In the short video above, at Clifton House, Belfast this morning, Martin McGuinness talks about legacy issues, the question of pensions for disabled victims, and reconciliation. In another blog I’ll put up you’ll be able to hear his full talk on reconciliation. For the moment, I want to concentrate the pensions problem.
On my way in to Clifton House, I was listening to Emma Pengelly, who said that she had talked to “many innocent victims” and they were adamant that the pension they would be in line to receive should not extend to those involved in paramilitary activity who had suffered as a result of their own actions.
On the face of it, that sounds reasonable. It also reminds me of the leaflets that circulated during the Hunger Strike of the 1980s: “Their victims had no choice; they did. Let Them Die!” However, even a brief consideration of the problem shows this to be in reality something else.
What we have are a number of victims who have suffered awful loss – of limbs, of sight, other injuries. They have campaigned for and are now set to receive a pension. I don’t think any of these victims has complained about the amount of the pension: they are happy to take it. But then, according to Emma Pengelly, when they hear that former paramilitaries who have been similarly injured are also to receive a pension, they refuse to accept theirs.
But as one victim who was attacked in his own home by loyalist paramilitaries said: how many victims has Emma Pengelly talked to? For his part, he had no problem with former paramilitaries who had been injured likewise receiving a pension. So it would be important that Emma Pengelly be more precise: how many victims has she spoken to and how many of them have said they would not accept their pension if former paramilitaries were also to receive a pension?
However, let’s assume that there are a majority of victims who, while willing to receive the pension if paramilitaries don’t get one, refuse to take it if paramilitaries get one. This has echoes of the Bible parable of the man who hired people to work in his vineyard. For those of you whose Bibles aren’t thumbed on a daily basis, a recap.
A vineyard owner hired some workers at the start of the day. They agreed a wage with him and they went off to work. Later in the day, some more men turned up and the vineyard owner hired them, agreeing with them the same amount as those who’d started at the beginning of the day. And later still, in the afternoon, some more men came amd were hired for the same wage promised the first two groups. When the time came to pay everyone, the first group were angry, declaring that they’d borne the heat of the day and now found themselves getting the same pay as those who’d toiled only for an hour or so. In the parable, the vineyard owner chides the complainers, pointing out that they’d agreed a wage with him; what he chose to pay others after that was none of their concern.
Similarly, the non-combatant victims who were awarded a pension have, according to Emma Pengelly, done a 180-degree turn and said they are so annoyed with the pension awarded to former paramilitaries, they will no longer go along with the scheme. Another way of putting it might be that they seem prepared to bite off their nose to spite their face.
So some people think former paramilitaries deserve no pension, that they brought their injuries on themselves, and are refusing to accept their own pension under such conditions. The solution, I believe, involves two steps: (i) Draw up a list of those non-combatant victims who are refusing a pension if former paramilitaries are included; and (ii) Distribute the pension to those non-combatants and combatants who qualify for and wish to have a pension.
People are free to accept or reject what is on offer; they should not be free to decide whether someone else gets a pension. Bluntly put, it’s none of their business. Meanwhile, Emma, have you got those numbers for us yet?
Or another alternative Jude would be to pay the pension to the 490 odd who everyone agrees are without doubts innocent, then have a separate debate as to whether or not the pension should be extended to the perpetrators of the crimes who were severely injured.
I see no reason why people who were truly innocents shouldn’t receive there pension umm. SF is simply using them as a hostage to get what they want which is equal status for innocent victims and “combatants” victims.
It’s shameful in my opinion.
“I see no reason why people who were truly innocents shouldn’t receive there pension umm. ”
Define “truly innocents” Scott? Apparently Tom Elliot said only people made victims by the IRA were “true victims”. Would UDR, British Soldiers, etc come under your definition of “truly innocents”? Would British agents in the IRA/UDA/UVF who were allowed to kill people in order to “save lives” (talk about a contradiction…) be under your definition of “truly innocents”?
My own definition of “truly innocents” would cover only civilians.
A pension will have to be paid to everyone, otherwise there simply wont be a pension. I don’t agree with UDA/UVF/RUC getting a special pension but I wouldn’t cut off my nose to spite my face. Compromise is necessary in this case.
“My own definition of “truly innocents” would cover only civilians.”
My definition of a “truly innocent” is the same as yours Ryan. For once we agree.
Whether military or paramilitary personnel can receive a pension also is a separate issue around the definition of a victim and I’m sure you’ll agree is a long and complicated one.
However to use people who everyone pretty much universally agree were innocent as a bargaining chip (which is what SF are doing) is wrong.
Hopefully though with the help of the SDLP however the assembly will be able to get these innocent people the financial help they need before it’s to late, many of them are very old and time is of the essence.
“However to use people who everyone pretty much universally agree were innocent as a bargaining chip (which is what SF are doing) is wrong.”
Is that what is happening Scott?
The money is not being released by the DUP, it is they who are using victims as a bargaining chip, not Sinn Fein who have approved the payments.
The DUP will not approve the payments because under current legislation, IRA members will be included.
Ironic since it was unionist politicians who started the conflict in the first place which created all of the victims.
I doubt the DUP would support members of the british army or security forces losing their pensions Scott, so it looks like not all victims will see any cash at all.
“Is that what is happening Scott?
The money is not being released by the DUP, it is they who are using victims as a bargaining chip, not Sinn Fein who have approved the payments.
The DUP will not approve the payments because under current legislation, IRA members will be included.”
There is no legislation. That’s the problem.
SF won’t agree to legislation unless perpetrators are included, so the pension is to proceed by way of a private member’s bill.
The law doesn’t work that way Scott and pensions should be allocated based on legislation only, not at the whim of any political party.
Many british soldiers and security forces have murdered and not only been protected but have been well paid for their actions including pension provisions.
The law has already defined a victim, satisfactorily to the british state who have already allocated the money.
It is the DUP who are trying to change the law to suit their vilification of republicans agenda which is not acceptable.
If victims wish to support their stance and back this agenda, that is fine but it will cost them, if they don’t, they can simply tell the DUP to release the money.
Nothing else is holding it up.
Scott
That seems to me a very sensible solution. A decent and humane idea of helping victims should not be stymied by roping in a controversial add-on regarding paramilitaries.
That could be discussed as a separate issue.
By the way do you know where and when did Emma Pengelly say whatever it is she said?
As usual Jude does not provide a link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0831488 24m
*pensions immediately
Short and sweet, no!
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Emma Pengelly’s father an importer of weapons for the DUP’s “Ulster Resistance”? Many of those same arms ended up in UDA stockpiles (I’m sure that was just an accident….) and were used in over 100 sectarian murders.
We hear this term more and more often from Unionism: “many innocent victims”. Who are these “innocent victims”. We hear talk of the “Innocent victims” and the “victims” from Unionism. It tends to be the “Innocent Victims” refers to Protestants, which includes UDR, RUC, British Army, etc members too. The “victims” tends to be a reference to Catholic victims of the IRA, not the UVF, RUC, UDA, Ulster Resistance, etc. Indeed I think it was UUP MP Tom Elliot that once said that the only “true victims” were those created by the IRA.
Willie Frazer, repeatedly referred to as a “Victims Campaigner” by the media, once said that the UVF/UDA should “never have been locked up in the first place”. On Willies “Innocent Victims” list is Billy Wright, Robert McConnell (heavily suspected of having involvement in mass murder in Dublin/Monaghan bombs), John Bingham (murdered at least 5 Catholic civilians) and many others. Indeed Willies own father is on the list, many have claimed Willies father was part of the Glenanne gang that murdered at least 100 Catholics in South Armagh. Indeed the Garda have alleged they have intelligence Willie himself was in the Red Hand Commando, the PSNI have even refused to give him a legal firearm because he is “known to associate with Loyalist Paramilitaries”. But according to the media, Willie is a “Victims Campaigner”…..
The reality is there has to be an agreement from both sides for a pension. SF wont budge (and rightly so) unless everyone, including paramilitaries, gets a pension. Of course we know if Unionism had their way only victims of the IRA would get a pension, victims of the British State (RUC, UDR, etc) wouldn’t get one. The attitude from Unionism to those shot and injured by the British State is “they didn’t get it for nothing”.
Many of those opposed to a pension for IRA members (they wouldn’t mind the UVF/UDA getting one, that’s the truth) will continue to chew their nose to spite their face. I say let them.
PS: McGuinness was in Belfast Telegraph today calling for Unionists to reciprocate and help reconciliation. I know its the Season of Miracles but something tells me Santa and his Elves wont be able to deliver Unionist reciprocation this year….or the next….or the year after….
‘SF won’t budge (and rightly so)’, but this morning Little Emma seemed to think she could introduce a private members’ bill which would have the support of the SDLP, and could therefore be passed.
Could the SDLP be so gullible/stupid to be sweet talked by that woman?
Alan McBride wasn’t so complimentary about her, when he said that members of the Wave group (who are pushing for this pension) would not concern themselves about all 500 members being eligible for this.
He also said she had contacted him just before the last election, promising to introduce the bill that very day, but she has still not done so.
Just imagine – a DUP politician (with paramilitary family links) making a promise and not keeping it – heaven forfend!
One of the victims also made the point that the DUP were being precious about the idea of 10 ex-paramilitaries receiving these £120pw pensions, while on the other hand Arlene Foster is happy to pose with present-day UDA leaders while presenting them with £1.7million – hypocrisy or what!
“We hear this term more and more often from Unionism: “many innocent victims”. Who are these “innocent victims”. We hear talk of the “Innocent victims” and the “victims” from Unionism. It tends to be the “Innocent Victims” refers to Protestants, which includes UDR, RUC, British Army, etc members too. The “victims” tends to be a reference to Catholic victims of the IRA, not the UVF, RUC, UDA, Ulster Resistance, etc. Indeed I think it was UUP MP Tom Elliot that once said that the only “true victims” were those created by the IRA.”
Innocent victims are those who weren’t perpetrators. So, for example of those killed in the Shankill bomb, the bomber wasn’t innocent but the others were. Or another example is that Lenny Murphy isn’t an innocent victim but those he killed are. It’s quite simple.
‘Innocent victims are those who weren’t perpetrators’.
But perpetrators included: B Specials, RUC, RUC Reserve, UDR, PSNI, British army, FRU, etc!
“Innocent victims are those who weren’t perpetrators…It’s quite simple.”
Is it so simple? Perpetrators within the British army have been getting pensions for years. Some of them even received gongs from their queen, to boot. Are you trying to suggest that perpetrators within the British services who killed innocent victims don’t get a pension? REALLY?
As we know, the saintly, Blessed, British have never been hypocritical.
Let’s see if they let their principles stand in the way of their pensions. Let’s see if the crown means more than the half crown. I think that people in the kingdom of Northern Ireland who applied for Irish passports should suffer some sort of financial penalty for their disloyalty.
Apparently ten people have been injured by their own hand and are in line to get this pension. 6 of those are loyalists.
I’ve no problem with these people getting a pension. The State in my view bears a responsibility for what caused the conflict – namely the discriminatory regime of unionism.
Do victims who receive a pension have a right to say who else may get one?
NI, but the body providing the pension does, in this case the Assembly. It is entirely reasonable not to give a special disablement pension to somebody who disabled him or herself as a result of their committal of a criminal offence.
our own pensioners pensions should be given a jeg up instead of all this bollox.
Sinn Fein and the IRA are so morally corrupt that they would willingly pile more misery on their victims.
Personally, I think that law firms should represent victims to pursue their agressors through the civil courts. The GFA might have let these toerags out of jail, but that shouldn’t stop the victims hitting them in their pockets. The Sinn Fein coffers run deep after all.
So that shouldn’t stop victims from legally pursuing the British government whose intelligent agencies directed and materially supported the loyalist terrorists who committed such terrible atrocities as the McGurks/Dublin-Monaghan/Rising Sun mass murders but to name a few?
*intelligent agencies obviously should read as intelligence agencies. Mea Culpa.
The majority of the people in the Kingdom of Northern Ireland voted to let the toe rags out of jail. Too late moaning about it now. Our British masters said let there be light and there was light. I wonder are any of the amnesiac RUC toe rags now in the new PSKNI?