Sir, – The landmark judgment in the case of Louise O’Keeffe reflects similar rulings by the European Court of Human Rights that gives recognition to children’s rights. In the 1980s a series of cases were adjudicated in Strasbourg concerning corporal punishment in British schools under Article 3 of the European Convention of Human Rights which states that “no one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. The same legal provision has now been applied successfully to include the sexual abuse of children. Although the O’Keeffe case dates back to the 1970s, it sends an important message to the Government today about its duty of care and the legal, as well as moral obligation, to not only protect minors against abuse but to put in place adequate safeguards and effective remedies.
The ruling also signals a cultural shift in Ireland concerning the status of children. Added to the findings in the Murphy, Ryan and Cloynes inquiries into clerical abuse, there is now clear validation that children have a right to be taught in a safe environment and that their physical integrity must be respected by teachers. This is in keeping with developments elsewhere, such as Scandinavia, which has been particularly vigorous in promoting child welfare and challenging inappropriate adult authority. The implications of this judicial review are that as a signatory to the European Convention, the Irish State and particularly the Department of Education, will similarly need to “raise its game” to ensure that existing and future generations of children are protected within the educational system. – Yours, etc,
MARIE
PARKER -JENKINS,
Professor of Education,
University of Limerick.
Sir, – I had a disturbing dream last night. It went something like this: The Taoiseach, in something of a sequel to his July 2012 Dáil speech following the Cloyne report, lashed out at the insensitive and overly legalistic statement of Catholic church spokesperson Bishop Ruairí Quinn following the European court ruling which found the Catholic Church in Ireland to be ultimately responsible for the sexual abuse suffered by Ms O’Keeffe while a primary school pupil. Asked if the church would apologise to Ms O’Keeffe, Bishop Quinn stated that while he sympathised with Ms O’Keeffe and her family he would have to study the ruling and take further legal advice before he could offer an apology. Thankfully it was only a dream! – Yours, etc,
Fr MARTIN DELANEY,
Rathdowney, Co Laois.
Sir, – Tuesday was one of those rare and great days when justice was done. In spite of bullying and intimidation again by the State, Louise O’Keeffe triumphed (Home News, January 29th). Thank God for Europe! – Yours, etc,
DAVID O’SULLIVAN,
Greenane,
Kenmare,
Co Kerry.
Sir, – A few years ago my wife and I happened to be in a park in Paris. I noticed a group of young children in the care of a couple of young teachers. They were all on their lunch-break. There was an obvious friendship, kindness and warmth between teachers and children. Being a mere man, I felt obliged to try to suppress the tears that were coming from joy at what I was seeing and from regret at what I was remembering.
I was remembering my own days at school when the fist, the cane and the strap were the principal teaching aids deployed. I was remembering a world of fear, helplessness and discouragement that degraded all concerned, including the teachers. I remember how during religious knowledge classes we were told what terrible sinners we were and what was in store for us if we did not sit up straight and do as we were told. I remember how the chance sight of a teacher during a weekend cast a shadow over the remaining hours of freedom to which every human is born.
Unlike Louise O’Keeffe, I was not sexually abused. But the brutal and uncontrolled exercise of power that constituted the relationship between teacher and pupil was in itself abusive in the same way that the relationship between master and slave is abusive.
And, as the saying goes, the dogs in the streets knew all about it. As if that ever makes much difference to those in charge of the leads.
But maybe the universe that informs the clear-eyed decision of the European Court of Human Rights is grounded in the same world that I encountered on that afternoon in the Parc Monceau. It is certainly a very long way from the world colonised by the occupants of the opposing fine buildings of Marlborough Street who have so arranged matters that neither can claim to be responsible for the infliction of so much suffering and waste. And to think that it was all done in the name of education. – Yours, etc,
PETER KENNY,
Hillside Drive,
Dublin 14.
Sir, – Might the decision in favour of Louise O’Keeffe suggest that, while the Irish High and Supreme Courts dispense law, the European Court of Human Rights dispenses justice?
Does it also call into question the constitutional wisdom of granting permanent immunity from legal challenge to any piece of legislation which has previously been referred to the Supreme Court by the President? – Yours, etc,
PETER MOLLOY,
Haddington Park,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.