Muiris Ó Súilleabháin ✍ The race riots of recent weeks, and the responses they produced, revealed something uncomfortable about the North. 

Despite decades of peacebuilding, racism remains embedded in our society. So too does sectarianism. The two are often treated as separate problems. They are not. Increasingly they feed one another.

I write as an Irish republican, not as a northern nationalist. One of the most damaging developments in recent years has been the tendency to treat racism as a problem that belongs exclusively to the Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist community. When racist incidents occur in loyalist districts, entire communities are condemned. When similar hostility emerges elsewhere, particularly within nationalist areas or across the south, they are explained away as isolated incidents, a product of deprivation, or an unfortunate exception.

Neither approach survives serious examination.

If one community can be judged collectively by the actions of its worst elements, then every community can. The logic is identical. The result is absurd. Neither the PUL nor the CNR population is a single political or cultural bloc. Both contain decent people, prejudiced people and people who simply wish to get on with their lives. Racism does not recognise constitutional preferences. It is carefully constructed and crosses every boundary that we know.

By turning racism into another front in the constitutional argument, the political class and the community gatekeepers have managed to sectarianise a human rights issue. The result is predictable. Communities retreat into defensiveness. Politicians score cheap points. Nothing changes.

The language employed in these debates exposes the contradiction. Terms such as “hun”, “planter” and “knuckledragger” are frequently deployed by Republicans under the banner of anti-racism. They are sectarian slurs. Their purpose is not to challenge prejudice but to reinforce it. They reduce complex communities to caricatures and then they congratulate themselves for doing so.

When Irish Republicans use sectarian slurs to condemn racial prejudice, they are not fighting intolerance, they are simply engaging in a different form of it. Weaponising anti-racism to score points against a traditional constitutional rival strips Republicanism of any moral authority it may hold.

Sectarianism and racism share the same intellectual foundation. Both begin by reducing individuals to a category. Both rely on inherited assumptions. Both permit collective guilt. The target changes. The method does not.

Nowhere is the reality of prejudice within the broader Irish population more starkly exposed than in the treatment of Irish Travellers. This is why the treatment of Irish Travellers matters. Travellers experience levels of discrimination that would provoke outrage if directed at any other group. They are refused access to businesses, excluded from opportunities and treated with suspicion based on surname, identity and background. Their health and social outcomes remain among the worst in Western Europe.

Yet this reality rarely features in conversations about racism within Irish society. Shared religion, shared geography and shared history have not protected Travellers from discrimination and racism. The lesson is obvious. Racism and exclusion are not confined to one tradition. They emerge wherever societies decide that some people matter less than others.

The institutional response in the North has been no more impressive.

The Executive’s record on racial equality is defined less by achievement than by inertia. The Racial Equality Strategy for 2015–2025 was widely criticised throughout its lifespan. During the same period race-hate incidents and crimes continued to rise. The most recent figures recorded by the PSNI are the highest since records began.

Faced with this reality, the Executive led by Sinn Fein has produced another framework. In March 2026, First Minister for All, Michelle O’Neill launched a public consultation on a new draft Race Relations Framework. Critics from across civil society responded with unusual consistency. Amnesty International described it as unfit for purpose. Others called for its withdrawal and redrafting. The criticism centred on a simple point. The framework treated racism as a problem of community relations and integration rather than a problem of structural inequality and discrimination.

Without targets, funding, timelines or accountability, strategy becomes performative. The draft strategy creates the appearance of action and change while avoiding its substance.

Alongside political failure sits another problem. Over the past three decades a substantial industry has developed around conflict management and community relations: the peace industry. Much valuable work has been undertaken by some within the community and voluntary sector, but the funding environment has also produced perverse incentives.

For years organisations relied upon large-scale peace funding. As those resources diminished, new funding priorities emerged. Anti-racism became one of them. The danger is not that racism receives attention. It should. The danger is that racism replaces sectarianism as a funding opportunity.

When organisations depend upon demonstrating crisis in order to secure resources, crisis acquires value. The problem is no longer solved. It is managed. This year, community organisations that once argued there was no racism in Republican areas in Belfast for example were to the fore in claiming funding allocated by the British Home Office to tackle anti-migrant sentiment.

Good relations funding is now allocated to the established gatekeepers, often to the detriment of the emerging support and advocacy groups established by the new migrant communities themselves.

Cultural awareness workshops, diversity seminars and performative events do nothing to address racism or sectarianism. They serve a dual purpose for both community gatekeepers and the political and social elites. It is highly cost-effective theatre. It is significantly cheaper for the Stormont Executive to throw a minor grant to a local community group for an "anti-racism workshop" than it is to build social housing.

Workshops, awareness sessions and symbolic events have their place. They may improve understanding. They may challenge ignorance. What they cannot do is substitute for aspiration, education, healthcare and economic opportunity.

The consequence of this approach is visible in working-class communities across the North. Areas experiencing poor housing, weak services and limited opportunity become vulnerable to resentment and manipulation. Far-right activists exploit those conditions. Migrants become convenient targets. The underlying causes remain untouched. There were no riots on the Malone Road.

When disorder follows, entire communities are denounced as backward or racist. This approach absolves government of responsibility. It transforms political failure into a cultural defect.

The North will not address racism through moral grandstanding. It will not address it through sectarian score-settling. It will not address it through endless declarations of concern.

It will address it only when we are prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. True anti-racism requires looking inward with an unblinking, critical eye, regardless of the flags flying at the end of the street

That requires several things.

First, collective guilt must be rejected. Individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Communities should not.

Second, racial equality policy must move beyond rhetoric. Strategies require measurable objectives, funding and enforcement.

Third, public funding should be linked to demonstrable outcomes rather than the perpetual management of social problems.

Finally, inequality must be addressed directly. Housing, healthcare, education and economic opportunity are not distractions from anti-racism. They are part of it.

The recent riots did not create these problems. They exposed them.

The choice now is whether we continue to explain racism through the comforting language of tribal politics, or whether we recognise it for what it is: a societal failure shared across communities, institutions and governments alike.

Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.

After The Riots

Muiris Ó Súilleabháin ✍ The race riots of recent weeks, and the responses they produced, revealed something uncomfortable about the North. 

Despite decades of peacebuilding, racism remains embedded in our society. So too does sectarianism. The two are often treated as separate problems. They are not. Increasingly they feed one another.

I write as an Irish republican, not as a northern nationalist. One of the most damaging developments in recent years has been the tendency to treat racism as a problem that belongs exclusively to the Protestant, Unionist and Loyalist community. When racist incidents occur in loyalist districts, entire communities are condemned. When similar hostility emerges elsewhere, particularly within nationalist areas or across the south, they are explained away as isolated incidents, a product of deprivation, or an unfortunate exception.

Neither approach survives serious examination.

If one community can be judged collectively by the actions of its worst elements, then every community can. The logic is identical. The result is absurd. Neither the PUL nor the CNR population is a single political or cultural bloc. Both contain decent people, prejudiced people and people who simply wish to get on with their lives. Racism does not recognise constitutional preferences. It is carefully constructed and crosses every boundary that we know.

By turning racism into another front in the constitutional argument, the political class and the community gatekeepers have managed to sectarianise a human rights issue. The result is predictable. Communities retreat into defensiveness. Politicians score cheap points. Nothing changes.

The language employed in these debates exposes the contradiction. Terms such as “hun”, “planter” and “knuckledragger” are frequently deployed by Republicans under the banner of anti-racism. They are sectarian slurs. Their purpose is not to challenge prejudice but to reinforce it. They reduce complex communities to caricatures and then they congratulate themselves for doing so.

When Irish Republicans use sectarian slurs to condemn racial prejudice, they are not fighting intolerance, they are simply engaging in a different form of it. Weaponising anti-racism to score points against a traditional constitutional rival strips Republicanism of any moral authority it may hold.

Sectarianism and racism share the same intellectual foundation. Both begin by reducing individuals to a category. Both rely on inherited assumptions. Both permit collective guilt. The target changes. The method does not.

Nowhere is the reality of prejudice within the broader Irish population more starkly exposed than in the treatment of Irish Travellers. This is why the treatment of Irish Travellers matters. Travellers experience levels of discrimination that would provoke outrage if directed at any other group. They are refused access to businesses, excluded from opportunities and treated with suspicion based on surname, identity and background. Their health and social outcomes remain among the worst in Western Europe.

Yet this reality rarely features in conversations about racism within Irish society. Shared religion, shared geography and shared history have not protected Travellers from discrimination and racism. The lesson is obvious. Racism and exclusion are not confined to one tradition. They emerge wherever societies decide that some people matter less than others.

The institutional response in the North has been no more impressive.

The Executive’s record on racial equality is defined less by achievement than by inertia. The Racial Equality Strategy for 2015–2025 was widely criticised throughout its lifespan. During the same period race-hate incidents and crimes continued to rise. The most recent figures recorded by the PSNI are the highest since records began.

Faced with this reality, the Executive led by Sinn Fein has produced another framework. In March 2026, First Minister for All, Michelle O’Neill launched a public consultation on a new draft Race Relations Framework. Critics from across civil society responded with unusual consistency. Amnesty International described it as unfit for purpose. Others called for its withdrawal and redrafting. The criticism centred on a simple point. The framework treated racism as a problem of community relations and integration rather than a problem of structural inequality and discrimination.

Without targets, funding, timelines or accountability, strategy becomes performative. The draft strategy creates the appearance of action and change while avoiding its substance.

Alongside political failure sits another problem. Over the past three decades a substantial industry has developed around conflict management and community relations: the peace industry. Much valuable work has been undertaken by some within the community and voluntary sector, but the funding environment has also produced perverse incentives.

For years organisations relied upon large-scale peace funding. As those resources diminished, new funding priorities emerged. Anti-racism became one of them. The danger is not that racism receives attention. It should. The danger is that racism replaces sectarianism as a funding opportunity.

When organisations depend upon demonstrating crisis in order to secure resources, crisis acquires value. The problem is no longer solved. It is managed. This year, community organisations that once argued there was no racism in Republican areas in Belfast for example were to the fore in claiming funding allocated by the British Home Office to tackle anti-migrant sentiment.

Good relations funding is now allocated to the established gatekeepers, often to the detriment of the emerging support and advocacy groups established by the new migrant communities themselves.

Cultural awareness workshops, diversity seminars and performative events do nothing to address racism or sectarianism. They serve a dual purpose for both community gatekeepers and the political and social elites. It is highly cost-effective theatre. It is significantly cheaper for the Stormont Executive to throw a minor grant to a local community group for an "anti-racism workshop" than it is to build social housing.

Workshops, awareness sessions and symbolic events have their place. They may improve understanding. They may challenge ignorance. What they cannot do is substitute for aspiration, education, healthcare and economic opportunity.

The consequence of this approach is visible in working-class communities across the North. Areas experiencing poor housing, weak services and limited opportunity become vulnerable to resentment and manipulation. Far-right activists exploit those conditions. Migrants become convenient targets. The underlying causes remain untouched. There were no riots on the Malone Road.

When disorder follows, entire communities are denounced as backward or racist. This approach absolves government of responsibility. It transforms political failure into a cultural defect.

The North will not address racism through moral grandstanding. It will not address it through sectarian score-settling. It will not address it through endless declarations of concern.

It will address it only when we are prepared to apply the same standards to ourselves that we apply to others. True anti-racism requires looking inward with an unblinking, critical eye, regardless of the flags flying at the end of the street

That requires several things.

First, collective guilt must be rejected. Individuals should be held accountable for their actions. Communities should not.

Second, racial equality policy must move beyond rhetoric. Strategies require measurable objectives, funding and enforcement.

Third, public funding should be linked to demonstrable outcomes rather than the perpetual management of social problems.

Finally, inequality must be addressed directly. Housing, healthcare, education and economic opportunity are not distractions from anti-racism. They are part of it.

The recent riots did not create these problems. They exposed them.

The choice now is whether we continue to explain racism through the comforting language of tribal politics, or whether we recognise it for what it is: a societal failure shared across communities, institutions and governments alike.

Muiris Ó Súilleabháin was a member of the Republican Movement until he retired in 2006 after 20 years of service. Fiche bhliain ag fás.

3 comments:

  1. I don't think racism in the North belongs exclusively to the loyalist community but it does mainly.
    In the South it is exclusively nationalist but it is a striking paradox that mobs waving Irish tricolours convey the feel of loyalism in its most vindictive form.
    Likewise with pro-Israeli genocide. It can be found on the nationalist side But, demonstrably, it has a much greater presence within loyalism.
    I don't think the entire unionist community is condemned either for the race riots. There are many unionists including loyalists who do not entertain racism.
    I can take the point about hun being sectarian, haven't made up my mind yet about planter but definitely do not see knuckledragger as a sectarian. Unlike the other two it can be applied to nationalists or loyalists who hold racist views and would be used down here to describe the far right.
    Racism against Travellers is commonplace down here in conversation about racism. It has been overtaken by the new racist on the block.
    Those observations aside, the piece is an excoriating polemic against the institutional response to racism. It is the type of quality piece TPQ feels privileged to be asked to carry.
    I think it is the type of piece Christopher Owens would appreciate given his rejection of any binary analysis.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If I were a northern nationalist, I might be tempted to agree with your analysis. I am not. Racism exists across all of Irish society, and that includes PUL communities. In a northern context, overt racism is more visible within PUL areas, but racism takes many forms and most of them are not overt. The example of Irish Travellers illustrates this clearly, as does the NI Life and Times data.
    I accept that discussion about racism against Travellers may be commonplace in the circles in which you move, but that is not reflected in the body politic or wider public discourse. The discrimination Travellers face remains the last socially acceptable form of racism on this island, and shamefully it has not been meaningfully addressed.
    On terminology: with the greatest respect, it is not for nationalism or republicanism to decide what is or is not sectarian when applied to loyalism or unionism. Sectarianism, like racism, contains a subjective dimension. If PUL communities experience certain terms as sectarian, that perception is difficult to dismiss. The fact that a term can be applied to both communities does not negate how it lands with those who are its primary target.
    That the North continues to lag behind both the UK and the Republic in its response to racism and discrimination is an indictment of the institutions and those who lead them. While the DUP’s record in this area is well documented, the responsibility does not rest with them alone. It is also, and perhaps more fundamentally, a Sinn Féin issue: a party that must constantly calibrate its northern positioning against the political sensitivities of the South. That dynamic has produced caution where leadership was required.
    As always, I’m delighted to contribute to TPQ. It remains an austere and disciplined channel through which challenging discussions and reflective discourse can be carried.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the difficulty when making the claim of covert racism it is impossible to measure.
      What is demonstrable is that there is very little racist violence in nationalist areas and a lot of it within loyalist areas.
      It is the opposite on the Travellers question. In the circles where I move that is where you will find hostility to Travellers. It can be commonplace, and often in the circles you might least expect. In the body politic and wider public (official) discourse whatever is believed by individuals it would be hard to find traces of racism against Travellers. In the WRC, one of the institutions I have considerable experience of, there have been a number of findings against people who discriminated against Travellers.
      I fail to see how discrimination against Travellers is the last bastion of socially acceptability - there is a substantial racist sentiment in this part of the country against Immigrants and openly expressed in a way that is simply not in your face regarding Travellers. I think there is a danger of the discrimination against immigrants growing in contrast to that against Travellers.
      I think the Roma get a much more hostile experience here than Travellers. And that goes across the nationalities. I have met Romanians and Hungarians who have been vitriolic towards Roma. Same with the Irish.
      I don't share that sectarianism can be described in terms of how a term lands. That has been used in a different context to reinforce calls for blasphemy laws which would muzzle criticism of religion. Besides - subjectivity has to work both ways. How people might feel should never be the primary determining factor. No body of thought would ever be criticised if that came to prevail.
      Austere and disciplined - I never characterised it like that but it pleases me immensely that you think that.

      Delete