Jamie Bryson says appointment of Fleur Ravensbergen as paramilitary interlocutor for UVF, UDA, IRA, INLA came after he briefed IRC terror watchdog
Jamie Bryson says the appointment of an interlocutor to explore the 'transition' of terrorist groups ticks many of his boxes – and comes after a string of meetings he had with the paramilitary watchdog which will oversee her.
But while the official government process sees "disbandment" of terror groups as the endgame, the loaylist activist appears to envision a very contrasting outome - that such groups will persist indefinitely in a sanitized form acceptable to the government.
Last week Secretary of State Hilary Benn appointed Fleur Ravensbergen as an “interlocutor” to examine whether a formal process of engagement with terror groups is required to bring about their disbandment.
The UK and Irish governments made the appointment following a recommendation from the Independent Reporting Commission (IRC). The body was created in response to the slaying of Kevin McGuigan in 2015 - reportedly with the sanction of senior IRA figures.
Mr Benn said the aim of the IRC's interlocutor is to complete a "short scoping and engagement exercise to assess whether there is merit in, and support for, a formal process of engagement to bring about paramilitary group transition to disbandment".
In a new position paper published after the appointment, Mr Bryson has now called for:
:: Legal protections for representatives of terror groups who meet the interlocutor, so that they cannot be prosecuted for representing such organisations
:: A legal pathway to allow for 'memorialisation associations' operating on behalf of terror groups, so that they can hold commemorations without risk of prosecution
:: A process for groups to achieve deproscription, where membership would no longer be a terror offence – an idea he says was repeatedly floated by the IRC after he sold it to them
The News Letter put it to Mr Bryson that the appointment of Ms Ravensbergen ticks a lot of boxes off his wishlist, in the wake of his “multiple” discussions with the IRC.
"Yes. I think it is a positive thing," he said.
But asked if deproscription should be even considered for republican and loyalist groups which left countless still-grieving families in their wakes, he responded that this was "a moral and not a legal question".
Morally, he said, such groups had been "legitimized" via the peace process itself.
He accepted that terror victims would not agree with his point - but said the Belfast Agreement still recognised them.
The peace process, he argued, let terrorists out of prison, brought them into talks and created a process "whereby their political views were legitimized".
He rejected the view that the Belfast Agreement also assumed that they would disappear - explicitly requiring full decommissioning and a total end to violence and coercion.
To this, he responds that there was "no formal process put in place to facilitate such a transition".
The News Letter asked him if, 27 years after the Belfast Agreement, the real reasons republican and loyalist terror groups persist is because of the the power and wealth the leaderships enjoy - and the fears of any future crisis which might affect their political aspirations.
Evading the point, he replied: "Simply resigning from groups doesn’t change the fact that groups exist as a socially cohesive group of people.
"There needs to be a vehicle whereby those politically motivated can direct their energies lawfully. That is transition."