Hippies but not Eames Bradley mark midsummer’s day

Sunday was of course Mid summer’s day: hardly a shattering revelation. The hippies, druids, Morris Dancers and assorted New Age types seem to have had a good time at Stonehenge.

Midsummers day had also been proposed by the Eames Bradley Consultative Group on the Past Report as a “Day of Reflection and Reconciliation.” Interestingly I could find no mention of the idea this Mid Summer’s Day (the first since the report was published).

The Group had suggested:

The Group recommends that full support is given by government, the private and
voluntary sector, including the churches, to the continuation of the annual Day
of Reflection initiated by HTR, on 21st June each year.
The Group also recommends that, on or around this day each year, the First Minister
and deputy First Minister should together make a keynote address to the Northern
Ireland Assembly and invited guests. This address would provide an opportunity for
the elected leaders to lead by example by directing society to reflect upon the past
in a positive way and to confirm their commitment to lead us towards a shared
and reconciled future.

It went on to state:

In reflecting on the past it is important that an element of responsible self acknowledgement is included. Put simply, this means that, as well as reflecting
on wrongs done to us, we should consider wrongs we have done to others, or perhaps
things we could have done differently, with an ultimate focus on taking responsibility
for the future. As suggested in Chapter 2, responsibility for the future lies not only
with those who were directly involved in the conflict, but with every sector of society.
A shared and reconciled future can only be achieved by active cooperation and
participation by society as a whole, of which reflection is a necessary prerequisite.

These proposals are of course fairly typical of the intellectually lazy and morally bankrupt nature of the whole report. Yet again we see the care which is taken to avoid any hierarchy of responsibility: despite the fact that it clearly exists. There is, yet again, the suggestion that we are all responsible for the past and its wrongs. This of course avoids the overwhelming difference in responsibility between the likes of Lenny Murphy and his unfortunate victims or between those who planted the Claudy bomb and Kathryn Eakin. It also avoids the vast moral difference between those of us, of whatever political position, who never committed nor supported any of the crimes visited upon people here and the perpetrators and their supporters.

Although a day to remember the victims might not have been an unreasonable idea, Eames Bradley has of course managed to so mangle the concept that if adopted on the lines they propose it would be acceptable to no one apart possibly from the terrorists and their fellow travellers.

As an aside it is also interesting that Jarlath Burns who alleged some unionists were “a bit dishonest and almost duplicitous” never did “Name and Shame.” Instead to paraphrase fair_deal: He shut up rather than put up.

The government’s full response to the report is of course still awaited. However, hopefully the whole report will go the way of the insulting £12,000 payment and be remembered only for its folly, moral and intellectual laziness. As I have suggested all along the report is not fit for purpose.

This author has not written a biography and will not be writing one.