Making history

Fortnight Leader Article

February 2002

Fortnight 402

O ffending people is easy. Two examples from the same day in January. Barry McElduff MLA (SF) was “offended” by some flight of fancy expressed in the Assembly by the Culture minister, Michael McGimpsey, who talked of building a 'national stadium' for soccer, rugby, GAA and athletics, some time in the far future. Before you could say “how much will it cost?”, newsroom faxes were humming with the prepackaged outrage of the MLA for West Tyrone. He was “offended” by the use of the word 'national' on two grounds. Firstly, that the 'Six Counties' are not a nation, but a hinderence to the nation's destiny. Secondly, the Irish government are in the process of wasting millions of their taxpayers money on the Bertie Bowl (AKA Sports Ireland), so why not join in that endeavour?
Later the same day, Jeffrey Donaldson MP (UUP) told of the “offence” caused by the hoisting of the Irish tricolour in the new office for the four Sinn Féin MPs in the House of Commons. When it was put to him that a flag in a corner of an office was unlikely to be seen by anybody except the MPs and their guests, Jeffrey replied that cleaners who would be forced to glimpse the “foreign flag” were fearful of entering the intimidating atmosphere and go about their business of emptying bins of crisp packets and picking up discarded SF policy documents.
The peace process has created a society whereby anybody can get attention to himself or his cause by bleating about how they have been offended by loose talk or some unsightly symbol. There are rafts of legislation and quangos created to fill this void in the lives of mediocrities in need of meaning for their lives beyond expressing bile at people who dare have a different opinion. Like alcoholics and gamblers, the people who specialise in issuing press releases on the offence of the day have no concept of boundaries and no ability to contextualise what triggers their behavior.
Over the past few months, loyalists who wanted to excuse the urine-tossers outside Holy Cross Primary School would compare the 'right' of Glenbryn residents to be annoyed by a school run to the 'offence' felt by Garvaghy Road residents by the Drumcree parade. That is only fair enough if the Garvaghy residents main objection was the religion alone of the Portadown Orangemen, leaving aside the symbols attached, the recent history of the town and the belligerent truimphalism of the marches that did return to Carleton Street in recent years.
Likewise, Donaldson said that he would never walk down a Dublin street waving a Union flag. The thing is, the SF MPs did not enter the Commons waving any emblems. He seems to be blind to the notion that it is the public displays of nationalist symbolism that is liable to offend. The mere existence of a 'hostile foreign flag' was not even a target for the old Flags and Emblems Act. Jeffrey ridiculed his argument further by claiming that it is illegal to fly a Union flag in Northern Ireland, which indicated a staggering ignorance of large parts of Lisburn, in his own constituency.
The Shinners, on the other hand, are unsure whether parity of esteem and the equality provisions of the Good Friday Agreement mean lots of flags everywhere, or none at all anywhere. Regular complaints about the Union flag at Stormont did not stop a couple of Martin Meehan's theatre troupe climbing up Carson's statue in 2000 and waving tricolours until they got the attention they desired: A couple of TV camera crews, three or four bored RUC men and a howling throng of DUP MLAs. The reluctance of the two SF ministers to fly the flag marking the two birthdays of 'Mrs Windsor' ended with the law being changed by Peter Mandelson to ensure that on a few days of each year, there will be a fluttering reminder to Martin McGuinness and Bairbre de Brún that they are 'British' ministers.
The other extreme (or, as there seems to be no middle ground on this, the alternative) is the flag waving extravaganza each St Patrick's Day. The old excuse used to be one of patronising incomprehesion that unionists would be offended by the national saint being marked by the national flag. This is about as mature as the rationale made by good trade unionists who defended the orgy of red, white and blue each summer in Short's and the shipyard that “it's only the flag of the country.”
Now that equality legislation makes it difficult to rub the enemy's face with the rag of your choosing, sectarian zealots now pose as victims of the intolerance of others. Even benign attempts at displays of symbolic unity are twisted into bitter mutton dressed up as innocent lamb. The Andersonstown News, whose reaction to a satirical website is explored further in these pages, claimed recently that “catholic workers at Montupet are up in arms” over an “enforced tribute to British Monarch”. Are the poor mites having their wages docked to buy the Queen a new hat for her 50th year on the throne? Are they being ordered to sing 'God Save the Queen' on both birthdays? No. “Some catholic workers at the Montupet plant in Dunmurry have contacted this paper to voice their fury at being forced to take the day off in honour of the British Queen.”
An unnamed worker is quoted: “The British Queen is divisive. We all know that. That's why under fair employment legislation you aren't allowed to hang a picture of her in the workplace. Yet, we're all now expected to pretend that she's a unifying force and celebrate her coronation.” Oh, get a life. Take the day off. You'll get paid. If you want to work, do something good, like volunteer to help the elderly. Or organise a 'republican' street party to keep the fenian kids away from the prod kids. Or read a good book, something by Tom Paine or Tom Paulin.
Taking offence at the slightest 'provocation' is a substitute for thinking about why you feel affronted, or what you do that causes offence to others. It gives some of the most priggish, interfering Pecksniffs the chance to chench their already taut sphincters and let loose their failure and loathing through words instead. What is saddest is that these expert witnesses are beyond parody, and certainly do not recognise satire when they feel they are its targets. Particularly, as the reaction of the Andersonstown News to the Portadown News shows, when they really are the targets of satire. Satire is heartless, tasteless and ruthless. Mark Twain called it “painted fire”, a flaming arrow aimed at “the hospitality tents of pompous and self-righteous cant”: Lewis Lapham defines satire as “humour sent on a moral errand.”
It is meant to hurt, and always causes collateral damage, yet it has meaning and morality behind the outrage. That is why there is a greater claim to truth in Private Eye over the New Statesman, Mark Thomas over Jon Pilger, The Onion over CNN and the Portadown News over most 'news' outlets in our humourless, ridiculous 'nation'.
[top of page]