Braniff, Máire; Hamber, Brandon; O’Rourke, Catherine; McCready, Philip; Bell, John (2021). Advocacy Services Research Project. Belfast: Commission for Victims and Survivors Northern Ireland, Ulster University and Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) [Download]
Wednesday, November 17, 2021
Advocacy Services Research Project
Braniff, Máire; Hamber, Brandon; O’Rourke, Catherine; McCready, Philip; Bell, John (2021). Advocacy Services Research Project. Belfast: Commission for Victims and Survivors Northern Ireland, Ulster University and Special EU Programmes Body (SEUPB) [Download]
Advocacy Services Research Report
Today the Commission for Victims and Survivors of Northern Ireland (CVSNI) and Ulster University (INCORE & TJI) launched the Advocacy Services Report focusing on advocacy and dealing with the past. The report was authored by Dr Maire Braniff, Professor Brandon Hamber, Dr Catherine O'Rourke, Dr Philip McCready and Dr John Bell.
Equally, however, our research found that this was challenging work. There was unanimity amongst all service users and service providers that the biggest challenge was the systemic delay and the slow nature of legacy investigation and information recovery. The biggest scope for improvement in advocacy services was the accessibility of information and more streamlined and quicker responses from statutory agencies.
Wednesday, September 29, 2021
Individual and Collective Recovery from Human-Caused Disasters
On 29 September 2021, I gave a keynote address entitled "Individual and Collective Recovery from Human-Caused Disasters: Lessons from Political Violence Around the Globe". The keynote was delivered to the Institute for Disasters Mental Health Conference which this year had the theme of "From 9/11 to Covid-19, Lessons from Two Decades of Disaster Responses".
This IDMH conference, hosted by State University of New York (Online), brought together a roster of expert presenters from across the US to review how much has been learned about incorporating mental health needs into emergency response, and to look ahead to where we can. My keynote explored lessons from managing political violence for mental health in disaster settings.
Individual and Collective Recovery from Human-Caused Disasters
Hamber, B. (2021). Individual and Collective Recovery from Human-Caused Disasters: Lessons from Political Violence Around the Globe. Keynote address to Institute for Disasters Mental Health Conference, From 9/11 to Covid-19, Lessons from Two Decades of Disaster Responses, 29-30 September 2021, State University of New York, New York.
Saturday, September 18, 2021
War Requiem Bridge to the Future Foundation
On 17 September 2021 I was invited to participate in the Bridge for the Future Conference. The conference is held by the War Requiem Bridge to the Future Foundation in the Netherlands. At the event Mpho Tutu, daughter of Archbishop Tutu, and I debate the topic of reconciliation.
Friday, September 17, 2021
Panel discussion on Reconciliation with Mrs Mpho Tutu
Hamber, B. (2021). Panel discussion on Reconciliation with Mrs Mpho Tutu. Bridge to the Future Conference, Arnhem, Netherlands 17 September 2021.
Thursday, July 15, 2021
Amnesty a line in the sand? It’s not even close
If we know anything about the Johnson government in the UK, they are not great at sticking to agreements or taking the views of the devolved nations seriously. The recent statement by the Secretary of State, Brandon Lewis, proposing new legislation to enforce a statute of limitations for all conflict-related violations in Northern Ireland fits this mould.
In July 2019, following a 15-month consultation on the legacy proposal in the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) of 2014 agreed by all political parties, the British Government committed to its full implementation. Two years later, it is now proposing to pull the SHA apart.
The recent proposals remove a focus on justice and investigation, favouring information recovery and storytelling under an undefined banner of reconciliation. All of Northern Ireland’s five main political parties, the Irish government, civil society organisations and most victims’ groups are heavily critical of what amounts to an amnesty for conflict-era offences. Yet, the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and especially victims of both state and non-state violence, seem to matter little.
Ostensibly, Northern Ireland victims are less important than a Tory manifesto pledge to stop so-called “vexatious” legal cases against former British soldiers, even if the price is also a paramilitary amnesty.
Yet, the actual case for amnesty in Lewis’ statement is rather flimsy.
Firstly, Lewis points out that criminal investigations are increasingly unlikely to deliver in court. We know as time passes this is not incorrect. But because justice is unlikely, should prosecutions be abandoned? Could we imagine doing the same for other crimes such as rape because it has a low conviction rate? Choosing to abandon prosecution is not a logistical issue but a political one.
Secondly, it is stated that the current system is not working. But there is no current system. It is a mishmash of processes. No systematic and over-arching attempt has been made to deal with the past in Northern Ireland, despite a set of agreed proposals being put forward in the SHA.
Thirdly, it is implied that amnesty is the only viable route. Yet the British consultation on the SHA points out that the overwhelming view from the 17,000 responses was that amnesty was not appropriate. Two years ago, it was perfectly feasible for the other SHA mechanisms such as storytelling and information recovery to run alongside justice processes, yet suddenly this is off the table.
There are other options under discussion. For example, British soldiers remain eligible for the same deal as paramilitaries in terms of early release under the Belfast Agreement. If convicted, a maximum of two years can be served for conflict crimes. A discussion on reducing the length of this requirement to zero is an option. More radically, another option is to consider amnesty in exchange for truth as per the South African model.
Finally, Lewis argues that it is the criminal justice process that is hampering reconciliation. Is the implication that offering a blanket amnesty will lead to those who committed crimes miraculously coming forward, sharing the truth and seeking reconciliation with those they harmed? If so, this is devoid of reality.
Furthermore, contrary to Lewis’ assertion of amnesty fostering reconciliation, the British government’s own consultation on the SHA points out that curtailing the right to justice would “risk progress towards reconciliation”, not promote it.
What we also know internationally is that amnesties can create a short-term hiatus in a political process, but when justice is evaded, it simply festers and re-emerges rather than creating reconciliation.
The Spanish 1977 amnesty or “pact of forgetting”, following the Franco regime, has not stopped recent attempts to prosecute those responsible. Spain remains deeply divided. In Chile, the amnesty passed by Pinochet in 1978 was overturned in 1998. This led to dozens of prosecutions of those responsible for disappearance and torture over the following decades. Even in South Africa, there are new moves to prosecute those who did not avail of the amnesty offered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In this context, the current proposals are not the product of some difficult soul-searching and the only option left on the table. It is a cynical and calculated political move.
It fits a pattern of political evasion of truth that has been and continues to be fundamentally unjust to all victims. It demonstrates how little Northern Ireland victims mean to the UK government.
The major stumbling block to reconciliation and dealing with the past in Northern Ireland is not victims trying to exercise their rights to justice, but 50 years of avoidance, untruths and injustice.
What is needed now is courageous leadership that fulfils previous commitments and confronts the past head-on, not politicians trying to draw fanciful lines in the sand.
Far from dealing with the past, the proposed amnesty will simply redraw the battle lines for the future.
Published by Brandon Hamber in the Belfast Telegraph, 15 July 2021.
In July 2019, following a 15-month consultation on the legacy proposal in the Stormont House Agreement (SHA) of 2014 agreed by all political parties, the British Government committed to its full implementation. Two years later, it is now proposing to pull the SHA apart.
The recent proposals remove a focus on justice and investigation, favouring information recovery and storytelling under an undefined banner of reconciliation. All of Northern Ireland’s five main political parties, the Irish government, civil society organisations and most victims’ groups are heavily critical of what amounts to an amnesty for conflict-era offences. Yet, the views of the people of Northern Ireland, and especially victims of both state and non-state violence, seem to matter little.
Ostensibly, Northern Ireland victims are less important than a Tory manifesto pledge to stop so-called “vexatious” legal cases against former British soldiers, even if the price is also a paramilitary amnesty.
Yet, the actual case for amnesty in Lewis’ statement is rather flimsy.
Firstly, Lewis points out that criminal investigations are increasingly unlikely to deliver in court. We know as time passes this is not incorrect. But because justice is unlikely, should prosecutions be abandoned? Could we imagine doing the same for other crimes such as rape because it has a low conviction rate? Choosing to abandon prosecution is not a logistical issue but a political one.
Secondly, it is stated that the current system is not working. But there is no current system. It is a mishmash of processes. No systematic and over-arching attempt has been made to deal with the past in Northern Ireland, despite a set of agreed proposals being put forward in the SHA.
Thirdly, it is implied that amnesty is the only viable route. Yet the British consultation on the SHA points out that the overwhelming view from the 17,000 responses was that amnesty was not appropriate. Two years ago, it was perfectly feasible for the other SHA mechanisms such as storytelling and information recovery to run alongside justice processes, yet suddenly this is off the table.
There are other options under discussion. For example, British soldiers remain eligible for the same deal as paramilitaries in terms of early release under the Belfast Agreement. If convicted, a maximum of two years can be served for conflict crimes. A discussion on reducing the length of this requirement to zero is an option. More radically, another option is to consider amnesty in exchange for truth as per the South African model.
Finally, Lewis argues that it is the criminal justice process that is hampering reconciliation. Is the implication that offering a blanket amnesty will lead to those who committed crimes miraculously coming forward, sharing the truth and seeking reconciliation with those they harmed? If so, this is devoid of reality.
Furthermore, contrary to Lewis’ assertion of amnesty fostering reconciliation, the British government’s own consultation on the SHA points out that curtailing the right to justice would “risk progress towards reconciliation”, not promote it.
What we also know internationally is that amnesties can create a short-term hiatus in a political process, but when justice is evaded, it simply festers and re-emerges rather than creating reconciliation.
The Spanish 1977 amnesty or “pact of forgetting”, following the Franco regime, has not stopped recent attempts to prosecute those responsible. Spain remains deeply divided. In Chile, the amnesty passed by Pinochet in 1978 was overturned in 1998. This led to dozens of prosecutions of those responsible for disappearance and torture over the following decades. Even in South Africa, there are new moves to prosecute those who did not avail of the amnesty offered by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
In this context, the current proposals are not the product of some difficult soul-searching and the only option left on the table. It is a cynical and calculated political move.
It fits a pattern of political evasion of truth that has been and continues to be fundamentally unjust to all victims. It demonstrates how little Northern Ireland victims mean to the UK government.
The major stumbling block to reconciliation and dealing with the past in Northern Ireland is not victims trying to exercise their rights to justice, but 50 years of avoidance, untruths and injustice.
What is needed now is courageous leadership that fulfils previous commitments and confronts the past head-on, not politicians trying to draw fanciful lines in the sand.
Far from dealing with the past, the proposed amnesty will simply redraw the battle lines for the future.
Published by Brandon Hamber in the Belfast Telegraph, 15 July 2021.
Photo credit: “The Troubles,Belfast, Northern Ireland 1970–2 Coldstream Guards” by Kaspar C Licensed CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
Amnesty a line in the sand? It’s not even close
Hamber, B. (2021, 15 July. Amnesty a line in the sand? It’s not even close. Belfast Telegraph [Read Online]
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Hidden barriers and divisive architecture
Coyles, D., Hamber, B., & Grant, A. (2021). Hidden barriers and divisive architecture: The role of “everyday space” in conflict and peacebuilding in Belfast. Journal of Urban Affairs, 1-24 [Download]
Tuesday, June 22, 2021
Seminar UN Secretary Generals’ Envoy on Youth
It was fantastic to chair a session on Thursday 20 May 2021, with the UN Secretary Generals’ Envoy on Youth, Jayathma Wickramanayake. In her talk the UN Envoy on Youth discussed UN priorities and issues concerning youth, peace and security.
This dialogue was part of the new seminar series entitled Youth, Peace and Security Leadership Series. The seminar series is a partnership between Ulster University (INCORE & TJI), The John and Pat Hume Foundation, John Hume and Thomas P. O’Neill Chair in Peace, International Fund for Ireland (IFI), the Centre for Youth Research and Dialogue and Interpeace.
Monday, June 21, 2021
BISA Conference: Masculinities and conflict
Hamber, B. (2021) Masculinities and conflict. Roundtable on Masculinities and Queer Perspectives on Transitional Justice. Paper presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA), 21 June 2021.
Friday, April 23, 2021
Mother and Baby Homes and Magdalene Laundry Investigations
Amnesty International and Ulster University held a series of online events with experts and survivors to inform the investigation process into the Mother and Baby Homes and Magdalene Laundry during March and April 2021. I spoke at the one of these public panels on 23 April 2021 to share lessons from transitional justice for the design of the inquiry. The recording is presented below.
The other seminars in the series can be viewed here, a report was also published summarising the main issues coming out to the seminars, download here (external link).
Learning lessons from transitional justice for historical institutional abuse
Hamber, B. (2021). Learning lessons from transitional justice for historical institutional abuse. Learning the lessons: co-designing the Inquiry into Mother and Baby and Magdalene Laundry institutions in Northern Ireland. Public Panel hosted by Amnesty International and Ulster University, 23 April 2021.
Tuesday, March 23, 2021
It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves: ‘new normal’ is abnormal
I have published a new piece in Belfast Telegraph.
In my work dealing with the impact of political violence, a constant challenge is reminding people that when addressing survivors’ needs during times of conflict, it is the social context that is often the primary stressor.
For example, as much as therapy for victims of conflict is useful, its value is limited if the conflict’s legacy persists and the social environment is destroyed. You also cannot think about conflict without understanding that it has differential impacts. In Northern Ireland, for example, the neighbourhoods with the highest conflict death rate are those with the highest levels of poverty.
When it comes to addressing the mental health impact of Covid-19, it seems we have a similar situation. We are acting as if the pandemic is only a medical problem, a behavioural issue (wear your mask, wash your hands, socially distance) and finally, a psychological question of coping mentally.
The socio-environmental parts of the pandemic are under-emphasised, not to mention the political.
Yet, for many, their mental health in times of Covid-19 is not an issue of merely individual psychological coping mechanisms.
Mental well-being is undermined, for example, by losing your job, physical and psychological violence in the home during lockdowns, having a disability and living in cramped or unhealthy accommodation, among others.
Even those of us living in privilege are dealing with caring responsibilities, home-schooling, health issues and family and friends dying of Covid-19. All this in a context of 24-hour televised suffering and the Government failing to manage the process effectively.
Even for those lucky enough to have a good job, stress has been mounting over time, not decreasing. For many, the work experience (run from their homes) is like plugging holes in a sinking ship while continually eyeing the lifeboats.
Not to mention the daily struggles of healthcare and key workers on the frontline. There is no new normal, it is all profoundly abnormal. Many are confusing enforced haphazard adaptation with normalisation.
Of course, there are many individual actions that can help us cope: maintaining a routine; taking exercise; working on relaxation exercises such as mindfulness; getting plenty of sleep; ensuring you still connect with other people and, importantly, managing news and social media intake. I have used some of these myself. Problematically though, such interventions assume a standardised environmental context. Advising on actions such as relaxation, exercise and routinisation assumes you live in a safe, predictable and comfortable environment.
But like so much individual mental health advice, although well-meaning and helpful to some, it is acontextual.
Telling people to take care of their mental health while not talking about real-world needs is hollow.
Let’s stop pretending that bolstering individual psychological coping mechanisms can replace the need for environmental changes for some.
It is time for mental health professionals, employers and the Government to ask what people really need to improve their mental health during this pandemic. The answers they will get are not what they would want to hear.
The stress of those working while home-schooling and caring will be reduced by less work, not an online stress management workshop.
Some need proper working conditions and equipment. Others need professional guidance on maximising space in cramped homes and then their employer, or the state, supporting these changes.
In truth, an extra room in some homes would change some children’s lives more profoundly than anything else. Fixing the damp in some homes and ensuring adequate heating, let alone guaranteeing some families have enough food, would significantly impact on mental health.
Serious interventions such as removing an abusive partner, addressing alcoholism, loneliness, or those living with a disability in lockdown may be needed in other cases.
This may sound like a tall order, but the truth is real-life change is needed for many if we claim to want to take mental health seriously.
If we fuse home and work (as well as school and tertiary educational) life, we cannot hive off one from the other.
The realities Covid-19 has forced upon us and the problems it has aggravated are not something we only have to come to terms within our heads.
Psychological and social well-being are indivisible. What we are dealing with is a cocktail of problems at the intersection of Covid-19 health-related issues, the impact of lockdowns and social distancing, societal and political fragmentation and disparities in social and psychological need and support.
As hard as it is to consider in these gloomy times, we are being confronted with a reality that is beyond a short-term health crisis.
Instead of living in the hope of the vaccine, the next phase of pandemic management should target the diversity of need recognising how inequalities profoundly shape such conditions.
The advantage of such an approach is that post-pandemic recovery will be more sustainable and healthier for all. Otherwise, just as the legacy of conflict persists when we only remove the symptom of direct violence and do not address the underlying dynamics, varying levels of suffering will linger for years.
Published by Brandon Hamber, Belfast Telegraph, 23 March 2021. Also available on Medium.
For example, as much as therapy for victims of conflict is useful, its value is limited if the conflict’s legacy persists and the social environment is destroyed. You also cannot think about conflict without understanding that it has differential impacts. In Northern Ireland, for example, the neighbourhoods with the highest conflict death rate are those with the highest levels of poverty.
When it comes to addressing the mental health impact of Covid-19, it seems we have a similar situation. We are acting as if the pandemic is only a medical problem, a behavioural issue (wear your mask, wash your hands, socially distance) and finally, a psychological question of coping mentally.
 |
| “Coronavirus — baby and mom” by https://www.vperemen.com CC BY 2.0 |
Yet, for many, their mental health in times of Covid-19 is not an issue of merely individual psychological coping mechanisms.
Mental well-being is undermined, for example, by losing your job, physical and psychological violence in the home during lockdowns, having a disability and living in cramped or unhealthy accommodation, among others.
Even those of us living in privilege are dealing with caring responsibilities, home-schooling, health issues and family and friends dying of Covid-19. All this in a context of 24-hour televised suffering and the Government failing to manage the process effectively.
Even for those lucky enough to have a good job, stress has been mounting over time, not decreasing. For many, the work experience (run from their homes) is like plugging holes in a sinking ship while continually eyeing the lifeboats.
Not to mention the daily struggles of healthcare and key workers on the frontline. There is no new normal, it is all profoundly abnormal. Many are confusing enforced haphazard adaptation with normalisation.
Of course, there are many individual actions that can help us cope: maintaining a routine; taking exercise; working on relaxation exercises such as mindfulness; getting plenty of sleep; ensuring you still connect with other people and, importantly, managing news and social media intake. I have used some of these myself. Problematically though, such interventions assume a standardised environmental context. Advising on actions such as relaxation, exercise and routinisation assumes you live in a safe, predictable and comfortable environment.
But like so much individual mental health advice, although well-meaning and helpful to some, it is acontextual.
Telling people to take care of their mental health while not talking about real-world needs is hollow.
Let’s stop pretending that bolstering individual psychological coping mechanisms can replace the need for environmental changes for some.
It is time for mental health professionals, employers and the Government to ask what people really need to improve their mental health during this pandemic. The answers they will get are not what they would want to hear.
The stress of those working while home-schooling and caring will be reduced by less work, not an online stress management workshop.
Some need proper working conditions and equipment. Others need professional guidance on maximising space in cramped homes and then their employer, or the state, supporting these changes.
In truth, an extra room in some homes would change some children’s lives more profoundly than anything else. Fixing the damp in some homes and ensuring adequate heating, let alone guaranteeing some families have enough food, would significantly impact on mental health.
Serious interventions such as removing an abusive partner, addressing alcoholism, loneliness, or those living with a disability in lockdown may be needed in other cases.
This may sound like a tall order, but the truth is real-life change is needed for many if we claim to want to take mental health seriously.
If we fuse home and work (as well as school and tertiary educational) life, we cannot hive off one from the other.
The realities Covid-19 has forced upon us and the problems it has aggravated are not something we only have to come to terms within our heads.
Psychological and social well-being are indivisible. What we are dealing with is a cocktail of problems at the intersection of Covid-19 health-related issues, the impact of lockdowns and social distancing, societal and political fragmentation and disparities in social and psychological need and support.
As hard as it is to consider in these gloomy times, we are being confronted with a reality that is beyond a short-term health crisis.
Instead of living in the hope of the vaccine, the next phase of pandemic management should target the diversity of need recognising how inequalities profoundly shape such conditions.
The advantage of such an approach is that post-pandemic recovery will be more sustainable and healthier for all. Otherwise, just as the legacy of conflict persists when we only remove the symptom of direct violence and do not address the underlying dynamics, varying levels of suffering will linger for years.
Published by Brandon Hamber, Belfast Telegraph, 23 March 2021. Also available on Medium.
Monday, March 22, 2021
It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves: ‘new normal’ is abnormal
Hamber, B. (2021, 22 March). It’s time we stopped kidding ourselves: ‘new normal’ is abnormal. Belfast Telegraph [Read Online]
Wednesday, March 10, 2021
Peace as Violence
On 10 March 2021, I presented a paper entitled "Peace as Violence" at the “Understanding Violence Seminar Series” hosted by the Department of War Studies, King’s College London. This talk explored how peace processes, and the aftermath, are experienced by survivors and former combatants. It argues that the change in context embodies a range of new forms of violence and harm for some. It draws on case studies of empirical research with former combatants and survivors in Northern Ireland and South Africa, as well as the case of some Vietnam Veterans who formed part of a recent research project. It explores how a sequential understanding of trauma can help explain the challenge of reframing meaning away from violence once a formal peace has been established.
Peace as Violence
Hamber, B. (2021). Peace as Violence. Paper Presented at Understanding Violence Seminar Series. Department of War Studies, King’s College London, 10 March 2021.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)