I came across this moment of pure brilliance by Simon Heffer over on ninme.com about the “On The Run” legislation.
wouldn?t all the troublesome aspects of the law and order business be removed if only the Government were to grasp the nettle and legalise crime? Just think of it – no need to spend all that money on police, judges, lawyers and jails. We could blow it instead on far more deserving causes, such as giving that nice Gerry Adams and his pal Martin McGuinness even more taxpayers? money to fund their campaign of hating the British.
Interesting concept, eh?
The problem today is that the legislation now appears to suit no-one. Gerry Adams is incandescent that the legislation includes members of the RUC and British Army. And – inconveniently – nobody in their right minds (we’ll call them ‘The Rest Of Northern Ireland, for ease of reference) wanted this legislation in the first place.
So, Marky Mark Durkan has appealed to Gerry Adams to withdraw the ‘On The Run” legislation altogether. Let’s hold off on that legalising crime idea – maybe Gerry will see sense and walk away. I mean, what sort of signal would it send out if he pursued this legislation against the wishes of all the other political parties and the moral conscience of Northern Ireland?
People might start to think he’s only looking out for the terrorists.
Thanks for the link! It’s always nice to get one from someone closer to the topic I like to. Makes me feel almost like I know what I’m talking about!
Now I think I’ll pull up a chair and have a cup of tea…
I don’t think it would matter if Gerry decided to go against it now. Perhaps I’m giving Peter Hain too much credit but if Gerry did turn against it, Hain’s retraction of the legislation would simply prove to all and sundry that he really is in the pockets of Adams and co.
In other words even if nobody in NI wanted the legislation, we’d be getting it anyway – because Hain’s a muppet for giving into SF demands in the first place. Let’s call it the price of spinelessness.
One of the bits that sticks in my throat is Kate Hoey saying that many of her colleagues admitted that they couldn’t vote for it if it applied to their constituencies. As Kate pointed out, “people in NI are part of the Human Race”.
Gerry Adams said he really did not know that the OTR legislation would apply to state murderers and colluders. Why then did Conor Murphy fly over to Westminster to welcome the legislation the day after Peter Hain made public that it would apply to them. Martin McGuinness made Sinn Fein?s real position clear on the BBC?s Hearts and Minds programme said he did, ?not envisage that any people who were involved in the murders of nationalists … is ever going to be brought before a court in this day and age.? but said that the people who would “gain most advantage from this are those nationalists and republicans who are on the run for over 30 years.” Not once in the interview did he say that the legislation should not apply to state killers. So there you have it in Martin McGuinness?s own words. In return for the bigger benefit of getting their on the runs back with no questions asked, Sinn Fein sold out the families that for years they claimed to fight for. They let state killers and loyalists totally off the hook.
Evening all! Parnell, excellent analysis. McGuinness’ silence on ‘state murders’ speaks volumes.
Aileen: What!?!@! Part of the Human Race When were they going to tell us?
Good post Mr Levee!
..well if SF HAVE let “state killers” off the hook, as I said before the quid pro quo for whatever remnant of these proposals survives should mean that SF STFU about collusion, past grievances etc.
This OTR business is the perfect rejoinder to any such gurning in the future.
I would really like to see all the whingers put up or shut up. Set up a truth and reconciliation comittee and stop using the OTR issue for political point scoring.
frodo: Dont hold your breath in expectation. Political point scoring is ingrained in the nature of the beast. On your second point, Truth and Reconcilation, Which model do you refer to? Having been involved in conflict resolution the Truth and Reconcilation. This process is still being evolved. The one shoe size fits all model is not, will not nor can it ever be all embracing.
Jo:This is not about maintaining the quid pro quo. It is about injustice. Take for example if these people who were butchered were your relatives or friends could you, in all honesty, say it was o.k. a mistake, sweep it under the table and move on?. The British government and Sinn Fein took too lightly the terrible nature of miscalculating injustice inflicted upon innocents who were slaughtered arbitrarily for some purportedly higher call.
Parnell
Some of those released under the GFA would indeed have fallen into that category but I kept quiet in the interests of a higher good. Dont underestimate the possibility of something positive emerging from what appears to be a bit of a legislative shambles.
Bottom line? If the violent element of a conflict is over, I don’t have a problem with an amnesty.
That’s a very fair point, Jo, but I would tend to agree with Sister-In-Law that the people this legislation covers were too gutless to come back and face up to their crimes. Also, it legitimises the Sinn Fein stance on the IRA’s ‘war’ while they refuse to extend the same courtesy to state forces.
Jo: I do not doubt the sincerity of your good intention but however well meant these intentions are, they are misplaced. We cannot allow the former war makers dictate the peace on their own terms. That would not just be an affront to real justice but in would victimise victims yet again. Don?t forget the hurt, pain and injustice of a hundred years ago can rise up to hurt again.
?If the violent element of a conflict is over?, assumes two things. (1) The violent element, all of it , states publicly and acts accordingly that it really is over. Nothing could be futherist from reality. Only today an attack on a politician and his family took place, though the device was a hoax, it signalled the intention of continued para militarism. City Hall was evacuated when a crude but viable device was destroyed by controlled explosion. Only three months ago loyalists murdered each other openly and in July blast bombs wrecked the peace.
(2) All parties connected to Para militarism will follow the peaceful democratic roadmap. Again the hard cold facts, which must be acknowledged, they are not. The provisional IRA and the LVF have jumped but others remain unwilling to do any such thing. To prove the point Martin Conlon was tortured and shot in Armagh by the Real IRA, he later died suffering from his injuries.
We can all hope something positive will emerge from the dirty side deals by the British government and Sinn Fein. Realistic expectations can be achieved but will necessitate an inclusive approach furthermore this is what has been lacking lately. Finally Jo, you have revealed your bottom line. With the utmost respect to you, I will keep mine for a higher stage.
“We cannot allow the former war makers dictate the peace on their own terms.”
..they now represent the majority of Nationalist opinion. I dont like that particularly, but I’m being realistic here.
Effectively – and I have seen this elsewhere – soldiers and police who killed have persistently and as a matter of deliberate policy, been given an effective amnesty – one that they could NEVER have achieved had they killed on the streets of a REAL UK City or area.
It concerns me that coreligionists did not appreciate the impact of the many murders committed by the army and police here for many decades – even to this day they snipe at the Bloody Sunday Tribunal and moan about its cost – whereas if justice had been done in the first instance all that bitterness and cost could have been avoided. Perhaps SF have cynically manipulated the memories of victims like the Bloody Sunday victims – but there is no shortage of them to choose from. Hence my thesis that protest about the OTRs is hypocritical because Unionists didnt give a damn about a few dead Taigs (they must have been doin SOMETHING) yet kick up Hell over a group of people who are not proven to have done anything – unless and until this process MAKES THEM DO THAT.
Jo,
Unionists give a damn alright about murder. But the numbers of genuine crimes committed by British forces are small. Sinn Fein propaganda has convinced you in this crazy idea of equity of wrongs.
Its simply not true. Republicans carry the bulk of the shame, Loyalists the rest.
What gave you the impression Unionists don’t care about murdered Catholics, aren’t the UVF/UDA/LVF condemned as the cowardly, murderers that they are? When Billy Wright was murdered, it was suspicious, it could have caused a wave of “collusion” accusations. But it didn’t. Unionists in general were happy this man would never kill again.
whereas if justice had been done in the first instance
And how do you know it wasn’t done in the first place ? Have you advance knowledge of Saville ?
You really do talk some dreadful bullfeathers Jo. You should see a counsellor ( A McCann? ) to deal with the loathing you seem to have for yourself and your own community. The vast majority of unionist community have no time for terrorism – and won’t attempt to justify or validate it by voting for terrorists and their supporters – unlike the nationalist community.
Jo: Sadly everybodys enemy, time, has beaten me but your and other considered responces deserve a reply. i will return to this thread later.
http://www.elblogador.com
MR
I’ll take no lessons in *bullfeathers* from you, although you are ably qualified to tutor. I will stand up for what I believe and not take the slightest notice of your taunting *self loathing* parrot-talk and pedantry. Stay with those you clearly feel more comfortable with.
If you think that Widgery was satisfactory thats your call. What I have seen of the Saville transcripts seems to point to one conclusion for me.
Jo – your comments about Saville show that you aren’t in the least interested in any findings that don’t conform to your prejudices.
Fact – the vast majority of our community do not support terrorism at the ballot box.
This thread Chris
Ah Madradin Ruad!
Unionists do not support terrorism at the ballot box eh? What about the DUP with their two paramilitary organisations (Third Force/Ulster Resistance) and of course the historic connections between the UUP and the old UVF circa 1912.
Do not give opinion as fact. It makes you look silly.
Nice try Reg – but no cigar.
Your nonsense is easily dealt with.
The UUP and UVF (1912)- can you name me any people killed by those UVF ? Any bombs ?
The DUP and paramilitaries – why do you think I wrote terrorism ? Can you name me anybody killed by Third Force or Ulster Resistance ? People who were associated with
them who went on to join the UVF or UDA don’t count in this context.
If you had had any wit you would have pointed out that the DUP – and I consider them hypocrites – have stood a few convicted terrorists with very poor electoral results except for one councillor in Antrim.
So – how many UUP or DUP MLAs or Westminster MPs have done time for serious offences ?
Who is the equivalent in the UUP or DUP of Gerry Kelly ot Martin McGuinness ?
I see. So terrorism is only the act of shooting/bombing etc not the threat thereof despite the fact that the threat may instil terror in others. Is instilling terror in your political opponents (by any method) to further your political aims not terrorism? In my book it is.
Your definition of “terrorism” is exceedingly narrow – presumably to fit your political views.
If you had any wit you would know that.
again I’ll ask :
how many UUP or DUP MLAs or Westminster MPs have done time for serious offences ?
Who is the equivalent in the UUP or DUP of Gerry Kelly or Martin McGuinness ?
With respect – you’re not addressing the issue – i.e. in my (and many people’s) eyes, the DUP are inextricably linked to terrorist organisations and are, therefore hypocritical with regard to Sinn Fein.
Your selective questions have answers that will re-enforce your point of view (as you well know) but they don’t answer the broader issue.
And with an equal amount of respect – I am addressing the issue – although I may not be addressing it through the twisted perspective of nationalist apologism for terrorist offences committed by the likes of Gerry Kelly and Martin McGuinness. The broad unionist community rejected the UDP and the PUP who are/were the equivalent of Sinn Fein and the IRA – and as such are better people.
As for selective questions – asking about the UVF of 1912 and it’s links to The UUP of Reg Empey today was not only selective but clutching at straws.
As already said – the DUP are hypocrites for standing convicted terrorists – but as we are talking of the unionist community – those terrorists were by and large rejected at the ballot box by the community.
Best wishes
Apologies. My weasel words (otherwise known as reasoned argument) have shown me up for the twisted, terrorist sympathiser that I am.
Just to clarify – I wasn’t linking the original UVF to the UUP of today. I thought that was obvious. I was making the point that unionism also has a history of voting in large numbers for parties with “terrorist” links and, as such, are no better and no worse than the rest of us.
Happy Christmas!
I didn’t think your argument was especially well reasoned in the context of the discussion of the voting patterns of our generations.
The problem with nationalists is that they insist that every discussion be shifted to suit their beliefs and be argued from their perspective.
I would dispute that the original UVF were terrorists, just as I don’t accept that the
Howth gun runners were terrorists. Of course it suits nationalists/republicans here to claim that the original UVF were terrorists – it gets them off the hook in their own eyes for more than 80 years of terrorism. But let’s be blunt – Irish Jacobinism -Irish American and Irish – gave the world Terrorism as we know it – the Dynamiters.
Merry Christmas.