Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
MR TOM
ROBERTS AND
MR WILLIAM
SMITH
2 FEBRUARY 2005
Q40 Mr Tynan: You say that a general
acknowledgement might be the only way that you would see organisations
taking responsibility. Looking on the positive side, is there
anything that could be done?
Mr Roberts: I think in terms of
individual responsibility I do not believe that is ever a runner,
certainly with the present dispensation that we have. If there
are other things that can be done—I do not think, for instance,
that there has been adequate reparation, financial or otherwise
towards victims, and I do not know whether that is an avenue that
could be explored with a view to helping in whatever way they
need help.
Mr Tynan: Thank you, chair.
Chairman: Mr Stephen Hepburn.
Q41 Mr Hepburn: You have said that you
do not think ex-paramilitaries would come forward to speak the
truth to any Commission, but do you think the possibility of immunity
from prosecution would assist the process?
Mr Smith: That is not the issue.
There are only one and a half million people who live in Northern
Ireland, so for all those reasons people are not going to come
forward. I would say quite clearly that there is no chance.
Mr Roberts: The other thing too
that came across about the benefits of a truth commission, the
South African one is the one that is constantly held up as a panacea
for all the ills, if you like, but in real terms a very small
minority of people participated in it.
Chairman: Mr Tony Clarke.
Q42 Mr Clarke: Thank you, chairman. You
spoke earlier on, I suppose quite sensibly, about the pressures
on an individual who may have murdered Joe Bloggs 20 years ago
and not wanting to deal with that publicly in terms of seeing
his face on the television. Do you accept that there is still
an internal wound there for him and do you consider that remembering
is therapeutic, or is there an issue there, irrespective of the
public hurt—
Mr Smith: I think people deal
with it in their own way; everybody deals with things in their
own way, and it is not peculiar to Northern Ireland. People deal
with it in their own way, the same as victims deal with it in
their own way.
Q43 Mr Clarke: I noticed in your submission
that quite often you deal with this issue about whether or not
healing is therapeutic and you question that it may not be. You
also talk about the truth recovery process widening the gap between
victim and perpetrator; how do you suggest that would happen or
why would that happen?
Mr Roberts: One of the examples
we used there was if victims were expecting an apology and remorse
and that was not forthcoming, that could be seen as callous on
behalf of the organisation or individual who was admitting liability.
Q44 Mr Clarke: What you are saying there,
just to be clear, is that there are a couple of ifs in there:
if the truth recovery process was one that included the need for
an apology then it could widen the gap.
Mr Roberts: Very much so. There
are probably people who have been victimised and are living maybe
in ignorant bliss of who inflicted the harm upon them, and if
it happens to be their next door neighbour across the field who
set them or their loved one up for assassination or whatever,
what sort of consequences would that have?
Q45 Mr Clarke: It certainly raises for
us a fascinating issue in terms of trying to find out whether
or not a truth process can be therapeutic or whether it is more
damaging, and I think that is something that the Committee will
return to. The other thing that is mentioned is the impacts on
the younger generation in terms of what do we do about a younger
generation who, thankfully, over the last few years have not been
as involved and have not seen as much violence on their streets
as would have been the case in the past. What are your views,
is it better to allow the younger generation to distance themselves
from the old mindset by not informing them, or is it better to
make sure they learn about the suffering caused in the past so
that they can see that as a lesson not to get involved themselves?
Is it best to tell the younger generation what happened or just
ignore it?
Mr Smith: What you are saying
there regarding the conflict and young people, our young people
now probably want people to forget about paramilitarism and not
start opening up old wounds here. For instance, the Bloody Sunday
inquiry, people in Northern Ireland are bloody sick of it, every
day on the TV about the Bloody Sunday inquiry. We had the Omagh
bombing, was it because it was a cross-community bomb that there
was so much interest, but there were 3000 more people killed by
bombs and there does not seem to be the same emphasis, so everybody
wants an inquiry into the bombs that went off. So I do not see
this as being anything positive, if young people want to learn
there are school books and history books and the internet or whatever,
if they want to learn, but the exposure that there would be on
television etc, I do not think it would be helpful to the children.
Mr Clarke: Thank you for that, thank
you, chairman.
Q46 Chairman: I do not know quite how
to phrase this: those who have been convicted of what they have
done and therefore the offences are known about, do you not think
it would be helpful—and this is not just one side or the
other it is both sides—if some sort of remorse or regret
was expressed for the victims to try and help people put it behind
them? Is that not just a start, we did this because we came from
one side of the community or the other and we thought at the time
we were serving our community's interest but it turns out that
violence has not helped us and we have to try and put the violence
behind us?
Mr Smith: In CLMC's statement
of their ceasefire they expressed remorse for the people killed.
Q47 Chairman: You do not think that goes
down to individuals?
Mr Smith: No.
Q48 Chairman: Could you say why you do
not think individuals—I am not talking about people up in
court, there are two types. There are those, as you say, that
have never been prosecuted or convicted and there are those who
committed some very public crimes and were convicted of them,
but have now served their sentence, done their time. Do you not
think it would help on both sides if they were to say I am sorry
I killed so-and-so, or put this bomb here or did that?
Mr Roberts: Maybe I could answer
that in terms of my own situation. I would have preferred to have
lived my life and caused no harm to anyone, but given the circumstances
that I was brought up in and the political conflict that raged
at that time, I certainly was not sorry about what I was engaged
in at that time. Certainly, with hindsight there could have been
better ways to do things and that is how I would look to give
some reparation to the community, use my influence and my experience
to impress upon young people that violence is perhaps not the
best way to go about resolving conflict. If I can do that then
I will have performed some service, but to express remorse for
something that happened 20 or 30 years ago, at that time I believed
that what I was doing was right.
Q49 Chairman: You have actually put in
words much better the question I was trying to ask you, because
that is exactly the point that I am trying to make. You thought
what you were doing was right and justified at the time—do
not let me put words in your mouth so contradict me if I have
got this wrong—you now wish you had not done that because
there is a better way of resolving these things than turning to
violence.
Mr Roberts: Not at that time there
was not.
Q50 Chairman: But now—
Mr Roberts: What I am saying is
I wish that I had not been brought into a political environment
where political violence was prevalent. Believe me, I could have
lived my life a lot easier if I had not become involved in violence.
Q51 Chairman: Please do not think I am
in any way trying to be offensive or attacking you because I think
this is one of the key points, and you have made a very powerful
argument as to why any form of reconciliation will not help, but
what I think you were saying is that now, in 2005, "I wish
I had realised there was a better way then, although I thought
what I was doing was right at the time."
Mr Roberts: No, there is a better
way now.
Q52 Chairman: But there was another way
then.
Mr Roberts: No, there was not,
not in my opinion. At the time when I was involved in violence,
the legitimate security forces in Northern Ireland were overwhelmed
and republicans were killing our people with impunity; that is
why I got involved.
Q53 Chairman: Okay. I am not trying to
attack you or anything, I am just trying to get—
Mr Roberts: I am sorry if my response
was aggressive.
Q54 Chairman: I just want to get at the
heart of what you are saying, Mr Roberts. Mr Mark Tami.
Q55 Mark Tami: Thank you, Chairman. Some
of this might be going over old ground, and the chairman has just
asked one of my questions so we will leave that out. What do you
see as the possible benefits of truth recovery for the loyalist
community as a whole?
Mr Roberts: I am not sure. None.
Q56 Mark Tami: None at all?
Mr Roberts: None at all.
Q57 Mark Tami: You do not see anything
at all that could come through that process?
Mr Smith: The republican machine
is adept at these things, they are better organised, they are
long term organised, so the loyalists see inquiries as one-sided.
Q58 Mark Tami: Yes, the point you made
earlier was that you saw things as one-sided, so would this not
help the process to have more than one side?
Mr Roberts: There is a different
mindset here as well between loyalists and republicans that we
could use in an example. I presume the republicans would want
a truth process to include something like Loughgall. In my mind,
if I was going out on a operation to inflict injury and death
on people, and as a result of that I met my own demise, to me
that would be legitimate, I would not see the need for an inquiry
for the truth about it, because if you are engaged in a war ambush
is a legitimate form of combat. That is the type of thing I am
saying, it is a different mindset here about what truth is required.
Mr Smith: When I went out to shoot
somebody there was three things could have happened: I could have
got away, I could be shot dead or I could end up in prison. Any
one of those was acceptable to me.
Q59 Mark Tami: I have one final question
and I think I probably know the answer to it, but do you intend
to convene another meeting to give the loyalist community the
chance to explore the possible advantages of truth recovery?
Mr Roberts: What we are waiting
for is a response from within our community and without it and
then, on that basis, we will decide whether it is worthwhile taking
this further at this stage. At this point in time, given the present
dispensation that exists, all we say at the minute is there is
a tremendous resistance within our own constituency.
| 
