When Sean Kelly comes to dinner
An invitation-only cross-community dinner party held at Belfast Castle last night became a One of the guests was who served just under eight years for planting a bomb in a Shankill Road fish shop in 1993, which killed nine people.
The evening was the culmination of the three day Greater New Lodge Community Festival, which included serious dialogue about dealing with Northern Ireland's past, but two other guests walked out when they recognised Sean Kelly at the dinner. Alan McBride, who lost his wife and father-in-law in the bombing, told me today that he would not have attended the dinner if he had been told in advance that the man who killed his wife would be in the room.
Irene Sherry, one of the organisers of the dinner event, told me today that she did not know that Sean Kelly would be attending, but defended the invitation extended to him and explained that invitations had been given out to both parts of the community. Perhaps lessons may be learned from this episode about how to approach the very raw emotions clearly exposed when victims encounter perpetrators.
Sean Kelly, like many others who engaged in political violence in Northern Ireland's recent past, from both parts of our community, has been released following the Good Friday Agreement and is free to live and work as a member of our community.
One practical consequence of the Agreement -- which was supported by a large majority of the Northern Ireland population -- is that the relatives of victims may accidentally encounter the person responsible for the death of their loved one. They may pass one another in the street, or notice one another in a pub, or cross each other's path at a sporting event. Plainly, those chance encounters can unearth the past and bring back very painful and vivid memories for victims.
Comments
Prisoner release was probably the bitterest pill for people to swallow. I'm not sure it was worth it myself, and I regret the fact I voted for it. I can fully understand the reactions of victims in this instance. Some victims seem to be able to forgive, but I can't comprehend that reaction. I think that unforgiveness of these actions is strictly speaking the more moral response since it seems to take the crimes much more seriously than forgiving attitudes do. Sometimes hatred isn't the wrong thing.
Stephen G.
Stephen, I can understand how difficult prisoner release was, too, but I don't think hatred is the answer for any of us.
When a war ends, the compatants are released. I would rather accept prisoner release than see the war continue. That may sound naieve to some, but that simple equation is what we faced when I cast my vote for the Agreement. I still believe it was the right thing to do. And I say that as someone who has witnessed violence at first hand - I have also lost a cousin to a terrorist sniper and a friend to a paramilitary beating.
I do understand your sentiments, I really do. I just beg you, please: never again make an argument in defence of hatred.
Jan: It's not that I think hatred is a great idea or the best course of action in most instances. My argument is that when someone experiences violence - then they might very well feel hatred for the perpetrator and my point is that we shouldn't condemn them for that and preach about love and forgiveness.
Sometimes hatred is a tough moral choice, but in many instances it is the correct emotion to feel. It shows a deep moral conviction about right and wrong and illustrates an understanding of the depth and seriousness of what was done. I don't think it's right to offer cheap forgiveness to the perpetrators of crimes such as Sean Kelly's. His crimes were as bad as those of Ian Huntley. The latter is utterly riviled and castigated. The former, amazingly, walks our streets as a free man. AT least we shouldn't give him the benefit of our love.
SG
The insensitivity of the festival organisers or whoever it was that drew up the guestlist for this dinner is breathtaking.
I thought people who commit serious crime should not be allowed to glorify in what they previously had done and should be made to pay the penalty of their crime.
I can however see a point in forgiveness but this shirade is not only pointless but more importantly tasteless in the memoray of ones this so called reformed character killed.
Its a very sad day when the media circus comes to town and destroys everything in its path by giving a murderer a platform to speak from and to spout out an illegal politcal message
I want to know what was going on when IH killed those little girls. Something like that does not casually happen in between playing the x box and doing the washing up.
IH is human and - like all of us - has buttons that can prompt serious reactions. IH needs to be set to work at something to begin to 'make up' for what he has done (rather than cost us a fortune in suicide watch).
In order for us to decide what state his mental health is in and what he could usefully do, we need to know where he is coming from.
My instinct says that knowing the answer to that will dispel any 'hatred' automatically. Not that we will 'feel sorry for him' but it will be a starting point for the future rather than a constant reference to the past.
Great thanks! Best wishes.