Madam, - The main objection to the Stay Safe programme, so warmly commended by Fintan O'Toole (Opinion, November 1st) is that it does not, and cannot, achieve its object of protecting children from paedophiles. Twelve years ago Dr Ger Casey, lecturer in philosophy at University College Dublin, was shafted by both the secular media and the Catholic educational establishment when he pointed out this simple truth.
In a closely-argued, scholarly article in Intercom, Dr Casey said there was no empirical evidence that Stay Safe actually worked, that it depended on good or bad "feelings" as interpreted by the child, that it threatened family relationships, that it was devoid of positive moral content, and that it could lead to the removal of non-abused children from their parents' care.
In relation to the last point, in view of subsequent events in Ireland and abroad, Mr O'Toole should have been slower to dismiss parental fears in this regard.
The main problem with encouraging children to rely on good or bad feelings when assessing a situation is that in their initial approaches, pederasts, whether clerical or lay, tend to be adept at masking their real intentions. In any case, this form of perversion would still be utterly evil even if the victims could be persuaded that they actually enjoyed it.
Mr O'Toole lists the Brandsma Review among "conservative" publications which, he says, were part of a full-scale campaign to stop Stay Safe in Catholic schools.
Personally, I still think that parents - who are, after all, the primary educators - are right to protect their children from a "gentle, careful programme" which tells them they may be abused by their own fathers. - Yours, etc,
NICK LOWRY, Editor, The Brandsma Review, Dún Laoghaire, Co Dublin.