Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Pamela Bone Checks the Left’s Moral Compass

    Why are Muslim feminists derided as apologists for imperialism, or ‘neocons’?

  • Bunting lays another egg

    Bunting produces another lead balloon. For once it’s worth reading the comments (well not all two million of them, but some) because they’re so uniformly, shall we say unconvinced. Of what? Of Bunting’s sweet suggestion that, good heavens, people, sharia isn’t as bad as all that.

    Sharia’s basic meaning is “path to God”; it is a set of spiritual disciplines, which any serious Muslim abides by. The basics are such things as prayer, fasting and the Haj. But it also covers such instructions as no gambling, no backbiting, no alcohol and no cheating. Any devout Muslim is attempting to follow sharia. But that doesn’t mean they want to impose sharia on anyone who is not a Muslim, nor does it mean they agree with the most extreme interpretations of sharia law. Every faith has its laws – churches have canon law, Orthodox Jews have rabbinical courts – and no one argues that this represents separatism as Cameron did of Muslims this week.

    No one? No one? Man, Bunting has a short attention span. The fight with the archbishops was only last week, Mads! Keep up!

    Don’t get me wrong, there are some exceptionally horrible elements of how sharia has been interpreted – and still is, in some parts of the world – but reducing this vast body of thought to the barbaric practices of the Taliban is a gross simplification, which will do nothing to assist our understanding of the attitudes of Muslims in this country.

    It might do something to assist your determination not to be subject to sharia though.

  • Grayling Reiterates the Challenge

    To explain what Christianity, a body of supernatural beliefs, had contributed to science.

  • The Meaning of ‘Groundhog Day’

    Is it torture or a path to enlightenment?

  • Ian Buruma Replies to Pascal Bruckner

    ‘Women should be protected from abuse.’ Oh good.

  • Timothy Garton Ash Replies to Pascal Bruckner

    ‘We also need a large tolerance for cultural diversity.’

  • Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s Life as an Infidel

    ‘I’d been a Muslim myself and I’d reacted in the same way when Islam was criticised.’

  • I’ll decide how much light you need

    Noga pointed out two more articles, and I’m feeling slightly peeved at being told not to ‘blame the Jews, for Chrissakes,’ as if I had, so I’ll say a little more. The articles are interesting. From The Canadian Jewish News, which says the Canadian Jewish Congress doesn’t agree that the synagogue should have asked the Y to frost its windows.

    [C]ommunications director Leyla Di Cori…said CJC is trying to get the message out to the public that the entire chassidic population represents only five to 10 per cent of the Montreal Jewish community and “does not reflect the community as a whole.”

    Well of course it doesn’t, and neither does anyone else, because there is no such thing as ‘the community as a whole’ except in the case of a town or neighborhood, in which case there is still no one who can ‘reflect the community as a whole’ because that doesn’t mean anything, because people don’t think in a bloc. Why would anybody think that the people at the synagogue did ‘reflect the community as a whole’? I suppose because people keep talking about ‘communities’ that way, just as Leyla Di Cori does.

    What the people at the synagogue may ‘reflect’ is a growing tendency for religious zealots to think they can tell everyone else what to do, but that’s not the same thing as reflecting a ‘community.’

    Di Cori said she thinks this seemingly minor incident has been played up in the media because it fits into the “reasonable accommodation” debate going on in Quebec today about how far a society that prides itself on being secular and progressive should go to tolerate practices of religious and cultural minorities that are at odds with the majority.

    I’ll tell you how far. Zero far. Unless of course there’s no issue, which is no help, because when there’s no issue there’s no debate about how far anyone should go. If there’s no harm and nothing at stake, no problem; if there is harm, the society should go zero far.

    B’nai Brith Canada legal counsel Steven Slimovitch “commended” the Y administration for good neighbourliness and finding a “compromise” that poses little or no inconvenience to the institution or its members. In fact, it appears to have been a plus for the Y, because the congregation paid for the change to the windows.

    Why is that a plus? The congregation paid to make the windows opaque so that there is less light inside. Why is that a plus? Many of us like natural light.

    “Was the space rendered any less comfortable? Can they not work out there any more? No. If it had been, for example, a sewing class that was held there that required a lot of natural light, it would be a different story.”

    Ah – so it’s up to him to decide how much light the people at the Y get to have in a situation where the people at the synagogue want them to have less. It’s up to him, not up to them. I see.

    He deplored what he regards as the visceral “us versus them” mentality among some Y members. In an increasingly diverse society, he said, it’s necessary more than ever to co-operate and show respect and understanding.

    Respect and understanding for the religious zealots who want women to hide, not respect and understanding for people who don’t share their religion and don’t want it telling them what to do and how much light they’re allowed to have in a public gym. No, it’s not necessary to show that, it’s necessary to refuse to show that.

    Slimovitch said he doesn’t see this case as a status of women issue in any way, or one that endorses a view that women are somehow shameful and must be kept out of sight.

    Well he would say that, wouldn’t he. And he’s not the one who’s being told to cover up, is he, so I really don’t think his opinion is interesting or relevant.

    And here’s an ugly little finale:

    Alex Werzberg, president of the Coalition of Outremont Chassidic Organizations and a Satmar community member, called “the whole thing a big joke…Everything was fine for months, and then somebody came in and made a big deal out of it – an agent provocateur – who says, ‘Those Jews are not going to tell us what to do,’ called the media and made a hullabaloo.”

    Did she? Did she say that? Did she? Or did he just say she did? I know what I think.

  • Cover yourself!

    So if there are ‘devout’ people around, then anyone living or working or exercising or playing sport in a building near them has a responsibility to make sure that the devout people don’t see anything that they (or, really, some of them) don’t like. Even if that means that a subset of the devout people can see what the other people are doing only by going outside, around the corner, into the alley, where they peer into the windows – it is the responsibility of the horrible non-devout people next door to wear armour or paint their windows black or turn all their lights off, because after all what right does anyone have to wear shorts and a skimpy top for athletic purposes if there are devout people nearby? No right at all of course. Devout trumps non-devout. Right? Right.

    Some members of the Avenue du Parc YMCA are upset with the centre’s administrators, who allowed windows on the building’s west side to be tinted in order to placate leaders of a Hasidic synagogue across the alley. The Y members claim the tinted windows compromise the building’s interior lighting and make it hard to practise tai chi and yoga.

    Oh grow up. For heaven’s sake. So the Y is a little darker than it used to be; get used to it.

    Members of the Yetev Lev synagogue, on Hutchison Street, paid for tinted windows at the Y after they complained their children and youth were unwittingly watching too many women in various states of undress work out at the gym. The congregation’s rabbi said public nudity is not acceptable to his members, nor to any religious Jew.

    Public nudity in the sense of inside a building, next door to another building containing people who ‘unwittingly’ watch women in various states of undress. Right; well that makes sense. It’s perfectly fair, too.

    But some people just won’t see reason.

    [N]ow the windows have opened up a rift over whether the institution went too far to accommodate a minority. Some Y members have circulated a petition demanding the opaque windows be removed because they not only deprive the room of light, but allow a religious group to impose its ways on the majority.“It’s like getting us to wear a veil. Since we represent temptation, we’re being asked to hide,” Renée Lavaillante, who started the petition, said yesterday. “We shouldn’t have to hide in order to exercise in Quebec. We’re a secular state, and shouldn’t hide ourselves for religious reasons.”

    It’s also like ordering you to go to the back of the bus – but hey, be reasonable; the back of the bus is a perfectly nice, homey place. Settle down, get comfortable.

    The Hasidic community says it is not out to stop women from exercising the way they like. Members just want to find a way to maintain their strict traditions in a secular world, and felt the windows – for which the congregation footed the $3,500 bill – were a reasonable solution.

    Of course they were! Perfectly reasonable! Hey, if a neighbour of mine decided he couldn’t stand the possibility of getting a sight of me reading a godless book (which he couldn’t, because I live at the top of a hill and my windows face into thin air, but never mind), of course it would be perfectly reasonable of him to demand that I have the windows painted black, especially if he footed the bill. Why should I mind a darkened living room if it makes a neighbour happy? I’m not so petty, I assure you!

    “We have a belief in being dressed modestly, and we want our kids to see women dressed modestly,” Mr. Weig said.

    Not just in our own living rooms, but also in their living rooms. We want our kids to see women dressed modestly, therefore we think we have a right to demand that all women everywhere ‘dress modestly’ according to our definitions and no matter where they are. We don’t want much, do we.

    Serge St-André, director of the YMCA branch, said the Hasidim’s request had been submitted to an advisory committee, which judged it to be reasonable…“We are geographically at the junction of several communities, and the YMCA has to take on the colours of those communities,” he said…“We try to be responsive to the requests of the community. It’s a challenge to satisfy everyone.”…a Y member walked up to say he objected to the windows. “We can’t let ourselves be imposed upon by extremist religious groups. What’s next? Separate gyms for women and for men? Wearing long pants and long sleeves to exercise?” Outremont resident Robert Dolbec asked. “They [the Hasidim] should cover their own windows. I respect their right to practise their religion, but not their right to impose their religion on us.”…The frosted-window kerfuffle is just the latest flare-up between the fast-growing Hasidic community in Outremont and the larger secular community that surrounds it. In the 1980s, Outremont passed a bylaw banning the wearing of bathing suits in its public parks; the law was struck down as unconstitutional by Quebec Superior Court in 1985…Asher Wieder, a rabbi at the Yetev Lev synagogue, said he hoped the window row would be resolved peacefully. “We felt the way we worked it out was very fair. They still have light in the room and we help our children keep their traditions and religion,” he said. “I think it’s a good compromise.”

    They don’t have as much light, but hey, that’s what ‘compromise’ means. So if that neighbour wants me to paint my windows black and I agree to paint just half of the windows, everybody is happy. Compromise is great.

  • Spotting Abused Children Accused of Possession

    Number of cases linked to spirit possession is small compared to total number of cases.

  • David Thompson Interviews Windbag

    Why does ‘Why Truth Matters’ inspire peevish emails?

  • So Tint Your Own Windows

    ‘The congregation’s rabbi said public nudity is not acceptable to his members, nor to any religious Jew.’

  • Gym Tints Windows at Behest of Synagogue

    ‘We have a belief in being dressed modestly, and we want our kids to see women dressed modestly.’

  • Andrew Murray Pitches a Fit at Nick Cohen

    Chair of Stoppers is very cross indeed.

  • Russell Jacoby on the Seminar That Failed

    The humanities are eroding everywhere thanks to: not lefty academics but market forces.

  • Goldenbridge II

    “The Children Act allowed destitute children to be sent to industrial schools, even if they hadn’t committed a crime.” Paddy Doyle.

    Incarceration

    This “destitution” lark was a ruse used by the judiciary and the religious in order to obtain convictions. I was, for example, in a feeder institution, known as The Regina Ceoli, Mother and Baby unit for over four and a half years. So how could I have been even considered “destitute” by the judiciary? “Destitution”, this terminology, was in my estimation “illegally used” on my committal order to Goldenbridge Industrial School – where I was incarcerated until I was sixteen years old. There was no limit on my stay in the “hostel”.

    It is imperative for people to comprehend that “touting for business” explicitly from feeder institutions, such as the aforementioned hostel, went on big time. As well as, I might append, “baby farming” which is an additional gigantic undeclared subject. Like the Magdalen Laundries, it is an extraordinarily brittle subject. The Irish powers-that-be are fearful to shine the torch down that very indistinguishable shadowy road.

    The religious colluded in this unauthentic committal lark in order to boost up their numbers in the mainstream industrial schools. They railed at the judiciary who were becoming unenthusiastic about sending children to the gulags. They insisted on wanting to know why their wishes were not being adhered to as they (the religious) were very bothered about the up-keep of their mammoth Victorian “private” buildings. As with all, they unquestionably won out! The Irish Church/State was and is synonymous with conjoined twins.

    At first, girls only went into the industrial schools run by the Sisters of Mercy and others, but when numbers began to diminish, they asked for boys up to the age of ten. Consequently, survivors like Paddy Doyle landed up in one. On attainment of ten years the boys customarily thereafter graduated to the industrial/reformatory schools such as Artane, Daingean, and Letterfrack. These boys-only child labour camps were run by the Christian Brothers, Oblate Fathers and other orders of that ilk. A majority of older boys in these industrial schools were there for minor criminal activities, such as mitching (skiving) from school or stealing apples from orchards. A smaller number of older boys would have been there for more serious misdemeanours. These boys were naturally more streetwise. They had the wherewithal to be able to differentiate between the outside world and their newfound abodes. Boys who came from the female-religious-run institutions on the other hand did not have a clue about outside life and were thus treated abominably by the system, which could or would not tolerate their social inadequacies. They were classed as orphans, yet they too, like myself, would have been taken from their parent or parents, and would have been hauled before the courts and would have been considered to have been “destitute” and would have been sentenced until they were sixteen years old. Boys who were criminally committed would have received sentences ranging from as little as six months to roughly six years.

    Mass and Breakfast time in Goldenbridge.

    Throughout the winter months those who were not doing duties like getting small children up, cleaning dormitories, washing soiled sheets in cold water in the uniformly cold stone school laundry, lined up in the cloister, which was situated just outside the wicket gate, with no warm clothing other than our berets. We could not enter the chapel without the arrival first of the convent chaplain to the chapel. He generally arrived at 6:55am for 7 am mass. It was okay though, at this time, for the convent nuns to sit comfortably in their pews. The chapel was a private one and it would consequently have served the children who were usually freezing to have been able to have to go into it even – just for warmth’s sake. There was never any such luck. We were mere mediocre little people who must at all times be kept in place.

    On the arrival of the chaplain, we made our way silently to the chapel. The priest said the mass in Latin. Again, those on the lowest rungs of the Goldenbridge ladder would not have been allowed by the nuns to serve mass. This was a very privileged task! Children couldn’t dare to turn their heads around in the chapel to look at the nuns behind. The all-black, bended, hooded figures sat some distance behind us in rows of pews. It was always a scary, eerie pursuit for the children when they did turn their curious heads as the nun’s heads were hidden, I always wondered why they were hiding – after all did these holy nuns not sacrifice their lives for God? It should have been an uplifting happy experience. They exactly reminded me of people who were waiting for death.

    During the course of mass children fainted through sheer hunger, as no food would have entered the children’s’ bodies from 6 o’clock the preceding evening, and that would have been a inadequately two slices of smelly bread and marge and a cup of black sugarless cocoa. The children who passed out also had the misfortune of being reprimanded by the nuns in charge of the institution. The nuns consistently told the weakened children “You are a notice box – looking for attention, and what will the other nuns be thinking” how dare ye show us up in their presence.” Children who fainted were indeed also told to go to” the notorious Goldenbridge landing” by the nuns or staff to wait for a flogging from the head capo, Sister X. It was suffice it to say hard luck all round.

    In the classroom

    St Bridget’s classroom had massive windows, we sat two to a desk which were made of heavy oak, attached to curved wrought- iron legs. Each desk also had two inkwells with copper lids. The dark walls were adorned with pictures depicting the Joyful, Glorious, and Sorrowful Mysteries of the Rosary. Posters, also of mothers/fathers in domestic situations for teaching purposes bedecked the walls. Children were not allowed under any circumstances to write with the right hand it was classed as “the devils work”. I am naturally citeog, so one can imagine how difficult that was to use right hand.

    Ms. L was legendary for using the corner of the ruler on the very young children’s knuckles and tip of the fingers. Ms L always for some strange reason, cried out: “I will draw blood. I will write your name in blood.” She was not though despite all the cruellest teacher.

    Sister Fabian always called children by disparaging names; she had a list as long as her arm. Amadan; oinseach; gombeen; half-wit; crackawley; cracked; dope, clown, clot, crackpot; she predominantly said to me; “there is a ‘want’ in you Lougho” – meaning that I was not “the full shilling!” Nonetheless, at the time of declaration it went in one ear and out the other. I did not have the foggiest discernment as to its denigrating meaning.

    We were mere nonentities who were never going to quantify to anything in this life. We were never, ever, going anywhere. The sisters could as a result unremittingly lay before us reminders of our lowly status. We were everlastingly receiving negative sound bytes.

    Sister Fabian also systematically threatened children with”Moate” again, nobody had a notion what this word signified. “You ninny hammer, if you do not watch yourself, or pull yourself together you will find yourself up in Moate.” I now know that Mount Carmel, Moate, Mullingar, was an Industrial School run by the Sisters of Mercy. I heard from others that it was not as bad as Goldenbbridge.

    Sister Fabian, being a Donegal country sister, loved flowers; in later years, there was a rockery outside the Wicket Gate, which lay along the side footpath leading up Goldenbridge Avenue. I remember helping with the spraying of the bi-annuals. The children in general considered it an honour when Sister Fabian specially selected them to do this interesting task. It was in colossal disparity to the more repugnant, loathsome, monstrous and detestable chores I (and other girls – on different occasions) had to do which was to sweep up residue of excrement from the never-ending overflowing, end of the yard shores. No wonder children ended up with scabs, warts, ringworm, serious forms of conjunctivitis, or as we called it – “shut eye”, and every other conceivable ailment.

    Miss G, who taught “third” and “fourth” 8 to 10 yrs class was something else, she, like Sister X, put the fear of God in us. We were petrified of her; she too, moreover was also an un-trained “jam” teacher. I have never forgotten the merciless, callous ruthless acts of this teacher, for example, she compelled us to stand on top of the school seats or desks with our hands held high in the air for unwarranted extravagant amounts of time, and she would at the same time flay us on the legs with a long bamboo stick or long ruler. She also made us stand on one foot for some unknown reason. She also would boomerang the long “ruler” at children who, she professed, were not learning fast enough.

    We learned parables, miracles, and the catechism off by heart. Children had to circle around her desk and thump each other whilst almost singing the above in unison. Little boys learning the Koran would not have been up to the likes of us. Again, we also rocked like mad in order to learn the whole lot off. She invariably unexpectedly crept up behind us and gave us thumps on our backs with her fist that jolted us or else she needled us with the bamboo stick, causing stinging pain. Monday mornings were the worst as she was enthused with fierce energy.

    St Teresa’s classroom was nestled on its own in the back of Goldenbridge. It was a cold miserable large open spaced room, which also doubled up as a locker room after classes. Ms G, as it were, could do what she liked as there was no authority figure in near sight to hear her or our cries. Everyone in Goldenbridge dreaded this teacher.

    The children who were privileged to go to “the outside” National School, said that they were initially asked to spell the word “ingredient” and do a simple arithmetic question which they got correct hence their getting selected from Ms. G’s class.

    Children were also made to stand in the corner of St Teresa’s classroom with the name Amadan or Dunce pinned to their backs. I also explicitly remember at various times a wicker waste paper basket being put over the heads of the children while they stood in the corner of the classroom. Some children were always told to stand outside the classroom. Two children at any given time were also sent into a separate area and the brighter of them was obliged to thump religion into the slower one. They were bright enough then but not enough to secure them a position in the national School.

    We were sporadically sent out of this class to do work in the scullery or outside yard,washing and cleaning vegetables which were placed in a big aluminium tub.

    Ms G hailed from Kildare and commuted to Goldenbridge Industrial School each day. She was very prejudicial in that she repetitively uttered the following mantra, ‘dirty Dublin, dirty Dublin, dirty Dublin!’ I believe at one stage Ms. G lived on the premises in Goldenbridge, she was thick with Sr. Xaveria. We knew not what she was on about notwithstanding the fact that we were approximately near the heart of the city of Dublin. Gosh, in retrospect, we were implausibly institutionalised and in this fashion hideously green. Dublin could have been in Timbuktu as we were concerned!

    Each year a priest came to examine us in cathechism – I recollect winning 2/6 but remember even more not being in receipt of same, it was typical. This also was very prevalent with the making of the rosaries, in that we too never got our proper yearly earnings of 2/6d – it was always deviously clawed back.

    Christine Buckley told me that she was grateful to Ms G, as the teaching that she indisputably had in her class stood her in good stead. Bernadette Fahy, who was given a similar “outside” education became a Psychologist. Christine eventually went into mainstream outside school afterwards. She then became a midwife by profession, so she had a lot to be indebted in that respect. Ironically, both ended up doing fantastic work on behalf of victims/survivors of institutional abuse, and many are much indebted to them.

    I would have endured any punishment from this teacher if it would have gotten me somewhere later on in life as she certainly knew how to teach.

    Sr. Fabian’s Classroom – One afternoon

    Valerie made a clatter as Sister Fabian tackled inhumanly with her “soiled” clothing in order to remove them. Valerie clasped forcefully on to them to save herself from this loathsome embarrassing act. All was in vain as poor Valerie was conquered by this malevolent piece of work. She succeeded in savagely stripping her of her soiled clothing – this sister of mercy – who always said to Valerie “you have evil eyes, you have the devil’s eyes.” It caused her to keep her head untiringly down, as she was so feeling shame at having even been born with all the systematic abuse that was consistently thrown at her. It was said, by Sister Fabian to Valerie, “it is nothing more than the devil that is coming out of you”.

    This episode occurred in front of young girls in St Philomena’s classroom. Children were totally beside themselves frightened out of their wits and with ignominy and astonishment and did not know where to put their heads. Unexpectedly, like lightning, Valerie roared like a wild animal and with all her power went for the jugular, the “sacrosanct” holy “veil”. All hell was let loose. Sister Fabian then let go of Valerie as she tried to fix her veil into position. She then said to us “get on with your work”.

    The raison d’être behind this whole monstrous performance was medical. Valerie had a severe hormonal problem whereby she haemorrhaged profusely. Her face was always as white as snow. She thus became delirious and hallucinated, and constantly talked about ‘moving’ statues before they ever came into vogue. Also because of the nature of her illness and no medical treatment/supervision, she was at a loss as to what to do. There was no considerate or kind adult in Goldenbridge to direct her in her need. Ironically, the washroom was right next door to St Philomena’s but it was out of bounds, so when she was having hygiene problems there was nowhere for her to go. As a corollary, foreseeable accidents occurred which resulted in overshadowing repugnant smells. It permeated all over, but what was she to do? Well enter Sister Fabian, she indisputably sorted it out. A lot of victims and survivors have never forgotten this sad sordid saga.

    Sr. Fabian for all time held her nose at children and said “you dirty thing, get out of my sight.” She was a very intolerant sister and caused huge damage to children because of it. One afternoon in St. Philomena’s was no exception to the rule. Valerie died last year due to self neglect, but she lived long enough to tell the sad tale.

    Valerie, who unendingly held her head down in shame, had Bambi-type beautiful brown eyes. She also made the most neatest of rosary beads, and we always complimented and sought out her assistance. I wrote in my best English a long witness statement to both the CIRCA and the RIRB on behalf of Valerie, who was not conversant. Bernadette Fahy also stood up for her.

    Valerie’s mother who hails from the North of Ireland was only fourteen years old when she gave birth to her first boy child, and was sixteen years old when Valerie was born, there was also another girl some years later but she was lucky enough to be contentedly adopted. The boy went to another disreputable Industrial School – Artane. So he too was just a stranger to his sister.

    The adopted sister some years ago suddenly arrived at Valerie’s abode. It caused great consternation as Valerie never knew of her existence. She took Valerie under her wing, but the wounds were way too deep for her to appreciate any kindness. Valerie could not grasp the logic as to why she was also not adopted, and it caused deep friction and resentment. This type of thinking is very common with those who were detained in Goldenbridge. The sadness of it is that one is not dealing with just normal sibling rivalry.

    Valerie’s mother went on to have a second family and wanted nothing to do with any of her children who were born outside of that union. A cousin whom she had no contact with sadly died in the Northern Ireland Omagh Bombing of some years ago. Christine Buckley, Bernadette Fahy, and a host of us from Valerie’s era were all present at her funeral. She had insisted on being cremated. Everything about one’s bodily functions was cloak and dagger stuff. Prepubscent children were an enigma to sister Fabian.

    Memory

    Time, never erased my memories of Goldenbridge, I did not have the added distraction of the outside world to contend with.

    I worked to rule, every day was the same, with the exception of summer time when other children and I, who had no family, went to a holiday home in Rathdrum Co Wicklow, which was, incidentally, paid for with monies accrued from the Rosary Beads “lark”. The only happy memories I have are connected to this exquisite environment, (not staff) which was the only positive thing in our lives. Not ever having human comforts we could at least enjoy the absolutely natural beauty of our surroundings. To this day I still love the Garden of Ireland. There is now a statue of Charles Stewart Parnell standing on the spot where once the old rambling Victorian house stood. We always thought that there should have been a plaque erected to all the Goldenbridge inmates as well.

    Appendix: Some Testimony from the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Public Hearing, Dublin, 15 May 2006. Evidence of Sister Helena O’Donoghue

    Q: …I am more concerned with the statements of Sr. Fabian, as it were, against interest both on her part and the interest of the Sisters of Mercy, that the general atmosphere was excessively and consistently cruel, even relative to the standards at the time?

    A. Well, we have acknowledged that we believe that industrial school life and system was not an appropriate system for children who had come into care through various difficulties. We do recognise that it would have augmented the regime itself being so stylised in many ways, would have augmented their pain, but we do not accept that it was excessively harsh.

    Q:…but in his report he records her confirming that: “Fear of and actual beatings and verbal abuse was a matter of routine. And that the general account of children, for example, waiting on landings was accurate…Wetting was defined as a crime and, therefore, punishable through humiliation and physical beatings. Sr. Fabian confirmed the allegations in relation to the tumble drier and drinking from the toilet cistern. She also confirmed the bead making and that failure to obey rules was normally punished by physical beatings”.

    …….

    A: We cannot be absolute about it, but I think it was a feature of Goldenbridge that when a number of children came to 16, and were for one reason or another, people, children, young women who might have been at risk or unable to manage outside of the school, and there was no further funding for them, a way of, if you like, meeting their need in particular was to become helpers, as they were called. It was not, I suppose, looked at in the way that we might look at it today, which was, well, were they appropriate for the care of children? They were young people who had actually lived through their years in the institution to that point and were familiar, obviously, to everybody there.

    Q. Yes. I think you have fairly acknowledged in your written statement of evidence that poor educational achievement and inability to find employment, other than domestic service, was a consequence for many children; cleaning and scrubbing and household work elsewhere. These staff then retained were clearly not up to that standard of being let out into the world and were put in the care of children?

    A. That is the reality and we regret that that was an aspect, that there wasn’t an awareness or a sensitivity to at the time.

    Q. Have you any reason to think that they received any training at all other than their experience of having gone through Goldenbridge themselves?

    A. I would be confident in saying there was no training. There was no training for the adults or the teachers who were employed at that time in childcare.

    Q. Is there any evidence of which you are aware, that they were made familiar with any rules relating to discipline and punishment?

    A. I couldn’t make any comment on that at this distance back.

    A: Why were children in Goldenbridge not allowed out to attend the local national school? Why did there have to be one secured up in Goldenbridge?

    A. I am not in a position to answer that.

    Q: One of the things that the Commission will have to consider is obviously the nature of the education facilities and the teaching staff, but also its interrelationship with the work regime in Goldenbridge. There seems to have been a considerable lack of opportunity for a number of children, perhaps unquantifiable, who were pulled out of classrooms to do work, when perhaps they should have been staying in the classroom to become educated, and being required to do the laundry two days a week and prepare vegetables and minding of babies, cleaning of windows, tilling the land, tending the vegetable garden. All taken away from their schooling for this work…I have referred already to the passage in your statement of evidence about the lack of opportunity that the education provided for getting employment, other than sort of domestic work as scrubbers and cleaners, many of them feel they were educated to be. Would you be concerned, and have you heard complaints over your years of contact with the survivors, about a high level of functional illiteracy on the part of those who are said to have been educated by the Sisters of Mercy? One of the other complaints made about the relationship between study and work is that there was little time allowed for any sort of study or reading in the evenings. In your own statement, you say: “A few pupils persevered and sat the Leaving Certificate. Such students did not do much of the domestic chores carried out by the other children, but instead had extended study time”. Do I understand from that, that it was only the few who were chosen would get out of the work and therefore have the extended study time?

    A: I understand from the Sisters who were there at the time, that that was the practice. That those who went out to the secondary school did not have to take the same share in the chores as those who were inside.

    Q. Okay. So the heavier burden then would fall on others, who were then deprived of their study time, to allow some of the few to be released?

    A. I would have to say about Goldenbridge it is acknowledged that homework at primary school level did not feature really in the after school time of the children. Now I am not in a position to say why was that.

    Q. Can I suggest to you it was because they were required to do other work?

    A. In actual fact they weren’t doing other work at that time. They had a half an hour after school for play in the yard. They then went to the bead making, perhaps that is what you are referring to, but it wasn’t the ordinary chores of managing the house.

    Q. Just touching on that point. Do you accept on behalf of the Sisters of Mercy that the burden of work placed on the children there was excessive?

    A. No, we don’t accept that. We would recognise that children had chores to do, and the children who were doing the industrial school training, particularly in the afternoon, there would have been 70 to 80 children in that group at any one time. So the sharing out of the tasks would have eased the amount of work to be done.

    01 February 2007

    Marie-Therese O’Loughlin can be reached at mariethereseoloughlin@yahoo.com

  • The psychology of such accommodations

    Jonathan Derbyshire’s interview with Nick Cohen is very good.

    ‘I realised that people on the left who had once supported Iraqi socialists were going to dump them. That’s when the iron entered the soul. That’s when I thought something is going very badly wrong and that I need to write about it.’Instead of supporting socialists and trade unionists in Iraq once Saddam had been overthrown, some on the left went so far as to romanticise the insurgency launched by Baathist irregulars and radical Islamists, declaring it to be a movement of ‘national liberation’…‘To say it’s left-wing to turn your back on Kurdish and Iraqi socialists is to throw the best traditions of left solidarity out of the window. What kind of left is it that betrays its comrades?’

    A very confused one, at any rate.

    ‘What’s Left?’ is not a book about the rights and wrongs of the war in Iraq but rather an attempt to answer the question of betrayal…[H]e compares the strenuous act of historical forgetting involved in seeing Islamism as authentically ‘anti-imperialist’ with the mental gymnastics demanded of Communists and their fellow-travellers in 1939 when the Nazi-Soviet pact was sealed. Cohen is interested in the psychology of such accommodations.

    Yeah. So am I. I always have been, for some reason – I spent most of my twenties reading about the mental gymnastics of the left in the 30s. I’m very interested in the psychology of such accomodations. And the weird gymnastics of today are indeed reminiscent of those of the 30s – Nick and I did some muttering about that while he was writing the book.

  • Metaphysical naturalism

    Mark Vernon takes issue with Anthony Grayling on the question of the latter’s challenge to Madeleine Bunting ‘to name one – even one small – contribution to science made by Christianity in its two thousand years’.

    After all, there are a number of essentially theological ideas that underpin modern science, such as the notion that the universe is coherent, intelligible and so on.

    But are those ideas essentially theological? Are they theological at all? (Does ‘essentially’ there mean – necessarily, or of its essence, or something like ‘perhaps not obviously but down deep beyond appearances’? It could be just a no true Scotsman move.)

    I don’t think the ‘notion’ that the universe is coherent, intelligible and so on is an essentially theological idea, and I tend to suspect that claims that it is are part of the usual pattern of giving theism, or particular religions, credit for pretty much every idea anyone’s ever had, including some pretty obviously secular ones. We’re told that Christianity invented the idea of equality, anti-slavery, science, the worth of the individual, human dignity, secularism – you name it. But the notion that the universe is coherent and intelligible doesn’t depend on also thinking there is a god; the two can be separate thoughts; one can have one without the other; in fact, lots of people do have one without the other (some of them are called ‘scientists’). Why would it depend on thinking there is a god? Because the universe couldn’t or wouldn’t be coherent and intelligible unless a god had made it that way? That must be the thought, but it doesn’t seem like a very compelling thought to me. It’s the regress problem again, for one thing. If you think the universe couldn’t or wouldn’t be coherent and intelligible unless a god had made it that way, then why not also think a god couldn’t be a coherent-universe-maker unless a bigger god had made it that way, and so on? And for another thing, it adds a kind of person to the puzzle, instead of just stopping with a coherent universe, for reasons which are not self-explanatory, at least not to me. So why couldn’t people just look around them and see a lot of coherence and intelligibility and come up with the notion that the universe is coherent and intelligible, and leave it at that? They could; lots did; so in what way is that notion essentially theological?

    I said at Comment is free that the coherent-universe notion could be a metaphysical belief (as opposed to a theological one) but also that it could equally well be a working assumption, which is what most scientists take it to be.

    I don’t like this habit of labeling all or most human ideas religious or theological. It really is possible to think thoughts that are not essentially somewhere down at the bottom theological.

  • The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

    There’s the ‘official conspiracy theory’ and then there’s the ‘truth movement.’