Mar

18

Survivors of abuse must be allowed speak freely

Filed Under Another Shady Deal? | 22 Comments

The Irish Times – Thursday, March 18, 2010
SHARON COMMINS

silencedA gagging clause which kills all discussion of the process of compensation by the redress board adds to the church’s culture of secrecy

THE TRUTH, they say, will set you free. The test of a true democracy is to be found in how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members.

The depravity, violence, emotional and psychological abuse uncovered in the decade-long Child Abuse Commission Inquiry into residential institutions were inflicted on some of the weakest and most vulnerable members in society – isolated children without a home.

Following the 1999 very public apology by the then Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, the Residential Institutions Redress Board was set up under laws passed in 2002, charged with compensating those who had suffered physical, sexual and emotional abuse in childcare institutions subject to State regulation.

While the debate has focused on various aspects of the redress scheme, it has been to the exclusion of an aspect with implications for a representative democracy: the so-called “gagging clause”. As part of the compensation award, this confidentiality clause bans those who receive redress from talking about their experience of the scheme or from divulging how much compensation they were awarded. While survivors can discuss publicly details of their abuse in institutions, they are rendered voiceless when it comes to their stories of redress.

The penalty for breaking the harsh confidentiality clause is a fine of €3,000 or six months in jail on summary conviction in the District Court, or €25,000 or two years in jail on indictment. As abuse survivor Christine Buckley of the Aislinn Centre, put it: “A person breaking the ‘gagging order’ could be fined more than they even received from the redress board . . . tellingly this means that speaking about your abuse in the institutions is legally worse than being raped and starved and enslaved!”

Understandably many survivors of institutional abuse see the confidentiality clause as a step back into the bad old days where secrecy and concealment were the friends of child abusers. These survivors never really enjoyed a right of privacy when, as young people, they were interfered with, exposed in secrecy, time and time again. By making secrecy a condition upon payment, the very culture of concealment which has enabled these issues to remain hidden for decades is preserved and maintained.

Why the secrecy? Why the threat of imprisonment if people speak about their experience at the redress board? The nature of the redress scheme is designed to avoid the kind of cross-examination techniques used in civil and criminal courts where allegations are heard in an adversarial context, victims get to confront the perpetrators, and where allegations are dealt with by the investigation committee equipped with the relevant powers to pursue an investigation of those allegations.

The burden of proof is lower than the “balance of probability” test used in civil courts, and the redress board cannot make a finding of fact relating to fault or criminal liability on the part of those involved in the running of these institutions. Claimants must prove only that they have suffered physical or psychological injuries consistent with abuse.

Some of the thinking behind the prohibition on disclosure of information is the desire to protect not only the interests of those making allegations, but also the interest of those against whom allegations are made, since they do not have an opportunity to contest those allegations. Arguably the redress scheme would probably never have got off the ground without the clause.

Thousands of victims of abuse looked to the redress board for ultimate vindication of the truth of the trauma they suffered as children. Undoubtedly the confidentiality of those who have been abused needs to be protected. But if the survivors themselves, at the end of redress, want to talk about it, want to advocate and comment on their case, how it was handled and lessons learnt, is there a rational reason why they shouldn’t be able to speak publicly? Which useful public interest is being served by imposing such a ban?

The board’s proceedings were often felt to belittle and demean those survivors who were brave enough to tell of their horrific abuse, according to survivors from various interest groups. But this aspect cannot be discussed because of a penal regime of secrecy which forbids survivors from speaking freely about their experience with the redress board, or advocating or commenting on their case.

A strange anomaly is then created whereby those who perpetrated abuse remain entirely free to advocate, while survivors who courageously went before the redress board are limited in their right to speak publicly on the process. It is only after many years of silent suffering, when nobody would listen, that the truth is beginning to emerge. It is this truth which is fundamental in creating a narrative which acknowledges what happened so that society can recognise and learn from past injustices.

Some of those who appeared before the redress board wish to write plays and poems about their experience of both abuse and redress, while others want to carry out academic research into their experience. But they feel they are effectively muzzled by the confidentiality clause. Given that redress is a major part of their truth, isn’t it reasonable they should have the right to tell their story which is in itself an important act of empowerment?

By encouraging a silencing ritual which further humiliates the victim, and continues a regime of concealment, intimidation and oppression, how can the existence of such deterrents be seen as anything other than damaging to the truth-telling process?

Ambiguity surrounding the interpretation of the prohibition on disclosure of information for those who accepted awards means those survivors are often unsure of exactly what is permissible in discussion in the public domain and what is off-limits. It’s this very confusion over the scope of what’s allowable in theory versus practice which usually serves to create an environment of fear where survivors are afraid to talk at all, according to Dr Geraldine Moane, senior lecturer at UCD’s school of psychology.

Such self-imposed censorship will likely have the effect of making one complicit with one’s subordination where silencing is the powerful tool to reinforce subordination. By keeping the victim silent, the survivors are kept controlled.

Given the enormity of distress that gagging clauses have caused several survivors of abuse who accepted awards, you have to wonder why it has not received more debate and challenge. How appropriate was this aspect of the scheme? It is one of the critical issues survivors want addressed, and which was included in Labour’s Private Members’ Bill published last June.

Considering that one of the underlying objectives of the redress board was to bring into the public domain the issue of child abuse in institutional homes, it does not seem consistent or reasonable that people who wish to speak about what went on during the redress process are prohibited from doing so. Surely the prospect of convicting a survivor for speaking out in breach of the gagging order goes against the very nature of open and transparent justice?

If the matter of survivors who accepted awards and breached confidentiality clauses were to be decided by a court, it is unlikely the court would enforce the clause given that this would go against the thrust of open and transparent justice. A potential public outcry might well be another protection mechanism survivors could rely on should they opt to publicise their experiences with the redress system. But having suffered in silence for years, is it fair that survivors are now reliant on public outrage to guarantee them space to discuss their experience with the redress board?

Ultimately, the redress scheme is part of the past that we have to put right before we can truly say that we have done right by the weakest and most vulnerable members in our democracy. By tolerating disincentives for ordinary people to come forward and tell the truth about our past, can this chapter of our national tragedy be truly transformative and be seen to be linked to social, political and legal redress?

Time and time again, it is expressed that “people” want to support victims of institutional child abuse, hear what they have to say, and see the right thing done by these people. If the former taoiseach’s apology for the country’s silence, our failure to hear, our failure to listen to our weakest and most vulnerable members is to ring true, isn’t it time we let survivors tell the whole story of their abuse and redress?

Sharon Commins was an aid worker for the charity Goal when she and a colleague, Hilda Kawuki, were kidnapped in Darfur last year. They were held for over 100 days before being freed last October

See also


Michael Corry’s Letter to The Irish Times

Jul

25

Religious orders miss deadline to submit financial statements

Filed Under Another Shady Deal? | 8 Comments

PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent

ANOTHER DEADLINE has been missed by religious congregations in presenting a report on their financial position to Government, as agreed by them following publication of the Ryan report last May.

Neither the Government nor all 18 of the religious congregations which managed institutions named in the report have met the mid-July deadlines they themselves set last month concerning reports on the financial position of the congregations. Though some congregations have presented such reports, others have missed a second agreed deadline.

At a meeting with the Taoiseach and senior members of the Cabinet on June 5th last, representatives of the 18 congregations which were party to the controversial 2002 redress agreement with the State, agreed that an independent report on their financial position would be presented to Government on June 24th.

They also agreed at that June 5th meeting to contribute to a trust the Taoiseach proposed be set up, so that further financial and other supports could be provided to people who, as children, had been in institutions they managed.

The congregations further committed themselves to identifying resources, “both financial and other, within a transparent process with a view to delivering upon commitments made today”.

However some of the larger congregations missed the June 24th deadline for presentation of details of their financial position and requested that they be allowed until September to do so.

They were given until mid-July and accepted that deadline which they have now missed also.

Following that June 24th meeting between representatives of the congregations, the Taoiseach and members of the Cabinet, a statement was issued by the Government stating that the congregations were expected to have submitted reports, “signed off by their financial advisers”, to Government “by mid-July when a further meeting will be held.”

It was also stated then that the Government would now move “to appoint a panel of three eminent independent persons to assess the material submitted by the congregations and report to Government as to the adequacy of these statements as a basis for assessing the resources of the congregations”.

Despite the passing of the mid-July deadline a week ago, some congregations have yet to submit a report on their financial position to Government; no further meeting between Government and the congregations is currently being planned; and the Government has yet to appoint the three person panel it promised to independently assess financial reports from the congregations.

A Government spokesman yesterday would only say that “dialogue [with the congregations] was ongoing” and “a process was working through”. It now seems unlikely that further progress will be made in any of these matters before September.

The Government is to announce its plans for implementation of the Ryan report recommendations at a press conference in Dublin on Tuesday. All 20 recommendations have been accepted by the Cabinet, including a memorial to victims of abuse in institutions which should bear the words of the apology made by the then taoiseach Bertie Ahern in 1999 and that the State should admit its failures and take steps to avoid a repetition.

It also recommended that religious congregations examine how their ideals became debased by systemic abuse and advised that more counselling, education and family tracing services should be provided. It said that childcare policy should be child-centred with the development of a national childcare policy, with rules and regulations enforced, breaches reported and sanctions applied.

It called for proper supervision and inspections, including unannounced inspections, objective national standards and follow-up of complaints. It said full personal records of children in care must be maintained and called for the Children First guidelines on child protection to be uniformly and consistently implemented throughout the State.

The Irish Times 25th July 2009

Jun

25

Religious bodies agree to report on finances

Filed Under Another Shady Deal? | 15 Comments

PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent

THE 18 religious congregations whose management of residential institutions for children gave rise to the Ryan report have agreed to present detailed reports on their financial position to Government by the middle of next month. The agreement was reached at a meeting with Taoiseach Brian Cowen and Cabinet Ministers in Government Buildings yesterday.

The reports, which must be signed off by each congregation’s financial adviser, will then be assessed “by a panel of three eminent independent persons”, according to a Government statement issued after the meeting.

The panel will “assess the material submitted by the congregations and report to Government as to the adequacy of these statements as a basis for assessing the resources of the congregations”.

There will then be further contact with the congregations to discuss the extent of their contributions to a trust proposed by the Taoiseach so that further financial and other supports can be provided to people who were in the institutions as children.

Representatives of all 18 religious congregations attended the meeting yesterday along with Mr Cowen, Minister for Education Batt O’Keeffe, Minister for Health Mary Harney, Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern, and Minister of State at the Department of Children Barry Andrews.

It is understood that some of the larger congregations had hoped to be given until September to prepare their financial reports.

Speaking to the media after the meeting, Fr Joe O’Reilly, Irish provincial of the Rosminian congregation, said the three-person panel which would assess financial reports submitted by the congregations would be of the Government’s choosing and “be recognised by the public as independent”.

Speaking on behalf of all 18 congregations, he said it was expected that all would make full disclosure of their financial position, including assets abroad.

At a meeting with the Taoiseach and the same Ministers on June 5th, representatives of the 18 congregations agreed to an independent audit of their assets. They also agreed to contribute to the trust proposed by the Taoiseach and committed themselves to identifying resources, “both financial and other, within a transparent process with a view to delivering upon commitments”.

After the meeting Christine Buckley of the Aislinn Centre told Fr O’Reilly that in her view the Christian Brothers, the Sisters of Mercy and the Sisters of Charity, who she said had been responsible for “the most barbaric acts” in residential institutions, were hiding behind him as spokesman for the congregations. It was her “huge concern” and “hope that the Government has copped on to the behaviour of most of the 18 congregations, not all”.

When Fr O’Reilly came out of the meeting he was also confronted by Robert Dempsey, who spent time at St Joseph’s industrial school, near Clonmel, Co Tipperary, in the 1970s. It was run by the Rosminians. Fr O’Reilly said he had met Mr Dempsey before and hoped to help him “in whatever way we can”.

The Irish Times 25th June 2009