7 1 min 8 yrs

 

As David has commented previously,  the whole document was so bad that even the most incompetent of Unionists felt they could not sign up to the deal.

I do wonder, however, whose was the hand, and mind, which authored the wonderful phrases ‘with sensitivity and rigorous intellectual integrity’ which appears on Page 32, and the equally-beguiling ‘after decades of living quiet lives, their admission could lead their friends and families to dramatically re-evaluate their character’; noticed on Page 34?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

7 thoughts on “it all depends whose sensitivity it is

  1. Our understandings of the word ‘victim’ in this context were closely tied to our different narratives of the conflict, which are not presently reconcilable.

    Our knowledge of right and wrong! This is one of the most disgusting of the fudges. Victim services should be for innocent victims only.

    Some deaths can be attributed to state actors; the overwhelming majority, however, were caused by paramilitary organisations.

    No they were not paramilitaries. They were terrorists! This is a dreadful euphemism. They were not to the legitimate military as paramedics are to doctors.

  2. Letter to editors from Innocent Victims United
    The foundation stone for Haass talks on ‘The Past’ wasn’t right – Innocent Victims United

    Innocent victims and survivors of terrorism do not rejoice that progress (in the form of an agreed deal through the Haass Talks process) could not be made on matters concerning ‘The Past.’ Rather they are saddened that the failure to lay the necessary foundation stone at the start of the process inevitably meant that the house which was attempted to be built was bound to collapse.

    Before another word is spoken in terms of negotiating ‘The Past’ there must be an acceptance or accord agreed by all participating political parties that the use of violence in furthering a ‘political objective’ was never justified – that the taking of life was wrong.

    If this foundation stone is put in place then a house can be built which will stand the test of time and which will undermine the efforts of a re-branded IRA and others to bring death and destruction to this community.

    Campaigns of terrorism raged in this Country and there were also individual members of the security forces who dishonoured the code and engaged in criminal-based activities. None of this was justifiable. However to describe what occurred here as ‘a Conflict’ propagates the values of terrorism in seeking to equalise responsibility for wrong and suffering endured.

    Dr Haass and his team in partnership with the N.I Executive parties were tasked with developing proposals under the theme; ‘Dealing with the Past,’ this was then re-branded; ‘Contending with the Past.’ We believe that what has actually materialised amounts to ‘Removing the Past.’

    Examples across the World demonstrate that the conciliation of people affected by terrorism and violence can only occur when the processes of ‘Justice’ and ‘Truth’ have been fully worked through. These processes can’t be side-stepped or wished away and those who believe that this is possible are seriously deluded.

    No aspect of the ‘Contending with the Past’ document (irrespective of whether there was universal agreement by the five parties for a particular proposal) must be taken forward unless there is a clear acceptance/accord from all five N.I Executive parties that the use of violence in furthering a ‘political objective’ is not and was not ever justified – that the taking of life was wrong. That is the case for the ‘Present’ and for the ‘Past.’

    15 years on from the Belfast Agreement this issue must be resolved once and for all, the great and the good who seek to side shuffle this issue, who appease a section of public opinion which promotes the lie that those who murdered their neighbours Protestant, Roman Catholic and Dissenter were ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘soldiers in a War’ must be faced down. The majority held view (which is backed up in the law of this land through the Terrorism Act 2000) is that those who murdered in the name of a ‘so-called political cause’ were and are terrorists.

    Innocent victims and survivors of terrorism desire a genuine and sustainable Peace (more than anyone else because of what they have endured) but they will not allow their loved ones graves to be trampled on by those who seek to promote a narrative which diminishes the role of terrorism and which seeks to de-criminalise the heinous actions they carried out which were motivated by sectarian and ethnic hatreds.

    Yours,

    Kenny Donaldson
    Innocent Victims United
    Lisnaskea, South Fermanagh

  3. Disgusting.

    Until the catholic electorate can stop voting for terrorists, we can never move on…

  4. LU

    It can’t be explained by Catholicism – even by Roman Catholicism. Those who vote that way, whatever their religion have to take individual responsibility.

    Did you read Kenny’s letter above?

  5. I did, and know Kenny personally.

    He is a great asset to us and I hope he stands next, (er, this year) and gives a voice to our families from the disgusting, vile, scum that some on here support.

  6. I only met him last year (’13). He is indeed a great asset. If he was ever to stand, he would have my support. However I think he is better where he is and able to focus 100% on victims/justice issues.

  7. Aileen,

    yes, I agree, and I hope he gets funding and not discriminated against, which I suspect will be the case…

    Isn’t it such a shame we have people voting for murdering scum?

    What chance do we have of building a new future for our children?

Comments are closed.