pup-ni.org.uk Documents on Loyalism

Why it wasn't too late to talk to Billy....

Roy Garland — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:04:39 GMT

Why did leading members of Sinn Fein attend the funeral of a former UVF man? And how did a man who served time for loyalist crime come to earn the respect and friendship of prominent republicans? Roy Garland explains the extraordinary legacy of Billy Mitchell.

The congregation at the funeral of loyalist Billy Mitchell was certainly a mixed one. Dawn Purvis, chair of the PUP, Liam Maskey, brother of Alex Maskey MLA, and pastors of the Church of the Nazarene, all took time to speak movingly about his life. And at the end of the service, which took place three weeks ago, crowds poured on to the street, joining hundreds waiting outside to pay their last respects. A piper led the cortege and, as we slowly followed the hearse, I became aware of Sinn Fein members, official republicans, rank and file and also leading UVF men, churchmen, priests and people from the north and south silently walking alongside. And I couldn't help but think what a fitting tribute this was to a man who devoted his life to creating a better future for all.

My interest in Billy Mitchell goes back to the early 70s, when he was one of a number of UVF men struggling to find a better way forward. He would talk fearlessly about nationalists and republicans having every right to be such, and to express their aspirations openly. He also rejected the fears being whipped up by demigods, making what seemed an astonishing statement: "We have nothing to fear from a united Ireland." Of course, many actions of the UVF seemed to belie such ideas, but they lived and moved in a sea of sectarianism. And, by the early 90s, I discovered that I shared a lot in common with Billy.

Both of us came from working class evangelical homes but had been caught up in a religious fundamentalism that saw Protestant Ulster as a sacred cause demanding sacrifice and obedience. Billy struggled with this and ultimately realised that genuine faith is to be expressed in love of one's neighbour - and even of one's enemy. Billy Mitchell's dad had died in the 1940s and his mother reared him and his brother in a rickety hut on the Hightown Road in Glengormley on the outskirts of Belfast. The toilet was, he told me, made of "corrugated tin" in which "you s**t in a bucket over a wooden plank". His granddad "buried it in a big pit and covered it with ashes" and a solidcover lest anyone fall in. In the house there were books on Protestant reformers, the Siege of Derry, Foxes Book of Martyrs and Bible prophesies, but as a teenager Billy danced the night away to Elvis Presley, Cliff Richard and the Beatles. Schooling ended when he was 14, but his teacher commended his use of English. His first job was with the Belfast Telegraph as a "copy boy". Billy's mates suggested they go to hear "Big Paisley" and they began attending the church and Ulster Hall rallies. He went mostly for, "political reasons" but the preaching led him to read the books back home.

Billy then joined a loyalist band and an Orange lodge and helped organise Paisley's Ulster Protestant Volunteers with Noel Docherty. But after Noel was imprisoned Billy moved on to become a senior UVF officer and a regular scribe for study groups questioning the direction they were going in. UVF leaders also engaged in discussion with Northern Ireland Labour Party politicians - reportedly the only ones prepared to help the UVF move in a new direction. During the winter of 1973/4 Billy Mitchell issued an appeal on behalf of the UVF calling on "all Ulstermen to pause, to stretch out the hand of forbearance and conciliation, to forgive and forget, and to join in making for the province they love a new era of peace, contentment and goodwill".

A Council of Ulster under a neutral chair was also envisaged with representations to be made to it by all sides of the community. This dramatic gesture was generally ignored ... but not by everyone. Right wing unionists issued vicious condemnations suggesting the UVF had gone Communist. Even elements within the intelligence services depicted the 'new thinking' in as negative a light as possible. The result was a coup d'etat by hardliners. A vicious feud followed and it involved terrible killings. Billy was arrested and a "supergrass" trial followed. It ended with heavy sentences meted out to him and most of the UVF in south east Antrim. Billy found this painful and would not talk about it. It seems he did not pull the trigger but shared the guilt. While in jail, however, he read extensively in theology and politics and became particularly fond of Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the German theologian hanged by the Nazis for plotting against Hitler. Billy had become an accomplished, if unacknowledged, scholar who would not be easily manipulated.

In 1990 when Billy was released, loyalists again urged politicians to make peace but the appeals fell on deaf ears. Billy joined the PUP and with the support of his church, devoted his life to transforming loyalist organisations and communities. Being highly respected he could address the UVF directly and became central to the two-years-old East Antrim Conflict Transformation initiative - a PUP/UVF leadership attempt to deal with the legacy of the conflict and channel youthful energies into constructive areas. The legacy was defined by Billy to include the existence of armed groups, the culture of violence, interface difficulties, criminals masquerading as loyalists and whole communities marginalised, demonised, stereotyped and blighted by sectarianism. Billy said armed loyalists were simultaneously engaging in an internal consultation process and needed time and space to succeed. A focus group complimented this by seeking to transform communities by enriching the quality of people's lives and address their many issues. "Critical friends" from across the community monitored and constructively criticised the work and also tried to address concerns about loyalism in the wider society. A forum meets quarterly receiving reports from local groups, for whom it provides a safe space. Billy chaired the last meeting when over 120 participants represented seven different areas. Observers included PSNI, local government officers, political observers, Church people and others.

Trevor Ringland, of the One Small Step Campaign, accompanied me to the last meeting on June 6, 2006 and we were deeply impressed and moved as young and older people, many who had never spoken publicly, delivered reports. Issues being addressed included a Young Citizens Forum, flags, sectarianism, murals and bonfires. Others ranged from hockey, soccer coaching and fitness training to community safety, senior citizens, anti-social behaviour, heritage, cultural and historical interests, outdoor pursuits with police, projects to tidy and enhance areas, youth painting projects, drugs awareness, employment skills, child protection, women's groups, first aid, food hygiene, home safety, cancer awareness, beauty treatment, neighbourhood mediation, cross border relationships, mediation and leadership training, team building, information sessions with the police ombudsman, human rights, a community garden, citizens' advice, healthy living, fuel poverty, codes of conduct for bands and much more besides. I was astounded. I had never before witnessed anything so constructive and visionary undertaken by any political party on such a scale and there in the centre sat Billy Mitchell. He had defied the inertia, pessimism, sectarianism and class division that for so long have bedevilled this community. Sadly within a few weeks of the meeting Billy Mitchell died suddenly. His funeral took place on July 25. He now seems irreplaceable, but his work continues. As early as the late 70s he came to realise that the Ulster question was not religious in the conventional sense, but rather a "question of humanity". This insight remains central to Billy Mitchell's own, and hopefully lasting, legacy.

This article was first printed in the Belfast Telegraph on 17 August 2006

Billy Mitchell’s Theology

Roy Garland — Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:42:21 GMT

Republican Anthony McIntyre in a tribute to loyalist Billy Mitchell suggests that Billy’s experience of poverty moulded his thinking in the direction of liberation theology – a kind of Marxist Christianity associated with Latin American Catholic radicals. There is some truth in this. Billy regretted that much Christianity he encountered outside prison reflected Marx’s concept of religion as “opium of the people”. But this is misleading and, given that Protestant radicals like Billy were viciously pilloried for supposedly adopting a Marxist stance in the 1970s, clarification is necessary.

Billy was steeped in Protestant evangelicalism from childhood but under a fundamentalist preacher was “saved” and became a “modern-day Zealot” with Ulster as his “sacral State”. His faith was directed towards the here and now but also towards an unbiblical political Protestantism. Even as a prominent UVF officer Billy questioned right wing unionism – a process that came to fruition in Long Kesh where he seriously re-examined a faith that deified Ulster. He emerged in 1990 with a vision he summed up with Isaiah 58 - a critique of religious practices that neglect the poor and records God saying, “Your fasting makes you violent, and you quarrel and fight”. It goes on, “The kind of fasting I want is this: Remove the chains of oppression and the yoke of injustice, and let the oppressed go free”.

In the Maze Prison Billy watched a TV documentary on Dietrich Bonhoeffer the German Pastor hanged by Nazis for plotting against Hitler and this was a life changing event. He became a committed Christian whose faith was to be lived out “in the public square” and not “in the bunker”. Bonhoeffer was once attracted to a comfortable life in the United States but felt called to be with his own people in Nazi Germany despite their imperfections. Similarly Billy planned to melt into obscurity on release but felt called to work to change the mould of Northern Ireland politics. He continued encouraging radical re-thinking within the UVF and became central to an ongoing extensive programme of transformation across East Antrim. Immediately before his death he initiated contacts with Catholic Priests in different parts of County Antrim to explore ways of improving the quality of life of local Catholics.

Billy did not fit any stereotypical loyalist mould. He was a community activist, theologian, thinker and a caring human being. His hunger for learning led to lengthy reflections on the meaning of life and action on the ground. His frankness made him an embarrassment to right wing unionists some of who refused to help fearing loyalists might move completely into a political mould and successfully challenge their influence.

Liam McAnoy, a republican with Billy in the Maze Prison who became a critical friend of loyalist transformation, said Billy had “wanted, even needed, to build relationships” and he entered dialogue “not simply about the war but about a wide range of topics”. He said Billy, “was an intellectual without being an academic” who could turn enemies into friends but “not without personal cost”. For Billy sectarianism was “an insidious disease” but he refused to desert former UVF comrades and in Liam’s words became, “a big influence for positive change”.

Billy Mitchell and other loyalists shared with Official Republicans the view that the conflict could not define “the sum total of their existence” and that different identities and allegiances had to be respected if the cycle of violence was to be broken. “Victory” of one side “over the other” had become unthinkable. Recently Billy’s “work took on a new urgency” as he encouraged others to take responsibility for peace and progress.

Julitta Clancy and members of the Meath Peace Group had met Billy in north Belfast shortly before the loyalist ceasefire of October 1994. Later, with fellow PUP members he spoke at Navan Co Meath telling how ex-prisoners had come together to work for peace after the Shankill bombing. Billy remained a staunch loyalist and evangelical Christian but was convinced that the core issue was not blood soaked sacrificial altars but humanity and human need. What mattered was love in action – love for fellow human beings of whatever class, creed, race or nationality. His funeral took place at an estate bedecked with loyalist flags but, as Anthony McIntyre noted, Billy made a remarkable achievement in that the presence of republicans at a loyalist estate had seemed almost “unremarkable”.

First Published: 15 August 2006

Loyalism at the Crossroads - The UVF and Conflict Transformation

Aaron Edwards and Stephen Bloomer — Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:25:22 GMT

As the UVF leadership consults with its rank-and-file membership over the future direction of its military campaign, questions must be asked about what the people beneath the woollen faces actually want out of the current ‘peace process’. While Brian Rowan’s interview with a member of the UVF Brigade Staff in April threw the organisation’s attitude to decommissioning in sharp relief, he failed to query the leadership on its intentions towards the wider Protestant working class community.

Over the past two years we too have been asking hard questions of Progressive Loyalism (the term we give to the UVF-RHC-PUP constituency) about its political strategy. Gaining invaluable access to the UVF leadership on two separate occasions, our judgement was that we were observing an organisation very much at the crossroads. Analysing Progressive Loyalism ten years on from the paramilitary ceasefires our findings were that some PUP members wished to break their party’s links with the UVF and RHC, while others wished to take on the role of ‘conflict transformers’, working from the ‘bottom up’ to facilitate a move towards the peaceful dispensation envisaged in the Belfast Agreement. Despite our recommendations (although both authors are divided on their personal opinions) the PUP chose the latter option: what we would refer to restively as the ‘ Provo manoeuvre’.

One of the most ridiculous lies spread by the Provo propaganda machine over the course of the conflict has been Sinn Fein’s illusory disassociation with the Provisional IRA. In reality, as the expert journalism of Ed Maloney has shown us, they are one and the same, with prominent politicos holding sometime key positions on the ruling Army Council. The same, however, was not true of the PUP-UVF-RHC relationship, which until October 2005 was always tenuous at best. ‘Lots of foreplay, but no sex’, as one activist described it. After October 2005, amid confused media speculation, the PUP and UVF-RHC have to all intents and purposes become a movement (with two ‘wings’) in much the same way as Provisional republicanism.

In our latest pamphlet (accessible at http://www.linc-ncm.org/CTP_12.PDF) we offered a critical evaluation of Progressive Loyalist intentions towards the ‘peace process’. Although Rowan certainly gave us a rare glimpse into UVF thinking he neglected to fill out the entire picture of that organisation’s movements at ground-level. In fact, close observation would reveal that the UVF has endorsed the conflict transformation project presently being superintended by Progressive Loyalists in East Antrim as a test case to be rolled out across the remainder of the Province. Our continued analysis of Progressive Loyalism is based on empirical facts, not on tabloid speculation or sensationalism. It is, moreover, research animated by the kinds of difficult questions no-one else (whether journalist or academic) seems prepared to ask on behalf of those living cheek by jowl with paramilitants. At a critical time in the Northern Ireland ‘peace process’ one would think it imperative that hard questions are asked of those engaged in jingoistic militarism. Sadly, this is not at all the case.

In an interview with the UVF leadership back in November 2005 we were told that: ‘I personally don’t think the UVF are in any position, anywhere even close, to decommissioning. Paramilitarism going away – that’s a different ball game. They believe very much in that and they would see a marked difference between going away and decommissioning. They don’t see the two running in parallel’. Significantly, just prior to our interview, the PUP emerged from its October 2005 conference with a cavalier determination to facilitate the UVF’s transformation beyond violence. The ‘politicos’ chose to align themselves more closely with their ‘militarist’ partners, with David Ervine announcing that: ‘The PUP is committed to conflict transformation and the processes that empower and build a strong, confident and vibrant loyalist community’ (Sunday Times, 16 October 2005).

Accepting its electoral bankruptcy in light of a continued association with its militarist partners the PUP has taken a pragmatic approach towards its own political future. Some would argue that the PUP is at the end of its political road; however, we would argue that recent shifts in the plateaus plates at ground level have thrown up a PUP which is only beginning to grapple with its political purpose and identity. In many ways what is emerging is a type of loyalism more self-confident and community orientated than ever before. As Dawn Purvis writes in the preface to our latest pamphlet, ‘our social res ponsibilities and our desire to empower the most disadvantaged is in stark contrast to the present populist political leadership that would have us looking at our feet’. Whatever its altruistic intentions it will remain for some time a loyalism judged by the actions of its paramilitary bedfellows.

It has probably failed to register on the minds of many people that the UVF has been in regular back-channel contact with mainstream Unionism throughout the Ulster troubles. Indeed the modern UVF was allegedly founded by shadowy figures in the Unionist Party back in 1965, when its first commander, Gusty Spence, was used unashamedly as a political pawn in a clandestine plot to destabilise the liberal Unionist regime of Terence O’Neill; a legacy which the party’s p res ent-day leader, Sir Reg Empey, has recently set about rectifying (Irish News, 26 March 2006). Nevertheless, forty years after its formation the UVF is still in existence, with little immediate prospect of its guns being decommissioned or its military structure being disbanded; it is recalibrating its strategy in light of rumours of an ‘imminent’ threat to Ulster ’s constitutional position.

The spectre of a ‘Plan B’ (or ‘direct rule with a green tinge’ in Paul Bew ’s oft-quoted phrase) is clearly haunting some Unionist political elites. While it could in theory lead to a strengthened British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference (incidentally, something already provided for in the Agreement’s institutional architecture) it is unlikely that this would invariably provoke loyalist paramilitaries into the kind of wanton mayhem unleashed in the wake of the Anglo Irish Agreement (1985). In any event let’s hope that a settlement between the extremes is not found wanting.

Aaron Edwards is a PhD student in the School of Politics, International Studies and Philosophy, Queen’s University Belfast.

Stephen Bloomer is Research and Publications Officer at Interaction Belfast.

For an extended analysis see our pamphlet, Democratising the Peace in Northern Ireland: Progressive Loyalists and the Politics of Conflict Transformation, accessible online at http://www.linc-ncm.org/CTP_12.PDF

Billy Mitchell 1941-2006

Roy Garland — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 14:50:16 GMT

Senior loyalist Billy Mitchell who died 11 days ago, worked with LINC (Local Initiatives for Needy Communities) an initiative of the Church of the Nazarene fostering peace, reconciliation and social justice. Nazarene evangelism is closely linked with a “compassionate ministry for justice, freedom and dignity for all, especially for those who cannot speak for themselves”.

This is a fitting description of Billy Mitchell’s work. Billy was associated with evangelicalism since his mother was a Baptist Sunday school teacher in the 1940s. Through listening to Ian Paisley as a teenager he became interested in politics and joined the Ulster Protestant Volunteers. By the early 1970s he was a senior UVF officer and one of loyalism most radical thinkers churning out new ideas and questioning tribal unionism. He was acutely conscious that old style unionism had neglected, marginalised and abused working people.

He rejected the dangerous nonsense preached in his name and tried to foster a new rational unionism. But his re-thinking took place while loyalists were under vicious attack from republicans and many unionists tried to damn them as weak on the Union. Ministers in the Irish Government lent credence to unionist paranoia through the arms plot while the British Government appeared weak and vacillating and Paisley thunder on and on.

Despite the risks Billy Mitchell engaged with all shades of opinion and realised that Cathal Goulding leader of the Official IRA, was trying to take the gun out of politics. Better relationships were formed with members of the Workers Party though Billy sometimes questioned their stance as perhaps more dangerous than that of the Provisionals. He appealed to the latter to stop killing UDR men and women and encouraged loyalists to stop attacks on Catholic public houses and break the connection with sectarianism - with limited success.

Billy Mitchell underestimated the value of his early work for which in any case, he received little thanks. He claimed his progressive views flowered after imprisonment in 1976 but he had already espoused radical ideas before this. Despite terrible hardship, prison proved in some respects liberating. It removed Billy from the turmoil of conflict and gave him space to think. He could bounce ideas off Gusty Spence, David Ervine, Billy Hutchinson and others critically analysing how and why they had been led into a violent cul-de-sac. Nothing was considered sacred or beyond criticism, least of all the baleful influence of what passed for traditional unionism.

Billy had no Damascus Road conversion but came to a gradual realisation that we are spiritual beings before making a “reasoned rediscovery” of his spiritual roots. By November 1979 he made “a conscious decision” to dedicate his life to Jesus Christ and allow his “social and political actions to be moulded and informed by spiritual values”. When Billy emerged from jail in 1990 fellow loyalist Eddie Kinner asked if he was interested in politics. He responded hesitantly but was favourably impressed and joined the PUP. Billy never looked back. He could have chosen an easier path but he enjoyed working with all sides out of a deep love for his people – the disadvantaged working class. This was his background and he never forgot it.

Some years ago he and I shared a platform at a New Lodge Festival with Gerry Adams in the audience. Billy spoke directly from the podium, “Sure you must be an Ulster Scot with a name like Adams!” Gerry responded, “No, I’m Scotch Irish” which brought hearty laughter from the audience.

Billy Mitchell was warm-hearted. He respected others, including those who talk, or fail to talk, about bringing loyalists in from the cold. But for Billy the major unionist parties had become cold houses once loyalists had the temerity to question the supposed wisdom of which unionists claimed to be the exclusive custodians.

In Billy’s funeral cortege, priests and clergy, members of Sinn Fein and other republicans, ordinary people, Catholic and Protestant from north and south mingled peaceably with hundreds of UVF men deep in thought. But the rest of the world passed by oblivious of what had happened. With the exception of one UUP MLA and David Ervine MLA, no elected politician or leader of any other political party was to be seen. Things have changed - but not that much - since Billy Mitchell and others ploughed lonely furrows during the early 70s seeking better futures for us all.

This article by Roy Garland was first published in The Irish News on 31 July 2006.

Truth Recovery - A Contribution from within Loyalism

Martin Snodden et al — Fri, 26 May 2006 03:12:41 GMT

Preface

Since the ceasefires in 1994, the call for truth and justice in Northern Ireland has become a familiar cry echoing the sentiments of many people and communities who have been bruised and battered by 30 years on the front line of violent political conflict. The question remains – how do the people of Northern Ireland begin to deal with the hurts, the pain and the overwhelming number of human rights abuses, which define the conflict?

This consultation paper emerges from a constituency that is well aware of its own pain and suffering, acknowledges the pain and suffering of others and wants to be involved in a genuine process of conflict transformation that helps to improve the quality of life of ordinary people who are yearning for the dawn of a new day.

This desire for change was highlighted in the statement issued on behalf of the Combined Loyalist Military Command (CLMC) when the loyalist ceasefire was announced on 13th October 1994:

In all sincerity, we offer to the loved ones of all innocent victims over the past twenty-five years abject and true remorse. No words of ours will compensate for the intolerable suffering they have undergone during the conflict.

Let us firmly resolve to respect our differing views of freedom, culture and aspiration and never again permit our political circumstances to degenerate into bloody warfare.

We are on the threshold of a new and exciting beginning with our battles in the future being political battles fought on the side of honesty, decency and democracy against the negativity of mistrust, misunderstanding and malevolence, so that together we can bring forth a wholesome society in which our children and their children will know the meaning of true peace. 1

This statement paved the way for a new beginning for this constituency – a beginning that was very much shaped and informed by the legacies of the violent conflict but also was hopeful for “a society in which our children and their children will know the meaning of true peace.”

To achieve this kind of new society, we acknowledge the need not only to be bold and brave but also to be honest and realistic about who we are and what we can deliver within our current political context.

This consultation document is an attempt to provide opportunities for our constituency to begin debating the issues around truth recovery. We acknowledge that people may experience this document as being inward looking and self-reflective. It is. It needs to be. It has to reflect the reality of where our constituency is in its current process of conflict transformation. Our intent is not to alienate others; our intent is to encourage honest and challenging thinking within a constituency and to allow others to respond critically to that thinking. As quoted in the CLMC ceasefire statement we are not unaware of the pain and suffering of others and are committed to the sentiments contained in paragraph 2 of the Declaration of Support in The Good Friday Agreement:

The tragedies of the past have left a deep and profoundly regrettable legacy of suffering. We must never forget those who have died or been injured and their families. But we can best honour them through a fresh start, in which we firmly dedicate ourselves to the achievement of reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust and to the protection and vindication of the human rights of all. 2

We recognise the need for all people and organisations to access the resources needed for “a fresh start” and we call on all relevant organisations, especially government, to put the resources in place to help people and communities access the help they need on their journey for healing.

This consultation document represents the beginning of a journey - a journey that should be welcomed and supported as part of the true process of peacebuilding within this society.

“Truth Recovery”? A Contribution from within Loyalism to Current Debates

Introduction

There seems to be a growing interest in the possibility of some kind of “truth commission” or “truth recovery” process regarding the conflict in and about Northern Ireland. On 27th May 2004 Secretary of State Paul Murphy announced the start of a two-stage consultation process on the Troubles. He said that he would be consulting victims’ families, church leaders, politicians and academics, and that the Government was coming to the process with an open mind. 3

In his announcement Mr Murphy said, “These discussions will initially take the form of private soundings which will in due course lead to wider consultation. I will also be commissioning work of relevant international experience which will cover the sort of processes which others have used in seeking to come to terms with the past.” 4

This was followed by Mr Murphy embarking on a fact-finding visit to South Africa following that country’s high profile Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

There are a number of deep concerns within loyalist circles about these recent developments. To ensure that loyalist concerns are not ignored and to clearly articulate that position we have brought together a representative grouping of people from PUP, UVF/Red Hand Commando and community work backgrounds. T wo workshops have been held so far, one in May and another in June. At the one-day event in May we looked at some of the challenges facing any “truth recovery” process, as highlighted by the South African TRC. Drawing on experiences from other parts of the world, information was provided on a wide range of factors involved in the design of a “truth commission”. An initial exploration of the fears/barriers/costs regarding such a process for Northern Ireland also took place, andthere was an opportunity to discuss potential benefits of “truth recovery”.

This initial exploration underlined the fact that there are many serious “fears/barriers/costs” that are uppermost in people’s minds. The half-day meeting in June was therefore devoted to fleshing out some of these concerns. This Preliminary Consultation Paper aims to reflect the discussion held at these two meetings. Given the many issues that are involved in “truth recovery” we realize that further discussion will be required. Following further discussions in the autumn and having received feedback from within our constituencies to the Preliminary Paper we hope to produce a public Consultation Document by the end of 2004. This Document will not only serve as our contribution to the wider debates regarding a truth commission for Northern Ireland, but it will also provide a clear challenge to any attempts to impose a “truth” process.

Fears/Barriers/Concerns/Costs

Current political context: “the conflict is not over”

There is an obvious concern about the timing of any “truth process”: How can a “truth recovery” process work in a political context where a clear, final political/constitutional settlement has not yet taken place? Those advocating truth commissions often claim that these processes help deeply divided societies to deal with a painful past. In the context of Northern Ireland, however, the painful political conflict is not yet past. Brian Feeney quoted in an Irish News article states, “There have been about forty truth and reconciliation processes around the world in places like South Africa and Peru. The only time they have worked is when the conflict has definitely come to an end. That is not the case here.” 5

Discussion during the above-mentioned meetings stressed how volatile the political situation still is in many parts. People in loyalist areas feel their culture and future to be under threat by a “republican war” carried out by politics and propaganda.

In fact it was stated that in some areas the sectarianism on the ground is now worse than it was 10 years ago prior to the announcement of the ceasefires. T he initial optimism and goodwill generated by The Good Friday/Belfast Agreement has all but evaporated in loyalist areas.

In this kind of unstable, unsettled political context, a “truth process” that attempts to open up old wounds runs a real risk of re-igniting violent conflict instead of helping society to move beyond the Troubles. Many wounds are still too raw, many people’s buttons are still too easily pressed for a “truth process” to have a realistic chance of succeeding. Under such circumstances, any “truth process” runs the risk of indoctrinating a more “militant” younger generation with hatred and providing justification for continuing conflict.

Size of population: “the intimacy of the conflict”

Given the small size of the population of Northern Ireland (around 1.5 million people), in which a huge proportion of those affected by and those participating inarmed conflict come from specific areas such as West and North Belfast, there is a concern that “everybody knows one another”. If someone was to make a public statement about his or her past activities there will be no place to hide. Not only will that person face high risks in terms of personal safety, but his or her family will also be endangered.

The individual and family costs of someone disclosing past activities are increased by the fact that on this island people tend to have very long memories. Once someone is branded with having done something seen to be wrong, their children and even grandchildren may have to live with the long-term legacy of those past actions.

Uncovering “truth” – vulnerability of loyalists

Loyalist activists/ex-combatants/paramilitaries are particularly vulnerable to a “truth process” for they have never enjoyed the same level of legitimacy in their community as have republicans. While loyalists don’t feel that “we have to make excuses for the fact that many of us were prepared to take up arms to defend our community against the threat of armed republicanism, given the inability of the state to provide adequate protection”, experience has shown that pro-state paramilitaries typically have more difficulty justifying their actions than those who disguise theirs with the language of a “liberation struggle against a colonialist regime”.

Loyalists have never accepted the argument that the republican campaign was a war of national liberation against a colonial power. They saw the conflict as one thati nvolved two communities with two different attitudes towards the state – the unionist community, which was pro-state; and the nationalist community, which was antistate. It was as simple as that - a civil conflict in which the two main protagonists were the unionist and the nationalist communities.

The UVF and RHC were pro-state paramilitaries in the sense that they supported the desire of the unionist community of Northern Ireland to remain part of the British state. The republican armed groups were seen as the physical force component of a wider opposing force – the nationalist community. The nationalist community that gave birth to, nurtured and sustained the republican campaign, and that provided armed republicans with the political rationale for their campaign, was the enemy that stood behind the republican terror campaign and therefore was, in the eyes of theUVF/RHC, culpable.

Pro-state paramilitaries are stigmatised for carrying their campaign to the community that they regarded as the real enemy for which the republican armed groups were the cutting edge. That nationalist community was, for many young loyalists, as responsible for their armed groups as Germany or Japan was for their armies of aggression. That is something that neither the state nor middle unionism will accept (at least not openly). Consequently it is feared they will use any supposed truth recovery process to isolate loyalist paramilitaries as criminal gangs who operated on the fringes of the pro-British community. Why, then, should loyalists participate in a process that could officially write them off as criminals?

The ongoing stigmatisation, criminalisation and even demonisation of loyalist exprisoners, especially within unionist circles (“middle unionism”), clearly suggest that it would be madness for any loyalists who have not been successfully prosecuted to expose any of their actions before a truth commission.

Especially in rural areas, a loyalist ex-prisoner is marked out by the rest of the community. After release from prison many of these former political prisoners have managed over the years to achieve a limited degree of acceptance in their communities, but prejudices remain just below the surface. If people are reminded of certain past actions or if new “dirty details” were to be exposed, the door would certainly be slammed in the face of ex-prisoners who are trying to make a contribution in their community or to live normal lives. Many people who are now prepared to work with some of these ex-prisoners may no longer be prepared to do so. For those who wish to continue their work, life could be made uncomfortable for them.

This kind of discrimination is less visible in urban areas given the larger concentrations of ex-prisoners, but the negative attitudes amongst those from the comfortable, leafy suburbs are the same as those amongst rural unionists.

In other words, any “truth” process that would require individual ex-prisoners or excombatants to give public testimony about specific past actions will most likely contribute to the continuing demonisation of these loyalist activists. It is very difficult for them to see any benefit from such a process and therefore there is very little chance that they will co-operate/participate.

Families

There are specific fears about the impact of public disclosure on the families of those “telling the truth”. Imprisonment had a huge impact on the families of loyalist prisoners. Many of them not only had to endure the absence of a father/husband, butwere also stigmatised in various ways in the community. Children were often taunted with “your dad is a jail bird”, many wives were followed when they did their shopping, were viewed as “available” or “loose women”, or were “looked down upon” or pitied. People have found ways of dealing with the hardships of partners and fathers in prison, including undeserved guilt by association. However, they want those difficulties to remain buried in the past now; they want to draw a line underthose times; they are not prepared to revisit those bad days.

Revisiting what was done in the past furthermore runs the risk of not being understood by the current/younger generation. Children today will probably find it difficult to imagine the threats and fears that inspired their fathers to take up arms. Once their fathers became involved in the “dirty war” a certain hardening often took place, which will be difficult to understand unless one has been in the same situation and political context. Thus a “truth process” might well harm relationships between older and younger generations in loyalist areas.

Healing?

A further concern relates to the idea that a “truth process” is supposed to contribute to “healing” or even “reconciliation”. However, if this healing or reconciliation requires Loyalist ex-prisoners/ex-combatants to stand up and say that they are sorry, then there is little chance of success. During the announcement of the loyalist ceasefires in 1994 a collective apology was offered for the suffering caused to all innocent civilians overthe last thirty years. This apology must not be misunderstood as a rejection of the political cause for which loyalists fought. If a situation were to arise again where an attempt is made to violently impose a united Ireland on loyalists, or if they felt that their communities were again under the same levels of threat from armed republicanism, then they would not hesitate to respond with armed resistance.

The concern is that if loyalists were to make statements before a commission where victims were expecting an apology, then their lack of political remorse might be experienced as salt rubbed into the victims’ wounds, which is unlikely to contribute to healing.

A related problem might arise from moral pressure being put on people to participatein a “truth process”. If people choose for good reasons (such as those mentioned above) not to participate, they might be portrayed as callous, or less than human, or insensitive to the needs of victims. Thus a “truth process” that makes unrealistic demands on “perpetrators” to show remorse etc., might actually widen the gap between perceived victims and perceived perpetrators.

Whose agenda is it anyway?

There is deep suspicion amongst loyalists about the high potential for a “truth process” to be abused by republicans to suit their political agenda. A repeated concern expressed was that republicans – who are seen to be very skillful in the art of propaganda – would use a “truth commission” as a stick to beat the British state with. As such, the process will be a convenient instrument to blame the British state and “its surrogates” for everything, providing justification for their war, thus allowing them to be let off the hook. If this were to happen it will merely add further insult to the injuries of British/Protestant victims.

Contrary to what they claim, republicans have been involved in many actions against civilians, in both communities – examples include La Mon, Shankill, Teebane, Enniskillen, Kingsmills, Tullyvallen and the Disappeared. There is little faith that republicans will honestly expose these dirty deeds before a “truth commission”.

There are also serious doubts amongst loyalists about the agenda of the British state in some kind of “truth process” for Northern Ireland. This recent interest is seen as a public relations exercise without any real commitment, a convenient, pragmatic alternative to a costly series of tribunals, or as a way to avoid their own involvementin the conflict.

Avenues for further exploration?

During the various discussions held thus far a number of points were raised which might be seen as potential benefits of a “truth process”. There has not been adequate opportunity to explore these possibilities, but they are listed below:

How do we counter the tendency for loyalist ex-prisoners/paramilitaries to be scapegoated? How do we ensure that other groups and institutions, such asgovernment, media, churches, business and non-combatants, accept responsibility for their role in the conflict?

How do we stop the endless stream of one-sided inquiries? Is there analternative to these expensive public inquiries, which are sapping away at the confidence of unionist/loyalist communities? How do we address the current imbalance in favour of republicans? Is there a better way to “put things to bed”?

How do we tell the story/stories of our community, warts and all? How do we get the truth out as we see it? This might help to counter demonisation, as well as the over emphasis on republican stories. Unless our stories are told, the future teaching of history will remain one-sided.

Concluding Remarks

The discussions thus far demonstrate that any type of “truth process” has little chance of succeeding unless a clear answer is provided to this question: What are the benefits for loyalism in any truth process?

Participant Groups

Groups who participated in the workshops included:-

EPIC

Greater Shankill Alternatives

Northern Ireland Alternatives

West Belfast Athletic & Cultural Club

LINC Resource Centre

REACT (Armagh)

REACT (Londonderry)

The Bridge Community Association

Interaction Belfast

Progressive Unionist Party

Community Safety Partnership (East Belfast)

Community Voice (Ballymena)

Loyalist Prisoners Welfare Association

Mediation Resource Centre (Carrickfergus)

Factory Community Group (Larne)

Thanks to Martin Snodden (Conflict Trauma Resource Centre) who co-facilitated the two workshops.

1 CLMC Ceasefire statement; http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/clmc131094.htm

2 The Good Friday Agreement; http://www.nio.gov.uk/issues/agreelinks/agreement.htm

3 Dan McGinn; ORDE CLAIM ‘A DISGRACE’; Newsletter, 31 May 2004

4 Paul Murphy; Dealing With Past To Build A Better Future – Murphy; http://www.nio.gov.uk/press/040527a.htm

5 Barry McCaffrey; Truth process would be ‘part of conflict’; Irish News, 31 May 2004