On January 30, 1972, in Derry, Northern Ireland, British soldiers opened fire on Irish citizens participating in a peaceful civil rights march, killing thirteen men and injuring as many others. This event, called “Bloody Sunday,” was the subject of two formal inquiries by the British government, one conducted by Lord Widgery in 1972 that exonerated the British soldiers and one led by Lord Saville, which published its findings in June 2010 and found the British troops to be at fault. Before the second investigation gave its report, a number of dramatic productions had contradicted the official British version of events and presented the Irish point of view. Two films and two plays in particular—the drama The Freedom of the City (1973), the filmed docudramas Bloody Sunday and Sunday (both 2002), and the documentary theater production Bloody Sunday: Scenes from the Saville Inquiry (2005)—were aimed at audiences that did not recognize the injustices that took place in Derry. All four dramatic presentations in some way replicate the words and actions of one or more significant individuals involved in the march or in the investigation that followed it. This report examines the possibilities and limitations of the three different genres the authors used to present the truth about the atrocity that the British government refused to acknowledge for thirty-eight years. It also reassesses the success and value of each production in the light of the Saville Inquiry findings. / text

This dissertation focuses on British imperial violence in India and Ireland just after the First World War. It compares incidents of violence in each place to argue that British violent repression was an essential component of the imperial system. It also analyzes the public reaction to these events to show new, sharp divisions in British politics that had significant implications for the fate of Ireland, then waging a war for independence. Specifically, this dissertation compares, by way of case studies, the “Amritsar Massacre” of April 13, 1919 and the administration of martial law in Punjab, to the ways in which Crown Forces exacted reprisals against unarmed civilians during the Irish war for independence, including the incident of November 21, 1920, commonly referred to as “Bloody Sunday,” when British ex-military officers opened fire on a crowd watching an Irish football match. The authorities in Punjab and Ireland committed reprehensible acts that resulted in official government inquiries. The Hunter Committee, as the inquiring body into the Punjab incidents is known, condemned the shooting at Amritsar. The Government of India forced the officer responsible, General Dyer, to retire. The British reaction to this was sharply divided between Conservatives and Irish Unionists who championed Dyer and Liberals, Indian and Irish nationalists who felt the government had been too lenient on the man. Similarly, countless voices decried the excesses of imperialism and the use of reprisals against the Irish Republican Army (IRA), but for varied reasons. The public reaction to these Irish and Indian developments, along with British policy, transpired in the context of a “crisis of empire.” Britain was beset by unrest not only in Ireland and India, but also in Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine. Colonial nationalists radicalized by the war and Wilsonian notions of self-determination demanded self-government while Britain fought fiscal insolvency, domestic unrest, Bolshevism and Pan-Islamism. In this global context, concessions to moderate nationalists would have to be made and coercion used only as a last resort. In this sense the imperial system was changing, and the old guard stood determined to fight it. / text

Le 30 janvier 1972, dans la ville nord-irlandaise de Derry/Londonderry, treize personnes furent tuées par des soldats britanniques alors qu’elles participaient à une manifestation pour les droits civiques. Ce « Bloody Sunday » provoqua immédiatement des polémiques : les soldats affirmaient avoir répliqué à des tirs, ce que contestaient vigoureusement les civils. Le verdict de la première enquête publique, qui conclut en 1972 que les soldats avaient agi dans les règles, ne fut jamais accepté par les familles des victimes, qui lancèrent en 1992 une campagne réclamant une nouvelle enquête. En 1998, dans le contexte du processus de paix, le gouvernement britannique accéda à cette requête et créa l’enquête Saville. Le défi était grand : comment réécrire la mémoire officielle d’un événement aussi symbolique, alors que celui-ci avait déjà été intégré dans des mémoires collectives antagonistes et fortement enracinées ? Ce travail étudie l’enquête Saville à la lumière de trois grands concepts : la vérité, la justice et la mémoire. La vérité, car la découvrir était l’objectif premier de l’enquête. La justice, car une enquête publique, bien que n’étant pas un procès, la sert en rétablissant la confiance en l’Etat de droit et en accordant aux victimes une reconnaissance officielle. Enfin, la mémoire, car une tentative de réécrire la version officielle d’un tel événement se heurtait forcément aux mémoires collectives existantes : celles des communautés nationaliste et unioniste, mais aussi de l’Etat. Cette enquête chargée d’oeuvrer pour la réconciliation a donc du gérer les difficultés nées de ces relations étroites mais parfois conflictuelles entre vérité, justice et mémoire. / On January 30th, 1972, in the Northern Irish city of Derry/Londonderry, thirteen people who had been taking part in a civil rights demonstration were shot dead by British soldiers. This ‘Bloody Sunday’ immediately sparked controversy: the soldiers claimed they had fired in retaliation, which civilian witnesses categorically denied. In 1972, the conclusion of the first public inquiry that the soldiers had acted within the rules was rejected by the victims’ families, who launched a campaign demanding a new inquiry in 1992. In 1998, as the peace process was under way, the British government granted a second public inquiry, to be chaired by Lord Saville. This inquiry faced a major challenge: how could they rewrite the official memory of such a symbolic event, which had already been integrated into deeply entrenched, antagonistic collective memories? Three main concepts were used to study the Saville inquiry in this work: truth, justice and memory. Finding the truth was announced as one of the inquiries’ main objectives. Justice is also highly relevant, for even though the inquiry is not a trial, it does serve justice by restoring confidence in the rule of law and providing official recognition for the victims. Finally, the importance of memory is paramount, as any attempt to rewrite the official narrative of an event was bound to clash with existing collective memories: the collective memories of the nationalist and unionist communities, but also the official memory of the British state. Truth, justice and memory thus appear to be closely linked, but may also collide, making it difficult for the inquiry to reach the objective of bringing about reconciliation.

Depuis la signature de l’Accord de paix du Vendredi Saint, l’Irlande du Nord a entamé son processus de transition après trente ans d’un conflit communément appelé les Troubles. Parmi les questions relatives à son cheminement se pose celle du Bloody Sunday. Lors de cet évènement tristement célèbre des Troubles, quatorze civils furent tués par des soldats britanniques, alors qu’ils prenaient part à une manifestation pour les droits civiques. Les soldats n’ont pas eu à faire face au processus judiciaire, malgré la volonté des familles des victimes d’obtenir justice. Une amnistie visant les soldats responsables fut proposée en mars 2014, à titre de mécanisme de justice transitionnelle pour accompagner la société nord- irlandaise dans sa démarche vers un état de paix. Entre droit et politique, plusieurs questions se posent relativement à un tel projet. La présente étude vise à examiner la validité de cette proposition d’amnistie eu égard aux valeurs de l’État de droit. / Since the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, the Northern Irish society has embarked on its transitional process towards peace, attempting to leave behind thirty years of a conflict commonly known as the Troubles. This outcome brings to light many different issues, amongst which is that of the Bloody Sunday. This infamous event of the Troubles saw fourteen civilians killed by British soldiers as they were taking part in a civil rights demonstration. The soldiers were spared the judicial process despite the efforts deployed by the victims’ families to bring them to justice. In 2014, an amnesty was suggested as a transitional justice mechanism to further the society’s transition to the post-conflict era. This study examines the validity of such an amnesty in light of the underlying values of the Rule of Law.

When Brian Friel’s play The Freedom of the City premiered in 1973, just a year after the events of Bloody Sunday, it was met with harsh criticism and called a work of propaganda. In the play, three peaceful protestors flee a civil rights demonstration turned violent and end up trapped inside the Guildhall in Derry, Northern Ireland. By the end of the play, they are shot dead. These three protestors, disoriented by violence as well as the aftereffects of life-long poverty, on the surface are not emblems of morality. However, this thesis employs Ami Harbin’s theorization of disorientation and moral action to challenge traditional virtue ethics and showcase that even in the midst of all-encompassing disorientation, moral action can easily emerge, even from the most unexpected person. Specifically, I look at the character Skinner, a flippant hooligan who leads the other trapped protestors through a series of games ultimately meant to encourage them to embrace their disorientation as he has. Within Friel’s drama, accepting and embracing disorientation as opposed to fighting it, I conclude, is what frees one from the bounds of disorientation, and in this case, allows a person to more fully perpetuate moral action.