Gareth Gregan | News Staff
Newsrooms were yesterday filled with details surrounding the publication of Senator Martin McAleese’s long awaited report into the State’s involvement in the Magdalene Laundries.
According to the report, the State can be deemed responsible for 26.5% of the estimated 11,500 admittances to the laundries between 1926 and 1996. In order to gain a perspective on the fallout from the report, this reporter got in contact with leading member of the group Justice For Magdalenes and lecturer in Human Rights at UCC; Dr. Sandra McAvoy.
In many of the Laundries, the inmates were required to undertake hard physical labour. They endured a daily regime that included long periods of prayer and enforced silence. Photo: Irish Examiner
When questioned as to her immediate response to the publication of the report, Dr. McAvoy “welcomed” the finding that the state was directly involved in the placement of women in these institutions. Previous administrations had denied even this and she remarks that “a superficial look into departmental archives would have provided some such evidence”.
She is less pleased, however, with the report’s failure to acknowledge the occurrence of physical abuse; describing it as “difficult to accept”. Her descriptions of abuse are vivid and real as she speaks of women who have claimed that they had their “hair cut crudely close to their heads to punish them or make it impossible for them to escape” an issue that she states requires “further investigation”.
Dr. McAvoy soon draws attention to the much touted notion that the laundries did not make profits. This, she states, requires “further questions” as “they charged for their services and the women worked without pay or pension provision”.
I progress to ask her about the gravity of state involvement and whether the report goes far enough with use of the term “significant”. On this subject she highlights the presence of the state within the laundries as perfectly clear when she claiming bluntly that “states inspectors visited the laundries”. She references the Gardai’s involvement too when saying that “Gardai returned escaped women to the hands of religious orders”. The role of the state in the institution needs to be put under further scrutiny according to Dr. McAvoy, something which can only be done by “asking probing questions about the state’s deference to church bodies”. Most importantly, according to her, the state needs to ensure that “the survivors of Magdalene homes are not let down by the state again in 2013”.
While she falls short of issuing me with a statement on behalf of Justice For Magdalenes, she claims that many have echoed similar fears to her in relation to the publication of the report.
I conclude the interview by questioning her as to whether the report will bring closure to those who suffered within the walls of the Laundries. Despite Martin McAleese saying he hoped it would bring closure, for her “this is only the beginning of the next phase in seeking justice”. She criticizes the “paucity of the Taoiseach’s response” and claims that it has “delayed closure” and that he “appeared to be trying to diminish the particular suffering of these women by suggesting their position was in some way similar to that of symphysiotomy and Thalidomide survivors”.
She describes the much-requested state apology as “the least the government could do” for failing to protect “the rights and freedom of vulnerable citizens” and finishes by describing the frequently debated issue of redress as “a matter of urgency”.
