Sign up to our mailing list and be informed when the site is updated

Current News

LOYALIST DECOMMISSIONING – another sick joke!

 

Again, we are being entertained by another spectre of decommissioning, this time by loyalist terrorists.  Again, the country is almost euphoric at the prospect.  Of what are they euphoric?  Well, to be honest, we don’t know.  We have not been told, again, what was decommissioned, how much, how it was done, or where it was done.  Nor were we told much about the IRA’s so-called decommissioning a few years ago. 

 

As Jim Allister so rightly points out, “Even if one accepts that a significant quantity of ‘Loyalist’ weaponry has been disposed of, then the negative side of that needs to be kept in mind.  A wealth of forensic evidence will have been lost.  This will mean that the slim hopes victims had of seeing those who butchered their loved ones brought to justice have seen a significant setback.  Failure to have granted these people their day in court is not something any society should celebrate.”

 

This is what happened with IRA decommissioning – a wealth of forensic evidence was destroyed, thus once again favouring the terrorists and devastating their victims.  The euphoria at that time was sickening.  If you or I were to deliberately destroy evidence that could be used in court, the book would be thrown at us, and rightly so.  But I suppose when the government does it, it is not illegal!

 

Putting guns beyond use = putting vital forensic evidence beyond discovery - a real bonus for all terrorist groups.  Why they took so long to do this is beyond understanding.

 

THE MARCH MURDERS!

But this raises another important question: why has the PSNI not told us where the guns used to murder the two soldiers at Antrim and the policeman at Craigavon came from?  Whose were they?  The local Boy Scout Troop?  The PSNI are so deeply tied up with political considerations that they know that to disclose this information would be to undermine the political institutions at Stormont, and nothing, not even justice and law and order, is worth that!

 

 

Letter to CoI Gazette, and other papers.

Sir

I am amazed, though not surprised, at the calculated outburst of Bishop Harold Miller on the recent Sunday Sequence programme.  His words are ill-advised, and intemperate, and do nothing to help Protestant people. 

 

I was left asking myself several questions: What exactly do I have to apologise for, Harold?  (Your statement is much too bland to be of any use to anyone.)  What part have I played in what you and many others term “the Troubles”?  How am I to apologise for my community, and with what authority?  And to whom?  What particular sins or general sin must I now confess that will satisfy you?  What senior post within decadent Anglicanism is now in sight for the good Bishop that inspires this PC outburst? 

 

If Harold Miller needs to be educated about who really suffered at the hands of terrorists, he might well read Lost Lives, or the CAIN website, especially the new ARK archive, or some other reliable source.  It was the good people of Northern Ireland who suffered at the hands of ruthless terrorist criminals, regardless of their religious designation.  Protestants bore the brunt of a dedicated and vociferous terrorist campaign against decency and democracy, wherever it was found, but the Protestant community carried the heavy load.

 

Take the security forces in Northern Ireland, for example.  From which community did the vast majority of service men and women come?  Therefore, from which community were most murder victims found?  In the Protestant community, many of whom were Church of Ireland parishioners!  Is Harold Miller now wishing to distance himself from those good men and women who served and died for their country, all in a bid to further appease republicans?

 

His careless statement has a horribly familiar ring about it, as if history was now repeating itself.  Let me give him a brief history lesson that finds a contemporary similarity in Northern Ireland.  In the late sixties and early seventies, there were what came to be called ‘recreational riots,’ similar to what we have today.  Post boxes were painted green (as today), orange halls were torched and burned to the ground, as today.

 

But more specifically, Bishop James Mehaffy, speaking at a funeral in Castlederg some years ago, when UDR soldiers were being murdered regularly by the IRA, told the mourners that they too had to apologise to their Roman Catholic neighbours for what they had done to them.  Sound familiar?  Members left the Church of Ireland at that time, never to return again.  What prevented some of my friends walking out of the parish church on that painful day was respect for the poor murdered victim of republican terrorism, and his family. 

 

Mr Miller has forgotten that the entire IRA terrorist campaign was essentially sectarian since 1971, a convenient thing for him to do.  While no one would wish to deny that things were not done as they ought to have been done, and that there was disadvantage experienced by many people in Northern Ireland, he seems to have forgotten that Protestants as well as Catholics suffered. 

 

I had no advantages over my Catholic neighbours, and in each case hard work was rewarded.  Mr Miller seems to have read a tad too much of John Hume’s speeches in which he repeats the same old tired mantra about the Catholics not having the vote.  Only half true, Mr Miller.  Protestants who were not property owners had no vote either – but only in local government elections.  Everyone had the vote for the Imperial elections to the Westminster parliament.  Is he now trying to re-write history, as other establishment people are trying to do? 

 

In fact, he is providing a form of justification for the terrorists’ campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing against the decent people of Northern Ireland.  He is suggesting that they had every right to do what they did, because of these ‘bad’ Protestants.  The security forces really were ‘legitimate targets’ for IRA gunmen and bombers after all! 

 

The republicans will be delighted with this further rationalisation from another senior Protestant churchman, for their bloody campaign.  Mr Miller seems to have been mis-informed as to the true nature of terrorism and terrorists, just as Dr Paisley was by his advisors over many years.  Have they been drinking from the same fountain, I wonder?  Maybe they are suffering from amnesia!  Or have they changed their views simply because it is politically expedient to do so?

 

Northern Ireland needs leadership, but not the kind being offered or given by churchmen of whatever colour or creed.  They are disappointments, are they not?  Rather than join the cacophony of orchestrated condemnation of the Protestant people, these ‘Protestants’ ought rather to be exercising a ministry of encouragement and empowerment.  We have been, and are being, battered and bruised by all kinds of people, not least all sections of the media, and we stand in need of someone from our community who at least tries to understand and help us.  The vast majority of Protestants are not sectarian or racist, but some are; they have consistently voted against terrorists in elections – unlike the catholic community in Northern Ireland.  This ought to be recognised by people like Mr Miller, who ought to give credit where it is due.  Sadly, this senior Protestant churchman is not even prepared to do that for his own people.  With friends like Mr Miller, who needs enemies?

Yours, etc



David

I received a heart-rending message from a WTV member, Mr X, who had been in contact with you. With his written permission, I add my response to your reply to him for your consideration. 



"This response is no surprise, but is symptomatic of the distorted thinking that now passes for intelligence.  This always results when terrorists are afforded air-time in any country to propagate their destructive propaganda.  These 'reconciliation' events only serve to intensify the hurt that the victims of terrorism feel, and are a waste of space. 

It seems that Glencree has not changed its policy of including terrorists, and their supporters, in its events.  It still works on the principle of 'moral equivalence' between terrorist and victim.  Indeed, Glencree gives even greater prominence to terrorists than it does to the victims of terrorism.  Terrorists ought to be treated as the pariahs they really are.  They have disqualified themselves from any right to spread their nefarious propaganda, and their inclusion has a deeply negative effect on their innocent victims.

It is a pity that the organisers of these events cannot, or will not (because they are constrained by funding considerations), see this, and show how little they do care for the (still) suffering and hurting victims of their criminal activities.

I am very disappointed that David Bloomfield is simply continuing the flawed and backward policies of Glencree, seeking, as it does, to keep the victims of terrorism under the vicious control of those who destroyed their lives, and those of their relations. 

This now places any future relationship between WTV and Glencree in real jeopardy, because it only wants those in it who share its divisive views.  For Glencree to exclude one of our members is for Glencree to exclude WTV in toto.  And to use the pretext of its new programmes being inappropriate for you, a traumatised victim of terrorist criminal violence, is to exclude ALL such victims.

Going back to my earlier statement at the top of this email, perhaps I have jumped too fast; perhaps Glencree has wakened up to realities, and will now exclude terrorists, former terrorists and their supporters, ie, all IRA/Sinn Fein voters/supporters, from its programmes!  Perhaps, in any future programmes with these deluded terrorist criminals, they will run events that will seek to re-programme their depraved minds, and bring them to see the utter unacceptability of terrorism as a means of securing political goals. 

This is a big challenge for Glencree, given that McGuinness just last week said on UTV Live Tonight how proud he was to have been in the IRA - that is, he was proud of the numerous murders he sanctioned, and particularly, proud that he authorised my brother's murder by his mates, and proud of all the damage he did, not only to lives, but to businesses and property, though these are not on the same scale.  Add to this the statements made by that Glencree icon Patrick Magee, by John Nixon, by Joe Doherty, and by Ronnie McCartney, that if they had to do it again, they would.  These committed and convicted terrorists have not changed, and a man is a fool if he believes they have!

When we are being asked to accept these killers as 'changed men,' we are being asked too much.  When we are being asked to accept them as equals, again, we are being asked too much.  Difference is NOT the problem; it is the desire of one man to kill another man for purely political goals!  That desire is still there, and all it takes is the opportunity for it to become a full-blown reality - witness the IRA murders of the two soldiers and the police office last March!  Humanly they are equal, but morally they are, and never will be, equal.  Asking the victims of terrorism to engage with their attackers is like asking a victim of child sex abuse to engage again with his/her abuser, or a rape victim with her rapist!  It is crazy.

These ruthless killers are nothing but ruthless killers - they are Not men of peace, Nor are they statesmen, nor academics, nor democrats, nor any of these things; they are TERRORISTS, and that is all they will ever be, unless and until they repent of their evil ways, and genuinely seek God's forgiveness, and that of their victims. 

Glencree held so much promise, but alas, it set itself on a wrong course many years ago, and is still propagating such false notions of reconciliation - one without justice, or acknowledgement, or repentance, or an undertaking by terrorists never to do similar things ever again, or any of these things.  This would not suit the terrorists, therefore would not secure the necessary funding; but it would chart the way to true peace in our troubled world and country. 

I will copy this email to David Bloomfield - with your permission."



David, this situation is most disappointing and annoying, and it would have been good had a different spirit prevailed in Glencree.  To prefer convicted terrorists to an injured and severely traumatised former RUC officer is appalling.  What does that attitude say about your policy of INCLUSIVITY?  At least WTV is open and honest when it makes no claim to being inclusive, whereas Glencree does not appear to exhibit such honesty - which is the normal modus operandi of the reconciliation industry!  Like the 1988 and 2006 "Agreements" that blight Northern Ireland's landscape, which were 'spawned by force, sold by fraud and are sustained by fear,' the reconciliation industrialists use exactly the same approach to sell their divisive wares!

Dishonesty and deceit are not the ways to promote real and lasting reconciliation!

Proposed 'shrine to terrorism' at the Maze

 

CRC recently facilitated a meeting designed to discover the views of a wide range of victims’ group – these include groups linked to terrorism – on the proposed conflict transformation facility, located at the Maze.  This is the very think our governing politicians assured us would not happen! 

 

Hazlett Lynch was invited to attend this event, but because he was in London, was unable to do so.  However, he sent his views to CRC, and asked that these be forwarded to the consultant in charge of collecting the views and opinions of victims.

1.  Call it by any other name, this proposed 'shrine to terrorism' is unacceptable to the victims of terrorism.
2.  This is a demand of the representatives of republican terrorism.
3.  Republican terrorism is still alive and well in Northern Ireland, given the recent murders of three security force personnel, the ongoing terrorist bomb findings by the security forces, people having to move house for their, and their families' safety.
4.  The oft-repeated warnings by the Chief Constable of the significantly high terrorist threats there are from republicans.
5.  The targeting that is going on in the province from republican terrorists.
6.  Northern Ireland people have more than enough to remind them of the horrors of terrorism, so a shrine is neither wanted not needed.
7.  The victims of terrorism have sufficient personal evidence that reminds them of the terrorist atrocities visited upon them by republicans and loyalists.

8.  Such a shrine is wholly offensive to the victims of terrorism, and ought not to be supported.
9.  Identifying the source from which this demand is coming ought to alert the public, and CRC, of the real intention of such a project.
10. The genuine victims of terrorism feel demeaned by this proposal, and represents a further evidence of discrimination against them.
11. The glorification of terrorism by one of the victims commissioners, and accepted by the other three, was devastating in its impact on the victims of terrorism; this proposal falls into exactly the same category of 'the glorification of terrorism.'
12. The last thing that Northern Ireland now needs is for terrorism to be glorified and accepted as a legitimate means of pursuing political goals.
13. There are suggestions that this proposal is an integral part of a deal between the DUP and IRA/SF.  It would therefore be good to know what has been conceded for this proposal to now be seriously explored by a major funding body in Northern Ireland.
14. This project, if it is supported, will set back community relations to a considerable degree.
15. Such a project with be used to justify terrorism as a proper means of goal achievement.
16. The horrendous terrorist wrongs of the past will be air-brushed out of the picture, and those who were charged with maintaining law and order will be further demonised by republicans.  This will impact negatively on those victims who were connected with the security forces. 

Director’s trip to Colombia

Hazlett Lynch was nominated by the Network of Associations of the Victims of Terrorism to represent the victims of terrorism from Northern Ireland, and to speak at the International Congress in Medellin, Colombia.  This was an immense honour for him, and for WTV, which he expedited in his usual professional way.

 

Victims of terrorism came from Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Argentina, USA, France, Spain and Northern Ireland.  Delegates were treated royally and shown enormous love and respect.  They were waited upon constantly, and a person was allocated to each delegate to ensure that they were not on their own, or needed anything.

 

The Prince and Princess of Spain, Philipe and Letitia, graced the Congress with their presence, and the Prince spoke most acceptably to the gathered 1000+ participants at this prestigious event.  This was the fourth time in five years that the Prince and Princess attended these International congresses for the victims of terrorism.  He spoke disparaging of those terrorist groups that describe themselves as ‘armies.’

 

The President of Colombia, Mr Uribe, also attended the Congress, with his wife, the First Lady, and spoke in terms that were most encouraging to all those present.  Mr Uribe simply gave no place to terrorists regardless in what guise they presented themselves.  He lamented the fact that the previous administration in Colombia granted amnesty to FARC terrorists, resulting in some of them being in the Parliament.  His cabinet passed legislation that disallowed any convicted terrorist to hold any public office, something that I have been calling for in Northern Ireland since 2005, but no one would listen. 

 

One remarkable fact that came to mind was the effectiveness of the work of Tony Blair in presenting the ‘peace process’ that he set in motion as a model for solving the problems in other situations of ‘conflict.’  delegates were shocked when they learned that we actrually have terorists, not only in government, but at the very top of our government. 

 

Wednesday 8th April 2009

CONSULTATIVE GROUP ON THE PAST:

VICTIMS OF TERRORISM - NO STRANGERS TO HURT

 

Executive Summary:

v      This report suffers from an absence of definition as to what a victim of terrorism is.  Since it does not know what it is dealing with, it cannot, then, deliver a satisfactory conclusion that will benefit those victims of terrorism.

 

v      The report refuses to differentiate between victims of terrorism and terrorists. 

 

v      The implied ‘moral equivalence’ between ‘terrorist’ and ‘victim of terrorism’ is totally unacceptable, and it is this upon which the report is predicated, and on which it fails.

 

v      The report’s authors have been taken in by the ‘double-speak’ of republicans, and has produced a report that is full of ‘double-speak,’ is dishonest, and, if its recommendations are accepted and implemented by HMG, does not bode well for the future.

 

v      The unveiled attempt at re-writing history in such a way that all reference to ‘terrorism’ is removed has been exposed.

 

v      Hence, every other recommendation is tainted and seriously flawed, and ought to be rejected in toto by government and parliament, and by all groups working with the victims of terrorism.

 

Introduction:

This report comes at a critical time in the history of Northern Ireland, not just because the past is still very much with us, but because the IRA is becoming increasingly successful in its terrorist campaign.  This represents another change in strategy by IRA terrorists, but with exactly the same ultimate goal and immediate results.

“Victims of terrorism” is the designation we use for ourselves, is commonly used in the EU amongst its victims’ groups, and finds an echo in the hearts of every innocent victim of terrorism in Northern Ireland.  The adoption of the language of inclusion has blurred the edges around this concept, and has also excluded those innocent victims of terrorism from the process.  Unless and until this situation is remedied, and an accurate definition of ‘victims of terrorism’ adopted, the real victims, i.e., of terrorism, will not receive the recognition, acknowledgement and support they deserve and require.

It is most disappointing that this report flies in the face of International law so far as an understanding of victims of terrorism is concerned.  That this must be put right as a matter of urgency is essential and self-evident to those victims, but obviously not to government and its agencies.

The utterly offensive recommendations from the Consultative Group on the Past (CGP) are now known, their rejection being predictable.  The fact that CGP did not see this is evidence of how far out of touch it was from reality, and with the way victims of terrorism feel about being paid-off by government and its henchmen.

Truly, victims of terrorism want a solution to the profound difficulties that they have suffered, right up to and including vicious terrorist murder.  But that offered by Eames/Bradley is simply insulting and objectionable.  To suggest that the innocent victims were equally to blame for the campaign of genocide and ethnic cleansing that we experienced; to say that we must forgive those who murdered our siblings and parents without genuine repentance and a commitment not to do the same again; and to ask us to leave off seeking for justice, is utterly false, and could only have come from republican terrorist supporters.

1.  MORAL EQUIVALENCE
It is difficult to understand how a panel of supposedly intelligent people could conceive such a monstrous thing.  The ‘moral equivalence’ of innocent victims of terrorism and terrorists that this report, along with government, funding bodies and other do-gooders, draws, is nauseating in the extreme, and insults the precious memory of many good people murdered by PIRA & Co - the very people the report suggested should be paid £12,000 for their efforts!  It is incalculably repugnant to decency, and is yet another futile attempt to re-write history, exonerate the terrorists for their years of sectarian killings, and sanitise everything that terrorists have visited on our people.  No amount of spin or political argumentation can change the fact that not one victim of terrorism chose to become that, unlike the terrorists who took up arms against them.

It was hurtful for junior minister for victims, Jeffrey Donaldson, to describe both himself and his fellow junior minister for victims, Kelly, as having served in their respective armies - he in the UDR and Kelly in the PIRA - thus making the ‘moral equivalence’ between the legitimate forces of the state and terrorists like PIRA, official government policy.  Now Lord Eames has backed up Stormont official policy by claiming that there is no difference between the innocent victims of terrorism and those whose family relations suffered and died as a direct result of their evil activities.  Mr Donaldson’s whimpering cuts no ice with those who witnessed his betrayal of victims.

This report proceeds on the assumption that there is no categorical or moral difference between terrorists and their victims.  This insulting assumption has determined everything else that follows, to the detriment of all victims of terrorism, and ought to be rejected. 

2.  ANOTHER GOVERNMENT-FRIENDLY REPORT!
At the Ballymena meeting, our Director said to Robin Eames that his final report will reflect accurately prevailing government policy (both in London and in Belfast).  This has proved to be the case.  The people who are now accepted as having been legitimately engaged in a legitimate campaign of terror are now equated uncritically with those they murdered.  The very people who have been elevated to the top and heart of the government of our country, and accepted as political partners by those who once spoke up for victims of terrorism and against terrorism, is an insult too far.  How scandalous, immoral, objectionable and devastating is such a position.  It came as no surprise that not one thing in this report contravened government policy in the least.  The only reason why the £12,000 reward to be paid to terrorists was withdrawn was because it did not command communal support; the implication is that if it had done, the reward money would have been handed over.

The clear inclusivity of the process and approach adopted by this report is indicative of government policy, and the only instance where they departed from this was their decided exclusion of victims of terrorism from the panel.  When this was admitted by the team, no one was surprised, but many felt insulted.

This Group, despite repeated testimonies from the victims of terrorism, did not appreciate or understand where they were coming from, but decided to ignore these heart-rending stories.  It is incontrovertible that this Group decided to go along with the terrorists, and to reject their victims.  One suspects why this is the case.

3.  END TO PUBLIC ENQUIRIES AND DENIAL OF JUSTICE
London has been looking for a face-saving way to end public enquiries - the report has handed this on a plate.  The report also claims that the pursuit of reconciliation is inconsistent with the pursuit of justice.  On what basis is this reckless claim made?  Given the number of churchmen on the panel, it is amazing that they, of all people, did not understand that in the Judeo-Christian religion, these are Siamese twins!  Because of their inaccurate thinking, they have posited a scenario that precludes victims of terrorism even getting justice for the murders of their family members. This is unacceptable. 

4.  AMNESTY
Those in office in Belfast desired a report that would preclude bringing an action against PIRA/SF; this report is not giving terrorists an amnesty, but it is offering them immunity from prosecution for the admissions they make - call a rose by any other name.  The recommendation not to pursue the ‘on the runs’ in the interests of reconciliation is both undemocratic and offensive.  A de facto amnesty is recommended by this report, and must be opposed by government and by all decent people. 

5.  HAND PICKED TEAM OF SAFE HANDS!
Our Director also said at the consultation meetings, that those on the panel were very carefully chosen by government to ensure that its agenda would be fulfilled.  That has also been accomplished.  This team provided "safe hands" so far as government policy in Northern Ireland was concerned, but “safe hands” that lacked judgement reference innocent victims.  CGP took a strategic decision to exclude victims of terrorism from membership of the panel, because victims of terrorism just do not count for anything in their eyes!

6.  NOT VICTIM-CENTRED
The report claimed to be victim-centred yet it did not understand what a victim is, hence this obnoxious, grossly insensitive and offensive report.  This is an acceptable offering to those who commissioned this report, but is an attack on true democracy, on communal decency, and on those families and individuals who still carry the pain of having a relation murdered by terrorists, or injured by them!  Had victims of terrorism been included on this panel, then it could have been argued that it was attempting to be victim-centred; but these victims were deliberately excluded by a group that places so much emphasis on inclusivity.  To exclude the victims of terrorism from exploring ways of dealing with the past points to their exclusion from defining what kind of future they would like to see. 

7.  CHURCH INVOLVEMENT
Given the clergy and religious people on the team, the depth of insensitivity shown is unsurpassed.  The hurt and anger caused so far is rising in the hearts of the victims of terrorism, and is incalculable.  The various church authorities ought to call clergy members in for questioning for their insulting behaviour, for this report has inflicted further suffering upon an already hurting people.  If the churches represented on the CGP remain silent about this disaster, or do not discipline these offending clergy and church members, then they too will be condoning what this quango has said, and are therefore implicated in their offending behaviour.

8.  £12,000 FOR EVERY VICTIM FAMILY? 

Victims are not so easily bought off; we do not come at any price; we are not the lackeys of government.  To have accepted this is to grant legitimacy to every murdering thug that acted in Northern Ireland, or who operated from, and returned to, the Irish Republic.   Getting justice for the victims of terrorism is infinitely more important than a measly £12k?  Victims are reeling at what they have heard, and rightly so.  The very fact that CGP even considered paying £12,000 to terrorist family members for murdering our family members is further evidence, if any was needed, of a serious lack of judgement on its part, and on the party of the three victim’s commissioners who supported this recommendation.  It is noted that three of the victims’ commissioners have supported this payment, and only one came out against it.  This raises serious questions about the judgement of these commissioners, confirms our lack of confidence in them, and leaves them a ‘no go’ area for WTV.

And this consultative group thought that it was working towards their healing and recovery! 

We are glad that HMG has removed this recommendation, but are concerned that the others are still in place. 

The inclusion of this insulting recommenda