Improving Community Relations by Hugh Frazer and Mari Fitzduff[Key_Events] [Key_Issues] [Conflict_Background] COMMUNITY RELATIONS: [Menu] [Source] The following pamphlet has been contributed by the authors Hugh Frazer and Mari Fitzduff with the permission of the publishers, Community Relations Council. The views expressed in this chapter do not necessarily reflect the views of the members of the CAIN Project. The CAIN Project would welcome other material which meets our guidelines for contributions. 
Improving Community Relations
CRC Pamphlet No. 3
Community Relations
for the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights
Hugh Frazer & Mari Fitzduff
Preface Improving Community Relations was written in 1986 as a report for the Northern Ireland standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Influenced by its analysis and recommendations the Government in 1987 established the Central Community Relations Unit at Stormont. In 1990, with the assistance of CCRU, the Community Relations Council was formed in order to support and promote community relations work at all levels within the community. Improving Community Relations is being reprinted here by the Community Relations Council, with the permission of HMSO, in order to make more widely available its account of the history of community relations initiatives from 1969 to the mid-1980s and to restate the analysis and recommendations on which recent community relations developments have largely been based.
Acknowledgements
The views contained in this Paper are those of the authors and
should not be taken to represent those of the standing Advisory
Commission on Human Rights.
Hugh Frazer
August 1986
1. Origins and terms of reference of the report In 1985 the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights received a suggestion from various groups in Northern Ireland working in the area of community relations that they should study the possibility of setting up a new body which would concern itself with the promotion of better community relations within the Province. They subsequently initiated this study to investigate:
In order to ascertain needs and possibilities in the area of community relations, 62 consultations were held with individuals and groups either working in the area or with an experience in related areas. These included many of the former workers of the original Community Relations Commission, set up in 1969, the Commission for Racial Equality, representatives from various Community Relations Councils in the United Kingdom and members of both statutory and voluntary bodies in Northern Ireland either directly or indirectly concerned with promoting community relations and politicians.
A list of all those individuals and groups interviewed is contained
in Appendix 1. Following our discussions with the above persons, and in order to further clarify needs and priorities of groups working in the area, a questionnaire covering broadly speaking the same areas was sent to 75 groups working in the area of community relations, mainly in Northern Ireland, but including also some in the Republic of Ireland, and in Great Britain. The questionnaire which was intended to supplement issues arising from our initial discussions in the consultation process covered such aspects as the staffing and financing levels of these organisations, and questions to elicit perceived needs, priorities and limitations of agencies in the area of community relations. The questionnaire also asked whether consideration should be given to the establishment of a new agency, or whether the expansion of existing agencies should be considered, to undertake work perceived as being a priority in this area. Five surveys were returned unopened, five letters of support for increased work to be done in the area of community relations were received from groups who for various reasons were unable to complete the questionnaire, and 37 reconciliation groups completed and returned the questionnaire. While we recognise that approximately one third of these agencies did not reply, in fact most of the major agencies working in the field did so. A list of those who completed the questionnaires is enclosed in Appendix II. An adapted variation of the questionnaire was also sent to a variety of other groups, including community, youth, women's and farmers' groups in order to investigate their willingness to enhance their work by extending it to include work of a community relations nature, and to assess priorities and needs as they saw them in this field. Three letters of support were received from these agencies, and 23 completed and returned the questionnaire. A list of those who completed and returned this survey is enclosed in Appendix II. A resume of the results of the survey along with the questionnaires are also included in Appendix II.
An initial draft of this document was then subsequently circulated
to key people working in the area of community relations, and
many of their comments were incorporated into the final text.
2 History of Community Relations Work 1. The Ministry for Community Relations and the Community Relations Commission Following the re-emergence of sectarian violence in 1969 in Northern Ireland and particularly in the aftermath of the riots in Belfast and Deify in August 1969, the British Home Secretary, James Callaghan announced the establishment of a Ministry for Community Relations, and Community Relations Commission.[1] The Ministry was charged with promoting policies which would improve community relations, and the Commission with the promotion of activities relevant to this field. By December 1969, both bodies were in operation. The Ministry of Community Relations was made responsible by passing of the Social Need (Grants) Act[2] for administering a major financial programme of social intervention. They were responsible for making money available under the Act to statutory bodies and voluntary organisations including community groups for what were considered to be worthwhile projects. They were also responsible for financing the activities of the Community Relations Commission. The terms of reference of the Commission were almost identical to those of the Great Britain Race Relations Board[3] and were:
The Commission comprised ten members, of whom two were ex officio, and the rest divided equally between Catholic and Protestant. The Commission adopted as the main strategy of its work, the initiation of a community development programme across Northern Ireland. This aimed at building up strong confident community organisations, who it was hoped would subsequently begin to see areas of common interest on which they could unite across the sectarian barriers. Their involvement in this work inevitably led to substantial liaison between the Community Relations Officers and other Government agencies, with field workers from the voluntary agencies, and with elected representatives of the communities. The Commission also engaged in a programme of conferences to bring together people who might not normally meet from the various churches, educational establishments and communities. Many of these conferences were based on encouraging co-operation among communities on social issues of mutual concern, and did not necessarily have an overt community relations aim. They also brought together on several occasions members of various paramilitary groupings with community workers from throughout the Province for discussions of a political and social nature. Their educational remit was fulfilled by setting up a sub-committee of the Schools Curriculum Committee under the Ministry of Education to see how schools could contribute to the improvement of Community Relations, and the Commission supported the subsequent programme financially and administratively for two years. The Commission also engaged in a research programme to obtain basic information about social problems and their relationship to the inter-community problem and the results of these were subsequently published. While its brief included the responsibility to give advice to the Ministry of Community Relations, in fact this advice was only once sought by the Ministry. Both the Commission and the Ministry had a short life. In April 1974, the Minister for Community Relations in the Assembly for Northern Ireland, Mr Ivan Cooper, announced that the Commission was to be wound up.[4] One month later, on 28th May, the power-sharing Executive fell. The following year the Community Relations Commission was formally abolished.[5] Several reasons appear to have contributed to the abolition of the Commission itself.[6] Almost from the beginning, the Ministry appeared to view the Commission's community development programme with something akin to suspicion. The possibly radical nature of a successful community development programme, independent of Government control, was thought by many in the Commission to be inevitably threatening to Ministry and politicians alike. Also, as the Ministry held the purse strings of the Commission, this contributed to the tension. The Commission felt itself to be an independent body, and resented what they saw as the restrictive nature of the hierarchical structure and the bureaucratised nature of the Ministry. Some politicians also resented what they saw as an agency diminishing their capacity to represent their communities, and were on the whole relieved to have it abolished. Assessments of the success or otherwise of the Community Relations Commission vary. Many respondents to the research felt that its role in instigating community development work in Northern Ireland had been extremely useful, and the commitment of the development officers to this work was frequently commented upon. On this issue of whether the consequent improvement of a decrease in sectarianism had been achieved, assessments varied. Some people felt that certainly in the case of individual community leaders, successful understanding and respect for each others point of view had been achieved. Others felt that such understanding had not had a chance to work itself out at actual community level, because of the curtailment of the community development programme. A proposal for a substantial expansion in this programme had in fact been proposed by the Directory of the Community Relations Commission in 1971, but such a proposal had been dismissed by the Ministry. Both the Chairman of the Commission, Dr Maurice Hayes, and the Director of the Commission, Hywel Griffiths, subsequently resigned. The majority of the people who worked for the Commission, and who were consulted for the purposes of this report are still convinced of the merit of the community development process but would in many cases now see the additional necessity of developing methods to enhance the community relations aspect of any future community development programme. Following the collapse of the Assembly, and the termination of the work of the Community Relations Commission, the order which officially abolished the Commission also settled responsibility for community relations within the Province on the Department of Education. They were charged with 'formulating and sponsoring policies for the improvement of community relations in Northern Ireland'. They were also given responsibility for administering grant aid to areas of social need. In 1976, District Councils were charged by Government with the responsibility for supporting and encouraging community groups, including groups of a community relations nature. This was to be done through the development of Community Services Departments, and the hiring of Community Services Officers. But while the Department of Education at present funds District Councils to the tune of £2,000,000 per annum for work of a community services nature the majority of the money is available to District Councils appears to be spent on resources and community centres. The Community Services Officers are subsequently heavily weighed down with administrative and managerial duties, often at the expense of any community development work.[7] Of the 26 councils, only seven spend more than 10% of their grant on assisting voluntary groups. And even where some finance is available to voluntary groups, the sensitive nature of most community relations work makes support for it unacceptable to most local politicians. Hence there was considerable concern among most respondents to the research that District Councils were failing in their duty to provide funds for community relations work. The Department of Education, apart from grant aiding the District Councils, also gives grants totalling £410,000 (1986/87 budget) annually to assist community relations work in schools and through voluntary agencies. These include teacher secondments for training teachers to work in community relations work, as well as a variety of educational and holiday programmes. Attempts to encourage respect for differing traditions existing within Northern Ireland by voluntary agencies were few previous to the Civil Rights movement in 1969. The Irish Association, founded in 1938, had concerned itself with artistic, cultural and archaeological interests as the means of promoting tolerance. The Fellowship of Reconciliation held several conferences in the late 1950s aimed at bringing Protestants and Catholics together. And Corrymeela was founded in the early 1960s, using mainly seminars and workcamps in their attempts to break down barriers between the communities. Since 1969, voluntary agencies concerned with working in this area have flourished and waned - the most notable among them being The Peace People, PACE, New Ulster Movement, Women Together, All Children Together, Two Traditions Group, and a variety of holiday projects eg. Harmony Community Trust, Holiday Projects West. A major group which primarily concerns itself with promoting understanding between North and South is Co-operation North. The present count of organisations concerning themselves primarily with community relations work in Northern Ireland is estimated at being in the region of 45. The number of full-time staff employed to work in this area is approximately 117 (including ACE workers) and the number of part-time voluntary staff is 86. The annual expenditure of the groups working primarily in the area of community relations is approximately £633,000. Of this approximately £190,000 comes from the Department of Education. Co-operation North functions with a budget of approximately £900,000 (1985/86 budget). The methods used to pursue their aims are, in order of popularity;
In 1977, the CARE Project, based in Magee College, Londonderry, set up a project, in co-operation with BBC Radio Foyle, to record and disseminate the views and opinions of Protestants and Catholics on a variety of aspects of their lives, including community relations. The subsequent tapes were used to promote discussion groups across the Province. In 1985. degrees in Peace Studies at undergraduate level were offered by the University of Ulster, based in Magee College, in Londonderry. These courses at present have 15 students. The Workers Education Association and the Ulster People's College have both set up programmes designed to help people explore areas relevant to community relations ie. discussions on the nature of the conflict, existing fears and possible solutions to the political dilemma. In 1980 the Centre for the Study of Conflict was formally recognised by the Senate of the New University of Ulster (now the University of Ulster). It has concerned itself mainly with compiling and initiating research relevant to the Northern Ireland problem, particularly in the educational field. It is now in the process of extending its research concerns, and organising occasional seminars on areas related to conflict in Northern Ireland. Academics working at Queen's University have also contributed substantially to relevant research done in the Province, and have compiled useful registers of research completed. The Community Relations branch of the RUC was established in 1970 and undertakes projects designed to promote co-operation between the two communities. Their projects with youth include joint summer camps, rambles. discos, football leagues, and quiz competitions. They attempt to facilitate any discussions which will lessen inter-community problems, and hold seminars to provide a forum where representatives from many different interest groups can discuss issues of common concern. The RUC also undertake some limited training of their officers, in conjunction with Stranmillis College, in preparing their officers to deal sensitively with issues of a contentious community nature.
In 1983 the Department of Education offered Belfast City Council an allocation of £100,000 per annum for three years to be spent on improving community relations - known as the BAN (Community Relations) programme. An assessment of the scheme shows that there were conflicting interpretations among the various sections who were offered the money (Community Services. Leisure Services and Parks) as to what was meant by improving community relations, and there was equal confusion as to what programmes would be effective. The chief result from this was a general increase in the support for the principle of improving community relations, although many felt, in common with other groups attempting to work in this area, that adequate theory or practice to effectively fulfil their objectives were at present lacking. Over the years there have been a number of initiatives by members of churches to promote understanding and communication with other churches and there has been a structuring of communication channels between major churches in the 1970s. Organisations such as the Irish Council of Churches and the Churches Central Committee for Community Work, the Corrymeela Community and Columba House and the Inter Church group on Faith and Politics have been active in encouraging such initiatives. At a local level there have been a number of inter-church committees established such as the Waterside Churches Committee for Community Needs and the Glengormley and District Inter-Church Community Action Group. The Irish Council of Churches has initiated a Peace Education Centre which concerns itself with the provision of materials for Peace Education Programmes. However, the impression of most people we talked to is that the Churches have not done enough to actively encourage reconciliation and that initiatives in the field of community relations tend to depend on the work of a few committed individuals.
A major and perennial difficulty for many groups working in the area of community relations has been their difficulty in adequately defining what they see as the objectives of community relations work in Northern Ireland. This confusion has frequently been reflected in their difficulty in formulating strategies to contribute effectively to this work.
The term community relations seems to have been coined around the early sixties in Britain and pertained to solutions being sought there in relation to the problem of racial disharmony, apparently arising from the immigration of various African and Asian peoples to the United Kingdom. Earlier definitions of the objectives of community relations work seem to have primarily concerned themselves with emphasising the idea of a harmonious existence between differing groups, with the intended goal of integrating the minority groups into the wider community as quickly as possible. Later definitions of objectives have put a far greater emphasis on the idea of equality of basic rights and opportunity for all groups, whilst simultaneously encouraging cultural diversity, as being preferable contemporary objectives of community relations work. This shift in emphasis is reflected for example in the changing of the title of the Race Relations Board in Great Britain to the Commission for Racial Equality in 1976. Similar shifts in emphasis have taken place in New Zealand. Therefore what was called the Community Relations Commission has been called the Human Rights Commission since 1977.[8] These shifts in emphasis reflect development in thinking about how the problem of disharmony between groups is to be understood, and also about how the problems produced by such disharmony are to be tackled. Definitions as to what constitutes a community are fraught with difficulty. Communities are often defined as those groups within which frequent social interaction occurs, common ties abound, and who often live within a common geographical area. But definitions keep changing, reflecting the complexity of ideas surrounding the notion of what constitutes a community. While differences in groupings within Northern Ireland normally emphasise the two main groupings of Loyalists and Nationalists, most of us in fact function as part of many communities. While this study addresses itself primarily to problems existing in the main between these two major communities, we feel there may be a danger to the basic rights of all not to acknowledge the existence of other groups in Northern Ireland, many of whom also suffer from prejudice and discrimination eg. the Equal Opportunities Commission considers that in fact women are the community most at risk from discrimination against their particular communities. So the problem of prejudice and discrimination extends well beyond political and religious allegiances. In trying to define what we mean by adequate "Relations" between communities, we arrive at a continuum of what may be seen as either desirable or possible. There are some in Northern Ireland who dream of a day when all peoples in the larger community of Northern Ireland will not only accord each other equality of right and existence, but will be "reconciled" with one another, sharing feelings of mutual understanding and respect, and will work to achieve these aims. Many others would settle for the less idealistic goal of equitable arrangements between communities, which would include political accommodation of a kind, with behaviour which is of an acceptable level ie. neither discriminatory nor aggressive.
The existence of prejudice, discrimination and intolerance existing between the two main communities in Northern Ireland is well documented.[9] Prejudice is the term used to denote a certain attitude, often not based on reality, towards another person or group. It is usually used to signify a negative attitude, although positive prejudice is also possible and prevalent, particularly in our attitudes to our own group. Prejudice is often based on assumptions about the other "group" which are not necessarily our subjective experience, but untested or inherited assumptions. Much reconciliation work -particularly that which focuses on experiences of a primarily "contact" kind, is based on the idea that if one group actually gets to know the other, then the reality of the other grouping's favourable aspects will be revealed and mutual respect will develop. No doubt this learning sometimes happens. However, often allied to a prejudiced attitude is lack of tolerance. Tolerance is the ability of individuals or groups, despite the vigour of their own convictions, to allow for differences of opinions or beliefs by others. Allied to the task of exposing faulty assumptions about the other side, there is perhaps the even more difficult task for educators of individuals and groups learning that others are different, often engage in practices or hold aspirations which may be abhorrent or distasteful to our particular belief system - but that nevertheless, unless their conviction conflicts with people's basic human rights, they are entitled to our tolerance. Our entitlement is to persuade others to believe as we do, through acceptable persuasive behaviour. Such persuasive behaviour is an accepted right in our society, and is a fact of most of our churches missionary work, our current advertising system, and our political systems. Discrimination is the behaviour that results from prejudice and intolerance when we deny experiences or rights to people or groups because they are different. Such discrimination can be affected either individually or collectively, consciously or sometimes unconsciously because the system or institutions of our society have become structured in a manner that discriminates. People and groups vary in their capacity not to pre-judge, to be tolerant of the differing behaviours and beliefs of other persons or groups, and in their perception and allocation of justice. They will vary in these capacities, not only according to the nature of the persons or groups, but also according to the pressures apparent in varying situations eg. personal relationships between people of different communities in Northern Ireland are often admirable, and only deteriorate at times of stress. There may be at one end of a continuum the individual or group who tries to keep their attitudes flexible and in touch with first-hand experience. They can recognise unfair treatment of others, and can respect, perhaps even enjoy the differing aspects of the other person or group. Such a person will by and large not have his/her attitudes determined mainly by group norms. At the far end of this continuum we find those who will avoid facing up to facts about the other person or group which will change their hostile attitude to them. They feel threatened by differences of custom or belief. Such people or groups will often find or create reasons to justify discrimination, or deny that it exists and they will try to avoid situations which might challenge their beliefs. Their rigid attitudes serve a function for themselves or their groups, and can prove difficult to change. Most of us move uneasily somewhere within the centre of the continuum - ie. our attitudes are often shifting and amorphous and for the most part are linked to our situation. Attitudes will harden under pressure and at times of crisis, but can also shift with eg. education, rewarding experiences, and the easing of stress. According to where one resides along this continuum of Tolerance/Intolerance one will be more or less available to different programmes designed to combat prejudice eg. the central group will be more open to receiving information of a positive nature about the other 'side' though contact and communication. For those who hold convictions so strongly that they leave no room for compromise with others whose convictions differ, such programmes may prove useless, and different programmes must be developed. Bearing these variations in mind, strategies for implementing change in attitudes may be more appropriately and effectively designed.
People are both creators and the products of the systems within which they live. Discrimination and prejudice exist occasionally because of personality structures but probably more often because of social and group structures eg. political, educational, class, church and identity systems which continue and nurture prejudice, consciously or unconsciously. Hence work aimed at fostering tolerance must be aimed at many fronts simultaneously, stressing both change in persons and in the systems within which they function. Research has concentrated on producing analyses of prejudiced individuals, but is increasingly recognising the need to study situations and systems that foster prejudice and on the nature of group mechanisms that engender defensiveness and hostility.[10] Structures which facilitate tolerance are more likely to be those which encourage self-confidence, allied with co-operative responsibility eg. Community Development programmes are likely to be processes which encourage the development of a community's confidence. If such confidence can lead a community to join with other communities on issues of similar concern, then such a process is likely to engender respect for each other among the participants and to diminish prejudice.[11] Prejudice and intolerance do not exist outside of time and place, but wane or flourish against the wider extraneous forces of history, environment, economics and politics. Such forces are always crucial in determining whether or not a just and tolerant society can develop. Many people in Northern Ireland would see changes in attitudes and discriminatory behaviour as being dependent upon a resolution of the historical constitutional crisis. When we have won -United Ireland, Integration with Britain, or an Independent Ulster, then we can talk to the other side. And they see such a resolution as being of primary importance. Hence they see talk of improving community relations as being of no relevance until the constitutional problem is settled. They make relationships dependent upon such a settlement. However the majority of people that we spoke to shared the view that a satisfactory constitutional settlement is dependent upon group relationships within the community. And that there may be grounds for saying that there will be no constitutional settlement that will lead to any lasting peace unless the way in which each group sees the other's aspirations has shifted to one of understanding and relative trust. Hence to leave the problem of improving community relations until one has finally solved the constitutional issue may merely exacerbate, not only the problem of relationships between the communities, but also the task of finding an acceptable constitutional settlement. While it is not inevitable that people who live and work closely and interdependently together will respect and understand one another, it is often true that segregated communities facilitate fears and suspicions. In Northern Ireland almost all educational institutions up to third level are segregated. And often housing. work and leisure facilities are similarly separate. Without the active development of integrated environments it is difficult to see how tolerance can develop. In this respect it is encouraging to note the growth in integrated education within the Belfast area. However the growth of such facilities has been the product of a few committed individuals rather than the active support of the Government for such facilities. Unless extensive thought is given to increasing the environmental possibilities for contact and cooperation, it is difficult to see how opportunities for mutual understanding can develop. The level of a person, group or nation's economic status will often affect the level of tolerance shown by them. While economic prosperity, with wealth relatively equitably distributed will not totally eliminate prejudice, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it is in times of economic scarcity, or in areas of particular economic scarcity, where there is strong competition for jobs, houses and other resources that it is likely to flourish. Hence, any programmes designed to combat intolerance will be much more likely to be effective in the context of a flourishing and just economy. Judged by almost any significant social indicator, Northern Ireland ranks bottom of the United Kingdom league with higher rates of unemployment and lower rates of pay for those in employment. Whether or not a problem is tackled with the seriousness which is its due will depend very much upon the political climate and the priorities of the Government in power. It is difficult to effect substantive change in our society without the necessary political will which will facilitate legislation and make available the necessary economic resources to deal with the problem. Macropolitical priorities change. Unfortunately, these are more often directed at responding to crises than at preventing them. This accounts for the far greater present allocation of resources eg. in the Health Services to work of a remedial rather than a preventative nature, and in Northern Ireland to work of a security rather than a community relations nature. Local political priorities must also be considered. Unfortunately, most of the local political groupings have concerned themselves rarely with the problem of improving community relations - and in fact many were seen by our respondents as hindering rather than helping such work. It seems inevitable in the present political climate that politicians concern themselves primarily with expressing the fears of their own constituencies, rather than facilitating listening between the communities. The view was frequently expressed that work of a community relations nature could only be done by by-passing local politicians, because of the nature of the political game which was absorbing their energies, and was often dependent upon encouraging differences, rather than communication. Nevertheless, their power to effect change was recognised, and hopes expressed that ways could be found to harness it in a constructive fashion. Any successful programmes to improve community relations would therefore seem to require, on the political level:
Without these commitments, work aimed at improving community relations is likely to prove a very difficult task.
As objectives, we have taken the term community relations work
to include all activities designed to:
While work of this nature in Northern Ireland will inevitably
concentrate on the problematic relationship at present existing
between the two main cultural traditions in Northern Ireland,
we feel that the work involved of its nature will also include
the promotion of general tolerance and understanding and appreciation
of the diversity of other communities in Northern Ireland who
have also documented prejudice against them.
Our relative ignorance about the causes of prejudice and intolerance
is not surprising. The study of such topics by psychologists and
social psychologists is fairly recent. It has sprung mainly from
the experience of psychologists in trying to understand the Nazi
phenomenon and the way in which discrimination was cultivated
in millions of ordinary Germans towards the Jews, the difficulties
encountered in securing civil rights for blacks in the United
States, and the present uneasy balance in international relations.
While theories in this area of a sociological and psychological
nature have proliferated and studies and experiments about effecting
positive attitude changes have flourished, much of the evidence
is still piecemeal. Nevertheless, there is available to us some
useful evidence on which there is relative consensus as to what
can be facilitative in this field.
Legislation if enforced can prove to be an effective means of
affecting overt prejudice. It is an expression of official morality
of a Government's intentions for the rights of its people. It
can act as a restraint to bigotry, attempting to equalise advantages
and lessen discrimination. It can also be educative in forming
attitudes eg. Many people who originally protested at having to
wear seat belts eventually began to feel uneasy if not wearing
them when driving.
Good legislation is an essential first step which sets the baseline
for tolerable, acceptable behaviour towards all members of our
society.
While recognising the efforts made by Government to secure adequate
legislative reassurance for the rights of all within Northern
Ireland through the Fair Employment Agency (FEA), and through
the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights (SACHR) itself,
the need for further improvement in this area was many times mentioned
by our many respondents. Two suggestions were made frequently
enough to be noted here:
Similarly, the Australian Human Rights Commission exists to provide
protection against discrimination on any grounds of race, colour,
sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national
or social origin, property, birth or other status.[13]
Such an agency must also be seen to be easily available in the
first instance for consultation and when action is seen to be
necessary the procedures for such action must not be unduly protracted
or cumbersome. Many respondents felt that seeking redress against
discrimination through the FEA was fraught with difficulties through
a combination of cumbersome procedures which resulted in long
delays and rendered the law less effective. While legislation
to enforce non-discriminatory behaviour is the essential basis
of any programme intending to combat intolerance, there are several
reasons why it may not be enough just to depend on legislation.
Legislation does not necessarily instill subjunctive tolerance.
Suppressing discriminatory behaviour, without attempting to tackle
heartfelt feelings about the objectives of prejudice may render
the law less effective, and probably more difficult to enforce.
There is apparently effective legislation to deal with racial
discrimination in the United States yet the Ku Klux Klan still
exists. And in times of stress behaviour can easily slip, fuelled
by residual intolerance ideas, into illegal behaviour.
It is also evident that laws against public expressions of prejudice
eg. the prevention of incitement to hatred legislation will not
deter the convinced bigots, particularly when they feel they are
acting in accordance with what they feel to be higher law eg.
God, or a historical right. When this is seen to be the case contempt
for the law, and consequent disregard for it, can easily be engendered.
Another factor in limiting the effectiveness of laws against discriminatory
behaviour is that much discriminatory behaviour springs from unconscious
assumptions affiliations or an unconsciousness of the discriminatory
nature of the structures within which we function. In many cases,
explanations, reasoning etc. allied with the possible eventual
back-up of legislation, may prove to be more effective in effecting
change.
For these reasons, while adequate legislation and enforcement
of that legislation is the first step in protecting the rights
of all, it is not sufficient in ensuring tolerance.
The potentially largest change agent at the present time in Northern
Ireland is probably the Government. They are the largest employer
in the Province. Also the Departments of Education, Health and
Social Services and the Environment in particular have structures
which affect and influence the daily lives of all in Northern
Ireland. The role that these Departments can play in alleviating
discrimination and facilitating respect for all has been usefully
shown in the way in which the Housing Section of the Department
of the Environment tackled the problem of discriminatory allocation
which had been one of the most provocative areas in fuelling the
1969 campaign for Civil Rights. Similarly, one of the main funders
of reconciliation work in the Province has been the Department
of Education.
Despite these initiatives it is surprising how little evidence
there is that tackling the problem of community relations is a
priority with the Government. There are many indications that
other countries and even other parts of the United Kingdom have
begun to tackle such problems as prejudice and discrimination
and structures that continue these, in a more energetic way than
is apparent in Northern Ireland.
Tackling racial difficulties in Great Britain at a preventative
rather than a security level appear to obtain far more funding
and attention than the community problem here in Northern Ireland.
While there are obvious differences in the problems -particularly
in the size of the minority as the division in racial terms is
95%/5% as opposed to our 60%/40% nevertheless many areas of common
concern are shared by both problems ie. the problem of discrimination
and of prejudice, and of institutionalised structures which frequently
reflect these prejudices. Not only has the Government instituted
the Commission for Racial Equality with a budget of £9.3
million and a staffing level of 189 (1984/5 figures) but within
the Home Office there is the Community Projects section which
has overall responsibility for the Government on any issue concerning
race relations. In addition, each Government Department has within
it a Unit concerned to overview all briefs and programmes which
are likely to positively or detrimentally affect relations between
the races. The co-operation between such units and the Home Office
is generally good.
In addition, some local authorities now retain Policy Units, retained
by the Council as a whole, which contain officers responsible
for advising statutory bodies about how proposed and present programmes
may affect race relations within their area. The Commission for
Racial Equality also gives funding to local Community Councils,
which attempt to tackle racial tensions within the local areas.
At the moment within Northern Ireland while there is some evidence
of efforts by Government to tackle the problem of community relations
seriously ie. its sponsorship through the Department of the Environment
for Northern Ireland of such schemes as Corrymeela, Harmony Community
Trust, Peace People, East Belfast Community Council and its various
school projects and the recent grant to the Northern Ireland Voluntary
Trust by the Department of Education to fund Inter-Community Contact
Schemes, such support is piecemeal and appears to lack overall
policy.
We recognise there are many difficulties inherent in any comprehensive
Government approach to the problem. Each Government Department
has its own priorities and at the moment community relations is
the concern of none in particular. Even if such a Department were
to exist, there is a danger that it would in fact lessen the attentiveness
of the other departments to relevant issues, on the basis that
these issues were being taken care of elsewhere.
In fact the issue of community relations supersedes and embraces
all Departments. An interesting analogy might be made with the
issue of health. It is now realised that to leave issues concerning
health to the Department of Health alone is ineffective. Health
is affected intrinsically by unemployment, environmental conditions,
educational priorities; similarly with relationships between the
communities.
Governments are judged by the energy with which they will pursue
their priorities. Where there is obvious community tension it
appears ill-advised to ignore such tensions, in the hope that
time, or a new constitutional settlement will alleviate them.
They may, but undoubtedly they will be helped by a thorough and
concerted application of policies and the resources to tackle
the issues.
From the time we are born, we function always as part of a group.
Family, school, church, work - all of these structures can facilitate
people who are capable of tolerating the validly held views of
other individuals or groups, or alternatively, can act as effective
vehicles for acquiring prejudice. Evidence has linked authoritarian
attitudes, often allied with negative attitudes towards any group
that is different from our own - with eg. child rearing practices
where questioning of parental authority is disallowed. Other structures
such as schools, or churches or work institutions which disallow
questioning and deny to children or adults, any part in the decision-making
process of the group, may also be facilitating intolerant attitudes.
On the other hand, groups which allow individuals to empathise,
take into consideration other people's points of view, and provide
individuals with opportunities to take responsibility for decisions
affecting the group are likely to encourage tolerance.
There is also significant evidence to show that individuals with
low self-esteem are more likely to be intolerant of others. One
of the easiest ways to increase our feelings of self-esteem, is
to at least feel better than someone else. This can happen also
on a group level. Efforts directed therefore, at making individuals
and groups more self-confident appear likely to yield dividends
in terms of tolerance.
There is also adequate evidence to convince us of the fact that
the less we know about the other group/person the more open we
may be to negative prejudice. Segregation is no facilitator of
understanding between people. If we have friends who are gay,
or black, Protestant or Catholic, the less likely we are to be
prejudiced against such people. Yet contact, to be a useful tool
in promoting tolerance must be more than the casual meetings such
as occur in much of our everyday lives with those with whom we
have dealings with, or work with. Contact can take place among
people without much real communication. Many people can work together
in Northern Ireland for years, and never discuss what divides
their communities. Politeness, while valuable for the everyday
smoothness with which we run our lives, can often prove to be
an insufficient basis on which to guard against hostile behaviour
in a time of crisis. Casual contact therefore is unlikely to facilitate
tolerance. However contact which involves meetings not just at
individual but at group level, with possibly shared objectives
by the group, and which can happen over a relatively long period
of time is likely to encourage tolerance.
Structures which include any, or possibly all of the above components
are likely to be useful in contributing to the task of increasing
understanding between communities in Northern Ireland.
In adulthood, many of the activities likely to include the above
elements - the acquisition of empathy through responsibility,
the acquisition of self-confidence through assertion, and the
facilitation of understanding through contact are likely to be
programmes which fall under the broad heading of community development.
This was the strategy pursued by the original Northern Ireland
Community Relations Commission. In doing this it was following
what is generally referred to as the two-stage theory of community
relations ie.:
Most respondents we spoke to in the course of this research were
still convinced of the validity of this approach to community
relations, but were concerned that it would be unsuccessful unless:
In recent years many voluntary agencies eg. Belfast Voluntary Welfare Society, Forum for Community Work Education, Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust, St. Vincent de Paul Society, Extern, Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, have increased their commitment to a community development approach. Similarly, there had been in recent years a growing, albeit scattered and uncoordinated recognition in many statutory agencies eg. the Department of Health and Social Services Board, Enterprise Ulster, the Probation Service, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and some District Councils of the value of such programmes. Recently many statutory agencies have been keen to support the promotion of the ACE Scheme. However statutory support generally appears to be piecemeal and lacking in any form of co-ordination and community workers in statutory agencies often seem to be operating on the periphery of their agency.
Such enhancement would involve particular skills and commitment,
which demand time and space for reflection which many people working
in community development programmes felt they at present did not
have. Many respondents also expressed concern over the increasingly
sectarian nature of the various community centres, and attributed
this to the lack of the communities, and to ways of facilitating
joint action by all communities on issues of mutual concern, which
in turn might provide opportunities for groups to address themselves
to the nature of sectarianism itself.
Ignorance and fear of the other are a key factor in the development
of prejudice and intolerance. Time and again respondents have
pointed out to us that the two communities lack opportunities
to learn about each other. One way of tackling this is through
community education. A few important initiatives are being developed
in this field which enable people from different communities to
learn more about the common problems they face, eg. the growth
of neighbourhood women's groups has led to a share of experiences
between women from Catholic and Protestant areas. Organisations
like the Women's Information Day, the Women's Education Project,
the Women's Centre and the Workers' Education Association have
played a vital role in this process. The Ulster People's College
is doing pioneering work in helping the two communities to communicate
with each other, to appreciate and understand their respective
traditions, to clarify the values and attitudes (social, political
and religious) inherent in those traditions, to search for their
common culture and history. Such initiatives are at present very
small-scale and under-resourced but hold out important hope for
improving understanding between communities.
Schools would at first sight appear to present to any person interested
in effecting attitude change in appropriate and useful environment.
They could possibly be seen as providing space for contact and
structures which could allow for responsibility and understanding
to develop through discussions. And yet most schools in Northern
Ireland are actually structured to provide the Opposite - they
stand separately as symbolising people's need to protect their
particular brand of beliefs and history as distinct from others.
Within the schools, discussions are often fraught with the difficulties
of teachers, already pressed by competing claims within their
curriculum, the particular ethos of the schools and their need
to defend it, and the structures of the schools which are often
of an authoritarian nature.
Nevertheless, some interesting projects are being tried in particular
through such projects as Education for Mutual Understanding and
Community Relations in Schools which do provide opportunities
for young people to come together in ways that are not normally
possible. Initial assessments of these schemes[14] certainly
argue for their continuation and expansion, despite diminishing
resources available to the educational sector.
The development of possibilities for integrated education is also
encouraging movement. It is worth noting however that such possibilities
have essentially materialised through the efforts of a few committed
individuals rather than through any clear supportive and practical
policy on the part of the Government. The lack of such a policy
has discouraged many other groups from seeking integrated education
particularly outside the Belfast area. Opinion polls have regularly
shown a widespread public demand for integrated education and
the target set by the Belfast Trust for Integrated Education of
one-third of children in Belfast being educated in integrated
schools by the year 2000 seems feasible if sufficient resources
and encouragement are forthcoming.
Many schemes for promoting community relations in Northern Ireland
base their projects primarily on the theory that contact with
people and groups from a differing community will lead to tolerance
and understanding. Cooperation North and the various holiday schemes
for children are primary examples of this type of project. While
it is true that people who are often segregated from an early
age with few available opportunities to build up relationships
of loyalty and trust with members from different communities,
may benefit from programmes primarily focusing on contact measures,
casual contact such as may happen on day outings, or get-togethers
arranged specifically to facilitate contact are often unproductive
of real change. Even residential holidays aimed at facilitating
real understanding among young people will find that the structures
to which the children will return in their communities, in the
absence of shared schools, youth and leisure facilities will mitigate
against any real longterm shifting in attitudes. Northern Ireland
has become increasingly ghettoised in the last 18 years, with
only a few structures eg. the integrated schools in Belfast to
redress the balance. Projects using contact tactics as their method
of working must recognise the fact that while contact with members
of other groups rarely proves deleterious to relationships, it
is unlikely to prove sufficient to change hostile attitudes unless
accompanied by both active discussion programmes and possibilities
for long term involvement and contact.[15] However,
in view of the lack of contact between many Catholics and Protestants
in Northern Ireland, contact schemes are clearly an important
first step in the process of community relations and need to be
expanded and their content developed. Certainly the efforts of
organisations like Holiday Projects West, the Harmony Community
Trust, Northern Ireland Children's Holiday Schemes and Children's
Community Holidays to develop on-going follow-up activities has
been very positive. Another important spin-off from organisations
such as these, International Voluntary Service and other similar
voluntary organisations is the opportunities they have given to
young, often unemployed, volunteers to gain in self-confidence
and meet people from another tradition over an extended period
of time. Many of these young people become important catalysts
for change within their own community.
Cultural and social differences introduce complexities into communication
and conflict in all societies. Northern Ireland, because of the
volatile nature of the response to such conflicts has a particular
need to take such complexities seriously.
Strategies which directly attempt to effect co-operation and tolerance
are currently being developed and assessed. Such strategies have
included in-depth group discussion, mediation and conflict resolution
training, attitude and self awareness training, the experiencing
of group functioning and its consequences, role playing and structured
games. Some groups in Northern Ireland have been involved in developing
such mechanisms on a fairly limited basis. Such groups have included
the Dutch-Irish Northern Irish Advisory Committee, the Fellowship
for Reconciliation, Corrymeela, and more recently Extern. The
evidence for the effectiveness of such training is as yet unclear,
and the fear was expressed by some respondents that such training
could in the wrong hands be damaging and manipulative. On the
other hand, not attempting to develop programmes which would attempt
directly to affect attitude change can also mean that many well
intentioned projects may be less effective by default and while
perhaps not increasing problems of prejudice, will do little to
actually change them.
Respondents frequently pointed out the need for training to help
people learn to:
Such programmes may not be without their difficulties, not the
least being that the evidence in support of their effectiveness
is piecemeal. Ways of usefully using them to facilitate political
tolerance have also yet to be developed. Nevertheless, it is an
area being explored with increasing seriousness by such groups
as the Community Relations Councils in the United Kingdom, the
Women's Movement, the Neve Shalom programmes concerned with increasing
Arab-Israeli co-operation and United States community co-operation.
As such they may usefully warrant further research as a possible
instrument for attitude and behavioural change.
Many of the groups we surveyed felt that research designed to
aid work in this field was extremely important. This reflected
the difficulty many expressed at establishing what programmes
would prove effective in their own work.
Two areas of concern were noted:
Methods of evaluating the worth of work being done, or proposed,
were also felt to be a related priority. It was accepted that
work in this field, by its very nature, is often difficult to
assess, both because of the difficulty in defining objectives
for it, and because of the fact that much of the work done is
done in the hope that it will be long term and cumulative. Nevertheless,
despite such difficulty, in order to avoid apathy and despair
and a waste of resources, it seems essential that some methods
for such assessment be developed.
An overwhelming need expressed by all respondents to the survey
who were working in the area of community relations was the need
of some means to:
The most frequent plea heard from all groups working in the community
relations field was for more funding to be made available to them
to extend and continue their work. Many groups had had difficulty
in finding funding, and pointed out the problems that the nature
of their work engendered in this area, eg. local councils were
on the whole unwilling to fund work of this nature and politicians
did not often see it in their interest to support work they sometimes
considered to be of a dubious nature, and perhaps not in their
own best interests. Complaints were also made to us that local
funding structures sometimes precluded province-wide work.
Most groups felt that the low level of commitment of the Government
to work in this area was reflected in the inadequate resources
they made available for community relations work.
Groups not at present involved in community relations work, but
who expressed themselves willing to enhance their work to undertake
it, claimed that the major limitation on this willingness was
the lack of available funds.
The recent announcement of increased funding from Government to
the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust to enable it to increase
its programme of support to new projects which will promote understanding
and communication within and between communities is an encouraging,
if modest development in this area.
The evidence that has emerged in our study, both from the discussions
we have had with various concerned individuals and organisations
(Appendix I) and from the results of our surveys with concerned
groups (Appendix II) is that most people believe that there
is a need for a new Community Relations Agency. There is also
however, a strong belief that the establishment of any new agency
will need to be part of a package of initiatives if it is to make
a significant contribution to the Northern Ireland problem. The
extent of the divisions in our society are such that they affect
all aspects of life from personal relationships to the educational,
religious, economic, cultural and political aspects. Thus these
divisions must be tackled in many different ways and at various
different levels.
While our remit in this study was to consider the need for a new
agency to improve community relations, in the light of the above
considerations, our recommendation cover a wider range than just
this one option.
A new agency should be established to support and encourage the
efforts of all those individuals and groups concerned to improve
communication, understanding and tolerance between communities
in Northern Ireland and to initiate new work in this area.
The role of such an agency would include the following:
The new Community Relations Agency should be a voluntary organisation
managed by a small independent board of eight trustees with a
quarter of its membership appointed by Government and three-quarters
nominated by key agencies actively involved in building better
community relations. The Agency would have the power to co-opt
individual members with expertise that was relevant to the achievement
of the Agency's objectives. We heard many arguments as to whether
a Community Relations Agency should be part of or independent
of Government. There is a clear need if initiatives on the ground
are to flourish for a positive climate at Government level. However
we believe that this is better taken care of by the creation of
a Government Unit in the Secretary of State's Office as outlined
in 5.8. Given this we believe that the argument that an
independent agency will have more credibility on the ground is
overwhelming. The appointment of a quarter of the committee by
Government will serve to give the Government involvement without
control, enhance the organisation's standing and so increase the
likelihood of any recommendations it makes being carefully listened
to. This is likely to be further enhanced if there is a good working
relationship with the Unit in the Secretary of State's Office.
In addition to the small Board of Management a broader Advisory
Council should be established which would bring together representatives
of all the different community, religious, political and cultural
organisations.
It is envisaged that the staffing for such an agency would initially
at least be fairly compact in size, composed of people committed
to the work, and with appropriate expertise and enthusiasm to
involve themselves in developing strategies to achieve the objectives
outlined in 5.2 above. Thus key staff would include a Director,
an Information Research Officer, a Training Officer and a small
team of 5 or 6 specialist staff whose task would be to give help
and encouragement to local community groups, voluntary organisations,
youth groups, church groups, schools, adult education groups,
etc., with a view to increasing the volume of community relations
activity, They would also be available to help those caught up
in situations of particular conflict. The team should encompass
a variety of skills in community and political education, mediation,
negotiation, conflict resolution and assertiveness training.
Ideally the Agency would establish its independence through totally
independent sources of funding. However we consider it unrealistic
for such an agency to be able to raise the level of funds it is
likely to require from private sources. We also believe that this
would cut across the fund-raising efforts of existing voluntary
bodies. We believe that if the Agency is to be of a sufficient
size and stature to undertake the role outlined in 5.2 above,
Government core funding will be essential. Indeed Government core
funding will further emphasise its commitment to improving community
relations. The proposed structure of the Agency should ensure
that it retains its independent status. Another possible measure
to assure the independence of the Agency could include ensuring
that funds for the post of a chairperson - a post requiring a
major commitment from a person of standing in the community -
should be raised from private sources.
We considered whether the proposed Community Relations Agency
should have a separate fund to assist community relations projects,
but on balance feel that it would be better concentrating on the
other aspects of support needed by community relations projects.
We feel it would be better if funding for community relations
work came through the appropriate statutory agency depending on
the particular activity. The Unit in the Secretary of State's
Office (Section 5.8) should facilitate this development
and take advice from the proposed Community Relations Agency on
the development of effective funding policies by the various statutory
bodies.
While the bulk of funding for community relations activities should
come through Government agencies, there will be a need for some
more flexible sources of funds to help new projects to start up
and new ideas to be tried out. We recommend that this can best
be done by the further expansion of existing charitable trusts
such as the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust and the Ireland Fund,
which are already active in this field. The Agency could also
offer money for their work.
While there is never likely to be an ideal moment for launching
a major initiative in community relations the timing of any new
initiative must be handled with great sensitivity. It is important
that if a new Agency is established that it achieves widespread
support from across the community and thus care should be taken
to avoid it becoming identified with any particular political
initiative. It is also important that it is seen as one part of
a process and not the solution to all the problems between communities
in Northern Ireland. Its existence should be reviewed after five
years.
The promotion of better community relations must be made a key
priority of the Government. While the establishment of a Community
Relations Agency, core funded by Government, should in theory
ensure that Government Departments in Northern Ireland should
consult and liaise with such an agency in all areas concerning
community relations, our discussions with Government agencies
both in London and in Dublin have convinced us that an agency
working within Government is much more likely to affect Government
policies than an independent, albeit specialist agency working
outside the sphere of Government.
Because of this we recommend that there should be established
a specialist community relations unit within the Secretary of
State's Office. Its function would be:
A widely perceived priority by respondents to this study was that
detailed consideration should be given to introducing new legislation
to strengthen anti-discrimination, prevention of incitement to
hatred and related areas of law. In particular the power of the
Fair Employment Agency to enforce such legislation should be strengthened.
An allied concern with many people was that the possibility of
amalgamating all the agencies concerned with discrimination whether
of a racial, religious or sexual nature should be considered.
Such an amalgamation could help to ensure that community relations
activity is viewed in the wider context of human and civil rights.
A major innovation of this nature would obviously need safeguards
to ensure that any such change effected was not used as a vehicle
to reduce funds available for work of this nature, and the work
of any agency at present working in this area should not be downgraded.
The need for a Bill of Rights to be introduced which would spell
out the rights of all citizens was also frequently mentioned as
a proposal for consideration. While it was not within our brief
to study these areas any further, they were widely perceived priorities
in underpinning any new Community Relations Agency.
We presume that the current investigation by the Standing Advisory
Commission on Human Rights will involve detailed consideration
on these matters, and specific proposals to improve this essential
area.
While there are a range of good reasons for encouraging community
development activity at a local level quite apart from improving
community relations we are convinced that community development
can also be an Important factor in facilitating better community
relationships. We would strongly urge the Government to look at
ways of encouraging a major growth in constructive community activity
at a local level.
While it was not a central part of our brief to consider how an
expansion in community development might be achieved very many
respondents expressed dissatisfaction with the current structures.
In particular it was felt by many that local councils, to whom
were devolved the responsibility for community development within
Northern Ireland, have tended to be more concerned with the provision
of community centres and services rather than community development
programmes which will involve local people and enhance their personal
growth and development. We recommend that further consideration
be given to new arrangements to encourage the expansion of community
development including the possibility of establishing an independent
community development agency.
Hugh Frazer
August 1986
Individuals and agencies consulted:
Sam Bailey, University of Ulster
Communication through telephone and correspondence:
Results of the survey
Results of Survey carried out to:
Reconciliation Groups:
All Children Together
Other Organisations:
Action Resource Centre
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CAIN
contains information and source material on the conflict
and politics in Northern Ireland. CAIN is based within Ulster University. |
 |
|||
|
|||
|
 |
Last modified :
|
|
|
| ||