Sinn Fein Press Release

by Donnchadh Sat Jul 01, 2006 15:47

Of course any support is welcome, I suppose. But support which supports the right of the British State to imprison Irish soldiers is a double edged sword.

by Seaicilín Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:48

Surely, any press release which highlights the Maghaberry political prisoners' plight and and offers support should be welcomed from whatever source. The most important thing has to be the political prisoners and their five demands. This press release does draw people's attention to the political prisoners' plight and should be greeted appreciatively and encouraged. Otherwise, people in general will become completely disillusioned by negative messages and become exasperated amidst all the contention (over past and present grievances over the different political roads people have ventured down) and lose sight in their weariness of the main goal, which is, of course, the right of Maghaberry political prisoners to be granted their five demands to be treated fairly and humanely.

This is a human rights issue and should go beyond party affiliations and I wish to thank Sinn Féin for issuing this statement and hope they will continue to bring it up when dealing with the British Government - considering all the intimate dealings they do have with them and the very amicable relationship they have established with the Brit Prime Minister Blair (being invited for tae & scones agus araile at No. 10 on numerous occasions) and also their meetings with that feckin amadán mór Bertie Aherne in Leinster House.

Nb: Perhaps, they shouldn't highlight it to George Bush though, as he's not in favour of human rights for political prisoners at all and definitely would not understand there was anything amiss at all at all!

Slán anois!

by Sharon - Individual Sat Jul 01, 2006 01:25

Ask Francie Molloy about (P) SF's "all-Ireland" position . Or would you rather I re-print his words here ?

Sharon .

by AnPiobaire Fri Jun 30, 2006 23:59

"Sounds like something the SDLP would have written in 1981"

No it does not in the least.

Sounds like esactly what we've learned to expect from Sinn Fein, and sadly get from no other group: an intelligent, cogent and unbiased analysis in an alli-Ireland context.

by Donnchadh Fri Jun 30, 2006 17:56

Sounds like something the SDLP would have written in 1981.

by sell outs Fri Jun 30, 2006 16:17

This is the Sinn Fein submission to the Separated Review earlier this year, disclosed under Freedom of Information Act

Sinn Féin response to consultation

Sinn Féin’s view is that separation as implemented is a poor response to the policy outlined in the Steele Review. Where Steele indicated that there should be a regime different from ordinary prisoners, the NIPS has implemented a policy which simply houses separated prisoners in different accommodation but otherwise seeks to impose a regime which imposes remarkably inflexible strictures on the separated prisoners. The prison regime should be such that it maximises the facilities available to prisoners. Where Steele wished to see an arrangement that would recognise the fact that the prisoners have a different motivation from ordinary criminals, the NIPS has implemented a policy which has led to those involved in criminality – i.e. loyalist drug dealers – ending up in the separated accommodation.

The major problems with the regime have stemmed form the obsession by the NIPS to control prisoners in order to prevent a “return to Maze-style” arrangements. Conceding the difference between the two types of prisoners and then refusing to acknowledge the difference in practice makes no sense. Correctly identifying the difference and ensuring that only those prisoners charged or convicted of political acts would fundamentally change the character of the prisoners in the separated accommodation and therefore ease the problems exemplified by the tables at the end of the review. It is clear that there is a drugs problem in the loyalist accommodation. It is likely that there is little real difference between those in Bush house and the rest of the prison.

The second general issue we wish to raise is that it is not clear who has carried out the review. One of the merits of the Steele review was that it considered the regimes operating in the 26 counties where there is far more experience of dealing with the types of prisoners under consideration. The only frame of reference mentioned in the current review is “the rest of the UK”. There the failed tradition of imprisonment for political prisoners is total control and an obsession with prison officers being in control at all times. There is no acknowledgement that the numbers of prisoners involved in Maghaberry is much smaller that in Long Kesh. The alleged danger to prison officers is therefore not comparable – even in the hackneyed tone of the review. Sensible management would concede that association amongst the truly political prisoners is the best way to approach the imprisonment of a relatively small number of republicans and loyalists who are not simply involved in criminality. This would have been plain if a properly independent review of the policy of separation had been carried out involving people willing to consider the issue on an all-Ireland basis. In order to enhance public confidence in the regime, a properly independent review by prison experts with knowledge of the imprisonment of political prisoners should be conducted.

The final general point we wish to make is that the review does not properly engage with the level of control involved in the daily routine. The prisoners own analysis of the daily routine indicates that this is not a regime conducive to making imprisonment a calm experience for prisoners and officers. It will enhance frustration and confrontation. This is not reflected in the review’s analysis of the daily routine. We note that the review itself contains a prisoner’s comment that a “bad Sunday” prisoners will be locked in from 11.45am on Sunday until 2.15pm on Monday. This is unsupportable and once again reflects the obsession of the Prison Service and the Prison Officers’ Association with a desire to control rather than safely manage the prisoners involved.

In relation to the two issues that are put forward for consultation, we have the following comments:

Enhanced regime based on a willingness to undergo voluntary drug testing
We have already commented that we feel that this is largely an issue for the so-called loyalist accommodation. Given the general opposition to drug use within republican ideology, we suspect any use of drugs will be very small. Accordingly, if it would mean a real improvement to the lives of prisoners we would have no general opposition to this move. However, we see no particular improvement in the level of regime flagged in the review. The PREPS scheme is not a fair system and is open to abuse by the prison authorities and/or individual prison staff.

Extension to the exercise yard
Once again this “improvement” will be at a cost – albeit temporary – to the prisoners’ lives. We see no reason why the prisoners’ favoured option of access to the football area should not be an appropriate way to proceed. This would not be so prejudicial to the prisoners’ routine.