This is an article with Oscar winning films, failed
tabloids, classic cartoons, former heads of government (no, not that one),
Nazi collaborators and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. It has all those – but
it’s really about Ireland, the terrible scandal recently described in a report
on “Mother and Baby Homes” and how, despite a belief that Ireland as a country
may be “beyond all that”, similar outrages are being perpetuated today. So, stick with me on this one.
I’ve lived in Ireland almost 23 years now – so I’m going on
a quarter century. That stretch of
habitation entitles me to “blow-in” status – in many ways I might as well have
just got here. I actually do not mind
that – I think there is tremendous merit in acknowledging the importance of
having been “born and raised” somewhere else – and people aren’t mean about
treating me as a Yank, it’s just something that is part of me, and let's face it – other than my lifelong affinity for the Red Sox – I am a Yank. Truthfully, in some ways being an “outsider” has
certain advantages. Things that
may not stand out as an anomaly to the native appear, well, just a bit “off” to those of us who have a slightly different perspective.
Like a change of font in the
middle of a paragraph. This is a story about how Ireland may be missing
a forest for the trees, or to be a bit more specific with my imperfect analogy
– blaming the weatherman for the weather.
Pronoun Trouble
Back in 1994, while residing in Boston, I got an invitation
to attend a reception for a local charity. The event was hosted by the
archdiocese of Boston and the then prelate of the area, Bernard Cardinal Law,
would be in attendance. Of course, I
knew of Law, it was impossible to live in the area and not be aware of the man
who was rumored to have an outside shot at becoming the first American pope,
but I had never met him in person. I
went to the reception curious to come face-to-face with this ascendant member
of the Church hierarchy.
As is the case at most of these events I didn’t really have
much actual interpersonal contact with the guest of honor. The woman I attended with was an event
organizer for the charity so she had dealt with the Cardinal and his office
before but was by no means an “insider”.
Still, I had the opportunity to be introduced and chat with him in a
small group for about five minutes. I
was also able to observe how he acted with the other people there that evening.
After the close of the night’s activities I came away with a distinct
impression of the man.
I didn’t like him.
He seemed insincere, superficial, didn’t really evidence
much interest in the charity’s activities as much as he did its fund-raising
success – but really – I just didn’t like him.
Can’t really say why – that sometimes just happens. It was a “first impression” sort of thing. First impressions are not, as we all know,
always correct – but it sure was this time.
Bernard Law would, by the end of 2002, have resigned his
office in disgrace and would exile himself to Rome in order to stay out of the
clutches of American law enforcement officers who wanted to put him in
jail. He would be the subject of a
high-profile expose in a local newspaper and eventually would play a major part
in a Best Picture Academy Award winning film detailing his efforts to hide
clerical abuse. Before this he had
managed to insert himself into the abortion debate by changing his position in
a way that actually resulted in an increase in the number of abortions
but preserved the issue for then Republican Speaker of the House Newt
Gingrich. Law had manufactured his
career more out of spinning the news and playing politics than, you know, being
concerned with right and wrong.
So, yeah, I think my first impression was fairly spot on.
In the spirit of full disclosure I was probably pre-disposed
that way in any event. Shortly after Law
had been appointed one of his first moves was to hire the Boston diocese’ first
ever public-relations firm to improve the Church’s “image”. I didn’t really approve of that at the time – actors, news
anchors, brands and corporations had “images” to burnish. I wasn’t sure why the Church would be
spending money on such cosmetic measures.
There was one group that seemed quite sure any such concerns
were unfounded. That would be the local
Boston media – who treated Law like a celebrity from the moment of his arrival
in Boston. The front pages of the Boston
papers displayed Law’s quote “After Boston there is only Heaven” and hailed his
hiring of a PR firm as an important step towards “bringing the Church in to the
modern world”. Law was regularly cited
by the media as one of the more progressive Catholic leaders and they covered
his ascension to the College of Cardinals like a major sporting event, complete
with breathless speculation about his possible papal future. The Cardinal was, unquestionably, a media
darling. Indeed, I don’t think that it
is too much of a stretch to say that, in many ways, the media “made” Bernard
Cardinal Law.
So, it was with some degree of wonder that I observed the
downfall of the esteemed Cardinal in 2002 when the Boston Globe ran a
series of articles generated by its “Spotlight” team laying out how the Church,
under Law, had systematically covered up priests’ abuse and reassigned accused
paedophiles rather than protect parishioners and children. Eventually, as noted above, the film “Spotlight”
further solidified the view
that an intrepid mainstream press assault had uncovered the transgressions
within the Church under Bernard Law and had ended his foul reign.
Look – the
Spotlight crew did a good job when running its 2002 stories – but the simple
fact is that the Globe was publishing a FOLLOW-UP report when it came out with
its series. Almost a year earlier the
Boston Phoenix, a somewhat rebellious weekly tabloid had run a front-page story
detailing almost exactly the same charges.
Here’s the proof:
Note the
date on the full page spread – March, 2001.
Sigh. To quote an old country song, the Globe got
the goldmine, and the Phoenix got the shaft.
There is no Boston Phoenix any longer, which is a shame. I’ve written about some of the writers who
spent time there, people like Charles P. Pierce and Caroline Knapp, legends and
near-legends. The Phoenix deserved a better fate – but that’s life. The Globe
didn’t do anything wrong in following up on the Phoenix story – they
were bigger, they gave more “prestige” to the reports and they had the
resources to cover more aspects of what was going on. So it goes.
But
forgotten in the story is the fact that the Globe was, in many ways, reporting
on the collapse of a world that the Globe (as one of proper Boston’s pillars)
had helped to create. Perhaps you
remember the iconic scene in “Spotlight” where an irate Mark Ruffalo
explodes in disgust at the transgressions the reporting team had
uncovered. “THEY KNEW!” he roars.
“THEY KNEW AND THEY LET IT HAPPEN.
TO KIDS!”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7nIABqFC20
It’s a
powerful scene. But in real life it
suffers from what Daffy Duck, while debating Bugs Bunny over whether it is
rabbit or duck season, calls “pronoun trouble”.
You see, as the movie touches on a bit further along, the Globe had been
sitting on a list of pedophile priests for about a decade, burying them as
effectively in their own way as Law had been doing in his.
It
shouldn’t have been “THEY KNEW!” – but “WE KNEW” that was
being shouted in that newsroom.
Pronoun
trouble. This is an article about
pronoun trouble.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e1hZGDaqIw
“Ah Sure
– Everyone Knew About That”
As stated
above, I moved to Ireland, from the Boston area, almost 23 years ago. Boston is
one of the “smaller” big cities in America – it’s very parochial. Before establishing myself in Boston I had
grown up in a small town of about 900 people in the western part of
Massachusetts, the kind of place where everyone knew everyone else – and there
were very few real “secrets” amongst the populace. So, when I got to Ireland I thought I had a
pretty good grasp on places where everyone knew “the real story”. I was soon to see that, up to that time, I
had really only been operating in the minor leagues. I’ve never seen anywhere like Ireland when it
comes to people telling you, after the fact, that something that was being
treated in the media as a revelation was really no big surprise at all.
Think about
it. When I first got here the buzz in
the press was all about Charlie Haughey.
First it was the Charvet shirts.
Then it was the affair with Terry Keane.
Then the Ansbacher accounts. I
found all of this extraordinary, but whenever I broached the subject with those
who had been in Ireland throughout Haughey’s time in power I inevitably heard
“Ah sure, everyone knew about that”.
Granted – depending on the declarant’s political leanings the manner in
which it was spoken might change. A long time Fianna Fail member might say it
with an inflection implying “why is everyone making such a big deal of this
now?”, while opposing party members would perhaps shake their heads while
making it clear that “the whole bunch of them were and are crooks”. But no one, despite the manner in which these
“disclosures” were being made, ever copped to the least bit of surprise.
To be fair
– once I looked into the matter a bit further I could understand how it might
be hard to miss what had been going on.
Haughey had never admitted to a salary beyond that of a government
employee, but (in addition to his shirts), he had purchased and displayed
without any attempt to conceal: a Gandon designed manorial estate, a yacht,
racehorses, numerous overseas trips, expensive meals and other grand accoutrements.
Hell, Haughey had managed to rezone and buy himself one of the Blasket Islands,
after which he flew materials out to the remote spot and built himself a
holiday home. This was while he was
making about £10,000 per year. So, yeah,
it wouldn’t take Sherlock Holmes to figure out something was up.
If finding
out that “everybody knew” what was going on was a bit surprising, the even more
surprising thing was that no one seemed to own up to having actually accepted
these transgressions. Even the members
of Charlie’s own party seemed disgusted by his behaviour – while “everyone”
knew what was going on all the people I spoke with seemed to pass the
responsibility for Haughey being allowed to get away with these shenanigans off
on powerful “interests”, but certainly not themselves. Strangely, the thing is
– Haughey was at the forefront of Irish politics for over three decades. SOMEBODY was voting to keep him there.
Certainly, he either fooled large, invisible chunks of the populace – or, if
you took that same populace at its word – they just didn’t give a shit.
As I
observed the country more I have to tell you – I became ever more firmly of the
opinion that the people were truthful – they did know what Haughey was up to –
but at the time they just couldn’t be arsed objecting. Why did I reach this conclusion? Here are a more few examples of “Sure, didn’t
everybody know that?”
The mess
with the FAI. Sure, didn’t everyone know
that those fella’s were as crooked as a road in Cavan?
That Steven
Gately of BoyZone was gay. Sure, why all
the headlines? That was the worst kept
“secret” in all of Ireland.
That Bertie
Ahern had a history of receiving “loans” from his friends and associates. Sure, what do we need to be paying lawyers’
fees and holding tribunals for? Everyone
knows this craic was goin’ on.
That the
builders and banks were in cahoots together all through the Celtic Tiger
period. Sure, did yez seriously think
dat you could be getting’ the 120 percent no money down mortgage if dere wasn’t
some kinda funny bidness?
Some of
these are more important than others, some are actually evidence of positive growth of consciousness, some may have been known in the abstract
but the full implications not grasped – but I’m actually inclined to take the
Irish populace at their word when I hear “Sure, didn’t we all know that?”. It’s a small country, it’s not all that easy
to keep big secrets and when something that appears obvious occurs – well,
chances are that it was obvious. Maybe
not “public” in the sense of acknowledgement – but obvious nonetheless.
When viewed
in this manner – when you consider that those things which are treated as
“revelations” in the press may actually have been known but not “acknowledged”
all along – you are forced to consider taking a different view when allocating
responsibility for a society’s actions.
If, for example, what went on in a given society is done in a truly
clandestine manner – via a KGB or Gestapo type apparatus – then when large
numbers of people “disappear”, or a controlled press espouses a strict party
line – you can conclude that this may not actually reflect the attitudes of the
general populace. Still, even then, (yes,
even then) – you have to be careful to differentiate between the active
participation of that populace and quiet approval and acceptance of said
approach. I’m reminded of a book that
came out in the mid-1990’s by a man named Daniel Goldhagen. Entitled “Hitler’s Willing Executioners”
it re-examined the motivations behind the Holocaust, and concluded that far
from being duped by a controlling group of Nazi fanatics operating from the top
– the German population was quite aware of and generally approved the
anti-Semitic measures taken during the period from 1933-1945.
The book
and its conclusions were controversial, particularly those concerning
“approval” of Nazi measures. However –
it was generally conceded that the appraisal of “awareness” on the part of the
populace was justified. After all – the
actions taken had gone on for a dozen years – it would be hard to argue that
after that long a period of time people didn’t know, at a meaningful level,
what was taking place. That awareness would, presumably, likewise be present in
any society where actions were under way for an even longer duration. What if that 12 years had become 50
years? Could anyone have possibly argued
then that there was no awareness? Could
anyone really believe that a populace that knew and conducted those operations
for such an extended period could seriously argue that they did not approve of
them as well? Could it feasibly be stated
that said society should be entitled to allege that events occurring over such
a long period were something “They” had done to “Us” and not something “We” had
done to a given “Them”?
There it is
again – pronoun trouble. There is a good
bit of pronoun trouble in the air at the moment – especially in Ireland.
The
Mother and Child Disunion
In 2014
Ireland awoke to read a major article in one of its Sunday papers detailing the
findings of Catherine Corless, a historian who had uncovered evidence of the
bodies of nearly 800 infants disposed of in a mass grave on the grounds of a
former “Mother and Baby Home” in Tuam, County Galway. Like the Spotlight team this exposè was
actually summarising findings published by Corless beginning back in 2010 – but
this was the piece that “broke” the story wide.
The articles
outlined practices that seemed nearly unbelievable – homes set up throughout
the country designed to cater to the needs of unwed mothers (people who we
would simply call “mothers” in the present day) – where, instead of “care” in
any reasonable sense the women were forced to work, received nearly no medical
attention, where the babies died (barely documented) at a rate twice that of
the general population and then, if they should survive this hell, were removed
from the mothers and forcibly adopted.
In response
to these findings and allegations the Irish government established a three-person
commission to investigate and report on the practices within the mother and
baby homes from the period beginning in 1922 (at the founding of the Irish
State) to 1998. After requesting a
number of extensions the final report of this commission was issued in January.
It essentially confirmed all of the allegations set out above (with the notable
exception of “forcible” adoptions).
The report
in question is over 3000 pages long with a “summary” that runs to 200 pages in
and of itself. It is beyond the scope of
this article to comprehensively revisit the methodology, format, style or findings
of the report. I reviewed it with an
open mind, looked carefully at its text and conclusions and have to say that,
despite some areas where I feel there could have been more done (adoption
practices primarily) it is as fair, comprehensive, well drafted and honest a
piece of work as anyone has the right to expect – and, in truth, is well beyond
most other efforts of this type. The
people who put the report together should be commended for the job they did in
the face of pressures of time, memory, institutional bias and, I’m sure,
current conditions in respect of Covid restrictions. Nonetheless I would not be surprised if those
same people, or others in the future who are asked to take on a similar task,
run for the hills and absolutely refuse to take part.
This is
because I am distinctly in the minority when it comes to assessing the report
as submitted – or at least it seems that way when watching, listening or
reading the Irish media’s coverage. To
hear tell this report is nothing more than a complete cop-out, coverup,
apologia (use whatever damning term you wish) for the parties who enabled the
running of these homes. Despite the fact
that the report essentially confirms the majority of the allegations – critics
have excoriated the commission for the manner in which it ascribes
“responsibility” for the outrages. If
you’ve been reading the first part of this article I’m sure you can guess the
cause of that criticism.
You got
it…”pronoun trouble”.
The
greatest cause of concern for critics appears to be encapsulated in this
section of the report, found at the start of the executive summary:
“…Women who gave birth outside marriage were subject to
particularly harsh treatment. Responsibility for that harsh treatment rests
mainly with the fathers of their children and their own immediate families. It
was supported by, contributed to, and condoned by, the institutions of the
State and the Churches. However, it must be acknowledged that the institutions
under investigation provided a refuge - a harsh refuge in some cases - when the
families provided no refuge at all.”
To those
who would see this report as flawed it is the sentence reading “Responsibility
for that harsh treatment rests mainly with the fathers of their children and
their own immediate families” that grates the most. To them this seems to be placing the blame for what went on in Ireland
squarely on the people (“families”) of Ireland, rather than some convenient
“other”, such as “the Churches” or “the State”.
This, in their mind, cannot be allowed to happen. No, the good people of Ireland were duped,
forced, coerced, “brainwashed” into letting thousands of women march into these
homes over the course of 75 or so years.
Certainly, there is no way that what was going on was known of or tacitly
approved. Sure, those same critics may
have nodded their heads approvingly when reading the above discussion concerning
“Hitler’s Willing Executioners”. Those same critics certainly would have
agreed that a society’s ability to claim some degree of ignorance for practices
that went on for a dozen years would reduce to near nothing by the time those
events stretched out for, say, 50 years.
Once things are that extreme there is no way to avoid
responsibility.
Remember
that? Now, remember how long a period the “Mother and Baby Home” report covers?
To refresh,
that would be 1922 to 1998. Seventy-six years.
The
Commission’s report is simply asking that the people of Ireland accept the fact
that something that went on in their own backyards for over three quarters of a
century was their responsibility. If the
Germans would be expected to cop on after about one decade – is it too much to
think that the Irish might have noticed something after seven? After all – it was the Irish Church,
it was the Irish State that was involved in the running of these
institutions.
One can
understand the victims of abuse in those homes being frustrated by the
report. It cannot be comforting to
accept that a complete and unbiased assessment of the practices arising in
those hell holes concluded that the most responsible party for what happened
was “their own immediate families”. It
must be incredibly difficult to hear this, to see it put down in black and
white. But, as harsh as that may be the
fact remains that it was not the job of the commission to comfort the
victims. Their job was to tell them the
truth – to tell us the truth - and that truth hurts.
Those
critics who insist that the report is biased against the “Irish people” and in
favour of the institutions of Church and State are not a fringe group. For just one example, the politician who I
personally admire the most from my time here in Ireland, Mary McAleese, has
roundly criticised the conclusion of the commission for having understated the
role of the patriarchal Catholic Church in enabling what went on in the
homes. However, on this one I think the
former President is overstating things when she says that “the Catholic Church
imposed a culture of fear on uneducated people”. This comes very close to calling the Irish
people of that 76-year period stupid.
They weren’t stupid people. The
level of education afforded the average Irish citizen of the time was far in
advance of many other countries. Similar
schemes did not arise in those countries.
As to the role of the Catholic Church – McAleese acknowledges in her own
statement that the report found willing participants in all churches of the
time – it’s a bit unfair to then ignore this fact to concentrate only on the
Catholic end of things.
But the
litany of blame and shame was unending in the weeks since the report was
published. McAleese was far from alone
in her condemnation of the report’s findings and methodology. Opposition TD’s were vocal in opposing its conclusions,
the Minister to whom it was addressed did not endorse its methods and Catherine
Connolly, the Deputy Chair of the Dail, actually said that the report “…bears
no connection to the testimony given by the women and men that came forward…”. One wonders how anyone could actually read
the report and say that, but it’s easy to make generalisations if there are no
consequences. The barrage extended to
the airwaves, where shows like the usually quite even-handed “Live Line” and
its host Joe Duffy entertained days and days of a parade of critics of the
report who did not appear to have actually read it, beyond the words of the
summary quoted above. The Commission, insofar
as they saw it, absolved the Church or State of any fault (it does not) while
blaming the “victims” for the abuses carried out in the homes. Of course, it did no such thing. One can
certainly understand victims taking out their frustrations on air – but should
there not be some obligation on the part of the broadcasters involved to temper
this onslaught with an even-handed assessment of the actual report? As I said – if not – who is ever going to
take on the burden of such a task again?
The
commission could have taken the path of least resistance and condemned the
governments in place at the time or the “all pervasive influence of the Church”
as the primary causes of the abuses. They could have done that – but then they
would not have been true to their mission.
I say this while
understanding the enhanced role of the Catholic Church in Irish life during the
period in question. But, I also have to
say that I cannot, as a student of history, ascribe that enhanced role to the manipulations
of the Church alone. The report is
correct in concluding that the Church was a tool that “condoned” the treatment
meted out in those homes. But it was exactly that – a tool – wielded in
the hands of the people that demanded this type of service. “The Church” is a convenient scapegoat –
mainly because it should have simply walked away from those demands but did
not. However, consider this:
There was a
powerful Church in Poland.
This didn’t
happen there.
There was a
powerful Church in Latin America.
This didn’t
happen there.
There was a
powerful church in Italy.
This didn’t
happen there.
The factor concerning
“the Church” in Ireland that wasn’t present anywhere else was…
Ireland.
Okay – so
what about the State? If the Church was only running these institutions
on behalf of someone else wouldn’t that “someone else” be the Irish State and
its own selfish concerns? Isn’t it the
crass politicians who are really to blame for this?
Not so
fast. I have no doubt that there were
“crass politicians” at work during this period – but they were operating
in a democratic society. Ireland’s supposed “uneducated” mob were educated
enough to put in place a government and a working constitution at the outset of
the period covered by the report, and that included the secret ballot. The level of development of the Irish State
during the period in question was, again, measurable against other similarly
situated nations.
Australia
had a similar form of government.
This didn’t
happen there.
Canada had
a similar form of government.
This didn’t
happen there.
New Zealand
had a similar form of government.
This didn’t
happen there.
The factor
that was present concerning “the State” in Ireland that wasn’t present
elsewhere was:
Well, you
know what.
Here is the
harsh and bitter truth. This is not a
parallel to scandals involving clerical abuse or political chicanery. The report firmly establishes that the
treatment of single, unwed mothers and their children as “undesireables” did
not arise primarily from either a theological or a political source. It would
certainly appear that, if you are looking for a basis for this sort of
discriminatory bias, there were strong socio-economic elements at play. When
single mothers were allocated a bed in an established, public, maternity
hospital they were routinely subjected to abuse from fellow patients and staff
who saw them as “unworthy” competitors for scarce resources. While the Church
and State were contributing factors, the reason Irish society gave rise to substandard
and cruel Mother and Baby Homes is because that is what Irish society wanted. Full
stop. Your, (nope, in this case I’m in this pronoun as well) our great
grandparents, grandparents, parents – maybe our early selves did something very
bad, and unless we were in those homes it wasn’t done to us but by
us.
By us.
That is
hard to absorb but in many ways it is the truest lesson to be learned from the
findings of this report. The need to
self-assess, on an ongoing and continuous basis, is now recognised in boards of
large corporates who have started to undertake such annual exercises. The same is true of other important
organisations and structures. All such
groups need to learn how to take good hard looks at themselves – and the same
is true for societies as well. The fact
that the answers which might be found there are revealing, embarrassing or
harsh is exactly the point of the exercise – by acknowledging the same the hope
is that the problem might be corrected – or at least not repeated.
Of course,
you say, there is little or no chance of such things happening in Ireland
today. Surely we’ve learned our lesson –
we are enlightened, not a slave to powerful interests but the masters of
them. Not bound by superstition or
subject to stigmatising victims.
Surely not.
The fact is
– I didn’t write this to open myself up to criticism for being an outsider
sticking my nose into things that are none of his business. To being a muckraker who is talking of things
of which he cannot truly know.
Busybody.
Know-it-all.
Troublemaker.
Nope, the
only reason I would do this is if I thought there was a chance that this sort
of thing was still going on, that people are being hurt RIGHT NOW because
of the same old lack of self-awareness, the same old mistakes.
So, are
these sorts of things still happening?
They are –
and, once again, people have been trying to tell us so for years – years
- and once again, we are not listening.
Look at the
pronoun.
WE are not listening.
Listen now.
The
Fault, Dear Brutus…
The full
quote from Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar is “The fault dear Brutus lies
not in our stars, but in ourselves”. The
bard is thought to have been saying that the reason Rome was under threat was
not due to the fates but to the individuals in question, in this case, Cassius,
Brutus, the Roman Senators. Shakespeare,
a wizard at punning, may have also been presaging the use of the term “stars”
in a more modern sense in that destiny should not be ascribed to heroes or
giants of the times – but to the people who make those “stars” important. Either reading indicates that one should not
seek to blame events on something other than oneself when you have the ability
to determine that fate. If you turn your
gaze from something that should be confronted – don’t act shocked when the true
extent of the horrors at play become apparent.
I’m going
to describe events that took place in Waterford some time (but not too long) ago,
and in the cause of full disclosure I will say that one of the victims of those
events, Jason Clancy, is someone I consider a friend and to whom I am related
through my in-laws. That doesn’t change
anything I’m about to relate, but as a reader you should know that fact.
Jason, and
a number of other people in Waterford, have been in the news over the past few
years because of the actions of a convicted paedophile by the name of Bill
Kenneally. Kenneally preyed on young men
he ensnared while acting as a basketball coach, subjecting them to sexual
abuse, virtual torture and blackmail. He
avoided punishment for these crimes for years.
First, he did this by means of pure shame. The victims could not bring themselves to
open up about the things done to them because they feared the embarrassment and
scorn that they felt this would bring down upon them. They felt that people, as a whole, not “the
Church” or “the State”, would not understand what had happened – what had been
done – to them. There is substantial evidence that this fear was not
unfounded. Substantive allegations have
been made that An Garda Siochana were aware of and improperly handled
allegations of Kenneally’s abuse from the mid-1980’s onward. It would not have been unreasonable for
anyone knowing of this fact to avoid the possibility of being ignored yet again
when contemplating whether to pursue justice.
Then, one
day, Jason – by now a father with a growing family – saw a news clipping that
indicated Bill Kenneally was still involved in coaching children. Despite the fact that he seemed to have
gotten beyond the immediate impact of the abuse (an impression that was largely
cosmetic) Jason decided that this should not stand. Recruiting a group of people he knew or
suspected of having been abused themselves they bravely brought their
allegations of abuse to the authorities.
After overcoming many obstacles they got their day in court – and the
predator paedophile Bill Kenneally was convicted and sentenced to 14 years in
prison. Kenneally’s victims continue to
come forward, and he faces even more charges and potential prison time for
those allegations.
But it
wasn’t just the direct allegations of abuse that the victims brought
forward. They likewise presented compelling
evidence of what they saw as obstruction of justice arising out of the
complaints made concerning Kenneally’s activities from further back in
time. These charges were taken seriously
enough for the government to set up a commission, headed by Judge Barry
Hickson, to look into the events in question.
You would
think that the parties subject to that investigation might not seek to further
victimise the people abused by Bill Kenneally.
Would have the decency not to interfere in the efforts to root out
institutional problems. Would want to seek
to improve on this abysmal past performance.
You would
think.
Think
again. Let’s face it – groups very often
seek to protect their own before seriously investigating whether that is
something worth protecting. That’s why
the rest of us have an obligation not to rely solely upon blaming those
“others” for doing what comes naturally.
What came naturally in this case was that, rather than keeping anyone
who might influence the investigation into what happened in Waterford away
from, you know, Waterford – An Garda Siochana reassigned and
promoted the parties directly involved to positions of authority in, you know…,
Waterford.
This seems
unbelievable – but it happened. Here’s a
summary in the words of the victims themselves:
STATEMENT
FROM BILL KENNEALLY VICTIMS- Please Share
As you
are aware the Government ordered a Commission of Investigation into the
handling of the Paedophile Bill Kenneally case by the State Agencies and Church
as a result of us furnishing the Minister for Justice with a dossier from our
own investigations, “THE CLANCY DOSSIER” which contains very very serious
allegations against Superintendent Anthony Pettit and other members of An Garda
Síochána. These allegations are so serious that the Government ordered a
Commission of Investigation be set up in November 2018 headed up by Judge Barry
Hickson. Over the last 2 years the Hickson Commission has been carrying out its
investigations. In particular this investigation centres around the Waterford
Gardai and Superintendent Anthony Pettit who headed up the investigation into
Paedophile Bill Kenneally at the time. Over 2 years ago Anthony Pettit was
promoted to Superintendent and was transferred to Portlaoise District to take
up his new role. It was brought to our Solicitors Attention of April this year
that Superintendent Anthony Pettit who is being investigated by the Hickson
Commission could possibly be transferred back to Waterford to be Superintendent
of the Waterford Division, the very Garda Station which is being investigated.
Our Solicitors, Phoenix Law, wrote immediately to Garda Commissioner Drew
Harris outlining our objection to any transfer of Superintendent Anthony Pettit
to Waterford until after the findings of the Hickson Commission investigation
into him and Waterford Gardai. At that time we did not get a substantive
response from Garda Commissioner Drew Harris. Last week Superintendent Anthony
Pettit was officially transferred to take responsibility for the Waterford
Garda division as and from today 8th October. On the 4th October our Solicitors
again wrote to Garda Commissioner Drew Harris again outlining our concerns and
that he is effectively undermining the integrity and independence of the
Hickson Commission Investigation and also infringing on our human rights as
victims and was put on notice of High Court action should the transfer not be
quashed by 7th October. Today however Superintendent Anthony Pettit did take up
his position as Superintendent of Waterford District. This is a very serious
matter and the circumstances which now arise as a result of Garda Commissioner
Drew Harris actions are that the very persons under investigation will now be
tasked with responsibility of the Waterford District. It is now plainly
impossible for An Garda Síochána to demonstrate any capacity for practical
independence in the circumstances. Our Solicitors gave Garda Commissioner Drew
Harris a deadline of 5pm yesterday to quash Superintendent Anthony Pettit’s
transfer otherwise we will be applying to the High Court for an urgent Judicial
Review to postpone the transfer until after the findings of the Hickson
Commission of Investigation. Garda Commissioner Drew Harris didn’t even have
the manners to respond to our Solicitors correspondence. So, we will now be
applying today to the High Court for a Judicial Review. It is further
incomprehensible that Superintendent Anthony Pettit we understand is in the
process of possibly being promoted once more to the rank of Chief
Superintendent in the near future while this investigation is ongoing. It has
been 8 Long years since I first went to Superintendent Anthony Pettit about
Paedophile Bill Kenneally, I never imagined it would end up in a Commission of
Investigation. It is a very tiring and stressful journey for all of us but we
are determined to fight for Justice and this full story will eventually be told
in it’s entirety. To Garda Commissioner Drew Harris you should hang your head
in shame for doing this to the victims of Bill Kenneally, we will overcome this
through the High Court and we will keep fighting for justice to the bitter end
!!
The mind
boggles. But not at the idea that An
Garda Siochana are attempting this – that is what institutions do when they are
not properly reined in. They cannot
comprehend that their authority to do something like this should be questioned
– because it has never been questioned. There is now supposed to be a Commission looking in to whether there was an active cover up of these matters. This gave great hope to the victims that there would actually be something done to investigate and address both what had happened and shouldn't have as well as the important questions surrounding what didn't happen but should have. That was, there was great hope until Jason approached the people who were supposed to be running this effort and was told "Sure, we had hoped you'd take care of the, you know, "investigating" part of this investigation". Seriously - this really happened. Victim of Bill Kenneally asked to contact other victims on behalf of Commission of Investigation (irishexaminer.com)
The impact
of this debacle on the victims is devastating.
While their acknowledged mistreatment at the hands of the authorities is "investigated" those same authorities proudly advance their careers and interests
in the backyards of the victims themselves.
Again, this callousness is perhaps best expressed by Jason himself:
From my
point of view as an adult and what I know now, I find it difficult still to
this day to comprehend in my soul what was or is more painful, the actual abuse
itself or the fact that so many people in authority knew I was being abused as
a young boy and could have taken me out of my misery at any stage but choose
not to do so for whatever reason. I still struggle with this. It's irrelevant
as to whatever era it was, the bottom line was a child was being destroyed and
adults just looked on or turned a blind eye.
When I
look back now to the little boy I was, its often difficult to articulate what
my life was like. From my perspective back then I think the easiest way to
describe my childhood would be this: Can
you imagine being in a show on stage, the curtains are pulled back and the
first scene is that of a busy town. There are many people walking around the
stage going about their business in the usual manner, saying good morning to
each other, doing their normal jobs. The postman delivering his post, the
milkman delivering his milk, the shopkeeper selling his groceries, the police
smilingly directing traffic, etc - all in this scene. There are also children
on the stage in the middle of all this hustle and bustle, running around
playing, smiling, laughing - doing the things children do. As all this hustle
and bustle is going on and people are busy going about their business, a man
pulls one of the children into the wings of the theatre and abuses the child in
the shadows of the stage. This adult then goes, un-noticed, back out onto the
stage leaving the child devastated in the wings. That child then has to get
himself together, and march back out onto that stage smiling his best smile,
laughing and playing, putting on a show, terrified someone may find out.
Paedophiles are like that. They operate in the shadows, never out in the open,
and they live their lives half in the shadows and half out as a normal person
in society. So, I too then had to live my childhood half in the shadows and the
other half out in society with my friends and family, lying to everyone around
me, terrified my secret would be found out. From that point on my childhood was
changed forever, living half in the shadows and half out with friends and
family, smiling my best smile while absolutely crumbling inside. I think this is probably the best description
I can articulate to people today when relating what I was going through back
then. What I’m struggling with now is different. Imagine, if you will, finding out that many
of those adults who were on stage actually knew what was going on in the
wings, knew what was being done to that child – and did nothing because
to speak up would have been “inconvenient”. Went on with the play, continued
the make believe. As an adult I have
made a difficult peace with the abuse itself - but the difficulty I have now
and will have until this Commission is over, is to try to fathom the amount of
people who knew what I was going through during those years and turned a blind eye.
This is something I have yet to make peace with.
That is a
devastating statement – but not just for those who were victims of this abuse
and neglect. Anyone who fails to stand
up and demand change in this instance should not be able to benignly shrug
things off later with a “sure, didn’t we all know what was going on” when the
shit hits the fan somewhere down the line.
Instead – you will be a willing executioner, you will be
one of those silent actors – you will be where the blame “rests mainly”. If there are enough of us – that pronoun will
once again inconveniently change to “we”.
Here is
what is at stake – if you do not want to repeat the errors made in the Mother
and Baby Home situation, in respect of the Magdalene Laundries, in other child
abuse scandals – question this now!
Demand that proper procedures are followed, that common sense is
applied. There comes a point in time when the collective responsibility for
what goes on under our own noses must be assigned to the owner of said nose.
Unless we are willing to acknowledge that we (there’s that pronoun
again) are responsible for what is done in our name – then we are doomed to
seeing these events repeat again and again. The victims of Bill Kenneally are
not abstract images from sixty years ago.
They live among us now, are suffering now, need our help
and concern now. No one should be
able to foist their indignation off on an imagined “other” if people do not
insist, loudly, that this sort of nonsense stop –and realise that the power to
make it stop is within our grasp.
Otherwise…
The fault,
Dear Brutus…
