Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Tagged under: , ,

Questions For Legacy Consultation

In a letter published in the Irish News earlier this month Martin Galvin challenges the British state's Northern Secretary.

In her Forward to the Consultation Paper, British colonial secretary Karen Bradley wrote legacy mechanisms "must seek to meet the needs of victims" and "must be fully consistent with the rule of law". She then saluted British crown forces, pledging to "reject any attempts to rewrite the history of the past" or "displace responsibility from the people who perpetrated acts of terrorism." What happens when such lofty aspirations collide?

The Ballymurphy Massacre illustrates the point. These victims and survivors need truth. They believe British troopers 'protected' Ballymurphy by murdering 11 residents, including a Catholic priest and mother of eight. The British then "displaced responsibility", blaming the victims. Requests for inquest funding met with hurtful dismissals. References to "innocent victims", implied that Ballymurphy Massacre victims were not among the "innocent."

These families fought a heartbreaking legal battle to get truth. They believe an inquest with eyewitness testimony under the rule of law can deliver it. What does Bradley do if these victims are right?

Bradley says her Tory regime will reject any attempt to rewrite history. If the evidence proves that the 11 killings were murders, how can she reject rewriting history with truth? Does Bradley simply ignore inconvenient facts, like Theresa May seemed to ignore Ivor Bell, Gerry McGeough and Seamus Kearney, asserting only British forces get investigated for the past? How would Bradley escape shifting blame from exonerated "innocent victims" back onto British troops for murder and smearing the dead?

What about collusion? The law holds those who pay for, direct, procure weapons, identify targets, cover-up ,or otherwise conspire in murders, are jointly criminally responsible for these murders. What if new legacy mechanisms confirm that Glenanne Gang and other murders claimed by loyalists should be counted jointly as British state collusion murders?

How does Bradley "displace responsibility" from British crown forces for their role in such acts of terrorism or reject recording the truth? Can Britain bury such crimes in a national security pit?

Bradley also wants legacy proposals to "reflect a broad political consensus and be balanced, fair, equitable and crucially, proportionate".

"Political consensus" has been the pretext for a DUP clamp on funding needed to give nationalists their chance for justice. Because crown forces only admit to ten percent of "Troubles" killings, "balanced and proportionate" have become code words for a quota on investigations of British crown killings which ignores collusion and state cover-ups.

Too many promises of legacy justice have been broken. Victims must get more than broken promises and stonewalling. It may be their last chance.


Martin Galvin is a US Attorney-At-Law.




1 comments :

Steve R said...

Even the UVF said they shot some of the victims in Ballymurphy. There should be an open inquiry, but as part of an amnesty. There is nothing to be gained from prosecuting either side.

But collusion is not a one way street between British Army/Police and Loyalists.

From Ian Hurst..

"The shadowy Force Research Unit (FRU) had a file on suspected rogue gardai prepared to pass information to the IRA and act as its agents. MI5 also had a network of agents with the Garda.
The IRA had a network of informants in public agencies such as social security offices and vehicle licensing departments.
One in four IRA members was an agent, rising to one in two among senior members."

The families would do well to remember that perhaps despite all the vocal posturing, political representatives are not too keen on the light being switched on to the past.