ABC councillors endured a tense chamber sitting where a DUP motion was passed with an amendment to address the wording of the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006.
The debate was prompted by a recent Stormont vote where members of both the Alliance and SDLP parties sided with Sinn Féin in their stance on the “erasing” of the word innocent from a DUP motion addressing victims of The Troubles.
At the meeting, held on October 27, Banbridge councillor Ian Wilson said he was bringing the motion with “a heavy heart”, adding that “yet again history is trying to be rewritten, and there is an attempt to create innocent victims of terrorism alongside those who cruelly murdered men, women and children.”
Councillor Wilson accused both the Alliance Party and the SDLP of following Sinn Féin’s stance blindly, saying: “Where Sinn Féin goes, they follow.”
Addressing the motion, Councillor Wilson said: “There is no moral equivalence between victim makers and innocent victims — none whatsoever.
“How can we tell a widow who lost her husband to terrorism that the very person who killed him shares the same legal status as her? How can we expect those who were shot, maimed or bereaved to tolerate that? We certainly won’t.”
He recalled the 1982 Banbridge bombing to reinforce his stance, calling on members to remember “our late friend and colleague Alderman Junior McCrum”.
Said the councillor: “Junior’s brother, Alan, was 11 years old, waiting to return home to his family after school, when he was cruelly murdered by IRA terrorists in Banbridge on March 15, 1982, by a no-warning bomb.
“Also on that day, 34 people were injured. Alan was a young boy with his whole life ahead of him, but his future was taken away at the hands of the IRA.
“Dare anyone try to tell me that the psychopaths who murdered Alan that day and injured so many are victims.”
The motion was seconded by Councillor Paul Greenfield, who said it “raises profound issues about how we understand and acknowledge harm”.
He also added that it was his belief that Northern Ireland “needs leadership to say that terrorists committed horrific murders and that the victims of terrorism are innocent indeed.”
Opposing the motion, Councillor Keith Haughian argued it was an “attempt to change the legal definition of a victim, and it should be challenged”.
“The Order contains the legal definition of a victim and survivor,” he continued. “This legal definition is comprehensive, inclusive, non-judgemental, and is not influenced or shaped by narrow political or divisive perspectives. That same legislation established the Commission for Victims and Survivors, which promotes the interests of victims and survivors.”
Concluding, he said: “This motion is an attempt to divide that community [of victims and survivors] by politicising the definition and excluding a section of society from accessing what is rightfully theirs.
“It should be opposed by all citizens and political parties who subscribe to equality and a rights-based approach to dealing with our past conflict. The imperative of developing a genuine process of reconciliation is not best served by taking this approach.”
Alliance councillor Peter Lavery then spoke to request an amendment to the motion, stating: “Victims and survivors should not be used for political point-scoring… I propose that the motion be amended so that this council agrees that there is no moral equivalence between those who deliberately caused harm during The Troubles and those who suffered because of their actions; calls on the UK and Irish governments to adopt positions of full disclosure in legacy investigations; and encourages all parties to commit to working towards delivering a reconciled and shared future.”
When he asked if the Lord Mayor, Stephen Moutray, would like the amendment emailed to the Democracy Service, the Lord Mayor said: “I do not believe it was an amendment. It was a substantially new motion, so I’m not taking it on that basis, I’m afraid.”
Calling for a point of order, Councillor Lavery challenged the decision, asking: “What standing order are you interpreting to refuse to take an amendment to a motion? I am a democratically elected representative. I have the democratic ability to make an amendment to a motion — the amendment is outlined.
“I can’t believe you are using your power to silence democracy on this issue, Lord Mayor,” he said.
The Lord Mayor asked the councillor to “take his time”, while he consulted with the top table. The meeting was then adjourned for five minutes.
Upon return, the Lord Mayor said they had given some “consideration” to the wording that Councillor Lavery had sent forward and concluded that it was, “in our estimation, a new proposal and not in keeping with what is proposed”, and so would not be accepted.
UUP Alderman Glenn Barr then shortly afterwards requested an amendment of his own, explaining: “My amendment is to be inserted at the end of the motion after where it says ‘innocent victims of terrorism’. Furthermore, this council reaffirms its unwavering commitment to ensuring that the voices, needs and experiences of innocent victims and survivors remain central to all discussions, policies and services relating to the legacy of the past.
“The council believes that compassion, fairness and respect must guide all public representatives in addressing victims’ issues and that political divisions should never be allowed to overshadow the suffering endured by those who were entirely blameless.”
Initially, this amendment was also refused by the Lord Mayor, who said: “In my eyes, that’s not an amendment, that’s an addition.”
However, after another five-minute adjournment for consideration, the chamber was informed that the amendment would be provisionally accepted and voted upon.
Councillor Lavery once again interjected, calling for a point of order, to ask: “I am trying to understand why you have accepted this point of order, which adds words, when you refused my previous amendment, stating it was a new proposition?
“It appears to be a fallacy and completely inconsistent, and Lord Mayor, I’m really concerned about the way in which you are choosing to handle this matter. But if you could give me an explanation, it would be deeply appreciated.”
The Lord Mayor clarified the matter for the councillor, adding: “What you had sent earlier was a rewrite of the motion, in my eyes, Councillor Lavery, and I have already ruled on that, so I’m not going to rehash it here again for your benefit.
“We have a small amendment with a few words added on, which is totally different.”
The amendment was then put to a recorded vote, with the results revealing 20 in favour, 14 against and four abstentions.
Those voting in favour were: Lord Mayor Moutray, Councillor Armstrong, Alderman Barr, Alderman Baxter, Alderman Berry, Alderman Burns, Councillor Evans, Councillor Flaherty, Councillor Greenfield, Councillor Haire, Alderman Kennedy, Councillor McClelland, Councillor McIlwrath, Councillor Moutray, Councillor Mulholland, Alderman Rankin, Councillor Ratcliffe, Councillor Savage, Alderman Wilson and Councillor Wilson.
Against the amendment were: Councillor Donnelly, Councillors Sarah and Paul Duffy, Councillor Haughey, Councillor Haughian, Councillor Mackle, Councillors Ashley and Jude Mallon, Councillor McCartan, Councillor McConville, Councillor Walker-Nelson, Councillor O’Dowd, Councillor O’Kane and Councillor Kevin Savage.
Those abstaining were: Councillor Alexander, Councillor Johnston, Councillor Lavery and Councillor O’Hanlon.
Before moving to the next notice of motion, Alderman Baxter pointed out that “strictly speaking” they had only voted on the amendment, which would then become a substantive motion requiring a second vote.
The substantive motion was voted on, receiving 20 votes in favour and 18 votes against.
Those joining the votes against were previous amendment vote abstainers, Councillor Lavery and Councillor O’Hanlon.
