Why Debate Must Move From Virtue Signalling to Leadership on What is Right

Bob Parr, Royal Marines, WO1 22 SAS (1993–99), examines the nuances and undercurrents that present but perhaps not fully addressed in the 14th July Debate.

Grandiose affirmations of support for the army and veterans filled almost half of the airtime. The fervent declaration of allegiance can easily be dismissed as virtue signalling, overshadowing the pressing need to critically analyse the status quo and the reasons for its persistence.

The Unaddressed Core

For many, the debate failed to dive into the crux of the problem: why do the current circumstances need change?

While there were strong arguments for transformation, the discourse seemed stuck in a cycle of support for prevailing policies without probing into their necessity.

True leadership demands of us not mere affirmation of virtue but the courage to make righteous decisions based on justice.

Transitional Justice becomes Injustice

The debate had been triggered by a petition calling for the Government — with now more than 197,000 signatures — not to make any changes to legislation that would allow Northern Ireland Veterans to be prosecuted for doing their duty in combating terrorism as part of 'Operation Banner'. (1969-2007)

The Legacy Act which broadly resembles the amnesty extended during the Good Friday Agreement, raises ethical questions around the protection of soldiers and terrorists alike.

Critics argue that granting legal leniency to militants under past accords has set a precedent, one that echoes unfairly in the discussions about soldiers' culpability today.

The Good Friday Agreement saw the release of over 400 prisoners, some involved in heinous crimes. The debate touched on the unsettling fact that, while paramilitary members were effectively granted amnesty, soldiers remain ensnared in lengthy legal processes over past actions. There's a notable disparity in how justice is administered — a disparity that prolongs the suffering for veterans and their families.

The Process is the Punishment

The argument that exonerated soldiers should be freed from these constant legal revisitations holds significant weight and moral justifciation. These processes — not just their conclusions — impose undue burden on elderly veterans, impacting their lives for decades. Legal actions, devoid of any new evidence, continue to drag on, psychologically punishing those involved rather than serving as a tool for justice.

These proceedings have real-world consequences, straining relationships, contributing to alcohol abuse, and tragically resulting in instances of veterans committing suicide. The notion that eventual legal exoneration could outweigh years of stress and uncertainty is an oversimplification of the real-wordl impact of these ongoing investigations.

A Call for True Justice

The intent of transitional justice is to bridge divides, not deepen them.

But for many who have experienced the brunt of these policies, the current model represents transitional injustice instead, disproportionately affecting one side of a historical conflict.

To truly honour the service and struggles of these individuals, we must call for an end to these prolonged injustices and strive for a more balanced and fair approach.

As debates continue, we must aim for a discourse centred not on virtue signalling but on pragmatic and equitable solutions for peace and reconciliation.