The British parliament has voted to scrap conditional immunity for those accused of crimes during the Troubles. The Remedial Order amends the Legacy Act 2023, brought in by the Conservative government largely as a cynical means of shelving cases against British army veterans. The Order passed by a margin of 373-106. It is only the 11th time since World War 2 that MPs have used such a measure to amend legislation.
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Hilary Benn said:
It is now beyond doubt that that last attempt—the legacy Act—whatever its intentions, fundamentally failed. It failed because it has been found in many respects to be incompatible with our human rights obligations; the legislation simply did not work on its own terms.
But even more importantly, it failed because it did not command any support in Northern Ireland among victims and survivors or the political parties.
Benn described voting in favour of amendment as a “legal necessity”, after Belfast’s High Court determined in 2024 that the Legacy Act contravened the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It is true that the Conservative’s attempt at sweeping decades of crimes under the carpet received widespread hostility from across the political spectrum in the North of Ireland.
Reactionaries seek continued war on the law
Politicians on all sides opposed the inability of victims’ families to seek justice, with immunity from prosecution available to anyone who provides evidence to a truth and reconciliation body. However, the likes of the Democratic Unionist Party’s (DUP) Sammy Wilson, still denounced Benn for “removing protections” from veterans, seemingly keen to have them exist as a protected class.
He went on to describe those seeking justice for British state crimes as waging a:
…continued terrorist campaign conducted not through guns, not through bombs and not through killings, but through the courts.
If the elasticity in current definitions of terrorism could be harnessed by materials researchers, the novel substance would surely be worthy of a Nobel Prize. It has been abused to jail peaceful anti-genocide campaigners and those holding up bits of paper in their favour. Now Wilson appears to want it used to lock up solicitors investigating state-backed murder. DUP members voted against the Order.
Wilson’s words echo those of then veterans’ affairs ministers Johnny Mercer when he talked in 2023 of “vexatious claims” against ex-army members who served in the North of Ireland.
As the Irish Post pointed out then, responding to Mercer:
Loyalists and republicans were jailed throughout the Troubles, serving, collectively, thousands of years in prison.
British soldiers were not.
In fact, only four serving soldiers were ever convicted of murder. Each of them served less than a handful of years and each – staggeringly – was allowed to rejoin their regiments.
Mercer’s words were a continuation of Tory rhetoric about “lefty lawyers” and “activist solicitors”, aimed at advocates speaking up for asylum seekers and others that criminal government was seeking to persecute. Labour has continued to view legality as optional, so this vote is a rare case of it actually operating within the confines of the law. The right-wing press have been fulminating for some time about Labour’s plan to reshape the Legacy Act, alleging “Labour’s persecution of Britain’s military veterans“.
Army veterans may still receive special protections
The gammons overcooking themselves may all be for nowt anyway, as the British government still plans to introduce various special measures to cover up crimes of their forces. Labour MP Peter Swallow spoke favourably of:
…important safeguards for veterans, including protection from repeated investigations, the right to seek anonymity, the right not to be forced to travel to give evidence, protection in old age and protection from cold calling or unexpected letters.
He said:
These measures strike the balance between protecting those who served to keep the peace and protect life, and ensuring that terrorist acts are not granted immunity.
This was a common theme of the three hour debate – differentiating between “terrorists” and British security forces. While the UN has no formal definition of terrorism, it says “as a minimum”, the following acts would constitute it:
…the intimidation or coercion of populations or governments through the threat or perpetration of violence, causing death, serious injury or the taking of hostages.
British forces were certainly guilty of all that, alongside collusion with those MPs sought to describe as “terrorists”. Collusion that is still being concealed, even in the most ludicrous circumstances. North of Ireland First Minister Michelle O’Neill has pledged to contact Benn to voice her opposition to special protections for army veterans.
The vote must now go to the House of Lords for final approval. Further work will then continue on reconstituting the Legacy Act. As in the US, British MPs tend to operate as a uni-party when it comes to armed forces matters and foreign policy. A government that has been intent on blocking scrutiny of its role in a holocaust seems just as keen to conceal other atrocities closer to home.
This post was originally published on Canary.