656

British Journal of Social Psychology (2014), 53, 656–674 © 2013 The British Psychological Society www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

Reconstructing apology: David Cameron’s Bloody Sunday apology in the press Andrew McNeill1*, Evanthia Lyons2 and Samuel Pehrson1 1

Centre for Research in Political Psychology, Department of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, UK 2 School of Psychology, Criminology and Sociology, University of Kingston, London, UK While there is an acknowledgement in apology research that political apologies are highly mediated, the process of mediation itself has lacked scrutiny. This article suggests that the idea of reconstruction helps to understand how apologies are mediated and evaluated. David Cameron’s apology for Bloody Sunday is examined to see how he constructs four aspects of apology: social actors, consequences, categorization, and reasons. The reconstruction of those aspects by British, Unionist, and Nationalist press along with reconstructions made by soldiers in an online forum are considered. Data analysis was informed by thematic analysis and discourse analysis which helped to explore key aspects of reconstruction and how elements of Cameron’s apology are altered in subsequent mediated forms of the apology. These mediated reconstructions of the apology allowed their authors to evaluate the apology in different ways. Thus, in this article, it is suggested that the evaluation of the apology by different groups is preceded by a reconstruction of it in accordance with rhetorical goals. This illuminates the process of mediation and helps to understand divergent responses to political apologies.

No one disputes the highly mediated nature of political apologies (Harris, Grainger, & Mullany, 2006, p. 719), but this process has lacked scrutiny. Mediating an apology involves producing a reconstructed version of it in accordance with the rhetorical goals of the speaker/writer to allow for subsequent evaluation. This ‘reconstruction’ (Abell, Stokoe, & Billig, 2000) or ‘recontextualization’ (Van Leeuwen, 2008) is the process of bringing a new context into an existing discursive environment (Ehrlich, 2007), to the importing of a non-discursive event into a discursive setting (Abell et al., 2000; Edwards, Potter, & Middleton, 1992; Van Leeuwen, 2008) or to the transfer of discourse from one context to another (Attenborough, 2014). This latter process is relevant here as we consider how an apology can be mediated through a new ‘context’ or ‘construction’. In this study, we take the case of David Cameron’s apology in 2011 to the families of the Bloody Sunday victims to see how media reconstructed and evaluated it. Considering the reconstruction of the apology is important because it helps to understand how apologizers and audiences accomplish their rhetorical goals. Political apologies require that the apologizer preserve their reputation or face before various parties (Philpot & Hornsey, 2008, p. 475) and thus there is an obligation to manage blame

*Correspondence should be addressed to Andrew McNeill, School of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK (email: [email protected]). DOI:10.1111/bjso.12053

Reconstructing apology

657

and shame before various audiences. But audiences have their own goals and will legitimate or delegitimate the apology as they talk about it (Jeffries, 2007; LeCouteur & Augoustinos, 2001). How then does this legitimation/delegitimation process occur? Undoubtedly, a process of interpretation evaluates the apology (Jeffries, 2007), but to concentrate only on this reifies the apology and does not observe the ways in which it is reconstructed by talking about it. One of the key ways of reconstructing an event is to change the way social actors are constructed (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 23) – a point which also applies to the reconstruction of apologies. Existing work has examined contestation about who the apology is being offered on behalf of (Harris et al., 2006) and the invocation of different levels of identity used by the apologizer in relating to the offended party (Augoustinos, Hastie, & Wright, 2011). In these examples, the construction of self and identity is action-oriented and aims at specific goals (Potter & Edwards, 2001). Other, non-discursive research has recognized to some extent that the ways of talking about self and identity are action oriented. For example, Goffman suggests that apologizers take both a blameworthy and a sympathizing self to make themselves worthy of reconciliation (Goffman, 1971, p. 113). Another perspective suggests that in apology the harmful act is taken to reflect the identity of the offender and apology involves sorrow over part of one’s self (Tavuchis, 1991). Apologies can also be seen as dissociating the negative act from the identity of the offender thereby repairing the perpetrator’s social identity (Petrucci, 2002). The problem with these examples is that they do not consider how variation in rhetorical goals leads to different constructions of the self and its relationship to the harmful act. The kind of self adopted by an apologizer should be seen as a discursive strategy (Augoustinos et al., 2011) which accomplishes a social action (Edwards, 1991). Furthermore, those who mediate the apology to others reconstruct the apologizer’s construction of self and their relationship to the harmful act. Thus, the mediator of the apology does not simply evaluate the apology by expressing opinions, but evaluation is bound up with reconstruction. Research has examined not only the role of identity issues in apologies but also what apologies accomplish. Some have suggested that interpersonal apology benefits the apologizer by reducing shame (Leeming & Boyle, 2013). Others have claimed that political apologies are successful because they accept shame (Brewer, 2010, pp. 108–112; Giner-Sorolla, Kamau, & Castano, 2010). Again, a discursive perspective helps to understand that the management of shame is rhetorically purposeful. The apologizer and mediators of the apology are invested differently in the management of responsibility and shame so they seek to reconstruct the apology differently. Some may want the apologizer to be shamed while others may not. Their constructions of the apology will seek to portray it as achieving or not achieving this specific purpose and their evaluation of it will be bound up with whether it achieves this goal (Van Leeuwen, 2008, p. 124). The apologizer will be especially concerned with managing blame and associated shame – a common feature of discourse involving potential blame (Abell & Stokoe, 1999; Edwards & Potter, 1993; MacMillan & Edwards, 1999). Some research, recognizing that many ‘apologies’ seem to lack sincerity, has explored how the minimization of responsibility features in many ‘non-apologies’ (Kampf, 2009). Apologies are desirable to restore the image of the apologizer but simultaneously there is an image threat associated with apology because of the shame of accepting responsibility. Through minimizing responsibility, shame can be minimized (Kampf, 2009). There was a similar situation in the ‘apology’ of Australian opposition leader, Brendan Nelson, for injustices committed against Indigenous Australians. Nelson used a ‘good intentions’ discourse to justify the past thereby mitigate blame (Hastie, 2009). The Australian Prime Minister John

658

Andrew McNeill et al.

Howard also offered an ‘apology’ but this was only a ‘personal’ apology and he justified not offering one on behalf of the nation by arguing that it would be wrong to burden the present generation with the shame of the past (Augoustinos, LeCouteur, & Soyland, 2002). However, these latter two ‘apologies’ were generally not accepted by the offended group. The management of blame is difficult and if there is little evidence of responsibility acceptance, the ‘apology’ may be rejected by the offended group (Harris et al., 2006). In the Australian case, only the apology that clearly acknowledged responsibility – that of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd – was accepted (Augoustinos et al., 2011). Even in this case, the Prime Minister attributes blame to ‘laws and policies of successive governments’ rather than the White majority (Augoustinos et al., 2011, p. 528). Clearly, managing blame and shame is a task that an apologizer wrestles with. However, there is a lack of research into how a mediated apology reconstructs issues of blame or shame. There is support for the idea that the acceptance of an apology is related to the reconstruction of it. For example, some infelicitous apologies may be accepted as long as an ‘embarassment condition’ is fulfilled which threatens the apologizer’s image (Kampf, 2008). Recipients may reconstruct the apology with the goal of attributing shame to the apologizer thus enabling them to accept the apology. Thus, the construction of the function of the apology may differ for the apologizer and the recipient leading to diverse evaluations. In an effort to understand divergent reactions to apologies, some researchers have focussed on the elements of an apology which lead it to be received as genuine. It is assumed that there are criteria which must be met for recipients to recognize an apology as genuine. For example, an apology is often badly received unless there is a clear acknowledgement of responsibility accompanied by an illocutionary force indicating device (IFID) such as ‘sorry’ or ‘regret’ (Harris et al., 2006). Those who mediate the apology can select different aspects of the ‘apology’ and evaluates aspects such as the choice of IFID, the use of tense and the use of modal verbs in order to categorize the speech act (Jeffries, 2007). Jeffries (2007) acknowledges that the hearer plays an ‘active role’ in the ‘co-construction and negotiation of meaning’ (Wee, 2004, p. 2163) but she tends to essentialize the apology criteria and minimizes the role of rhetorical goals in deciding on what criteria to use. While her chosen newspapers all reject Tony Blair’s ‘apology’ (for information leading to the Iraq war) on the basis of certain criteria, there is no reason to believe that someone motivated to accept Blair’s apology could not have come up with a set of criteria that legitimated the apology and categorized it as such. Thus, rhetorical goals would determine how the apology was reconstructed and categorized. Harris et al. (2006, p. 727) give an example of this in the varying categorization of a political apology but refer to ‘confusion’ over what constitutes an apology. Perhaps though, this has less to do with confusion and more to do with varying rhetorical goals. Aside from the issue of whether the ‘apology’ is categorized as such or not, mediators of the ‘apology’ may categorize it in alternative ways. With different rhetorical goals, it could be argued that the speech is not an ‘apology’ but a ‘face-saving speech’ or a ‘grovelling appeal’. These reconstructions allow mediators of the apology to use different categories as they evaluate the apology. However, research has neglected these alternative categories which are essential to examine for a thoroughly discursive approach (Edwards, 1991). Reconstructing an apology can also invoke another issue: the reason for it. While not dealing with the issue specifically, examples of reconstructions of reasons can be seen in work by LeCouteur and Augoustinos (2001, p. 57) where different texts attribute reasons for an apology. Some disapprovingly say that it was motivated by ideology while others say

Reconstructing apology

659

approvingly that it was motivated by empathy. The reasons that are attributed both by the apologizer and those who reconstruct it are then evaluated. One way this evaluation is carried out is through the use of ‘self-sufficient arguments’ (LeCouteur & Augoustinos, 2001; Wetherell & Potter, 1992) which are recognized as valid by both the speaker and the audience and do not need further justification. They fall into various categories and are embedded into other structures of argumentation which legitimate or delegitimate the apology. This argumentation may be divided into four categories of legitimation (Van Leeuwen, 2008; pp. 105–106): authorization (appealing to authority), moral evaluation, rationalization (appealing to the goals of the action), and mythopoesis (appealing to narratives; e.g., Augoustinos et al., 2011, p. 520). Rationalization can be related specifically to the previous discussion of consequences since reconstruction of consequences either legitimates or delegitimates the apology. The other categories can be used to evaluate the reconstructed actors, outcomes, categorization, and reasons. Evaluation, then, is not confined to one aspect of reconstruction. It is integral to each aspect and flows from the rhetorical goals of the writer. There are potentially other aspects of an apology which may be reconstructed in the mediation of an apology but these four aspects (actors, outcomes, categorization, and reasons) are prominent and were themes in our analysis of David Cameron’s Bloody Sunday apology. Seeing how an apology can be reconstructed in these areas gives insight into the process of mediating and producing diverse evaluations. While other research has examined the evaluation of apologies (Harris et al., 2006; Jeffries, 2007; LeCouteur & Augoustinos, 2001) and has tended to treat the original apology as the basis for evaluation, we suggest that the mediated and reconstructed apology is both inextricably linked to evaluation and is the basis for subsequent evaluation.

Background to the Bloody Sunday apology In Northern Ireland, Unionists (largely Protestant) believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Nationalists and Republicans (largely Catholic) believe that Northern Ireland should be united with the rest of Ireland. In 1972, a group of Nationalist civil rights marchers took to the streets of Derry/ Londonderry to protest against discrimination during which 14 marchers were killed by British soldiers. A hasty British inquiry by Lord Widgery said that the soldiers were fired on first and there was doubt about the marchers’ innocence. The Nationalist community rejected those findings and demanded another inquiry. After an inquiry commenced in 1998, Lord Saville published his findings in 2010 and declared the victims to be innocent. On the day of publication (15 June 2010), David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, offered an apology in the House of Commons which was relayed by video link to Derry where crowds had gathered to witness the publication of the report. The apology was ostensibly given to the families of the victims. Closely associated with them are the Nationalist community who supported them and their account of what had happened on Bloody Sunday (Conway, 2003). The Unionist community have also suffered during the conflict and have sought inquiries and apologies for various events. Consequently, some (but not all) objected to the attention paid to this event. The broader UK community are represented to some extent by Cameron in his apology but primarily he represents the UK government and their soldiers. However, this identification should be determined linguistically and not a priori so it is only noted here as a generalization (Augoustinos et al., 2011). The soldiers, while many years have passed

660

Andrew McNeill et al.

since Bloody Sunday, still felt strongly about being apologized for and they reacted in various ways to the apology. Following the apology, there are reports from the Nationalist press, UK press, and Unionist press. Each of these ‘interpretive communities’ (Fish, 1976) reconstruct the apology in particular ways for their own advantage. The differences between the constructions of the apology made by Cameron and various groups are the focus of this article.

Research methodology The starting point of the analysis was David Cameron’s apology (included in the Appendix) taken from the Hansard Archives. Deviations from his construction in subsequent data (newspapers and an online forum) highlight the process of reconstruction. Sixty-four newspaper articles were drawn from a search of the LexisNexis newspaper database for the keywords ‘apology’ and ‘Bloody Sunday’ between 15 and 30 June 2010 (local and national newspapers). Unionist press was represented by the News Letter and the Londonderry Sentinel. Nationalist press was represented by the Irish Examiner and the Irish News. British/UK press was represented by The Guardian, The Sun, The Times, The Mirror, The Daily Telegraph, and The Independent. The perspective of soldiers was taken from an online forum (Army Rumour Service, www.arrse.co.uk) in which two discussion threads were analysed comprising 203 posts ranging from 15 to 20 June 2010. Newspapers are a primary mediator of Cameron’s apology so there are good reasons to use such data. Studies have shown the powerful effects of newspapers including an attribute agenda-setting function in which the repetition of attributes of a story increases the accessibility of them for the audience (Kim, Scheufele, & Shanahan, 2002; McCombs & Shaw, 1972, 1993) and attribute priming effects in which audiences often evaluate a situation based on the emphasized attributes (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987; Kim et al., 2002). The latter is particularly relevant because if certain reconstructed aspects of the apology are emphasized (such as reasons or outcomes), these may be influential in audience evaluation of the apology. Newspapers can also be used as rhetorical support when readers say, ‘the newspapers say…’ to support their arguments and spread their views (Latane, 1981; Van Dijk, 1991, p. 7). More pragmatically, the use of newspapers allows the collection of a large sample of views from a specific time-period to allow the analysis of early reconstructions of the apology even after the event has ceased to be discussed. Consequently, newspapers provided us with a rich source of data to show how the apology was mediated. The analysis began by examining the apology, the newspapers and online forum data using thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Each text was coded to show where different elements of the apology were identified (e.g., ‘apologizer’, ‘recipients’, ‘perpetrator’). These were developed into four superordinate themes: Actors, consequences, categorization, and reasons. These themes are similar in some respects to those of Attenborough (2014) who lists ‘intentions’, ‘actions’, and ‘victims’ as elements in the recontextualization of sexism. If we conceive of language as a construction yard (Potter, 1996), our themes were treated as ‘buildings’ which were constructed in different ways by different writers. Comparison of these constructions showed how, for example, one writer could identify the families as the recipients while another could identify Republicans as recipients (part of the ‘actor’ theme). By looking at the deletion,

Reconstructing apology

661

rearrangement, substitution, and addition of elements in each theme we could see how the apology was constructed in different sources (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999). This analysis of the differences between accounts is a common approach in discourse analysis (Potter & Wetherell, 1987) but applied to the issue of apologies and temporally consequent constructions of the apology, it helps to show the mediated reproduction of an apology. This allows for a further step in analysis: considering the function of the differences (Potter & Wetherell, 1987, p. 168). These differences are conceptualized as having a rhetorical function (Billig, 1987; Potter & Wetherell, 1995) which, in this study, is specifically about generating a positive or negative evaluation of the apology. This evaluation was gauged by considering the general tone of the article – something which was rarely ambiguous. The analysis that follows deals with the four superordinate themes separately, showing the variability within each theme and how that it relates to the evaluation of the apology.

Analysis Throughout the analysis, we typically take Cameron’s apology as the starting point of the analysis of each theme which provides the basis for seeing how the other sources reconstruct each aspect of the apology.

Actors When an apology is reconstructed, actors can be added, subtracted, substituted, and the relationships between actors can be reconfigured (Van Leeuwen, 2008, pp. 23–54). In Cameron’s apology and in subsequent reconstructions, the actors and their relationships are identified and enacted. For example, in Cameron’s apology, to manage the responsibility for Bloody Sunday, he creates a distance between the government and the soldiers who are ‘immediately responsible’ (Extract 1, line 1) yet acknowledges that the government is ‘ultimately responsible’ (Extract 2, line 2). Initially, he quotes the Saville report saying that the soldiers are ‘immediately responsible’: Extract 1: Hansard 1 The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with 2 those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of the 3 those deaths and injuries

Further on he says that the Government is ‘ultimately responsible’: Extract 2: Hansard 1 Some members of our Armed Forces acted wrongly. The Government is 2 ultimately responsible for the conduct of the Armed Forces.

He thus provides a basis for mitigating the government’s blame as well as the basis for what will be perceived as a meaningful apology. While Goffman (1971) suggests that apologies involve a sympathetic self and a blameworthy self to manage the relationship with the victim, in this instance at least, the responsibility for the

662

Andrew McNeill et al.

harmful act is managed by creating a distinction between immediate and ultimate responsibility. These constructed levels of responsibility imply different levels of guilt which allows the apologizer to maintain the government’s moral image while accepting enough guilt to offer an apology. While Cameron works on his relationship to the immediate offenders, other groups work on constructing his relationship to recipients. For example, some Unionist media disapproves of the apology and they justify this by substituting another character in the apology ‘transaction’. By identifying Republicans as gaining ‘propaganda’ (Extract 3, line 4) through the apology, reasons are advanced as to why the apology is not acceptable. One Unionist writes the following: Extract 3: News Letter, 21 June 2010 1 Which brings me to that apology: why did Cameron make it? … Sinn Fein 2 demanded an inquiry from Blair as one of the necessary prices to keep them in the 3 peace process. All they wanted was a very public embarrassment for the British and a 4 propaganda coup for themselves.

By portraying Republicans as benefitting from the apology by causing it and by being a recipient, the apology is constructed as causing embarrassment for the British and bringing propaganda to the Republicans. As an opponent of Unionism, Republican gains are not appreciated and this allows the apology to be derogated. British media is more approving of the apology and they construct appropriate actors to justify it. If to some extent the events of Bloody Sunday created collective guilt on the nation, an apology rectifies this. Thus, some suggest that the apology is on ‘behalf of the nation’ (Extract 4, line 2) – a construction which portrays national solidarity with Cameron: Extract 4: The Times, 16 June 2010 1 David Cameron sought to draw a line under Bloody Sunday yesterday by 2 apologizing on behalf of the nation for the ‘unjustifiable’ deaths of 14 unarmed 3 civilians.

In drawing a ‘line’ under the past, the guilt is removed and the nation can approve the apology. The ‘nation’ thus has an interest in accepting the apology. The apology is not only legitimated with reference to the guilty party but also the recipients who are constructed as suffering families. The subsequent alleviation of suffering justifies the apology to the British audience. On the other hand, many soldiers react against the apology. By reconstructing the apology as being on behalf of them (Extract 5, lines 2–3), they evaluate it negatively: Extract 5: ARRSE online forum 1 I do not support his apologies. There was no manifesto commitment to apologize. He 2 cannot speak for me any more than I can speak for him. He can apologize on behalf of 3 his government but he cannot apologize on behalf of me unless he asks me first.

Reconstructing apology

663

But in the apology, Cameron is cautious and says that ‘some members of our armed forces acted wrongly.’ This soldier is not merely reading the apology and evaluating its content. Rather, he is reconstructing it and seeing the whole British Army as being apologized for which then allows him to condemn it. The Nationalist press differs from the other media in that it comments less on the apology than on the Inquiry and does not differ much from Cameron’s version. But the other groups mentioned above all show distinct variation from the original apology. We contend therefore that the identification and positioning of social actors is an important aspect of construction when an apology is being made and mediated.

Consequences Another way of evaluating the apology is to reconstruct the consequences in ways that the audience will find more or less favourable. Cameron for example, makes negations about potential consequences to render it more favourable. He says that his apology cannot establish murder (Appendix, line 53), it does not result in a lack of patriotism (Appendix, line 7), it does not support expensive inquiries (Appendix, lines 117–118), and it does not justify political violence (Appendix, line 134). He also makes several positive affirmations in his apology such as the following: Extract 6: Hansard 1 Openness and frankness about the past – however painful – do not make us weaker, 2 they make us stronger. That’s one of the things that differentiates us from terrorists.

Functionally, this aims at producing a positive evaluation of his apology in his British audience since he uses it to distance the British government from terrorism and to show that honesty makes it stronger (Extract 6, line 2). Even in showing how the apology will help to alleviate the suffering of the victims’ families (Appendix, lines 109–112), the consequence is a positive one which positions the state as caring and kind. This is an example of how a negative act can be dissociated from the identity of the offender in the repair of social identity (Petrucci, 2002). Another constructed consequence of the apology is ‘closure’. But examination of the modality used with some requests for closure seems to indicate that some requests for closure may be no more than requests for the victims of Bloody Sunday not to talk about their suffering in public anymore. Some Unionist sources use deontic directive modality: Extract 7: Belfast Telegraph, 17 June 2010 1 Peter Robinson last night said he accepted the report findings and added it was time 2 for closure for the victims. Extract 8: News Letter, 16 June 2010 1 After all this time, after 38 years – I’m surprised this intensity of interest still exists. 2 It’s got to bring closure now, we have to move on.

664

Andrew McNeill et al.

In these statements, the speakers use deontic directive modality to issue a demand: closure must happen. Nationalists, and many others who agree with the Inquiry and apology, are often reported as using volitive modality to express desire: Extract 9: Irish News, 15 June 2010 1 I hope he can bring closure to the family of Barry Liddy and to all those who were 2 crushed by what happened on January 30, 1972. Extract 10: The Times, 15 June 2010 1 Ms Campbell said: ‘A few of my uncles might lean towards prosecution but the rest 2 of the family wants closure’.

These differences in modality, while using similar terminology, are subtly different reconstructions of consequences of the Inquiry and apology. For some, the constructed consequence is a demand for closure yet for others it is a possibility of closure. As expected, the Nationalist press regularly focuses on positive consequences: Extract 11: Irish News, 22 June 2010 1 They not only basked in the heat of the sun, their spirits were uplifted by the heat of 2 the truth from Saville and the apology and unconditional acceptance of that truth by 3 David Cameron, Britain’s prime minister.

The reconstruction here uses the metaphor of ‘heat’ to signify truth from the apology which is legitimated by focusing on the effect this has on the families. It is also worth noting that the Nationalist press rarely deals with the apology by itself. Rather, the apology exists in relation to the Inquiry and serves as an ‘acceptance of the truth’ speech (Extract 11, line 2) – a point we return to in the next section. The British press also usually focuses on the positive consequences. The apology for them ‘seals the issue off’, ‘softens demands for prosecution’, ‘appeases desire for vengeance’, and addresses the needs of the victims. While research has suggested that offering an apology may reduce punishment (Darby & Schlenker, 1989), what is interesting here is not whether the apology does reduce the punishment but the fact that the reduction of punishment is used as a reason for justifying the apology – an example of Van Leeuwen’s (2008) ‘rationalization’. The construction of the apology appeals to the interests of the British public by showing the positive consequences. The reconstructed consequences thus vary from one group to another and this helps to understand the divergent evaluations produced in response to the apology.

Categorization A further point of contested construction is the apology’s categorization. This refers to the linguistic choices which are made to characterize (predication) or label (nomination) the apology (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009, p. 94). The label ‘apology’ is generally used in a positive way but when combined with other words, the apology can be derogated. Hence, some Unionists refer to the apology as an ‘unnecessary apology’ (News Letter, 21 June 2010). Some soldiers refer to the apology as a ‘grovel’ (Belfast Telegraph, 17 June 2010). The use

Reconstructing apology

665

of this metaphor positions the British government as lying on the ground before the recipients of the apology and associates shame with the government. Those in favour of the apology however use terms such as ‘fulsome apology’ (The Guardian, 16 June 2010) and ‘unequivocal apology’ (Irish Examiner, 16 June 2010) to emphasize its magnitude. When the use of words such as ‘offer’ or ‘deliver’ are used to describe apology, the metaphor of transferring a gift is evoked. As noted above, the use of adjectives such as ‘fulsome’ and ‘full’ couple with this metaphor to positively evaluate the apology. There is little controversy in the data over whether this is an ‘apology’ in the sense that it meets all the criteria for one. It could be argued that even those who say this is a ‘grovel’ recognize it as an apology. However, this would be to ignore the way in which they do reconstruct it and the effects that such a reconstruction has. It may be that the presence of an explicit IFID, ‘sorry’, removes all controversy (Harris et al., 2006) but this is not the full picture since it does not account for some who say, like this solider, that this was ‘grovelling’: Extract 12: ARRSE online forum 1 Very disappointing bit of grovelling from CMD. I thought we had left the 2 meaningless apologies behind us when the previous shower were turfed out.

This reconstruction mediates and evaluates the apology by using metaphor to construct the apology (‘grovelling’) along with predication (‘meaningless’) in order to delegitimate it. Such a categorization is as rhetorically significant as calling it an ‘apology’ and it is important not to ignore these additional categorizations of Cameron’s speech such as here and in Extract 11 where it was described as an ‘apology and unconditional acceptance of that truth (i.e., the Saville Inquiry)’. There the apology is categorized as ‘acceptance of truth’ – a construction which is specific in terms of what the apology is. An apology can thus be constructed as having a relationship to some other event which further delineates its meaning. Each of these different categorizations of the apology evaluates the apology and places the actors into social configurations which suit their rhetorical goals.

Reasons Finally, people reconstruct the reasons for the apology – similar to Attenborough’s (2014) ‘intention’ category. In managing the rationale, Cameron has to convince at least two audiences. There is the audience to whom he speaks in parliament and there are the families of the victims. Because of these face concerns, and to avoid potential criticism, Cameron needs to manage responsibility for the apology to enable him to be relieved of the responsibility for making the apology. He needs to show that the reason for the apology is not because he personally desires to make it. To do this, Cameron places emphasis on the external causes for the apology. Conversely, he emphasizes that there were few internal causes. Establishing causation through discourse has been explored by Edwards and Potter (1993) who suggested that the attribution of causation be considered, not as a manifestation of cognition, but as a fundamental part of social action. Their discursive action model of attribution offers an overview of some ways in which attribution can be enacted – such as the identification of group membership in an activity or by identifying personality as a

666

Andrew McNeill et al.

factor in explaining an activity. This approach to attribution of causality is broadly adopted here. To emphasize the external causes, with forceful repetition Cameron says things such as, Extract 13: Hansard 1 There is no doubt. There is nothing equivocal. There are no ambiguities. What 2 happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable.

Truth, as a higher standard than himself, is constructed as compelling him to make the apology. What happened is described as ‘unjustifiable’ (Extract 12, line 2) and thus the compulsion which Cameron is under is highlighted. Cameron emphasizes this compulsion by saying that there is no point in ‘hiding from the truth’ (Appendix, line 59) and noting that it is necessary to offer an apology to be a good state and to ‘demonstrate how a State should hold itself to account’ (Appendix, line 127). Conversely, he denies that there is an internal locus of cause except for his desire to submit to the higher standard of truth – which in itself establishes an external cause. He denies that there is any causation rising from his own lack of patriotism or love for his country and its armed forces. He says Extract 14: Hansard 1 Mr Speaker, I am deeply patriotic. I never want to believe anything bad about our 2 country. I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army 3 who I believe to be the finest in the world.

The repeated expression ‘never want to’ works as stake inoculation to counteract claims of being personally motivated (Potter, 1996, pp. 125–128). It shows how Cameron is striving to construct the apology as being compelled by the external force of truth rather than any internal desire. He constructs his beliefs by saying that he believes the British Army is ‘the finest in the world’ (Extract 14, line 3) and this militates against anyone constructing the apology as being motivated by Cameron’s personal beliefs. This functions to legitimate the apology because he offers it with sincere motives – an example of Van Leeuwen’s (2008) ‘moral evaluation’. The Unionist press is mixed in its response to the apology. For some who approve of it, Cameron, as the British Prime Minister, is seen as being responsible for the actions of the military and thus is compelled to offer an apology for Bloody Sunday. However, those who do not favour the apology can reconstruct it to minimize the external forces (such as responsibility) which compel Cameron to apologize. One way this is done is by creating a distance between the present and the past in a similar phenomenon to John Howard’s refusal to apologize for injustice committed against Indigenous Australians (Hastie, 2009). One Unionist writer says Extract 15: News Letter, 21 June 2010 1 He was 5 years old in January 1972. Neither he nor his government bears any 2 responsibility for what happened that day. Sinn Fein demanded an inquiry from Blair 3 as one of the necessary prices to keep them in the peace process…

Reconstructing apology

667

The apology is constructed as being given despite Cameron’s lack of responsibility. This pattern is also seen in responses to Kevin Rudd’s apology to the stolen generations as people invoke the self-sufficient argument, ‘present generations cannot be blamed for the mistakes of past generations’ (LeCouteur & Augoustinos, 2001, p. 54). This kind of argument removes any burden of responsibility from the apologizer and allows the apology-mediator to add their own reason for the apologizer’s speech. The writer here attributes the external cause to Sinn Fein. By doing so, Cameron is made to look like a pawn of people who want to obtain an apology for political ends. Again, some soldiers perform this same reconstruction strategy: Extract 16: ARRSE online forum 1 Personally, I think he and the last Labour government were heart scared of the IRA 2 and gave in at every opportunity.

This addition of this reconstructed reason delegitimates the apology by pointing to the fear of the apologizer. However, most British media concur with Cameron’s reason of external cause. Primarily though, they focus on the plight of the victims’ families who suffered because of Bloody Sunday. In many of the British newspaper articles, the reason for the apology was to alleviate that suffering. One newspaper writes the following: Extract 17: The Guardian, 16 June 2010 1 David Cameron risked the wrath of MPs in his party and made a formal apology on 2 behalf of the government for the ‘unjustified and unjustifiable’ killings documented 3 by Lord Saville’s inquiry, welcoming the ‘closure’ it will now hopefully begin to 4 give grieving families.

The primary reason is located here in the families’ needs. He is described as ‘welcoming’ the ‘closure’ (Extract 17, line 3) that the Saville Inquiry brings to the victims’ families and along with that, he makes his apology which will also help to ease the grief of the families. He is portrayed as taking a risk in doing this by exposing himself to the wrath of his party and the apology is seen in an even more altruistic light (Extract 17, line 1). The attribution of a reason is a major element of reconstruction concerned with attributing responsibility for the apology. Typically, people are concerned to find an external attribution that places the apologizer in a positive light. However, some Unionists and some soldiers, displeased with the apology, find a negative external cause in order to derogate the apology.

Conclusion Social actors, consequences, categorization, and reasons of the apology: These four aspects are the focus of contested constructions. The social actors in the apology are identified and arranged, the consequences explain whether positive or negative consequences will result, the categorization of the apology establishes the nature of the apology and the reasons establish whether external or internal causes produced the apology. Each of these aspects has helpful implications in the study of apology. This is not an exhaustive summary of possible reconstructions of the apology but should be a

668

Andrew McNeill et al.

helpful summation of the key ways in which reconstruction takes place. The recontextualization/reconstruction of apologies has not been explicitly considered in previous research and this article makes a contribution to understanding in this area. While other literature on apology has identified that political apologies are highly mediated (Harris et al., 2006) and some have examined the evaluation of apologies (Augoustinos & LeCouteur, 2004; Jeffries, 2007; LeCouteur & Augoustinos, 2001), none has explicitly examined the process of mediation by which apologies are reconstructed and evaluated. Augoustinos and LeCouteur (2004) consider the construction of what ‘apology’ means for different groups. However, their analysis stops short of examining the construction and subsequent reconstruction of an apology along with the broad range of areas in which an apology can be reconstructed. Further research in this area could elaborate other ways in which reconstruction of apologies takes place in different groups and different media. By doing so, we will gain a clearer understanding of how an initial apology can fragment into a range of reconstructed apologies which are mediated to various communities. The use of various social actors in reconstruction is an indication that just because an apology is said to be given to a certain group, other groups may construct the recipients of the apology differently. The same pattern is seen for each of the four aspects of reconstruction. In research, apologies are generally seen in terms of what the apologizer says and their construction of the apology becomes the basis for evaluating the response of other groups (e.g., Philpot & Hornsey, 2008; Wohl, Hornsey, & Bennett, 2012). However, it is suggested here that the construction of the apology made by the apologizing party need not always bear close similarity to that of other groups. The aspects of construction suggested here give considerable leeway for groups to reconstruct the apology according to their own goals. Thus, the function of the apology for the apologizer may not be the function of the apology for the rest of the group or for other groups. In this situation, Cameron’s stated functions of the apology (e.g., meeting victim needs and being a model state) are very different from the functions that the Unionist press uses it for (e.g., demands for reciprocation of apology). Over-generalized notions of the functions of apology tend to focus too much on only one group’s construction. Again, the idea that there are numerous reconstructions of an apology that can and do occur suggest that trying to link specific elements of an apology to the success of that apology may be generalizing too much. While research detailing elements of an apology is useful (Blatz, Schumann, & Ross, 2009), trying to make a straightforward connection between those elements and the success of an apology is likely to be too simplistic. It can be seen here that the reconstruction of the apology means that many groups actively participate in mediating and constructing the apology. The concern by various newspapers to reconstruct the consequences of the apology to portray advantage or disadvantage for the newspaper’s typical audience suggests that self-interest has much to do with the acceptance or rejection of an apology. The rhetorical goals of the writer thus constrain the recontextualization that is made. It is also vital to pay increased attention to social constructions in social psychology. Typically, apologies are seen as part of a shame-guilt transaction (Brewer, 2010; Giner-Sorolla et al., 2010). But when the actual constructions are evaluated, such a straightforward view cannot always be maintained. For example, Cameron argues that honesty makes his group stronger. Does any group receive shame as a result of the apology? Well yes, part of the British army constructs itself as receiving shame – which is interesting because this seems to be an example of an apology which allocates shame to a subsidiary group. Augoustinos et al. (2011, p. 528) note that in Rudd’s apology he avoids

Reconstructing apology

669

blaming and shaming the White majority and blames ‘laws and policies of successive governments’ in a similar phenomenon. How this shame-displacement functions as a strategy to produce apologies more acceptable to the apologizing group merits further research. This research takes an alternative perspective on many longstanding issues in apology research. While Goffman (1971) and Tavuchis (1991) take differing perspectives on the role of the ‘self’ in apology, this research suggests that how that ‘self’ and other ‘selves’ are constructed through discourse is important because these are often strategically used to manipulate allocation of responsibility for the harmful act for example. And these separate selves can also have an effect on how the apology is presented as being something positive – for example Cameron’s claim that the apology differentiates the government from terrorists thereby dissociating the harmful act from the identity of the British government (a feature of apology noted by Petrucci, 2002). Finally, this perspective may be useful in considering apologies in other post-conflict situations. Analysis of how apologies function for different groups may facilitate greater understanding of the dynamics of apology and aid understanding of the complications facing post-conflict peace-building. Apologies are often seen as part of several reconciliatory justice strategies (David & Choi, 2009) but what is often relatively unconsidered is how apologies shape public discourses surrounding victims and perpetrators. For example, the reconstruction of Cameron’s apology enabled the apology to shape public discourse in a way that allowed British media to talk about how the apology softened demands for prosecution and appeased desire for vengeance. Clearly, this has implications for peace-building and the role of apology in peace-building must be understood to go further than simply promoting attitudinal change in the victim. Apologies change discourse. The reconstruction of apologies changes discourse. And the changing of discourse can occur in many groups in society – all of which have an input into shaping a more positive post-conflict society.

References Abell, J., & Stokoe, E. H. (1999). I take full responsibility, I take some responsibility, I’ll take half of it but no more than that’: Princess Diana and the negotiation of blame in the Panorama Interview. Discourse Studies, 1, 297–319. doi:10.1177/1461445699001003002 Abell, J., Stokoe, E. H., & Billig, M. (2000). Narrative and the discursive (re)construction of events. In M. Andrews, S. D. Sclater, C. Squire & A. Treacher (Eds.), The Uses of Narrative: Explorations in Sociology, Psychology and Cultural Studies (pp. 180–192). London, UK: Transaction Publishers. Attenborough, F. (2014). Jokes, pranks, blondes and banter: Recontextualising sexism in the British print press. Journal of Gender Studies, 23, 137–154. doi:10.1080/09589236.2013.774269 Augoustinos, M., Hastie, B., & Wright, M. (2011). Apologizing for historical injustice: Emotion, truth and identity in political discourse. Discourse & Society, 22, 507–531. doi:10.1177/ 0957926511405573 Augoustinos, M., & LeCouteur, A. (2004). On whether to apologize to indigenous Australians. In N. Branscombe & B. Doosje (Eds.), Collective guilt: International perspectives (p. 236). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Augoustinos, M., LeCouteur, A., & Soyland, J. (2002). Self-sufficient arguments in political rhetoric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the stolen generations. Discourse & Society, 13, 105–142. doi:10.1177/0957926502013001005 Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

670

Andrew McNeill et al.

Blatz, C. W., Schumann, K., & Ross, M. (2009). Government apologies for historical injustices. Political Psychology, 30, 219–241. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00689.x Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa Brewer, J. D. (2010). Peace processes: A sociological approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity. Conway, B. (2003). Active remembering, selective forgetting, and collective identity: The case of Bloody Sunday. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 3, 305–323. doi:10. 1207/S1532706XID0304_01 Darby, B., & Schlenker, B. (1989). Children’s reactions to transgressions: Effects of the actor’s apology, reputation and remorse. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 353–364. doi:10. 1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00879.x David, R., & Choi, S. Y. P. (2009). Getting even or getting equal? Retributive desires and transitional justice. Political Psychology, 30, 161–192. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00687.x Edwards, D. (1991). Categories are for talking. Theory & Psychology, 1, 515–542. doi:10.1177/ 0959354391014007 Edwards, D., & Potter, J. (1993). Language and causation: A discursive action model of description and attribution. Psychological Review, 100, 23. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.100.1.23 Edwards, D., Potter, J., & Middleton, D. (1992). Toward a discursive psychology of remembering. The Psychologist, 5, 441–446. Ehrlich, S. (2007). (Re) contextualizing compaintants’ accounts of sexual assault. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 9, 193–212. Fish, S. E. (1976). Interpreting the ‘Variorum’. Critical Inquiry, 2, 465–485. Giner-Sorolla, R., Kamau, C. W., & Castano, E. (2010). Guilt and shame through recipients’ eyes: The moderating effect of blame. Social Psychology, 41, 88. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000013 Goffman, E. (1971). Relations in public: Microstudies of the public order. New York, NY: Basic. Hansard, H. C. (2010). Saville Inquiry, Vol. 511, cols 739–742, June 15. Harris, S., Grainger, K., & Mullany, L. (2006). The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse & Society, 17, 715–737. doi:10.1177/0957926506068429 Hastie, B. (2009). ‘Excusing the inexcusable’: Justifying injustice in Nelson’s sorry speech. Discourse & Society, 20, 705–725. doi:10.1177/0957926509342366 Iyengar, S., & Kinder, D. R. (1987). News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Jeffries, L. (2007). Journalistic constructions of Blair’s’ Apology’for the intelligence leading to the Iraq war. In S. Johnson & A. Ensslin (Eds.), Language in the media: Representations, identities, ideologies (pp. 48–69). London, UK: Continuum. Kampf, Z. (2008). The pragmatics of forgiveness: Judgments of apologies in the Israeli political arena. Discourse & Society, 19, 577–598. doi:10.1177/0957926506068429 Kampf, Z. (2009). Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 2257–2270. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2008.11.007 Kim, S.-H., Scheufele, D. A., & Shanahan, J. (2002). Think about it this way: Attribute agenda-setting function of the press and the public’s evaluation of a local issue. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79, 7–25. doi:10.1177/107769900207900102 Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343–356. doi:10. 1037/0003-066X.36.4.343 LeCouteur, A., & Augoustinos, M. (2001). Apologising to the stolen generations: Argument, rhetoric, and identity in public reasoning. Australian Psychologist, 36, 51–61. doi:10.1080/ 00050060108259631 Leeming, D., & Boyle, M. (2013). Managing shame: An interpersonal perspective. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 140–160. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.2011.02061.x MacMillan, K., & Edwards, D. (1999). Who killed the princess? Description and blame in the British press. Discourse Studies, 1, 151–174. doi:10.1177/1461445699001002002 McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 176. doi:10.1086/267990

Reconstructing apology

671

McCombs, M. E., & Shaw, D. L. (1993). The evolution of agenda-setting research: Twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas. Journal of Communication, 43, 58–67. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466. 1993.tb01262.x Petrucci, C. J. (2002). Apology in the criminal justice setting: Evidence for including apology as an additional component in the legal system. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 20, 337–362. doi:10. 1002/bsl.495 Philpot, C. R., & Hornsey, M. J. (2008). What happens when groups say sorry: The effect of intergroup apologies on their recipients. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 474– 487. doi:10.1177/0146167207311283 Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, UK: Sage. Potter, J., & Edwards, D. (2001). Discursive social psychology. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 103–118). London, UK: John Wiley. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology. London, UK: Sage. Potter, J., & Wetherell, M. (1995). Discourse analysis. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 80–92). London, UK: Sage. Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2009). The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In R. Wodak & M. Meyer (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 87–121). London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd. Tavuchis, N. (1991). Mea culpa: A sociology of apology and reconciliation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Van Dijk, T. A. (1991). Racism and the Press. London, UK: Routledge. Van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Van Leeuwen, T., & Wodak, R. (1999). Legitimizing immigration control: A discourse-historical analysis. Discourse Studies, 1, 83–118. doi:10.1177/1461445699001001005 Wee, L. (2004). ‘Extreme communicative acts’ and the boosting of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 2161–2178. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2004.01.001 Wetherell, M., & Potter, J. (1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of racism. Hertfordshire, UK: Harvester Whethersheaf. Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 306–322. doi:10.1037/a0024838 Received 14 May 2012; revised version received 19 September 2013

Appendix: The text of David Cameron’s apology given in the House of Commons on 15 June 2010 (Hansard, 2010). 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is publishing the report of the Saville inquiry-the tribunal set up by the previous Government to investigate the tragic events of 30 January 1972, a day more commonly known as ‘Bloody Sunday’. We have acted in good faith by publishing the tribunal’s findings as quickly as possible after the general election. I am deeply patriotic; I never want to believe anything bad about our country; I never want to call into question the behaviour of our soldiers and our Army, which I believe to be the finest in the world. And I have seen for myself the very difficult and Continued

672 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Andrew McNeill et al. dangerous circumstances in which we ask our soldiers to serve. But the conclusions of this report are absolutely clear: there is no doubt; there is nothing equivocal; there are no ambiguities. What happened on Bloody Sunday was both unjustified and unjustifiable. It was wrong. Lord Saville concludes that the soldiers of Support Company who went into the Bogside ‘did so as a result of an order… which should have not been given’ by their commander. He finds that ‘on balance the first shot in the vicinity of the march was fired by the British Army’ and that ‘none of the casualties shot by soldiers of Support Company was armed with a firearm’. He also finds that ‘there was some firing by Republican paramilitaries… but… none of this firing provided any justification for the shooting of civilian casualties’, and that ‘in no case was any warning given before soldiers opened fire’. lord Saville also finds that Support Company ‘reacted by losing their self-control… forgetting or ignoring their instructions and training’ and acted with ‘a serious and widespread loss of fire discipline’. He finds that ‘despite the contrary evidence given by the soldiers… none of them fired in response to attacks or threatened attacks by nail or petrol bombers’ and that many of the soldiers ‘knowingly put forward false accounts in order to seek to justify their firing’. What is more, Lord Saville says that some of those killed or injured were clearly fleeing or going to the assistance of others who were dying. The report refers to one person who was shot while ‘crawling… away from the soldiers’ and mentions another who was shot, in all probability, ‘when he was lying mortally wounded on the ground’. And the report refers to a father who was ‘hit and injured by Army gunfire after he had gone to… tend his son’. For those looking for statements of innocence, Saville says: 15 Jun 2010: Column 740 ‘The immediate responsibility for the deaths and injuries on Bloody Sunday lies with those members of Support Company whose unjustifiable firing was the cause of those deaths and injuries’, and, crucially, that ‘none of the casualties was posing a threat of causing death or serious injury, or indeed was doing anything else that could on any view justify their shooting’. For those people who were looking for the report to use terms like murder and unlawful killing, I remind the House that these judgments are not matters for a tribunal, or for us as politicians, to determine. These are shocking conclusions to read and shocking words to have to say, but we do not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. We do not honour all those who have served with distinction in keeping the peace and upholding the rule of law in Northern Ireland by hiding from the truth. So there is no point in trying to soften, or equivocate about, what is in this report. It is clear from the tribunal’s Continued

Reconstructing apology 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111

673

authoritative conclusions that the events of Bloody Sunday were in no way justified. I know that some people wonder whether, nearly 40 years on from an event, a Prime Minister needs to issue an apology. For someone of my generation, Bloody Sunday and the early 1970s are something that we feel we have learnt about rather than lived through. But what happened should never, ever have happened. The families of those who died should not have had to live with the pain and hurt of that day, and with a lifetime of loss. Some members of our armed forces acted wrongly. The Government are ultimately responsible for the conduct of the armed forces, and for that, on behalf of the Government –indeed, on behalf of our country – I am deeply sorry. Just as the report is clear that the actions of that day were unjustifiable, so too it is clear in some of its other findings. Those looking for premeditation, those looking for a plan, those even looking for a conspiracy involving senior politicians or senior members of the armed forces, will not find it in this report. Indeed, Lord Saville finds no evidence that the events of Bloody Sunday were premeditated. He concludes that the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland Governments, and the Army, neither Tolerated nor encouraged ‘the use of unjustified lethal force’. he makes no suggestion of a Government cover-up, and he credits the United Kingdom Government with working towards a peaceful political settlement in Northern Ireland. The report also specifically deals with the actions of key individuals in the Army, in politics and beyond, including Major-General Ford, Brigadier MacLellan and Lieutenant-Colonel Wilford. In each case, the tribunal’s findings are clear. The report does the same for Martin McGuinness. It specifically finds that he was present and probably armed with a ‘sub-machine-gun’, but concludes ‘we are sure that he did not engage in any activity that provided any of the soldiers with any justification for opening fire’. While in no way justifying the events of 30 January 1972, we should acknowledge the background to the events of Bloody Sunday. Since 1969, the security situation in Northern Ireland had been declining significantly. Three days before Bloody Sunday, two officers in the 15 Jun 2010: Column 741 Royal Ulster Constabulary-one a Catholic-were shot by the IRA in Londonderry, the first police officers killed in the city during the troubles. A third of the city of Derry had become a no-go area for the RUC and the Army, and in the end 1972 was to prove Northern Ireland’s bloodiest year by far, with nearly 500 people killed. Let us also remember that Bloody Sunday is not the defining story of the service that the British Army gave in Northern Ireland from 1969 to 2007. That was known as Operation Banner, the longest continuous operation in British military history, which spanned 38 years and in which over 250,000 people served. Our armed forces displayed enormous courage and professionalism in upholding democracy and the rule of law in Northern Ireland. Acting in support of the police, they played a major part in setting the conditions that have made peaceful politics possible, and over 1,000 members of the security forces lost their lives to that cause. Without their work, the peace process would not have happened. Of course some mistakes were undoubtedly made, but lessons were also learnt. Once again, I put on record the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe those who served in Northern Ireland. I thank the tribunal for its work, and thank all those who displayed great courage in giving evidence. I also wish to acknowledge the grief of the families of those killed. They have pursued their long campaign over 38 years with great patience. Nothing can bring back those who were killed, but I hope that – as one relative has put it – the Continued

674 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153

Andrew McNeill et al. truth coming out can help to set people free. John Major said that he was open to a new inquiry. Tony Blair then set it up. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Opposition. Of course, none of us anticipated that the Saville inquiry would take 12 years or cost almost £200 million. Our views on that are well documented. It is right to pursue the truth with vigour and thoroughness, but let me reassure the House that there will be no more open-ended and costly inquiries into the past. However, today is not about the controversies surrounding the process. It is about the substance, about what this report tells us. Everyone should have the chance to examine its complete findings, and that is why it is being published in full. Running to more than 5,000 pages, it is being published in 10 volumes. Naturally, it will take all of us some time to digest the report’s full findings and understand all the implications. The House will have an opportunity for a full day’s debate this autumn, and in the meantime the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Defence will report back to me on all the issues that arise from it. This report and the inquiry itself demonstrate how a state should hold itself to account and how we should be determined at all times-no matter how difficult-to judge ourselves against the highest standards. Openness and frankness about the past, however painful, do not make us weaker; they make us stronger. That is one of the things that differentiates us from the terrorists. We should never forget that over 3,500 people, from every community, lost their lives in Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority killed by terrorists. There were many terrible atrocities. Politically motivated violence was never justified, whichever side it came from, and it can never be justified by those criminal gangs that today want to drag Northern Ireland back to its bitter and bloody past. No Government I lead will ever put those who fight to defend democracy on an equal footing with those who continue to seek to destroy it, but nor will we hide from the truth that confronts us today. In the words of Lord Saville: ‘What happened on Bloody Sunday strengthened the Provisional IRA, increased nationalist resentment and hostility towards the Army and exacerbated the violent conflict of the years that followed. Bloody Sunday was a tragedy for the bereaved and the wounded, and a catastrophe for the people of Northern Ireland.’ Those are words we cannot and must not ignore, but I hope what this report can do is mark the moment when we come together, in this House and in the communities we represent; come together to acknowledge our shared history, even where it divides us; and come together to close this painful chapter on Northern Ireland’s troubled past. That is not to say that we must ever forget or dismiss that past, but we must also move on. Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past 20 years and all of us in Westminster and Stormont must continue that work of change, coming together with all the people of Northern Ireland, to build a stable, peaceful, prosperous and shared future. It is with that determination that I commend this statement to the House

Copyright of British Journal of Social Psychology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Reconstructing apology: David Cameron's Bloody Sunday apology in the press.

While there is an acknowledgement in apology research that political apologies are highly mediated, the process of mediation itself has lacked scrutin...
176KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views