Cameron’s decision on Finucane case insults family, betrays us all
When a lawyer is murdered in any country, it should be a matter of great public concern, seen rightly as an attack on the entire legal system.
When there is clear evidence pointing towards the collusion of a range of agents of the State in that murder, then the mood should become one of national outrage.
When the killing, alleged collusion and cover-up is happening not in Latin America or Russia, but within the UK, then one might expect that the response of the democratically-elected government would be to investigate quickly and thoroughly and root out any and all State agents who have infected the system with murder.
Tragically, that would be an expectation not borne out by the actions of successive governments over the last twenty-plus years.
Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision, announced today to the family, to reject an effective, independent, public inquiry into the events surrounding the murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane should therefore, perhaps, come as no surprise. For he is only following the example set by previous UK governments, Conservative and Labour, in preferring to avoid the scrutiny that such a proper investigation would bring.
The Finucane family have been cruelly left to twist in the wind, having been strung along by Secretary of State Owen Paterson for the last year. His public utterances, suggesting that he would be offering inquiry proposals satisfactory to the Finucane family, led to reports that the UK government was prepared to offer a Baha Mousa-style Inquiry, held under the Inquiries Act 2005, but with assurances not to use the iniquitous powers reserved to Ministers to withhold evidence from the hearings.
Instead, the knife was twisted a little further today, with Cameron and Paterson instead announcing a toothless review of the case files by eminent QC (and ‘loyal Conservative’, according to Conor Burns MP, once of this parish) Sir Desmond DeSilva.
The decision was rightly branded an “insult” by Mr Finucane’s widow, Geraldine, who has conducted her decades-long campaign for justice with remarkable dignity and forebearance.
But it is more than an insult to a widow. It is a profound betrayal of every single one of us who have long held onto a belief in justice and the rule of law.
(For those who need a refresher in this too-long-running saga, there’s some background to the case here, courtesy of Amnesty and some more, courtesy of the BBC’s Mark Devenport, here.)
Topic: Government, Politics, Society and Culture
Region: Northern Ireland, UK
For some here:
The suggestion that Finucane was in the IRA is rebuffed because of the lack of “evidence” despite sources who were in the IRA saying he was and the well documented facts that other close family members were.
But when the suggestion is that Police or others were possibly involved? Forget the same standard for evidence above and go straight for an inquiry that will achieve little and cost a fortune.
I do despair at the thickness of some people on this site sometimes.
As mentioned earlier, do you want to keep living in the past, dredging through decades old crimes at a cost of millions or do you want to man up, move up and try to sort out this shit hole of a country?
The suggestion that Finucane was in the IRA is rebuffed because of the lack of “evidence” despite sources who were in the IRA saying he was
Only one “source” says he was in the IRA, and that source does not have a record of being reliable.
By this measure there are several “sources” who claim that unionist politicians and business leaders set up a “committee” charged with targetting and assassinating Catholic civilians.
We need a better standard of proof rather than taking our cue from any given source just because it suits us.
and the well documented facts that other close family members were.
Given that we seem to be content with the guilt by association, what does that say about the DUP given that one of its election candidates has just been arrested and charged in connection with a pipe bomb attack ?
Limerick:
I’ve seen people here argue that the UVF was set up by unionist politicians
You’re lying, again. Nobody has claimed the UVF was set up by unionist politicians. Several of us have claimed that there are links between unionism and loyalist paramilitarism.
on the ‘evidence’ that Gusty Spence said they were. I’ve seen ‘evidence’ that David Ervine knew the colour of unionist politician’s wall paper because he said so. If we are now saying that evidence must be of courtroom standard then can we at least apply the rule equally across the board?
Yes. I said that the claim with regard to O’Callaghan needs to be backed up with solid corroborating evidence. You have yet to present any.
There is a great deal of solid corroborating evidence with respect to the links between unionist politicians and loyalist paramilitaries :
- the UWC strike, which succeeded due to UDA and UVF roadblocks and intimidation and which no unionist politician will condemn
- the Paisley-run strike in 1978, where Paisley appeared in public with the leader of the UDA Andy Tyrie;
- here’s video footage of Ian Paisley voicing his approval of people taking the law into their own hands
- unionist politicians repeatedly electing people linked to the UDA and UVF to ceremonial posts in various local councils
- just yesterday, a DUP election candidate has been arrested for a pipe bomb attack
- one of the DUP’s East Belfast MLAs is a former member of the UVF
- a former DUP Mayor of Larne was a former UVF prisoner and convicted terrorist
- here’s an article with a picture showing Billy Wright and Willie McCrea on a podium
- the total absence of any kind of serious call from unionist politicians that the police or authorities take any kind of action against loyalist paramilitaries. Here’s a news article where Nigel Dodds criticizes the police for raiding a UDA bar in North Belfast.
So the playing field is entirely level here – if you are going to make claims it is imcumbent upon you to provide the evidence. Otherwise you are simply spreading lies.
Stalin,
It has been claimed that there is no evidence that Finucane was in the IRA, but that simply is not true. To summarise.
The former Commanding Officer of Southern Command PIRA says that he was.
He comes from a strongly PIRA family and his brothers were either killed or imprisoned in the course of PIRA activities. If he was not PIRA he was therefore something of an anomaly.
A former catholic policeman says that he described himself as ‘an active republican’.
Members of his family attended the Provo Tirghrah event for dead PIRA members.
At least one son has felt perfectly comfortable with carrying on the family tradition by preaching the praises of a dead Provo.
Now you can add all of that up mand still conclude that he was not PIRA, but you cannot state that there is no evidence that he was. If he wasn’t PIRA of course you would also have to ask yourself why the state ‘colluded’ in getting him murdered? It seems, if we believe the hype, that the state spent a lot of time colluding in the murders of apparently innocent people.
The other thing that you need to grasp is that it is perfectly possible to believe that he was PIRA without condoning his murder. I do condem,n it, but I do not buy into the theory that he was some sort of Atticus Finch type character who was done to death by the evil Brits because of his outstanding ‘Human Rights’ work.
Limerick,
No-one is saying there is no evidence. This is a straw man. We are saying the evidence is very weak and the evidence to the contrary is far stronger. CS’s comparison to The Committee is well made. Both examples of conspiracies which people choose to believe not because of the strength of the evidence but simply because it chimes with their prejudices. You must at least accept that your position is faith, rather than evidence, based
Jimmy,
My position is simply that I do not rule out the possibility that Finucane was PIRA. I haven’t said that he was. I have simply put forward some of the evidence which suggests that it can’t be ruled out.
The most puzzling thing for me is that the people who insist that the British state had him assassinated are the same people who are adamant that snow wouldn’t have melted in his mouth. That seems a bizarre position to me.
Not really. As I say it’s a matter of evidence and being open to change your mind. I certainly did after reading Cory. I was horrified by it.
Limerick,
I’ve never tried to say that he is some sort of Atticus Finch.
The former Commanding Officer of Southern Command PIRA says that he was.
The credibility of that source is highly tenuous. As I have said repeatedly.
He comes from a strongly PIRA family and his brothers were either killed or imprisoned in the course of PIRA activities. If he was not PIRA he was therefore something of an anomaly.
He’s already an anomaly given that he chose to stay at school and become a solicitor. It is/was relatively rare (although not impossible) for people with professional standing and a career to become active in the IRA.
A former catholic policeman says that he described himself as ‘an active republican’.
That is not the same thing as being an IRA man.
Members of his family attended the Provo Tirghrah event for dead PIRA members.
Yes, we explored this one. You speculated, without any supporting evidence, that the dead PIRA member in question must have been Pat and not one of his brothers because it was reserved for close family members.
At least one son has felt perfectly comfortable with carrying on the family tradition by preaching the praises of a dead Provo.
I’d say the majority of people who support and/or sympathize with the Provos did not have parents who were active IRA men.
My position is simply that I do not rule out the possibility that Finucane was PIRA. I haven’t said that he was.
Actually, a couple of days ago you quite pointedly said that he was in the IRA. So you are rowing back from your original, unsupportable position.
The most puzzling thing for me is that the people who insist that the British state had him assassinated are the same people who are adamant that snow wouldn’t have melted in his mouth. That seems a bizarre position to me.
It seems like a completely normal and consistent position to me if you are a person arguing that the British murdered a completely innocent person ?
“As I say it’s a matter of evidence and being open to change your mind. I certainly did after reading Cory. I was horrified by it.”
How and why was Cory chosen to do a job that he appears to have been very poorly qualified for? Was he willing to go along with a narrative written by London and Dublin as they strove to further develop and consolidate the ‘peace process’?
If agents are not adequately controlled and prohibited from committing criminal acts they will increase, not decrease, the level of homicidal violence.
London and Dublin ‘agents’ were double-agents; they took their orders from the states and from the paramilitaries. Had they acted exclusively for the states they would have been of no use to the state, they would have been eliminated by the paramilitaries.
When the agents of the states (Ministers, intelligence services, etc) allow paramilitary operations to proceed, even in the hope that the risk to life can be minimised, then the tragic outcome can be an Omagh bombing. If that operation had been stymied at Kilcock, Co Kildare, the paramilitaries could have accessed bomb materials elsewhere.
The sectarian actions of the likes of Paisley and Hume set the mobs at each others throats so they too bear some responsibility for the increase in homicidal violence. When Dublin did a runner in the late 60s it ensured that most of the victims would be in Northern Ireland.
Ah Nevin/UTC i see you are still trotting out the same old rubbish comparing Hume with Paisley. Just how were Humes actions sectarian?