Civil Rights and National Freedom … London Conference [March 1969]
[Editor’s Note: The “Irish Democrat” sponsored a conference on Northern Ireland civil rights in London in March 1969, together with the Campaign for Democracy in Ulster and the Movement for Colonial Freedom. Its purpose was to get more Labour movement support for the Bill of Rights demand. It was held in the NUFTO Hall, Theobald’s Road, London WC1. The main speaker was to be Betty Sinclair, former chairman of NICRA, who was also full-time secretary of the Belfast Trades Council, but she was unable to come because of the crisis that precipitated her resignation and that of other NICRA officers that same month arising from the proposal to join a coat-trailing People’s Democracy march through the heart of Loyalist East Belfast to Stormont.
Desmond Greaves gave the opening statement at the conference. Other speakers were Sean Redmond of the Connolly Association, Cllr. Patrick Byrne of the CDU and Barbara Haq of the MCF. The Editor’s statement was carried in the April 1969 issue of the “Irish Democrat” under the title “Civil Rights and National Freedom”. It is a valuable setting-out of the good sense and relevance of the Bill of Rights demand at that time.]
Civil Rights and National Freedom
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is my pleasant duty to declare this conference open and to welcome all our delegates and visitors. Unfortunately, Miss Sinclair informed us by telephone on Thursday that she has been called to an emergency meeting of the Civil Rights Association in Belfast and tenders apologies for being unable to attend. I hope therefore you will listen to a few introductory words from myself.
The subject of the conference is the necessity of establishing normal political democracy in that part of the United Kingdom which is – inaccurately – termed Northern Ireland. I will use the inaccurate term for the sake of brevity.
The purpose of the conference is to afford representatives of the British Labour and Democratic movement an opportunity of taking counsel together about their responsibilities and the lines of action required.
At the very start I would like to make it clear beyond possible peradventure that though we did invite Miss Sinclair to give us her first-hand account of the situation confronting democrats in Northern Ireland, we do not consider it the province of this assembly to offer any advice or accept any responsibility for movements in Ireland.
We are concerned with our own responsibilities in Britain. These arise because the British Government is in control of Northern Ireland and is constantly taking decisions that affect the lives of the people of that area. This means that the British people are automatically involved. The British Labour movement is involved. And I would add, the means by which we discharge our responsibilities must be decided by our own movement in the well-thought-out interests of the people of Britain, and not out of any patronising philanthropism towards others.
A fair proportion of those here today may be of Irish extraction. Some have not been extracted very long. But this is primarily a conference of people resident in Britain. Either we look to British democracy or we are all wasting our time.
We have described this as a consultative conference, and it is our duty to the delegates, who are here without mandates, to keep it so.
It is not proposed to have any resolutions. I hope this will be taken to mean that speakers may, if they wish, think aloud. But I also hope they will bear in mind the vital necessity of reaching some measure of rough, even undefined, agreement which all can apply in their several spheres of work, and that that work lies in this country.
If we find that at the end of the day there are certain immediate objectives we are unanimous upon, then they can be brought to the knowledge, and I hope the action, of the government by processes we are all aware of.
I said that we propose to discuss democracy in Northern Ireland as the concern of democracy in Britain.
It may be asked what is our starting point. Is it simply that the liberties of one people are the concern of all? Or have we a closer responsibility?
I suggest our starting point should be one simple fact. It is that people in Northern Ireland have complained to the British Government that they are suffering from serious maladministration, and they have asked the British Government to take action.
Any proposal for action by the British Government is the concern of the British people. It is therefore essential that the people of this country should know and understand what is involved.
The people who are making these complaints belong to one of the communities that inhabit the United Kingdom. The Government of which they complain is resolutely opposed to their being allowed to leave the United Kingdom. In any event that Government is forbidden by British law to allow them to leave the United Kingdom.
For the moment therefore they are seeking an improvement in their status within it.
I remark, ladies and gentlemen, that one of the features of Heaven which discourages even the virtuous from hurrying to get there, is the undoubted fact that once in you cannot get out. It may be easier to get out of the United Kingdom than to get out of Heaven. But it is not the case of either the Catholics or the Protestants in Northern Ireland that they are living in heaven. I have heard it described as something else.
Let me turn for a moment to the substance of the complaints. There are three broad categories on which I have no need to expand.
There is the limited nature of the franchise and the manipulation of electoral boundaries. These are said to give the ruling Unionist Party an unfair advantage.
There is the refusal of the administration to give opponents of the Government their fair share of employment and housing. This forces them to emigrate and safeguard the Unionists in the electoral field.
Finally, there are special powers vested in the police which have the effect of stifling legitimate movements for political change.
This must by now be common ground among all who have acquired the slightest knowledge of the subject.
It would be a mammoth understatement to say that Her Majesty’s Government has been exceedingly reluctant to intervene.
For many years Prime Ministers professed that they had no power over this part of the United Kingdom.
When it was finally accepted that under Section 75 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 such power was expressly vested in the British Parliament, they discovered a “convention” according to which while Britain had the power, she refrained from exercising it.
Then under pressure of public opinion Mr Wilson began his teatime chats with Captain O’Neill [Prime Minister in the devolved Government of Northern Ireland] and told him that in the name of his loyalty to Britain he must make some kind of show.
The mountain then went into labour and produced a ridiculous mouse – half-hearted non-reforms that satisfied nobody.
Captain O’Neill did away with the company vote. He proposed but did not enforce a points system for housing. Instead of introducing one man one vote he did away with representative Government altogether in the city of Derry where one man one vote would have lost his party control of the municipality.
Even these items of window-dressing, won let it be said through severe trials and sacrifices by the people of Northern Ireland, nearly cost him his political life.
At this moment there are powerful forces in the Unionist Party only waiting for an opportunity to set the clock back those few minutes it has gone forward.
They rely on the return of a Conservative Government in Britain. The question before us is how to see that democracy is restored fully and irrevocably. Reforms must come fully, finally and irreversibly.
When I say democracy must be established fully, finally and irreversibly, I do not wish for a moment to discourage the struggle against particular abuses.
Nor do I wish to suggest that the movement in Northern Ireland has not scored a victory when it wins some concession which the Government will strain every nerve to take away again.
If the movement for democracy in Northern Ireland can compel the Northern Ireland Government to abandon even one of its oppressive practices, that is a great thing, and must be assisted and applauded without reservation.
However, as I said before, pressure from England is the most important factor in such achievements, and they might become far more difficult to win should the British people prove so foolish as to return the Conservatives instead of demanding from Labour a real Labour policy.
These questions have undoubtedly exercised the minds of the Civil Rights demonstrators when they were subjected to the almost unbelievable sectarian violence most of you have seen on your television screens.
And such events took place after Captain O’Neill had professedly embarked on a policy of reform.
They created a widespread feeling that he would do nothing but temporise and manoeuvre. They had no faith in his reforms.
People wanted Britain to do something, and here are the things they asked for at different times: use of British troops against the Royal Ulster Constabulary; the dismissal of the Northern Ireland Government and the appointment of a commissioner under the Crown; the repeal of the 1920 Home Rule Act followed by the return of the Union – that is to say that Northern Ireland should have the same status as Wales and Scotland.
These were not the consistent, deeply considered proposals of people versed in constitutional law.
They were challenges to British democracy.
The Unionist Party claims the right of inclusion within the United Kingdom.
From this position it derives subsidies to the tune of some £150 million a year.
But it refuses to accept the standards of democracy which obtain in other parts of the United Kingdom.
It is prepared to take the subsidies but insists on distributing them, or their equivalent, in such a way as to give preference to its own supporters.
Are we to connect this fact with the other fact that the Unionist Party has been in power in Northern Ireland for almost fifty years?
I am going to suggest to you at this point that what is wrong with Northern Ireland is its Constitution.
That constitution is the Government of Ireland Act passed in Westminster in December 1920, subject to amendments that have been made over the years.
The entire legislative and administered powers of the Government of Northern Ireland are held on licence from the British Parliament. This licence is set down in Section 4 of the constituent Act. The power to over-ride it, or to withdraw it altogether, is expressly reserved in Sections 6 and 75.
All this has been admitted by Captain O’Neill speaking on television. It is now common ground.
It is my considered opinion that that Constitution has not only been abused, but has become out of date and requires drastic revision.
It is not difficult to find examples to prove these contentions. While it was not specified in the Act, the first Northern Ireland election was held under proportional representation. In 1929 this fair system was abolished.
An amendment to Section 15 of the 1920 Act is all that is necessary to restore it, to assimilate Northern Ireland election practise to the British, or to introduce any other preferred system.
The object of Section 5 of the Act was the guard against legislation which promoted religious discrimination. The Unionists evaded that restriction by promoting, or permitting, religious discrimination by administrative means.
An amendment to Section 5 could be framed so as to forbid religious discrimination in jobs or housing.
And Section 4 could be amended so as to provide safeguards against emergency legislation.
I would call a Bill incorporating these and other democratising provisions a Bill of Rights. Its object would be to introduce the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which Britain has signed, into the Constitution of its subordinate Parliament.
Let me say, however, that I do not imagine for one moment that even if these important safeguards were introduced, the Civil Rights movement in Northern Ireland would be able to fold up its tents and go home.
Even when a Constitution guarantees democracy, experience shows that there is still a need for organisations to defend it. The price of liberty will always be constant vigilance.
What a Bill of Rights would do would be to reduce the task of the Northern Ireland movement to manageable proportions. At present they have the herculean task of struggling against a virtual dictatorship. It is a blot on British democracy that they should be compelled to do so.
But now I would like to venture on to new ground.
I have mentioned respects in which the Government of Ireland Act is too loosely drawn to provide for the peace, order and good government desiderated in Section 4.
Is it possible that in other respects it may be too restrictive?
Take the economic field. Undoubtedly the unfavourable economic climate of Northern Ireland has much to do with the persistence of outmoded political attitudes.
The Government of Ireland Act denies the Northern Ireland Parliament the right to legislate in respect of trade with any place outside Northern.
Would it hurt England if it were given that right?
Again, they are forbidden to deal with treaties or relations with foreign States, even relations with other Commonwealth countries.
Well, the world is not what it was in 1920. And I hasten to add, no more is the Commonwealth.
Is it not time that this section also was looked at?
I make this point in regard to both trade and foreign relations. These are subjects with many ramifications I cannot go into.
But there is one place with which it is economically essential that Northern Ireland should be able to develop close relations; it is the area of Ireland comprising the Republic.
Is there any reason why at least this field of foreign relations should not be made over to it?
Lest anybody think the Government of Ireland Act was intended to guard against such a development, may I hasten to add that it was not.
Section 2, now repealed, provided for a Council of Ireland to which both Northern Ireland and what is now the Republic,should be entitled transfer powers and receive the transfer of additional powers temporarily held by the British Government.
The Act as it the stands clearly no longer meets the needs of today.
Fifteen of the original 76 sections of the Government of Ireland Act have been repealed. This only shows what an out-of-date patchwork structure it has become.
Historical events have made large part of this Act inoperative. As a result, all manner of anomalies and injustice were, so to speak, frozen and preserved.
Am I still talking civil liberties?
I think I am.
Look at one fundamental fact. The opposition parties against which the Unionists employ all these repressions and sharp practices are not Labour or Socialist.
Nor is it that they are composed for the most part of Catholics. The fundamental fact is that the opposition who are persecuted are those who wish their community to leave the United Kingdom and amalgamate with the Republic of Ireland.
But the Parliament of Northern Ireland has no power to legislate for amalgamation with the Republic.
Is it not just possible that all this repression is connected with the fact that those who are repressed are demanding that the Government should do something which it is constitutionally not empowered to do?
Somebody may say to me that the Northern Ireland Parliament desires no power to amalgamate with the Republic, or to enter into trading relations direct with foreign countries.
My reply would be, “Gentlemen, you are not obliged to use it.”
Of course they might fear the election of a new Government which would wish to use it.
My reply to that would be that we would have guaranteed democratic elections and a fair field for every opinion. Beyond that why should Britain underwrite the status quo in Northern Ireland? Everywhere any Government has sovereign powers it takes the chance that those powers will pass into the hands of its political opponents.
Indeed, to give this power unconditionally to Northern Ireland is the only way the British Government can give any legal effect to the reasonable request that it should not come between Irishmen endeavouring to settle their differences.
To offer the opposition in Northern Ireland equality of status is an extremely important thing.
But surely it is a democratic right that if one’s party achieves a majority in Parliament, it shall have the power to put its programme into effect.
If it is denied that opportunity, how can it be blamed if it takes to the gun?
Civil rights in their ordinarily understood sense can do much to remove the poison from community relations. When it is not possible to exploit one’s neighbours, commonsense dictates that one co-operates with them.
But the troubles of Northern Ireland derive from wider relationships. It is important that those who wish to improve those wider relationships should be permitted a legal peaceful path for doing it.
A few words in conclusion.
I can imagine a Unionist crying out with indignation: “What right has the British Government to revise our Constitution?”
I reply, “the same right as they had to give it you. None whatsoever.” But by accepting it they debarred themselves from subsequent complaint.
If they wish to declare themselves independent, that is their affair. But there are certain responsibilities they must assume for as long as they are within the United Kingdom.
They should have full powers to get out of it, but while they are in it the British people insist that their opponents are not forced into an under-privileged position.
Perhaps some Nationalist will say: “Why do you not demand that Britain set the axe to the root and just get out of Ireland, lock, stock and barrel, and then you’ll not need to have conference in London.”
The answer is of course that certain relationships exist. They have been built up over years. The first thing a carpenter does when he goes to pull a job apart is to see if it is nailed or screwed. I know from long experience that it is no use getting a claw-hammer to the Northern Ireland situation. It will need patient work with the screwdriver.
It is not a matter of inventing some new constitution for any part of Ireland. It is a matter of amending one that exists in order to increase the freedom of the people. I would expect the process to generate its own momentum.
What I understand is the purpose of civil rights is giving people freedom to develop along their own lines. We did not say to the people in the north of Ireland: “You must now join the Republic.” But if we are democrats we must say to them, “By this we guarantee you the power to help yourselves. Use it if you wish. Use it how you wish.” Open the way. The Irish people can travel the path as quickly or as slowly as they please.
Are there difficulties here? Of course – that is why we have a conference.