John K, a childhood victim of sexual abuse, argues that the searchfor truth and justice be separated to avoid further cover-ups and denials
Amid the furore surrounding the fall-out from Ms Justice Laffoy's resignation, one detail stands out, devastating in its simplicity. It speaks volumes.
Victims of abuse, abused once in their childhood, are now being abused again in front of the Laffoy commission - on the stand telling their story, not for four hours, but for four days, facing relentless questioning.
What is so harrowing about this detail?
I was a little boy of five years when I was anally f...ed by my father. My backside was bleeding, damaged. My mother took me out to our next-door neighbours. She left me and off she went with my young brothers and sisters to her mother's house. The local dispensary doctor was called. He was told that I had fallen on a broken bottle and cut myself.
I have been very lucky in that I have been able to work through this and related experiences with the help of supportive family, friends and fellow sufferers. I have come through it. Today I love my mam and dad. If I was born again, I would like them to be my mam and dad. Otherwise I would be a different person, and nowadays I like who I am. I accept myself totally, and I accept my history, what happened to me, totally. No equivocation. No "ifs", no "buts", no "maybes", no "if onlys". What was was, what is is.
One of the deepest truths that I learned was that although the physical damage was awful, not only to my backside, but in other ways too, far worse damage was the lie that was told to the doctor. The cover-up, not only by my parents, but by the neighbours and other family members.
It was the untruthfulness of the experience that cut almost into the very core of my very spirit as a child. A child has the primary need to be surrounded by openness, truthfulnes and innocence. "Innocence" is a very beautiful Latin word meaning "to do no harm, to do no wrong".
My deepest need, the need of my spirit to be awakened to truthfulness, openness, goodness, gentleness, innocence, was damaged, almost shipwrecked. But not quite.
All my life, until I was 48 years old, I waited to find at least one person to help me tell my story, who would listen to me, who would hear me in total silence. I was lucky. Not only did I find one wise person, but others too who, in silence, walked the road with me.
And I came through. I worked my way through the anger, rage, vengeance, depression, drinking, blame, guilt, shame, illness. Today I am contented and joyful. Full of life and glad to be alive.
And the Laffoy commission? What can be done? There are two ways forward.
They are not incompatible. One is the way of truthfulness, openness, acceptance. The other is the way of justice and expensive legalities where the major beneficiaries are the lawyers, and where truth and openness have little or no place.
My view is that the way of justice only compounds the original hurt. Once again, the victim is engulfed in a fog of denial, cover-up, accusations, evasions.
A child cannot "know", cannot allow himself "to experience" the full range of feelings and hurts in the original assault.
He is too small, too fragile. So he stands there, as it were, frozen and still, unconsciously absorbing what happens, taking it all in like a sponge, soaking up all the abuse, storing it away in his body and feelings, unconsciously awaiting the day when he can tell his story in his own way to an understanding listener and, where possible, listeners.
What has happened instead is that, surrounded by seekers of justice, not the truth, under the relentless and unforgiving grilling, all the old buried hurts and feelings surface. The need for truth and openness gets lost now in the need for survival and defence.
All the old rationalisations emerge: maybe it didn't happen, maybe I made a mistake, maybe it's all my fault, maybe I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, maybe it never happened. No one believes me. Others have experienced worse than me. I shouldn't be complaining.
There are two ways forward. One, to have a commission of inquiry, along the lines, say, of Hutton, where people come along and tell their story as it is. Names could perhaps be mentioned but not published. The story could be told by all those who lived and worked in the institutions. The Government could give each victim a pre-agreed sum of money, not in compensation, but in acknowledgment that "yes, you did suffer as the result of our neglect".
No amount of money can make up for what happened. It is not money that is needed but a listening environment where the person is seen, is heard, is listened to, is understood, and feels safe and secure in doing so.
The second way forward is the legal road. Victims could make the choice: if you choose this way, you will have to go it alone. It is the way of compensation, of harrowing questions. It will cost you a lot of money which you must find yourself to fight your cause. Let the Government put its money into the former process.