A Spectator's Notebook

North of the Border

A DEEP bow this morning in the direction of that Grand old man, Senator Sir George Clarke, Grand Master of the Grand Orange Lodge of Ire- land (he is a Senator, I should explain, of the Northern Ire- land Senate, or upper house of what has often and angrily been accused of being one of the most blatantly gerrymandered legislatures in the entire history of representative democracy, not exclud- ing the Illinois House of Representatives). Sir George has been getting rather cross with two members of the Ulster Unionist Party who have been saying things (at a Young Unionist weekend political school which took place not long ago) that Sir George thinks dangerous. The two who have thus incurred Sir George's displeasure are Sir Clarence Graham, who is chairman of the standing committee of the Ulster Unionist Coun- cil, and Mr. Brian Maginess, who is the Attorney- General of Northern Ireland (absit omen). Sir George sounds off:

It is difficult to understand why Sir Clarence Graham and Mr. Maginess chose to discuss matters which they must have known would give rise to such provocation by their implication. No one would suggest that either of these gentle- men has not the right to say exactly what he likes, where he likes and when he likes; but I would remind both that they are men of position and consequence in the community, and that, as such, considerable weight is given to their words, hbwever impolitic they may be.

These are grave and measured words, and 'con- siderable weight' must clearly be given to them, coming as they do from a man 'of position and consequence in the community.' What one now wants to know is what dreadful remarks Sir Clarence Graham and Mr. Maginess made to bring down such a rebuke. Let Sir George Clarke tell us, in his own immortal words: . . . reports . . . of the speeches by Sir Clarence Graham and the Attorney-General, the Right Hon. W. Brian Maginess . . were of such a nature that the implication of a change of policy in the Unionist Party by the admission of Roman Catholics as members was, if not actually stated, suggested as a possible development for the years that lie ahead. I would like, at this stage, and as Grand Master of the Orange Order, to say that under no circumstances would such a suggestion be countinanced or accepted by our institution. . . . I would now draw to your attention the words [in a recent restatement of Unionist policy] 'Civil and Religibus Liberty.'

This liberty, as we know it, is the liberty of the Protestant religions fought for, and given to us, by King William, who, at the same time, secured the Protestant succession to the throne and gave us our watchWord 'the Protestant religion and liberties of England I will main- . tain.' In view of this, it is .difficult to sec how a Roman Catholic, with the vast difference in our religious outlook, could be either acceptable within the Unionist Party as a member, or, for that matter, bring himself unconditionally to support its ideals.

If you think that Sir George has finished, you are mightily mistaken. Indeed, Sir George has hardly started. Further to this, an Orangeman is pledged to resist by all lawful means the ascendancy of the Church of Rome. . . . Since 1922 . . . there has been no discrimination and Ulster prosperity has been shared by all.

It is possible, therefore, that many Roman Catholics may wish to remain within the Commonwealth and to continue to enjoy our expanding economy and resulting benefits. To those of them who wish to do so the way is quite clear and open, namely by supporting through the ballot box the Unionist Party.

Now let us try to prise out from all this the kernel of what Sir George Clarke is saying. First, he is saying that it is wrong for anyone to suggest, not that Roman Catholics ought to be allowed to join the Unionist Party now, but that they should ever be allowed to do so, even in the remote future. Second, he is saying that civil and religious liberty in Northern Ireland is properly confined to Protestants, and that Roman Catholics are not entitled to it. Third, he is saying that there is no anti-Catholic discrimination in Northern Ireland. Fourth, he is saying.that Roman Catholics ought to be grateful to those who control

NEXT WEEK

ROY JENKINS; MP on THE ROAD TO BLACKPOOL TOWER Northern Ireland for being allowed to live there, and should express their gratitude in tangible form, by supporting the existing Government.

To take the third and least important point first, I presume that Sir George was speaking with his tongue in his cheek. He can hardly have lived in the country for any length of time without becoming aware of the extent to which discrimina- tion against Roman Catholics—in work, educa- tion and, above all, politics—exists. Indeed, the rest of his remarks shows that he is not only aware of this discrimination but approves of it and would wish to see it strengthened and per- petuated.

His first point is more interesting. Apparently Roman Catholics are such pariahs that there is no foreseeable time when they will have sufficiently cleansed themselves of the taint their religion has stained them with to make them acceptable mem- bers of the Unionist Party (whatever, presumably, their political views—and it is worth reminding Sir George Clarke that the Unionist Party is a political organisation, not a church). This seems to me to take the doctrine of original sin to extremes, and to ignore that of . redemption entirely.

Sir George's second argument is no less absurd, but a lot more repulsive. Liberty in Northern Ire- land is a Protestant prerogative, to which the Roman Catholics are not entitled. A more pithy expression of Urtext totalitarianism I do not expect to see until Mr. Steward's next letter to the Spectator from South Africa House. So, in Ger- many, was liberty an Aryan condition, denied, by definition, to Jews and other riff-raff. It is a little disturbing to be reminded that this sort of men- tality exists in parts of Britain—and not merely exists, but is proudly proclaimed official Govern- ment doctrine.

Lastly, there is Sir George's charming appeal to the Roman Catholics in Northern Ireland to keep his friends in office if they would like to continue fo enjoy such rights (not including civil or religious liberty) as he and his associates see fit to grant them. I have heard of offenders kissing the rod, but this is the first time I have ever heard of their being invited to subscribe a golden ferrule.

Still hobbling goutily in search of Beach- comber's rear light, the Daily Telegraph's stop- me-if-you've-heard-it (one generally has) fun column has tried being serious twice in a few days, with lamentable results. I am wrong, it gravely informed its readers on Tuesday, to have com- plained in these pages last week about the 'White' South African habit of referring to Africans as 'Bantu,' which I described as an 'attempt to shore up their tottering feeling of racial superiority.' There is nothing wrong with the word 'Bantu,' the writer claimed, except that it is used by White South Africans to describe people whom .they despise. 'If they used the word "African" instead, as Mr. Levin suggests, it would immediately be- come insulting too.' But the whole point (and it was not, I should have thought, an exceptionally well-concealed one) of what I wrote is that the Nationalists in South Africa do not and will not refer to Africans as Africans. The reason, of course, is that this word would imply that Africans had rights in the country. The use of 'Bantu' (`Kaffir' is one point more offensive), which is ethnically inaccurate anyway, is a continual re- minder to the Africans that they have no such rights. Sir George Clarke, it occurs to me, would be immediately at home there. Incidentally, a reader has sent me. a booklet, provided by the South African Government, which seeks to answer some commonly encountered questions about that unhappy country. From the wealth of elaborate untruths and half-truths which it contains, I select the following :

23. What is the attitude of the Whites towards the Non-Whites?

On the whole, the Whites regard the Non- Whites as people who need guidance and assistance if they are to develop, and the atti- tude of the White man towards his less-developed , Non-White fellow-citizen can best be described as sympathetic.

The other attempt to be serious by the Tele- graph's Woolworth Lane-Northcott is a great deal nastier. 'I am convinced,' he writes, 'that violent criminals should be flogged. Violent criminals who commit murder should be hanged. I suspect that flogging and hanging would have a strong deter- rent effect. 1 know of no statistics to confuse [sic] this, nor would I alter my conviction if I did.' Let us hang and flog even if to do so makes society no safer—indeed, even if it makes society less safe. Above all, let us not sully our minds with the facts, and if by accident the facts should creep in, let us ignore them.

BERNARD LED/IN