Newspaper Articles
Personal Stories/OpinionsNewspaper Articles Archive sitemap privacy © 2003
Inmates, residents terms mentioned with callous indifference by parties opposed to the awarding of so-called "redress" by a government sponsored board totally lacking in independence or compassion for the ex-detainee of the vile institutions in which they were incarcerated by both the Judicial and Religious Systems of Ireland.
HN Leinster states "I would like to state that for many people with a learning disability who were abused as children in residential care the Residential Institution Redress Board is working well" (Letter - Irish Times)
This poses the question: What evidence does he attribute his conclusion to? Where exactly has he obtained this information? Which part of the award is actual Redress.
Redress offered and accepted by individuals threatened by their solicitors with incorrect rulings as applied to the Redress Act. Verbal warnings from the solicitors, that if the award is refused on it first awarding the survivor stands to lose a large percentage of the award. Applicants who have not been allowed to address the Board. Many who have spoken to a Barrister for periods of as little as two minutes prior to their hearing, being charged exorbitant costs. In many cases, applicants receive less money than representatives from the legal profession.
Mr Leinster, the facts of the matter are simple to understand. Whether the individual is disenfranchised with a total lack of comprehension of his/her situation, the legal record requested in some instances fifty or sixty years after the fact, clearly indicates a criminal record was recorded. The record shows what charges under the 1908 - 1941 Children's Act were served, the sentence passed and period of detention "handed down" with the additional condition of ultimate disposal or licence. This to my way of thinking will never pose the supposed reality of residency alluded to by you.
It is a matter of fact; Irish Institutions were referred to in hushed and threatening voices by the people of Ireland in order to insure their children's compliance with the authorities. Hardly the type of comments used to refer to the environments most would compare to Halls of Residence. I can only find one other type of "silly" statement matching this and that was when a so-called leader of a support group continuously referred to Artane as an Institute.
It appears to me, individuals who spent very short terms of detention within the confines of the institutions in their very earliest years declare their competence to insinuate a knowledge of the history of the institutions to which they cannot have any possible verifiable evidence.
One individual constantly denigrates her parents publicly. They were never given the right of reply. Her statements to the Irish media are printed verbatim, to which I might add, most of the ex-detainees of institutions are denied access. I wonder is this because the press like so many other Institutions wish to deny the facts of Irelands brutal historic past.
In conclusion I will continue with others to demand a retraction of my/our criminal records until the day when I/we can make application to the Department of Education and Science, under the 1997 Freedom of Information Act. The reply issued clearly states that the Republic of Ireland apologises for its deliberate lack of compliance to articles 40 to 44 of the Irish Constitution and articles 6 to 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights to which Ireland is a signatory.
The Catholic Church and Christian Brothers apologise for their non-compliance with the 1908 Children's Act, The Service Level Agreement between the Education Department and the Congregations of 1946, The National Schools Act and many other laws so readily dismissed in their efforts to ensure profitability of the entrepreneurial enterprises.
Ronald Mc Cartan ex- Detainee Artane and Rathdrum Industrial Schools. Email the Writer