“This is the reality of the situation..”
Sinn Féin refused to attend the announcement of an interim report by the Consultative Group on the Past in Belfast today – the full report is expected in the summer. The BBC report picks up on Co-Chairman Lord Eames’ comments, “We cannot ignore that, in fact, the state sometimes acted illegally. If we are to move out of the past in a healthy way then the state itself needs to acknowledge its full and complex role in the last 40 years.” and Co-Chairman Denis Bradley’s, “The scale of the use of informers throughout the conflict corroded the fabric of our communities and the constant pressure now exerted for information about informers to be revealed only serves to further undermine the well being of communities to a degree that could be poisonous. Would the republican community like to have to tell an ageing mother that her martyred son was actually an informer? That is what full disclosure could mean.” Of more concern might be those who are still alive.. We already know what the Police Ombudsman thinks about “drawing a line under the past..” And it’s been suggested that Sinn Féin and the DUP intend to rely on their four Victims Commissioners to deal with those poisonous foundations. Adds Full text of the speech here.
And from the Consultative Group’s press release
Denis Bradley said, “Many people have put their faith in the Criminal Justice system delivering for them. Even while knowing people would only serve a maximum of two years under the early release scheme, it was important for them that justice was seen to be done. We sympathize with this desire for justice.
“However it is difficult for us not to listen to those experts who are telling us that the reality is that as each day passes securing justice becomes less and less likely. In many historic cases witnesses have died, exhibits are no longer credible or have disintegrated over time. This is the reality of the situation.”
And also
In his closing remarks Denis Bradley said, “As a group we are committed to addressing the legacy of the past in a way that will promote a greater goal of reconciliation within and between our people. We recognise that reconciliation remains an elusive and contested concept.
“For some of us this will mean being reconciled to the fact that our future is together, that we do share the land and its resources and a common sense of belonging to this place.
“For all of us it will mean bringing a new measure of common purpose reflected in greater cohesion, sharing and integration in our communities. We have no choice. There is no better future without a shared future; there is no shared future without reconciliation.”
Time then to undermine those old certainties..
Adds The full text of the speech addresses a wide range of groups and organisations but this, in particular, stood out.
In all our consultations it is unclear if Republicans truly appreciate the depth of hurt that exists in the Unionist community.
Republicans claimed they were targeting State forces in the guise of RUC/UDR members. Unionist communities, particularly in rural border areas, saw such tactics as deliberately killing fathers and eldest, or only, sons to drive Protestants from their homes and land. We have heard many stories from these communities who describe their experiences in this way – as at best raw sectarianism and at worst ethnic cleansing.
They believe Republicans have not come to fully understand the hurt that still exists and they need to acknowledge and appreciate the damage they did to the prospect of reconciliation between our two communities.
Indeed if the aim of the Republican struggle was to unite Catholic, Protestant and Dissenter, the brutal logic of their violence undermined this aim. The reality of the depth of division that has been caused between neighbours – who now need to share the future, needs to be acknowledged. Regardless of the uniform, the cause, countrymen killed fellow countrymen. While we realize Republicans have embarked on a process to address some of these issues we believe more needs to be done – apologizing to non-combatants just isn’t good enough.
Susan.
Thank you for that post, whilst I share your opinions I do not have the power to articulate them is such a clear and concise manner.
susan,
Interestingly criticism from you is something I take seriously. Indeed and I apologise to TAFAKBO for calling him a nationalist though I did not intend so to do (not that I regard nationalist or non violent republican as insults but you know what I mean).
I will say at the outset that I am appalled by all the deaths here. I do genuinely wish that Bobby Sands and Miaread Farrell and indeed Lenny Murphy were with us today. I know enough of and have seen enough of violent death (though thankfully not in my immediate family circle) to wish it on no one and to celebrate it for no one.
I admit to becoming quite angry over the victims issue and especially over Eames Bradley.
What annoys me about Eames Bradley is that I believe it to be a process set up by the government in order to come to a pretty likely conclusion. I do not think Eames Bradley et al. have been told what to find but I agree whole heartedly with Dave that the government chose carefully in order to be sure what the end result would be.
In terms of the troubles there are so many versions of the truth. I think that dreadful word narrative is needed here.
My narrative (ie what I really believe with all my heart) is that there was a problem here in NI. Violence was wickedly started by Loyalists, chaos ensued and some equally wicked republicans started killing people as well. Both of these sides used murder, sectarianism and ethnic cleansing. I guess the republican terrorists were just better at it for most of the time. I believe (truly) that the agents of the state (police army etc.) tried to stop the violence. I believe they made plenty of honest mistakes. I also believe that a few of them colluded. That appals me and makes me ashamed but I truly believe that it was a small minority.
I am sure you have a different narrative. That is a belief as unshakable as mine as to what happened. From memory you are a fairly moderate republican (apologies if I am wrong) and as such there will be nationalist / republican narratives more and less hard line than yours. The narratives also depend on where we were all brought up etc. I am sure TAFAKBO has a narrative: most likely a more moderate unionist one than mine.
The problem is that whatever happens Eames Bradley (who seem to have made a good stab at including everyone’s analysis) will be cherry picked. Also some republicans will claim that Eames Bradley did not have enough access to the information about collusion or did not reveal it all. Unionists will complain that the IRA did not properly participate. As such we will all argue about their report. That will stoke bitterness.
Even if the British government revealed absolutely everything: would republicans believe it was everything? Would they claim that some of the informers were actually invented to blacken people’s names.? If every one of the supposed informers and more were confirmed would republicans accept it? If the government explained what crimes informers had committed would republicans believe them? Would unionists not demand prosecutions?
All these questions can be asked in reverse about collusion and about loyalist terrorists.
If all the British government files were opened unionists would complain that the IRA had not done the same nor the Irish government: it just goes on and on.
The whole process is flawed because (and here is the nub of my disagreement with Pete Baker on this) these things cannot be discussed dispassionately because they detail the deaths of people here: of friends, relatives etc.
Indeed there are examples where we know lots of facts (maybe even all the facts) but will never know the answer. As an example take Farrell’s death: we know who shot her and when, where, how often, even what firearm was used. Now was that an unfortunately necessary act to stop her possibly detonating a bomb or was it a state sanctioned execution? I suspect you and I could be taken to the scene: interview all the relevant people at length and still come up with different conclusions.
Take the murder of Douglas Deering: we know he was a shop keeper in Rosslea. We know who shot him (the IRA). Now was that unfortunate but right in the context of the “war” (some will no doubt think so). Was that wrong but an abberation by the IRA who did not do sectarian ethnic cleansing or was that an example of sectarian ethnic cleansing. I am sure there are people on all sides of that one and certainly there seem to be people willing to defend either of the latter two positions on here.
contd
Maybe in many, many years there will be a unified history of the troubles but I very much doubt it. If I did a blog on Cromwell in Ireland there would be a very sharp disagreement: that was well over 300 years ago.
I do believe that Eames and Bradley should have known before and certainly should have worked out by now that this process will not produce the truth and it will not produce reconciliation. As such I do believe that Eames and Bradley should never have started their work and having committed the folly of starting it they should have stopped it and should now say that the report will merely stoke bitterness. If they cannot see this they are in my view either extremely foolish or Dave is correct and they are government stooges or (and I am sorry if this is man playing) they are too proud to admit that their process is utterly flawed.
Turgon.
No apology necessary, and like you, I dont think being mistaken for a nationalist is anything to be insulted about.
As for where I was brought up, it was a hardline loyalist estate, those of us who were never involved with paramilitaries were a tiny minority.
One other thing I would say to your post is that I don’t feel it’s helpful to start accusing epople of being wicked, it makes it far too easy to dismiss someone, when we should be listening to them, even if we don’t agree.
Turgon,
The passions not only can be put to rational test, it is impossinle for a human not to moderate his instinctive, implulsive reactions with a level of critical self-interrogation. That is precisely what makes us human.
There is no level of intensity at which this becomes invalid – that is why we do not recognise ‘crimes of passion.’ Nor should we proceed on an irrational basis because emotions remain highly pitched.
The unfortunate consequence, if you are wrong on this “nub” is you would have to justify:
Your personal attacks on Eames and Bradley, your cherry-picked case-studies of the Group’s divisive nature and why Eames and Bradley should be held responsible for those who will not be contented by any realistic portrayal – those who are really provoking ‘divisiveness’.
and also:
“this process will not produce the truth and it will not produce reconciliation”.
Mr. O’Loan,
Look at the posts on slugger albeit a pretty self selected group. Look at the media reports of the group’s meetings, look at the comments on the group’s web site.
Do you really think those meetings were examples of a “healing” process? I suggest they were exmples of a raw wound being poked about with and some salt being rubbed into it.
My attacks on the group have been pretty widely mirrored by others in the unionist community some very hard line some less so. The group has also been attacked by republicans.
One might suggest that if Eames Bradley annoys both sides they are doing something right. In this case, however, I think that is well wide of the mark. They are annoying many people and I do believe that that will increase bitterness and division.
In terms of a “realistic” portrayal you miss my point about narratives. I believe my narrative as assuredly as TAFAKBO does his, as you do yours, as say Sammy Morse does, as Sammy McNally does, as open supporters of the IRA do.
In terms of reconciliation I can only say that I have seen absolutely no sign of it helping in media comments, people’s comments when interviewed, on the Eames Bradley web site. Indeed although my own experience is clearly partial and limited no one I have met either victim or non victim has any time for this process. The victim I know best (the most godly woman I know incidentally) just gives a hollow laugh and rolls her eyes: just one example of course but I have met no one who has enthuasim for this process. Maybe I am meeting only selected people but on this I can only speak from experience and that is my experience.
Turgon
“Maybe I am meeting only selected people but on this I can only speak from experience and that is my experience.”
Indeed.
There is no problem with you doing this.
The problem arises, in terms of discussion on Slugger, when you label others ["stupid", "too fond of the limelight"] purely on the basis that they do not share your position.
I, and I believe Patrick, take the position that not only is a process “to confront and interrogate the past and maximise the scope for justice” possible, but it is also necessary.
My own position is also that it is better to do that as soon as possible – Short term pain for long term gain.
“The poison accumulates in the system.”
What the Eames/Bradley group eventually propose may not meet that objective fully, but they are the ones who have been tasked with the investigation into what those other, self-interested, parties will accede to at this time.
Complain about their approach, if you must, but it is necessary.
If they come up short then criticise them, and blame those other self-interested parties, on the basis of what they propose. The Eames/Bradley group are right, though, about the limitations of the criminal justice system in the circumstances.
But, as I said, the sooner the better.
Pete,
That is fine. You feel the process is necessary. I regard it as pernicious. You are of course entitiled to your position and indeed to state it. I am also entitiled to my position and indeed to state it.
I note that you have stopped telling us about the need for “rational argument” have you come to understand that this is an emotive subject. To try to assess it “rationally” is utter folly. People are not merely rational beings, they also have emotions: those emotions are every bit as valid as the rational parts of them.
I also see that no one have yet addressed with the simple fact that many do not believe that reconciliation can occur without repentance. That is not merely a Fundamentalist Protestant position. I have heard plenty of Roman Catholics and non religious people insist that “repenting” or turning away from the deeds of the past is required first.
You believe that this process should be done and as soon as possible. I dissent from this process. I regard it as inconceivable that the Eames Bradley process will produce all the truth and that everyone will agree how much of the truth they have produced.
I believe this process should never have been set up, that it was set up to further a specific political agenda set by the government and that it has stoked division.
You have challenged me to produce evidence of the negative effects of this process and I have done so. That evidence is in the accounts of the meetings the group have had. It is also on their web site.
In terms of my views of Eames and Bradley’s motives. Well I have been critical of the motives of many people. In a blog yesterday I criticised and questioned Dr. Paisley’s motives for going into government with SF. I frequently question republicans’ motives. I seem to remember you talking about a half truth process in terms of Gerry Adams’s interest in The March for Truth.
Why is it unacceptable to question Eames and Bradley’s motives? I think the division and difficulties which this process has created along with the rows that centred around its inception would make it legitimate to question everything about it. I thought we as bloggers did not bow down to accepted wisdom but questioned those in authority. I might with the tongue only a little in the cheek marvel at your acceptance of the motives and sense of two supernaturalists running this process.
Turgon
“I note that you have stopped telling us about the need for “rational argument” have you come to understand that this is an emotive subject. To try to assess it “rationally” is utter folly. People are not merely rational beings, they also have emotions: those emotions are every bit as valid as the rational parts of them. ”
You have missed the point.
My reference to “rational argument” relates to the discussion on Slugger, not the actions of individuals.
To quote A. C. Grayling
“I also see that no one have yet addressed with the simple fact that many do not believe that reconciliation can occur without repentance.”
Re-read the extract from the Eames/Bradley speech that I posted in the original post – “apologizing to non-combatants just isn’t good enough.”
“I believe this process should never have been set up..”
I believe that the objective is necessary.
We disagree.
“You have challenged me to produce evidence of the negative effects of this process and I have done so.”
It was a challenge to produce evidence of your claims about the motives of those involved.
“I seem to remember you talking about a half truth process in terms of Gerry Adams’s interest in The March for Truth.”
The key point being to evidence examples of those whom you are criticising differing in their approach.
We could go on, no doubt.
The point being – try and focus on the arguments and what evidence is available. Not your assumptions of others’ motivation.
“I thought we as bloggers did not bow down to accepted wisdom but questioned those in authority.”
Fine, as long as those questions are based on a solid foundation.
Turgon,
was thinking about your theory of Depravity; and found a popular resource, its in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas:
“There’s nothing so depraved as a man on an ether binge”. Hope that cheers you up.
If not pop down the chemists for a 100ml of Ether and give it a go
There’s a technique to it like sniffing glue!
Turgs
>>I will say at the outset that I am appalled by all the deaths here. I do genuinely wish that Bobby Sands and Miaread Farrell and indeed Lenny Murphy were with us today.<<
This about sums up your contribution on this thread, a telling comparison. At times the totality of your jaundiced views simply staggers. You fight the fight, but it is not the good one.
Thread after thread screams out denial Turgs.
Turgon,
You’re right that you’re not the only unionist to oppose this group. Indeed it has its detractors on all sides. But many are motivated by a desire to bury their crimes or knowledge once and for all. Others, like yourself, are operating from the premisses that it is in the wider interest not to fully disclose information on our past, and that the wider interest over-rules those affected individuals’ right to justice.
Where you can and must apply rational criteria is, among other areas, in justifying these premisses. The second, in particular, runs contrary to the jurisprudence underpinning all Western judicial systems, in theory if not in practice – including, presumably, that of the theoretical Republic the PIRA, and SF, pursued. Briefly, no, the citizen’s right to justice is without caveat. The first you have yet to justify – it can’t be simply presumed. I would say this is the “nub” of the disagreement. But still you would be bound to justify your personal attacks, your interpretation of the group’s divisiveness (and I’m perhaps a little more sceptical than you are regarding the News Letter, or the Andersonstown News), why the Group are responsible for disagreement and why disagreement is intrinsically a bad, not positive, thing.
Apologies there Turgs, probably more man than ball. However my tongue is all bitten through. Thread after thread is the same narrative.
The truth will in the main out, and even those like yourself will eventually be the better for it.
Is the analysis of Eames and co not sectarian? eg talk of Republicans not grasping how they have hurt unionists: what about the hurt of people who do not consider themselves unionists? Many Catholics in the heartlands were opposed to physical force methods – do Republicans understand how they have hurt them?
I do however think we will have reached a turning point when unionist politicans accept that the arm of the state carried out wrong actions as well as paramilitaries.
Patrick: I am surprised at your contribution given that Amnesty lost the moral high ground in many peoples eyes by its policy during the troubles not to campaign on punishment beatings. Nowadays ofcourse it campaigns in NI on domestic violence etc and now on the past. Consistent or what?
Let me make it clear however that I support and admire the leadership and courage of Amnesty in its work beyond NI.
Steve-o and TAFKABO, my sincere thanks. I may be concise, TAFKABO, but if I had half your tenacity I’d be better equipped to “teach ‘em what they don’t know how,” to quote Johnny Cash.
Granni T, if you have not yet had the chance to do so, it is well worth reading the entire text of the full Eames/Bradley speech. It’s both more nuanced and encompassing than I expected, and worth taking the time it takes to read, at the very least out of respect for the many victims who did devote time and emotion to sharing their experiences with the Group.
Turgon, I’m disappointed in your post, although I truly appreciate the time and thought you spent in your considered response. I understand and I share many of your concerns that the Consultative Group may be handicapped from start to finish by who will talk to them and who will not, and by limits that may be imposed by we know not who on how much truth will be brought to public scrutiny.
I am struggling, however, with your stubborn insistence on linking the condemnation of collusion to personal prejudices. People of all political persuasions, and none, can condemn paramilitary violence and express human sympathy for its victims. Increasingly, as contributions to this thread show, the same cross-community understanding is emerging of the anti-democratic damage done both to society and to victims by collusion.
Had you referenced even one talking point from the findings of the Stevens Inquiry, the Ombudsman’s report on the activities of Mark Haddock and co., Jonty Brown’s revelations, or indeed any of the credible, verifiable reporting across a broad spectrum of media, it would have reassured me that you really do feel as much for the continuing anguish of collusion’s victims, and their families as you clearly do for the victims of paramilitary violence. Use the search engine of your own beloved Impartial Reporter (I subscribe, too) and read up on the long ordeals of the families of slain Nationalist councillor Patsy Kelly, or Seamus Ludlow, or the Reavey brothers, just to name a few.
Please don’t imagine you have any idea what my participation would be in a discussion we are not having on the death of Mairéad Farrell. Whether consciously or no, by saying you condemn “all” deaths but then immediately naming only possibly the three most controversial combatants of the entire conflict — (well, actually, I believe we do have consensus on Lenny Murphy, don’t we?) — you appear to be clinging to the nonsense that only those who willingly chose to take up arms suffered because of collusion, or because of excessive or illegal use of force by the security forces. It is not so.
As Brian Rowan wrote in the Telegraph two days ago,
“The speech by the co-chairs of the Consultative Group gives us some idea of what they are trying to achieve as they move towards making their report this autumn.
They want not just the IRA and the loyalists to say sorry — but have challenged the State to do the same for those times when it acted outside the law.
The context given in the Eames/Bradley commentary was not one of goodies and baddies, and of a piggy in the middle trying to keep warring tribes apart.
It was more thinking than that — more challenging, more credible in its analysis.
And for all its hard truth, it was worth saying and had to be said.”
GT: just because there was no specific campaign from Amnesty on so-called ‘punishment beatings’, does not mean that we did not criticise these and other paramilitary acts (we did and do, where similar events occur around the world). I can assure you that such brutality is utterly at odds with our vision of a world where everyone enjoys their human rights.
Anyway, thanks for your fulsome endorsement of our work internationally!
The British government will ignore Eames & Bradley just like they ignored Cory, swept the Stephens Report under the carpet and fitted up Stalker. They do not have an iota of conscience and will never come clean about their multitudinous crimes.