It is nice that the Orange Order is going to march in Dublin. The question is whether the citizens of Dublin should come out and lie on Dawson Street so that members of the various loyal lodges can walk on top of them.
It is not a matter of showing tolerance or displaying our "pluralist" credentials, which are hardly any longer in doubt. If they were, then certainly the Orange Order, with its fine traditions of pluralism, tolerance and democracy, should be our first port of call in seeking guidance and example. The begrudgers, of course, will be out in force, demanding to know what Orangemen have got to celebrate down here. Quite a lot, actually. Two years ago, the position of Orangeism was that this State laid claim to part of the territory of the United Kingdom, to which it pledges allegiance. Finding this situation threatening and offensive, Orangemen demanded we abandon our alleged claim forthwith. Overcome by guilt, and anxious to put our tolerant and pluralist credentials on display, we agreed. To save face, we jettisoned this alleged territorial claim under cover of an international agreement, allowing for concessions by both sides.
Two years later, whereas the alleged territorial claim is no more, virtually all the commitments entered into on the other side have been reneged upon. This amounts to a massive victory for Orangeism, and it is appropriate the victors be allowed their lap of honour.
As for the argument that the invitation to march is offensive to the nationalist communities of Northern Ireland, besieged by this allegedly sectarian organisation's insistence on marching through their streets, I really don't see the point. Northern Ireland, as our Constitution now attests, is in a different country. We agreed to this in the referendum of May 22nd, 1998.
In doing so, we withdrew from the nationalist people of Northern Ireland the solidarity and support extended by the guarantees formerly known as Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution. Having done so, it is logical we should embrace those who seek to trample them underfoot.
In an attempt to save what face we have left, we might suggest that a collateral benefit of the march will be that Orangemen will see how little this tolerant, pluralist State resembles the caricature they have invented. Unfortunately, since we are prepared so readily to surrender the principles that once made this State more democratic than that to which Orangemen pledge allegiance, it is doubtful if this point can be made with conviction. In agreeing to jettison our supposed territorial claim, we allowed ourselves to be persuaded that the change would be merely symbolic. But until the deletion of these articles, those north of the Border, regardless of allegiance, who wished to avail of the rights pertaining to Irish citizenship were free to do so. This citizenship had legal as well as symbolic and cultural significance, and was especially important, given that residents of Northern Ireland live in a jurisdiction that is not wholly democratic. By this I don't just mean the manifest inequalities and injustices associated with Orange rule, but that, because they live in what is legally and nominally part of the United Kingdom, denizens of Northern Ireland are not citizens, but subjects. The authority of Bunreacht na hEireann derives directly from the people. The UK has no such constitution, and so is not a fully functioning democracy. Its people are commoners, subject to the Queen. Thus, the only possibility for Northerners to avail of citizenship of a modern democracy was courtesy of the Irish Constitution. By marching in Dublin, the Orange Order will, in effect, be availing of the Republic's commitment to freedom of assembly to tell us, on behalf of their fellow-commoners, to stick our freedoms up our Bunreacht.
Strangely, or perhaps not, it was the unionist McGimpsey brothers who most graphically illustrated the true reach of the rights available under the former Articles 2 and 3. In their efforts some years ago to challenge the Anglo-Irish Agreement (ironically, by arguing that its implicit recognition of Northern Ireland represented a breach of Articles 2 and 3), they emphasised that, as subjects of her majesty, they were less than full citizens of a democracy, and insisted that they wished to remain so. Because the UK, to which the McGimpseys have sworn lifelong allegiance, did not accord them the rights of full citizenship associated with a written constitution, they were prohibited from challenging the agreement in either Belfast or London, and had to mount a challenge in the Irish courts by availing of their right to Irish citizenship under Articles 2 and 3. They lost the legal argument, because the Supreme Court decided the alleged territorial claim was political rather than legal, thus formalising what sensible people had always known. But, ironically, in taking the case the McGimpseys exposed the reality of Articles 2 and 3: that, rather than representing an interference in the affairs of Northern Ireland, they offered a mechanism whereby Northerners could avail of the democratic ethos of the southern State.
As a result of the referendum decision of May 22nd, 1998, it is now inconceivable that anyone, from whatever tradition in the North, could seek to interfere in the affairs of this State in the manner of the McGimpseys. The insult offered to Northern nationalists in inviting their sworn enemies to march through Dublin is therefore insignificant when compared to the removal of their democratic citizenship. There cannot, then, be any reasonable argument to prevent Orangemen breathing the free air of Dawson Street and feeling the reassurance of free tar underneath their feet.
Truly, we have created an open, tolerant, pluralist and inclusive society.