Deafening silence over deaths of Irish babies

[collina]

I agree and disagree with both WASP and Jim here.

I believe the vast majority of Republicans have no interest in the RCC and in fact many actively despise it. I also believe that so-called Republicans(ie Sinn fein/IRA, etc) betrayed its consituency by not taking on the RCC in the same way they took on the British.

Like WASP, I would like to know what Sinn Fein are going to do to protect future generations of children from the RCC. So far they have done nothing, and show no sign of doing so. I see Sinn Fein working hard on other less important matters for their constituents. Its time they put that energy into protecting children. Of course kids don't vote, so maybe that will never happen.

[Wasp]

I agree and disagree with both WASP and Jim here.

Which is fair enough.

I believe the vast majority of Republicans have no interest in the RCC and in fact many actively despise it.

Collina I can only speak about up here and I am not saying what I am saying based on an opinion, I am basing it on personal experience. The RCC has major influence in republican areas right from schools to various community based organizations such as youth clubs, sporting clubs etc and well known republicans play an active part in the church, so this is where I disagree with you on the above point.

I also believe that so-called Republicans(ie Sinn fein/IRA, etc) betrayed its consituency by not taking on the RCC in the same way they took on the British.

This is my point regardless of political outlook, sf/ira took on the British over questionable circumstances, petty circiumstances and very debatable circumstances yet have done nothing about facts which are undeniable and have been proved over and over and over again.

Like WASP, I would like to know what Sinn Fein are going to do to protect future generations of children from the RCC. So far they have done nothing, and show no sign of doing so. I see Sinn Fein working hard on other less important matters for their constituents. Its time they put that energy into protecting children. Of course kids don't vote, so maybe that will never happen.

Collina not only do I hope victims see your post here but also loyalists from my community.

[Wasp]

A Day In The Life of an Industrial School Boy - Punishment & Perspective

When I was asked about punishments in those places by someone who was never in those places I think she expected an answer like:
Quote:
"well they used their hands or fists to box us or clatter us, their feet to boot us and they used blackthorn sticks or big leather belts for more formal punishments."

Sounds like an answer that couldn't be denied, that even she could relate to those types of punishments. She was about 40 years old and she was from the era of corporal punishment. But that wasn't the answer I gave her.

In those places EVERYTHING was part of your punishment. Mealtimes were a PUNISHMENT. Our food was vile, it really would have been illegal AND cruel to feed pigs on what we "survived" on. Our main food really was bread and dripping. And the dripping wasn't the nice white strained stuff you'd see on the shelves of Tesco's all nicely wrapped, nope it was a funny yellow colour.

Funny isn't the right word there - it was a kind of OFF-YELLOW/KHAKI colour. Having that spread on your skinner (slice of bread) in the morning at 7:00am was meant to sustain until 12:30 in the afternoon. I remember getting "porridge" too, note the quotes as when I became an adult and was given porridge I hesitated because what I was being served as an adult didn't look or didn't taste anything like what I got as porridge in those places. I firmly believe that this "porridge" we were given was something that the pigs had refused to eat.

Dinners were another PUNISHMENT. Let me describe a STEW in those places. Imagine a gravy, not too thick now, with soft watery lumps, 3 strands of meat - these strands are THINNER than your laces and about the length of your thumb (this is the thumb of a 10 year old child), 2 round slices of carrot and 1 spud (green tinged of course). But wait now, we also got desserts sometimes, really we did. How ever so posh. May I describe the dessert? OK. Well it was a bread pudding. That's not very posh I hear you say - but hold on now - our bread pudding was also green-tinged AND had that OFF-YELLOW/KHAKI colour. Beat that if you can.

Tea/Supper was the old reliable: Bread and Dripping again but THEY did try to vary our Tea/Supper because we'd get "Oxtail Soup" sometimes. Well THEY called it "Oxtail Soup" and I've watched, with something approaching jealousy, my own children having Oxtail Soup and let me tell you my children's Oxtail Soup is nothing like the "Oxtail Soup" dished up to us in those places. We'll never know what kind of dish it was as the Government of the day didn't have the right to demand from these orders the diet that we were fed on. I'm just talking about our diets in those places being used as way to PUNISH us. But really everything about those places was a PUNISHMENT.

From the isolation from society, to the regimentation of little children - being forced to march from one place to another, children being forced to stand to attention in the yard semi-naked while the "nurse" inspected us OR, if the notion took her, have a good few of us scrubbed down with purple or brown iodine. Being forced to say rosaries was a PUNISHMENT, being forced violently to run around the yard with a lighted candle at night in the rain was a PUNISHMENT. Being forced violently to scrub toilets with your own toothbrush was a PUNISHMENT.

Being forced violently to learn how to darn a sock was a PUNISHMENT. Being physically separated from your brother or sister was a PUNISHMENT. Being forced to listen to those black-garbed monsters denigrate you Mum and Dad was a PUNISHMENT. Being violently forced to become right-handed was a PUNISHMENT. And most of these PUNISHMENTS you became inured to, they became part of your everyday existence. You didn't think much of the rights and wrongs of them after a while, you let them lie in your sub-conscious mind until, as an adult, a certain aroma or sound or sight would bring them into focus and you'd rage against those black-garbed monsters. These black-garbed child haters are STILL working with vulnerable communities in this country, they've spread their particular poison around the world.

PERSPECTIVE

As a former detainee from Ferryhouse I'd like to state here that child detainees who wet their beds were punished...... Firstly they were segregated in the Dormitories. Secondly they were given a Special Name: SAILORS. Thirdly they were severely thrashed. Fourthly they were forced to wash their sheets with carbolic soap. Fifth they were separated from the rest of the boys for verbal and psychological humiliation. Sixth they were disallowed from washing themselves forcing them to go around all day smelling of urine - this meant that they received more physical punishments from those who were teachers or workshop managers.

Another this representative said was that punishments were mostly spontaneous and not formal. That is another lie. Punishments were formal and they were entered in a book.

You were hit for Belching (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a hole in your sock (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a button missing from your shirt (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a button missing from your trousers (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a hole in your jumper (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for basically growing out of your shoes (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having dirt in your nails and this after spending the whole day picking spuds. (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a "tideline" after washing in the morning (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having soiled underwear - one of their obsessions (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for whispering in the chapel (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for walking when you should have been running (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for running when you should have been walking (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for turning left when you should have turned right (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for turning right when you should have turned left (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for not joining your hands in the chapel (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for getting a spelling wrong (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for not standing to attention when a Brother entered the room (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for not knowing your catechism (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for dropping a stitch in the knitting shop (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having dirty knees after being digging in the fields (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for being dirty after working in the pigsty (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for refusing to play hurling (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for refusing to play Gaelic football or hurling (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for being insolent - that's when you ask why you are being battered (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for snoring (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having your hands and arms under the blanket at night (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a runny nose (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having scabies (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for reading the Victor, Valiant, Buster, Bunty or the Judy comic - these were deemed "corrupting" (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for looking sideways at a Brother or priest (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for making noises at night when you went to the toilet (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for not writing what was on the board when you got to write a letter to your mum or dad or a relative (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for scratching your head (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for vomiting during mealtimes (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for vomiting at anytime (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having nits in your hair (this was entered in a book)

You were punished if you cried for your mum or dad (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a broken heart (this was NOT entered in a book).

[collina]

You were punished if you cried for your mum or dad (this was entered in a book)

You were punished for having a broken heart (this was NOT entered in a book).

Perverts

[Jim]

Jim dont try and turn the tables to avoid the truth of the situation, the factys are republicans are mainly catholics and republican areas are catholic areas and where there are mainly catholic areas these same areas are mainly republican areas. Republicans made up of the catholic community in certain areas poured onto the streets when they were gurning about police harrassment or wrongful arrests, you said yourself people getting their doors kicked in during the early hours etc were a major recruitment for the ira.

Funny you talk about gurning, I've seen little else from your posts lately mate. Facts are Republicans couldnt give a sack of shite about the Roman Catholic church, Republicanism is a political ideology with little regard for religion. I'd go as far as to say those that do follow the RCC are not fully following the Republican ideals.

Furthermore, what a foreign state committed against the "catholic" nationalist people in NI is rightfully a case to bring about protests and resistance, so you should be hardly surprised at how much the IRA gained from British Army and RUC incompetance. I fail to see how this has to do with the RCC and the government in the Republic which Republicans do not ideally see as a legitimate government in the first place.

These searches were looking for weapons, some of which was following poor intelligence, but it was a reason according to you that catholics joined the ira. Yet with this purposeful abuse going on for decades against the most vulnerable then these same catholic neighbourhoods are doing nothing, the same neighbourhoods where people flocked to join the ira over dawn raids etc and pour out into the streets in protest. But nothing with all these abuse cases, infact many still flock to church.

Well then Wasp can you tell me why people would have joined the IRA to fight the Roman Catholic Church? Not only is the RCC not a state, it is not occupying Northern Ireland. Firstly we can dispute occupation or not, that is not my point nor do I really want to get into that as its an argument on its; why would anyone join the IRA to fight a church that at the time had a strangling grip on 90 something % of the population? You seriously underestimate the power of the catholic church in the 70s and 80s. Today it is still political suicide to go up against it, even though the younger generations couldnt give a shite about it; grannys still vote.

Jim republicans poured into the streets over alledged harrassment of the catholic community, they done same concerning a wrongful arrest and considering these things are nothing compared to the abuse that has taken place isnt it strange that these same republicans are not coming out in protest at the absue that catholics from their community has suffered, and not forgetting we are not only talking about adults we are talking about children. So please Jim spare me you excusing the double standards

Bloody right they did and rightfully so. Big difference; the catholic church is the "chosen" religion of those people, the british government is not the chosen government of the people of ireland. now, lets be serious, i despise the catholic church more than any government, movement or country on this earth, i'd be more inclined to agree with protestants if we're going to go into chritianity arguments. But you cannot compare standing up for legal, lawful and civil rights from a government to a church. churches do not make laws, they do not enforce laws, governments do.

You are not doing anything about itm either, where are the protests outside catholic churchs in republican areas, where are the protests to the head offices of the catholic church, where are they Jim??

ofcourse im not doing anything about it, i live in buckin' england, i havent lived in belfast for more than 2 weeks at a time in 4 or 5 years. i'll tell you what, if it was organised and i was in belfast i'd be the first fucker there. where are the protestants wasp? where are you? believe it or not they are still your people.

[Jim]

Sept 26, 2009 18:41:43 GMT collina said:

I agree and disagree with both WASP and Jim here.

I believe the vast majority of Republicans have no interest in the RCC and in fact many actively despise it. I also believe that so-called Republicans(ie Sinn fein/IRA, etc) betrayed its consituency by not taking on the RCC in the same way they took on the British.

Like WASP, I would like to know what Sinn Fein are going to do to protect future generations of children from the RCC. So far they have done nothing, and show no sign of doing so. I see Sinn Fein working hard on other less important matters for their constituents. Its time they put that energy into protecting children. Of course kids don't vote, so maybe that will never happen.

The protection of the younger generations from the RCC comes with the loss of power of the RCC. The less people pay attention to the RCC the more it goes away. The best protest is to abstain from the church and from religion all together to be honest, its backward.

[Wasp]

Jim nevermind your points on attacking the British gov and while the RCC are not a government, what about all those Protestants who were attacked that were not the government, what about a culture that was constantly attacked because this culture was not wanted to be seen or heard anywhere near republican areas, yet the culprits of the biggest and most horrid abuse to catholics face none of this, they dont have crowds standing shouting abuse at them etc etc.

To me it only proves even more the sectarian nature of republicans with very few outside that nature.

[Wasp]

Child Abuse, European Court of Human Rights, Forced Labour, Human Rights, Magdalen Laundries, Servitude, Slavery, Women

The Irish Times reports today that Minister for Education, Batt O’Keeffe, has said that former residents of Magdalen laundries are not eligible for compensation from the Residential Institutions Redress Board. Mr O’Keeffe was replying in a letter to Tom Kitt TD, who had made representations to the Minister concerning former residents of the laundries.

He did so on behalf of James Smith, associate professor at the English department and Irish studies programme in Boston College and author of Ireland’s Magdalen Laundries and the Nation’s Architecture of Containment, (2008, Manchester University Press). In his letter, Mr O’Keeffe stated that ‘in terms of establishing a distinct scheme for former employees of the Magdalen laundries, the situation in relation to children who were taken into the laundries privately or who entered the laundries as adults is quite different to persons who were resident in State-run institutions.’

An exception to this, he said, would be children who were transferred from a State-regulated institution to a Magdalen laundry and suffered abuse while resident there. This differentation was justified was on the basis that the State was still responsible for the welfare and protection of children transferred to a Magdalen laundry from a State-regulated institution ‘provided they had not been officially discharged from the scheduled institution’. In doing so, the Minister perpetuates the historical failure of the State to recognise and give effect to its responsibility to ensure the protection of adult occupants of the Laundries.


Dr Smith challenged the Minister’s use of the word ‘employees’ when referring to women in the laundries : ‘They were never “employees” . . . if they were they would have received payment surely,’ he said. He also highlighted the implications of the Minister’s choice of wording, making that point that if such women were employees, then ’surely the State holds some responsibility to ensure that the laundries complied with the Factories Acts in terms of safe work practices, fair pay, regular work days, etc.’

He also insisted that the State was complicit in referring women to the laundries, with the Irish courts ‘routinely’ referring women to various Magdalen laundries upon receiving suspended sentences for a variety of crimes. Dr Smith claims to have archival documents detailing communication between judges and mothers superior of a number of convents arranging such referrals. He also states that he can document that these women were escorted by the State’s probation officers upon entry to the laundries.

The Ryan Commission Report received evidence from a number of women who were transferred to residential laundries from Industrial Schools. For some, this occurred following confrontations with religious staff whom they challenged about abuse of themselves or of their co-residents. According to the report, one female witness stated that ’she was transferred to a laundry at 13 years to work. She stated that she was told by the Sister in charge that she was being sent to work in order to compensate the Order as her mother had been unable to meet the required payments for her keep in the Industrial School.’ Such testimony serves to undermine and puncture the ‘public’/'private’ sphere disctinction that has been used to justify the failure to address the situation of, and provide – as far possible – redress to victims of the Magdalen Laundries. It also highlights the close relationship and de facto complicity of the church and state in the abuse of women and children in residential institutional contexts in Ireland.

Groups such as Justice For Magdalens have criticised ‘the compartmentalised, two-tiered response by the Irish state towards institutional abuse that results in survivors of Ireland’s Magdalene Laundries, many of them children at the time, once again being ignored.‘. Participants in the Dail Debates following the publication of the Ryan Commission report made frequent reference to the Laundries, with several deputies highlighting the fact that it was the same socio-historical and cultural attitudes and context that gave rise to the institutionalisation of women and children in various settings in Ireland. (The ‘culture of silence’, that facilitated and sustained the institutionalisation of women and children in Ireland was analysed and discussed by Nicola Carr in an excellent presentation at a recent round-table on ‘The Ryan Commission Report and Children in the Republic of Ireland: Where Do We Go From Here?’).

In addition to their exclusion from the scope of the Residential Institutions Redress Act 2002, occupants of the Laundries were also not covered by the framework of Labour’s Institutional Child Abuse Bill 2009. While some deputies such as Jan O’Sullivan TD argued for their inclusion, Ruari Quinn , who proposed the Bill, justified the omission, stating:

The Bill does not address [the experience of women who were in the Magdalene laundries]. That is not to say their experience was not horrendous. Theirs is a past that should not be buried, but there are reasons and explanations that time prevents me from elaborating upon as to why the Bill does not include them. It was not just the State and religious teaching orders who were involved. There was a culture in some of our families, from wherever it originated, that denied the existence of daughters who became pregnant outside of marriage. They were hunted out of their homes and, in some cases, out of the country. I am ashamed of that. We should all be ashamed of it. We have addressed it now, but that did not happen for some people born here and they suffered a great hurt as a result. We all know that. I do not know if legislation along the lines of the redress board legislation can deal with that. Nevertheless, we should recognise it did happen.

Such a statement can be taken to suggest that societal complicity in the consignment of women to the Magdalen laundries somehow absolves the State of responsibility – a highly dubious suggestion. One must also recognise the limitations of a ‘recognition’ of the experiences of Landry residents that is not accompanied by concrete measures of redress, reparation and compensation.

Evidence in the Ryan Commission Report and other documents makes clear the appalling physcial, psychological and emotional long-term impact that their experiences in the Magdalen Laundries had on girls and women. According to the Report, the extremely hard physical work done by occupants was ‘generally unpaid’. So what of the human rights of these women?

Article 4 European Court of Human Rights states that

1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.

2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour…

It is unlikely that the occupants of the Magdalen Laundries could successfully argue that they were held ‘in slavery’ in terms of Article 4. The European Court of Human Right’s decision in Siliadin v France requires that the victim be subject to a ‘genuine right of legal ownership over her, thus reducing her to the status of an “object”’, rather than simply a deprivation of personal autonomy’. This would not apply in the context of the Laundries. The treatment experienced by occupants would, however, seem very likely to qualify as ’servitude’, given the Court’s finding in Siliadin that ‘“servitude” means an obligation to provide one’s services that is imposed by the use of coercion’ – a condition that would seem almost certain to be satisfied in the vast majority of instances of women and girls consigned to the Laundries.

In the same case, the Court stated that, ‘in accordance with contemporary norms and trends in this field, the member States’ positive obligations under Article 4 of the Convention must be seen as requiring the penalisation and effective prosecution of any act aimed at maintaining a person in such a situation’. In the Siliadin case, this required not only that the victim had access to a remedy in civil law, but obliged the state to ensure that criminal-law provisions afforded the applicant practical and effective protection against the actions of which she was a victim.

Ireland ratified the European Convention of Human Rights on 25 February 1953. The last Magdalen Laundry closed its doors in October 1996. There is, however, a major obstacle to previous occupants of the Laundries seeking to bring a case for compensation to Strasbourg. Section 36(1) ECHR requires that ‘The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.’ It would be interesting to hear views from other contributors as to whether there is any way in which the occupants might be able to avoid having a potential complaint deemed inadmissible.

While the Irish political community and others have moved quickly to address the Ryan Commission Report, there has been a disgraceful dragging of feet with regard to the former inmates of the Magdalen Laundries – despite the extensive evidence of the appalling abuses and exploitation they experienced. Urgent steps must be taken to address the omission.