Read on Twitter
I’m still working my way through the #motherandbabyhomes report ( https://tinyurl.com/y222hes3 ) but three of the key problems for me so far: (thread)
1. My main issue with the report is the way that survivors’ testimonies have been treated. Repeatedly throughout the report there [1/10]
1. My main issue with the report is the way that survivors’ testimonies have been treated. Repeatedly throughout the report there [1/10]
are statements such as ‘the Commission has not been able to verify or refute this’ in relation to claims of maltreatment and abuse. And sometimes oral testimonies are even discounted as evidence. As countless studies have shown, oral history is a valid, vital methodology..[2/10]
![are statements such as ‘the Commission has not been able to verify or refute this’ in relation to claims of maltreatment and abuse. And sometimes oral testimonies are even discounted as evidence. As countless studies have shown, oral history is a valid, vital methodology..[2/10]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ErmsP9VXEAA0TaS.jpg "are statements such as ‘the Commission has not been able to verify or refute this’ in relation to claims of maltreatment and abuse. And sometimes oral testimonies are even discounted as evidence. As countless studies have shown, oral history is a valid, vital methodology..[2/10]")
especially in the absence of archival sources. Believe Survivors. Relatedly,in the Confidential Committee report there is a v problematic statement that 'a number of witnesses gave evidence that was clearly incorrect' & suggests these were 'contaminated' by media coverage. [3/10]
![especially in the absence of archival sources. Believe Survivors. Relatedly,in the Confidential Committee report there is a v problematic statement that 'a number of witnesses gave evidence that was clearly incorrect' & suggests these were 'contaminated' by media coverage. [3/10]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ermvoy0XIAAP2L0.jpg "especially in the absence of archival sources. Believe Survivors. Relatedly,in the Confidential Committee report there is a v problematic statement that 'a number of witnesses gave evidence that was clearly incorrect' & suggests these were 'contaminated' by media coverage. [3/10]")
Similarly with the issue of race and disability, statements such as 'no evidence of discrimination' which completely ignore survivor testimonies. Chapter 31 is really problematic in how it addresses race and disability. [4/10]
![Similarly with the issue of race and disability, statements such as 'no evidence of discrimination' which completely ignore survivor testimonies. Chapter 31 is really problematic in how it addresses race and disability. [4/10]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ermv_X8W8AM7bmg.jpg "Similarly with the issue of race and disability, statements such as 'no evidence of discrimination' which completely ignore survivor testimonies. Chapter 31 is really problematic in how it addresses race and disability. [4/10]")
2. There is a sense from the report that things were better for unmarried mothers post-1973 with the introduction of the Unmarried Mothers Allowance. Would strongly disagree with this. My interviews with men and women born before 1955 have shown the persistence of...[5/10]
...stigma that remained attached to unmarried motherhood post 1973. Keeping your child was not a possibility for most unmarried mothers in the 70s for a myriad of reasons and shame and stigma around this issue persisted well into 80s if not beyond. [6/10]
Related to this, the recommendations suggest that women who were in homes post-1973 should not be eligible for financial redress because they could have availed of the Unmarried Mothers Allowance and things had supposedly changed– hugely problematic. [7/10]
![Related to this, the recommendations suggest that women who were in homes post-1973 should not be eligible for financial redress because they could have availed of the Unmarried Mothers Allowance and things had supposedly changed– hugely problematic. [7/10]](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Erms3bfXcAEcD_F.jpg "Related to this, the recommendations suggest that women who were in homes post-1973 should not be eligible for financial redress because they could have availed of the Unmarried Mothers Allowance and things had supposedly changed– hugely problematic. [7/10]")
3.Culpability: the report seems to suggest that fathers and families were largely responsible. This minimises the responsibility of the Church and State which in my view should be held accountable as they provided the legal and physical structures for this to happen. [8/10]
4. The recommendations really don't go far enough, and while it's good to see some positives here, I would have hoped for recommendations aligned with those of the Clann report ( http://clannproject.org/clann-report/ ) [9/10]
Finally, it's a huge document and I'm still working my way through it, so these are just preliminary thoughts. I look forward to seeing analysis from legal experts and scholars of historical injustice. [10/10]
