CRJ: a private deal, but is it legal?
It lseems that British Government plans to approve the running of CRJ under official auspices are running into deeper water. One Ulster Unionist insider told Slugger that the key question should not be whether CRJ should be funded or not, but whether its activities were actually legal. Former Taoiseach Garrett FitzGerald lays some heavy charges at the door of CRJ:The introductory paragraph is worth quoting in full:
Several years ago, Sinn Féin established “Community Restorative Justice” (CRJ). Its director of training, Harry Maguire, is one of the convicted murderers of two British army corporals at the time of an IRA funeral. Recently, having witnessed the beating of a nationalist, Jeff Commander, by a bunch of republican thugs, he failed to give evidence of this attack to the police in accordance with his duty under Northern Ireland law, writes Garret FitzGerald
To begin with he quotes from the Catriona Ruane article in the Mourne Observer (not online, but Eddie McGrady has a chunk of it here)
Several nationalist families have reported that CRJ members have been involved with the IRA in attempts to intimidate family members into leaving Northern Ireland. Moreover, Eileen Calder, of the Rape Crisis Centre, has stated that the CRJ has “threatened women and attempted to cover up crimes committed by those with IRA, Sinn Féin or CRJ connections. Allowing such people power is like letting the lunatics run the asylum.”
He also notes from the same time that:
Marie Brown, of Foyle Women’s Aid, says CRJ has stated that it would refer cases to her organisation only if it agreed not to involve the police. Finally, the McCartney sisters have told MPS at Westminster that people associated with the murder of their brother are involved in CRJ schemes and that the CRJ is a paramilitary front, used to intimidate the local population and to protect criminals with an IRA background.
According to FitzGerald, in preparing the original guidelines, the British government only consulted CRJ Ireland and Northern Ireland Alternatives. He claims that no other stakeholders were asked:
Then, when the draft guidelines deriving from this carefully-skewed process were issued last December 5th, they were found to have omitted any provision for regulation of these committees or for an independent complaints procedure. Specific provision was also made to exempt local CRJ groups from working with the police, by providing that they could choose instead to deal with the Probation Board for Northern Ireland or the Youth Justice Agency. When the PSNI raised this with the Northern Ireland Office, they were effectively told not to object to these proposed arrangements.
On the three main changes to the latest British proposals:
- There is a requirement on CRJ to notify “a dedicated police [officer] all such information on the matter as the PSNI may require”. But there is no requirement to work with them.
- “An independent, external, complaints procedure” will be provided by the Probation Board, an official government body, but not a statutary body. That is, unlike the Police Ombudsman which has unprecidented powers to investigate the PSNI, it will have absolutely no teeth
- The vetting procedure will not allow anyone convicted of terrorist offences after April 1998 to take up a position with CRJ. Anyone convicted before that date will, as will any ordinary criminal three years afterwards. This, FitzGerald believes, will “enable local IRA activists to continue in a new guise their past intimidation of local communities, whose leaders are currently afraid to speak out against what the British government is now seeking to impose on their areas”.
He concludes that the proposed guidelines are the result of a private deal that “Tony Blair did with Provisional Sinn Féin”.
But the loose nature of the legislation holds some dangers for the CRJ itself. Even if the Ruane statement was ‘a moment of madness’, the near complete absence of public oversight over its activities, compared to the draconian nature of the Police Ombudsman’s brief over the PSNI must have implications for the longer term credibility of the CRJ itself. And it raises the question of its fulnerabilty to human rights legislation.
Finally he puts this move in a ‘human rights’ context of Northern Ireland’s turbulent history:
For 35 years Irish governments have never hesitated to defend the rights of Northern nationalists from abuses – whether by unionist politicians or repressive state actions, or by IRA or loyalist paramilitaries. If, as the unacceptable terms of this revised protocol now suggest, our Government’s private representations on this matter have failed, its duty is to make it clear publicly that the installation of what is effectively a Sinn Féin policing structure in nationalist areas of the North.
CONOR
the reason i say that the sb is the real power in PSNI are as follows. the most junior sb man can over rule a detective inspector in the mainstream police.
I’ll have to take your word for that, but presumably he can’t overrule anyone higher than a DI. What did Patten recommend in respect of the SB, and to what extent is it not being implemented?
before hugh orde the previous four chief constables were former sb men. the SB were the driving force in stormontgate, ie Alan McQuillan, Derek Martindale.
I guess SB, as the most important detective agency in the police, got the best people so it’s not surprising chief constables had SB experience. It’s probably the same in most police forces.
your second point about collusion (and i note the ####### remark about Roman Catholics) lets just call them Catholics or nationalists eh?
Sorry?
If you cant face up to ruc collusion with loyaist terrorists im not about to start ‘educating’ you. live in denial if it makes ur arguments easier. Alternatively read, the mainly redacted, cory report, stevens inquiry if you don’t believe it.
I don’t live in denial. I merely objected to exaggeration. None of the reports you mention indicate collusion to the extent that you imply.
so effectively your world view is that republican objections to policing are ‘rhetorical’.
I said I was familiar with the rhetorical objections. There may be substantial objections, too, but I’m sceptical about those.
Given collusion, the position of the police in relation to the north and their history thereof? Really.
Collusion doesn’t happen anymore and hasn’t for years. History is by definition in the past.
Your view is a load of bollocks.
That’s a very convincing and well thought-out argument.
[Keep to the ball, Conor - edited moderator],
i would imagine that prof shearer mite know more about patten than you. so if you don’t mind ill take his word over yours. if u can prove it wrong, feel free. but the onus isn’t me, its on you.
what i am doing is trying to change the emphasis of this debate from whether or not CRJ is ‘legal’ or whatever unto the far broader, and more fundamental issue of policing in the north. which afterall is the reason the debate exists in the first place, with regard to CRJ. Ur post reveals a lot of ignorance. ur point that in some, or a lot, of instances the police used excessive force misses the point. the RUC/PSNI have an ideological position within the north and they have a fundamentally, and always have had, political role.
ur mischevious assertion that the police colluded with nationalist ( i always thought republican) paramilitaries misses the point. Did that collusion result in the systemic murder of innocent protestants? No it didn’t and u know it didn’t. Furthermore the RUC/PSNI actually built up loyalist paramilitaries, ie dragged them from their extortionist ways in the 1980s, to rebuild them into a proxy force that terrorised catholics.
And this goes back to my original point, vis-avis, the PSNIs role in the north the police have always been a protestant police force for a protestant state, therefore their activities, often murderous, have always been skewed in that direction.
so why dont u stop patronising me and start acting like a reasoned adult and admit that within the pathetic statelet that is the north, murder of innocent catholics took place, at the behest of the police and government, in order to pursue a wider political agenda.
that agenda was to instill fear into nationalists in order that they would lower their demands and expectations. and put pressure on the IRA for a ceasefire. all of this goes to the heart of the CRJ debate, since essentialy it is adebate about the legitimacy of policing.
if you dont want to examine the history, modus iperandi, affiliations, or actions of the police then i really dont understand how u can meaningfuly contribute to this debate.
Collusion hasn’t happened in years? so how come the Ombudsman is investigating a string of murders up until 2003? But anyway that is hardly a convincing argument. The people and the system and the effects of that collusion are still here!!!
Last warning Conor. One more time, and you are off the field. Email me if you think there are mitigating circumstances!
CONOR
i would imagine that prof shearer mite [sic] know more about patten than you. so if you don’t mind ill [sic] take his word over yours.
I would imagine that Chris Patten might know more about Patten than you. So if you don’t mind I’ll take his word over yours.
what i am doing is trying to change the emphasis of this debate from whether or not CRJ is ‘legal’ or whatever unto the far broader, and more fundamental issue of policing in the north.
Well go ahead. THe rest of us will stick to the topic.
which afterall is the reason the debate exists in the first place, with regard to CRJ. Ur post reveals a lot of ignorance. ur point that in some, or a lot, of instances the police used excessive force misses the point. the RUC/PSNI have an ideological position within the north and they have a fundamentally, and always have had, political role.
The PSNI does not have an “ideological position”, any moreso than any other police force. It is just a police force required to uphold the law of the land.
ur mischevious assertion that the police colluded with nationalist ( i always thought republican) paramilitaries misses the point. Did that collusion result in the systemic murder of innocent protestants?
It resulted no doubt in the murder of many Roman Catholics, and possibly Protestants, too.
Furthermore the RUC/PSNI actually built up loyalist paramilitaries, ie dragged them from their extortionist ways in the 1980s, to rebuild them into a proxy force that terrorised catholics.
What is your basis for this claim?!
And this goes back to my original point, vis-avis, the PSNIs role in the north the police have always been a protestant police force for a protestant state, therefore their activities, often murderous, have always been skewed in that direction.
The PSNI is not “a protestant police force for a protestant state”.
so why dont u stop patronising me and start acting like a reasoned adult and admit that within the pathetic statelet that is the north, murder of innocent catholics took place, at the behest of the police and government, in order to pursue a wider political agenda.
I have never denied that innocent Roman Catholics were murdered, nor at the behest of some within the police. I do not know whether anyone was murdered at the behst of the government.
that agenda was to instill fear into nationalists in order that they would lower their demands and expectations. and put pressure on the IRA for a ceasefire. all of this goes to the heart of the CRJ debate, since essentialy it is adebate about the legitimacy of policing.
if you dont want to examine the history, modus iperandi, affiliations, or actions of the police then i really dont understand how u can meaningfuly contribute to this debate.
Your concerns have been addressed. The police is not today as you describe it was in the past.
Collusion hasn’t happened in years? so how come the Ombudsman is investigating a string of murders up until 2003? But anyway that is hardly a convincing argument. The people and the system and the effects of that collusion are still here!!!
Some of the people may be there, but in the absence of evidence you cannot sack them. THe system is not there. And the effects will be there regardless of CRJ.
well mick
i get very annoyed at this annodine nonsense spouted by people and their refusal to admit that the debate is really about the PSNI. but i apologise for insulting mr/miss willowfield. ive only been on here a few times before, so im not too clued up on the rules.
Okay, I’ll let it slide then. But try to keep your eye on the ball… Each of us have different personal stylistic approaches to each question. That’s personal. You should practice intolerance of the opposing argument rather than on the person making it!
Well ill tell you what my basis for the claim that the police restructured loyalists is, the word of former police, fru and loyalists.
look at c company. tucker lyttle deposed, who replaced him? Actually i really dont wanna start going back to basics here. i take it that u ignore news u dont wanna here and so thats why are u are so ignorant of collusion.
upholding the law of the land?
Whose land? Whose state? Whose rules? No ideological position. the sick (not sic!) county statelet is abnormal. it has no political consensus within it. it has no parallels in western europe. so the police, armed since 1921, have upheld the laws and rules of a state, born out of bloodshed and violence, without the consent of 40% plus of its ‘subjects’. and u put them in terms of ‘any other police force’, nonsense. absolute decontextualised nonsense.
the reforms have changed the PSNI/RUC? My concerns, not just mine, have been addressed?
really. so how come that same honourable, law abiding force, is being investigated for murders committed just a few years ago? How come they were able to take down stormont and case political paralysis in the north through the spy ring. a british spy – denis donaldson. how come Orde had to apologise for the behaviour of the PSN on that occasion. how come one of its authors said it had been cherry picked?
has collusion been addressed?
Ask stevens, stalker, cory? Don’t think so buddy boy.
you seem like an ruc apologist.
u have to admit though, im good for business mick!! this post was dull before i came on! Admit it matie!! lol
Well ill tell you what my basis for the claim that the police restructured loyalists is, the word of former police, fru and loyalists. look at c company. tucker lyttle deposed, who replaced him?
The fact that someone was deposed and replaced does not demonstrate that the police “restructured” “loyalists” into a proxy force for killing Roman Catholics. That’s very weak evidence!
upholding the law of the land?
Whose land? Whose state? Whose rules? No ideological position.
The land, state and rules of the people of Northern Ireland. Just like the Southern Irish police uphold the law of the land in the South; or the Dutch police in the Netherlands, etc. Maybe those police forces have “ideological positions”, too!
the sick (not sic!) county statelet is abnormal. it has no political consensus within it. it has no parallels in western europe. so the police, armed since 1921, have upheld the laws and rules of a state, born out of bloodshed and violence, without the consent of 40% plus of its ‘subjects’. and u put them in terms of ‘any other police force’, nonsense. absolute decontextualised nonsense.
Your issue, then, is not with the police, but with Northern Ireland itself. That is entirely a different matter. Your objection to the police fundamentally is that they are the Northern Ireland police and you don’t like Northern Ireland.
the reforms have changed the PSNI/RUC? My concerns, not just mine, have been addressed? really. so how come that same honourable, law abiding force, is being investigated for murders committed just a few years ago? How come they were able to take down stormont and case political paralysis in the north through the spy ring. a british spy – denis donaldson. how come Orde had to apologise for the behaviour of the PSN on that occasion. how come one of its authors said it had been cherry picked?
The concern that you expressed related to “instilling fear into nationalists”, and collusion. That is not the case. The PSNI do not “instill fear into nationalists”. The PSNI does not collude with terrorists. If you think it does, you should complain to the Policing Board, Police Ombudsman or your MP.
has collusion been addressed? Ask stevens, stalker, cory? Don’t think so buddy boy.
Do Stevens, Stalker and Cory believe that the PSNI is colluding with terrorists? I’m unaware of that. Can you provide any evidence?
El Matador, I wouldn’t bother engaging T Ruth. He’s one of the people who refuses to answer questions about the documented links between unionism and loyalist paramilitaries. I’ll bet he was a Vanguard supporter, and like most unionists spent the last 30 years blocking power sharing with the SDLP.
Conor-
“The PSNI/RUC are a political police force.”
Ruane-
“In the coming months Sinn Féin plans to set up similar (CRJ) schemes throughout South Down in order to offer a viable alternative to the PSNI.”
Rather strange that SF would complain about ‘Political Policing’ (without evidence of any political influence on the PSNI), and then set about establishing an alternative which, by their own admission, is being set up by a political party i.e. themselves.
They basically want to replace a police force which they claim is politically motivated, with one which by design has direct political links.
I know which one I would describe as ‘political policing’.
Sorry conor, but the fact that you believe someone was being insulting by referring to Roman Catholics says all I need to know about how much you think before you speak, and betrays more than a little prejudice. 2nd and 3rd bullet-points
Willowfield has done a good job in pointing out the holes in your argument (where there is one beyond unfounded allegations) and you respond by insulting him.
“The people and the system and the effects of that collusion are still here!!! “
So why did Sinn Fein/SDLP ask for so many changes to the police? Talk about moving the goal posts.
All,
I’ve had several emails recently complaining about the degree of mud slinging recently.
CS, I’m surprised at you. Everyone (bar none) on this site picks and chooses what questions they answer. They are entitled to make those decisions without be ostracised for it.
To the rest, just try to get back to substance.
Sorry Mick, I was a bit out of order there.
El Matador, that point about CRJ actually being “political policing” is an obvious one, but it didn’t occur to me until you put it so succinctly.
“why do those promoting the CRJ system think it is a good idea?”
McGrath:
You work it out.
Why would paramilitary organizations think that a separate ‘justice’ system controlled by the paramilitaries is a good idea?
Hmmmmmm?
It really isn’t that hard a question.
Harpo.
Actually, I don’t think it is such an easy question to answer. Sure, on the surface it seems obvious, but once you get into the ramifications and longterm effect that are likely to result, I can’t for the life of me see what Sinn Fein has to gain from these structures.
So, we’re left to conclude that even though it seems obvious this will be a disaster for the political side of republicanism, it is still something the physical force side of republicanism wants to pursue.
Which begs the question, who is in charge here exactly?
Comrade Stalin
I am unaware how you conclude that I would find loyalist violence different in any way or less reprehensible than Republican violence. I am opposed implacably to criminality in any form.
I am aware that north and south, both governments and police forces have in the past been guilty of debasing the moral coinage and the judicial system in both jurisdictions. Any departure from proper policing methods,any attempt by the state to use any means other than the law to bring criminals to justice is merely to descend to the level of the terrorist.I believed that in 1968 and I believe it now.We have had forty years of that approach and it only makes the problems of achieving Peace exponentially more difficult.
We must all oppose any attempt to put terrorists or former terrorists in the policing system in any form.Community Restorative Justice schemes are a major threat to the future stability of our society and will not be restricted in their effects to Northern Ireland alone.
The CRJ system is part of the continuation of the struggle to achieve the failed Republican dream and the means by which Loyalist and Republicans will seek to maintain effective control of their areas with the Police excluded.
I can think of no greater threat to those who live in deprived or working class communities. It is as if in a school the disciplinary function was handed over to the thugs and bullies. I cannot understand how any democrat could support these schemes. Nor can I forgive those in this or previous police services/forces who engaged or would engage in collusion and state violence and murder have undermined our society and continue to do so.
We want a better future for all in our community.A Peace Process that seeks through using a metamorphosed IRA to achieve Republican victory rather than an agreed solution to our problems is likely to destroy any chance of a responsibility sharing Assembly.
We really need to take a reality check if we want a society with a separate policing system.
Those supporting CRJ schemes are not going to solve our problems.
The former army side of things might like to keep their options open, or at least know what their options are. So they would like to have a good handle on what youth in their areas are up to, both in terms of controlling dissidents criminal or parapolitical, and to have a good idea of what talent may exist for any regrettably ‘necessary’ resumption of violence and disruption.
A shortage of firearms need not be an obstacle to effective disruption of economic or political life. Territorial aggression, arson, vandalism, sectarian provocation, and economic crimes are all options carrying less risks than armed insurrection. Options that could be supported in practice by official street vigilantes or ‘justice workers’, by ignoring certain offences or particular offenders, or by simply understanding their community’s frustrations ‘too well’.
There may well be private ‘off the books’ agreements that mean the British will proceed with ‘CRJ’ despite the risks, unless Paisley, Adams et al negotiate CRJ away in public.
I’d bet on CRJ, and more taxes as an attempt to wake the garden centre prods from their slumber.
Maybe what we need is some ‘Anti Political Behaviour Orders’ for delinquent politicians, with offenders made to fix broken windows and scrub off scorch damage. That could put the twin leaders of the global Axis of Unbelievable in the dock though, so that won’t happen.