The Bill received its Royal ascent on 18th September 2023 thus becoming law having been passed in the House of Commons by 288 MPs in favour and 206 against. It basically means that all inquests not concluded into some of the most horrific crimes, the cold bloodied murder of civilians in the six counties, by 1st May 2024 will be passed over to the toothless newly established Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and appears to favour very much British soldiers who have committed war crimes.
Republican fighters will not receive the same level of immunity as their British foes and will be subject to republicans ‘co-operating’ with ICRIR. Any statements given by British troops to the Royal Military Police (RMP) regarding atrocities committed by Crown Forces during the 1970s will be “inadmissible”. This therefore will include the ‘Ballymurphy Massacre committed by the 1st Battalion Parachute Regiment between the 9th and 11th August 1971 resulting in the deaths of eleven civilians.
The same regiment went on to open fire on an anti-internment march in Derry, January 1972, resulting in the deaths of fourteen marchers, all non-combatants. The Act shuts down ‘proven avenues of legal recourse’ for victims and survivors alike who are presently in pursuit of ‘truth and justice’, including inquests and court prosecutions for perpetrators of so-called ‘Troubles related violence’. Any inquests not concluded by 1st May 2024 will be transferred to the ICRIR) ‘with immediate effect’. For republican troops (IRA and INLA) any amnesty is conditional with them co-operating with the ICRIR. This co-operation, which is voluntary meaning, as I see it, any former volunteers who does not come forward voluntarily cannot expect an amnesty. So, if no amnesty is granted for those who do not volunteer information (Tout) what then? If all ‘proven avenues of legal recourse’ are closed down as the Act states neither can they be taken to court, or is this only applicable to the republican side? Does it really mean no member of the British Army guilty of war crimes will ever be prosecuted while republicans may well be subject to such legal proceedings?
Let us move on to the number of civilians killed by Crown Forces and their loyalist stooges. On 12th May 1997 Sean Brown, a GAA Chairman from Bellaghy Co. Derry, was murdered by a loyalist death squad, the LVF allegedly then led by Billy Wright, himself later executed in Long Kesh by the INLA. The investigation into Sean Browns murder by the then RUC has been described as “inadequate” and at best it was, in my view, half hearted. For example CCTV footage at a vital time, around midnight in the town following the murder conveniently went missing, developing wings suggesting collusion between the RUC and LVF! It is unlikely under this Act anybody will serve one day in prison for Sean Brown's murder, little wonder his family are outraged.
It must be accepted by all involved that in any war situation civilian casualties, though regrettable, are inevitable. Ask anybody who remembers Coventry being bombed by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War or persons living in Hamburg bombed by the Allies during the same period who lost family about civilian casualties. That said, there is a mile of difference between civilians getting caught up in the conflict by accident and the deliberate killing of civilians like Ballymurphy. Detractors will point to the number of civilians killed by the IRA and INLA and they would have a valid point. Some civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time and fell victim to a bomb blast, others were killed in cold blood often on the flimsiest of evidence that they were informers. I cannot recall mass killings of civilians deliberately targeted by republicans, as was the case in Ballymurphy and Derry by the British Army.
Just after the Second World War a number of leading Nazis were tried and executed at Nuremburg. Equally a number of selected Nazis were welcomed by the USA and given lucrative jobs and a big house to live in. Both Britian and France gave amnesties to other Nazis supposedly serving life sentences releasing these butchers after serving a short spell in prison. This was done in the name of “national reconciliation” with that word ‘reconciliation’ cropping up again. This Act is in a similar vein, to get British Army personnel guilty of murder off the hook! Just as many former SS men and women walked free so too now can those in the British Army who carried out atrocities. Former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, indicated that this Act is primarily designed to “protect” former British soldiers from prosecution.
The Act is supposed to bring ‘closure’ so the British Government claim. It will not bring any form of closure to those who lost loved ones at the hands of an occupying army. It will, in all probability, bring about more hurt and grief to these people. In fairness the 26 County Government are taking the UK to Court over the British Government's decision to push ahead with this Act. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is calling on the UK Government to repeal this Act or at least amend it. All this appears to be falling on deaf ears as the British will listen to nobody over their unilateral decision, not even the elected representatives for the six counties in Stormont. During the conflict along with the adults 186 children lost their lives and nobody, it seems, will ever stand trial for these atrocities. Patrick Rooney was killed back in 1969, Divis Flats by the RUC who fired high velocity machine guns into the complex. Patrick was one of many more children to die in the future. I wonder how those MPs in the British Parliament who voted in favour of this Bill (now Act) would have voted this way if they had lost a child during the conflict?
Another whitewash and cover up by the British Government and should not be seen in any other light. The British are past masters at this kind of skullduggery so it should come as no surprise they are going ahead with the Act, some perhaps crying crocodile tears.
In theory the terms of this Act are supposed to apply to everybody involved. It is ambiguous to say the least because the British Government do not recognise the killing of British soldiers and RUC officers as acts of war. Whereas the British shooting IRA and INLA volunteers was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the British authorities. In practice this Act is designed purely to get those members of the Crown Forces off with deliberate cold bloodied murder of non-combatants.
Let us move on to the number of civilians killed by Crown Forces and their loyalist stooges. On 12th May 1997 Sean Brown, a GAA Chairman from Bellaghy Co. Derry, was murdered by a loyalist death squad, the LVF allegedly then led by Billy Wright, himself later executed in Long Kesh by the INLA. The investigation into Sean Browns murder by the then RUC has been described as “inadequate” and at best it was, in my view, half hearted. For example CCTV footage at a vital time, around midnight in the town following the murder conveniently went missing, developing wings suggesting collusion between the RUC and LVF! It is unlikely under this Act anybody will serve one day in prison for Sean Brown's murder, little wonder his family are outraged.
It must be accepted by all involved that in any war situation civilian casualties, though regrettable, are inevitable. Ask anybody who remembers Coventry being bombed by the Luftwaffe during the Second World War or persons living in Hamburg bombed by the Allies during the same period who lost family about civilian casualties. That said, there is a mile of difference between civilians getting caught up in the conflict by accident and the deliberate killing of civilians like Ballymurphy. Detractors will point to the number of civilians killed by the IRA and INLA and they would have a valid point. Some civilians were in the wrong place at the wrong time and fell victim to a bomb blast, others were killed in cold blood often on the flimsiest of evidence that they were informers. I cannot recall mass killings of civilians deliberately targeted by republicans, as was the case in Ballymurphy and Derry by the British Army.
Just after the Second World War a number of leading Nazis were tried and executed at Nuremburg. Equally a number of selected Nazis were welcomed by the USA and given lucrative jobs and a big house to live in. Both Britian and France gave amnesties to other Nazis supposedly serving life sentences releasing these butchers after serving a short spell in prison. This was done in the name of “national reconciliation” with that word ‘reconciliation’ cropping up again. This Act is in a similar vein, to get British Army personnel guilty of murder off the hook! Just as many former SS men and women walked free so too now can those in the British Army who carried out atrocities. Former British Prime Minister, Theresa May, indicated that this Act is primarily designed to “protect” former British soldiers from prosecution.
The Act is supposed to bring ‘closure’ so the British Government claim. It will not bring any form of closure to those who lost loved ones at the hands of an occupying army. It will, in all probability, bring about more hurt and grief to these people. In fairness the 26 County Government are taking the UK to Court over the British Government's decision to push ahead with this Act. The United Nations Human Rights Commission is calling on the UK Government to repeal this Act or at least amend it. All this appears to be falling on deaf ears as the British will listen to nobody over their unilateral decision, not even the elected representatives for the six counties in Stormont. During the conflict along with the adults 186 children lost their lives and nobody, it seems, will ever stand trial for these atrocities. Patrick Rooney was killed back in 1969, Divis Flats by the RUC who fired high velocity machine guns into the complex. Patrick was one of many more children to die in the future. I wonder how those MPs in the British Parliament who voted in favour of this Bill (now Act) would have voted this way if they had lost a child during the conflict?
Another whitewash and cover up by the British Government and should not be seen in any other light. The British are past masters at this kind of skullduggery so it should come as no surprise they are going ahead with the Act, some perhaps crying crocodile tears.
In theory the terms of this Act are supposed to apply to everybody involved. It is ambiguous to say the least because the British Government do not recognise the killing of British soldiers and RUC officers as acts of war. Whereas the British shooting IRA and INLA volunteers was perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the British authorities. In practice this Act is designed purely to get those members of the Crown Forces off with deliberate cold bloodied murder of non-combatants.
The officers in charge at Ballymurphy and Derry, Brigadier Frank Kitson and Colonel Derek Wilford are both now dead so they could not be tried anyway. Other culprits are still alive and if this Act means anything at all they should be brought to trial. They never will be because that would defeat the real purpose of this Act, that is to “protect” members of the British Army including the Force Research Unit (FRU) and their agents involved in the murder of civilians from prosecution.
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
" I cannot recall mass killings of civilians deliberately targeted by republicans"
ReplyDeleteDarkley, Teebane, the Shankill, Kingsmill, Bloody Friday, Claudy, Enniskillen...need I go on?
You could go on Steve, but how many of the incidents you list were *deliberate* targeting of civilians?
ReplyDeleteYou tell me skin, what else do you call bringing a bomb into an area full of civilians?
DeleteI didn't think you would answer the question.
ReplyDeleteOh I'm sorry I thought it was blatantly obvious. They all were and no amount of bullshit revisionist washing will change that.
DeleteThe end product of planting bombs in populated areas and giving inadequate or misleading warnings was civilian deaths.
ReplyDeleteThank you for that riveting insight Barry.
ReplyDeleteSo did PIRA intend to kill civilians at Claudy, Enniskillen, Coleraine, La Mon or on Bloody Friday (Ditto Real IRA at Omagh) or were civilian casualties mere collateral damage, Skin?
DeleteThere was no intention to kill civilians at Claudy, Coleraine, Bloody Friday, Omagh or La Mon where warnings were given. Enniskillen - I doubt there was a strategic intent to kill civilians but on the day those carrying it out clearly knew they would be killing civilians. That does not make the attacks where warnings were given any more acceptable.
DeleteThe IRA has in particular periods targeted civilians on the basis of their religion rather than for any individual culpability they might have borne. This marks out Kingsmill from Teebane. That said, I remember commenting in the jail that Teebane was a pretty poor IRA operation.
Then why bring bombs into civilian areas on busy days? As you've said, those planting the bombs clearly knew they would be killing civilians. I'd also surmise that those civilians would very likely be Protestants.
DeleteI should caveat that by saying the British army behaviour at times was criminal, barbaric and utterly reprehensible and actions by certain fellow Loyalist were equally repugnant. I'm offering no justification for them. But we all need to call a spade a spade.
DeleteBringing bombs into civilian areas on busy days does not mean intent to kill civilians. Gross strategic negligence or whatever, there is a difference between intent and outcome. Otherwise all those IRA volunteers who died as a result of their own bombs intended to kill themselves as well. Back in the early 70s volunteers dying this way was a frequent enough occurrence.
DeletePost=GFA, 2 main opposing views emerged -those who called for truth recovery and those who wanted to draw a line in the sand to the past. But the Legacy Act is universally opposed by all fair minded people. The Brits delayed and avoided holding inquests for decades and it is grossly unjust for them to now say to the victim's families "hard luck, you are now out of time."
ReplyDeleteI think that is spot on.
DeleteIn my view inquests served a purpose for truth recovery whereas prosecutions worked to undermine it.
AM
DeleteThe advocates for truth recovery were/are split on the issue of prosecutions. I think it is a personal matter for the Families affected --had there been a properly structured truth recovery mechanism like a Truth Commission then maybe prosecutions might not be pursued --but families were left to fend for themselves to pursue justice in the civil courts or inquests --they were hindered and obstructed at every turn so they should not be denied the various types of remedies that might be available to them through those avenues.
Inquests are a form of truth recovery in the absence of criminal proceedings -but if the evidence comes out in an inquest then they can lead to prosecutions. The Legacy Act is to protect those who murdered in the service of Queen and Country and to keeps the State's dirty secrets secret.
Amnesty/Truth Recovery is the only acceptable outcome. It's not surprise that those who bitterly oppose it are the shinners and British Government. Far more dirty a war that even we think it was now I suspect.
DeleteI think a combination of amnesty and truth recovery is the best method. As Peter Sheridan of this new Commission asked: what level of imperfection is the post war North willing to settle for? There is no perfect solution.
DeleteI get that but there is simply no way that I would ever agree to republicans being prosecuted by British police, tried in a non-jury British court and incarcerated in the British penal system.
ReplyDelete