In Ireland, thousands of children in "reform" schools endured rapes, beatings and other forms of humiliation from the 1930-1990s. I cannot even begin to comprehend what it was like for a child to be sent to one of these schools for petty theft and then get raped and beaten. That they never received any justice for these crimes is even worse.
What I don't get is that the names of adults who sexually violated these children, beat them and humiliated them were not published. The Christian Brothers who ran the schools successfully sued to keep the information private. This means there will be no criminal charges, at least not stemming from this report. Victims *could* receive a payout funded by the government but only if they don't sue the state or church - rightly so, many have refused and taken their abusers to court.
Now, back in 2005 in Colorado, a newspaper editor saw fit to publish the names and home addresses of every person who had a licensed dog fitting the physical description of a pit bull. These people had not committed a crime nor were they in violation of a law pertaining to dogs or pit bulls. They had just complied with the law that stated your dog must be licensed.
In no manner, shape or form am I comparing rape to owning a pit bull. What those religious officials did is heinous, abhorrent and they should damn well be charged with violating the bodies and minds of thousands of children.
But is it not strange that pedophiles apparently have more rights to privacy than law-abiding dog owners? I'm not arguing the names should have been publicized to us, the public, but why not to authorities?
I can only hope that these children have found in adulthood some form of peace and light in their lives.
3 comments:
I'm convinced that you and KC Dog Blog should be getting some kind of compensation for the effort and research you put into your blog posts...
What the city of Denver did to responsible owners and their pets horrifies me every time I think about.
Needless to say these Irish reform schools and what their staff did is equally if not more so horrifying. And they should be called out far worse than what happened to responsible owners by some media freaks.
It's a very strange and ironic comparison but I completely see where you went with it.
It is the violation of trust by public institutions that you are drawing a comparison.
I'll speak specifically to the Denver issue. While I know that the written word is inherently skewed to the authors perception, the job of an editor is to be the gatekeeper. The fact that this particular editor singled out lawabiding citizens on the basis of animal ownership, down to the breed, smacks of discrimination. He failed his job, the public and his newspaper.
The funny thing is that dogs are blind to the things we find that divide us. We have a responsibility to the animals in our care.
Post a Comment