{"id":4297,"date":"2018-10-11T13:51:31","date_gmt":"2018-10-11T12:51:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=4297"},"modified":"2018-10-11T13:51:59","modified_gmt":"2018-10-11T12:51:59","slug":"we-shouldnt-let-another-attempt-to-deal-with-the-troubles-legacy-slip-by","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.longkeshinsideout.co.uk\/?p=4297","title":{"rendered":"We shouldn\u2019t let another attempt to deal with the Troubles legacy slip by"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The submission of five former secretaries of state of both parties to the UK government\u2019s\u00a0 consultation on their draft Legacy Bill gives significant backing to the idea of an amnesty or statute of limitations<\/a>.\u00a0 It amplifies the call some of them and retired security chiefs made in the House of Lords last month<\/a>.<\/p>\n

If the decision was to rest with the British establishment alone, an amnesty by whatever name would have featured as a formal option for dealing with the past already, mainly to protect former soldiers and only reluctantly including the unruly Irish tribes in its ambit.<\/p>\n

The problem if problem it is, is that the unruly tribes are in unholy alliance against amnesty for opposite reasons; Sinn Fein because it would let the police the army and MI5 off the hook over collusion and other alleged violations ; and the unionist parties because amnesty would become \u00a0the \u00a0climax \u00a0of \u00a0years of deeply loathed concessions to terrorists since 1997.<\/p>\n

The deadlock though is not complete. The DUP are not opposed<\/a> to the idea of an independent Historic Investigations Unit\u00a0 to take over\u00a0 \u00a0historic\u00a0 cases from the hard pressed PSNI.<\/p>\n

They insist however\u00a0 that the HIU\u2019s selection of cases\u2026<\/p>\n

must be proportionate and reflect the fact that over 90% of murders in Northern Ireland were carried out by terrorists. There must be no more hierarchy of victims, with preferential treatment given to those killed, often legitimately, by the Armed Forces or Police.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The DUP have not adopted the same tone of implacable opposition to the entire Legacy review\u00a0 like the NI Police Federation who said recently.<\/a><\/p>\n

This consultation amounts to an assault on the names, reputations and standing of the men and women who stood against republican and loyalist terrorism.<\/p>\n

In short, it contains proposals which, if implemented, are heavily biased against the police officers who, at great personal cost, created the environment for peace.<\/p>\n

The proposals are seriously flawed and serve only to re-write the past, turn facts on their head and apply a veneer or gloss over some of the most atrocious crimes perpetrated by terrorists fuelled by hatred.<\/p>\n

The \u2018police family\u2019 of serving and former officers is appalled at the Government\u2019s direction of travel. By engaging in an extensive consultation on legacy, it is opening t he door to bitter and implacable opponents of justice and the officers who held the line.\u00a0 \u00a0Alive or dead, serving or former, these proposals will result in officers being trailed through the most monstrous \u2018circus\u2019 where their good names and reputations will be shredded.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The nub of the problem is the belief \u00a0\u2013 shared even by the former ministers \u2013\u00a0 that \u00a0the dice maybe loaded \u00a0against former soldiers and police \u201c because records and information ( on them) are more readily available \u2013 but none so far as we can establish for paramilitaries.\u201d<\/p>\n

In rational terms these arguments can be addressed. For a start, the authorities hold the case files on the security forces and the paramilitaries alike. The DUP not unreasonably argue for a form of \u201csifting.\u201d cases.\u00a0 The transitional justice academic lawyers of \u201cthe model Bill team\u201d whose meticulous work greatly influenced the draft Legacy Bill say that the HIU should be able \u201cto have discretion to vary beyond chronological order.\u201d<\/p>\n

In their magisterial analysis of the government\u2019s draft bill \u2013 so far they only one of such detail and quality \u2013<\/a>\u00a0 the lawyers\u00a0 also argue \u00a0that the HIU\u00a0 should be more independent than the government has\u00a0 so far allowed and should not include\u00a0 former RUC and PSNI officers. This arouses fears that \u00a0the HIU\u00a0 would be staffed by a team of outsiders who would intentionally or\u00a0 otherwise discriminate against state servants and \u00a0serve the interests of a narrative of freedom won by armed struggle.<\/p>\n

A hierarchy of victims remains a problem both for delivering justice and the revived proposal for compensation payments to victims. The only way through surely is as the model bill team and many others recommend, that such payments should be made on the basis of need. the obvious\u00a0 settlement which is\u00a0 disgracefully long overdue.<\/p>\n

In spite of the familiar sound and fury, it is just possible to see a way ahead for the Legacy proposals. The proper way to proceed \u00a0is to examine closely \u00a0the briefs of the HIU\u00a0 and the other statutory bodies. The parties might be able to \u00a0meet on the idea of spending the next five years and 150 million quid\u00a0 tasking the HIU to examine\u00a0 the strength of available historic evidence class \u00a0by class and only then case by case. If this finally confirms the belief that few cases for prosecutions will emerge, the case for\u00a0 amnesty in exchange for disclosure as the route to \u201ctruth\u201d even limited truth, will then become clearer.<\/p>\n

Does\u00a0 this government have the political will to \u00a0re-open negotiations with the parties and consult the \u00a0Irish government who are of course directly involved? \u00a0Will they have the commitment to\u00a0 bring a Legacy Bill before the Commons; or will they rest on the mutual veto on the local parties and allow yet another report on dealing with the past to gather dust? The precedents are not good.<\/p>\n

\"Share\"\/<\/a>