A Silver-lining for a National Remembrance V?

176 days of silence; the growing realisation of an historical amnesia

For 10 months I have watched and waited. I have spoken with many in Ireland’s former Institutional groupings. I have listened intently to those who feel passionately that the proposed National Centre for Research and Reconciliation (NCRR) is not being designed in the best possible way nor it would seem, those responsible are not creating the conditions for a good consultation nor engagement.

Today I am now on my fifth, and for some of you, you will be happy to hear, this will be the last article in this series where I shall be writing about the proposed NCRR.

If you have been following my podcasts and articles over this last 10 months, you will have heard me write about the optimism of this project, the unacceptable behaviour of others, the disorganised nature of the Institutional family, the concerning rise of those who feel that they are not being consulted nor indeed being listened to, how the design of the NCRR is causing anxiety amongst some who feel that one aspect is likely to deliver a sense of re-traumatisation, how various aspects appear to be excluded from this centre. Concerns are also being expressed that several departments appear not to understand how to deliver this potentially valuable project. I’m aware that one department is holding meetings with individuals and groups, and without exception, all have delivered a less than confident outcome or outcomes for what is needed. For example, some have said:

“Why haven’t they decided on floor space yet?”

“Referring to a separate exhibition is in fact insulting”.

“I feel they’re deflecting”.

In a separate set of issues, one survivor told me about their own recent meeting and had the following to say about how they felt:

“The general feeling I get is that anyone connected with an institution is still stigmatised by the government, we are viewed as lesser beings with anger issues and low intelligence”.

In recent days I have seen for myself the strength of feeling about how the Irish Government is handling the Mother and Baby Home scheme and its supporting laws, along with a wider concern about those who have suffered other Institutional abuses. Amongst those comments I have also detected a wider disengagement and a creeping anger. Comments range from:

Survivors being considered as “less than capable”.

Other comments consider that the recent advertisement from the Irish Government to call for victims and survivors, to apply to be a member of the Special Advocate Advisory Council of other sub-committees, to be flawed because of the way in which the qualifying criteria has been set.

So the general interpretation of the criteria is that only those who were direct victims or survivors or those with “lived experiences” could apply to be members. As is noted online there is a very wide cohort of people excluded by the so-called definition, notably the second and third generationers who have lived with the direct consequences of their parents or grandparents incarceration in these vile institutions. Don’t get me wrong, direct survivors should be at the front of the queue, but there are many who can relate the “lived experiences” of others who have long since gone and can offer good, sensible and sage advices to the construction of this centre.

I have seen the word “suppressed” being used against the backdrop of many such second and third generationers who have invested a great deal of time in advocacy and meeting with the decision-makers. One such comment described this latest twist in the life of the NCRR as “it’s more of the same”.

It is now 176 days since I sought to develop dialogue and a meeting with the Department of Children, Disability & Equality following my meeting with them in Dublin and in London. The purpose of my dialogue was to firstly challenge the Irish government about their “commitment” to deliver “non-recurrence” into the NCRR. My questions were, what do you mean by ‘non-recurrence’ and how do you intend to deliver it? It perhaps won’t surprise you to hear that I’ve never received a definitive answer to those questions. I sought to diplomatically press this matter and to firstly experience the dialogue that I believe is necessary in this matter, with the hope of achieving a consensus on this important issue.

When I first heard of this “commitment” being made at the Dublin meeting, it made me think to one chapter in my book, A Magdalene Rose, which had been taken out as part of its developmental edit. The Chapter was called “Why?”, and of course “Why?” is one of the central tenets of ‘non-recurrence’. One of the reasons I wrote that Chapter was because not only had I heard others ask this very question throughout my journey across Ireland, but it also seemed logical to try and understand the truth of what happened to my family, providing a context through that simple question. Now I appreciate that it presents the Irish government with some difficult issues to consider; the same is true for the Irish Catholic Church. But just because it’s difficult does not mean that it is impossible to deliver. It is right that light should be shone on these difficult and dark years. It is an International legal obligation which is not only valid for those affected by Ireland’s Institutional history, but extremely valid for the many Irish Citizens who have not been affected. It is a check if you like against the potential for it to happen again, and that should never be ruled out. If this wasn’t so important, then why did the Irish government make this ‘commitment’? Of course they may argue that this will be achieved through research, but that is not the only route that its delivery should be applied to.

Imagine that the NCRR opens to a blaze of events and publicity. Everyone feeling proud for their part in its development. But if it only ends up telling stories, it will leave its future visitors asking the question of “why?” did this happen to so many people; the answer will not be evident. There will be no true visible introspection for the nation, except of course if you are skilled in the art of self-research.

I appreciate that some of you reading this may be coming to the ‘non-recurrence’ point for the first time, and I apologise for this, but you will have to read or listen to my previous podcasts which explains this important International Human Rights Principle, where gross violations of human rights have occurred; I want in this article to highlight another important aspect arising from my observations.

Again, for those of you coming to this topic for the first time, I declare that I am a second generationer. My Grandmother and Father were subjected to the cruel State and Religious Scaradh or separation from my paternal grandfather, and they were incarcerated in Loughrea, Tuam, my father was boarded-out and, within the infamous High Park Magdalen Laundry, my grandmother was incarcerated.

As I discovered, my grandmother’s death delivered a callous disrespect, discovered after the 1993 exhumations from High Park. My grandmother was one of 155 women who were apparently exhumed and cremated and reinterred. The difficulty is that I have no firm evidence that her end of life occurred as claimed or that her reinterment was carried out in this manner. For all intents and purposes, she may still be unaccounted for.

My paternal grandfather, on 14/4/31 appeared before the Portumna District Court charged with being a putative father. He was a smallholder, not wealthy, but on that day, he had hired a solicitor to help him in his advocacy, to be heard by the court. I am still waiting to see those court papers.

My Father and Grandmother both died before the relevant State Apologies for their relevant Institutions. The terms of the Redress schemes does not recognise them; there is no alternative recognition – they are the ‘invisible dead’.

Whether it is the Irish Government Departments and their agencies or several Religious Orders, all have ignored, delayed, denied any request for information or stretch out such requests so that they run into years. This is the Republic of the Scaradh, continued by the inheritors of the seats once held by those alive at the time my family members were living their Institutional hell.

Equally, as I look across this Institutional landscape, I read and challenge words designed to control a narrative, I see people side-lined, victims, alive or dead, excluded, state investigations that are flawed and limited by design, criminal investigations that appear to lead nowhere, a political conversation that presents headline figures on money in an effort to create a clear red-line of thus far and no further, but most importantly, I see a failure in the Irish State Institutions in delivering a very clear narrative that challenges a state and a religious, who appear not to be able to face the truth about its past, lest they should be seen in a less positive light. These factors alone have gradually persuaded me that this enterprise has led and is still continuing to lead in the delivery of an historical amnesia.

Historical amnesia is failing the Irish State and the Irish Roman Catholic Church and simply weakens all of the positive aspects that have been created so far, to bring about a Transitional Justice. ‘Non-recurrence’ is about ensuring that the truth is told so as to ensure that the historical Institutional abuses never happen again. What better way to achieve this noble goal than by telling the history of the Church from the mid-1800s and the rise and success of Independence for the Irish State. We should be illustrating these two ‘political & social’ cultures and the collision of ideas and dogma, that forged the Irish State into what it became. Ireland’s new subsidiaric but united ideology created so much disadvantage for many women and their children, their families, fathers and indeed their generations to come. This is our history, whether we like it or not.

This is where I believe consensus lies. It rests in telling this history alongside the stories of ordinary people. But then, to reinforce that objective, such a history must form part of the educational curriculum. I know that there are small programs that offer this to schools, but this needs a broader central government set of actions, which begins through the NCRR and into schools, to ensure that historical amnesia will not blight the stories of so many, and indeed, the future of the NCRR[1] [2] [3] [4].

As I reflected on these issues, I realise that I have gotten much further than many others I have met, both socially and politically, but I have had to be persistent in the political arena and challenge every single word and sentence. This is about Justice. “Non-recurrence” is the manifestation of that Justice.

Back in October 2024 and latterly in London 2025, I made it clear that I fully supported the NCRR project, but such support was not unconditional. I was to be a critical friend. So in light of everything I have tried to do, and witnessing the latest wording coming from the Department for Children, Disability and Equality for the new committees of the NCRR, I decided to look at this wording to try and understand why so many were outraged at its claimed limitations. It didn’t take me long to discover why. So, given my own status along with my challenge on the Irish government’s own commitment to ‘non-recurrence’, I decided to ask them to define their words; I wrote to them as follows:

“Dear MBH’s Action Plan Unit

Thank you for your broadcast e mail advising of the various ways in which individuals may take part in the various groups.

I have noted your e mail and the accompanying documentation. In particular, I have noted the expression used, that being: “survivors and affected persons”.

The term “survivors” is easily understood in this context. However, I am unclear what you mean by “affected persons”; could you guide me what you mean by this category of person and how they fit into the evident hierarchy within the various documents?”

Within 24 hours they responded:

“Dear Frank,

Thank you for your email.

These opportunities are for those with direct and lived experience of Ireland’s institutional and historical adoption and boarded out systems.

While we understand there is no overall consensus on language and terminology, we use the term ‘survivors and affected persons’ to be inclusive to all those with direct and lived experience as noted above.

Further consultation and engagement on specific elements of the National Centre will take place in due course for survivors and affected persons, their families and advocates to be involved as the project progresses.

Kind regards,

National Centre Team”

I responded that same day:

“Dear National Centre Team

Thank you for your e mail.

I find it somewhat astonishing that there does not appear to be a definition nor that there is no “overall consensus on language and terminology”.

I would have thought that as this work is said to be part of the transitional justice process for a broad range of Institutional abuses, a definition on “affected persons” is urgently needed. In fact, it appears that you are conflating “affected persons” with the term “survivors”, the latter term having a very obvious and clear definition according to the context within which it is used.

A further difficulty is detected. When you refer to “lived experience”, I am not clear what you mean by that?

The conflation with ‘survivors’ would suggest a limitation to only those who are living.

I would suggest that it does not take into account those who have deceased (and indeed their surviving families) and their known ‘lived experience’ stemming from the actions of the Church and State.

Clarity on these important points would be appreciated because as it stands at the moment, the terminology used is somewhat nebulous and I would argue exclusionary for those people who may wish to make applications who have direct ‘lived experiences’ stemming from their own family members experiences?

I look forward to receiving that clarity as soon as possible.”

It then went silent, so after a few days I sent a chaser e mail in which I sought answers to the points that I had raised. I then received the following reply:

“Dear Frank,

Thank you for your email.

Expressions of interest in these particular opportunities are invited from people who spent time in industrial schools and reformatory institutions, magdalen laundries, mother and baby and county home institutions or who experienced family separation through other settings.

We note your views in relation to the use of the term ‘survivor and affected person’. The use of ‘survivors and affected persons’ is intended to be an inclusive term for those who have directly experienced the above. Using the term ‘survivor’ may exclude those with such direct lived experience who do not identify as ‘survivors’.

As set out below, as the project progresses there will be further consultation and engagement that will involve survivors and affected persons, their families and advocates.

Kind regards,

The National Centre Team”

It is frustrating. A government department makes announcements and creates a criteria without a set definition, or after pressing, you find that there is perhaps a fluid definition. But it is an exclusory definition.

This means that second and third generationers are to be demoted, unable to be the living advocates for their family members – they have no value – but then, this doesn’t surprise me when every single person who died before a State Apology is excluded from any recognition within Redress or through any other vehicle – they are the invisible dead and their families are consigned to the same fate. I certainly do not think that further ‘consultations’ will deliver what is needed for this extended Institutional family because clearly, the existing listening consultations I have attended, according to many, have failed to listen.

Whilst I shall watch from my demoted position with interest, I shall embark on a project of ‘non-recurrence’ with the emphasis resting on Ireland’s Institutional systems and abuses. As many will know, I didn’t start the narrative of ‘non-recurrence’, the Irish government did. Perhaps I will create the record of what will be left unsaid?

Other projects which are indeed relevant to so many, particularly the “invisible dead”, relate to the true value of my grandmother’s life, demonstrating just how poorly treated Ireland’s women and children have fared under the Mother and Baby Home Redress scheme (and indeed other schemes), and I shall be pressing further politically with seeking support for the vehicle that will properly recognise Ireland’s Institutional “invisible dead”.

It’s a sad state of affairs, and I don’t say this for me, but for the many voices I have met on this journey, who are exhausted and offer to me a sense that they have again been betrayed.

So whilst my door will remain open, I shall leave you with this thought about the role of activism. There is a saying in activism that if you are not at the table, you’re on the menu! It is also said that sometimes getting to that table, or indeed sitting at that table, may blind you to the fact that you are already on that menu! I suppose it depends on who is writing the menu and indeed how good your table manners are.

(All rights reserved © 2025. No reproduction, reuse or manipulation, in any form, either by human endeavour or by any form of software, algorithm or Artificial Intelligence system(s), in any jurisdiction, without the express written permission of Frank Brehany).

---

[1] https://books.google.com.ng/books?hl=en&lr=&id=l_0nDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA81&dq=Historical+amnesia+&ots=HKfsRwkzah&sig=SlluhAWFx4vM8f5QuVXXt51ly-g&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Historical%20amnesia&f=false

[2] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0305764890190203

[3] https://www.scielo.br/j/tce/a/Y7ZXShvFfBvycYj3rJmqS4r/?format=html&lang=en

[4] https://oxford-review.com/the-oxford-review-dei-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-dictionary/historical-amnesia-definition-and-explanation/#:~:text=Historical%20Amnesia%20refers%20to%20the,injustice%2C%20oppression%2C%20or%20exploitation.