The Attorney General for Northern Ireland. A place in the future.
Some have described the proposals made by the AG for NI as advocacy for controlling Governance and diminishing returns.
What are the implications and what do the proposals bring?
The Attorney General for Northern Ireland. A place in the future.
He places himself as an insightful legal advisor. Taking his legal expertise as given it is desirable to place a measure of morality and ethics on the concepts he imagines being examined. Immediately in his statements he sets out there is no historical role for judiciary in reaching conclusions. The AG then puts forward a conclusion that the odds are stacked against the state in being able to hold to account through inquests anyone other than the state. This separates at a stage which the law presently cannot divide the legislative base, in which a chief criminal participant, the state derived collusion and manipulation of events is subjugated for the purposes of containment.
Clearly there is a secondary collusion at play when you can eradicate the past by legislating yourself into the protections of the state. Those outside victims and the public generally are assuaged, he believes, by the promise of more openness. Instead of advocating an openness which obtains truth instead of cover up and self protection he uses the law to disassociate the deeds from the perpetrators and their need to face justice and accountability by information ‘plus’ as though it were a software upgrade.
He is entitiled to conceive of such things but is not entitled to offer them as an interlocater whose concept is to go to the compartment in the cathedrals of government where the relics are kept, and decide with the lock keepers which of those items are for public exhibition. It is a feudal approach and does not fit in 21st century values of accountability. The safeguards are corrupted immediately by this purported justice procedure and or proposal.
The view expressed by the AG that ‘plet at’ the Good Friday Agreement 1998, is that criminal prosecutions of Paramilitaries, Police, Army and other self motivated perpetrators of violence and criminality should be off limits and is as such, an off-field political hegemony element. It is a political act not based on ethics or morality. The decision is directed also from beyond this AG policy building. It is building block necessitated by Hass intervention, itself a loaded agenda.
A state advisor speaking outside of the state role and not on behalf of the plebiscite is problematic as it contains in its offering several preordinates. now we have so called peacemakers and progenitors forming agendas outside democracy with the intent and appearance there is a natural organic process in play. That is itself an untruth.
Where are the frameworks of the legal arguments?
For a rule or order to become an act it first must derive a function, an origin.
In our circumstances it is for our resolution of the past in order for it to afford as much as can be achieved an unblemished future.
The future being cast is one where the blemishes, the horrors are buried. They are unmitigated generational conceits of contrition.
Conciously this state of mind would primarily be sought through the divisions we have preset as human beings.
Our precocious contains all ideas and memories.
Our unconscious desires and wishes.
The active reality contains the minds reality.
The activities of the mind, for that is what the AG concerns himself with to the exclusion of remitting truth, is extemporising or even extrapolating outcomes foreseen on matters unadvanced. This is the view taken. It is not Law but a political act.
The concern being of achieving adapted reality to appease a generation and enable the present forms of living and to obliterate deceased memory, the process envisaged becomes a tampering with the history not uncovered and is to be concealed, hidden and left in the dirty margins.
It is an appeasement to avoid reality not to confront it. The reality of memories through suppression of truth by a dominating principle is no further advancement than the so called Eames-Bradley extemporisation. It had also, it’s moribund state says as much neglected to tell state actors they at all costs must disclose their known and recorded history. The relation to cost of truth is a matter best left once revealed to the creator as Robin Eames ought to have mentioned. The reconciliation then can become conclusive.
It always shall and should be an act of producing truth accounting. In the broader sense Robin Eames will be aware of the ‘oikos’, of creations household, that we are not apart from it and experience each of us the ‘koinonia’ driving us as human beings and also neither belonging to either woman or man alone. An equality of the individual in the wholeness of world community.
Instead it is in the AGs view sufficient to obtain partial and proportionate truth. Neither ethics nor morality have a part in it according to the AG it would seem.
A principle predicated by the foreclosure of guilt and investigation places no principle, no burden of criminality, on perpetrators of violent acts ‘plet at’. There is on ‘plet at’ for victims and their families. Their burden is carried only by them and that is a burden far beyond the ultimate burden given to most.
The view stated not only goes beyond the realms of Human Rights; erroneously the AG has expressed a need for legislation ” in London and probably (sic.) Dublin, not just Stormont, because “the theatre of the troubles extends beyond this jurisdiction”.
This is setting a base for how the world view enters. I have some idea from where it is directed and it is not from a basis of democratic integrity, far from it.
The only element I agree with here is it authored atrocity, ‘extends’ but in the reality it reached definitions of terrorism on a global scale setting copycat lines of depravity, even introducing new depravities such as car bombings to a world recovering from state terrorism in breaches of civil rights across continents. The expendability of life has been a war tool on many frontiers and civil battles but it reached and authored new strategies unadvanced in civil society here in NI.
So Strasbourg, alert given, heads up from what direction is debatable, is the outreach boundary yet inconceivably this is view has in places attached itself to South African hour able facilities which have re-traumatised generations and enhanced differences beyond present comprehension. There is contradiction in using the word Amnesty. On one part it “has been legally defined twice” no less by Strasbourg.
It is “not a de facto Amnesty” so wish fulfillment and gainsaying is for those who will not face justice because a court has decided it is unnecessary.
The substantiation is that the evidence shall be curtailed by previous dispensations which this view seeks to top and tail.
That is a piecemeal reading in any case.
So ill fitted to justice, neither historical nor criminal, this judgement is not a settlement nor natural on any level. It sets a trap for victims and families of victims of violence ensnaring them while they look upon the hideous failure to pursue criminality through all available means. Then it fastens into histories for the further mythologies to appear. And to think fictional accounts such as ‘Game of Thrones’ shore up the new lifeblood running through this wonderful location. The analogy may be weak but the reality is what it is for all it’s poverty of thoughtfulness.
All available means would include full disclosure of state documents, confessions of perpetrators, a bullet from the remains of a disappeared person, a testament from a suppressed confession and one not made evident such as the Claudy bombing.
Trauma and wounds are and will remain an active and unconscious force in our society if this is not dealt with in the natural and proper manner and it will continue to be motivating behaviour until the fullest out working of investigation and information gatherIng is manifested.
For this the Attorney General for Northern Ireland has no abreaction.
The insufficiency of “plet al” platitudes in the cause of the unexplained is suspectiblly subordinate to state controls and meters.
How else would such views manifest?
When a woman who got out of bed as a child remains traumatised as her memory of her father covered in blood, dead on the doorstep of her childhood home, while now still being denied truth and intervention after so many years, it cannot assuage the further trauma and abuse this amounts to.
Those who did not carry ou such atrocities and who are linked by implication and inclusion among those who did and whose protection the Attorney General advocates is not an acceptable nor ultimately humane answer.
21 November 2013