Whilst the criticism of the Victims Commission on the lack of openness and transparency around the appointment of those with a terrorist past to the Victims Forum so that other appointees would be able to decide as to whether they would wish to sit beside someone who has murdered a loved one, is justified, is there not a certain irony in all of this?
Was it not the Belfast Agreement that paved the way for terrorists and their apologists into government on the same standing as those who held to the rule of law?
Is it not the Belfast Agreement that has led to an immoral definition that equates the innocent victim with the perpetrator? And is it not then the Belfast Agreement, of whom over 70% voted for, that has given credence to such appointments, even though they are unacceptable to most innocent victims?
The Belfast Agreement legitimised terrorists and is indefensible, is that not the greatest tragedy?
Yet what is equally appalling, is when an innocent victim speaks out and challenges, either the Belfast Agreement or the immoral definition of a victim; it nearly always is met with a panic stricken or hostile defence.
Rather than defend what for many is indefensible it would be more prudent to correct the mistakes of 1998.
Rev Alan Irwin, Chair of South East Fermanagh Foundation Advocacy steering committee