Should those who participate in terrorist activities........

#1
........... or their families as mourners receive compensation as victims for their actions?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/northern_ireland/4375816.stm

This week's appointment of Bertha McDougall as Northern Ireland's Interim Victims' Commissioner has raised an old debate about exactly who is a victim.

Should the family of a paramilitary killed in the course of carrying out an attack receive the same recognition as the loved ones of either a civilian caught up in an act of carnage or a member of the security forces?

How should the commissioner balance her handling of victims of terrorism with those whose nearest and dearest have been killed by state forces?

These concerns were central to the reaction from different victims' campaigners to the appointment of Mrs McDougall, the widow of an RUC reservist murdered by the INLA.
So, does a paramilitary killed by the security forces count the same as anyone else?
 
#2
A proven paramilitary or an alleged one?

An Orange one or a Green one?
 
#4
Just wanted to get that established MC.

Now, are we talking about Paramilitary paramilitaries , or criminals zapped in the course of doing no good, and subsequently claiming membership of an organisation to claim the 'benefits' so to speak?

What is your definition of a Paramilitary?
 
#5
Is it just me, or is debating the semantics of Orange or Green terrorists not quite the point?
Compensation for what? 10 years (if that) ago they were trying to kill us, now we're compensating them. Sometimes I wonder what the chuff is happening!
 
#6
PartTimePongo said:
A proven paramilitary or an alleged one?

An Orange one or a Green one?
As we know all too well, it is very difficult to prove whether someone is a paramilitary... namely because the system requires a burden of proof "beyond reasonable doubt". There can be many allegations which, individually, would not provide such proof, but cause a significant suspicion.... are you saying that these people are not paramilitaries simply because it has not been proven in a court? Or do you have a different definintion?

I agree with MC - there is no distinction between "Orange" or "Green". They are ALL as bad as each other, and should be treated as such.

Ghost
 
#7
No , I'm saying has it been proven in law they are Paramilitaries?

Once it has been absolutley proven in law, then we can move on to the next phase.

Is a Paramilitary an armed freedom fighter who enjoys certain rights and priviledges (as accorded/concessioned by numerous Governments) , or a common criminal? Do such common criminals deserve compensation in any way , shape or form?
 
#8
Is not a member of the security forces killed by a paramilitary a victim too?
 
#9
the moment we start treating them differently to others, we open ourselves up to all sorts of claims. Orange or Green, it doesn't matter, they're big enough to know what they're doing, 9 times out of 10 the families know what they're doing, its the liberals who are causing this problem. As far as i'm concerned, the situation is black and white, not orange or green
 
#10
Yes bossdog, i assumed that question wouldnt need to be posed. Maybe we should move away from the term 'paramilitary' - it would appear to legitimise the actions of cowards in the eyes of some.

Are terrorists, killed by the security forces, victims the same as anyone else?
 
#11
manchestercop said:
Yes bossdog, i assumed that question wouldnt need to be posed. Maybe we should move away from the term 'paramilitary' - it would appear to legitimise the actions of cowards in the eyes of some.

Are terrorists, killed by the security forces, victims the same as anyone else?
IMHO, not a chance. They knew the risks, they understood exactly what the possible outcomes were, so therefore they should not be surpised if it goes wrong. If they were committing an illegal act, and the security forces are legally permitted to intervene, how can the government then say that the terrorist is a victim? Victim suggests that they were proceeding about their business in a normal scenario when an unexpected act caused their death. How can a terrorist who is in the act of committing an offence (who is then shot and killed by the security forces) possibly claim that they are a victim? That would suggest that the very incident would be classed as an unlawful killing, leaving the security forces concerned in a whole pile of brown and smelly...

Or perhaps my cynacism is breaking through again ;)

Ghost
 
#12
PartTimePongo said:
Is a Paramilitary an armed freedom fighter who enjoys certain rights and priviledges (as accorded/concessioned by numerous Governments) , or a common criminal? Do such common criminals deserve compensation in any way , shape or form?
Lets not split hairs here, the term paramilitary can be used to describe a legislated arm of a government or anti-government armed units.

We are talking about NI therefore we know we are talking about PIRA et al. Revolutionary groups using guerilla warfare to oppose the government therefore IMHO can only be describe as Terrorists.

The only victims are the law abiding people who have suffered at the hands of those whos choose violence over the democratic process, the basis of our society.
 
#13
It's straightforward, isn't it?

The army are (were?) in NI providing Aid to the Civil Power. There was no state of war. Army and police personnel were acting lawfully. Civilians, going about their usual business, were acting lawfully. Politicians and non-violent activists, whatever their allegiance or politics were acting lawfully. These people all have the potential to be victims, be they British or Irish or Catholic or Protestant.

Terrorists, paramilitaries, criminals and the hybrid(s) of all three unique to NI are not going about any lawful business, indeed their very existence seems to be to unlawfully frustrate the lives of all those who are. Ergo, if slotted/ zapped/ imprisoned they cannot deemed to be victims unless the manner in which they were slotted/ zapped/ imprisoned is proven to be unlawful.

Sorry if I'm not being very touchy-feely New Labour about it, but it's just the way I see it.

I am available for the job of NI Secretary if Mr. Hain gets bored of it.

V!
 
#14
If you really want to know whether they can be classified as victims or not why don't you just look up the dictionary at 'victims'?

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/victim?view=uk

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime

there is no recognition of whether they deserved it or not, because that is academic. A victim can be either side of any group but what many people make a mistake in assuming is that a victim is innocent, even within a definition of the title it's not stated that they weren't to blame.
 
#15
Ghost_Rider said:
manchestercop said:
Yes bossdog, i assumed that question wouldnt need to be posed. Maybe we should move away from the term 'paramilitary' - it would appear to legitimise the actions of cowards in the eyes of some.

Are terrorists, killed by the security forces, victims the same as anyone else?
IMHO, not a chance. They knew the risks, they understood exactly what the possible outcomes were, so therefore they should not be surpised if it goes wrong. If they were committing an illegal act, and the security forces are legally permitted to intervene, how can the government then say that the terrorist is a victim? Victim suggests that they were proceeding about their business in a normal scenario when an unexpected act caused their death. How can a terrorist who is in the act of committing an offence (who is then shot and killed by the security forces) possibly claim that they are a victim? That would suggest that the very incident would be classed as an unlawful killing, leaving the security forces concerned in a whole pile of brown and smelly...

Or perhaps my cynacism is breaking through again ;)

Ghost
Agreed Ghostie.

I would also connect this with claims made by crims who break into a house and meet the owners fist, baseball bat (like the one beside my bed), family rottweiler etc. If they hadn't been there they wouldn't be a 'victim' so nothing forthcoming in the victim stakes.

Could the question of is the 'victim' a terrorist or not be established by a declaration from a coroner?
 
#16
tigerbaby said:
If you really want to know whether they can be classified as victims or not why don't you just look up the dictionary at 'victims'?

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/victim?view=uk

a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime

there is no recognition of whether they deserved it or not, because that is academic. A victim can be either side of any group but what many people make a mistake in assuming is that a victim is innocent, even within a definition of the title it's not stated that they weren't to blame.
And your point was?

Are you suggesting the use of the word "victim" with regards to NI issue should include everyone??
 
#17
From the concise OED

victim

• noun 1 a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime or accident. 2 a person who is tricked or duped. 3 an animal or person killed as a religious sacrifice.

— PHRASES fall victim to be hurt, killed, or destroyed by.

— ORIGIN Latin victima.
Now the OED is not a criminal law dictionary , but it gives us a starting point.

On the face of it, a paramilitary/terrorist has been killed as the result of being in the process of, or actioning a crime as defined under British law. Therefore it could be argued, the only thing he or she is a victim of , is their own action.

However , what were the circumstances of their death? This is where it gets Gray. Can it be absolutely proven beyond reasonable doubt, they were in the process of commissioning or enacting a terrorist/paramilitary attack?

Don't forget, they don't have to actually have been killed to seek or have their familes seek compensation either.
 
#18
Not patronising at all just pointing out that many people argue who makes a victim and who doesn't, but whether you think they are or not doesn't deter from the fact that 'victim' as a definition holds no baring over sides. I'm pointing out a different side to the arguement, or isn't that allowed? My view is that a victim is someone who suffers due to a crime etc. while I may agree with the fact that many of them deserved it, the fact is they're still victims.
 
#19
PTP i dont think you should have deleted my post.

Tigerbaby, were you trying to patronise people?

I do initially ask "what defines a victim in NI?" - im not asking what is the definition of a victim. I proceed to ask do members of terrorist organisations count as victims? For those who have served in NI or lived there this question will probably have a different meaning. For those that dont have a clue it may seem to be quite clear cut "victim= X".
 
#20
Stop bluring a very clear cut question with patronising definitions.

Should those who participate in terrorist activities or their families as morners receive compensation as victims for their actions?
 

Latest Threads

Top