magdalene laundry question

clairefontaine

Hi,

With the recent reports I am wondering if slavery was legal at the time in Ireland?

And if it was has it ever been rescinded off the books?

SB2013

Generally something is legal if there is no legislation against it. So slavery can't be taken off the books as such because it is not in a book.

The most relevent piece of legislation afaik is Section 15 NFOAP

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1997/en/act/pub/0026/sec0015.html#sec15

clairefontaine

So technically it is still legal in Ireland because there is no law against it?

SB2013

clairefontaine wrote: »

So technically it is still legal in Ireland because there is no law against it?

It would really depend on the exact circumstances. There are many pieces of legislation that would affect it. But i would think it would fall under the definition of false imprisonment if someone was prevented from leaving such an institution in some way.

seamus

To be the best of my knowledge, slavery still isn't explicitly legal in Ireland. However the legislation which governs working time, fair rates of pay, not to mention criminal law in relation to unlawful detention and assault, make slavery effectively illegal in Ireland.

However as has been pointed out in recent times by human rights groups there are still legal grey areas where a person can be coerced and intimidated into working long unfavourable hours for little pay and living in poor quality accommodation provided by the employer. Which while not exactly "slavery" in the traditional sense, is a modern-day equivalent.

Don't know about the laws at the time, but a lot of the reports indicate that whenever someone would ask about payment or rest periods in the laundries, they'd either be shipped home or shipped off somewhere else. This means that there probably were some laws in relation to payment and treatment of workers, but the authorities turned a blind eye to it and the workers in these laundries would not have the education to know their rights.

Kosseegan

Slavery was abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which is still in force.

ResearchWill

Kosseegan wrote: »

Slavery was abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which is still in force.

Yup still in force as of end of last year, http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/CLASSIFIED%20LIST%20OF%20LEGISLATION%20(ACTS-IN-FORCE)%20IN%20IRELAND%20VERSION%206%20DATED%20NOVEMBER%202012.pdf

Also this matter would be covered by the Constitution Artice 40 4. 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.

Slavery also outlawed in Ireland under the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003, covered by Article 4 of the Convention.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf

"ARTICLE 4
Prohibition of slavery and forced labour
1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.
3. For the purpose of this Article the term “forced or compulsory labour” shall not include:
(a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed according to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention;
(b) any service of a military character or, in case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service;
(c) any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the com-munity;
(d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations."

clairefontaine

Kosseegan wrote: »

Slavery was abolished by the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which is still in force.

So surely there should be prosecutions for the laundries?

ResearchWill

clairefontaine wrote: »

So surely there should be prosecutions for the laundries?

First there needs to be a complainant, then an investigation, and then only if there is evidence a prosecution. I have heard of no complaints.

Grolschevik

clairefontaine wrote: »

So surely there should be prosecutions for the laundries?

For a prosecution to be successful, it would have to be proven that it constituted slavery.

Dandelion6

Forced labour is not criminal in Ireland, unless it falls under the definition of trafficking. The Migrant Rights Centre have been running a campaign on this for a while. The government's argument is that the definition of trafficking may be broad enough to encompass all types of forced labour, but that hasn't been tested in court.

clairefontaine

ResearchWill wrote: »

First there needs to be a complainant, then an investigation, and then only if there is evidence a prosecution. I have heard of no complaints.

So no one has actually made a complaint? :eek:

ResearchWill

clairefontaine wrote: »

So no one has actually made a complaint? :eek:

I am assuming not, based only on the fact that i have read no reports of such complaint.

Peregrinus

It’s not clear that slavery was ever lawful in Ireland (or England) in modern times, even when it was lawful in British possessions elsewhere. There aren’t a lot of court cases on this, simply because very few people were kept as slaves. There are plenty of cases in which judges expressed opinions along the lines that a slave brought into England was automatically freed, and the Irish courts – had the issue ever arisen – would probably have followed the English authorities.

But, given that slavery is unlawful, that would only mean that the people who ran the convents didn’t own the inmates. Since they never claimed to own the inmates, that doesn’t get you very far.

The issue would come up, in theory, if an inmate went to court to seek release from the convent or if, having left the convent, an inmate sued for damages for false imprisonment (alleging that she had been restrained from leaving) and, in either case, the defendants pleaded that the inmate had no right to leave because she was a slave. Realistically, that plea would never have been made. We may consider the inmates to have been slaves, but neither the inmates themselves nor the nuns who ran the convent thought so.

There could certainly be prosecutions for assault, false imprisonment, etc, provided you had surviving victims to make a complaint and give evidence, and surviving defendants to prosecute. The outcome of the prosecutions would of course depend on the facts of the particular case, but it’s certainly not incredible that some could succeed.

seamus

ResearchWill wrote: »

I am assuming not, based only on the fact that i have read no reports of such complaint.

Would a statute of limitations come into play?

ResearchWill

seamus wrote: »

Would a statute of limitations come into play?

Ireland does not have a Statute of Limitations in criminal matters. In minor matters there is a requirement that the complaint be made within six months and in some cases up to two years. For serious matters there is no limitation period but of course delay can be argued by the defendant.

Roger_007

SB2013 wrote: »

It would really depend on the exact circumstances. There are many pieces of legislation that would affect it. But i would think it would fall under the definition of false imprisonment if someone was prevented from leaving such an institution in some way.

It seems to me that that most of the women in the laundries were there voluntarily. The popular belief is that they were locked up and not allowed to leave. From the McAleese report, it appears that this is not the case. The majority spent less than 1 year there. The reason that none of the women have taken a case of false imprisonment is because it didn't happen. If they pursue a claim of false imprisonment and it fails, as it undoubtably would, their claim for compensation would be weaker. They are obviously being well advised as to their best course of action.

clairefontaine

Roger_007 wrote: »

It seems to me that that most of the women in the laundries were there voluntarily. The popular belief is that they were locked up and not allowed to leave. From the McAleese report, it appears that this is not the case. The majority spent less than 1 year there. The reason that none of the women have taken a case of false imprisonment is because it didn't happen. If they pursue a claim of false imprisonment and it fails, as it undoubtably would, their claim for compensation would be weaker. They are obviously being well advised as to their best course of action.

Bruce Arnold recently wrote a seething criticism of the flaws in the report, I wouldn't necessarily see the report has having absolute authority on the truth.

Roger_007

clairefontaine wrote: »

Bruce Arnold recently wrote a seething criticism of the flaws in the report, I wouldn't necessarily see the report has having absolute authority on the truth.

None of the women I heard from or read about in the media claimed that they were not allowed to leave. The sad truth is they had nowhere to go, having being abandoned by relatives and ostracised by the communities they came from.

clairefontaine

Roger_007 wrote: »

None of the women I heard from or read about in the media claimed that they were not allowed to leave. The sad truth is they had nowhere to go, having being abandoned by relatives and ostracised by the communities they came from.

Ok but there is still the question of free labour.

Roger_007

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok but there is still the question of free labour.

There is no question but that they must get compensation including accumulated interest for wages not paid and any pension rights lost. There is a question of who should pay the compensation. In my view it should be the Orders. They were the beneficiaries of the free labour and they operated commercially at the time.

Peregrinus

clairefontaine wrote: »

Ok but there is still the question of free labour.

Sure. The deal basically was, "You can stay here. We'll treat you like sh*t and expect you to work for your keep, but you'll have a home, a bed and three more-or-less square meals a day."

We have no hesitation in seeing this as exploitative and oppressive and, morally, it was. But women took that deal because, as sh*tty as it was, it was better than any of the alternatives on offer. Yes, they were poorly treated by the nuns inside, but the sad truth is that the treatment they would get from the laity outside would have been even worse.

The whole situation was toxic but, if we're looking for specific crimes committed, there are surprisingly few. Inviting someone to work in return for bed and board was not a crime. There was no minimum wage legislation in place, and many domestic servants in private homes worked for really very little more than that.