Unionists praised for 'bravery' in hosting constitutional debate

Garrett Hargan, Belfast Telegraph, April 1st, 2025

The organisers of a debate in Londonderry's Fountain estate have been praised for their “bravery” in hosting an event that brought together former loyalist paramilitaries, socialist republicans and many other shades of political opinion in Northern Ireland.

A former SDLP leader, as well as councillors from Sinn Féin, People Before Profit and an independent all engaged in the debate on the border.

Notable by their absence, however, were unionist politicians, with the UUP and DUP declining to state why they had not attended when asked.

The Fountain is in the only remaining unionist part of the city's west bank, home to around 250 people, although it had once housed more than 1,000 Protestants.

Brian Dougherty, chief executive of the North West Cultural Partnership, said since its inception the organisation has been at the forefront of “risk taking and pushing boundaries”.

He pointed to performances at the All-Ireland Fleadh and Walled City Tattoo during UK City of Culture in 2013, right up to the present day as “strong advocates” for “marginalised and unheard voices”, particularly amongst the Ulster-Scots, Ulster-British cultural community. “As well as cultural productions and collaborations, this has taken place via initiating and participating in dialogue and discussion advocating against the persistent negative narrative and demonisation of our culture,” Mr Dougherty said.

“Saturday was one of many such events. The diverse audience on Saturday was represented by all genders and all ranges of political and civic opinion.

“From ex-loyalist combatants, to socialist republicanism, and all shades in between.”

He added: “It proved to be a very successful event and feedback we have received since has been very positive with a clear demand from those present on all sides to continue to broaden the debate beyond single identity audiences.

Broaden the Debate

“I am a unionist and proud of my identity. I am also confident that the case of the Union is strong, but also happy to hear any merits of a United Ireland. No-one should fear debate.

“Saturday was about helping to arm people with knowledge.

“We are very grateful for all those who took time out of their schedules to either present or contribute from the floor.”

The one criticism of the event was that it had an all-male panel, although a female panellist had pulled out recently and women contributed to the conversation on the day.

Georgina Kee-McCarter, a member of Bready and District Development Association, was in attendance and spoke of the importance of dialogue.

“In a world where communication can often be difficult, misunderstood or simply ignored, we must recognise the importance of engaging in meaningful discussions,” Ms Kee-McCarter said.

“If we don't enter this potentially divisive dialogue, we risk becoming lost in the noise of misunderstanding and division.”

NI has lowest child poverty in UK

On Saturday, pro-Union advocate and University of Liverpool academic Peter Shirlow presented statistics suggesting that Northern Ireland has the lowest levels of child poverty in the UK.

He also said that since 2010 Northern Ireland has had the highest growth in median wages of the 12 UK regions.

Mr Shirlow believes NI has been on a positive journey, “attracting law firms from London” and “over 1,000 international companies”.

He also evidenced Catholic affluence growing considerably between 2005-2017.

Demographics do not favour a united Ireland, in his view.

United Ireland advocate Colin Harvey described Saturday as a “significant event” and one which shows “Derry is quietly leading the way”.

The Queen's University, Belfast academic took a different approach, looking at the framework under the Good Friday Agreement which sets out in law the rights of people north and south to decide on their future.

As a counter to arguments put forward by Mr Shirlow, he pointed to Derry as an example of the “damage done by socio-economic devastation, separation and division”, with the council area being the most deprived in Ireland and the UK.

The law professor believes that both sides of the argument will have to form coalitions in order to convince the public.

He said the case for a “new and united Ireland” is “closer than at any point in the history of this region”.

“Preparing seems to be eminently sensible,” he said.

Frustration with Dublin’s ‘stand-offish’ approach

Mr Harvey added that there is a growing sense of “frustration” with the Irish government's stand-offish approach to the constitutional question, saying its position is “increasingly odd” and “out of step” - even with their own manifestos.

Mark Durkan — who served as SDLP leader, deputy First Minister and Foyle MP before retiring from politics — said: “I believe that the NWCP's event showed that those advocating for either the United Kingdom or united Ireland options can argue their respective positive merits and offer robust critiques in terms that both portray confidence and accord respect.

“The NWCP achieved a valuable benchmark for a more inclusive, balanced and issue-ranging discourse.”

Republican councillor Gary Donnelly, who is also from the 32 County Sovereignty Movement, said the organisers were “brave” for hosting an event in the area.

“It was very welcome and done in a constructive way,” he said.

“The panel offered the same old arguments. But it was a good opportunity to talk to people from the Protestant, unionist and loyalist community.”

He believes political unionism has had its head “buried in the sand” when it comes to debating the issue.

Nationalist culture is fall guy in DUP v TUV battle

John Manley, Political Correspondent, Irish News, April 1st, 2025

IN THE north we’re well accustomed to seemingly insignificant issues being politicised and gaining attention disproportionate to their impact on ordinary people’s lives.

Culture wars have been part of the region’s media and political landscape since long before the term became part of the popular lexicon.

The sudden escalation of unionist opposition to Irish language signs at Grand Central Station isn’t entirely surprising, therefore – yet you can’t help feel that an inordinate fuss is being made about spending a comparatively small amount of money in a building that is deemed a shared space.

It also contrasts with recent statements from DUP representatives in which they have acknowledged the value of the Irish language.

What’s also quite revealing is that the column inches and airtime dedicated to this ‘row’ to date by far exceeds the media coverage provided when the project went overbudget by some £140 million.

Irish-language campaigners have been engaging with Translink on the issue for more than two years and last September held a protest at the new transport hub highlighting the absence of comharthaí Gaeilge.

Unionist outrage over plans for the signs is little over a week old and began when Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins announced that there’d be “physical signage” in Irish at Grand Central Station.

Analysis of the DUP-TUV battle

The first response from the DUP was critical of the plan, with infrastructure committee chair Deborah Erskine saying the money would’ve been better spent on fixing potholes than promoting what she termed Sinn Féin’s “narrow agenda”. Nothing new or explosive there, you might say.

What appears to have pushed the issue up the DUP’s list of concerns is the intervention of the TUV MLA Timothy Gaston, who last week lodged a petition opposing what he termed Ms Kimmin’s “solo run”.

Requiring a further 29 MLAs’ signatures in order to get the decision referred to the executive, the North Antrim representative’s move was never likely to gain support from his political rivals and therefore looked designed to expose DUP inaction.

Mr Gaston has linked the Irish language signs with what he sees as the general disregard of residents and businesses in nearby Sandy Row.

The sole DUP assembly representative in South Belfast is Edwin Poots, whose role as speaker constrains the amount of public pronouncements he can make, creating a representation vacuum in working class unionist areas that the TUV believes it can fill. So while ostensibly this looks like the DUP attacking Sinn Féin, it’s actually more to do with the former’s turf war with the TUV.

You could also surmise that a similar motivation lies behind the DUP’s ongoing resistance to new funding models for cross-border bodies which would ensure the Dublin government meets a £650,000 shortfall in Foras na Gaeilge’s budget.

But by escalating these matters in order to ensure it isn’t outflanked by its smaller unionist rival, the DUP risks destabilising relations around the executive table.

Quibbling over £150,000 for Irish language signs can only lead to retaliatory action from Sinn Féin, likely signalling a deterioration of the non aggression pact that has prevailed for the past 14 months.

It’s a high-risk game, which due to its potential to damage executive relations, the DUP appears reluctant to escalate – despite its performative outrage.

DUP leader Gavin Robinson, who via his weekend email to party members in which he promised to “put down a marker”, has now involved himself directly with the matter but must at the same time be hoping it quietly goes away, therefore avoiding an ugly showdown with Sinn Féin.

The can looks set to be kicked down the road somehow, perhaps even to the High Court. However, rest assured that every opportunity the TUV gets to highlight what it regards as DUP weakness on an issue, particularly in South Belfast, it will take.

The unfortunate corollary of that will probably be more culture wars and attacks on nationalism, with the DUP instinctively unable to adopt a reasonable position for fear of losing votes.

For an already under-performing executive, the DUP’s electoral battle with the TUV can only spell bad news.

SAS not entitled to “execute” unarmed IRA driver during ambush attack, High Court hears

Three men died in a military operation mounted in Coagh in June 1991

By Alan Erwin, Irish News, March 31st, 2025

SAS soldiers were not entitled to “execute” an unarmed IRA driver during an ambush attack in a Co Tyrone village, the High Court has heard.

Shooting Tony Doris was unjustified because his actions at the scene posed no threat to their lives, it was claimed.

Doris died alongside Peter Ryan and Lawrence McNally in the military operation mounted in Coagh back in June 1991.

The three men, part of an IRA East Tyrone brigade active service unit, were intercepted in a stolen car on suspicion they intended to murder a member of the security forces.

Up to 150 rounds were discharged in the hail of gunfire.

Last year a coroner ruled that the SAS was justified in its “reasonable and proportionate” use of lethal force at Coagh.

He found the soldiers had an honest belief it was necessary in order to prevent loss of life.

A judicial review challenge has been mounted against the coroner’s verdict on behalf of some of those bereaved in the killings.

Barrister Karen Quinlivan KC argued that the circumstances breached the Article 2 right to life under European law.

During exchanges it was put to her that the three men were part of an active service unit with one joint intention to kill.

No distinction between shooters and driver

The coroner had identified no distinction between Doris as the driver of the car and his two paramilitary associates involved in a planned operation to commit murder.

But Ms Qunlivan claimed he got it wrong in assessing the threat posed by each individual.

“You can’t shoot at a man who is unarmed and who is driving the car away,” she submitted.

“There’s a difference between criminal culpability and the circumstances in which you can shoot someone.

“While Mr Doris was quite clearly criminally culpable and should have faced the full force of the law, it is going too far to say you can execute him because he’s the driver of the car.”

Mr Justice McAlinden challenged her to explain the difference between armed gunmen and someone who drove them to the scene, positioning the vehicle to get a good shot at the intended target.

Counsel responded that although Doris could have been found guilty of attempted murder, his participation did not justify shooting him.

“The person you should be interested in is the person posing the threat, the person with the gun,” she contended.

“To shoot at the unarmed driver is disproportionate, it is as simple as that.

“It is a disproportionate act. (The soldier’s) honest belief did not provide objective justification for his actions.”

The case continues.