Reconciliation and Victims of Violence
What the Good Friday Agreement says
Just three examples that are startlingly current are;
- The case of Sam Marshall where a conspiracy has prevented an inquest into his death. Sam was murdered in March 1991, his family and community all allege collusion between the state and loyalists;
- Pearse Jordan, an unarmed IRA volunteer, was killed by the RUC in 1991. Immediately following his death the RUC released a series of media reports stating that Pearse Jordan was armed and carrying a bomb. None of this was true. His family has been trying to challenge his death, however the state has thwarted these attempts by holding up the inquest into his death. It has yet to be heard in full.
- The daughter of Maura Meehan was nine years old when the British army killed her mother. Maura was shot dead when she was traveling with her sister in a car. Margaret has started to investigate the full circumstances surrounding her mother's killing. The Coroner's Court has refused to disclose any details of her mother's body or the circumstances of her death to Margaret. Margaret has been left to piece together the full story from community remembrances and newspaper clippings.
The suffering of these families and hundreds like them is untold. They need the truth so that they and the community they live in can remember and acknowledge their experience.
Allocation of Sufficient Resources
The recognition by the Good Friday Agreement that there must be an allocation of sufficient resources to meet victims' needs has been addressed in a piecemeal and selective fashion.
There has been no recognition that people who have suffered bereavement by the state or its agents cannot be expected to ask for money from the same agencies which refuse recognition and acknowledgment of the pain and suffering experienced.
This dilemma must be addressed if the very real needs of people living with the pain of bereavement or injury in the communities are to be addressed.
There is evidence that some politically founded anti-agreement victims interest groups have directed government ministers towards instructing government and independent funders to give preference to their immediate funding demands. This funding has created a dynamic that undermines the process and all efforts towards reconciliation.
A meeting took place at the beginning of this year by the direction of the secretary of state and her officials. This meeting included the directors of non-government funding bodies and was designed to cut through bureaucracy in favour of immediate funding for groups such as FAIR.
Conclusion
If there is no acknowledgment of the pain and suffering of these hundreds of people then there will be no mechanism for them to "contribute to a changed society".
The implementation of the Agreement thus far has failed hundreds of victims/survivors.
The principle of equality has been completely absent in relation to the issue of victims.
Neither the British government nor any of its initiatives have tried to implement a policy of acknowledgment of the hurt caused. They have continued its policy of trying to hide that hurt and pain and to thwart all attempts to get at the truth.
Many of the participants have not shown that they believe it essential to acknowledge and address the suffering of the victims of violence as a necessary element of reconciliation.
Relatives for Justice acknowledges that all victims suffer equally.
|
