BishopAccountability.org
	Another Pontius Pilate on Abuse Responsibility Southern Star [Ireland] March 29, 2007 http://www.unison.ie/southern_star/stories.php3?ca=44&si=1802129&issue_id=15425 The Government, it was announced last week, has insisted it is not responsible for teachers 'who sexually abuse pupils' and has warned victims that they will be 'vigorously pursued for costs' if they sue the State! How outrageous, disgusting and anomalous and, particularly, when one recalls that, when it came to child abuse in residential institutions, the same State had no problem with landing the great bulk of the §1.2 billion cost, so far, on taxpayers while the actual perpetrators of the scandal, members of religious orders, got away with a token amount, supposed to be §128 millions but which, according to property valuation reports, could be watered down. The so-called 'logic' used by former Education Minister Dr. Michael Woods, when making this 'secret' deal with CORI (the Conference of Religious in Ireland), back in 2001 and 2002, was that, since the State owned the residential institutions, the religious orders running them did not bear legal responsibility for abuse, or any other wrongdoing perpetrated by management and teachers and, thus, the State proceeded to burden innocent taxpayers with the financial repercussions. Our new Education Minister Ms. Mary Hanafin has told the Dail that, while the State was responsible for residential institutions, it 'washes its hands' of primary national schools and even though it pays the wages of 25,000 primary teachers who are in charge of nearly 450,000 school children. Yet, the Constitution, in Article 42.4, places a responsibility on the State to 'provide free primary education' and have 'due regard in the matter of religious and moral formation.' How can this 'moral formation' be advanced if the State is not responsible for the mechanics of this impartation, when the teachers it pays actually abuse children they are supposed to be 'educating' and which victims cannot subsequently obtain redress by suing the same State ? If the technicality that day schools are 'owned' by clergy, of whatever denomination, is used as an excuse for the State abdicating responsibility, is it now the case that the Government will not land legal responsibility on the same clergy, as it also failed to do under the Dr. Michael Woods 'deal', because it either fears 'crozier belting' or cannot endure the embarrassment suffered as a result of the 2002 debacle ? Since the Residential Institutions Redress Board was set up in 2002, it has made payments to more than 7,000 people who suffered abuse but given that it has another 7,000 to process, the overall final bill could, conceivably, be double the §1.16 billion cost estimated so far. If it reaches §2 billions, as predicted by some commentators, this means that the §128 millions, to which the religious perpetrators are committed, will represent just 6 per cent of the final cost. Yet, in other countries like Australia, the State put responsibility for payment entirely on church authorities and so, the lack of uniformity about culpability reflects very poorly on those Government 'negotiators' who caved in so tamely on this serious issue. Public attention has been drawn to this paradoxical situation by the High Court case taken by sex abuse victim Louise O'Keeffe wherein she failed to prove that the State bore responsibility for abuse she suffered at the hands of her former school principal. She was left with an estimated §500,000 bill after the High Court ruling but if losing her appeal to the Supreme Court, the costs could skyrocket further and thus, in a fight for justice, she could face financial ruin. It was even worse to discover that the State sent letters to a number of other victims warning that, if they persist with legal actions, they would be pursued for costs and sections of these letters appeared on RTE's Prime Time' last week. Just as seriously, if church authorities, who mostly 'own' primary schools are absolved of responsibility, as in the case of residential institutions, who, with the State defaulting, can be sued but lay board of management members ? Should this materialise, what well-meaning parent or concerned citizen would serve on these boards in future ? The Government, at the same time and with a general election in the offing, has the nerve to attempt the making of political capital out of children's rights by proposing an ill-conceived referendum which, ironically, is also concerned with protection from sexual abuse. Yet, when stated cases are made by victims of such abuse at the hands of the Government's own employees, it conveniently does a Pontius Pilate and walks away!
Any original material on these pages is copyright © BishopAccountability.org 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution.