Republican News · Thursday 22 May 2003

Unionist debates equality in West Belfast

---

Dermot Nesbitt has a fragmented and narrow notion of sectarianism, based almost exclusively upon individual attitude, argues LAURA FRIEL

---

Dermot Nesbitt thinks northern nationalists and republicans are living in the past. He believes that within the northern state anti-Catholic discrimination in terms of employment, "if it ever existed", has already been consigned to history.

In a recent debate organised by the West Belfast Economic Forum, the Ulster Unionist Assembly member and former junior minister with responsibility for Equality, travelled to the Belfast Institute of Further and Higher Education in the Whiterock to put his case to community groups in West Belfast.

"It is shameful that the odium of religious discrimination is attached to the Northern Ireland society of today. Government, the Equality Commission, Nationalist parties and others hide from reality and live in a pretend world of yesterday," says Dermot.

He believes that sectarian discrimination is less a real experience and more an exercise in republican propaganda designed to 'justify' violence. In his booklet, Equality; a society at ease, Dermot Nesbitt allows his party leader to make the point.

"There is no basis in fact for the ceaseless claims that Republicans make," writes David Trimble in the foreword. "What, in effect, Republicans are doing is reinforcing a myth and then, in a completely irresponsible manner, linking it to violence."

For the Ulster Unionist Party, the notion of sectarian discrimination has no basis in reality. Northern nationalists don't experience sectarian discrimination, they only think they do.

"Catholics feel unfairly treated, discriminated against, and have a perception that the persistent Unemployment Differential demonstrates such unfairness," but "there is no statistical evidence to support this perception."

Worse still, the perception of sectarian discrimination within the Catholic/Nationalist community impacts on members of the Protestant/Unionist community, he claims. They feel "blamed, potentially deprived of jobs, and have a perception that they are being unfairly disadvantaged because of the apparent lack of recognition of what has occurred in employment", says Dermot.

Furthermore, it is suggested, the persistent refusal of northern nationalists to abandon the notion that they suffer from sectarian discrimination alienates the unionist community and feeds the very sectarian tensions northern nationalist claim they wish to see at an end.

"The irresponsibility of not facing this reality helps fuel attitudes of sectarianism, segregation and prejudice," says Dermot.

Dermot suggests that nationalists and republicans base their perception of sectarian discrimination solely on the Unemployment Differential that "has remained remarkably stable from its 1971 level". The Unemployment Differential shows that Catholics are around twice as likely to be unemployed than Protestants.

But according to Dermot, the Unemployment Differential is a flawed statistic that needs to be "redefined in a meaningful way". And it is not merely flawed, it is also dangerous because it is "corrosive of community relations".

According to Dermot, if he could persuade northern nationalists to give up this notion of sectarian discrimination by marshalling the 'real facts' as opposed to 'misguided perceptions', it would allow "Protestants and Catholics to feel at ease with one another", and the north of Ireland would become "a society at ease".

In his presentation, Dermot Nesbitt bases his critique of the Unemployment Differentials on the claim that the differential was drawn from an inappropriate set of figures, that is the rate of unemployment within each community.

A 'true' evaluation, Dermot argues, would be based not upon rates of unemployment but analysis of those applying for jobs. "Those who are in the market seeking jobs, that's the measure," says Dermot.

In such a scenario, "if 50% Catholics and 50% Protestants, both equally qualified, apply for work, then equality of opportunity should ensure that 50% of the successful applications would be Catholic".

d Dermot claims this is already happening. According to 2001 data for applicants for jobs within the public sector, just below 60% were Protestants and just above 40% were Catholics. These proportions were exactly mirrored in those appointed.

Dermot also considers individual cases of sectarian discrimination in employment brought to the Equality Commission. Last year, around 2,000 people sought redress, of which the Equality Commission supported 700, out of which around 60 were settled.

Dermot accepts there are and will continue to be individuals, both Catholic and Protestant, who experience sectarian discrimination but he suggests the numbers are almost insignificant compared to the number of those recruited every year.

Weak and flawed arguments

For Douglas Hamilton of the West Belfast Economic Forum, "the arguments made by Dermot are so weak and flawed" that "the debate should not have to take place".

Addressing the conference, Douglas accused Dermot of "clear unwillingness to accept the glaring reality of continuing religious discrimination and disadvantage in our society today.

"For over ten years, voluminous research and analysis had been produced by different academics and protagonists which at times resembled a quasi war, given the heated and sometimes abusive nature of the debate," said Douglas.

But despite this, "much of the work has been relatively fruitless in terms of getting to the core of political and religious discrimination and inequality, producing agreed positions, coming up with effective policy solutions, never mind doing something effective about the problem".

Douglas Hamilton believes that analysts must "place equality issues in a broader context which attempted to encompass in a systematic manner the highly interrelated set of factors - social, economic, cultural, geographical and, most important, political and historic".

Douglas pointed out that Dermot's presentation is based largely upon the work of Graham Gudgin, whose "work on religious discrimination has never been accepted by his academic peers".

Douglas believes that "direct acts of prejudice against individuals in employment recruitment procedures" has "reduced significantly over the past decade.

"However, this is far from meaning that discrimination has disappeared, as Dermot suggests," he said. "Much more important is the structural and systematic forms of discrimination that result from the workings of the underlying structures and processes of society and economy in the north of Ireland.

"Indeed, social and economic relations and policy decision making in the north of Ireland continue to be structured in such a manner that direct individual acts of discrimination would not have to occur at all for relative disadvantage between Catholic and Protestants to continue and be passed on from one generation to the next."

Referring to data from the latest 2001 Census, Douglas highlighted the differentials between Catholic and Protestant men (similar pictures arise when women are looked at) using various indicators.

For Catholic males, the unemployment differential is 1.8 times greater than that of Protestant males. Almost twice the number of Protestant males are retired as compared to Catholics, while almost twice as many Catholics are classified as students.

"Most importantly, almost three-quarters more Catholic men look after the home or family and 20% of Catholic men are permanently sick or disabled. These differentials suggest high levels of hidden unemployment," said Douglas.

"In other words, Catholic men who would have previously been defined as unemployed have been reclassified to other forms of economic inactivity due to the tightening of social security conditions and other factors such as the discouraged worker effect."

Using data gathered by a leading English academic Professor Mike Noble, who classifies local areas in terms of a broad range of socio-economic indicators, Douglas highlighted multiple deprivation experienced by people living areas within West Belfast.

"The data for Upper Springfield and Whiterock, two almost wholly Catholic wards, show that they suffer deep social and economic disadvantage compared to the rest of the north of Ireland. This is not exclusive to these two areas but something replicated across the rest of Catholic West Belfast, and indeed across other Catholic areas in the north," said Douglas.

In terms of multiple deprivation, Whiterock and Upper Springfield rank third and eleventh, respectively, out of a total of 566 wards in the north of Ireland. Around two-thirds of households in the Whiterock and Upper Springfield are classified as income deprived and one fifth of households are employment deprived.

Both wards have some of the highest levels of ill health and disability in the Six Counties and statistics for child poverty show that over 80% of children in these two areas live in poverty.

"What is interesting from the Noble data on deprivation is that there are predominantly Protestant wards that also suffer deeply from socio-economic disadvantage. In West Belfast, for example, Shankill and St Anne's wards also feature near the top of the league tables of disadvantage," said Douglas.

However, he rejects the notion that class rather than religious discrimination is the defining factor. He suggests it is the interplay between both dynamics that has left "a very large proportion of the Catholic population behind in terms of socio-economic development" and "very much smaller proportions of the Protestant population.

"I have never heard Dermot argue as strongly on the need to empower working class Protestant areas in terms of jobs, incomes and education as much as he berates nationalist and republican politicians on the issue of religious discrimination," said Douglas.

Only themselves to blame

Dermot Nesbitt doesn't act like a bigot. As Douglas Hamilton points out, as an individual "he is one of the few unionist politicians who is prepared to engage openly with nationalists and republicans and actually enter what for many of his constituents will be seen as enemy territory".

But openly engaging is not enough, especially when that engagement is about denying the experience of the Catholic/Nationalist community while encouraging the prejudices of those who want to believe there is no case to answer.

Dermot Nesbitt has a fragmented and narrow notion of sectarianism, based almost exclusively upon individual attitude. For Nesbitt there is no such thing as structural sectarian discrimination.

For Nesbitt, sectarian discrimination takes place only at the individual point of contact between those seeking employment and those offering work. And the determining factor in that encounter will be the 'attitude' of the individuals involved.

Given this emphasis on 'attitude', it is curious that Dermot's focus in tackling sectarianism does not attempt to address anti-Catholic attitudes within his own community. The only 'perceptions' Dermot hopes to influence and change are those within the Catholic community.

d here's the strangeness of it. According to Dermot's presentation, the mere perception of being a victim of sectarian discrimination within the Catholic community is sufficient to fuel sectarian anti-Catholic resentment, bigotry and ultimately violence within the Protestant community. In other words, if only Catholics would stop presenting themselves as victims there would be no reason to victimise them.

This is of course the classic defence of the bully and tyrant. They bring it upon themselves. They've only themselves to blame. She was asking for it. If Dermot Nesbitt isn't a bigot, why is he championing a bigot's cause?