A PRINCIPAL aim of the North inquiry into demonstrations was to provide a means of avoiding the "abyss of anarchy" into which Northern Ireland descended last July during the stand off by Orangemen at Drumcree, Co Armagh.
The decision by the RUC, initially to stop the Drumcree Orangemen from parading along the mainly Catholic Garvaghy Road in Portadown on July 7th last, caused the standoff to spread to a Northern Ireland wide blockade. Road blocks and demonstrations brought the North to a virtual standstill.
When the RUC reversed its decision and allowed the Orangemen to parade down Garvaghy Road on July 11th, rioting erupted in nationalist areas. There were further contentious confrontations in Belfast and villages including Bellaghy and Dunloy.
During a month of disturbances, more than 8,000 petrol bombs were thrown and the RUC fired 6,000 plastic bullets. During the Drumcree stand off, a local loyalist gang shot dead a Catholic taxi driver, Michael McGoldrick. A nationalist protester, Dermot McShane, was crushed by a security forces vehicle during trouble in Derry.
The impact of the disturbances arising from Drumcree, combined with the decision by the IRA to renew its campaign of violence, included public expenditure costs of about £30 million and severe damage to the local tourism industry.
It identified one significant problem contained in the 1987 Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order. This, ironically, was introduced partly at the behest of the Government after stand offs and rioting at Drumcree marches in 1986 and 1987. These riots stemmed from loyalist anger at the Anglo Irish Agreement of 1985.
The legislation allows a senior police officer to impose conditions on demonstrators, and for the Secretary of State to ban demonstrations.
However, the inquiry found that the effect of the legislation was that the RUC was "perceived as both making the decision and then enforcing it". The force was caught between the disputing parties and often had to play the role of mediator.
The inquiry found there was a high level of support in Northern Ireland for the right to demonstrate, but 90 per cent of respondents stated that civil disobedience was not justified where a parade was banned. There was strong support for an independent commission to adjudicate between demonstrators and local residents, and only 29 per cent of people thought the RUC should play this role.
The report noted from the outset that Northern Ireland was a divided society "significantly lacking in tolerance and sensitivity".
Broadly the view of both sides was outlined as the Orangemen and unionists seeking the guaranteeing of "traditional parades and routes" and the nationalist residents' associations seeking the rerouting of loyalist parades.
The nationalists also disliked the disruption caused and saw the RUC as acting "as agents of the loyal orders".
The inquiry identified the need for a consensus approach to the problem. It enunciated certain principles.
These included a provision that Orangemen should not condone criminal acts or offensive behaviour in the exercise of their rights and responsibilities, and should show a willingness to work towards a resolution.
The commission, which was set up by the British government last August, received 300 submissions and held 93 meetings with 270 people or groups.
It is the latest in a series of commissions of inquiry into disturbances, many of which arose from Orange demonstrations, dating from the middle of the 19th century.