A bit of balance
By Laurence McKeown
I'm sure I wasn't alone last week in thinking that I
had tuned into the latest skit from the Hole in the
Wall Gang, or possibly it was the ``Village Eejits'' on
Triple FM (The ``Station Once Again'' which is back
broadcasting from West Belfast to a delighted
community.) I then wondered if possibly I had missed a
month somehow and maybe it was 1 April?
I quickly consulted newspapers of the day. No, I wasn't
dreaming. I had heard correctly. Glenn Barr and Tommy
Cheevers had been appointed to the Parades Commission.
With others they discuss and then decide whether or not
the loyal orders could continue to march wherever and
whenever they willed.
It took a little while for the news to sink in but as I
began to ponder it a bit more deeply I thought it
wasn't such a bad idea after all to have a member of
one of the orders put forward his argument as to why
they should be allowed to continue to strut their stuff
through villages and districts where the local populace
find their displays offensive. Maybe, when confronted
in debate, a dim light would begin to shine somewhere
in the far off recesses of his mind. A big question
mark might appear. The first shock waves of doubt might
wash over Tommy. Or, alternatively, he would convince
all others with the sheer logic of his argument.
Glenn Barr offers a different experience. Glenn isn't
so much into walking the roads. His forte is in
blocking them, as in the UWC strike of 1974.
Before accepting the appointment Glenn consulted with
loyalist paramilitaries. Fair enough. At least he's
honest about it. Many others from the unionist
community frequently consult with loyalist
paramilitaries but don't have the nerve to admit it. In
fact, they go to great lengths to deny such links.
So there we have it. Representation from a fairly broad
cross-section of the Protestant/loyalist/Unionist
community on how parades should be handled. I agree
totally with that. Delighted that the NIO for once are
choosing people who can truly articulate the feelings
and opinions of their community.
My problem lies with those selected to represent the
Catholic/nationalist community.This is where the whole
thing becomes a bit surreal, a good bit surreal, or
comic, or mad, or insulting, or puzzling. I haven't
worked out exactly which yet.
One of them - I won't even metion their names as they
are unknown to anyone but the NIO - but one of them, a
barrister, was a member of the Police (sic) Authority
for six years. That distinguished body of people which
even the most conservative, law abiding, right wing
member of the SDLP wouldn't grace with their presence.
The other candidate, a solicitor, was the choice of the
RUC to defend it against charges that it operated a
shoot-to-kill policy against republicans. There you
have it. Representation from a good broad cross-section
of the Alliance voters.
The common domoninator in all of this is, apart from
the Uncle Toms, very cleary the RUC. Strange isn't it
that it was effectively the RUC, in the figure of its
Chief Constable Ronnie Flanagan, who decided that Sinn
Fein should be put out of the talks. He's now
apparently deciding political appointments to QUANGOs
(or they are being made with a mind to what is
acceptable to him).
I can just imagine him in the aftermath of this coming
year's Drumcree 4 speaking amidst the shattered hopes
and bodies of the Garvaghy Road residents about how his
force was simply carrying out decisions made by a body
broadly representative of ``both communities'' blah,
blah, blah.
I just wonder too what the response would have been
from the unionist community if Gerard Rice or Brendan
Mc Kenna had been appointed to the Parades Commission
as a counter argument to Cheevers? With maybe the likes
of, let's say, Martin Meehan to tackle Glenn Barr?
Apoplexy? Even the Hole in the Wall Gang or the Village
Eejits in their wildest dreams would never come up with
that one.
![[An Phoblacht]](http://republican-news.org/graphics/title_gifs/aprn.gif)