Thinking beyond Finucane
I’m surprised, both that a public inquiry into the Finucane murder has been refused, and that the response to the refusal so far has been quite muted. Perhaps it’s only the calm before the storm. I would guess that the decision was finally taken on political grounds, namely that the UK government can get away with it. That probably wasn’t true a few years ago. If it’s true today, it may be a backhanded compliment to what we still call the peace process but it was also affected by the public spending climate. Whatever they may say about particular cases, in Northern Ireland the main parties have no interest in major investigations into the past. The Cory inquiries that have reported so far have added little. The Troubles are starting to slide into history. The government’s favourite plan is to leave future examinations to a panel of historians and other analysts, probably on the basis of a 40 year rule for the release of documents. If that were up and running now, the fuller story of the height of the Troubles in the seventies would be underway. But precisely what documents would be made available?
All the same and in spite of all of the above, the refusal of an inquiry under the 2005 Inquiries Act was a miserable affair, the decision itself and the long delay under successive governments. Inevitably it will be believed there is something so awful to hide that it cannot be revealed, even though the evidence is sitting there in the Stevens reports. The basic problem is the huge lack of transparency and the distrust it naturally perpetuates over and above historic suspicion. Perhaps the Baha Mousa inquiry may be a better precedent for uncovering responsibility under immunity than the usual critics believe. At any rate we shall see, because the de Silva inquiry must now proceed with I assume similar immunities. The Finucanes cannot have a veto. Tough and unfashionable as it may seem, there is a higher public interest than satisfying family victims.
The next move that should be considered is to reach an interim overview of the performance of all types of investigations extant, beyond sparse statements about family satisfaction levels and clear-up rates. Can an objective view be reached on the performance of the historic enquiries team, the controversial handling of the police ombudsman? And here’s a naive question: what does the record say about inquests? Now that they can delve into the Stevens reports what does the future hold for them? And fundamentally, why does it all take so absurdly long? Justice so long stalled is certainly justice denied.
Who can answer these questions? Responsibility is shared among so many stakeholders and jurisdictions – two executives, the independent judiciary and coroners, a brace of Attorneys General and prosecuting authorities. The buck can be passed around endlessly. In an era where DNA evidence has transformed the investigation of crimes committed twenty and more years ago, and Nazi hunters are still active, it isn’t good enough for a civilised State to postpone it all to the distant future when everybody involved is dead.
An interim report on how we have so far dealt with the record of the past could point the way to finding out what remains to be done. It would cut across the coat trailing and allegations of one sided justice and should be carried out without regard to prospects for reconciliation. It is wrong to confine the verdicts on the Troubles to matters of political convenience. Will the Assembly agree?
Region: Ireland, Northern Ireland, UK
“a compromiser, even a bit of an appeaser”
Malcolm, London and Dublin, by their appeasement/nimby actions and strategies, have raised the parapoliticians in many communities here above the politicians. The good burghers of London and Dublin would be appalled, appalled I say, if they had to endure the Mafia-style attentions of the ‘good’ paramilitaries as happens in this small corner of these islands.
Comrade Stalin,
Alliance are doing everything to divert attention from the elephant in the room, because the Finucane case highlights it all too clearly.
We need a comprehensive process to address the needs of victims: October 11, 2011 5:08 PM
http://allianceparty.org/article/2011/006057/we-need-a-comprehensive-process-to-address-the-needs-of-victims
They pose as sympathetic to the Finucane family (“Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Pat Finucane at this very difficult time.”) while opposing their legitimate demand for an independent inquiry. Alliance ignore Finucane family’s rights while waffling about meeting “the needs of victims and survivors” in general.
Alliance say “We need talks to be urgently convened between the parties here and the British and Irish governments to find a coherent way forward to deal with the legacy of the troubles.” Like the article above, they ignore the fact there were already talks between the partys and both governments at Weston Park in 2001, where the British agreed to implement an independent public inquiry if recommended in this case.
Alliance have nothing to say about the British reneging on that by appointing a tory QC to review papers instead. They’ve been “leading the push” for the British NIO to convene talks “to find a coherent way forward to deal with the legacy the troubles”. In the context of British reneging on a Finucance inquiry that looks more like a staged diversion and seeking to elevate the NIO as a ‘Ministry of Truth’ orchestrating some phoney process for awkward history to be either stuffed down a memory hole or endlessly raked over. Anyway, Weston Park seems to be something now lost in the NIO’s memory hole.
Alliance insist “It is crucial that we agree an overarching strategy, instead of having a fragmented approach”. A ‘fragmented approach’ means their opposition to holding Finucane inquiry, the one inquiry still outstanding from Weston Park.
The notion of ‘agreeing’ an overarching strategy under the supervision of a party to that conflict now in breech of its agreement to deal with the Finucane case, is incoherent as a way forward. It would seem delusional, unless there’s some other truth about Alliance in relation to the NIO that others aren’t privy to.
For Alliance, the elephant in the living room seems to be the British state: remaining oblivious to it as a party to the conflict, the nature of its conduct, and now its breech of an agreement to hold a public inquiry in this case.
Re: Boston College tapes, that whole psuedo-academic process seems characterised by deception, false assurances and a politically predetermined ‘truth’. The relevance to the Finucane case would be Ed Maloney’s involvement. He identified Stobie as the Special Branch agent who supplied the weapons to kill Finucane. That lead to Stobie being put up and acquited in a sham trial used to delay a Public Inquiry. He was then killed before testifying to any credible inquiry.
[...] meeting with the Finucane family to discuss the UK government’s decision “to conduct an independent review to produce a [...]
“I’m surprised, both that a public inquiry into the Finucane murder has been refused”
The fact that you are surprised is a surprise. The Government’s attitude to future enquiries was well recorded in the public domain.
“It is wrong to confine the verdicts on the Troubles to matters of political convenience.”
Moral arguments cut no ice here. Whether anybody likes it or not, it is money which has driven the Government’s decision. The Government has decided that this matter is not a matter of priority. They are entitled to make that decision and the majority of the UK population is behind them on that.
The Government has decided that this matter is not a matter of priority. They are entitled to make that decision and the majority of the UK population is behind them on that.
Couldn’t disagree more Seymour. What you have said could be rephrased thusly:
if a government murders a citizen it is then up to that government to decide whether or not to hold an inquiry.
Of course that’s not right – no government whose hands are dripping with blood voluntarily decide to have an inquiry into their own murders – it simply never happens. The British government – were it able to – would not have held an inquiry into Bloody Sunday. Money may be a consideration (though negligible as we see the many billions being spent on removing Arabs from the map from three coincidentally oil wealthy countries), but any government would rather not expose their own murderous activities than voluntarily hold an inquiry. They only do so when forced.
Maybe someone could help them figure out how to fund it, I have a suggestion: take some of the money plundered from Afghan, Iraqi and soon Libyan oil, bought with the murder of damn near a million civilians and use that. Then when they need to hold an inquiry into the deaths in their current invasions they can just attack some other oil rich country. Think of it as the world’s most evil pyramid scheme.
Oil.
So that’s the reason troops were deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969.
Anyhow, this little charade has now moved off the media radar, Enda Kenny’s token disapproval notwithstanding.
The golden goose has stopped laying.
Just in passing
Jeremy Paxman has/had plenty to say on Ireland (both parts) promoting his new book on British Imperial history.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/magazine/2011/1015/1224305625510.html
Oil.
So that’s the reason troops were deployed on the streets of Northern Ireland in 1969.
Clearly not. No Oil is the reason your brave boys are butchering their way through the Middle East. Try responding to what I say as opposed to what you wish I’d said. Still amusing yourself with the grief of children and widows of murder victims?
Anyhow, this little charade has now moved off the media radar, Enda Kenny’s token disapproval notwithstanding.
How right you are BJ, completely off the radar. Apart from 81 articles today, 149 three days ago and 385 two days prior to that. In fact one could say approaching a thousand articles a week would suggest it’s on the radar, your wishful thinking notwithstanding.
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=finucane
Why not start a facebook campaign about this Tory outrage Neil?
You could combine it with some other republican conspiracy theories, how about this one?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lets-all-laugh-at-celtics-conspiracy-theories/189394637751093
Why not start a facebook campaign about this Tory outrage Neil? You could combine it with some other republican conspiracy theories, how about this one?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lets-all-laugh-at-celtics-conspiracy-theories/189394637751093
What Tory outrage would that be Ted? And why are you suggesting that I start facebook campaigns? Try to stick to the topic old bean. Could it be that you can’t come up with a response to that which I have said? Seems that way. So let me respond:
why don’t you start a Facebook campaign.
Like you I have no reason to think you even have a facebook page, but saying as your off on a wee random one I thought I may as well join ya.
So back to the conversation we were having (apart from the one which exists only in your feverish imagination). Would you consider approaching a thousand media articles in 5 days to be off the media radar or do you now realise that was just you pretending that what you wish were the case actually is the case. Reality, as per usual, diverges somewhat from the Unionist version of reality.
Kind of like how you keep refuting points I never made, or suggesting Facebooks campaigns apropos of nothing? Presumably some joke or other but since it’s completely tangential and unrelated I won’t be bothering to look. I’ve posed some questions, you’ve failed to answer them other than with some spectacular witticism or other, so I’m happy enough. You either don;t have the capacity to answer or accept you’re wrong, either way it’s all good for me. Thanks.
Apart from 81 articles today, 149 three days ago and 385 two days prior to that.
See a pattern emerging there?
Like the so called Ballymurphy ‘massacre’, this is just one sided mythology- history. And no-one on the mainland gives a toss.
Did Ed Miliband or Nick Clegg raise a voice in anger at the enquiry rebuttal? Not 1 remark at PM Questions today.
There will be no more lucrative enquiries in to NI troubles.
No more golden goose.
Hey Mr Jazzman – would you tone down your disrespectful comments.
On a point of information, what happened in Ballymurphy was no myth. As bit happens I knew FR Hugh Mullan the priest who was shot in these series of incidents whilst going to an injured person. He was definately a man of peace – but holding up a white hanky made no difference. I sincerely hope that none of Fr Mullan’s family in Portaferry read Slugger.
BluesJazz @ 5:21 pm:
The “mainland”? Huh? Doesn’t feel like that sitting here, twenty minutes from the Eurostar terminal for Paris and Brussels, with direct connections to Luxembourg (for the ECJ). Unless, of course, you’re one of those “Storms in the Channel: Continent cut off” blinkered Little Britons.
Correction 1: there are quite a few this side of the narrow water who do “give a toss”. Check out the Left Foot Forward site, just this very evening, for one of the quarter million “hits” Google throws up. Then dismiss Michael Mansfield and Vernon Croaker as “non-tossers”, if you can.
Correction 2: there were no PMQs “today”. PMQs are 12 noon on a sitting Wednesday. What may tomorrow bring?
Prognostication: Let’s go back to Brian Walker’s thoughtful headline piece. Any review by Sir Desmond DeSilva QC (the archetypal criminal lawyer, please note) will be no whitewash, particularly since that would involve overwriting the previous studies by Sir John Stevens and Judge Peter Cory. In the tired cliché, all that has happened is the can has been kicked further down the road.
Bluesjazz
“the so called Ballymurphy ‘massacre’, this is just one sided mythology- history”
What words would you choose to use to describe what happened in Ballymurphy – a British military victory ? An accident ?
I think you’ll struggle to describe it as myth until such times as the facts are established and the truth about it is told; reason enough to fully investigate it, people of sense might reasonably think. You’re dead against that, if I understand you correctly, on the grounds that (i) lawyers enrich themselves; and (ii) it’s a waste of money as they were only taigs anyway and their lives weren’t worth shit. Is that an unreasonbable precis of your actual position ?
Is that an unreasonbable precis of your actual position ?
I think so. hardly the first time soldiers got confused. Badly led and under attack in a hostile environment. The Gurkhas would have behaved just as aggressively. The Black Watch perhaps even more so.
During the liberation of Belsen, the British Army shot many Germans, including civilians, out of hand. The Americans did the same at Dachau. Eisenhower physically ripped up the reports. Context is everything.
Bluesjazz
What’s your evidence for the proposition that the Ballymurphy deaths can be attributable solely to confusion please ?
To seek to contextualize the Ballymurphy killings by referring to those which occurred during liberation of Belsen and Dachau would, in my estimation anyway, require a mind not estranged from a state of perhaps fairly continuous confusion.
Nun…
Occams Razor
Motive?
Did the Paras receive special Free Presbyterian training at Aldershot?
Or think they were in danger? Remember how they’re trained, unlike police officers.
Does it really matter now? Soldiers behaving badly in a hostile environment is not news. I don’t remember them behaving badly in Bangor, except in certain pubs. Par for the course.
BTW, there was no enquiry in to the (illegal) killings at aforementioned camps. Nor was there any clamour for any by the post war German government.
BluesJazz
Not entirely unexpectedly, you’ve confirmed that you have no idea how those killings happened. Neither do I. I have therefore to return to my previous assumption which is that you couldn’t care less what happened because you couldn’t care less which, leaving aside its callousness, shows how little you esteem even fairly moderate democratic values. If you can’t be insightful, intelligent or witty – and by the looks of things these are just three of the things you’re incapable of – then you could at least be honest about it.
then you could at least be honest about it.
I’m as honest as Eisenhower was about the Allied troops extra-judicial killings. Same rules apply here.
And Finucane knew ‘the rules’
so did Billy Wright
Callous? Or Pragmatic? Frank Kitson applied the same doctrine as Eisenhower.
And David Cameron.