Ever since it became clear that the investigation of the historical crimes in Northern Ireland was uncovering some uncomfortable facts relating to the killing of innocent people by military personnel that, if justice is seen through to the end, could result in some former soldiers being convicted or murder, the mainstream media, together with a number of politicians, have been doing their best to stop it.

At the time of writing, MPs are about to debate the finding of a report surrounding Northern Irish fatalities involving British military personnel.

It is no surprise to find that the recommendation of the report is that the government enact a statute of limitations covering the troubles-related incidents, up to the signing of the 1998 Belfast agreement, which involved former members of the armed forces.

Alongside this, the committee recommends a truth and recovery mechanism that they say “would provide the best possible prospect of the bereaved families finding out the facts.”

In essence, what is being suggested is that former soldiers who were involved in the killings disclose the facts on why and how the victims were murdered and, in return, no further action would be taken.

While many will say this could be a good compromise, in reality, it is the government trying to defend members of the armed forces who may have committed criminal acts. Moreover, there is a danger that, should any cases end up in court, evidence may emerge implicating agencies of the government.

This proposal of a “statute of limitations” is a clear intent of the government, supported by the right-wing media, not just to prevent the families right to justice but to decide who should and shouldn’t get justice.
A

fter the 1985 Hillsbrough disaster, there was disinformation by the police and a smear campaign supported by sections of the media.

Despite these blatant lies, there was no desire by the Thatcher government to uncover the truth and set the record straight.
It took the Hillsborough families many years to clear the name of their loved ones.

In Ballymurphy in 1971, the victims were shot dead and what followed was disinformation by the British army.  

The events of conspiracy are similar — innocent people died and there was an attempt to cover up the truth and lay the blame on the victims.

In the case of Hillsborough, the police blamed the supporters for drinking alcohol and, in the case of Ballymurphy, the British army claimed they returned fire and those killed were members of the Irish Republican Army (IRA).

Families of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings deserve to know why the investigation was mishandled, resulting in the wrong people being convicted.

If that is achieved and they get justice, as they should, why then should justice be denied for the families of the 1971 McGurks bar bombing.

This investigation too was mishandled, but this time there appears to be a suggestion of collusion. All those killed in both bars were innocent people having a drink, why then should they be treated differently?

Despite Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s refusal of an inquiry, there is still an active campaign to find out the truth about the events in 1984 at Orgreave when mounted police baton-charged a crowd of striking miners.

The miners were exercising their right to strike and protest, yet many ended up injured and arrested. The allegations against South Yorkshire police include brutality, assault, wrongful arrest and fabrication of evidence. Because no-one died on that day doesn’t mean the families don’t deserve justice, does it?

On Bloody Sunday in January 1972, many people went on the civil rights march, which was again their right to do so. However, by the end of the day, many would lie dead and injured.

It wasn’t until publication of the Saville Report in 2010 that blame was laid squarely on the shoulders of the soldiers who fired.

Knowing this, should the families be denied justice for the murder of their loved ones?

The right-wing media would have us believe that all these incidents of injustice are different. To emphasise this point, they refer to former soldiers being questioned as “heroes” and call it a “witch-hunt.”

While it is true that some soldiers did perform heroic acts in Northern Ireland, it is a blatant lie to state as fact every soldier acted heroically, thereby diminishing the credit of those soldiers who should be classed as “heroes,” men like Michael Willetts, whose name may not be familiar to many people.

On May 25 1971, Willetts, serving with 3rd Parachute Regiment was on duty at Springfield Road police station when a man threw a suitcase into the lobby where two adults and two children were waiting.

Knowing he only had seconds to act, Willetts put the group of four into the corner of the room and positioned himself between them and the bomb — his action saved the lives of four people. Willetts, however, died from his injuries a few hours later.

For his bravery he was awarded posthumously the George Cross. I would suggest even the most hardened loyalist or republican would agree this was an selfless act of bravery.

Should we really be comparing the heroic actions of Willets to the paras responsible for the killings in Ballymurphy that left 11 innocent people dead, including priest Hugh Mullan? FatherMullan was holding a white cloth above his head while attending a wounded man. 

Can anyone reading these two stories seriously place these two soldiers, one who took a life by shooting a priest in the back and the other who sacrificed his own life for four people he never knew in the same “hero” category?

All of us supporting campaigns for justice, no matter if for the miners in Yorkshire, the Shrewsbury pickets, the 1976 Kingsmill massacre or the families of the 1994 Loughinland massacre, must not be taken in by this attempt by the mainstream media to separate those that the “state” supported or who it believes deserve justice and those that don’t.

We must unite to defend everyone’s right to seek truth and justice, regardless of political preference, class, race, religion, gender or if those responsible acted as agents of the Crown.

Many people have already been priced out of getting justice. Being denied it due to cost is one thing, but being refused justice as your right, I believe, is a step too far.