Joint deal is ‘a step forward’
Legacy of the Troubles, Irish Times, September 20th, 2025
The Irish and British governments have finally agreed a new framework for dealing with the legacy of the Troubles. By the nature of such agreements, there are compromises on both sides. The key goal is to offer a route for families to get some closure, though there is still work to be done in legislating for the new framework and putting its constituent parts in place. Many families, understandably, will remain sceptical, given the many years during which their questions have not been answered.
Nonetheless, the agreement – published yesterday by Tánaiste Simon Harris and Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn – is a welcome step forward from the Legacy Act, introduced by the former Conservative government, which had halted inquests and civil prosecutions relating to deaths during the Troubles. This had been opposed by all sides in Northern Ireland, found by the Belfast High Court to be in breach of European human rights law, and was the subject of a rare interstate case taken by the previous Irish government.
It is now due to be repealed and the new framework meets at least some of the demands of families by restarting inquests and lifting the ban on prosecutions. It replaces the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR), set up under the Legacy Act, with two new bodies, which can conduct fact-finding inquiries and also recommend criminal prosecutions. Ireland will establish a Garda legacy unit to help with historical investigations and a fund to help witnesses meet the costs involved .
The families of victims of the Troubles will welcome the intent of the new plan, but wait to see it work in practice. New protections for army veterans are also being introduced and it remains to be seen what impact they have on legal cases, fact-finding inquiries and inquests.
Much now will come down to implementation. But after the unilateral imposition of the Legacy Act by the previous London government, this agreement stands a better chance of success. It also shows progress in the promised resetting of relations between Dublin and London.
A done deal – but many more questions remain
ANALYSIS: BRIAN FEENEY, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
WHATEVER the Tánaiste’s meaningless phrase “imperfect opportunity” was supposed to signify as a description of the legacy agreement between Britain and Ireland, there’s no doubt the deal does represent the last effort of the two governments on the vexed question of the past.
This agreement, which Dublin and London have been working on for nine months, brings an end to a decade the Conservatives wilfully wasted since they ditched the 2014 Stormont House deal and then ratted on the arrangements agreed in January 2020.
It’s obvious this Labour government is anxious to recover the close relationship with Dublin they developed in the 1990s, again after the removal of a Conservative government.
The desire is reciprocal because the evidence is incontrovertible that the only route to progress here is through the close cooperation of both governments.
However, yesterday’s exhibition of sweetness and light at Hillsborough Castle doesn’t mean the new agreement is over the line. It has many flaws and still has to pass into law. That won’t happen until 2026.
All the big ticket items were emphasised. The replacement of the justifiably vilified ICRIR and the replacement of its personnel. Judicial oversight of the new Legacy Commission.
A separate Information Commission modelled on the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains, meaning information can’t be used for prosecution.
New Garda Unit to help with Inquiries
A new unit in An Garda Síochána and Department of Justice to cooperate with inquiries.
€25 million to help families take their cases to the commissions.
How all this machinery will work is another matter. While the British have agreed to dismantle the Legacy Act and removed any prospect of amnesty, the biggest and most controversial concessions the Irish made were on the treatment of veterans.
Here lots of questions emerge which weren’t answered at yesterday’s press conference.
What does “protection from repeated investigations” mean? After all, you can only be charged once and either found guilty or acquitted.
What does this mean: “Veterans will not be required to provide unnecessary testimony on historical context that has already been established.” Veterans will have “a right to stay at home”.
It’s not clear whether that applies only to witnesses or defendants too, though the proconsul claimed it doesn’t.
More questions than answers about new legacy framework.
We learn the MoD will be used to inform veterans of impending court cases as opposed to a letter from court or the PPS. This is an unfortunate provision, for the MoD has an appalling record of obfuscation, obstruction and sheer bloody-mindedness.
How long between the MoD receiving a letter notifying someone of impending charges or witness testimony and informing the intended recipient? Weeks? Months?
Will MPs support prosecutions of soldiers?
How will these elements be drafted in legislation? Will they be amended in Westminster? There will certainly be attempts to do so, such is the opposition in the Labour party to any prosecution of former soldiers.
Meanwhile, the discredited ICRIR will limp on. Over 230 families have engaged with the body, now to be abolished. Yet the ICRIR will continue with those cases it already has until the new commission takes them over, some time next year perhaps.
What will those families think about that? Are they getting a second class, non-ECHR compliant deal? Will they withdraw and wait for the shiny new commission with different personnel?
Finally, we don’t know what’s to become of the British attempt to avoid a public inquiry in the case of Seán Brown to protect state agents suspected of involvement in his murder.
The Irish government supports a public inquiry but Simon Harris remained silent on the matter yesterday.
Harris did talk about “maximum disclosure”, but ominously added subject to national security in both Britain and Ireland.
And who decides that? Why none other in Britain than MI5 and the MoD, the very people implicated in running agents who killed with impunity.
British and Irish leaders ducked questions on Dublin's ‘hypocritical legacy legal action’
By Ben Lowry, Belfast News Letter, September 20th, 2025
Almost a decade ago I wrote an article describing the handling of legacy as one of the biggest sandals in the UK since World War Two. I made that comment in the first half of 2017 because the imbalance against UK state forces in legacy investigations was becoming ever apparent.
This was in the years after the Stormont House Agreement in 2014 was established to forge a way forward on legacy.
At the News Letter we had been closely covering two things: first the deluge in investigations against the security forces who prevented civil war in IRA-led violence. We had also been reporting on expert voices who explained why the Stormont House proposals would also turn against the UK state forces, yet it was an agreement that was supposed to bring balance to how legacy was investigated.
I asked Hilary Benn, as he stood with Tanaiste Simon Harris, if he had appeased the hypocritical Irish legal case against Britain. They failed to answer me because they know that that is what happened. They were speaking in Hillsborough Castle after Ireland was given joint control of legacy.
Aware that it would sound like hyperbole to say that legacy was one of the biggest scandals since 1945, I wrote why I really thought it was that serious: the Troubles was one of the biggest political and social challenges the UK faced after 1945. London was thrown into dealing with chaos in the late 1960s, and after some stumbles Labour and Tory governments saw off terror with patience over three decades.
Back in 2017, I wrote: “Now, almost unbelievably, the apparatus of the state appears to have turned in against that record of the state, despite that past success.”
The deal struck between London and Dublin yesterday is a significant return to the failures of Stormont House.
There is a lot to say about the agreement that was unveiled yesterday in Hillsborough Castle by Hilary Benn and Simon Harris, and a lot yet to absorb about it.
What about the RUC?
Among the many alarming elements is that supposed protections that are being offered to veterans of the Troubles are not afforded to former members of that excellent, but maligned, former police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary. On the contrary, ex police office might have their cases sent back to the police ombudsman, which critics believe has produced so many reports of at best dubious merit, amid a deluge of complaints against the RUC (also amid an Irish nationalist hunt for collusion with loyalists, that plainly did not happen to anything like the scale that is repeatedly alleged).
A fortnight ago I wrote about why I thought the UK was surrendering to an Irish state that is suing it. Little that I saw yesterday made me change my view. Rather than recap on the points made in that article, let me summarise here how Hilary Benn and the Irish deputy prime minister Simon Harris responded when I put that point to them at Hillsborough Castle yesterday afternoon. The web version of this article will include a video of my question and their responses and you can judge for yourself, but I would say that they did not answer my question at all.
I noted that we had just had confirmation that Ireland was getting joint control of legacy now, despite taking a legal action at Strasbourg on legacy against the UK, a legal action which Mr Benn had not so far as I was aware even criticised, let alone threatened retaliatory action. I put it to Mr Benn that many people will think he had appeased this Irish action, amid all this gushing talk about good UK-Ireland relations.
De Facto Amnesty for IRA
I also put to him our story of earlier this week, based on a paper by the think tank Policy Exchange, that he had supported a fuller amnesty when he was a cabinet minister in Tony Blair's government (he had not answered our query about that this week). Yet when the last Conservative government proposed a lesser conditional amnesty, he was totally opposed to it, despite the fact that Ireland was suing the UK for this proposal. An Ireland, I pointed out, whose former justice minister no less (Michael McDowell) had said operated a de facto amnesty for the IRA.
I then put it to Mr Harris yesterday that he had sounded very high minded yesterday at the Hillsborough announcement, saying that Ireland had reluctantly sued the UK but been forced to do so. What about the fact that they took such an action in the context of their own de facto amnesty for the IRA?
Finally, I mentioned that there was, after all these years, still no process in the latest legacy deal to address, for example, the fact that for 30 years, 103 out of 110 extradition requests by the UK were refused by Ireland, as a result of which – many of our readers would believe – hundreds of Protestants along the border were massacred.
To list the answers the two politicians gave me would take about another 1,000 words but it only takes a few minutes to listen to their answers in the video that will accompany this article online.
Hilary Benn said that I had mentioned the past but that “at some point we have to move beyond the pain and the suffering and the events of the past, and fashion a way of dealing with this problem, which is exactly what this document does”.
He also said that “on the interstate case, of course, it's a matter for the Irish government, but I'm quite confident that the arrangements that I intend to put in place will make the body that we are going to reform human rights compliant”.
He said that he did not accept my characterisation of his stance on the 2005 Blair amnesty plan which “was eventually withdrawn because it had no support in Northern Ireland”. Mr Harris also spoke in general terms in his answer and said that Ireland “would welcome any complaints in relation to any or any unresolved criminal activity”.
I then pointed out that ex IRA members speak freely about their terrorism in his jurisdiction (I was thinking of the late Father Ryan and others). I was then cut off and the press event moved on.
But I believe their answers were so poor because they know the UK has buckled to the hypocritical Irish legal action.
There’s a gaping hole in the British-Irish legacy deal – to the killers it reeks of weakness
Some of what this deal does is both reasonable and problematic, but its text doesn’t face up to that
Sam McBride, Belfast Telegraph, September 19th, 2025
The deal between the British and Irish governments on how to approach the legacy of the Troubles is in some ways quite detailed — but that makes one omission all the more striking.
Running to eight pages, the agreement is more than 3,500 words long.
Yet it doesn’t contain a single explicit reference to those responsible for the vast majority of the slaughter.
There is no mention of paramilitaries, no mention of terrorist organisations such as the IRA and UVF.
This isn’t some pedantic point, but speaks to what was always one of the most intractable difficulties in a governmental investigation of Troubles attacks: The state kept copious records and is under a legal duty to preserve those, whereas paramilitaries did not — and in the case of the IRA now claim to no longer exist, so can’t assist any process.
While there are instances of state records being hidden or destroyed, the scale of information involved makes complete secrecy impossible, even if that’s what the government machine wanted.
A new joint UK/Irish framework on legacy mechanisms for Northern Ireland offers an opportunity to deal with the "unfinished business" of the Good Friday Agreement, Hilary Benn has said.
In an interview with this newspaper at the start of the year, Sir Declan Morgan, who heads up the body now being renamed The Legacy Commission, acknowledged that this was a very real problem, even though he argued there are former paramilitaries who have been convicted (so don’t fear prosecution) and for their own reasons now want to tell the truth.
This deal contains no real clarity as to how that will happen.
There were governmental briefings today, but the text here is what matters, and it’s not in the text.
When the legislation underpinning this is published, this element will be critical.
ICIR ‘interlocutors’ precedent
RTÉ reported “there will be an arrangement where information provided to the ICIR by interlocuters on behalf of paramilitary groups cannot be used in criminal cases”.
If that is so, it is both understandable and hugely problematic. It’s understandable because unless paramilitaries are given this arm’s-length amnesty, why else would they provide information?
But it’s problematic because ‘interlocutors’ means people like Winkie Irvine — in his case a dishonest paramilitary commander up to his neck in racketeering and criminality — become the gatekeepers to dark secrets. Irvine repeatedly was used by both governments as an interlocutor, all the while being a top paramilitary commander. As they knew, but didn’t want to admit. Closure on legacy is ‘within our grasp’ says Hilary Benn, as unionists hit out at new framework
The information retrieval body will of course be able to weigh up what these individuals say to it alongside other material, including contemporaneous intelligence reports.
But even if that body is headed by former judges used to assessing credibility, the use of interlocutors as a firewall to killers is ripe with danger.
In court, a judge can see a witness; they can look them in the eye, assess their body language and ask them questions.
The witness knows they risk being sent to jail for perjury if they’re caught lying. None of that appears to apply here.
Instead, there seems an astonishingly naïve belief that lots of former or current paramilitaries want to unburden themselves of their evil deeds.
Relying on exceptional individuals
Some do, having turned to God, become disillusioned by their former organisations, having simply come to the realisation later in life that what they did was indefensible, or even if they still believe they did the right thing, they now realise the pain they caused to innocent people. But these individuals are the exception.
Far more former paramilitaries continue to seek to justify what they did, and many of them see the phase in which we are now entering as another sort of ‘war’ — one of information and narrative in which it is crucial they convince succeeding generations that what they did was noble rather than barbaric.
What is currently presented seems to be all carrot and no stick. Unless the authorities are really serious about prosecuting those who don’t comply. Few people believe that those with the right political connections are going to be prosecuted, even if evidence of crimes is uncovered.
Tánaiste Simon Harris, who an Irish government source said had been central to pushing forward the deal, said in Hillsborough Castle “it would be easy to hold out for the perfect, to inevitably fail, and then to stand criticising on the sidelines; a comfortable hurler on the ditch”.
That’s not an entirely reasonable argument. Everything here will be imperfect; nothing will fully uncover the truth or fully satisfy all victims, and as those victims die there is an urgency to putting in place some mechanism for those who wish to avail of it.
But unless there is a means whereby paramilitaries lie in their beds fearful of not admitting what they did and how they did it, there seems to be a systemic weakness in getting even most of the way to the truth of what happened and why it happened.
Despite all that we know about how paramilitary organisations have tormented their victims for so long after the Good Friday Agreement by failing to cooperate in past efforts to at least give those victims truth in place of justice, there still seems to be an implicit trust of paramilitaries which isn’t substantiated by the evidence.
To paramilitaries, that must reek of weakness.
Judge to consider the admissibility of ‘decisive’ evidence in Soldier F prosecution
REBECCA BLACK, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
A JUDGE has risen to consider whether “decisive” evidence in the prosecution of a former paratrooper for two murders in Derry in 1972 is admissible.
It comes after three days of submissions at Belfast Crown Court following a hearsay application by the prosecution to admit a number of statements made by other soldiers on the ground during the shootings known as Bloody Sunday.
These statements include claims that their colleague fired shots at Glenfada Park North on January 30 1972, the day when members of the Parachute Regiment shot dead 13 civilians in Derry following a civil rights march.
Soldier F, who cannot be identified, is accused of murdering James Wray and William McKinney.
He is also charged with five attempted murders during the incident in Derry’s Bogside area, namely of Joseph Friel, Michael Quinn, Joe Mahon, Patrick O’Donnell and a person unknown.
He has pleaded not guilty to the seven counts.
Prosecution barrister Louis Mably KC has argued that statements given by Soldiers G and H to the Royal Military Police (RMP) on the night of the shootings, and to the Widgery Tribunal in 1972, is the only evidence “capable of proving” Soldier F fired his rifle at civilians in Glenfada Park North.
‘House of Cards’
Defence barrister Mark Mulholland KC, acting for Soldier F, described the statements as a “house of cards”, claiming the contents are “contradictory, unreliable and inadmissible”.
“It is a house of cards that seems to evolve from a starting point of assumptions wrongly made to mistakes, and at the very worst mendacity,” he told the court.
He also said the court is “hamstrung” by the lack of surviving records around the statements and inability to cross-examine soldier G, who is deceased, and H, who has indicated he will invoke his right against self-incrimination if summoned to attend the trial.
Judge Patrick Lynch thanked the prosecution and defence for their oral and written submissions, and said he intended to deliver a ruling on the applications next Wednesday morning.
The brothers of Bloody Sunday victim William McKinney arrive at Belfast Crown Court yesterday
The trial opened on Monday and heard statements of a number of people present at the shootings, including former Stormont MP Ivan Cooper, who had organised the preceding civil rights march through Derry.
Soldier F is attending court each day of the non-jury trial, behind a curtain to protect his anonymity, while members of the Wray and McKinney families and supporters watch on from the public gallery.
Veterans Commissioner for Northern Ireland David Johnstone has been observing the case while supporters of Soldier F gather outside the court. Police have also maintained a presence on each day of the trial.
Meanwhile…
Meanwhile, a letter written to the judge by loyalist activist Jamie Bryson has been passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
It came after Judge Lynch raised concerns around a social media post by Mr Bryson on Thursday.
He said of that post that had it been a jury trial as opposed to judge-only, there may have been an application to discharge the jury.
But he said, given that he was the judge of the facts, the views expressed by Mr Bryson about the case in the post would not present a risk of serious prejudice, adding Mr Bryson’s views were of “total indifference as far as this court is concerned”.
At the start of yesterday’s hearing, Judge Lynch said a letter from Mr Bryson had been forwarded to him, but he had deleted it without reading it, and even also deleted it from his deleted folder.
He described the move as “entirely inappropriate” that anyone would attempt to contact a judge mid-trial, adding that Mr Bryson, who has a law degree, “should know about its impropriety”.
The judge said not knowing what was said in the letter, it “does not have any bearing on my capacity to deal with this case”.
He asked that the prosecution pass the letter to the director of the Public Prosecution Service for possible onward transmission to the Attorney General to consider whether there was any contempt of court.
British and Irish governments accused of ‘snubbing’ victims
CONNLA YOUNG CRIME AND SECURITY CORRESPONDENT, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
A SON of a couple murdered by loyalists has accused the British and Irish governments of snubbing Troubles victims as they launched a new legacy framework.
Secretary of State Hilary Benn and Tánaiste Simon Harris yesterday presented a joint British-Irish proposal for dealing with legacy and a rebrand for the contentious Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR).
It was established under the Conservative party’s Legacy Act in 2023, which ended all inquests and civil cases, along with introducing conditional immunity.
Many people impacted by the Troubles are opposed to the commission, which currently employs up to 36 former RUC British military personnel, believing it was designed to protect state participants from accountability.
The contentious body will now be renamed the Legacy Commission.
Details of the joint proposals were launched yesterday at Hillsborough Castle.
Other key highlights of the proposals include a new conflict of interest policy for the rebranded legacy commission.
Immunity provisions in the act will also be scrapped while some inquests that had been halted will resume.
The Irish government, which has been criticised over its approach to Troubles disclosure in the past, has pledged to ensure co-operation with the Legacy Commission.
A new legacy unit in An Garda Síochána will also be established, which will investigate Troubles related incidents, while legacy mechanisms will be provided with funding.
Victims families not invited to launch
Victims families were not invited to the event, including Paddy Fox, whose parents Charlie Fox (63) and his wife Tess (53) were gunned down in their home, near Moy in Co Tyrone, in September 1992.
Eight months earlier their son-inlaw Kevin McKearney (32), who was married to their daughter Bernie, and his uncle Jack McKearney (70), died after a gun attack at a family-run butcher’s shop in Moy.
Collusion is strongly suspected in both cases and during previous inquest hearings loyalist suspects have been identified, including notorious UVF commander and suspected state agent Robin ‘The Jackal’ Jackson.
Their linked inquests were halted in April last year after MI5 and the Northern Ireland Office (NIO) objected to a coroner providing a short gist, or summary, to grieving relatives.
Charlie and Tess Fox were killed in their home near Moy in September 1992. Eight months earlier their son-in-law Kevin McKearney, far right, and his uncle John McKearney, lost their lives in a gun attack at a butcher’s shop in the Tyrone village.
The coroner concluded a public inquiry “is the appropriate way to consider the full circumstances of these deaths”.
Mr Fox believes those at the centre of the legacy process have been “snubbed”.
“If this is their attitude towards this new body, if this is going to be the way they play it, how can you have faith in that?”
Last year the Court of Appeal found that a British government veto over sensitive material that can be disclosed by the commission is not compatible with human rights laws.
Mr Fox believes that if the Secretary of State retains a veto on what families are told about the murders of loved ones, their confidence will be dented.
‘What’s the point?’
“If Benn has a veto, what’s the point, it’s no different,” he said.
Mr Fox, who is a former republican prisoner, believes those who spent time behind bars will not co-operate with the Legacy Commission.
“No ex-prisoner I know is going to deal with it, going to help them,” he said.
The Fox family solicitor Gavin Booth, of Phoenix Law, said he will be “examining everything that is said, everything that is published” before advising his clients.
A spokesman for the Northern Ireland Office said: “This was a press conference to which only media were invited, including The Irish News.”
Daniel Holder, director of the Committee on the Administration of Justice (CAJ) struck a cautious tone.
“We will scrutinise these proposals carefully,” he said.
“As always, the devil will be in the detail of the final legislation, and the UK government’s track record of backsliding on peace process commitments once they reach the statute book gives us cause for caution.”
Dr Sandra Peake, CEO of the WAVE Trauma Centre, said the legacy model that has worked best is Operation Kenova, which was set up in 2016 to examine the activities of British agent Stakeknife – named in 2003 as Freddie Scappaticci.
“In my view the process that delivered most for the families who engaged with it was Operation Kenova and whatever comes next will need to meet the standards set by Kenova particularly in terms of working with families,” she said.
Mark Thompson from Relatives for Justice said: “There are three stages, they publish the document, they need to produce legislation, then they need to pass the legislation, and the devil is in the detail of the legislation they pass.”
Replacing despair with hope?
Solicitor Kevin Winters, of KRW Law, said yesterday’s announcement “helps replace Legacy Act generated despair and anger with faith and hope”.
Sinn Féin president Mary Lou McDonald said her party will “take time to carefully consider the proposed agreement”.
“Any legislation yet to be published which will underpin these proposals will be indicative of whether the British Government is in fact serious about delivering in good faith on its commitments to ‘repeal and replace’ the Legacy Act, and deal with the British State’s role during the conflict,” she said.
SDLP Leader Claire Hanna MP said her party has “serious concerns that what is being brought forward will fall short in meeting the needs of victims and their families.
“We are running out of opportunities to address the past and we cannot afford another false dawn.
“We reject the closure of inquests, long fought for by families and frequently required to correct the record and confirm truths others wanted to suppress. It is also unclear what, if any, work has been done to drive maximum disclosure from paramilitary groups.
“It must be remembered the absence of legacy structures has never been a barrier to paramilitary and state organisations deciding to demonstrate compassion and leadership by proactively addressing the hurt their actions caused.”
Around 200 took part in ‘Operation Shutdown’
CONOR COYLE, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
JUST 200 people attended anti-immigration protests branded as “Operation Shutdown” in Northern Ireland on Thursday evening, analysis by The Irish News has found.
Organised by a number of unnamed individuals behind a series of social media pages in the weeks leading up to the event, a sustained effort was made in order to drum up support for the protests.
Organisers had called on those from a number of areas across the north to block roads in effort to “take our country back” and highlight the consequences of “mass migration”.
One group representing migrants advised its members to avoid a long list of locations across the north where it was believed protests were going to take place, while the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust issued advice to pregnant mothers who may have been fearful of attending hospital due to the protests.
A small number of buses had to be diverted as a result of the protests but widespread disruption was not caused.
The Irish News estimates around 200 people took part in the 15 protests, many of whom were watching from footpaths and not obstructing traffic.
From images and video footage posted from the scenes of the protests, the largest attendances were on the Newtownards Road in east Belfast and in Carrickfergus, where between 40 and 50 people were present. turn to P6
But SDLP leader Claire Hanna warns that racist threat should be taken seriously
‘Increasing numbers of ‘far right’ protests should be taken seriously’
In other areas, such as Cookstown, Coleraine and the Shore Road, reports suggest the numbers in attendance were in single figures.
In some areas, it is not clear whether planned protests took place at all despite being widely advertised on social media.
PSNI officers attended a number of the planned protests and said “minor traffic disruption” was reported while the force was reviewing evidence to examine whether any offences were committed.
“Police attended planned protests across a number of areas on Thursday evening, 18th September,” a PSNI statement said.
“A number of officers were deployed to these protests, including specially trained evidence gatherers.
“There was some minor traffic disruption at various locations in Belfast, Newtownabbey and Carrick and all protests passed off without incident.
Chief Superintendent Sue Steen said: “Police will review all available evidence to establish whether any further offences have been committed. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the public for their patience during this period”.
Local residents in Carrickfergus take part in the ‘Operation Shutdown’ protest against illegal immigration on Thursday
SDLP leader Claire Hanna said despite the low turnout at the protests, increasing numbers of “far right” protests should be taken seriously.
“The rise of the far-right in Northern Ireland and around the world is deeply concerning and must be taken seriously, not dismissed,” Ms Hanna said.
“It’s welcome that Thursday evening’s protests passed off peacefully and without significant incident.
“My heart goes out to members of our immigrant and minority ethnic communities who were left fearful ahead of last night’s and other protests who have this hatred hanging over their lives.
“When hospitals feel the need to issue warnings to patients about potential disruption, it should be a wakeup call about getting a handle on this.
FR JOE MCVEIGH - Last line of defence,
Denzille McDaniel, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
Fermanagh priest Fr Joe McVeigh, who recently turned 80, has spent more than five decades standing up against injustice. He spoke to Denzil McDaniel about his high-profile support for prisoners, the future of the Catholic Church, and his views on a new Ireland
WHEN Ederney’s Gaelic football team won the first of only two Fermanagh senior championships in 1968, their goalkeeper was a student priest called Joe McVeigh.
Three years later, the young seminarian was ordained and his role as last line of defence on the football field became a theme in wider life for defending the vulnwerable and marginalised.
Having turned 80 a few weeks ago, Fr McVeigh recalls his calling to the priesthood as a young man, saying: “I wanted to do something worthwhile with my life.”
His quest in standing up against injustice hasn’t been an easy journey.
Decades of supporting prisoners, including the IRA hunger strikers, led to harassment and “very nasty experiences” at security force checkpoints, criticism from authorities on both sides of the border, as well as a strained relationship with the Church establishment.
He also still has a box full of personally abusive letters sent anonymously, and concedes there was hostility towards him.
But, he says, “That was the risk you had to take to stand up for justice.”
It’s not all defence. McVeigh still counters with a few points of his own and continues to be a voice.
He’s critical of Micheál Martin for moving Ireland towards “militarisation”, and accuses the Dublin government of failing to lead the conversation about a “new and agreed Ireland”.
There was nothing in the young Joe McVeigh’s background that would suggest his later political stance.
His Donegal mother and father from Drumquin in Tyrone set up home just across the Fermanagh border in Ederney where they reared their six children.
Joe was the eldest and family life was important. When Ederney won that championship in 1968 he had several cousins on the team who “grew up together, went to school together and played football together”.
The cousins included Anthony McGrath, father of Marty McGrath who was in the Ederney team which won its second Fermanagh title 52 years later. Marty is one of only three Fermanagh players to win an all-Ireland All-Star and a source of great pride to McVeigh and his roots in that corner of Fermanagh.
There’s still a sense of community in those areas of rural Ireland and such an upbringing instilled a sense of empathy with people that has been a feature of his priesthood going on six decades.
Church life was important to Joe McVeigh, an altar server from the age of nine or 10, and he was inspired by local priest Fr McKenna, who built the new St Joseph’s Church in Ederney.
The frugal rural life in the townland of Moneyvriece in the 1950s was tough, and Fr McVeigh says his parents made great sacrifices for him to go to St Michael’s College in Enniskillen and then on to Maynooth.
Impact of Troubles
As the troubled 1970s unfolded, circumstances led him to believe it was part of faith’s duty to support people under pressure.
After his ordination in 1971 he served briefly at St Michael’s, Enniskillen, the parish he returned to in 2012. In his initial stint there, internment was introduced, and he began to visit internees in prison to say Mass.
Michael Leonard was killed in May 1973
“I’d say that had a major impact on my thinking,” he recalls.
“I realised this wasn’t right, all these young men locked up without a trial.”
Fr McVeigh knew many of the internees and when family members were affected by loyalist bombs along the border including Pettigo, he says “I was beginning to realise this is a serious situation and a very dangerous one”.
“I hadn’t been politically-minded,” he says.
“I was interested in the civil rights movement with Frank McManus and Colm Gillespie, who taught me at St Michael’s, and produced a little booklet called ‘Fermanagh Facts’ showing the very blatant discrimination. That was an eye-opener.”
Then, in 1973, his 23-year-old cousin Michael Leonard was shot dead by the RUC in controversial circumstances on the border.
The family has campaigned for many years to get to the truth of the incident.
“That had a big, big impact on my whole life, on my whole family situation I suppose.
“We were close friends. He was a frequent visitor to our house. My mother’s brother, Maurice Leonard, was the father of this young man.
“Of course, it affected his mother quite deeply; she was very hurt and very angry. Every time I visited her home it was the main topic of conversation. The injustice of it hit her very hard and she always referred to it as murder.”
Having spoken out about the treatment of prisoners in Long Kesh, as the 1970s wore on McVeigh served in Monaghan and also found himself compelled to challenge the security forces on the southern side of the border.
“I remember the treatment of people brought in for questioning by Guards called the ‘heavy gang’. I remember one Sunday speaking out about that and there was a good bit of hostility towards me. I got some opposition from my superiors as well.”
In addition, his stance didn’t go unnoticed with the security forces in the north.
“The problem was the British Army, UDR and RUC. If you were labelled sympathetic to republicans, you were sure to be stopped and searched,” says Fr McVeigh, recalling incidents of being held for hours when brought to St Angelo army barracks or the RUC-army base in Lisnaskea after being stopped with Fermanagh-South Tyrone MP Frank Maguire.
He felt, he says, “infamous” for speaking up on rights for prisoners, and on this and other issues he found an ally in Belfast priest Fr Des Wilson.
“We became friends, and he inspired me a lot. He was a guy who took no nonsense, a clear and radical thinker.”
New York
After a decade of “so much hassle and stick”, he decided he needed a year out and with the assistance of Cardinal Tomás Ó Fiaich, the Fermanagh priest headed to New York for a course in peace and politics.
The college was in the Bronx and he found work in a parish there.
“That experience opened my mind to a whole other world,” says Fr McVeigh.
“That was a real re-education in politics. I got to know so many activists, radical people in New York, priests and sisters who were all involved in the anti-war movement.”
It was a time when America began to focus more on Ireland, and during the first hunger strike in 1980 McVeigh joined a protest fast outside the United Nations.
He returned home that Christmas and visited his friend, Frank Maguire, who told him he was unwell. When Maguire died early in 1981, there was talk of putting a hunger striker up as a candidate at the Westminster by-election for the constituency.
It has to be said that in the context of the time, there was considerable reluctance on the part of the nationalist establishment and Church hierarchy. But Fr McVeigh had an affinity with the prisoners and says: “I remember being in a meeting in Derrylin, organised by Jim Gibney, when Bobby Sands was selected to run.
“I said I’m going to give this as much support as I can, so I stayed and campaigned for Bobby Sands.”
He accepts that the optics of a Catholic priest supporting a Provisional IRA member left him open to criticism, including from his own community, but insists: “Many people were opposed to the republican movement and especially opposed to the IRA campaign. I understand that. I was more concerned with the demands of the prisoners. There was, of course, a political element but for me it was a humanitarian issue.
Fr Joe McVeigh found an ally in Fr Des Wilson.
“Even though I was seen to be aligned with republicans, that was the risk you had to take to stand up for justice, for the prisoners and other people who were being oppressed.
“I would like to think I am a pacifist,” he adds, and says that changes over the years mean there shouldn’t be any resort to violence.
“The young people are our future, they are our best hope, and we need to get rid of all thoughts of hatred, bigotry and sectarianism.”
A conversation must begin about the future and the Dublin government needs to lead it, he adds.
He’s an Irish republican and in favour of reunification, but says: “There has to be a whole new dispensation in the whole of Ireland. I’m very critical of the Dublin government at the present time for their reluctance to take on that role, to lead the conversation about what kind of a new Ireland we’re going to have.
“Micheál Martin is very strong on building up militarisation and now his presidential candidate, Jim Gavin, is all for the build-up of the armed forces instead of spending money on housing, health care, education and so on.”
Fr McVeigh says he believes there is a need for radical change, north and south.
“Unionists can still hold on to their culture in a new Ireland. People are stuck. Nationalists and republicans are going to have to move too.
“I firmly believe Micheál Martin is wrong when he says you have to have reconciliation beforehand.
“I think you have to have the structures in place where people have to work together for the common good and then you have some chance of reconciliation.”
‘If our Church in Ireland is to have a future, it must adopt liberation theology’
DENZIL MCDANIEL, Irish News, September 20th, 2025
THE Catholic Church in Ireland mustn’t just play safe; it must adopt a radical approach to survive, according to Father Joe McVeigh.
He believes in the essence of “liberation theology” – of building up small communities and showing solidarity with them.
Since his ordination in 1971, the Fermanagh priest has spent most of his ministry at parish level in various areas in the cross-border diocese of Clogher.
He’s had spells teaching, working with youth, playing music at different events and generally working on the ground.
Ahead of our interview, he’d just conducted Mass at St Michael’s, Enniskillen before taking up one of the many invitations he receives from parishioners to join him for conversations in a local coffee shop.
As he speaks with passion about his faith in action, Joe McVeigh remains people-based.
He says he’s particularly inspired by today’s young people. When he goes into schools, he loves to hear them talk about their love of nature and love of creation.
Recalling his own younger days, he says: “I was very much influenced by Pope John XXIII and the Second Vatican Council in the early 60s.
“I remember doing religion in St Michael’s and on the course, it was one of his encyclicals about justice and human rights and that was a big influence on my thinking.
“Then, in the early 70s, I heard a bit about liberation theology from people who had been to South America.
“If our Church in Ireland is to have a future, it must adopt liberation theology, and that’s for many issues, that’s across the board,” says Fr McVeigh, who speaks about inclusiveness, including the role of women in the Church. “Women have been treated like second class,” he says.
Women as well as men
“Even in the language of the liturgy, to talk about men and stuff really annoys me. But justice for the poor and the oppressed was a major issue, and that included women.”
He believes Pope Francis was influenced by his experience of the Church in South America, and he’s hoping Pope Leo XIV will adopt a similar approach.
“Sometimes he says things that I think are influenced by the liberation theology, because he spent 20 years or so in Peru.
“He’s not the same as Pope Francis, he hasn’t the same kind of charisma, but I’m hoping that he gives the same kind of leadership that Pope Francis gave.
“And that was across the board. I mean, Pope Francis called the Palestinian priest every Sunday, every week. That was showing solidarity.
“That’s the essence of liberation theology. Solidarity with the oppressed and the poor. Whatever way you can do that.”
He’s critical of aspects of Church leadership, saying: “Most of them here are just administrators, they just play it safe.”
Liberation theology, by contrast, is gospel-based, showing solidarity with the poor and the oppressed like Jesus did.
