|
There are so many speaking and writing against
the Orange Institution it is incumbent on some of us to defend
it against attacks which are often thoughtless and without
basis in actuality when they are are not obviously malicious,
targeted to destroy the Order and the beliefs and principles
for which it stands. The treatment of the Institution has
been so unfair that no self-respecting person who goes to
the trouble to separate truth from fiction will doubt it.
The Grand Master, Robert Saulters, voiced the sentiments of
his brethren pungently and precisely pre-Twelfth when he said
the violence at Drumcree and on the streets elsewhere, was
condemned utterly by the Institution. It had not no place
in what the Order wanted and asked for, a peaceful protest
against a wrong decision by the Parades Commission on the
walk on the Garvaghy Road. The R.U.C. Chief Constable, church
leaders and others called on the Institution to condemn loutish
behaviour, attacks on the police and destruction of property.
If they thought that the Institution was slow to condemn such
lawlessness and violent conduct they were ignoring the reality
that the Institution has always condemned the violence of
those who used Orange Order demonstrations, events and marched
to wreak havoc on the community. It has suffered long and
grievously from the behaviour of unwanted, self-styled supporters.
The reality of dealing with unruly mobs is not that of the
order but of the civil authorities and the police whose duty
it is to maintain law and order. The Institution does what
it can when it stewards its events to ensure that people act
responsibly at them. It lacks the resources to tackle Drumcree
size distrubances or the ability to convince the perpetrators
of them that non-violent protest is the one way to register
a grievance. It is especially difficult when it is admitted
by the Parades Commission that the refusal to allow the Orangemen
to walk the Garvaghy Road was based on the threat that to
give such consent would produce violent responses from the
residents and their supporters. To react to the threat of
violence and lawlessness by making a decision that accommodates
those who threaten it, must be wrong in law and morally unjustifiable.
The fact that the Parades Commission has been seen to be singularly
unsympathetic to Orangemen contributed to the situation that
every good citizen deplored and denounced. There are those
who are so opposed to both the Protestant religion and the
unionist politics of Orangeism that they target the Order
to weaken and destroy what is distasteful to them, the faith
and the Union. And we have the nationalist/republican sectarianism
and racism which bedevils this society. Because the Orange
Institution is charged with being sectarian and racist it
is made the whipping boy of the Province while the real sectarians
and racists go surprisingly free of criticism, except from
those who recognise what is being done by them to demonise
Orangeism. The targeting of a Protestant organisation is made
easier by the refusal of many in a largely secular society
to be concerned about the freedoms, civil and religious, for
which the Order stands. Their indifference invariably accompanied
by the wish that they be left in peace to get on with their
lives unaffected by religion and little intrested in politics.
The malice of some and the indifference of others means that
Orangemen can count only on the good will of those who really
know them and the truth about them. And the truth is that
the good Orangeman is a good citizen, a devoted churchman
and different altogether from the caricature of him as the
hard-hatted, hard-headed, silly billy who lives in the past
unchanged and unchanging. What a travesty of the truth! The
reality is that no amount of criticism from dishonest or duped
critics will divert the Institution from recognising and honouring
its goodly heritage in Protestantism and Unionism. It is ridiculous
for anyone to criticise the words and actions of another who
has not distinguished himself by this own performances. Every
fool thinks himself justified in criticisng others. It is
to the credit of Orangemen that they go on contributing as
they do the well-being of this society, the benefit of all
its citizens and in professions and occupations essential
to its continance, progress and growth. Because many Orange
Institution critics are those who have failed in honesty and
decency, to be criticised by them could be a compliment to
the Orangeman's honesty and decency. We remember that those
most ready to criticise are often least able to see and appreciate
what is good in others. To be made to take the blame for Drumcree
lawlessness and to be condemned for inciting violence when
what was called for was peaceful non-violent protest at the
Parades Commission's wrong decision, is so unjust that the
motives of those who lay the charge are transparent. They
are to demonise the Order. The blaming of the Institution
is an ignoring of the real cause of what happened at Drumcree,
the refusal to accept the right of Orangemen to walk quietly
and peaceably from a church service on a public highway. Not
through a Roman Catholic estate, as is so often said to be
the case, but past some houses occupied by Roman Catholics
within sight of Garvaghy Road. To refuse the walk because
the Orangemen have not had "meaningful discussions"
with the Garvaghy Road residents' coalition is to deny the
efforts of the Portadown Orangemen and others to do that.
How do you do what is asked for when the residents' representatives
refuse to deal with the Garvaghy Road Orange Order dispute,
their one concern, by dwelling on issues at Garvaghy which
have nothing to do with the Orange Order or on which it has
no influence. We ask for nothing more than just and fair treatment
in a society now said to be better balanced and more democratic.
We await the proof of that assertion in the honest treatment
of Orangemen and the Orange Institution.
|
