young people and the interfaces crc 20130300

7/28/2019 Young People and the Interfaces CRC 20130300

1/40


2/40


3/40

1

Young People and Interfaces

November 2012

John Bell

Institute for Conflict Research

North City Business Centre

2 Duncairn Gardens

Belfast BT15 2GG

T: 028 9074 2682

Email: [email protected]: www.conflictresearch.org.uk


4/40

YOUNG PEOPLE AND INTERFACES

2

Intentionally blank


5/40


3

Executive Summary 04

1. Introduction 07

2. Young People, Public Space and the Interface 10

3. Living at the Interface 14

Discussion and Key Findings 30

References 35

Contents


6/40


4

The Institute for Conflict Research (ICR) was commissioned early in 2012 to conduct a

process of engagement with young people living in interface areas across Belfast. This

process aimed to assess their views on the impact that living at an interface has on their

daily lives, and how they would like to be included in dialogue around interface issues

moving forwards. Approximately 60 young people in eight different interface areas

participated in the research.

Although there were mixed views on whether or not interface barriers provide any sense of

security, most young people believed that in the longer-term Northern Ireland would be a betterplace without walls and barriers separating communities. This is broadly in line from the survey of

interface residents which was published by OFMdFM in 2012 (Byrne et al. 2012). Generally most

young people spoke of living in a safer and better society than their parents did, and highlighted

that the increasing signs of friendships and relationships developing between young people across

the interface was evidence of this. However, many young people still felt that at some level their

freedom of movement around the interface was restricted. This was particularly the case in terms

of accessing shops, leisure facilities and services.

It is clear that many young people felt excluded from the decision making process on what

happens in their area. Most young people would appreciate more opportunities to contribute to any

forthcoming debates about developments at the interface. CRC and the ICP specifically can play

an important role in helping facilitate the inclusion of young people in dialogue around interfaceissues, in line with the development of area based action plans to transform interface areas as

identified in the Programme for Government. Such a consultation process may involve three core

elements:

1. An initial process of information sharing with young people;

2. Providing space for young people within an interface community to discuss their views on

interface issues in a safe environment; and

3. Young people from across the interface should be brought together to share their views on

any potential developments.

While this has been a relatively small scale research project there are a number of key findings

which may help inform policy and practice moving forwards. These findings include:

Security

1. There were mixed views on the usefulness of the walls in terms of providing security. Young

people who lived closer to the interface tended to believe that the walls provided some

sense of security;

2. Although broadly speaking most young people wanted the walls to come down at some

stage, many felt that the time yet was not right and that more work had to be done to further

improve community relations first;

Executive Summary


7/40


5

Community relations

3. Most young people however believed that relations between Catholics and Protestants in

Northern Ireland were better now than they ever had been and that they were lesssectarian than their parents and grandparents generation;

4. In line with this, there were signs of some cross-community friendships and even

relationships developing among young people from different areas and different

communities.

5. At times some young people differentiated between young people from the Other side

whom they knew and thought were ok when compared to the general Other.

6. Most young people felt they had limited opportunities to meet, interact and become friends

with young people from the Other community. Even young people who had participated in

school cross-community activities tended to feel that these were not sustained enough tohave much of a lasting impact;

7. It must be noted that the definition of what it means to have a friend from a different

community is important. At times some young people talked about their friends from the

Other community, when in actual fact a more appropriate term would be that they knew

someone from the Other community. This should perhaps be borne in mind when

reviewing statistics on the numbers of young people who have friends across the

community divide;

8. Social media was highlighted as having both positive and negative consequences on

community relations. While it was a way to make friends, at times various social media

sources had been used to increase tensions or organise fights;

Perceptions of safe/unsafe space

9. While some young people reported feeling much safer in crossing the interface than they

did even last year, the spatial patterns of many young people, and in particular young

males, remain impacted upon by the location of an interface. Time of day, year and

personal experience all impacted upon movement around the interface. The interface was

felt to be more permanent at night, during the marching season and if a young person had

prior experience of being verbally abused or beaten up due to their community background;

10. A number of young people stated that they developed their knowledge of where to go and

not to go from their parents, wider family and friends;

11. However, there was also evidence of a number of young people actively challenging where

they had been told was safe and unsafe space;

12. Those young people who had traversed the interface and went in to the territory of the

Other felt more confident to keep doing so;

13. For some young people walking around their area in school uniform was less of an issue

than it used to be. However, a small number of young participants felt there were still issues

with regards to their uniform publicly identifying their community background;

14. Various programmes seek to encourage the development of relationships which will

increase levels of confidence to cross the interface. While there was clearly evidence ofthis, it remains the case that some young people will cross the interface as part of a

structured group rather than with their own friends on their own initiative;


8/40


9/40


7

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.5A consultation event

was also held in the MAC Arts Centre in Belfast on the 25th September 2012, which broughttogether 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. Introduction

1 For the purposes of this paper we are adopting Neil Jarmans 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.


10/40


8

findings with a view to them putting forward their own ideas on how they could be more included in

dialogue and consultation around interface issues.

The purpose of the initial focus group discussions was to explore what life is like for young people

living in interface areas. In particular we sought to assess attitudes to living in their local area,

perceptions of safety and the role of barriers in terms of providing security, views on any impacts

that living at an interface may have on their daily lives, and thoughts as to what needs to happen in

the future with regards to developing interface areas.

During the course of the research, where possible focus groups were organised in relatively small

groups of young people (between 5-8 persons) to facilitate conversations where all of the young

participants felt comfortable becoming involved. One focus group however was mixed and

consisted of more than 10 young Protestants and Catholics, male and female. It became apparent

in this group that the most assertive or dominant voices were those of young Catholic males, and

in particular young Protestant females were reticent to be drawn into the conversation. In this

instance the young females in question had to be gently encouraged to give their opinion when

they felt comfortable in doing so.

This firstly highlights the power dynamics that can underpin structured discussions and also

indicates that in terms of numbers engaging in focus groups, smaller groups often lead to more in-

depth and better quality discussion. It also indicates that gender, age, community background and

individual confidence can all impact upon a young persons participation in discussion, and it is

worth bearing this in mind in particular when either mixed focus groups of Catholics and

Protestants or young males and females are being organised. A few dominant voices prevalent

amongst one gender or community background can make others less comfortable about speaking

openly.

This small research project has attempted to draw upon the approach utilised by the new

sociology of childhood which views children and young people as competent actors in their own

right (Leonard 2006a: 228; James and Prout 1990). Referring to young people as the future can at

times ignore their role in the present, and dismisses their views as only potentially and not actually

relevant to the contemporary situation (Smyth and Scott 2000: 113). As such young people are

often either demonised or portrayed as victims without agency,6 perhaps most visibly so by the

media (Andersson and Lundstrom 2007).7 In the Northern Irish context, such negative associations

which often associate young people and violence were very evident during the television coverage

of the riots at the Lower Newtownards Road/Short Strand interface in June 2011.

There has been a plethora of research conducted on issues impacting upon residents in interface

areas, and those studies which have focused on young people have tended to specifically focus on

the relationship between interface areas, young people and violence (Jarman and OHalloran

2000; 2001; Byrne et al. 2005; Hansson 2005). While not shying away from engaging with these

issues, this process aimed to be slightly more open-ended and hopes to shed some light on the

views of a limited number of young people on what life is like for them growing up in interface

areas in 2012.

6 A Youthnet consultation response in April 2011 to the proposed community safety strategy talks of young people still being talked about as if a problem

to be solved. The document argues that where this negative stereotyping remains in place it will have an adverse impact on children and young people

in terms of criminalisation and unnecessary contact with the criminal justice system. The response is available online at

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/public-consultations/archive-consultations/consultation_on_a_new_community_safety_strategy_for_ni/youthnet.pdf

Accessed 28th March 2012.

7 See, Andersson, G., and Lundstrom, T. Teenagers as Victims in the Press. In, Children and Society, Volume 21 (2007) pp. 175188.


11/40


9

1.2 Structure of the report

Section two of the report provides a brief overview of some of the existing literature on interface

related issues, while section three documents some of the key themes emerging in discussionswith young people. Section four concludes the report with a brief discussion of some of the key

issues in terms of engaging with young people in interface areas moving forward.


12/40


10

2.1 Young People and Public Space

Children and young people experience greater difficulties in laying claim to public space compared

to adults (Leonard 2006a: 227; Childress 2004). This is in part related to the broader power

structures in society,8 and in a context in which groups of young people or hoodies using public

space are to be feared and demonised (Meek 2008: 1225; Kraack and Kenway 2002; Valentine

1996).9

In the Northern Irish context due to perceived threats from the Other community, while it may

make sense for teenagers from Catholic and Protestant communities to move around in relatively

homogenous groups in terms of providing a sense of safety, this simultaneously feeds into and

(re)produces negative evaluations of the Other (Leonard 2008: 484-485).

Despite the negative connotations which have tended to have been rather pejoratively applied to

young peoples use of public space, belonging to the neighbourhood is an important part of the

development of a sense of individual and communal identity. Close ties within a locality can give

young people little reason to venture out of their area, and friends and family are an important

aspect of local culture (Laughlin and Johnson 2011: 450).

As such, belonging to the neighbourhood or a variant of what Webster (2003) termed

neighbourhood nationalism can provide a sense of belonging which in and of itself is not

necessarily a negative development - where difficulties arise in the Northern Ireland context is

where locality, ethnicity and territory intersect to powerful effect (Healy 2006: 107).

2.2 Young People and Interfaces

As far back as 1998 BIP noted that children and young people in interface areas are particularly

vulnerable to sectarian violence, intimidation and harassment, and can be exposed to such

dangers on their way to school, going to the shops, or playing near the interface. Childrens lives

can therefore be severely restricted by their difficulty in travelling out of their area or bringing

friends into their own area (BIP 1998: 7).

A survey conducted by Byrne et al. (2005) revealed that the fears of some young people in terms

of going into areas dominated by members of the Other community were not necessarily

unfounded.10 More than one quarter (26%) of young people had felt intimidated travelling to and

from their schools in North Belfast, while 51% had experienced an incident of violence and/or

threatening behaviour while travelling to and from school.11

2. Young People, Public Space

and the Interface

8 See, Arefi and Triantafillou (2005); and Laughlin and Johnson (2011).

9 In Rosie Meeks study in England, young men reported hanging out on the streets or public places more than did young girls (Meek 2008: 127).

10 The survey was of 2,486 young people aged between 14-17 in North Belfast.

11 In 2004, 6% of young people surveyed as part of the Young Life and Times study felt they had been injured as a result of a sectarian incident (8% of

males and 4% females) (ARK 2004).


13/40


11

The impact of segregation and sectarianism can greatly impact upon the life choices of a young

person living in an interface area.12 A research study by Owen Hargie et al. (2006) found evidence

of a double penalty facing young people living in interface areas of Belfast.13

This double penaltyis not only linked to the levels of poverty associated with living in areas of multiple deprivation, but

also involves the impact of sectarianism and segregation, which makes young people in interface

areas more vulnerable to social exclusion (Roche 2008: 75; Hargie et al. 2006; Smyth et al. 2004

and 1998; and McVicar 2000).14

2.3 Building, Bolstering or Bridging Boundaries?

While concepts of safety and risk have emerged as central concerns in modern childhood,16

Madeleine Leonard asserts that these issues of safety and risk take on new meanings in areas

which have suffered from prolonged conflict (Leonard 2007: 432).

Young peoples perceptions of risk may at times be based on what they have learnt from their

parents and siblings. Schubotz and Devine (2004) found that young people in Northern Irelandbelieved that their parents were the biggest influence on their views about the Other community,

while Bell et al. (2010) found that parents and family were two of the three main influences on what

young people learn about Irish history.17 However, Leonard asserts that young people do not

uncritically accept narratives passed down from their parents and family with regards to safe and

unsafe spaces (Leonard 2010a: 103).

She suggests that some spatial boundaries can be permeable rather than fixed, with young people

giving inconsistent accounts of boundaries and where they felt safe going to (Leonard 2008). She

notes that those children who lived closer to an interface wall were more inclined to express

heightened feelings of fear and uncertainty, and girls were more inclined than boys to suggest that

they could move more easily across the interface (Leonard 2007: 436).

Previous research has also revealed that interface boundaries may become more porous or

permanent at certain times of the day, week or year particularly with regards to the marching

season or specific sporting events (Hamilton et al. 2008; Jarman 2005). The marginal location of

interfaces and the relative lack of an adult presence turns them into spaces and places that

children and young people are both relegated to and, to, some extent, can define for themselves

and claim as their own (Jarman and OHalloran 2001: 5).

2.4 Young People and Attitudes

Quantitative data gathered on an annual basis by the Young Life and Times survey appears to

show some progress over the past decade with regards to the attitudes of 16 year olds to

community relations issues.18 However young people still tend to remain more negative in attitudesin survey data when compared to older generations.

13 Rosellen Roche (2008) referred to an analogous position as one of Bounded Contentment in which young people restrict themselves to limited future

pathways. In her study, Roche found that just under two-thirds of the young people had no need to mingle with members of the opposite community

and felt safer staying within areas that they knew.

14 Osborne et al. (2006) found evidence of limited geographic mobility which restricted the areas where young people were prepared to travel to work.

15 This terminology has been adapted directly from Madeleine Leonards article (2008).

16 See in particular, Backett-Milburn and Harden (2004) and Valentine and McKendrick (1997).

17 In 2003, 47% of young people surveyed in the YLT stated that their family were the most influential source of knowledge about the Other community,

in 2007 this figure stood at 50% (ARK 2003b; 2010b).

18 There was no YLT survey held in 2011 due to a lack of funding which is why 2010 statistics have been used as the most up to date information. It

should also be noted that these surveys reflect the views of approximately 1,000 16 year olds across Northern Ireland and not specifically young people

living in interface areas. Prior to 2003 the survey sought the views of 12-17 year olds, but from 2003 onwards only 16 year olds were targeted, in part

due to ethical issues and secondly to better standardise questions for one age cohort.


14/40


15/40


13

As such, young people have been identified as one of the three main types of protagonist in

interface violence (Jarman 2006).23Although arguments persist over whether the motivations

of young people engaged in rioting are recreational, sectarian or a combination of many factors(Leonard 2010b), there is a general consensus that even recreational exchanges can have

a significant impact on community relations in interface areas and beyond (Jarman and

OHalloran 2001: 3).

In part, the ambivalent attitude of some adults to violence has been blamed for on the one hand

legitimising political violence and using young people as foot-soldiers as and when required, while

at other times moving them away from the interface based upon the premise that they are engaged

in anti-social behaviour.24 Undoubtedly this can add to a sense of disillusionment and alienation

from wider society (Jarman 2005; Byrne 2005). Indeed, a powerful theme emerging in many

research projects engaging with marginalised young people is that they very often feel

disenfranchised, powerless and peripheral to any decision-making conducted on their behalf

within communities (Radford et al. 2005: 365; Smyth et al. 2004: 60).

Summary

It is clear that interface areas remain the most visible reminder of Northern Irelands protracted

conflict and the physical barriers are unfortunately a legacy of sectarian division which have proved

much more difficult to remove than they were to build. Interfaces tend to be those areas in greatest

socio-economic need and those areas which suffered the most incidents of violence during the

Troubles. While young people growing up in an inner-city area anywhere in the world often face

difficulties with how they negotiate public space whether its in Brooklyn, Birmingham or Belfast,

those young people living in interface areas in Northern Ireland often face a myriad of additional

difficulties associated with sectarianism and segregation.

The following section documents the findings of the discussions and aims to stimulate some

debate around the key issues which are coming directly from the voices of young people

themselves.

23 The other two being anti-social elements and people from outside the immediate area (Jarman 2006).

24 Although young males are often those most likely to be engaged in interface violence, Jarman (2005) has developed a six-fold typology of young

women who engage in interface violence. This may be in the capacity of observer, victim, monitor, restrainer, cheerleader and participant.


16/40


14

The following section is structured thematically and aims to document some of the key

themes which emerged in the discussions with young people as well as the less formal

engagements with youth and interface workers.

3.1 Terminology

At the outset it is also important to recognise that while the majority of young people are familiar

with the term interface, and felt that it referred to a border between two communities or division

more generally, a very small number of young participants had not previously heard of the term.

This is significant for two reasons. Firstly, it means that in terms of engaging with young peopleresearchers and those in the community and voluntary sector and beyond must be careful to not

further entrench an us and them mindset. Secondly, it is important that in its usage the term does

not become a mere byword for an area which only experiences violence with neighbouring

communities. While in many cases this can indeed be the case, this restricts the focus to some of

the more negative connotations which can be associated with living in interface areas. As such,

some young people preferred to focus on my area as a point of reference for where they lived as

they felt that the term interface was often predicated on these notions of tension or violence.

3.2 Views on the walls

While the vast majority of young people believed that one could live in an interface area if there

were no physical barriers or walls separating communities, for many the defining feature of an

interface area was that there was a physical barrier separating communities. In general, youngpeople were very aware of where the main interfaces were in relation to their local area, however

on one occasion several young people were unsure as to where some of the barriers in their

community were located:

that big green fence? Are you talking about the one beside the school? I just thought that was

a wee entry(Young Catholic female).

There were very mixed views among young people as to the actual purpose which interface

barriers served. While the majority were aware of the reasons as to why the walls had been put up

in the first place in terms of stopping the fighting, there were differing views as to whether or not

the walls continued to serve any purpose. While one youth worker felt that the walls limit young

peoples ability to metaphorically see life beyond their own environment, some young participants

felt that the walls were now pointless and ugly and just make it worse:

Its just sort of excluding the communities in a way. Like it doesnt do anything(Young Catholic

male).

I just think it blocks communities. It doesnt make you any safer(Young Protestant male).

A small number of young people felt that as they were used to the presence of the walls, they were

therefore relatively meaningless to them:

The walls dont really bother us you get used to them (Young Protestant female).

At various times young people debated amongst themselves as to whether or not they felt any

safer living in their area as a result of the walls:

3. Living at the Interface


17/40


18/40


16

it would not make a difference. It would just make you be able to see in to (name of area)

maybe. Literally thats it(Young Catholic male).

Perhaps most negatively the several young males in this focus group felt that even if the walls

came down they would still never venture in to the nearby Protestant area, indeed as one said,

you would probably stay on the other side of the footpath. A young Protestant interviewed across

the other side of this interface similarly agreed with this sentiment stating, I wouldnt go down there

ever, even if there was no wall. Young females tended to be slightly more optimistic in their

assessment, but nonetheless tended to agree that the walls were a symptom of deeper societal

division rather than the causes.

3.3 Community relations

A clear trend which emerged in each focus group was that the vast majority of young participants in

general feel that they are living in a better Northern Ireland than the one their parents grew up in:

Its way better. I feel much safer now than a couple of years ago (Young Catholic female).

This was a feeling which was generally shared by youth and interface workers, although a caveat

was often added that while there were probably more interactions now between young people

across the interface, this still remains the exception rather than the norm.

Echoing some of Leonards findings (2010b), many young people believed that as they were

growing up in a better society they held less sectarian views than their parents:

I think its easier for us because we dont really get involved in all the religion. We wouldnt be

as bad as our parents would be, just fighting and all that there. Like if we start arguing about

something we wouldnt fall out after it(Young Catholic male).

now (at 15-16) you are starting to understand more about Catholics and Protestants. And

when youre that age (10-11) you are hearing more negative than positive about the

Protestants. Because you are only starting to learn about it then and you learn about the bad

things before the good(Young Catholic female).

However, a small number of young people tended to question whether or not their generation was

indeed less sectarian than that of their parents, and one young female suggested that at times

young people could be just as sectarian as some members of the older generations, without

necessarily knowing why:

I dont think were less sectarian. I think when your mummy and daddy grow up they maturemore, but we are being born in to it so we dont even understand why we are fighting. We just

go along with it anyway(Young Protestant female).

Perhaps unsurprisingly, the space which has been provided by the relative lack of violence was felt

to have helped improve the situation on the ground. Interestingly, alongside this view of the macro-

political situation helping improve relations, a small number of young people felt that older

teenagers had played a role in terms of setting an example to younger children in their

communities. When asked why they felt the situation was quieter at the interface in their area,

several young people referred to the role that older teenagers had played in terms of acting as

positive role models and volunteering in their communities to mentor younger children and

encourage them to either move away from the interface or take part in diversionary programmes in

community centres.


19/40


20/40


21/40


19

Rather interestingly young people could at times express some sectarian attitudes while at the

same time dating someone from the Other community - however they qualified this by stating that

their attitudes were limited to particular groups within the Other community, and in particularyoung males. As such a group of young males referred to their friends Catholic girlfriend as being

dead on while talking at other times about young males from across the interface who they knew

as fenians. In this instance some young people tended to differentiate between the good

Catholics or Protestants they knew from the others that they didnt know:

His girl is a Catholic, shes nice like. Were going to a party in her house at the weekend in

(name of Catholic area). Shes different though, shes a Catholic, not a taig(Young Protestant

male).

In this regard, at times various stereotypes were drawn upon to highlight perceived differences

between young people from different communities:

I would probably know if it was a wee lad if he was a Protestant(Young female 1).

Yeah, its easier to tell the wee lads. Cos they always have blond tips (Young female 2).

And they usually wear tracksuits more dont they? (Young Catholic female 3).

Another group of young Protestants discussed what they felt were the differences between

themselves and Catholics:

We can tell who is Catholic(Young Protestant male 1)

Yeah, we overheard one of them talking the other day like Our wee Marty(puts on different

Belfast accent) (Young Protestant Male 2)

Perhaps more positively, other young people at times challenged such sectarianised stereotypes

as well:

but some of them have given their area a name cos theres good Protestants as well who you

can be friends with (Young Catholic male).

It should be noted however that despite evidence of some cross-community relationships, there

were many young people who stated that they did not have any friends from the Other community,

mainly because they believed that they did not have the opportunities to meet given that they went

to different schools and lived in different areas.

Even those young people who had been in contact with young people from the Other community

through cross-community programmes in school tended to lose touch with them, which would

appear to corroborate the findings of previous research (Smyth et al. 2004):

Like you do cross-community work, but you never stay in touch with them. You only do it for a

certain amount of months and then that would be it over, and you would probably never see

them again (Young Catholic female).

It is also important to note that how one defines a friend is also crucial. While Madeleine

Leonards research (2010c) indicated that 75% of young people referred to having a friend from the

Other community, this tells us little about the nature of the relationship. During the course of the

discussions several young people reported having friends from the Other community. Whenasked where they would hang out or what they would do together it became apparent that the term

friend was being used when perhaps saying they knew someone from the Other community


22/40


20

would have been more appropriate. It is important to bear this in mind when assessing statistics or

survey data about cross-community friendships:

I play with a rugby team and nearly everyone in it is CatholicAlthough I dont really know them

outside the rugby(Young Protestant male).

Young people also talked about the positive and negative aspects to using social media. On the

one hand it allowed them to come into contact with young people from the Other community,

make friends and even in rare instances, begin dating. For one youth worker in South Belfast,

social media could allow young people to interact virtually with others in their own home which was

a safer environment than doing so at the interface. However, the downside was there was an

acknowledgement from young participants that Facebook, Twitter and texting were used at times to

contact others across the interface to organise a fight or try and start a riot. There was also an

apparent issue in parts of North and South Belfast with young people from different communities

insulting members of the Other community who had taken their own lives, and this was believedto have been the source of an increase in tensions between some young people at the Suffolk-

Lenadoon interface in particular. This was also the case in North Belfast:

Remember that wee girl from the (name of area) killed herself she was only about 13? Then

some ones made a fake name and covered her face in red, white and blue, it was terrible like

(Young Catholic female 1).

Yeah, and what do you call him, Ian Paisley, he was dying and that started a whole big ruckus

on Facebook. Ive seen loads of fights on Facebook because of that (Young Catholic female 2).

3.5 Navigating the interface

Despite the view that things were better and a small number of young people were moving acrossthe interface into the Other community, the spatial patterns of young people clearly remain heavily

influenced by the interface and many young people were still reluctant to venture in to areas of the

Other community. Several youth workers referred to this as an ongoing issue in terms of the

psychology of geographical boundaries which were now well established. Young males in particular

seemed less likely to traverse the interface for fear of being beaten up. In South Belfast some

young Protestants discussed how far into the nearby Catholic area they would venture:

I wouldnt go past Lidl like (Young Protestant male 1).

Aye, well theres a takeaway there on that road and I wouldnt go past it

(Young Protestant male 2).

In North Belfast, two Catholic young people were reluctant to venture on to the Shore Road which

they perceived to be a predominantly Protestant area:

Id feel uncomfortable on the Shore Road, I just wouldnt walk about it. Id need some reason to

go there, and ones from my school (integrated school) would know me as a Catholic

(Young Catholic female).

Discussions in North Belfast also focused on the use of the Waterworks. As such, some young

people felt that the space in the park would be used differently depending on community

background:


23/40


21

Im scared to go to the Waterworks (Young Catholic female).

The Waterworks below the bridge is for Protestants, you wouldnt really go past that on your

own. Where the bend is in the park, theres a hill and its usually full of them (Protestants) and

they all stand there, so you cant really walk past(Young Catholic male).

Some other young people referred to being scared to go to certain areas, but reported that these

concerns were more to do with their personal safety rather than anything of a sectarian nature:

I would feel safe during the day (at Duncairn Gardens) but not at night I wouldnt(Young

Catholic female 4).

But thats only because its all dark and theres no street lights, its scary that way. Not because

a Prod is going to jump out and knife youthats why youre scared generally, not Protestants

and that. Its because Duncairn Gardens is really dark with all the big houses with the windows

out. Its not because of Protestants (Young Catholic female 2).

Those young people who had travelled into areas of the Other community unsurprisingly were

those least likely to feel restricted in terms of where they went to:

We did it before and it was ok. One time the bus wasnt on and we went up and got a few of the

Protestant lads and brought them into Ballymurphy and showed them the murals and all. That

was all right like. And we have been in Springmartin. We walked up to their club before as well

(Young Catholic male).

Remember we walked up the Shankill? Nothing happened to us (Young Catholic female).

I can honestly say that I have walked from the town up the Springfield Road and no one hassaid anything to me (Young Protestant male).

For those young people who had safely gone across to the other side of the interface, this

experience made them realise you are not going to get jumped every day like. TheAmbassadors

for Peace youth group involving Corpus Christi and Springmartin youth clubs was a good example

of a project which aimed to improve relationships between young people and increase their

feelings of safety around the interface. As part of the programme, for the past eighteen months

young people from both communities have met with one another weekly, going in to one anothers

areas and visiting each community centre. The young people felt that their participation in this

group had provided them with the opportunity to go in to an area and meet people they would not

normally have had the opportunity to meet:

See before this group started I would never have went in to Springmartinif this group hadnt

happened I still would probably never have been in Springmartin (Young Catholic male 1).

I didnt even know where it was (Young Catholic male 2).

I just knew the gates, didnt know who lived there, didnt know nothing about it

(Young Catholic male 1).

As a result of the ongoing contact, two girls in particular whose houses were back to back to one

another on each side of the interface in West Belfast had become good friends and would now

often go to one anothers areas, something that they would not have done prior to the programme.

However at times even these young people in West Belfast who generally felt freer to move around

the interface did so in a rather structured format with their youth club:


24/40


22

If you were going in on your own it would be different like (Young Catholic male).

One young male spoke of his continuing reluctance to go in to the nearby Protestant area unless

some of his new Protestant friends were with him:

I would feel comfortable going in with ones from the other side, but I wouldnt feel comfortable

going in with (another Catholic young person in the group). Just because we are both Catholic.

Even though nothing would happen, youd just feel uneasy in case something happened

(Young Catholic male).

One cross-interface community organisation have been working in recent years to build

relationships between young people. As a result of the engagement over the past two years in one

interface location in North Belfast, a number of Protestant young people from one particular area

reported feeling safer and would now use a local garage which they would not have done before as

they had previously perceived it as Catholic territory. Indeed, some young Protestants now use alocal drop-in centre which is also located in a predominantly Catholic area. As such improved

relationships between some local young people across the interface led to them asking one

another questions about their culture or religion, a process which one youth leader felt was a more

natural development over time rather than part of a more artificial attempt to bring young people

together prematurely.

While these young people now used the shop at the garage on the Antrim Road in the evenings

with their friends, again other young people who traversed the interface tended to do so as part of

a more formalised youth group or with school, and they would not feel as comfortable doing so with

their friends on their own initiative. At various times some young people also felt very aware of

which parts of the area would be off-limits for individuals from their community, and felt they

could tell someones community background based on how they moved around an area:

Thats what I am saying walking up to the Antrim Road, thats how you know if youre Catholic

or Protestant, what side of the road you walk onIf you walk on one side you are Protestant if

you walk on the other you are a Catholic(Young Protestant male).

Youd stay on this side of the doctors (Young Catholic male).

These issues in terms of being able to tell someones community background impacted upon

which services and facilities some young people felt they could access.

3.6 Accessing services and facilities

The restricted movement associated with living at an interface impacted upon the majority of youngpeople, and it seemed to be the case that this impact was particularly significant for young people

from what could be termed enclave interface communities such as Suffolk or Short Strand. For

young males in Suffolk in particular, their dentists and GPs were all in Dunmurry and Finaghy and

very few services in wider nationalist West Belfast on the Stewartstown Road and beyond were

utilised. Rather than using the nearest leisure centre which was situated in Andersonstown, they

spoke about travelling to Lisburn:

We are surrounded basically...We cant go to certain places that the likes of them can. They can

go up and round us. They dont necessarily have to walk down Blacks Road, its the quicker

option, but they can walk round it(Young Protestant male).


25/40


26/40


24

It should be noted that while some young people reported difficulties in using particular shops or

services given their location, other young people felt relatively unconcerned with where they could

travel to, and a number of young people suggested that they even felt safe wearing their schooluniform in public. They tended to contrast this to a few years ago when they would have been

more wary of doing so:

Yeah. I was down after school today and walked down to Tescos in my uniform (Young

Protestant female).

Like I never think or it. Like I never think of Protestants. I just walk about(in uniform) (Young

Catholic female).

This increasing sense of confidence for some young people to wear ones school uniform

appeared to at one level be linked to the fact that levels of violence at the interface have

significantly decreased. However, other young people reported ongoing difficulties in terms ofschool uniform clearly identifying community background:

Our friend went up to Ligoniel and it was Protestants pushed themAnd this woman called my

friend a slut when she was in her school uniform (Young Catholic female).

The young participants were subsequently asked to think about violence at the interface, why it

occurred and what impact it had on their lives.

3.7 Interface violence and Policing

Although young people tended to be unaware of the term recreational rioting and several

young people referred to wanting to defend their community if it was under attack, many felt that

those young people who get involved in riots do so as a result of boredom or there being nothing todo. This particularly appeared to be the case for those in their mid-teens who had outgrown some

of the more structured youth activities in their area. Some young people spoke of their excitement

at participating in riots when they were younger, and now that they were a bit older they had

matured and grown out of it. However, this sense that riots could develop out of boredom and for

the craic tended to be more focused on our young people and as such the motivations of young

people from the Other community who were involved in rioting were at times viewed as more

sectarian in origin. This particularly appeared to be the case with regards the rioting in East Belfast

in June 2011:

Researcher Why do you think some young people rioted in East Belfast last summer? Was it for

the craic?

No, I think there was bitterness or something(Young Catholic female).

Yeah, something happened like the Protestants ran in or something and thats how it

all kicked off(Young Catholic male).

Youth workers also tended to focus on the recreational aspects of young people engaging in

rioting, although several youth leaders also suggested that there were deeper reasons as to why

some young people get involved in violence, including disputes over parades and protests, a

perception they are defending their area and confused community leadership from adults. On a

number of occasions both young participants and youth leaders spoke about the role of young

people from outside the immediate interface area participating in violence. Indeed, the work at

Skegoneill-Glandore Common Purpose interface group with young people on the Antrim Road whoat times became involved in fights at the interface was an attempt to deal with these hinterland


27/40


28/40


26

The frustration amongst some young people that they werent really taken seriously by adults was

one reflected in their discussion of what needs to happen next in terms of further developing

interface areas.

3.8 What next?

The majority of young people shared many of the same concerns that their adult counterparts have

in the contemporary period, worries over jobs, money and services in their area coupled with their

concerns over the restricted levels of movement associated with living at an interface.

Overwhelmingly, the young participants wanted an opportunity to feed in to the debate about how

their local area should develop, particularly if as seems to be the case that various interface

barriers are being looked at with a view to areas being physically opened up. In this regard a

number of young people talked about the need for economic and physical regeneration of derelict

land around the interface:

They spent 300,000 grand on two big balls down the bottom of the Falls. I would have spent it onthe flats beside it. You look at this big attraction and theres two big wrecked flats beside itLike

that old barracks, nothing is getting done on the barracks land(Young Catholic male).

Aye, they should have spent the money on the surrounding areas (Young Catholic female).

Researcher - What would you do on the empty barracks land?

Build something, a 3g pitch, something for both sides (Young Catholic male 1).

Yeah, something for both communities to use (Young Protestant male).

A mixed housing estate (Young Catholic male 2).

However, while the vast majority of young people were keen to be involved in discussions around

regeneration and transforming the interface, there was general consensus throughout the research

that their views were rarely sought by adults, and that they were often viewed as a problem rather

than as part of the solution to improving relations between communities:

Young people are only included when violence happens (Young Catholic female).

It was significant that several young people from different interface areas spoke of their attendance

at the consultation event in the MAC Arts Centre on 25th September as being the first time they

had ever been invited to a discussion on interface issues with other young people:

Apart from tonight, we have never been invited to a cross-community discussion aboutinterfaces. Also this is the first time we have been invited to a cross-city interface discussion, as

not all interfaces have the same problems (Young Protestant male).

Some young people were concerned that without their input, another generation would be

consigned to living with sectarianism and in segregated communities, and on a number of

occasions the phrase listen to us was used with regards to developing strategies to work in

interface areas moving forwards:

They(politicians) dont really seem to be arguing about sectarianism these days, they seem to be

talking crap and spending moneyApparently there is more money being spent on separating

Catholics and Protestants than bringing them together(Young Protestant female).


29/40


27

Researcher If I was a politician, what would you say to me?

What are you doing to try and stop sectarianism? (Young Catholic male).

As such a number of young people felt that there was not enough being done by adults to provide

them with opportunities to meet and interact with young people from a different community

background. It also became clear that young people wanted the opportunity to be listened to in

terms of regenerating the interface, and a number of young participants complained that adults did

not take them seriously and would not value their opinions on what should happen in their areas:

The government say theyll listen to young people but dont(Young Catholic male).

This tendency to feel excluded from the decision making process was compounded for those

young people who believed that they had benefitted little from the Peace Process due to a

perceived lack of investment in their areas:

In East Belfast we have the Titanic Quarter, but there was no local investment from this such

as jobs etc (Young Protestant male).

The majority of young people spoken with during the course of this research felt a sense of

disempowerment and detachment from the decision making process. However, young people

themselves were keen to become more involved in dialogue around interface issues and

suggested a number of ways in which they could be more included in debates on the Peace

Process, interfaces and good relations issues:

We need more opportunities to talk to young people from the other side of the interface

(Young Protestant male).

There should be meetings between young people and adults from different interfaces so that

we can talk to them about it(Young Catholic female).

Like a youth committee that has so many young people on it and meets up once a month to

discuss interface issues (Young Catholic female).

For their part, a number of youth workers suggested that young people need to be included in a

genuine consultation process moving forward, and with a genuine say, rather than only being

involved in side projects which have a limited impact on decision making.

Recently published research on interfaces found that 64% of approximately 1,500 general

respondents believed that interfaces should be a main priority for the Northern Ireland government,while 63% of interface residents would like to know more about initiatives and discussions about

the walls and barriers (Byrne et al. 2012). Although these results are very interesting, and indicate

that local residents want to be consulted with on interface issues, this is based upon the views of

adults in interface areas. We know little about the views of young people outside of small scale

research projects and consultations. To date there seems to have been a lack of opportunities for

young people from different parts of Belfast, and from different communities, to discuss issues

relating to the walls, security and regeneration.

There are various ways and means (or models) of engagement which may be employed to

increase the role young people play in discussions around interface issues in particular.

A report produced by the UN on young people and their participation in decision making foundthat there were three main models of engagement for better including young people in decision

making (UN 2003):


30/40


28

The first model focuses on adult-led processes. This method allows young people to be invited to

events and share their views and experiences. However, the report argued that this in and of

itself does not lead to the empowerment of young people as it is predicated upon consultationrather than participation;

The second model focuses on adult-initiated processes. While adults develop a project or

process of dialogue, young people are invited to have some control over the inputs and outcomes

of the discussion. As such they are not merely responding to an adult agenda and are allowed the

space to shape the questions they would like answered; and

The third and final model of engagement focuses on youth-led processes. This involves young

people themselves identifying the issues of primary concern and taking resultant action. This may

involve the establishment of youth forums to campaign on specific issues. One challenge with

such developments is that they tend to limit the engagement to a small number of committed

young people, and this can become dominated by the most articulate and exclude those on themargins.26

It is clear that in line with the Programme for Government, young people who live in interface areas

should be part of the area based action plan discussions on developments at the interface,

including any potential changes to security architecture. But effective consultation and engagement

with young people needs to allow space for them to ask questions they feel are relevant (within

reason) rather than simply being told of developments which are happening and why they are

happening.

While a youth led process in terms of discussion on interface issues is likely to be impractical,

certainly an adult initiated process in which young people have the opportunity to explore issues or

concerns they have regarding the interface would be an appropriate process of dialogue which theCRC and ICP could help facilitate. Such a consultation process may involve three core elements:

1. An initial process of information sharing with young people. The UN report suggests that young

people at all times need adequate information about the issues at hand in order for them to

make a meaningful contribution to consultation. The ICP are well placed to work with young

people in their areas, through schools, church groups, sports clubs, educational organisations,

local youth organisations and youth clubs, to inform young people about developments at the

interface;

2. Space should be provided for young people within an interface community to discuss their views

on interface issues in a safe environment. Initially this may take place amongst young people

before potentially including young representatives in an inter-generational discussion with adults;3. Young people from across the interface should be brought together to share their views on any

potential developments. These discussions may only include young people, or rather include

young people with adults in a cross-interface discussion. Relevant stakeholders should decide

which is the most appropriate means of engagement. It may be useful for members of statutory

organisations such as DoJ to be in attendance to discuss future plans.

26 All three models of engagement with young people follow the principle of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that

young people under the age of 18 have the right to participate in decision-making.


31/40


29

Summary

Despite mixed views as to whether or not physical barriers provided any sense of security, the

majority of young people felt that in the long-term Northern Irish society would be better off withoutthe walls, although the length of time that it will take to get to that stage was disputed amongst

young people. Generally most young participants spoke of living in a safer and better society than

their parents did, and highlighted that the increasing signs of friendships and relationships

developing between young people across the interface was evidence of this. However it should be

borne in mind that the numbers of friendships and relationships discussed were limited, and at

times young people drew upon stereotypes and sectarianized narratives to talk about the Other

community, even when they considered themselves to have friends from that community.

Although a small number of young people felt relatively unhindered in terms of their movement

across the interface, many young people still felt that at some level their freedom of movement

around the interface was restricted. They may have felt that their movement was better than it was

even one or two years ago, but nonetheless it tended to be restricted in some way.

This was particularly apparent with regards to accessing particular shops, leisure facilities and

services which at times were perceived as off-limits. Young males appeared to be more inclined to

impose restrictions on where they travelled to than young females, and at times parents, friends

and family appeared to influence where the young people felt was safe and unsafe space,

although there was evidence of young people also challenging what their parents and others told

them in terms of areas to avoid. In line with this, those young people who had travelled into the

territory of the Other found that it increased their levels of confidence to increasingly travel into

areas which they previously would have avoided.

It is clear that many young people felt excluded from the decision making process and would like

an opportunity to contribute to any forthcoming debates about developments at the interface.

The following section provides a very brief discussion of some of these findings within the context

of other research which has been conducted in the UK and further afield.


32/40


30

If as Margaret OBrien argues, one of the main principles of a just city is that it enables the

free movement of children through it (OBrien et al. 2000: 258), then it is debatable whether

or not Belfast as of May 2012 would qualify. While clearly some young people living at the

interface feel relatively free to go where they please, there remain issues associated with a

restricted sense of movement in and around the interface for many others, particularly with

regards to accessing particular services and facilities.

Despite the fact that many young people did not uncritically or passively accept narratives of safe

and unsafe space as told to them by their friends, family and others (Leonard 2010c), it remainedthe case that for many there was a wariness associated with the Other community and in moving

through the territory of the Other. This was particularly the case in the evenings and during the

summer months when various trigger events can increase tensions between communities.

For teenagers who feel they are too old to get involved in standard youth club activities and for

whom there seems little else to do, wandering the streets where they live becomes a regular

occurrence and in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, this neighbourhood

nationalism (Webster 2003) and attachment to an area where friends and family live is an

important part of developing a sense of place bound identity (Matthews et al. 2000; Laughlin and

Johnson 2011). However, the difficulty in Northern Ireland occurs where locality, territory and

ethnicity intersect, particularly when groups of young people encounter one another at the interface

(Healy 2006).

The visible presence of groups of young people on the street is also often perceived by adults as

young people being up to no good which in turn alienates young people further from local adults

and wider society (Radford et al. 2005). The constant moving on of young people from public

spaces, which while understandable in some ways as a response to resident fears of large

numbers of young people in public, does little to alter perceptions that they are regarded as little

more than a nuisance, and this can also feed into negative perceptions of the police who are

responding to residents concerns.

Of course there are young people who gather at interfaces with the intention of, or indeed actually,

getting involved in violence. This is clearly a key issue which needs to be tackled by the police and

other organisations to, if possible, prevent a young person from coming in to contact with the

criminal justice system. The 174 Trust have begun a Together Stronger project which will run until

2015 and which aims to improve community relations at the Carlisle Circus interface. One aspect

of this project will be to engage with marginalised young people in the surrounding areas who may

be at risk of engaging in interface violence and coming into contact with the criminal justice system

this project and others like it should be welcomed as a step in the right direction in terms of

improving engagement with young people at the interface.

Despite the potential of this and other similar one-off projects, all young people in public spaces

should not be judged as being up to no good purely on account of their age and their appearance

in public space. The position of many young people in interface areas and beyond is often on the

periphery of citizenship, without a full sense of place in the community, where they are viewed as inthe process of becoming adults, but they are not yet complete social beings (Blitzer 1991;

Leonard 2006b: 1129). This may mean that in times of interface violence, getting involved to

4. Discussion and Key Findings


33/40


31

27 Action on Substances through Community Education and Related Training. Based in Lisburn.

defend ones community becomes an attractive option which provides a sense of purpose, identity

and status within the community which otherwise remains elusive.

Rosie Meek (2008: 132) talks about inter-generational work being important in a rural English

context to improve relationships between adults and young people and there are already a variety

of projects on the ground which seek to adopt such an approach in Belfast. One such inter-

generational project occurred in the Suffolk and Lenadoon areas recently and was facilitated by

ASCERT.27 One part of this work, alongside engaging young people and residents, was the

distribution of a leaflet to houses at the interface which aimed to highlight to young people the

consequences that their behaviour on the street can have on local residents.

This process should be reciprocal, with local adults also being encouraged to challenge some of

their own views that young people are guilty until proven innocent by their mere presence in public

space. Clearly feelings of trust, a sense of belonging and mutual support within communities are

more likely to build in a place where face-to-face contact on a regular basis is possible (OBrien etal. 2000: 267). Such inter-generational work may provide further opportunities to challenge some of

these stereotypes of the hoodie generation who tend to be feared and demonised while at the

same time highlighting to young people why local residents may be concerned at the presence of

large groups gathering on the streets, particularly at night (Meek 2008).

It is crucial in the forthcoming debates around regenerating interface areas and developing area

based action plans to potentially think about removing barriers and transforming the interface that

young people are included in this process. CRC and the ICP can assist in terms of providing

information to young people in interface areas as a precursor to them being included in broader

dialogue within and between interface communities.

The Draw Down the Walls project between the North Belfast Interface Project, the Lower ShankillCommunity Association and the Golden Thread Gallery was a good example of creatively

engaging with young people to begin to think about what their area might look like if there were no

walls separating communities. This is one of the questions which needs to be asked of young

people just as it does of adults what conditions would need to be in place before you would feel

comfortable living in an area without barriers?

Part of this process moving forwards may involve rethinking the strict dichotomy around defining

public and private space. This may require a shift in thinking to one where space is defined on a

sense of belonging rather than ownership (Laughlin and Johnson 2011). Otherwise a regeneration

plan which emphasises divisions between public and private space and introduces social mix may

leave little room for the interpretations of young people (Laughlin and Johnson 2011: 452-453). It isimperative in the Northern Irish context that this doesnt happen and the views of young people are

included in the regeneration process.

While there are therefore a number of key issues to be addressed in terms of intra-community

relationships between young people and adults and young people also need to be included in the

regeneration debate, it is of concern that there remains a general lack of opportunities for young

people to have sustainedface to face contact with others from different backgrounds given

persistent segregated living and segregated education. In such a context there remain

sectarianised narratives from which some young people draw upon to refer to the generalised

Other which need to be challenged.


34/40


32

Even those young people spoken to in this research project who participated in cross-community

activities in school suggested that they were not long enough to provide a major change in the

nature of relationships with the Other community. In some senses this is where specific projectssuch as theAmbassadors for Peace group in West Belfast as a longer-term effort to challenge

stereotypes, create friendships and increase confidence traversing the interface come in. Perhaps

the new Inner North Youth Platform, which held its inaugural conference on the on 22nd March in

the Church of the Nazerene, may provide the opportunity for similar increased levels of

cooperation amongst youth providers in the North of the city, although these one-off initiatives do

little to alter the overall structures of division.

However, such projects should be welcomed for bringing a fresh approach to engaging with young

people across the interface. As part of the project in West Belfast, young people from Ballymurphy

and Springmartin have set a target date of 2019 as when they would like to see the first of the

walls come down. While this may be seen in some quarters as wishful thinking, at least this small

group of young people are starting to think about what the interface may look like in a few yearstime. As such, we as adults need to start listening to the young people themselves. Madeleine

Leonard is absolutely right when she suggests that children are not merely empty vessels into

which are poured adult thoughts and prejudices (Leonard 2006a). Children and young people must

be viewed as individuals in their own right, as residents in interface communities, whose input

moving forward can only make interface areas better places to live (BIP 1998). While this has been

a limited research project which has only engaged with a relatively small number of young people,

nevertheless their voices are valid and should be listened to moving forward.

The key findings from this research project include:

Security

1. There were mixed views on the usefulness of the walls in terms of providing security,

however those young people who lived closer to the interface tended to believe that the

walls provided some sense of security.

2. Although broadly speaking most young people wanted the walls to come down at some

stage, many felt that the time yet was not right and that more work had to be done to further

improve community relations first.

Community relations

3. Most young people however believed that relations between Catholics and Protestants in

Northern Ireland were better now than they ever had been and that they were less

sectarian than their parents and grandparents generation.

4. In line with this, there were signs of some cross-community friendships and even

relationships developing among young people from different areas and different

communities. However, it should be noted that the numbers of these relationships were

relatively small and there remain some issues associated with peer and/or community

pressure in terms of becoming friends or dating someone from the Other community.

5. At times some young people differentiated between young people from the Other side

whom they knew and thought were ok when compared to the general Other. At times

stereotypes were drawn upon to refer to the generalised Other. At different times some

young people referred to sectarianised narratives when talking about the Othercommunity, although some young people actively challenged these views based upon their

own more positive experiences.


35/40


33

6. In general, most young people felt they had limited opportunities to meet, interact and

become friends with young people from the Other community. Even young people who

had participated in school cross-community activities tended to feel that these were notsustained enough to have much of a lasting impact.

7. It must be noted that the definition of what it means to have a friend from a different

community is important. At times some young people talked about their friends from the

Other community, when in actual fact a more appropriate term would be that they knew

someone from the Other community. This should perhaps be borne in mind when

reviewing statistics on the numbers of young people who have friends across the

community divide.

8. Social media was highlighted as having both positive and negative consequences on

community relations. While it was a way to make friends, at times various social media

sources had been used to increase tensions or organise fights.

Perceptions of safe/unsafe space

9. While some young people reported feeling much safer in crossing the interface than they

did even last year, the spatial patterns of many young people, and in particular young

males, remain impacted upon by the location of an interface. Time of day, year and

personal experience all impacted upon movement around the interface. The interface was

felt to be more permanent at night, during the marching season and if a young person had

prior experience of being verbally abused or beaten up due to their community background.

10. A number of young people stated that they developed their knowledge of where to go and

not to go from their parents, wider family and friends.

11. However, there was also evidence of a number of young people actively challenging where

they had been told was safe and unsafe space.

12. Those young people who had traversed the interface and went in to the territory of the

Other felt more confident to keep doing so.

13. For some young people walking around their area in school uniform was less of an issue

than it used to be. However, a small number of young participants felt there were still issues

with regards to their uniform publicly identifying their community background.

14. Various programmes seek to encourage the development of relationships which will

increase levels of confidence to cross the interface. While there was clearly evidence ofthis, it remains the case that some young people will cross the interface as part of a

structured group rather than with their own friends on their own initiative.

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.


36/40


34

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 ofour 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 providethem with information about potential developments in interface areas. The three phased

approach to consultation identified in the previous section may provide an appropriate

means of properly consulting with young people and including them in the decision making

process with regards to interface issues.


37/40


35

Andersson, G., and Lundstrom, T. Teenagers as Victims in the Press. In, Children and Society,

Volume 21 (2007) pp. 175188.

Arefi, M., and Triantafillou, M. (2005) Reflections on the pedagogy of place in planning and urban

design. In, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, pp.75-88.

ARK (2003) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.

ARK (2004) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.

ARK (2010a) The Northern Ireland Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.

ARK (2010b) The Young Life and Times Survey. Derry Londonderry: ARK and INCORE.

Backett-Milurn, K., and Harden, J. (2004) How children and their families construct and negotiate

risk, safety and danger. In, Childhood, 11(4), pp.429-447.

Belfast Interface Project (1998) Young people on the interface. Belfast: BIP.

Bell, J., Hansson, U., and McCaffrey, N. (2010) The Troubles Arent History Yet: Young Peoples

Understanding of the Past. Belfast: CRC.

Byrne, J., Conway, M., and Ostermeyer, M. (2005) Young Peoples Attitudes and Experiences of

Policing, Violence and Community Safety in North Belfast. Belfast: ICR.

Byrne, J., Gormley-Heenan, C., and Robinson, G. (2012)Attitudes To Peace Walls Research

Report. Belfast: OFMdFM.

Byrne, J. (2005) Interface Violence in East Belfast during 2002: The impact on residents of Short

Strand and Inner East Belfast. Belfast: ICR.

Collins, D., and Kearns, R. (2001) Under curfew and under siege? Legal geographies of young

people. In, Geoforum, 32, pp.389-403.

Healy, J. (2006) Locality Matters: Ethnic Segregation and Community Conflict the Experience of

Protestant Girls in Belfast. In, Children and Society, Vol. 20, pp.105-115.

Hamilton, J., Hansson, U., Bell, J., and Toucas, S. (2008) Segregated Lives? Social Division,

Sectarianism and Everyday Life in Northern Ireland. Belfast: ICR.

Hargie, O., Dickson, D., and ODonnell, A. (2006) Breaking Down Barriers: Sectarianism,

Unemployment and the Exclusion of young people from Northern Ireland Society. Jordanstown:

University of Ulster.

Jarman, N., and OHalloran, C. (2000) Recreational Rioting: Young People, Interface Areas and

Violence. In, Child Care in Practice, 7(1), pp.45-58.

References


38/40


36

Jarman, N., and OHalloran, C. (2001) Peacelines or Battlefields? Responding to Violence in

Interface Areas. Belfast: Community Development Centre.

Jarman, N. (2005) No Longer a problem? Sectarian Violence in Northern Ireland. Belfast:

OFMdFM.

Jarman, N. (2006) Working at the interface: Good practice in Reducing Tension and Violence.

Belfast: ICR.

Kraack, A., and Kenway, J. (2002) Place, time and stigmatized youthful identities: bad boys in

paradise. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, pp.145-155.

Laughlin, D. L., and Johnson, L. C. (2011) Defining and exploring public space perspectives of

young people from Regent Park, Toronto. In, Childrens Geographies, 9: 3-4, pp.439-456.

Leonard, M. (2006) Teens and Territory in Contested Spaces: Negotiating Sectarian Interfaces inNorthern Ireland, In, Childrens Geographies, 4, pp.225-238.

Leonard, M. (2007) Trapped in Space? Childrens Accounts of Risky Environments. In, Children

and Society, Vol. 21, pp.432-445.

Leonard, M. (2008) Building, Bolstering and Bridging Boundaries: Teenagers Negotiations of

Interface Areas in Belfast. In, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34:3, pp.471-489.

Leonard, M. (2010a) Its better to stick to your own kind: Teenagers Views on Cross-Community

Marriages in Northern Ireland. In, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35: 1, pp.97-113.

Leonard, M. (2010b) Whats recreational about recreational rioting? Children on the Streets inBelfast. In, Children and Society, Vol. 24, pp.38-49.

Leonard, M. (2010c) Parochial Geographies: Growing up in divided Belfast. In, Childhood, 17(3),

pp. 328-342.

Meek, R. (2008) Young People, Social Exclusion and Inter-Generational Tension in a Rural

Somerset Town. In, Children and Society, Vol. 22, pp.128-135.

McVicar, D. (2000) Young People and Social Exclusion in Northern Ireland Status 0 Four Years

On. Belfast: NIERC.

OFMdFM (2011)A Draft Programme for Government 2011-2015. Belfast: OFMdFM.

Osborne, B., Smith, A., and Hayes, A. (2006) Higher Education in Northern Ireland:A report

young people and the interfaces crc 20130300

Documents