Archives

OK

Random entry RSS

Loading

  • Posted in:

    SECOND UPDATE: The Irish government has become complicit in the cover-up of British Royal sexual abuse committed in the Republic of Ireland. By David Burke.

    1. The Classified Garda Files. The information provided by the brothers, John and Pat Barry, confirms that the Garda (Irish police) had a checkpoint at the gate of Classiebawn castle in August 1977. Garda security appears – by some accounts – to have been downgraded in 1979, shortly before Mountbatten was murdered by the Provisional IRA. Hence, while there might be a question mark about the existence of comprehensive Garda logs from 1979, there are no concerns about August 1977. The Classiebawn logs are the key to unlocking the sordid Kincora scandal. Boys from Kincora Boys’ Home in Belfast were trafficked to Mountbatten by Joe Mains, an MI5/6 agent who worked at Kincora. The same boys were trafficked to Loyalist paramilitaries and politicians by Mains as part of MI5 and MI6 ‘honeytrap’ blackmail operations. The Garda have shown no interest in the information at their fingertips. As far as can be told, the Government has displayed no curiosity either. The survivors of child sexual abuse deserve better. 2. Confirmation of a Garda checkpoint at Classiebawn. While the Barry brothers set out to defend the reputation of Mountbatten in their Sligo Champion interview – and did so in good faith – they have nonetheless highlighted a crucial issue about the Mountbatten-Kincora connection. It is one which could yet prove precisely the opposite of what they hoped to achieve with their interview. There is no doubt now that the Garda have a record of the registration plates of the vehicles they stopped at the gates. The existence of the Garda checkpoint was already an established fact, nonetheless, the confirmation by the Barrys is important as they  are living witnesses who can attest to its presence. It would now take a very daring – not to mention corrupt – Garda or Department of Justice official, to interfere with the files. The purpose of the interview with the brothers was to afford them an opportunity to put forward a defence for Lord Mountbatten whom they do not believe was a child abuser. John Barry, who was a boy at the time, made specific reference to a Garda ‘checkpoint’ and also that: “The guards wouldn’t have allowed some guy to come, a warden from Kincora [Boys Home in Belfast] who was supposed to have driven [child abuse victims to Classiebawn], and he was supposed to sit in the car for an hour outside the castle and let the boys in – or a boy in. And you think the guards wouldn’t have asked: ‘What are you doing here?’ No way”. His brother has confirmed the presence of Gardaí at the ‘checkpoint at the gate’. 3. Times and dates. In 2019 Andrew Lownie, author of a book about Mountbatten, sought the Garda logs taken at the checkpoint. Crucially, while the Gardaí refused to declassify the files, they nonetheless confirmed they were still in existenc.  See:  THE MOUNTBATTEN FACTOR: Boris Johnson should not bully Dublin over Brexit because the Irish Government has information which could damage the Royal Family What will the records reveal? In August 1977 Stephen Waring and another boy were abused by Mountbatten in an exterior building. They gained access to the grounds in a car which was driven through a Garda checkpoint. Waring took his own life the following November. See: SECOND UPDATE: Kincora boy abused by Mountbatten committed suicide months later. The Garda logs should contain the date and the arrival time of the car that brought Waring and the second boy through the gates of Classiebawn. They should also reveal when they left, along with the make, model and registration of the vehicle in which they were trafficked. 4. Liaison with the RUC The Kincora boys were driven to Classiebawn by Joseph Mains, the Warden of Kincora in August 1977. As a matter of routine, the registration plate of the car driven by Mains to Classiebawn would have been noted and logged. Next, the Gardaí would have sent them to Garda HQ. Then inquiries would have been made with the RUC. The RUC knew that Mains had connections to the Red Hand Commando (RHC), a Loyalist terrorist group. The Garda inquiry about the visit by Mains to Classiebawn would have raised a red flag. A senior RUC special branch officer would have taken control of the request. It is inconceivable that the Gardaí would have been told about Mains’ links to MI5/6 or the RHCs. The RUC special branch was complicit in the ‘honey trap’ operation that revolved around Kincora. Hence, the RUC undoubtedly told the Gardaí there was nothing to worry about insofar as the car driven by Mains was concerned. The RUC may even have expected a call from the Gardai and were ready for it. Rumours about Mountbatten’s involvement in the abuse of Kincora boys have circulated in security circles in Northern Ireland for decades. The Garda request about the visitor to Classiebawn in August 1977 may be at the root of the gossip. 5. A report on Mains may reside in Garda files at its Phoenix Park HQ in Dublin. The Garda inquiries that took place after Mountbatten was murdered on 27 August 1979, reached back to 1974. All of those who came into contact with him formed part of a massive inquiry. All of those who visited Classiebawn were investigated. A short report on Joe Mains may very well have come into existence as early as September 1979. Indeed, a record of his identity may have existed since his visit in August 1977 (and perhaps other visits in the 1970s). The Kincora scandal did not erupt until January 1980. Thus, when the Gardaí were making inquiries with the RUC in 1977 and/or 1979, about the car Mains drove to Classiebawn in 1977, there was no particular need to conceal his name, at least insofar as Kincora was concerned. The RUC hardly anticipated that Mains would become known as a child abuser in 1980. Mains was convicted of child abuse in December 1981. 6. 60 years

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    The constitutional status of the Irish language in a United Ireland. By Dáithí Mac Cárthaigh.

    Irish is experiencing a period of growth in its official use. It is a full official and working language of the European Union since 1 January 2022. Every regulation, directive and decision of the EU is now enacted and published in Irish at the same time and with the same status as the versions in the other 23 official languages of the Union, from world languages such as English, French and German to the languages of small nations such as Maltese, Estonian and Latvian. At national level, the Official Languages Act has been amended and the amending legislation signed into law by the President. The most noteworthy amendments provide that at least 20% of new recruits to the public service will be competent in Irish by the 31 December 2030 and that public services will be provided in Irish in Gaeltacht areas. At least 20% of public bodies’ advertising will be in Irish and at least 5% of their advertising budgets spend on Irish language media. Public bodies will facilitate the use of the síneadh fada. Bilingual logos, bilingual forms and bilingual advertising materials will be rolled out for public bodies. Protocols or ‘standards’ will be set in relation to services to be provided in Irish by public bodies, including services provided on their behalf by private agencies. Long-promised language legislation is being enacted at Westminster for Northern Ireland which will establish the office of Irish Language Commissioner and language standards for the provision of public services through Irish. In this context of growth, one must be watchful to ensure that the official status of Irish is safeguarded under any new constitutional arrangement. The status of Irish is secure at EU level and must be reproduced domestically. In the context of a united Ireland, the protection of minority rights will be very much to the fore, including the rights of Irish speakers. In relation to protecting linguistic minorities, Canadian constitutional law and language legislation, in particular the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides a useful exemplar. This is set out and discussed below. Irish as the Premier Official Language From the foundation of the State, Irish is established as the national language of the country and from 1937, with the enactment of Bunreacht na hÉireann, as the first official language because it is the national language. There is a divergence between the Irish and English texts of Article 8.1. In cases such as this, the Irish version, under Article 25.5.4°, prevails. In the English version Irish is the “first official language”. In the Irish version it is the “príomhtheanga oifigiúil”  i.e. the premier or main official language. It matters not that this is more honoured in the breach than the observance. Very few laws are constantly observed but this does not nullify the constitutional imperative which flows from Article 8.1. Consider that equality as between citizens was guaranteed from 1937 by Article 40 of the Irish Constitution, but that the marriage-bar which obliged women to resign from state employment in the event that they married persisted until 1973 and that discriminatory practise was only ended under the shadow of European law. Similarly, it is because of this constitutional status and the constitutional imperative which flows from it that any victory for Irish language rights has been secured in the Courts. Anyone who proposes a reduction in the status of the language does not have the good of Irish at heart or is unfamiliar with the caselaw. The Constitution of the Irish Free State 1922 Article 4 of the 1922 Constitution provided as follows: The National language of the Irish Free State (Saorstát Éireann) is the Irish language, but the English language shall be equally recognised as an official language. Nothing in this Article shall prevent special provisions being made by the Parliament of the Irish Free State (otherwise called and herein generally referred to as the “Oireachtas”) for districts or areas in which only one language is in general use. A derogation from official bilingualism was permitted at the end of Article 4 “to provide for the contingency of the entry of Northern Ireland into the Free State” according to Kohn The Constitution of the Irish Free State (London 1932), p. 124. This, of course, is being superseded by the aforementioned UK language legislation for the North. Language matters are also discussed in Article 42: As soon as may be after any law has received the King’s assent, the clerk, or such officer as Dáil Éireann may appoint for the purpose, shall cause two fair copies of such law to be made, one being in the Irish language and the other in the English language (one of which copies shall be signed by the Representative of the Crown to be enrolled for record in the office of such officer of the Supreme Court as Dáil Éireann may determine), and such copies shall be conclusive evidence as to the provisions of every such law, and in case of conflict between the two copies so deposited, that signed by the Representative of the Crown shall prevail. There are a number of ways to read this provision. According to Hugh Kennedy, the first Chief Justice, in the case of Ó Foghludha v. McClean [1934] I.R. 469 bilingual enactment is implied by this Article: It is not for me here and now to express any opinion as to whether each Act should not have been enacted at the same time in the Irish language (as seems to be suggested by Article 42 of the Constitution). No doubt an Irish translation of each Act has been prepared subsequently and published officially but such translation has no effect as legislation, there being no power under the Constitution to delegate the legislative power of the Oireachtas to a staff of translators. I may add that legislation in two official languages concurrently is the settled practice elsewhere. The learned Chief Justice referred in particular in support of this contention to the practice of bilingual enactment in other

    Loading

    Read more

  • Posted in:

    'I AM NOT NUMBER 54'. By Christopher Stanley.

    “Two babies from one family, ‘gone’: Tusla unable to locate records despite ‘extensive’ search” — thejournal.ie 2 August 2022 Every day I receive at least one – and sometimes two or three – Google Alerts relating to ‘Irish Mother and Baby Homes’ [1] This edited collection of essays was published on 21 May 2022. On 27 July 2022 the Irish government approved a proposal to establish an independent office to lead an intervention at the site of the former Mother and Baby Home in Tuam. The intervention will involve the excavation, recovery, analysis, identification (if possible) and re-interment of the children’s remains located at the site. On the same day the United Nations Human Rights Committee published its report on Ireland noting “While welcoming the State party’s efforts to address and memorialize the past human rights violations and institutional abuse of women and children in the Magdalene laundries, children’s institutions, and mother and baby homes, as well as the State party’s recognition of its shortcomings in previous actions, the Committee recalls its previous concerns on the climate of impunity.” A climate of impunity and collusion which continues to demand intervention by way of an independent human rights compliant investigation and full disclosure of all records in order to ventilate the right to truth so wanted by so many women and children. [2] Including Number 54 – Mary Harney – who is not ‘pig’ , who is not ‘smelly pig’. Mary Harney born Bessborough Mother and Baby Home, not ‘eligible’ to be trafficked to America, illegally fostered then sentenced to twelve and a half years in the Good Shepherd Industrial School (pages 3 -4). Mary Harney who still waits for truth, justice and accountability which, to take W. B. Yeats out of the context of peace, comes ‘dripping slow’. [3] “We did not just hide away the dead bodies of tiny human beings, we dug deep and deeper still to bury our compassion, our mercy”- (Enda Kenny 18 March 2017 quoted at page 43) Christopher Stanley reviews “Redress: Ireland’s Institutions and Transitional Justice edited by Katherine O’Donnell, Maeve O’Rourke, James M Smith Five years on women and children still wait for the burial of Irish compassion to be exhumed and examined in the ways urged by the UN Human Rights Committee in accordance with human rights standards demanded by both ‘hard’ law and ‘soft’ justice – from criminal process to transitional justice – through police and coronial investigations, through disclosure of information to establish identity (page xi) and to establish a public record of truth, an inalienable human right – to know why. [4] This edited volume of essays is a valuable contribution to that truth-seeking process and how the right to truth can inform redress in a scheme of transitional justice (from darkness to light). In their Introduction, the Editors describe the genesis of this project by way of a two day conference at Boston College where different voices spoke on and were heard on the subject of ‘Reconciliation, Truth-Telling and Institutional Abuse in Ireland’. These were the voices of ‘scholars, policy makers, survivors, people affected by adoption, artists and advocates’ (page xiii). The voices of the survivors have so often to date been excluded from or silenced by the processes established by the state agencies (South and North) – the very agencies of truth-seeking that should have served to facilitate hearing those voices and enabling them to ask questions, to interrogate those responsible (civil servants, local councillors, clerical officials, bishops, law officiers, ‘sisters of mercy’ and others), to give their accounts of systemic abuse and suffering that was the evil of these institutions and processes (symphysiotomy, forced adoption, unlawful clinical trials, trafficking, illegal fostering, slave labour, disappearence) constituting Ireland’s crimes against humanity. [5] This is a compelling collection of essays, testimonies, analysis and interrogation. It is at times both intensely emtoional, as you would expect from the territory on which it reports, and intensely theoretical. The balance between the voices is  right. It is compelling because of the scope of the territory: from the loss and denial of identity of the survivor of institutional abuse, to the empty rhetorical gestures of state and church, to the manipulation of the public narative, to the closure of access to truth through the politics of information and the play of slippage of responsibilities. Then and Now. The volume is divided into seven conherent sections – truth-telling, law and (in)justice, transitional justice, adoption, children in state care, the Magdalene Laundries, the archive. The authors are survivors, artistists, lawyers, academics. Some of the material has been previously published but is now usefully collected together creating a ‘source book’ for further activisim and reflection on redress. Those turned to in these essays include Seamus Heaney, James Joyce, Sophocles Antigone, Giorgio Agamben, Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault,  Gillian Rose. Perspectives are provided from contemporary thinking around the idea of the archive, the nature of archeology and preservation, historiography and epistemology. For example, Joyce’s Dubliners is deployed to interrogate institutional abuse in a Protestant setting. Heaney on poetical redress powerfully provokes thought on the shape of redress for survivors. Agamben is drawn upon in terms of shame and the collapse of the ‘sovereign self’. Gillian Rose’s thesis The Broken Middle describes social ruptures that cannot be repaired – the cleaving of Ireland – now a Potters’s Field (to apply Rose in a different voice) or cillíní. And always the figure of Antigone so oft drawn upon when considering the fate of Ireland, its women and children. To conclude: for Ireland this collection and the continued out-workings of the tragedy of abuse is a work in progress, a work to inform policies to secure redress, a work to enable access to justice, a work to prise open the vault that is the archive of truth, a work to establish identity and to continue to give voice after the violence of the imposed silence of the abused; both by the ‘sacred’ and the ‘secular’ – the forces of church

    Loading

    Read more