Memorandum submitted by WAVE Trauma Centre
and Families of the Disappeared
WAVE appreciates the invitation to respond to
the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, request for evidence into
Reconciliation: Ways of Dealing with Northern Ireland's Past.
For the Committee's background WAVE is a regional non-governmental
organisation which was established in 1991 to provide a range
of support services to individuals and families, bereaved, injured
or traumatised as a result of the Troubles. The organisation's
ethos is one of inclusiveness, working with anyone directly affected
regardless of their religious, political or cultural beliefs or
the circumstances, which led to their loss. The organisation offers
a continuum of support initiatives and has assisted over 3,650
individuals since establishment, receiving on average 600 new
referrals per year.
Throughout the troubles the lack of support
services for individuals and families directly affected, resulted
in them being left to work through their loss and to deal with
the ramifications which were often immense. The ceasefires in
1994, represented for many an opening and a sense of permission
to start to address what had happened to them and how it had impacted
on their lives. The result of this was a rapid increase in referrals
to WAVE which continue unabated—this year over 620 new referrals
have been received. As a result of this, individual's needs are
complex and are and should be at the heart of how we as a community
address Northern Ireland's past.
For the purposes of this submission, WAVE proposes
a number of areas, which are key to any consideration into how
we deal with the past. In July 2004 the organisation sent out
a questionnaire to all those who had accessed services from WAVE.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to identify areas of need
and to inform WAVE's lobbying strategy. Just over 400 replies
were received and the themes are relevant to the Inquiry. Such
was the level and depth of information given that responses are
still being analysed and this will form the basis of a Report
which can be forwarded to the Affairs Committee at a later date.
SUPPORT PROVISION
As highlighted above, the lack of support provision
both by statutory agencies and within the voluntary and community
sectors, led to individual's and families being left to work through
deeply traumatic issues on their own. While there are many attempts
at present to redress service imbalance within statutory agencies
for example within Health Trusts, fear and suspicion of these
agencies result in voluntary organisations being more readily
utilised. In addition the shear "acute" workload from
ordinary every day life mean, that all too often Health providers
refer individuals on to organisation's such as WAVE for assistance.
The need therefore for tailored support services is key in assisting
individuals to work through and move beyond their loss. In essence
it is required if any attempt is made to address issues such as
truth, justice, commemoration, remembrance etc. At present, issues
which impact upon sound professional and ethically driven service
provision across the Board is: short term funding, of one or two
years thereby preventing the retention of good practitioners;
a small pot of resources given the vast area and needs of individuals;
and, "political skewing of the resources available"
which is not based on the efficacy of the support services provided
by individual organisations but rather on a need by policy makers
within Government to ensure there is religious balance in funding
allocations.
In order to address the legacy of the past,
support service provision is vital and adequate resources need
to be allocated on a minimum of a five year basis to facilitate
continuity. A longer term strategy needs to be adopted by both
the British and Irish Governments to ensure that those who have
been most directly affected by the conflict receive the level
of services they require. The ramifications for paying lip service
at this time is the: further perpetuation of trauma to the second
and third generations (this is already evident in referrals);
a further deterioration in health and well-being of those affected;
a further perpetuating of negative and at time destructive coping
strategies; and, a resulting impact on the overall benefit and
uptake of any truth, recovery or acknowledgement process. Underlining
any strategy to address the past must be the allocation of adequate
resources to support individuals to work through and move beyond
their trauma/loss.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND
RECOGNITION
As a community there is a struggle as to how
individual's loss should be acknowledged. For many individuals
how they have been treated at the time of the incident: whether
it be through the process, outcome and overall lack of information
or contact about the police investigation, through the compensation
process and outcome, through the lack of services available has
compounded feelings of isolation. Also the particular difficulties
associated with some cases being more high profile, this continues
to be in part perpetuated by the selection of cases for scrutiny
by Judge Corey, the case taken by the Omagh families and the Bloody
Sunday Inquiry. By focusing on these cases to the exclusion of
others, has lead some families to refer to a two tiered system
and questions over the worth of their loved one.
One issue, which has affected families across
the board, has been compensation. This continues to be major issue
and is reflected in the majority of responses to our questionnaire.
Sir Kenneth Bloomfield in a review of the Compensation—Fitness
for Purpose Scheme recommended to Government that cases should
be relooked at particularly cases in the 70s and early 80s. The
Government did not follow through on his recommendation. For many
how we deal with the past, are tied with the issues of reparation,
further consideration needs to be given to this issue. Addressing
the need for support through NGOs or statutory providers is not
a replacement for addressing individual's needs. Often the two
are "played off" which is unfair, both complement each
other.
Other countries have retrospectively addressed
the needs of individuals tortured or severely traumatised. An
example this week has been the Chilean Government who has announced
that they are to award compensation to those who have been tortured.
A similar process in Northern Ireland would be welcomed as a form
of reparation.
One way in which the Government could foster
a sense of reparation is the direction of money recouped by the
Criminal Assets Recovery Bureau to be added into a resource for
the Victim's sector. Victim's work in New York is funded through
the utilisation of such resources. Given how much of the Criminal
Assets Recovery Team's time has focused on paramilitary linked
criminal activity, this could be a symbolic gesture and start
of a reparation process.
TRUTH
When asked about the concepts of "forgiveness"
and "hatred" a young person at WAVE replied:
Who should I hate or who should I forgive,
no one was ever caught for my daddy's murder.
If, as some would argue, forgiveness is viewed
as an essential prerequisite in the process of reconciliation
then the notions of truth and justice become an important feature
of that process. "No one was ever caught for my daddy's murder",
implies, first of all, that the truth about who carried out the
murder is absent and also that there is no justice, as "no
one was ever caught". The lack of process in this regard,
even if we were to leave aside the debate about forgiveness and
reconciliation, can become a barrier for some, preventing them
from moving on with their lives and compounding feelings of anger
and resentment.
This viewpoint was reiterated by several of
the respondents to the WAVE questionnaire, for example two women
who both lost a son in separate atrocities write:
Justice before mercy seems right to me . .
. taking the life of my son is too serious to be overlooked .
. . it is a disgrace.
No one was ever charged for my son's murder,
the police say the investigation is ongoing . . . it's all crap
and lies. May the Lord serve justice on them all—evil people.
Both these women want to know what happened
to their sons but more than that they want justice. Both express
dissatisfaction in the justice system, suggesting they have been,
"overlooked" or fed a pack of "lies". To move
on whilst these matters remain outstanding or unresolved is a
step too far, yet to date this has been a step they have been
expected to take.
To face the future without first of all dealing
with the past may be to ask for trouble—Alex Boraine, 1999,
(Deputy Chair of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission),
suggests:
We can put the past behind us and engage in
collective amnesia, but we should remember victims do not forget.
In South Africa, (arguably the best known truth
recovery process) this was not an option, neither was it an option
in places such as Argentina, Chile, Guatemala, Nigeria and Sierra
Leone etc. In fact, over 25 countries around the world that have
experienced conflict have engaged in some type of mechanism aimed
at establishing the truth about what happened and in some cases
dealing with issues of justice. Whilst there is an undeniable
link between these processes, it is also important to consider
the merits of both separately.
TRUTH RECOVERY
IN NORTHERN
IRELAND
No doubt the aforementioned experiences have
something to teach us and should be considered if contemplating
a similar process for Northern Ireland. That being said, however,
it must also be acknowledged that whatever process is designed
must be tailored to the specific circumstances of the Northern
Irish conflict. Writing in the WAVE Newsletter, November
2004, the Rev Dr David Clements outlines some points to consider.
1. For some there is clearly a need for
some kind of truth recovery process. The reasons for this need
are not necessarily clear or simple. For some it is about the
hope of finding personal peace and healing. If answers are given
to certain questions about the reason for the death of a loved
one and the circumstances surrounding the event, then peace might
come. It is impossible to predict if in an individual case the
truth will help or not. In some cases the truth when it was discovered
caused greater hurt than before (at least for a time). Also, there
are some who definitely do not want to know any more than they
do at the moment. It is their right to let the sleeping dog lie.
It may be inconvenient always to be stepping over it—but
if awoken it may have a vicious bite.
2. For some others, knowing the truth is
about justice and blame. For some this seems to be mostly personal,
for others it seems to be also political. The campaign for truth
and justice is in a way the continuation of the war.
3. There is no agreement on what a truth
recovery process should look like. Indeed, there is not agreement
on whether we should have one or not. Some time ago Paul Murphy
said he was going to consult widely on the issue of some kind
of truth process. To date he has not sought any input from WAVE.
It is imperative that any truth process has the widest possible
support from the victims who have suffered the most.
4. There is considerable unease with the
thought of a series of public or other judicial inquiries that
may cost vast amounts of money, take a very long time and in the
end produce an outcome that fully satisfies none of the parties
concerned.
5. It seems clear that from the general
societal perspective there does need to be some way of dealing
with the hurts of the past. To ignore what has happened, not to
talk about it, in the hope that time itself will mysteriously
make things better is almost certainly naive and wrong.
6. There must be a relationship between
the healing process and the success of any political process.
The two need not be closely linked together but progress in one
area will surely help the other.
Much more could be added to this debate, however
it is clear that consensus on the way forward will be difficult
to find, nevertheless it is not an alternative to do nothing—the
one issue that unites victims across communities is a fear that
they will be forgotten about, this one thought was a common thread
in the 400 plus responses WAVE received to the questionnaire.
Therefore the question of how to deal with the past is a struggle
that must not be given up.
THE QUESTION
OF JUSTICE
Similar to the notion of truth, the question
of justice in relation to past events has also proved a difficult
and thorny issue. So much so, various bodies when discussing the
future of Northern Ireland with regard to victims of the "Troubles"
have frequently sidestepped it. For example, the Northern Ireland
Human Rights Commission, in the Draft Bill of Rights, makes the
distinction between, "victims of the past conflict"
and "victims of future crime". It argues, victims of
the past conflict should be given the:
highest level of social and civil care and,
where appropriate, acknowledgement of, and redress for, their
and their family's loss.
In respect of the future, they state:
the objective should be to set new standards
for the rights of victims in the investigation and prosecution
of criminal offences and other forms of abusive conduct.
No doubt this is driven by sheer pragmatism,
the cost of properly investigating past crimes making it unthinkable,
but surely a Bill of Rights is about establishing what ought to
be regarded as a right in society and not merely reduced to what
is practical. What redress is there for the two woman quoted earlier,
who are far from satisfied with the investigations into their
loved ones murder.
A number of other points need to be taken on
board when thinking about justice:
1. Justice means different things to different
people—for some it is very much about "making someone
pay"—retributive justice—seeing the culprit spending
time behind bars. This works in many instances and provides some
comfort to know that the person who committed the crime has been
caught. However, it also has its drawbacks—retributive justice
has no obligation to take into account the victims views—the
culprit also does not have to take responsibility for what they
have done. In many cases, weak sentences handed out for serious
crime have had an adverse affect on the victim.
2. Some would argue for some type of restorative
system—where the victim and perpetrator are brought faced
to face—the perpetrator taking responsibility for their
actions and the victim able to ask questions about why etc—there
is some evidence of this working at community level where the
crime in question is "anti social behaviour". However,
its adaptation to deal with serious crime, particularly the sort
of crime that was committed during the "Troubles" is
questionable—more research is needed before this becomes
an alternative. It is also important that some mechanism is established
through which any information can be validated. The example of
the release of a list of the Disappeared by the IRA in April 1999,
giving reasons why these men and women were taken was strongly
discounted by the families concerned. If this was an example at
truth and acknowledgement it caused more pain and distress for
the families concerned as they felt that the reasons given were
inaccurate and were an attempt by the organisation concerned to
hide the true horror and circumstances leading to the disappearances
and subsequent murder of their relatives.
3. Even if an example of restorative justice
with regard to serious crime working in other contexts can be
found, how would you change the hearts and minds of those that
are used to the retributive kind. Some argue this worked in South
Africa, but in that society you had the notion of Ubuntu (what
dehumanises you dehumanises me), therefore, for some, looking
for a settlement that emphasised the restoration of the relationship
between offender and victim was key—no such understanding
exists in Northern Irish society.
4. Many of the murders committed during
the "Troubles" remain unsolved—many victims are
unhappy with the way in which the investigation has gone—some
believe their cases are not being investigated due to political
expediency. In many cases they are denied access to their files—all
of this feeds into feelings of being forgotten about—what
process can be put in place that sends out a message that this
is not the case. The Police Ombudsman's Office has undertaken
some good work with families as they attempt to uncover information.
Further utilisation of this unit through adequate resourcing would
be advantageous.
5. What makes a case worthy of investigation
and others not? The Corey Report by putting forward six cases
to be looked at could be interpreted as a hierarchy of crimes
committed. The Serious Crime Review Team within PSNI is reviewing
approximately 40 cases. Does a person have to have died in a high
profile incident or have the backing of a community or political
organisation before their case is looked at? What about the individual
who was shot in an isolated incident—is that family not
also entitled to an investigation? There are many such people
that attend WAVE, the discrepancies in the way these matters are
treated leave many feeling isolated and further creates a feeling
of a hierarchy, often fed by political parties.
It can be seen that none of these issues will
be settled in the short term, This does not mean, however, that
an exploration of justice and what it means should not form part
of the agenda for dealing with the past.
MEMORIALS AND
COMMEMORATION
Another contentious issue when dealing with
the past concerns the act of remembrance. Historically the way
in which some events and atrocities have been commemorated have
actually served to prolong the conflict. For example, images on
gable walls sending out the message, not so much that we should
never forget the dead and injured but that we should actively
remember who was responsible. One only has to drive around the
streets of Belfast to see examples of this, but the events that
are remembered only relate to attacks on their community, never
the other way round.
Just how does one remember a loved one who has
been murdered? How do communities remember? How does society remember?
Of course families and friends will always remember, they may
have a grave to go to, photographs to look at, little mementos
that they have kept—its amazing how much comfort can be
given from these types of things. But what about wider society?
Is there a process whereby the dead and injured can be respected
and at the same time allowing for some sort of societal healing.
The following are some thoughts on this issue.
1. Some work on commemorative projects has
already been undertaken by various victims organisations—examples
of this are, Every Picture Tells A Story (youth story telling
project about loved ones who have died), Stain Glass Window (story
telling project) both available from the WAVE Trauma Centre. Also
Relatives for Justice, commemorative quilt and countless others.
Whilst this has been good for those involved, the stories need
to be shared, first of all amongst victims but also with wider
society.
2. There are lots of good examples of commemorative
projects in other societies, for example The Holocaust Memorial
Museum in Washington DC. The interesting thing about this project
is that you only get to see the memorial once you have taken the
history tour and have some understanding of what the Memorial
relates to. This may not be so easy in Northern Ireland where
every aspect of our history is contested—not so easy but
not impossible with a little imagination.
3. Some have suggested a permanent memorial
with names of all those that have died on it—bit like the
Vietnam Wall Memorial. Whilst I can understand people wanting
their loved ones names on something like this, it also presents
some problems as some might be opposed to having their names placed
along side other names that they might believe should not be there.
This point was brought home by one of the respondents to the WAVE
Questionnaire, "I feel there should be a memorial for all
the victims of the `Troubles' but not terrorists who refer to
themselves as victims". This poses the question: Are the
families of those killed in this way to be "guilty by association
for ever"? A monument that features names by side by side
would be intolerable for some, given their ongoing hurt and sense
of unresolved grief. It is worth noting that monuments such as
the Vietnam Wall were undertaken some 15 years after the war ended
and erected not in the country were the war happened and did not
include all fatalities—ie the Vietnamese.
4. The Bloomfield Report recommended a memorial
garden, where the centrepiece could be a maze—the imagery
of this is quite apt as it could serve as reminder of the maze
that the peace process often became. Trees could be planted in
memory of those that died, one tree for each death—people
could come for a walk, to play or just to sit and reflect—the
same problem could arise in relation to in whose memory as was
presented in the previous idea.
Some of these initiatives can be built upon—the
question to ask is, what will most effectively contribute to healing
the wounds of the past? It is likely that it will involve more
than one type of process.
CONCLUSION
The legacy of the conflict is most acute for
those that were personally affected in whatever way. Whilst the
last few years have seen many developments in relation to having
their needs addressed, there remains much that needs to be done.
This consultation by the Northern Ireland Affairs
Committee is to be welcomed, there is a danger, however, that
people are being overwhelmed by the amount of consultations that
have taken place since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
Some of those have sought to raise expectations, for example the
Bloomfield Report, only for those hopes to be dashed when recommendations
made fail to materialise. Those directly affected by the "Troubles"
want to see action, they want their concerns taken seriously—a
general apprehension widely felt is the fear of abandonment—that
society will not have the appetite to effectively deal with the
past. Putting in place processes and mechanisms that address the
legacy of the "Troubles", as it affects individuals,
groups and communities will enable many to move on. However, this
needs to be accompanied by a political process that is seen to
be working. The inability to restore the Assembly remains a matter
of concern—in this context it is difficult to see how progress
can be made on some of the larger issues of acknowledgement, truth
and justice. Nevertheless, it is not an option to sit back and
do nothing. The history of politics in Northern Ireland is one
of stop and start, whilst progress may be difficult, all that
can be done should be done to bring some sense of redress to those
that have lost so much.
December 2004
| 
