The North's Equality Commission, whose agenda corrupts fairness, is alienating liberal and fundamentalist unionists, writes Austen Morgan.
The Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell, has accused members of the equality industry in the South of being feudalist. As a constitutional lawyer, I have described their Northern counterparts as primitive communists; using equality to promote their (hidden) politics.
The problem is not anti-discrimination law, whether from London or Brussels.
The problem is the Equality Commission's promotion of equality of opportunity, shortened to equality (a very different proposition).
Four issues illustrate the corruption of fairness: the exclusion of teachers from equality protection; the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity; religious quotas in the police; and the statutory requirement of a reflective judiciary.
First, teachers. These were the only workers excluded from the fair employment legislation in 1976. The reason was the Catholic Church: it wanted to discriminate in its schools; and the British government did not want Protestants to be disadvantaged in the state sector.
Over time Protestants have come to favour a sectarian carve-up, meaning that the issue is now largely secularists versus religious. The draft European equal treatment directive - which included the ground of religion or belief - alarmed the latter in 2000.
The Catholic Church, with Protestants in tow, lobbied the Taoiseach; it was pushing an open door. An Irish redrafting of Article 4, allowing existing discriminatory practices to continue, was agreed by the EU.
The British government, however, went further. It secured an opt-out for Northern Ireland teachers (article 15(2)), with Peter Mandelson putting forward two spurious reasons: "In order to maintain a balance of opportunity in employment for teachers"; and "furthering the reconciliation of historical divisions between the major religious communities."
Second is the statutory duty to promote equality contained in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
The idea of proofing public policy originated with Ken Livingstone's Greater London Council. Mrs Thatcher saw off metropolitan loony leftism, and New Labour shifted its focus to the hard-working families of middle Britain.
The statutory duty is unexceptional law, and may indeed deter discriminatory conduct.
The problem has been the Equality Commission's practices. It fails to appreciate t'hat public authorities have a duty to perform existing functions, and it sees the equality of opportunity duty as stronger than promoting good relations. To make matters worse, the commission sponsors so-called representative groups from the community and voluntary sector, when these remain unelected and unelectable.
Section 75 has undermined the accountability of rulers to the ruled, when republican terrorists are being propelled into ministerial office (in Belfast but not Dublin), while the UK ignores representative democracy. It has become an expensive administrative exercise: there was consultation overload.
Third is religious quotas in the police. The under-representation of Catholics in the police was due to republican intimidation, Catholic ostracism, and political abstentionism. The RUC did not discriminate against Catholics. Indeed, Catholics were over-represented in promotion. Nevertheless, the Equality Commission's predecessor advised the Patten Commission to recommend reverse discrimination - the so-called, unworkable 50/50 policy.
Say the police want to recruit 200 trainees. If 50 Catholics and 150 Protestants get into the merit pool, only 100 (50 Catholics and 50 Protestants) can be recruited. There is under-recruitment and 100 qualified Protestants who have been rejected because of their background.
This is institutionalised sectarianism (made worse by the Catholic and non-Catholic designation) and parliament had to disapply anti-discrimination law.
Patten's advisers said there would be no problem with Europe. Wrong. Peter Mandelson had to secure a second opt-out in the equal treatment directive for the police: article 15 (1).
When the British government renewed 50/50 earlier this year, it presented figures to parliament. The increase in the percentage of Catholics - which is very welcome - was attributed to reverse discrimination. Yet this ignored the end of mainstream republican intimidation, and the SDLP taking its seats on the policing board.
Interestingly, the increase in the percentage of women is similar. It did not take reverse discrimination against men to get women to apply in increasing numbers; and they did so before the programme required by parliament was implemented.
Fourth is the statutory requirement of a reflective judiciary. There is a principle of judicial independence, related to the common law, which is contaminated by the encouragement of executive-minded judges.
The little-noticed criminal justice review came up with the idea of a judicial appointments commission, and pan-nationalism forced the British government to go for a judiciary reflective of the community. The commission is due to start functioning regardless of devolution.
But what does reflectiveness mean? The Lord Chief Justice in Northern Ireland is a Catholic. So are two of the three appeal judges. And at least half the High Court bench of 10 is from the minority community. Is the Department of Foreign Affairs pressuring the British to appoint more Protestant judges to the senior judiciary in Belfast?
The Minister for Justice, who takes an interest in Northern Ireland, would be advised to save some of his scorn for the equality industry in Northern Ireland on his forays to Downing Street; it has been indulged, not because it has, or ever could, achieve anything substantial, but because it is part of the process of luring republican terrorists into the shallow waters.
Austen Morgan is a barrister in London and Belfast, an adviser to the Ulster Unionist Party, and author of The Belfast Agreement: a practical legal analysis (London, 2000)