The Sisters of Mercy, Sisters of Charity, Sisters of Our Lady of Charity, and Good Shepherd Sisters will not apologise to survivors of the Magdalene laundries.
As stated on RTÉ’s The God Slot
programme (8th March), the nuns claim there is nothing to apologise for
– they provided refuge to women abandoned by their families, the State
and Irish society.
Neither will the congregations
make a financial contribution to the Government’s reparations scheme,
which was founded on the tenets of restorative justice.
In holding to
this position, the orders expose the Achilles heel of the Government’s
Magdalene policy over the past two years – a policy dependent on the
congregations’ voluntary co-operation.
Co-operation
voluntarily given does not compel the nuns in any legal sense. Their
negative response invalidates the Government’s assertion that survivors
are being afforded restorative justice.
There is no justice without the
nuns’ apology and/or financial reparation.
Minister for Justice Alan Shatter told the
Dáil the nuns seek reconciliation with survivors.
But the legal
definition of reconciliation “ordinarily implies forgiveness for
injuries on either or both sides”.
Instead, the orders expect an amnesty
for gross human rights violations.
The Minister
also relayed the nuns’ justification for refusing a financial
contribution: they “continue to care for approximately 130 elderly and
frail women”.
These women are survivors of the Magdalene laundries and
as such are also victims of forced labour, arbitrary detention, and
cruel, degrading treatment or punishment.
Moreover, the justification
implies that caring for these women is an act of charity. It is not.
Mr
Justice Quirke’s report points to the fact the congregations get HSE
funding to offset the cost involved; they also control the women’s
social welfare payments: “Some Congregations . . . are concerned that
where payments are made to Magdalen women in their care, this could have
an adverse effect in terms of funding for their ongoing care. A similar
concern arises that any payments made under the Scheme . . . would
adversely affect the entitlements of those Magdalen women.” (page 17).
The
contention that the provision of “care” offsets a moral and ethical
obligation to contribute to reparations seems, at best, disingenuous in
this light.
One might well ask how the Government
arrived at this impasse. The seeds were sown in the decision to
establish an inter-departmental committee to establish the facts of
State involvement with the laundries (June 2011).
The
Government chose not to institute “a prompt, thorough and independent”
investigation as called for at the time (and repeatedly since) by the
United Nations Committee Against Torture, the Irish Human Rights Commission, and Justice for Magdalenes, among others.
The
inter-departmental committee was intended as a fact- (never a fault-)
finding vehicle of investigation. Church and State would co-operate to
establish the facts of State involvement alone. The congregations’
culpability for abuses in the laundries fell outside the committee’s
remit.