To: Eamon Gilmore – Leader of the Labour Party
Re: The Institutional Child Abuse Bill 2009
On: Wednesday 8th July 2009 – at 14.30h
On behalf of the membership of Irish SOCA, I have been asked to make representation to you on the Bill currently before the Dail which was debated yesterday evening 7th July 2009.
The feeling amongst our members is that the Bill as currently conceived has no hope of success without cross-party consensus which developed following the Ryan Report and that support of Government is absolutely vital for its safe passage through both Houses of the Oireachtas.
There are many laudable aspects to the Bill as presented, but the Government is engaged in various initiatives at present including an audit by a panel of experts of the assets of the 18 CORI religious orders that are signatory to the April 2002 Indemnity Agreement. A report from the audit Committee is expected by government in September this year.
In recent weeks our members have been heartened by the cross-party agreement that has emerged in the Dail. We wonder therefore whether it would be advantageous for all concerned to defer this Bill until the outcome of the audit is known and government is better placed to make judgement on the way forward – we feel that nothing can be lost by a short delay.
The Labour Party has Irish SOCA permission to inform the Dáil or other parties of interest that Irish SOCA has requested The Labour Party to defer this Bill until the outcome of the audit is known and government is better placed to make judgement on the way forward.
We would appreciate an early response from the Labour Party to our request if possible by early this afternoon.
Yours sincerely,
John Kelly
For IRISH-SOCA
Irishsoca@eircom.net
Paddy i have just being informed that one of the survivors had his case in the high court in Dublin last week and the judge informed him that he was not going to allow old men to be dragged into court Is this the same court that allowed young children be brought before it with nobody to speak for them and sentenced them to many years at the hands of the old men that they are now protecting. surely this cannot be true.Has anyone else heard of this
Hi Paddy It is a good thing that there is a site like yours for victims to give there comments.governments make great promises when not in power,that soon changes when elected, such as the promise that victims would be looked after this also was the voice of the bishops what a joke they are doing nothing for there victims Where is the media in all of this It has turned into a wall of silence.I meth Thomas last week a survivor of a glen sleeping on the streets in Manchester.while those with power do nothing there victims suffer sounds like we have being here before
my late father Andrew John Baker died befor he could get he’s voice heard, he wonted to go to the highcourt and face hes abuser’s but never got the chance he died 54 yrs old after retreving over one hunderd letters written by he’s parents begging them to let there little boy come home “hes a good boy really this broke him he died of a broken hart so to all whom did suffer let your voices be heard dont hold back justice will be served there Judgment day is near.
Just read this as we the survivors in Britain are informed of nothing, and the groups like the victim’s of child abuse Manchester that have being excluded from all.
Is this the same John Kelly that was accused of attacking another survivor on the day of the march in Dublin? For the record, no survivor group leader speaks for me nor I for them. A lot of funding has been handed out to these groups and the questions being asked now is what is there to show for it? There is certainly no ‘trickle-down’ effect and evidence will bear me out. History only serves well those who serve well!
@ Kate: The organisation Justice for Magdalenes (info@magdalenelaundries.com) has just proposed a separate Redress Bill specifically for the survivors of the Magdalene Laundries. If we can be of any help to your friend, please let me know. SOCA has never spoken on behalf of Laundry survivors, and now it appears they don’t even speak for survivors of abuse in other institutional settings.
This ‘cross-party consensus’, mentioned in the letter, would this be in anyway similar to the ‘cross-party consensus’ that ignored the human rights of thousands of us while we were incarcerated in the Institutions?
I smell a rat too and the rat is eating fish.
Is this for real? My friend sent me this article. Was this in the newspapers? I can’t find it. My friend who was in a Magdaeln home is really upset when we told her tonight. She watched the debate the other day on my computer, she does not have her own or can she operate one, she is an elderly person. She was in a Magdalen Laundry and was really happy at last that the Irish Government were starting to take into stock what happened to her and other children who worked their in Ireland in the Magdalen laundries. She was only a child. she really thought she would at last get some peace now in her twilight years and that the Irish Government would believe her and someone would hear her story. This is dreadful. She never heard of this group, my friend and I have been helping her for some years now. This is really bad stuff here.
This smacks of DOUBLE DEALINGS. What is John Kelly talking about? On behalf of the membership of Irish Soca?
Smell a rat here Paddy. Lets put it this way
30 pieces of Silver. That says it all
It seems I laboured under the illusion that one needed a mandate in order to speak for or on behalf of survivors of abuse!
I guess I should be gobsmacked, but somehow I’m not surprised. It would appear even those who claim to speak for survivors can be bought and sold.
And we wonder why we can’t achieve justice for the Magdalen women. Perhaps FF was too busy orchestrating this subterfuge to even read the rational, well-thought, easily-implemented amendments introduced by Labour to the 2002 Bill and our own proposed new Redress Bill for the Magdalens.
It was bad enough the solicitors making fortunes off the back of people’s misery…now the very folk who purport to speak for those most vulnerable appear to be as easily compromised.
Shame, shame, shame.