Northern Ireland ‘recognition payments’: whose lives are worth £12,000?
Posted on Thursday 29 January, 2009
Filed Under Ireland
I CANNOT imagine what sum of money could possibly make up for permanent blindness in one eye. But where someone suffers that outcome as a result of a workplace accident, compensation is set at a minimum of £31,500, plus an additional sum for loss of earnings. The court may even decide on a further amount, which varies in line with the impact on the victim’s lifestyle.
If that’s the yardstick, where does that leave the £12,000 on offer by way of ‘recognition payment’ to the families of the 3,700 people who died in four decades of political violence in Northern Ireland?
And is any payment whatsoever rightly due to the relatives of deliberate killers? Can it possibly be right to make a straightforward equation between the life of a paramilitary killed ‘on active service’ and the life of a teenage British squaddie of limited political horizons, an RUC man who frequented the Orange Lodge in his time off, a Saturday afternoon shopper with no involvement with either the state or any armed faction, or come to that, a toddler?
Pondering these issues now, I cannot help but remember that when I first became involved in politics in the 1980s, the British left took sides in all this. Many activists – including those who have since reinvented themselves as libertarian media brats – were uncritical cheerleaders for the IRA, ready to justify any Republican action, however bloody the consequences.
For my part, I lined up with that section of the Labour left, headed by Ken Livingstone, which cultivated ties with Sinn Fein. While we hedged our support for ‘the armed struggle’ in ‘the six county statelet’ with this or that qualification, nobody in principle doubted that the IRA had some sort of moral right to utilise ‘the armalite’ as well as the ballot box against the British army.
Reconsidering the question nearly 30 years on, I still understand the logic of that position. But there my ethical certainties end. The scenario does not now reduce itself in my mind to good guy freedom fighters versus Brit baddies and their local sidekicks, with the odd kiddie getting blown to smithereens by way of unfortunate collateral damage. Everything was far more complex than that.
And that brings us to the practical point in terms of the Consultative Group on the Past’s deliberations. Such was the manner in which the low intensity conflict was fought out in Northern Ireland that a pick and mix approach to recognition payments is untenable.
The arguments over whether or not any particular group of paramilitaries fought with just cause, and over whether or not there was moral equivalence between the paramilitaries and state forces, can never be resolved to general satisfaction. Recognition money has to go to all, or to nobody at all. Anything else remains just too divisive.
But it is worth noting that at £12,000, the cash sum is only twice what you can expect if your boss is to blame for your fractured arm. In what remains one of the poorest parts of Europe, it seems that this is compensation – sorry, I should say ‘recognition’ – enough.
<<Go back
Comments
13 Responses to “Northern Ireland ‘recognition payments’: whose lives are worth £12,000?”
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
“In what remains one of the poorest parts of Europe”
On what do you base this assertion? In terms of GDP per capita NI isn’t even the poorest part of the UK.
nobody in principle doubted that the IRA had some sort of moral right to utilise ‘the armalite’ as well as the ballot box against the British army.
Reconsidering the question nearly 30 years on, I still understand the logic of that position.
Do you really? So you’re still quite cool with innocent civilians having died in a pointless war, with the combatants funded by foreigners, then? One where the hidden agenda of the combatants was financial advantage, not the noble stated aims of the conflict?
I suppose this is why the left doesn’t see any problem with idolising murderers like Stalin or Guevara: “Yes, people were killed, but they were killed in a cause of which we approve, so that’s OK.” It’s only when people are killed in a cause of which they do not approve that they suddenly become all pacifist.
Personally, I find it all a teensy bit hypocritical.
“Recognition money has to go to all, or to nobody at all.”
You must be joking, surely! To suggest that there is even the slightest hint of equivalence between innocent families being murdered and terrorists being killed while engaging in terrorism is nothing short of lunacy. Recognition and compensation should go to innocent victims, not perpetrators.
In personal injury claims, isn’t there a concept of contributionary negligence? A person blown up carrying a bomb has surely contributed to their own demise?
This also applies to kids who go out to play in Gaza, of course. Little idiots who go out on bikes when Israel is ‘defending itself’ and get blown to bits by a missile are responsible for their own deaths. Why should their parents get a brass farthing either?
Letters from a Tory,
Recognition and compensation should go to innocent victims, not perpetrators.
I imagine deciding who was an innocent victim wouldn’t be a divisive exercise raising tensions in the region at all.
I’m guessing that the second comment from ‘Sue R’ is not in fact from Sue R.
Sorry, Darren, if I’ve disappointed you, but I can’t abide random violence.
Sue
So you can’t abide random violence but consider children who get killed playing on their bikes ‘idiots’ being ‘blown to bits’ ‘responsible’ for their own deaths ?
Well for a start thats not exactly logical as surely you should not ‘abide’ them being killed, or is it only random violence you object to and the killing of children is ok as its ‘defence’? Surely non random deaths of children shouldn’t be abided ?
Seems you have more in common with Punchie and his ra raing of killing that we thought.
Do you actually consider yourself a socialist ?
@Stroppybird It’s completely wrong to, in anyway, confuse what I say with the utter reactionary rubbish from Sue R (and it’s not the first time Sue R has come out with such right wing stuff).
I say violent struggle will be necessary. Any supporter of the government agrees with me (but, hypocritically, often won’t admit it) albeit we are supporting different sides. And also any ‘Leninist’ likewise does unless they think the Bolsheviks were pacifists (and there are also many hypocrites amongst them as well). I am also pleased when killers get their just desserts although think that is usually just a side issue.
How that puts me in common with Sue R’s comments (and I don’t actually also thinks she is celebrating the death of these kids, just saying they deserve it) is beyond any kind of logical analysis.
A bit of bona fide liberal handwringing Dave. Tsk!
These payments, although they have upset the loyalists, are one of the less consequential elements of the imperial settlement in the north. What is much more significant is the co-option of Sinn Fein into the colonial administration.
Letters from a Tory writes:
Recognition and compensation should go to innocent victims, not perpetrators.
So you will be supporting compensation for those, on the Bloody Sunday march, shot by the Brits?
A bit of Brendan Behan’s wisdom would do your mind good:
“The terrorist is the man with the small bomb”
PS: I read Sue R’s reference to “Little idiots who go out on bikes when Israel is ‘defending itself’ and get blown to bits..” as sarcastic rather than condemnatory. Was I mistaken?
Eek!!! I’ve just seen the travesty of a comment that was written in my name! Still, they do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But, whoever wrote it is a dickhead.