Introduction: Justice
Ruth Hutchinson

Comment: Be Not Deceived...
David McMillan

From the Director
David Porter

From Just Us to Justice
Duncan Morrow

Right Relationships or Justice
Brian Lennon

The Truth, the Whole Truth
Alwyn Thomson

Walking for Ministers
Graham Cheesman

Dealing with the Pain
David Bolton

The Case for Human Rights
Martin O’Brien

What’s Wrong with Rights?
Alwyn Thomson

< Past Issues Archive

DEALING WITH THE PAIN OF SHARED TRAGEDY
In two earlier contributions for Lion & Lamb ( Victims of Violence, Jan/Feb 1997 pp 4-5; and Affliction: Why the afflicted should have a say in peace making , Mar/Apr 1997 pp 3-5) I reflected upon the needs of those who have been afflicted by violence, and put forward some ideas as to how, as part of the means of addressing the consequences of our conflict, we could collectively acknowledge the losses and sufferings of the past years. In this article I would like to tease out in some more detail some of the issues which now face us concerning those affected by violence. I am not speaking on behalf of these people, but speak from a position where I have been exposed over a number of years, at times in very intense ways, to the consequences of our conflict. I firmly believe that, if we are really to address our conflicts, and experience a wider and deeper healing, then the needs of individuals, neighbourhoods and communities affected by violence, must be addressed as part of a wholesome response to our predicament. It will not be enough to brush things under the carpet, or to put our seeds of hate on the shelf for another generation to sow.

The Impact of the Troubles

Those of us who have been affected by violence through bereavement, injury, trauma, intimidation and harassment, will respond to our experiences differently. This is true when one individual is compared with another, but it is also true to say that most of us will respond differently over time. How often have those who have been bereaved reported the waves of grief that overwhelm them, in between periods when they seem to be stronger and coping better?

The experience of tragic loss, injury and trauma in the context of violence adds different dimensions to suffering. That is not to say that others who have suffered through experiences not associated with our Troubles, do not also have particular dimensions to their experiences and needs. Take for example those bereaved or injured through road traffic accidents, children who experience child abuse, or personal violence such as rape or domestic violence? These experiences give rise to profound experiences of loss and trauma, and are equally worthy of our concern as a community. I feel it is important to stress this, so that we do not forget others who suffer, and that we allow the lessons we learn from dealing with the consequences of the Troubles to bring benefit to others, now and in the future. Also, by specifically addressing the consequences of the Troubles, we will create a healthier and more wholesome community for all.

There are perhaps two dimensions of the experience of those who have suffered through our civil conflict which are relevant to this article. The first is the fact that the circumstances of a person’s death, injury or trauma are inextricably linked to how they feel about that experience and its consequences. In an earlier contribution to Lion & Lamb it was noted:

“It is not alone the fact that someone has been killed, but also the manner of their death, that is significant. The fact of someone’s death in these awful circumstances cannot be separated from the means of their death. Death and injury, caused by human intention and action, brings with it complications and adds to the experience of victimisation of the one who suffers. For many, they have known multiple deaths and injuries, where the sorrows of one experience are overtaken by the next. So people who mourn or who nurse within them the disability and pain of injury, experience their loss within the context of the violence. The violence, its causes and its history, are to some extent the framework within which they understand their loss.” (Jan/Feb 1997 pp 4-5)

So the basis on which we adjust to experiences of violence will depend in good measure on what happens in response to the act of violence. By that I mean things like accountability, acknowledgment and experiences of what I call personal justice, that inner need for explanation, understanding, acknowledgment and perhaps even for someone to say they are sorry for what they did. The goals of this personal justice need to be seen separate from civic, judicial or political justice, which also have their part to play.

The second dimension relates to what happens as part of the political process in response to needs of those who have suffered through violence. To explain this further, it seems to me that the response we make, and the political process makes, in response to the consequences of the Troubles, is of utmost importance to the well being of those who have survived them. It is vital therefore that as part of our political settlement a response is made to acknowledge, address and where possible redress the impact and consequences of the civil violence. That, at least to some, may sound like an obvious statement to make. However, I have heard it said in respectable company that we need to forget or bury the past, including the impact of the violence, so that we can move forward. Now I understand the reasons for such views. They reflect a fear that dwelling on the past, including the suffering will prohibit us from making peace with each other. I do not agree with such views, believing that ways can be found to enable the needs of victims to be understood, acknowledged and addressed in ways which will be immediately helpful for them and wholesome for the wider community. Take as an example the BBC Radio Ulster series Legacy.

Some parts of our community have responded to the needs of victims by focusing on the political or judicial dimensions of their experiences. That is not to say that these elements aren’t important. On the contrary those issues, too, need to be addressed. The problem is, in my view, that as the victims of our conflict have not been served well by our community and its institutions and interests. Their common human needs have not been at all adequately addressed. By that I mean, chiefly, the need for care and services in relation to injury, pain, disability, mental distress, trauma and bereavement. This neglect has no doubt for some fuelled experiences of injustice. As a result the attention to political and judicial issues for many represents the first kindly response to the experience of victims. Others, who have not had any support worth talking about, may see the avenue of political and judicial campaigning as the only means of addressing their needs, (which must include a significant experience of injustice).

In reflecting on this I am reminded of William Booth’s statement that went something like this, “You cannot fill a man’s soul until you first fill his stomach.” It seems to me that we have not adequately addressed the common human needs of the victims of violence and have focused in certain situations more on the less tangible dimensions of the victims’ experiences. Sometimes I think I hear victims saying, “Yes, I am grateful for your interest and your desire to represent the injustice that has been done to me and my family. But you have missed the point. I'm not ready for that yet. I have other more immediate needs.” The politicisation of victims has been amplified by the disagreement between those supporting the Good Friday Agreement and those opposing it. It is significant that since the Agreement was struck, a number of groups have emerged to articulate the interests of victims, from whom little has been heard up until recently. The fact that previously silent voices are being heard is to be welcomed, but the timing and circumstances raise concerns. The development has arisen partly in response to the early release of prisoners, one of the more evident and controversial manifestations of the Agreement. The intensified focus on compensation for victims arises in good measure from the apparent tangible benefits experienced by prisoners who qualify for early release. Whilst the Agreement makes significant reference to the needs of the victims of violence, expressed in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield’s report, We Will Remember Them (May 1998), there is a feeling that, at least for the moment, the issue of victims is on a back burner as far as the main stream political process is concerned.

Why have we left it till now?

We have not been good at recognising and addressing the consequences of the violence. We have buried our heads in the sand to a very great extent. That is, I believe, true of our whole community and our various statutory, religious and other institutions and organisations. The reasons, I believe, include the following.

1. Partly it has been due to the business-as-usual mentality which in many ways has sustained us. If we had let our guard down or ‘given up’ it would have been more difficult to survive. In acknowledging our distress we would have allowed those who attacked us to have won. We would have been finally vanquished if we had asked for help, and the assailants and their organisations would have triumphed.
2. Second, no sooner had we experienced one incident we were on to the next. It would have been intolerable to allow ourselves to be consumed by each loss or tragedy.
3. Then there was the difficulty in asking for help. Many did not know where to turn and, in a world full of uncertainty and mistrust, it was hard to trust even those to whom we might look for help. In a divided community, seeking help that might come from someone from the other community, was not an option for many.
4. There has also been the personally or externally imposed silence. This has at times been the silence within a community, mistrust and fear being the main driver. Additionally, parents have imposed silence on their children (whatever you say, say nothing) and at times a similar pressure has been exerted by key groups and individuals in communities.
5. Related to this is the politeness, which is such a feature of our community. This politeness masks and hides the conflict and its consequences. It was easier to get along with your work mates if the terrible atrocity of the night before remains unmentioned.
6. The uncomfortableness of each incident, at times created a great dilemma. This exemplified itself in the decision about whether or not to go to a funeral. Going to a funeral sent a signal to others that we took a position; staying away from a funeral did likewise. So we chose to respond in ways other than those we would have preferred.
7. As part of the normalisation of the conflict, we tried to deal with it and its consequences by normal means. We dealt with the abnormal, in normal ways. This response pervaded our whole community.
8. Related to that is the consideration, that in so far as emotional and psychological needs are concerned, we did not know much about them, thirty, twenty or even ten years ago. However, our understanding of such issues and our access to information has come a long way. I still feel however, that we need a stronger commitment to using it. Northern Ireland could have been at the forefront of researching and developing ways to help people affected by traumatic events, much like we have been in response to the surgical needs of people affected by the troubles. We have not done this. It has been too hot to handle and we have left it undone.

The situation is now changing. The issue of victimhood is out in the open. This has primarily been due to the efforts of those who have articulated the experience of those afflicted by violence, including the various voluntary and political initiatives, and various reports and studies such as the Bloomfield Report, the ‘Cost of the Troubles’ studies and the Social Services Inspectorate Report Living with the Trauma of the Troubles (April 1998). Political developments have also brought the issue of victims centre stage, although some would say more as an after-thought than as a primary plank in the process.

Addressing the impact of the conflict

As a result of the changing climate in relation to the impact of the violence the opportunity now exists to properly address the human needs of those who have been afflicted. By that I mean issues of physical injury, disability, chronic pain, trauma and bereavement. I believe there is an important opportunity for our community to recognise collectively that these needs should be addressed, focusing especially on the needs of children and those who have been traumatised by their experiences. The agenda has been largely set for us through the Victims’ Commission Report We Will Remember Them (The Bloomfield Report op cit) which is required reading for any one with an interest in or responsibility for addressing the impacts of the Troubles.

The politicisation of victims, without a complimentary effort to address their common human needs, could significantly distort the response to victims in the long term. The unresolved justice needs of various individuals and groups will have to be addressed, but some initiatives in this regard, I fear, have been embarked upon for primarily political, as opposed to humanitarian, purposes. It is about balance and sequencing, and about what is achievable. With a commitment to addressing issues of justice in the fullness of time, possibly through some type of forum or restorative justice mechanism, could we not now agree that the common human needs of all who suffer pain, loss, disability, trauma and bereavement should be addressed?

Also, there is a proper place for victims in the political process. To have it otherwise would be unthinkable. There is now a degree of urgency in the rudimentary Assembly bringing forward political arrangements based on humanitarian considerations which will address the needs of victims and the wider human consequences of our conflict. This should be in the form of a cross party agreement, underpinned by the aspiration that, in addressing the consequences of the violence, a significant contribution will be made to resolving our quarrel and to addressing the human and social consequences for this and future generations. We also need, amongst other things:

a commitment across our community to address the consequences of the violence;

an integrated interdepartmental response at governmental level right down to local operational level;

community education and healthy lifestyle initiatives to raise awareness and develop personal and local responses to the consequences of violence;

arrangements to support the work of voluntary and community groups tackling the consequences of violence including longer term core funding;

arrangements to establish standards in pastoral work and counseling and other therapies.

There are vital humanitarian and social reasons for addressing the consequences of the violence, because if we do not, many will continue to suffer unnecessarily or with greater intensity, and this in turn will contribute to greater levels of ill health and social problems. Unresolved, the human and social consequences of the last 30 years will act as a source of poison, damaging the common good, leading to a lack of social responsibility, and amongst other things, a rise in corruption and organised crime. Preparing for, and living at peace will be as hard a day's work as coping with the Troubles.

David Bolton - Director of Social Work with the Sperrin Lakeland Trust, which has been addressing, with other organisations and individuals, the consequences of the Omagh bombing of August 1998. David has been working on the human and social consequences of the civil violence ever since his involvement in the aftermath of the Remembrance Day bombing in Enniskillen, in November 1987. He is a former Chairperson of the Fermanagh District Partnership for Peace & Reconciliation.