Magdelene Laundries - Eugenics by another name?

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What's not the way it works? You think the puritanical views were individually dreamt up?

I think you need to consider other indicators like the workhouses/asylums that became the Launderies and their work practices preceeded them being taken over by the nuns. Similar non catholic groups also existed, the nuns basically competed with them to take over the running of the workhouses.

And that the society that existed post famine that these originated from was very different. and what they were doing was best practice in workhouses in the 1850's and continued in use.

the influence the church had in this country was not directly proportional to how puritanical and acceptable such establishments were? I beg to differ.

It was not the sole reason but it was a feature of our peasant society.

The workhouse/asylums were essentially part of the welfare system that existed and continued from the 1850's to the 1990's.

I imagine lots of mens homeless hostels are of a similar vintage.

That's as may be, my only experience of abuses in a care homes was at the hands of the RCC...

The abuse was awful and I dont condone it.

What I am saying is that organisations developed with a service delivery model that changed little after 1850. They were not run by the local bishops but other organisations.

Say you had a social worker who qualified age 22 in 1990 -they would be 43 today. The same with civil servants. These people will have refered people to the launderies.

Look what is happening in the UK

Feminists and Evangelicals compete to rescue fallen women

The British Humanist Association is complaining about a government decision to award a contract to what it describes as a "vital service for trafficked women" to the Salvation Army. Previously, the funding for the Poppy Project worth around £2million per year had gone to Eaves, a feminist group that campaigns against the sex industry.

The BHA describes this as a "shock move" and "deeply concerning." Praising Eaves as a "pioneering women’s charity" which was "motivated solely with regard to the well-being of those women", the statement - attributed to Naomi Phillips - dismisses the Salvationists as homophobic and "a church motivated by a clear mission to evangelise". The BHA fears that the church will "discriminate and proselytise" in the way it provides the service, and calls upon the government to bar religious groups from tendering for contracts such as this one.

This is all a bit rich. Eaves might not disturb the peace and quiet of your local high street by banging tambourines, but their evangelical zeal is, if anything, even greater than the Sally Army's.

Motivated by an ideological opposition to all aspects of the sex industry - on the grounds that it "helps to construct and maintain gender inequality" - Eaves campaigns for tougher anti-prostitution laws (for example, for a Swedish style ban on all purchasing of sex, however consensual) and has been accused of carrying out and publicising misleading research into the prevalence of sex-trafficking and the damaging impact of lap-dancing clubs. The organisation was a favourite of the last government and of the Home Office, whose own "research" and consultation exercises tended to draw heavily and uncritically on Eaves/Poppy papers such as "The Big Brothel" and "Sex in the City".

Dr Belinda Brooks-Gordon of Birkbeck is prominent among those who have drawn attention to the apparent conflict of interest involved. Two years ago she wrote:


There are many linked organisations with no interest in questioning ramped-up figures on trafficking. The Poppy project's parent organisation, Eaves Housing, has an income of more than £5m, and a large sum of this comes from the Home Office. Eaves' objectives are threefold: to provide accommodation, advice and support directly to women and children escaping domestic violence and women trafficked into prostitution and domestic servitude; lobbying and responding to government papers on violence against women; and researching and highlighting issues around violence against women, including prostitution, trafficking and domestic violence. The Home Office gives money to the Poppy project, which in turn lobbies the government. If this sounds rather circular, it is.

The 2006 accounts describe the cosy relationship it has enjoyed with government. "In addition to direct service provision Poppy research and development team has been nurturing relationships with both government and non-governmental agencies. Members of the project joined Mr Paul Goggins, the parliamentary under secretary of state at the Home Office, on an official UK presidency visit to Lithuania and following a meeting with Mr Mike O'Brian, the solicitor general, were invited to attend the Ministerial Advisory Committee on Human Trafficking." (Page 8).

As "Eaves plan over the long term is to be recognised as one of the leading agencies on violence against women issues in the country [sic]" (page 2, pdf), one fears this implies corporate domination over the interests of, rather than provision of service to, women. Funding comes from the Home Office (via the Office for Criminal Justice Reform) and also from the former Association of Local Government, London Councils. This is worrying because these same organisations are the ones being lobbied by Poppy, Eaves and Object.



Brooks-Gordon has also described the help offered by the Poppy Project - which has been criticised for making help conditional on women leaving prostitution altogether and turning in their pimps - as "like the worst sort of Victorian philanthropy". Eaves denies any link between its campaigning and its housing provision, but there would certainly seem to be a conflict between providing objective, non-judgemental support to genuine victims of sex-trafficking and other abused women, and the organisation's absolutist opposition to the sex industry as such.

The foreword to The Big Brothel, written by Eaves chief executive Denise Marshall, brackets prostitution together with rape and child sexual abuse as a form of "violence against women". She allows that women (there is no mention of men, that would spoil the intellectual conceit) in the sex industry may be socially excluded and have poor access to housing and health support but rejects the one solution - decriminalisation - that the evidence suggests would most benefit sex workers and protect them from the risk of harm. This is because the report insists that prostitution is itself a form of abuse, that even the suggestion that some sex workers are not coerced "serves to create a notion of genuine victims and non-deserving women" and that any relaxation of the legal regime would "amount to official endorsement of these constructions of gender identity".

Marshall goes on to compare prositition, once again, with child abuse.


For those who say ‘prostitution has always happened and can never be eradicated’, imagine what the reaction would be if solutions to child sexual abuse were presented in this way. If governments were to say “well we can never stop it, so we must make sure that the children suffering it can have care after the event,” there would, rightly so, be universal outrage.



The equation of adults making informed choices (but choices with which feminist activists disagree) with abused children particularly telling. And the repeated reference to "construction of gender identity" shows where her true priorities lie: not with the social circumstances of the particular women they aim to help but with the theoretical framework through which they view the sex industry. The implication is that even if decriminalisation objectively benefited the women involved (as it probably would) Eaves would still oppose it because it "sends the wrong message".

And what of the Salvation Army? Interestingly, a Ministry of Justice spokesperson claimed that awarding them the contract would be "much better for the victims of trafficking" because they offered a wider geographical spread and because, unlike Eaves, they were prepared to extend help to men as well as women. (Their bid was also 60% cheaper, presumably because they are not entirely reliant on public money.) In other respects, however, the Army's agenda would seem to dovetail quite closely with Eaves'. In 2009, Nick Davies noted that they were as eager as the feminist group to exaggerate the scope of the trafficking problem. And it's fair to say that the organisation has been rescuing fallen women for much longer than Eaves has. Here, for example, is Captain William Baugh's appeal for funds to build a refuge for such unfortunates in 1883:


On Sunday night last amongst about a dozen others who came out for salvation, four prostitutes came out and (as far as we can judge from appearances) they are real. They were there on Monday night and testified. But then what hope have we of them while they are at large in their own town? Can nothing be done? Can we not raise a home in which to place them under proper Salvation Army management? We could get others no doubt then, but till then we are spending our strength for naught with such precious souls who cannot call their body or soul their own. We have got to get them away from the dens in which they are living, but are at a loss to know what to do.



More recently, the Army has involved itself with such campaigns as scare-mongering about prostitution and sex-trafficking during previous World Cups and a push to remove prostitutes' business cards from phone-booths. The latter was described "as a very positive signal of the ongoing commitment to anti trafficking policies and policing which determines to put an end to this ‘modern slave trade'." Which is, to say the least, debatable.

At least the Salvationists are up-front about their religious motivation. If anything they tend, as individuals, to be considerably less judgemental than their ideologically-driven counterparts in the feminist movement. As regards their motivation and objectives, there's little to choose between the two groups: they use the same language of degradation and objectification, and they share the same fundamentally conservative view of a woman's "proper" sexual role. When it comes to sexual illiberalism, religious and feminist groups have long been in covert and sometimes overt agreement. Yes, the Salvation Army probably at some level want to convert the women they rescue to Christianity. But Eaves want to convert them to their brand of doctrinaire feminism. Is that really any better?

http://heresycorner.blogspot.com/2011/04/feminists-and-evangelicals-compete-to.html

paperclip2

I wonder what the criteria were for incarceration in the laundries and schools. From what I've seen it seems patchy and very dependent on co-operation from the family concerned.
My M-I-L and all her siblings were taken into an industrial school in Kilkenny after her father died and her mother was seen as being 'unable to cope'. She spent about 12 years there and left at the age of 19 to work at a job the nuns secured for her. The time she spent at the school is a period of her life she refuses to speak about which says something in itself.
My F-i-L, on the other hand, was born in the late 1920's/ early 1930's to an unmarried mother in a religious run 'home' in Thomastown. His mother however kept and raised him herself and there never seems to have been any question that she give him up. That must have been a tough time for her in rural Ireland but she did go on to marry a man not her sons father so maybe not everyone subscribed to the taboos.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

I think you need to consider other indicators like the workhouses/asylums that became the Launderies and their work practices preceeded them being taken over by the nuns. Similar non catholic groups also existed, the nuns basically competed with them to take over the running of the workhouses.

And why were the nuns competing - did they just have group meeting and think it a good idea? You don't think there could possibly have been religious reasons for doing so? No suggestion from further up the food chain?

CDfm wrote: »

And that the society that existed post famine that these originated from was very different. and what they were doing was best practice in workhouses in the 1850's and continued in use.

It was not the sole reason but it was a feature of our peasant society.

The workhouse/asylums were essentially part of the welfare system that existed and continued from the 1850's to the 1990's.

I imagine lots of mens homeless hostels are of a similar vintage.

And yet that doesn't quite explain the numbers of complaints the behaviour one particular organisation has had - worldwide.

CDfm wrote: »

The abuse was awful and I dont condone it.

Good because it wouldn't be the first time an irish person has tried denial and deflection in order to try to protect something they hold dear rather than accept the very obvious part played.

CDfm wrote: »

What I am saying is that organisations developed with a service delivery model that changed little after 1850. They were not run by the local bishops but other organisations.

Say you had a social worker who qualified age 22 in 1990 -they would be 43 today. The same with civil servants. These people will have referred people to the launderies.

I've asked why they came to exist - and I've asked why anyone would send any child there. I'm also astonished at the apparent untouchable status those in religious organisations have when it comes to partaking in and covering up abuses. When wealthy and powerful organisations have people in them willing to collude with child abusers all the way up to the top, it's little wonder that the most vulnerable in society have suffered most.

CDfm wrote: »

Look what is happening in the UK

And that looks like nothing more than another of your "feminist" bashing hyperbolic blogs, tbh...

CDfm

[Ickle Magoo;72958586]And why were the nuns competing - did they just have group meeting and think it a good idea? You don't think there could possibly have been religious reasons for doing so? No suggestion from further up the food chain? [/quote]

I am very interested in the history and I dont think it was a hierarchical thing. I think the reasons were more mundane and yes women were decision makers in that sphere. My granny was born in the mid 1890's and became a teacher and her sister was a high powered nun in africa.

Well I think they were highly motivated and very capable women.Look at these two.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72249069&postcount=13

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72792552&postcount=19

Maybe an organisation like the nuns provided them with a vehicle to be ambitious and competitive.

I imagine nuns were role models for the young girls and women that they taught. In Ireland the nuns had a niche as sucessful and powerful in the 19th century peasant society.


Being a nun may also have been like being a profession for bright girls who didnt want to emigrate or marry the hairy arsed farmers son next door.

And yet that doesn't quite explain the numbers of complaints the behaviour one particular organisation has had - worldwide.

I am not trying to explain the complaints and they are a fact. Rather, I am trying to explain how they came to be in charge and the origans of the launderies and their history. The conditions were there at the time for catholic nuns to dominate that area.

In Ireland you had the Ladies Land League suppressed by Parnell even though his sisters ran it and by all accounts more capable than him. You also had women get the vote in local elections around this time and like it or not female religious orders gave some women the resourses to suceed.

It is a fact that the launderies were sucessors to the workhouses and you had a welfare system based on that from 1838 onwards. The practices in the 20th century were based on the workhouses of 1850 and the same welfare system existed in Ireland until 1974.


So what I am saying is that these women were no less capable than men and built their own institutions.



Peasant society Ickle, and when we look at its origans the original founders were quite good people and the alternatives for their client group may have been like the Curragh Wrens



http://www.curragh.info/articles/wrens.htm

Good because it wouldn't be the first time an irish person has tried denial and deflection in order to try to protect something they hold dear rather than accept the very obvious part played.

Its the opposite, and I have posted elsewhere that a schoolfriend was sexually abused by a priest and commited suicide. So I am not defending anyone. I am putting the history forward.

You also have the nuns dominating and training teachers and nurses and women now dominate those professions.

I've asked why they came to exist - and I've asked why anyone would send any child there.

The history explains their origans and the welfare system explains how they continued right thru the 20th century.

I'm also astonished at the apparent untouchable status those in religious organisations have when it comes to partaking in and covering up abuses. When wealthy and powerful organisations have people in them willing to collude with child abusers all the way up to the top, it's little wonder that the most vulnerable in society have suffered most.

Me too. Its beyond me that there were not prosecutions both of the members and civil servants that faciltated them.

And that looks like nothing more than another of your "feminist" bashing hyperbolic blogs, tbh...

I was looking for a less gendered up article that covered secular and religious.

What strikes me from it is the comparison of religious versus secular and how both groups lobby "friendly" politicians. More than a century and a half later we have the same issues and organisations competing in the same way.

And, of course, what controls exist today , if any ?

Ickle Magoo

That's interesting - did catholic nuns really build their own institutions? How did they do that?

I'm also not sure about the point on teachers and nurses - women dominate those professions worldwide, I imagine it's got more to do with being the perceived "carers" or "nurturers" in society than because irish nuns had to set schools because of the lack of interest in a state system, something that continues to this day.

What controls exist today? Good question. I suspect not a lot. The infamous abuses that went on at the hands of the christian brothers (there's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) and nuns in laundries, the Ryan report into nuns and priests endemically raping and beating children up to present day - it's absolutely horrific. And yet, any further investigations have been quashed and a cap put on any compensation to victims with much brushing under carpets and defensive blustering. There are clearly those who were involved in such practices - both directly and indirectly - being protected. :mad:

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What controls exist today? Good question. I suspect not a lot. The infamous abuses that went on at the hands of the christian brothers (there's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) and nuns in laundries, the Ryan report into nuns and priests endemically raping and beating children up to present day - it's absolutely horrific. And yet, any further investigations have been quashed and a cap put on any compensation to victims with much brushing under carpets and defensive blustering. There are clearly those who were involved in such practices - both directly and indirectly - being protected. :mad:

Again I would say this has a lot to do with the Irish way of doing things. The Boston parish took out a class action suit against the perpetrators and the parish itself and the court ordered not only tremendous compensations for for transparancy and releasing of names of those who were guilty of the charges. Of course Boston has the added plus of a more accesible court, being American, seperation of Church and State, and not enconsced in a culture of dont rock the boat silencing.

the Irish government made a deal with the Church and put a cap on compensation, not only that but there is a total lack of transparency in terms of perptrators, incarceration and release into various neighborhoods. Of course we also have Megan's law which Ireland does not have.

My feeling, is that the governement, if it is protecting the Church, is because it was in collusion with it itself and therefore, at the end of the line, when all is said and done, is protecting itself.

There are alot more people who are guilty, neighbors, communities, and parents, who said nothing, who did nothing and allowed it to happen.

Sometimes in Ireland I do wonder... did anyone's parents ever say to them...'If so and so tells you to jump off a a bridge are you going to do it?'

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's interesting - did catholic nuns really build their own institutions? How did they do that?

The Irish Nuns were like an underground religious movement for several hundred years.

It was a huge challenge as no convent had been allowed to exist in Ireland for almost 100 years but they decided to return in 1629 and established their first convent in Cooke Street behind Merchants Quay.
They were not long in Dublin when twelve postulants sought admission. Two years after their arrival the authorities became aware of the existence of the sisters and they were given one month to leave the city. They refused to go back to Nieuport or to their homes. Instead they travelled to Athlone where the Abbess’s brother Sir Luke Dillon gave them lodging.
By the year 1803 the poverty which had caused the closure of the other convents founded from North King Street now threatened the sisters in Dorset Street.
Almost the whole of Europe was now involved in war so prices went up, the value of securities fell and the sisters realised that soon they would not be able to pay the rent on their convent home. It appeared that all they could do was disband and share the common fund so that each could have a modest dowry to enable her to join another religious order.
However in 1803, Dr. Troy the Archbishop of Dublin called to the convent with a suggestion that the sisters take over an orphanage for girls which was then located in Hendrick Street, (near Queen Street, Dublin.) The daughter of one of their benefactors, Miss Maria O' Brien, was responsible for this orphanage but was anxious to hand it over to nuns. The sisters saw this as an answer to their prayers. The girls were in need of a home and the Archbishop petitioned Rome to modify those aspects of the Rule which would be incompatible with the care of orphan girls. This permission was granted in May 1804 by Pope Pius VII. To the three vows of Poverty, Chastity, Obedience, the sisters then added a fourth vow the care of female orphans and children

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72749473&postcount=3

Also Nano Nagle got into saving prostitutes in Cork c1800 - the military and prostitution went hand in hand.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=72764536&postcount=5

I'm also not sure about the point on teachers and nurses - women dominate those professions worldwide, I imagine it's got more to do with being the perceived "carers" or "nurturers" in society than because irish nuns had to set schools because of the lack of interest in a state system, something that continues to this day.

I dunno - but their teaching methods were very effective

Women were able to become teachers without being a nun, as a
result of the convent schools, so the need for nuns was reduced. In 1861, Catholic and
Protestant female teachers combined totaled 8900. That same year, there were only 2909
nuns. However, among Catholic women, nuns were most prominent by the start of the
20th century. There were 8887 nuns and 8500 female Catholic teachers in 1911, showing
the continuous growth in education that was to come.

http://dspace.mic.ul.ie/bitstream/10...%20Records.PDF

Nuns in Irish Education in the 19th Century
Chrissy Records
History of Irish Education

What controls exist today? Good question. I suspect not a lot.

I suspect you are right.

The infamous abuses that went on at the hands of the christian brothers (there's a contradiction in terms if ever there was one) and nuns in laundries, the Ryan report into nuns and priests endemically raping and beating children up to present day - it's absolutely horrific.......... and defensive blustering.

Anyway - all I wanted to do here was to correct the history because in the 19th century Irish nuns were very progressive and leaders in education, nursing and social welfare.

Ickle Magoo

Well, commentary on the 19th century is all very interesting and all but since the abuses went on up to the date the Ryan commission investigated and laundries were open until 1996, I'm not sure that really answers the questions I was asking.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well, commentary on the 19th century is all very interesting and all but since the abuses went on up to the date the Ryan commission investigated and laundries were open until 1996, I'm not sure that really answers the questions I was asking.

Thats really mean Ickle - I correct your history and you fling it back in my face like a greasy dishcloth :eek:.

I think it is fairly obvious that I admire some of these 19th century Irish Women. Originally, these institutions were funded by charitable donation and . They were autonomous from the church hierarchy and they grew in the 20th century.

By 1970 the nuns were actually at their stongest in Ireland with 13,000 members. However, the state did not control or appear to fund the launderies other than the use of 1 in Sean McDermott Street as a remand centre.

Here is a brief summary from Dail Questions

Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Question 443: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the measures his Department has taken to protect the constitutional rights of the women and children held in the Magdalene laundries. [15723/11]



Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)
I propose to take Question Nos. 437, 438 and 443 together.
It is my understanding that ten institutions were operated by four religious congregations. They were established to provide a “refuge” or place of asylum for vulnerable women. The laundries were established within the institutions to provide the funding for the operation of the refuges. They were privately run institutions and publically available records do not provide any type of comprehensive account of the conditions in which they operated.
One such institution was used for a period for female remand prisoners pursuant to the 1960 Criminal Justice Act. While I have no information at this time of a provision whereby women giving birth to a second child outside marriage at a mother and baby home could be transferred directly to a Magdalen institution, I believe however that it is essential to fully establish the true facts and circumstances relating to these institutions. To this end, the Deputy will be aware that the Government decided on a number of actions following its meeting yesterday.

Does this answer the above question?
Yes! 0 people think so!
No! 0 people think not!


Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Question 439: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality if the State paid capitation grants to Magdalene laundries for the confinement of problem girls. [15703/11]



Mary Lou McDonald (Dublin Central, Sinn Fein)
Question 440: To ask the Minister for Justice and Equality the reason the State never inspected, licensed or certified the Magdalene laundries as approved institutions despite providing public moneys in the form of capitation grants to the institutions. [15704/11]



Alan Shatter (Minister, Department of Justice, Equality and Defence; Dublin South, Fine Gael)
I propose to take Questions Nos. 439 and 440 together.
The Department of Justice and Equality did not pay any general capitation grants to Magdalen laundries for the confinement of problem girls. An arrangement was made with one institution, St Mary Magdalen’s Asylum, Lower Sean McDermott Street, Dublin 1., pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act 1960 for its use as a remand centre for young women who were aged between 16 and 21 years of age who were charged with criminal offences. Arrangements were made to ensure that those remanded were to have same rights and privileges as provided for remand prisoners in the 1947 Prison Rules Part III, and that they would be visited from time to time by a Probation Officer and by the Superintendent of Prisons. However I cannot confirm what visits were made. From the limited records available, I understand that payments were made in respect of persons so remanded. It appears that as regards this institution payments were also made for persons referred there under the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. An inter Departmental committee is being set up to establish the full extent of State involvement with Magdalen institutions.


http://www.kildarestreet.com/wrans/?id=2011-06-15.1855.0

It is claimed that the inmates who were there were their voluntarily.

UN committee hears ‘vast majority’ of women entered Magdalene Laundries voluntarily or with consent

24/05/11 1,004 Views 28 Comments
Share38 Tweet11
UN Plaza in Geneva, where the committee hearings took place yesterday and today.

Image: munksynz via Creative Commons

THE DEPARTMENT of Justice has told the UN that, as far as it is aware, the vast majority of women who went to Magdalene Laundries run by Catholic institutions in Ireland “went there voluntarily or, if they were minors, with the consent of their parents or guardians”.
Today was the second day Ireland appeared at the UN hearings to discuss how it is implementing the provisions of the UN Convention against Torture.
Speaking on behalf of the Department of Justice, the department’s secretary general Sean Aylward told the UN’s Committee Against Torture that because the alleged events happened “in most cases” a long time ago in privately-run instutitions, information is limited.
The committee had asked how the Irish government intends to provide justice for women who were held in the Magdalene Laundries.
Aylward said that the only situation where women were ordered to be detained at the centres by law related to just one institution in Dublin, which was used as a remand centre and subject to inspection by the state. He said the government has not found any evidence to date of a complaint of mistreatment of women remanded there.
He said that the Irish government is considering “how best to resolve the issues raised by the women”, particularly as some of the organisations which ran the laundries still exist. Aylward said the government would be making a decision “on this matter in a matter of weeks”.
The Justice for Magdalenes group had submitted a report to the UN committee claiming that the “Irish state was complicit in the incarceration of women and girls” in the laundries, where the women worked without pay. It also said that the state dealt commercially with the laundries without inspecting them.
The group says that while the laundries were in operation between 1922 and 1996, an estimated tens of thousands of women and girls “were imprisoned, forced to carry out unpaid labour and subjected to severe psychological and physical maltreatment”.
It also accused the government of failing to “promptly and impartially investigate” the allegations made against the laundries.


http://www.thejournal.ie/un-committee-hears-vast-majority-of-women-entered-magdalene-laundries-voluntarily-or-with-consent-143108-May2011/

The state also did not carry out any inspections of boarding schools either.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

Thats really mean Ickle - I correct your history and you fling it back in my face like a greasy dishcloth :eek:.

Sorry, I shoulda at least cleaned it first. Anyway, you should easily side-step it.

My questions really stem from my experiences - which were with RCC nuns in the 1970's, in another country - so clearly throwing around stats about random religious orders in the 1800's really isn't going to be relevant - although I'm not being sarcastic, it is interesting.

As far as I know the lands, the buildings are owned by the RCC - these aren't buildings that are owned by pockets of independent religious orders of nuns - much like the schools. I just find it hard to believe that the Ryan commission can find endemic child abuse by priests, there appear to have been endemic abuses in the laundries and yet it's apparently no fault of those that have moved around abusers, covered up and hidden those abuses...and own the buildings and land the abuses were carried out on.

While the state is clearly responsible for not carrying out checks and shirking their duties when it comes to providing state care and educational facilities (as guilty now as they were then) - I'm interested in why and how the people that claim to be a moral compass ended up being such hideous hypocrites - and why, if there is no hierarchy and no fault from anyone else in the food-chain, why the hierarchy has also been implicated.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

My questions really stem from my experiences - which were with RCC nuns in the 1970's, in another country - so clearly throwing around stats about random religious orders in the 1800's really isn't going to be relevant - although I'm not being sarcastic, it is interesting.

I thought the subject deserved it. Hanna Sheehy Skeffington

So what type of women were the nuns - their leaders and backgrounds may have been similar to her and she was an intelligent woman whom I admire.

Hanna attended school at the nearby Dominican Covent, Eccles Street, which had been founded in 1883, and was committed to achieving high academic standards. Hanna was a prize-winning pupil. When she completed her secondary education in 1896, she enrolled as a student at St. Mary’s University College, a third level college for young women established by the Dominicans in 1893. Women were not permitted to attend lectures at either University College Dublin or Trinity College, but they were allowed to sit the same examinations as the male students. Hanna took a B.A. in French and German in 1899, and in 1902 was awarded an MA, with First Class Honours. Subsequently she got part-time work as a teacher in Eccles Street. It was difficult for women who were not nuns to obtain employment as full-time teachers in Catholic schools.

http://www.nli.ie/pdfs/mss%20lists/047_SheehySkeffington.pdf

So Hanna was an activist and a product of their educational system.

So how does that translate to today.
As far as I know the lands, the buildings are owned by the RCC - these aren't buildings that are owned by pockets of independent religious orders of nuns - much like the schools. I just find it hard to believe that the Ryan commission can find endemic child abuse by priests, there appear to have been endemic abuses in the laundries and yet it's apparently no fault of those that have moved around abusers, covered up and hidden those abuses...and own the buildings and land the abuses were carried out on.

Property ownership of local schools were vested in the Diosecean Trustees but in this case I would not be so sure that religious orders did that.

Schools were normally held by incumbrant Parish Priests and members of the parish for the benefit of the congregation of the parish and even when held by such trustees the cant use them as their own as they belong to the congregation of the parishes. Its like a company van someone uses but does not own.

That is probably not the case here as the religious communities involved are autonomous.

While the state is clearly responsible for not carrying out checks and shirking their duties when it comes to providing state care and educational facilities (as guilty now as they were then) - I'm interested in why and how the people that claim to be a moral compass ended up being such hideous hypocrites - and why, if there is no hierarchy and no fault from anyone else in the food-chain, why the hierarchy has also been implicated.

I did a quick check and there is a process called "transactional analysis" that is often used in international economics. Like Germany's support for the Greek bailout and the UK's support of ours is based on that.

So where do you see these Religious Orders operating today. The idea being that you gauge an organisations power by its affiliations and "transactions".

Some of the orders are the owners of the Mater and St Vincents Hospitals and Mary I College Limerick and these recieve state funding

HSE gave €87m since 2006 to Magdalene nuns




PATSY McGARRY, Religious Affairs Correspondent
THE HSE has provided € 87 million in the past five years to three of the four religious congregations that ran the Magdalene laundries between 1922 and 1996, according to Minister for Health Dr James O’Reilly.
He disclosed the figure in response to a question from Sinn Féin’s Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin.
He found it “astonishing” and said it contrasted “sharply with the State’s treatment of the women imprisoned in these institutions, who received no pay for their years of work, are in receipt of no pension and were excluded from the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme”.
If the State could “pay € 20 million per year to the orders who ran the laundries, it can certainly give the women who survived them their due”, he said.
In 2006 the Sisters of Mercy, the Sisters of Charity and the Good Shepherd Sisters received a total of €5.8 million from the HSE for health services provided.
That rose to €19.6 million in 2007, to €20.09 million in 2008, €20.4 million in 2009, and was €19.68 million in 2010. Absent from the HSE list are the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, who also ran Magdalene laundries.
The Mater hospital in Dublin is run by the Sisters of Mercy while St Vincent’s is a Sisters of Charity hospital. The Sisters of Mercy are also key providers of education in the State with involvement in more than 60 pre-schools, primary schools and secondary schools.
They have associations with four community schools and long involvement with Mary Immaculate College in Limerick

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0621/1224299311767.html

Do the hospitals & colleges train people and have political or union affiliation.

One of the best known Sisters Of Charity Nuns is Sister Stan

Who Is Stanislaus Kennedy?


Brendan Kennelly with Sister Stan
Sr. Stanislaus Kennedy, or Sr. Stan as she is affectionately known, is a visionary and social innovator and a member of the congregation of Religious Sisters of Charity since 1958.
The Religious Sisters of Charity, formerly known as the Irish Sisters of Charity, was founded by Mary Aikenhead in Ireland in 1815. Mary Aikenhead was a Cork woman, who seeing the social, economic, educational and spiritual deprivation all around her in early nineteenth century Ireland, agreed to found an order of religious women whose mission was to work with and on behalf of people who were poor.


Moving to Dublin in the early 1980’s Sr Stan tackled one of Ireland’s most neglected social inequalities – homelessness. In 1985 Sr Stan established Focus Point which is now Focus Ireland, the biggest national, voluntary organisation helping people to find, create and maintain a home.
In 2000 Sr Stan founded the Sanctuary, a meditation/spirituality centre in the heart of Dublin city, a place where people can find a quiet space and time for themselves to explore and develop their inner world and wisdom.
In 2001 Sr Stan established Social Innovations Ireland (SII) out of which has grown two new initiatives, the Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI), an independent national organisation working to promote the rights of immigrants through information, advocacy and legal aid and the Young Social Innovators of the Year (YSI), a national showcase providing an opportunity for transition year students to become involved in social issues.

And Sister Stan set up the Immigrant Council of Ireland who recieve govt funding to act as advocates for immigrants

http://www.immigrantcouncil.ie/services/overview

Overview

Thursday, 02 September 2010
Who We Are


ICI Chief Executive Denise Charlton.

The Immigrant Council of Ireland (ICI) is an independent human rights organisation. We advocate for the rights of migrants and their families and act as a catalyst for public debate as well as legislative and policy change.

The ICI is an Independent Law Centre, which means we can provide legal representation to migrants and their families. We undertake strategic litigation in order to try to effect change.

We also provide a Racist Incident Support and Referral Service, undertake work in the area of integration, conduct policy and campaign work and provide a training service.

The ICI also provides a Specialist Immigration Advocacy Service for vulnerable migrants and those who have experienced human rights abuses in Ireland, such as victims of sex trafficking, people who have experienced domestic violence and children.

Our Information and Referral Service deals with more than 10,000 enquiries about Ireland’s immigration system each year.

So how would you tackle it and analyse the lack of action ???

Now I am not implying anything as I do not know enough about the area but I grew up in the era of the launderies and knew nothing about them. Have the usual advocates for women seem to have been silent. Is that a fair assessment ?

Cicero

Stheno wrote: »

Back on topic??? Do you believe they played any type of role in influencing what women could or could not children, and therefore influenced society eugenically?

.you use the word "influence" - that's a tad strong considering society as a whole back then and the "adherence" to the Catholic faith at that time.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

So how would you tackle it and analyse the lack of action ???

Now I am not implying anything as I do not know enough about the area but I grew up in the era of the launderies and knew nothing about them. Have the usual advocates for women seem to have been silent. Is that a fair assessment ?

What would you call the ICA, or NWCI, VOICES or globally active human rights advocates such as Mary Robinson? We are talking about an island nation synonymous with sexual repression, conservatism and treating women like second-class citizens. I'd imagine women's rights advocacy was as late to reach ireland as everything else was.

It's funny, now that all the stories have come out, despite people knowing where to send their fallen daughters it seems that beyond a brave few prepared to stand up and own up, they were apparently run in secret. I have older in-laws who have admitted they knew they existed, and even admitted that jokes about abusive priests and sending girls away were fairly common-place - but it's not something they would own up to publicly. Perhaps it's the national carpet sweeping and denial of the culture of extreme religious reverence and buying into the whole religious shame game that's allowing the government to desist puting victims of the laundries on the statute books as deserving of compensation?

metrovelvet

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What would you call the ICA, or NWCI, VOICES or globally active human rights advocates such as Mary Robinson? We are talking about an island nation synonymous with sexual repression, conservatism and treating women like second-class citizens. I'd imagine women's rights advocacy was as late to reach ireland as everything else was.

It's funny, now that all the stories have come out, despite people knowing where to send their fallen daughters it seems that beyond a brave few prepared to stand up and own up, they were apparently run in secret. I have older in-laws who have admitted they knew they existed, and even admitted that jokes about abusive priests and sending girls away were fairly common-place - but it's not something they would own up to publicly. Perhaps it's the national carpet sweeping and denial of the culture of extreme religious reverence and buying into the whole religious shame game that's allowing the government to desist puting victims of the laundries on the statute books as deserving of compensation?

It looks to me like Ireland doesnt want to take a good ugly look at its own human rights records. Not to go too off topic, but seriously, when I get the lectures from Irish people about Guantanamo Bay, I have to remind them that at leat in Guantanamo they have toilets, which is mroe than Mountjoy has, where they have to slop out. Isn't it much more fun to point the finger at everyone else?

The Laundries, the Industrial Schools, the Christian Brothers, wow...how has there NOT been a human rights, public Nuremburg style trial on these atrocities? Seriously, how has Ireland gotten away with it?

It was the Irish Taliban, that is for sure.

People let it happen because people lived in fear, and that legacy has not gone away, I still see alot of living in fear around these parts.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

What would you call the ICA, or NWCI, VOICES or globally active human rights advocates such as Mary Robinson?

i cannot remember any such campaigns in the 70's 80's and 90's and who is picketing the Mater Hospital today ????

You just gotta ask what those organisations or individuals thought when it was going on and did any act.

I am surprised they existed until the 1990's.

We are talking about an island nation synonymous with sexual repression, conservatism and treating women like second-class citizens. I'd imagine women's rights advocacy was as late to reach ireland as everything else was.

Peasant society is a bit like that ?

And there were a large amount of organisations dealing pregnancy at that time -like this one.

http://www.cura.ie/

And in the 1980's you bought your condoms from the womens family planning clinics.

Referal by social workers, attendence at doctors clinics and hospitals,nurses etc.

Lots of people "knew"

It's funny, now that all the stories have come out, despite people knowing where to send their fallen daughters ......... Perhaps it's the national carpet sweeping and denial of the culture of extreme religious reverence and buying into the whole religious shame game that's allowing the government to desist puting victims of the laundries on the statute books as deserving of compensation?

I cannot see how the government is responsible for women getting pregnant or owing compensation for it - in the same way I cant see members of the hari krishnas who leave getting compensation for unpaid work.

So a group of unscrupulous people took advantage of others for unpaid labour and called it saving their souls and this provided the first group with their livliehood.

You dont need the involvement of a male hierarchy to do that .

EDIT

A nice link here btw and it does mention that the launderies negotiated exemptions under the Factory and Workplaces Acts so surely these exemptions were lobbied for and government departments and the trade union movement had some involvement. It suggests that the launderies closed due to unprofitability.

http://books.google.com/books?id=GIRJkAbmaiEC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Kathys story controversy

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/20/booksnews.ireland

Edit - The history stuff I know but I am shaky on the recent "history" so there may be things i am interpreting incorrectly.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

i cannot remember any such campaigns in the 70's 80's and 90's and who is picketing the Mater Hospital today ????

You just gotta ask what those organisations or individuals thought when it was going on and did any act.

I am surprised they existed until the 1990's.

We're talking about a country which banned it's women from having control of their own reproduction until well into those decades - I have to say baring that in mind, I'm not that surprised.

As for who is picketing the mater - I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Do you have idea on figures working behind the scenes or are you making assumptions on a head-count at a placard waving event?

CDfm wrote: »

Peasant society is a bit like that ?

And there were a large amount of organisations dealing pregnancy at that time -like this one.

http://www.cura.ie/

And in the 1980's you bought your condoms from the womens family planning clinics.

Referal by social workers, attendence at doctors clinics and hospitals,nurses etc.

Lots of people "knew"

In 1979, Mr Haughey introduced the Contraceptives Bill - which meant women could get a prescription for the pill if they could convince their [often conservatively religious] GP they required regulation of their menstrual cycle. Condoms were legal as long as they were for "bona fide family planning measures"...so even into the 80's, the Irish state was trying to control how and when adults had sex. Was that on a whim or do you think it could have anything to do with the crushing influence of religion in every sphere of life at that time?

CDfm wrote: »

I cannot see how the government is responsible for women getting pregnant or owing compensation for it - in the same way I cant see members of the hari krishnas who leave getting compensation for unpaid work.

So a group of unscrupulous people took advantage of others for unpaid labour and called it saving their souls and this provided the first group with their livliehood.

You dont need the involvement of a male hierarchy to do that .

But you certainly do require a political system that wishes to control women's reproduction systems in collusion with extreme religious views on sex and abortion that drives that control in order to provide the kind of environment where laundries would have any use and would be considered an acceptable way of dealing with pregnancy in unwed women.

I presume you have also come across the cases whereby those who managed to escape the clutches and had every right to leave, were dragged back by the authorities? Or the state judiciary courtrooms which sentenced women to time in these places. The state and the oppressive religious atmosphere of the time are inextricably linked to how and why these places operated - I don't think that can possibly be denied.

CDfm wrote: »

A nice link here btw and it does mention that the launderies negotiated exemptions under the Factory and Workplaces Acts so surely these exemptions were lobbied for and government departments and the trade union movement had some involvement. It suggests that the launderies closed due to unprofitability.

They "negotiated" exemptions - the same way they negotiated that only the Dublin archdiocese be investigated or a cap be put on compensation payments? I guess that's what happens in a country where the tail all too frequently wags the dog - the same issue that created the laundries and christian brother institutes in the first place.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

We're talking about a country which banned it's women from having control of their own reproduction until well into those decades - I have to say baring that in mind, I'm not that surprised.

It also banned its men from buying condoms and like it or not it is a democracy.

In 1979, Mr Haughey introduced the Contraceptives Bill - which meant women could get a prescription for the pill if they could convince their [often conservatively religious] GP they required regulation of their menstrual cycle. Condoms were legal as long as they were for "bona fide family planning measures"...

In my home town you could buy condoms in the local chipper without a presrcription

As for who is picketing the mater - I'm not sure what that has to do with anything? Do you have idea on figures working behind the scenes or are you making assumptions on a head-count at a placard waving event?

The same religious order that owns the Mater owned ran a Magdelene Laundry.

So if you are saying it is a matter of corporate responsibility then that would be a start, do you agree ?

And, it seems to be the Sinn Fein line.

so even into the 80's, the Irish state was trying to control how and when adults had sex. Was that on a whim or do you think it could have anything to do with the crushing influence of religion in every sphere of life at that time?

Politicians were trying to get elected -which is what politicians do.

But you certainly do require a political system that wishes to control women's reproduction systems in collusion with extreme religious views on sex and abortion that drives that control in order to provide the kind of environment where laundries would have any use and would be considered an acceptable way of dealing with pregnancy in unwed women.

I do not know enough about a policy to control womens reproductive rights and there may have been.

There certainly seems to be a powerful and well connected group protecting the nuns now.

I presume you have also come across the cases whereby those who managed to escape the clutches and had every right to leave, were dragged back by the authorities? The state and the oppressive religious atmosphere of the time are inextricably linked to how and why these places operated - I don't think that can possibly be denied.

I havent seen those as the info is very patchy and of varying quality.

Or the state judiciary courtrooms which sentenced women to time in these places.

Were they used as prisons as Alan Shatter says they were used for remand only ?

I am not saying they were not by the way, nor would it surprise me.

They "negotiated" exemptions - the same way they negotiated that only the Dublin archdiocese be investigated or a cap be put on compensation payments?

I think the compensation arrangements cap was due to public service professional misconduct as under the terms of the agreement and avoiding an admission of professional misconduct by the state.

Now that was a bright negotiating decision that backfired.

I guess that's what happens in a country where the tail all too frequently wags the dog - the same issue that created the laundries and christian brother institutes in the first place.

The issue with the launderies is very simple - groups of women found ways of having an easy life on the slave labour of other women.

What issue do you mean ?

The facts I see are that pre-1973 there was not a welfare system for single mums ,if a lady herself or her family could not (or would not) afford the child then the harsh reality was the Magdelene Laundry or the boat to England were the options.

The population was largely Roman Catholic and not sophisticated as a largely agrarian society with peasant values and where the first pupils were going thru secondary school to the Leaving Cert.

So you cannot judge the people by todays standards as they were uneducated.

Ickle Magoo

I'm not sure you understood my point about women having power over their own reproductive systems - men being banned from buying condoms has nothing to do with women having power over their own reproductive systems. Men were not put into laundries for getting women pregnant, no, women were incarcerated for the crime of getting themselves pregnant out-with marriage.

So, hang on, now we cannot judge by today's standards yet a post earlier you are claiming astonishment that they were open until the 1990's? A little consistency in your denials, would be nice.

Rather than nothing more than the bizarre notion it was all down to tiny pockets of female sadists in complete isolation; the rather obvious reality [and I'm not referring to hundreds of years ago, I'm talking about within living memory] was a country so gripped by religious fervour that the state and your average person had been convinced - or were too afraid of the social castigation should they speak up and argue otherwise - that a single mother was such a sinful disgrace that they weren't entitled to keep their children and raise them by themselves. The same fervour that allowed abusive priests to be knowingly moved around from parish to parish free to abuse, christian brothers raping and beating, nuns abusing and enslaving - what is the common theme? Is it gender? No. The church told the state that contraception, sex/sex out-with marriage and abortion was evil and the state meekly nodded.

There is no merit to the odious argument drawn on gender-lines other than acknowledging the horrendously draconian views on women, sex and sex out-with marriage that is standard fare with the conservatively religious. A conservatively religious that had been/IS handed far too much power to control implementation and discussion of law and presume duties that should have been handled by the state. It was the unquestioning position of authority given to those by privy of wearing the cloth and nothing more, who had no qualifications or accountability that allowed generations of abuses and ireland to carry the shameful human rights record that it does - a disgraceful state of affairs that still goes on today; as the only western country that would possibly introduce a blasphemy law in 2010 and have an education system in contravention of the human rights charter, would attest...ironically, still being driven by, yes, you guessed it - religious interference in state affairs.

CDfm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm not sure you understood my point about women having power over their own reproductive systems

I just dont understand where this has arrived in from in relation to my posts.

I agree with this and have an 18 y/o daughter who I have "manchats" with the same way I do with her 20 y/o brother.

So, hang on, now we cannot judge by today's standards yet a post earlier you are claiming astonishment that they were open until the 1990's? A little consistency in your denials, would be nice.

What I am saying is that from a society point of view Irish society lacked sophistication and the majority completed primary education as opposed to today where a leaving cert is the minimum standard.

I dont see that in anyway controvercial by the way. It just is.

Rather than nothing more than the bizarre notion it was all down to tiny pockets of female sadists in complete isolation; the rather obvious reality [and I'm not referring to hundreds of years ago, ........? No. The church told the state that contraception, sex/sex out-with marriage and abortion was evil and the state meekly nodded.

This bit I have a problem with in the Church telling the state - my grandfather was in 1916 and the war of independence and these guys did not get told anything. It was his type of guy that provided the politicians.

Thats why I do not agree with your analysis.

The facts point towards religious orders providing a welfare system where the state did not and the Magdelene Launderies being part of that. How the orders did that was unconsionable.

There is no merit to the odious argument drawn on gender-lines other than acknowledging the horrendously draconian views on women,........ as the only western country that would possibly introduce a blasphemy law in 2010 and have an education system in contravention of the human rights charter, would attest...ironically, still being driven by, yes, you guessed it - religious interference in state affairs.

I don't look at it that way & parts of what you say about it is true but Ireland was not a developed country and in the 19th century where these organisations and institutions originated from the Irish population ranked as the poorest in europe -the majority being poorer than eastern european serfs.

And I feel you are getting hung up with the religion part when what was happening is a standard feature of post industrial society and Ireland should not be compared with any European developed economy/society from that era because it was not one.

I am not trying to excuse it -but find it easier to understand in terms of motivation Theories like McGregor. Nuns were highly educated not only amongst women but also when compared to men ( I had relatives now dead who were nuns and who had degrees including a doctor when others did not)

http://www.businessballs.com/mcgregor.htm

I do not know - but I am inclined to the view that they operated as any elite would.

Now ,fair enough if it was a male dominated society , but I find it hard to be persuaded by your arguments even though I believe the launderies and industrial schools were awful and their owners and operators and others should be prosecuted and jailed.

metrovelvet

Yeah we get it. Ireland was a peasant, uneducated, feudal, white third world country. That does not make it OK, no where near to making it ok. It still has the human rights record of an Islamic state, or should have. Only the world pays attention to what Islamic women went through, and what they are going through.

Somehow, Ireland has escaped the same criticisim, even of itself, perhaps because it is a white nation? Perhaps because it likes to focus everything on its own victimisation [800 years by the brits], instead of its own theo-fascism,and violence?

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

I just dont understand where this has arrived in from in relation to my posts.

Well, being a lady having a discussion in the ladies lounge - the topic of interest to me was how such things affected ladies - not whether men were banned from purchasing condoms. Why you thought that a pertinent response to my post is anyone's guess.

I think ALL those who participated in the abuses in ireland should be prosecuted. That means going wider than just irish nuns though - that's the bit you are determinedly failing to grasp.

A standard feature of post-industrial society? Where? Oddly only predominantly by one religion, on a global scale...I think that is an important point to get hung up on.

Ickle Magoo

CDfm wrote: »

Now ,fair enough if it was a male dominated society...

Just on this point, I find it staggering that you can't even acknowledge what is widely accepted as an overtly religious/pious patriarchal society which led to un-married mothers being incarcerated while un-married fathers went about their lives, the pill arriving in ireland 20+ years behind it's nearest neighbour and the need for abused irish women to take their case to the UN to try to shame the current irish government out of their collective stupor when it comes to anything to do with abuses carried out by religious bodies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/world/europe/25iht-abuse25.html?_r=4

CDfm

I didn't do any of it Ickle. And, I did see a side of life growing up where girls who were pregnant were taken into people's homes and it is a huge suprise to me that the Magdelene Laundries existed until 1996. Like "Wow".

I do not know a huge amount about it and only posted on the thread because of an overlap with stuff I was looking at in history. And on the history side you get sources and check them rather than make assumptions. So I am not trying to make any gender points and apologise if it came accross that way.

Ickle Magoo

Thanks for posting the historical stuff, CDfm, as I said earlier it is really interesting - if not also thoroughly depressing.

While the last laundry closing in 1996 is most definitely a :eek: and a . The worst part undoubtedly is - had it not been for a religious order trying to cash in on the property boom in the 90's leading to the chance discovery of 155 bodies and the subsequent scandal that went global, there might still be laundries in ireland. That's why all the blustering about historical failings falls so short of being even a half-decent explanation. The Ryan Commission, The Murphy Report - all reporting systemic abuses, senior members of An Garda Síochána considering priests and nuns out-with their scope of investigation. It makes for grim reading, right up to present day.

I'm livid that the government of this country failed some of the most vulnerable in society by steadfastly refusing to take on their responsibilities; whether that be lacking a welfare system, lacking a state education system, lacking state healthcare even. They seem to have been perfectly happy to shrug off all duty of care to these unqualified and self-serving, self-appointed "moral" authorities when it suited them - and yet have completely absolved themselves of any blame that people then suffered the atrocities that took place within such establishments.

I sincerely wish those seeking justice get it - and if that means that every diocese, establishment and link to the state gets thoroughly investigated under the beady eye of the UN and in the full media spot-light of the rest of the world, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

Nhead

Good essay here looking at the origins of the laundries up to the 1990s (well endnoted and researched) with the facts backing up Metro on the idea of the laundries being worse under the Freestate and the Republic. Some horrific stuff. Long but worth the read. Starts on pg 119

http://books.google.ie/books?id=dsjIXDj4XZYC&pg=PA142&dq=Smith,+J.M.+2004.+The+Politics+of+Sexual+Knowledge:+The+Origins+of+Ireland%E2%80%99s+Containment&hl=en&ei=X1YKTqSeKou3hAeQw7j3Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAQ#

drkpower

Appalling as the Laundries were (and they were that), the present question is whether the state should compensate them. While they certainly should seek to take every penny from the institutions (predominantly responsible) foir their horrific abuse, I'm not sure that the state should contribute anything other than a nominal sum.

While the previous deals struck between church & state might suggest that the state should pay compensation for the ills carried out (predominantly) by other parties, that was a bad deal, and attempts to follow it or use it as precedent would not be wise.

metrovelvet

The other thing too about compensation is that the responsibility/culpability extends beyond the clergy and state, and to the population itself, the parents who put their daughters their, the neighbors who sneered and judged. The whole nation was guilty.

CDfm

drkpower wrote: »

While the previous deals struck between church & state might suggest that the state should pay compensation for the ills carried out (predominantly) by other parties, that was a bad deal, and attempts to follow it or use it as precedent would not be wise.

I think that is the key here. These women were not in state care except for those placed on remand due to prison issues.

Maybe I am wrong , but I am reading a lot of anti-religion comments on what otherwise should be criminal or civil cases against the orders who ran the launderies and in some cases the state and individual civil servants etc. This does not help and the individuals should be vigorously prosecuted like now.

drkpower

CDfm wrote: »

I think that is the key here. These women were not in state care except for those placed on remand due to prison issues.

Maybe I am wrong , but I am reading a lot of anti-religion comments on what otherwise should be criminal or civil cases against the orders who ran the launderies and in some cases the state and individual civil servants etc. This does not help and the individuals should be vigorously prosecuted like now.

In fairness, I dont think you cant cleanly and surgically extract the religoon angle out of this situation. Sure, this could have taken place if a secular organiusation ran the laundries; sure, this could have taken place if a state organiusation ran the laundries. But it didnt; it took place in a religious run institution and the internal justification for the abhorrent treatment of these women was at least partly (and i would suggest greatly) due to a particular moral & religious view of their moral culpability.

The individuals responsible should be pursued; but so should the institution.

CDfm

I look at it a bit differently. You have lots of good people who are religious and who may be turned off supporting what they would see as an anti-religion campaign/rant.

They are the people that need persuading and not me because I believe there should be criminal prosecutions and civil suits.

It is fairly clear to me here that these launderies were essentially businesses run for profit and when they ceased to be profitable they were closed. In my mind , that well and truly kicks any welfare motive in to touch and the workplace legislation exemptions allowed them operate for longer.

I do not think religion or whatever is the issue and it gets in the way. In Ireland the religious orders are well connected and influencial. How many teachers & teacher TD's were trained by them and nurses and so on. Look ar the hospitals they own and run. That is the measure of their influence.

We should want them prosecuted because what they did was wrong and they knew it.

I may be wrong but thats how I see it.