´óÏó´«Ã½

´óÏó´«Ã½ BLOGS - The Devenport Diaries
« Previous | Main | Next »

Don't mention the war

Mark Devenport | 11:22 UK time, Tuesday, 19 February 2008

The rush of events yesterday stopped me from dwelling on a couple of notable moments in the Chamber.

During Martin McGuinness's question time we braced ourselves for a hard hitting question from the DUP's Stephen Moutray. It's not often questions are right on the money so far as the news of the day is concerned, but an apparently prescient Mr Moutray wanted to know more about "the role of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to the removal of a Minister from the Executive".

Sadly when the time came for the question Mr Moutray was nowhere to be seen. Methinks he had Caitrion Ruane in mind when he tabled his question, not his party colleague Ian Paisley Jr.

MLAs later moved on to discuss the press reports that the Eames Bradley commission on the past might consider reclassifying the troubles as a "war". The exchanges were some of the sharpest yet witnessed in the chamber. A casual visitor might have assumed there had never been a DUP-Sinn Fein deal last March.

For example: the DUP's Trevor Clarke is recorded in the Official Report as apparently calling Mark Durkan a "Provo lover", Sinn Fein's Jennifer McCann called the republican dead "noble, brave...patriots", whilst the DUP's Mervyn Storey described the IRA as "grubby" cowards, the Deputy Speaker David McClarty had to admonish the other Deputy Speaker Francie Molloy (who was speaking in his Sinn Fein MLA capacity) for shouting, Iris Robinson called loyalist paramilitaries "hoods, thugs and murderers" adding that (in a reference to the PUP's Billy Hutchinson and the late David Ervine) "the unionist community elected two, and, thank God, they are not here any longer, because they were an abomination to me and to the people whom I represent".

Clearly there were strongly held views on all sides, but you would need a psychologist to advise on how the debate sat alongside the parallel reality of the power sharing government. All the while, noone mentioned the conflicts in the coalition, or the conflicts within the Assembly's biggest party. Is this what you might call "displacement activity"?

°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment

  • 1.
  • At 05:13 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Paul McGlade wrote:

If Sinn Fein are adamant that the troubles were a war, I'm sure they'll happily press for the IRA (who are an entirely different organisation, as we all know) to offer up their members to stand trial for war crimes in any act of war where civilians and other non-combattants were killed unlawfully

  • 2.
  • At 07:39 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Conor McCann wrote:

The ‘Troubles’ was a war, of course it was, if one took a moment to look up the term in the dictionary it is apparent: ‘the waging of armed conflict against an enemy’ and ‘an active struggle between competing entities’. The ‘war’ that took place was not of two states, how could it be since the IRA was not a state-sponsored group like that of the British army.
The criticism of calling the conflict in Northern Ireland a ‘war’ is understandable, it would legitimise the actions of ‘murderers’ and ‘terrorists’. To not call it a ‘war’ would mean state-sanctioned repression of one community in favour of another. However it would be more interesting, neutral and perhaps apt to see the conflict, particularly after the 1970s, as a civil war rather than ‘war’ per se. It’s a Catch-22 scenario and like most things in Northern Ireland it won’t please everyone.

  • 3.
  • At 08:34 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Patrick wrote:

I find it unusual and disappointing that there always appears to be much greater emphasis placed upon republican paramilitaries disarming and declaring the conflict is over than with the comparative silence over the same issue within loyalism. Isn't it time for all our politicians to demand the same from everyone? Why aren't we hearing much more about decommissioning of all factions within loyalism? Think about how many guns there must still be out there...
On a separate note, I understand how contentious flags and symbols still seem to everyone, but surely there should be political agreement that paramilitary decorations could and should be removed? I have to walk past many of them daily, and it always make me feel very uneasy. I would hope for our government to move us forwards, so they should be involved with talking to communities and getting these monstrosities of a bygone age removed from view. Mark, is there any chance you could get the politicians talking about these issues?

  • 4.
  • At 09:42 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Kitty McShane wrote:

Not the first time a DUP MLA has dissapeared did Sammy Wilson not go aw-all when he was to talk about the cuts to the Arts. Mark its time we had one Person one job and we might get some people who want to do the job and not be there just for the different pay packets.

  • 5.
  • At 09:44 PM on 19 Feb 2008,
  • Martin wrote:

Mark, where do you get the official report on what all has been said?
It is very interesting to note the language of the MLA's on certain issues. 2 weeks ago Ian Paisley was saying it was a good day for Ireland yet last week he said he wasn’t happy devolving Justice and Policing Powers until the IRA Army Council had been disbanded. Why the massive inconsistency? Then we have Mark Durkan. What is this guy all about? The recent farce over the SDLP and the budget will go on all the other parties mandates in the next election. It will also figure on a cartoon in the next Beano!!!!
It was also interesting to note that before Stephen Moutray disappeared without leave he wanted to know more about "the role of the First Minister and deputy First Minister in relation to the removal of a Minister from the Executive" I guess he bottled after knowing that Paisley Junior was stepping down. The other parties would have shouted him down.

  • 6.
  • At 04:57 PM on 20 Feb 2008,
  • Heathwood wrote:

An issue like this in Northern Ireland is always going to be a tricky one and is never going to please those who have lost loved ones on both sides of the political divide. Reading through these comments I agree with most of them. As a nationalist it is my opinion when you look at our joint history that the IRA where engaged in a war against the British I quote:

Mr. Ervine said: "It is my opinion that if the IRA do not say the war is over then the agreement is over, it is as simple as that. Loyalists clearly want the war to be over. - 5 Aug 1998

Countless Unionist Politicians have referred to the conflict in Northern Ireland as a War. Even from a loyalist point of view, Gusty Spence who helped form the UVF in 1966 issued a statement announcing that it was declaring war on the IRA. (Despite their aim of fighting the IRA, it was often innocent Catholic civilians who where murdered).

I feel that now that we have a shared government and relative peace this shouldn’t be an issue. We should be tackling real issues such as the amount of drugs that are killing our young people and organized crime.

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.