In September 1994, Templegrove Action Research Limited began a
two year project which was to investigate aspects of the shifting
population balance between Protestants and Catholics in Derry
Londonderry. As part of that investigation, research was conducted
in two enclave areas, Gobnascale (Catholic) and The Fountain (Protestant)
in which some of the central questions were directed at uncovering
the reasons why people remain living in certain areas, whilst
others move out; what is the quality of life for those who remain;
and how people perceive themselves on the majority-minority axis.
In terms of politics with a large "P", Derry Londonderry
is a city in which the usual Northern Ireland Protestant majority/Catholic
minority dynamic is invented. Discovering ways in which majorities
facilitate, and respect minorities is crucial to political progress
in every political arena, if the dominant-subordinate dynamic
of the past is not to be replicated. It was with this in mind,
that Templegrove Action Research embarked on organising a public
hearing in which the diversity of minority experience in the city
could be explored.
Templegrove Action Research Limited decided to proceed with the
setting up of a minorities hearing in the summer of 1995. Funds
were sought and secured from the Community Relations Council,
Derry City Council, the Inter-Church Reconciliation Fund for Ireland
and the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust.
When administering a questionnaire in Gobnascale, one woman told
us that she didn't fit in to any of the categories of Unionism
or Nationalism in our questionnaire because she was profoundly
deaf and therefore politically marginalised. This woman's marginalisation
from what is perceived to be "real politics" - or politics
with a large "P"- in Northern Ireland, was, we suspected,
not unique.
Our public hearing, held, as it was, in the Guildhall at the heart
of the city's political life, was our contribution to bringing
the diversity of minority experience in from the margins. We propose
to disseminate the material contained in this report as widely
as possible. We invite voluntary, statutory and business organisations
to consider its contents with a view to reviewing their policies
and practices in the light of the observations and recommendations
made here.
Templegrove Action Research Limited decided to employ Dave Duggan
to organise the hearing, facilitate groups and individuals wishing
to make submissions, and to prepare the draft report. The decision
was a good one. I would like to record our thanks to Dave for
his energy, commitment and skill in carrying out this work. We
enjoyed having him as part of our team.
Marie Smyth,
On February 21, 1996, Templegrove Action Research, a community-based
research organisation, held a public hearing in the Minor Hall,
The Guildhall, Derry Londonderry on the experiences of minorities
in the city. The hearing had been widely advertised in the local
press and broadcast media. Written or verbal submissions were
invited from individuals or groups who considered themselves to
be a minority for whatever reason, and wished to make a public
statement about their experience of life in the city. Individuals
and groups who were intending to make a submission were asked
to be brief, and to make recommendations for changes which they
would like to see in policy and practice in the city. They were
asked to respond to the question, "What kind of city do we
want?"
A panel was formed to hear the submissions, composed of: Christine
Bell, The Queen's University and Committee on the Administration
of Justice; Mary Mulholland, Rights Now and North East Forum on
Disability; and Patrick Yu, Black Perspectives Committee, Central
Council for Education and Training in Social Work and Chair and
a founding member of the Northern Ireland Council for Ethnic Minorities.
Templegrove had employed Dave Duggan specifically to facilitate
the hearing and to encourage and support groups and individuals
in preparing their submissions. Initially, responses were received
from a number of groups, and these groups prepared and submitted
written submissions in advance of the hearing. Dave approached
a number of other groups, such as the Traveller's Support Group
who did not respond to the advertisement, but who were clearly
within the remit of the hearing. For the most part, however, those
who made a submission were defining themselves as minorities,
rather than Templegrove imposing that definition on them. Support,
in the form of typing and duplicating, discussion and preparation
was offered to groups and individuals preparing submissions. The
facility to make an anonymous submission, which would be read
by Templegrove staff at the hearing, was available, and this facility
was used by one or two people.
Public bodies and policy makers were asked to send observers to
the hearing, and the press were notified through a series of press
releases. Ensuring wheelchair access, the installation of a loop
system and the securing of the services of an ISL signer were
part of the process of establishing the hearing.
In all, twenty submission were presented at the hearing and the
text of these submissions and the responses of the panel are contained
in chapter 3 of this report. A further six submissions were received
after the hearing and these are also contained in chapter 3.
The hearing was a vibrant, moving and fascinating occasion, which
was well attended by the public and other interested groups. A
list of those who signed the attendance sheet is included as Appendix
1. A full evaluation of the hearing is contained in chapter 4.
The main value of the hearing was in gathering evidence about
the situation of minorities, empowering groups and individuals
to prepare and present public statements on their situation, and
the emergence of the beginnings of common themes and experiences
across a range of groups. Some of the experiences which were common
to more than one group were: fear and a sense of threat; actual
violence; lack of access to public spaces and amenities; language
difficulties; lack of separate provision for separate identity
groups including education; health and social services and leisure
facilities; having the needs of the group ignored by policy makers
and planners; and a sense of invisibility in the city. A series
of recommendations arose out of the submission presented and these,
together with Templegrove's recommendations, are contained in
chapter 5.
The multiplicity of experiences of people in our city are often
submerged in the seemingly overwhelming urgency of the 'green/orange'
debate. The pervasiveness and the priority given to this debate
means that other concerns are ignored, other voices are often
drowned in to the seemingly endless racket of the often bloody
disputes about national identity. Those drowned voices are lost
and unheard, and this is our loss. This loss is the loss of the
wisdom, insight and experience which those voices have to offer.
It is also a loss of our own ability to bear witness to the pain
of marginalisation, on which no one minority group or section
of the community has a monopoly.
A mechanism for addressing this loss involves widespread consultation,
full inclusion and a ritualised space within which the voices
can be heard. To create such a mechanism was the task undertaken
by Templegrove Action Research, when it decided to develop a public
hearing process for minorities in the city.
The rationale and brief of the hearing was the desire to promote
social inclusion and raise awareness of the responsibilities of
majorities towards minorities. This involved contact with, and
seeking submissions from, members of minorities in the city. The
context of the sectarian division is ever present and the question
"What kind of city do we want?" was designed to provoke
a wide range of views and recommendations. The process of organising
the hearing and the contents of the hearing would then be written
up in a comprehensive published report for wide dissemination.
The key element in this process was the use of the discourse of
'minorities' at a hearing day. This language gave permission to
a diverse range of utterances to be made in public. Individuals
and groups were enabled to formalise their concerns and their
desires and present them in a supportive environment created by
the attentive listening of the panel members and the formal process
of a public hearing.
This process presented a challenge and an opportunity through
which considerable empowerment occurred. Increased confidence
and clarity resulted, so that the hearing day itself was a celebration
of the richness and diversity of experiences of people in the
city.
The Board and Staff of Templegrove Action Research are pleased
to have contributed towards a richer, more complicated view of
our city. This more complicated view is of concern and interest
to all citizens, but particularly to those among us charged with
developing policies and visions for the future.
Dave Duggan
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the
General Assembly of the United Nations on 10th December 1948 opens
with Article 1:
They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."
This declaration, coming as it did at the end of an horrific war
in which mass murder on the basis of a vision of racial purity
played an important part, has particular resonance. And in the
years that followed further assertions and commitments have been
made internationally, so that it is increasingly possible to talk
about the development of a "human rights culture" in
the world.
been adopted in such fields as the prevention of discrimination; the rights of women; the rights of the child; prevention of slavery, servitude and forced labour; human rights and the administration of justice; freedom of information; freedom of association; equality and non-discrimination in employment; human rights related to family, marriage and youth; social welfare, progress and development; the right to enjoy culture; human rights related to nationality, statelessness and asylum; prevention, prohibition and punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, and humanitarian law in armed conflict." (1)
The process of establishing Article 1 as a reality is far from
over, and while many advances have been made, much development
is still called for. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
focuses on the particular rights of minorities in a number of
articles.
Relevant for minorities are, for instance, the provisions on freedom
of thought, conscience and religion (Universal Declaration Article
18). Members of any religious group are entitled to manifest,
in public as well as in private, their religion or belief in teaching,
practice, worship and observance. Equally relevant is the right
to freedom of opinion and expression (Universal Declaration Article
19), which includes the right to seek, receive and impart information
through any media and regardless of frontiers. This right clearly
includes the right to use one's own mother tongue and to receive
and to give information in that language; on this basis, minority
groups can assert their right to protect their own language. The
right to freedom of assembly and association is outlined in (Universal
Declaration Article 20): Minority groups are entitled to organize
for the promotion of their interests and values by forming their
own associations. Furthermore, everyone has the right to participate
in the cultural life of the community (Universal Declaration Article
27). This implies, also, that members of minority groups have
the right to carry on their particular group culture. (2)
Specific factors in our own society impinge on the possibility of human rights. The most obvious of these is the major political and social conflict which exits in Northern Ireland and which is manifest in a variety of ways, including violence. This conflict has had the effect of reducing the multiplicity of experience and narrowing the political agenda to the exclusion of everything but the "national" question. This is illustrated by the question put to a local person, "Are you a Catholic Hindu or a Protestant Hindu?" (3)
It is significant that this work happened at a time when considerable
political change was under way and political uncertainty prevailed.
A number of large scale consultation and visioning projects are
being undertaken by, for example the City Partnership Board, into
which the outcomes of the minorities hearing can be fed. A seemingly
new willingness to address marginalised groups has become apparent.
For example the "Outline Strategy proposals 1996-1999 : Urban
regeneration in Londonderry" state:
socially excluded in the design and implementation of projects seeking to meet their needs" (4)
It is within this broader context, and that of Templegrove's other
work on sectarian segregation, that, in late 1995, a decision
was taken to undertake an investigation into the experience of
minorities in the city. It was decided to employ the mechanism
of consultation and a public hearing. The outcomes of this investigation
are situated alongside the main outcomes of the work of Templegrove
Action Research.
| |||||
