Sir, – As a former orphan I welcome the children’s rights referendum. I hope it will prevent in future the abuse that I suffered as a child along with over 30 others in the Westbank Orphanage, Greystones, Wicklow.
Some criticism is emerging to the effect that the provisions might give the State too much power.
All I can say is that the state exercised none over Westbank. As a Protestant Evangelical institution it was left to its own devices without any apparent interference. We had our names changed to that of the owner, the late Adeline Mathers. We suffered physical plus sexual abuse and were used as child labour on farms and in shops in Northern Ireland.
In addition we were paraded as orphan children in front of church-goers in Northern Ireland. We were expected to perform party pieces in the expectation that this would exercise the charitable sentiments of onlookers. It did, but the money raised and new goods and toys donated were not for the benefit of the children.
I use the term “orphanage” advisedly in that it was almost impossible to adopt a child out of the place, unless prospective parents conformed to Miss Mathers’ interpretation of God’s plan for human kind. I know this because my half brother was forcibly extracted (literally) from Westbank by people who became his loving adoptive parents in Northern Ireland. Of course, we only became aware years later that we were half-brothers, as even twins in Westbank were denied knowledge of sibling relationships.
I am for the State exercising power over religious fanatics who think their interpretation of God’s law is superior to all else. The State is required to exercise its powers. In our case it did not, as was also the case with the Bethany Home, Dublin, where I was born in 1966. That has to change.
Currently, the records of Westbank have been removed from PACT, the former Protestant Adoption Society, by the Westbank Trustees in Bray Gospel Hall. They appear to have no training in such matters and are reluctant to give information to former Westbank residents. Perhaps the State could start to show some good intent by taking an interest in that. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – You quote Government sources as saying that the formula proposed by the previous government “would have inserted children’s rights into Article 45 of the Constitution” (Front page, September 20th). This is not true.
The previous government, like the current one, proposed to locate children’s rights in a new Article 42A. As you rightly say, placing such rights in Article 45 would have been ineffective as Article 45 cannot be the subject of court adjudication.
It is true, however, that the sub-article dealing with “the voice of the child” was located in Article 45 but the Cabinet agreed in principle, in January 2011, that a way could be found to locate this measure in the new proposed Article 42A. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The statement issued by Government sources that the proposed children’s rights amendment to the Constitution will be a “strong, robust article designed to enhance the constitutional protection of children from abusive situations” is somewhat lacking in credibility. Already we have two child-specific constitutional obligations in our Constitution, neither of which is implemented.
The first is the obligation on the State to provide for free primary education. It isn’t free; and it is but a pious aspiration. The second issue that concerns us and many parents – including those who made their heart-broken feelings known to the Irish Human Rights’ Commission in 2010 – is the obligation on the State to ensure that any child may attend any school which is in receipt of public money without being indoctrinated while in class (Article 44.4.2).
Under human rights’ conventions, children whose parents don’t want them indoctrinated in a particular religion are entitled not to be marginalised, discriminated against and disadvantaged in the exercise of this right. The Whitaker Commission on the Constitution (1996) acknowledged that the treatment of such children now is unconstitutional.
This was, at last, recognised by the Minister for Education, Ruairí Quinn, when he set up a Committee on Pluralism and Patronage. This body recommended that the arrangements for religious instruction and formation in our stand-alone national schools, ie, where there’s no inclusive school available locally, must be changed. This is to ensure that the children of non-religious and minority religion parents are not denied their constitutional rights in publicly-funded schools under the patronage of a particular church.
It is not good enough that youngsters be left twiddling their thumbs for at least two and a half hours at the back of the class while the rest learn their prayers in the same room. They are entitled to respect and to effective education in what is already a very short teaching week.
The failure of the government to move on Prof Coolahan’s committee’s recommendations for standalone national schools is most disturbing and one has to question whether its commitment to its constitutional obligations to children is a genuine one in the light of this. We hope that undue deference to the interests of institutional churches is not trumping the existing constitutional rights of parents and their children. Though time is short, the Government should act now to remove the appearance of insincerity by giving effect to its existing constitutional obligations to children before the referendum date. If time is too short then it would be better to defer the referendum until this is done and, having regard for our financial predicament, hold it with the next national elections. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Question: What is the minimum waiting time to have an urgent custody hearing heard by Limerick District Court? Answer: Two months.
Blather about children’s rights. As a child would say, LOL. – Yours, etc,