An Phoblacht/Republican News recently described the Orange Order as a supremacist group. How can any real understanding be reached with such a body?

A/ There can be no doubt that the Orange Order is a supremacist organisation much akin to the Ku Klux Klan in the US or the Broderbond in South Africa. If one examines the criteria for membership of the Order this can be clearly seen. A prospective member of the Orange Order must be born of Protestant parents, must not be married to a Catholic, must resist the doctrines of Roman Catholicism and must not give countenance to Popish worship. Let's go back in time some seventy years ago. I'm sure every one can remember a certain organisation whose criteria for membership included being born of Aryan parents, not being married to a Jewish person, to resist the doctrines of what they termed "international Jewry", etc. Sounds familiar? No-one would hesitate in terming the Nazi Party supremacist, so why should they hesitate about viewing Orangeism in the same light? Imagine a situation in Britain in which a racist supremacist order demanded the right to march through a black area. There would be uproar.

Q/ But do those double standards not also apply to issues like the use of plastic bullets? Is it not the case that the Orange Order is not alone in its racism - that in fact the British state is administratively and culturally racist when it comes to dealing with the Irish?

A/ That is indeed true of the British establishment and it makes matters no easier for us. The truth of that is reflected in the fact that the British have used groups like the Orange Order everywhere they have been. It was the first counter-revolutionary group the British created.

Q/ What's your opinion of the decision by the Orange Order not to proceed with its march in Dublin?

A/ Well, first of all, a pro-Unionist Dublin clique which has being doing its utmost to portray the Orange Order as a harmless body of well-meaning people received a very great dent to their egos. I believe that many people were surprised and amazed at the depth of opposition to that march. People saw through the propaganda and questioned the reasoning behind the march. It also has to be said that on this occasion it was not the 'usual suspects' who were gathering to oppose the Dublin march. Most twenty-six county Protestants did not approve of it. The Church of Ireland in Dublin clearly showed that they abhorred the political nature of Orangeism when they closed the doors of the church to the order. Many Protestants in the South were opposed to the idea of the Orange Order purporting to be representative of the broad Protestant mass. The ethos of the Order was exposed and when it was exposed, it had no choice but to drop the plans for a march.

Q/ Given the brutality frequently used against the residents of Garvaghy Road does the Patten Report offer any hope of real change?

A/ In reality, the Patten findings could have been applied to any police force in a normal society. And this is its failing. Patten tried to deal with the RUC as if it was such a force experiencing a few problems - modernising was the answer. The RUC was not treated as a partisan force with a very definite history. It was not treated as a body which had played a considerable role in the conflict which has existed in the North since partition. Patten said 'This a force with some problems which is at point A - it needs to get to point B'. But the report said nothing meaningful about how to get to B. Patten could have opted for a major international monitoring agency to oversee policing through any period of change, which could have effectively been on the ground monitoring policing operations on a daily basis. Patten reassures no one. Realistically, what is there in Patten to assuage the fears of people in my community that another killing like Robert Hamill's will not occur again?

Q/ So you think it comes no where near to disbanding the force?

A/ It is far short of that. Patten had no inclination to even consider that as an option.

Q/ How can you be so sure?

A/ At the public hearing held on the Garvaghy Road, Patten and other commissioners were told of very definite RUC involvement in murders of Catholics and they were asked to come back to investigate more fully. I want to make it clear that local people who testified that night did not make unsubstantiated claims of possible RUC collusion in murders or attempted murders in the Portadown area from the early 1970's right through to the Nineties. The people who testified that night spoke not of collusion but of active RUC participation. They courageously and publicly identified by name and rank those RUC men who were involved in the murders and attempted murders of their loved ones. Everyone present in the hall that night spoke of how powerful and how vivid those testimonies were. If Patten and those who accompanied him that night had ever wished to get to the truth about policing in the North, then they would have followed up on the statements made by ordinary men and women that night - they never returned, there was no follow-up.

Q/ This must have implications for the Good Friday Agreement given the link between it and Patten. Has anything improved since that agreement and how do the residents view it?

A/ Within weeks of the Good Friday Agreement Adrian Lamph was killed by Loyalists at his place of work in the centre of Portadown. From the summer of 1998 we have been faced with six killings by Loyalists, nightly attacks, Catholic shops burned, on-going RUC violence against and harassment of nationalist youth. What is the difference before and after Good Friday 1998?

Q/ Is it not 'transitional' to something better?

A/ It might be - but when is the period of transition due to start and when will it end? We have yet to see it. However, I can see potential in it. But at all times there is the need to watch the British agenda and British duplicity. It can halt progress and actually reverse what potentially may be nationalist political advances. Nationalists in this town deal with deliberate British frustrating practices all the time.

Q/ Can you be more detailed?

A/ Last year Tony Blair told the Parades Commission that his preference was for the march to go down the Garvaghy Road. This led to a row with those members of the commission who sought to maintain their own integrity and independence. Because of their opposition Blair then sought to shape the composition of the commission in order to ensure that it would produce the determination that he wanted.

Q/ To get the Orange down the road?

A/ Yes. Indeed that was why we attempted, unsuccessfully, to challenge the appointments made by Mandelson to the commission. Given that only one of the seven members can be said to be from a nationalist background and that the absence of women demonstrated a basic failure to ensure even a gender balance, by no stretch of anyone's imagination could the composition of the Commission be described as "balanced or representative of the community". We had a good case, but unsurprisingly Lord Chief Justice Carswell declared otherwise. He has only delivered his decision - he has still to supply a full written judgement setting out his reasons for dismissing the case - that, I think, will make interesting reading.

Q/ But it seems that the British loaded the dice in such a way that the only decision the commission could make would be one that the British Government would itself make if it had the political honesty to do so and admit it.

A/ That's right. The commission shall now seek to create the conditions in which the march will be forced down the Garvaghy Road on the basis of the Orange Order posing the biggest threat to public order.

Q/ But will the Order not be more isolated on the issue given that Trimble seems likely to move against them within the Unionist Party?

A/ Not at all. In fact this may possibly strengthen the position of the Orange in relation to the Garvaghy Road. In order to secure his own position in the party Trimble must ensure the Orange get something in return for the link being cut. And that will be even more pressure to push the march down the road. At the present time many people are worried that this nationalist community in Portadown may become a bargaining counter as Trimble attempts to squeeze further concessions out of the British. People here are not pawns in a game; they are men, women and young people entitled to the same rights as everyone else. They ask for nothing more and expect nothing less. And what they have clearly demonstrated in recent years is that they will no longer lie down or accept second class citizenship. People here will stand by that which they see as right. Treating this community as a pawn in a game is something they most definitely will not accept.