Victims urge boycott of new Troubles legacy body during protest at its office
Troubles victims urged other families bereaved in the Northern Ireland conflict to boycott a new legacy truth recovery and investigations body as they protested outside its office.
The demonstration at the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) in Belfast came on the first anniversary of the implementation of a legal guillotine that halted inquests and civil court cases linked to the Troubles.
That move came as part of the last UK government's contentious Legacy Act.
The Act established the ICRIR as an alternative mechanism for families seeking truth and justice about the deaths of their loved ones.
The body is headed up by former Northern Ireland Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan.
While the Labour government has vowed to repeal and replace parts of the Act and reinstate inquests and civil cases, it is retaining the ICRIR.
Many bereaved families are unhappy with the retention of the commission and have vowed not to engage with it.
Victims have questioned the body's independence and its ability to uncover answers about Troubles crimes.
Last year the Court of Appeal in Belfast part allowed an appeal taken against the Legacy Act, ruling there were breaches of both human rights law and the Windsor Framework that governs post-Brexit arrangements in Northern Ireland.
Among its findings, the court found that a Government veto power over what sensitive material can be disclosed to bereaved families by the ICRIR is unlawful.
The court also ruled that the ICRIR does not provide victims and their next of kin adequate means to participate in its processes.
The Government has appealed the case to the Supreme Court.
However, Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn has also vowed to make reforms to how the ICRIR operates.
Paddy Clarke, whose brother Joey was killed by loyalist paramilitaries in south Belfast in 1975, was among victims who addressed the event outside the ICRIR office.
He said his family has been searching for the truth for 50 years.
'Every time we get near the truth, or anything like it, the Government introduces some new bill to hide the truth from the families,' he said.
'And I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the ICRIR or any rings or bells they may put on it. The families know why it was introduced.
'They know it was introduced to protect the British Government, the state agents and the ex-veterans, to protect them, not to help the families.
'And I would say to the rest of the families to please do not get engaged with this ICRIR, it is only a charade.'
Gary Duffy's great uncle Ambrose Hardy was killed in the New Lodge area of north Belfast in 1973 in shootings involving the British Army.
An inquest into his death and five others killed in same incidents was halted due to the Legacy Act.
Mr Duffy, who is a solicitor, told the crowd on Thursday: 'We cannot accept the inquest ending and this matter being investigated by this ICRIR.
'Our families, and I think all families of victims, cannot trust the ICRIR, and we would call on the British Government to immediately reinstate all legacy inquests and end this insistence that families can proceed to the ICRIR.'
Grainne Teggart from Amnesty International also addressed the event. She said the Labour Government 'risks repeating the mistakes of its predecessors by choosing secrecy over transparency'.
'Today marks the one year anniversary of the Legacy Act's guillotine on truth,' she said.
'On the 1st of May last year the door slammed shut to victims seeking answers and accountability and the ICRIR, a body rejected by the victims here today, the very people it is supposed to serve, opened its doors.
'This body is no substitute for proper due process. The UK Government, like previous, is continuing a culture of impunity, denying families the truth and accountability to which they are entitled.
'We don't want empty words of claimed commitment to delivery for victims.
'We will judge this Government on its actions, and those actions demonstrate one thing – more delay, more obstruction, more litigation.
'Today, we say to the UK Government, we want urgent action, we want inquests for all, not just for some, and we want an end to the second-class treatment of those seeking accountability for the wrongs committed during the conflict.
'Instead of pursuing legal challenges, this Government must prioritise the parliamentary time needed to deliver legislation to replace the discredited Legacy Act.'
The ICRIR has been approached for comment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Doug Ford's Bill 5 is now law in Ontario. Here's what happens next
Now that Ontario's controversial Bill 5 is law, all eyes are on what Premier Doug Ford does with the new powers it gives his government. Bill 5, also called the Protecting Ontario by Unleashing Our Economy Act, empowers the government (among other things) to create special economic zones, where cabinet can exempt companies or projects from having to comply with any provincial law, provincial regulation or municipal bylaw. Ford pitches Bill 5 as a way of shoring up Ontario's economy in the face of Donald Trump's tariffs by speeding up major infrastructure and resource projects. Ford's officials insist the government won't exempt any company in a special economic zone from Ontario's minimum wage rules or other labour laws. But the wide-open way the legislation is written would allow cabinet to hand out exemptions from any law, whether labour, environmental or operational. Asked this week which laws he's considering overriding with Bill 5 — and whether any laws are off the table for such exemptions — Ford offered no specifics. WATCH | Your quick guide to Bill 5: "I just want to speed up the process," he said during a news conference on Thursday, moments after Bill 5 received Royal Assent, making it law. Ford then talked of how long it takes for a mine to get into production, an issue that is actually tackled in a different part of Bill 5: revisions to the Mining Act designed to shorten Ontario's approval process to two years from the current four years. Pressed again on which laws he would exempt companies from in the special economic zones, Ford said every situation is different. Ford wants to move 'as quickly as possible' "Let's see what companies come to the table, and depending on how quickly we can get opportunities and jobs, we'll reveal them," Ford said. Ford wants Ontario's first special economic zone to be the Ring of Fire mineral deposit, some 500 kilometres northeast of Thunder Bay, in the heart of Treaty 9 territory. The area is said to be full of so-called critical minerals, such as cobalt, lithium and nickel, in high demand for the tech industry. The premier said on Thursday that he wants to make the Ring of Fire a special economic zone "as quickly as possible" but has also said he won't do so without consulting with First Nations Energy and Mines Minister Stephen Lecce says the province is already "consulting meaningfully" with First Nations and will continue to do so over the coming months. "We're all going to be part of this endeavour to really listen to those voices and help build a common vision for responsible resource development that unlocks the bounty of the resource, to change the lives of northerners and to ensure Indigenous share in that bounty," Lecce said alongside Ford at Thursday's news conference inside Queen's Park. The skepticism from many First Nations leaders is palpable. The Chiefs of Ontario invited Ford to attend their annual assembly June 17 to 19 and sent Ford a message that his attendance would mark the start of consultations on Bill 5. "This legislation, introduced without prior consultation with First Nations rights holders, raises serious concerns due to its far-reaching implications on inherent Treaty rights and community obligations to the land, waters, and wildlife," says the invitation letter from Ontario Regional Chief Abram Benedict. The Chiefs of Ontario, the umbrella group representing more than 130 First Nations across the province, are warning of "resistance, on the ground, and in the courts" against Bill 5. WATCH | What the 'duty to consult' First Nations means for governments: One thing to watch for in the months to come is whether the provincial government's push to fast-track the Ring of Fire is replicated by the federal government. Ford put the Ring of Fire at the top of his list presented to Prime Minister Mark Carney for consideration as a potential nation-building project. Ford calls Carney 'Santa Claus' Carney asked all the premiers to come to last Monday's First Ministers Meeting in Saskatoon with their ideas of projects that would be "in the national interest," either by helping to diversify the Canadian economy or to reach new export markets. It's now up to Carney to decide which projects merit federal backing, whether through fast-track approvals or funding. Ford described Carney as Santa Claus for this approach. But to make the metaphor accurate, it means Ford and his fellow premiers have merely written their letters to Santa Claus, and they now have to wait until Christmas comes to find out whether Santa brings them what they asked for. The other items on Ford's list are also projects that could be designated special economic zones: new nuclear power plants, a new deep-sea port on James Bay, Ford's vision of a tunnel under Highway 401 through Toronto, and an expansion of the GO Transit network. If Carney endorses any of these, you can expect the Ford government will use its Bill 5 powers to speed up the process of moving that project from endorsement to reality. On Friday, Carney's Liberals tabled a bill in the House of Commons called the One Canadian Economy Act, designed in part to speed up the approval process of major infrastructure projects, a goal similar to Ontario's Bill 5. One line in the text of Bill 5 says its purpose is making Ontario "the best place in the G7 to invest, create jobs and do business." Economic Development, Job Creation and Trade Minister Vic Fedeli, whose chief role is attracting companies to the province, says investors around the world are hoarding capital in hopes of some economic certainty. Will Bill 5 attract investment? "That capital that's building up needs to unleash, and we want them to know that when they come to Ontario, it can be unleashed very quickly here," Fedeli said at the news conference alongside Ford and Lecce. Having Bill 5 powers on the books means Ontario could try to entice investors to set up shop in a special economic zone, but officials won't say whether that incentive is now being dangled at any particular companies. More questions remain on how exactly the government will use other powers it obtained through Bill 5, such as the power to ignore the independent scientific committee that determines whether a species is endangered or threatened in Ontario. You can expect a backlash from conservation groups whenever the government uses that power, for instance by scrapping measures that would protect the habitat of a species at risk. What's unknown is when, where and with what species the government will take such a step. Another 'watch this space' related to Bill 5: what happens with the expansion of a landfill on the edge of the southwestern Ontario town of Dresden, which the legislation exempts from having to go through a comprehensive environmental assessment. Local residents say they're not giving up their efforts to halt the project, while the company behind is welcoming the opportunity of "moving forward with our plan."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Musk gets it right — The big beautiful budget bill is a bust
For the first time in a long time, we find ourselves in agreement with Elon Musk, the drug-addled former DOGE commissar who last week left the federal government and now calls President Donald Trump's 'big beautiful bill' budget a 'disgusting abomination.' Musk's concerns are not the bill's slashing of important programs, but its bloat, which the Congressional Budget Office estimated would add a staggering $2.4 trillion to the deficit. He might have arrived at the right answer through the wrong process, but ultimately we can still welcome his opposition. Ditto to the ultra-conservative legislators whose worries are not the fact that the budget will massively reduce critical services for their own constituents, condemning a chunk of them to needless suffering and death — a consequence that Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst infamously scoffed at in a recent town hall — but that it spends too much. Fine, if they want to oppose the bill on that grounds, we'll take it. At the end of the day, there's something for everyone to dislike here in a bill that neither saves money — busy as it is with enormous giveaways to the rich, even as it slashes funding for programs ranging from housing assistance to scientific research — nor advance any cogent vision for the future of the country. Unfortunately, many voters treat this annual congressional budget fight as some distant sideshow that isn't worth their attention, but we hope that people, those that consider themselves apolitical or don't read the news much, realize that the consequences of this legislation absolutely will touch them, just as they'll touch everybody in the country. Let's just take some of the discretionary funding as an example: You do not have to personally receive Section 8 or Medicare for the cutting to impact you. You will ultimately pay for worse health outcomes overall, as newly uninsured people end up in emergency rooms. You'll pay for those who have lost their housing to end up in shelters. One day, it might even be you. You might not immediately see the effects of slashing funding to research on everything from agriculture to therapeutics, but it will affect your food and your health in long-term and unpredictable ways. All of this in service to no real objective other than taking apart the federal government from within. As we have often noted, there's no undo button; capacity that is destroyed cannot just be instantly rebuilt once we realize the grave consequences of those decisions. We are now at the moment when these consequences can and must be avoided. We hope that Democrats will stand united in using all procedural and political tools to combat this mess of a bill, and that some of their colleagues across the aisle will understand that they are headed towards a disaster that their constituents won't soon forget or forgive. Many of them are terrified that opposition will result in attacks from Trump and the threat of well-funded primaries by the same moneyed interests that stand the most to gain. Yet they should be as or more concerned about the impact against the people that they have pledged to represent, and how those people will react once the fullness of the bill's destruction becomes clear. It's time to have a spine. _____
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Peers vote to defy government over copyright threat from AI
Defiant peers have delivered an ultimatum to the government – calling on it to offer artists copyright protection against artificial intelligence companies or risk losing a key piece of legislation. The government suffered a fifth defeat in the House of Lords over controversial plans to allow the AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material. Peers voted by 221 to 116 on Wednesday to insist on an amendment to force AI companies to be transparent about what material they use to train their models. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning Elton John Speaking at an awards event after the vote, Elton John said copyright protection was an 'existential issue' for artists and urged the government 'to do the right thing'. He added: 'We will not let the government forget their promise to support our creative industries. We will not back down and we will not quietly go away. This is just the beginning.' Wednesday night's vote prolongs a lengthy standoff between the Commons and Lords over the data bill, which has been used as a vehicle by campaigners to oppose the government's proposed copyright reforms. Resistance to the changes in the Lords has been led by Beeban Kidron, a cross-bench peer and film director, whose amendments have been repeatedly backed by the upper chamber. The data bill now faces the prospect of being shelved unless the Commons accepts the Kidron amendment or proposes an alternative. Maggie Jones, the Lords minister for the digital economy and online safety, had urged peers to vote against the Kidron amendment after the government offered last-minute concessions in an attempt to stave off another defeat. Before the vote, Jones said peers were 'choosing whether they want the entire bill to fall' and that by voting for Kidron's amendment they would 'countenance the unprecedented – to try to collapse a bill that does nothing to weaken copyright law' but included other important measures including to combat sexually explicit deepfake images. Kidron told peers: 'This is our last chance to ask the government to provide a meaningful solution' and urged ministers to set out concrete steps to subject AI companies to copyright rules. 'It is not fair, not reasonable, not just, balanced or any other such word to stand in the way of the creative industries identifying those who are taking their work or their property. It is not neutral – it is aiding and abetting what we have called in the house widespread theft. 'We have asked privately and repeatedly on the floor of both houses what is the government going to do to stop the work of creatives from being stolen right now? The answer is nothing.' Several peers pushed back against the suggestion that the Lords' move was unprecedented and said the government was itself breaking precedent by not compromising. Tim Clement-Jones, the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for the digital economy, offered his party's 'staunch support' for Kidron's amendment. The Lords' move puts the data bill in double insistence territory. This means the Commons and Lords cannot reach agreement over legislation. In this scenario, under parliamentary convention, the bill would fall unless ministers accept the rebel amendment or offer an alternative. A bill falling is extremely rare but not without precedent – it happened to the European parliamentary elections bill in the 1997-98 session. Under parliamentary convention, the Commons has primacy as the elected house, and in rare instances where the Lords refuses to back down ministers can resort to the Parliament Act to pass the bill in the next parliamentary session. This would significantly delay the legislation. In concessions offered to peers on Tuesday night, the government said it would commit to publishing further technical reports on the future of AI and copyright regulation and do so within nine months instead of 12. 'A number of noble Lords have voiced concerns during ping-pong that the government is not listening. This is simply not the case,' Jones said in her letter, reiterating that ministers regretted the way the Lords rebels had gone about the changes. Jones stressed that the data bill was expected to generate £10bn of economic benefit by updating data protection law and that it would improve online safety, including by strengthening powers to ask social media companies to preserve data after the death of a child. Kidron said: 'It is in the gift of the government to accept the amendment, or put something meaningful in its place. They have failed to listen to the Lords, they have failed to listen to the creative sector, they have failed to listen to their own backbenchers.' Under the government's proposals, AI companies would be allowed to train their models using copyrighted work without permission unless the owner opts out. The plans have been fiercely criticised by creators and publishers including high-profile artists such as Paul McCartney and Tom Stoppard. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, has said he regretted the decision to launch a consultation on changing copyright law with the opt-out system as the 'preferred option'. Campaigners against the changes believe that there is resistance inside Downing Street to making more substantial concessions.
