Hedley Lamarr looks at the controversy surrounding the Victims' Pension.

There was much talk in recent news about some victims refusing the offer of a pension from the UK government if victims, who were also paramilitaries, received one. Now the law has changed and the only 'innocent victims' are non-combatants and state combatants.

If non-state combatants aren't defined as victims why not remove the status of victim from state perpetrators such as those who murdered overwhelmingly Catholic children with plastic and rubber bullets. Or those involved in shoot to kill or other extra-judicial killings and murder? Or collusion? The State torturers? Are they innocent victims too?

What about the young children caught up in riots? If you threw a petrol bomb or a stone will you be stripped of your right to be regarded as a victim of the conflict? What if you did but were a member of the Fianna? Was the person firing the plastic bullets the real victim?

What about IRA or UVF members etc. who never actually carried out a violent act but were attacked in their home or on the street?

Obviously there is a hierarchy of victims in an ethical sense, as uninvolved children are more worthy of the title than someone who injures themselves whilst staging an attack. But that doesn't mean the latter aren't victims per se.

There are too many variables and that is why victimhood has to be all-encompassing.

We don't know who carried out Bloody Sunday or the massacre at Ballymurphy. Did some of the trigger-men on that day get injured later or suffer PTSD on the day? Do they automatically get the title of victim when others are still fighting for the truth? The court process isn't working as too many former state combatants are suffering from acute amnesia.

Do we reject all those with a 'criminal record' in a country with its own record, one heavy with miscarriages of justice and state impunity?

Too many individuals are going to fall through the net and this will lead to injustice. I understand that a vetting process to determine who is and isn't a victim would be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. That is why all victims, no matter their hue, should be treated as victims.

However, just as the definition of collusion was narrowed to suit the state's best interests so too will the definition of 'victim'. It reminds me of how the definition of 'unemployed' subtly changes to suit statistics and represent growth.

No-one was trying to re-write history, they were just attempting to help those who suffered misfortune. It should be an opportunity for healing rather than an opportunity for discord."

⏯Hedley Lamarr is a student of the conflict out of which has developed his strong interest in justice.

Torturers Are Innocent Too, You Know

Hedley Lamarr looks at the controversy surrounding the Victims' Pension.

There was much talk in recent news about some victims refusing the offer of a pension from the UK government if victims, who were also paramilitaries, received one. Now the law has changed and the only 'innocent victims' are non-combatants and state combatants.

If non-state combatants aren't defined as victims why not remove the status of victim from state perpetrators such as those who murdered overwhelmingly Catholic children with plastic and rubber bullets. Or those involved in shoot to kill or other extra-judicial killings and murder? Or collusion? The State torturers? Are they innocent victims too?

What about the young children caught up in riots? If you threw a petrol bomb or a stone will you be stripped of your right to be regarded as a victim of the conflict? What if you did but were a member of the Fianna? Was the person firing the plastic bullets the real victim?

What about IRA or UVF members etc. who never actually carried out a violent act but were attacked in their home or on the street?

Obviously there is a hierarchy of victims in an ethical sense, as uninvolved children are more worthy of the title than someone who injures themselves whilst staging an attack. But that doesn't mean the latter aren't victims per se.

There are too many variables and that is why victimhood has to be all-encompassing.

We don't know who carried out Bloody Sunday or the massacre at Ballymurphy. Did some of the trigger-men on that day get injured later or suffer PTSD on the day? Do they automatically get the title of victim when others are still fighting for the truth? The court process isn't working as too many former state combatants are suffering from acute amnesia.

Do we reject all those with a 'criminal record' in a country with its own record, one heavy with miscarriages of justice and state impunity?

Too many individuals are going to fall through the net and this will lead to injustice. I understand that a vetting process to determine who is and isn't a victim would be an expensive bureaucratic nightmare. That is why all victims, no matter their hue, should be treated as victims.

However, just as the definition of collusion was narrowed to suit the state's best interests so too will the definition of 'victim'. It reminds me of how the definition of 'unemployed' subtly changes to suit statistics and represent growth.

No-one was trying to re-write history, they were just attempting to help those who suffered misfortune. It should be an opportunity for healing rather than an opportunity for discord."

⏯Hedley Lamarr is a student of the conflict out of which has developed his strong interest in justice.

4 comments:

  1. The relatives of everyone unalwfully killed and those unlawfully injured in the Troubles are entitled to compensation regarcless of "combatant" status.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Barry has nailed it. The only caveat I add is the need to make sure those killed or injured carrying out an unlawful Troubles act - by their own hand or the hand of their comrades - are not included. The combatants in the Miami Showband and in the Shankill Fish Shop incidents, for example.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sorry, forgot to give examples on the other side of the issue. IRA men killed by UVF action in East Tyrone and UVF men killed by the IRA in East Belfast - these would be included in the 'victims' classification.

    ReplyDelete
  4. From Hedley

    Barry & Wolfsbane- The pension refers to those injured and not those who died. It can be applied for only by people injured in the conflict.

    ReplyDelete