Eamon Stack of the Garvaghy Coalition posed the question in this column recently "can Orangemen walk with equal citizenship?" In so doing he used one of those, new phrases - such as "equal citizenship" and a predecessor "parity of esteem" - which are really no more than old wine in new wineskins.

His contribution to Rite & Reason on May 27th was most unhelpful in the present circumstances, and deserves a response because of the very unbalanced, inaccurate, and half truth style of presentation of the situation, which may not be so obvious to a Southern readership.

His description of the expansion of the Garvaghy Road area in the 1960s is indeed accurate. But to say that the new houses were "assigned to Catholics" is totally incorrect. These estates were mixed until a previous increase in sectarian tension resulted in Protestants being forced to leave.

And, contrary to what he suggests, the peaceful nature of the return parade from Drumcree parish church is invalidated only by those, residents and numerous outsiders, who use physical force to block, obstruct or hinder this peaceful return from Morning Prayer.

Eamon also makes the statement that "no one on the Garvaghy Road wants this parade," and proceeds to give seven invalid reasons for making such a statement:

(1) That it is oppressive because of the security operation. This may sound valid, but it should also be considered that it is a self imposed security operation. There would be no need for a security operation if the residents and others did not pose a security problem.

(2) That Orangemen are being facilitated . . . etc. Orangemen are exercising their civil rights, which they hold dear for themselves and for others. It is totally wrong to say that Orangemen are not allowing nationalists to do the same thing.

(3) That there is already 9fl excessive number of parades. Eamon is both making a judgment as to what is excessive, as well as moving the goal posts - from the Garvaghy Road to Portadown.

(4) That the parade is to celebrate a political victory. The church parade, on the Sunday before the Twelfth, is a thanksgiving, both for the civil and religious liberty won at the Boyne and for the Battle of the Somme, in which so many Irishmen of both traditions died.

(5) That it (the parade) expresses a permanent socio economic imbalance. How a parade from Morning Prayer expresses a socioeconomic imbalance is simply beyond comprehension.

(6) It provokes public disorder. It only provokes public disorder because of the opposition, publicly and violently expressed, by those who deny rights to others which they so readily claim for themselves.

(7) The right of all people to peaceful opposition is not denied by any one, particularly Orangemen. But Eamon Stack fails to recognise that one must hold in balance the right to parade and the right to protest. When the right to protest becomes the denial of the right to parade, then the democratic right of civil liberty is denied.

The selective untruths in Eamon Stack's article are carried further when no mention is made of the number of parades there being reduced from 10 to one. Nor does he mention the fact that the parade coming up: the Corcrain Road is also being opposed by the "residents.

Clearly, as Eamon says, there is intransigence. But the intransigence is not on the part of the Orangemen. The residents have displayed intransigence by bringing the state to the point of anarchy for the sake of a "peaceful 15 minute walk".

The major question, which has to be directed to the residents of the Garvaghy Road is:

"In what circumstances will you not object to the valid expression of a religion, culture and identity, held by the majority of the population of Northern Ireland, and not obstruct that expression by blocking the return route of the parade along the Garvaghy Road from Morning Prayer at Drumcree parish church?"

Frankly, like many readers, North and South, I found Eamon Stack's article most depressing, because of its reiteration of old tribal slogans and its determination to present an ugly form of majoritarianism whereby you are only accepted in a community if you fit in to that particular community's preconceived majority ideas.

How very different was the Rite and Reason column (by WWP, a chaplain with the Orange Order) last April 22nd, where we were challenged to seek consensus as the best way forward in a divided society with diverse interests.

Yes, the Orange Order can cope with equal citizenship. It not only can cope with equal citizenship, it affirms equal citizenship. But Eamon Stack's article is a hindrance rather than a help towards that affirmation.