NORTHERN IRELAND FORUM

FOR

POLITICAL DIALOGUE

_____________________

REVIEW OF BOYCOTTING

OF BUSINESSES

by

STANDING COMMITTEE A

(PUBLIC ORDER ISSUES)

December 1996

CR5REVIEW OF BOYCOTTING

OF

BUSINESSES

CONTENTS

PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 5

3. EFFECTS OF BOYCOTTING 7

4. POINTS ARISING FROM EVIDENCE 8

5. CONCLUSIONS 11

6. RECOMMENDATIONS 13

Appendix A - Membership of Committee

Appendix B - Written and Oral Evidence

Appendix C - Reports on the Current SituationREVIEW OF BOYCOTTING

OF BUSINESSES

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Following reports in the press about a serious boycott situation which

was prevailing across the Province, a motion proposed by the UUP was

debated in the Forum on Friday 6 September 1996. The debate, which

lasted 4 hours, gave all the Forum members an opportunity to address

this issue which not only has had damaging effects on the economy but

also on community relations, particularly in smaller towns and villages.

The following resolution was passed unanimously:-

This Forum deplores the continuing boycotting of businesses

across Northern Ireland and all unlawful activities associated

therewith, which are further increasing tensions among the citizens

of Northern Ireland.

The practice of boycotting will cause serious damage to the

economic future of Northern Ireland by frustrating growth and

preventing inward investment.

This Forum declares that there is an obligation upon all

constitutional political parties to help resolve this and many other

issues by the process of mutual co-operation.

1The time has come for all elected representatives to act responsibly

in the interests of reconciliation, and to use this Forum for its

principal purpose - to discuss issues relevant to the promotion of

dialogue and mutual understanding among the people of Northern

Ireland.

This Forum resolves to set up a Committee to examine the issue

further, with the object of helping those at the receiving end of

this vicious campaign, and calls on the Secretary of State and the

Chief Constable of the RUC to take immediate action on the many

breaches of the law involved.

1.2 This resolution was forwarded to the Secretary of State by the

Chairman of the Forum on 9 September 1996. The Secretary of State

responded on 23 September indicating that he and his ministerial

colleagues viewed this issue very seriously, that Michael Ancram had

met with representatives of the Unionist parties to discuss this issue

and had also agreed to meet with a group of traders in the near future.

1.3 On 26 July 1996, at the last plenary meeting of the Forum before the

Summer Recess, the Forum agreed, inter alia, to establish a Committee

with the following terms of reference:

"to examine the problems which arise in relation to parades in

Northern Ireland, make recommendations which would contribute

to better understanding and amelioration of these problems and

report to the Forum by 31 December 1996."

21.4 At the plenary meeting on Friday 4 October 1996 the Forum agreed the

following terms of reference for the matter of boycotting which the

Forum had agreed to place with the Parades Committee.

"to examine the problems of boycotting in Northern Ireland and

make recommendations which would help resolve them and report

to the Forum".

1.5 It was also agreed that the existing Committees established by the

Forum on 26 July should become Standing Committees whose remit,

terms of reference and membership could be determined as new topics

are agreed by the Forum.

1.6 The Forum agreed that the Parades Committee should be designated

Standing Committee A, with a current remit of Public Order Issues and

with terms of reference as follows:

"Parades - To examine the problems which arise in relation to

parades in Northern Ireland, make

recommendations which would contribute to better

understanding and amelioration of those problems

and report to the Forum.

Boycotting - To examine the problems of boycotting in Northern

Ireland and make recommendations which would

help resolve them and report to the Forum."

31.7 Standing Committee A (Public Order Issues) decided to take evidence

from various businesses and community organisations and affected

traders to enable them to prepare a report for presentation to the

Forum.

1.8 The Committee is very grateful to those persons who readily agreed to

give evidence to the Committee given the sensitive nature of the issue

and the fear of further increasing tensions by speaking out. The

Committee is also very grateful to the organisations who willingly gave

time and effort to provide the Committee with informative and useful

information.

1.9 Minutes of Evidence taken by the Committee are contained Appendix C

of this report, although in view of the timescale for the completion of

the report it has not been possible to include the corrected form of the

Minutes of Evidence. As a result of the sensitivity of this issue the

Committee agreed that certain evidence would be taken in private and

for these sessions a summary of the evidence is provided.

1.10 The findings in this report are therefore expressed in general terms to

maintain the anonymity of those who provided the information.

42. BACKGROUND

2.1 Boycotting, to some extent, has previously taken place in Northern

Ireland as a result of a divided society which leads people to be

influenced by religious persuasion in deciding who they will shop or do

business with.

2.2 In the aftermath of events surrounding the stand-off at Drumcree/

Garvaghy Road the media/press reported on a Republican boycott of

some Protestant-owned businesses in the border areas of Northern

Ireland.

2.3 The boycott campaign was reported to have been launched by

Republicans in Castlederg, Co Tyrone. A few days after Drumcree/

Garvaghy Road, 8 business people in Castlederg received a letter

accusing them of being involved in Loyalist roadblocks and telling them

that their businesses would be boycotted.

2.4 In late July a letter appeared in a local Nationalist newspaper urging

people not to give their money to Orange businessmen.

2.5 By the beginning of August, evidence of Roman Catholic boycotts of

Protestant-owned businesses were also reported in the border towns of

Newtownbutler, Rosslea, Lisbellaw, Aughnacloy, Newtownhamilton

and further inland in Armagh, Pomeroy, Omagh. Some incidents of

boycotting were also reported in Londonderry. There were also

reports that some Protestant families had begun boycotting Roman

Catholic -owned businesses in Lisnaskea.

52.6 These boycotts created an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust and

some Protestant traders affected by the boycott refused to speak on the

record for fear of reprisals and increasing the tension. Newspaper

reports indicated that some Protestant-owned businesses were

suffering a reduction in turnover of between 30% and 50%.

2.7 Many believed that the boycotts were orchestrated by Sinn Fein but

Sinn Fein insisted that they were not involved. They defended the

boycott, however, claiming that it was a legitimate form of protest

which many felt was justified following the alleged involvement of

Protestant businessmen in the blocking of roads in solidarity with

Orangemen at Drumcree. Some traders also believed that the situation

was not helped by the tacit support for the campaign by certain SDLP

representatives.

63. EFFECTS OF BOYCOTTING

3.1 The Committee considers that boycotting is a social evil, which is

detrimental to good community relations and which exacerbates

divisions within local communities. The Committee further considers

that boycotting is socially, economically and politically unacceptable

and is impeding political development in Northern Ireland.

3.2 The Committee considers that boycotting is an obstacle to improving

the Northern Ireland economy and creates a negative commercial

culture which discourages enterprise and inward investment.

3.3 The Committee recognises the need for traders to be permitted to trade

in an environment which is free from interference by and influence of

sectarian forces. The Committee also recognises that citizens must be

permitted freedom of choice in exercising their right to carry out their

lawful business uninhibited by coercion, threat, blackmail or

intimidation.

74. POINTS ARISING FROM EVIDENCE

4.1 During the course of its examination of the topic, the Committee

learned that:

4.1.1 With regard to Roman Catholic boycotting of Protestant-owned

businesses

- a boycott of some Protestant-owned businesses in some areas was

indeed evident;

- while there was an element of people exercising their personal

preference of where they wished to shop before the boycott

situation there was evidence to suggest that in many cases the

boycotts of Protestant-owned businesses were orchestrated;

- some groups felt that the boycott was pre-meditated and ready to

be implemented when the appropriate circumstances arose;

- there appeared to be several aspects to the targeting within the

orchestrated campaigns, namely:

- the distribution in some areas of anonymously produced

leaflets, posters and lists of shops to avoid;

- individuals purposefully identified and a campaign pointed

directly at them due to the fact that they were allegedly

8involved at some stage in disturbances which occurred during

the summer;

- implied threats by way of people standing outside targeted

premises and on street corners monitoring shoppers going into

those premises;

- targeting seemed to be on a religious basis as all targeted

businesses were Protestant-owned - however not all the

businessmen affected had links with either the Orange Order or

any Unionist party;

- the boycott appeared to be most successful in areas where Sinn

Fein/IRA were strongly represented, eg West Tyrone, parts of

Fermanagh and to a certain extent South Down. However there

were other significant areas where Sinn Fein/IRA had strong

representation and where there was little evidence of boycotting;

- some people believed that the boycotting campaign was part of an

ongoing campaign by Sinn Fein/IRA to bring pressure on

Protestant communities around the border areas.

4.1.2 With regard to Protestant boycotting of Roman Catholic-owned

businesses

- targeting included the distribution in some areas of anonymously

produced leaflets, posters and lists of shops to avoid;

9- little indication of support within the Protestant community for a

concerted campaign to boycott Roman Catholic-owned

businesses, although there have been sporadic instances of this

throughout the Province.

4.1.3 With regard to Media Coverage

- some people believed that extensive reporting by media/press to be

a factor in exacerbating the problem while others felt that the

media/press ignored their plight and gave insufficient coverage to

the issue of boycotts;

- some impetus was given by media coverage as it could lead people

who would not originally have thought of boycotting to think that

they should be doing it.

4.1.4 With regard to Community Relations

- community relations are in a worse state than they were several

months ago;

- business and community organisations have little influence over

the people who are organising the boycotting.

4.1.5 Many affected traders felt a sense of isolation and that insufficient

support had been provided for them from, for example, Government

Agencies and Chamber of Commerce. Some traders also felt that their

plight had been ignored by the RUC.

105. CONCLUSIONS

5.1 The Committee concludes that there has been orchestrated Nationalist

boycotts of businesses in some parts of Northern Ireland.

5.2 As stated previously in this report, the Committee recognises that

boycotting has historically taken place in Northern Ireland as a result of

the divided society in which we live but the Committee concludes from

the evidence given that, on this occasion, Sinn Fein/IRA were

instrumental in initiating the boycotting campaign as a further attack

against the Protestant community in certain areas and that such actions

by any Party are inconsistent with a wish to be regarded as being

committed to exclusively democratic means.

5.3 The Committee recognises that there is some variance in the evidence

given by the business and community organisations regarding the

extent of the boycotting campaign. This variance is still evident in the

updated reports received from these organisations which are contained

in Appendix C of this report.

5.4 The Committee concludes that while there have been sporadic

incidences of boycotting throughout the Province, these now appear to

be on the decline.

5.5 The Committee however recognises that there are particular areas in

the Province where boycotting is continuing and notes that 12% of the

120 businesses surveyed by the Federation of Small Businesses

indicated that

11if the boycotting campaign develops further many businesses will not

survive and could, at the very least, be forced to relocate.

5.6 The Committee further notes from the ongoing contact which the

British and Professional People (BPPU) for the Union have had with

affected traders, that the boycott campaign appears to enjoy

widespread support in strong Nationalist areas and that the continuing

campaign is causing extreme concern and anxiety for affected traders,

some of whom have had to close down their businesses. The BPPU

have also indicated that they have received reports of physical attacks

on Roman Catholics who dared to break the boycott.

5.7 The Committee supports the request by those business people affected

by the boycotts for some form of compensation and urges the

appropriate Government authorities to give urgent consideration to this

matter.

126. RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 The Committee condemns the use of boycott by any group and calls on

those orchestrating and those supporting the boycotts to cease the

campaign immediately.

6.2 The Committee recommends that it should continue to monitor the

boycotting situation and to this end should discuss with the Federation

of Small Businesses the possibility of undertaking a full survey of their

members.

6.3 The Committee further recommends that it should invite the Minister,

Michael Ancram, to meet with them to discuss the present boycotting

activities taking place in the Province and the possibility of arranging

compensatory awards for the affected traders.

6.4 The Committee recognises that the RUC is addressing the illegal

aspects of this issue but recommends that the RUC actively continues

to ensure that the law is upheld.

6.5 The Committee recognises the need for clear leadership by all those in a

position of authority and responsibility in the community and

recommends that they should stand out against these damaging and

divisive campaigns and against the sectarian feelings and prejudices on

which they are based.

6.6 The Committee notes the sense of isolation felt by business people who

are suffering from boycotts and recommends that the Business and

13Community organisations should be more proactive in assisting those

affected.

6.7 The Committee notes from the evidence given the varying effects of

the media reports on the boycotting campaign and recommends that the

media should report on such issues in a sensitive, responsible and

objective manner.

14GMcK32.WM

APPENDIX A

MEMBERSHIP OF

STANDING COMMITTEE A

(PUBLIC ORDER ISSUES)

FOR EXAMINATION OF PARADES ISSUE

Ulster Unionist Party - Mr J Donaldson - Vice-Chairman

Mr R J White

Mr J Rodgers

Mr I Davis

Democratic Unionist Party - Mr N Dodds

Mr J McKee

Mrs I Robinson

Mr M Carrick

Alliance Party - #Mr S McBride

#Sir O Napier

Ulster Democratic Party - *Mr J English

UK Unionist Party - Mr C Wilson - Chairman

Labour - ø

Mr H Casey

NI Women's Coalition - ø

*Mrs B McCabe

*attend the Committee on behalf of the party under Rule 14(4)(a) of the

Forum Rules of Procedure.

. #resigned from the Committee on 24 February 1997.

ø

resigned from the Comittee on 28 Februry 1997.

15

• Review of Boycotting of Businesses in Northern Ireland (introduced on 1996-12-06 10:03:00 - CREATE_FROM - e801412) [This document] [view current proposal at this moment]
  • Postpone the debate on the Boycotting report (introduced on 1996-12-06 10:03:00 - PROCEDURE - e801413) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1996-12-06 10:03:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e801414) [view current proposal at this moment]
    • None (introduced on 1996-12-06 10:03:00 - DEBATE_MOTION - e801415) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801973) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801974) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801976) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801977) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801979) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801984) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801985) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - DEBATE_PROPOSAL - e801988) [view current proposal at this moment]
  • None (introduced on 1996-12-13 10:04:00 - ADOPT_PROPOSAL - e801994) [view current proposal at this moment]