After a long break from blogging, I'm back to ranting although in a slightly different format.
Every week I will have an opinion column in the newly redesigned Community Telegraph. Delivered free to your door in north, east and south Belfast as well as north Down and Ards it's the very best in local news and reviews of what's going on in your locality.
As always feedback good, bad but definitely not indifferent is always welcome!
Write to us at:
Community Telegraph
Blackstaff Chambers
2 Amelia Street
Belfast
BT2 7GS
or email any entertainment news/reviews/events you want coverage of to:
ctentertainments@gmail.com
Wednesday, 2 June 2010
Monday, 21 September 2009
Part of the heard
It was announced last night SDLP leader Mark Durkan is to step down as leader of the party after the Westminster election. Part of the reasons given for his departure is the MP for Foyle's belief in the need to represent his constiuents at Westminster, especially in light of expected cuts to Northern Ireland's bloc grant should (as most pundits predict) a Tory government take power after June.
Mr Durkan's decision comes after much discussion about dual mandates during the expenses scandal earlier in the year and as former party collegue Brid Rodgers commented, shows Mr Durkan has 'put his money where his mouth is,' in regard to this issue of double jobbing.
Whilst I am sad to hear this nationalist leader is standing down from our regional parliament, I admire the decision to honour his opposition to the existence of multiple jobs for politicians.
It was and is one of many issues that the wider public, most of whom are not normally concerned about politics, are rightly incensed about.
It is obvious the expenses scandal has stoked an interest in the way we are governed to a greater degree than ever before and has brought local and national governance to the fore of the wider public's thinking.
I hope this engagement in political issues will continue. It was with this in mind that I was happy to hear of the 'East Belfast Speaks Out,' event to be staged on the Holywood Road on the 30th September.
Taking example from the highly successful 'West Belfast Talks Back,' events, it is one of the first community/panellist events I have heard of in the east of the city and in a predominantly unionist community.
As followers of this blog will know, I am very much a champion of community dialogue and am excited at the prospect of hearing the issues voiced at this event.
It seems to me the time is ripe for community activists to really start to have an effect on local politicians and not only in the vacuous way that so often appears to be the case in the run up to election time where polticians promise the world and when elected suffer from memory loss on promises made to constituents.
The prospect of a change of national government, changing of local council structure, prospective changes to government in Stormont (even if it is only on Peter Robinson's wish list at the minute), party link-ups of the UUP and the Conservative party and potentially SDLP and Fianna Fail, and the obvious party political shifts which will accompany an end to dual mandates (as Mark Durkan's resignation shows), prove it is very much a fluid time in politics in Northern Ireland.
With the economic climate sharpening our focus like never before, community dialogue like this event in East Belfast can only be a good thing.
For the cynics out there who would refer to this event as merely a 'talking shop,' I need not remind you of the importance of 'talking shops,' in the peace process that have got us this far.
With the dissident republican threat seemingly on the increase it is discussion of common grounds that is necessary for social cohesion and collective actions to address certian issues rather than the headlining making antics of some of our more ruthless local representatives.
It seems this message has filtered through to the folks on the hill with a Northern Ireland Assembly roadshow due to start tomorrow and continue to various locations throughout the province.
Billed as a chance to 'talk about the working of the Assembly and the issues that matter to you,' it is yet again a chance for the great and the good in Northern Ireland to put the politicians to the test or as is more likely the case - have a good rant.
Even if it is just giving your local councillor a ear-bashing, or even commending them on good work they have done in your area, it is the feedback that is essential and the creation of a climate of on-going and constructive dialogue the ultimate goal.
There is nothing that I hate more than people complaining about certain circumstances yet not having the guile to engage properly with the people who can change things. So be part of the heard.
Mr Durkan's decision comes after much discussion about dual mandates during the expenses scandal earlier in the year and as former party collegue Brid Rodgers commented, shows Mr Durkan has 'put his money where his mouth is,' in regard to this issue of double jobbing.
Whilst I am sad to hear this nationalist leader is standing down from our regional parliament, I admire the decision to honour his opposition to the existence of multiple jobs for politicians.
It was and is one of many issues that the wider public, most of whom are not normally concerned about politics, are rightly incensed about.
It is obvious the expenses scandal has stoked an interest in the way we are governed to a greater degree than ever before and has brought local and national governance to the fore of the wider public's thinking.
I hope this engagement in political issues will continue. It was with this in mind that I was happy to hear of the 'East Belfast Speaks Out,' event to be staged on the Holywood Road on the 30th September.
Taking example from the highly successful 'West Belfast Talks Back,' events, it is one of the first community/panellist events I have heard of in the east of the city and in a predominantly unionist community.
As followers of this blog will know, I am very much a champion of community dialogue and am excited at the prospect of hearing the issues voiced at this event.
It seems to me the time is ripe for community activists to really start to have an effect on local politicians and not only in the vacuous way that so often appears to be the case in the run up to election time where polticians promise the world and when elected suffer from memory loss on promises made to constituents.
The prospect of a change of national government, changing of local council structure, prospective changes to government in Stormont (even if it is only on Peter Robinson's wish list at the minute), party link-ups of the UUP and the Conservative party and potentially SDLP and Fianna Fail, and the obvious party political shifts which will accompany an end to dual mandates (as Mark Durkan's resignation shows), prove it is very much a fluid time in politics in Northern Ireland.
With the economic climate sharpening our focus like never before, community dialogue like this event in East Belfast can only be a good thing.
For the cynics out there who would refer to this event as merely a 'talking shop,' I need not remind you of the importance of 'talking shops,' in the peace process that have got us this far.
With the dissident republican threat seemingly on the increase it is discussion of common grounds that is necessary for social cohesion and collective actions to address certian issues rather than the headlining making antics of some of our more ruthless local representatives.
It seems this message has filtered through to the folks on the hill with a Northern Ireland Assembly roadshow due to start tomorrow and continue to various locations throughout the province.
Billed as a chance to 'talk about the working of the Assembly and the issues that matter to you,' it is yet again a chance for the great and the good in Northern Ireland to put the politicians to the test or as is more likely the case - have a good rant.
Even if it is just giving your local councillor a ear-bashing, or even commending them on good work they have done in your area, it is the feedback that is essential and the creation of a climate of on-going and constructive dialogue the ultimate goal.
There is nothing that I hate more than people complaining about certain circumstances yet not having the guile to engage properly with the people who can change things. So be part of the heard.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Panel beating
It has been revealed that the BBC is to invite a member of the British National Party (BNP) to be a panel member in the upcoming edition of 'Question Time.'
According to various sources Labour politcians may stage a campaign of protest at the decision, based on their belief that having a BNP member on a show such as 'Question Time' may give the BNP's views an appearance of legitmacy and give the right wing nationalist party unnecessary and dangerous publicity.
The BBC must be congratulated for taking it's public service role seriously and taking the step of reflecting all strands of society. I have to say however, that if reports of this proposed protest are true it is both patronising and more than smacks of Labour control freakery.
The fact is that at last June's European election the BNP won 2 seats in England and 6% of the popular vote. Regardless of what the party's views are, such a result means they have a mandate - their views, while not to everyone's taste, have been shown to represent a section of British society and as such are legitimate.
Viewed in this light it seems absurd that some refuse to acknowledge this.
Unpalatable mandates are no strangers to Northern Ireland with the post Hunger-strike electoral success of Sinn Fein posing many difficult questions, both for Northern Irish politicians and media who had to deal with this new legitimate electoral force.
Section 31 in the Republic of Ireland which banned the broadcasting of republican's voices (but not their words) was one measure taken to deal with electoral republicanism. Although the meaure was dropped in 1993, to this day there are still members of some political party's who refuse to sit next to Sinn Fein representatives on certain discussion panel shows.
I am not for one minute suggesting that Sinn Fein policy is comparable to the rhetorical racist nonsense espoused by Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP'ers, but the principle has to be the same.
In a mature democracy where free and fair elections are the backbone of society, the choice of political representative made by the electorate must be respected, regardless of the difficulites this may create.
It was a problem faced in Northern Ireland many years ago, especially at a time when Sinn Fein where openly pursuing their policy of a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. The tactical use of electoralism was irrelevant, it was the fact they had elected representatives that had to respected.
Such respect, however difficult, has to be afforded to the BNP as well even if the desired result in doing so is different.
No-one believes for one second that BNP policy should be allowed to expand more than it has. Their policies on immigration, employment and race are morally repugnant and dangerous to the intellectually vulnerable in our society. At a time of economic crisis, their base nationalism must not be allowed to penetrate the mainstream consciousness of the UK working classes anymore than it has, nor to pursuade a wider audience.
Banning them from prime time television is not the way to do this. We live in a world of 24/7 media and technology. If people want to read about the BNP, they'll find a way to, and not necessarily from responsible and objective sources.
The only way to tackle the BNP's growing popularity is to face them head on in a neutral environment and debate the issues.
If the government has any faith in the people it claims to the serve the interests of, it must trust them to make valued judgements on these issues. To do this, government ministers and opposition members must take the BNP members task in a televisual debate and expose their message for what it is.
Only in allowing the people to see the BNP's message being decisively dissected and beaten as part of the same panel can the growing tide of ring wing sentiment such as that of the BNP be stemmed and defeated.
According to various sources Labour politcians may stage a campaign of protest at the decision, based on their belief that having a BNP member on a show such as 'Question Time' may give the BNP's views an appearance of legitmacy and give the right wing nationalist party unnecessary and dangerous publicity.
The BBC must be congratulated for taking it's public service role seriously and taking the step of reflecting all strands of society. I have to say however, that if reports of this proposed protest are true it is both patronising and more than smacks of Labour control freakery.
The fact is that at last June's European election the BNP won 2 seats in England and 6% of the popular vote. Regardless of what the party's views are, such a result means they have a mandate - their views, while not to everyone's taste, have been shown to represent a section of British society and as such are legitimate.
Viewed in this light it seems absurd that some refuse to acknowledge this.
Unpalatable mandates are no strangers to Northern Ireland with the post Hunger-strike electoral success of Sinn Fein posing many difficult questions, both for Northern Irish politicians and media who had to deal with this new legitimate electoral force.
Section 31 in the Republic of Ireland which banned the broadcasting of republican's voices (but not their words) was one measure taken to deal with electoral republicanism. Although the meaure was dropped in 1993, to this day there are still members of some political party's who refuse to sit next to Sinn Fein representatives on certain discussion panel shows.
I am not for one minute suggesting that Sinn Fein policy is comparable to the rhetorical racist nonsense espoused by Nick Griffin and his fellow BNP'ers, but the principle has to be the same.
In a mature democracy where free and fair elections are the backbone of society, the choice of political representative made by the electorate must be respected, regardless of the difficulites this may create.
It was a problem faced in Northern Ireland many years ago, especially at a time when Sinn Fein where openly pursuing their policy of a ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. The tactical use of electoralism was irrelevant, it was the fact they had elected representatives that had to respected.
Such respect, however difficult, has to be afforded to the BNP as well even if the desired result in doing so is different.
No-one believes for one second that BNP policy should be allowed to expand more than it has. Their policies on immigration, employment and race are morally repugnant and dangerous to the intellectually vulnerable in our society. At a time of economic crisis, their base nationalism must not be allowed to penetrate the mainstream consciousness of the UK working classes anymore than it has, nor to pursuade a wider audience.
Banning them from prime time television is not the way to do this. We live in a world of 24/7 media and technology. If people want to read about the BNP, they'll find a way to, and not necessarily from responsible and objective sources.
The only way to tackle the BNP's growing popularity is to face them head on in a neutral environment and debate the issues.
If the government has any faith in the people it claims to the serve the interests of, it must trust them to make valued judgements on these issues. To do this, government ministers and opposition members must take the BNP members task in a televisual debate and expose their message for what it is.
Only in allowing the people to see the BNP's message being decisively dissected and beaten as part of the same panel can the growing tide of ring wing sentiment such as that of the BNP be stemmed and defeated.
Friday, 4 September 2009
A freudian slip?
So after much wrangling and debate a new Victims' Forum has been established by the Commission for Victims and Survivors.
The new forum will be made up of 30 members, most of whom have been directly affected by the Troubles.
It has been said that the choice of an hotel in Scotland was because none in Northern Ireland had enough wheelchair access to accommodate the group - a reminder of the physical scars of our past - however it will be the deeper emotional scars that will prove to be the biggest hurdle.
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this new forum.
On the one hand I wholeheartedly support the idea of discussion and dialogue between people affected most by the Troubles but their terms of reference give me a sense of deja vu.
According to reports the new forum is to discuss, among other things, the thorny issue of defining a 'victim,' and the wider issue of how to deal with the legacy of the Troubles more generally.
It was only a few months ago that the much anticipated Eames Bradley report was delivered to a tense audience in the Europa hotel. After much speculation over what their report would contain (and an unfortunate leak of some of it's proposals, an issue I have blogged on previously ) the report's recommendations have been silenced by the often louder voices of recrimination emanating from the victims sector.
The criticism centred around their proposals for a payment to victims which was always going to be controversial. However, the fact the Eames Bradley report has floundered significantly under the weight of criticism over this now defunct proposal was surprising, with the unfair result of diverting attention away from other proposals such as their own attempt at defining a 'victim.'
Recent revelations that one of the Victims' Commissioners made private overtures of support of the victims' payments, only to distance themselves from the proposal when the sea of public opinion had been tested unfavourably, is disheartening.
The politicisation of this area, failure of political leadership and lack of support from certain sections as the example above demonstrates, has blighted the Eames Bradley report. In failing to navigate their way through the politics of the situation, it seems to me various poison chalices have simply been passed from Eames Bradley to this new Forum. Same game, different players.
According to Freud the definition of stupidity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. The questions aren't changing but are simply being passed to someone else to find a miracle answer acceptable to all.
I'm not arguing that the establishment of the Forum is stupid, but this has to be the last roll of the dice. The issues have to be tackled head on, it is not a clean slate being aimed for but the attainment of a wider understanding.
But there are differences this time around. Establishing a Forum to discuss these issues rather than a small (albeit well informed and consultative grouping) is prima facie the better route to go down to obtain a wider understanding.
In somes ways it is even the natural progression, with Eames and Bradley broaching the area and now those with first hand knowledge and experience of the issues in question working through the detail.
However as always, the devil is in such detail. For a constructive dialogue to take place, those involved will need to remove any stereotypes in their mind and thoroughly challenge their own interpretation of certain events and the Troubles generally. It will be without question the hardest part of discussions. It can also be the most rewarding.
Eames and Bradley knew this and often made the case for a Victims' Forum. The fact it has come to fruition shows their courageous and substantial report has not been lost in it's entirety, a fact I take solace from, despite any sense of repitition I feel there may be in the remit set for Eames and Bradley and this new Victims' Forum.
And so it is hoped this group at a Scottish hotel in the near future can begin a long road with the hope of arriving at some reciprocity and, in doing so set frameworks for wider society.
Realpolitik has blighted the Eames Bradley report and the many attempts to deal with incidents in the Troubles. In learning the still raw lessons from Eames Bradley and altering the handling of the wider issue by both the media and politicans, one can only hope different conditions will be created to allow a fluid discussion of ideals, experiences, and ongoing problems. This the only way the knots of our past can be untangled.
We need to take on board Freud's belief and alter the way we deal with the issue in order to at last obtain a successful result.
The new forum will be made up of 30 members, most of whom have been directly affected by the Troubles.
It has been said that the choice of an hotel in Scotland was because none in Northern Ireland had enough wheelchair access to accommodate the group - a reminder of the physical scars of our past - however it will be the deeper emotional scars that will prove to be the biggest hurdle.
I have to say I have mixed feelings about this new forum.
On the one hand I wholeheartedly support the idea of discussion and dialogue between people affected most by the Troubles but their terms of reference give me a sense of deja vu.
According to reports the new forum is to discuss, among other things, the thorny issue of defining a 'victim,' and the wider issue of how to deal with the legacy of the Troubles more generally.
It was only a few months ago that the much anticipated Eames Bradley report was delivered to a tense audience in the Europa hotel. After much speculation over what their report would contain (and an unfortunate leak of some of it's proposals, an issue I have blogged on previously ) the report's recommendations have been silenced by the often louder voices of recrimination emanating from the victims sector.
The criticism centred around their proposals for a payment to victims which was always going to be controversial. However, the fact the Eames Bradley report has floundered significantly under the weight of criticism over this now defunct proposal was surprising, with the unfair result of diverting attention away from other proposals such as their own attempt at defining a 'victim.'
Recent revelations that one of the Victims' Commissioners made private overtures of support of the victims' payments, only to distance themselves from the proposal when the sea of public opinion had been tested unfavourably, is disheartening.
The politicisation of this area, failure of political leadership and lack of support from certain sections as the example above demonstrates, has blighted the Eames Bradley report. In failing to navigate their way through the politics of the situation, it seems to me various poison chalices have simply been passed from Eames Bradley to this new Forum. Same game, different players.
According to Freud the definition of stupidity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result. The questions aren't changing but are simply being passed to someone else to find a miracle answer acceptable to all.
I'm not arguing that the establishment of the Forum is stupid, but this has to be the last roll of the dice. The issues have to be tackled head on, it is not a clean slate being aimed for but the attainment of a wider understanding.
But there are differences this time around. Establishing a Forum to discuss these issues rather than a small (albeit well informed and consultative grouping) is prima facie the better route to go down to obtain a wider understanding.
In somes ways it is even the natural progression, with Eames and Bradley broaching the area and now those with first hand knowledge and experience of the issues in question working through the detail.
However as always, the devil is in such detail. For a constructive dialogue to take place, those involved will need to remove any stereotypes in their mind and thoroughly challenge their own interpretation of certain events and the Troubles generally. It will be without question the hardest part of discussions. It can also be the most rewarding.
Eames and Bradley knew this and often made the case for a Victims' Forum. The fact it has come to fruition shows their courageous and substantial report has not been lost in it's entirety, a fact I take solace from, despite any sense of repitition I feel there may be in the remit set for Eames and Bradley and this new Victims' Forum.
And so it is hoped this group at a Scottish hotel in the near future can begin a long road with the hope of arriving at some reciprocity and, in doing so set frameworks for wider society.
Realpolitik has blighted the Eames Bradley report and the many attempts to deal with incidents in the Troubles. In learning the still raw lessons from Eames Bradley and altering the handling of the wider issue by both the media and politicans, one can only hope different conditions will be created to allow a fluid discussion of ideals, experiences, and ongoing problems. This the only way the knots of our past can be untangled.
We need to take on board Freud's belief and alter the way we deal with the issue in order to at last obtain a successful result.
Friday, 21 August 2009
The price of repetition
Various media is today carrying a story about two buskers in Birmingham who have been given ASBO's. Their crime? Only knowing two songs, and playing nothing but George Michael's 'Faith,' and Oasis' 'Wonderwall,' to an increasingly bored and frustrated towns folk.
Perhaps this could be deemed as some sort of precedent being set for continual spouting of the same song or message being deemed anti-social by the courts.
I wonder if that could apply to our politicians?
Imagine Sammy being banned from calling climate change 'hysteria,' or accusing everything he doesn't agree with of being an 'industry.'
Or Gerry prevented from using the word 'transitory,' to appease his supporters.
It's a pity this precedent has only been set now, imagine where we'd be if Big Ian hadn't been allowed to keep saying 'Never, never. never.'
Perhaps this could be deemed as some sort of precedent being set for continual spouting of the same song or message being deemed anti-social by the courts.
I wonder if that could apply to our politicians?
Imagine Sammy being banned from calling climate change 'hysteria,' or accusing everything he doesn't agree with of being an 'industry.'
Or Gerry prevented from using the word 'transitory,' to appease his supporters.
It's a pity this precedent has only been set now, imagine where we'd be if Big Ian hadn't been allowed to keep saying 'Never, never. never.'
The trouble with 'justice.'
The last chapter in the saga of the release of Megrahi was played out last night to a mixed bag of opinion and judgement. The only man to be convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing was freed on compassionate grounds to live out the last months of his life at home and the terminally ill former Libyan intelligence officer was received home to Tripoli to a hero's welcome.
The sequence of events leading up to his release has seen outraged families of American victims threaten to boycott Scottish products and anger from the Obama administration at what they see as an insult to the 270 victims who were killed in the flight as the bomb detonated flying over the Scottish town.
The reaction in the UK has been slightly more muted with question marks over Megrahi's original conviction leaving families of the British victims slightly more philosphical about his release, querying, as many of them are, whether the right man was in prison in the first place. There has been an audible silence from Brown's goverment over what they are portraying as simply a Scottish justice decision.
According to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice minister, the decision to release Megrahi befits the 'humanity,' of the Scottish people, and is a decision which duly reflects the beliefs and character of the people over which his party, the SNP, govern.
However, there is clearly more at play here than a wish by MacAskill to portray a soft and bonnie Scotland. The continued protestations of innocence by Megrahi and his supporters since his conviction eight years ago as well as his appeals for the sentence to be over-turned, has fed into a growing belief in some quarters that he was nothing more than a pawn in the bigger field of American-British-Libyan relations.
The recent Scottish-Libyan prison transfer deal aside, Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, it was not a prisoner transfer. Therefore the requirement for all running criminal cases, appeals or otherwise, to be dropped, did not exist. Put simply, he could still be appealing his conviction now even after his release. The fact his present appeal was formally dropped a matter of days before his release last night shows political game playing is still in full flow (not to mention the fact that the ending of his appeal has stopped any chance of new and helpful information coming to light to help the victims' families learn more about the event. )
MacAskill has made a very astute decision in this instance and clearly the negotiating that has been done in the run-up to Megrahi's release has been successful. As all major broadsheets have pointed out in their coverage of this issue, the Scottish government have secured the dropping of his appeal (and therefore saved face if it had been successful), and also flexed some muscle on the world stage, showing Scotland's independence from Westminster and no doubt oiling the wheels of the SNP's bid for total independence from England and Wales.
The existence of such an undercurrent points to side-deals and vested interests being catered to. Here in Northern Ireland that's par for the course especially in such a sensitive area as this. A key tenet in the Good Friday Agreement, after much negotiating, was the early release of prisoners, from both sides of the community and many of whom killed indiscriminately for years during the Troubles.
Also a product of side deals and catering to vested interests, the GFA's early release scheme received a mixed welcome as well. Indeed, the repurcussions of this agreement are still being felt today with UK extradition proceedings for various former IRA men on the run being dropped in light of the fact this early release scheme will likely see them serve minimal amounts of time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
The jury is still out as to the whether this scheme has been a success. Whilst many believe it was an essential ingredient for the peace process the opprobrium it has created is now, in the outworkings of the GFA, proving troublesome.
The feeling of justice not being done over the death of a loved one is harrowing, and is a position which many families in Northern Ireland are in. However, as opponents of the early release scheme in the GFA know only too well and as Megrahi's release has highlighted, the feeling that justice has been reneged upon by the very people in charge of upholding it, is a betrayal that runs deep and one which lasts. The fact that it is done in the name of political expediency compounds such feeling still further.
This sense of betrayal is a severe obstacle to present day Northern Ireland, and one which our future justice minister will have to wrestle with on a daily basis. Will Westminster remain as tight lipped as they did over Megrahi in face of difficult justice issues our administration has to deal with? A cutting of the apron strings and the evident pressure on MacAskill in recent days will hardly have the Alliance party salivating at the prospect of heading this future devolved ministry.
Concepts of justice in post conflict societies and after major acts of terror such as Lockerbie and the Omagh bombing, are not as clear cut as our future justice minister would like. They involve notions of right and wrong, forgiveness and closure. These notions cannot be neatly box ticked in a charged society like the north of Ireland steeped as it is in political acts of violence and all the blurring of moral concepts that accompanies this.
The trouble with 'justice,' is that by it's very nature it can have many guises and a fluid definition but it is also clear cut in the eye of the beholder. Thus American families are outraged by Megrahi's freedom just as British families are in the main, at peace with it. Thus some agreed with the early release of prisoners under the GFA, and some to this day, pursue criminal convictions of former paramilitaries.
Creative ambiguity is often used as a description of the fudging in parts of the peace process here. If the lesson from Lockerbie is anything to go by, we can look forward to some more of this when it comes to Norhern Ireland's new 'Justice' Minister.
UPDATE: So Brown's government has saw fit to strongly condemn the hero's welcome Megrahi received through a statement from Foreign minister David Miliband...but still silence on his actual release. Good timing Gordon, political manouevering if ever I saw it.
The sequence of events leading up to his release has seen outraged families of American victims threaten to boycott Scottish products and anger from the Obama administration at what they see as an insult to the 270 victims who were killed in the flight as the bomb detonated flying over the Scottish town.
The reaction in the UK has been slightly more muted with question marks over Megrahi's original conviction leaving families of the British victims slightly more philosphical about his release, querying, as many of them are, whether the right man was in prison in the first place. There has been an audible silence from Brown's goverment over what they are portraying as simply a Scottish justice decision.
According to Kenny MacAskill, Scotland's justice minister, the decision to release Megrahi befits the 'humanity,' of the Scottish people, and is a decision which duly reflects the beliefs and character of the people over which his party, the SNP, govern.
However, there is clearly more at play here than a wish by MacAskill to portray a soft and bonnie Scotland. The continued protestations of innocence by Megrahi and his supporters since his conviction eight years ago as well as his appeals for the sentence to be over-turned, has fed into a growing belief in some quarters that he was nothing more than a pawn in the bigger field of American-British-Libyan relations.
The recent Scottish-Libyan prison transfer deal aside, Megrahi was freed on compassionate grounds, it was not a prisoner transfer. Therefore the requirement for all running criminal cases, appeals or otherwise, to be dropped, did not exist. Put simply, he could still be appealing his conviction now even after his release. The fact his present appeal was formally dropped a matter of days before his release last night shows political game playing is still in full flow (not to mention the fact that the ending of his appeal has stopped any chance of new and helpful information coming to light to help the victims' families learn more about the event. )
MacAskill has made a very astute decision in this instance and clearly the negotiating that has been done in the run-up to Megrahi's release has been successful. As all major broadsheets have pointed out in their coverage of this issue, the Scottish government have secured the dropping of his appeal (and therefore saved face if it had been successful), and also flexed some muscle on the world stage, showing Scotland's independence from Westminster and no doubt oiling the wheels of the SNP's bid for total independence from England and Wales.
The existence of such an undercurrent points to side-deals and vested interests being catered to. Here in Northern Ireland that's par for the course especially in such a sensitive area as this. A key tenet in the Good Friday Agreement, after much negotiating, was the early release of prisoners, from both sides of the community and many of whom killed indiscriminately for years during the Troubles.
Also a product of side deals and catering to vested interests, the GFA's early release scheme received a mixed welcome as well. Indeed, the repurcussions of this agreement are still being felt today with UK extradition proceedings for various former IRA men on the run being dropped in light of the fact this early release scheme will likely see them serve minimal amounts of time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
The jury is still out as to the whether this scheme has been a success. Whilst many believe it was an essential ingredient for the peace process the opprobrium it has created is now, in the outworkings of the GFA, proving troublesome.
The feeling of justice not being done over the death of a loved one is harrowing, and is a position which many families in Northern Ireland are in. However, as opponents of the early release scheme in the GFA know only too well and as Megrahi's release has highlighted, the feeling that justice has been reneged upon by the very people in charge of upholding it, is a betrayal that runs deep and one which lasts. The fact that it is done in the name of political expediency compounds such feeling still further.
This sense of betrayal is a severe obstacle to present day Northern Ireland, and one which our future justice minister will have to wrestle with on a daily basis. Will Westminster remain as tight lipped as they did over Megrahi in face of difficult justice issues our administration has to deal with? A cutting of the apron strings and the evident pressure on MacAskill in recent days will hardly have the Alliance party salivating at the prospect of heading this future devolved ministry.
Concepts of justice in post conflict societies and after major acts of terror such as Lockerbie and the Omagh bombing, are not as clear cut as our future justice minister would like. They involve notions of right and wrong, forgiveness and closure. These notions cannot be neatly box ticked in a charged society like the north of Ireland steeped as it is in political acts of violence and all the blurring of moral concepts that accompanies this.
The trouble with 'justice,' is that by it's very nature it can have many guises and a fluid definition but it is also clear cut in the eye of the beholder. Thus American families are outraged by Megrahi's freedom just as British families are in the main, at peace with it. Thus some agreed with the early release of prisoners under the GFA, and some to this day, pursue criminal convictions of former paramilitaries.
Creative ambiguity is often used as a description of the fudging in parts of the peace process here. If the lesson from Lockerbie is anything to go by, we can look forward to some more of this when it comes to Norhern Ireland's new 'Justice' Minister.
UPDATE: So Brown's government has saw fit to strongly condemn the hero's welcome Megrahi received through a statement from Foreign minister David Miliband...but still silence on his actual release. Good timing Gordon, political manouevering if ever I saw it.
Friday, 14 August 2009
A long pause
After weeks off from the blogging I'm back in the saddle. After exams and portfolio building stress I've been spending much of the summer (and most of my money) on catching up with friends north and south of the border.
I can't help but feel my sabbatical from the political blogging couldn't have been at a worse time. After deciding to switch off and watch and read nothing but chewing gum for the brain the past few weeks, suddenly politics is in vogue. MP'S expenses, the European election debate and result, leadership challenges and ofcourse the ongoing recession debates - all when I take my foot off the gas. At least it's got people talking about more important things than Jordan and Peter (although I must admit I thought they would last.)
Maybe it's a good thing I decided to step away from the ring of opinion for the last while and take a long pause for breath. It seems there was enough pontification to go around.
nichart.com has some recent reviews that may be of interest but expect more posts to follow on hopefully thought provoking and relevant issues.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome as always, and any contributors looking to vent some informed and libel free opinion can email louisequinn888@googlemail.com
I can't help but feel my sabbatical from the political blogging couldn't have been at a worse time. After deciding to switch off and watch and read nothing but chewing gum for the brain the past few weeks, suddenly politics is in vogue. MP'S expenses, the European election debate and result, leadership challenges and ofcourse the ongoing recession debates - all when I take my foot off the gas. At least it's got people talking about more important things than Jordan and Peter (although I must admit I thought they would last.)
Maybe it's a good thing I decided to step away from the ring of opinion for the last while and take a long pause for breath. It seems there was enough pontification to go around.
nichart.com has some recent reviews that may be of interest but expect more posts to follow on hopefully thought provoking and relevant issues.
Any comments and suggestions are welcome as always, and any contributors looking to vent some informed and libel free opinion can email louisequinn888@googlemail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)