Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is important that we pay tribute to and commend the silent majority who have defended this State since its foundation and the many who have served abroad with the United Nations. Some have paid the ultimate price with their lives, so it is important to remember them and their loyal service to this State in the debate today. We should never forget that, as I know from my own direct experience with family members and friends who have served and who are still serving in the Defence Forces. This is a controversial Bill for some people because it opens a can of worms. We must also take on board the views of those who did not desert and served their State in a time of great crisis and a world war.

There is nothing glorious about war, there is nothing glorious about death and destruction, there is nothing glorious about the slaughter of innocent civilians and there is nothing glorious about political leaders who send 18 year old to war and to an early grave. History has proved me right. That is at the heart of this debate and we should never run away from that harsh reality about war and conflict, whether it be the First World War, the Second World War or the recent events we saw even yesterday, when there was a slaughter of the innocents on the streets of Boston. There are some in this State who want to glorify fighting and dying for the British Army, as if it was part of the healing process under the Good Friday Agreement. It is very popular in establishment circles, and if we question anything the British Army did in the past, we are labelled as "anti-Brit". For me, this is a ploy to avoid real debate on defence and military matters.

There is also a rump in this Dáil and State who cannot wait to get their backsides into NATO under the disguise of better relations and apple pie. This must also be debated. I have a major problem with this, whether it relates to desertion or events in the North, Iraq or Afghanistan. I question all armies and states with imperial pasts and I question all governments that mislead or try to hide the facts about acts of violence. I mentioned the slaughter of an eight year old child on the streets of Boston yesterday and I want to pass on my condolences and my support to the people of Boston and the US. It is also important to remember that ten days ago, ten innocent children were slaughtered in Afghanistan and there was no huge reaction in the west. I make that point because it is important that we remember all victims in all situations. Killing innocent civilians is never acceptable in any conflict.

We should consider the way the investigation in the Dublin and Monaghan bombings was treated by the British Government. A parliamentary report found very strong evidence the security forces of a neighbouring friendly nation were involved in terrorist bombings and mass murders within this jurisdiction and the Government and authorities of this friendly nation refused to cooperate with a parliamentary investigation by the Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence, Equality and Women's Rights, of which I was a member. Where is the national shock, official outrage and Government anger? Our Administration should be reacting. Where was the recall of the Irish ambassador for urgent consultations, or the calling in of the British ambassador to hear the Government's outrage? Instead there are measured expressions of concern and routine media coverage of a story that in other jurisdictions and circumstances would be taken as justification for the immediate severing of diplomatic relations. Imagine the French Government had learned members of the German security forces had organised and carried out bombings and mass murders in France, and that the German authorities had given an indifferent shrug when asked to explain the allegations. Imagine the Canadian Parliament had uncovered evidence the CIA had bombed Canadian cities and murdered Canadian citizens. Either would provoke an international crisis but in Ireland the reaction of both media and Government is muted to say the least.

I raise this because I have recently spoken to members of Justice for the Forgotten who were victims of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings and they constantly ask me to raise the issue, which I will continue to do.

It is important that we take an objective view of history and the situation in Ireland at the time. Are we forgetting the mood in Ireland between 1939 and 1945, and the very real possibility of civil war breaking out had the Government thrown Ireland's lot in with the Allies? Making a similar point, although criticising the concept of an amnesty or pardon, Tommy Graham editor of History Ireland, wrote any such pardon would be based on the assumption, implicit or explicit, that Ireland's neutrality was somehow immoral or isolationist. He argues the historical context of neutrality must be remembered. The moral authority of the League of Nations, of which Ireland was a member, and any hope of collective security, was undermined by the United States not joining in, and by Britain and France for sacrificing Abyssinia and Czechoslovakia in 1938. From Munich 1938, he argues, it was every state for itself and, in that context, Ireland's policy of neutrality was no more and no less moral than any other state.

To take no action against deserters would have undermined the morale of all those who had remained the Defence Forces throughout the war. It would have set a dangerous precedent about the future consequences of desertion and would have undermined Ireland's claim to have been neutral during the war.

If we look at the history of pardons, they have been issued by other Governments for soldiers who were convicted of desertion. Section 359 of the British Armed Forces Act 2006 issued a mass pardon on behalf of the British Parliament to 306 soldiers of the British Empire who were executed for certain offences during the First World War. This followed successful lobbying by the Shot at Dawn campaign, which argued the case for the 306 soldiers executed by their own British and Commonwealth Military Command for desertion during the First World War. The Shot at Dawn campaign argued the soldiers were blameless because they were suffering severe psychological trauma, not cowardice. That rendered them physically unable to cope with the shocking scenes they had witnessed. Some opposed the pardon, arguing it is impossible to condemn the events of a century ago from a modern perspective, and that whatever the rights and wrongs, a pardon was inappropriate.

At its peak, during the Second World War, the Irish Defence Forces had 42,000 serving personnel. Over the course of the war, it is estimated more than 7,000 members of the Defence Forces deserted, many to join Allied forces. Of these, some 2,500 personnel returned to their units or were apprehended and tried by military tribunal. The remaining personnel, around 5,000, were the subject of dismissal under the Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order 1945 and the Defence Forces Act 1946.

The Emergency Powers (No. 362) Order 1945 provided for automatic dismissal from the Defence Forces of certain deserters and absentees without leave. The order also provided for the forfeiture of pay and allowances and a condition that every person to whom the order applied should be disqualified for seven years from holding any office or employment remunerated from the Central Fund.

The effect of the order was to impose significant hardship on many individuals and families and remove from them the right to be tried for the offences of which they stood accuse and to provide a defence against the alleged crime.

In June 2012, following detailed consideration the Government concluded that the sacrifice and contribution of those who deserted the defence forces to fight on the Allied side in the Second World War should be recognised. I do not take any high moral ground on this issue; I merely take an objective view. In this context, the Government committed to issue an apology for the manner in which those members of the Defence Forces who left to join the Allied side during the period 1939 to 1945 were treated after the war by the State and to seek provide a legal mechanism that would provide an amnesty to those who absented themselves from the Defence Forces for that reason. That is the kernel of the debate in 2012 and we are now in 2013. I emphasise the importance here of ensuring, in looking at this legislation and the apology issue, and also in trying to treat persons in a fair and reasonable manner, that we think of those who did not go in that direction as well.

The Government's commitment to apologise for the manner in which these members of the Defence Forces who left to join the Allied side between 1939 and 1945 were treated after the war by the State was made through a statement by the Minister for Defence, Deputy Shatter, to Dáil Éireann on 12 June 2012. The Bill seeks to fulfil the second element of the Government's commitment. On the main provisions in the Bill, section 2 provides for an amnesty for members of the Defence Forces who deserted or were absent without leave during the course of the Second World War and who subsequently served with forces fighting on the Allied side in that war, and who were dismissed from the Defence Forces by the Emergency Powers Order 1945, were convicted of desertion or being absent without leave, or were or are liable to be prosecuted for desertion or being absent without leave. Section 3 provides an immunity from prosecution for members of the Defence Forces who deserted or were absent without leave during the course of the Second World War and who subsequently served with forces fighting on the Allied side in that war. Finally, section 4 provides that no right, liability or any cause of action shall arise resulting from the enactment. Section 4 also provides that the amnesty being provided in section 2 will not have the effect of a pardon under Article 13.6 of the Constitution. These are the details in the legislation and the controversial issues we are discussing today.

I have major concerns about the Bill, but also about the future of and morale in the Defence Forces which are important in this debate. I hope the debate on this Bill is a lesson to all of us that we should work hard to end wars and stop the big powers and big bullies from starting them in the first place. We do not have a great track record on this issue and we all need to be vigilant in this regard. We all should empower the United Nations as the only international body to police the world. That is my clear position. Some countries spend their time constantly undermining the United Nations and this is not helpful. I believe strongly that all Deputies in this House have a duty to work for justice, equality and peace.

See this speech in context