MAKING PEACE WITH THE PAST[1]

(Healing Through Remembering Report 2006)

Delivered at the Meath Peace Group Evening Conference

Monday 23^rd April 2007, . St Columban's College, Dalgan Park, Navan, Co. Meath.

Dr J. E. Hazlett Lynch

 

I am privileged to have been asked to address this meeting, and to bring to the MPG the warmest greetings of WTV, some of whose members have accompanied me here this evening. 

 

Why is it assumed that a truth recovery process is required?  The criminal justice system has served us and most other democratic countries for many years, so why is this being jettisoned?  

 

“Making peace with the past,” as generally understood, is a most desirable aspiration, not least for victims. 

 

But right at the outset, the report raises a number of very important questions that it assumes, wrongly, are answered in the same way by all stakeholders.  The answers to these questions impact directly on how this may, or may not, be done:

 

(1) What/who is a victim? 

 

(2) What/who caused their victimhood? 

 

(3) How can the relationship between victims and terrorists be repaired, if it’s even possible? 

 

(4) Why was the definition of “victim” as drawn up by OFMDFM used uncritically in this report? 

 

(5) How does the use of the internationally recognised phrase, “ex-combatant,” to refer to both state and non-state actors, avoid implied moral equivalence between terrorists and security force personnel? 

 

(6) Since the debate over the definition of “victim” is highlighted, why was the debate over the definition of “terrorist” not even mentioned?  Terms such as ‘perpetrator,’ and ‘paramilitary’ are used instead.

 

On this last point, there is a concerted effort being made by the various establishment bodies in Northern Ireland to airbrush out the fact that there was a terrorist campaign in the province at all, and that those who died or were murdered lost their lives by some other means than terrorism.  From a recovery aspect, this erects a massive barrier for many victims who are made to feel that what was visited upon them was a figment of their over-active imaginations, or they brought it on themselves.  This is a very disappointing trend throughout the sectors that does everything but promote healing. 

 

In any case, what is it that victims are to remember?  If terrorist violence was not the instrumental cause of their suffering, what was it?  Burglary?  RTC?  Rape?  Mugging?  It is obviously none of these things, but the quasi-statutory bodies and the multitudes who work in the ‘reconciliation industry’ today are not prepared to give the instrumental cause of our victimhood its proper name – terrorism.  Therefore, victims are encouraged not to remember the real cause of their pain, but a sanitised cause – whatever that is!  Medical professionals of various kinds are seeking to treat pain whose origins are being ignored. 

 

Imagine a doctor arguing with his patient who presents with a stab wound.  He tells the doctor that he was walking along the street when a gang jumped him, assaulted him, drew a knife and stabbed him. 

 

But the doctor knows better, and re-explains what caused it.  “You were injured when you passed too close to a sharp object, incurring this wound.”  The patient remonstrates with the doctor, and repeats his original story.  “I was stabbed by a gang of youths while walking along the street.”  “No you weren’t,” replies the know-all doctor.  “It happened as I have explained to you.  If you had not been as close to the sharp object, this would not have happened to you.  It was your own fault.”  You see, the doctor knows best.

 

And today, the professionals, the educated classes, know best.  Who are we to pit our experience against their specialist knowledge?  As victims, we were not injured by terrorists, because such do not exist today in Northern Ireland; we suffer because our own coping mechanisms are inadequate to the demands that are placed upon them.  Today’s do-gooders say, in effect, “You were partly to blame for what happened to you, for you supported a regime that discriminated against a section of the community.” 

 

That’s why baby Jack, 5 months old, was murdered in Strabane by PIRA republican terrorists on 19^th July 1972 when they detonated a bomb, showering him with broken glass and debris, crushing his pram.  He was responsible for what had happened to him.  In a sense, he deserved it, brought it on himself.  His young mother was from Cork.

 

Or the unborn twins who were murdered by republican terrorists in Omagh on 15^th August 1998, or the 20 month old baby girl whose life was also stolen from her so violently on that dreadful day.  According to the “experts,” these civilians only got what was their due, because they belonged to a ‘rogue state’ that practised injustice, discrimination, etc.

 

Or the 15 year old boy who worked as a milkman’s assistant and the nine year old girl, both of whom were murdered when the PIRA, under the immediate direction of Fr Jim Chesney and the ultimate direction of our soon-to-be-appointed DFM, Martin McGuinness, exploded three indiscriminate bombs in the Co. Londonderry village of Claudy (31^st July 1972).

 

Take the 302 civilian police officers and the many off-duty UDR soldiers who were murdered by terrorists.  Of what were they guilty?  Of trying to keep their country from plunging into outright civil war.  These were all civilians, together with all the other civilians, who died at the hands of terrorist murderers.  

 

Now tell me, what kind of logic is prepared to twist the facts so grossly that they end up by making the people who died the reason for their murders?  And that is precisely what this report is doing.  Yes, these died as a result of an explosive device, but what is concealed is that the bomb device was placed there by terrorists.

 

There is a discernible trend today to re-write the history of Northern Ireland, a history that denies the activity of terrorist murderers in the current campaign of genocide.  Not only has this report deliberately avoided all reference to terrorists, so also has the report drawn up by Sean Coll, Community Victim Support Officer for the Sperrin and Lakeland Trust, received by WTV in Dec 2006, and the PAVE report compiled by QUB and launched on 9^th March 2007.

 

None of these three reports speak about terrorists, except where respondents use this term.  It appears that the authors of these reports all worked to the same principle, namely, the avoidance of the term ‘terrorist’ to described organisations like the PIRA, INLA, UVF, UDA, etc.  When asked why this was done in the QUB PAVE report, the author said that she wanted to use ‘politically correct’ language and did not want to offend anyone.  I challenged this view on the ground that whilst they did not want to offend terrorists, it mattered little if they offended their victims.

 

I suppose these authors felt themselves under some obligation to deliver what their paymasters were paying for.  “He who pays the piper….”  These reports were funded by government funding.

 

You see, victims just do not matter.  “Making Peace with the Past” is clearly NOT about helping victims recover from the heinous crimes perpetrated against them; but it is about finding ways of enabling terrorists live with their demonic past.  It is about easing their consciences, extending to them a form of respectability, and offering them a way of sanitising their evil deeds, deeds that they would repeat if necessary.

 

Further, there is a sense in which this report is now totally redundant, given the institutionalised destabilisation of Northern Ireland by appeasing the terrorists who have sought to totally destroy our country.  What were the past 40 years all about?  Why were those good people allowed to die?  If the current political arrangement had been secured during Capt. Terence O’Neill’s Premiership in the late 1960s, these lives would have been saved.  How, then, can the many innocent victims of subsequent years be aided in “making peace with the past”?  How can victims come to terms with what the leaders of unionism have now done to them?  The issue is not now merely about ‘making peace with the past,’ but also about ‘making peace with the present.’  The ‘present’ has had a re-triggering of trauma and anger for many, though not all, victims – some victims unbelievably supported parties that wanted Martin McGuinness as DFM; Some victims feel betrayed by those they trusted, and cannot understand the complete u-turn by the DUP, etc.  These are profound obstacles to any healing for many victims of PIRA terrorism, and for groups like ours that are working on the ground with these angry sufferers.  Again, the personally ambitious do-gooders in Northern Ireland have won the day, to the detriment of those who still carry heavy burdens from the past.

 

This process, while talking frequently about victims, and ignoring terrorists, is about airbrushing terrorists out of the picture, and providing them with a way of rationalising what they have done, and making it respectable.  As a result, it creates the wrong impression that what victims claim has happened to them was not done by ‘terrorists,’ as they call them, but by actors in a protracted conflict whose concerns were as valid as anyone else’s.

 

It is interesting to note that Victim Support Northern Ireland was one of the two founding bodies of Healing Through Remembering.  Victim Support deals with the relatively minor effects of offence, and has nothing to contribute to the situations in which I find myself.  The report lays too much weight on the views of people who come from this background, and who have not experienced what terrorist victims have suffered. 

 

Until there is proper acknowledgement of what exactly was done, any moves towards reconciliation for many victims are a non-starter.

 

“Drawing a line under the past”[2] is NOT an option for those who have suffered innocently in the terrorist campaign, namely, the victims of terrorist violence.  It is as easy for a mother to forget the child she bore, as it is for terrorist victims to forget what was done to them.  This also is a non-starter.  It is even questionable morally whether innocent people should be expected to forget the past, thus betraying the memory of their loved-ones.  Is it right or proper to ask victims to forgo justice in the interests of the ‘greater good’?

 

A “Truth Commission” where every witness has to tell the truth sounds plausible, until one remembers that chief, not deputy, victim-maker, Martin McGuinness, who is soon to rule legally over our country jointly with Ian Paisley, refused to say anything to the Saville Enquiry in the so-called Bloody Sunday enquiry that would implicate other provos; indeed, he refused to break his “republican oath.”  The Loyalist provos are no different. 

 

It is very unlikely that terrorists may be regarded as  men of integrity and truthfulness, therefore expecting truth to emerge from this quarter is naïve.  Indeed, the government and its agencies will not tell the truth, something that seems to evade government ministers in many lands.  Many officials have signed the Official Secrets Act, so are bound by its requirements.

 

“Providing victims with the truth about what happened to their loved ones” is woefully inadequate and does not the needs of all victims.  What they need for recovery is satisfaction, and this does not provide it.  On a personal note, I know enough truth about my brother’s murder – what I now want is for those responsible to be brought to justice.  Unless and until this is done, everything else is woefully inadequate.

 

Let’s face it, having an organisation like the PIRA carrying out an internal investigation of those who are covered by their republican oath is ludicrous.  It is most demeaning of reconciliation activists to even suggest that victims ask the PIRA to investigate the murders of their loved ones.  Spare us that!  Give us some dignity and respect.  If that is all this report can come up with, it has been at best a waste of money, and at worst, a profound insult to the memories of our dead family members.

 

There can be no reconciliation without justice, just as there can be no reconciliation without acknowledge- ment.  This suggestion that there would be no prosecutions, or no naming of names, is repugnant to decency.  Political leadership does not require such a process to transform it – this has already been done through the medium of seismic acts of betrayal by unionist leaders, possibly the greatest act of betrayal that this island, if not Western Europe, has ever witnessed.  How can a process that re-traumatises victims help resolve past grievances?  Given that the vast majority in Northern Ireland support this new move, the message being conveyed is that “victims are backwoodsmen who have nothing to offer NI.”  We just don’t count!  And that is where terrorist victims are at this moment in time – retraumatised, re-victimised, devastated, betrayed, furious, and very, very angry.  What has happened politically in Northern Ireland in recent days renders this report obsolete. 

 

‘Community-Based “Bottom-up” Truth Recovery’ is farcical in the extreme.  How can those who have taken a republican oath ever disclose the truth of what happened?  This is like expecting King Herod to investigate the killings of the innocent children in Bethlehem long ago. 

 

Recording untold stories is rather voyeuristic, and ought to be avoided.  But there again, the ‘reconciliation industry’ is full of voyeurs, which probably explains why this has been suggested.

 

Victims are not interested primarily with community development, and the report gives the lie to HTR’s real agenda which has precious little to do with victims, or truth, or justice, or reconciliation.

 

What ought to be put in place for those who have suffered most in the tragic years of terrorist violence that has blighted, not only our beautiful country, but many of its people?

 

(1)               A renewed focus on the use of the already existing criminal justice system to facilitate truth recovery.

(2)             The sincerity of ‘former’ terrorist activists to be tested regarding their commitment to reconciliation by requiring them to tell ‘the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’ about their involvement in terrorist outrages.

(3)             The security forces to reveal what they can, with an eye to matters of national security, about their involvement in illegal activities.

(4)             When confession has been made in Court, justice must take its course, and the victims provided with all the support they need, both in financial, social and moral terms, and for as long as it takes.

 

 

 

 

-ENDS-

---

[2]    P.68.