Truth and Reconciliation and Mr. McGuiness

astaines

Why should Martin McGuiness not run for president?
He should, there's no reason to object to him doing so.

Why should he not get elected?
Because a critical part of the peace process has yet to happen.

We have had a reconciliation process North and South, which has worked well. There is no doubt that Mr. McGuiness played a major role in this, and deserves great credit.

What is missing is the other half of the process – the Truth. South Africa, where worse crimes than were ever committed in the North were routine, had a Truth and Reconciliation process, which was empowered “to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era, as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty”.

Truth was the bit left out of the Northern Irish process. It was left out by all sides, the UK Government, the rish Government, and the IRA. This leaves us in the odd situation where Mr McGuiness apparently spent the bulk of the ‘Troubles’ doing nothing, but somehow managed to hold enough sway in the IRA from 1974 to 2004, without being a member, to enforce a cease fire.

This is hard to believe. We've had enough mental reservations, lies, and perjury in our political classes. We do not need any more....

Anthony Staines

Wolfe Tone

astaines wrote: »

Why should Martin McGuiness not run for president?
He should, there's no reason to object to him doing so.

Why should he not get elected?
Because a critical part of the peace process has yet to happen.

We have had a reconciliation process North and South, which has worked well. There is no doubt that Mr. McGuiness played a major role in this, and deserves great credit.

What is missing is the other half of the process – the Truth. South Africa, where worse crimes than were ever committed in the North were routine, had a Truth and Reconciliation process, which was empowered “to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era, as long as the crimes were politically motivated, proportionate, and there was full disclosure by the person seeking amnesty”.

Truth was the bit left out of the Northern Irish process. It was left out by all sides, the UK Government, the rish Government, and the IRA. This leaves us in the odd situation where Mr McGuiness apparently spent the bulk of the ‘Troubles’ doing nothing, but somehow managed to hold enough sway in the IRA from 1974 to 2004, without being a member, to enforce a cease fire.

This is hard to believe. We've had enough mental reservations, lies, and perjury in our political classes. We do not need any more....

Anthony Staines

SF have for a long time now called for such a comission to be set up here, yet no one else seems to want it. I say the loyalists would probably go for it, but the brits never would imo. Hopefully I'm wrong.

Sunnyisland

Of course the Brittish goverment wont go for it as it would only show up even more colluision between them and loyalist palmiltarys and also they would have to come clean about there involvement in the Dublin & monaghan bombings and many other "secret" miltary actions they carried out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

KeithAFC

realies wrote: »

Of course the Brittish goverment wont go for it as it would only show up even more colluision between them and loyalist palmiltarys and also they would have to come clean about there involvement in the Dublin & monaghan bombings and many other "secret" miltary actions they carried out.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dublin_and_Monaghan_bombings

And nothing will come out with Sinn Fein involved in some rather interesting "incidents"? Claudy being one and the church cover up. I don't think Sinn Fein should be crying wolf.

If it is to be done, everyone will need to sit down and be honest and tell the truth.

Sunnyisland

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

SF have for a long time now called for such a comission to be set up here, yet no one else seems to want it. I say the loyalists would probably go for it, but the brits never would imo. Hopefully I'm wrong.

KeithAFC wrote: »

And nothing will come out with Sinn Fein involved in some rather interesting "incidents"? Claudy being one and the church cover up. I don't think Sinn Fein should be crying wolf.

If it is to be done, everyone will need to sit down and be honest and tell the truth.

See above post.

RandomName2

astaines wrote: »

Why should he not get elected?
Because a critical part of the peace process has yet to happen.

[...]

What is missing is the other half of the process – the Truth.

Well no, not really.

It would help if he were more honest (although that would make significant complications for him in the short-run at least). He has at least put his hands up about being in the IRA, which is more than his colleague Gerry Adams, would do (even if that is quite farcical by this stage).

But if he admitted to murder and torture how could that possibly exonerate him? What's more, at least we can have some sort of pretense at the moment, but imagine having someone admitting to this and subsequently becoming our figurehead?

The only people who could benefit from him telling the truth would be his opponents. If he wanted to be more candid he could have said that he did not want to discuss his past instead of obviously lieing about it - but you can hardly expect him to tell all for no good reason.

EarlERizer

KeithAFC wrote: »

And nothing will come out with Sinn Fein involved in some rather interesting "incidents"? Claudy being one and the church cover up. I don't think Sinn Fein should be crying wolf.

If it is to be done, everyone will need to sit down and be honest and tell the truth.

I get where your coming from Keith but I don't think it's a case of "cry wolf" , they said it enough times,when all sides are prepared to talk honestly and openly then they'll do the same,the way it has been portrayed and covered in the media/news & in the political arena's of Ireland & UK you would think it was only the IRA who had blood on their hands.

Just like the OP says, the Truth & Reconcilition process cant/wont work if all parties dont commit to full disclosure of the part(s) they played.

I dare say that even the most hardend of 'RA supporters' and 'Loyalist Paramilitary' supporters haven't got the first clue as to what has gone on between leaders of both camps & the British and Irish governments.

I'm no 'sympathiser' or certainly not what you would call 'a typical sympathiser' but even a blindman can see that throughout history the British flag is stained with the blood of many an occupied land.

But there's no denying,slowly but surely it's all going in the right direction (for the most part),it's been far too long coming and nothing should get in the way of peace for all people of an Ireland.

EarlERizer

RandomName2 wrote: »

But if he admitted to murder and torture how could that possibly exonerate him? What's more, at least we can have some sort of pretense at the moment, but imagine having someone admitting to this and subsequently becoming our figurehead?.

Imagine indeed

.... anyone remember Eamo?

RandomName2

EarlERizer wrote: »

Imagine indeed

.... anyone remember Eamo?

OH MY GOD.

Never thought of DeV!!!!

I don't think he actually ever killed a civilian - and even then I don't think he should have been President (or really Taoiseach; becoming President was predicated on his long-time role as Toiseach)


As ever, the anti-treaty IRA man from the Irish Free state in the 1920s who became vehemently anti-IRA (hanging quite a few of them) and used the presidency as a retirement position from his role as Taoiseach is a perfect analogy for a PIRA man from NI in the 1970s.

EarlERizer

RandomName2 wrote: »

OH MY GOD.

Never thought of DeV!!!!

I don't think he actually ever killed a civilian - and even then I don't think he should have been President (or really Taoiseach; becoming President was predicated on his long-time role as Toiseach)

As ever, the anti-treaty IRA man from the Irish Free state in the 1920s who became vehemently anti-IRA (hanging quite a few of them) and used the presidency as a retirement position from his role as Taoiseach is a perfect analogy for a PIRA man from NI in the 1970s.

There's nothing of proof that Mr McGuiness did either.However I'd say Eamo would have notched up a few hits to his name in his time fighting for a Republic (which he proved by his actions,he was prepared to do anything to achieve)

'used the presidency as a retirement position from his role as Taoiseach' - I'd be more inclined to believe he used it to feed his undying ego and self importance!

I like the selective descriptions of the two mentioned .

tbh I couldn't give 2 hoots as to who becomes the 9th President of Ireland,the list of possibles is a joke ,we've a blind,deaf,mute poof who likes the idea of been up the Aras, a one time eurovision songbird who sang her wee little heart out for Ireland or a former member of the band formely known as 'The Ra' who fought (in many ways good or bad) for a Unified Ireland........ all we're missing is Darby O'Gill.