Abuse groups who met bishops accused of ‘solo run’

Friday, October 9, 2009

OLIVIA KELLY

TWO LEADING campaigners for victims of abuse in residential institutions have accused other victims’ representatives of going on a “solo run” in meeting with Catholic bishops this week.

Four groups, Soca (Survivors of Child Abuse) Ireland, Right to Peace, Alliance and Right of Place, met the Irish Bishops’ Conference in Maynooth last Wednesday.

The groups made several submissions to the bishops, including a request for a new benevolent fund, and for the bishops to make representations to the Taoiseach to speed up dealings with religious congregations towards the setting up of a new trust.

Tom Hayes, of the Alliance group, said the four organisations had a mandate to attend the meeting as they represented a majority of survivors.

However, Mick Waters, founder of Soca UK, which works with victims of abuse in Ireland who now live in Britain, and Paddy Doyle, author of The God Squad, said yesterday that the four groups did not have a mandate to speak for survivors and should not have met with the bishops.

Some 12 groups had met the Government last June, where it was agreed the Government would act as brokers in a deal with Cori, representing religious orders, in relation to a new restitution fund, Mr Waters said.

“Approximately 12 groups met with members of the Cabinet. It is wrong for any four people to go on a solo run and make a statement that they have a mandate to speak for survivors.”

No meeting should have taken place with the bishops until after the religious orders had finally revealed their assets and until after the Dublin commission report into clerical sex abuse had been published, Mr Doyle said.

John Kelly, of Soca Ireland, said the four organisations represented the “vast majority of victims” and that those people needed closure. “We had a mandate to do what we did,” he said.

Michael O’Brien, of the Right to Peace group, said any group who wished to could have attended the meeting with the bishops and that no one was excluded.

The Irish Times

Be Sociable, Share!

Categories: NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US

28 replies

  1. Hey Andrew as a Director of SOCA Ltd, why was Mick Waters excluded from the secret meetings with the bishops? Why weren’t you invited come to think of it?

  2. Did these people who met the bishops not learn anything from their days in the child prisons?
    The religious orders taught me nothing, but like the other children I was trained well. So well that I can still spout some Latin better than a trained parrot. It mattered little that I still don’t understand the meaning.
    One gang like to tell us; “Give me the child, till it’s seven and I’ll show you the man.” Many other religions might well preach the same and the results can be witnessed around the world.
    With my own education in the university of the world and I mean just that; the Far East, Middle East and European countries I worked and lived, I understand it. They mean,”I’ll plant the seed of fear in the mind of the child and there after she/he is mine to control for life.”
    Had the christian brothers taught children in Artane and other Institutions to think freely, to apply logic to reason problems, they would not had control by fear. How other, were less than twenty ‘brothers’ able to maintain control of more than 800 boys during my ‘stay’ in Artane?
    These people dressed in strange black uniforms are not to be looked up to, rather are they to be avoided like the plague.
    Some thirty years ago I made a short visit to Dublin and visited Artane ‘School.’ It was quiet with only a handful of band boys about. I’m sure that many survivors may well have reacted as I did to the sight of a one black garbed ‘brother’. I flew into a rage and attempted to attack him. But for the intervention of the boys, I hate to think what I might have done. That fear they instilled had turned to hate.
    Later on as I walked along O’Connell Street I confronted another ‘black garbed’ fellow:
    “What are you?” He replied; “A Christian Brother”. It’s taken me many years to realize it was unfair of me to have told him: “You lot are no Christians and do not fit the definition of Brother.”
    There is no way that I would enter the same room as any men in black, never mind hold a meeting with them.
    The information I’m uncovering about the way my family were treated by the State/Church more than ever confirms they are not to be trusted. Their mind set is not in the real world. They preach one thing and do the opposite.
    I leave you with just an extract from a letter written in 1937 by the Manager of the Industrial School my sister was in.
    “The Archbishop sternly forbids his flock to send their children to non-Catholic schools.
    We know that the voice of the Bishop is the voice of Our Lord Himself for us, for he has also told us that “he who hears you (meaning His Bishops and priests) hears Me.”

    The letter was sent to my father who was refusing to return the girl to the school.

    He was fighting to keep his family.
    It’s a strange old world, the law was changed in 1955 ref Supreme Court Re Doyle, an infant. A father was fighting for his daughter and won. Doyle was my Mother’s maiden name!

  3. having already made my position regarding the ‘gang of four’….I repeat, that I agree with many of the views offered herein; It is comforting to know that ‘I’ am not alone…in those views…HURRAH for the web! and not the ‘web of deciet!!

  4. Meetings with the Bishops.

    Paddy,

    I am writing to you in relation to the recent meetings that occurred in Maynooth with victim groups and the Bishops.

    I was so angered that these groups went into a forum of discussion and god only knows what else. I am at a pure loss as to what the agenda was or what the outcome is.

    I was, like my “Group” excluded by the government from the commission that was established. This group are those who were abused by religious clergy who were not in institutions but were abused in day schools run by the government and managed by the religious orders.

    · Who gave these people a mandate?

    · How many of those that attended the commission are represented in these discussions with the Bishops?

    · How do these people put to their members what the mandate is?

    · Do these people hold open forum meetings asking for a mandate?

    · How does a person join one of the groups? How often are these meetings held?

    · An important point. Who are the board of directors who pass all the business that occurs with these groups individually

    · Please advise us what your membership numbers are and who many victims you represent in your individual groups?

    · Why was this not advised in the media to all victims and survivors in advance?

    It is my understanding that there are many groups out there that are represented by speakers that should have had the opportunity, but it seems this was done behind closed doors and with a selected few who seem the have the right to speak for all of us because they are potentially dangerous to the church in media terms.

    This group of people have no right to speak for victims or victim groups unilaterally, and the church need to understand this. It is my belief that they only represent 15% of all those that attended the commission.

    Therefore I can only say “You have no right to presume to talk for all abused”

    You have no majority mandate and are a clearly in minority and should remember this. If you disagree please provide your member numbers and we will do the calculations. I would also add that any agreement you make will be subject to the greatest scrutiny, and will be opposed if you try to make deals with the church while others are still fighting them.

    If you want to put to bed your argument with the church and government then do so. Remember please tell us how many in your organisation have voted and agreed to carry this. Once done then others can gauge how many others are out there that disagree?

    I live with abuse and each day and look for restitution. I will not accept it done behind closed doors or done with a minority of people so that both the government and church feel that they have a consensus when indeed they have not. Please don’t undermine the hurt of others that were not at your selected meetings.

    I remain as always, excluded.

    Regards

    Derek Power
    Castleknock
    Dublin

  5. I would like to know who is representing the victims of the 1930s and 40s? Sadly many have gone to their graves too ashamed, fearful of talking and fearful of displaying their lack of education and understanding of the outside world.
    I’ve always considered myself fortunate in being able to block out my past. It helped to have been addressed by an incorrect name during my ‘stay’ in State/Church custody. I ‘left the boy with the other name locked in Artane’.
    In 2006 I decided to write the story of what I believed to be a complete childhood spent in these ‘schools’.
    Imagine my shock on learning that I had a life before I ‘entered’ my first Industrial School. Charged at Dublin DC as a two year old in 1934 by a Judge Cussen, with ‘Reaciving Alms’, I was sentenced to be detained till age 16. No family member visited me during the 14 years.
    On my release there was some confusion as I was being turned over to the custody of a complete strange woman; my Mother! In answer to her question, “What’s your name?” Of course I replied with the name I’d always been known.
    “Are you sure you have the correct boy” She asked of the Brother. He in turn asked me my number which confirmed I was the correct boy. As a well trained object I accepted my new name. She had no place for me to stay, and and armed with the good trade I laboured at in Artane: there was no call for poultry farmers in the center of Dublin City.
    I ran away with-in days never to see or have contact with her again.
    Released in Oct ’47 I tracked down my Father. He had built himself a new life with a new woman with whom he fathered 5 children. I also found two sister’s.
    By the end of 1948 I left Ireland for good and kept a loose contact with just the one sister. The reason I traced the father was to obtain his signature as my ‘guardian’. It was a requirement join the British Forces as a 17 year old. It would be hard for some people to understand that when I say that I felt no bitterness towards any member of my family. There was just no feeling.
    Some 40 years later I managed to locate my younger sister and invited both sisters to our large country home. It was the first meeting since the break-up of the family in 1934. It proved a very painful get together. I tried to discover what had happened all those years earlier. Neither would talk; just crying, pleading and begging me to stop asking questions. The frustration proved too much for me to handle. My wife and I had been through a deep tragedy. Upset, I stormed out and the younger sister took her secret to her grave never telling her children of her past in an Industrial School.
    My older sister who lives alone in Ireland, now around 85yrs old, could not and still can not, bring herself to speak of the past. I hear from her once or twice a year.
    My wife passed away 12/12/07 and only now am trying to find out who I am! What I’ve uncovered so far, leaves me shocked and appalled and sadly I’ve come to understand why no one wished to revisit the past.
    It appears that I had three brothers, one five years younger than I. Two of them I understand are dead, but I await death certificates. The other I suspect I’ll never learn anything.
    One thing I’ve learned of the Irish State/Church then is, that by anyone’s standards it was sick, evil and cruel.
    I’ve had an exceptional life and achieved goals beyond many peoples wildest dreams.
    There was no way I was going to let those bastards win!

  6. “Expunge” “Expunge” “Expunge”

    DO YOU REMEMBER GETTING THESE? – I REMEMBER SENDING THEM

    foi@educ.irlgov.ie; BERTIE AHEARN ; BREAKING NEWS ; Daniel Hanahoe ; CHARLES O’ROURKE ; Human Rights UK … more

    ——————————————————————————–

    As a former 2 year 11 month 3 week old convicted child sent to St Vincent’s Industrial School Drogheda and then on to Artane I have this to say. I have, on at least 3 occasions sent E-Mails to the Taioseach, Bertie Ahearn and was promised (in writing) by reply that they would get back to me, they never did, and I do not believe do they ever intend to. As I have said to various people, the only way forward in relation to Expunging Illegal Convictions is through the European Human Rights Court in Strasbourg, I will have to revert to them for real justice to be served.

    I will not go to the grave with this travesty of justice against my name. Regards and God Bless

    P.S – Taoiseach – I have a case and you know it. Your Redress Board did not put things right and my case will not in any way infringe on anything signed following my Redress in that respect. When I was taken to court I was not (officially in any Institution) until I left that Court, people, take note.

    CRIMINAL RECORDS
    Mon, July 13, 2009 10:05:55 AMFrom: martin petty View Card
    To: Justice dEPARTMENT Ireland

    ——————————————————————————–

    A question for Mr Gilmore. Why after being repeatedly assured that someone from the Justice Department would get back to me on the question of Expunging my record, which, in spite of all assurances, in law, still remains as a matter of public record, and will so remain until the record is formally expunged. When can I expect this to happen. Moreover, I should like it done before I die, which could be anytime soon. Regards
    foi@educ.irlgov.ie; ALBERT KING ; BERTIE AHEARN ; BREAKING NEWS ; Human Rights Chicago ; Human Rights UK ; Human Rights UK … more

    ——————————————————————————–

    FINE ME – IF YOU DARE
    BUT ANSWER MY REQUESTS FIRST
    5 July, 2007

    Dear Mr Petty O’Callaghan,
    I write to acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 13 June, 2007 which I will bring to the Minister’s attention.
    Yours sincerely,

    _______________________
    Private Secretary

    martin.petty@cibasc

    ***********************************************************************************
    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
    It is the policy of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Agencies and Offices using its IT services to disallow the sending of offensive material.
    Should you consider that the material contained in this message is offensive you should contact the sender immediately and also mailminder[at]justice.ie.
    Is le haghaidh an duine nó an eintitis ar a bhfuil sí dírithe, agus le haghaidh an duine nó an eintitis sin amháin, a bheartaítear an fhaisnéis a tarchuireadh agus féadfaidh sé go bhfuil ábhar faoi rún agus/nó faoi phribhléid inti. Toirmisctear aon athbhreithniú, atarchur nó leathadh a dhéanamh ar an bhfaisnéis seo, aon úsáid eile a bhaint aisti nó aon ghníomh a dhéanamh ar a hiontaoibh, ag daoine nó ag eintitis seachas an faighteoir beartaithe. Má fuair tú é seo trí dhearmad, téigh i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir, le do thoil, agus scrios an t-ábhar as aon ríomhaire.
    Is é beartas na Roinne Dlí agus Cirt, Comhionannais agus Athchóirithe Dlí, agus na nOifígí agus na nGníomhaireachtaí a úsáideann seirbhísí TF na Roinne, seoladh ábhair cholúil a dhícheadú.
    Más rud é go measann tú gur ábhar colúil atá san ábhar atá sa teachtaireacht seo is ceart duit dul i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir láithreach agus le mailminder[ag]justice.ie chomh maith.
    ***********************************************************************************
    Go raibh maith agat don teangmháil atá déanta agat le Roinn an Taoisigh.
    Fuaireamar do theachtaireacht agus beimid ag athbhreithniú í.
    Thank you for contacting the Department of the Taoiseach.
    Your message has been received and will be reviewed.
    Regards,
    Webmaster.

    In response to:

    Dear An Taoiseach Bertie,
    My name is Mr Martin John Petty-O’Callaghan, born on 29th April 1956. On 13th March 1959 I was (wrongfully) convicted at Mullingar District Court of “Being Without Proper Guardianship” under the 1908 Children’s Act. I say wrongfully, as, I was a mere 3 year old in front of a District Judge and could not possibly have been capable of committing a crime, and worse, was not capable of understanding what was transpiring. As a result of that fateful day, I spent 9 years of my life in illegal detention in Industrial schools 1959-1968.
    My problem is simple. Even though I am attending Counselling, I feel that I am still a criminal, and without a retraction of that fact, will always feel thus. You and I both know that my conviction was suspect, if not downright illegal. All I wish from the powers that be in Ireland is a document that wipes out that conviction.
    I say “Make Me” above as having read your speech below, I will not be convinced that you meant it unless the document I am requesting is forthcoming. I reside at
    153 Haworth Road
    Heaton
    BRADFORD
    BD9 6NH
    West Yorkshire
    England
    Sincerely,
    Martin
    YOUR SPEECH
    Address at the Amnesty International Lunch It is a pleasure and an honour to be here this afternoon, especially in this year of the 50th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    Five years ago, at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna, the international community spoke with one voice in declaring that:
    “Human Rights and fundamental freedoms are the birthright of all human
    beings: their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of Governments.”
    I believe it is a timely moment to re-affirm my personal commitment, and that of the Irish Government, to our responsibility: the task of defending and vindicating human rights.
    As we in Government go about our work in the fields of economic and social policy, as we pursue our political and economic interests abroad, and in particular, as we build upon the achievements and challenges of the Belfast Agreement, an important defining principle underlying our actions must be the protection and promotion of all human rights. As a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, the Universal Declaration acts both as a guide for us, and a benchmark against which we can measure the progress achieved, in making universal observance of human rights a reality.
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    The American novelist, Herman Melville once wrote that:
    ‘The past is the textbook of tyrants, the future is the Bible of the free’.
    At the end of the Second World War, it would have been understandable if only a handful of people could have had such faith in the future, or indeed, in our collective ability to build a new future for humankind, based upon freedom rather than tyranny. Yet, an exceptional group of people possessed just such a belief in a better future – the framers of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In less than three years, from February 1946 to 10 December 1948, they crafted a most remarkable and radical document.
    Based upon the premise ‘the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech, belief, and freedom from fear and want’, the Universal Declaration was the first truly international annunciation of the rights and freedoms of all human beings, universal in both its scope and its application. These rights apply to everyone, everywhere.
    The pillars of the Declaration have served the world well over the years.
    However, they must be defended against those who, for their own purposes, seek to use cultural differences or other such concepts, to water down these rights. The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan once said that:
    “It was never the people who complained of the universality of human rights, nor did the people consider human rights as a Western or Northern imposition. It was often their leaders who did so.”
    As this century has shown us, decade after decade, region by region, there are no monopolies in this world on barbarity or suffering. Hunger, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, discrimination, and fear – irrespective of your colour, race, sexual orientation, gender, political persuasion or cultural background, these feel the same the world over.
    Human Rights Defenders
    I understand that on the actual anniversary date itself, 10th December next, the UN General Assembly is set to adopt a Declaration on Human Rights Defenders. This is to be greatly welcomed, as it focuses on the need to protect NGO and human rights activists, as they go about their important work. It sets out the right and the responsibility, of individuals and groups, to promote and protect universally recognised rights. I believe that this is a most appropriate and progressive way to mark the anniversary.
    It is not, of course, just organisations like Amnesty who are Human Rights Defenders. The Declaration calls upon each and every one of us, to be ‘human rights defenders’. The Declaration asks every individual, each member of society, to promote respect for rights and freedoms. The Universal Declaration is not a museum piece, to be enshrined and put safely to one side, then dusted down every few years and admired. It is a living document, as the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and our former President Mary Robinson has rightly pointed out. It is at least as relevant, radical and as challenging a statement now, as it was half a century ago.
    Ireland & Human Rights
    There is always the danger in the developed world, however, of assuming that all shortcomings in the area of human rights occur in societies other than our own. While we have much to be proud of in our human rights record, there are those who would argue that we still have some way to go, to demonstrate our genuine commitment to the Universal Declaration.
    Our rapid social and economic development left us unprepared for some of the unfamiliar responsibilities that have come with it. I am glad to say that at Government level, despite initial problems, a system is now in place which gives every asylum seeker a fair hearing, and all the safeguards he or she is entitled to. When a person has been recognised as a refugee, or given leave to remain in the State on humanitarian grounds, all appropriate assistance will be given by the public bodies concerned, to facilitate his or her full integration into Irish society.
    It should, of course, be recognised, that if our processing system is a credible one, there will be those who do not meet the criteria laid down by the Geneva Convention on Refugees. In those cases, for the integrity of the system to be preserved, the protection of the State cannot be offered.
    However, the genuine cases, those who have been persecuted because of their religion, their gender, their political affiliations, or their ethnic origins, will find us fair and ready in meeting their needs.
    I should point out that as a Government, we can sign treaties, conventions and declarations; we can introduce legislation to enshrine rights in law.
    Ultimately, however, the real expression of Irish Human Rights lies with our people. Recently, we have seen a growing number of refugees coming to Ireland. Unfortunately, they have not all received the welcome which they have a right to expect. The Irish people are renowned throughout the world as a warm, welcoming and friendly race. It would be a tragedy if this was to be marred by the words or actions of a few misled individuals, labouring under the misconception that by welcoming refugees we are in some way impoverishing our society. We as a Government, cannot force people to change long held beliefs, to change their view points. We can, however, educate, we can inform; and we can lead by example.
    On the domestic front, one of the priorities in the Government’s human rights policy is the ratification of those UN human rights treaties which Ireland has signed, but not yet ratified. In particular, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, which will be ratified as soon as the Equal Status Bill is enacted; and the Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I understand that legislation is currently being prepared by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which will pave the way for ratification of this Convention in the near future.
    Furthermore, on taking office last year, I appointed a specific Minister with responsibility for human rights, Ms. Liz O’Donnell, T.D. There have been several initiatives within the Department of Foreign Affairs, to place human rights issues at the centre of foreign policy formulation. These include the recently established Human Rights Unit, the Standing Interdepartmental Committee on Human Rights, and the Joint Department of Foreign Affairs/Non-Governmental Organisations Committee. I am pleased to say that Amnesty International is a key member of this Committee.
    Northern Ireland
    In recent times, an important focus of successive Governments in the human rights area has been on Northern Ireland. The Good Friday Agreement, which offers so much hope to everyone on this island, represents a major advance in the protection of human rights throughout Ireland. All sides agreed on 10th April, that any new institutional arrangements must be complemented and underpinned by the systematic and effective protection of human rights.
    Human rights are not solely the preserve of any nationalist or unionist
    agenda: they apply to all people of this island. The Irish Government is committed to taking steps to further strengthen the protection of human rights in this jurisdiction.
    For example, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are currently working on the establishment of a Human Rights Commission, with a mandate and remit equivalent to that of the proposed Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Minister for Justice Equality and Law Reform hopes to be in a position to bring heads of a Bill to Government in the near future.
    This work, in establishing a Human Rights Commission, has involved extensive contact and co-operation with relevant agencies in the neighbouring jurisdiction, in view of the commonality of the commitments entered into by both Governments in this area. We will, of course, take note of any views expressed by other interested groups in regard to the proposed Commission.
    A meeting has already taken place, for example, at official level with the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to discuss the proposals in broad outline. Furthermore, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has already been in contact with organisations which have a particular interest in this area.
    The other main commitment in the Good Friday Agreement concerning human rights is the question of the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights. This is being examined in this jurisdiction, in the context of strengthening the protection of human rights, taking account of the Report of the Constitution Review Group and the work of the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. The United Kingdom will shortly complete the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into their own domestic legislation.
    China
    My experiences in helping to broker the Good Friday Agreement, have also had an effect on my dealings with other Government leaders. This year, in addition to my visits to Europe, I was invited to visit the People’s Republic of China. Indeed, I had the honour of being the first Taoiseach to visit that country, and the first of six EU leaders to visit China this year.
    I believe that, as in Northern Ireland, the only way forward when addressing human rights issues, is to talk, to create the appropriate environment for dialogue to take place. I have been encouraged over the past year, by the important steps which the People’s Republic of China has taken in relation to human rights. Among these improvements are:
    The resumption of EU-China Human Rights Dialogue and the
    establishment of a regular pattern of meetings;
    the granting of access for visits to the UN Working Group on
    Arbitrary Detention;
    China’s signature of both the International Covenant on Economic,
    Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil
    and Political Rights; and
    The first successful EU-China Summit in April of this year.
    In addition to these progressive measures, the visit to China by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, including her visit to Tibet in early September, has been very significant. I hope that it will assist and intensify constructive dialogue between China and the International Community on human rights, and Ireland like the other EU countries stands ready to assist China in any way we can to build sound democratic structures.
    You will recall that I spoke earlier about the need to enter into dialogue with all parties to a dispute, if a viable and just solution is to be found. In visiting China, I had the opportunity to raise our concerns regarding human rights, directly with the Chinese leadership.
    With regard to Tibet, the human rights situation there continues to be a matter of great concern to the Irish Government and to our partners in Europe, a fact I conveyed to Premier Zhu Rongji during our discussions.
    While the brutal oppression which occurred during the Cultural Revolution is no longer evident, there continues to be widespread reports of suppression of free speech and association. Furthermore, the number of political prisoners remains alarmingly high.
    On behalf of the Government and all Irish people, I voiced our deep concern at the reported human rights abuses and proposed to the Chinese authorities, that they should be willing to talk directly to the Dalai Lama as a means of resolving these issues. I drew parallels with what had been achieved in the Northern Ireland peace process, as a result of the willingness of all the participants to talk to, and negotiate with, all parties involved in the dispute. I believe that the Dalai Lama is a voice for moderation among exiled Tibetans, and that direct negotiations are essential if the Tibetan issue is to be resolved without loss of life or further abuses.
    Amnesty’s Role in Raising Awareness
    It is commitment to human rights which has brought us all here today – the commitment by Amnesty International, to speak out for those who are prevented from speaking for themselves. I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to Amnesty International, which, since its establishment in 1961, has pursued some 43,000 cases of human rights abuses. I understand that you have succeeded in bringing about nearly 42,000 of these to closure. By any standard, this is a remarkable achievement and I congratulate you for it.
    I am also keenly aware of the commitment of the Director, Ms. Mary Lawlor and all the hardworking team of Amnesty International’s Irish Section. You have done so much, not only to raise awareness and understanding of human rights concerns, but also to remind us, both Government and the wider public, of our duties and responsibilities in this area. World-wide, Amnesty has been, and continues to be, a challenging and at times uncomfortable presence, in the working lives of political leaders, journalists, business people, and civil servants alike. For this, for your tenacity, for all your work over the last 37 years, thank you.
    In this regard, I am delighted to hear that Amnesty’s Campaign (One Million Signatures – One Powerful Message) to collect 1 million signatures in support of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, is well on the way to being achieved. I understand that earlier this week, over 700,000 signatures had been counted, – my own included, and during my Ard Fhéis speech last Saturday I urged everyone to sign up to it too.
    More important, perhaps, is the fact that these are not just the signatures of politicians, church and business leaders. These are the signatures of the people of Ireland. In the referendum on the Northern Ireland Agreement, the people of Ireland voted overwhelmingly for peace in this country, and now, through the Amnesty International Campaign, they have shown that they specifically want human rights issues to be addressed.
    If our commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration is to have any real meaning, we must all respond to this imperative, in whatever way we can, both at home, and in our working lives.
    ENDS

    **********************************************************************
    Tá Roinn an Taoisigh meáite ar seirbhís phroifisiúnta, éifeachtach agus chúirtéiseach a sholáthar dár gcustaiméirí go léir. Chun amharc ar an Chairt do Chustaiméirí, cliceáil ar http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie//irish/index.asp?docID=1763
    Is le haghaidh an duine nó an aonáin ar seoladh dó/di an t-eolas a seachadadh, agus d’fhéadadh ábhar faoi rún agus/nó ábhar faoi phribhléid a bheith istigh leis. Tá cosc ar aon athbhreithniú, athsheachadadh, scaipeadh faisnéise nó aon úsáid eile den eolas seo ag aon aonáin eile seachas an faighteoir beartaithe, ná aon ghníomh a thógáil i dtuilleamaí an eolais seo. Má fuair tú seo de bharr earráide, téigh i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir agus scríos an t-ábhar ó do ríomhaire le do thoil. Is é polasaí Roinn an Taoisigh cosc a chur ar ábhar maslach a sheoladh, agus más rud é go gceapann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar istigh leis an teachtaireacht seo maslach ba cheart duit dul i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir ar an bpointe agus le itu@taoiseach.gov.ie freisin.
    The Department of the Taoiseach is committed to providing a professional, efficient and courteous service to all our customers. To view the Customer Charter, please click on http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?1ocID=181&docID=1762
    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. It is the policy of the Department of the Taoiseach to disallow the sending of offensive material and should you consider that the material contained in this message is offensive you should contact the sender immediately and also itu@taoiseach.gov.ie .

    Dear Mr. Petty-O’Callaghan,
    I refer to your further e-mail of 22 October 2007.
    I will contact the office of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr. Brian Lenihan T.D. and ask that they write to you on this matter.
    Yours sincerely,

    Nick Reddy
    Assistant Private Secretary
    to the Taoiseach
    Telephone: 01-6194020
    E-mail: privateoffice@taoiseach.gov.ie

    **********************************************************************
    Tá Roinn an Taoisigh meáite ar seirbhís phroifisiúnta, éifeachtach agus chúirtéiseach a sholáthar dár gcustaiméirí go léir. Chun amharc ar an Chairt do Chustaiméirí, cliceáil ar http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie//irish/index.asp?docID=1763
    Is le haghaidh an duine nó an aonáin ar seoladh dó/di an t-eolas a seachadadh, agus d’fhéadadh ábhar faoi rún agus/nó ábhar faoi phribhléid a bheith istigh leis. Tá cosc ar aon athbhreithniú, athsheachadadh, scaipeadh faisnéise nó aon úsáid eile den eolas seo ag aon aonáin eile seachas an faighteoir beartaithe, ná aon ghníomh a thógáil i dtuilleamaí an eolais seo. Má fuair tú seo de bharr earráide, téigh i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir agus scríos an t-ábhar ó do ríomhaire le do thoil. Is é polasaí Roinn an Taoisigh cosc a chur ar ábhar maslach a sheoladh, agus más rud é go gceapann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar istigh leis an teachtaireacht seo maslach ba cheart duit dul i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir ar an bpointe agus le itu@taoiseach.gov.ie freisin.
    The Department of the Taoiseach is committed to providing a professional, efficient and courteous service to all our customers. To view the Customer Charter, please click on http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?1ocID=181&docID=1762
    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. It is the policy of the Department of the Taoiseach to disallow the sending of offensive material and should you consider that the material contained in this message is offensive you should contact the sender immediately and also itu@taoiseach.gov.ie .
    **********************************************************************

    Last updated: Wednesday, April 9, 2008
    Ahern apology moved abuse survivors
    Letters to the Editor. Irish Independent. Monday April 07 2008
    In recent days, due recognition has been given to the pivotal role and contribution of Taoiseach (Irish Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern in bringing about enormous changes in vital areas of Irish life such as the peace process and economy. However, there is another, no less significant, act for which the Taoiseach shall be forever appreciated and admired by those to whom it meant so much.
    In 1999, Bertie Ahern made an unreserved apology to the survivors of institutional abuse in Ireland, and, in doing so lifted the veil of secrecy, stigma and injustice which had dogged our lives and impeded our futures.
    His apology touched our hearts profoundly because it was clear that he had listened to survivors with a depth of commitment unequalled by any other politician, apart from the then Minister of Education, Micheal Martin.
    This became evident in the swiftness with which he followed up his words with actions that supported the healing process for all of us who had endured the regimes of the various institutions which had destroyed our childhoods.
    Despite all his troubles of late, Bertie Ahern will forever hold a special place in the hearts of survivors.
    Last updated: Wednesday, April 9, 2008
    Ahern apology doesn’t wash
    Letters to the Editor. Irish Independent Wednesday April 09 2008
    Christine Buckley (Irish Independent Letters, April 7) lavishes praise on Bertie Ahern for his management of the economy, for his role in the Northern peace process and his apology to those of us who were institutionalised and abused by various organs of the State, all in the name of childcare.
    Ms Buckley seems to forget that the apology given by Bertie Ahern was not something he gave willingly.
    The fact is that his apology was brought about by the revulsion of people who watched the ‘States of Fear’ programmes on RTE.
    His apology came about just prior to the screening of the third programme in the series when the Government and the religious orders were being shown to have covered up the most horrendous abuse of innocent children.
    As Taoiseach,(Irish Prime Minister) Mr Ahern was aware prior to the screening of ‘States of Fear’ that institutional abuse of children in the care of the State was widespread.
    My own book, ‘The God Squad’ highlighted this issue 20 years ago this year and yet not one single member of any government or religious order ever apologised to me, or indeed to the many thousands of children who were served with ‘orders of detention’, rendering them criminals.
    Perhaps before he leaves office and fades into the background of Irish politics, An Taoiseach will rescind those orders of detention served on children as young as one year and who today are in effect branded as criminals under the 1908–1941 Children’s Act.
    It is presumptuous of Ms Buckley to say that “his apology touched our hearts profoundly because it was clear that he had listened to survivors with a depth of commitment unequalled by any other politician, apart from the then Minister of Education, Micheal Martin.
    Mr Ahern’s apology did not touch my heart.
    Where is the evidence to say that he listened to survivors?
    Through the sterling work of journalists like Bruce Arnold and Mary Raftery, Bertie Ahern was embarrassed into issuing an apology.
    I can only surmise that the “swiftness with which he followed up his words with actions that supported the healing process for all of us” is a reference to the Redress Board, set up in the utmost secrecy to ‘compensate’ people who had been detained in Industrial Schools around the country and treated brutally in every sense of the word.
    While I’d like to elaborate on that secrecy, to do so would see me being fined in the first instance — €2,000.
    Were I or anyone else who appeared before the Redress Board to speak about what went on behind its closed doors a second time we would face a fine of €25,000 and/or two years in prison.
    Surely Ms Buckley can’t regard what I’d view as a perversion of natural justice as being in any way a “healing process for all of us”.
    “Now, Mr Ahearn and Ministers of Ireland, do the right thing by both myself and all other so-called survivors of an “Illegal Court System” which all Judges, Solicitors and Government officials gained financially from.
    Incidentally, to all those who went through the Redress system, as I did, we got “No Redress” – they simply gave us some of the money the religious neglected to spend on our nutrition, education, well being etc. Think about it for a moment and you will see, I’m right.

    Martin John Petty (O’Callaghan)
    153 Haworth Road
    BRADFORD
    West Yorkshire
    England

    __________________________________________________
    Do You Yahoo!?
    Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
    http://mail.yahoo.com
    Email to Taoiseach
    Wed, November 12, 2008 10:58:10 AMFrom: “Ciara.Mahon@Taoiseach.Gov.IE” Add to Contacts
    To: martin1956_1959@yahoo.com

    ——————————————————————————–

    Dear Mr. Petty,

    I wish to acknowledge receipt of your email of 31 October 2008 which will be brought to the Taoiseach’s attention as soon as possible.

    Yours sincerely,

    Paul Mooney
    Taoiseach’s Private Office

    Telephone: 01-6194020
    E-mail: privateoffice@taoiseach.gov.ie

    **********************************************************************

    Tá Roinn an Taoisigh meáite ar seirbhís phroifisiúnta, éifeachtach agus chúirtéiseach a sholáthar dár gcustaiméirí go léir. Chun amharc ar an Chairt do Chustaiméirí, cliceáil ar http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie//irish/index.asp?docID=1763

    Is le haghaidh an duine nó an aonáin ar seoladh dó/di an t-eolas a seachadadh, agus d’fhéadadh ábhar faoi rún agus/nó ábhar faoi phribhléid a bheith istigh leis. Tá cosc ar aon athbhreithniú, athsheachadadh, scaipeadh faisnéise nó aon úsáid eile den eolas seo ag aon aonáin eile seachas an faighteoir beartaithe, ná aon ghníomh a thógáil i dtuilleamaí an eolais seo. Má fuair tú seo de bharr earráide, téigh i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir agus scríos an t-ábhar ó do ríomhaire le do thoil. Is é polasaí Roinn an Taoisigh cosc a chur ar ábhar maslach a sheoladh, agus más rud é go gceapann tú go bhfuil an t-ábhar istigh leis an teachtaireacht seo maslach ba cheart duit dul i dteagmháil leis an seoltóir ar an bpointe agus le itu@taoiseach.gov.ie freisin.

    The Department of the Taoiseach is committed to providing a professional, efficient and courteous service to all our customers. To view the Customer Charter, please click on http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/index.asp?1ocID=181&docID=1762

    The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to

    which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged

    material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or

    taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or

    entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received

    this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from

    any computer. It is the policy of the Department of the Taoiseach to disallow the sending of offensive material and should you consider that the material contained in this message is offensive you should contact the sender immediately and also itu@taoiseach.gov.ie .

    **********************************************************************

    “YOU NEVER DID GET BACK TO ME – DID YOU?”

  7. “No one asked for my input before any meeting”

    All I want is my “Illegal Criminal Record” Expunged, are you listening Taoiseach and the rest of the Religious Fraudsters?

    READ THE FOLLOWING AGAIN – OR IS YOUR SHELL EVEN THICKER TODAY THAN IT WAS YESTERDAY?

    A RESPONSE TO THE LETTER BELOW
    Click here to see letter referred to
    I trust Dr David Gwynn Morgan has a remit, as part of “Pathways into Institutions” (2) below, to investigate why it was necessary to commit the under 7 year olds to Industrial Schools via the courts under the guise of the 1908 Children’s Act, the State, the Judges and the directors of Industrial Schools fully knowing that they were riding roughshod over the rights of children not old enough, nor capable of committing such crimes, worse, unable to defend themselves, nor given any counsel, so to do. Is Dr David going to recommend that those children, such as I was, who were treated in this way are exonerated and their details deleted from District Court Minutes Books, further, are they to receive an apology for the wrongful, illegal acts bestowed upon them in direct breach of both the Irish Constitution 1937 and The International Convention of Human Rights 1950 and its Protocols? Or is Ireland and its current governors just going to do another magic act, by sweeping this scandal under its carpets, as it has become so very good at doing up to now?
    Martin John Petty
    Haworth Road
    BRADFORD
    West Yorkshire
    England Dated this 26th January 2008

    Last Updated: Monday, June 1, 2009
    Copying or linking to any item in this section is not permitted without the express permission of BOTH the author and Webmaster
    May we refer to the article “Painful truth cannot be dismissed” by Patrick Walsh (Irish SOCA) in the Irish Independent dated 19th January 2008 in relation to the Ryan Commission?
    On the 26th November 2005 the Ryan Commission spread the tentacles of its curiosity into the academic world, inviting University College Dublin to carry out a study of the long-term effects on those who were in the industrial school system.
    The Ryan Commission overlooked its failure to give us the names of the “experts” from the University College Dublin until the 15th June 2006 who has been assisting the Ryan Commission with their research behind closed doors.
    The names of the so called “experts” are as follows:
    1. Mazars will examine funding in a number of institutions.
    2. Professor David Gwynn Morgan will report on: (i) Historical background (ii) Pathways into institutions.
    3. Professor Anthony Staines will examine health issues and health recording in institutions.
    4. Professor Robbie Gilligan will examine relevant recent institutional history post the Kennedy Report and current issues in childcare with reference to making recommendations.
    5. Mr. Ciaran Fahey, Chartered Engineer, will report on buildings in a number of institutions.
    6. Mr. Patrick Brennan and Mr. Richard Rollinson are expected to furnish reports on general childcare issues to enable comparisons to be made historically and with reference to U.K experience.
    7. Mr. Diarmaid Ferriter is expected to report on relevant historical issues.
    8. Professor Alan Carr has been engaged to carry out a survey of a representative body of former residents of institutions.
    It was undertaken without any consultation with the abused.
    Contact was indirect, through their solicitors.
    In a letter sent out by the Ryan Commission through lawyers to the abused on 16th November 2005, consent was sought for around 400 people who made applications to appear before the Justice Laffoy Confidential Committee to be included on the panel to be questioned in the research but overlooked its failure to involve people who made applications to appear before Justice Laffoy Investigation Committee before she resigned in September 2003, accusing the Government of failing to adequately resource the commission.
    Closing date for this was the 25th November2005.
    This gave virtually no time at all for consultation, though the more responsible solicitors were offering to answer questions.
    As far as the Ryan Commission is concerned, the information about the study is extremely limited.
    The Ryan Commission said that participation “will be subject to the usual confidentiality requirements”.
    There is no “usual confidentiality”.
    This was new territory.
    The University College Dublin research represents a new departure.
    With a research team engaged, the ability of the Ryan Commission to control confidentiality, or indeed any other aspect of procedure or content, is tenuous.
    We believe that many people who were questioned in the research at that time rejected participation out of hand.
    The Ryan Commission fails to understand how many people have our files they are held by the Department of Education, the Redress Board, the Ryan Commission, Barnardo’s, the archives of the religious institutions, the solicitors who have acted for us, or are acting for us, the psychiatrists and psychotherapists and the courts.
    Now they want the University College Dublin to analyse around 400 people who made applications to appear before the Laffoy Confidential Committee but overlook their failure to include people who made applications to appear before the Laffoy Investigation Committee.
    We cannot get our medical files from the religious institutions nor can we get the names of our families.
    Back in November 2005 Professor Alan Carr, who lead the research team, assured the Ryan Commission that the interview material “will be securely stored at University College Dublin”, that details will remain confidential, and that the Human Research Ethics Committee has approved.
    The heart of the matter lies in what is to be achieved.
    The research will say how the overall group of participants were affected by having lived in an institution, how it affected their psychological adjustment, their quality of life and how individuals coped with the challenges that they faced during their time in the institutions and afterwards.
    From the trust that we have built up over a number of years with several men and women who went through the industrial school system we can answer most of those questions.
    Furthermore, we can say of that the Ryan Commission is not getting very close to the truth.
    We fear the research project will do even less well.
    Some leading spokespersons of the abused are disdainful and dismissive of the process altogether.
    There is a further compelling reason for doubt about what is being done.
    Though it is a long time ago, University College Dublin similar research lost all the research documentation.
    This arose at the time of the Kennedy Committee’s work, in the late 1960s.
    It was done because Ireland faced international disgrace as a result of OECD investigations into our education system.
    These showed serious defects in the education levels of people in industrial schools.
    Inmates were, of course, not being educated.
    They were doing manual work for the Religious Orders, their education – like everything else – being seriously neglected.
    Some regard this as the worst of all the abuses.
    The University College Dublin researchers at the time knew none of this.
    Perhaps Professor Alan Carr will give some thought to his predecessor in the research field, who was Professor of Logic and Psychology at University College Dublin, a Father Eamonn Feichin O’Doherty.
    His research is referred to in Appendix F of the Kennedy (1970) Report.
    His testimony hinged on the concept that the educational backwardness of industrial school inmates resulted from innate inability, bad blood, family circumstances.
    It was not related to the conditions in the institutions.
    Such was the Professor of Logic’s logic.
    Moreover, he blamed early experience in life, not realising that the early life, from the age of two, had been in the industrial schools.
    He ignored the prison environment, the constant fear, the brutality and violence, the starvation, the meagre and inadequate clothing.
    Instead, it was all bad genes.
    This was a piece of National Socialist research.
    Current researchers can neither criticise nor defend these assertions because University College Dublin lost all the research material.
    We do not think Professor Alan Carr should proceed any further assisting the Ryan Commission until questions have been asked about the project.
    Apart from anything else it is appropriate to ask what psychiatric or therapeutic skills are possessed by the “experts” of his team.
    We don’t know the timescale of the research but we think that the Ryan Commission should bring its work to an end since that work is going nowhere at all.
    It is not satisfying many thousands of victims of institutional child abuse.
    It is costing a great deal of public money.
    Furthermore, it is not getting to the heart of truth.
    THE RELIGIOUS ARE FRAUDSTERS

    The Order of The Daughters of Charity of St Vincent DePaul, an order of Nuns is nothing more than an order of fraudsters and I can prove it.

    I was (on 9th November 2005) absolutely flabbergasted when I accidentally happened upon the following:

    TITLE VI: PHYSICAL AND JURIDICAL PERSONS
    TITLE VI: PHYSICAL AND JURIDICAL PERSONS
    CHAPTER I : THE CANONICAL STATUS OF PHYSICAL PERSONS
    Can. 96 By baptism one is incorporated into the Church of Christ and constituted a person in it, with the duties and the rights which, in accordance with each one’s status, are proper to Christians, in so far as they are in ecclesiastical communion and unless a lawfully issued sanction intervenes.
    Can. 97 ß1 a person, who has completed the eighteenth year of age, has attained majority; below this age, a person is a minor.
    ß2 a minor who has not completed the seventh year of age is called an infant and is considered incapable of personal responsibility; on completion of the seventh year, however, the minor is presumed to have the use of reason.

    I can justify making the accusation I have because, given that at just under age 3 I was, on a voluntary basis, accepted by the Daughters of Charity of St Vincent De Paul at Drogheda Industrial School for Junior Boys.
    From documents, I have discovered that I was there for some 5 weeks before I was hauled in front of a Mullingar District Court Judge and charged under the Children Act 1908, Guardianship, and ordered to be detained until the age of 16. I was transferred to Artane at age 10 and remained there until age 12, at which point I was discharged in 1968.
    If the Daughters of Charity are not liars and fraudulent, they may wish to explain the following:
    1. As stated above in Can 97, B2,
    A minor who has not completed the seventh year of age is called an infant and is considered incapable of personal responsibility; on completion of the seventh year, however, the minor is presumed to have the use of reason.
    2. Why did they allow the Courts to charge me fully knowing that “I am incapable of personal responsibility”? – they needed the conviction to secure the child allowance.
    3. Why did they wait until after the court appearance to have me Baptised at St Peters Church in Drogheda? – I cannot stay with them if I am not Baptised, they would lose the funding for me.
    4. In documents in now in my possession from the Courts (Detention Order) it clearly states “And whereas this child appears to the Court to be a Catholic” – Who told the court this, given that I am not yet Baptised? – The Daughters of Charity, who else.
    How many of you out there were unjustly accused, based on the fact that you were under age 7? – A lot I should imagine. How many Religious Orders had a hand in your detentions?
    Keep in mind, if these people say they did nothing wrong, why did they not fight the judicial system for the younger children on the grounds of being incapable due to age?
    I think I have made my case.
    Writers email address: martin1956_1959@yahoo.com
    “STATE IN BREACH OF 21 OF THE 30 ARTICLES ON THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1949” as follows.
    The state, from 1949 to the present day was, and remains, in breach of Articles 1 to 13 (inclusive), 19,22,23,25,26,28,29 and 30.
    When one reads the declaration it becomes very clear why. What is going to be done to rectify this situation for all of us unjustly treated?
    Email the author.

    ABUSE VICTIMS ARE ‘NOT CRIMINALS’
    Having read the article “Sex abuse victims call for lifting of ‘crime slur’” by Henry McDonald, Sunday March 21, 2004, The Observer, I was appalled to discover that along with so many other survivors of the Industrial School System, I also (possibly) have a “Black Mark” still documented against me for being incarcerated at the age of 3 and I most certainly wish this to be wiped from all records.
    To achieve this I have done some research and found that it is possible (legally) to do just that and that the authorities have no choice but to comply. However, my research seems to imply that only those survivors who were detained under Section 58 of the 1908 and 1922 Children Act (as amended) under the charge of ‘Improper Guardianship’ will be in a position to insist on the lifting of this charge if they are still blighted by it today as follows.
    Discharge of child committed to industrial school. 5.—(1) Where—
    (a) a child has been committed to an industrial school under section 58 of the Principal act, and
    ( b ) an application is made to the Minister for Education by a parent or guardian for the release of the child, and
    ( c ) the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances which led to the making of the committal order have ceased and are not likely to recur if the child is released, and that the parent or guardian is able to support the child, the Minister shall order the discharge of the child.
    (2) The Minister may, if he so thinks proper, refer the application to the court.
    (3) If the Minister refuses the application, the parent or guardian may refer it to the court.
    (4) The court, if satisfied in regard to the matters referred to in paragraph ( c ) of subsection (1), shall have jurisdiction to order the discharge of the child.
    (5) A reference to the court under this section shall be made to the District Court in the District in which the committal order was made or, if the applicant resides in another District, in that District.
    (6) The order for the discharge of the child, whether made by the Minister or the court, shall operate to revoke the detention order.
    (7) ( a ) Where the District Court or, on appeal, the Circuit Court, orders the discharge of a child, the court may award costs and expenses to the successful applicant and the Minister shall defray out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas such sum as the court may certify in respect thereof.
    ( b ) The costs and expenses which may be certified by the court shall not exceed the maximum amounts which may be awarded as between party and party in an action for tort in the District Court.
    Sub Paragraph (6) above is particularly interesting when it says “The order for the discharge of the child, whether made by the Minister or the court, shall operate to revoke the detention order”. In other words, if one reads the definition of the word “revoke”, one would be as surprised as I was to read, annul by recalling or rescinding, countermand, lift, overturn, renege, repeal, rescind, reverse, vacate, cancel, error, fault, go back on, mistake. It is as if to say that nothing happened at all and if that is the definition as is the case, backtracking through events that led up to that point has the same result, which is that the charge of ‘improper guardianship’ should never have been brought against children incapable of properly mounting a defence, let alone fully understanding what was taking place.
    Indeed, most of you will find that the authorities were approached by family members for assistance who, only when there was no family members present, brought these charges against you fully knowing that it was wrong, indeed illegal, since, having agreed to help in the support of families in need (by taking you into their care) ultimately became the legal guardian and that being the case renders the authorities at the time at fault in bringing false charges against children who could not possible resist, a bit like charging your own children with an offence, ludicrous don’t you think?
    I am in possession of a document, which shows that asking the authorities for assistance is just what happened in my case by my Grandmother and, as you, myself being in possession of a copy of the District Court Order which sent me to 2 of these institutions am not at all happy that I as a 3 year old at the time, now (possibly) have a criminal record. I am now calling on the relevant Minister to “Blanket Cancel” these charges for everyone where Section 58 is concerned forthwith if justice is to be seen to be done, at least on this issue. Also, for those who do not fall into the Section 58 category, I say that they too were in all probability dubiously convicted in so far as a fair hearing with proper defence is concerned. Ask for a copy of the transcript of the hearing if in doubt.
    As to Section 35 of the Redress Act 2002. Having read it several times I find that it is somewhat circular (like a ring) in its wording and seems to start off by removing disqualification and other restriction only to insert it right back in again by its reference to a “conviction for an offence” – have the authorities not already deemed “improper guardianship” as an offence in taking children to the District Courts in the first place. Section 35 is non-committal in categorically saying that no offence exists as can be seen.
    • Criminal records. 35. —For the avoidance of doubt, a person who was detained in an industrial school pursuant to the Children Act, 1908, other than a person who was so detained as a consequence of a conviction of a conviction for an offence, shall not be subject to any disqualification or any other restriction that is a consequence of a conviction for an offence.
    If you read the above several times you will soon see the ring effect and that the restrictions and disqualifications are still there by the reference to “an offence”. The words “separate offence” should have been included. Perhaps an amendment to the Act, Sect 35, would clarify the situation.
    It is my hope for myself and all survivors that the powers that be will instil a belief in all of us that the apologies of several high profile Ministers and Clergy were uttered in good faith and that they will ultimately do the right thing now in order to finally put the past behind us with confidence in their sincerity.

    Email: Martin John Joseph Petty-O’Callaghan, Bradford, West Yorkshire, England

    Having been a resident at two of these institutions from age three to twelve, and subsequently spent the rest of my life trying to make sense of what these people had done to myself and 3 other members of my family and having the privilege of being able to read (on the Internet) the various articles/reports etc I am not at all surprised that in spite of Mr Aherns’ apology, that the Church and the powers that be still try to find ways of distorting the truth by clouding the waters to the extent that in the end, the real reason for the very existence of the Commission in the first place fades into oblivion and the victims are (yet again) abused in a more cunning manner by the very department that is guilty of the Physical, Emotional and Psychological torment inflicted years ago.
    It is my view that the Department of Education and Science should never have been allowed to play a part in any aspect of this enquiry since it has its own (bad) reputation to (somehow) salvage.
    Justice Mary Laffoy was right in her resignation and is, in my view, the only Honourable member of the original higher echelon of the Commission.
    What I do not seem to be able to understand is – if now people are refuting what we say – why would Mr Ahern and the Church elders (The Pope Included) find it necessary to apologize in the first place? I for one will be expecting some sort of apology on a personal basis when my time comes to appear, though I read that even the Investigation Commission is to be albeit scrapped as too costly, why am I not surprised.
    As far as false allegations go, I am of the opinion that due to the passage of time etc, people dying etc it becomes ever easier to refute what people such as I say.
    Yes Mr Dempsey should go and go now before he does even more damage to the very people he is charged to now help.
    Let me conclude by saying that although I am now nearly 48 years old I have (through the actions or negligence of his department) spent 45 years living as someone other than the person I was born as.
    I only know this by studying the people my children are becoming as they grow and I realise, yes (in my Sons case) there go I but for what other people changed me into.
    I lost all of my family, and I mean all, we are strangers and those that I never got to meet are no longer living.
    My only hope for the future is my children who have never and will never experience what I and many thousands of others had so to do.
    Regards

  8. I have been requesting FOI’s on this topic for a number of months now to no avail. I have had discussions with the guys in Health who are in charge of funding and still it goes on despite serious questions regarding that same funding. Survivors are the worst abusers when it comes to other survivors aa I have found out to my cost. Michael O’Brien and Christy Heaphy knocked on my car window to tell me that only group leaders could meet with Father Mernagh on 16 August in Dublin so they certainly speak with forked tongues along with a considerable number who say our interests are their main concern!! It is tiringly depressing! Don’t the church do a great job for Lucifer/Satan or whatever the divil you want to call him?

  9. martha if you think for one moment i believe there is love and faith in the church then you totally misunderstood me there has only been FAR TOO MUCH HURT. AS A SURVIVOR OF MANY SCHOOLS THROUGH OUT MY ENTIRE CHILDHOOD I KNOW THIS.

    THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS LOVE AND FAITH IN THE CHURCH BUT ONLY EVIL AND GREED. THE CHURCH CLAIMS TO BE WHAT THEY ARE NOT IS WHAT I WAS SAYING

  10. Paddy
    There seems to be a lot of like-minded people out there. Perhaps we should ask directly about the funding of these groups and their somewhat dubious mandate .
    I see their little stunt as nothing more than a grovelling exercise to the collar.
    Kelly and Co you do not speak for me as they are the very essence of what I detest in groups
    “its my ball you can not play!!!”
    John

  11. January 2004 His report was approved by the Cabinet earlier this week and Judge Ryan will now begin a consultation process with those involved, including victims’ groups, before the changes are implemented.

    There were 142 institutions that qualified to go, to the investigation part of the child abuse commission. 1900 had left their names down, when Judge Ryan took over the child abuse commission.

    Yet Judge Ryan has only heard the evidence for 13 industrial schools. Notice that the group leaders got their industrials schools a PUBLIC hearing. They agreed sampling through the back door.

    Were any of their members asked about SAMPLING, NO.

  12. Andrew wrote:- “The bishops allegiance is to Rome, not Ireland, or its people , and certainly not its survivors of clerical sexual terrorism. Ireland is a democracy not a theocracy.”

    True. The bishops’ allegiance is to Rome, not Ireland. Therefore, Ireland is not YET a Democracy, in the true sense of the word – not while Rome still controls ours Health and Education systems, which it still does!

  13. Andrew wrote:- “… before anybody thinks they (the RC hierarchy) are equipped, legally or mentally, to deal with these bishops, and ‘deal’ is the operative word here.”

    Yes, Andrew, I agree. But, the fact is MOST Irish people merely cope with – as opposed to DEAL with – their own personal childhood experience of Roman Catholic dogma.

    Believe me, this internalised FEAR is not restricted to those who grew up in Irish Catholic Industrial Schools. Its widespread thoughout Ireland, even today! Why do you think almost 70% of the Irish people recently voted in favour of the Lisbon Treaty!!!

    We Irish are still a FEAR-RIDDEN huddled mass of people… include me out!

  14. Rob said:- “i thought faith and love are the main ingredient of the church…!”

    Well, like so many Roman Catholics around the world (not just the Irish, who are probably THE most “catholicised” people on the planet) you thought wrong.

    To have faith, i.e., to put one’s trust in, the Catholic Church and its sociopathic dogma, one would need to be a VERY gullible, psychologically-shattered, adult indeed!

  15. Posting once again on behalf of Kathleen O’Malley.
    —————————————-
    O’K’ Paddy.
    Post this for me.
    A very simple question to the Group Leaders.
    Who elected you the Group Leaders?
    Kathleen O’Malley.

  16. Nail on the head award to Kathleen – this meeting appears to have been about ‘funding’

    The Irish Bishops Conference represent an organisation which has been complicit in the cover-up of child abuse by their employees for many years – centuries perhaps. In fact you could say that the Irish Bishops Conference is a representative body for a group of Rogue Employers. There can be nothing achieved by anybody until the Taoiseach reports on his promise to survivors, and likewise, nothing can be achieved until publication of Justice Yvonne Murphy’s report. It is imperative that knowledge pertaining to the complicity of the hierarchy and former bishops in the cover up of child abuse be fully examined before anybody thinks they are equipped, legally or mentally, to deal with these bishops, and ‘deal’ is the operative word here.

    These people were talking behind closed doors in Maynooth about US without US.

    The bishops allegiance is to Rome, not Ireland, or its people , and certainly not its survivors of clerical sexual terrorism. Ireland is a democracy not a theocracy.

  17. Now there’s the question of the day, Kathleen…a good one.

    And the one ‘representative’ woman now seems to be speaking on behalf of those she preferred to ignore 7 years ago.

    One wonders.

    NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US.

  18. Kathleen

    The woman you speak of only REPRESENTS “HER OWN SCHOOL” as far as I can see from newspapers reports. So now they have been “Looked after” she is now leaning towards “The Magdalen WOMAN” when through the years since this all started “SHE” never bothered with The Magdalen women. It’s all to do Kathleen I’m afraid with “FUNDING FROM THE DOE” It’s drying up and now the “Gang of Four” need to keep their pockets lined, how to do this? Ring the Bishops, put us on your “PAYROLL” lets talk

  19. Kathleen also asked me to post this message on her behalf. I’m happy yet again to do so.
    ___________________________________________

    Thank you Paddy.
    I have posted this comment in case it does not appear can you oblige yet again.

    “I am curious.”
    There were many more Industrial Schools for girls, than Boys, why then is there but one representative for the women and many more for the men?.
    Kathleen.

  20. Paddy

    I’m glad Kathleen O Malley has posted that comment. I went over it with my husband and he also agrees with Kathleen as I do. It seems Paddy you are getting SUPPORT and what now do you do with this information you have? Send out a Press Release, write to the papers, call your local TD, radio station or stand outside the Palace at Drumcondra. Send a letter to the Gang of Four, telling them “WE THE SURVIVORS” are not going to tolerate this any longer. Ask them to show US their MINUTES, their list of “MEMBERS” and the documentation of their “MANDATES”.

    Paddy

    NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US

  21. i said it before there was neglect, sexual abuse physical abuse as categories for compensation but a so called group once said you cannot claim for being in more schools than one, as the whole deal was agreed.

    how in gods earth can this be fair, for those children to fear each time in front of them what went on behind them, some were in four or more schools. this was not important to a certain survivor group who was adamant about you cannot claim from each school. why?
    i am sure those of us this happened to can only understand exactly what fear of the collar meant over and over and over and over again knowing that it will never end. repetitively painful, just different faces. mean while the years are gone.
    WHAT DO THESE GROUPS REALLY KNOW ABOUT EACH OTHER AND WHY SO MANY GROUPS? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE? DOES THIS NOT TELL ANYONE SURVIVORS ARE NOT HAPPY?
    ONE GOVERNMENT ONE CHURCH MANY SURVIVOR GROUPS.
    WE SHOULD NOT BE FIGHTING EACH OTHER WE NEED TO SORT THINGS OUT AND FIGHT FOR WHAT IS FAIR AND RIGHT FOR SURVIVORS, as they have suffered and still are.

  22. Kathleen O’Malley, Author and Magistrate has asked me to post this message on her behalf. I’m happy to do so.
    ___________________________________________
    Hi Paddy.
    How are you.
    Enclosed is a copy of my recent comment, in case it does not appear, please ensure it is placed on your page.
    Kate.
    1. How do we know what was discussed.
    2. who was notified?
    3. In order to claim a clear mandate accurate audited membership would need to be supplied.

    If the Group Leaders were to hold regular meetings with their Membership all issues could be discussed.
    Then we would know that the Group Leaders claim were accurate and democratic.

    For Example.

    If there are ten groups and if they each have 500 members, then that is five thousand Survivors.
    Fourteen Thousand went to the Redress Board. Therefore five Thousand would not be a majority. consequentially any Groups claim to a majority would be unfounded.
    Kathleen O’Malley.
    Auhor.”Childhood Interrupted”.

  23. If any group gets upset by this letter so to speak then I am not entitled to have a few on my feelings, as this is how I feel about the whole set up on handling my hurt as a survivor. plus my view as well as other survivors like me are not being addressed properly.
    We the survivors I believe deserve the utmost respect from one and all involved from the government to the religious orders and including the so called groups..

    I am absolutely fed-up to the teeth of how we have been treated so far it has been another trip down memory lane of the very prisons we all came from.
    The government, the religious orders and their favourites who try to keep everyone in tow.
    You groups should stop and think for a moment before you say or do anything, though you mean well you are acting like a third party to the hurt, if you all care at all then make sure you know exactly what every SINGLE survivor needs.

    You hold meetings here and there and ask for votes, on your opinion, well when you do you have just told the survivors who voted against your opinion they have no say. so

    ((WHO REPRESENTS THEM?)) WHO?

    They have exactly the same rights as every single survivor. How dare you ask for votes you have no right to play with our lives.
    If this is how you say you represent survivors then you have just repeated the same damage again.
    No to your funds as the only ones who will inherit are the ones who voted what you decided is right for us all.

    You send out forms after forms after forms after forms that we almost have a whole library of pages and pages. so many forms and documents that it sounds repetitive and becoming very very boring. so boring it hurts my mind that I only have to see the title and into the bin it goes because there is no room in my mind for it and if I want answers to any document they are never met. This is red tape as a great example.
    far too much money has and is being spent on paper rather than survivors needs. if anyone does not believe me just ask to see every single thing printed from the Right of Place. they are just sent out the door yes with hard work and dedication but to what and for what.
    how many survivors are reading these documents be honest here, and how many were sent how often and how often for how much. and if you want to say anything who really listens. yes there are very hard workers in these groups yes i agree but please keep your eyes on the goal.

    THE SURVIVORS THEMSELVES EACH AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM EQUALLY.

    if you become rich by braking the laws of the land then CAD can remove all your assets
    the religious orders are getting off very lightly here so they should simply pay what is due to the survivors directly including the magdalen laundry ladies if there is to be a true heart felt apology at all.

    i thought faith and love are the main ingredient of the church did’ent jesus christ destroy the temple because of financial greed, and said my father dwells not here anymore.

  24. ‘Michael O’Brien, of the Right to Peace group, said any group who wished to could have attended the meeting with the bishops and that no one was excluded.’

    Yeah, that presumes other groups or individuals were made aware of this meeting. I didn’t get my invitation, apparently.

  25. Yes that statement is very odd.
    “Michael O’Brien, of the Right to Peace group, said any group who wished to could have attended the meeting with the bishops and that no one was excluded”

    How could anyone attend Paddy when they did not know it was taking place. Sure even the Aislinn woman didn’t know it was on, so don’t tell me we could have gone.

    Any future meeting with the Bishops of Ireland should “CEASE” right now until all this is cleared up.

    NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US

  26. Yes I this that statement odd.
    “Michael O’Brien, of the Right to Peace group, said any group who wished to could have attended the meeting with the bishops and that no one was excluded”

    How could anyone attend Paddy when they did not know it was taking place. Sure even the Aislinn woman didn’t know it was on, so don’t tell me we would have gone.

    Any future meeting with the Bishops of Ireland should “CEASE” right now until all this is cleared with.
    NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US

  27. This is so typical of the old Patriarchal system- DIVIDE AND RULE.

    Patriarchs tell one goup one thing and another something different or nothing.

    The boys in frocks have all the knowledge of manipulation of human beings and are clearly using it skillfully.

    The victims- most of whom suffer from Stockholm Syndrome have no idea that they are being manipulated.

    Abused humans are so easy to manipulate because of fragmented souls.

    Notice no proper healing offered, because with true healing comes empowerment of victims and loss of power for the Abusers.
    Patriarchs do not want that to happen ever.

    Victims have to choose their counsellors carefully too- as there are ones among them who implant all kinds of thought in vulnerable minds.

    It is criminal- but the church and judiciary will protect its own.

    It is time for ALL to come together and stick together.

  28. To say that many of us who were abused while in institutional care are infuriated by the high handed attitude of Messrs. Kelly, O’Brien, Hayes and one other person whose name escapes me, in an understatement.

    At a meeting held in government buildings on 3rd of June last,at which 12 or 13 groups representing “survivors” attended I produced a poster which read “NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US”

    In his introduction to the Implementation Plan of the Ryan Report, Barry Andrews T.D. quotes “NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US” and says that this will be the policy of the government when discussing issues relating to people who were abused while in the care of religious orders.

    It is my view that those groups purporting to representing “survivors of abuse” should adopt the same stance of the government. They were after all, at the meeting at which that slogan was first used.

    Mr. O’Brien’s is quoted in The Irish Times as having said “any group who wished to could have attended the meeting with the bishops and that no one was excluded.”

    Not one person to whom I’ve spoken knew this meeting was taking place.

    I fail to see what business any so called representative group has in asking the Bishops to put pressure on the government to get the religious orders to finalise the ‘deal’ with the government. This is an issue of the harp and not the crucifix. Any ‘deal’ must have the FULL support of ALL survivors not just those few who have appointed themselves as spokespersons.

    What ever happened to democracy or listening to people whose lives are deeply scarred by the abuse they suffered?

    NOTHING ABOUT US WITHOUT US

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *