Young
Unionists

The recent offensive by Israel on Hamas targets within the Palestinian Gaza strip have resulted in many labeling the actions by the Israelis as blatant, unprovoked and unnecessary murders of a civilian population. Iain Dale has already pointed out the precarious position Israel has found itself in, namely that of seeking ceasefire and peace agreement while the terrorist Hamas have sent rockets from Gaza into Israeli settlements. Of course the timing of the assault on Hamas was not good, and international opinion will always to be to avoid confrontation, but the actions of the Hamas leadership have forced Israel’s hand.

In what other country would an a rocket attack from a neighboring country not result in a military response? If another country wished yours to be eradicated from the face of the earth, would you not retaliate after a ceasefire had been broken? A lot of this comes down to human nature: if Israel had sat back and allowed itself to be the continuing target the democratic nature of its state have have resulted in either lost confidence in the government or a push for a hardliner response. When dealing with terrorists there is no simple solution and Israel has taken many different journeys over the years in dealing with their threat. From suicide terrorism, the Oslo Accord through to the withdrawal from the Gaza strip there have been a variety of different approaches taken. Many would talk of having ‘good faith’ when entering into negotiations, but where was the good faith from Hamas? A negotiated ceasefire that they alone broke to continue their offensive against Israel.

The usual liberal left will condemn Israel’s actions without reservation, without mentioning the terrorist onsluaght they have faced and continue to face. Everyone wants peace, don’t they? From the Conservative Friends of Israel: (H/T Mr Dale)

Under cover of the truce, Hamas engaged in a major campaign to upgrade its terrorist capabilities, manufacturing and smuggling massive quantities of weapons into Gaza – including rockets, explosive charges and machine guns – and constructing a network of underground tunnels for combat purposes. Israel cannot acquiesce to the presence of a Hizbullah-like organization on its southern border.

I doubt very much that Hamas were preparing for peace.

Reflecting back on the year that was 2008 there have been many historic moments that will impact on the international stage: from Morgan Tsvangirai’s victory in Zimbabwe to Barack Obama’s in the USA; from Russian intervention in South Ossetia to the humanitarian crisis now in Zimbabwe; and of course the global economic meltdown. Closer to home the political situation in Northern Ireland has taken a back burner in terms of international headlines, with the Northern Ireland Assembly having to actually demonstrate its competence in governing this region of the UK. It is debatable as to the extent of success it has had, but there are certainly issues that need to be resolved that fall with the remit of “peace processing” as opposed to devolved institutions.

The most pressing and reoccurring of issues is that of legacies of the past. Currently we have the Eames-Bradley consultative group on the past, an Historical Enquiries Team, high profile cases over the deaths of Pat Finucane, Rosemary Nelson, Robert Hamill and Billy Wright and a Police Ombudsman that has ruled over allegations of collusion within the police service. The Bloody Sunday enquiry alone has cost £182 million to date with no results and delay after delay. It is a delicate operation in dealing with atrocities than have happened during the ‘troubles’ due to the human cost and also considering we have convicted terrorists at the heart of the government of Northern Ireland who directed and participated in the death-dealing. The issue of the ‘disappeared’ has long been a shadow over Sinn Fein’s commitment to truth and reconciliation.

2009 will be a year where I think the Eames-Bradley consultative group on the past will be the one to watch. Their remit and their conclusions may well shape how the British and Irish governments wish to deal with the legacies of the past. Nationalist politicians from John Hume to Gerry Adams have attempted to construct a narrative in which to compare Northern Ireland to South Africa, and portray the nationalist community as the ever-suffering underclass. But it is the South African Truth Recovery Commission that has been focused on as some kind of existing model of which to base one specific to Northern Ireland on. The media hyperbole over the concept of perpetrators meeting the victims of their action was spun as some great participatory success. The South African model was flawed as it did not deliver the truth and it did not deliver justice. In a hypothetical situation a model for the troubles would have to have complete buy-in by not just the two governments (British and Irish) but by all the paramilitaries groups involved. I do not foresee any honesty from the paramilitary groups, and Gerry Adams’ continuing denial that he was ever even a member of the Provisional IRA should be treated with the contempt it deserves (although it does demonstrate the two-faces of Sinn Fein).

In terms of gaining some truth, knowledge and understanding of the ordeal the people of Northern Ireland went through we have been dependent on the British government going through the motions in terms of the Saville Inquiry and opening up its archives – and as they are the only active participants they are the ones under intense scrutiny.

The old clichés about a shared future and reconciliation are indeed the goal to which we should all be aiming towards, but frankly we are not there yet. There has been no movement from the loyalist paramilitaries to decommission their weapons; we have witnessed RPG attacks on the PSNI where old stocks of PIRA semtex has been used; and we have a system of government that, at it’s heart, lacks the ability to be held to account. No-one should be getting ahead of themselves, we are still peace-processing and have a long way to go for “normal” politics to prevail.

On the 60th anniversary of the announcement of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it is a pity that the rights agenda has been so feebly and ridiculously hijacked by Monica McWilliams and her Bill of Rights. The commission is split over the issue with Daphne Trimble and Jonathan Bell vocally dissenting against the bill and its easy to see why. If the assembly adopts this it would simply become the longest suicide note in history

Monica McWilliams had two choices when drafting this bill. Either she could make a sensible and moderate suggestion to cater the principles of the Human Rights Act to our special local situation or she could propose a ridiculously radical document in a feeble attempt to advance the human rights agenda in a way that would be utterly rejected at the ballot box.

For me there are 2 tests that the Bill of Rights has to satisfy before I can even consider supporting it. The First test is whether or not the Bill of Rights will move power away from democratically elected politicians to unelected judges. The second is whether or not proposals like this would be accepted in the UK.

The first test is failed in a style so monumental and grand that it brings to mind images of a lead titanic. Judges will be given a range of overarching powers including the ability to decide what constitutes a fair wage, they can strike down assembly or Westminster legislation. They can force the Assembly or Westminster to legislate on demand. In effect this Bill of Rights grants the Judiciary such vast legislative power that the NI Judiciary would effectively be the legislature. A Judicial dictatorship.

This would also undoubtably rewrite Northern Irelands constitutional position. With this acts passage the Act of Union becomes a legal fiction. Northern Ireland would become a place apart in the UK. The Bill of Rights grants Judges the power to rule whether or not a raft of UK legislation can apply to Northern Ireland. This is so disgraceful it is simply mindboggling.

There is also the issue of the effective devolution of social policy from ministers to the courts. Under the new bill (p33) ridiculously extends the grounds on which people cannot be discriminated on. These grounds are now (deep breath)

“race, membership of Irish traveller community, colour, ethnicity, descent, sex, pregnancy, maternity, civil, family, or carer status, language, religion or belief,political or other opinion, birth, national or social origin, nationality, economic status, association wit a minority, sexual orientation, gender, identity, age, disability health status , genetic or other pre-disposition toward illness. Irrelevant criminal record, property or a combination of any of these grounds, on the basis of characteristics associated with any of these grounds, or any other status (So judges can add to this list as they like).

It would be easier (and shorter) to just name the 1.7 million odd people in Northern Ireland.

Page 108 legislation must be enacted to recognise all the victims of the NI conflict and to ensure that their rights are protected”. Erm bill of wrongs anyone

p. 116 – “everyone has the right to an adequate standard of living sufficient for that person and their dependents”. Who decides oh yeah the judges. What is an adequate standard of living, what is sufficient.

P.121 – “everyone has the right to work, which includes the right to the opportunity to gain their living by work which they freely choose or accept”. What does this mean for welfare reform? Will the government have to create a job for everyone who wants one?

P. 124 – “workers have the right to strike and the right to engage in collective bargaining”. There is later clause which allows Judges to pick and choose which UK labours laws apply here. This would undo the trade=2 0union reforms of the 1980s which were maintained by Blair.

p. 128 – “everyone has the right to social security …” Do we really want judges deciding on the balance that needs to be struck on social security issues? Have they any idea of budgetary constraints or the need for extra tax to be raised for it

I think the first test of whether it will de-democracise the exercise of power has been answered. My answer to the second test can also be easily found

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/nov/04/rights-bill-jack-straw
0A
Labour ministers have seen something not a million miles away from this to be introduced to Britain and they told Jack Straw to stuff it because it was undemocratic and gave vast powers to Judges. Case closed for me I’m afraid.

What they have done is stuck to a highly politicised agenda which doesn’t address issues specific to Northern Ireland. This Bill amounts to nothing more than a wish list by McWilliams for a “wouldn’t it be lovely NI” were everyone has a job and a reasonable standard of living but no provision has been given how this will be achieved or who will pay for it. Another result will be that a decade on Northern Ireland is no closer to a reasonable Bill of Rights that will be accepted by all sides. All this will do is increase political division in and already fragile assembly and result in the binning of 10 years of work.

UYUC Treasurer and Queen’s Young Unionists Chairman Stephen Goss speech to Party Conference.

On Saturday December 6th Conservative Party Leader David Cameron addressed the Ulster Unionist Party conference at the Ramada Hotel in Belfast. There is a lot I could say, but I think it would be better if you watch and listen to David himself. Enjoy.

(Apologies, cannot for some reason embed the video)

Here is the the speech in full at the UUP website.