Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

Graces7 wrote: »

To protect the privacy of the victims' families.

it would not be just family who would seek them. Every sensationalist reporter and crank would have access.

People aren't looking for individuals details, no one would have an issue with names and identifying information being redacted.
But we as a country can't keep covering up our past. We need to be open about the mistakes that were made so we don't repeat them. And the perpetrators need to be brought to justice.
Covering up our past is like denying it ever happened.

techdiver wrote: »

So from my reading of it the 2004 decision was the actual reason for the 30 year sealing of the files and that any other documentation could/would be destroyed upon completion of the enquiry.

Yesterday's bill was to stop the destruction of the documents so that they can be accessed in the future. Now that in itself is fine, but could someone here answer me this? Could an ammendment to yesterday's bill be added to unseal (with redaction)? If so why was this not done? What have the government got to gain apart from bad press?

The information in question is almost entirely personal information, so you'd be redacting everything I think. The report which contains anonymised information is due to come out next week.

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Did the opposition propose an alternative?

SDs did. Use GDPR.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/1023/1173378-mother-and-baby-homes/

Also speaking to RTÉ's Morning Ireland, Ms Whitmore said the approval of the legislation was rushed through the Dáil last night with no pre-legislative scrutiny or consultation with the survivors of the homes.

She said that it is "shameful that we are going to let down the women" who participated in that Commission in that they will not be able to access their own private information when they wish to.

Ms Whitmore said it was "an unnecessary thing to do" and the Bill could have been amended to allow the archive be available to those who wish to have access to it.

However, she said that it was "a very, very closed process" that was rushed though saying "there was a gun to the head of the Dail last night".

Ms Whitmore said he can still change the Bill by inserting the primacy of the GDPR into the document "that would enable people access their own information" and overwrite a 2004 Act that hinders that.

It's their own personal data that the nuns have refused to give them for decades!

I was born in a mother and baby home.
Luckily, I went home with my mother...
Eventually! But it was a close run thing.

This decision is strange in how it's being presented.
The Govt have taken the stance that it had to take action to protect the database created by the commission.

The Commission seem to have taken the stance that once their work was completed, they had no legal right to retain the collated data and as such the identifiable personal info should be purged.

This will be prevented by the Government's archiving the database as part of the state archive and as subject to 30yr rule.

Am I correct in my understanding of this so far?
If this is how the data needs to be protected, that makes a fair degree of sense.
There needs to be an immediate move however, to ensure that once this database is archived, that it is made available to survivors and those other affiliated parties as soon as is practible.

The optics of this are appalling!
There needs to be immediate clarity given to what the next steps are.
If it is a case that the 30yr rule will apply, rather than this being an effort to save the database from deletion?

The Government and it's enablers need to feel the wrath of the electorate.
If however, it is an effort to ensure the database is saved, prior to it being shared in a timely manner.
Then it may well be the only legal means available to save that info.

techdiver wrote: »

Could an ammendment to yesterday's bill be added to unseal (with redaction)? If so why was this not done? What have the government got to gain apart from bad press?

Technically yes.

It's complicated though. In order to unseal with a redaction, it would require that the details are reviewed and everyone identified is contacted to ask if they want their details to be redacted.

That's hard, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be done.

A big issue here are those who cannot be contacted. Women who have died since. Or who have otherwise moved away and cannot be contacted.

They took part in the investigation on the understanding that their details wouldn't become public.

Then you get into a "redact by default" process where you're contacting people to find out if they explicitly want their details to be included. And chances are, aside from a few activist-type people, the majority would rather just move on with their lives. And from an historical standpoint, an open record published in 30 years is preferable to heavily redacted record published today.

I understand how nuanced this is and how a better solution for publishing this data could have been reached, given another decade to review the commission's data.

But this is very obviously a cynical ploy by the opposition to pretend that the government made a decision to seal these documents and are covering up and protecting the church.

They know damn well that it's far more complicated than "just don't seal it", but they're pretending that's the crux of it.

breezy1985 wrote: »

There's no big conspiracy here. This is not the same as burying a report before anyone sees it it's just standard procedure for state documents

But that needs to stop, we need far more openness around all issues. It is the people's country not the governments. So it is the people's information.

Of course they can't be published while people involved are alive. That includes the people accused of abuses.

I could tell a researcher/investigator that the poster below was molesting kids. The government can't just publish that because there is a chance that I am mistaken or misremembering or misidentifying. There is a chance that that poster below is not an actual child molester and the law has to be there to protect them too.

Just because posters have a particular hatred of the Church does not mean that civil laws should not extend to its employees/members. The same people whine about excuses of canon law vs. civil law. Most people agree that civil law must have precedence where there is a conflict. So if you agree with that, then you have to agree that they cannot publish those details as they have not been decided upon in a court of law. Those people are entitled to the same protections as anyone else. Even "Boy A" and "Boy B" are entitled to it, even though they have actually been found guilty and people want to know who they are.

For the misery ghouls who want to be able to see whether Mary down the road was actually "disgraced" in a mother and baby home rather than going up to work in Dublin or over to London for 6 months, then you'll just have to wait.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Of course they can't be published while people involved are alive. That includes the people accused of abuses.

I could tell a researcher/investigator that the poster below was molesting kids. The government can't just publish that because there is a chance that I am mistaken or misremembering or misidentifying. There is a chance that that poster below is not an actual child molester and the law has to be there to protect them too.

Just because posters have a particular hatred of the Church does not mean that civil laws should not extend to its employees/members. The same people whine about excuses of canon law vs. civil law. Most people agree that civil law must have precedence where there is a conflict. So if you agree with that, then you have to agree that they cannot publish those details as they have not been decided upon in a court of law. Those people are entitled to the same protections as anyone else. Even "Boy A" and "Boy B" are entitled to it, even though they have actually been found guilty and people want to know who they are.

For the misery ghouls who want to be able to see whether Mary down the road was actually "disgraced" in a mother and baby home rather than going up to work in Dublin or over to London for 6 months, then you'll just have to wait.

What a sublimey idiotic take on this whole debacle.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think it's important to consider what testimony is being transferred to Tusla.

In my career I've had to interact with people who were raped by their fathers and brothers. All these people guarded that information closely. They certainly didn't want it disclosed to the general public.

It is absolutely vital that proper protections are put in place to protect the abused. Some academics appear to be arguing for something very close to open access, with only names redacted. I guarantee that Ireland is so small that people will be identifiable if only the names are redacted, just by correlating the dates of the abuse and the institutions, along with whatever personal info isn't redacted.

Agree completely with everything you have said.

The argument/debate must take place though. It also should not have been rushed through, time and consideration should have been allowed.


Again I would defer to CC as she knows more than most of us in here I’d imagine.

cruizer101 wrote: »

But that needs to stop, we need far more openness around all issues. It is the people's country not the governments. So it is the people's information.

There has to be a balance though. People have a right to privacy.

Same reason why census records are sealed for a century. They *could* just be destroyed. But there is an historical utility to them. So they are kept sealed for an appropriate period of time that individual privacy is not compromised.

My understanding is that the Minister actually made the best compromise in this. Certain important data is being made immediately available to Tusla. The archive is being sealed and placed into the National Archives. But it's also being made available to the Minister so that he can work on facilitating access to the data for individuals contained in it.

This will allow the Commission to be wound up (rather than dragging out for another 16 years), still honour the original commitment to seal the documents for 30 years, and provide a way forward to eventually allow victims to get special access to the documents without having to wait 30 years.

listermint wrote: »

What a sublimey idiotic take on this whole debacle.

sublimey isn't a word.


sublime is, but I don't think it means what you appear to think it means!


Do you want their names to be published against their wishes? If so, then why? They were guaranteed anonymity and you want that guarantee to be broken for some reason. Why would you hypothetically prefer that it says "Mary Murphy, 1 Main St Sligo" rather than "Individual 123"? And for some people, the circumstances would be identifying without their name. Or at least they could have reasonable fears that they would be

cruizer101 wrote: »

But that needs to stop, we need far more openness around all issues. It is the people's country not the governments. So it is the people's information.

That's the problem isn't it where FF and FG both think they own country and the rest of us are just here to serve them.

Donald Trump wrote: »

sublimey isn't a word.


sublime is, but I don't think it means what you appear to think it means!


Do you want their names to be published against their wishes? If so, then why? They were guaranteed anonymity and you want that guarantee to be broken for some reason. Why would you hypothetically prefer that it says "Mary Murphy, 1 Main St Sligo" rather than "Individual 123"? And for some people, the circumstances would be identifying without their name. Or at least they could have reasonable fears that they would be

He/she meant 'sublimely' and the usage is spot on.