
Some see July 12th bonfires as sectarian. For others, they're about social cohesion
The 300 or so pyres are associated with loyalist areas that are part of the wider unionist communities and are part of the
annual Twelfth of July commemorative celebrations
for King William III's 1690 victory at the Battle of the Boyne. The bonfires are lit on the Eleventh Night, in advance of the parades and street parties held the following day.
Politically contentious and physically imposing, these towering bonfires, often several stories high, raise concerns about the
danger to houses and other structures
, as well as their environmental impact. They often feature sectarian messaging aimed at nationalist parties and individual politicians, as well as effigies, Catholic religious imagery and tricolours which are placed on the bonfires to be incinerated. However, it's not only Catholic communities who may feel unsafe or unwelcome as a result of the effigies. This year, an effigy of refugees in a boat on top of the bonfire at Moygashel has been
widely condemned
as 'racist' and 'dehumanising'.
Because of these tensions, many families, not just from Catholic backgrounds, but also from migrant communities,
leave the North during this period or take their family holidays.
READ MORE
[
Calls for removal of 'racist' migrant effigies in boat placed on loyalist bonfire in NI
Opens in new window
]
An effigy of refugees on a bonfire in Moygashel, Co Tyrone. Photograph: Jonathan McCambridge/PA Wire
Despite the unease of many, some within Protestant/loyalist communities regard the bonfires as sources of pride and community closeness.
A recent study I carried out at Queen's University examined the role of social connection to protect the mental health among adolescent males in Belfast (aged 16-19). Protestant/loyalist young men described to me unexpected aspects of the bonfires which supported strong cohesion in their communities.
Older boys played an important role in mentoring younger ones on how to gather bonfire materials (including wooden pallets, old furniture and tyres) while also imparting knowledge of building techniques. They took pride in becoming mentors and providing guidance for 'the young ones'.
'We'll be friends with people a few years older than us . . . we would have only been about 12 and they would tell us we had to go and get all the collect(ion) for the bonfire, go and get all the wood,' one boy, whom I called Gabriel (not his real name), said.
The boys and young men stayed out all night to 'guard their wood' and protect the bonfires from theft or sabotage at the hands of fellow bonfire-builders who may have wanted to use the materials for their own pyres. They were also protecting the materials from boys in nearby Catholic areas who were offended by or afraid of the bonfires.
'It would either be Catholics . . . coming to burn your bonfire, or else another bonfire (group) come and try and steal your pallets . . . So, if your bonfire gets [set alight], you automatically think it was the Catholics, but if your pallets get stolen, it was another bonfire,' said another, Benjamin (not his real name).
Parents supply dinners and older people bring baked goods and juice to help the boys pass their night watch. These interactions were a source of pride for the young men and seen as evidence of the strong sense of 'tradition' and 'community' in their neighbourhoods. Participants linked the way they were treated as bonfire builders with the more outwardly visible community celebrations like parades and street parties.
Benjamin described how 'even when we're staying out and all, there's a wee woman who lives directly facing the bonfire, she would . . . well, if we're out stacking the bonfire, she will come out, big jugs of juice and give us food, sandwiches and all, stuff like that'.
For some, this pride was accompanied by concern that these traditions were under threat and fading away. Modern challenges like lack of housing meant that waste grounds across north Belfast and the Shankill are being developed into new housing estates. The young men spoke candidly about the tension between protecting their cultural heritage, while also acknowledging that the spaces could be used for new homes where they could some day raise their own families.
'Personally, I would agree to put houses, because it's a big, massive space where our bonfire is. You could get a good couple of houses, so easily 60 houses . . . New people moving in. But most people don't think like this. But I agree with the houses because there's a different site [nearby] where you can have a bonfire, but it's not going to be massive, massive, massive,' said Samuel (not his real name).
Some of the young men proposed a number of creative solutions, including smaller signal fires in lieu of larger structures to preserve culture and tradition, while mitigating health and safety risks and sectarian implications.
Although the boys recognised that Catholic neighbours and people from other communities may feel unsafe or unwelcome during this period, this awareness of the threatening nature of sectarian symbolism did not prompt a deeper inspection of the broader cultural dynamic surrounding the holiday. Nor did it cause them to consider that their Catholic neighbours could feel unsafe for deeper reasons than just the presence of flags.
'It's just like the others say they don't want to see them. The Catholics don't want to see them, but (it) just goes one way, it's whatever community argues about it . . . now there's only about two bonfires left in the Shankill, three bonfires,' said Benjamin.
A small number of participants acknowledged the high prevalence of substance use and antisocial behaviours at the celebrations, which contrasts with the simpler events of prior decades. This echoed
recent research
by Amanda Hall at Reading University investigating the increasing prominence of unsafe and unhealthy behaviours on the Eleventh Night, including the involvement of loyalist paramilitaries, complicating the bonfires' image as a family event.
But my study revealed a less discussed aspect of bonfire season – that the fires were the visible product of deeper structures creating social cohesion within Protestant/loyalist community life. The Eleventh Night is the culmination of months of collaborative efforts.
This energy and enthusiasm for their local traditions could be harnessed for a range of other activities, as evidenced in the neighbourhood renewal projects taking place across Northern Ireland.
As the region looks to a more inclusive future, rather than focusing only on the controversial and divisive aspects of the fires, it's worth also considering their importance to one community in fostering social cohesion – through collaboration, mentorship and shared identity.
Dr Amanda Dylina Morse PhD MPH is a social epidemiologist and research fellow within Queen's Communities and Place (QCAP) at Queen's University Belfast
Hashtags

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


Irish Times
12 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish Times view on climate policy: Government must avoid backsliding
Methane arising from agriculture and the fossil fuel industry is a notorious greenhouse gas, contributing significantly to global warming. While it breaks down relatively quickly in the atmosphere – unlike carbon dioxide – it is a serious threat to climate stabilisation. The quicker it is reduced, the more global average temperatures can be cut. Much can be done to reduce methane releases in oil and gas production, but it is much more challenging in agriculture. Livestock exporting countries like Ireland and New Zealand are supporting a new approach to classifying methane which is gaining political traction. This is based around achieving national 'temperature neutrality', also known as 'no additional warming'. The Government has yet to take a formal position on the concept. Significantly it got the backing of the Climate Change Advisory Council, its key advisory body. It chose to interpret Ireland's legally-binding climate neutrality obligations in terms of temperature neutrality – rather than the more onerous target of 'net zero emissions'. An international study , published in the Environmental Research Letters journal this week, has questioned this approach. It says that it 'grandfathers high emissions from wealthy, livestock-exporting nations', shifts the burden of cutting emissions to others, and limits space for lower-income countries to grow food systems. The approach fails on food security grounds, with trade data showing most exports serve high-income markets. This risks locking in inequality and misses 'a critical opportunity to reduce peak warming'. READ MORE The most concerning finding was highlighted by lead researcher Dr Colm Duffy of the University of Galway: 'If every country adopted a temperature neutrality target, we'd seriously jeopardise the Paris agreement's goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees or even 2 degrees.' The Government is in a bind on this. How methane is regarded in policy terms has big implications for carbon budgets up to 2040, which must be signed off on soon. Climatologist Prof John Sweeney has argued that the shift, which reduces the required emissions reduction target, is not aligned with scientific recommendations and could hinder Ireland's ability to meet its climate goals. The study emphasises that governments must set targets that are internationally credible and farmers need to be supported within a national framework, rather than targeted for blame. The bottom line is that Ireland will not meet the global climate challenge by redefining climate targets. Ireland has yet to deliver an honest appraisal of what a genuinely climate-neutral, sustainable and resilient agricultural sector could look like in coming decades. Avoiding this issue would amount to backsliding on vital climate action.


Irish Times
13 hours ago
- Irish Times
France, Germany and UK call on Iran to resume nuclear discussions with US
France , Germany and the UK have told the UN they are prepared to trigger the reimposition of sanctions on Iran unless it resumes negotiations with the US over its nuclear programme. The foreign ministers of the three countries – known collectively as the E3 – wrote to the UN on Tuesday to raise the spectre of implementing a 'snapback' mechanism unless Iran takes action. But they said they had offered to extend a deadline to start the process if Tehran returned to the negotiating table. 'We have made it clear that if Iran is not willing to reach a diplomatic solution before the end of August 2025, or does not seize the opportunity of an extension, [the E3] are prepared to trigger the snapback mechanism,' the ministers said in the letter, which was obtained by the Financial Times. The European powers have to decide whether to invoke snapback a month before crucial clauses of a 2015 nuclear deal Iran signed with the E3, the Obama administration, Russia and China, expire in October. READ MORE The accord, under which Iran agreed to strict limits on its nuclear activity in return for sanctions relief, has been in a state of collapse since US president Donald Trump unilaterally abandoned it during his first term. Iran responded by aggressively expanding its nuclear activity and was enriching uranium at levels close to weapons grade before Israel launched its 12-day war against the Islamic republic in June . Before the conflict, the Trump administration and Iran had been holding indirect talks in an effort to resolve the long-running stand-off over its nuclear programme. But Israel's attack, which was launched 48 hours before Tehran and Washington were to hold a sixth round of talks, upended the diplomatic process. The US briefly joined Israel in bombing Iran's main nuclear facilities. The E3 told Iran at talks in Turkey last month that they could extend the snapback deadline if Tehran agreed to resume talks with the US and co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. One western diplomat said the talks had been 'difficult'. On Tuesday, the E3 said their offer of an extension 'remained unanswered by Iran'. The ministers said a 'limited extension' would provide more time for talks aimed at concluding a new nuclear agreement, while maintaining the ability to reimpose sanctions to prevent nuclear proliferation. Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi. Photograph: Sergei Karpukhin /AFP via Getty Images Following the Istanbul meeting in July, Iran's foreign minister Abbas Araghchi told the FT that the E3 had no 'legal or moral grounds' to implement the snapback. He warned that Iran would exclude the European powers from future nuclear talks if they went through with the process. Mr Araghchi accused the E3 of failing to meet their commitments under the 2015 deal and said the snapback mechanism was 'not that important any more'. 'With the Europeans, there is no reason right now to negotiate because they cannot lift sanctions, they cannot do anything,' Mr Araghchi said. 'If they do snapback, that means that this is the end of the road for them.' In their letter, the E3 ministers said they were 'clearly and unambiguously' legally justified in reimposing sanctions on Iran because since 2019 – a year after Mr Trump withdrew from the nuclear accord – Tehran had 'wilfully' departed from its commitments under the deal. Tehran has said it remains open to talks with the Trump administration. But its stance hardened after Israel's assault. Mr Araghchi has said Iran wants assurances from the US that it will not be attacked during future talks, and wants 'confidence-building measures', including the US agreeing to compensate Iran for war damage. Iran announced after Israel's attack that it was suspending co-operation with the IAEA, which has had inspectors in the country. A senior IAEA official met with Iranian officials in Tehran on Monday, Iran's foreign ministry said, but the UN nuclear watchdog has not commented on the trip. The letter to UN secretary general António Guterres and the UN Security Council was signed by French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot, German foreign minister Johann Wadephul, and UK foreign minister David Lammy. It comes two months after the US and Israel struck nuclear sites in Iran. The Iranian mission to the UN did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the letter.- Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2025


Irish Times
17 hours ago
- Irish Times
Appeal Court overturns requirement for councils to get members' consent before defending legal actions
Local authorities do not have to seek the approval of councillors before deciding to enter a defence to a court challenge to council decisions, the Court of Appeal has held. The three-judge court's decision overturns a High Court ruling from June last year that found councils must take the 'positive step' of securing express authorisation from elected members before defending a case. The question of whether authorisation from councillors is required has been raised in several High Court challenges related to decisions of elected members, such as votes on local development plans. Every local authority must have a development plan, a document with maps that guides how certain areas should be zoned and developed. READ MORE It is used to guide planning decisions in those areas, but is sometimes the subject of litigation by interested parties who could be affected by any changes. In this case, developer Oceanscape Unlimited Company brought a legal challenge over the Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council development plan and the decision to rezone its lands at Stillorgan Business Park for educational facilities. Oceanscape contended the rezoning amounted to a 'sterilisation' of its site and would cause the company 'serious and irreparable' harm as well as costing it millions of euro. The council filed legal documents opposing the developer's claim, but Oceanscape argued the local authority had no power to do this as it had not sought prior authorisation from elected members, which it argued was required under the Local Government Act, 2001. It asked the court to strike out the council's opposition statement on these grounds. Section 153(2) of the Act states that where a legal action relates to the performance of functions reserved to the elected members, the chief executive 'shall' act with the 'express authorisation of the elected council'. It provides that such authorisation 'shall be deemed to have been given unless or until the contrary is shown'. The council asked the court to interpret the section which, it said, relies on an assumption that the chief executive has a 'deemed authorisation' that is lost only where elected members actively direct him not to do something in a case. It said no formal resolution was passed by elected members, but they were aware of the proceedings and were formally briefed on them in March 2023. The High Court had ruled in Oceanscape's favour, finding the required authorisation was not secured in this case. Soon afterwards, the High Court introduced new practice rules requiring local authorities to inform the court early on whether councillors had given express authorisation to defend a challenge to their decision. However, the Court of Appeal has now overturned the High Court decision and has ruled in favour of the council in a recently published judgment. Explaining the appeal judges' rationale, Ms Justice Nuala Butler said entering into litigation was an 'executive function' and could be taken by the chief executive without requiring a vote of elected councillors. 'In these circumstances, the appeal taken by the local authority will be allowed and the order striking out its statement of opposition will be set aside,' she said.