Why Apologise?

THE Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, and the Redress Board, are winding down their operations and tidying up some of the loose ends connected with their work, including that of the Investigation Committee. This has borne the brunt of the inquiry process and is chaired by Judge Sean Ryan.

Last October, the Investigation Committee was asked by Noel Barry, of Right of Place, whether the commission "has completed taking evidence from survivors of industrial abuse and is the report due to be given to the Government in December of this year?" A solicitor for the committee said it was open to the commission or the committee to hear evidence and that a small number of witnesses remained to be seen. One such witness is the Taoiseach, who appeared before the commission on July 5 2004. Yet he has been excluded from being seen a second time.

On the basis of his testimony on that day it is clear that he seriously needs to "clarify particular issues". He told how the issue of making an apology arose. He said it came up at Cabinet from Micheal Martin, in March 1998, and that by the end of the year a decision had been made "to act" in respect of abuse. This resulted in the Government Working Group to address abuse in industrial schools. The group, with several secretaries-general of departments, was unprecedented in its seniority and importance.

Bertie Ahern, in 1998 and later, gave the impression that this was motivated by his knowledge of the suffering of abused people and his encounters with them. It was central to his testimony before Sean Ryan. The evidence, however, raises serious questions. The report of the working group, and the Taoiseach's response to it, is primarily about legal issues involving Church and State. The victims of abuse feature as part of that larger legal issue. In his testimony on July 5 2004, Ahern implied that the Government's package of abuse legislation was a response to demands from victim organisations. This was not the case. The whole programme - of legislation and its implementation pursued now for 10 years - came from the Government.

Though Bertie Ahern said he had been inspired by those who had been abused - represented by groups as well as individuals - this could not have been the case because none of the groups existed. Further, very few individuals had met either the Taoiseach or any of the relevant ministers before 1999. In answer to a question, during his July 2004 appearance before the commission, about the actual apology given on May 11 1999, the Taoiseach said the recommendation for an apology was "not in the report". It came, he said, "from the representatives of the various groups".

Yet these groups did not exist at the time. They were formed after the apology and in response to it, on the basis that the abused now saw, and believed in good faith, that action was at last starting and would remedy their long-standing anguish. But Bertie Ahern told the commission: "I remember how the apology came around very clearly, because, while all of the issues that we were talking about; professional help and caring and trying to assist these people back who had been badly dealt with by the State in our view, the hurt was not going to be removed unless you said sorry. We made the decision. They felt that we owed them something."

He went on, using this lyrical language, and vividly recalling a whole sequence of personal experiences that, he claimed, helped to set the agenda for the next few years.

His testimony was in conflict with evidence by Micheal Martin, Michael Woods and Tom Boland, the key figure in the whole creation of the strategy for dealing with the victims of abuse. It was also in conflict with the facts surrounding the representative groups.

These are as follows:

The Alliance Victim Support Group was formed in May 1999 after the apology and as a direct result of that apology. Christine Buckley, of Dear Daughter fame, was originally part of this group, but later separated and formed the Aislinn Centre for Healing. The Survivors of Child Abuse, known as SOCA, was formed in June 1999, following the apology, and led by Mick Waters. There was a split in February of the following year, and two SOCA organisations now exist. Right of Place/Second Chance which then represented the Upton School inmates and is based in Cork, was formed in June 1999, after the apology, founded by Noel Barry.

Micheal Martin was asked by Mr Clarke, a barrister for the commission: "As I understand it the report from your working group became available in April 1999. That report was then considered by the Cabinet sub-committee which you chaired. That Cabinet sub-committee recommended a number of measures to Government at that time, of which the apology was one, and indeed the establishment of the commission was another; is that correct?"

Martin replied: "That's correct, yes."

Bertie Ahern was not on that working group [chaired by Martin] nor on the sub-committee [chaired by Tanaiste, Mary Harney].

The actual recommendation in favour of an apology was reportedly contained on page five of the Report on Measures to Assist Victims of Childhood Sexual Abuse and went to the Government in April 1999, but passages on that page, dealing with the Government's "pro-active" response to the abused, have been blanked out.

This, after all, was a sensitive strategic document.

The day of the Taoiseach's appearance at the Abuse Commission, I wrote an article saying that the apology was "pivotal to the whole process" and listed the areas that needed to be addressed in response to the almost complete loss of confidence in the process, by then, among victims of abuse.

"The Taoiseach needs to change this perception and tell us what the State will do in legal terms, to meet the implied promises and undertakings that are now being given or made." This was in the context of the difficulties that had led to Judge Mary Laffoy's resignation and her replacement by Judge Sean Ryan.

I wrote a further article published July 10, 2004, analysing the conflict of evidence between Bertie Ahern and the other ministers and officials. The following Monday, John Kelly of Irish SOCA wrote to Bertie Ahern, telling him that Irish SOCA had asked Judge Sean Ryan to "recall him [Ahern] to the Commission and obtain clarification" about the apology. The Taoiseach replied to John Kelly saying that the correspondence had been sent to the commission. Nothing happened. After seeing the correspondence I wrote to the Taoiseach, who confirmed what had been said to Kelly. This letter was dated May 17 2006, but referred to the transmission of correspondence in July 2004. This was therefore long after any action might have been initiated by Judge Sean Ryan. The Taoiseach's letter concluded: "Taoiseach has no objection to publication of the correspondence in question, if Mr Kelly agrees."

I wrote twice to the commission, questioning its inaction in respect of the Taoiseach. The commission refused to comment and clearly had set its face against any clarification of the Taoiseach'sposition. This was a serious omission. It was made more serious due to one key issue.

When Bertie Ahern said that the apology and all that depended on it would have to be processed "wholeheartedly" he omitted a key problem for many abused people. This was that they had been criminalised by the court processes, which had consigned them to the industrial schools - to all intents and purposes 'prisons' - and they had not been exonerated. They cannot be exonerated.

If they were, it would lay the State open to unlimited further actions for damages, notwithstanding the processes already completed in respect of individual abused victims. And in any case, if they have received compensation, they have sold their rights in the restrictive terms of acceptance.

Judge Sean Ryan, in a statement predating the hearing at which Ahern gave testimony, provided a postscript that is worth quoting here. On May 7 2004, he said: "The Taoiseach's apology of the 11th May 1999 marked a transformation in attitudes. How did this change take place and why? It seems to us that this is a legitimate area of inquiry and we want to ask those who apologised to victims of abuse and who contributed to the redress fund - we want to ask them: 'How did you come to apologise?'"

At the desk of the Taoiseach, this key question remains unanswered.

Bruce Arnold

Collateral Interference: Rock and Politic through the Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil

Collateral Interference: Rock and Politic through the Rolling Stones - Sympathy for the Devil

A PENNY FOR A PENANCE by Eddie Holt

... Connect: It's 55 years since the "penny catechism" was first published. Sometimes known as "McQuaid's catechism", the green-covered book "approved by the archbishops and bishops of Ireland" has sold 32,000 copies since its re-publication 10 years ago. Like the Faith of Our Fathers CD that became a bestseller a decade ago, the catechism appeals to traditionalists and nostalgics.

In 1951, when it was published, Eamon de Valera and Winston Churchill were returned to power as taoiseach of Ireland and prime minister of Britain. Ireland's Ernest Walton and Britain's John Cockcroft won the Nobel Prize for physics. An Austin A40 car rose £31 in price to £685. In Europe, the final Nazis convicted of war crimes were hanged. It was the year too in which the US condemned Julius and Ethel Rosenberg to execution for spying. JD Salinger had The Catcher in the Rye published and Britain's youngest Tory candidate in that year's general election was 26-year-old Margaret Roberts. She married Denis Thatcher that year too as her still war-damaged country held its Festival of Britain. The BBC proclaimed: "People do not like momentous events such as war and disaster to be read by the female voice."

Clearly, it wasn't only Ireland that was a different country then. But more than a half century later, Ireland appears even more transformed than Britain, Europe or the US.

Instead of promises of "indulgences", we hear, for instance, guff about "tracker mortgages". In that sense, of course, perhaps little has changed. In 1951, the catechism assured us that for making and saying the sign of the cross, we were guaranteed "an indulgence of 100 days". Made and said using "holy water", the indulgence was tripled. An Act of Contrition yielded "an indulgence of three years" or "a plenary indulgence if recited daily for an entire month". Few people under 50 will recall the distinction between "plenary" and "partial" indulgences. ("Plenary" meant remission of the entire punishment whereas "partial" commutes only a portion.) Few people over 30 will know that a "tracker mortgage" is one where the interest rate is variable but will always be a fixed percentage above the European Central Bank (ECB) base rate. (At least, I didn't and had to seek a definition.) Yet, despite today's irritating, gushy and breathless hard sell of financial "products" - when, if anything, they are "processes" - there are other notable differences between Catholic Tiger Ireland in 1951 and current Celtic Tiger Ireland. Question 249 in McQuaid's catechism illustrates the point. "What is forbidden by the fifth commandment?" it asks. Answer: "The fifth commandment forbids murder and suicide, and all other acts that inflict bodily injury on ourselves or on others."

Whoa! Whoa! What about "mortifications" and sundry practices of flagellation - self and others - that were revered and encouraged at the time? What about the savage beatings in schools, particularly in industrial schools? Question 251 asks "What are they bound to do who have caused bodily injury to others?" The answer makes clear that "they who have inflicted bodily injury on others are bound to make good the loss they have caused". This isn't, of course, always possible. But even when it is, do you really believe the "archbishops and bishops of Ireland" have attempted to conform to the words "approved" by their often hypocritical predecessors? Have they seriously tried "to make good the loss" their Church has caused?

Perhaps some have but as a body, the hierarchy has seemed excessively consumed with protecting itself. It continues to be too. Anyway, from Question 1, "Who made the world?" (answer: "God made the world") to the final question (443) the green penny catechism allows us to see a country that was, in effect, a theocracy. Along the way, such arcane matters as limbo, actual grace and sacramentals are defined. Perhaps their equivalents today are those absurd financial "products", return risk and APR. The "Paddy and Mary Solemns", who attended weekly confessions, practised penance and amassed indulgences are mostly dead now. They have been replaced by people who not only understand but presumably believe ardently in tracker mortgages, return risk, APR and the rest of the advertising guff.

The theocracy that was Ireland has been replaced by an economy. Half a century from now - say in 2056 - are we likely to view the tracker mortgage crowd as we now characteristically view, with a certain scepticism and arguably even mild disdain, the amassing of indulgences? Who knows? But as banks get bigger and wealthier while churches lose congregations and even close, it's as well to be aware of the transitory nature of ideologies. Written on the back of the penny catechism is the phrase " . . . what is most deplorable of all, how tranquilly they [ cultured and knowledgeable people ignorant of religious 'duties'] repose there . . ."

In today's Ireland, where the currency is loot not indulgences, will people not come to laugh at and be embarrassed by this age of gushy flogging of financial "products"? Make up your own mind.

Magdalen Haunting

The Science and Art of Impaling Cows

It's a long-standing belief that if you sneak up on a cow while they're sleeping and push their big bodies on one side really hard, a cow will literally tip over. This is an ancient game called "Sneaking Up On The Cow, Tipping it over, Raising it high and then Impaling it on some nearby railings. "

I've heard many stories on this ancient peasant pastime. Many have told me that they successfully Snuck-up/Tipped-over/Raised-high a cow by themselves but unfortunately I've only heard one person ever who was definite that Impaling A Cow was actually possible .

I'm a skeptic, and I've always had my doubts. These stories of such amazing achievement have always had one constant: the cow impaler supporter in question is always drunk.

Is it really possible to Sneak-up/Tip-over/Raise high/Impale a 1400 pound cow. If so, why the hell would anyone want to do such a thing?

Using the extensive research facilities available to me (I googled: Impaling A Cow) and the results were startling.

1. The Science of Cow Tipping
2. Albert the Bull

And this gem from Dundalk in Ireland actually !!!!

Sacred cow impaled on the altar of senseless vandalism

“Tain-ya”, the multi-coloured life sized paint cow, has become the latest victim of the wanton vandalism that is becoming an epidemic in Dundalk. “Tain-ya” was donated by the Naughton Foundation as part of a sculpture park in Ice-House Park only a few weeks back, but went missing last Thursday, only to be found impaled on a fence, damaged and an attempt made to set to work of art on fire.

No actual live being was injured during the writing of this piece - except maybe the ego-driven eejit whose raison d'etre is to malign Institutional Abuse survivors.

Here's a pic of "railings" in Letterfrack