Archives

In the wealthy suburbs of south Dublin, the redbricked facade of Terenure College has stood out as a beacon of respectability and status for more than 150 years. A training ground for the elite of Irish society, run by the Carmelite order of priests, it has produced captains of business, pioneering doctors and legal giants. Legends of Irish rugby have been reared on its hallowed sporting fields, which lavishly sprawl over some of the most valuable land in the country. The school website boasts of an “atmosphere of welcome and warmth” and a “history to be proud of”. But behind the cloistered walls of this exclusive boys’ school, a dark and chilling chapter from its past is about to be revealed. A number of former pupils have come forward claiming they were subjected to a regime of rampant sexual abuse and sadistic violence at the hands of those entrusted with their care during the 1960s and 1970s. Middle-aged men now, they tell stories of sordid assaults and relentless groping by predatory teachers, the emotional wounds of which remain unhealed today. Some of the abuse happened openly in class in front of other pupils while the perpetrator taught, showing no fear of being caught or punished. It also took place in the playground, at the swimming pool and in locker rooms as they showered. For the first time, evidence has also emerged that the Carmelite order has covertly paid out significant sums of money as compensation for sexual abuse. Until now, this compensation scheme has been kept from public sight or scrutiny. Despite several requests, neither the Carmelite Order or Terenure College will confirm whether An Garda Síochána were informed about the deeply disturbing allegations behind the scheme. Former pupils who attended the school in the 1960s and 70s have alleged that a number of staff, both priests and lay teachers, abused them. They identify the same men repeatedly, claiming these individuals engaged in warped paedophile and sadistic behaviour but were never held to account. Fr Aidan O’Donovan, a long-serving member of the teaching staff, was one of the most notorious. President of the school’s Pioneer Council and spiritual director of the Carmelite Third Order, an ancient branch of the order established for lay people, in the eyes of parents and staff, he appeared a charming priest and devoted teacher. But some of his old students recoil in terror at mention of his name. “He always had a boy on his knee during class”, says Martin, who attended Terenure in the 1970s and whose identity has been protected. “He was a great story-teller and to be asked to sit on his knee during stories was like getting a star. It was almost an honour. As soon as you sat up on his lap, his hand would go straight up. We all wore short trousers so it was easy for him to interfere with us. He molested me on several occasions in front of the rest of the class not caring whether anyone could see. Once, I got an infection in my anus because he had put his fingers inside me. I had to stay at home because I had a fever from it. The worst thing was not being able to tell my parents how it happened because you were afraid you wouldn’t be believed. The sexual abuse was just one side of life at Terenure. It was quite normal to be beaten around the place. You would be brought to the top of the class, stripped from your waist down and beaten with a bamboo cane on your bare backside. It was horrific but from a very early age you were told to ‘take it like a man’. We were a rugby school. We had to be seen to be tough. I used to go home with red marks on my hands and legs from being beaten and my parents would blame me for upsetting the teachers. I can only imagine how they would have reacted if I had told them about the sexual abuse”. Another past pupil, now in his 50s, is haunted by a number of encounters he endured at the hands of the same priest. “Apart from the sadistic beatings many of us endured, they were always touching you up and grabbing you. Fr O’Donovan was a well-known ‘kiddy-fiddler’. I remember him putting his hand down the front of my trousers and holding me while I was going to the toilet. That was the sort of twisted thing we were put through. If I had gone home to my mother and told her what was happening, she would have killed me. So I used to hide in Bushy Park and just not go to school at all. The abuse destroyed my life, and 40 years later, I am still very angry they have got away with it”. Another former pupil abused by O’Donovan describes him as the “quintessential wolf in sheep’s clothing. He would ingratiate himself with parents who fawned over him in the hope that their son might be given a place on the rugby team while at the same time sexually abusing their boy and leaving him permanently damaged. We called him Donewax. He would take you to his knee smiling and before long have his hand down your pants. If he didn’t take you to his knee he would sit on the edge of the small bench seat at our double desks and while inanely reading from a school book fondle your privates inside your pants. One thing that I vividly recall is the fact that his brown habit had openings where the pockets should be. This allowed him to fondle himself with one hand as he abused you, while appearing to anyone looking to just have his hand in his pocket”. Fr Aidan O’Donovan died in 2013. Former pupils who claim to have been abused by him say they are outraged he never faced justice. Many have felt unable to speak up

The DemocraticUnionist Party (DUP)’s stance on Brexit has left it out of kilter with a key part of its constituency, the business community. It appears to have campaigned for a referendum result it did not expect and has recently drawn the attentions of Europe to a position on Customs Union and the Single Market that appears like shooting itself in its collective foot. This is politically confusing since the Party has presented itself as the most pro-business of the North’s four main parties. Much of the Unionist ‘old money’ which once backed the Ulster Unionist Party now backs it. Both Arlene Foster and Simon Hamilton, as Economy Ministers, were seen as strongly probusiness. However, it is a paradox that Sinn Féin, perceived as having a notably more leftist stance, is more in tune with business in its stance on Brexit. The North’s main business organisations were strongly pro-Remain. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) issued a statement with two other business organisations before the Referendum. This said: “Northern Ireland is the most vulnerable part of the UK in the event of the UK leaving the EU (confirmed by the recent Oxford Economics study) which will create enormous uncertainty, impacting on investment, jobs, and living standards for the next decade and beyond”. At the time, the CBI’s Nigel Smyth said: “Every credible business survey has demonstrated majority support by Northern Ireland’s private sector employers for remaining within the EU. Being in the EU provides a strong platform for Northern Ireland to attract investment, and to export our goods and services, helping to create jobs and improve living standards”. As First Minister, Foster criticised the Remain side for its “prophecies of doom,” though she was generally quite quiet through the campaign. While the DUP was always Eurosceptic, it seems to have supported Brexit because of one of the burdens of its pervasive historical baggage, as well as its need to placate part of its base. There are ongoing questions about a £425,000 donation from a mysterious Scottishbased pro-Brexit group, recycled to buy advertising in Britain. The Open Democracy website claims the donation was illegal and Parliament is investigating the matter. The Electoral Commission said in August it had investigated a “regulated entity” over failures to comply with election law and fined the entity £6,000. Further information was withheld under provisions of election law dating back to Northern Ireland’s Troubles that allow details of political donations in the province to be kept secret. Significantly, at the start of the Referendum campaign Arlene Foster said “we fully expect that DUP members and voters will hold a range of differing personal views as to what is in the best interests of the United Kingdom. They are fully entitled to do so …”. Pre-Referendum, there was no indication the DUP had prepared for the Leave victory. Indeed its political preparation for Brexit remains patchy, as we saw with its dramatically last-minute intervention as its ally Theresa May was on the cusp of agreeing a deal with the EU. In January this year Hamilton launched his Department’s ‘Economy 2030 – a Draft Industrial Strategy for Northern Ireland’. Though the launch was six months after the Referendum, it included incredibly only one reference to the challenges of Brexit: “Exporting remains central to our Industrial Strategy and, with a changing economic landscape on the horizon as a result of exiting the European Union, it is vital that we are responsive and adaptable in the ways we seek to achieve our objectives on trading globally. We are already taking forward new approaches to drive improvements in our commercial success in overseas markets and this will continue and evolve as uncertainty around the future diminishes, and as new trading opportunities emerge in the future”. Showing the same opaqueness of vision, there were only three mentions of work with the South and all refer to other jurisdictions also: the fruit of six months consideration of dealing with the Referendum’s result were wafer-thin. Meanwhile, the DUP’s Westminster group is enjoying its day in the sun, propping up May’s government. That group is dominated by ‘old DUP’, while the group in the suspended Assembly is dominated by modernisers. This group, which inevitably appeals more both to the British and Irish governments and most of the media is anxious for restoration of the Assembly: not just from fear of losing salaries and expenses, but from fear of a Corbyn government, from which the Assembly would give a certain political protection.

The row over Brexit and the subsequent confusion over the legal status of the agreement made between the British government and EU negotiators on 8 December, has overshadowed significant movement in the political dynamic involving the main political parties. After emerging somewhat battered and bruised from his ultimately futile defence of former Justice Minister, Frances Fitzgerald, the Fine Gael leader recovered with an unexpected boost in an opinion poll published during the tense heat of the Brexit discussions. The Ipsos/MRBI poll for the Irish Times, published on the eve of the Brexit breakthrough, gave Leo Varadkar’s party a stunning 11 point lead (36% + 5) over Fianna Fáil (25% – 4) and a ten-point advantage over Micheál Martin in the personal satisfaction ratings. The crisis over Fitzgerald’s failure to act on a planned Garda legal strategy to attack the integrity of Maurice McCabe during the O’Higgins inquiry in 2015 came close to forcing an unwanted general election before Christmas. After that threat was averted, much to the relief of most politicians and media organisations, pundits widely assumed that the political crisis had almost certainly brought forward the prospect of an election early in the new year. The opinion poll put paid to that particular prediction and made it more likely that Fianna Fáil will be reluctant to breach the confidence and supply agreement with the Government in advance of the third budget it envisaged. The referendum on abortion due to take place before the summer is another factor that will inhibit politicians of both parties from bringing matters to a cliff edge in the medium term. Martin and his more abrasive colleagues, who were openly baiting Varadkar to go for broke over the Fitzgerald debacle, are now the ones licking their wounds and along with others are forced to suck up the indignity of a Blueshirt leader taking the battle to Albion over Brexit. As always the poll results, impressive as they are and showing the largest lead for Fine Gael over Fianna Fáil since 2015, are only useful until the next one, and also fail to take account of future challenges, expected and otherwise, facing this historically unstable political arrangement. The most significant known change is the imminent transfer of power within Sinn Féin from Gerry Adams to Mary Lou McDonald, a prospect that will almost certainly boost the party’s current poll MRBI standing from its current 19% (unchanged). With Labour stagnant and independents and other left-wing groups also largely unchanged the new year will likely reinforce a political landscape where there are three parties in contention when it comes to forming the next government. The decision by the Sinn Féin ard fheis in November to drop its previous condition that it will only go into government if it is the largest party has altered the balance of relations between the three. While it may be a statement of the obvious it has forced FG and, more so, FF, to adopt an even more hostile attitude to the republicans who are barking at their heels in the government formation stakes. With McDonald, arguably the most competent and impressive performer in the Oireachtas, taking the leadership reins by March there is a more intriguing choice on offer to the electorate when the time comes. Sinn Féin insists that it will only enter government on the basis of a detailed programme with cast-iron guarantees of delivery on agreed timescales and there is no reason to believe otherwise. Indeed, with or without the ‘Mary Lou factor’, the approach of its collective leadership that has determined its progress over recent years in the politics of the South, will almost certainly be to avoid the fate of smaller, leftwing, parties which always suffer from association with larger right-wing coalition partners. That Sinn Féin also has a range of talented, potential cabinet members in its ranks, will make its prospective partners less rather than more anxious to invite them into the exclusive tent of government, dominated for decades by the two-and-a-half-party system. Alternatively, if the left including Sinn Féin, Labour, the Social Democrats, left independents, Solidarity/PBP and others could bring their total vote close to 40%, unlikely as it may seem at this point, then other options may open. Of course, if a deal with Sinn Féin is a step too far for Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil they could always enter into a long-awaited embrace, ignore their marginal and minor differences and prepare the way for a grand coalition and ultimately a single centre-right political bloc. Their choice.