Orange is not the only shade which provokes\

IT is a little troubling that the media and nationalist Ireland accept so uncritically the view that "provocative" Orange marches through or skirting nationalist areas in Northern Ireland should be banned. There are issues involved in this that go to the heart of the nature of democratic society and which indeed do encompass what some people not unreasonably believe to be "God given rights".

Orangemen who insist on marching at all or on marching through or near nationalist areas do so for a variety of motives.

These include the following a wish to assert what they believe to be traditional values of religious and political liberty a desire to maintain a tradition to which they inchoately feel attached an impulse to strike back at the nationalist community which has seemed to threaten them physically, culturally and politically and a wish to express domination over the nationalist community. Probably no one Orangeman is propelled by each of these motivations and there may well be other factors.

Whichever motivations are involved and in, whatever mixture, they all amount to an expression of some kind of emotion or opinion As such they come within the special rubric of freedom of expression, and the question is to what extent this should be curtailed in the interests of "parity of esteem" or law and order or communal harmony or some other such good.

If we are to curtail expression and the manner of it simply because it is "provocative" to somebody else or some other group, then we legitimise censorship of expression on a wide basis. Indeed not only freedom of expression but freedom of religion.

In an Islamic state, for instance, the public display of Christian symbols may be "provocative", but should they be banned on that account? In our own context, it might well be that, for example, the display of specifically Catholic symbols or the ringing of the Angelus bell may offend certain sections of the Protestant community. Should they be banned because this is offensive or provocative?

A GREAT deal of dissenting opinion is offensive and provocative to some people, whether that opinion be on religion, morality, politics, ideology or whatever.

Does that make it a candidate for censorship?

It will be argued that Orange marches are quite different, or at least Orange marches that "trail" through Catholic areas are quite different.

It is often suggested that members of the Orange Order and associated organisations are entirely free to march through the streets of their own areas, and what more "freedom expression" do they need or deserve?

Certainly, some expression can be exercised fully in private or in an enclosed arena. For instance, most religious observance is in private or in churches. But this is not true of all expression. The nature of some expression is that it is open and that it is an arena where it encounters opposing views. Indeed, some expression or the manner of it is essentially provocative intended to provoke a reaction.

Take as an instance the demonstrations against the Vietnam war in the late 1960s and early 1970s. The point of those demonstrations was to express revulsion for the war to those who were in favour of the war.

The purpose of the marches was explicitly provocative, and without the provocative charge the marches would have had little point.

Orangemen do often intend to be provocative. Some often do want to strut their traditions in front of those who find their traditions repulsive. But if we are to ban expression on account of its intended provocative effect, then we should be aware that we, are opening the door to censorship on a wide basis.

The harms caused by freedom of expression are traditionally regarded as immune from the sanctions that apply to other harms because of the special status we accord expression.

We accord it this status because of the part free a expression plays in the search for truth, because of, the part freedom of expression plays in the manifestation of personal identity (this is where the "God given rights" come in) and because of the part freedom of expression plays in the governance of society on the basis of equal and informed participation by all the people in society.

The arguments from truth and democracy are not perhaps relevant to Orange marches, but the argument from personal identity is indeed relevant, and this concept of personal identity is at the core of Protestant culture.

There is, of course, the twist to this in Northern Ireland that civil and religious liberties are fine for unionists, but when it comes to nationalists asserting similar rights it is a different matter. For decades nationalists were prevented from marching even into Belfast city centre, let alone "trailing" through loyalist areas.

But we should oppose this discrimination, not by demanding equal repression of loyalists but equal freedom for nationalists.

Postscript Yesterday a letter from Dan Mulhall, press counsellor of the Department of Foreign, Affairs, was published in this newspaper in response to my column last week. He stated that "the misleading impression" given by me "about government policy on public access to EU Council documents... cannot be allowed to go unchallenged".

He went on to claim that (i) Ireland has "consistently" been in favour of greater openness (ii) this was acknowledged by the Guardian journalist who took the EU Council of Ministers to Court over access to Council documents, and (iii) documents are now more freely available "on foot of" efforts by states, including Ireland, which favour greater openness.

IRELAND, or rather Dick Spring, has not "consistently" been in favour of greater openness. If it/he were why did it/he not take the same position as the Dutch and Danish governments in supporting the action taken by the Guardian demanding access to Council documents.

Yes, the Guardian journalist did say that among those who did not support his action Ireland has adopted a more liberal approach. But this does not at all deal with the point I made, that Ireland failed to support the initiative to oblige the Council to adhere to the terms of the Maastricht Treaty regarding openness. Documents are now more freely available, but this is not primarily (if at all) due to Ireland and other states, it is because the Council is required by the Court of First Instance to adhere to the Maastricht Treaty.

Finally, Mr Mulhall fails to deal with my main point that the single most important issue related to foreign policy the absence of democratic accountability for the exercise of power within the European Union is not even addressed in the White Paper on foreign policy.