Anger from Sinn Fein as anti-racism motion is heavily amended by DUP intervention

SINN Fein Antrim Town Councillor Lucille O’Hagan, seconded by SDLP Antrim Town rep Roisin Lynch proposed a Notice of Motion at last week’s full monthly meeting of Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council.

It moved: “That this Council reaffirms its commitment, as agreed in August 2024, to oppose all forms of racism, hate and discrimination, and to support a peaceful, inclusive and respectful Borough for all.

“Council recognises with concern the rising levels of racial intimidation and violence across the Borough. It acknowledges the threats and intimidation made to children and families in our towns and communities.

“In line with our duties under Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, and our shared responsibility to promote good relations, Council agrees to:

“1: Restate that Antrim and Newtownabbey is a welcoming Borough to all and that it condemns racism in all its forms.

“2: Promote anti-racism messaging, including the sharing of information which seeks to dispel myths, through collaboration with partners in order to counter misinformation and provide reassurance to all in our community that they are valued and supported.

“3: Explore the development of an ethnic minority and migrant support hub in the Borough, taking inspiration from existing good practice across the region, with officers to bring back a report on proposals, including any resource implications, to a future meeting of the Community Development Committee.

“4: Review the Equality and Diversity plans and associated training to ensure they remain robust, up to date, and effective in promoting inclusivity and combating discrimination.

“5: Enhance multi-agency and partnership working with PSNI, the Education Authority, Health Trusts, NIHE, and community and voluntary organisations to address racial intimidation, race hate crime, and to promote community safety.”

Introducing the motion, Councillor O’Hagan said: “Thank you chair and members. I speak tonight as a mother and a neighbour and someone who cares deeply about this borough. We don't need a dictionary to tell us what Racism is. We’ve seen the graffiti on walls and doors, families intimidated from their homes, children exposed to harmful words by their classmates.

“This motion says clearly that our borough is welcoming, that racism has no place here. It commits us to work with others to challenge intimidation and hate crime, and to support those who are targeted.

“It asks us to take practical steps to promote equality and to embrace diversity and to tackle false claims and myths head-on.

“It means that families feel that they are not alone, it means our schools, health services and community groups can be supported to continue the good work they are already trying to do. People here are under immense pressure with housing shortages, rising bills and a health service in crisis. But these problems were not caused by refugees or migrants.

“We do no one any good if we allow scapegoating to distract us from the real issues. And we know where that scapegoating leads. When people seeking safety are called ‘illegal’ they're reduced to a label, their humanity stripped away. It is a rhetoric that breeds fear and suspicion. It festers online in an echo chamber that fuels division that spills onto our streets.

“I don’t believe anyone in this chamber wants our children growing up in a borough where that kind of language is normalised. In the past week more than 200 women’s organisations including Rape Crisis and Refuge have warned that conversations about violence against women and girls are being hijacked by an anti-migrant agenda and is a dangerous diversion that harms survivors, divides communities and makes women less safe.

“This motion is about dignity, compassion but also responsibility and the kind of borough we want to raise our children in. I ask you to support this motion not just on paper but in spirit, because in Antrim and Newtownabbey we choose kindness, and we choose to stand against racism, every single time. This borough belongs to everyone who calls it home, and hate has no home here.”

And Councillor Lynch added: “Mayor, this motion reaffirms our commitment to an inclusive Borough – one that stands firmly against racism, hate and intimidation.

“Recent events remind us why this matters. When families are threatened and children feel unsafe, we have a duty to act. Diversity is not a problem to be managed – it is a strength. It enriches our schools, workplaces, and communities, making us stronger and more resilient. Inclusion is not just the right thing – it’s progress.

“We also know that fear feeds off misinformation. By working with partners to share clear, factual messaging, we can counter myths, reassure families, and build trust.

“This motion sets out practical steps: exploring a support hub for ethnic minority and migrant families, reviewing our equality and diversity training, and strengthening partnerships with the PSNI, schools, health bodies, and community groups.

“This isn’t only about reacting to incidents – it’s about shaping the kind of Borough we want to be: welcoming, respectful, and united against hate.

“Let’s send a clear message tonight – racial intimidation has no place here. I urge all members to support this motion.”

However DUP group leader on Council, Matthew Magill raised issues with the wording of the motion.

“It...references an agreed position of August 2024

“Those of us in the chamber who have been here since before that date will know motions of this nature have come repeatedly to this chamber and quite rightly. We have made our position clear, nobody should be any doubt that parties in this chamber oppose racism, my party has taken this position time and time again and no right-thinking person has an issue with that.”

Alderman Magill added that he took issue with ‘the nitty gritty’ of the motion and proposed an amendment. He sought to add that the council condemned anti-semitism to the first paragraph and removed paragraphs two and three. He said that opposition to anti-semitism was ‘historically always included in motions of this nature, for good cause’.

Addressing the second paragraph, he said he was surprised to see it included, adding: “Group leaders were made aware last month of the operational difficulties around such a proposal, that the outworkings were unworkable, and would bring the corporate body into an area that was impossible to regulate, and would be bring additional costs to ratepayers.”

He said there was opposition to the third paragraph on two fronts, saying it was: “The duplication of a function that we do not have the resources or statutory remit for.

“If the thrust of motion is about inclusivity, this is the total opposite, the proposed hub would be solely for certain individuals, we don't want any part of the borough to be exclusive.”

He said that these sorts of initiatives were the responsibility of the Home Office, and the Executive Office in the Northern Ireland Assembly.

“The proposer is a member of Sinn Fein and the First Minister has gone to great lengths to make clear she is in control of Executive Office.

“If Sinn Fein believes that there are gaps in the statutory outworkings on this issue, they should lift the phone and speak to the First Minister

“I wish to state that in declaring a stand against racism, the onus on us individually and as a chamber collectively is to make clear that legitimate grievances and concerns held across the borough in relation to the nation’s migration policy, held by many citizens within borough do not constitute racism and shouldn’t be conflated as such, intentionally or unintentionally.

“We have a duty and onus to be mature around this conversation and we are happy as a party to call out racism, but won’t be found wanting in giving voice to those in the borough who have concerns in relation to migration and the impact on public services.

“It is not racist to express these views, these fora, democratically elected chambers, is where those conversations should be had.

“The proposer, disappointingly, made reference to legality and illegality, but it is a fact and reality, borne out across every sector of society, from parking tickets to sex offences. As a party we will call out illegality. The migration system is in crisis, people are concerned, and that should be dealt with as a separate conversation.

“I am disappointed that in the verbal statement that conflates the two, racism is wrong, conflation with concerns held by many right-thinking people across this borough is wrong.”

Councillor O’Hagan was asked if she accepted the amendment.

She said that while she would have no problem with the addition of opposition to anti-semitism, xenophobia and Islamophobia, she was not content that the second and third paragraphs be removed.

She said: “Council officers confirmed that there is no cost associated with point 2, there is a migrant support hub in Ballymena, which causes no problem the council set it up. Using the word illegal to refer to immigrants demonises and dehumanises them.”

Becoming emotional, she added: “In 2015 the world watched and saw a little boy wash up on a beach in Turkey trying to cross the waters, 5000 children have died.

“This is a kind borough, using ‘illegal’ inflates online hate, where people are openly using the words ‘rats’, ‘vermin’, and ‘swarms, it’s disgusting.”

Saying he was happy to second the amendment, Ulster Unionist Alderman Mark Cosgrove said: “I think every right-thinking person will agree with what most of what has been said.

“It is racism, and the online rhetoric fits in with that and does dehumanise.

“But we have to be careful that we don’t set ourselves up to be the police person of society, with authority we don’t have, so I am happy with the removal of points two and three, it would leave officers in an impossible position.

“Many groups within the borough already have it set up in their constitution to deal with these issues.

“It is not the statutory responsibility of council, all members, from all sides, and all backgrounds, will express their condemnation and disgust at dehumanising anyone from any side of debate.”

Alliance Councillor Billy Webb said: “All of us agree with the concept of the motion, there are just elements of it which are causing some concern, it would send out the wrong signal to vote against it.”

Councillor Webb said that his group agreed with the sentiment behind the motion, but suggested that the proposers of the amendment and the original motion consider withdrawing them, and that members get together to formulate a better wording for the next meeting.

This prompted an outburst from Sinn Fein rep Michael Goodman, who said: “This is totally out of order, there is a process this chamber has to follow.”

Aldermen Magill said he would be ‘very happy with that course of action’, while Alderman Cosgrove agreed that it sounded ‘eminently sensible’.

But Councillor O’Hagan replied: “Thanks for the option to withdraw the motion, but I worked very hard on it, I don’t think there is anything difficult to pass, I don’t think there’s anything contentious, I think there’s a right or wrong.”

Alliance Councillor Jay Burbank then proposed another amendment. He agreed with the addition of anti-semitism and, later, xenophobia, and supported point two, but said that he wished to recognise the work already being done as part of the Good Relations scheme spearheaded by council and members, but without any new administrative burden.

Councillor Burbank said that he wished to add to the end of point 3, to reference other funding streams and recognising good work already taking place.

He added: “I can think of other funding streams, there is already work going on in this area which aligns with the idea of a hub, there are things already in place, and ideas which officers can bring back to committee.

“I completely support the spirit of this motion, we should not stick to the bare statutory minimum.”

He added that anyone using points of order should state their reasons for doing so, and not use them to shut the debate down.

That amendment was seconded by Alliance Alderman Tom Campbell.

The original motion was defeated by 19 votes to 17, with the DUP, UUP and independent members voting against, Alliance and Sinn Fein and Councillor Lynch for. Airport Sinn Fein Councillor Councillor Maighréad Ní Chonghaile gave her responses in Irish and was asked by Mayor Leah Kirkpatrick to repeat the answer in English..

The Alliance amendment was also defeated by the same margin and voting patterns.

Alderman Magill’s amendment was passed by 19 voted to 17, with the DUP, UUP and independent members voted for, Alliance and Sinn Fein and Councillor Lynch against.

Councillor Ní Chonghaile said she was ‘totally against’, while Alderman Stephen Ross said he was ‘totally for’.