Anti-Sectarianism

Mr Deputy Speaker:

I will advise Members as to how I propose to conduct the debate, which has been allocated two and a half hours by the Business Committee. Three amendments have been tabled and published on the Marshalled List. Speaking times will be as follows: the proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes to propose and 10 minutes to wind up; the proposers of each of the amendments will have seven minutes to propose and five minutes to wind up; and all other Members will have five minutes each.

The amendments will be proposed in the order in which they appear on the Marshalled List. When the debate has been concluded, I shall put the question on amendment 1. Whether or not amendment 1 is made, I shall put the question on amendment 2. However, amendment 3 may not be called if either of the other amendments is made. The Speaker's ruling on this matter has been explained to the Business Committee at its lunchtime meeting. If that is clear, I shall proceed.

I beg to move that

Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle. The motion should have been easy to pass - we kept it simple, to the point, easy to agree and non-controversial. We made every effort to get cross-party support. What does the motion say? It says simply that we express our sympathy to all victims of sectarianism and that all of us reject sectarianism and commit ourselves to practical means to eradicate it. Regardless of our political differences, the motion was designed to be a united and public voice of anti-sectarianism from the Assembly.

The Lord Mayor of Belfast, Belfast City Council, the trade union movement, and the Churches have all spoken out against recent sectarianism, and there is a movement towards anti-sectarianism building momentum, which must continue and grow. It is our turn to show leadership and strengthen the message.

As we all know, sectarianism is not a new phenomenon; it has been with us all our lives. However, in the past two years, the body of it has sat heavily on the so-called interfaces of Belfast, with its stinging tentacles reaching further afield into Larne, Derry and Antrim and to isolated families in all parts of the Six Counties. Sectarianism has been unrelenting in interface areas.

For those who may not know it, life for people in Alliance Avenue, Newington Street or in the Parkside, Clandeboye or Serpentine areas is a living hell. There is a constant expectation of a stone, petrol bomb, bullet or bomb coming through a kitchen or bedroom window. Family homes have rooms which cannot be used - beds are abandoned and kids sleep on camp beds, sofas or chairs in sitting rooms. Back or front doors are never used: nerve tablets are overused.

Sectarianism is the growing nervousness that never leaves: it is the alienating and isolating experience that is hard to comprehend, even if you live just a couple of streets away. It is living with buckets of sand and hosepipes and not redecorating the house because it is not worth it, and it is the deep anxiety every time your child or your spouse leaves the house.

What has made the problem stand out over the past few years is that it has been concentrated 24 hours a day on the same groups of ordinary families. I have been in their homes and know that others in the Assembly have been there also. The challenge often heard being offered to visitors or observers is to spend some nights living there: "Come and live with me in these homes and see what it is like."

That challenge is not made by people who wish to be clever or smart alecs. It is made because of the frustration felt by the victims of sectarian attacks. No matter how they describe their lives, they feel that others must experience them to understand how bad the situation really is.

In the past two years, six people have been killed by Loyalist attacks - four were Catholics and two were Protestants who were unfortunately mistaken for Catholics. There have been hundreds of gun and bomb attacks and innumerable other sectarian attacks on people and property. There is documented evidence of more than 360 sectarian attacks in a single three-month period. In north Belfast, since the Loyalist Commission's "no first strike" statement on 15 June, we have seen at least 25 gun attacks, 29 bomb attacks and more than 66 other attacks, including stabbings, petrol bomb attacks and massive damage to property in the Nationalist part of the community.

Churches and schools have been far from immune, with the Holy Cross blockade serving as a dark monument to bigotry. Other Members, Unionist and Loyalist, can supply their own horrific lists. Although I can speak of the consequences and experience of anti-Catholic sectarian attacks only, I am not blind to the suffering of many Protestants over the various walls. The majority of sectarian attacks are against Catholics and Nationalists. However, the fact that Loyalists carry out the most significant proportion of attacks does not help Protestants who suffer from similar attacks. Therefore, we must make it crystal clear that we are against sectarianism, regardless of where it emanates from and whoever the victim may be.

The debate may turn into a dogfight. I hope that it does not, and it is certainly not the intention of the motion. People are suffering. They are watching this debate, and they want to know whether the Assembly can do anything to help them. A unified, anti-sectarian voice would go some way towards assisting them. Our parties are already meeting in a subgroup to try to find more practical ways to make progress. For example, agreeing a series of cross-community communications would be a practical step. Let us show our leadership today. Let the pro-agreement parties demonstrate their belief in dialogue as a process for resolution. We must lead by example on an issue that we can all support.

I call on the Assembly to support the motion. Go raibh maith agat, LeasCheann Comhairle.

I beg to move amendment No 1: In line 4 delete all after "victims of" and insert:

The UUP has tabled an amendment to Sinn Féin's motion because that motion seems to mix pious aspiration with a complete abdication of responsibility on its part. Yes, sectarianism as it has developed in Northern Ireland is an evil. It is wrong that people's views are warped by brutal prejudice. It is wrong that there is an inability to tolerate difference. Notice that I said "difference", because it is inevitable that there are differences in a plural society. It is wrong that parts of this city, and indeed the Province, are cut up into a patchwork of zones, between which many fear to move.

However, the Sinn Féin motion falls prey to a fallacy, which is that, in a sense, everyone is to blame, so that therefore no one in particular is to blame. The motion, from Sinn Féin's point of view, does not face the uncomfortable truth that paramilitaries' activities have often been major drivers of sectarian tension. Alas, such terrorist groups are still active, and, in many respects, the Loyalist groups are often as bad as, and sometimes worse than, Republican groups. The wording of our amendment tries to reflect that point.

I am not an exponent of some notion of collective or communal guilt. However, in moving the amendment, I recognise that sometimes parts of Unionism - broadly defined - have not met its high ideals, and that they have had a nasty underbelly in their treatment of other sections of the population.

The UUP is certainly not soft on Loyalist paramilitarism. I do not distinguish between those terrorists who are considered to be "our terrorists" and, therefore, by implication, excusable, and other terrorists - "their terrorists" - who are deemed to be inexcusable. They are all simply wrong.

The record has been dismal, and, sadly, it is not yet a history on which the book has been definitively closed. Since 1969, as is well known, almost 3,700 lives have been lost. Of these, about 59% were the responsibility of Republican terrorist groups, and a further 28% died at the hands of Loyalists. There were up to 50,000 injuries, too. If one is to be seriously anti-sectarian then one must call for a halt to all paramilitary activity, and for this to be done in transparent and verifiable ways. For example, there must be an end to the exiling of unfortunate individuals from their homes in Northern Ireland. There must be an end to torture beatings - the so-called punishment beatings. The August 2001 report titled 'They Shoot Children Don't They' by Prof Liam Kennedy says that during the three years 1998 to 2000 there were 636 Loyalist shootings and 496 Republican ones - one fifth and one third of these victims, respectively, were under the age of 20.

The Sinn Féin motion, which we are attempting to amend, concludes weakly by asking the Assembly to reaffirm its commitment to peaceful politics. That is all very well, but is an evasion of responsibility on its part. The Westminster Government have responsibility for applying adequate standards for the maintenance of the rule of law. In this regard, one might contrast and compare Prime Minister Blair's pliable approach to that of his Spanish counterpart, Mr Aznar, who has recently banned the political apologists of the Basque terrorist grouping, ETA. As we saw last autumn, international public opinion - especially American - has a crucial role in the restraint of terrorism in this part of the world, as in other parts.

Ultimately, Sinn Féin should recognise its own responsibility. Will it, as our amendment suggests, accept that the PSNI has a majority support in public opinion, and is the sole legitimate force to apply the rule of law? Finally, how does the motion, with its various pious exhortations, compare with the recent IRA apology? Will Sinn Fein now be in a position to condemn all deaths inflicted by paramilitaries since 1969, which would be a constructive step towards improving the climate for reducing sectarianism?

I beg to move amendment No 2 standing in my name and the names of my colleagues: In line 2 delete all after "intimidation" and insert:

At the outset it is interesting to note that neither of the Members who have spoken has made an attempt to define the word "sectarianism", and it is here that we have to come to grips with the motion before the House today. The word "sectarian" comes from the word "sect". I looked at the Catholic encyclopedia to find out what it had to say officially, as a Church, about this matter.

To the Catholic the distinction between Church and sect presents no difficulty. For him, any Christian denomination that has set itself up independently of his own Church is a sect. According to Catholic teaching, any Christians who banded together and refused to accept the entire doctrine, or acknowledge the supreme authority, of the Catholic Church constitute merely a religious party under human, unauthorised leadership. The Catholic Church alone is that universal society, instituted by Jesus Christ, which has a rightful claim to the allegiance of all men. It is the sole custodian of the complete teaching of Jesus Christ, which must be accepted in its entirety by all mankind. Its members do not constitute a sect, nor will they consent to be known as such. The word "sectarian" was coined in Reformation times to label those opposed to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church.

When I was being brought up in the Province, Nationalist politicians labelled everything that was Protestant as sectarian. The Orange Institution, Protestant churches, the police, the old House of Commons here, and so on, were labelled as sectarian.

We see the hypocrisy of a party that represents those who have murdered and wrought mayhem through our Province; who, in their bloodlust, have slain men, women and children; and who have also laid their hands on their co-religionists because they associated in any way with Protestant people. Sinn Féin then tells us that this is a simple resolution. Of course it is - because in its interpretation, its members are not sectarian. I have heard them boast in the House that they are not sectarian. We are asked today to give them an excuse - to join with them in an absolutely meaningless resolution.

The word "sectarian" must be defined. I ran into one of the leading Protestant clergymen of the Province the other day. I did not have a confrontation with him; I met him in the British Airways lounge in London. I asked him why clergymen do not tell people what sectarianism is. He said, "Ian, it is a very convenient word; we like it." We should not be dealing with conveniences in the House; we should be dealing with realities. It is a reality that this word, with which Nationalism and Republicanism has branded Protestantism for a long time and to this day, should be set in its proper context.

I was struck recently by the contents of the report on children. I am sorry that the full report was not made available to us by our information services; part of it was omitted. However, it is interesting to note that when children were asked whether they liked the police, three-year-old Roman Catholic children were more than twice as likely to say that they hated the police as were Protestant children of that age. The seeds that IRA/Sinn Féin has sown are bearing fruit, as it has brought its people up to hate the police. Hence, there is no mention of the police or support for the police in the motion.

The Official Unionist resolution is not strong enough; it should have been far stronger. We must affirm, not reaffirm. What is the use of calling people who say they have already affirmed this resolution? There has been no real affirmation that everyone in the Assembly is committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means. The acts of those who proposed the motion and lead the debate today give the lie to that very effectively.

We need only to look at IRA/Sinn Féin's record. It has been updating weapons and bomb techniques in Colombia; exchanging tips with its colleagues in the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) movement; rearming from Russia and Florida; and targeting leading political, judicial, security, forensic and Loyalist figures using updated intelligence files. It has been identified as the major line of inquiry into the break-in at Special Branch headquarters in Castlereagh; has murdered dozens of individuals in Northern Ireland since the signing of the Belfast Agreement; and has been consistent in its role as judge and jury in the community to say who will be beaten, shot, murdered and intimidated. Recently, it has orchestrated terrible violence against the Belfast community. Let us throw out this hypocritical and treacherous motion.

I beg to move amendment No 3: In line 3 delete all after "school" to line 6 "in practical ways" and insert:

I will outline the SDLP's two-phased approach to the motion and the amendments. First, if the political leadership of Northern Ireland is to demonstrate its political calibre, it should do more than simply talk; it should take practical steps to confront sectarianism, and it should begin to outline what those steps should be. The SDLP's amendment is the only one that outlines a strategic approach to deal with sectarianism and to see that it is dealt a body blow.

Secondly, the motion and the other amendments are, to a greater or lesser extent, partial or selective in the treatment of sectarianism. The Assembly should be holistic and inclusive in dealing with sectarianism. Whatever sectarianism is, we must pursue, prosecute, penalise and purge it from wherever it resides in society. We should not ignore or forget the fact that that includes the political parties and Members.

However, where there is genuine alienation and dissent, and where people are genuinely distressed or in conflict with the state, we must interpret and understand that dissent and learn from it. That balanced approach, and a ruthless confrontation of sectarianism and an understanding of what is genuinely alienating in our communities, is the prescription to deal with the problem.

The SDLP proposes a three-pronged offensive against sectarianism, part of which has already been put in place at interfaces and through the political institutions. However, it must be upgraded and fast-forwarded.

The first of those three dimensions is security, which requires that the PSNI provide adequate protection and vigorous prosecution of those involved in sectarian tensions and interface violence. It requires mechanisms at locations of tension and disorder so that people in the community, and those working in the institutions of the state who are trying to manage tensions, can deal with them better. It also requires mechanisms, probably put in place by third-party agencies, to ensure that, even though there is mistrust and differences at those interfaces, a third party can maintain communication between the communities.

The second dimension involves a community element, which would include putting mechanisms in place to manage interface and sectarian tensions better. It would also involve the creation of a community mechanism, whereby people can begin to process the issues that have given rise to their worst fears and which fuel sectarian tensions and interface violence. That is a medium-term structured approach to dealing with sectarianism and bad community relations.

The third dimension is the political element, and requires sustained dialogue not only between parties but also between parties and Government in order to understand what is happening on the ground and to begin to develop shared strategies for confronting sectarianism. In the longer term our understanding is upgraded, and economic, social and community strategies are put in place to ensure that all expressions of sectarianism are dealt a body blow.

It is the three-pronged security, community and political strategy that in the immediate, medium and long term can begin to address the issue. However, we still have a long road to travel, and that is evident in some of the content of the motion and the amendments, which are selective and partial. That ill informs this debate and ill informs our community as it struggles with the excesses of sectarianism.

Why are the motion and the amendments partial? It is because, as we might have anticipated, Unionism sees sectarianism arising from features and factors in our society other than from the past nature of the state and the past conduct of agencies of the state. That has caused people to have worst fears rather than best hopes about elements within the state and has seen them experience bad practice and conduct at the hands of the state. If we do not acknowledge that, then we are not acknowledging all of the truth.

Similarly, the Sinn Féin motion is partial because while it condemns intimidation, Sinn Féin refused to condemn the intimidation of PSNI trainees. It condemns threats and disorder, yet Sinn Féin members, in a council chamber in the North in the last 10 days, openly threatened SDLP people who are taking part in district policing partnerships. They asked if the people concerned had spoken to their families about what they were doing, whether they would be carrying firearms, whether they knew that posters of them would appear on lampposts all over Newry and if they knew who was going to pay for the damage caused to their houses while they sat on the district policing partnerships.

Order. The Member's time is up.

When it comes to intimidation, we should all be honest about what we are doing.

If we had a normal society that was based on trust and tolerance, and in which we all worked together in good faith for the benefit of all, such a motion, even as tabled by Sinn Féin, could probably be passed unanimously without debate. Yet, four years after the Good Friday Agreement, we are using such a motion and three partial amendments to demonstrate the lack of trust that exists in the House and, thus, in the wider population. Today we are exposing the tribal divides that exist in Northern Ireland.

Sectarianism is rife. The intolerance that goes with it is part of the daily diet throughout Northern Ireland. Hardly a day passes without some graphic reminder of some group or individual vomiting intolerance upon another. It is indisputable that this intolerance is primarily orchestrated by the bigotry of thugs and gangsters collectively referred to as paramilitary organisations from both Loyalist and Republican factions.

Their quest to gain and maintain control of areas and people through terror is a scourge, which can be used to the potential gain of some who will constantly blame the other side and ignore the faults of their own. If all the elected representatives in the House were genuinely opposed to all violence and to the use or threat of force by others, I do not believe that we would be witnessing the level of intolerance that exists on our streets today. We are supposed to represent the community.

Let us look at the statistics. In 1999-2000 there were 131 shooting incidents. In 2001-02 there were 358. In 1999-2000 there were 66 bombing incidents, and in 2001-02 there were 318. Each and every one of those incidents is an example of bigoted, tribal sectarianism that underpins intolerance.

Four years ago, Members who supported the Good Friday Agreement reaffirmed their opposition to any use or threat of force by others. Is the political leadership in this House so weak that it has no impact upon the society that we are supposed to be leading - or is a blind eye being turned to violence for political reasons? Even worse, are some political parties happy to ride on the back of the terrorist monster and help to feed its insatiable appetite?

It is not only security statistics that highlight bigoted sectarianism: our cities, towns, villages and estates provide colourful evidence of intolerance. There is the illegal painting of paths, kerbs and roadways with green, white and gold or red, white and blue. There are the illegal murals glorifying murderers on gable walls and depicting some murderous exploit by thugs - inviting the gullible to join illegal organisations. There are the slogans informing us that we are entering Loyalist or Republican estates; the scrawled messages that the police are not acceptable, and the flying of an assortment of flags from every possible post or pole. This is the overt evidence of intolerance and a warning to the "other side" that they are not welcome. The desecration of churches and graveyards and the burning of schools are further examples of sectarianism at its worst.

All so-called paramilitary organisations - be they the UDA, IRA, UFF, Continuity IRA, real-fat IRA or low-fat UDA - are by their nature and existence sectarian, bigoted and intolerant. They exist to instil terror and thus promote their bigoted and sectarian cause.

The motion refers to providing practical leadership on sectarianism. Let us start by supporting the PSNI. Policing cannot work effectively without the support of the entire community. If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Those who threaten the police or withhold their support from the police or who are seen to be anti-police are demonstrating bigotry in adherence to their political doctrine or intolerance: they are sectarian.

How can one claim to reject sectarianism while at the same time refuse to support a cross-community police service whose raison d'être is to provide effective, good policing throughout the community - the word "hypocrisy" springs to mind.

Another example of political leadership would be to call for the immediate disbandment of all paramilitary organisations.

Before I address the IRA/Sinn Féin motion I want to reiterate the NIUP's rejection of paramilitary violence. The Republican movement and the so-called Loyalist terror groups are mirror images of each other with a common commitment to criminality, murder and barbarity. Despite those considerations, the NIUP also rejects the motion tabled by the members of IRA/Sinn Féin because it is shot through with gross moral hypocrisy. I say that for four reasons.

First, the motion is being tabled by members of IRA/Sinn Féin, an organisation that is a murder machine that has been responsible for the murder and injury of thousands of people over many decades. Secondly, the active membership of IRA/Sinn Féin is sustained by the driving force of a political sectarianism - a denigration and hatred of fellow citizens because of their religious and political commitments. That is what drives IRA/Sinn Féin. Despite that, the motion asks Members to express sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder. It is difficult to conceive of a more blatant example of gross moral hypocrisy.

Thirdly, the motion is being tabled by members of an organisation whose leader is an unqualified apologist for IRA murder. In the 'Politics of Irish Freedom' Gerry Adams states without the slightest indication of moral scruple:

that is, IRA/Sinn Féin terrorism,

The Sinn Féin leader's commitment to armed struggle - that is, to IRA bombing and murder - is entirely incompatible with any genuine commitment to what the motion refers to as non-violent and exclusively peaceful and democratic means to resolve disputes.

Fourthly, the motion requiring the Assembly to express its sympathy to all those who have been the victims of sectarian murder is signed by a member of IRA/Sinn Féin who is a convicted murderer. In 1973, Gerry Kelly was convicted, along with Marian and Dolores Price, for planting four bombs in London, two of which exploded, killing one person and wounding 180 others.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Member is wrong. He is absolutely erroneous, and he should not be allowed to continue with the accusations that he is making. It is not the first time that he has made accusations in the House.

What did you do?

Are you making a point of order?

Order. It is the convention in such circumstances to ask Members to clarify their remarks so as to remove the objections to them or to withdraw them. If he or she is not prepared to clarify or withdraw his or her remarks, further action may be unavoidable. I ask the Member to clarify.

I am quoting directly from the explicit reference to Mr Kelly in Liam Clarke's recent book on Martin McGuinness, and if the Member has any problem with that he has access to the courts.

The UUP amendment fails to grasp the real strategic intent of the IRA/Sinn Féin motion -

Order. The Member who made the point of order has refuted the allegation. I ask the Member who made the allegation to clarify it again.

The Member has not refuted the allegation. He may have denied the allegation, but he certainly has not refuted it. You need to make a distinction between a refutation and a denial.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. There has been no charge against me at any time in the past of murder, and I was not convicted of murder. It is erroneous.

I invite Mr Roche to withdraw his earlier remark.

My remarks are based on a book written by a leading authority on the IRA. This gentleman has denied that, but he certainly has not refuted it, so there is no reason for me to withdraw the remark.

That being so, Mr Roche, I have no option but to take action under Standing Order 60(1) and ask you to withdraw immediately from the Chamber and its precincts for the remainder of today's sitting.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand your ruling, Sir, and I would like clarification on it. An accusation which has been published and widely circulated and has never been challenged by the Member has been read to the House, but because the Member against whom the allegation was made denies it, you say that the Member who made the allegation must withdraw. Is it the rule of the House that anyone who makes an accusation against any Member, which that Member denies, has to leave the Assembly? Is that the effect of your ruling?

I was in the course of giving my ruling. I referred to guidance that was given by the Speaker on earlier occasions, and I quoted from that ruling verbatim. However, as the Member has questioned that ruling, I will consider what he said and advise him of my ruling later.

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is all very well, Sir, for you to say that. However, the sentence has been carried out. You put a Member out of the House for quoting hard evidence from a book that has never been challenged. If that is the sort of ruling we can expect in the House, we cannot expect democracy.

Order.

The Member who was accused refuted the accusation. I stand by my ruling. The sentence has been carried out, and I call Dr David Ervine. Sorry, Mr Ervine.

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Mr Roche, Member for Lagan Valley, referred in certain terms to a Mr Kelly from north Belfast. When pressed, he elaborated upon his source material. If there is a problem with the source material and a successful appeal against it in the courts, the person who used the material may be asked to withdraw at that point - but not until then.

I have given my ruling.

I have been elevated. It seems that I am now Dr Ervine - among many doctors in this place.

We heard an academic qualification of sectarianism from Dr Paisley. I can only comment on what I understand it to be: namely the degree of brutality and irrational division that exists in this society. It is not a one-sided situation.

We should consider the fact that there are people who hate each other, yet they know not the person whom they hate. That to me seems alien to the human condition, yet we seem to be pretty comfortable with it. Having listened to the debate so far, one would think that sectarianism was happening only today for today, and that it did not lay the foundations of this society, and that we were not all generated in an atmosphere of hate and bitterness.

That was amplified by the amendment proposed by my Colleague, Esmond Birnie, which says that the House "rejects Republican and Loyalist sectarianism". What does it say about sectarianism in the schools and on the street corners - not just that on interfaces or involving paramilitaries? There is no mention or hint of the sectarianism that is expressed in drawing rooms.

The three amendments seem to suggest that if all the bad people would just go away, Northern Ireland would be a wonderful place.

In fact, the bad people come from the womb of this society. The politics of this society influence the way in which they live their lives - the divisive, hateful politics that guarantee that the politicians will never want a single community, because they benefit so much from a divided one. There is no question that we in this Chamber luxuriate in sectarianism, because there is great merit in, and benefit to be gained from, attacking the other side.

Some people might suggest that the demise of the Alliance Party is a result of its argument that two communities should come together and function as one. Recent electoral performances suggest that the extremists on both sides benefit from the tensions and bitterness of this sectarian, divided society. We have a problem that has not been defined by the motion or the amendments: our people are sectarian.

Since I have been on this earth - and my appearance belies my 49 years - I do not remember anyone, certainly no one in the political arena, trying to deal with sectarianism. All those who have been politicians for a long time - or even a short time - should look at their failure even to address the issue let alone deal with it.

There are places in Northern Ireland where there are few paramilitaries but a great deal of sectarianism. Of course, there are places where there are plenty of paramilitaries and plenty of sectarianism: it would be foolish to refute that. Our communities, which have been led by many in the Chamber, are sectarian, and one could argue that they are encouraged to be so. In many ways drawing-room sectarianism is more insidious and frightening than working-class sectarianism. At working-class level it is brutal, and we see it all the time. However, we can deal with it. Many people in the Chamber come from places where drawing-room sectarianism is at its worst, and they have luxuriated and benefited as society, divided more and more, crashes on the rocks.

People have said that the Assembly is out of touch when it comes to responding to sectarian trouble on our streets: we are not. We are deeply concerned about sectarian violence, and we must be deeply involved in the fight against it - a point made by David Ervine.

This debate shows that we are at least starting to face up to sectarianism, and that is why it is important. However, we are disappointed that there are so many variations of wording before the House today. What kind of message does it send to the public? This debate should not be about ownership of the fight against sectarianism - that is very important. It must be about a united front against sectarian bigotry. Through unanimity today we can show that we are ready to move forward together. It is only if we act together that we can truly fight sectarianism.

I recall the debate on the motion on firefighters' pay. The DUP supported the UUP amendment. Sinn Féin and the PUP withdrew their amendments to support the DUP motion amended by the UUP - that is called co-operation.

It is not the real world.

It may not be the real world, but it was the Assembly yesterday. Firefighters' pay is an issue we all believe in. Why can we not do the same thing as regards sectarianism? I accept that perhaps we are not ready to co-operate to the same extent; however, we must move towards that.

We need action, not just fine words. Members should be aware of their responsibilities because just as leadership against sectarianism can calm a situation, inflammatory rhetoric can make divisions more bitter.

Alex Attwood talked about the three phases of dealing with sectarianism. In the short term, we must tackle and control the naked violence that results from sectarianism. However, in the long term, we must also tackle the drawing-room sectarianism that Mr Ervine mentioned. Therefore we propose that politicians adopt a code of conduct for dealing with interface violence; that they commit themselves to that code and do not play the blame game or seek to score points, which makes divisions worse. They must try to meet or to visit all sides in a conflict if they are to get involved.

I agree with Séamus Close that we must have support for the PSNI. If we ask the police to protect people on all sides and contain the violent clashes on our streets, they must have the support of all politicians.

Political dialogue must go beyond scribbled sectarian slogans on walls or megaphone diplomacy using loudhailers and the media. Politicians must get together in a room and look for practical steps that they can take.

The Women's Coalition welcomes the initiative of the Northern Ireland Office Minister, Des Brown, to tackle the problem and to get all parties involved. However, my party recognises that sectarianism will not disappear overnight; it would be unrealistic to expect that. Sectarianism must be challenged on all fronts - in education, the media, community relations, schools and churches, and by politicians.

The recent report produced for Barnardo's by the University of Ulster, which cites three-year-olds who use sectarian language, proves a point that I have not heard mentioned in the debate - the value of integrated education. Where is integrated education in the Assembly's long-term strategy of trying to understand one another? The integrated education model is superb for those reasons, but where is the political support for it? Where are the resources for integrated education?

Advertising campaigns and more support for community workers are required. The work of community workers in interface areas is praised, but why must they scramble for money to get the resources that they need? There have been amazing initiatives that have provided much help, but much more is needed. Experts must be gathered together in a forum so that they can tackle sectarianism together.

The Women's Coalition welcomes Sinn Féin's reaffirmation of its commitment to non-violence and to the resolution of disputes through exclusively peaceful means. However, the motion should go further, and although my party believes that the SDLP's amendment does go further, it does not go far enough.

TOP

<< Prev / Next >>