Newspaper Articles
Personal StoriesNewspaper Articles Archive sitemap privacy © 2003
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".