MARY T. CLEARY,
Madam, - Your Editorial of October 14th criticises Amen for calling on recipients of interim barring orders to sue the State, without giving any explanation or justification for your criticism. Over the past six years, thousands of innocent men have been evicted from their homes on foot of legislation that the Supreme Court has ruled as unconstitutional. Most of these men would have been out for months - indeed in one case for over two years - before they got a chance to put their side of the story.
Given that all barring orders are granted on the basis of uncorroborated allegations, with no evidence required, the unjust interim barring order would have tilted the balance of the case so much that it would have been impossible to recalibrate the judicial balance at the subsequent court hearing. These injustices have led to untold suffering and have had devastating effects on the lives of many innocent men and some women. These people are just as entitled to compensation as are the victims of other injustices by the institutions of State.
The flawed nature of this provision is not something that just came to the attention of the authorities on October 9th. In June 1999, both the Law Society and Amen made comprehensive submissions to the then Minister for Justice, pointing to a number of flaws in this legislation, including that identified by the Supreme Court in its recent judgement. Now, over three years later, the position of both organisations has been vindicated. There are many other serious flaws in the Domestic Violence Act, 1996, apart from that identified in the Supreme Court judgement. While these other flaws may or may not be technically contrary to the Constitution they must be addressed as a matter of urgency. Failure to do so, following the Supreme Court decision, would amount to negligence.
One of the reasons all family legislation is so defective and unbalanced is that it is shaped and influenced in a totally undemocratic manner. Family law is essentially about reconciling the competing interests of men and women. Men and men's organisations have to date been denied the opportunity to articulate men's experiences and interests in the formulation of legislation and policy. If the system is to be based on the values of democracy, equality and justice, organisations representing men and women should be treated equally and accorded "parity of esteem". - Yours, etc.,
MARY T. CLEARY, Amen, Academy Street, Navan, Co Meath.