Key Reflections
* 2,977 people died on September 11, 2001, but in reality, the number of individuals impacted was actually much larger because the families and first responders were also affected. The real number is over 500,000.
* Canada’s biggest ever terrorist attack resulted in the bombing of a transatlantic flight in 1985 in which 329 people were killed by the proscribed Khalistani terrorist group Babbar Khalsa International. Its legacy continues to linger globally.
* Victims of terrorism need consistent information on what’s happening after an attack. Governments need to be listening to what their needs are. It’s vital to build public trust, confidence, and community engagement.
* The victims’ voice should always be at the table when decisions are made at an executive level on how to respond to an act of terrorism.
* Inquiries into terrorist attacks take years, which add to the trauma of family members. Sustained relationships with governmental agencies are essential as well as building the capacities to respond to the needs of those impacted.
* The pandemic has magnified the challenges that victims of terrorism have to endure. Many have faced isolation and unable to even attend funerals of loved ones resulting in re-traumatisation. Mental health support is very important, and victims need access to resources.
Transcript:
SG: Dr. Sajjan Gohel
MF: Mary Fetchet
SOS: Sue O’Sullivan
SG: Hello, and welcome to DEEP Dive, brought to you by NATO’s Defence Education Enhancement Programme. I’m your host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel. Each episode, we speak to experts and practitioners in international security and defence, counter-terrorism, and geopolitical current events to gain insight into the most pressing matters of global affairs.
In this episode, we speak to Mary Fetchet and Sue O’Sullivan. Mary is the driving force behind VOICES, an organisation she co-founded in 2001 following the death of her son Brad at the World Trade Center during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Mary has guided the development of programmes that provide continuity of care and promote resiliency in the lives of victims’ families and survivors. Sue served as the Deputy Chief of Police for the Ottawa Police Service and Canada’s Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime. Throughout her law-enforcement career, Sue has continually advocated to increase the efficiency of services to victims of terrorism. Sue is also a member of the Leadership in Counter Terrorism Alumni Association, a group of senior professional executives who work together to develop best practises for international counter terrorism coordination.
Mary and Sue, very warm welcome to NATO DEEP Dive.
MF: It’s great to be here.
SOS: Yeah, thank you for the invitation.
SG: It’s a pleasure. Mary, I’d like to start with you. Your story is very personal. And it’s important to hear about the terrible loss both you and your husband Frank and your children had to endure. Most people may not know what your background is when it comes to victim support. But please tell us, what got you involved in this?
MF: Well on 9/11, I was working as a clinical social worker at an outpatient mental health clinic. And back in the late ‘90s, I attended a conference where a woman spoke that lost her daughter in Oklahoma City bombing, which really propelled me to be interested and involved in the clinic’s response. So, I did a lot of research on how they responded following the attacks on Oklahoma City. And so, when 9/11 happened, I was at work that day and received a call from my husband that Brad had called him to tell him that he was okay, that a plane had hit the first tower, and they were told to remain in the office. And what I didn’t know at the time then, Brad called me at home, but I was at work at the time. So I think if we fast forward several weeks after we had the funeral and were managing thousands of people coming through our home in those few weeks, I started going into New York, and when I saw the thousands of people that were flooding into the Family Assistance Center—the second one was set up along the West Side Highway—it was then I realised the scope of the tragedy. And really as unprepared as we were to prevent the tragedy, we were also unprepared to respond to something of that scope. So that’s when I became involved, and I started travelling into New York City to attend the meetings with elected officials. And then Washington, DC in the public policy realm. So, it went on from there, where then we formed the organisation that continues today to provide long-term services.
SG: Brad, of course, who is your son who tragically died on 9/11. One thing, Mary, that I was struck by in one of our conversations that we had previously is you said that 2,977 people died on September 11, 2001 but that in reality, the number was actually much larger, because you have to talk about the families, and you have to talk about the first responders. How many people were actually impacted by the September 11th attacks if we actually look at the knock-on effects of it?
MF: Well, the nearly 3,000 families lived in 90 countries. So, it wasn’t a local event. And then of course, there were three locations. Much of the focus is on New York City, but there was an attack on the Pentagon and then the plane that crashed in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. So, when you think about a family, take the number of family members you have and multiply it. You know, you have siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, and then of course close friends that are like family. But in the case of 9/11, in New York, the attacks were in the financial industry, so you had people…there were over 400,000 people that survived that day—they lived, worked, or went to school in the area. And then there were 90,000 that responded…I think the number is much higher than that because people came in from around the country and around the world, but that’s what they have documented. And today, those people have life-threatening illnesses and serious mental health conditions like depression, anxiety, and PTSD. And then there are nearly 4,000 that have died since, of those conditions. So, it’s not only the scope of it on that day, it’s the rippling effect over the last 20 years. And still today, we have individuals coming forward that we’ve never heard from in 20 years asking for our support.
SG: The rippling effect just shows you how significant that is, some 20 years later, just how devastating that the attack has been—perhaps the most devastating terrorist attack that we will ever witness.
MF: Hopefully.
SG: Hopefully, hopefully. Sue, talk to me about how you first got involved with helping victims of terrorism and the families who lost their loved ones.
SOS: Well, I did 30 years in policing, and I’ve always had as one of my priorities how we’re supporting victims and the impact on victims when tragedy happens. And so I remember back in 2004, we were just starting with the Leadership in Counter Terrorism Alumni Association—at the time I was in policing—and I was very privileged to be invited to the pilot program, which basically brought together senior police leaders from the Five Eyes countries to look at leadership, to look at intelligence, to look at how together as a global community, we could look at the issues around terrorism and our response to it, or obviously prevention, all that goes with the different things that need to be addressed. And so, when we started the Leadership in Counter Terrorism again, one of the things we started, a few years in, we formed an association. And a few years in, we were able to put together our first international conference with senior police intelligence, and of course, I wanted to make sure that victims were front and centre. So, when we started the first Leadership in Counter Terrorism conference, if I may use the acronym from now on “LinCT,” Leadership in Counter Terrorism. So, one of the things that we wanted to ensure, so we had our first panel, we wanted to make sure that the victims’ voice was at the table, as all of these key leaders were looking at how they were going to respond to, what were the priorities, what were the issues. And of course, then it became an annual event, and I am proud to say that the victims panel or the victims’ voice has been included in all of the Leadership in Counter Terrorism conferences. And I think what more importantly is the LinCT alumni led to so many relationships being formed.
And one of them, I remember the first time I met Mary, I was actually at a conference Mary does every year annually in New York. And I was with a colleague of mine who was with a victim-serving agency in Canada, and she introduced me to Mary, and we never stopped from there. And it really is, I think one of the messages I’ve always learned is, we talk about partnerships, we talk about collaboration, but it is about relationships. And it is about bringing together the right people to make the change happen. And so that relationship with the senior police intelligence leaders and bringing it together with the victims’ voice, people like Mary, who have been very much part of pushing for change in terms of how we are prepared for and how we respond to, not just in the short-term, but in the medium- and long-term. And you’ll hear us both talk about that as well, because the impacts to families is so large. And when you asked Mary the question, “Who’s impacted?” one of the things, when people look at who are victims, they use that word—Mary will say she’s a family member—there are victims, survivors, family members, and also all of those that have been impacted. So, we look at it in terms of circles of impact.
And so, some people, and I’ll just give you one example, we learned lessons learned because we have these networks in place internationally, and we’re constantly looking at evergreen and learning sadly from each tragedy and what can be done and what we can learn from that. And one of the things is the importance of pre-planning the importance of understanding there are predictable challenges that need to be planned for. If you don’t, then you’re not going to be ready to respond. And so, when we look at impact to…the circles of impact, that’s how we want people to be thinking about their pre-planning and response strategies. And the FBI, one simple example is they created a brochure called “I was there.” There are so many tragedies that happen where people who aren’t “physically injured” don’t feel that they have the right to those services, that they need to be prioritised. And it’s just understanding the impact to all of those people in the circles of impact. And the fact that they sometimes don’t feel that they should be reaching out for the help that they need. And so that’s what we want people to be looking at, is in terms of that, but also understanding that impact goes just beyond people who obviously in the circles who suffer a loss, like Mary’s lost a loved one, family members, people who are survivors, people who are witnesses…the first responders that respond and the impact to them.
SG: So, this is exceptionally important what you are identifying and laying out, and I’m glad you also brought up the Leadership in Counter Terrorism, “LinCT,” because that is also where I was fortunate to meet the two of you several years ago in New York. One thing, Sue, I’d be keen to get your perspective on is you’re from Canada, and not many people know this, but Canada experienced one of the worst acts of terrorism all the way back in 1985, which doesn’t get much attention, and many people aren’t even aware of it. Could you talk more about that incident that took place?
SOS: Well, we’re really privileged, a colleague and a friend of mine, Susheel Gupta, he lost his mother in Air India Flight 182. There were 329 people killed, and 268 were Canadians, and charges weren’t laid until 15 years later, and the trial lasted five years. So, when we look at, as you say, Canada’s largest terrorist incident, what did we learn from that? And how are we putting into play, or how are we implementing what needs to be done in order to ensure that families…. And we had another tragedy Flight PS 752 [Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752] where many of the people on board were Canadian or had Canadian links. Susheel is now working at the RCMP. He has been a national advocate for us in this country, and it has led to relationships and links. So Susheel and the Air India Victim Families Association (AIVFA), pushed for an inquiry, and an inquiry happens many years later. And in fact, that led to something called the Kanishka Project where the families wanted some money to go to research and making change to prevent these in the future, what we can do. And so, through the Kanishka Project, I’ll let Mary speak to her involvement with the Kanishka Project and the work that Voices Center for Resilience did but…the kind of change that can happen when victims’ voices are at the table and pushing for change.
Many times, people say to me, “Well, what are the needs of victims?” I said, “Well ask them, they’ll tell you.” And it’s to make sure that you have that voice at the table, whether you’re in law enforcement, whether you’re in government, whether you’re in any agencies that are responding, to ensure that you’re listening to what their needs are, and that you make that change that happens from that. And so, Air India, and…I just had the privilege of co-presenting with Susheel at a national security conference here in Canada. And he spoke to kind of where we were with Air India Flight 182 and now the lessons of where we’re at with PS 752, and we’ve got some work to do. And so, one of the things, when we talk about, again, relationships is, it was clear that we needed to look at…I mean, let me make this statement: we have great first responders, we have great investigators, we have good Crown Prosecutors and victim service people in Canada.
What we hadn’t done is we hadn’t given them the training, the knowledge and expertise, and the capacities to respond when there are these types of tragedies, these terrorist attacks or large mass victimization incidents. And so, it’s adding those capacities to existing structures and making sure that it’s pre-planned. So, we formed about three and a half, four years ago the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police National Working Group, which Susheel is a member of. And what we did is we looked at it in terms of pillars, so no surprises, looking at best practices research, looking at training, looking at policies and protocols, and looking at how we can be better prepared or pre-planned for and have in place the appropriate response strategies in order to support communities, families, victim, survivors when these tragedies happen.
And I’ll just use one simple example, when we look at personal effects—and I know Mary can speak very personally to this—managing personal effects is so important to families and to people that suffered loss. And for example, in Las Vegas, what we would do, part of the National Working Group and our international network of INVICTIM what we did is we asked for a briefing from the FBI, who had to manage 20,000 people in the Las Vegas tragedy that fled that scene and how they managed that. It’s not just to wait, it’s to make sure that you’re reaching out for those opportunities to learn and having a network and having those relationships allows you to do that. And then the reason I mentioned the Canadian National Working Group is that our Working Group here in Canada is pulling from all of our international colleagues, all of the lessons learned, both from the Leadership in Counter Terrorism, from organisations like Mary with Voices [Center] for Resiliency, like victim support groups, all of those, that we’re all learning that it’s our job to mobilise that within our own communities in our own country.
SG: These are very important perspectives that you’re providing. And it’s also just worth mentioning that in the Canadian inquiry that looked into the bombing of that Air India flight that you mentioned, it identified Talwinder Singh Parmar as the lead orchestrator of it, and he was part of the Khalistani terrorist group, which is a proscribed terrorist group internationally known as the Babbar Khalsa International. So, it’s significant that even many decades later, the impact of that attack is of course still very prevalent amongst the minds of many Canadians.
SOS: Oh, absolutely.
SG: Mary, why is it that victims and families still don’t get enough attention and support? They are so connected to that particular act of terrorism—the examples that we’ve spoken about, so many more. Yet it tends to almost be an afterthought, that they still have to live with the consequences of that particular act of terrorism. Why do you feel that they just don’t get enough attention?
MF: Well, I think things have improved over the years, but as Sue mentioned, we actually started an organisation almost immediately after 9/11 called “Voices of September 11th.” And as our work evolved, where we were not just working with 9/11 families, but we were taking what we’ve learned and working with them and working on our public policy and all the issues that are critical to the healing process for families, we changed the name, over a year ago to “Voices Center for Resilience” because we’re working with Sue and INVICTM, and of course, our relationship with the folks at LinCT organisation and the international individuals that are working with so many organisations across the world. But I think victims need several things immediately after: they need information, they need a central hub that’s going to coordinate all of their services. And it’s not just mental health services; it’s making sure that they’re sitting at the table, and as Sue said, ask them what they need, and that’s a critical question. What we did immediately after, as I mentioned, I went into New York City and started meeting with Governor Pataki, Mayor Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, and others, and we became a liaison with the families, so that when they were planning the three-month, the six-month, nine-month, year anniversary, we were able to share with them what we were hearing from families.
We also became involved in public policy. We started going to Washington, DC and asking for an investigation. We realised just reading The New York Times and other publications that there were systemic government failures that occurred on 9/11. Agencies were not talking among their colleagues in the same agencies, and they were not sharing information cross-agency, which led to these failures. And there was a real reluctance at the time to have any investigation because they wanted to eliminate the possibility of accountability, so to speak. And I was horrified when I started going into Washington [D.C.], which began actually with a rally of families, but when we started visiting our elected officials’ offices, that they didn’t understand the bigger issues. They’re looking at their constituents in whatever state or community they live in, and they weren’t looking at the nation or the world as a whole. So, our advocacy efforts led to not just the creation of the 9/11 Commission and the investigation, but the two years following that were required to make sure their recommendations were legislated and funded.
And then simultaneously, we were advocating for the memorial. Commemoration was very important for these families. And it took over 10 years to build the memorial in New York City, which was complicated…I think they had nine different stakeholder groups that were involved, and it was some of the most expensive real estate in New York City. So again, being at the table to guide what we wanted in the memorial as family members. And then the trial, it’s ongoing. They still have not been held accountable. And we actually have agencies withholding, we think, important documents that would lead to who the real perpetrators were on 9/11.
Simultaneously, it’s the mental health issues. So, these people still need to be informed, they need access to resources. They need to be sitting at the table when decisions are made that are going to affect themselves and their families. So, I think it’s a holistic approach, and it’s not taken care of in six months or a year. As I mentioned before, we just passed the 20th anniversary this September, and we have a flood of survivors and responders that are coming forward that we’ve never heard from before. Some of the survivors have never talked to another survivor in 20 years. And it’s that power of the peer-to-peer network that’s supervised of course by a professional that helps them heal over time. And the sooner we can do that, the better. And so, as you see, most responses are short-term. In our case, in the US, organisations are funded for a year or 18 months. Some people haven’t gotten out of bed yet. So, you have to look at continuity of care and the holistic approach and providing services not just to victims, but to the responders and survivors who oftentimes are overlooked after these tragedies.
SG: Well full credit to you and a lot of your colleagues as well for pursuing justice for the victims of 9/11 and also ensuring that there was an inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, as well as a memorial that is now a key landmark in New York City to identify and remember all that we lost on that day.
MF: I didn’t mention that because the museum/memorial was taking quite some time to build, on the fifth anniversary we started meeting with the families to collect photographs to create a digital archive that commemorated their lives. And we collected over 87,000 photographs that really are at the heart of the museum now. Of course, we have them on our website, but we also shared those photographs with the museum to make sure that these individuals were remembered in the way, the fitting way, that their families wanted.
SG: Absolutely. As you know, as I mentioned in the past, in our discussions that 9/11 was significant for me, it’s what got me involved in counter-terrorism in the first place. So again, full credit to everything that you’ve been doing to keep the memory alive of what transpired on that ill-fated day and also that we don’t forget what took place.
Sue, when we look at this aspect of people being re-traumatized, as Mary was talking about the 20th anniversary [of 9/11] and the whole impact that that had, how does one deal with the fact that this problem doesn’t go away for victims, for family members who lost their loved ones—that every year, when there is an anniversary, it brings back those horrific memories, if not every day, in fact. But every year is just a reminder again, for the rest of us, what these people have to deal with. What can be done to help those that are going through the re-traumatization of terrorism?
SOS: I think again, I’m going to go back to the pre-planning place to understand that proper supports…and again, Mary said, we talk about doing needs assessments, and that will change over time, and I guess, the way I look at this is in terms of a continuum. I mean, obviously there’s prevention, there’s the stage where you have opportunities to establish those relationships and partnerships with key stakeholders, that should be established ahead of time. And so if you actually look at what those challenges are going to be after, and as a community, look at what you have, what you do have, what you don’t have but you need, and be able to put those in place, so that you can support people who are impacted by these acts of terrorism in the in the short-, medium-, and long-term.
And so, and as Mary identified, part of the problem is early on, we’ve seen such improvement in terms of communities’ abilities to pre-plan and respond in the short-term, but it’s recognizing that there has to be in place the medium- and long-term supports. And so, on that continuum after prevention, you look at sadly, then, there’s a tragedy that happens, you’re going to respond to that. And then as Mary said, in her case, the trial’s still going on. And I can tell you right now, we’re working with—well, we’re learning from France Victimes on what they’ve done to pre-plan and prepare for the current trial that’s taking place in Paris from the Bataclan theatre and the other attacks that day and how they have been supporting a huge number of people who have been impacted through that process. And then recognising that they’ve—and this is lessons learned—what France Victimes, and they sit at the government table, is looking at, for those after the trial as well, and in many cases, trials occur many years later, so it’s understanding that along that continuum, the needs for families, for many, will be a lifelong journey.
And so, organisations like Mary’s, that recognize and that bring together tools —and in the world of COVID we’re living in, many are webinars and virtual—but it’s, it’s bringing people together. And I think one of the most powerful sessions, when I first met Mary and was at hers, I had the privilege of sitting in and listening to a session that was for the family members, and to be able to see the kind of support that they can each bring to each other and at the same time be honest, telling us about what they’re going through, and some methods to cope. And that’s why I never missed Mary’s September two days because I’ve always listened to some of the best, telling us how we as communities and how we as civil society and government and all the partner agencies can work together to ensure.
And so, it’s making sure that the right agency has the right role to play but it’s all our responsibility to ensure that in our communities that we pre-plan for that, have that in place, and can continue to have in place evergreen technology. We need to evergreen our ability to learn from, because every incident is unique, and every victim is unique and will have their own needs and issues. But there are common themes for each of those, as Mary says, the need for information, the need to be considered, the need to be protected, the need to be supported. And then it’s just understanding that you have to look at that journey over time.
And so, one thing that we’ve looked at recently—we’ve done several webinars with our international colleagues—is memorials. It’s 1 way that families and people that have been impacted can look at that. But memorials are something that you really need to listen to. And I recently attended a webinar where it was the victims looking at how memorials are done well, how they’re not done well, what are those key things, considerations, that need to be thought about. And Mary spoke to them about the amount of work that went into the memorial for New York. These are not simple things to do, but they need to be led with the victim’s voice and doing that, and all the challenges that go with that.
MF: Victims are one stakeholder that should be at the table. But I have to say, people like Sue, the group at LinCT and INVICTM, the international group that Sues put together; we’ve made a lot of progress in this area. And we shouldn’t have to reinvent the wheel every time there is an emergency, or every time there’s a tragedy. Tragedies can be different, it could be a school shooting, it could be a bomb, it could be whatever the situation is, but truthfully, there’s more similarities than differences in all these tragedies. The victims’ families still have to cope. The survivors may have narrowly escaped whatever the situation was, and the responders are oftentimes having to respond to some unimaginable tragedy.
So, we shouldn’t be reinventing the wheel and we have to be proactive in making sure people that are in those positions are trained appropriately. The notification process is problematic after most tragedies, and there’s no reason for that. If people are making notifications, they should be trained, and they should have the resources available that can then help the family with whatever: plan a funeral, access their family members, and so forth.
So, I do think that they’ve really made a lot of progress. And I would really—hats off to the LinCT organisation who is preventing these crimes from happening. And it’s all about the relationships that they’ve built. They can call somebody in whatever country and now that they have a professional that they can rely on that can step forward and do things in the right manner.
SG: And I know the two of you are massive advocates in pushing this, to everyone and anyone. So, again, full credit to what you’re both doing. I’d be very curious to get both your perspectives on how the pandemic has impacted on victim support for those who have lost their loved ones in terrorism or survived a terrorist attack. Has the pandemic had an impact in terms of being able to help, to be able to reach out the same way you would have normally in a pre-pandemic situation? Has there been those obstacles? Or have you been able to get around it, using Zoom for example, or Skype? Or is that personal touch no longer there, which is making it harder to provide that support? Sue, what do you think?
SOS: Well, I think the pandemic changed a lot of the way that we interact, both at the local, national, and global level. So, we have continued to do the work using virtual, using the different technologies that are available. And so, a lot of people—as everyone has—had to pivot in terms of being able to personally talk to people. To be at a conference, to have that interaction is, of course, something that we all want. But I think we have adapted the best we can to continue those relationships and move the change forward. So, for example, where I would have met in person with a group, I now do it all virtually. So, in some ways, it’s a lot easier to arrange a virtual because you don’t have distance, you don’t have travel, you don’t have costs, you don’t have all that goes with that.
And when we talk about what we’re doing, I just want to add one comment to Mary’s previous, is that one of the things: INVICTM, and you’ve heard us mentioned INVICTM, so, I’ll explain the acronym. It’s the International Network Supporting Victims of Terrorism and Mass Violence. And what’s unique about INVICTM is we have a small group, there’s about 25 or 26 of us, but we all come from different backgrounds, civil society, law enforcement, government aid. So, we have, for example, Mary’s Voices Center for Resilience, we have ‘Sush’ [Susheel Gupta] from the Air India Families Association, we have Victim Support Europe, we have Victim Support Portugal, Netherlands, we have France Victime, we have NATAL from Israel, we have the UK represented, the Met, and the work that they do, we have the U.S. Department of Overseas Terrorism.
The reason I mention INVICTM is that we’re not an organisation, we’re a network. We volunteer our time in looking at this. But what we are is doors into the unheard. And so, each of us have access to a large—be it through our organisation—to victims, to family members, to law enforcement, to different groups that all need to be collaboratively working together. And so, one of the things we do is—because of that—we have flexibility. And so, Mary talked about what INVICTM, the link organisation, has led to in terms of—I call it the gift that keeps giving, because what we’ve been doing is building key initiatives globally. So, for example, Mary and I are members of something called the International Victim Focus Group. There are six of us, with a massive criminal investigation taking place in Northern Ireland. And the key lead investigator on that is John Boucher, who’s a member of LinCT—we know through LinCT—and he had been listening to and understanding the importance of victims’ voices. So, before the investigation, they took this on, they formed two groups, one as you would expect would be the law enforcement expertise as an advisory group, and then he brought in the victims focus group to bring that lens to the investigation and make victims in those families the heart of the investigation.
And that’s about building public trust, and public confidence, which is, as we know, when you look at police leaders right now, some of the top three priorities are public trust and confidence, community engagement, and member support, of all this going on, and COVID is a part of that, ensuring that they can do that. And we’ve all seen the strains that are happening to the people we’re asking to do the job. And so, I think that the flexibility of INVICTM and bringing those voices led to the formation and support of the National Working Group in Canada. And one thing I do want to quickly mention is—we just completed it this year—INVICTM worked with the National Police Wellness Service in the UK and did an international, virtual counterterrorism tabletop scenario.
And what we were testing—and what was unique here—is we were testing the victim response and the member support side. And that really is what’s important. That’s the human side. And when people say to me, “we have good people, we have good response strategies” I say, “well, I always carry this little list of the top 25 protocols.” And what I say is, “yes, you do.” But what’s needed in these is the added capacity of—we know, that one of the predictable challenges is going to be, in many cases, developing your victims lists, who has been impacted, it’s going to be death notifications, having developing Family Assistance centres, volunteer mission management, incident command, how your linked into that. So, there’s these different protocols that if you don’t have these in place, and haven’t had them ahead of time, you’re not going to be able to provide the best support and response strategy.
And the last thing I want to mention on this is the power of these relationships and the leadership that’s at the table. And when I say leadership, it doesn’t matter if you’re civil society or government agency. It’s by bringing together the network that we have and taking them and constantly pushing for change. So, one of the things we did with the CACP National Working Group, the Chiefs Association, is we passed a resolution looking for the Canadian government to stand up a centre of expertise to support victims of terrorism and mass violence. And I have had one meeting with the minister and we’re continuing to push for that. But you have seen it happen in countries, the United States has had one. Now, Mary, I think you’re part of the Advisory Committee on that for the National Mass Victimisation Resource Centre in the US. We have Europe, the European Union has the European Centre of Expertise Supporting Victims of Terrorism. So, we’re seeing those changes, but it really speaks to what you said about the importance of making sure all of those pillars are in place to support the people we’re asking to do the job.
SG: Well, it’s very apparent just how well connected this is. And again, the personal relationships are so important in that. I’d be curious to get your perspective on, is it possible to extend this network to victim support in the developing world? So, for example, unfortunately, countries, such as, say, Afghanistan, or Sri Lanka, India.
SOS: We have. And I thank you for asking that question. I’ll let Mary jump in, but very quickly, INVICTM is always looking for ways to connect and how we can support. So, for example, after the bombings in Sri Lanka, we got reached out to a victim serving agency from Sri Lanka, and we’re also members of—Victim Support Asia, which is a new organisation formed in the last couple of years. And so, we don’t interfere with the policies and protocols, but we offer support. So, we were able to provide some very practical tools for Sri Lanka. We recently also, and in another case where it was going to trial, were able to, in a short period of time, facilitate victim impact statements from families in other countries.
So, we’re constantly looking for ways—if I could say our motto is “how can we help,” it’s to keep those linkages, we’re always looking to identify key leaders in those countries that we can help, we can connect with. I recently actually just did a presentation in Africa, looking at the importance of supporting family members and relationships. It was hosted by one of the embassies, but through the International Committee, Red Cross.
SG: Very, very important. Mary, anything you’d like to add to that?
MF: Well, I think the question started with how has COVID impacted us. From the victim’s perspective, it has had a big impact, we see a higher percentage of people that we’re working with that have been directly impacted by COVID. They’ve lost someone as a result, either during or because of COVID. And there’s challenges with that. They weren’t able to have a proper funeral. They weren’t able to be with the person when they died. If they lived in New York, whether they lost someone or not, they constantly heard the sirens going on. People clanging pans, applauding the first responders.
For somebody that has PTSD, this is very detrimental. Many people were living in the community where they had set up makeshift morgues, again, the reminders of the trauma that they suffered on 9/11. And I’d say that the attack on the Capitol on 1/6 was another challenging tragedy. A horrible tragedy that impacted people that were affected on 9/11. It brought back that unpredictability situation, that was out of control, that they could not control. And then, of course, the devastation of the Capitol and the loss of life, both of the police officer that died the next day, and the police officers that have committed suicide.
With regard to communications and providing services, we were in a unique position after 9/11, because in most tragedies, it happens in a community. So, the community is able to set up services within that community that are available to the people that were impacted. In the case of 9/11, people lived around the country and around the world. And so, we had to think creatively on how can we provide services to these people, and how can we connect them with each other. So, in 2002, we started holding teleconference groups. And those went on for over 16 years where we were connecting people that lived in other communities, around the United States, but also outside the United States, the international community. And we were able to connect parents with parents, siblings with siblings, witnesses and survivors with witnesses and survivors.
So, I have been a big advocate for the delivery of services virtually, and the mental health community didn’t want to hear about it, the federal agencies don’t fund it, and because funding comes down through each state, where you would have had to apply to 50 states to get funding to have this provided continuity of care, and to think holistically about that 9/11 community. So, with the introduction of zoom, we’ve held probably 100, over 100, support groups and focus groups. We’ve held workshops and webinars, with brains and experts in the field that we’ve worked with over the last 20 years. And so, our symposium that Sue talked about, which we typically hold in New York City, on September 9th and 10th, we had over 1,300 people because it was a virtual, the year before last when COVID hit. But also, this year we did a combination, it was in person and virtual, and we had over 1,300 people participate from 34 states and nine countries. So, as horrible as the pandemic is, we’ve been able to address the isolation that these people have, we’ve been able to connect them with each other, and we’ve been able to provide the information and support that they need to deal with the skyrocketing mental health issues that are impacting all of our communities, because of COVID.
SG: That’s interesting, and just a reminder as to how important it is to even discuss mental health, it doesn’t necessarily get enough attention. Perhaps the pandemic in some ways, ironically, has enabled that to become more of a mainstream topic amongst people.
MF: I would say mental health is not just an issue for the victims’ families, it’s also for the survivors, and the people that respond. And what you see after many of these tragedies is people in law enforcement commit suicide, they quit their jobs, or they’re released from their jobs because they’re not able to do their jobs. So, I think it’s important across the board, for anyone that was either affected by or responding to these tragedies, that they have the support within their organisations that are going to be able to recognise the mental health conditions and are going to be able to support them in a way that they’re going to be able to continue with their careers. But we did see as an example in smaller communities, after the shooting in Newtown, several people never went back to work, because they were responding to the shooting. And it was their community, it was their neighbour that died or was affected, and it was just too much to bear.
And so, the suicide rate, after some of these tragedies, I think goes unreported. But it’s there and so we have to address it and provide the support that’s needed for these people that are critical to our response.
SG: Absolutely, absolutely. One thing to conclude with, for this podcast, it’s been such an important discussion to have with you both. Mary, you spoke about the loss of your son, Brad on 9/11. I’d like to conclude today with you talking about him as a person, what was he like? What were his hopes and dreams? Because we talk about numbers often when it comes to a terrorist attack, how many people died, how many people were injured, but behind the number, there is a person, there is a life, there are dreams or aspirations, that are taken away behind that terrorist attack. And I remember at a conference, you actually played the voice message that Brad had left. And it struck me just as to what a caring human being he was, how much he just wanted to communicate with both you and your husband, Frank, and I just got that from a voice message. But please talk about him as a son, as a person and what type of person he was.
MF: Well, Brad was 24 years old when he died, and he was the oldest of our three sons. Wes was 20 and attending college, and then our youngest son, Chris was 13. We moved a lot with Frank’s job, Frank worked for IBM. And So, Brad, being the oldest, was much like a father. And because of the age difference, too, when you think about it, he was 11 years older than our son, Chris, so much like a father to the two boys. So, it was, I would say, complexities to the loss, it wasn’t just their brother, it was somebody that they looked up to, and relied on, and admired.
Brad was a very accomplished athlete, he played hockey and lacrosse, from a young age, and he attended Bucknell University, all three of our boys actually attended that university. He was always the centre, very understated, but accomplished, but he never let that go to his head. So, I think, after any death, you hear stories from people, and his kindness and compassion and things that he did for people that he didn’t even know.
He was living with his girlfriend who, I believe, they planned to get engaged and married. So, I think when you lose a son, and you see all that they’ve gone through, in their life, to get them to a point where they’re educated, responsible, and of course, he had a wonderful job at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods and of course, not just a career, but a life ahead of them. So, I think as a parent, then you mourn, not just who he was, but what he could become.
And we found a journal that Brad had written then and on the front page, and I still don’t know where he found the quote, but it said, “you can tell the character of a man by what he does for the man who offers him nothing.”
So, I think Brad, sorry to get teary eyed here, but I think Brad and truthfully, all the people that died that day, that should be alive today, have really guided our work, and given us the strength and truthfully the passion and determination to continue on and make sure that hopefully nothing like this happens again. God forbid it does, or any of these other tragedies, that we can take what we’ve learned and work with people like Sue, and the LinCT alumni, and other agencies and organisations to make sure that the people that are affected, the victims, families, survivors, responders, have the support that they need and deserve.
SG: Well, thank you for sharing that story about Brad. I can tell you it was very emotional hearing that for myself. He is an example of why I do what I do. And May his memories always be a blessing for you and Frank and for your sons.
And thank you again, Mary and Sue for spending the time today to talk on NATO DEEP Dive’s podcasts. I’m very fortunate to know you both, and your passion, and your commitment is truly infectious—if I can use that word during a pandemic.
MF: Thank you for the laugh!
SG: Well, sometimes we need to laugh in these difficult circumstances.
MF: Oh, absolutely. Yeah.
So, I do think that we’re making a lot of progress. And even what you’re doing right here, you’re educating people. And of course, Sue and I are available to anyone that might be listening in, if we can provide any support or guidance that’s needed.
SOS: I just say thank you, to you, Mary, for your continued leadership. And if I may Sajjan, thank you to everyone that’s listening that is working to make a difference for our communities to keep us safe, to make sure that the people that need it have the support that they need and for making a difference, you know, every day for making a difference for the people that need it.
SG: Well, bless you both for everything that you’re doing and for taking the time to talk to us on this podcast. And I think this is going to be an ongoing discussion that we will continue to have and hope to have you both again on NATO DEEP Dive.
SOS: Thank you.
MF: That’d be great. Thank you.
SG: Thank you for listening to this episode of DEEP Dive. I’m your host, Dr. Sajjan Gohel. DEEP Dive is brought to you by NATO’s Defence Education Enhancement Programme. The production and research team are Marcus Andreopoulos and Victoria Jones. For additional content, including full transcripts of each episode, please visit: deepportal.hq.nato.int/deepdive.
Disclaimer: Please note that the views, information, or opinions expressed in the DEEP Dive series are solely those of the individuals involved and do not necessarily represent those of NATO or DEEP.