Opinion

Patrick Murphy: Stormont blindfolding us with flags to hide the truth

We already have a flag representing diversity in peace and harmony. It is called the tricolour
We already have a flag representing diversity in peace and harmony. It is called the tricolour We already have a flag representing diversity in peace and harmony. It is called the tricolour

IF there is one activity which most accurately portrays Stormont’s sad and persistent irrelevance, it is the news that its major parties spent five years producing a report on flags and associated issues.

It cost almost £1 million and, having kept its contents secret for 18 months, they published it and then shelved it.

Some say that Westminster’s cabinet is corrupt and that the Dáil’s is in disarray, but Stormont’s Executive is shameful in a different way. It diverts attention towards the trivial, so that it can conceal its neglect of the important.

Our most pressing problems are health, housing and welfare - issues which unite us. But a Stormont commission dithered for years over what divides us.

A cynic might suggest that, in producing the report, the Executive cleverly created a device for gathering dust on a shelf. Whether it amuses or disgusts you, the report meanders from the absurd, through the ridiculous, to the incredible.

The ridiculous: “Flags should never be flown in a worn or damaged condition, or when soiled.” (Wash and iron your flags regularly.)

The absurd: “Media coverage of local issues should be broader than news and current affairs.” (Journalists are to blame.)

The incredible: gathering bonfire material “should begin no earlier than six weeks” before lighting it. (A quarter of a million people are waiting over a year for a hospital appointment, so let’s talk bonfires.)

More significantly, the report tries to re-write pre-Troubles history using post-Troubles language and concepts. For example, it says that in defying repressive legislation in the 1960s, republicans carried the tricolour (usually at Easter commemorations) to manifest their identity. Since “identity” infers sectarian allegiance in today’s language, this is clearly wrong.

In Newry, the late Dan Moore was imprisoned annually for several years for carrying the tricolour. I knew Dan well and I hope I do him justice by saying that he did not carry our national flag as a form of sectarian statement. His identity was the republican one of Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, forming the Irish nation, as outlined in the 1916 Proclamation.

Dan later helped to remove the repressive legislation which imprisoned him, by actively participating in the non-sectarian civil rights association (which was opposed by the IRA and the DUP, the main authors of today’s flags report).

Perhaps the commission’s most pointless discussion was about the creation of a new flag. (Need a solution for too many flags? Invent another one.) “This would not be a regional flag or a national flag” but a civic flag, designed to represent our society’s diversity.

We already have a flag representing diversity in peace and harmony. It is called the tricolour. (Any ideas for a civic flag? A black question mark on a white background?)

Unionist Prime Minister Terence O’Neill invented that failed “civic” concept as part of his “reforms” in the 1960s. He drank tea with nuns in convent parlours and smiled at Catholic children, as they marched past, in what he called “civic weeks” (while imprisoning Dan Moore). Fifty years later we are back to the same old “civic” failure to face down sectarianism.

Sometimes people are accused of trying to re-invent the wheel, meaning they ignore what already exists. Stormont is trying to re-invent the tricolour.

The report also displays a wonderful contempt for reality by claiming Stormont is “committed to creating an open, tolerant and respectful society.” Where is Stormont’s respect for the sick and disabled?

Despite criticism over previous performance, it recently extended a £31 million contract for the private firm Capita to continue assessing claims for Personal Independence Payment.

Where is its openness in explaining that decision and where is its tolerance of an Assembly opposition to hold it to account? Instead it attempts to blindfold us with flags, to hide the truth.

Can we now expect a commission to tackle inequality, poverty, our pitiful and pitiless housing crisis, or our abandoned health service? No, just expect more blindfolds.