"OTR" Bill: Sinn Fein do a U-turn

[BarryW]

In a desperate attempt to take media attention away from their embarassment over Denis Donaldsons shennanigans, the Shinners have today done a U-turn on their support for the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which would allow up to 150 terrorists, including murderers, to safely come home without fear of prosecution.

Pat Doherty (remember him) now says that the legislation bears no relation to the secret side deals they did with the British Government several years ago, and they can not support it.

"We are now calling for it to be rejected and we are withdrawing from anything to do with it" - said Doherty today.

Interestingly, the Shinners seemed to have caved to the SDLP position. Mark Durkan said last week:

"Under this legislation perpetrators don`t even have to turn up in court but victims can be compelled to do so and imprisoned if they don`t.
"My point to Gerry Adams is if you now say this legislation is unacceptable, prove it.
"Call on Tony Blair to withdraw and go back to the drawing board because as long as you don`t, you are still complicit in it."

And funnily enough, that's exactly what Adams has done!

The official SF reason for now opposing it is (of course) the fact that it will be extended to British army personnel, etc. Adams said recently:
“Hundreds of families have been bereaved through the direct actions of the British Crown forces and none of those soldiers have been held accountable"

Simple question: Why did he not oppose the Bill on the basis that it denied justice to the hundreds of families bereaved through the direct actions of his own IRA??
Are victims of IRA violence less entitled to justice, than those who were victims of the Brits?

We know the answer, of course. But I'd just like one of you Shinners to explain your way out of it somehow

[brenners']

Sinn Fein rejected it weeks ago mate!!

[Pidge]

Sinn Fein rejected it weeks ago mate!!

They did and to categorize this as a "U-Turn" is either a cheap shot or very, very ill-informed. This is largely in line with stated SF thinking over the past while.

For me, the real question is later on in BarryW's post. If the idea of victims of governmental violence getting no justice is so morally repugnant, then how can wanting the same thing for victims of the IRA be justifiable?

[DOD]

Sinn Fein rejected it weeks ago mate!!

They did and to categorize this as a "U-Turn" is either a cheap shot or very, very ill-informed. This is largely in line with stated SF thinking over the past while.

For me, the real question is later on in BarryW's post. If the idea of victims of governmental violence getting no justice is so morally repugnant, then how can wanting the same thing for victims of the IRA be justifiable?

What I think this boils down to is that IRA volunteers have been convicted or could potentially be convicted for their actions, whereas the British forces do not even own up to their collusion.

I hope a deal can be sorted out, as I find it ludicrous that at a time when the armed struggle is over, volunteers are still not free to return to their homes.

[Pidge]

What I think this boils down to is that IRA volunteers have been convicted or could potentially be convicted for their actions, whereas the British forces do not even own up to their collusion.

Yes, but obviously not all have been convicted. I understand the deal that was made, but I don't understand how SF can talk of justice for victims of collusion when at the same time not want justice for victims of republicanism.

I can understand the wont for justice, but it's massively hypocritical to want one kind and not the other.

I hope a deal can be sorted out, as I find it ludicrous that at a time when the armed struggle is over, volunteers are still not free to return to their homes.

It does indeed, considering the spirit of amnesty that exists in NI. Surely, if you follow this thought through, it follows that everyone get equal amnesty.

[smiffy]

It's also worth pointing out how damaging this kind of move is likely to be to SF's much vaunted 'reaching out to Unionists'.

As DOD knows, there's very little likelihood of IRA volunteers being convicted of the crimes (or 'crimes') they've committed. This move has little to do with the practicalities of the situation and far more to do with trying to deflect criticism that they're selling out the families of the victims of collusion for the convenience of their own members/volunteers.

However, in doing this, they're clearly creating a hierarchy of victims and every time SF calsl for justice for the families of the Bloody Sunday victims, or for Pat Finucane's family, or the families of the Dublin and Monaghan bombing victims or of the many other examples that could be picked will look to the Unionists like a kick in the teeth.

[BarryW]

I hope a deal can be sorted out, as I find it ludicrous that at a time when the armed struggle is over, volunteers are still not free to return to their homes.

"The armed struggle" (by which I presume you mean the campaign of robbery, bombing and murder) lasted 30 years. The IRA ended this "struggle" only in the last 6 months.

Do you expect victims of their crimes, and citizens of the State generally, to just shrug their shoulders after such a short time, and in a scenario where the IRA is still very much in existence?

[Pidge]

Do you expect victims of their crimes, and citizens of the State generally, to just shrug their shoulders after such a short time, and in a scenario where the IRA is still very much in existence?

I think that's exactly what they expect. It's also largely what they're getting.

As long as the "shoulder shrugging" is across the board, then I don't have a problem with it. Of course, I'd prefer a sort of Truth and Reconciliation type thing, where people admit and apologise for crimes.

[DOD]

It's also worth pointing out how damaging this kind of move is likely to be to SF's much vaunted 'reaching out to Unionists'.

As DOD knows, there's very little likelihood of IRA volunteers being convicted of the crimes (or 'crimes') they've committed. This move has little to do with the practicalities of the situation and far more to do with trying to deflect criticism that they're selling out the families of the victims of collusion for the convenience of their own members/volunteers.

However, in doing this, they're clearly creating a hierarchy of victims and every time SF calsl for justice for the families of the Bloody Sunday victims, or for Pat Finucane's family, or the families of the Dublin and Monaghan bombing victims or of the many other examples that could be picked will look to the Unionists like a kick in the teeth.

I certainly see why it is seen that way, however, I again re-itterate the difference is that there has not even been an acknowledgement that British forces aided loyalists. This would mean that should the legislation go through, the families of Dublin and Monaghan, Pat Finucane, etc, would never know the truth. Victims of the IRA, at least are told that the IRA are responsible. Therein lies the difference.

I was on a march against collusion last August in Belfast. The crowds were huge. Imagine the uproar if the party most vociferous about collusion were seen as supporting it. The SDLP are already making a political football of it. It is not realistic to believe that SF would just turn a blind eye to collusion.

Obviously I have no say in terms of SF negotiating, but I imagine if a deal were put in place whereby people would not be convicted but would have the full facts investigated, that could be acceptable.

[DOD]

I hope a deal can be sorted out, as I find it ludicrous that at a time when the armed struggle is over, volunteers are still not free to return to their homes.

"The armed struggle" (by which I presume you mean the campaign of robbery, bombing and murder) lasted 30 years. The IRA ended this "struggle" only in the last 6 months.

By 'armed struggle' I mean exactly that. The 'armed struggle' that the IRA volunteers engaged in in 1969 because there was no other alternative. This ended in July 1997 as well you know, and could well have ended in 1994 had it not been for the efforts of the Conservative party and your party to frsutrate the peace process and blame everything on republicans. All we got last July was a statement telling us something we already knew. If you see an obese man up the street, do you need him to release a statement saying he is obese before you know he is?