Thursday, June 07, 2007
Bypassing the 20th Century - redux
In contrast to those of us who want to see with greater clarity what has gone on here some, in this case the Sinn Féin MLA, and member of the Policing Board, Martina Anderson [and SF’s Director of Unionist Outreach - Ed] would prefer us to not just ignore what we already know.. but to, in effect, forget it ever happened. As I said before - The 20th Century risks being a closed, and sealed, book with only précises of selected chapters being made available.
Pete Baker @ 10:50 AM
Pete sort your writing out! That was the most complicated (or most cryptic?) head to a slugger thread in ages!
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 11:44 AMMoral schizophrenia on a grand sale. In a standard day at work a Shinner can (often correctly) call for investigations into alleged state illegality from 20/30 years ago, but in the same breath accuse those who seek to examine republican activity from the same period of harming the present by digging up the past. This process has hints of a Stalinist purging of history.
Unfortunately I agree that for the greater social good it is probably required that paramilitary convictions shouldn’t be held against candidates for ‘safe’ jobs. But the suggestion that criminal records should be wiped completely is both immoral and a dangerous precedent.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 11:57 AMPerhaps it is time for her to be renamed the Director of Unionist Outrage.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 12:10 PMWhilst I normally agree with Pete on the vital need to understand all that went on during the ‘long war.’ I feel the question of criminal records are a somewhat different matter. Not least because there are a number of jobs that one cannot get if one has a criminal record. There are also a number of nations who refuse to admit people who have certain criminal convictions.
Myself I am in favor of annulling all criminal records dating back to the long war. However this should only be done if it is accompanied by a truth and reconciliation commission. Other wise there is a real danger of airbrushing history.
As to the attitude of employers in general, I feel most would welcome the aforementioned, although it has to be said even with criminal records annulled it would be an extremely stupid employer who looked at a prospective employees CV and did not realize the gap in their work record may well be down to a spell in the Maze/where-ever.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 12:19 PMAre you proposing that the data protected criminal record should be transferred to a public “truth and reconciliation” record Mick?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:12 PMDon’t other nations have a right to know if a perspective visitor has a terrorist conviction?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:19 PMIs Ms Anderson’s job to reach out to unionists, or to piss them off as much as she can?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:28 PMJaffa
Just off the top of my head and this is not something I have not given much thought to, [although I will in the future] I feel it should be considered and I realize this will not go down with many former POWs. But I feel one of the reason many people are failing to support a T@RC is because they feel it will be one sided. i.e. those who worked for the state will be put through the ringer whilst those who fought it will gain all the benefits.Thus if we are ever to get to the bottom of State collusion in criminality, we must understand this attitude, so I see no reason why criminal records cannot some how come under any TRC remit. For example ex POWs could come before a closed session of the commission and submit their application for the annulment of their CR. Maybe people who suffered from the action that led them to jail should also be given an opportunity to attend this hearing to express their feelings about the individuals CR being annulled. As I wrote above this is off the top of my head.
As to other nations being told about convictions, I am totally against it not least because in the Irish context most of these convictions took place more than a decade ago, if not longer. Thus if the ex pow has not re offended in that time I can see no reason why any foreign government should be informed about their past life.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:40 PMEveryone is at it. Even Rev Dr John Dunlop, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (from the Irish Times):
‘He said he would take as an example what happened in the Republic after the civil war. “They closed ranks and said, ‘let’s see if we can get on together’,†he said. It had led to stability. “I would shut down these inquiries straight away,†he said.’
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:41 PMOn the one hand, I think it’s wrong to just suggest we should just forget what has happened in the past and ‘move on’, primarily because those on all sides who have lost a loved one or have been scarred in some other way by the conflict can’t just move on and it would be unfair for society as a whole to effectively sweep them and their experiences under the carpet. I also think that if NI is ever to grow to be a mature society at ease with itself we all have to come to terms with the past.
That said, I think it’s too easy just to characterise those who actively contributed to the violence of the past 40 years as monsters. It’s worth noting that a lot of people who joined paramilitary groups did so when they were teenagers and they should not necessarily continue to be denied entry into law-abiding, ‘normal’ society simply because they made a bad decision when they were at a very impressionable age. I’m not trying to be an apologist for terrorists, I just don’t think that the mistakes someone made in their youth should haunt them forever.
A truth and reconciliation commission is surely the best way forward, that way thw wrongs committed on all sides can be aired in public and perhaps those who seem incapable at the moment of seeing the conflict from any position other than thier own blinkered viewpoint (I’m looking at you SF and DUPers) can come to appreciated that they don’t hold a monopoly on hurt.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 01:51 PMSomehow I think it unlikely that there’d be much reconciliation as the upshot of such a commission - more like the exact polar opposite.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:18 PMOr, for that matter, truth.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:24 PMI agree with Gregory Campbell on this matter. Sinn Fein-IRA wants all the murder, torture and ethnic cleansing they have been involved in to be wiped away as if it never happened.Yet, for example, we have the enquiry about one particular bloody Sunday in Londonderry but no enquiry about the SF-IRA bombing of Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. Who ordered it? Are they now in Government? Is SF-IRA willing to use some of the money they obtained illegally to compensate the families of RUC/UDR/RIR members and the civilians who they murdered? etc etc Martina Anderson and her role within SF-IRA is a sick joke.
From the UTV web site:
‘Mr Campbell, however, criticised the Sinn Fein Assembly member`s call for records to be cleared.“What I am hearing from Martina Anderson is we have been in conflict and we are now moving on, therefore clear the records of paramilitaries who have inflicted great hurt on people and let them get on with their lives,” he said.
“I would be willing to sit down with Martina Anderson if Sinn Fein was to make a genuine restitution to the victims of IRA violence.
“I want to see the colour of their money.
“If they are saying we do recognise what we were involved in caused massive hurt and hardship and if they have tangible proposals in terms of restitution, then I would be prepared to look at it.”’
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:39 PMWhat’s so wrong with airbrushing history?
Seriously, not kidding, honest question. Look at what happened in the aftermath of the civil war in places like Kerry and west Cork. These were places where the most brutal internecine violence took place (c.4000 deaths in just over a year, as opposed to c.3,800 in 30 years here in the north). Faced with the enormity of the horror they had all come through together, people there came to a collective decision that the airbrushing of history was exactly the right thing to do.
Veterans of the civil war on both sides grew into old age and went to their graves, having never passed down to their children the bitterness of the war. There was a kind of conspiracy of silence about it. The effect was that the succeeding generations were protected from the poison of real hate. Within a couple of decades, violence was unthinkable, and the only remnant of the 1922-23 brutality was an antipathy (though not of a state/society/peace-threatening variety) between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
So I ask again (and please, spare me any passive-aggressive bullshit about Stalin) - what’s so wrong with “airbrushing history”?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 03:40 PMPeac and Justice
we have the enquiry about one particular bloody Sunday in Londonderry but no enquiry about the SF-IRA bombing of Enniskillen on Remembrance Sunday. Who ordered it? Are they now in Government? Is SF-IRAWell for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is! If the government can not hold themselves accountable for upholding the laws they enact how can they expect to hold any one else accountable for their laws.
2 the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA. Would you accept that what ever information the IRA supplied was truthfull or complete? And how would you compel them to supply this information? But in the enquiry into Bloody Sunday there are or atleast should be records and testimonials of supposedly truthfull and honourable men? And they can be complelled to testify and government egencies can be compelled to turn over evidence, or atleast the evidence they haven’t destroyed yet
3 SF/IRA is a fanciful construct of delusionalist loyalists in a vain attempt to discredit a political party with views that contrast to their own. SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organism
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:04 PM“Well for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is!”
Martin McGuinness is in government.
“2 the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA.”
Martin McGuinness is in government
“SF/IRA is a fanciful construct of delusionalist loyalists in a vain attempt to discredit a political party with views that contrast to their own. SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organism”
Bollocks
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:21 PM“SF and the PIRA are certainly symbiotic organisations they are not the same organismâ€
Bollocks “
I agree with Emerald Pimp - the trouble is that while SF was originally the political wing of the IRA and essentially a part of it, SF has now outgrown the IRA. Trouble is that the senior members of SF are drawn from the time when the relationship was very close. Time will cull them as the IRA is no longer a pre-requisite for SF membership, and the IRA members must be getting on themselves.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 04:50 PM“I agree with Emerald Pimp - the trouble is that while SF was originally the political...Trouble is that the senior members of SF are drawn from the time when the relationship was very close.”
Did you notice that this process deals with the past?
You’re right that what middle class catholic boys pretending they’re radical think is irrelevant. Nobody’s asking them.
Who selected Enniskillen as a target?
Are they in government?
Why do these deaths not deserve enquiry?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:05 PMUseful Idiot
“Martin McGuinness is in government.”
Yes, but he wasn’t at the time.
Or are you suggesting that the Enniskillen massacre was state terrorism?
But let’s say there was an “inquiry” into the Enniskillen bombing (of course there has already been one - ie the police inquiry that followed that terrible crime.)
How would it work?
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:31 PMUI
“Who selected Enniskillen as a target?”
I mean, who do you propose ask about this? What kind of inquiry would it be? How would you propose it gather information? How would you deal with people who simply denied ever having been involved in any way? I mean, it’d be easy to simply say: “I was never in the IRA, nothing to do with me.” Whereas, for example, we know exactly who did the shooting in the Bogside on Bloody Sunday.
“Are they in government?”
They weren’t at the time, so it wasn’t state-sanctioned. The state does not have to answer for IRA crimes, only its own. The IRA should have to answer for its crimes, and indeed many hundreds, if not thousands, of IRA volunteers have done so. (Many spent decades in prison, unlike soldiers and policemen.) However, how do you go about making the IRA answer for its crimes?
I can understand that it’s frustrating, but how do you hold a public inquiry into the actions of the IRA? How does that work?
“Why do these deaths not deserve enquiry?”
They do, and they were all given police inquiries. Largely unsuccessful enquiries, admittedly, but enquiries nonetheless. A kind of truth came out. “It was the Ra did it.” The hard fact is that a public inquiry would be unlikely to dig up anything beyond that.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:40 PM“What’s so wrong with airbrushing history?”
Billy
In the case of the six county’s I feel the reason it would be wrong to airbrush history is that the main beneficiaries of the Peace Process have been the very people who hold the most responsibility for the human suffering that took place during the long war. Thus it would be nonsensical and very dangerous to leave the judgement of history in such peoples hands.
Who do I mean, The British State and certain institutions within it, plus the Paisleyites and a number of Republican politicians, all of whom carry a great responsibility for igniting, inflaming and prolonging the troubles.
The fact that these three groups are at the fore of the opposition to a Truth and Reconciliation Commission simply reinforces my opinion that it is essential that all good people argue for such a commission. True I may be mistaken in this believe, but if so it is for those who oppose a T@RC to convince me otherwise.
As to whether Enniskillen should fall within the remit of such a commission, of course it should, it was an outrage, not least as it displayed absolute contempt towards fallen warriors, which is not what Óglaigh Na hÉireann is about.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 05:45 PMBe careful of those who try to re-write history.
They must not succeed.
If an attempt is made to erase convictions from records this can be easily prevented.
A register should be prepared and every conviction noted recalling the name of perpetrator , offence, sentence, time spent in jail and brief details of the crime.
This is a factual data base free from opinion or comment----the bare facts to be interpreted by anyone who has an interest in such matters be they historians or Joe Public.
All this information is already in the public domain.Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 07:25 PMEmerald Pimpernel - “Well for 1 thing Bloody Sunday was a government sanctioned event and no matter how much you scream about there being no difference there is!”
So although SF-IRA claim it was a ‘war’, it’s OK to have enquiries about one bloody Sunday in Londonderry, but not another bloody Sunday in Enniskillen. The only conclusion I can draw is that Protestants were murdered in Enniskillen.
Even Mark Durkan keeps going on about the Londonderry bloody Sunday but the SDLP have never asked for an enquiry into the Enniskillen bloody Sunday? Perhaps in the past they were scared of getting murdered by Sinn Fein-IRA. But what about now?
Emerald Pimpernel - “the only ones who could reasonably supply information as to the organization and staffing of these terrorist events is the IRA ... how would you compel them to supply this information?”
Well, there should be no need to compel them. They should do it as part of their so-called Unionist Outreach. For SF-IRA to call it a war and then say you can only trust the British Government to give truthful answers seems absurd! If SF-IRA members in Government are not willing to stand up and tell the truth about their evil deeds, there is no point talking about Unionist Outreach.Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 07:58 PM“But let’s say there was an “inquiry†into the Enniskillen bombing (of course there has already been one - ie the police inquiry that followed that terrible crime.)
How would it work?”
Absolutely no idea. How about a unilateral submission from the Unionist Outreach Officer to get the ball rolling. Why should it be dragged from the sole legitimate government of Ireland? Surely they’d give it up voluntarily to set an example to the Brits.
You mean well Billy but this is a problem of perspective and you’re being unusually one-eyed.
We are simply demanding equality and fairness from each other.
The catholic (let’s not play about with semantics) sees IRA “criminals” pursued for extra-judicial killing and asks “why not the state?”
The protestant sees soldiers and policemen pursued by the public representatives of the IRA and the vote chasing SDLP and asks “why not the IRA?”
That’s it really. The stomach churning, teeth grinding, potentially catholic resenting problem is the hypocrisy of Sinn Fein.
As it always has been.
Straight forward blood-to-the-head incompetent fuck-up as an explanation for Enniskillen is one understandable and even forgiveable (given some sense of remorse) thing.
Psuedo-progressive, 1st class honours Martina Anderson / Mick Hall, class war bullshit justifications for strapping petrol tanks to windows to burn the Collie Club alive is perhaps more than any reasonable person should be asked to swallow.
Better out than in and all that.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 08:27 PMThis latest outing by Martina Anderson seems the same as her last (unionist outreach) viz essentially about her political profile (presumably sanctioned by Shinner HQ). It does show how seriously she (and they) take the previous nonsense about Unionist Outreach. I can think of few better ways of antagonising unionists. Anyone foolish enough to take it seriously last time must surely have the whit to think again (though I am sure they won’t).
Let’s not forget that some of these people got life sentences. Technically they could be brought back to prison so air brushing their crimes out of existence is completely unacceptable. Many of these crimes were among the worst crimes ever committed.
Dev yes if these people behaved in a reasonable fashion after release they can rejoin normal society. Still they have demonstrated a tendancy to violence and inappropriate behaviour that most people from their background did not. You cannot simply ignore this or magic it away. Furthermore where is the evidence they have recogonised that what they did was morally wrong? There must be some jobs etc. that people with a tendancy to violence should be kept away from e.g. I would not want them teaching my children. I also would not want people who committed theft and fraud working in the bank I use just because they were dishonest for some sort of “cause”, presumably they will not have unlearned these “skills”.
Posted by on Jun 07, 2007 @ 09:37 PM
