountain
residents, and the second part was a public meeting attended by
people from all over the city. The meetings were organised so
that public participation was maximised, by the use of facilitated
small group discussion, and the content of some of that public
discussion is incorporated into this record. Attendance at meetings
varied from forty to sixty people, and there is some evidence
that discussion of the issues raised persisted beyond the meetings,
and that the series of discussions contributed towards the creation
of a more open political dialogue in the city. Whether this atmosphere
of openness will survive in the current political climate remains
to be seen. However, other organisations in the city continue
to organise public discussions which are accessible to both communities
on matters relating to sectarian division, and these may contribute
towards increasing the political space available for political
dialogue.
Marie Smyth
| |||||
