There should be no amnesty for crimes before Good Friday
THE relatives of the 10 people murdered by the British army in Ballymurphy in 1971 show us all what principled opposition to State tyranny looks like.
Following this week’s ruling by a coroner in Belfast that the victims were ‘all entirely innocent of any wrongdoing’, the language used by the relatives to express their reactions was notable for the absence of a rigid and cruel, them-and-us harshness, which, unfortunately, almost always characterises what passes for dialogue in the North.
From the start of the slaughter in the North at the end of the ’60s, the instinct was to identify your tribe, line up on that side and dig in.
As the violence intensified the middle ground continued to shrink. Much of moderate nationalism, in effect, adopted a selfimposed vow of silence and spiked its own legitimate criticism of the original wrong done to Ireland because of partition, the disgraceful doctrine of Unionist winner-takes-all dominance in the North, the dangerously onesided sectarian policies adopted by the British government and the policies of neglect and increased separation operated in the South.
For decades, middle-ground nationalism feared that any strong expressions of legitimate criticism would only offer encouragement to a toxic Sinn Féin/IRA combination hell-bent on murder and mayhem. This understandable restraint was especially evident in the Republic, out of genuine concern that even words could make a bad situation worse.
The Good Friday Agreement didn’t just signpost a new political and constitutional dispensation, but allowed broad, non-violent nationalism to recover the language of dissent and opposition.
It also allowed for a language distinguished by calm and generosity – because now, words would not be used as an excuse to kill people.
That’s why it’s now possible for Taoiseach Micheál Martin to side, unflinchingly, with the relatives of the Ballymurphy massacre victims in demanding a proper apology from British prime minister Boris Johnson, pictured left, as distinct from that half-baked concoction thrown from the floor of the House of Commons by Northern secretary Brandon Lewis.
One of the Ballymurphy relatives nailed it when asking how the British government would have responded if its army had massacred innocent civilians in England. And, of course, that question doesn’t need answering because it’s clear for centuries that the deaths of Irish people has been matter less regarded by the British establishment. And, obviously, still is.
We can say that out loud again, because its ventilation won’t put lives at risk.
Micheál Martin must also make it perfectly clear to Boris Johnson that there should be no amnesty for crimes committed during the Northern conflict prior to the Good Friday Agreement. Such a move would amount to British State acceptance for murder on all sides of the conflict so as to avoid criminal cases arising from atrocities perpetrated by their side.
Comments from Richard Dannatt, former head of the British Army and now a member of the House of Lords, in favour of what he calls a qualified amnesty are entirely unconvincing.
He points to the recent collapse of the trial in Belfast of two British soldiers for murder in 1972 as supporting his position. However, it’s now clear that case was deeply flawed from the very beginning, depending as it did on statements made, without caution, by the soldiers themselves shortly after the killing.
But at least seven other cases are pending against former British soldiers, with the independent prosecutors having already decided to proceed with four of them. Surely no democratic government could contemplate putting a stop to those proceedings unless there is a statute of limitations on murder?
The absence of organised political killings and strife in the North has ushered in a new era that allows moderate nationalism to find its voice again. It allows for honesty in our dealing with the British.
It also allows for a mildness of language such as that deployed by the Ballymurphy relatives, and a less adversarial posture towards Northern Unionists, now that they’ve dipped well below 50% of voters there.