Memorializing the Victims of Terrorism

Classifying Memorials (cont'd)

Classifying Memorials (cont'd)

Government Responses and Statements

It can be argued that government responses and statements regarding terrorist events constitute a form of memorialization. What is being referred to here are the public statements issued or made (primarily on the behalf of governments) by politicians and public officials. In seeking to identify responses and statements as forms of memorialization, it is important to keep in mind the elements that comprise a memorial. As discussed earlier in this report, within the context of terrorism and violence, "memorializing" is constituted by the intent to remember and preserve the memory of victims of traumatic and tragic events (Foot et al. 2006; Doka 2003). As such, government statements and responses that speak directly to these sentiments may be seen as a forum through which remembrance can be encouraged. More importantly, they also provide the opportunity for the open and national recognition of experiences of victims of terrorism.

Canadian governments have issued quite a number of statements that recognize the memory of victims of terrorism. However, the prominence of these statements must not override the need to understand some of the issues related to making responses regarding memorializing. For example, as public acknowledgements of terrorist events provide governments with the opportunity to incorporate statements regarding memorialization, it can also be argued that a lack of public recognition of terrorist events subsequently limits the opportunities for statements calling for remembrance to be made. The Canadian government’s initial response to the Air India bombing is an example of this circumstance.

Accounts of the experiences of victims’ families following the incident depict a scenario in which many families felt that they were being ignored by the Canadian government.  Feelings of isolation, frustration and grief were among the many sentiments expressed by the families, especially in terms of the government’s response to the tragedy.  According to the report, family members "often said that they felt that they were not viewed as "real Canadians" and that [the bombing] was somehow not considered to be a Canadian tragedy" (Air India Report 2008, 99). Families also expressed frustration with the lack of emotional support from the Canadian government. As one person stated during the inquiry: "We received no contact at all. There was nobody to help us to offer any sort of support, either emotional or logistical. … I felt they were completely ignorant of any aspect of the impact that this had on the family members" (Air India Report 2008, 103). Given these and other similar sentiments as expressed by the families, it is clear that there was no room for statements later regarding the importance of honouring and remembering the victims when the event was not recognized at the outset.  Many families have expressed that full acknowledgement of the tragedy as a Canadian tragedy has only recently been fulfilled as a result of the inquiry that began decades after the incident. Nevertheless, today, there are and continue to be many examples of government statements acknowledging and advocating the preservation of the memory of the victims of the Air India bombing but also of other terrorist events that have affected Canadians.  The discussion below briefly highlights some examples of these instances.

In terms of the Air India bombing, many statements regarding the memorialization of the victims have been made primarily at memorial services. For example, during a memorial service at the House of Commons held on the twentieth anniversary of the tragedy, then Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan issued the following statement: "Twenty years after this tragic event in Canadian history, our thoughts continue to be with the victims' families. These symbols of remembrance will serve to pay homage to the memory of the victims of the worst terrorist incident in Canadian history" (Public Safety Canada 2005).  Similarly, attendees at the unveiling ceremony of the Air India memorial in Vancouver heard the following statement issued from the city’s mayor: "The Vancouver Air India Memorial in Stanley Park will be a place to remember the innocence we lost that horrible day. It will be a place for children to be children. And it will be a place for parents and families to reflect on the precious things in life" (Public Safety Canada 2007).  Finally, similar sentiments have been echoed regarding the Canadian victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. During a memorial ceremony for the Canadian victims of the tragedy, then Public Safety Minister, Stockwell Day, acknowledged the lives lost in the tragedy when he stated: "Today is a solemn day. Six years ago this morning, the world was abruptly reminded that terrorism is an acute danger to us all. Our thoughts and prayers are with the families and loved ones of the 24 Canadians who were lost that day" (Public Safety Canada 2007c).

Akin to government statements and responses toward terrorist events, commissions and inquiries do not fall under the traditional definition of the term memorial (Bolan 2007). However, they do provide a chance to honour and remember the victims of terrorism and can also be described as government based responses to terrorist events.  For example, in 1997 the Northern Ireland Government issued a call to set up a commission to examine the ways in which their government memorialized the victims of Northern Ireland’s Troubles. The outcome of the commission was a report detailing the various ways the government could improve their efforts regarding the memorialization of The Troubles. The argument can be made that this particular commission and resulting report inherently function as a form of memorialization. First, the fact that a public report was produced signifies in many ways a public recognition of the experiences of the victims of the conflict. As well, the views expressed within the report also stand as instances of memorialization. For example, in his discussion on the rationale behind the development of a commission centred on memorializing the victims of the Troubles, Commissioner Bloomfield (1998, 23) stated: "We truly need to remember those who have suffered, to grieve at the side of this communal grave. … Not least among the objectives is the memory of dead individuals, of dead families, of dead communities should not fade into the mist of history as if they had never been." Finally, the Commission of the European Communities 2005 report on terrorism provides another international example of instances of memorialization through commissions and inquiries (Commission of the European Communities 2005).According to the commission, the report is dedicated to the memory of all European victims of terrorism. Similar to the Northern Ireland report, the Commission of the European Communities report stresses the need to openly and publicly recognize the experiences of victims and their loved ones.

In terms of the Canadian context, a similar assessment can be made of the Air India inquiry. Although the inquiry was mandated to address the complex issues associated with the bombing and ways to prevent future terrorist attacks, the first phase of the report has been described as a tribute to the memory of the lives lost in the attack, and an avenue through which the family members of the victims may grieve (Air India Report 2008). During the inquiry the family members and friends of victims were given the opportunity to share stories about their loved ones and their experiences of grief following the event. Though many of the families had previously shared some of their stories through other avenues, such as the media, they expressed that the inquiry was particularly significant because it was a formal forum supported by the Canadian government (Air India Report 2008). As well, the report also cites the inquiry as an opportunity to cement the experiences of victims and their families in Canada’s historical memory. As stated in the report (2008, 4), "…further passage of time cannot erode the public memory of the enormity of what happened. The pain and loss inflicted upon the families and communities of those who perished cannot be erased."

Overall, government statements, responses and commissions regarding terrorist events provide real opportunities to honour and remember the victims of terrorism. As such, any endeavour to memorialize the victims of terrorism may benefit from an examination of the role statements and responses made by governments (federal, provincial, municipal), city officials and politicians play in this process. Based on the experiences of the families of the victims of Air India flight 182, some issues to consider regarding memorializing through government statements are the importance of a timely response to terrorist events as well as the recognition of the experiences of victims and their families. 

Groups and Organizations

Groups and organizations have always taken a prominent role when it comes to assisting the victims of tragedy. According to Young (2003), in the wake of tragedy, survivors and their families often experience additional hardships not immediately central to the tragedy in question. Dubbed "secondary assaults," these hardships may stem from social and educational institutions and the justice system (Young 2003). Victims of terrorism and their family members have often times turned to organizations or groups to assist with many of the issues they may experience following a terrorist event. The memorialization process is an example of this kind of circumstance. When it comes to the issue of memorializing the victims of terrorism, groups and organizations can play primary roles. First, they function as sources of funding for memorial projects (Shipley 1987), but more importantly, they function as one of several bodies through which the various needs of victim may be advocated (Young 2003).  These needs include, but are not limited to access to victims’ services, assistance navigating the criminal justice process and access to health services (Young 2003). In the aftermath of terrorist events, advocacy for the needs of victims and their families regarding the memorialization of victims has become key for many groups and organizations (Couch et al. 2008). Here, groups and organizations have addressed issues such as the location of a memorial, the kinds of memorials to be developed and the meanings attached to them.

International examples that highlight the important role groups and organizations play during the memorialization process can be drawn from the experiences of several organizations developed following the September 11 terrorist attacks. In their analysis of three September 11 victims’ groups - the World Trade Center United Family Group, Peaceful Tomorrows, and the Skyscraper Safety Campaign - Couch et al. (2008) show that groups and organizations often serve as the primary means through which victims and their families can voice their needs regarding memorializing and remembrance of their loved ones.  Some of the needs expressed by victims through the groups included the need to preserve certain sites around the World Trade Center, and the assurance that all victims of September 11 would be formally recognized on any physical memorial to be erected (Couch et al. 2008).

Another international example can be drawn from the group S.O.S Attentat (S.O.S Terrorism). According to the organization’s website, S.O.S Attentat is a non-profit association whose aim is to advocate for the rights of French citizens victimized through terrorism, as well as preserve and honour their memory (S.O.S. Attentats, n.d.). To preserve the memory of victims, the association organizes annual ceremonies and openly advocates for a general society wide remembrance of victims.

In the Canadian context, there are several examples of victims’ groups, organizations and associations that have incorporated memorializing victims as part of their mandates. One prominent example is the Air India Victims Families Association. The association has been credited as one of main forces behind the push for the Air India inquiry through which families were provided with the opportunity to share and present stories and memories of their deceased loved ones. Another example is the Canadian Coalition Against Terror. Although the group’s primary objective is to enhance Canadian counterterrorism policies, several key members of the group have been very vocal in the push for the establishment of a national memorial honouring the Canadian victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks (Edwards 2008).

Based on the examples above, it is evident that groups and organizations can be a useful resource to individuals seeking to memorialize the victims of terrorism.  However, it is also important to recognize the possibility for conflict between and within groups and organizations working for victims. For example, in the case of September 11, the presence of multiple groups working to memorialize the World Trade Center site in distinctly different ways posed a significant challenge to the memorialization process. Couch et al. (2008) contend that although these groups shared similar experiences, they also expressed different ideas regarding the ways in which to memorialize the tragedy. In addition, consideration may also need to be given to some of the effects of competing visions on the outcomes of objectives developed by victims of terrorism. As scholars have noted, the struggle to further certain memorial based objectives over others has the real potential to exclude and obscure the perspectives of others (Gough 2007; Graham et al. 2007). Overall, these examples underscore the need to address differences between and within groups, and the ways in which these differences can impede, as well as contribute to the memorial process.  Finally, the presence of victims in the process must be considered, as well as the extent to which the voices of all victims can be effectively addressed.  

Days of Remembrance

Similar to physical memorials, days of remembrance are among the primary ways victims of terrorism have been memorialized. In general, days of remembrance encourage the repeated rituals of recognition lending salience to particular interpretations of events which then influence and shape societal thinking about similar events or issues. A notable example of this is Remembrance Day in Canada. On November 11, Canadians pay tribute to the lives and service of Canadian troops.  There are many current examples of days that have been established by governments as days to reflect on terrorist events and honour the lives lost or affected by those events. On the twentieth anniversary of the Air India bombing, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that June 23, chosen because of the Air India disaster, will be the official day to remember the victims of terrorism (Public Safety Canada 2005).  In the European Union, March 11 serves as the national day to remember the victims of terrorism. Officially known as the European Day for the Victims of Terrorism, the primary impetus behind the creation of the day was the March 11, 2004 Madrid train bombings that took the lives of 192 people and injured 1500 others (Moreno 2005). As for official days of remembrance in the United States, there is no "official," national day memorializing their major terrorist events (i.e. the World Trade Center attack of September 11th and the Oklahoma City bombing of April 19th), however the anniversaries of these events are marked throughout the country.

In general, a great benefit of implementing memorial or remembrance days is that they inherently support the call for memorialization or rather; they prevent the forgetting of significant events by reorienting memory towards that event. However, like the other forms and avenues of memorializing addressed in this report, they are also prone to many of the social and political issues that negatively impact the memorialization process.

In his research on establishing memorial days to honour the victims of the Holocaust, Stone (2000) presents some critical questions that should be addressed regarding memorializing via days of remembrance. According to Stone (2000), key issues to consider in this area are the extent to which the day being remembered is memorialized in a capacity worthy of the gravity of the event, and the implicit purposes and objectives being served through days of remembrance. This point addressed by Stone presents some significant implications for policies developed to address the ways in which to memorialize Canadian victims of terrorism. Given the severity of the Canadian instances of terrorism (e.g. Air India bombing, September 11 etc.), and the fact that a national day of remembrance has already been established in Canada, the key issue to address now becomes the extent to which the National Day to Remember the Victims of Terrorism effectively honours the memory of victims. Stone (2000) also highlights the issue of inclusion and exclusion.

Given the diversity of communities and the potential for varied experiences and meanings regarding particular events, establishing particular days of remembrance may pose some real challenges for society. According to Stone (2000), events such as the Holocaust which are particular to one or several groups should not be classified as a shared experience in culturally diverse nations such as Britain. For Stone, implementing a day of remembrance commemorating the Holocaust significantly skews the national identity of Britain because the Holocaust represents a very specific narrative particular to one group rather than many groups that comprise the British population.  Translated into the Canadian context, Stone’s arguments highlight the need to address the ways some groups in Canada have interpreted particular terrorist events and the subsequent ways they come to understand remembrance days memorializing these events.  A way to overcome this potential issue is to place an emphasis on the universal aspects related to significant events rather than focusing on certain particularities that may further divide groups (Hoskins 2007). As Hoskins notes (2007, 247), highly politicized campaigns to memorialize victims have the potential to be beneficial to the greater society because they establish a "basis for cross-cultural and cross-national empathy and understanding."