Sir, – John Byrne (Opinion, October 31st), rightly points out that the birth parents of children in care are “victims of failed State care services themselves and have experienced the most horrendous of life situations”. However, he then states that a Yes vote is a call to punish these parents and make them “take full responsibility (without support) for all of their actions and be punished for their mistakes”.
By this logic, we should not remove driving licences from drunk drivers, or strike off negligent doctors. We do these things, not to punish, but to protect our citizens. Three years is an eternity in a child’s life, and parenting does not stop on a child’s 18th birthday.
How any social care worker (or citizen) can state that “there is already a very sound legal mechanism for protecting children in Ireland” is beyond me, however, if one can cite providing children with a “better opportunity” in life as the motive behind the Magdalene Laundries (not “homes”, please!) then I suppose any perspective is possible.
I understand that providing balance in this referendum debate must be a challenge, but please be a bit more discriminating in the opinion pieces. – Yours, etc,
Sir, Catherine McGuinness, retired Supreme Court Judge (October 6th), indicates she is persuaded of the value of the Irish Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children in urging a Yes vote in the coming referendum. That society, she states, has now formed a campaign. I do not share her enthusiasm.
There was once another campaign. I mean the campaign against corporal punishment in our schools and against the imprisonment of children because they did not go to school. It was a campaign against the fear and suffering of children.
This suffering was ratified by the State. It was scandalously sanctified by the church. It was supported by the Department of Education. It was administered with suspect pleasure by the teachers of Ireland. And it was ultimately buttressed by the majesty of our district courts. Trapped by so many layers of pomposity what could the child do only hold out his small hand to take his pain at the teachers pleasure? All this happened as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was extant. The ISPCC saw no tears, heard no cries. It knew what awaited the child who if he was caned enough and strapped enough would stop going to school. He was then taken out of his home by gardaí, brought to the district court, kissed by his mother who was blinded with tears, and then bundled away just like a side of mutton to be fed into the machines of the reformative processing factory at Letterfrack.
The teachers of Ireland and the Department of Education were scalded when a brilliant film beamed across the United States showed the sadistic splendours of Irish education.
This continuum of diminishment was carefully directed at the poor and at those who were least able to resist. As a matter of personal experience our children were kept at home from school for month after month after month.
There was no knock on the door. Nobody troubled us. Letterfrack was for other people. Better off children were allowed to stay at home with mother and father. Poor boys were effectively orphaned.
The campaign was vigorous and unrelenting. Through newspapers and radio and television the reality was made publicly evident. Several thousand people signed a petition to the Minister for Education. The campaign worked. The strap went. The cane went. And the frightened child was no longer invited to the hospitality of the meat processors.
It should be recorded that the ISPCC had no part in taking the implements of pain away. The teachers learned to walk naked without strap or stick or threat of the meat factory.
The cruelties were stopped by a society that was intent on the prevention of cruelty to children. And this society achieved its aims without the support of even one solitary capital letter. – Yours, etc,