
Orange Order protest parade takes place at Drumcree as Commission says restriction ‘remains necessary'
The Orange Order had previously walked the route as part of its traditional march every year on the last Sunday before the Twelfth.
The mid to late 1990s saw disputes over the parade escalate into widespread rioting and disorder across Northern Ireland.
In 1998, the newly-established Parades Commission ruled the Orange Order should not march down Portadown's mainly nationalist Garvaghy Road on the end leg of its annual march from Drumcree Church.
On Sunday, speakers including Deputy Grand Master Harold Henning and Nigel Dawson addressed Orangemen who had gathered.
DUP MLA for Upper Bann Jonathan Buckley was also pictured in attendance.
It was recently reported that Orange Order leaders appeared to have cut off contact with the Parades Commission over the Drumcree protest in the weeks leading up to the parade.
The commission has had no meetings about its ban on the return parade in Portadown, via Garvaghy Road.
It said: 'No further representations have been received in relation to this parade this year.'
In its determination on the march, the commission said the parade has a 'long and contentious history'.
Referring to outreach efforts in 2022, the Parades Commission explained that Portadown District LOL No 1 holds a weekly protest parade as part of its campaign for the restoration of the return parade along the Garvaghy Road.
The Garvaghy Road Residents' Coalition has stressed that 'any attempt to process the notified route would cause significant community tension and is therefore non-negotiable'.
Residents say the trauma from the past still remains.
Portadown LOL No 1 says that being prevented from completing the route is 'an unjustified infringement of their rights'.
They have said their willingness to meet with residents still stands.
However, residents said previous attempts at dialogue were 'disingenuous and futile' as the District entered discussions 'without a willingness to compromise on the return route, the route being the main area of contention'.
The residents said that nationalists in Portadown had declared their continued willingness 'to accept an alternative, less contentious, route along Corcrain/Dungannon Road.
No further representations were received in relation to this year's parade, the commission said.
The Parades Commission determined that a restriction on the route 'remains necessary, proportionate and fair', reflecting 'the potential impacts on community relations in the immediate vicinity of Portadown and across Northern Ireland'.
It therefore has to follow a specified outward and identical return route, or participants are expected to disperse no later than 2.30pm from Drumcree Parish Church.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Telegraph
5 hours ago
- Telegraph
Suella Braverman reveals blueprint for leaving ECHR
Suella Braverman has unveiled her legal blueprint for how the UK could quit the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and accused Strasbourg of 'judicial imperialism.' In a 56-page document, the former home secretary and attorney general says the UK should rewrite the 1998 Belfast Good Friday Agreement, stripping out ECHR references and replacing them with domestic UK and common law human rights principles. Setting out the detailed legislative changes, she rejects 'apocalyptic' claims by the left of the Tory party and centrist politicians that this would threaten peace in Northern Ireland. Writing in The Telegraph, Mrs Braverman says there is barely a 'single sphere of national life' left untouched by the 'creeping remit' of Strasbourg, from blocking the deportation of foreign criminals because of their family life to enabling the 'relentless persecution' of veterans and 'shackling our soldiers abroad.' She adds: 'This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave.' Mrs Braverman, who was the first Cabinet minister to publicly call for the UK to quit the ECHR in 2022, is understood to have secured cross-party backing for the proposals from key figures on the right of the Tory party, senior DUP and Reform politicians and some within blue Labour. It goes further than the Tories under Kemi Badenoch, who has said it is 'likely' she will seek to leave but has commissioned a review by shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson into the impact of any potential withdrawal. It aligns Mrs Braverman with Reform UK, which has promised to quit the ECHR. She has pledged to remain in the Tory party but has backed an electoral pact with Nigel Farage's party. Her husband, Rael, quit Reform last week after attacks by its former chair Zia Yusuf on her and Robert Jenrick, who also supports quitting the ECHR. Tory peer Lord Frost said: 'We all understand that leaving the ECHR is now essential. As Suella rightly argues, the real question is not 'whether' but 'how': how it can be done without disrupting our international relations or compromising the integrity of the United Kingdom. 'This bold, clear plan shows exactly how we can shake off the control of the ECHR's court and jurisprudence, and finally reclaim the sovereignty that Brexit promised.' Richard Tice, the Reform deputy leader, said: 'This is a valuable and welcome policy paper on the vital objective of leaving the ECHR. Until we leave the ECHR, we are unable to save the UK from inexorable decline in so many important areas' Former Northern Ireland first minister Baroness Foster said Mrs Braverman's proposals were a 'starting point for discussion and a pathway to restoring the primacy of our common law and the sovereignty of our Parliament whilst also securing the integrity of the UK.' In her legal document, Mrs Braverman admits the ECHR is more entwined with law in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. However, to leave it as part of the Good Friday Agreement would mean 'unacceptable further divergence' between Northern Ireland and the UK. She proposes amendments to the Northern Ireland Act to remove references to ECHR rights and replace them with new provisions ensuring continuity of rights in common law. She argues that the Agreement has already been modified five times since 2006 through supplementary deals. 'There is no obligation within the Belfast Agreement to remain a party to the ECHR, only to protect rights in Northern Ireland. This can be achieved through domestic mechanisms, including the common law,' she said. Mrs Braverman says the changes should be underpinned by four principles: legal uniformity between Northern Ireland and Britain; democratic accountability where Parliament and UK courts, not Strasbourg, determined human rights; consultation with Northern Irish communities; and honouring the spirit of the 1998 Agreement. To quit, the UK would invoke article 58 of the ECHR, setting in train a six month transition process during which the UK should engage 'respectfully but firmly' with the Irish Government and Northern Irish parties to update and renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes,' she says. At the same time, the UK would repeal the Human Rights Act, which embedded the ECHR in UK law, and enshrine in UK law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities. Mrs Braverman says: 'The ECHR's remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act.' The debate is no longer whether, but how, we leave By Suella Braverman For some years now, the case for leaving the European Convention on Human Rights has ceased to be controversial – at least among those willing to see things as they are. That case has been rehearsed exhaustively, not least in these very pages. It is a case grounded not merely in law or policy, but in something deeper: the democratic instinct of a free people to govern themselves without supervision by unelected, unaccountable judges in Strasbourg. During my time as attorney general, I saw first-hand the way in which the European Court of Human Rights has contorted itself in pursuit of an ideology foreign to our constitutional tradition. The moment that court blocked our ability to remove illegal migrants to Rwanda – a sovereign policy decision by a sovereign nation – was, for me, the final straw. Enough. Let us be clear about what we are dealing with. A court that rules foreign criminals cannot be deported because of their family life. That shields terrorists from justice. That permits violent protestors to vandalise with impunity. Enables the relentless persecution of British veterans – men who risked life and limb to uphold the peace in Northern Ireland – while real threats go unchallenged. A court that shackles our soldiers abroad and unpicks our policies at home. From planning law to immigration control, from welfare reform to environmental regulation, there is barely a single sphere of national life left untouched by the creeping remit of Strasbourg. This is not simply judicial activism; it is a form of judicial imperialism. The time for debating whether we should leave is over. The question now is how we leave. My new paper with Guy Dampier at the Prosperity Institute offers a comprehensive roadmap to reclaiming our sovereignty and restoring constitutional self-respect. The main argument used to block any discussion of withdrawal is the supposed impossibility of doing so under the terms of the Belfast Good Friday Agreement. We are told, in increasingly apocalyptic tones, that departure from the ECHR would unravel the peace. This is legally wrong and politically hollow. The Agreement makes reference to the ECHR, but it does not require the UK to remain a party in perpetuity. Indeed, the Belfast Agreement – hailed at the time as the final word on peace – has already been torn up, amended, and repurposed more times than its authors might have imagined. The Northern Ireland Protocol, imposed in direct contradiction to the spirit of that Agreement, did not provoke collapse. As the late Lord Trimble warned, it amounted to a breach – and yet life carried on. There is room, therefore, for adaptation once again. We set out four principles to manage this transition. First, legal uniformity: there must not be a two tier human rights regime within the United Kingdom; Northern Ireland must not be left behind. Second, democratic accountability: our Parliament and courts, not Strasbourg, should determine the content and enforcement of those rights. Third, genuine consultation with all communities in Northern Ireland. And fourth, peace through fairness – honouring the spirit, if not always the letter of the 1998 Agreement. Once Article 58 of the Convention is invoked – a straightforward legal mechanism – the UK will enter a transition phase. During this period, the government should engage, respectfully but firmly, with the Irish government and Northern Irish parties to update and, where necessary, renegotiate the relevant portions of the Belfast Agreement. If some parties resist, it would be entirely within the UK Parliament's sovereign powers – as with the Windsor Framework – to proceed with domestic legislation amending the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to enact the changes. But this is not just about Northern Ireland. The restoration of sovereignty requires action across the UK's legal architecture. That means: repealing the Human Rights Act 1998; enshrining in law the principle that Strasbourg judgments no longer bind UK courts or public authorities; reforming judicial review to limit the reach of activist jurisprudence; amending the devolution statutes for Scotland and Wales to reflect the new constitutional settlement and renegotiating the references to the ECHR in the Trade and Cooperation Agreement with the EU. The essence of our liberty Would this mean the end of human rights in Britain? Only to those who have forgotten – or never understood – that this country did not discover liberty in 1950. Long before the ECHR was drafted, our freedoms were protected by a rich body of statute and common law. As Lord Hoffmann once put it, the Convention did not create rights; it reflected the common law. Our system was already protecting people from torture, arbitrary detention, and state overreach – not through foreign fiat, but through Parliament and centuries of common law evolution. Unlike the codified, bureaucratic, top-down systems of continental Europe, the British legal tradition begins with the individual. What is not prohibited is permitted. That is the essence of our liberty – and the foundation of our legal and political culture. To depart the ECHR is not to dismantle rights, but to place their guardianship back where it belongs: with our elected representatives and our own courts. If those representatives err, the people can remove them. If judges overstep, Parliament can correct them. That is not chaos. That is democracy. This will not be easy. We should not pretend otherwise. There will be resistance from vested interests: political, legal, and diplomatic. But sovereignty is not the path of least resistance. It is the path of self-respect. The ECHR, like so many post-war institutions, was born out of noble intentions. But intentions alone do not justify perpetuity. Its remit has become expansive, ideological, and hostile to the very idea of national democracy. It is time to acknowledge this. And act. We have laid out the roadmap to freedom. The path is there for those with the courage to walk it. The only question that remains is this: Who among us still believes that the British people are fit to govern themselves – and will act accordingly?

The National
2 days ago
- The National
Scottish Tories call for police to be banned from Pride events
The court ruled on Wednesday that one of the UK's largest forces breached impartiality by marching at an LGBT+ event. A judicial review was brought by a gender-critical campaigner who argued that Northumbria Police broke the professional oath sworn by police officers to act "with impartiality". Officers had a stall at last year's Pride parade in Newcastle, marched under the Progress flag promoting transgender ideology and painted a police van in trans colours, while Chief Constable Vanessa Jardine was pictured at the event. Now the Scottish [[Tories]] have called on Police Scotland to ban staff participation in Pride events. READ MORE: Activist slams 'draconian' law as protester arrested at Palestine Action demo Scottish Tory community safety spokesman Sharon Dowey said: 'The public expect the primary role of police officers to be fighting crime and upholding community safety, so this ruling is a potential landmark moment. "At a time of low officer numbers and savage cuts to the police budgets on the SNP's watch, attending parades is not what Scots expect to be a priority. "It is common sense that public safety should always be the top priority for the force." David Kennedy, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, has also backed the court ruling and appeared to compare Pride events with Orange Order marches in his comments. He said: 'The problem is where do you draw the line? If an officer is a member of the Orange Order and wants to take part in an Orange walk while in police uniform, for example, would you allow that – how would that go down? 'Police have to do their job in an apolitical way - without fear or favour. 'The lines had become blurred but this judgment clarifies the situation." READ MORE: Keir Starmer aide's former firm in lobbying probe Kennedy said he believed officers in civilian clothes on their time off should be allowed to participate, for example by carrying flags or banners, but they should not wear uniform. A Pride march is set to take place in Glasgow on Saturday. In his ruling at the High Court in Leeds, Mr Justice Linden said Northumbria Police might be seen by the public to be 'taking sides' in the women's rights debate. It is understood Police Scotland is reviewing the High Court judgment.


Belfast Telegraph
2 days ago
- Belfast Telegraph
‘Sinister attempt to intimidate': Vandalism of NI Prison Service billboard branded ‘pathetic'
A video of the vandalism, which happened on the Antrim Road, was posted online by Lasair Dhearg in which a man appears to daub orange paint over the images of two prison officers to create sashes, accompanied with the slogan 'Loyalist prison service'. They posted a statement with the video on their website, which said the 'British state continues to recruit for its Prison Service in occupied Ireland, hoping that they can balance the books with 'Catholics'' It added: "Just like the PSNI, they will fail.' DUP MLA Phillip Brett has criticised those responsible as 'pathetic'. 'I utterly condemn the disgraceful and cowardly vandalism of a Prison Service recruitment billboard recently on the Antrim Road. This is nothing more than a pathetic and sinister attempt to intimidate future applicants from pursuing an honourable and essential career serving and keeping our communities safe,' the North Belfast MLA said. 'Let me be clear, those responsible represent no one but themselves. 'They are relics of a dark past that the vast majority of people across Northern Ireland have long rejected. The men and women of the Prison Service carry out a difficult and vital job, often in challenging circumstances, and they deserve nothing but our respect and support. 'These thugs will not succeed in their attempts to deter individuals from stepping forward to serve our society,' he added. 'Political representatives in North Belfast should publicly condemn those behind this and support the right of the Prison Service to advertise in and recruit from all communities. 'I would urge the PSNI to take firm action against those who shamelessly and foolishly filmed themselves carrying out this criminal damage.'