image David Cameron’s response to the findings of the Saville Inquiry was pretty good. It’s not every day a British Prime Minister effectively admits that one of his army’s elite units was a murderous rabble. The response he got from the crowd in front of the big screens in Derry showed they were happy enough with his comments.

Then by way of contrast you’ve got Democratic Unionist MP Gregory Campbell, a man so concerned about the state of the public finances that he also draws a salary from the Stormont Assembly. That’s him in the photo with Miss Norn Iron.

Campbell is one of that breed of loyalist politicians who conveys a strong impression that any cop or British soldier should be allowed to summarily execute any Fenian who gives a dirty look or drops litter in a public place. When large numbers of Fenians take to the streets he’d be pretty relaxed if an army unit were to re-enact the Amritsar massacre. This may not be what’s in his heart but it’s certainly in his tone.

He took the trouble to offer his opinion on Saville’s findings about the mass murder that took place in his city. From most politicians you’d expect some platitude about sympathy for the families and the shocking loss of innocent life. A tongue in cheek comment about how even law enforcers must be held accountable by society wouldn’t have been out of place.

Hypocritical comments are not the Campbell way. He doesn’t actually say that the Parachute Regiment should have murdered a lot more than thirteen but if you can listen to the silence it’s in there.

He makes two points.

The first is that an awful lot of money was spent on a bunch of dead Taigs. That’s true. But if Widgery hadn’t been such a screaming pack of lies it wouldn’t have been necessary.

His second point is that many more people were killed and this inquiry puts the Derry victims at the top of a hierarchy. It’s certainly given them a lot of posthumous attention but when agents of the state commit mass murder in public it’s only right that society holds them to account. Campbell would favour the El Salvadorian or Israeli approach to state murder. The British Army would too but on this occasion it was brought to book. However it did get away with a lot of other murders and arming the loyalist death squads’ campaigns.

We’ll have to assume that Campbell’s comments were gauged to please his electorate. Yet even the most ardent Fenian hater should feel slightly relieved that the state can be made to give a largely honest account of its crimes from time to time.

6 responses to “The moral grandeur of Gregory Campbell”

  1. Firstly, although Cameron will no doubt do everything in his power to support those elements in state and judiciary who oppose any prosecution of the soldiers involved, I have to admit that I was impressed by his statement to the Commons. It pains me to admit it, but there you are. And somehow I can’t imagine Brown or Blair being quite so forthright had the report come out on their watch.

    Secondly, it was interesting to see army figures coming out straight away to start muddying the water and trying to tone down the implications of the enquiry’s findings. Don’t think the military are happy with this…not at all happy. The next few days will be interesting.

    Finally, I was moved by the comments made by the families of the people who died. Never thought I’d live to see the day when the Brit government owned up to this, so can’t imagine how those directly involved must be feeling.

    Like

  2. You are much to soft on Cameron. Everyone knew from the start what happened on Bloody Sunday. “Unjustified killing”? Course they wouldn’t call it what it was – murder. “That is an issue for the courts”. The Brit establishment went as far as they needed to in order to quieten their critics – a report 38 years later. They well know it won’t come to court unless as private prosecutions and those famillies considering this will be under hugh pressure to “move on”.

    No sanction either for the commanders who ordered it or the “counter insurgency” spooks who planned it. Peoples across the world (India, Kenya, Aden, Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan) know the real meaning of Brit “peacekeeping”. They won’t be fooled by Cameron’s “few bad apples” tale.

    Like

  3. You’re right Padraic. I was much too soft on Cameron and the whole process.

    At the time of writing I’d heard the part of his statement condemning the actions of soldiers on the day. I’d not heard the section in which he exonerated the British and northern states.

    The political outcome of the killings was that the mass civil rights movement was gunned off the streets to be replaced with a more containable armed struggle. That was a big victory for the imperialists and a powerful illustration of what they were and are prepared to do.

    If “soldier F” and the other killers had been aberrant psychopaths the British Army would have found a way to chuck them out. Instead they were allowed to remain as serving soldiers and their officers were decorated. This was the case in subsequent murders of civilians. It even happened with the officer responsible for the execution of Jean Charles de Menezes. The state gives explicit permission to kill with these gestures.

    Bernadette McAliskey makes the point:

    “My political analysis had until then discounted any real belief – despite the long history of Anglo-Irish conflict – that the British government would countenance killing the people in order to suppress the protests. Now that it had happened, it made sense to me that it had always been going to happen and would continue; it was fundamental to the nature of the British state in Ireland. I felt I should have known that, and now I did, I was still up for the fight.

    The key impact of Bloody Sunday was that a whole generation made a similar analysis and this fuelled some 25 years of violent political conflict, at least tolerated by the majority of the “minority population” and actively pursued by a significant but sustainable minority. It is responsibility for this legacy that sets Bloody Sunday apart from subsequent atrocities on all sides.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/15/bloody-sunday-british-government-soldiers

    The families are understandably happy that their relatives have been exonerated but the report ducks the big issue that the British Army is an instrument of imperialist control staffed by people ready to kill and torture on a whim.

    Like

  4. One can only sense that the Saville enquiry was an effort to appease all sides and use the Para’s on the ground as scape goats. Much emphasis was placed on anaylsing the conditions on the ground surrounding that fateful day.

    If this was done why was no attention paid to the ultimate decision makers within the corridors of power in Stormont and Whitehall in ’72. And why will none of them be brought to account for their actions?

    The term unjustified instead of murder and the ‘drawing of a line’ under the events means effectively that the chapter in our history is firmly closed.
    Or will it be?
    http://bit.ly/dsLIwD

    Like

  5. James is right that the enquiry’s refusal to point the finger at the ultimate decision makers, the attempt to draw a line and move on and other equivocations were part of its terms of reference.

    It’s also clear though that they had to agree to an enquiry of some sort however fudged due to the continued camapign for justice and this is a victory of sorts that even a government enquiry designed to at least partially cover up the truth had to recognise that the killings were unlawful.

    In that sense the continuing struggle helps keep alive the fight for justice and the condemnation of British imperialism and its deliberate targeted murder of those who oppose it whether on the streets of Derry or Basra or anywhere else

    Like

Leave a comment

Trending