As the consultation period closed TUV released its hard-hitting rejection of the Parading Bill.

 

Traditional Unionist Voice expressed the view that under the Bill it was improbable “any practical improvement will occur in terms of delivering justice to the community whose rights hitherto have been denied. Nor, given the labyrinth of bureaucracy built into the devised arrangements, does it seem likely that ease of operation and necessary transparency will be achieved.”

 

Laying out an alternative approach TUV said, “the starting point of this legislation ought to have been a statutory affirmation and protection that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is paramount, thereby giving primacy to this fundamental human right in any balancing exercise necessary in determining between competing rights, with the resulting onus on those wishing to displace the fundamental right.

 

Thus TUV very firmly places itself in support of the rights of the parading Orders.

 

Identifying the regulatory arrangements as too much under the control of the dysfunctional OFMDFM, TUV says the resulting political control will tarnish and diminish the process. The party also has strong criticism for the lack of a proper appeal system within the adjudicating arrangements, describing the fact that panel members can sit in judgment on their own decisions as being “so alien to due and fair process as to beggar belief”.

 

TUV takes strong issue with the legislation extending to public meetings, particularly open air religious services, which if over 50 people are likely to attend will now require 37 days notice. Describing this as “an unacceptable assault on religious freedom” it calls for the exemption of such services from the legislation.

 

Summing up its position TUV says the draft legislation is “hopelessly flawed and ill-conceived. Its remit should be restricted to parading (with open air and religious public meetings excluded from the Bill) and in regard to parades the statutory foundational principles should be

§                     the primacy of the fundamental human right of freedom of peaceful assembly;

§                     presumption in favour of traditional routes;

§                     presumption in favour of parading on arterial routes, in pursuit of such being shared space.

 

The labyrinth of bureaucracy and notification periods imposed on parade organisers is unacceptable and unnecessary.

The review process is incompatible with the basic expectations of due process.

 

Dysfunctional OFMDFM should have no role in parading architecture.”

 

The full response can be accessed in Documents section