The Legacy Act


Protecting Our Veterans Isn’t Rewriting History — It’s A Moral Duty

The Legacy Act, introduced by the last government, was a bold if flawed attempt to bring closure to the long, painful chapter of the Troubles. Its aim—to draw a line under endless investigations—was not about forgetting, but about protecting. Specifically, protecting those who served in uniform, under extraordinary pressure, in one of the most complex conflicts in British history.

Our soldiers were not terrorists. They did not seek out violence or plant bombs. They were deployed by the state to keep order during a deeply fractured period. Many were teenagers. Many made split-second decisions in fear for their lives. Some showed astonishing restraint. All bore witness to scenes that would leave lasting trauma.

It’s true the Legacy Act offered conditional immunity to all sides, and that’s where it stumbled—because the law made no moral distinction between state forces and illegal paramilitaries. In seeking a legal closure, it risked an ethical one. That’s why the courts ruled parts of it unlawful, and why it lacked full public backing.

But rejecting the Legacy Act must not mean rejecting veterans. Repeal should not become scapegoating. The current government now has a chance to get this right—by crafting new legislation that both honours the rights of victims and protects those who served with integrity under Operation Banner.

This isn’t about rewriting history. It’s about resisting the temptation to view history through a lens of easy blame. It’s about recognising that soldiers were not aggressors but instruments of a difficult peace. And it’s about ensuring that in seeking justice, we do not perpetrate new injustices—against those who already sacrificed so much.

The debt we owe our veterans is real. Their legacy deserves protection—not prosecution.

Ai article prompted by liz lucy robillard, 5/06/25

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Witchhunt

From my upcoming memoir: 'My son suffers from severe autism or possibly Angelman syndrome (which wasn't definitively excluded when he underwent genetic testing). As a concerned parent, I reached out to several specialists in the field of autism, desperate to know how best to support him. In 1994, when my son was two, I started an information service called Autistic Information Matters to seek answers, provide support, and share facts. After much difficulty with professionals—including a Professor Ben Sacks who cruelly suggested I send my two-year-old to an institution (I told him to get out)—I discovered Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA). At the time, I believed it might be a miracle cure that could help my son begin speaking. However, after extensive research and insights from other parents, I came to realize that autism is an umbrella term, encompassing a variety of conditions rather than a single disorder. (I have written more about this elsewhere.) During this time, I wa...
Read more

Evidence Against Trans?

  chatgpt & liz lucy robillard, April 21st, 2025 It's natural to want to protect women from harm, especially from serious threats like rape. Some argue that to prevent even one assault, trans women (biological males) should be excluded from female-only spaces like toilets and prisons.  While this comes from a place of caution, it doesn’t hold up under evidence or ethical scrutiny. *Studies consistently show that inclusive policies do not increase assault rates in restrooms or changing rooms* Trans women using female spaces *does not* correlate with higher risks of violence against cisgender women according to studies.  The idea that cis men might pretend to be trans to access women’s areas is *extremely rare* and laws already exist to punish such behavior.  Are those laws effective enough? On the other hand, trans women face high rates of violence when forced into male-designated spaces, especially in prisons or public areas.  Denying them access often puts ...
Read more

Honouring Abused Women

  The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect. They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers. The solution is not to plead more pre...
Read more