Unionism is Sore and Will Not Visit the Irish Doctor.
By Caitlín Small
This week I had the (relatively) scarce opportunity to sit down with a young Orange Man, Luke Teggart (a student here at Queen’s), to find out what he makes of the current situation in Portadown. I took it.
It was, truth be told, partly refreshing to hear a political outlook like his conveyed over a channel largely underutilised across “our wee country”: the civilised conversation. That said, it perhaps opened my eyes to what the future of Unionism wishes to enact
When queried on whether the recent days of Garvaghy could hinder the success of Unionism, Teggart disagreed and rather stated that “people have had their eyes opened”, in terms of what unionism and Northern Ireland have to offer. Such offerings are perhaps not full-bodied, for what they entailed was not discussed. Perhaps a good old reserved Christian outlook and sash for quaint measure?
A continuing theme throughout our conversation, and one which has circled the media tirelessly this past week, is the idea of paramountcy and the Rule of Law.
He made a strong point to distinguish Sinn Féin as a party from the DUP, who are the lawmakers, “not the law breakers”, unlike their Nationalist political opponents.
At this point, and rather personally exasperated, I questioned him on whether he understood the irony of his words, considering Donaldson’s sexual abuse case [1], Lockhart’s photographing with masked men [2], Little-Pengelly’s close allyship with Donaldson and lack of democratic capital [3], Givan’s loss of confidence [4], Campbell’s investigation regarding a potential spending breach [5], and of course, Gordon Lyons, who revealed the location of migrant families residing in Larne leisure centre, which was subsequently set on fire, an action which amounted to breaching his ministerial code [6].
We would be here for days if we continued to pick apart exactly how the DUP are not famous for being gold star citizens.
Ever on the defensive, he replied that he was unsurprised Nationalists would cling to these points to dispute what is currently going on.
However, he also did raise valid points of concern and questioned whether our current First Minister is effectively balancing such a role, as well as being Vice President of Sinn Féin, a role which requires her to spend time in what he considers to be a foreign country.
Now, however, as I write this on the 3rd of October 2026, thousands of people currently stand on Garvaghy Road, peacefully. Music is played, food is shared, and people across all walks of life are uniting to denounce what may appear to be 35 men walking down a road. Most can appreciate, however, that it is not just 35 men or a fear of Orangeism.
No, it is to denounce the flippant colonialist’s desire to disregard the pain and suffering endured by victims for years, despite the very wishes of those whose private lives are being taken as collateral damage to political point-scoring.
I disagree with Luke Teggart because, for once, it seems to me that a political Northern Irish dispute has transcended the traditional Protestant/Catholic divide, as letters of concern from the Protestant community have been curated.
Jack Dalzell, Chair of QUB SDLP (who have been opposed to this march), put it quite plainly when I questioned his stance on the issue.
Ultimately, he argued that “residents in Portadown have enjoyed relative peace for 28 years, building relations and cohesion between the communities”, and certain Unionist elements have “decided to drag this issue from the grave and effectively hold a wake for themselves in hopes of stirring up tensions”, grasping onto their fleeting vote as we head into the impending election season of 2027.
Furthermore, when we review any party, we must ask: What have they done for us? Dalzell notes that the DUP have “failed on delivering for working-class people”, and ultimately, as students, I believe we should take that to heart.
This recent dispute has made one thing clear to me. The DUP desires to create a Northern Ireland which caters to them only, happily residing as first-class citizens. The sheer dismissal of the needs of the Garvaghy Road residents to prevent a physical embodiment of the terror the area endured, focusing on one route of one march, despite the thousands that go unchallenged every year, is deplorable.
I asked Dalzell if he believes Queen’s to be a “cold house” for Unionists. He responded, saying, “There’s a difference between Queen’s being a cold house for Unionism and Queen’s not being a majority traditional Unionist environment”. Highlighting the multiple Unionist societies that function within Queen’s, he argued that “the goal should be that our university is open to all viewpoints, which is exactly as it is now.”
Contrastingly, as I questioned Luke Teggart, he agreed he personally viewed Queen’s to be a cold house, and when I asked if there was anything he believed could be done to combat this, he stated Unionists must “further it, and promote it”, and whilst it may not change everyone’s mind, “if it makes [Unionists] a more formidable force on campus, let it happen.”
He rightfully argued that it is not a crime to be a Unionist at Queens. However, the term “formidable” was of interest to me. The adjective describes something which causes you to have “fear, or respect for something… because that thing or person is large, powerful, or difficult.” There is a parallel being drawn between this attitude to university culture and our wider society, and it is one where Unionism shall not accept its lack of dominance over a group of unwilling recipients.
Unionism is flailing and sore. If it wishes to regain relevance, it must be through the ideas which people choose themselves, rather than resurfacing the historic Northern Ireland where dominance was simply demanded and provided.
References:
[4] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2lpv4w0442o
