![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thursday, January 22, 1998 Published at 10:48 GMT Talking Point Should prisoners take part in the Northern Ireland peace process? Your reaction <% ballot="" ' Check nothing is broken broken = 0 if ballot = "" then broken = 1 end if set vt = Server.Createobject("mps.Vote") openresult = vt.Open("Vote", "sa", "") ' Created object? if IsObject(vt) = TRUE then ' Opened db? if openresult = True AND broken = 0 then ballotresult = vt.SetBallotName(ballot) ' read the vote votetotal=(vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes")+vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no")) if votetotal <> 0 then ' there are votes in the database numberyes = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "yes") numberno = vt.GetVoteCount(ballot, "no") percentyes = Int((numberyes/votetotal)*100) percentno = 100 - percentyes ' fix graph so funny graph heights dont appear 'if percentyes = 0 then ' percentyes = 1 'end if 'if percentno = 0 then ' percentno = 1 'end if else ' summut went wrong frig it numberyes = 0 numberno = 0 percentyes = 50 percentno = 50 end if end if end if %> Votes so far:
There is no point of excluding anybody in the peace talk if their exclusion
means no peace at all at the end of the talk. In talks one will have to
negotiate with people whose opinion or action you do not agree with. Whether one's
opponent is in prison or in exile is irrelevant.
Soldiers or not, criminals or not does it really matter? Black and white
generalisations seem pretty pointless when the fact of the matter is
if they are not included then they will probably continue killing,
if they are there's a chance for peace. Which would you prefer?
If Loyalist prisoners are consulted, then it is only fair and equitable that Republican prisoners are consulted too. However, these people are all criminals. They are not, as some people (particularly from the US), would have us think; freedom fighters on some romantically-motivated
crusade against oppression - they were already free. This political prisoner/prisoner of conscience business is sheer nonsense, especially when they revert to violence whenever they do not get their way or run out of patience with negotiations.
I fail to see how someone imprisoned for using or facilitating the use of
violence to achieve a goal should have any say in the peaceful negotiations.
The whole purpose of a democracy is to achieve through debate not disorder.
The reason for the peace process is because of the terrorism forced upon the
citizens of Britain and Ireland by all paramilitary groups. The peace process is important for the future of Northern Ireland. How can you have
a peace settlement if you do not include the people responsible for the
violence. If you do not include them, they have every right to continue their program of violence.
First I feel it needs to be said that the majority of the Maze prisoners would
not be incarcerated if not for the Troubles. These men are not criminals, and
whether we choose to agree with their tactics or believe as they do, they
should not be treated as such. They are soldiers.
Of course they should be included in the process. To be blunt, their
opinions
weigh too heavily within their own communites to be disregarded, despite their
convict status.
Prisoners that are non violent have some right to be heard but not those that
went out of my morals (I' m judgemental). People that block things and are
there to get arrested are willing to take responsibility but if someone wants
to take credit for violence how likely is it they will listen to others and
hear them after they have spoken? P.S. Take everything with a grain of salt.
These men are not criminals - they are prisoners of war.
You may not like to think of them as such, but that is what they are.
This fact is borne out by the "special status" (officially denied but evident
from the conditions in the Maze) that is accorded to them.
No-one joins the IRA or UDA (or UFF, UVF, LVF or whatever) lightly.
The peace process will survive or founder on these men, make no mistake
about this, so "Yes!" their involvement is necessary. However, the present
crisis is due to the unionists unwillingness to enter meaningful talks and
their reluctance to consider any actions to redress the years of
discrimination and oppression that have been perpetrated on the nationalist
people in Ireland.
There is a lot of prisoners on the world, the part of them, are also
terrorists
and murderers, who should be executed and not be a part of peace processes.
But there are also prisoners of conscience and political, who are and also
should be in the future a part of peace processes.
N. Ireland needs change, politicians and
prisoners with set views cannot give us that.
Democracy does not work in N. Ireland, I
don't know what will.
One of the cornerstones Of Unionism is the demand that the people of Northern
Ireland have the right to be treated in exactly the same way as they would on
mainland UK. In the rest of the UK, however, it is inconceivable that MPs
would
meet, and therefore, ligitimise these so-called political prisoners. The road
that David Trimble and co. are walking down is a very dangerous one -
terrorism
is terrorism, whether nationalist or loyalist. As Sinn Fein / IRA have proved,
bombing and shooting can get you to the negotiating table. But do Unionists
want to repeat this process via Loyalist gunmen?
Prisoners should never be involved in peace actions.
It makes my blood boil to see so called
respected politicians running to talk to
convicted murderers and bombers. How can
anyone treat criminals as if they are
special when they have been convicted for
the simple reason that they stepped
outside of the democratic process accepted
by the vast majority on both sides.
If we listen to prisoners we give them more credibility, and they see that
they get somewhere from killing and bombing - and will therefore do even more.
These men have devoted their lives to this struggle - any settlement must
include them. If not they will fight on. Peace can only be made between the
combatants.
Having left Belfast many years ago it never ceases to amaze me
on the right to speak out. Both sides are 100% right in their love affair
with Ulster. Allowing both sides the chance to present their viewpoint will uncover
a fuller understanding of the feelings of the people by the people.
Sometimes the best lessons are learned from the teachers we hate the most.
Give peace a chance ....Listen.....Listen........Listen
I feel that the prisoners should be involved in the peace process because,
Even though some people might thing them without rights, it is they who will make or
break any pact. Once discharged they may take up their old quarrels again and
bloodshed might result. However, if they are brought into in the process and
felt they had a meaningful input, the results could be quite good. We
must remember that everyone is caught in an old vortex and everyone should
pull together to escape its suffocating embrace.
To leave the prisoners out of the peace process would seem to doom it. I do not support violence as a means to resolve the differences - it only serves to breed more violence and deepen the gulfs between the factions. But to ignore those who have felt that violence was a suitable means would only serve to confirm to them that they don't otherwise have a voice. At some point one has to forgive the wrongs of the past and look forward, only forward.
However deplorable the actions of the prisoners and their respective paramilitaries have been, the reality is that the peace process is unlikely to succeed without their support. We must not forget too that the loyalist prisoners have maintained their ceasefire for 3 years, which has been as vital
an ingedient to progess as the IRA ceasefire.
Political parties are not at war so they don't need peace talks.
Paramilitaries are at war and they should talk. Some of them may be convicted felons, but if
you want peace, let them talk.
The instinctive reaction is to say that people convicted of violent crimes
should have no say in things. However, peaceful settlements to conflict
almost always involves talking to former enemies who may well be in prison. This has
been the case in South Africa, Zimbabwe and the Middle East, as well as in
Eastern Europe.
Whilst the opinions of the citizens of Northern Ireland should be heard, those
that
practice and advocate violence to further their goals should have no such
right.
By allowing them such a voice their violent actions would be legitimised.
There is clearly one law for the rest of those in Britain and another in
Northern Ireland. The conditions in the Maze, detailed in your excellent
article this week, demonstrate that terrorists are treated as legitimate
political prisoners in the province. The government should crack down. It
would
certainly be be bloody and difficult. But in the end it would sort the age-old
Irish question out. The only struggle these men have devoted themselves to is the cause of
slaughter. I may support the Unionist point of view, however, I think the
so called "Loyalists" have a funny way of showing their loyalty to the Crown,
by committing the most serious of crimes.
All should take part. Taking part does not necessarily mean getting your way.
By willful commitment of felony
they have made their choice and will
continue to do so.
Peace is for those who want it and are
willing to work for it.
Taking the opinions of felons is like
throwing an anchor overboard just prior
to shoving off. It makes for rather
rough going.
People who believe that they are above the democratic process should not be allowed a voice.
Successive governments have refused to accept these people as having any status other than that of convicted criminals.
Only if both sides of the equation are dealt with equally. However, we should not forget about the view of the majority of the population, who do not reside in prison.
These prisoners have been denied physical liberty because of terrorist
action. If people feel so strongly as to act violently for the sakes of their beliefs, then surely we should listen to them. It is not peaceful people who have been causing the terror and anxiety in Northern Ireland; it is the violent ones. If such violent people are not satisfied with the peace process, then peace is not going to come; they have to be included. Otherwise we would be approaching the matter quite blindly.
We either regard Maze prisoners as criminals with no political concessions
or as captured soldiers fighting a 'cause'. It is my understanding that
prisoners anywhere in UK do not have a vote in elections therefore fail to
see why the Maze terrorists should be treated differently.
What breadth of vision can those who have committed murder, the most extreme
of
crimes, contribute to a lasting and permanent peace process that will be based
on compromise and compassion?
For the crime they have committed, they are liable to be
punished, thus there is no reason why the prisoners should have this facility
as well. When the committed the crime, they bought a ticket out of the
political system and propaganda.
I do not personally know a prisoner, but when they are released prisoners
with become part of the general society again.
Surely the commitment to violence of the men inside the Maze prison rules them out of the political process. They are still represented by their various political parties so there shouldn't be any problem. It's like letting them out at Christmas... I know they may claim to have political motives - but many of these men were convicted for killing people, so why should they be let off so lightly?
As has been revealed, the prisoners have great control on events outside and
inside the prison. They have already been instrumental in securing ceasefires.
The Loyalist prisoners are upset at "concessions" given to other parties
involved in the peace process. Concessions/compromises are necessary for
peace,
and the upset is a result of the balance having been grossly in favour of the
Loyalist community in the past - a return to the previous status quo is what
they desire. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||