Fear of the mob?
In Alan Clarke’s stimulating history of the Conservative party he argued one of the driving forces behind it and its supporters was “fear of the mob”. Newtown Emerson questions the wisdom of using the social housing requirement on private developers as a means to addressing the growing housing needs in Northern Ireland. While accepting the success of such mixed developments elsewhere, he argues that many new private developments have no community identification (regardless of a community mix or not) and that the 20% requirement (if built on the same site) will lead to branding of entire developments. Is this middle class conservatism “fearing the mob”, or another attempt to define sectarianism as the reserve of working class/’social housing type’ problem?
My Dad’s got a big huge flagpole in his front garden with a Red Dragon on it – you can see it for miles – brilliant.
One interesting point Mr Emerson – you say that official statistics on mixed areas are misleading – didn’t quite get it. How so ?
“The statement was pretty clear and emphatic. The display of a flag was not covered by free speech.†– fair_deal
Wood. Trees. Blurred vision.
[i]Attempting to portray flag-waving as some sort of “right†to “free expression†is disingenuous sophistry. If shouting “fire†in a crowded theatre isn’t legitimate free speech, then shouting “No Prods/Taigs†from a flagpole in Northern Ireland isn’t free speech either.[/i]
He is referring to the context of the expression, pointing out that the context can limit the right of expression. The specific example refers to a case where the right to free speech was held not to be protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution on the grounds that, while one may shout “Fire!” in a crowded theatre to warn people of the danger, you cannot cite your right to free speech to justify shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre when there is no fire because shouting “Fire!” in that context presents a clear and present danger to the welfare of others. Ergo, there are legitimate limits attached by the state to free speech.
Likewise, if the context of flag-waving is held by the state to be detrimental to the public interest in a specific context, then the state may properly act against it. For example, if the context is, as Newton pointed out, not to celebrate your nationality but to piss on a lamppost like a dog marking its territory, warning other dogs to stay out, then that is not covered by free speech as it is actually a threat that directly violates the civil liberties of others.
That’s just the abstract according to US law, of course.
As Newton says in his article, only 20% of properties in a new development will be made available for social housing which will be rented by the state to the tenants. I think you could overcome the problem of sectarian demarcation by the simple expedient of banning social housing tenants from displaying flags on the rented properties that belong to the state. Problem solved, no?
The Dubliner
“Wood. Trees. Blurred vision.”
No 20/20. He made a direct and clear statement trying to get out of an apparent contradiction in the positions he has adopted in two articles. He in the past has defended freedom of expression and suffered from attempts to deny it (lost a job) but is now seeking its denial as he appears not to like a particular expression.
I already addressed the ‘fire’ claim earlier. The debate is not particularly advanced by simple regurgitation of what Newton has already said.
“For example, if the context is, as Newton pointed out, not to celebrate your nationality but to piss on a lamppost like a dog marking its territory, warning other dogs to stay out”
I have been very specific in what I defended the right to display a flag from your home. No lampposts or urine involved.
How does the state assess that a person flying a flag from their house is not celebrating their nationality rather seeking to deter others etc? How does the state develop the power of mind-reading?
What is a ‘mixed’ area 1%, 10%, 30%, 40%? In his piece he points out that some of the areas he is concerned about are not actually mixed. What happens to them?
Anyway I am away to my bed.
“I already addressed the ‘fire’ claim earlier. The debate is not particularly advanced by simple regurgitation of what Newton has already said.” – fair_deal
You didn’t address it. You addressed what you misunderstood his argument to be. I clarified it above.
“How does the state assess that a person flying a flag from their house is not celebrating their nationality rather seeking to deter others etc? How does the state develop the power of mind-reading? ”
It’s a bit like what John Wayne said, “Smile when you say that.” The state may tell when an area is segregated along sectarian lines by flags and kerbstones by the simple expedient of applying of employing a human being with the power of understanding to make the observation. It’s not that hard a task: citizens in the north successfully acomplish that task every minute of every day in NI.
“What is a ‘mixed’ area 1%, 10%, 30%, 40%? In his piece he points out that some of the areas he is concerned about are not actually mixed. What happens to them?”
A mixed area is one where you have to ask the question: “Which tribe lives here?” Get the point now?
“Anyway I am away to my bed.”
Fair enough, but if you live in social housing, then don’t stand by the front window in your Union Jack pyjamas unless the curtains are drawn.
*Is this middle class conservatism “fearing the mobâ€, or another attempt to define sectarianism as the reserve of working class/’social housing type’ problem?*
The entire premise of your post FD seems be that Newton should not object to importing the mores of sectarian housing estates into privately owned ‘middle class’ estates. And duly the class warriors of SOT tut tut at such a display of overt snobbery.
Why?
You may believe that sectarianism is a curse in all classes and you may be right but the fact remains that the most dangerous and disgusting manifestations of sectarianism occur in working class estates. You may well be right that behind the lace curtains of middle class housing developments or over the gin and tonics at the golf course sectarianism and sectarian comments may be rife but compared to the overt and life threatening low level sectarian violence inflicted by residents of Housing Executive estates against their neighbours I’ll take the middle class variety any day.
If not wanting the trappings of polarized, sectarian, ghettoized, gang land ridden housing estates imported into your nice mixed area makes Newton some sort of snob, well count me in as a snob too.
That’s the other side of the debate: it’s the taxes raised on the hard work and prosperity of the middle classes that enables those in need of social housing to live beyond their means – and the only gratitude they get for it is bite marks on their hands. I’ve long since written the north off as a socialist-ridden basket case in that respect.
Since this social housing is in new developments, most of the private buyers will have bought at the height of the property boom and be facing a fall in the value of their biggest asset – a fall that they fear will be accelerated if the estate is ‘branded’ as targeted at one tribe or the other, leading to an automatic halving of potential buyers either way.
Where the state has secured a percentage of the properties in private housing developments that are to be rented to tenants as public housing, then it has a duty of care to those private buyers to ensure that the value of their investment is not diminished by attempts at branding the area by the tenants.
I don’t see how this would occur in developments where there is only 20% social housing, however. The tenants can’t control private buyers in the same way that they can control other state-sponsored tenants, who see the flags, understand their meaning, and don’t accept a tenancy in that area.
If the state intends to address this apartheid system of public housing then part of the solution will have to be banning all tribal displays from properties that it owns and rents out. If the tenants don’t like it then they are free to buy their own properties or live in a tent, whatever. Even private buyers of apartments in Dublin accept restrictions, such as no plants on the patio, no changing of exterior wall colour, etc. The folks up north are so pampered and indulged by the state that they’ll probably think it is a just cause for another rebellion.
and we all know you have to live under soviet dictatorship before your allowed to ‘rebel’….isn’t that right dubliner ?