SUFFER
THE LITTLE CHILDREN
Suffer
the Little Children exposes a hidden Ireland of industrial
schools, reform schools, convents, orphanages, places of such
brutality, even savagery, you will wince from page to page. But
wincing isn't enough. The value of this powerful book ist that it
might force us to look, wherever we are, at the least among us –
the powerless, the children. Frank
McCourt Author of Angela's
Ashes
For anyone interested in modern Ireland or in the
absolute corruption of absolute power. The combination of vivid
personal testimony and acute institutional analysis makes it as
gripping as it is revealing. FINTAN
O'TOOLE Irish Times
Suffer
the Little Children throws light for the first time on the
darkest episode in the history of independent Ireland. The levels of
official cruelty, indifference, and inhumanity it discloses are
deeply shocking. COLM TÓIBÍN
Booker Prize nominee
A terrible and splendid book. This
story, one of immense national disgrace, will not quickly go away.
Justin Keating
former Irish Government Minister
SUFFER
THE LITTLE CHILDREN
[
2001 – This
particular version of the publication SUFFER
THE
LITTLE CHILDREN
was published by THE CONTINUUM
INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC, 370 LEXINGTON AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10017
]
[ page 3 ]
Introduction*
On
the 11th of May 1999, the Irish Government called a press conference
to issue an apology, on behalf of the State, to the tens of thousands
of children who grew up in Ireland’s extra-ordinary network of
what were called ‘industrial schools’.
This
historic and unprecedented event coincided with the broadcast on
Irish television of the final part of States
of Fear, a series of three documentaries exposing the
astounding levels of both physical and sexual abuse suffered by many
of these children while in the care of the Chatholic religious orders
who ran these institutions [ For a transcript of the television documentary States of Fear, see http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0106/03/sm.09.html ].
States
of Fear† had provoked an enormous response from
the Irish public. Outrage at the crimes committed against these
children was expressed continuously for the three weeks of the
series, across acres of newsprint and hours of radio broadcasts all
over the country. The Government apology was perceived as a direct
response to this furore, as was its promise to establish a Commission
of Child Abuse to inquire into the issues raised.
Minute
examination of official State records, together with extensive
testimony from those who grew up in industrial schools, combine to
make this the first full account of the vast and largely hidden
system used to lock up so many thousands of Irish children. Their
vivid human stories convey both the extraordinary levels of cruelty
and suffering experienced by them as children, and their tremendous
courage and resilience in surviving the often savage way in which
they were abused. _______________________________
*
This new introduction updates some of the material in the text. †
Dr Eoin O’Sullivan, co-author of this book, was a Consultant to
States of Fear (RTE
Television, broadcast on 27th April, 4th May
and 11th May, 1999). Mary Raftery, his co-author, wrote,
produced and directed States of Fear.
[
page 4 ]
Now [in 2001], almost two years since the
historic apology by the Irish Government, several parallel processes
are in train. The Irish police investigations continue with regard to
several of the schools. Most of these cases had begun before the
broadcast of States of Fear,
but so far none have come to trial. A total of nine Christian
Brothers are facing multiple charges of child sexual abuse with
regard to the industrial schools in Salthill, Galway and Tarlee,
County Kerry. Allegations of abuse in St. Joseph’s Industrial
School in Letterfrank, County Galway continue to be
investigated.
The largest police operation in this area
concerns Artane Industrial School in Dublin – in fact, it now
constitutes one of the most extensive child abuse investigations to
have been conducted anywhere in the world. However, to date only one
Christian Brother has been charged – he faces multiple counts
of sexual assault. Completed files on the approximately twenty others
have been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and most have
now been awaiting a decision on whether to proceed to charges for
over a year.
The slow pace of bringing cases to court has been
a source of considerable frustration to many of the survivors of
abuse of the Artane institution. Over 500 formal statements of
complaint have so far been lodged with the Gardaí, with new
allegations continuing to be made on a regular basis. Up to 150
Christian Brothers have been implicated, a number of whom have left
the order, some have died, and the remainder continue as serving
Brothers.
About half of the Artane allegations concern
physical abuse only, with the remainder comprising both physical and
sexual abuse. The Gardaí conducted full investigations into
the complaints of physical abuse and sent a number of files of the
complaints to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, the DPP
decided that no charges would be brought as a result of these. It is
understood that the lapse of time, over 30 years in all cases, was
the primary reason for not charging any of the Artane Christian
Brother against whom allegations of physical abuse had been made.
It
is interesting in this regard to note a recent case in Scotland,
where a nun was convicted on charges of child
[ page 5
]
cruelty relating to her work in two residential
children’s homes from the 1960s to the 1980s. These were run by
the Poor Sisters of Nazareth, who had an extensive network of such
institutions throughout Britain and Northern Ireland. Maria Docherty,
also known as Sr Alphonso, had faced four counts of repeatedly
abusing, humiliating and cruelly treating young girls. Since her
conviction, 50 nuns have been named in over 400 compensation claims
from former child residents of Nazareth homes in
Scotland.
Descriptions of conditions within the Scottish
institutions are very similar to survivors’ accounts of Irish
industrial schools. And yet in all such Irish cases so far, the
authorities of the State have declined to use the sanction of the
courts against the perpetrators of almost identical physical abuse of
children.
During the past year [2000], many of the survivors
of Irish industrial schools have strongly objected to the way in
which such firm distinctions have been made between sexual abuse on
the one hand, and on the other, the physical violence to which they
were subjected as children. They argue that for the perpetrators
there was a strong element of sexual gratification involved in the
kinds of extreme beatings which they meted out to their small
victims. However, it appears that Irish law as it stands does not
share this view, and that the only recourse now open to those who
were physically abused is to testify before the Commission of Child
Abuse.
This Commission, chaired by High Court judge Mary
Laffoy, has had a bumpy ride since its inception. It has now begun
hearings before its Confidential Committee, in which survivors are
provided with a sympathetic forum in which to tell of their
experiences, and where no cross-examination is permitted.
The
Commission’s Investigation Committee, which will fully test and
rule on cases of child abuse (physical, sexual, emotional and
neglect) within all institutions, including ordinary schools, has yet
to begin hearings. It has been delayed by issues relating to
compensation for survivors of this abuse. However, in October 2000,
almost 18 months since its initial apology, the Irish Government
finally announced its intention to establish a separate Compensation
Tribunal. Although there
[ page 6 ]
are
as yet no details as what form this will take, the religious orders
implicated in the abuse of children at their institutions have agreed
in principle to make some financial contribution towards
compensation.
It is interesting to look at the extensive
international experience in this regard, as institutional child abuse
at the hands of Catholic religious orders is by no means an
exclusively Irish phenomenon. The past decade has seen the uncovering
of widespread abuse of children from the 1920s to the 1980s at
residential homes run by Catholic religious orders in Australia, most
notably by the two Irish orders of Christian Brothers and the Sisters
of Mercy. The Government of Queensland, where several of these
institutions were located, has contributed $1 million to a Trust Fund
to provide assistance to those whose lives were destroyed by this
abuse. So far, however, no financial contribution has been
forthcoming from the relevant religious orders.
It has been
left to survivors to pursue the religious orders through the courts,
as indeed is happening in Ireland and in Canada. To date, the Sisters
of Mercy have paid an undisclosed sum in an out-of-court settlement
of sixty former residents of their Neerkol orphanage, ending what had
become one of the largest litigation cases Queensland’s
history.
The Christian Brothers agreed to pay $3.5 million to
over 260 former residents of their orphanages and schools in Western
Australia. Widespread sexual abuse of children by members of the
order had been uncovered at its Western Australian institutions,
covering a period dating back to the 1930s.
However, it is in
Canada that the most detailed and comprehensive attempt has been made
to identify means of redress for those who have had their childhood
stolen by abuse in institutions. Prominent among the Catholic
religious orders implicated in child abuse in Canada are once again
the Christian Brothers and the Sisters of Mercy, with the addition of
the Oblates of Mary Immaculate who ran the notorious Daingean
Reformatory School in Ireland.
In March 2000, the Law
Commission of Canada published its Final Report on Responding to
Child Abuse in Canadian Institutions. It is undoubtedly the most
thorough study of this
[ page 7 ]
tragic
phenomenon, and should provide a blueprint for the Laffoy Commission
in Ireland.
The Canadian Law Commission conducted a series of
studies to identify the “needs” of those abused as
children within Canadian institutions. Different groups of victims
across Canada were asked what they wanted, what they had received and
how they would improve the situation for other victims. Their
responses had several points in common, even as the groups varied.
Their reasons for pursuing their claims included: establishing a
historical record; acknowledgement; genuine apology; accountability;
access to therapy or counselling; access to education or training;
financial compensation and prevention.
In its final report,
the law Commission makes over 50 specific recommendations on both how
to deal with the victims of past abuse and how to prevent future
institutional child abuse. The report concludes that it is the
survivors of such abuse who can best articulate how they have been
harmed, that the focus of all interventions should be to right the
wrongs done to them, and crucially that this process should cause
them no further harm. How to achieve this key objective resulted in a
report of 450 pages.
The Commission notes that the goals of
achieving accountability, apology and reconciliation are often in
conflict with the objective of providing financial compensation in
existing processes such as public inquiries, criminal trials,
criminal injuries compensation schemes and civil
trails.
Interestingly, in the light of concerns in Ireland
about the role of elements of the legal profession in representing
clients of institutional abuse, the Canadian Commission recommends
that law societies should review their Codes of Professional Conduct
to ensure that appropriate rules are in place to safeguard against
exploitation of survivors of institutional child abuse, especially
with respect to recruitment of clients and fee arrangements.
The
Canadian Law Commission concludes that what matters most is the
attitude of those in authority in terms of dealing with this issue.
New initiatives will mean little to survivors of institutional abuse
if those in positions of power
[ page 8 ]
are
not fully committed to redressing the harm done. Similarly,
irrespective of what a survivor seeks, authorities must respond with
full honesty. No information should be strategically withheld, and no
procedural tactic should be deployed simply to gain an advantage.
In
practice, however, achieving these principles has proved difficult.
For example, since the publication of the Law Commission of Canada
final report, it has emerged that the Christian Brothers seriously
misled a Canadian court in an attempt to protect millions of dollars
worth of their assets from creditors, according to court documents
filed in Ontario.
In a strategy centrally devised by senior
Christian Brothers in their Rome headquarters, the order [of these
Christian Brothers] put its Canadian assets into liquidation in 1996
when it was facing large civil claims for compensation from 126
alleged victims of child abuse at the order’s Mount Cashel
orphanage in Newfoundland.
At the time, a high-ranking
Canadian Christian Brother had sworn an affidavit that the
liquidation would ensure that a “maximum amount” of
assets would be “employed compensating all of the claimants in
a fair and expedited manner”. The court was informed that the
total value of the assets of the order was approximately $4.2
million.
However, it has now emerged that the Christian
Brothers in Canada had internally calculated that they had in fact
had, “in conservative terms, well over $100 million in assets”.
The plan was to minimise any possible payments to victims of
institutional child abuse, leading the court-appointed liquidators of
the Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada (their official title) to
raise “questions about the bona fides of the decision by the
Christian Brothers to wind up Christian Brothers of Ireland in Canada
for the purpose of maximising compensation to the victims of abuse,
and demonstrates possible … breaches of an undertaking to this
court.”
The Canadian experience may give some inkling of
what lies ahead for the Laffoy Commission, the Compensation Tribunal,
and the various civil actions in Ireland. So far, the Irish
Commission has held three public sessions, mainly to explain how it
intends to function. During the summer of 2000, it heard formal
submissions from many of the survivors’ support
[
page 9 ]
groups and from the religious orders
responsible for the industrial schools system in Ireland.
In
spite of their public apologies to the children abused in their care,
the submissions from religious orders displayed scant evidence of
contrition – in fact, they manifested in some cases a degree of
hostility towards several aspects of the Commission’s
operation.
The Christian Brothers, for instance, objected to
the Commission’s decision to use the word “survivor”
to designate those who grew up in industrial schools. Former
residents had welcomed this – they had previously been
generally referred to as victims, a term which they felt humiliated
them. However, the Christian Brothers indicated that the use of the
term “survivor” implied that some had not survived, an
inference which they considered “distressing”.
A
number of the religious orders considered that the process was unfair
to them, that it was “pro-accuser and anti the accused”.
Justice Laffoy firmly rejected any imputation of unfairness
concerning the Commission. Ominously, however, some of the orders
indicated that they reserved their right to mount a legal challenge
to the entire process. The Commission is acutely aware that every
aspect of its operation is likely to face a series of court
challenges from the legal teams representing the religious
congregations involved.
Meanwhile, the Catholic Church in
Ireland maintains its policy of secrecy with regard to publicly
releasing its records on children’s institutions. Diocesan
archives in this area remain closed, and despite repeated requests
for access to their archives, the religious orders concerned remain
equally secretive.
It is easy in this fraught legal landscape
to forget that what is at the heart of this issue and this
book is the wilful and systematic ruination of thousands
of lives, children subjected to appalling and horrific
treatment from their earliest years.
Their stories,
together with the exclusive access given to the authors of official
State records, provide a searing insight into a tragedy whose scale
Ireland is only beginning to understand. In most cases, those whose
experiences are recorded here decided to be identified by their first
names only. Some asked for their
[ page 10 ]
names
to be completely changed in order to protect their privacy. Those
individuals identified by their full names had specifically asked
that this should be so.
Without exception, they all spoke
eloquently about the importance to them recording publicly the
terrible events of their childhood, no matter how painful they were
to recall, so that children in the future would never have to suffer
as they did, either from direct abuse or from the decades of
disbelief, denial and indifference which they as adults had faced at
the hands of society. Their motivation in this regard is identical to
that found by the various commissions of inquiry into institutional
child abuse elsewhere in the world – across three continents,
survivors of these horrors share the hope that they may contribute to
improving the lives of the next generation of children in care.
Mary
Raftery Eoin O’Sullivan January 2001
|