Unionist reaction to the BBC Panorama programme on collusion two weeks ago continues to trickle out, much of it coalescing around the point that the security forces murdered the fewest people during the Troubles.
This is a lamentable last-ditch defence of any sides position, especially the side that was not meant to be murdering anyone. There may have been a cold calculus of lives saved versus intelligence gathered and an argument that the latest definition of collusion rules out any use of informants - but let the intelligence services make that case for themselves.
They are fond enough of life and death posturing when demanding more powers for new operations. Why not oblige us with some retrospective justification, in public? The practice of what is euphemistically called security journalism should be decommissioned in peace time, with fewer briefings and more interviews a professional media imperative.
Beyond its moral squalor, the fewest murders defence fails as a re-writing of history not because it is inaccurate but because it bears little relation to how ordinary unionists thought at the time.
Crudely put, the general unionist reaction to the Troubles was that the security forces were not taking enough lethal action to save lives - although in polite circles this was expressed as not making enough arrests. There was genuine mystification in the garden centre at the freedom of known paramilitaries and their leaders to walk the streets, participate in illegal displays and appear on the airwaves.
For many unionists, the shoot-to-kill allegations of the 1980s brought this perplexity to a head. How could the IRA, a self-described army at war, object to being shot?
Today, the official explanation for all of this is that no security solution to the Troubles was possible because republicans and loyalists had the tacit support of their respective communities. This is another re-writing of history, whose increasing use as a retrospective justification for violence makes it the most dangerous revision of all.
At the time, there was no perception of a widespread support for paramilitarism. Nationalists voted exclusively and overwhelmingly for the pacifist SDLP throughout the 1970s, then only in small numbers for Sinn Fein throughout the 1980s. Unionists prided themselves on their respectable detachment from loyalism, a stance that continues to infuriate loyalists and republicans but which was nevertheless sincerely held.
A security crackdown in the late 1970s under secretary of state Roy Mason appeared to have worked, at least until the disorder following the hunger strikes, although that just seemed to warrant another crackdown. The classic clich of the Troubles - that a handful of lunatics were ruining a great little place for the rest of us - was the entirely credible view of the bulk of the population, accompanied by incomprehension that the lunatics were still at large.
Unionists have as much reason as anyone else to want an explanation for that and they are in no more danger than republicans of disliking the answer. Ultimately, what is there to fear? The inevitable activist and academic attempts to blame Britain for everything will not make one single person less British.
A more pressing concern from our hapless debate on dealing with the past is the presumption that dirty war dealings are a thing of the past.
This latter-day denial should prove to any doubters that Troubles clichs were truly believed. Any examination of current loyalist and dissident republican activity can only conclude that certain groups and individuals are literally getting away with murder.
In an age of science fiction surveillance and catch-all anti-terrorist laws, when secret courts can lock people up merely for expressing violent views online, the immunity of todays favoured few is laughably obvious. Dealing with the past is an essential first step to dealing with this unacceptable present and reasserting the moral norms that most people struggled throughout the Troubles to maintain. Instead, we are projecting our peace process cynicism back onto the past, which is the worst of both worlds.
However, we might as well be realistic about the chance of official cooperation - from London and closer to home. Consider, without whataboutery, just one illustration. In 1994 the findings of a re-investigation into the Birmingham pub bombings were sealed under a 75-year public interest immunity certificate by the director of public prosecutions for England and Wales, meaning nothing can be disclosed until 2069 - a date that ensures all involved will be safely dead.
Even if unionists think this serves their cause, how can they think it serves it honourably?
newton@irishnews.com
