Read on Twitter
A few errors of fact in this article 1. That those of us who criticise the #MotherandBabyHomesReport are more critical ‘than the women and children who have been in those institutions’ not true — must still not be listening to those voices @rteliveline https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/impugning-the-mother-and-baby-commission-does-not-serve-victims-1.4473277
2. Those who criticise it haven’t read it in full. I have read it in full. But even those who have only read 100 pages or 500 pages have made valid criticisms that @IrishTimes might be expected to respect.
3. ‘The report is a legal document, so not given to emotion’ not true — the disdain for survivors’ “contaminated” testimony is all too evident in the introduction & editorialising “be careful what you wish for” of the Report of the Confidential Committee.
4. The challenge of reading the report “is solely down to size. That matters, but it is not Finnegan’s Wake”. I don’t know is meant by the reference to FW but the challenge of reading the report is twofold: a. Harrowing detail of criminality & cruelty
b. The Report is challenging to read because it is appallingly badly written- lack of methodology in ethically recording, storing & using testimony; findings not based in fact; lack of defining concepts; failure to investigate trafficking;
Inability to investigate power relations; failure to make legal findings of lack of consent (particularly egregious in case of vaccine trials); to name a few key challenges for the reader of the report.
5. Criticism of the report is not best understood as indicative of an “era of alternative facts when... the Age of Enlightenment has been replaced by the age of feeling.” (I teach the Irish Enlightenment - & the invention of aesthetics - an age of sensibility as much as sense)
Critiques of the report consistently provide substantiated reasons for worry. This op. ed. engages largely in dismissive assertions & does not engage in the public use of reason in debating with points raised by critics.
6. It is not accurate to describe worries over the destruction of testimony as “some red herrings” it is simply not good enough of the Commission to say that witnesses knew their evidence would be destroyed. Where are the consent forms necessary for ethical participation?
7. ‘this commission in particular has been beset by advocacy groups’
“beset” by those directly affected who seek to work with the Commission
“beset”
“beset” by those directly affected who seek to work with the Commission
“beset”
8. “Like the Magdalene inquiry, the commission did not support a preferred narrative and this seems to be at the root of much of the criticism”
what “preferred narrative”? is being fought & defeated?
what “preferred narrative”? is being fought & defeated?
Was it too much to expect that the Commission would treat witnesses ethically? That its findings would be supported by the content of the Report? That its findings would not ignore content in the Report such as those contained in Ch. 34?
9. “That its findings have not met some expectations is hardly its fault. That responsibility lies elsewhere.”
So if the Commission cannot or will it be held accountable for its culpability who is to held accountable? Must we blame “Society”?
So if the Commission cannot or will it be held accountable for its culpability who is to held accountable? Must we blame “Society”?
