Racing against racism
Northern Ireland seems to have moved from having sectarian disturbances in the summer to racist attacks and pogroms. These have now happened three years in a row. It is no accident given that sectarianism and racism are close relations and the North has traditions of violence; scapegoating and othering is a habit that dies hard, and one that is used by some people, particularly on the political right, to create unrest and try to create support for their vicious creeds. Sectarian attacks have decreased and racist attacks have escalated. Nor is the Republic immune from right wing racist thuggery, that is also clear from previous rioting, attacks, and the fear felt by people who are recognisably ‘other’ than the majority ‘white’ – pink – population.
It is clear from the most recent racist violence in the North that racists were and are primed ready to use any excuse deemed suitable to trigger violence and a pogrom against people from a minority ethnic background. Lists of addresses occupied by migrants had been already circulated over some months when the incident happened involving an attack by a Sudanese man, and we don’t know his motivation or situation regarding mental health. While the violence and rioting was not orchestrated by loyalist paramilitaries there were certainly loyalists involved, and the paramilitaries did nothing to stop it. However clearly many of those involved in the rioting and attacks on black and coloured people were very young and for some there was undoubtedly the thrill of engaging in arson and physical violence, so-called ‘recreational violence’.
One of the ironies involved, apart from in some cases people thrashing their own area (and a knock on effect on the North’s current reputation, such as it is), is that Northern Ireland has a much lower level of migrants living in the jurisdiction than either the Republic or Britain. Northern Ireland has a total of around 6% migrants, half of whom have ‘white’ skin, so there is only 3% black or coloured residents in the North. The Republic has 20% of its people born elsewhere. In the UK as a whole the proportion of migrants is around 17% though more than double that in London and ethnic minorities are much longer established in Britain than either part of Ireland with a much higher proportion of ethnic minority citizens born in the state. So Northern Ireland is the region of the UK with by far the lowest number of migrants but the highest level of pogrom-type violence, a factor emanating from its sectarian history.
Brendan McNally, the brother of murder victim Natalie McNally (killed along with her unborn baby in a deviously planned attack by her erstwhile partner, a white native of Northern Ireland) has made a pertinent point on social media: he slammed “patriots” following the racist attacks and questioned where they were when his sister was killed. He said “…the murder of women by a current or former partner is a grave and recurring phenomenon in our society…almost half of the murders in Northern Ireland in recent years have a domestic abuse motivation. I didn’t see much of the same angry outcry and mobilisation from so called ‘patriots’ then, using the toxic mudslide of distortion and misinformation of their social media platforms. I wonder what the difference is?”
It is no accident that racist rioting tends to happen in working class areas which in general receive a raw deal from the state. This is true North or South of the border. The lack of positive challenges and involvement through youth centres or detached youth work, the lack of decent job prospects, the poor level of education for many (and particularly so for working class Protestant males) in the North, are all factors in creating a culture of disenchantment which can be turned into violence. That is not an excuse for violence but it is certainly a contributory cause.
It is also noticeable that, while racism and racist attacks can be found anywhere on the island of Ireland, the racist violence and pogroms of the last few years in the North have substantially been in Protestant areas. There are partly ideological and historical reasons for this. Nationalism and republicanism are, in theory at least, inclusive even if that was not the case for violent republicanism in the Troubles; if you are here you are part, or potentially part, of the Irish nation. Some community groups of all varieties pride themselves on working hard to be welcoming and inclusive. However unionism and loyalism tend to more exclusive, if you are not with us you are against us, and that can spill over into racism. And, again, largely for historical reasons, PUL/Protestant Unionist Loyalist politics tends to be to the right of CNR/Catholic Nationalist Republican politics, and this is another contributory factor. But none of these factors have operated in racist violence in the Republic.
Migration is a natural phenomenon. Human migration has been happening since before the emergence of so-called homo sapiens. https://innatenonviolence.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/Migration_swallow.pdf Europe and the rich world needs migration because of its low birth rates. We are not disputing that some regulation is necessary but scapegoating and penalising asylum seekers leaving impossible situations and migrants trying to build better lives for themselves is a cruel aspect of modern life. And rich countries have only a small fraction of the asylum seekers of the world.
The race against racism is to establish the right of everyone here to be respected, to contribute to society, and be free of fear, and to do so before new patterns of racism become totally established (e.g. pogroms when a migrant is perceived to have done a violent act). Unfortunately with three successive years of racist violence taking place in the North, and the link with sectarianism, it is possible that the pattern is already established. This creates issues for anti-racist civil society but in the recent racist violence in the North many rose to the challenge; Kate Laverty’s beautiful piece on support for those threatened by racist violence appears in her column in this issue.
Nonviolence, 1, 2, 3
Nonviolence is a multifaceted concept and practice. Like any approach to life it has weaknesses as well as strengths but for both pragmatic and moral reasons it is necessary; the pragmatic reasons include ensuring the survival of humankind, and assisting successful and less painful outcomes to conflict. There certainly is power that grows out of the barrel of a gun (weapons of all kinds) but that can take us back to a situation far worse than the law of the jungle, and humanity has perpetrated atrocities that no animal in the jungle would engage in. We are in a situation where pressing a few buttons and inputting a few codes and life as we know it would disappear. As it is, life for all of us will be transformed by global heating and the dislocation and violence arising from that.
People sometimes have the notion that nonviolence only works in ‘liberal’ societies where such action is tolerated. This is certainly not so as Chenoweth and Stephan’s empirical research clearly shows. Depending on the situation, however, the time frame for nonviolence working may be different to violence, and there is nothing to guarantee success in life, but it is as good as it gets for results.
It may depend partly on our temperament, it may depend on our sense of justice, and it may depend on the circumstances we find ourselves; we can be involved in nonviolent action as first, second or third parties. We may work only in one of these categories, we may be involved in all three in relation to different issues, but there is a distinction and a tension between being involved in third party action on an issue and the other two.
First party action is where ‘I’ or ‘we’ (an individual, a family, a group, an organisation or a society or country) struggle for justice and equality. The civil rights movement in the USA or Northern Ireland in the 1960s would have been partly ‘first party’ action in that the people – black people and Catholics respectively – affected by injustice were struggling for their own liberation – assisted by others. These ‘others’ were committed to justice for all and involved in ‘second party’ solidarity. If we are directly affected by an issue or situation it is clearly in our interests to deal with it – but it may also be in the interests of the whole society, and inimical to anyone believing in justice. Many of those who campaign for just treatment for people with a particular debilitating life condition are likely to be the family and friends of those in that situation; they may straddle the line between first and second party activists.
We may be so done down by powerful injustice that we cannot stand up for ourselves. We may be bought off with bread and circuses, or by propaganda. But once we become conscientised on an issue we are likely going to stand up for ourselves. The level or oppression or apathy may determine what we can do for ourselves. But second party supporters may be of great assistance; this was the case with ending apartheid in South Africa when the issue became a global one with ramifications in South Africa itself which led to the possibility of change.
There are a million and one possibilities in second party, solidarity, action. We may get involved in support because we identify with a particular issue or struggle. Many in Ireland have become involved in solidarity with Palestine because they see clear injustice in the denial of a state and economic, political and military oppression; awareness of the history of Ireland may cause clear identification with the Palestinian cause. Of course there are Palestinians in Ireland involved in action for justice for Palestine and for them it is ‘first party’ action.
We may also get involved in second party action because of our human commitment to justice, peace and/or global sustainability. This general commitment then takes us towards more specific solidarity work. However green activism can also straggle first and second party action since ecological issues affect us all. The world is living on borrowed time in so many ways, in relation to violence, to climate change, and to overuse of resources.
Third party intervention is somewhat different in that our commitment to justice and peace brings us to work to bring different parties together to resolve their differences or to prevent further injustice or violence. As a mediator or conciliator our attention may be to a specific issue or more generalised conflict, and, as with all such situations, the ‘presenting issue’ (what is initially raised) may not be the major underlying concern or only one of many. The involvement of a third party might just be for a limited period such as a mediation process that the parties agree to undertake. A conciliation process may also be for a limited time, assisting communication and understanding between parties in a crisis – or it may be for a much longer time period as with the work of Quaker House in Belfast over a couple of decades in trying to develop understanding and interaction between sides in the North and more widely those involved.
The problem for third party intervention, which can include monitoring of one form or another as well as mediation and conciliation, is how ‘neutral’ or ’impartial’ is it to be? If you became directly involved in solidarity with one party in a conflict you would certainly no longer be considered impartial and your services would almost automatically be rejected by the other party or parties. But while you may privately be totally sympathetic to one party in a conflict your public manner demands that your involvement does not treat the sides differently. This does not preclude a mediator working with one party to help prepare their involvement when they are too weak or unprepared to do so. The term ‘balanced partiality’ is perhaps applicable here, at least to some extent.
The third party mediator’s commitment to justice means that they will not tolerate a fundamentally unjust agreement between the parties. But the agreement is fundamentally for the parties themselves to make and it may be a good or a poor agreement – a mediator will have pushed to make it an agreement which not only covers the issue but is likely to hold and be implemented.
The third party role is more constrained than that of the first or second parties. It is not value-less, it is value-able. INNATE has been involved recently in training monitors for situations of racial tension in Northern Ireland (and for decades in promoting monitoring concerning situations of political tension). Those involved are certainly not engaging because they are neutral between racism and anti-racism, they are certainly anti-racist, but, if deployed, they would equally ‘call out’ inappropriate by action by police, anti-migrant protesters or anti-racist protesters.
First, second and third party activism can all be part of nonviolence. Where you involve yourself may depend on your temperament, your politics and worldview, and the circumstances you find yourself in. All are needed. There are however boundaries, particularly between third party intervention and the other two which we need to be aware of and, where possible, respect. Of course it is possible that someone involved in third party intervention feels the need to jump to involvement in direct support on an issue, second party intervention, but they are then likely to forfeit the right and the possibility of continuing as a third party actor in the situation. While majoring on second and first party action, INNATE is involved in promoting the possibilities of nonviolence through all three approaches which can at times be a difficult balancing act – but all are appropriate responses depending on the situation.
And the situations which we face in life range from the interpersonal, the local and community, the regional, national and international. We may not personally face the issue of mediating between Iran and the USA but we do face different levels of conflict in our life. And we might be primarily a mediator or conciliator with family and friends while being a first or second party activist at a national or international level. We can occupy different spaces. But we do well to remember that old adage “The personal is political’ in all that we do and are.
Nonviolence and 1, 2, 3 modes of intervention. You choose.