The Shame of Ireland
Be sure to take the time to read this fully and understand the document, i have included what we as a group have discussed both on the forum and via private messages, remember a survivors right to privacy is paramount so if you dont feel comfortable putting your full name to it that is fine it is being sent on behalf of all members here and for survivors everywhere. Be sure to comment if you would like to add anything to the document or you have any issue with its content. Michael
Application for legal assistance (human rights)
1. Applicant: survivors who are part of the shame of Ireland survivors group, we are not funded by anyone, our only purpose is to fight for the rights of survivors and against the continued abuse of survivors, currently we are 371 members strong.
Can be signed here by everyone, or we could just have it from the shame of ireland survivors group.
2. Respondent: Caranua and the government
3. Human Rights Issue: Discrimination, inequality, unfairness. Human rights abuses, criminal preconceptions of survivors.
Constitution Rob if you want to add anything here feel free otherwise can be left blank.
ECHR Act 2003
Other Act/statutory Instrument, including EU Law – If so, what: [INSERT]
3(b) Relevant Article(s)/Section(s): [INSERT]
3(c) Relevant law or practice: [INSERT SUMMARY]
4. Details of Application
4(1) Allegation of less favourable treatment
Any one can include an example of mistreatment here, i will get the ball rolling.
Caranuas refusal to help homeless survivors some with mental health issues.
Caranuas refusal of medical treatment to survivors.
Caranua ignoring survivors with terminal illnesses.
Caranua discriminating against survivors who live in private rented housing.
Caranua refusing to use the hardship provision of the legislation where needed going against the spirit of the legislation.
Caranuas negative and criminal preconceptions of survivors.
Caranuas policy of misinformation to the media.
The governments refusal to take them to task and protect our rights.
The ludicrous and insulting offers of help that is not needed such as gym memberships.
The fact that they are not providing any value to survivors lives despite banking our money in their own bank accounts.
Their condescending attitudes towards any survivor.
4(2) Background to the claim
The fact Caranua came into being by a government that was itself involved in the Abuse of children with its partners the Catholic Church a deal which Denied the survivors the right to seek Redress from the Catholic Church and gave them immunity for such crimes as sexual assault, physical and mental assaults, extreme assaults perpetrated against children, abuse of children with mental health issues and cruel and unusual punishments, in return for a payment that they never fully fulfilled. The question has to be asked can two organisations involved in these types of crimes against children come together and force a settlement on survivors such as Caranua in exchange for immunity with no input from survivors. Because a lot of survivors have little or no education the state is taking full advantage of survivor's rights and treating them as second class citizens sub human if you will.
I think the answer is a definite no, both have a vested interest, and yes any other group or person would of got their day in court, the fact that those vested interests are allowed to continue to excert such control over survivors and their families and continue to damage survivors, is in every sense of the word a crime.
The government and the Catholic Church know full well survivors don't have the money to challenge the indemnity deal they agreed, even with their get out of jail free card they have nothing but contempt for survivors. No survivor was involved in the deal which involved immunity and as the injured party this makes the deal illegal. In light of
These facts the 2002 Indemnity Deal is Unconstitutional and needs repealing!
All this leads directly into the current human rights abuses of survivors,
Any survivor who was refused housing support because they live in private rented housing has been discriminated against, the bulk of the fund is spent on housing.
Caranuas payment process which only deals with service providers and refuses to pay the grant to survivors themselves, as they deem us not capable or not trustworthy to handle this ourselves is a breach of our human right to be treated like any other person in a fair and dignified manner, discriminates against us in treating us differently to other people and is playing fast and loose with our right to privacy under data protection laws. It also goes against the legislation itself.
It is a fact that survivors under the legislation are entitled to receive grants to avail of medical treatment recommended by medical professionals, for a non medical person within caranua to override the advice of a medical professional and refuse a needed medical service is abuse of the highest order, and is damaging to the health and well being of the survivor who needs this medical help. there would be a public outcry if any other group had to suffer a fraction of what caranua is dishing out. The absolutely shocking attitude towards survivors by the very people who are paid from our fund towards us.
Also the damage done to survivors families needs to be addressed and the promise of survivors children being taken care of needs to be followed through on. The shocking treatment survivors have received at the hands of caranua needs to be addressed as outlined in the examples. We are survivors, a large number of survivors and we are telling you how we are being treated we need your help to put these wrongs right. Even Survivors on their death beds are being ignored, do we live in a country that respects human rights or not.
(3) Response of applicant
These human rights issues need to be addressed, you as the Irish human rights commission have a duty to stand up for us, you have all the power at your disposable to ensure that this abuse ends. We have fought as hard as we can using every means at our disposable, we have now exhausted all avenues of complaint and now we need you to help us.
5. Application of the Criteria –
(the comments of the applicant are set out in a) and the comments of the IHREC Officer are set out in b)
5(1) Has the applicant sought, or can the applicant seek, legal assistance elsewhere if so, please provide details.
We cant afford legal representation,
5(2) Has the applicant obtained, or can the applicant obtain an alternative remedy. If so please provide details.
Applicant no we have tried all options open to us.
5(3) Does the matter raise a question of principle?
5(4) Does the matter raise significant case law that has not yet been developed and/or, does the matter seeks to clarify an important point of law.
5(5) Has there been a substantial body of precedent already established in this area?
5(6) Is the applicant reasonably likely to succeed in the proceedings?
Applicant, yes being that the discrimination and abuse is so overt.
5(7) Will the proceedings have a beneficial impact on:
Others covered under the same or similar issues;
for the development of human rights and/or equality law and/or practices or policies.
Applicant, yes it will be beneficial for all survivors of state and church abuse.
5(8) What is the geographic spread of similar applications?
Applicant, Ireland the U.K primarily with other survivors based all around in various countries.
5(9) Does the matter fall within the priority areas, as identified by the strategic statement?
Applicant yes it does.
5(10) Will legislative change be required if proceedings are successful?
Applicant yes in some matters others can be resolved using the current legislation.
5(11) Does the applicant have the capacity to represent himself/herself?
5(12) Are the issues complex?
Applicant, it looks pretty blatant to me, but in a legal sense i would not now.
b) IHREC Officer
5(13) What are the merits of the case as a matter of law or facts?
Applicant, blatant discrimination against abuse survivors and abuse of our human rights and damage to our families.
5(14) State the extent to which a serious discrimination and/or serious human rights violation, perpetrated against the applicant?
Applicant, as stated above.
5(15) What is the possible impact/effect of the alleged human rights violation/discrimination on the applicant?
Applicant, damaging survivors mental and physical well being, made to feel worthless, sub human, highly stressed, continued damage to survivors families.
5(16) What was the response of the respondent, if any?
Applicant, none, despite being contacted hundreds of times by our group members we have not got a resolution or even a discussion on the issues.
5(17) Does the matter involve multiple grounds of discrimination?
b) IHREC Officer
5(18) Has the applicant failed to cooperate with Commission in relation to the application?
5(19) Has the applicant behaved in an aggressive and/or abusive manner towards the staff of the Commission?
5(20)Has the applicant failed to comply with the reasonable request of the Commission acting on behalf of the person to provide information and / or to undertake action for the purpose of the proceedings or to cooperate with the reasonable request of the Commission?
5(21)) What resources have previously been afforded to the applicant by the Commission?
5(22) Has the applicant unreasonably refused to take the advice of the Commission?
5(23) Has the applicant provided seriously inadequate, seriously incorrect or seriously misleading information?
Applicant no everything i have said is fact.
5(24) Are there other matters of relevant?
Applicant i think i have pretty much covered it above.
____The shame of Ireland survivors group____________ __________________
Signature of applicant: Date: 30/05/2016
6. IHREC Officer’s recommendation:
6. Are you recommending that the IHREC provide assistance to the applicant?
7. If positive, what is the nature of the assistance sought?
a) Legal advice
b) Legal representation to mediation and / or hearing
c) Counsel estimated cost
d) Expert witnesses
e) External solicitors
Signature of IHREC Officer: Date:
OFFICE USE ONLY
8(1) What is the current caseload of IHREC?
8(2) What is the projected costs of legal assistance, if granted?
Year 1: _____________________ €_________
Year 2: _____________________ €_________
Year 3 +: _____________________ €_________
8(3) Will this case be low input, high input and or complex?
8(4) Is there enough time to properly prepare for the case?
8(5) What is the likely award or order?
8(6) What impact will bringing this case have on the resources in the Legal Section?
8(7) Do the benefits in terms of Commission’s statutory functions warrant the application of the resources required?
9. Decision of Head of Legal Section
9(1) How much of IHREC’s legal budget has been spent in the year to date?
Head of Legal:
9(2) How much of the legal budget has been committed in the year to date?
Head of Legal:
If the decision is positive, state type of assistance
If the decision is negative state reason(s)
Signature of Head of Legal: Date:
The Commission directs that a refusal by the Head of Legal to grant assistance to an applicant pursuant to section 40 may be subject to an appeal to the Director of the Commission.
The applicant must be informed as to the reasons for the refusal.
The applicant must be informed that the decision of Head of Legal may be appealed to the Director of the Commission and invited to make any response to the Head of Legal’s decision and the reasons therefore, as he or she might wish, all of which will be considered by the Director of the Commission.
Assistance may be granted for all or, part of the proceedings (but not normally appeals). After each stage of the proceedings in the matter has been reached, the Head of Legal may review the matter and will decide whether to continue the assistance in whole or in part in light of the Commission’s Guidelines. Prior to a decision not to continue with the assistance, the views of the applicant will be sought. Where a decision is taken by the Head of Legal not to continue with the assistance, that decision will be communicated to the applicant who may apply to have that decision reviewed by the Director of the Commission.
In addition, the Head of Legal reserves the right to rescind the decision to grant assistance and/or to withdraw assistance where the Terms and Conditions of the grant of assistance, as agreed between the applicant and the Commission, have not, in the opinion of the Head of Legal, been complied with by the applicant. For example, if the Head of Legal considers, in light of new material information received (including information that could have been disclosed to the Head of Legal by the applicant but was not disclosed at the material time when a decision to grant assistance was taken) considers that he/ she would not have granted assistance had he/she been appraised of such information at the outset, or where the Head of Legal considers that non-cooperation by the applicant or any other good cause has been shown, as set out in the Terms and Conditions of the grant of assistance, the Head of Legal can rescind the decision to grant assistance and/or to withdraw assistance. Prior to any decision not to continue with the assistance, the views of the applicant will be sought. Where a decision is taken by the Head of Legal to rescind or withdraw assistance, that decision will be communicated to the applicant. The applicant may then apply to have that decision reviewed by the Director of the Commission.
The Head of Legal will annually review each case in which assistance has been granted.