Three years of the Good Friday Agreement Conference

BY LAURA FRIEL

``Equality is for everyone and no one should be afraid of an equality agenda,'' Sinn Féin President Gerry Adams told a West Belfast conference last week.

``The whole issue of equality and human rights goes to the heart of the conflict here,'' said Adams. ``Since partition, nationalists in the north have suffered a compound denial of democratic, cultural, and economic rights and the denial of those rights has often taken place in a brutal way but equality isn't just for one section, it is not just for Catholics. Equality is for everyone.''

     
The prism through which unionism sees equality being delivered, said Adams, was one of majority rule and minority rights\
Adams was opening a two-day conference, ``Three years of the Good Friday Agreement'', organised by the West Belfast Economic Forum and the Falls Community Council. With a wide range of speakers and representatives from statutory bodies, human rights organisations and community groups, the conference discussed the progress since the Good Friday Agreement and the potential of the new equality duty and proposed Bill of Rights.

Adams criticised the unionist attitude to equality. The prism through which unionism sees equality being delivered, said Adams, was one of majority rule and minority rights. Comments made by UUP Deputy Leader John Taylor epitomised that view, he said. Taylor said there could be equality of opportunity but not equity. ``The Irish minority can't be equal to the majority of Northern Ireland,'' Taylor said.

The British government has to face up to its responsibilities, said Adams, pointing out that after 30 years of fair employment legislation, statistics show that Catholic males are still twice as likely to be unemployed than Protestant males. Adams criticised recent attempts to neutralise unemployment differentials.

Mike Ritchie of Coiste na nIarchimí highlighted the fact that ex-prisoners had not been mentioned in relation to the equality agenda. The question of discrimination against former political prisoners was a key test, said Ritchie, in establishing if we are moving away from conflict and towards conflict resolution.

``The 20th anniversary of the hunger strikes reminds us that political prisoners fought very hard and bravely in the campaign to secure a different regime in jail which recognised them as political prisoners,'' said Ritchie. ``Eradicating discrimination against ex-political prisoners is an extension of that campaign. It was recognised in jail and should be outside.''

Ritchie pointed out that republican former prisoners were not marginalised within their own communities but were more often than not respected members of those communities. Within the wider world, however, ex-prisoners faced real discrimination and the key aspect of this was a criminal record.

As former political prisoners, many republicans face the dilemma of whether to declare a criminal record, as required by prospective employers, or when seeking a mortgage or insurance policy or risk being accused of obscuring their time in jail because they have rejected criminalisation of their actions.

The impact of discrimination against former prisoners can be illustrated by rates of unemployment. In West Belfast, 85% of the long term unemployed were ex- prisoners and in the south of Ireland the figures were no better. In Monaghan, 81% of long term unemployed were former prisoners.

Discrimination against ex-prisoners is also extended to their partners and children, said Ritchie. Criminal injury compensation specifically excludes victims and their families where there has been a previous conflict-related conviction. Where an ordinary criminal would be entitled to compensation, a former political prisoner and his family are excluded.

Ritchie cited the example of how a 1973 conviction for being a member of Na Fianna excluded a victim of a sectarian attack in the 1990s from receiving compensation. After the attack the victim developed ME, was unable to work and could hardly see, but he and his family were left to struggle without compensation, said Ritchie.

Discrimination against ex-prisoners should end, said Ritchie, and he demanded that political ex- prisoners should be included as a specific group in the proposed Bill of Rights.

There is plenty to celebrate about the Good Friday Agreement, said Professor of Law Colm Campbell from the University of Ulster. Post agreement the North had emerged as a ``bi- national'' entity. The right of the Irish government to be consulted, the cross border bodies which introduced a confederation element and transference of some powers to the north. Unification is visualised if not required, he said.

Human rights can be looked at in different ways, said Campbell. One way would be through the lens of devolution but unlike devolution in Scotland and Wales British sovereignty in the North of Ireland is contingent. Another way would be through the mechanism of minority rights but this is not useful when as in the North of Ireland, the two communities are almost equal in size. The challenge lies in establishing new terms and symbols which recognise the bi-national nature of the state, said Campbell.

Brice Dickson, head of the Human Rights Commission (HRC), outlined the questions that need to be resolved in drawing up a draft Bill of Rights. The HRC is currently working on a draft, which will be given to the British Secretary of State at the end of May and published in June to enable further public consultation.

The Good Friday Agreement requires in the implementation of a Bill of Rights to ``reflect on the particular circumstances'' of the North and ``draw on international experience'', he said. While the 1996 South African Bill of Rights had been very influential, said Dickson, international experience had tended to focus on the protection of minorities rather than human rights in a divided society.

Janet Muller, director of Pobal, the umbrella organisation for the Irish Language, linked language rights to human rights. People are language animals, said Muller, and language rights are as basic as any other right. ``If you're not sure of that then imagine you are not allowed to speak your language. You're allowed to learn and use any other language and you'd even be helped to do that but would not being allowed to use your own language make you angry and sad?''

All languages should be promoted and protected but all languages are not threatened in the same way, she pointed out. For example, the Chinese community living in Ireland should be able to access the information and support it requires in Chinese and if Chinese is not supported it will cease to be spoken in Ireland, but it will still be a living language while it's spoken in China. If Irish is not supported and promoted in Ireland it will cease to exist.

European legislation already protects language rights, said Muller, and there are more people speaking so-called minority languages in Europe than those speaking so-called majority languages. Within European legislation, Irish is recognised as the official language of the 26 Counties. The Bill of Rights could be used to roll back established rights in Europe, Muller warned.