Friday, November 25, 2005
Durkan: Sinn Fein knew about legislation
From today’s Irish News (subs needed):
SDLP leader Mark Durkan last night claimed that Sinn Fein had previously known that the on the runs legislation would extend to killers within the security forces. “This legislation doesn’t just deny victims justice ... it will deny victims and all of us truth,” Mr Durkan said. “Gerry Adams claims Sinn Fein didn’t know this legislation was going to extend to killers and other criminals who were inside crown forces,” Mr Durkan said. “Sinn Fein did know. They did a calculated trade off. They sold out the relatives that they claimed to be championing.”
Mick Fealty @ 11:37 AM
CS, and after bloody sunday John Hume said “United Ireland or nothing”. the post nationalist, nationalist, republican, ever changing SDLP of later years was and is a different party.
In answer to your question i’m not sure which SDLP member was on the stage at bloody sunday was it Lord Gerry FittPosted by on Nov 26, 2005 @ 06:31 PMThe point is that there is nothing new about the SDLP’s concern for victims of violence in Norrthern Ireland.
As for consistency, supporters of Sinn “not a bullet, not an once” Fein have some quality brass in their necks.
While we’re at it - a few other slices of humble pie the Shinners have had to eat:
* No return to Stormont
* Principle of consent is a unionist veto
* Leinster House is a partitionist parliamentAnd coming soon:
* Join the police os Gerry says so
Posted by on Nov 27, 2005 @ 12:39 PMThe fact that the Finucanes seem to be looking to the SDLP instead of SF these days is perhaps indicative of something…
Anyway, SF knew that the Government was going to do this. They have known it since Weston Park, where, coincidentally, they failed to obtain a full inquiry into Fincance’s death. They seemed wrong-footed by the Inquiries Bill too.
But for SF, negotiating full and open inquiries into State violence was never a ‘dealbreaker’. Despite the rhetoric, I never got the impression it was high on their agenda.
Perhaps SF were worried that such inquiries might open a Pandora’s box on the past activities of some of its leading negotiators.
I get the feeling that SF simply didn’t deal with the issue of State violence in negotiations, in order to more plausibly deny that ‘we know naaathing’.
It’s not an uncommon practice for parties - the UUP washed its hand of OTRs by getting that section of the Joint Declaration stuck in an appendix, then claiming it wasn’t part of the political deal they struck.
Pontius Pilate Politics, if you like.
I’d be interested to know what groups like An Firinne and Relatives for Justice think of the legislation. Not happy, I’d imagine, and their anger would predictably be aimed at the Brits.
But perhaps they also need to ask SF why it was unable to negotiate a deal that ensured that British soldiers or police weren’t held accountable to British law.
That’s why the legislation is as embarrassing to Blair and Hain as it is to McGuinness and Adams. The British Government, through this legislation, has basically admitted the State will not be held accountable under the rule of law for illegal State activity.
In essence, it is an admission by the British State that it engaged in terrorism, since it clearly expects soldiers and police to avail of the legislation. (It should be noted that the Tories have also been guilty of hypocrisy on the issue, having argued that convicted killers should remain in the Army in the past.)
Blair has thus created a moral, political and legal equivalence between State violence and paramilitary terrorism.
By failing to meet their own standards, Blair and Hain could be accused of diminishing democracy. Some people, from republicans seeking justice through the courts right through to the Tories, might well argue that the State should be held accountable to a higher standard than a paramilitary group.
Well, not any more, as Blair has lowered the bar.
From a British point of view, this entire issue has been handled stupidly, insensitively and even though it’s been in the pipeline for years, it looks as though they didn’t think about it for 5 minutes. Maybe they wanted to rush it through before Blair steps down.
There is a reasonable case for allowing OTRs to return, but the way the Government has dealt with the issue has been disastrous.
Incompetency doesn’t even come close.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2005 @ 02:26 PMBelfast Gonzo:
You make a number of interesting points which raise a number of questions.
I wasn’t aware that the Finucanes are looking towards the SDLP for support at the expense of SF but if this indeed the case; I hazard to suggest that this may be because they see SF as a double edged sword. Though their popularity on the ground has been much lauded (mostly by themselves!), they stand alone politically – North and South. Apart from their own die-hard supporters I don’t think anyone really doubts that they were aware of what the full implications of the OTR legislation would be.
SF were accused of raising the Finucane matter at Weston Park but, when told the price they (SF) would have to pay, they abandoned that strand of negotiation.. At the point in time, they could not sell such a deal to the Bhoys in South Armagh.
You are correct in what you say relating to the UUP response to the OTRs. However in washing their hands then, it did let them live to fight another day. Intransigence on the part of the Republican movement at this time surely forced David Trimble in to this corner.
While Gerry et al were looking after their own selfish interests; SF failed to notice that the British government was admitting to involvement with state sponsored terrorism. Why did Gerry allow this to go unchallenged? For the OTR issue to be effective, the Westminster legislation had to be written properly, (and from the point of view of the British Government – it is). Sadly as it stands at the moment it is nothing more than a sham which will allow the government of the hook and SF allowed this to happen.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2005 @ 04:04 PMZorro
long time no see.
I wonder if the IRA/UVF/UFF otrs will club together for the welcome home party, like they co-operated before in terms of passing guns between themselves.
Posted by on Nov 27, 2005 @ 06:39 PMThis legislation benefits members of Sinn Fein with a public profile who do not wish to account for their past actions as members of the IRA.
It benefits huge numbers of IRA activists and supporters who carried out terrorist and preparitory acts without being brought to account. The ‘on the runs’ are only a tiny fragment of this large group.
It also benefits members of the security forces, who, with or without orders, acted outside the letter of the law.
Presumably a smaller number of protestant terrorists also benefit.
Is there much more than this?
It is hard to see victims getting anything out of this process in the short term, and maybe they cannot publicly without arousing all the wrong passions. Should we put the truth in a vault marked ‘closed until 2205’?
Posted by on Nov 28, 2005 @ 05:43 AMBertie –I’m never to far from the Slug!
I wonder if the legislation will let us to see a white flag flying over no-mans land when the Brits and the Provos come together for a game of football. Who wind and how many goals are scored won’t really matter but will there be any points….?
The OTR legislation fails because it is not proportionate. In itself, it would not allow for such a game. Anyone for cricket?
Posted by on Nov 28, 2005 @ 12:44 PM
