|
Mp3 Player |
|
| |  |
| | | | | |
| Research and Policy Unit
|
Decommissioning and the Price of Peace |
|
|
|
Tuesday, 07 October 2008 |
We all know that the people of Northern Ireland have paid an exaggerated price for their so-called peace. To date they the bill has included: the destruction of democracy, the creation of North/South bodies with executive powers, the perversion of justice, the undermining of the rule of law, the destruction of the RUC, the funding of voluntary sector groups which are no more than fronts for ex-prisoners and terrorists, the erosion of the rights to assemble, practice your religion and enjoy your culture and the removal of all vestiges of Britishness.
Or is this an unwritten rule of International terrorism that you cannot just give away a gift you must exchange it for money or other rewards. Would Colonel Gadaffi or the other Islamic fundamentalist IRA backers be offended if the IRA simply handed their guns over. Where will this appeasement end will Sinn Fein/IRA want the Loughgall terrorists dug up and given a state funeral, or perhaps the Colombian Three should be allowed to continue their busman's holiday in South America.
Last week Dr. Reid stated that it is not only the terrorist arsenal that needs removed from the equation but also the terrorist mindset. We believe it is not only weapons that require decommissioning but the mindset of terror that dictates the right to take life in the name of a political cause. If it is the secretary of state's intention to see fear removed, then why is he willing to trade the military installations in south Armagh and elsewhere which have up until now kept the terrorists in check. In south Armagh terrorism is rewarded unlike the current desire to hunt terrorists down which is prevalent in other parts of the world.
We see within the Republican movement areas such as south Armagh, Tyrone, parts of Londonderry and West Belfast that are not happy with the arrangements for decommissioning. These are the areas where it is most important that decommissioning takes place because these are the areas where most of the trouble over the years has emanated from.
Recently the President of the United States signed the warrant for Bin Laden we call for the same dead or alive approach be taken with terrorists in Ireland. In fact the Colombian three ought to be made an example of what the international community is willing to do to stamp out terrorism which is exported from Ireland. Now is the time to choose terrorism or democracy there can be no in between. Terrorists must be hunted down and destroyed wherever they hide whether in the caves of Afghanistan or behind the European convention on Human Rights. The days when terrorists could abuse the rights of others and demand the protection of these rights for themselves is now over.
The news of IRA decommissioning which appears to be able to satisfy the Ulster Unionist Party into a return to sharing power with Sinn Fein has come about as a result of the pressure put out by the current anti-terrorist campaign in the world at large. In order to satisfy the US administration and to avoid the Republican movement's cash flow from drying up it seems they are prepared to concrete over a few bunkers. We feel that before any action is taken in response to decommissioning by the political parties, authentic details must be published by the De Chastelain commission to outline precisely what has taken place.
Since this announcement took place we have seen Ulster Unionist politicians jumping around with joy that this has taken place without any awareness of exactly what has been done. What is more they display the willingness to move full steam ahead without asking any further questions. We demand that a closer look is taken at what the IRA are actually doing and that the security of people along the border is not further compromised by those in government.
Decommissioning - Present Appeasement in Breach of International Standards
“TERRORISTS who are still at large and wanted for offences committed before the Good Friday Agreement will be given an amnesty as part of the Government's response to IRA decommissioning”, John Reid announced on 24.10.01.
Secretary of State – Celtic Supporter
The Northern Ireland Secretary has clearly breached International standards as he set out plans for a "rolling programme of security normalisation", including the end of investigations into past IRA attacks. While the Prime Minister issues threats about hunting down terrorists across the world his side-kick in Northern Ireland issues pardons for some of the most heinous crimes. These outrageous plans fly in the face of advice given of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who warned that it was still too soon to say that the Provisional IRA had forsworn violence for ever.
Reid said the amnesty was necessary to deal with the "difficult legacies of the past". He said: "The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement". However we are at pains to point out that amnesty was never in the Agreement and was never and would never be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. To impose it is a direct attack upon democracy and in clear contravention of the Internationally accepted standards of Justice and Human Rights. As regards his comments on the concession being necessary to deal with the "difficult legacies of the past". This is perhaps the greatest insult the victims have ever received. This more than anything will compound the suffering of the victims who will see the killers of their loved ones go free. Those on the run will return to areas like South Armagh, they will continue their family and business lives while the victims will continue to suffer. This situation will not be allowed to happen we will take any and all measures available to us to ensure that these killers are never allowed to go unpunished.
We are stunned by the insensitivity and sheer extent of the appeasement that the British and Irish governments are willing to engage in to keep the terrorists on board the process. While the Belfast Agreement and its implementation has destroyed democracy in Northern Ireland the current farce threatens to undermine the very rule of law in this country. Our loved ones have given their lives members of our group have lost husbands sons and daughters who went out to defend the rule of law. Now their loss will be in vain as the British government prostitutes itself at the whim of terrorists. Words are not strong enough to convey our disbelief at even the suggestion of such a move.
This dirty deal would justify every foul deed of the murderers; it would sanitise and legalise the killing of ten innocent men at Kingsmills, the slaughter of innocents at Tullyvallen and the murderous attack upon the church at Darkley. Over three thousand of the most callous murders will now be legalised, by the move to grant amnesty. We challenge Tony Blair and the foreign Prime Minister Bertie Ahern to come to our area and to meet the widows and orphans to explain the rationale behind their latest peace deal. The sheer thoughtlessness of these men and their advisors casts a shadow over the memory of our loved ones. If this law is enacted by a British parliament then that day we will be ashamed to call ourselves British.
The British and Irish governments have certain duties and obligations that they would be in breach of if they enacted such measures. Governments are bound to protect the lives of their citizens they do this by placing sanctions on acts that would infringe or remove their citizens rights. They are also obliged to put in place a system of justice that will address human rights abuses within their jurisdiction. Prisoner releases and now the proposal to 'develop' the release scheme so that "prosecutions will not be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year, take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdictions to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued". The very fact that a British or indeed any so-called democratic government would even contemplate let alone put on paper its willingness to allow murderers to go free. This is perhaps the most base act of any British government, to stoop to such levels to secure a false peace is not the act of statesmen but of slaves. To refer to the destruction of justice as resolving a DIFFICULTY is shocking move by any government.
If Great Britain is to remain a liberal democracy which prides itself on justice and human rights then it must not pass an Indemnity Act. To do so would subvert our constitution and erode the very basis for a peaceful society. The application of justice and the principle of equality before the law are basis human rights and signs of democracy and progress. We will oppose any such moves with every resource at our disposal, including taking our cases to Europe. Countries must have in place an effective independent judicial system where citizens can get redress for human rights abuses. This politicisation of the judiciary can only be likened to a Stalinist state. We call upon the government to choose the democrats over the terrorists and to end the craven appeasement of those who murdered their way to the negotiating table. Every day that they continue to force the failed Belfast Agreement upon the people of Northern Ireland is a DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY. At this time Pro-Agreement Parties which have negligible support are negotiating on behalf of a unionist population which is opposed to the Agreement. How long will this charade be allowed to continue, where a mere rump of unionism is allowed to deal on our behalf? The secrecy and the fact that the opinions and preferences of the majority of unionists especially the victims are being ignored means that the present attempts to revive the Assembly have failed before they have started.
This 'legalisation' of the terrorist organisations and their arsenals is being accompanied by the destruction of every legal defence the peaceful majority of Northern Ireland have. The demolition of security installations namely at Newtownhamilton and Camlough will invariably lead to the loss of life in those areas. For anyone to suggest that the threat has diminished in South Armagh is gravely mistaken, sadly the mistakes of politicians today will result in the loss of innocent lives tomorrow. The promises of increased cross border security are as false now as they were when made during the Anglo-Irish Agreements of the 1980s. Rather as we have discovered the Irish Security forces colluded with terrorists in the murder of both British and Irish citizens. We know that the push for amnesty and the promise of inquiries into Gardai collusion are as a result of the pressure we have exerted. However we intend to continue with our vital work, as we have no confidence in any promise of justice stemming from this deal.
In conclusion we place on record our outright rejection of any form of amnesty for terrorists, we are now in a position to commence proceedings against several mass murderers from the South Armagh area who were responsible for scores of murderers. If there is to be true peace then there must be justice. We do not seek recrimination merely justice and equality before the law. We call upon the Trimblite Rump to reject the current deal, and to admit that they cannot properly represent unionism. Then we call upon our politicians to fully engage with the victims and to create and inclusive process, which will lead to a democratic alternative.
Decommissioning - People of Northern Ireland still in Dark about Arms Dumps
While many at this time may be duped by Republican's stunts we the innocent victims do not accept the token ploy of Sinn Fein/IRA. The whole issue of decommissioning is vital to the victims as it was these very guns, and bombs that were used to kill our loved ones. We hope that the people of Northern Ireland will not be so easily fooled as certain Unionist politicians have been. The facts are clear:- that rather than decommissioning Sinn Fein /IRA has used the Peace Process to restock and import new weapons. Republicans are once more playing with the British and certain unionist politicians. When will they learn that they cannot trust the men of violence?
Section of the IRAs vast illegal weaponry
For years the Peace Process has given legitimacy, and credence to the terrorists, however we the people of South Armagh know these terrorists and that they have not changed. The PROVOS of South Armagh will not be decommissioning their weapons. The issue has been blown out of all proportion, no-one knows how many weapons were destroyed, were they even serviceable in the first place, what percentage of the overall arsenal did they represent? Until these questions are answered we will not accept the word of the Commission
When we are asked to trust General de Chastelain whose integrity is supposed to underpin his work, we again have great difficulty. His report on the latest move of the IRA have been taken as a great step forward, on this man rests the future of our country in many ways. The future of any country and the shape of its government, ought to rest with the people as expressed through the ballot box, not upon an unelected unaccountable quango. The role of this and other commissions puts a huge question mark above the very concept of democracy in Northern Ireland. We as democrats believe that decisions such as the verification of decommissioning ought to be taken by democratically elected governments, in line with international standards.
The composition of the Commission is as questionable as its existence. If a commission of this sort is used then it must be fully independent. However one of the commissioners is a member of the ANC a grouping with its own terrorist past and more importantly with close ties with Sinn Fein/IRA. The links between these groups has spanned many decades and the independence of the Commission is therefore jeopardised. Additionally the commission ought to be composed of men of integrity, intelligence and leadership who have an ability to analyse policy, understand situations and with an impeccable military background. With the Canadian General this is not the case, indeed his own Government found that:- "Failure in his duty as Commander as defined by analogy to Queen's Regulations and Orders art. 4.20 and in military custom. Given our findings above concerning the leadership failures of Gen de Chastelain, and in view of the importance of control and supervision within the chain of command, we conclude that Gen de Chastelain failed as a commander."
He was indicted on a number of counts for his failings most notably his "Failure to ensure that a proper policy analysis and comprehensive estimate of the situation were undertaken with respect to Operation Deliverance and, accordingly, failing to provide adequate advice to the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet with respect to these matters. As the CDS, Gen de Chastelain ought to have ensured that a comprehensive estimate of Operation Deliverance requirements, grounded in a thorough policy analysis, was produced and disseminated to all those properly concerned, including, primarily, the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet. He did not do this. Rather, he directed and encouraged Canadian involvement in Operation Deliverance with little more to rely on than an assumption that equated Operation Cordon with Operation Deliverance requirements,…"
These findings are part of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry set up after the disgraceful handling of a Canadian peacekeeping mission to Somalia. In the report the leadership of de Chastelain was questioned and in particular his analysis, which was presented to government, based on nothing more than assumption. Clearly he does not possess the very qualities he is required to possess to fulfil his role at the present time. The judgement of this man cannot and will not be taken, the Commission is a discredited body that has refused to act proactively and failed in its task. They are now clutching at any straw republicans offer.
We ask the government what possible confidence can be placed in a man who has failed his own nation so spectacularly. Yet again Northern Ireland is given those who have failed in their chosen field to parade as experts and international peacemakers. We would also question the integrity of this man, whose military career ended far from honourably. We would also question his closeness to certain republicans, and his lack of background knowledge of the conflict in Northern Ireland which facts further erode his credibility. It is clear that a carefully choreographed political process has been initiated to extricate Sinn Fein/IRA from an internationally embarrassing position. After all it would not bee seemly for the governments' key players to be cast as the international terrorists they are. Therefore a dirty deal has been cobbled together to keep the failed process in place. The role of the British government in this squalid affair is shameful, as Tony Blair pontificates about the International war on Terrorism he is busy appeasing Ulster's 'bin Laden'. While unionist politicians scramble to retake their seats in the executive with Sinn Fein/IRA the innocent victims stand alone - it is clear that as it was during the last thirty years we are the sacrifice. However we will never capitulate to the terrorists and unless we as victims can verify the decommissioning process we can never lend our support to fully armed terrorists in government.
Decommissioning - The Need for Watchtowers in South Armagh
In response to the most recent sop to terrorists we must state our most outright rejection. The further appeasement of terrorism is an affront to not only democracy but the memory of our loved ones. For those who even contemplate accepting this deal we remind them that if they do they will no longer be fit to be called democrats. If they support this deal they will have thrown in their lot with the terrorists. As for the British and Irish governments who proposed and have already agreed to this they can no longer be judged to be democratic states. They are terrorist states akin to Afghanistan. They have purposefully excluded peaceful democratically elected parties and are sponsoring terrorists. They use the threat of terrorism to force the majority to accept the inclusion of terrorists in government.
However after a recent conference on Human Rights, after listening to the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and other Human Rights Organisations it is clear that there are international standards to which government must adhere. The current government has abdicated many of these obligations of governments. For example the duty to protect life will be broken if they remove effective security presence from our area. We have the right to expect the protection of our government, and effective present police force, the freedom and security to live work and socialise where we please. It is a basic human right to live free from fear and intimidation and it is a government's duty to secure these rights by removing the terrorist threat by effective security measures. If they abdicate their responsibility for political expediency we will be forced to take them up under the European convention on Human Rights.
The issue of removing watchtowers and restricting helicopter flights is a clear sop to the IRA of South Armagh. As victims we would like to see normalisation and the removal of the army in South Armagh. We would like to see the removal of the Irish Republican Army and the Real Irish Republican Army and the Continuity Irish Republican Army from the area. We would like to see an end to their watching, surveillance targeting and attacks. We would like to see the police in panda cars travelling the streets of our area, not in helicopters. We would like to see community policing tackling the smuggling, drugs, racketeering and the fraud being carried our by South Armagh farmers and residents. Our aim is to live in a just and equal society where we don't have to fear our neighbours. This is a vision we share with many Catholics in the area too whose communities are being terrorised by republicans, whose children are being corrupted by drugs smuggled by the terrorists. It is these people who cannot speak out because of the fear of the local godfathers who we must speak up for.
Sadly due to the intransigence of the terrorists who are indeed engaged in a continual low-intensity conflict in our area we cannot see further appeasement as the answer. With the continuing activity of the PIRA and their various flags of convenience it is madness to reduce the level of security. If Republicans can bomb London then it is clear that South Armagh is much more likely to be a target if and when they want. As a group of victims we represent the cost the previous governments failed security policies. Our loved ones were left without protection as the government pandered to the republicans in previous cease-fires. History has spelt out the governments' mistakes of the past in the blood of our loved ones.
It was only one Prime Minister who showed the resolve and the ability to tackle terrorism and we would congratulate Margaret Thatcher for her stance on criminalisation and no political status. Her principles stand against terrorism both within prison and without during the hunger strikes is an inspiration to us all. Her other legacy to the security and protection of the minority in South Armagh was the policy of building watchtowers. In order to explain the importance of these installations it is necessary to look at the victims. For example if there had been more watch towers RUC men Breen and Buchanan would still be alive as it was in dead group beyond the view of watch towers that terrorists struck. The level of murders commissioned by gangs who had the free-run of the area was the real reason why towers were and are necessary.
A South Armagh Watch Tower
Other security measures like the Control zone along the border at Cloghogue were necessitated because of the actions of armed terrorists and in particular the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, and also the Hanna family in July 1988. The fact that terrorist can act with impunity and with such freedom and frequency in an area ought to be an affront to any democratic government. The fact that there are areas of their jurisdiction where their security forces cannot, without a massive security operation, patrol is also an affront. In international law governments have a duty of care to their citizens and are obliged to ensure that protection under the law is provided equally to all. This was not adhered to along the border as was demonstrated by an incident where an IRA gang led by the 'Surgeon' kidnapped 5 prison officers and 1 policeman Louis Robinson who they later interrogated and murdered in September 1990. The 42 year old married man had been on extended sick leave and was still murdered despite this and a multitude of pleas from family, churchmen and politicians on both sides of the community. The need for effective monitoring and patrolling of the border to ensure such human rights abuses are not repeated mean that the watchtower must stay. As Toby Harden says in his book Bandit Country "they limit severely Tom Murphy's capacity to mount attacks in much of his domain"
The Government has responsibility of limiting the PROVOS freedom of movement and by so doing protecting the lives of local farmers and residents. The desperate security situation in the area, which continues to this day, was best demonstrated prior to and during the building of the watchtowers. In order to build these on British soil some of the largest mobilisations since D-Day entitled Operation Condor and Operation Magistrate were needed to facilitate the movement of material and men into the area. In the 10 weeks it took to build the base at Crossmaglen there were 5 IRA attacks and indeed the engineers sustained casualties in a mortar attack. The need for these installations was clear after an IRA attack upon an Observation Post at Drummuckavall in 1974 when a 100lb bomb killed Corporal Dennis Leack and Marine John Southern. The need for the towers has been proven by the deaths in the area, and their existence and success has been measurable in the reduction in fatalities in the area. If they are removed there is no doubt that the Republican movement would make the return of their freedom to operate in the murder of innocent victims
Location of Watch Towers in South Armagh
As the government prostitutes itself at the behest of terrorists we call upon them and society in general to remember to men who gave their lives building and manning these towers. To remove these towers to placate the enemy would be a disgrace to the memory of these young British Soldiers who were killed. The governments ought to be putting their memory and the feelings of their families first, rather than the wish-lists of terrorists. For years the IRA have been trying to destroy these vital outposts with gun and bomb, now they have succeeded with pen and persuasion. While the cowards of the IRA could not defeat the British army their apologists have defeated the weak and degenerate British Government. Blair and his assorted misfits should be ashamed to assume the title British government, such dealings in any other country would be defined as treason. In is therefore in memory of the gallant British Soldiers, who were so callously sacrificed by the government; and in testimony to the civilian builders who were targeted in atrocities like Teebane, that we call on the Governments and our own politicians to reverse this policy of appeasement.
As the government in its scramble to appease the terrorists has conveniently forgotten the human cost of building and maintaining the watchtowers we wish to remind them. As they pander to the wishes of those who killed their young soldiers we say to the families thus bereaved we remember you. To those young men who died in this area protecting the lives and liberties of fellow British citizens against political terrorism of Sinn Fein/IRA we place on record our gratitude. For in 1986 Major Andrew French and RUC Constables William Laurence Smyth and David Leslie McBride were killed by a booby-trap bomb as they were leading a patrol aimed at securing the watchtower at Glasdrumman which was being built.
Major French from Suffolk was 35 and had been awarded the MBE in 1980. Constable McBride was 27 and from Enniskillen while his colleague Constable Smyth, a Catholic and talented GAA player who was banned after joining the RUC was only 25 and from Cloughey.
A number of weeks later on 9th July 1986 two soldiers were murdered by a 1,000lb bomb as they protected colleagues who were building the watchtower. Carl Davies of the Royal Anglican Regiment was 24 married to a local women with one child he was killed a week before the birth of their second. His colleague Mitchell Bertram from Tyne and Wear was 23 and single. It is believed that they were murdered by a gang including Brendan Burns and Brendan Moley who attacked the watchtower four times before blowing themselves up in 1988
Another life was lost as the army refurbished the watchtowers in May1989, when Corporal Russell McGonigle was murdered as he secured a road along which army vehicles could travel. He left a wife and two young sons, as the IRA demonstrated the danger there was in protecting the roads of South Armagh.
This murder along with multiple attacks on army and police vehicles has led to a situation where the security forces will not travel the roads of south Armagh. It takes huge Operation months in the planning and with Battalions to secure the areas in order for the police and army to travel along the roads to certain area. If under the current deal Helicopter flights are banned then how will the security forces maintain a presence on the ground and respond to the ongoing attacks upon isolated protestant communities in the area.
The effect of the watchtowers in inhibiting terrorist activity can be easily measured by the IRA's response to them. If they were not useful they would not be attacked, however the number of mortar and other attacks in themselves justify the watchtowers. As one Brigadier says 'The towers were designed principally to defend the soldiers in Forkhill and Crossmaglen who are in a very exposed position". However over the years the role and potential of the towers developed and have become an integral part of not only anti-terrorist operations but also against smuggling and all manner of criminality engaged in by the Republican movement in South Armagh.
The sheer risk to security force lives was demonstrated in May 1992 when a proxy bomb killed Fusilier Andrew Grundy as he attempted to warn colleagues in Cloghogue base at Killeen.
In October 1990 Ranger Cyril Smith was also killed as the IRA launched its human bomb attack on the same checkpoint. In what was one of the worst human rights abuses in the Troubles the use of human bombs claimed the lives of five soldiers and a civilian Patsy Gillespie at Coshquin on the same night.
We call upon the governments to fulfil their obligations by continuing the lives and liberties of their citizens against the continuing terrorist threat. And to our politicians who continue to consider this deal to remember the victims especially those who died trying to build and maintain these towers. Finally the results of the removal of the towers and air-support would be too terrible to contemplate for the ordinary law abiding South Armagh farmers and residents.
De Chastelain – The Untold Story
While many at this time may be duped by Republicans statements we have heard this all before. However we hope that the people of N. Ireland will not be so easily fooled this time. The facts are clear:- that rather than decommissioning Sinn Fein /IRA has used the Peace Process to restock and import new weapons. Republicans are once more playing with the British and certain unionist politicians. When will they learn that they cannot trust the men of violence? For years the Peace Process has given legitimacy, and credence to the terrorists, however we the people of South Armagh know these terrorists and that they have not changed.
When we are asked to trust General de Chastelain whose integrity is supposed to underpin his work, we again have great difficulty. His report on the intents not even the actions of the IRA have been taken as a great step forward, on this man rests the future of our country in many ways. If he believes the republicans are serious then his opinion will put pressure on the unionists and will give support to the government to press on with this process. Therefore the future of our country and the shape of our government. Such important decisions need to made by a man of integrity, intelligence and leadership who has an ability to analyse policy, understand situations and with an impeccable military background.
With the Canadian General this is not the case, indeed his own Government found that:- "Failure in his duty as Commander as defined by analogy to Queen's Regulations and Orders art. 4.20 and in military custom. Given our findings above concerning the leadership failures of Gen de Chastelain, and in view of the importance of control and supervision within the chain of command, we conclude that Gen de Chastelain failed as a commander."
He was indicted on a number of counts for his failings most notably his "Failure to ensure that a proper policy analysis and comprehensive estimate of the situation were undertaken with respect to Operation Deliverance and, accordingly, failing to provide adequate advice to the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet with respect to these matters. As the CDS, Gen de Chastelain ought to have ensured that a comprehensive estimate of Operation Deliverance requirements, grounded in a thorough policy analysis, was produced and disseminated to all those properly concerned, including, primarily, the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet. He did not do this. Rather, he directed and encouraged Canadian involvement in Operation Deliverance with little more to rely on than an assumption that equated Operation Cordon with Operation Deliverance requirements,…"
These findings are part of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry set up after the disgraceful handling of a peacekeeping mission to Somalia. In the report the leadership of de Chastelain was questioned and in particular his analysis, which was presented to government, based on nothing more than assumption.
We ask the government what possible confidence can be placed in a man who has failed his own nation so spectacularly. Yet again Northern Ireland is given those who have failed in their chosen field to parade as experts and international peacemakers. We would also question the integrity of this man, whose military career ended far from honourably. We would also question his closeness to certain republicans, and his lack of background knowledge of the conflict in Northern Ireland which facts further erode his credibility.
In short unless we as victims can verify the decommissioning process we can never lend our support to fully armed terrorists in government. Sadly we do not see a genuine commitment from the terrorists and henceforth call upon Mr Trimble and his associates to withdraw immediately. |
|
|
Decommissioning and the Price of Peace |
|
|
|
Monday, 06 October 2008 |
We all know that the people of Northern Ireland have paid an exaggerated price for their so-called peace. To date they the bill has included: the destruction of democracy, the creation of North/South bodies with executive powers, the perversion of justice, the undermining of the rule of law, the destruction of the RUC, the funding of voluntary sector groups which are no more than fronts for ex-prisoners and terrorists, the erosion of the rights to assemble, practice your religion and enjoy your culture and the removal of all vestiges of Britishness. Sean O’Callaghan, former head of PIRA southern Command stated that it was the policy of the IRA to ethnically cleanse the border area, we are seeing this further implemented through this process.
Or is this an unwritten rule of International terrorism that you cannot just give away a gift you must exchange it for money or other rewards. Would Colonel Gadaffi or the other Islamic fundamentalist IRA backers be offended if the IRA simply handed their guns over. Where will this appeasement end will Sinn Fein/IRA want the Loughgall terrorists dug up and given a state funeral, or perhaps the Colombian Three should be allowed to continue their busman's holiday in South America.
Last week Dr. Reid stated that it is not only the terrorist arsenal that needs removed from the equation but also the terrorist mindset. We believe it is not only weapons that require decommissioning but the mindset of terror that dictates the right to take life in the name of a political cause. If it is the secretary of state's intention to see fear removed, then why is he willing to trade the military installations in south Armagh and elsewhere which have up until now kept the terrorists in check. In south Armagh terrorism is rewarded unlike the current desire to hunt terrorists down which is prevalent in other parts of the world.
We see within the Republican movement areas such as south Armagh, Tyrone, parts of Londonderry and West Belfast that are not happy with the arrangements for decommissioning. These are the areas where it is most important that decommissioning takes place because these are the areas where most of the trouble over the years has emanated from.
Recently the President of the United States signed the warrant for Bin Laden we call for the same dead or alive approach be taken with terrorists in Ireland. In fact the Colombian three ought to be made an example of what the international community is willing to do to stamp out terrorism which is exported from Ireland. Now is the time to choose terrorism or democracy there can be no in between. Terrorists must be hunted down and destroyed wherever they hide whether in the caves of Afghanistan or behind the European convention on Human Rights. The days when terrorists could abuse the rights of others and demand the protection of these rights for themselves is now over.
The news of IRA decommissioning which appears to be able to satisfy the Ulster Unionist Party into a return to sharing power with Sinn Fein has come about as a result of the pressure put out by the current anti-terrorist campaign in the world at large. In order to satisfy the US administration and to avoid the Republican movement's cash flow from drying up it seems they are prepared to concrete over a few bunkers. We feel that before any action is taken in response to decommissioning by the political parties, authentic details must be published by the De Chastelain commission to outline precisely what has taken place.
Since this announcement took place we have seen Ulster Unionist politicians jumping around with joy that this has taken place without any awareness of exactly what has been done. What is more they display the willingness to move full steam ahead without asking any further questions. We demand that a closer look is taken at what the IRA are actually doing and that the security of people along the border is not further compromised by those in government.
Decommissioning - Present Appeasement in Breach of International Standards
“TERRORISTS who are still at large and wanted for offences committed before the Good Friday Agreement will be given an amnesty as part of the Government's response to IRA decommissioning”, John Reid announced on 24.10.01.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has clearly breached International standards as he set out plans for a "rolling programme of security normalisation", including the end of investigations into past IRA attacks. While the Prime Minister issues threats about hunting down terrorists across the world his side-kick in Northern Ireland issues pardons for some of the most heinous crimes. These outrageous plans fly in the face of advice given of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, who warned that it was still too soon to say that the Provisional IRA had forsworn violence for ever.
Reid said the amnesty was necessary to deal with the "difficult legacies of the past". He said: "The early release scheme was, I know, one of the most painful and contentious aspects of the agreement". However we are at pains to point out that amnesty was never in the Agreement and was never and would never be endorsed by the people of Northern Ireland. To impose it is a direct attack upon democracy and in clear contravention of the Internationally accepted standards of Justice and Human Rights. As regards his comments on the concession being necessary to deal with the "difficult legacies of the past". This is perhaps the greatest insult the victims have ever received. This more than anything will compound the suffering of the victims who will see the killers of their loved ones go free. Those on the run will return to areas like South Armagh, they will continue their family and business lives while the victims will continue to suffer. This situation will not be allowed to happen we will take any and all measures available to us to ensure that these killers are never allowed to go unpunished.
We are stunned by the insensitivity and sheer extent of the appeasement that the British and Irish governments are willing to engage in to keep the terrorists on board the process. While the Belfast Agreement and its implementation has destroyed democracy in Northern Ireland the current farce threatens to undermine the very rule of law in this country. Our loved ones have given their lives members of our group have lost husbands sons and daughters who went out to defend the rule of law. Now their loss will be in vain as the British government prostitutes itself at the whim of terrorists. Words are not strong enough to convey our disbelief at even the suggestion of such a move.
This dirty deal would justify every foul deed of the murderers; it would sanitise and legalise the killing of ten innocent men at Kingsmills, the slaughter of innocents at Tullyvallen and the murderous attack upon the church at Darkley. Over three thousand of the most callous murders will now be legalised, by the move to grant amnesty. We challenge Tony Blair and the foreign Prime Minister Bertie Ahern to come to our area and to meet the widows and orphans to explain the rationale behind their latest peace deal. The sheer thoughtlessness of these men and their advisors casts a shadow over the memory of our loved ones. If this law is enacted by a British parliament then that day we will be ashamed to call ourselves British.
The British and Irish governments have certain duties and obligations that they would be in breach of if they enacted such measures. Governments are bound to protect the lives of their citizens they do this by placing sanctions on acts that would infringe or remove their citizens rights. They are also obliged to put in place a system of justice that will address human rights abuses within their jurisdiction. Prisoner releases and now the proposal to 'develop' the release scheme so that "prosecutions will not be pursued and will as soon as possible, and in any event before the end of the year, take such steps as are necessary in their jurisdictions to resolve this difficulty so that those concerned are no longer pursued". The very fact that a British or indeed any so-called democratic government would even contemplate let alone put on paper its willingness to allow murderers to go free. This is perhaps the most base act of any British government, to stoop to such levels to secure a false peace is not the act of statesmen but of slaves. To refer to the destruction of justice as resolving a DIFFICULTY is shocking move by any government..
If Great Britain is to remain a liberal democracy which prides itself on justice and human rights then it must not pass an Indemnity Act. To do so would subvert our constitution and erode the very basis for a peaceful society. The application of justice and the principle of equality before the law are basis human rights and signs of democracy and progress. We will oppose any such moves with every resource at our disposal, including taking our cases to Europe. Countries must have in place an effective independent judicial system where citizens can get redress for human rights abuses. This politicisation of the judiciary can only be likened to a Stalinist state. We call upon the government to choose the democrats over the terrorists and to end the craven appeasement of those who murdered their way to the negotiating table. Every day that they continue to force the failed Belfast Agreement upon the people of Northern Ireland is a DENIAL OF DEMOCRACY. At this time Pro-Agreement Parties, which have negligible support, are negotiating on behalf of a unionist population, which is opposed to the Agreement. How long will this charade be allowed to continue, where a mere rump of unionism is allowed to deal on our behalf? The secrecy and the fact that the opinions and preferences of the majority of unionists especially the victims are being ignored means that the present attempts to revive the Assembly have failed before they have started.
This 'legalisation' of the terrorist organisations and their arsenals is being accompanied by the destruction of every legal defence the peaceful majority of Northern Ireland have. The demolition of security installations namely at Newtownhamilton and Camlough will invariably lead to the loss of life in those areas. For anyone to suggest that the threat has diminished in South Armagh is gravely mistaken, sadly the mistakes of politicians today will result in the loss of innocent lives tomorrow. The promises of increased cross border security are as false now as they were when made during the Anglo-Irish Agreements of the 1980s. Rather as we have discovered the Irish Security forces colluded with terrorists in the murder of both British and Irish citizens. We know that the push for amnesty and the promise of inquiries into Gardai collusion are as a result of the pressure we have exerted. However we intend to continue with our vital work, as we have no confidence in any promise of justice stemming from this deal.
In conclusion we place on record our outright rejection of any form of amnesty for terrorists, we are now in a position to commence proceedings against several mass murderers from the South Armagh area who were responsible for scores of murderers. If there is to be true peace then there must be justice. We do not seek recrimination merely justice and equality before the law. We call upon the Trimblite Rump to reject the current deal, and to admit that they cannot properly represent unionism. Then we call upon our politicians to fully engage with the victims and to create and inclusive process, which will lead to a democratic alternative.
Decommissioning - People of Northern Ireland still in Dark about Arms Dumps
While many at this time may be duped by Republican's stunts we the innocent victims do not accept the token ploy of Sinn Fein/IRA. The whole issue of decommissioning is vital to the victims as it was these very guns, and bombs that were used to kill our loved ones. We hope that the people of Northern Ireland will not be so easily fooled as certain Unionist politicians have been. The facts are clear:- that rather than decommissioning Sinn Fein /IRA has used the Peace Process to restock and import new weapons. Republicans are once more playing with the British and certain unionist politicians. When will they learn that they cannot trust the men of violence?
For years the Peace Process has given legitimacy, and credence to the terrorists, however we the people of South Armagh know these terrorists and that they have not changed. The PROVOS of South Armagh will not be decommissioning their weapons. The issue has been blown out of all proportion, no-one knows how many weapons were destroyed, were they even serviceable in the first place, what percentage of the overall arsenal did they represent? Until these questions are answered we will not accept the word of the Commission
When we are asked to trust General de Chastelain whose integrity is supposed to underpin his work, we again have great difficulty. His report on the latest move of the IRA have been taken as a great step forward, on this man rests the future of our country in many ways. The future of any country and the shape of its government, ought to rest with the people as expressed through the ballot box, not upon an unelected unaccountable quango. The role of this and other commissions puts a huge question mark above the very concept of democracy in Northern Ireland. We as democrats believe that decisions such as the verification of decommissioning ought to be taken by democratically elected governments, in line with international standards.
The composition of the Commission is as questionable as its existence. If a commission of this sort is used then it must be fully independent. However one of the commissioners is a member of the ANC a grouping with its own terrorist past and more importantly with close ties with Sinn Fein/IRA. The links between these groups has spanned many decades and the independence of the Commission is therefore jeopardised. Additionally the commission ought to be composed of men of integrity, intelligence and leadership who have an ability to analyse policy, understand situations and with an impeccable military background. With the Canadian General this is not the case, indeed his own Government found that:- "Failure in his duty as Commander as defined by analogy to Queen's Regulations and Orders art. 4.20 and in military custom. Given our findings above concerning the leadership failures of Gen. de Chastelain, and in view of the importance of control and supervision within the chain of command, we conclude that Gen. de Chastelain failed as a commander."
He was indicted on a number of counts for his failings most notably his "Failure to ensure that a proper policy analysis and comprehensive estimate of the situation were undertaken with respect to Operation Deliverance and, accordingly, failing to provide adequate advice to the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet with respect to these matters. As the CDS, Gen. de Chastelain ought to have ensured that a comprehensive estimate of Operation Deliverance requirements, grounded in a thorough policy analysis, was produced and disseminated to all those properly concerned, including, primarily, the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet. He did not do this. Rather, he directed and encouraged Canadian involvement in Operation Deliverance with little more to rely on than an assumption that equated Operation Cordon with Operation Deliverance requirements,…"
These findings are part of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry set up after the disgraceful handling of a Canadian peacekeeping mission to Somalia. In the report the leadership of de Chastelain was questioned and in particular his analysis, which was presented to government, based on nothing more than assumption. Clearly he does not possess the very qualities he is required to possess to fulfil his role at the present time. The judgement of this man cannot and will not be taken, the Commission is a discredited body that has refused to act proactively and failed in its task. They are now clutching at any straw republicans offer.
We ask the government what possible confidence can be placed in a man who has failed his own nation so spectacularly. Yet again Northern Ireland is given those who have failed in their chosen field to parade as experts and international peacemakers. We would also question the integrity of this man, whose military career ended far from honourably. We would also question his closeness to certain republicans, and his lack of background knowledge of the conflict in Northern Ireland which facts further erode his credibility. It is clear that a carefully choreographed political process has been initiated to extricate Sinn Fein/IRA from an internationally embarrassing position. After all it would not bee seemly for the governments' key players to be cast as the international terrorists they are. Therefore a dirty deal has been cobbled together to keep the failed process in place. The role of the British government in this squalid affair is shameful, as Tony Blair pontificates about the International war on Terrorism he is busy appeasing Ulster's 'bin Laden'. While unionist politicians scramble to retake their seats in the executive with Sinn Fein/IRA the innocent victims stand alone - it is clear that as it was during the last thirty years we are the sacrifice. However we will never capitulate to the terrorists and unless we as victims can verify the decommissioning process we can never lend our support to fully armed terrorists in government.
Decommissioning - The Need for Watchtowers in South Armagh
In response to this sop to terrorists we must state our most outright rejection. The further appeasement of terrorism is an affront to not only democracy but also the memory of our loved ones. For those who even contemplate accepting this deal we remind them that if they do they will no longer be fit to be called democrats. If they support this deal they will have thrown in their lot with the terrorists. As for the British and Irish governments who proposed and have already agreed to this they can no longer be judged to be democratic states. They are terrorist states akin to Lybia. They have purposefully excluded peaceful democratically elected parties and are sponsoring terrorists. They use the threat of terrorism to force the majority to accept the inclusion of terrorists in government.
However after a recent conference on Human Rights, after listening to the Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and other Human Rights Organisations it is clear that there are international standards to which government must adhere. The current government has abdicated many of these obligations of governments. For example the duty to protect life will be broken if they remove effective security presence from our area. We have the right to expect the protection of our government, and effective present police force, the freedom and security to live work and socialise where we please. It is a basic human right to live free from fear and intimidation and it is a government's duty to secure these rights by removing the terrorist threat by effective security measures. If they abdicate their responsibility for political expediency we will be forced to take them up under the European convention on Human Rights.
The issue of removing watchtowers and restricting helicopter flights is a clear sop to the IRA of South Armagh. As victims we would like to see normalisation and the removal of the army in South Armagh. We would like to see the removal of the Irish Republican Army and the Real Irish Republican Army and the Continuity Irish Republican Army from the area. We would like to see an end to their watching, surveillance targeting and attacks. We would like to see the police in panda cars travelling the streets of our area, not in helicopters. We would like to see community policing tackling the smuggling, drugs, racketeering and the fraud being carried our by South Armagh farmers and residents. Our aim is to live in a just and equal society where we don't have to fear our neighbours. This is a vision we share with many Catholics in the area too whose communities are being terrorised by republicans, whose children are being corrupted by drugs smuggled by the terrorists. It is these people who cannot speak out because of the fear of the local godfathers who we must speak up for.
Sadly due to the intransigence of the terrorists who are indeed engaged in a continual low-intensity conflict in our area we cannot see further appeasement as the answer. With the continuing activity of the PIRA and their various flags of convenience it is madness to reduce the level of security. If Republicans can bomb London then it is clear that South Armagh is much more likely to be a target if and when they want. As a group of victims we represent the cost the previous governments failed security policies. Our loved ones were left without protection as the government pandered to the republicans in previous cease-fires. History has spelt out the governments' mistakes of the past in the blood of our loved ones.
It was only one Prime Minister who showed the resolve and the ability to tackle terrorism and we would congratulate Margaret Thatcher for her stance on criminalisation and no political status. Her principles stand against terrorism both within prison and without during the hunger strikes is an inspiration to us all. Her other legacy to the security and protection of the minority in South Armagh was the policy of building watchtowers. In order to explain the importance of these installations it is necessary to look at the victims. For example if there had been more watch towers RUC men Breen and Buchanan would still be alive as it was in dead group beyond the view of watch towers that terrorists struck. The level of murders commissioned by gangs who had the free-run of the area was the real reason why towers were and are necessary.
A South Armagh Watch Tower
Other security measures like the Control zone along the border at Cloghogue were necessitated because of the actions of armed terrorists and in particular the murder of Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, and also the Hanna family in July 1988. The fact that terrorist can act with impunity and with such freedom and frequency in an area ought to be an affront to any democratic government. The fact that there are areas of their jurisdiction where their security forces cannot, without a massive security operation, patrol is also an affront. In international law governments have a duty of care to their citizens and are obliged to ensure that protection under the law is provided equally to all. This was not adhered to along the border as was demonstrated by an incident where an IRA gang led by the 'Surgeon' kidnapped 5 prison officers and 1 policeman Louis Robinson who they later interrogated and murdered in September 1990. The 42 year old married man had been on extended sick leave and was still murdered despite this and a multitude of pleas from family, churchmen and politicians on both sides of the community. The need for effective monitoring and patrolling of the border to ensure such human rights abuses are not repeated mean that the watchtower must stay. As Toby Harden says in his book Bandit Country "they limit severely Tom Murphy's capacity to mount attacks in much of his domain"
The Government has responsibility of limiting the IRAs freedom of movement and by so doing protecting the lives of local farmers and residents. The desperate security situation in the area, which continues to this day, was best demonstrated prior to and during the building of the watchtowers. In order to build these on British soil some of the largest mobilisations since D-Day entitled Operation Condor and Operation Magistrate were needed to facilitate the movement of material and men into the area. In the 10 weeks it took to build the base at Crossmaglen there were 5 IRA attacks and indeed the engineers sustained casualties in a mortar attack. The need for these installations was clear after an IRA attack upon an Observation Post at Drummuckavall in 1974 when a 100lb bomb killed Corporal Dennis Leack and Marine John Southern. The need for the towers has been proven by the deaths in the area, and their existence and success has been measurable in the reduction in fatalities in the area. If they are removed there is no doubt that the Republican movement would make the return of their freedom to operate in the murder of innocent victims
As the government prostitutes itself at the behest of terrorists we call upon them and society in general to remember to men who gave their lives building and manning these towers. To remove these towers to placate the enemy would be a disgrace to the memory of these young British Soldiers who were killed. The governments ought to be putting their memory and the feelings of their families first, rather than the wish-lists of terrorists. For years the IRA have been trying to destroy these vital outposts with gun and bomb, now they have succeeded with pen and persuasion. While the cowards of the IRA could not defeat the British army their apologists have defeated the weak and degenerate British Government. Blair and his assorted misfits should be ashamed to assume the title British government, such dealings in any other country would be defined as treason. In is therefore in memory of the gallant British Soldiers, who were so callously sacrificed by the government; and in testimony to the civilian builders who were targeted in atrocities like Teebane, that we call on the Governments and our own politicians to reverse this policy of appeasement.
As the government in its scramble to appease the terrorists has conveniently forgotten the human cost of building and maintaining the watchtowers we wish to remind them. As they pander to the wishes of those who killed their young soldiers we say to the families thus bereaved we remember you. To those young men who died in this area protecting the lives and liberties of fellow British citizens against political terrorism of Sinn Fein/IRA we place on record our gratitude. For in 1986 Major Andrew French and RUC Constables William Laurence Smyth and David Leslie McBride were killed by a booby-trap bomb as they were leading a patrol aimed at securing the watchtower at Glasdrumman which was being built.
Major French from Suffolk was 35 and had been awarded the MBE in 1980. Constable McBride was 27 and from Enniskillen while his colleague Constable Smyth, a Catholic and talented GAA player who was banned after joining the RUC was only 25 and from Cloughey.
A number of weeks later on 9th July 1986 two soldiers were murdered by a 1,000lb bomb as they protected colleagues who were building the watchtower. Carl Davies of the Royal Anglican Regiment was 24 married to a local women with one child he was killed a week before the birth of their second. His colleague Mitchell Bertram from Tyne and Wear was 23 and single. It is believed that they were murdered by a gang including Brendan Burns and Brendan Moley who attacked the watchtower four times before blowing themselves up in 1988.
Another life was lost as the army refurbished the watchtowers in May1989, when Corporal Russell McGonigle was murdered as he secured a road along which army vehicles could travel. He left a wife and two young sons, as the IRA demonstrated the danger there was in protecting the roads of South Armagh.
This murder along with multiple attacks on army and police vehicles has led to a situation where the security forces will not travel the roads of south Armagh. It takes huge Operation months in the planning and with Battalions to secure the areas in order for the police and army to travel along the roads to certain area. If under the current deal Helicopter flights are banned then how will the security forces maintain a presence on the ground and respond to the ongoing attacks upon isolated protestant communities in the area.
The effect of the watchtowers in inhibiting terrorist activity can be easily measured by the IRA's response to them. If they were not useful they would not be attacked, however the number of mortar and other attacks in themselves justify the watchtowers. As one Brigadier says 'The towers were designed principally to defend the soldiers in Forkhill and Crossmaglen who are in a very exposed position". However over the years the role and potential of the towers developed and have become an integral part of not only anti-terrorist operations but also against smuggling and all manner of criminality engaged in by the Republican movement in South Armagh.
The sheer risk to security force lives was demonstrated in May 1992 when a proxy bomb killed Fusilier Andrew Grundy as he attempted to warn colleagues in Cloghogue base at Killeen.
In October 1990 Ranger Cyril Smith was also killed as the IRA launched its human bomb attack on the same checkpoint. In what was one of the worst human rights abuses in the Troubles the use of human bombs claimed the lives of five soldiers and a civilian Patsy Gillespie at Coshquin on the same night.
We call upon the governments to fulfil their obligations by continuing the lives and liberties of their citizens against the continuing terrorist threat. And to our politicians who continue to consider this deal to remember the victims especially those who died trying to build and maintain these towers. Finally the results of the removal of the towers and air-support would be too terrible to contemplate for the ordinary law abiding South Armagh farmers and residents.
De Chastelain – The Untold Story
While many at this time may be duped by Republicans statements we have heard this all before. However we hope that the people of N. Ireland will not be so easily fooled this time. The facts are clear:- that rather than decommissioning Sinn Fein /IRA has used the Peace Process to restock and import new weapons. Republicans are once more playing with the British and certain unionist politicians. When will they learn that they cannot trust the men of violence? For years the Peace Process has given legitimacy, and credence to the terrorists, however we the people of South Armagh know these terrorists and that they have not changed.
When we are asked to trust General de Chastelain whose integrity is supposed to underpin his work, we again have great difficulty. His report on the intents not even the actions of the IRA have been taken as a great step forward, on this man rests the future of our country in many ways. If he believes the republicans are serious then his opinion will put pressure on the unionists and will give support to the government to press on with this process. Therefore the future of our country and the shape of our government. Such important decisions need to made by a man of integrity, intelligence and leadership who has an ability to analyse policy, understand situations and with an impeccable military background.
With the Canadian General this is not the case, indeed his own Government found that:- "Failure in his duty as Commander as defined by analogy to Queen's Regulations and Orders art. 4.20 and in military custom. Given our findings above concerning the leadership failures of Gen de Chastelain, and in view of the importance of control and supervision within the chain of command, we conclude that Gen de Chastelain failed as a commander."
He was indicted on a number of counts for his failings most notably his "Failure to ensure that a proper policy analysis and comprehensive estimate of the situation were undertaken with respect to Operation Deliverance and, accordingly, failing to provide adequate advice to the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet with respect to these matters. As the CDS, Gen de Chastelain ought to have ensured that a comprehensive estimate of Operation Deliverance requirements, grounded in a thorough policy analysis, was produced and disseminated to all those properly concerned, including, primarily, the Minister of National Defence and the Cabinet. He did not do this. Rather, he directed and encouraged Canadian involvement in Operation Deliverance with little more to rely on than an assumption that equated Operation Cordon with Operation Deliverance requirements,…"
These findings are part of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry set up after the disgraceful handling of a peacekeeping mission to Somalia. In the report the leadership of de Chastelain was questioned and in particular his analysis, which was presented to government, based on nothing more than assumption.
We ask the government what possible confidence can be placed in a man who has failed his own nation so spectacularly. Yet again Northern Ireland is given those who have failed in their chosen field to parade as experts and international peacemakers. We would also question the integrity of this man, whose military career ended far from honourably. We would also question his closeness to certain republicans, and his lack of background knowledge of the conflict in Northern Ireland which facts further erode his credibility.
In short unless we as victims can verify the decommissioning process we can never lend our support to fully armed terrorists in government. Sadly we do not see a genuine commitment from the terrorists and henceforth call upon Mr Trimble and his associates to withdraw immediately.
Terrorist Dossier Handed to Police
Recently, William Frazer, Jeffrey Donaldson MP and Peter Weir MLA are met senior police officers in Newry to hand in a dossier containing highly sensitive documents with the names of upwards of 40 terrorists who are responsible for some of the worst atrocities ever carried out during the troubles. Many of these people have never been arrested or questioned even though they have been responsible for the likes of Kingsmills and Tullyvallen massacres and numerous individual murders. This action is being taken on behalf of the innocent victims of terrorism in south Armagh.
Although every obstacle has been put in our way to discourage us, we intend to expose these people for what they really are who walk around our community with impunity. We intend to change that and see justice is done. Also we will be asking for Murphy to be handed over to the PSNI because there is a lot of evidence of his involvement in numerous murders. Even if he is sentenced we will be demanding that he is handed over following his release. We will also be asking for the handing over of a man who was the former quartermaster of the IRA in south Armagh. On top of this we will be demanding that the collusion between the Gardai and IRA along the border is investigated and we will be presenting evidence of this. Weapons used by these men were used in between 70 and 100 murders over a substantial period. The clear up rate has been zero. What has taken place has been no better than a campaign of genocide against the protestant community in south Armagh.
We find it unbelievable that the intelligence and the information was already available and we will be wanting to know why it had never been acted on. We want to know why the men who murdered Robert Frazer were never arrested when the police knew exactly who they were and what part they played.
Everybody is calling for inquiries but we believe it is not an inquiry that we need here but a war tribunal. If the police take no action we intend with the backing of different human rights organisations to take this to the courts, and if British law cannot deal with it then we will be taking it to Europe. Justice does not seem to mean much to a lot of people in Northern Ireland at this present time, including a lot of politicians. It is something we intend to fight for and achieve no matter what.
For more information about FAIR, Contact:
William Frazer
33 Main Street
Markethill
Co. Armagh
BT60 1PH
Tel: 028 3755 2619
Fax: 028 3755 2719
Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Website: www.victims.org.uk |
|
|
Police Recruitment – A Factory of Grievances |
|
|
|
Monday, 06 October 2008 |
FINDINGS ON THE INSTITUTIONALISED DISCRIMINATION MEASURES CONTAINED IN THE TEMPORARY PROVISIONS OF THE POLICE (NI) ACT 2000
Report complied by
FAIR Research and Policy Unit
February 2004
Executive Summary
hanges in policing initiated by the Patton Report have recently been challenged, as a breach of Equality Principles and a failure in terms of raising the levels of acceptance of policing by the people of Northern Ireland. Patten’s poor grasp of the situation in Northern Ireland coupled with a biased consultation and a process which saw police reform incorporating a Pan Nationalist wish list has led to the PSNI becoming one of the most politicised police forces in the Western hemisphere.
The fact that the Roman Catholic Community was not well represented in the RUC is indeed worthy of examination, as the answer to this problem lies at the heart of policing in Northern Ireland. There is a direct correlation between PIRA violence and Roman Catholic recruitment to the police. Measures to increase representation do not take into account the real reason for low amounts of the minority community. A failure to understand the problem has led to a flawed solution.
The use of discriminatory 50:50 recruitment will lead to a police force less capable of defeating terrorism and protecting citizens from intimidation. The principle of merit ought to govern police more so that other employment procedures. The sacrifice of merit and its replacement with a crude sectarian headcount has led to a drop in the quality of officers - a major contributory factor in the declining operational ability of the police.
Introduction
Having considered fully the implications of the provisions of the Police (NI) Act 2000, and weighed them against the ‘justification’ offered for them we unequivocally reject them. They are neither necessary nor desirable and indeed contain the seeds of injustice that will only lead to a rejection of the police force by the communities discriminated against.
The idea behind Patten was to bring about ‘ a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland’ however from its inception the PSNI has succeeded in repeating the mistakes of the past. Patten’s poor grasp of the situation in Northern Ireland coupled with a biased consultation and a process which saw police reform incorporating a Pan Nationalist wish list has led to the PSNI becoming one of the most politicised police forces in the Western hemisphere.
Historic Background to Police Development
The fact that the Roman Catholic Community was not well represented in the RUC is indeed worthy of examination, as the answer to this problem lies at the heart of policing in Northern Ireland. When the RUC was formed the Northern Ireland Government applied itself to the issue of policing. Sir Richard Dawson Bates Bt appointed a committee of inquiry on police reorganisation, chaired by Lloyd Campbell MP and fourteen members including MPs and members of the judiciary alongside Sir Charles Wickham Inspector General of the RUC and James Stevenson, the Chief Constable of Glasgow. The Campbell Report 1922 created the RUC and one of the key recommendations was a quota of one third of places to be left aside for Roman Catholics. This was to make the force more acceptable to the minority, to give a force more reflective of the community and to accommodate the numbers of experienced RIC officers who were being driven out of the Free State by Sinn Fein/IRA.
Despite opposition from grass-roots unionists, who felt the jobs should be given to those who supported the creation of the state, genuine and sensible security considerations and political pressure on Sir James Craig from his backbenchers, the places were left in the forlorn hope that Roman Catholics would co-operate and help government to realise their dream of an inclusive force. Committees were established including representatives from the nationalist community and Roman Catholic Church as part of the Craig – Collins Initiatives which saw the unionist government prepared to extend the quota system to the Ulster Special Constabulary.
Sadly intransigence on the part of the nationalist and church hierarchy, the worsening security situation, which led to the brink of civil war, and increased pressure from London and Dublin led Craig’s government to make the decision that further delay in the hope that Roman Catholic would play a constructive role in policing would jeopardise the very existence of the state and frustrate the democratic wishes of the majority. However official figures disclosed in Parliament revealed that by October 1922 896 protestants and 434 Roman Catholics had transferred from the RIC against a quota of one thousand from each religion. Indeed the Catholic representation was over twenty-one percent.
The figure according to Chris Ryder
“.. fell to an average seventeen percent…..Catholic officers did however generally receive promotion. In January 1925, for instance, nine of the thirty-eight District Inspectors and two of the eight County Inspectors were Catholics, a proportion of roughly twenty-five percent. In the 1970s there was a similar proportion of Catholic officers in the four most senior ranks.”
Continuing Question of Under Representation of Minority Community
The question remains if access was open to Roman Catholics and their progress through the ranks guaranteed, then why did more not join? The answer is quite clear, they choose not to. In recent years all manner of reasons have been forwarded to mitigate this however the issue of personal responsibility must be remembered. As individuals and as a community Roman Catholics choose not to play a constructive role as responsible citizens, rather their political and religious leaderships encouraged a policy of abstentionism. At best they refused to co-operate with the state they opposed, at worst they worked for its destruction through open terrorism.
It was a gamble for the nationalist/republican community, they felt Northern Ireland would collapse or be violently subsumed into a thirty-two county political entity. As a result they did not play a constructive role in any aspect of life in the new Northern Ireland. No amount of affirmative action by Craig’s government would have changed this. In short they missed their opportunity as a Northern Ireland faced with external threat to its very existence could at best regard these individuals as a hindrance at worst a threat.
Secondly and most problematic was the element of threat used to keep Roman Catholics from participating. With a strong sense of community and well honed methods of social control the Roman Catholic hierarchy and nationalist/republican political leaderships held the line of abstentionism. They set about creating a state within a state, with a clearly defined identity set in direct defiance to the newly established government of Northern Ireland. Irish Nationalism had a strong ideological hold on the people, which was supplemented by the use of ‘boycott’ a method named after its first victim Captain Boycott who dared to defy nationalist land leaguers.
The choice was simple for a Roman Catholic recruit to the RUC, he either choose his family friends and community or his career. Social pressure evolved into intimidation as Sinn Fein/IRA had called open season on police officers. Indeed its war of liberation had begun in 1919 with the murder of two Roman Catholic RIC officers at Solohedbeg. Between 1921 and 1922 the police and in particular the Special Constabulary lost forty-seven members in attacks by the IRA. Hundreds of others were wounded and intimidated out of their homes.
The threat of assassination by the IRA continues to this day to be the greatest factor for Roman Catholic in determining whether to choose a career in the police. The Community Attitudes Survey (1996-7) conducted by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency for the Police Authority found that 71% of Catholics have not joined the RUC because of ‘ fear of intimidation or attack on them or their relatives’. There is a direct correlation between PIRA violence and RC recruitment to the police. In 1994 after the PIRA ‘ceasefire’ Catholic applicants rose from 12% to 21% but when the ‘ceasefire’ ended the level dropped again. In 1998 when it was renewed the level rose to 20% again, in direct response to the level of perceived threat to recruits from the PIRA.
In short it is sheer folly to believe that a discriminatory quota system will address such problems. Rather it will lead to a police force less capable of defeating terrorism and protecting citizens from intimidation. Indeed the PSNI cannot protect many Roman Catholics who have recently joined, rather these young men and women are forced to move to safer areas. No amount of spin and positive discrimination will attract recruits when it becomes known that the police cannot even protect its own members. It is a cosmetic change that will only serve to further alienate the police from the majority population which are the victims of this government sponsored discrimination. The notion behind it has no basis in historical fact and is not only erroneous but a slur on the good name of the RUC and the officers killed or maimed whilst serving. Its inclusion is a tacit acceptance of the Sinn Fein/IRA inspired propaganda designed to demonise the police, and despite its adoption has not led to a change in that party’s attitude. It can only be concluded that it is not the police we have that Sinn Fein IRA is opposed to but any police.
Policing and the Nationalist Community an Insider’s View
As the bill passed through Parliament perhaps one of the most incisive speeches made on the issue emanated from a former leader of the SDLP whose decades of experience in working class nationalist areas gives him a particular insight into policing. Lord Fitt
Outlines his concerns as follows -
We know that the SDLP is now following a republican agenda. Sinn Fein has attempted to demonise and to humiliate the RUC. It has a very good reason. It was the RUC which was responsible for arresting those terrorists, bringing them before the courts and having them sentenced to long terms of imprisonment--the same terrorists released this week. So it is in the interests of Sinn Fein and the terrorists to demonise the RUC.
It was the Royal Irish Constabulary which had the badge that is now with the Royal Ulster Constabulary--a shamrock and a crown. Nothing could be more instructive to the two communities in Northern Ireland…….The RUC was formed after many scores of RIC men were killed in the years between 1918 and 1920. They were given two jobs. One of them was to detect crime and criminals, the same as in any other police force in the United Kingdom. The other one--the one that led to their death, and the one which has led to this humiliation--was to protect the integrity of the state of Northern Ireland. It is because of that responsibility that the IRA has been killing RUC men over so many years.
Sinn Fein is nationalist. The SDLP is nationalist. Let us look at the interpretation of that word. "Nationalist" means that they do not accept the state of Northern Ireland. They want to take Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom. That is the meaning of nationalism. It is for that reason that so many terrible tragedies have taken place.
Now we have this Bill. It is hugely political. It is recognised to be such by the majority of people in Northern Ireland. I have already stated that the SDLP is following the agenda set down by Sinn Fein--Sinn Fein/IRA--the party that has
murdered policemen and many others. I do not believe that Sinn Fein/IRA and the SDLP represent the true feelings of the Catholic population in Northern Ireland. Every Catholic is not a nationalist. Every Catholic in Northern Ireland does not want to see the abolition of the Border.
The provisions on 50/50 representation were brought forward with the best of intentions but they are totally unrealistic. In 1976 I sat at the other end of this building putting through the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Bill. It was meant to deal with discrimination between Catholics and Protestants at the time. After all these years there is still an imbalance. A balance has not been achieved since 1976 and it will certainly not be achieved within the time limit of Patten. How do you discern a Catholic? When he applies to join the RUC, is he a Catholic because he went to mass on the previous Sunday? Perhaps he did not go to mass at all. Perhaps he is a lapsed Catholic. If he was lapsed, would it mean that he could not be taken in as a Catholic? I do not think that a solution can be found to that problem.
I have lived in Belfast and represented West Belfast for many years. I know every district in West Belfast. District partnerships set up in estates like Turf Lodge, Ballymurphy, New Barnsley and Andersonstown will be wholly dominated by the men with guns. They will not accept a police force. There will be no opportunity for anyone living on those estates to join the police force or the new police service without the sanction and approval of the men with guns. Even as things stand, the Catholics who are in the RUC--I recognise the courageous stand they have taken--cannot live in the ghettos. They have to live far way from their districts and far away from their relatives. They cannot even visit their parents because they are members of the RUC. There is still a great deal of intimidation. …I can tell the House--I say it with a great deal of realism--that there is no way in which the IRA or the loyalist paramilitaries will give up control of their areas. There is absolutely no chance of that happening. “
Institutionalised Discrimination - a Breach of Principle
Lord Fitt raises some very crucial areas of debate, points that have often been missed. The whole notion of 50:50 recruitment is in direct contravention of the principles and practice of Fair Employment legislation that has been introduced at the behest of nationalists since the 1960s. It is s cruel irony that many of the leading advocates of the McBride principles and the ideals of meritocracy and equality are now the most ardent exponents of institutionalized discrimination. Indeed the same votes which carried Fair Employment legislation through Parliament to assist Roman Catholics now rally to support legislation to exclude and discriminate against Protestants. It is sheer folly to expect to create a new start by repeating injustices of the past and alienating the majority community.
What is more worrying is the group which has coalesced to support the deferential treatment legislated for. For example the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, acting as a cheer-leader for the government once more has stated it supports the discrimination and finds it not to be a violation of the ECHR. Those who support the measures acknowledge that it is a ‘deviation from the principle of completely equitable recruitment..[and] interferes with an individual right..’ yet cite the greater good as justification. This is not the case and the particular provisions are in clear breach of the Council of Europe Directive 2000/78/EC. The relevant directive prohibits direct or indirect discrimination based on religion or belief in the field of employment. Such was the violation of 2000/78/EC that the British government had to request an exemption in order to persecute its citizens for their religious beliefs. Thus insulated from the legal challenge the government has shown itself willing to twist international law and flout recognised standards in order to placate a violent terrorist minority. This is perhaps one of the worst examples of a state pursuing appeasement at the price of justice and equality.
Support for the measure is a tacit acceptance of Irish nationalist/republican ideology and propaganda which has sought to demonise the police and undermine their ability to discharge their duties. It is a slur on the brave men and women who were murdered whilst serving and protecting the entire population of Northern Ireland without fear or favour. It flies in the face of commonsense and is the worst example of ignorance, intolerance and hypocrisy. Morally reprehensible it cannot be justified as necessary, and is in actuality rendering the Police Service further unable to fulfill its obligations or properly discharge its duties.
Indeed those who ought to be opposing these measures like the NIHRC are in fact playing politics by advocating for ‘an even greater proportion of Catholic recruitment.’ The failure to comply with Council Directive 2000/78/EC is in breach of the principle that prohibited either direct or indirect discrimination by binding “ Member States to the principle of equal treatment”. Plans to extend the time bound exemption must be opposed by all democrats.
Institutionalised Discrimination - a Failure in Practice
We contest that the imposition of 50:50 discrimination has led directly to the loss in confidence in the police shown recently and had resulted in a lessening of the operational ability of the police as a whole. This discrimination along with the Patten inspired severance scheme has seen the loss of some of the forces most experienced officers and technical staff, and their replacement not with experienced officers but an influx of candidates who are not necessarily of the highest caliber. The principle of merit ought to govern police more so that other employment procedures.
The NIHRC judges the impact of the discrimination merely on the issue of quantity, stating that ‘There has been no significant failure to fill the vacancies available.’ We feel that failure is failure whether great or small and would further point to the issue of quality. If quotas are set then recruits are chosen not on their ability but on their religion leaving those who are less qualified or have scored less well in the recruitment tests to be chosen over their betters. The result is that the officers we see on our streets today are not as good as they could be or of the caliber of those who they replace. The drop in quality of officers is a major contributory factor in the declining operational ability of the police. This has a knock on effect leading to a rise in crime and poorer rates of prevention, detection, clear up and conviction of crimes. This fact and the overall failure of the scheme has been borne out by the episode in 2002 when the 50:50 rules were laid aside to recruit 80 detectives.
The loss of experience as a result of the hemorrhaging under Patton Reform has led to a crisis in the police. Policing Board figures suggest that in some district command units the Reserve provides more that 35% of overall police numbers. As the Chairman of the Police Federation, Irwin Montgomery stated recently “ We do not see the proposed part-time officers or new recruits who have only 18 months experience as an immediate replacement for 1,600 seasoned officers.” A wealth of experience in terms of investigating, and solving crime has been lost. This in practical terms will lead to a diminished capacity and capability to tackle terrorism and protect basic human rights.
The exact size of the majority community also appears to misunderstood by government or the uses of 50% Catholic and 50% other is engineered to discriminate against not only members of the Protestant community but other ethnic or religious groups. The distortion of figures to support the persecution of one community exposes the government in the worst possible light
Patton has failed to take into account the reality on the ground in Northern Ireland namely that terrorism continues and that illegal sub-state groups remain armed and organised. They attempt to subvert democracy by using violence of the threat of violence in order to further their political agenda. In reality policing has been reformed to reflect a political climate that does not yet exist. As a result the state is less able to fulfill its ECHR Article 2 obligations, to protect life. The central contradiction between the commitments to oppose terrorism as adopted by the European Union and the support for terrorism exemplified in the exemption included in the Council Directive 2000/78/EC must be addressed.
Conclusion
The tempory provisions introduced in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 run contrary to the principles of liberty, democracy respect for basic human rights and fundamental freedoms on which our nation and the European Union is founded.
It is one of the most dangerous aspects of the appeasement of Sinn Fein/IRA and represents a breach of fundamental principle and a is in practice a failure.
It is as a result of terrorist pressure, a biased process and the ignorance of Mr Patton whose grasp of Northern Ireland affairs can best be describes as tenuous.
It is a slur on the good name of the RUC, and insult to the officers who served and were murdered or injured and injurious to the continuing reputation and acceptability of the PSNI.
It is a source of acute injustice which is leading to a crisis in confidence amongst the unionist community who support the principles of equality and fair employment based on merit.
It further entrenches sectarianism is an institution of the state which is supposed to serve without fear of favour.
Recommendations
The following are specific recommendations around 50:50 and background proposals for increasing the effectiveness and credibility of the police.
The British Government should bring its practice into line with the international principles, as laid out by the European Union, European Convention on Human Rights and the Guidelines on Human Rights and the Fight against Terrorism.
The government should desist from using the exemption obtained from the European Directive 2000/78/EC and stop immediately the discriminatory practice of 50:50 Recruitment.
Legislation should be passed to revise the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to reflect this policy change.
The Police reserve should be retained with any reduction being reflected in natural wastage of existing officers.
Policing, and in particular training should be restructured to reflect the existing levels of terrorism and related violent crime.
Resources should be increased to ensure that current crime and contemporary trends are policed without historic murders and crimes being neglected.
Resources in terms of manpower, experience and finance would be increased or utilised.
Guarantee that historic crimes, the perpetrators of which would be presently eligible under the early release scheme, would be investigated with the same commitment as current ones.
Extended Cold Case Review for Historic murders with special regional taskforces established to investigate serial killings perpetrated by terrorist groups, developing an interdisciplinary approach to investigations namely the application of new DNA and forensic techniques.
Retention of the Special Branch and other Anti-Terrorist units and the reappointment of officers with particular areas of experience or training should be considered to assist in this work.
All existing security installations and police stations be retained and developed as community facilities.
Strategic approach to community policing with a more visible police presence on the ground, linked to a workable complaints
More victim orientated approach to policing with direct input into community policing, restorative or other new initiatives.
Designated places on District Policing Partnerships with a charter on service provision for victims and a bill of rights reflecting their needs.
Creation of a Terrorist/Organised Crime Task Force to deal with this growing area of crime gripping the community.
ANNEX 1 Relevant Legislation
“..the Board and the Chief Constable shall have regard to the progress which has been made towards securing that membership of the police is representative of the community in Northern Ireland.
Temporary provisions concerning composition of the police
Discrimination in appointments. 46. - (1) In making appointments under section 39 on any occasion, the Chief Constable shall appoint from the pool of qualified applicants formed for that purpose by virtue of section 44(5) an even number of persons of whom-
(a) one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and
(b) one half shall be persons who are not so treated.
(2) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board and the Chief Constable, by order amend subsection (1) in its application to the making of appointments under section 39 on any occasion specified in the order.
(3) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (2) in relation to the making of appointments under section 39 on any occasion unless he is satisfied that-
(a) were those appointments to be made in compliance with subsection (1) (as originally enacted) the number of police trainees which the Chief Constable requires to be appointed on that occasion could not be appointed; or
(b) one or more orders under subsection (2) have been made in the previous three years and he considers that it is appropriate to make the order for the purpose of redressing, or partially redressing, the imbalance occurring during that period.
(4) No order may be made under subsection (2) as a result of subsection (3)(b) which has the effect, as respects an occasion specified in the order, of requiring more than three-quarters of the persons appointed on that occasion to be-
(a) the persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; or
(b) the persons who are not so treated.
(5) In making appointments to relevant posts in the police support staff under subsection (3) of section 4 on any occasion, the Chief Constable (acting by virtue of subsection (5) of that section) shall appoint from the pool of qualified applicants formed for that purpose by virtue of section 44(6) an even number of persons of whom-
(a) one half shall be persons who are treated as Roman Catholic; and
(b) one half shall be persons who are not so treated.
(6) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Board and the Chief Constable, by order amend subsection (5) in its application to the making of appointments under section 4 on any occasion specified in the order.
(7) The Secretary of State shall not make an order under subsection (6) in relation to the making of appointments under section 4 on any occasion unless he is satisfied that were those appointments to be made in compliance with subsection (5) (as originally enacted) the number of police support staff which the Chief Constable requires to be appointed on that occasion could not be appointed.
(8) In subsections (1), (4) and (5) "treated as Roman Catholic" means treated by the Chief Constable in accordance with the Monitoring Regulations as belonging to the Roman Catholic community in Northern Ireland.
(9) In subsection (8) "the Monitoring Regulations" means the Fair Employment (Monitoring) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1999 or any regulations replacing those regulations and for the time being in operation.
(10) In Part VIII of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 (exceptions) after Article 71 there shall be inserted-
"The police and the police support staff
71A. - (1) Nothing in Part III or V shall render unlawful anything done by the Chief Constable in order to comply with the requirements of section 46(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (selection of persons for appointment as police trainees).
(2) Nothing in Part III or V shall render unlawful anything done by the Chief Constable in order to comply with the requirements of section 46(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (selection of persons for certain posts in police support staff).
(3) The application of any requirement or condition to any person applying for appointment as a police reserve trainee with a view to service in the Police Service of Northern Ireland Reserve on a part-time basis where the requirement or condition is one that the person applying is resident in a particular area is not by virtue of Article 3(2) unlawful under any provision of Part III or V."
(11) In Part VI of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (exceptions) after Article 40 there shall be inserted-
"The Police Service of Northern Ireland and the police support staff
40A. - (1) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by the Chief Constable in order to comply with the requirements of section 46(1) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (selection of persons for appointment as police trainees).
(2) Nothing in Parts II to IV shall render unlawful any act done by the Chief Constable in order to comply with the requirements of section 46(5) of the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 (selection of persons for certain posts in police support staff)."
Expiry, renewal and repeal of temporary provisions. 47. - (1) In this section "the temporary provisions" means-
(a) Article 40A of the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1997;
(b) Article 71A of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998;
(c) section 44(5) to (7);
(d) section 45; and
(e) section 46.
(2) The temporary provisions shall, subject to subsection (3), expire on the third anniversary of the commencement date.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide that all or any of the temporary provisions which are for the time being in force (including any in force by virtue of an order under this section) shall continue in force for a period not exceeding three years from the coming into operation of the order.
(4) In deciding whether and, if so, how to exercise his powers under subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall-
(a) have regard to the progress that has been made towards securing that membership of the police and the police support staff is representative of the community in Northern Ireland; and
(b) consult the Board and take into account any recommendations made to him by the Board.
(5) In this section "the commencement date" means the day appointed under section 79 for the coming into force of this section
|
|
|
FAIR Response to Victim Commision |
|
|
|
Monday, 06 October 2008 |
Introduction
The present position paper on the future structure of the victims sector has evolved over a number of years based on the principles which governments have employed to deal with other sectors; and international best practice. The research model and methodology adopted is the participation action research method, which engages the user group and empowers them via the process, creating a usable piece of work that has wide ownership and relevance. It represents the unanimous view of the member groups which comprise Northern Ireland Terrorist Victims Together, and was agreed at a residential prior to submission as the Victims Strategy Consultation facilitated by the Victim’s Unit under the Office of the First and Deputy First Minister. However in its methodology, and content it represents a continuation of the work started by Sir Kenneth Bloomfield which led to the release of a report ‘We Will Remember Them’.
In introduction to our report it must be stressed that while we are fully cognisant of the background of the Victims' Strategy and the Victims Unit we feel that in many ways this is not an acceptable starting place for the sector. While the events of the past number of years have been based on this work and other government policy decisions we feel that unless and until victims themselves their needs and opinions are listened to and used as the foundation for the sector we are all wasting our time.
Our report therefore adopts a holistic approach to servicing the needs of the sector. A true Victims' Strategy must include both devolved and reserved or excepted matters, the continuing suffering of our members does not recognise departmental or administrative boundaries. The constraints placed on the strategy by its very origins will lead to the compounding of many of the problems we have worked to alleviate for a number of years. Therefore while we will address the issues and question raised we stress that the eventual framework and model used to assist victims must be radically different to the one currently being employed and proposed.
In relation to the background of the strategy we need stress that a balance must be struck between the strategic and responsive approaches. The victims’ issues cannot be treated in a similar fashion to other government policies. Research has shown that three or four year plans have little relevance to a sector whose role and very existence is dictated by the evolving needs and opinions of victims. In order to adhere to a strategy, there must be a common starting place, such a place does not exist at present within the sector. Groups and individuals have different needs because they are at different stages of personal and group development, in many the capacity doesn't exist to implement or even benefit from a strategic plan. Issues such as trauma, mistrust, alienation and social exclusion are barriers to the plans we are presently reviewing. Sadly many of these additional barriers to progress have been placed by government policy.
Indeed the very existence of this project within the same framework of the process which allowed the release of terrorist prisoners, the inclusion of their representatives in government and the disgracing and destruction of the RUC, instantly excludes many victims. Therefore we call for the creation of a new paradigm at this time one which will detach victims work from the political institutions established under the Belfast Agreement. We hold to the principle that the victims must be dealt with independently of the Belfast Agreement framework. Otherwise the perception that victims measures are merely an after thought or a political initiative to balance the concessions to terrorism will continue. The strategy must not be influenced or constrained by the ethos, concepts or institutions of the Agreement. We would rather see a more acceptable and inclusive basis for the victims' work. Due to the instability of the institutions we would propose that an independent Commission accountable to the United Kingdom Parliament be formed to oversee victims' issues in a similar manner to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission.
Therefore there must be an appreciation that government initiatives are perceived negatively within the sector and there is an alleged political agenda at play which is often contrary to the needs of victims. It is imperative that the evolving needs and opinions of victims are constantly canvassed and appreciated. In order to succeed in the task those forming strategy and policy must not satisfy themselves with the Bloomfield or Social Services Inspectorate Reports which are almost 6 years old by the time the victims' strategy takes shape. By the time it comes to the end of its prearranged course the basis of the deliberations namely Bloomfield, the SSI Report will be nigh on a decade out of date. Therefore we argue for a more incremental approach based as a continual appraisal of the needs of those victims the Unit purports to assist. The role of victims groups in this process is pivotal to this process and must be a direct interface between policy makers and the sector as a whole.
The nature of the OFMDFM and the clear political agenda, which drives it, does not instil confidence in victims. This situation has been further compounded by the election results of November 2003, which will ensure that if an Executive is created the Deputy First Minister would be a member of Sinn Fein/IRA. Such a scenario would shock and retraumatise victims leaving a crisis in confidence and doing irreparable damage to the existing structures between government and victims. Imagine if you will the widow of a police officer being forced to appeal to the Sinn Fein/IRA Victims Minister for justice, compensation or recognition. This alarming situation must not be allowed to happen, because as a group which has went on record in opposition to Sinn Fein/IRA, calling for them to be investigated, convicted and imprisoned for human rights abuses we do not feel a minister from that party would treat us fairly. Indeed to go further we would not allow any details of our group, its work or any staff or members to be passed to such a minister because of the security threat. It must be remembered that the Minister and his or her party would still be ‘inextricably linked to a fully armed illegal terrorist group which continued to target and place under death threat members of our group.
We now insist that an independent Victims Commission or Ombudsman be constituted to undertake this work using the victims themselves as their sole point of reference. The present inclusion of victims is a welcome step but it must not be a one off, as a self-help group we must urge responsiveness to the needs of victims to be placed above the strategic requirements of central government. A top down approach is not applicable to the victims' sector and the practicalities of continually assessing the needs of victims and the impact of these imposed strategies would lead to endless bureaucracy. Again the answer lies in victims groups and in dedicated support workers as have been established by for example Armagh District Partnership as part of PEACE I. These groups are a vital conduit for information and assistance and a major link in the strategy without them victims will regress and much of the valuable peace building and social exclusion work will be lost.
Vision Values and Meeting Needs
Victims themselves must dictate the vision developed if it is to give credibility to the whole process. The support and services ought to be not only proactive and sensitive but also responsive. However it is a more fundamental point that is lost in the haze of vocabulary. VICTIMS who are they, who is included? The definition of victim is of fundamental importance to the development of a strategy. There is a matter of high principle where we could never endorse a strategy, which will define terrorists as victims and thus legitimise their activities. In practical terms too there is only ever a finite amount of assistance both financial and practical and the more groups and individuals that are defined as victims and eligible for such help will lead to those who are in genuine need receiving less.
One of the constraints of government policy, namely sustaining the Belfast Agreement can be best seen in the very definition of victimhood. To properly define who a victim is would by inference apportion blame to those who created victims in the first place. It would also exclude those who were injured or the relatives of those killed during the commission of terrorist acts; namely the deployment of illegal force within the state. To do so would send shockwaves to the very heart of government in Northern Ireland because that is where terrorists can be most easily found today. In practical terms, where this is only a finite amount of practical and financial help available for victims, we the innocent victims are forced to suffer because of the definitions and parameters employed.
However here as elsewhere we call for a reassessment, completion and implementation of the key practical recommendations of the Bloomfield Report.
He for example states
“I acknowledged also a special responsibility, which had been made explicit at the time of the original announcement by the Secretary of State in October 1997, to address the concerns of those who had been killed or injured in the service of the community. I therefore made contact with appropriate …services and elsewhere, drawing also on the experiences of serving or former officers employed in these services or organisations directly representing their interests…… In addition, special concern is appropriate for those who, in carrying out their public duties, were exposed to risks and dangers beyond the average. This includes not only the disciplined services who have been in the front line of protecting the community regular servicemen, locally-recruited soldiers, regular and reserve policemen, members of the Prison Service and others - but also people such as firemen or ambulance personnel or public transport operatives, the nature of whose duties has often exposed them to dangerous locations and situations.”
While other reports like Patton which stemmed from the Belfast Agreement were made to be the basis of policy and practice Bloomfield’s work was tossed aside as it appeared to offend the nationalist and republican terrorist lobbies. We now call on the government to reassess the Bloomfield report and to use it as the basis for carrying forward work with victims. The republican community have had their peace dividend in terms of freedom for the terrorists houses in our prisons and other concessions too numerous to mention. Bloomfield offered to balance the equation and to include those victims who were excluded by the political process to date. His caring yet professional attitude stemmed from a long career in the civil service where he was himself victimised by Republican terrorists. His keen understanding of the attitudes of groups in the sector has been unmatched since for example he appreciates the barriers many victims feel “the sad fact that many victims from a security background, feeling themselves to be at continuing risk, remain circumspect in their choice of friends and associates and even in their use of external support services when they cannot feel sure of the motivation of all those with whom they may come into contact.” Such empathy has never been achieved by government since and the principles established by Bloomfield along with his approach need to be reaffirmed and revisited.
In terms of values we welcome for the first time a statement of intent that will bind those dealing with victims. When it comes to the strategy and the action that stems from it we believe that it must be:
ACCEPTABLE
must be seen to be independent and victim-friendly
ACCESSABLE
understandable, open and including capacity building to allow groups to benefit
ACTIVE
must produce results that better the experience of victims
ACCOUNTABLE
transparent and answerable to victims
Meeting Needs
The refusal to acknowledge a meaningful role for victims groups and dedicated support workers in the process of recognising needs informing others and addressing these demonstrates a gross oversight by the Victims' Unit. They falsely portray themselves in the role that groups like ourselves have occupied for several years. The groups have been the engine for change and have lobbied hard for much of the help we have all benefited form. For example the umbrella group Northern Ireland Terrorist Victims Together paid their own way and went to Brussels to meet the Commissioner to outline difficulties under PEACE I and to fight for special assistance under PEACE II.
Indeed we have little faith in the Unit fully and fairly corresponding our opinions to those in a position to help us. The reliance on the Victims Unit to 'inform its partners... .of the needs and requirements of victims' is a major problem. The organisations best placed to deal with this are the victims support and self help groups. They were after all established because of the demands of victims for a voice and to service the specific needs of their members. The number of groups and their differing emphases bear testimony to the difficulties involved in understanding the needs and requirements of victims.
We do not believe that any unit established within the framework of the present political arrangements and directly answerable to an executive which includes members of SF/IRA, a group responsible for creating victims, can properly fulfil its stated role namely 'to inform its partners..... of the needs and requirements of victims '
There are many needs and preferences of victims which we believe, based on past experience, would be ignored, distorted or procrastinated in order to preserve the political equilibrium of the devolved institutions. To take but one example JUSTICE, this is a priority for our group, many of the members of which have never seen it in relation to the murder of their loved ones.
The pursuit of Human Rights and Justice has been a priority for our group, yet to be successful there would be political repercussions. If an independent body were to fulfil the role now assumed by the Victims Unit, then there would be greater freedom to pursue the full range of victim's needs and requirements. Another example is the issue of trauma - while the Victims Unit are willing to treat the symptoms of trauma, the real causes, namely the elevation and promotion of those responsible for their suffering through the current peace process is a no-go area. Many of these issues may never be solved, but they must be dealt with in a responsive environment, not constrained by politics.
Yet again we are driven to the conclusion that the best approach would be through victims groups, as a conduit for individuals needs and opinions. The work already done by such groups is invaluable yet sadly under appreciated. These grass-roots groups have succeeded when all others have failed; they have won the trust of victims. In recent years the political process has done much to alienate the victims, and the involvement of our politicians and churchmen in what is perceived to be the appeasement of terrorists has led to a situation where victims feel excluded and there is a crisis in confidence amongst them. To a lesser degree this malaise is felt within the wider pro-union law abiding community who look to the victims and their treatment as a form of indicator.
Victims groups have fulfilled a vital role in understanding these attitudes and rebuilding many of the bridges destroyed by the appeasement process. The work done in building trust and countering social exclusion stands in glowing comparison to much of what has transpired in the last number of years. Much of what we have done is to secure lasting and true peace, yet our reward is to be branded as rejectionist and against peace. As a result many victims do not trust the present arrangements or those involved with their implementation. Rather they trust the groups they established to further their cause and demand that these groups remain central to any and all strategies that are proposed.
While their continuing place is hinted at, there is clearly little appreciation for the wide-ranging and vital roles which they play. The mention of bus runs and shopping trips are frankly patronising and only serves to underline the lack of understanding that the OFMDFM has of victims groups. Without a full understanding of our role there cannot be a full and fair place created for our work in the strategy - this is clear from the beginning. No amount of positive statements like 'respond flexibly' or 'reduce their social exclusion' can help without a clear plan which has at its heart the grass roots group and workers already in place working to realise these concepts.
Implementing Policies and Priorities
While the role of the Interdepartmental Working Group is welcome it must interact more closely with victims and their support groups. As outlined earlier the primacy of groups must be recognised and their role fully accessed. In terms of the question at hand they:
Are in constant contact with the victims can continually, cheaply and consciously canvass the evolving and widening needs of victims
Represent individuals in order to end the cycle of retraumatisation
Provide a continuity of contact for the departments, agencies or other bodies i.e. one worker has at his fingertips the case notes of hundreds of victims
Raise awareness directly and create ad hoc partnerships with relevant agencies
Already have the trust, support and relevant information from the victims
These are some of the benefits of having well-resourced victims' groups in place on the ground acting as a direct go-between for victims and government. However the role and importance of encouraging and developing groups has been neglected in the Victims' Unit strategy. The neglect is far from accidental and such wilful neglect will if allowed to go unchecked lead to the development of a strategy, which would spell the demise of groups as we know them.
As part of our wide-ranging consultation for our response we as a group submitted our proposals to individual groups and NITVT the umbrella organisation for discussion and feedback. This was necessary to ensure that smaller groups were aware of the issues and had an opportunity of having their opinions and preferences heard and included. The fact that groups have not received enough funding or support to allow them to take the time to consider the issues and make a response show in graphic horrifying detail the way in which victims and their groups are being treated. We were the only group to provide facilitation in order to garner a wider range of opinion and did so at considerable expense and effort to our organisation. Consultations are useless unless groups have the capacity to take part. Capacity in terms of funding, workers, time, premises communication skills administrative support and an endless list of other vital resources denied to the sector.
The whole manner in which this consultation process was handled speaks volumes about the inability of the Unit to understand or respond to the needs of the victims. It also highlights the real need for the groups to be appreciated and given the resources to expand and become more professional. The development of the capacity of individual groups needs to be a key focus of any strategy, alongside the sponsorship of effective umbrella organisations, which can look after larger issues such as justice and human rights. The strategy must include the facilities to promote development and empowerment of victims' groups through advocacy, support and unity of purpose. The strategy must:
Develop and maximise the capacity and potential of victims' groups
Resource groups properly and in a guaranteed consistent transparent manner
Encourage advocacy and provide representation over a wide range of issues
Recognise the worth of practical social inclusion projects such as social activities
Deal with all needs on an equal, transparent, non-political fashion.
Only when the centrality of groups is established and supported can other levels of the strategy be developed. Trauma Advisory Panels and other groups representative of victim's opinions and needs provide other sources of input to the policy formers. Liaisons with Local Strategy Partnerships and others who administer victim's programmes and budgets or provide services to victims must from part of the interaction.
The strategy refers to the needs often of society as a whole and many of the issues and expenses stemming from this are already the duty of government to address. To label their natural responses as doing something for the victims is duplicitous. Victim's needs must be raised with those dealing with these areas and victims must have an impact on the actions of government. However care must be taken that the existing responsibilities of government departments are not offloaded as victims needs and therefore funded from a budget specifically created for victims. The need for a Victim's Commission to ensure this does not occur is clear and by inference so is the Commission's independence from government.
Funding
Like so many things in life you get what you pay for and currently the government is not willing to pay for the level of service that victims need. Again we call for the implementation of the Bloomfield findings. Sir Kenneth Bloomfield states that a number of things need to be put in place to support victims :
“…First, sympathetic consideration should be given to the provision of funding which would allow excellent organisations …to provide more comprehensive services throughout the Province. This would involve funding further capital development, employment of additional staff and - in line with the recommendations of the SSI Group - appropriate training and accreditation. Northern Ireland today is characterised by an exceptionally extensive network of community and voluntary groups, some of which are directed to single and others to multiple purposes. In the areas most severely affected by violence, it is to be hoped that multi-purpose groups will accept services to victims as a special concern and take advantage of opportunities to acquire the skills and knowledge required for that purpose. Second, the question of longer-term funding needs to be urgently addressed. Too many organisations and projects of demonstrable utility currently depend heavily on funding mechanisms which will not be available forever, eg through EU programmes or IFI. Yet the affected population will in many cases face considerable problems into the indefinite future. The domestic administration needs its own Peace and Reconciliation budget and room must be made for this in determining overall financial priorities. In this context, it will be important to establish objective methods of evaluating need, so that resources are directed at the communities and groups that have suffered most, and not merely at those who are good at obtaining resources….”
The variety of sources of funding while being a facet of the system does pose difficulty in the identifying of potential sources and the accessing of said funds. The NI Memorial Fund is a good concept but has considerable logistical difficulty. However as the only real source of direct funding help to individual victims we would advocate more resources for this work and an increase in government assistance with the administrative side of the work. It is often not the money but the recognition that victims require and the placing of criteria while necessary must be done with extreme caution. It is seen as the state rejecting victims and often leads to a great sense of hurt when criteria are cited to support a refused application. It is a difficulty that can never be fully addressed but would be alleviated by providing more resources.
In relation to PEACE II the strategy must include mechanisms to eliminate the difficulties of PEACE I, and develop an exit /sustainability strategy for the government. For too long individual groups and projects have been forced to develop such strategies, however we are stumbling in the dark until the government decides and describes clearly what its plans are. Research has shown that the ending of violence, resolution of conflict, the treating of trauma and the healing of society takes twice as long as the conflict lasted therefore we feel the burden rests on government across all its departments to prepare to deal with victims for at least the next 25 years.
Victims ought to be a feature of budgeting for any government department for the foreseeable future and as such longer term strategies should be adopted to ensure the sector can develop in a structured sustainable manner rather than the current hand to mouth subsistence funding and ad hoc development. Core Funding has to be central to and an indicator of government’s commitment to the sector. It has in our experience been an eminently better managed process under the current IFB the Community Relations Council. However the mere £3 Million given by the present government was an insult. It was the same as the figure given two years previously despite the cost of living and other costs rising and the mushrooming of the sector.
Now the government must make a case at Europe for the continuance of some form of Objective 1 Status for Northern Ireland and the continuance of PEACE monies. This is necessary for the province as a whole but the community and voluntary sector and victims in particular. A strong informed case must be made to secure a continuance of funding, this must then be followed by a reassessment of the usage of that money and the targeting of groups most in need. Coupled with this approach must be a realisation that the unionist community is about a Programme behind their nationalist counterparts in terms of development. Ring fenced funds must be available to promote equality of output in terms of the work here.
As a group we have suffered because of these and have been vocal in articulating not only where the problems lie but how they must be addressed. The issues we have raised directly with the Victim's Unit do not need articulation in this paper but stand in public record. Our proposals are with the Unit as they have been lodged with the political parties and every body responsible right the way to the Commissioners in Brussels. In short funders must be accountable and regulated, their practices must be open to public scrutiny and the monopoly held by certain IFBs must be broken, in order to ensure that the problems of the past are not perpetuated. Core funding is vital to the sector if we are to attract and retain profession educated and able staff. The uncertainty in the sector has seen the loss of a number of graduates and will lead to the decline in the ability of the sector to service the needs of victims.
The greatest problem facing the area of funding is the encroachment of service providers, professional businesses and consultants. Their ability to develop a business type plan for the work due to the deployment of a particular model or programme devised not by but imposed on victims gives them a natural advantage in the area of applying for funding. Groups must be responsive to members needs and cannot plan as effectively or strategize; we are like amateurs playing in a professional league. The sudden appearance of all manner of unregulated and frankly dubious service providers in direct competition to the existing groups is a real problem. They will take money that would otherwise go directly to victims for example the case of Banbridge District Partnership who spent the equivalent of a befriender or some other vital worker's salary on an academic to do a piece of research.
Service providers if they are necessary are necessary to plug the gaps in statutory provision and therefore ought to be funded directly by the government in the same way that at times the government will pay for the use of private health services when the NHS cannot cope. The duplication of services is also a fear and the role of a strategy is to eliminate such duplication and competition. There ought to be a clear distinction between support and self-help groups and the businesses, which are currently offering services.
The issue of funding has been explored in length in other publications by our group and they ought to be considered in parallel with this submission. However in summary some practical ways of improving the process would be:
Independent Commission to flag up complexity and range of issues in sector. Such a body would have a greater independence and flexibility to press government to honour its commitments in findings terms.
The Commission would liaise with funders who should be made aware of the value of a range of social activities, and other programmes used by the groups. New methods for evaluation tailored to the specific needs and development of the victims sector need to be developed. Rather than using stark figures such as those trained, those qualified and those employed as a result; indicators which gauge the level of social capital, integration and inclusion understanding and genuine progress should be used.
Local support projects which can assist groups and individual victims alike similar to a post created under the previous Armagh District Partnership should be created across the country, to help the cohesion of the sector and networking for practical benefit.
One stop funding shops dedicated to victims, which will provide administrative support on a confidential basis for groups and develop funding workshops to train groups in filling out forms by formulating ideas. The application and monitoring process should be made more accessible and user friendly with user friendly language in funding forms.
The list of practical changes that could be made are endless, in the long-term the issue of sustainability needs attention and must be a focal point of the strategy. Government must take a lead in this regard and then groups can reflect on the implications of the long term plans of the government and act accordingly.
Increasing Awareness
Firstly all issues must be parity of esteem and recognition that various groups achieve closure and benefit from a range of methods. Being recognised and heard however is a common thread in the healing process, for too often victims have suffered in silence and the most beneficial pathway is to give them space and assistance to speak out. Such stories must be treated in the same fashion, for example if a group needs to speak out about their opposition to amnesty that must be given an equal platform to those who choose to highlight needs of a less emotive variety. Again the provision of resources to groups to allow them the freedom to develop programmes to raise awareness themselves is the first step. Providing training in communications public relations and media work would from an invaluable part of a programme aimed at empowering victims and promoting the value and use of self-advocacy. Such ability and opportunity would be therapeutic and would assist in the process of healing.
Victims Commission as will be expanded upon later would have an extensive role raising awareness of victims issues. The independent and holistic approach taken by a Commission would be best geared to not only raise but meet the needs of victims. The Commission could also promote the cause of victims legally by championing their rights. Finally it would also be their role to educate the IDWG and other frontline agencies.
In the interests of sustainability other sources of funding need to be located and existing ones perpetuated. To that end we call for the establishment of victims offices in Washington and Brussels tasked with raising awareness internationally of victims needs and issues and also attracting funding. In the wake of the 11th September and the war on terrorism such a project is in step with international opinion and would ensure that victims in Northern Ireland are treated similarly to victims across the globe. Northern Ireland could become an example of best practice in the treatment of victims and could export its experience abroad.
Partnership Approach
While in principle we support the concept of partnerships which will result in a joined-up approach we would however be against the creation of additional tiers of bureaucracy staffed by civil servant unaccountable to anyone. Partnerships must never become monopolies and must be overseen very carefully to ensure that government does not link up with then promote specific voluntary/community sector groups. Issues such as statutory partnerships with voluntary groups who are also IFBs could lead to favouritism and government sponsorship of certain groups. In short again such matters need to be regulated by a Victims Commission.
The establishment of a communication model and a method of user consent for referrals between the two, which will meet the needs of the user group and reduce stress on the client. The centrality of victims' groups and support workers is again key. They must be the point of contact and reference for the statutory sector for the reasons already stated.
Structures
The structures proposed by the Victims Unit are unwieldy and cannot service the whole need of the sector. In a document drafted by civil servants it is no surprise that the role of mandarins is increased and the concept of accountability and transparency eliminated. Endless tiers of bureaucracy have been crested and yet the strategy cannot properly claim to include all areas. It is a product of a devolved administration and therefore the key issues reserved have been ignored.
While they recognise the confusion that exists the strategy proposes little remedy. The duplication of services and the existence of two units must end the replacement of these two units by a Victims Commission is the only answer. The other issues mentioned represent irrelevancies, few victims have even heard of the Touchstone group and those that have rarely use polite language to express their contempt for them. Unless victims groups are directly included and canvassed, an easy tack with today's communication revolution, no initiative will have their support.
Victim's Commission
The intention of establishing a Commission "to look at possible ways to recognise the pain and suffering felt by victims of violence arising from the troubles of the last 30 years, including those who have died or been injured in the service of the community" was announced by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in Belfast on 24 October, 1997
Here sadly the story stops, for despite having used the best model available and one which has subsequently been replicated for Human Rights and Children the government wound down the Commission. We now call for a similar model and one which Bloomfield advocates to be used to further the victims sector.
There must be recognition of the areas of overlap between the two units and necessity to create one, which will oversee a holistic approach. Victims need a champion - a strong independent voice to promote and protect their rights and to represent their interests. They need a body which can advise the authorities and challenge them when necessary - a watchdog and an engine for change; something outside of government to assist in the joining up of policy across existing government departments and statutory agencies. That is why FAIR has decided to call for the establishment of a Victim's Commission. As part of a victim led strategy we propose a Victim's Commission, as we believe that the role and responsibilities are too great for one person. Only a representative Commission can address the range of opinions, needs and priorities within the sector. This must be central to the work that is ongoing to develop an over-arching victim's strategy. This must follow a clearly set out vision for the victims of Northern Ireland, together with strategic policy aims and specific goals to make that vision a reality. It must also put in place the mechanisms which are needed within Government to ensure that victim's issues remain at the top of the Executive's agenda and are taken forward in a joined-up way.
This we feel represents a natural progression and full implementation of the findings of the Bloomfield Report which stated
“…In the longer run there is a strong case for creating an influential body or office to oversee the delivery of appropriate services and to be a focus for complaints, recommendations and requests from the relevant interests. This could take the form either of a 'Standing Commission for the Protection of Victims' …..or the creation of an office of Protector or Ombudsman for Victims. Such a commission or officer could be charged with responsibility for keeping under review the adequacy of services and the availability of advice…..
When we come to the need for champions, it is not so much a case of having no voices to speak for victims, but rather a cacophony of relatively uncoordinated voices. Many people made the point to me that there seems to be a stronger and more effective lobby operating in the interests of prisoners or ex-prisoners than there is in the interests of victims…... It would, however, be quite unacceptable to provide services for the benefit of those convicted of serious offences which are not matched in dealing with the victims of such crimes, including in particular people placed in the path of danger by service to their community.
If the effective champion I believe the victims need and deserve is to be available, three things need to be addressed. First, sympathetic consideration should be given to the provision of funding which would allow excellent organisations …to provide more comprehensive services throughout the Province…. Second, the question of longer-term funding needs to be urgently addressed. Too many organisations and projects of demonstrable utility currently depend heavily on funding mechanisms which will not be available forever, eg through EU programmes or IFI. Yet the affected population will in many cases face considerable problems into the indefinite future. The domestic administration needs its own Peace and Reconciliation budget and room must be made for this in determining overall financial priorities. In this context, it will be important to establish objective methods of evaluating need, so that resources are directed at the communities and groups that have suffered most, and not merely at those who are good at obtaining resources. Third, I believe the interests of victims would be better served by the creation of a collective voice, in the form of a Standing Conference of Organisations Supporting the Victims of Violence. This may not be easy to achieve, given the sensitivities of particular categories of victim, but I believe some such step is required to raise the profile of the entire issue.”
The consultation process must be extended beyond this document as victims needs are constantly evolving and in many areas increasing. The strategy must be victim orientated and there must be a commitment to wide-ranging debate and discussion before proposals on the strategy are finalised, including an opportunity for victims and the organisations that represent them to influence the way forward. The process must also include informal meetings with key stakeholders in the process, such as the main victim's organisations, representatives of the statutory sector, the legal profession, organisations that provide services, and the judiciary. At the same time research must be carried out into the issues at stake. An inter-departmental group comprising senior representatives of all the Northern Ireland departments, together with the Northern Ireland Office and the Northern Ireland Court Service ought to be established to advise on the role and remit, scope and delivery of the strategy. In addition, input to the development of proposals must be forthcoming from funders, statutory agencies in a transparent inclusive process where the ideas of those participating can be challenged and explained in a meaningful fashion.
Working in partnership with key stakeholders from the outset is the only way to instil a sense of ownership in the project. There must be an inclusive and participative process to develop the proposals contained in this consultation document which is now being published for widespread public consultation.
The Position of Victims in Northern Ireland Today
It has often been said that victims represent the past, but they are also part of our present. We have a duty to recognise the value and importance of the sacrifices and the suffering of those who are left behind. We must also recognise victims as citizens in their own right and ensure that the conditions exist to enable them to enjoy a happy, safe and secure life. We must ensure they are able to live fulfilled lives and to develop as individuals and within groups.
Victim's needs: Victim's rights
All victims have a basic range of needs. They need to be recognised, to develop in a secure and stable environment, to have a reasonable level of socio-economic provision, to be cared for and protected, to be educated to fulfil their potential, to have access to health care. However, many victims have additional needs in relation to their development. Some need greater protection; others need special education provision; some need special health care provision; others need help when the family structures around them break down. However, the arrangements for meeting these welfare needs must be seen in the broader context of victim's rights. Northern Ireland has embarked on a new era of recognition and protection of human rights for everyone. Human rights and equality of opportunity are the watchword of policy makers at present. we have a Human Rights Commission to promote a culture of rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 has added a further dimension by making the rights and freedoms in the European Convention on Human Rights enforceable in our own courts. Work by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to consider the scope for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland will further help to develop a culture where respect for rights becomes second nature. Rights and responsibilities have become part of our every day language in Northern Ireland and that is the way it should be.
The proposed Bill of Rights provides a new vision for victim's rights. It will explicitly recognise that victim are inherently worthy of respect, entitled to human dignity and are holders of fundamental rights of their own. They must be respected as having their own rights, including the right to be consulted about matters affecting their lives. International Standards state that the State has specific responsibilities. It is our contention that during the past thirty plus years the government has never fully discharged its responsibilities. At present the treatment of victims in Northern Ireland is clearly at variance with international standards. There must be a shift away from an approach based only on needs. There must increasingly be a rights-based approach which more pro-actively emphasises the important role which victims play in civic society and the fact that our society is enriched by their active participation in it.
Why do victims need special mechanisms to represent their interests?
The need for victims to have special mechanisms to represent their interests has been well documented. They are a unique group of citizens whose voice often goes unheard because:
they have been specifically alienated from the political process, which has included those responsible for their victimhood
they have very limited economic or social power, and the traumatic effects of the troubles have compounded their social exclusion
they are particularly vulnerable to manipulation, ill-treatment or abuse by those more powerful than themselves;
they are less likely to have access to independent advice and advocacy in situations where their rights have been breached;
there is little effort to ensure that due regard is paid to the concerns of victims in policy making;
they are subject to restrictions or particular rules and regulations which do not apply to other social groups, this discrimination is best seen the area of funding.
The victim's strategy must put mechanisms in place to ensure that victim's rights and needs are co-ordinated, monitored and promoted within Government. To that end we are committed to the establishment of an independent Commission who can act as a completely impartial and influential champion for victims outside Government.
What would a Commission for Victims do?
The concept of having a Victim's Commission or Ombudsman has long been advocated by victims who have felt alienated from the existing structures and have need for representation at the highest levels. The range of possible roles for the Commission for Victims is discussed more fully later. However, it is clear that in Northern Ireland, victims need a champion, those whose specific and exclusive focus is on the unique needs and rights of victims. They need a strong, influential and independent voice to represent their interests, to promote and protect their rights, and to challenge government and all those responsible for and working with victim to do better. They need a spokesperson to promote a victim-focused, holistic and co-ordinated approach, and to act as a watchdog and an engine for change. The Commission should promote the participation of victims in society and ensure that they are consulted on matters affecting them. They should analyse the impact of government policies on victims and ensure that the systems already in place to safeguard victims do not let them down. Above all, they should be known to victims in Northern Ireland and be shown to listen to them, so that they can represent them and put forward their views, concerns and interests at the highest level.
What added value would a Commission for Victims bring?
In addition to the role which government has in relation to safeguarding and promoting victim's wellbeing, many agencies and organisations both inside and outside Government have a role in relation to victims. The aim in establishing a Commission for Victims is not to usurp the role of these or to add another tier of bureaucracy, nor to merely duplicate or take over existing functions. We believe that to really add value, the Commission must perform new and distinct functions, as well as making existing systems work better. The Commission should also monitor and promote better co-ordination of existing functions carried out by central government, local government, the statutory, voluntary and private sectors. Crucially, they must ensure that all those functions are actually accessible to victims. On a practical level, the Commission could add value to existing or forthcoming arrangements in the following way:
by independently monitoring the forthcoming victim's strategy;
by advising public authorities in the exercise of their duty to promote equality of opportunity for victims;
by developing mechanisms for consulting with victims;
by reviewing and collating information and statistics on victims in Northern Ireland;
by promoting policy initiatives for the effective implementation of International standards pertaining to victims
by raising, for example, through the media, the profile of victim's needs and rights, promoting citizenship and making victims aware of their rights
by ensuring that arrangements for investigating complaints work effectively; and
by carrying out investigations into matters affecting victim's rights.
The Commission's role in ensuring that there is a wider awareness of victim's rights within the wider community will also ensure that those working with victims are better informed and empowered as they pursue the attainment of their victim's rights whenever they are breached by statutory agencies. While we are willing to learn from international models, we are also committed to ensuring that the model adopted in Northern Ireland will be seen as a model of best practice, and will be specifically geared to the needs of victims here.
The roles of other organisations
The Commission for Victims will not work in isolation. Many existing statutory and non-statutory organisations already carry out a range of functions affecting victims. For example, the police and the social services authorities work together after the incident occurs; there is also referrals to statutory or voluntary trauma or counselling services; self help groups maintain a central role in the work.
We do not think that the Commission should simply replace or duplicate any of these organisations, because this would not add value to the existing arrangements. For example, the centrality of support groups is unquestionable and provide an instant response to the daily needs of victims and a direct interface with other service providers. For the most part, the Commission's role should be to work in partnership with other organisations to ensure that their functions are co-ordinated, and to make sure that they are accessible to victims and understood by them. However, we believe the Commission could have an important role in monitoring and reviewing what these organisations do and in identifying gaps and recommending appropriate action or mechanisms for filling them; and ensuring that those with a statutory duty towards victim discharge that duty properly.
The Commission's functions
The model which we are actively considering involves the Commission having the following functions:
Oversee the development and implementation of a victims' strategy
ensure that all Government Departments and Public Authorities recognise the particular circumstances of victims and play their part in ensuring that barriers to social exclusion are overcome;
develop and secure the implementation of policies and practices designed to meet the identified needs of victims in a strategic manner across the devolved administration;
ensure that Government Departments adopt a committed and co-ordinated approach to victims' needs, working in partnership with voluntary and community organisations;
meet the commitments on victims' issues contained in the Programme for Government;
ensure that services provided for victims reflect their particular needs, are equal to those offered to others and that barriers to access are overcome;
promote and facilitate an increase in the standard of services being provided to victims and to seek to address any identified gaps in service provision;
secure appropriate funding and ensure that any grant aid is distributed and monitored collaboratively by the statutory sector;
increase awareness among the public (especially victims and their representatives) to the approach of the devolved administration in meeting the needs of victims;
determine how best statutory agencies can work with those in the voluntary/community sector; and
increase awareness in Government and the wider public sector regarding the needs of victims and to encourage a sympathetic and understanding approach to meeting those needs.
Promoting rights, advocacy, advice, and watchdog functions
In the interests of fully integrating victims into society they must be given access to recognition and redress. Therefore the Commision must be able :-
to promote a culture of victim's rights and respect for the views of victims, acting as an advocate for victim's rights and needs generally.
to make victims aware of their rights and the rights of others.
to engage actively with and consult directly with victims and organisations working with or on behalf of victims.
to advise the Secretary of State, the Executive, and the Northern Ireland Assembly generally on matters affecting victim's rights.
to receive and comment on draft legislation and policy from a victim's rights perspective. This would normally take place as part of any consultation by public authorities in compliance with the statutory duty to promote equality of opportunity contained in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.
to independently monitor and report generally on the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights and other relevant victim's rights standards which the United Kingdom has ratified, including any victim's rights which may be included in a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland.
in relation to Government departments and public authorities, to keep under review the adequacy of existing legislation, policies, procedures and services affecting victims, and, where the Commission considers it necessary, to make recommendations for change.
to monitor what private and voluntary sector organisations do in relation to victim's rights and, where the Commission considers it necessary, to make recommendations to these organisations and/or the appropriate Government department or public authority.
Ombudsman
To provide advice to victims in relation to their rights or about making a complaint.
To receive complaints from victims who feel that their rights have been denied, or their welfare is at risk, and to assist victims to bring those complaints to the appropriate investigating authority. Where appropriate, the Commission could represent a victim in making a complaint.
If the Commission receives a complaint and there is no appropriate authority to deal with it, they could decide to investigate the complaint. The Commission may also make recommendations to the appropriate agencies or departments on which authority should investigate similar complaints in future.
To review the arrangements used by public authorities to investigate complaints made by victims in relation to their rights or welfare, and to make recommendations and take appropriate action when necessary. This could include reviewing the procedures used by such organisations, and their handling of individual complaints or investigations.
To carry out investigations or inquiries into matters affecting the rights or welfare of victims.
To provide assistance, including financial assistance, to victims in connection with legal proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of their rights, in strategic or other appropriate cases, having due regard to the need to avoid unnecessary duplication.
To bring proceedings in their own right involving the law, policy and practice relating to the protection of victim's rights generally, or where the Commission believes that a victim's rights have been denied.
To intervene in legal proceedings on any matter or in any proceedings in any court, tribunal or inquest involving law policy or practice relating to victim's rights in Northern Ireland. An 'intervening' power would allow the Commission with the approval of the court to take a positive role in the proceedings, to support the victim in seeking a conclusion in his/her favour.
To act as an amicus curiae or 'friend of the court' on any matter or in any proceedings in any court, tribunal or inquest involving law, policy or practice relating to victim's rights in Northern Ireland. An amicus curiae does not have a partisan interest, but is there at the request of the court, to assist it to reach a proper conclusion either by offering assistance in the resolution of legal problems in which he or she has special expertise, or by presenting the arguments in favour of one side which would not otherwise be represented.
To represent victims in court proceedings in strategic or other appropriate cases, having due regard to the need to avoid unnecessary duplication.
Research and good practice
To publish, promote and commission research on victim's rights and needs.
Drawing on governmental and other statistics and information, to compile and publish information and statistics in relation to victim's rights and needs.
To make recommendations and issue guidance on the development of good policy and practice in relation to victim's rights and needs.
To issue guidance on how best to consult victims.
To promote understanding of, and education on, victim's rights and needs.
To prepare an annual report for the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Westminster Parliament on victim's rights and needs falling within the responsibilities of each legislature.
The Commission could also be given the function of reviewing the role, functions, powers and remit of their office, and making recommendations to the Secretary of State on any changes he or she thinks are necessary. Such a review could be scheduled to take place three years after the Office of Commission is established.
The Commission's powers
The Commission for Victims should work in partnership with other organisations wherever possible, through bridge-building, disseminating good practice, and promoting and encouraging dialogue. However, this should be backed up with well-defined powers to ensure that the Commission can do his or her job effectively.
The model which we are actively considering involves the Commission having the following specific powers:
Where the Commission believes that a public authority is acting in a way that is not compatible with International standards, or believes that existing policies, procedures and services affecting victims are inadequate, the Commission could write to the authority recommending the actions he or she thinks the authority should take, and setting out the reasons for the Commission's opinion. The authority would be obliged to respond within a set time, detailing the steps it would take or, if it disagreed with the Commission, its reasons for doing so. If the Commission remained dissatisfied, he or she could make a report to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the Westminster Parliament.
The power to call for persons and papers. This would ensure that the Commission has a right of access to general information and papers on legislation, policy, procedures and services; and also to specific information and papers, for example, details of a specific complaint which has been made, and how it was handled, including the outcome of any investigation. The Commission should only be allowed to have access to confidential information about victims with their consent.
The Commission could be given access to all public and private institutions for victims. In using this power, appropriate safeguards would be required including the need to have due regard to the wishes and right to privacy of the victims concerned.
The power to assist victims, including financially, in connection with legal proceedings in respect of alleged breaches of their rights in strategic or other appropriate cases, having due regard to the need to avoid unnecessary duplication.
The power to bring proceedings in his or her own right involving the law, policy and practice relating to the protection of victim's rights generally, or where the Commission believes that a child's rights have been denied.
The power to intervene as a third party in legal proceedings on any matter, or any proceedings in any court, tribunal or inquest involving law, policy or practice relating to victim's rights in Northern Ireland.
The power to act as an amicus curiae on any matter or any proceedings in any court, tribunal, or inquest involving law, policy or practice relating to victim's rights in Northern Ireland.
In using any of the above powers, the Commission could be required to have due regard to the right of victim to confidentiality, and to the rights of others, affected by any action the Commission may take. Where there is a conflict between the rights of victims and the rights of others, the Commission could be required to give priority to the rights of victims. The Commission, like some other public authorities, could ask a Court to grant an injunction if he or she were obstructed. It is clearly important that there should be an effective and proportionate sanction to prevent situations arising where a party wilfully obstructs the Commission in the performance of his/her duties.
The sanction would be to provide that the Commission would be able to certify to a court - most probably the High Court - that obstruction had taken place preventing the performance of his/her duties. Where the High Court is satisfied that such obstruction has been established, the court would be able to deal with the obstruction as if it had been a contempt of the court itself. This alternative sanction would also send a strong signal that the Commission was not to be obstructed. It would, arguably, be a more proportionate sanction and one where the court would have a greater measure of flexibility in determining the appropriate level of sanction to impose.
How the Commission for Victims will work with other organisations
The role of the Commission for Victims should complement the work of other statutory authorities. They could have an umbrella role in respect of victim's rights, and where appropriate would work with other organisations on victim's issues. Therefore, it would be important for the Commission to establish from the outset, good working relationships with these organisations and a clear understanding of who does what.
To achieve this, the Commission for Victim could be required to draw up an agreement, known as a Memorandum of Understanding, with each of the statutory organisations affected. Each Memorandum of Understanding would set out clearly how the Commission and the other organisation would work together in the best interests of victim. The Commission could be required to publish these agreements in a clear and straightforward format that can be easily understood by victim. The Commission could also retain a monitoring and watchdog role to ensure that all those charged with responsibility for victim and their rights execute that responsibility and duty appropriately.
Many of the functions are new, however, some currently fall within the role of the Human Rights Commission, which deals with the human rights of everyone in Northern Ireland. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Commission for Victim and the Human Rights Commission would describe how each will operate with regard to victim's rights, in order to avoid overlap and duplication. In addition, the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister would enter into discussions with the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that there is no overlap in relation to the discharge of statutory functions by any two bodies.
The Commission's remit
We have suggested a broad possible role for the Commission for Victim, with an extensive range of functions, however we need to consider the remit of the post more carefully. Decisions of this matter may be fleshed out through wide-ranging consultation. Within this overall role, the Commission could take an overview of welfare issues. However, we suggest that the Commission should not take over the functions of existing victims groups, statutory authorities such as Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts, and other service providers. The Commission will, of course, need to consider how to ensure that he or she is accessible to victim who are particularly vulnerable or who have particular needs. There are a number of specific issues to be considered.
Reserved and excepted matters
As a result of devolution, most public authorities are accountable to the Northern Ireland Assembly through one of the eleven Departments of the Northern Ireland Executive. However, the responsibility for some key authorities and services has not been devolved to the Assembly, and remains with the Westminster Parliament. These are known as excepted and reserved matters. Many people believe that for the Commission to be effective as a champion for victim, their remit should include every public authority with which victim may come into contact, and every matter which affects their daily lives. Therefore, the Commission's remit should include the justice system and the compensation issues of victims. This chapter suggests what the role and remit of the Commission for Victim could be. Final decisions will not be taken until we have carefully considered the views put forward in consultation. We would welcome your views on any aspect of the Commission's role, and on the following issues in particular. The real added value of a Commission will come from having an overarching, co-ordinating role in relation to all matters affecting victim's rights, including complaints. It is also argued that the Commission could not be effective in promoting rights generally, if he or she did not have the experience and knowledge that comes from investigating individual cases.
Appointment and accountability arrangements
The appointment and accountability arrangements for the Commission for Victim are very important. A balance must be struck between independence and accountability. On the one hand, the Commission must be sufficiently independent to carry out his or her functions properly, in the best interests of victim. The Commission must be free to operate without interference from Government or public authorities. He or she must be able to set an agenda and priorities that are victim-centred, and responsive to the views of victim themselves. On the other hand, the Commission will hold an important public office. He or she will have responsibilities that are set down in law, and will be responsible for spending taxpayers' money. Therefore, the Commission must be accountable for his or her actions to elected representatives.
Appointment arrangements
Who should appoint the Commission?
We believe that appointment by Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State (this is the arrangement for the Northern Ireland Ombudsman). This would be a fitting tribute to the sacrifice of the victims and the crown would be regarded as being independent enough of political constraint.
The appointment process should be in accordance with the Code of Practice on Public Appointments with selection on the basis of merit. The appointment arrangements for the Commission could include the authority to dismiss him or her, for example, on the grounds of incompetence or misbehaviour. Victims should be involved in the appointment process. A process of wide-ranging consultation with the victims themselves could best manage this.
The Commission's term of office
The length of the Commission's term of office is important. If the term is too short, the Commission may not be able to build up the necessary experience and expertise, and may not have enough time to bring about real and lasting change. On the other hand, the priorities and focus of the Commission's office are likely to change over time. If the term is too long, opportunities could be lost to ensure that the Commission's skills and expertise continue to match the priorities of the job. We believe the term ought to be 2 years. Reappointment is desirable as it would allow an effective member or members of the Commission enough time to make an impact. On the other hand, we agree that having to seek reappointment could distract the Commission, and make it harder for him or her to be completely independent, to counter this there should be only one period of reappointment.
Accountability
The arrangements for ensuring that the Commission is accountable should be well defined and clearly understood, without compromising the independence of the office. There are a number of key issues to be considered.
Reporting arrangements
To ensure accountability, the Commission could report back regularly on how he or she has carried out the role, and on the use of the financial and other resources at his or her disposal. The Commission could provide annual reports to the Westminster Parliament (also as a point of information to the Assembly) on how he or she has carried out his or her functions. In addition, the Commission could be accountable to Parliament's Public Accounts Committee for expenditure, and be required to appear regularly before the Northern Ireland Select Committee or any other committee established by Parliament to focus on victim's matters. It is important to involve victims in the accountability arrangements. Wide-ranging consultation and evaluation could again do this. As explained earlier the role of victims groups as a conduit for such opinions is vital.
Complaints about the Commission for Victims
As with any public office, it will be important to put in place arrangements for people to complain if they feel they have been treated unfairly by the Commission for Victims, or that the Commission has not done his or her job properly. The role of the Northern Ireland Ombudsman could be broadened to deal with complaints about the Commission for Victims. This would also mean that the Commission for Victim would automatically be bound by the statutory equality duty set out in Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which requires public authorities to promote equality of opportunity and good community relations.
Conclusion
The victims issues cannot be treated in a similar fashion to other government policies. The role of victims groups in this process is pivotal to this process and must be a direct interface between policy makers and the sector as a whole. We would prefer an independent Victims Commission or Ombudsman to undertake this work using the victims themselves as their sole point of reference.
We believe the definition of victim is of fundamental importance to the development of a strategy. To properly define who a victim is would by inference apportion blame to those who created victims in the first place. The refusal to acknowledge a meaningful role for victims groups and dedicated support workers in the process of recognising needs informing others and addressing these demonstrates a gross oversight by the Victims' Unit.
If an independent body were to fulfil the role now assumed by the Victims Unit, then there would be greater freedom to pursue the full range of victim's needs and requirements. The strategy must develop and maximise the capacity and potential of victim's groups. Victim's needs must be raised with those dealing with these areas and victims must have an impact on the actions of government. However care must be taken that the existing responsibilities of government departments are not offloaded as victims needs and therefore funded from a budget specifically created for victims. The need for a Victim's Commission to ensure this does not occur is clear and by inference so is the Commission's independence from government.
The Victim's Commission as will be expanded upon later would have an extensive role raising awareness of victim's issues. The independent and holistic approach taken by a Commission would be best geared to not only raise but meet the needs of victims. Victims need a champion - a strong independent voice to promote and protect their rights and to represent their interests. As part of a victim led strategy we propose a Victim's Commission, as we believe that the role and responsibilities are too great for one person. All victims have a basic range of needs. we have a Human Rights Commission to promote a culture of rights. Work by the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to consider the scope for a Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland will further help to develop a culture where respect for rights becomes second nature.
The Commission's role in ensuring that there is a wider awareness of victim's rights within the wider community will also ensure that those working with victims are better informed and empowered as they pursue the attainment of their victim's rights whenever they are breached by statutory agencies. The Commission must be able to ensure that all Government Departments and Public Authorities recognise the particular circumstances of victims and play their part in ensuring that barriers to social exclusion are overcome; increase awareness among the public (especially victims and their representatives) to the approach of the devolved administration in meeting the needs of victims; increase awareness in Government and the wider public sector regarding the needs of victims and to encourage a sympathetic and understanding approach to meeting those needs.
The Commission could be given access to all public and private institutions for victims. In using any of the above powers, the Commission could be required to have due regard to the right of victim to confidentiality, and to the rights of others, affected by any action the Commission may take. Where there is a conflict between the rights of victims and the rights of others, the Commission could be required to give priority to the rights of the child.
The role of the Commission for Victims should complement the work of other statutory authorities. They could have an umbrella role in respect of victim's rights, and where appropriate would work with other organisations on victim's issues. The Commission's remit should include the justice system and the compensation issues of victims. This chapter suggests what the role and remit of the Commission for Victim could be. The real added value of a Commission will come from having an overarching, co-ordinating role in relation to all matters affecting victim's rights, including complaints. |
|
|
FORMING A FAIR FUTURE - PREFACE |
|
|
|
Monday, 06 October 2008 |
PREFACE
The following submission represents the culmination of over five years of thought and experience and aims to represent the considered opinion of a number of groups which represent the majority of victims of terrorism in Northern Ireland. Terrorist groups or non-state actors as they are known in international law have been responsible for the overwhelming majority of murders and human rights violations during the past conflict known as the Troubles. Their victims are from all walks of life, from many faiths and backgrounds and hold to numerous political allegiances. They are united by one fact they have all been affected by terrorism in a terrible way and their lives have never been the same since.
The groups which have worked together to develop this submission represent a wide geographical spread with some from isolated border communities others from perceived ‘safe areas’. All have a shared interest in ensuring that their children do not have to suffer as they have; all are united in their desire to see terrorism eradicated not placated and ended not appeased. This common purpose is underpinned by a genuine believe in democracy, justice and the rule of law and in the pursuit of a safe equitable society for all they seek to ensure that others do not have to endure what they have faced. To that end and in a spirit of self-help groups were formed in order to assist and enable victims to rebuild their lives.
These self help groups have given victims a voice for the first time in three decades and have worked tirelessly to promote the best interests of those left marginalised by terrorism. The following submission is one aspect of this advocacy and represents the accumulative wisdom and experience of a sector. Those who contributed to the work have all worked within the sector and have drawn on their group’s ideas and ideals. The work was commissioned by the umbrella group NITVT - Northern Ireland Terrorist Victims Together and was undertaken by FAIR Research and Policy Unit. The work drew on submissions made by groups and also external and international best practice. The project was also endorsed by many individual victims affiliated to no particular group, and to several newly formed groups. Individual groups were also free to submit additional material to the consultation process which did not contradict the main submission. Many areas and groups had unique concerns and issues and these should be read as additional to but subsidiary to the following.
The groups which have endorsed the following submission are
FAIR - Families Acting for Innocent Relatives
East Fermanagh Foundation
Ely Centre
GIVE
MAST
South Down Action for Healing Wounds
Ballymena Victims Memorial Committee
Desertmartin Victims Support Group
North Antrim Victims Aid
West Tyrone Voice
HURT
In addition to this letters of support were issued for non-affiliated victims who had read, understood and endorsed the following submission and these should be taken as individual submissions of the following.
The present consultation process has added a great burden to many groups. Victims support groups many of which have received little or no funding have not got the resources to reply effectively to this process. There is a duty on the government to provide resources to facilitate groups. Funding or professional services should be provided to groups at this time to ensure that submissions are well thought through and relevant. Without such support in terms of time, resources and staff consultations are empty processes which actually work against smaller groups. In this regard we feel the victims sector generally is being discriminated against in this regard.
The process to date has failed to engage victims and as a result there will be no sense of ownership over the process. It has lacked resources and government commitment which is clear when it is compared to other consultations such as Patton or the Bill of Rights. To a large degree this is down to the governments attempt to put the cart before the horse, for example the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission was created first then it began consultation. Our proposal is to create a Victims Commission which will in turn engage in consultation with victims as to the future of other more detailed aspects of the sector’s development.
As is usual the protestant unionist community are at a disadvantage in terms of resources, infrastructure and capacity. A fundamental flaw compounded by the prevailing political agenda that is shaping the process. We firstly ask that the same rules are applied to this consultation as are laid out in the governments own document – “Guide to Consultation Methods for Northern Ireland Public Authorities”.
To form our case we will deal with each of the prescribed criteria in turn
Timing and resourcing of consultation
There must be sufficient time to allow the range of victim support groups to raise awareness, educate then canvass opinion from their members and to respond meaningfully. Without this process consultation is little more than a paper exercise designed to give cover and a veneer of democracy to a policy dictat. In terms of resources these must be directed at the consultees and their groups to give them the capacity and capability to respond. It must alleviate the administrative and time and resource burdens placed on voluntary groups by the consultation process.
Access to the process must be facilitated as many groups who represent the most marginalised in society are voluntary groups with no training recourses or capacity to make spontaneous responses. Therefore funding, location, administration, training, and other interventions are necessary to ensure that sections of the community who often will be most impacted by policy actually have a voice.
2. Who is being consulted,
There must be clear guidelines about who is consulted, how representative the responses are and what groups or other stakeholders have been missed. Often consultations such as the present one are a free for all, with the consulter having an open forum from which views are taken and distilled. Therefore we must be assured that for the process to be a success all the stakeholders or affected parties are included, that a transparent balanced process which is inclusive is employed to develop a sense of ownership. Bearing in mind the disparity in development between the two main communities it is clear that submissions must be assessed, as often just because a group has a well presented submission or can shout the loudest does not mean it represents the most people.
A democratic test must be factored into the process to assess and weigh submissions in terms of the relevance of the group. This can be done by assessing the potential impact of the proposals on the consultee, how many people the consultee represents, have they been represented before, and are the ideas duplicated. A method must be devised to test the credentials and bona fides of those who purport to represent others, for example the International Monitoring Commission drew attention to the infiltration of community groups by terrorist organisations. They may well use violence to influence the position of these groups or purposively misrepresent the views of the community.
Opinions offered by representatives whether they be church, political or community must be assessed in terms of their mandate, and the impact the policy will have on them. This is not possible in the haphazard approach taken by the government to date.
3. Consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible.
It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main issues/questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain. Again groups should be given funding and professional help and administrative support to put the process in terms and language their members understand and to engage in a facilitated discussion with them to deliver informed comment. If the process is aimed above the heads and the language too formal often it is very difficult to get victims to engage. The documents should be prepared by victims and cover the areas they are interested in. Any submissions prepared by groups must be professionally presented and used to inform and include the rest of their community, broadening debate and ownership of the process.
4. Documents should be made widely available,
With the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), consultations should be effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals. It should also state that the document is available on request in accessible formats and these should be listed. If there is no document to form and inform debate then victims will have to talk in a vacuum. This is difficult and dangerous as it expects victims to meet and talk in an unsupported environment often with those they view as perpetrators. This can retraumatise victims, raise then dash their expectations, or cause other serious long-term effects.
5. Sufficient time should be allowed
The process must not be rushed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard period for a consultation with eight weeks being the minimum, however given the lack of development the sheer numbers of interested people and the logistic difficulties this should be lengthened. Given the sensitive nature of the issues and the role of victims who still live under threat additional time must be allotted. The time period should be at least doubled with the state of development of groups and areas all taken into account.
6. Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed,
and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken. It is important that those making submissions can track their ideals and opinions through the process and to see why they were not included in the final product. Reasons should be included with every decision made on the inclusion or exclusion of ideals, opinions or models which are contested.
FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLES
Our position adopts a holistic approach to servicing the needs of the sector. A true Victims' Strategy must be developed to include both devolved and reserved or excepted matters, the continuing suffering of our members does not recognise departmental or administrative boundaries.
Therefore we call for the creation of a new paradigm at this time one which will detach victims work from the political institutions established under the Belfast Agreement. We have no confidence in these current structures and feel victims work should be independent of politics; also it will prevent the sickening sinario of victims issues being handled by a minister who represents a party associated with terrorism.
We do not see the current strategy ‘Reshape, Rebuild, Achieve’ as a stable foundation on which to build for the future, it does not take into account the shape of the sector especially the pivotal role of support groups, and as a result it has failed to achieve.
VICTIM ORIENTATED, NEEDS LED APPROACH
We also argue for a more incremental approach based as a continual appraisal of the needs of those victims. The role of victims groups in this process is pivotal to this process and must be a direct interface between policy makers and the sector as a whole. The role and work of these groups must be recognised, properly evaluated and government must be prepared to work for their continuance and inclusion not exclusion and destruction.
Victims themselves must dictate the vision developed if it is to give credibility to the whole process. The support and services ought to be not only proactive and sensitive but also responsive
WHO IS A VICTIM?
The definition of victim is of fundamental importance to the development of a strategy. There is a matter of high principle where we could never endorse a strategy, which will define terrorists as victims and thus legitimise their activities.
IMPLEMENTATION OF BLOOMFIELD REPORT
We call for a reassessment, completion and implementation of the key practical recommendations of the Bloomfield Report. Bloomfield offered to balance the equation and to include those victims who were excluded by the political process to date. His caring yet professional attitude stemmed from a long career in the civil service where he was himself victimised by Republican terrorists.
STRATEGIC RESPONSE
When it comes to the strategy and the action that stems from it we believe that it must be:
ACCEPTABLE
must be seen to be independent and victim-friendly
ACCESSABLE
understandable, open and including capacity building to allow groups to benefit
ACTIVE
must produce results that better the experience of victims
ACCOUNTABLE
transparent and answerable to victims
PRIMACY OF SUPPORT GROUPS
Many victims do not trust the present arrangements or those involved with their implementation. Rather they trust the groups they established to further their cause and demand that these groups remain central to any and all strategies that are proposed; the primacy of groups must be recognised and their role fully accessed.
The victims sector requires funding to research needs and develop user-led strategies for the future, including access to justice, human rights, and to discover the truth. The need for advocacy, lobbying and direct interventions for example in terms of legal issues must be acknowledged and encouraged.
FUNDING PROVISION
Victims ought to be a feature of budgeting for any government department for the foreseeable future and as such longer term strategies should be adopted to ensure the sector can develop in a structured sustainable manner rather than the current hand to mouth subsistence funding and ad hoc development. Core Funding has to be central to and an indicator of government’s commitment to the sector. We require urgent movement on this issue as funding is nearing an end and groups have spent a lot of time building up the victims sector, whereby victims are only starting to feel the benefits.
In order to demonstrate commitment to victims HM government must give a guarantee now that they will continue to Core Fund the victims sector for the next 10 years. That package must be raised to realistic levels having taken into account the continuing growth of the sector and the scale of the work we call Core Funding to be raised to £ 15 Million per annum. Now the government must make a case at Europe for the continuance of some form of continuance of PEACE monies. Coupled with this approach must be a realisation that the unionist community is about a Programme behind their nationalist counterparts in terms of development. Ring fenced funds must be available to promote equality of output in terms of the work here.
The funding of the sector must be underpinned by an equally committed strategy aimed at developing and securing the sector in the medium (10 years) to long (20 years) term.
VICTIMS’ COMMISSION
The structures proposed by the Victims Unit in their strategy are unwieldy and cannot service the needs of the sector. The concept of accountability and transparency are eliminated, as endless tiers of bureaucracy have been created. The duplication of services and the existence of two units must end - the replacement of these two units by a Victims Commission is the only answer.
Victims need a champion - a strong independent voice to promote and protect their rights and to represent their interests. They need a body which can advise the authorities and challenge them when necessary - a watchdog and an engine for change; something outside of government to assist in the joining up of policy across existing government departments and statutory agencies. That is why we have decided to call for the establishment of a Victim's Commission. As part of a victim led strategy we propose a Victim's Commission, as we believe that the role and responsibilities are too great for one person. Only a representative Commission can address the range of opinions, needs and priorities within the sector. This must be central to the work that is ongoing to develop an over-arching victim's strategy. This must follow a clearly set out vision for the victims of Northern Ireland, together with strategic policy aims and specific goals to make that vision a reality. It must also put in place the mechanisms which are needed within Government to ensure that victim's issues remain at the top of the Executive's agenda and are taken forward in a joined-up way.
RECOGNITION, REDRESS AND EQUALITY
While we envisage the Victims Commission being the vehicle for change specific issues need to be raised
There needs to be proper victim led provision for the families of members of the security forces who have served their country. Those in both the RUC, UDR and other security or emergency services who were injured, the families of those killed or those who served should be provided with adequate pensions and compensation. For example a Northern Ireland Service pension for those who have served, to balance inequalities.
The widows, families and injured or past members of UDR must be given a similar level of help support and financial assistance as the RUC. Any money not claimed at the time should be left aside for them or surviving members of the family.
A tailored widows pension not linked to the National Insurance contributions of the deceased should be developed.
In all cases of compensation, litigation and redress the issue of time should not be used to bar those who have been bereaved, injured or traumatised.
Groups should if they wish be facilitated by way of funding, and academic assistance to development in the direction of conflict resolution. Those who came through it and are leaders within their local communities are best placed to work in this area.
JUSTICE ISSUES
Our views on justice are quite clear and we will accept no less than what is afforded to every other British citizen. We ask no more we will accept no less. The Chief Constable’s comments reference not having the resources to investigate the 1800 historic murders is unacceptable. Now after the announcement of the Historic Enquiries Team we place on record our requirements for such investigations.
They must
Reinvestigation not Review
There is a big difference between these two processes and victims need to be assured that this is not simply a paper shuffle exercise. There needs to be proactive policing using the best new techniques and technology alongside experience and tradition. The new team must make full use of technological developments to aid crime investigation and ensure that our resources are used effectively. They must maximise the business benefits of the Omega Crime Recording and Intelligence system, the Police National Computer (PNC), The National Automated Fingerprint Information System (NAFIS), the major crime investigation system (HOLMES 2) and the Automatic Number Plate Recognition System or other equivalent methods. The normal process of reinvestigation such as is used on the mainland must be employed and the use of the media considered.
Additionality
A central concern is that the recent figures and resources mentioned in connection with the HET may be used to bolster existing police budgets. There needs to be clear assurance and proof that the new money will be used to provide additional investigation services not simply to pay for existing ones freeing up officers to do other things as the Chief Constable appears willing to do.
Independence
Concerns are always raised about the police in effect investigating themselves, whilst as a community we have less reservations we still need reassurance. For example a number of murders we have investigated have led us to conclude they could have been preventable, for example the murder of informers or even members of the security forces to protect a higher ranked operative. Alternatively there may have been deficiencies in the original investigation which have led to a lack of progress or indeed prejudiced the case totally. In this case what would the HET do would they involve the Police Ombudsman? Finally independence from political interference must be preserved, especially as suspects may be OTRs or in the issue of extradition warrants. For example perhaps a Minister in any future devolved administration could be linked to a murder there must be a guarantee that the full weight of the law would be brought to bear irregardless of the political consequences.
Effective
We have a number of constructive proposals around how to make the HET more efficient and effective. They centre on a Task Force Proposal, which would steer the work. Rather than the duplication of resources administration etc on each individual murder, they must be grouped as police would do with a serial killer. Geographically or by gang the HET would initially establish links using forensics ballistics modus operandi and intelligence, then the murders could be looked at holistically.
Victim Orientated
As the work is being conducted to judicial standards (which we welcome) there will be few cases that will result in closure for families. Therefore if this is to be any use for the families they must be given as much information as is possible. There must be a review of what is allowable. We are keen to learn more about you Family Liaison strategy and how we as a group will fir into the picture as we will be acting on behalf of many families.
Confidence and Security
Again given the nature of the work and the risks involved there needs to be provision for those who co-operate with the HET especially potential witnesses. They must be confident that the staff working in the HET are security cleared and not simply civil service secondments.
Underpinning any effective acceptable system of criminal justice is the police force. An end to the discriminatory 50:50 recruitment, the permanent retention of the police reserve and Special Branch, the recruitment of ex-members especially detectives and forensic specialists, and the provision of adequate resources to tackle current ordinary and terrorist crime, curb organised crime and to investigate historic offences. [FOR FURTHER REFERENCE CONSULT - FINDINGS ON THE INSTITUTIONALISED DISCRIMINATION MEASURES CONTAINED IN THE TEMPORARY PROVISIONS OF THE POLICE (NI) ACT 2000]
The government has set the standard for the investigation and recovery of truth in respect of historic episodes – namely the Saville Inquiry. Resources are not an issue and there will remain discrimination until our community receives equality in terms of justice. A precedent has been set by Saville and The Corry Initiatives and our community would be alienated if the government does not mirror these within our community.
We call for the establishment which we believe is under way of specialist murder task forces to investigate the linked serial killings, with access to all intelligence documents. Victims must be included in this process and given increased access to the officers involved and the material they are examining and producing. The experience of ex-officers, military personnel and others must be employed to progress the work. These task forces could continue the cold case review process and draw on new forensic techniques and investigative developments.
International expertise should be used in particular the FBI whose skills in psychological profiling and use of ‘Most Wanted’ lists should be incorporated.
A Scheduled Offenders Register should be created similar to the paedophile register which should be used in conjunction with the licensing scheme all those charged with a scheduled offence should be included and the same policy as the paedophile register be applied. It would be of benefit to discourage reoffence, for security purposes and to ensure that their victims knew where they were and what they were doing. Victims and others who can prove a legitimate public interest should be given access to the register which should be kept updated.
In conclusion one of the major concessions Sinn Fein/IRA will demand is Amnesty which in any shape or form is unacceptable it must be stopped. In this we have received support from the Conservative party, Amnesty International and indeed all right thinking people. What the government is proposing is in fact Impunity and indeed there are in international law certain crimes which can never be eligible for amnesty (UN’s Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-legal, Arbitrary and Summary Executions (1989) ). Therefore we call upon the government through the NIHRC to audit all Troubles related crimes to see if any of them would be eligible in international law for amnesty. This is a stalling and highly embarrassing thing for both government and terrorist and will highlight the real atrocities that took place.
On the issue of Truth Recovery we oppose a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the tradition British system of justice tailored to protect itself from terrorism is still the best forum for recovering truth and apportioning redress. Our victims need this for closure.
SECURITY ISSUES
As victims especially those living along the border we have constantly campaigned to retain security. The need for visible, proactive and effective security and policing on the ground supported by watch towers, air support and the political will to use them is clear.
In short our community will not accept the surrender of any more elements of our security. The present levels of police and army must be secured and indeed increased until the terrorist threat is gone. [FOR FURTHER REFERENCE CONSULT – CAMPAIGN TO RETAIN SECURITY ]
VICTIMS’ NEEDS – VICTIMS’ RIGHTS
There must increasingly be a Human Rights-based approach which more pro-actively emphasises the important role which victims play in civic society and the fact that our society is enriched by their active participation in it. This is an alternative model for conflict resolution which will be more inclusive –PEACE THROUGH JUSTICE. [FOR FURTHER REFERENCE CONSULT – HUMAN RIGHTS TO REMEDY INHUMAN WRONGS ]
CONCLUSION - LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
We trust our ideas will provide a basis on which to build a stable future, where victims are valued and included. As a group we expect much because we as a group have sacrificed much. The lives of our loved ones are worth this and more, it is for their memory and the peace and security of their children that we all work. I trust we can work together and achieve much. As a first step we request a working meeting with, yourself in order to explain why we have asked for what we have and to clarify our respective positions and hammer out any disagreements or misconceptions. |
|
| |
| | | | |
|
Support |
|
|
| | | |
|
Publications & Downloads |
|
|
|
Podcast |
Join our Podcast to hear interviews and reports
Full Feed
|
|
Store |
|
|
|
Statistics |
OS: Linux s
PHP: 5.2.14
MySQL: 5.1.48
Time: 03:11
Caching: Disabled
GZIP: Disabled
Members: 1
News: 990
Web Links: 4
|
| | |
|
Research and Policy Unit 
