Young People and Interfaces Report - Institute for Conflict Research

More documents

Recommendations

Info

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES 15. It remains the case that for some young people living at interfaces, certain shops and services are perceived to be ‘off-limits’ if they are perceived to be located in the territory of the ‘Other’ community; Interface Violence and Policing 16. While most participants felt that those young people who got involved in interface violence did so for fun to relieve boredom, this also tended to be more focused on the motivations of ‘our community’. As such the motivations of young people from the ‘Other’ community were viewed as more sectarian in origin; 17. Youth and interface workers talked about the role of young people from hinterland communities in interface violence. This is significant given that we know little about how far the impact of an interface ripples out in to neighbouring communities; 18. Several youth and interface workers were also concerned that the police in their opinion did not have a standardised protocol from which to engage with young people on the streets; 19. A number of both Catholic and Protestant young people believed that in a riot situation the police treated their community ‘unfairly’ compared to the ‘Other’ community; 20. Perceptions of the police were also impacted upon by the moving on of young people from various public spaces. This also fed in to a general view among many young people that they are ‘unfairly’ treated when compared to adults using public space; Transforming the interface 21. The majority of young people want to be included in the discussion about what happens next to make their areas better places to live. The area based action plans envisaged in the Programme for Government (OFMdFM 2011) may provide a means in which young people can be included in the consultation process moving forward. 22. CRC and the ICP are well placed to identify young people in local communities and provide them with information about potential developments in interface areas. The three phased approach to consultation may provide an appropriate means of properly consulting with young people and including them in the decision making process with regards to interface issues. 6
YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES 1. Introduction The Institute for Conflict Research (ICR) was commissioned by the Community Relations Council (CRC) in December 2011 to conduct a process of engagement with young people and youth leaders living at a number of key interfaces in Belfast. 1 Engagement with young people was specifically identified by both the Interface Working Group (IWG) and the Interface Community Partners (ICP) as being a crucial next step in terms of working with those individuals who live in interface areas at the ‘Challenge of Change’ Conference organised by CRC in 2011. 2 In fact, as far back as 1998, the Belfast Interface Project argued that direct engagement with young people to listen to what they are saying was a prerequisite to improving the quality of life for all at the interface (BIP 1998). This process is particularly timely given that the Programme for Government recognised the need to engage with individuals living in interface areas moving forward (OFMdFM 2011). It is clear that if local area action plans are to be devised with a view to transforming and ultimately reducing or removing interface barriers in the future, then young people need to be included in this process of dialogue moving forward. Given that 39% of 16 year olds surveyed in the Young Life and Times 3 survey in 2010 felt that in five years time community relations would be better than they are today, now is perhaps the time to begin to include young people in a discussion about how best these relations can be improved with them fully involved in the process. This greater inclusion of young people in decision making processes, and in particular respect for their views, is one of the four core principles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. 4 1.1 Methodology This research project has sought to gauge the views and opinions of a small number of youth leaders and interface workers informally alongside more formal focus group discussions with approximately 60 young people in eight interface areas across Belfast. These focus group discussions included mixed groups alongside single identity Protestant and Catholic groups of young people, both male and female. The young participants ranged in age from 14 to 21, although the majority were aged between 15 and 18. With the permission of the young participants and youth leaders, discussions were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. All comments have been anonymised to protect the identities of the young people. Young people were consulted in eight different interface locations across north, south, east and west Belfast. 5 A consultation event was also held in the MAC Arts Centre in Belfast on the 25th September 2012, which brought together both the groups of young people who had been consulted during the research as well as new groups who had not been involved with the initial process. Eleven different organisations were invited to bring young people to the event, with seven organisations bringing young people on the night itself. The aim of the event was to provide young people with a summary of the research 1 For the purposes of this paper we are adopting Neil Jarman’s definition of an interface as ‘the conjunction or intersection of two or more territories or social spaces, which are dominated, contested or claimed by some or all members of the differing ethno-national groups’ (Jarman 2004: 7). An interface is therefore a product of a process of contest over domination of a social space and this contest contains the fear, threat or actual use of physical forms of violence (Jarman 2005). 2 In the aftermath of the interface wall being built in the grounds of Hazelwood Integrated Primary, the Community Relations Council (CRC) established the Interface Working Group (IWG) in November 2007. An IWG Community Partners (IWGCP) group was established in Belfast to support the work of the IWG and act as a conduit between communities and the statutory sector. 3 See the Young Life and Times results for 2010 online at http://www.ark.ac.uk/ylt/results/ Accessed February 20th 2012. 4 See, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm Accessed 27th July 2012. 5 The locations selected for analysis included those areas with permanent physical structures alongside those areas which are still considered to be interface areas but do not have physical barriers separating communities. This would include areas such as Skegoneill-Glandore in North Belfast where the roundabout is considered to be the demarcating line or ‘interface’. 7
Page 3 and 4: Young People and Interfaces Novembe
Page 5 and 6: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Content
Page 7: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Communi
Page 11 and 12: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES 1.2 Str
Page 13 and 14: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES The imp
Page 15 and 16: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES As such
Page 17 and 18: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES I think
Page 19 and 20: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES This po
Page 21 and 22: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Rather
Page 23 and 24: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES I’m s
Page 25 and 26: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES At the
Page 27 and 28: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES issues.
Page 29 and 30: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Researc
Page 31 and 32: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Summary
Page 33 and 34: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES ‘defe
Page 35 and 36: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES 6. In g
Page 37 and 38: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Referen
Page 39 and 40: YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES Smyth,

Young People and Interfaces Report - Institute for Conflict Research

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?