Leo Varadkar, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital

 

Anti-Clerical Hysteria and the National Maternity Hospital

I have three previous articles that relate to this topic: Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and False Allegations against The Sisters of Charity [1];  Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] and  Kevin Myers and the Age of De Valera and McQuaid  The latter article doesn't mention the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) as such but concerns then Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar in 2017 libelling journalist Kevin Myers as an anti-Semite. Kevin Myers is a long-standing supporter of Israel, Varadkar MUST have known that the claim was false but he choose to put himself at the head of a Twitter mob that was targeting Myers at the time. His recent antics concerning the NMH have a similar rationale - the use of media-created public hysteria for political advantage! ..

(A) Background

According to its website the National Maternity Hospital (NMH) situated at Holles St, Merrion Square, Dublin "was established through charitable donations in 1894 and, in 1903 the NMH became a Corporation on receipt of its Charter from the Crown. The legal status of the NMH emanates from the Charter and subsequent legislation and in that respect is along the same lines as the other two major Dublin maternity hospitals." [These are the Rotunda Hospital founded in 1745 and The Coombe in 1826 - all three founded during the period of British rule in Ireland and the latter two before Catholic Emancipation]

"Under the Charter, before its amendment in 1936, the control of NMH rested with the members of the Corporation known as Governors numbering up to 65 but the day to day operational control rested with the Master, an obstetrician and gynaecologist elected by the Governors.  

"NMH was rebuilt in 1930s and this opportunity was taken to amend the Charter by the National Maternity Hospital, Dublin (Charter Amendment) Act 1936 (the “Act”).  The Act which increased the number of Governors up to 100 established an Executive Committee to manage the Corporation's property and affairs. The Governors elect the ordinary members of the Executive Committee at each Annual General Meeting and elect the Master once every seven years." 

The extensive rebuilding of the NMH in the 1930s was largely financed by the (in)famous lottery called the Irish Hospital Sweepstakes but by the early years of this century the accommodation had become inadequate and a move to a much larger site was needed. In May 2013 it was announced that the hospital would relocate to the site of St. Vincent's University Hospital, Elm Park. A new facility would be built on the same campus as St Vincent's Hospital. 

Announcing the move, Fine Gael Minister for Health, James Reilly said the new facility could assure mothers and babies of the best quality care “in a state-of-the-art, custom-built, modern healthcare facility”. The Department said the relocation would address a recommendation from an independent KPMG report, compiled in 2008, which had recommended that maternity hospitals in Dublin should be located close to adult acute services.

The Master of NMH Holles St, Dr Rhona Mahony, said the existing building  was no longer fit for purpose, and the new facility was urgently needed. “The relocation of NMH will address this need and will achieve our strategic aim of close location with St Vincent’s University Hospital,” she said.

(B) 2017 Controversy re Alleged Role of Sisters of Charity in New NMH

St Vincent's Hospital was founded by Mother Mary Aikenhead, foundress of the  Religious Sisters of Charity, on St Stephens Green, Dublin in 1834. The hospital was subsequently moved to its current site in Elm Park in 1970, and in 1999 was renamed St. Vincent's University Hospital, to highlight its position as a principal teaching hospital of University College Dublin. Media reports in 2013 made no mention of any problems relating to the alleged role of the Sisters of Charity in the relocated National Maternity Hospital! The controversy began in April 2017 when a former Master of the NMH, Dr Peter Boylan, resigned from the board over the alleged influence of the Sisters on the new hospital. By 3 May 2017 a petition to oppose their - supposedly - becoming the sole owners of the relocated National Maternity Hospital had been signed by more than 100,000 people.

My article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] deals with this 2017 bogus controversy - with particular reference to the allegations of Dr Boylan. It should have been abundantly clear from the outset that the Sisters of Charity .would have no role whatsoever in the operation of the NMH. As a result of the thuggish abuse hurled at them they also speeded up their withdrawal from their management role in St Vincent's University hospital. This was an act of folly and cowardice by the nuns that empowered our anti-clerics and pointed towards the recent antics of Tanaiste (Deputy PM) Leo Varadkar!  

Leading "liberal" nun Sister Stanislaus Kennedy described the thuggish assault on the integrity of her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" NOT anti-Catholic or anti-clerical hatred. Her risible response only reinforces the view that the Sisters are incapable of defending themselves and can be abused and insulted with impunity!

(C) Will Sisters of Charity Impose Catholic Ethos on NMH (as per Dr Peter Boylan)?

(i) An article in the Sunday Times dated 1st August 2021 is entitled New NHM Head: Ownership Is Irrelevant and subtitled "Pat McCann says red line for government on who owns the hospital site is not important and that nuns will have no part in how services are operated"

Pat McCann, the newly elected head of the National Maternity Hospital board, has said he will not ask St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG) to sell the site to the state because it is “irrelevant” who owns it.

McCann believes that as long as the state owns the hospital building, the ownership of the land is not important. “Where you have a building on a campus like St Vincent’s, it’s very common in Ireland and the UK that there are common services such as egress and car parks. The easiest way to manage that is to have a ground lease,” he said. “The Intercontinental hotel in Dublin is built on ground owned by the RDS, but there is a ground lease and the RDS has no hand, act or part in how the hotel runs its business.”

The founder of the Dalata hotel group has arranged to meet James Menton, the chairman of SVHG, this week “to make sure we’re all aligned on what we’re doing”. He does not intend to meet the Religious Sisters of Charity, who own SVHG, as “they will have no hand, act or part” in the relocated National Maternity Hospital (NMH).....

McCann succeeds Nicholas Kearns, a former president of the High Court, who resigned from the NMH in July and later said the Dublin Bay South by-election “had made things more complicated”. During the campaign, the tanaiste Leo Varadkar said state ownership of the NMH was a “red line” issue for the government. McCann said he “absolutely” supports the current plan for the state to own the new building on a site it will lease for 149 years from SVHG.

“The thing to watch is if there are any restrictive covenants in that lease,” he said. “There is only one: that what goes on the site is the hospital. All [medical] procedures that are legally available in the state will be available there.”

(ii) Previous Head of NMH Board and Master of NMH reply to Dr Peter Boylan (2017)

(from article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2] )

Nicholas Kearns (former President of the High Court) was Deputy Chair - in effect Head - of the National Maternity Hospital Board in 2017 and Dr Rhona Mahony was Master of the Hospital. They replied to an inflammatory text message from Dr Peter Boylan on 23 April 2017.  

"Both the Master and I have received and read your text sent to us at 13.47 today.  We are now asking for your immediate resignation from the Board of Holles St – both because of your public intervention to criticise and oppose the overwhelming majority decision of the Board taken in November last to approve the agreement reached with SVUH for the transfer of Holles St to Elm Park – a vote on which you abstained – and in addition because of the content of your text sent today. “It’s intimidatory tone is most regrettable.”

The National Maternity Hospital also issued a statement:

“Dr Boylan was a member of the NMH Board at all times during the six month period of mediation which resulted in the agreement of 21 November 2016 to co-locate the National Maternity Hospital with St Vincent’s University Hospital. The Board was kept fully briefed on all developments by the negotiating team during that period.

The decisive final meeting of the board overwhelmingly supported the agreement with 25 in favour, two abstentions (including Dr Boylan) and one vote against. [My emphasis] 

Thereafter the agreement was approved by government and planning permission was lodged. Last week, some five months after the agreement was approved, Boylan, without warning, consultation with or notification to the Board, its chair or the master of the hospital, went public in attacking the agreement. Board members have a duty of loyalty to the Board on which they serve and for this reason his resignation has been sought.

An Irish Times article dated  8 December 2018 headed Dr Rhona Mahony says Nuns Will Not Run New Maternity Hospital has the subheading "Holles Street master says Canon Law ‘Irrelevant’ to New Cacility at St Vincent’s campus"

The outgoing master of the National Maternity Hospital has said there will be no religious involvement at all in the proposed new maternity hospital on the St Vincent’s campus. Dr Rhona Mahony, who finishes her term in Holles Street on January 1st, [2019] said it was unfortunate that a lot of people thought nuns were going to be running the new facility...

“So let’s just be very clear. The Sisters of Charity will not be running this hospital. They never sought to run this hospital. They never sought to have any involvement in this hospital and they were never going to have any involvement in this hospital and they do not have any involvement in this hospital,” she told RTÉ’s Marian Finucane programme.

“Telling women stories that this hospital will be run by religious sisters is really damaging. It frightens women because they may believe that services for them will be restricted in terms of not providing termination of pregnancy, not providing contraception, when in fact the opposite is the case....

Dr Mahony said the Sisters of Charity, who own the St Vincent’s campus, have given the land for the new maternity hospital free of charge and are getting out of Irish healthcare. She said the hospital will be run by a lay company operating under Irish law and all services allowed under Irish law including abortion will be able to take place in the hospital. She stressed there will be no religious interference “whatsoever” and that canon law will be “irrelevant” to the ethos of the hospital.

According to the Wikipedia article on the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Rhona Mahony privately complained that "the feminists are going to unravel this fantastic hospital for women"! [1]

(iii) So what was Dr Peter Boylan's solution in 2017 - to avoid the alleged takeover by the Sisters of Charity of the relocated National Maternity Hospital? Well back then he proposed  a Compulsory Purchase Order of land belonging to Elm Park golf club (near St Vincent's Hospital) and linking the new NMH by tunnels etc to St Vincent's . But problems quickly emerged with that "solution". Health Minister Simon Harris pointed out that using a CPO would not be “the ideal solution by any means” because it would mean the project getting “caught up in some potential legal difficulty for a large number of years” In an Irish Independent article on 25 April 2017, Shane Phelan gave an illustration of this difficulty. He referred to the case of Thomas Reid who resisted efforts by IDA Ireland to compulsorily purchase his land in 2011. The matter went all the way to the Supreme Court where Mr. Reid won his case in 2015. 

My own comment at the time was that in the scenario suggested by Dr. Boylan, Elm Park Golf Club would be VERY likely to win a legal battle. They could point out that their land is “on the periphery” (as Dr Boylan states) and that for ideological reasons, the National Maternity Hospital had rejected the offer of a more central site from the Sisters of Charity!

More recently Dr Boylan "revealed on RTE Radio that former Health Minister Simon Harris had suggested to him that the NMH could be co-located at at Tallaght instead" - a proposal that would delay its construction by years and waste millions already spent .However it might all be worth-while to spite the Catholic Church!

(D) The Dishonesty of Leo Varadkar 

In an article in the Irish Independent on Nuns are Being ‘Bullied’ over Land for New National Maternity Hospital, says Prominent Priest, Sarah McDonald writes:

A well-known priest has said the Religious Sisters of Charity are being bullied in the row over the ownership of the land for the new National Maternity Hospital (NMH) at St Vincent’s Hospital. Fr Brendan Hoban, a co-founder of the Association of Catholic Priests which represents over 1,000 Irish priests, said “a sustained effort is being made to bully the Sisters of Charity into complying” with politicians’ demands over the valuable 29-acre site.

Criticising what he believes to be a populist anti-Catholic mood of politicians in the Dáil, the Co Mayo priest said he did not think the Sisters of Charity should ‘gift’ the site at Elm Park to the State but should instead sell the site to the State and “use the enormous proceeds to re-direct their own medical services, especially towards the poor.

In his weekly column for the Western People, Fr Hoban noted that when the nuns offered the site adjacent to St Vincent’s Hospital complex in Elm Park, the Government’s only reservation was that the new hospital would be able to deliver the full range of services open to it under the law....

Fr Hoban accused Tánaiste Leo Varadkar of throwing “the equivalent of a grenade” into the mix a few weeks ago when he indicated that ownership was still a problem and that any obstetric or gynaecological service that was legal in the State would have to be available in the new hospital.

Describing the Tánaiste’s intervention as “odd”, the retired parish priest noted that prior to Mr Varadkar’s comments, the only voice objecting to the agreement co-locating the new hospital in Elm Park was the former Master of the Holles Street, Dr Peter Boylan, whom he described as “a persistent Greek chorus of just one”.

He also questioned the reasons for Mr Varadkar’s intervention in light of the recent letter signed by 42 senior clinicians at the NMH, including the current master and three former masters, expressing concern that misinformation and misunderstanding would delay “a vital project to create a world-class maternity hospital for the women and babies of Ireland”. They believe there will be no restriction on treatments and no subservience to religious control in the new hospital.

Suggesting that the nuns are collateral damage of Mr Varadkar’s agenda, Fr Hoban said there seemed to be only one solution. “Let the Sisters of Charity sell the site of the hospital to the state” and let Mr Varadkar explain the consequent loss of millions of euros, he said.

Unfortunately I think it's too late for the solution suggested by Fr Hoban. However the co-leader of the Social Democrats Roisin Shortall has provided a plausible explanation for Leo Varadkar's "odd" decision to throw "the equivalent of a grenade" into the NMH relocation process:

She asked him: “When precisely did you become seriously concerned about the proposed new National Maternity Hospital? In the Dáil last week you told us there were fundamental problems with two aspects of the deal, ownership, and governance. I've been telling you exactly that for the past four years. I'm quite curious about when you finally saw the light.”...

“Work started on the legal framework in 2017, but four years later, there's still no sign of it. You complained bitterly about the proposed 99-year lease, saying it wasn't satisfactory, and that we should own the site, but it was your Government that proposed a lease in the first place.”

Ms Shortall added: “So I'm curious, Tánaiste, as to what prompted you to get to your feet in this House last week to express serious concern. Was there something significant about the timing? I notice it’s an issue that voters in Dublin Bay South care deeply about. Perhaps their concern has been a catalyst for some long overdue action.”

And THAT is why 42 senior clinicians at the NMH, including the current master and three former masters, expressed concern that misinformation and misunderstanding would delay “a vital project to create a world-class maternity hospital for the women and babies of Ireland”. Except Leo Varadkar is not misinformed nor does he misunderstand. Political advantage is far more important for him than progressing the building of  a new National Maternity Hospital!

(E) The Folly of the Sisters of Charity

Back in 2017 I made three correct predictions regarding the future of this controversy - in my article Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, the Sisters of Charity and the National Maternity Hospital [2]. Well they were all the related to the same prediction really!

(i) "If the Sisters of Charity manage to handle the present crisis properly, namely by refusing to make concessions in the face of hysterical attacks, then it could discourage such attacks in future. And that will benefit lots of people apart from clergy or religious."

In that respect I was pleased to read the following in Valerie Hanley’s article in The Mail on Sunday on 23 April [2017]:

A source revealed: ‘The nuns are adamant that they have fulfilled all their obligations under the redress board. When something is repeated enough it becomes fact. There has been an awful lot of vitriol loaded on the nuns. There has been a nonsense argument going on all week and there is no basis for some of what has been said. Some of what has been said is prejudice for things that happened historically. It’s band-wagonism and politicians are running after it. The politicians should be doing better.

The nuns are annoyed and they consider some of the comments that have been made as being defamatory. I think their attitude now is ‘let the State go off and build their hospital on their own land’. [My Emphasis]

That’s all very well and I couldn’t agree more BUT the Sister’s comment is being made anonymously. My own fear is that – under pressure – the Sisters of Charity will cave in and authorise an amendment to the National Maternity Hospital Agreement approved in November 2016. In that case, their critics will rejoice and declare themselves victorious and vindicated. In previous comments I have detailed how the Sisters of MERCY were savaged because of their constant attempts to ingratiate themselves with people who hated them. I also have an article on the subject here: Sisters of Mercy

I hope that the Sisters of Charity now understand the dangers of Appeasement – defined by one British newspaper in 1939 as “A clever plan of selling off your friends in order to buy off your enemies”. (For the Sisters of Mercy, that worked the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain!)

But of course my hopes were vain and the nuns caved in!

(ii) I wrote in 2017 about  the repeated claims by politicians and journalists that the Sisters of Charity had failed to pay the balance of €3 million “compensation” that they “owed” the State. Health Minister Simon Harris said that the two matters should be considered separately. What two matters? On 23 April [2017] the Mail on Sunday (journalist Valerie Hanley) reported:

The Department of Education has confirmed to the Mail on Sunday that that the nuns’ legal costs for the Ryan Commission will be offset against the €3 million of payments for abuse victims that are outstanding. While these costs have not been finalised, media reports that were based on briefing documents have estimated them at €5 million, a sum that would more than wipe out the outstanding bill that they owe.

Crucially, the department has confirmed that the reason for the delay in resolving the problem is nothing to do with the nuns, but is down to its own officials figuring out the final costs of the congregation’s legal representation at the Ryan Commission…..

Yet, as Ms. Hanley pointed out, the claim that the Sisters owed €3 million, had been repeatedly cited by politicians from Fianna Fail, The Greens, Labour and the Social Democrats and the media as justification for outraged comments about the agreement brokered by Kieran Mulvey. Did the Minister for Health not liaise with his Education colleague? Or did he decide to sidestep the issue – on the basis that discretion is the better part of valour when faced with anti-clerical hysteria?

Back in 2017 I wondered what would have been the attitude of Jews if they had been attacked in similar fashion? Suppose that a Jewish group had offered to donate land for a hospital under precisely the same conditions as those agreed in November 2016 between Holles St and St Vincents. Suppose that the media and politicians erupted with hate-filled lies – including claims that the Jewish group committed “atrocities” against children, “experimented on [a child] for vaccine trials” and owed the State €3 million. Suppose that the Government Ministers responsible failed to defend the Jewish group against the lies and it was left up to a Daily Mail journalist to find out – via a Freedom of Information request – that the Jewish group owed nothing and had actually overpaid!

I wrote that this would never happen because the Jewish group would immediately defend its slandered members and take legal action against those responsible. Anti-Semites know this and are very mindful of the risks they would be facing. So Anti-Semites have to be very careful – but NOT anti-clerics and in particular not anti-clerics who tell lies about nuns. The leaders of female religious congregations have always preferred the Appeasement approach. This has worked for them in much the same way it did for Neville Chamberlain in the 1930s i.e. it encourages further attacks from people who recognise moral cowardice when they see it. 

Thus Leo Varadkar's recent attempt to win votes in the Dublin Bay South by-election by bullying supine nuns!

(iii) An article in the Irish Medical Times “A Complicated Delivery” by editor Dara Gantly on 10 May 2017 concluded as follows:

…What is of further interest now is that the Minister [for Health] wants to begin a “broader conversation” about the structure of our health service, including the role of voluntary hospitals and the interest religious congregations have in them. This has been happening in education (slowly mind), so we should not be too surprised to see it start in Health.

“That is a good thing and I want to separately put in place a process to facilitate that broader conversation which is long overdue and which will, rightfully, take some time,” Minister Harris has noted. ..

I wrote in 2017 "And what will be the nature of this conversation IF Minister Harris sees that the Sisters of Charity and the Church will not stand up for themselves but will attempt to conciliate the mob? When politicians and the media claimed that the Sisters owed €3 million in “compensation”, it was not the Minister for Health, but a Daily Mail journalist who queried the Department of Education and discovered that the Sisters owed nothing and in fact had over-paid! 

"If the Sisters of Charity attempt to appease the mob in relation to the National Maternity Hospital, then reason and logic will NOT feature in the future “broader conversation” referred to by Simon Harris!"

And so it has turned out!

The Sisters Surrender to the Secular Power!

On 31 May 2017 Sr Mary Christian, Congregational Leader of the Religious Sisters of Charity issued a Statement confirming that the Sisters were withdrawing from any involvement in St Vincent's Hospital that they had founded in 1834 - and also confirming the abandonment of the hospital's Catholic ethos:

The Religious Sisters of Charity will end our involvement in St Vincent’s Healthcare Group and will not be involved in the ownership or management of the new National Maternity Hospital.....

Upon completion of this proposed transaction, the requirement set out in the SVHG Constitution, to conduct and maintain the SVHG facilities in accordance with The Religious Sisters of Charity Health Service Philosophy and Ethical Code, will be amended and replaced to reflect compliance with national and international best practice guidelines on medical ethics and the laws of the Republic of Ireland.

The SVHG Board, management and staff will continue to provide acute healthcare services that foster Mary Aikenhead’s core values of dignity, compassion, justice, quality and advocacy....

Nobody was fooled by this pious invocation of the name of their foundress. It was clear that they were surrendering to the pressure (and blatant lies) of a secular mob. Their cowardice ensured that the attacks on them would continue - even to the present day!  

(F) CONCLUSION:

In 2017 I referred to an editorial in the Irish Medical Times (10 May)  entitled  “Minister Build That Hospital” subtitle Sorry episode has revealed much that is ugly about modern Ireland and quoting Doctor Ruairi Hanley

….Regrettably, there is another factor in this dispute that has taken us beyond mere clinical disagreement. Over the past month, a baying liberal cyber mob has entered the fray and all sense of perspective has been lost. Please note, I am not referring here to those colleagues who have genuine concerns about this project. As already stated, I disagree with these people, but I respect their view.

No, the group that I find beyond parody are the extreme liberal, Catholic-hating online brigade who appear to think that a giant abortion clinic is the most important priority for South Dublin. I suspect some of these people will not be satisfied until a few nuns are imprisoned and the Catholic Church is effectively eradicated from any involvement in Irish society.

Liberal outrage

The vicious, obnoxious tone of some members of this new mob is truly appalling. They have turned on Dr Rhona Mahony, an outstanding and dedicated obstetrician who is a role model for Irish women. But, let’s be honest, the cool gang could not care less about the facts. Once they heard mention of nuns the red mist descended and it was then we moved to a classic liberal outrage contest.

For these individuals, online perception is always more important than clinical outcome. In their world it is apparently acceptable for this project to be sabotaged, with negative consequences for women and children, so long as a few elderly nuns get a good cyber-kicking.

Naturally, if the mob gets their way the hospital will be delayed at a cost of tens of millions of euro to the taxpayer. In my opinion, this would undoubtedly be the most expensive act of online ‘virtue signalling’ in human history. [RC My emphasis]

As an aside, I make no apologies for pointing out that the Catholic Church has done enormous good work in healthcare for the poorest in society over the past century, even if I am one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly. [RC My emphasis]….. 

Indeed Doctor Doctor Ruairi Hanley was "one of the only doctors in Ireland willing to say this publicly." This was an Editorial in the highly prestigious Irish Medical Times written about a controversial topic and during the height of the controversy. So how many Comments did it attract? Precisely one - from my NON medical self! [2]

Why were other doctors so reluctant to stick their necks out? I suspect that it was only partly fear of the "baying liberal mob" that Dr Hanley refers to. There is also the fact that the Sisters of Charity refused to defend themselves and abased itself before said mob - as Irish nuns have been doing for the past quarter century! [3]  Leo Varadkar felt free to insult them again in order to please anti-clerical voters in the recent Dublin Bay South by-election. He knew there would be no comeback from the nuns - least of all from Sr Stanislaus Kennedy whose "progressive" reputation COULD have enabled her to embarrass Varadkar, had she not opted to stay silent! 

NOTES:

[1] Wikipedia refer to a Sunday Times article dated 23 April 2017  "Bishop says New Hospital Must Obey the Church", most of which is behind a paywall.

[2] This is the text of my Comment on the Irish Medical Times Editorial dated 10 May 2017

Rory Connor

24th May 2017 at 11:54 pm

I couldn’t agree more.

I have a number of comments on this issue on the Association of Catholic Priests website, (topic “Catholic Ethos and Other Mysteries”) the latest one being number 52 which might serve as a summary

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2017/05/catholic-ethos-and-other-mysteries/

Sadly the ACP have merged 2 separate although related discussions, so you have to search for the Maternity Hospital one. However it definitely IS worth-while! My own other comments are numbers 20, 25 and 32.

[3] See blog article The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy and website article The Sisters of Mercy that  - despite its title - also describes the antics of Presentation Sister Elizabeth Maxwell and Ursuline Sister Marianne O'Connor, both former Heads of the Conference of Religious in Ireland. There is something especially grotesque about the antics of the leaders of FEMALE Religious Congregations (although anyone who suspects me of Misogyny should try reading Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the Simpsons and our Insect Overlords )

Blood Libel in Canada - Church Burning and Graves of Indigenous Children at former Residential Schools

 

Catholic Church Burns in Morinville, Alberta

(A) Introduction - "Hate Crime" in Canada and Ireland

Over the past two months I experienced one of my periodic episodes of Writer's Block but I can't ignore the current hysteria in Canada. It's their equivalent of "Blood Libel in Ireland - directed against Catholics not Jews" complete with support from politicians and media and some "Survivor" leaders who have already made claims so absurd that said politicians and journalists will quietly ignore them in future! (In Ireland no one in authority now pretends to believe that Christine Buckley was beaten so badly by Sr Xavieria that she needed 100 stitches OR that the same nun used a hot poker to murder a baby!)  

The foregoing essay on Blood Libel concentrates mainly on the Christian Brothers - allegedly beating boys to death in residential schools. Since 2010 however the focus has shifted to nuns who ran Mother and Baby Homes for single mothers and allegedly starved babies to death. I covered this in my article "Deaths of Children in Mother and Baby Care Homes (did they die of starvation?)"

It would not surprise me if the Canadian witch-hunt follows a similar course to ours i.e. with the more lurid child-killing claims being broadcast by media and politicians - and then quietly side-lined -, to be followed by more "moderate" allegations that are difficult to disprove several decades later!

One way in which the Canadian hysteria differs from ours is that about a dozen Catholic churches have already been vandalised or burned to the ground. There has been some vandalism of Church buildings and monuments in Ireland but nothing on that level. However  our last EU Commissioner and our last Minister for Justice used Parliamentary Privilege to libel a woman because she had been a nun while a previous Justice Minister endorsed a claim (in 2009) that the Church was involved in the unsolved murder of a girl in 1970. This kind of libel is the spiritual equivalent of the Nazi Kristallnacht. In Canada they are going in for a more physical imitation!

Interior view of the destroyed Fasanenstrasse Synagogue, Berlin, 1938

(B) UK Guardian Endorses Blood Libel

On 21 June 2021 The Guardian published an article headlined "Canada Must Reveal ‘Undiscovered Truths’ of Residential Schools to Heal" with subheading "The man who led the country’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission insists an independent investigation into decades of abuse of Indigenous children is essential."

 It includes the following:

Murray Sinclair, a former senator and one of the country’s first Indigenous judges, warned that the “undiscovered truths” of the schools are probably far more devastating than many Canadians realize – including the deliberate killing of children by school staff and the likelihood that such crimes were covered up.

Sinclair called for a powerful investigative body, free of government interference, and with the power to subpoena witnesses. “We need to know who died, we need to know how they died, we need to know who was responsible for their deaths or for their care at the time that they died,” said Sinclair, a member of the Peguis First Nation. “We need to know why the families weren’t informed. And we need to know where the children are buried.”

And also: 

Justin Trudeau described the graves as “a shameful reminder” of the systemic racism that Indigenous peoples still endure, adding: “Together, we must acknowledge this truth, learn from our past, and walk the shared path of reconciliation, so we can build a better future.”

But Sinclair warned that reconciliation requires a sustained effort to change by ordinary Canadians and powerful institutions of state – an effort that has so far remained elusive. "The government, our social institutions, and even our population acknowledge what was done to Indigenous people was wrong. There have been several apologies and a promise of things will change. But there’s been no change,” he said. “So long as any change is only given reluctantly, it means there remains a willingness, ability – and even desire – to go back to the way things were.”

Sinclair led a historic Truth and Reconciliation Commission which in 2015 concluded that the residential school system amounted to cultural genocide.  [1]

But now he is suggesting MORE than "cultural" genocide:

“We’ve heard stories from survivors who witnessed children being put to death, particularly infants born in the schools who had been fathered by a priest. Many survivors told us that they witnessed those children, those infants, being either buried alive or killed – and sometimes being thrown into furnaces,” said Sinclair, who oversaw thousands of hours of testimony. “Those stories need to be checked out.” [2]

The last Indigenous Residential School closed over 30 years ago but remarkably many problems persist among First Nations groups - including unnatural deaths:

Dozens of First Nations do not have access to drinking water, the government is fighting a human rights tribunal order to compensate Indigenous children who suffered in foster care and a federal minister has admitted racism against Indigenous peoples is rampant within the healthcare system. Indigenous people are overrepresented in federal prisons and Indigenous women are killed at a rate far higher than other groups.

Such realities are the result of a sustained campaign to create and sustain racial inequity, said Sinclair. "It took constant effort to maintain that relationship of Indigenous inferiority and white superiority,” he said. “To reverse that, it’s going to take generations of concerted effort to do the opposite.

So WHO is killing Indigenous women and what effect is casting the blame on Racism and White Superiority going to have on efforts to resolve the problem?

US Media also do Blood Libel

An article in the New York Post dated 12 July 2021 is headed US Media Shamefully Justified a String of Canadian Church Burnings

“Discovery of Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Prompts Grief and Questions” ran a Washington Post headline. “‘Horrible History’: Mass Grave of Indigenous Children Reported in Canada” was The New York Times’ headline.

Those headlines were false — according to all three chiefs who made the discoveries. “This is not a mass grave site, this is just unmarked graves,” Cowessess First Nation chief Cadmus Delorme said of the biggest site. Indeed, the remains aren’t even believed to be all of children. A band leader said the site was a community cemetery, including graves of nonindigenous people — unmarked because wooden markers had decomposed.

The Washington Post eventually corrected “mass grave”; the Times’ headline remains.

Church critics used that framing to justify, and even encourage, the rash of arsons. “Burn it all down,” tweeted the head of the BC Civil Liberties Association and the chair of the Newfoundland Canadian Bar Association Branch. “It’s very dangerous to conflate the string of church fires with violence against mosques,” activist Nora Loreto said, insisting they weren’t “hate crimes” — in other words, the Catholic Church had it coming.

(C) Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says Church Burning is "Understandable"

According to Brian Lilley, political correspondent for the Toronto Sun in Trudeau Explains Away Arson Attacks on Churches (Monday, 5 July 2021)

About a dozen churches have been set on fire, some simply damaged, others burned right to the ground. Even more Christian churches — mostly Catholic but not exclusively — have been vandalized over the past several weeks. Yes, it’s true that Justin Trudeau has also said that the burning and destruction of churches is “unacceptable and wrong,” but by saying it is also “understandable,” the PM undermines his mild condemnation of what is going on.

Trudeau only spoke of what has been happening on July 2, almost three weeks after this spate of attacks on churches started. The first arson that I heard of — that was related to the discovery of unmarked graves at residential school sites — was St. John’s Tuscaroras, an Anglican chapel set ablaze on June 12.

Since then, several Catholic churches, a number of Anglican parishes, and Evangelical churches serving African and Vietnamese immigrant communities have been targeted. If there were attacks like this taking place at Mosques or other places of worship, then we know that Trudeau would have tweeted right away, issued statements, and rightly denounced the attacks as hate crimes.

Instead, even when asked, Trudeau can’t use that phrase and his condemnations come with what amounts to a “yeah, but” at the end of it. “It is unacceptable and wrong that acts of vandalism and arson are being seen across the country, including against Catholic churches,” Trudeau said on Friday. It’s a rather weak denunciation, but then he made it worse by saying that what has happened is understandable.

“I understand the anger that’s out there against the federal government, against institutions like the Catholic Church. It is real, and it’s fully understandable, given the shameful history that we are all becoming more and more aware of and engaging ourselves to do better as Canadians,” Trudeau said.

On Monday, Trudeau said that vandalism and arson aren’t the way to go, that it doesn’t help with reconciliation. He’s right, but he still can’t use the kind of language he would use for any other faith group. “That is simply not right, it is a shame,” Trudeau said of burning churches when asked if these acts were hate crimes.

By his own definition, these arsons and acts of vandalism would be hate crimes, but he can’t say that. So instead, he calls it “a shame.” He may as well have added a “tut-tut” at the end and a finger wag.

If mosques were vandalised or burned to the ground in the wake of  an Islamic atrocity, would Justin Trudeau wait for weeks before issuing any kind of condemnation - and would he then use the word "understandable"?   

(D) Head of British Columbia Civil Liberties Group Tweets ‘Burn It All Down’ 

In an article in Global News on 4 July Head of B.C. civil liberties group under fire over ‘burn it all down’ tweet Simon Little wrote - in relation to a Canadian equivalent of the Irish Council for Civil Liberties:

The executive director of the BC Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) is facing criticism over comments she made on social media in response to the burning of multiple churches in the wake of the discovery of human remains in unmarked graves at former residential schools.

Harsha Walia leads the organization, which fights for civil liberties and human rights. She is also a long-time advocate for migrant justice, Indigenous rights, equality and economic justice.

In a June 30 tweet responding to a news article about a pair of Catholic churches burning down, Walia wrote “burn it all down.” The tweet set off a firestorm on social media, both from people who described the message as inflammatory and stoking hate, and others who defended the tweet, saying people have no right to police Indigenous people’s grief and rage...

B.C. Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth said he felt the tweet went too far. “I thought it was just disgusting and reprehensible that somebody who heads up an organization like that would make such comments,” he said. “It’s vile beyond belief, it does nothing to bring about reconciliation. All it does is create conflict and division.”

When Terry Glavin, columnist for the National Post and Ottawa Citizen, took a swipe at people defending Harsha Walia, Gerald Butts - former right-hand man and confidant of Justin Trudeau-  jumped in to defend Walia. 

"So Gerry, defending the 'burning churches is cool' crowd?” Glavin tweeted to Butts.

“No Terry, it is not. Though it may be understandable,” Butts replied. Same word used by Trudeau! [3]

About the only thing that surprises me concerning the whole disgusting affair, is the comment by Public Safety Minister Mike Farnworth! Otherwise it's a carbon copy of the behaviour of politicians and "human rights" groups in Ireland.

(E) "Unmarked Graves" at former St Eugene Mission School, Cranbrook, British Columbia (1912-1970)

The "discovery" of these graves was one of the episodes that sparked hysteria and Church-burning across Canada in recent weeks. Unfortunately for the hysterics, this one is a cemetery that has been in continuous use by the local community before and since the Mission School closed half a century ago! 

Note there is nothing suspicious about the "unmarked graves". Even in a cemetery that has been in continuous use, old wooden grave markers decay and the cemetery fence has to be replaced. In cemeteries that are no longer used, both markers and fence would eventually disappear. "Using a wooden marker at a gravesite remains a practice that continues to this day in many Indigenous communities across Canada." The following article also points out that it was Government policy that all indigenous children in the area between the ages of 7 and 15 should attend the school. Some children died of "TB or other diseases" according to former Chief Sophie Pierre, who herself attended the school, but  she lends no support to the lurid claims of Murray Sinclair. [Part (B) above]

An article by Adam MacVicar in Global News on 1st July 2021 is entitled: 

‘We Knew It Was There’: Former B.C. Chief says Unmarked Graves near Cranbrook Need More Context

The detection of human remains in unmarked graves at the site of a former residential school in B.C. was not an unexpected discovery, according to the area’s former chief. On Wednesday, it was confirmed that ground-penetrating radar found 182 unmarked graves in a cemetery at the site of the former Kootenay Residential School at St. Eugene Mission just outside Cranbrook, B.C. The remains were found when remedial work was being performed in the area to replace the fence at the cemetery last year.

Sophie Pierre, former chief of the St Mary’s Indian Band and a survivor of the school itself, told Global News that while the news of the unmarked graves had a painful impact on her and surrounding communities, they had always known the graves were there. 

“There’s no discovery, we knew it was there, it’s a graveyard,” Pierre said. “The fact there are graves inside a graveyard shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.” According to Pierre, wooden crosses that originally marked the gravesites had been burned or deteriorated over the years.  Using a wooden marker at a gravesite remains a practice that continues to this day in many Indigenous communities across Canada.

The cemetery sits about 150 meters from the former residential school, which was in operation between 1912 and 1970. It is now a luxurious golf resort owned by five local area bands. At the time it was mandated by law that all Indigenous children living in the area between the ages of seven and 15 were to attend the school. ...

Pierre said while there is a possibility there are some children who attended the school were buried in the cemetery, more work is required to confirm those details. “There could very well be, and in good likelihood, some children that were in the residential school that died here because of TB or other diseases, and were buried there,” Pierre said. “But it’s a graveyard.”....

The graveyard near Cranbrook originally dates back to Christian missionaries who settled in the area in the early 1800s, prior to the construction of the school.  A church and a hospital were also built in the area. It eventually became a graveyard for the community, which it remains to this day. “We just buried one of our people there last month,” Pierre said. “Anyone who died in my community would be buried there.” 

The article goes on to point out that hundreds of unmarked graves, many believed to be children, have been found near residential school sites across the country recently, including in Kamloops, British Columbia, and the Cowessess First Nation in Saskatchewan.

[Sophie] Pierre acknowledged uncovering those graves is important work, and sheds light on the traumatic history and reality for Indigenous peoples across Canada. However, she said the findings at the cemetery near Cranbrook isn’t the same as the other findings at other residential schools throughout the country. "What happened in these other places is these remains have been found not in graveyards, that’s the big difference,” Pierre said. “It’s horrible.”

 Or alternatively these are graveyards that have not been used for several decades so the wooden crosses and the cemetery fence have rotted away!   

 (F) CONCLUSION: Canada - A Society Spewing on Itself!

It isn't only the Catholic Church that is under attack from the Justin Trudeau equivalent of Mao's Red Guards! It is also the first Prime Minister of Canada John A McDonald and Methodist Minister Egerton Ryerson who was one of the founders of the Canadian public school system and the Indian residential school system. On the other hand, Justin Trudeau - the Prime Minister who feels that the burning of Catholic Churches is "understandable" - faces no questions about the role of his father Pierre Trudeau who wanted to eliminate Indian Status and fully assimilate First Nations into the general population of Canada! [4]

Egerton Ryerson (24 March 1803 – 19 February 1882) was a Canadian educator and Methodist minister who was a prominent contributor to the design of the Canadian public school system and the Canadian Indian residential school system. In 1844, Ryerson was appointed Chief Superintendent of Education for Upper Canada. In that role, he supported reforms such as creating school boards, making textbooks more uniform, and making education free. Because of his contributions to education in Ontario, he is the namesake of Ryerson University (Toronto), Ryerson Press, and Ryerson, Ontario.

On June 1, 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the Egerton Ryerson statue at Ryerson University was vandalized  with red paint. On June 6, the statue was toppled, decapitated and thrown into Toronto Harbour; Ryerson University stated that the statue will not be restored or replaced. The head of the statue was subsequently placed on a pike at the Six Nations of the Grand River near Caledonia, Ontario.

In an article in the National Post on 6 April 2021 Ron Stagg, Professor of History  and Patrice Dutil, Professor of Politics at Ryerson University wrote : Egerton Ryerson has been Falsely Accused of Trying to Erase Indigenous Culture 

Ryerson is being misjudged. He was not a racist and he did not discriminate against Indigenous people. It was the exact opposite! As a young man he was appointed to the Credit mission, home of the Mississaugas. He learned their language, worked in the fields with the people of the settlement and became a life-long friend of future chief Kahkewaquonaby (Sacred Feathers), known in English as Peter Jones.

In fact, it was in recognition of his services to the Mississauga, that Ryerson was adopted and given the name of a recently deceased chief, “Cheechock” or “Chechalk.”

After he left the Credit mission, Ryerson kept in touch with Peter Jones. In the 1830s he assisted the Mississaugas, whose land was confiscated by colonial authorities, by approaching Queen Victoria personally through back channels. He also advanced the careers of a number of talented Indigenous individuals. When Peter Jones was gravely ill at the end of his life, he stayed in the comfortable home of his old friend Ryerson in Toronto. Ryerson was a friend of Indigenous people.

It is also wrong to blame Egerton Ryerson for creating residential schools. It was Peter Jones, working with another prominent Methodist, who argued that the government should fund schools to educate Indigenous men in the new techniques in agriculture, so that they might survive in a colony where land to hunt and fish freely was rapidly disappearing. By 1842, the authorities accepted the concept, as a way to put First Nations on farms and to eliminate the expense of annual treaty payments, not as a way to assimilate them.

In 1846, government agents met with thirty chiefs, representing most of the First Nations in what is now southern Ontario. After some discussion, almost all the leaders agreed that such schools were necessary, and many even agreed to use part of their treaty payments to help support the schools. A year later, the government approached Ryerson, an acknowledged expert on education, and asked him to provide a curriculum for schools that would train Indigenous people for a settled life.

Ryerson was fully in agreement with the plan because he worried that Indigenous communities would be destroyed unless they changed their economic life. He delivered general suggestions for a curriculum — nothing else — that were typical of his day. It was patronizing, as it was based on Euro-Canadian models, but it had the support of most of the Indigenous leaders. Ryerson participated precisely because he saw education as the best instrument to protect First Nations from advancing settlement.

The Ryerson statue was originally vandalised on July 18, 2020 - in addition to two others of John A. Macdonald (first Prime Minister of Canada) and King Edward VII at the Ontario Legislature – as part of a demand to tear down the monuments. Black Lives Matter Toronto claimed responsibility for the actions stating that "The action comes after the City of Toronto and the Province of Ontario have failed to take action against police violence against Black people." Three people were arrested at the time and were each charged with three counts of mischief and conspiracy to commit a summary offence. The charges were dropped on 4 June 2021 and demonstrators tore down the Ryerson statue on 6 June! Ryerson University has stated that the statue will not be restored or replaced!

Egerton Ryerson and Jesuit Hero Jean de Brebeuf S.J.  

Egerton Ryerson working among the Mississauga First Nation in the 19th century was - in a way - continuing the work of Jesuit hero, martyr and saint Jean de Brebeuf among the Hurons [Wyandot] in the far more violent age of "New France" in the 17th century. (It's true that Fr de Brebeuf would not have appreciated the comparison!)

Brébeuf had been chosen for the New World because he had a knack for languages, and so was well equipped for engagement with an altogether alien culture. The assignment proved a wise one, as Brébeuf immersed himself deeply among the Wyandot, or Huron, a tribal confederacy that had gathered on the north shores of Lake Ontario two centuries before. From 1626, the Jesuit père devoted himself as the apostle to the Hurons, with the singular mission of making these people Catholic.

Jean and his companions reached Quebec on June 19, 1625, and immediately began to prepare for his journey to the Huron nation. Happily, he had a great talent for something that would prove critical in his work. The great explorer Samuel de Champlain wrote about Brébeuf, "He had such a striking gift for languages that…he grasped in two or three years what others would not learn in twenty." 

That facility would assist him in working with a people with whom he shared little in common, save their common humanity. To enter into their world Jean resolved to do everything according to their customs, no matter how strenuous, eating their food, sleeping as they did, working as hard as they did. Here is a powerful echo of the Call of the King, from the Spiritual Exercises, in which one is asked to "labor as Christ labors." 

In addition to learning their customs and beliefs, Jean wrote a Huron grammar and translated a catechism in the local language. Brébeuf would spend three years among these families before being asked to return to Rouen in 1629, after political difficulties made it harder for the French to remain.......

When he returned to New France in 1635, he was cheerfully welcomed by his Huron friends. Immediately he and Antoine Daniel, another Jesuit, began their work in earnest. (They were one of several Jesuits working in the region at the time.) Near a town called Ihonotiria, near current-day Georgian Bay in Canada, Fathers Brébeuf and Daniel began teaching the people about Christianity. They were later joined by two other French Jesuits, Charles Garnier and Isaac Jogues.....

Brébeuf and his fellow Jesuits ministered to the Wyandot another 13 years. Then, under military pressure from the northward-moving Iroquois, the Wyandot and their Jesuit companions found themselves in dire straits. Finally, as the invading Iroquois sacked the mission village of Saint-Louis, Brébeuf and fellow priest Gabriel Lalemant were taken captive and tortured to death.

 Justin Trudeau, Pierre Trudeau and "Assimilation" Policy 

An Editorial in the National Catholic Register on 9 July 2021 entitled Canada’s Trudeau Fans the Flame of Blame reads in part

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau swiftly joined with Native leaders in demanding that Pope Francis apologize for the Church’s role in operating the majority of these residential schools during the 19th and 20th centuries. This misguided rhetoric of blame has now escalated into the burning down and vandalization of a number of Catholic churches across Canada.....

However, it is simply not the case that Canada’s Catholics and other Christians lagged behind the nation’s political leadership in terms of renouncing assimilationist policies. 

As recently as 1969, the Canadian government formally advocated a new policy abolishing separate status for its Indigenous residents for the express purpose of integrating them more fully into Canadian society. This proposal was abandoned only after fierce resistance from the Native peoples themselves. The Canadian prime minister who advanced this proposed new policy was actually Justin Trudeau’s father, Pierre Trudeau, a man still widely regarded in Canada for enlightened, progressive thinking. So if Justin Trudeau truly believes in the concept of “inherited” institutional guilt, as he appears to do with respect to Pope Francis, in fairness it ought to be noted that his own inheritance is vastly more tangible than that of the Holy Father. [4]

The first Canadian Prime Minister John A MacDonald also approved the assimilationist approach proposed in the 1879  "Report on Industrial Schools for Indians and Half-Breeds". Thus (as per Wikipedia) - On 18 June 2021, following the discovery of 215 unmarked graves at the Kamloops Indian Residential School, the statue of Macdonald was removed from [Kingston's] City Park after city council voted 12–1 in favour of its removal, and is set to be installed at Cataraqui Cemetery where Macdonald is buried. [5]

In fact the Canadian secular authorities would always have been keener on assimilating the First Nations than Churchmen like Fr Jean de Brebeuf S.J. and Methodist Minister Egerton Ryerton. For the latter, making good citizens would have been a by product of making good Christians and not the main objective!

A Final Irony

It's quite possible that Pierre Trudeau was correct in 1969 and that the policy began by Fr Jean de Brebeuf in the 17th century and continued by Egerton Ryerson in the 19th had come to the end of its useful life. It's possible that assimilation as ordinary Canadian citizens WAS the way for the First Nations to go. There has been a huge increase in symptoms of social breakdown since then - violence, addiction, suicide and child abuse - more so than in the general population. The Canadian State's pursuit of multi-culturalism has led them to subsidise a culture and  away of life that is no longer viable. 

The same can be said about Ireland in relation to our treatment of the Travellers. Up until the 1960s the policy of the Irish State was to integrate them (then called Tinkers) into the settled population. Since then we also have stressed the multi-cultural approach - up to granting Ethnic Minority status in 2017. The results - in terms of crime and other symptoms of social breakdown - are not pretty!

NOTES:

[1] A Guardian article dated 2 June 2015 headed Canada's Indigenous Schools Policy Was 'Cultural Genocide', says Report summarises the Report of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission chaired by Murray Sinclair who is described as "a Manitoba judge whose parents and grandparents both survived residential schools." After seven years of hearings, and testimony from thousands of witnesses, the commission’s final report declares.

 “These measures were part of a coherent policy to eliminate Aboriginal people as distinct peoples and to assimilate them into the Canadian mainstream against their will. The Canadian government pursued this policy of cultural genocide because it wished to divest itself of its legal and financial obligations to Aboriginal people and gain control over their land and resources.”

There is no mention of infants being buried alive or killed and thrown into furnaces. Did Murray Sinclair ignore such testimonies back then because he regarded them as incredible? Why does he think they are credible now? 

[2] "We’ve heard stories from survivors who witnessed children being put to death, particularly infants born in the schools who had been fathered by a priest. Many survivors told us that they witnessed those children, those infants, being either buried alive or killed – and sometimes being thrown into furnaces,” said Sinclair. 

This is strongly reminiscent of the Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk (1836) in which the author claimed to expose the systematic sexual abuse of nuns by Catholic priests and the infanticide of the resulting children in a convent in Montreal (although "Maria Monk" claimed the babies were strangled after being baptised, and then buried in a lime pit).

[3] See LILLEY: Trudeau pal Gerald Butts also calls church burning 'understandable'

[4] As per the Wikipedia article on Pierre Trudeau

In 1969, Trudeau along with his then Minister of Indian Affairs Jean Chrétien, proposed the 1969 White Paper (officially entitled Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian policy). Under the legislation of the White Paper, Indian Status would be eliminated. First Nations Peoples would be incorporated fully into provincial government responsibilities as equal Canadian citizens, and reserve status would be removed imposing the laws of private property in indigenous communities. Any special programs or considerations that had been allowed to First Nations people under previous legislation would be terminated, as the special considerations were seen by the Government to act as a means to further separate Indian peoples from Canadian citizens. This proposal was seen by many as racist and an attack on Canada's aboriginal population. The Paper proposed the general assimilation of First Nations into the Canadian body politic through the elimination of the Indian Act and Indian status, the parcelling of reserve land to private owners, and the elimination of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The White Paper prompted the first major national mobilization of Indian and Aboriginal activists against the federal government's proposal, leading to Trudeau setting aside the legislation.

[5] See Sir John A. Macdonald statue removed from Kingston’s City Park including 

"Now our people can heal, all those residential school survivors can heal, all those 60’s Scoop people can finally heal.” Kingston resident Lisa Cadue said.

Or alternatively Canada may experience endless outbreaks of Victim Playing!

Richard Dawkins ("Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse") - Cancelled by American Humanists and Trinity Students!

 

Richard Dawkins and Trinity College Students' Union

(A) Introduction

In 1996, the American Humanist Association gave Dawkins their Humanist of the Year Award. In 2021, they voted to withdraw it, stating he "demean[ed] marginalized groups", including transgender people, using "the guise of scientific discourse". In September 2020 The Hist - or the College Historical Society of Trinity College Dublin - rescinded their invitation to Dawkins to address the society in 2021 citing his stance on the religion of Islam and sexual assault as reasoning for their cancellation. Bríd O’Donnell, auditor of The Hist explained She added the society “will not be moving ahead with his address as we value our members comfort above all else”. 

I will write more about these two organisations. [The Hist was established in Trinity College in 1770, inspired by the club formed by Edmund Burke during his  time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world.] For now, suffice it to say that neither of them saw anything immoral about Dawkins' grotesque attacks on the Catholic Church - even though some of his own followers are embarrassed by them! American Humanists and Trinity students are prepared to tolerate any vicious or lying attack on the Catholic Church because they themselves hate it. Their attitude is similar to that of some Weimar intellectuals in the 1920s and 30s who were so caught up in hatred of the Churches, Capitalists, Army etc that they failed to understand that the Nazis were the real danger! (See Notes [1] and [2] )

[The following is an edited version of the article on Richard Dawkins on my old website (not Blog)  www.IrishSalem.com ]

(B) Richard Dawkins: "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

In October 2002, there was an article in " The Dubliner" magazine entitled, "The God Shaped Hole" reporting on Richard Dawkins conversation with editor Emily Hourican. In the course of the conversation, Dawkins compares Catholicism to the sexual molestation of children, and argues that Catholicism is worse:

"Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place."

As is clear from the full article, the above is not taken out of context but is an accurate representation of Dawkins' attitude to Catholics.

Article in "The Dubliner" and Reply re "Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

Dawkins stated that:

"....The Roman Catholic Church is one of the forces for evil in the world, mainly because of the powerful influence it has over the minds of children. The Catholic Church has developed, over the centuries, brilliant techniques in brain washing children; even intelligent people who have had a proper, full cradle-Catholic upbringing find it hard to shake it off when they reach adulthood. Obviously many of them do - and congratulations to them for it - but even some really quite intelligent people fail to shake it off, powerful evidence of the skill in brainwashing that the Catholic Church exercises. It's far more skilled than, for instance, the Anglican Church, mere amateurs in the game.

"The Catholic Church also has an extraordinarily retrogressive stance on everything to do with reproduction. Any sort of new technology which makes life easier for women without causing any suffering is likely to be opposed by the Catholic Church. Regarding the accusations of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests, deplorable and disgusting as those abuses are, they are not so harmful to the children as the grievous mental harm in bringing up the child Catholic in the first place.

" I had a letter from a woman in America in her forties, who said that when she was a child of about seven, brought up a Catholic, two things happened to her: one was that she was sexually abused by her parish priest. The second thing was that a great friend of hers at school died, and she had nightmares because she thought her friend was going to hell because she wasn't Catholic. For her there was no question that the greatest child abuse of those two was the abuse of being taught about hell. Being fondled by the priest was negligible in comparison. And I think that's a fairly common experience.

 "I can't speak about the really grave sexual abuse that obviously happens sometimes, which actually causes violent physical pain to the altar boy or whoever it is, but I suspect that most of the sexual abuse priests are accused of is comparatively mild - a little bit of fondling perhaps, and a young child might scarcely notice that. The damage, if there is damage, is going to be mental damage anyway, not physical damage. Being taught about hell - being taught that if you sin you will go to everlasting damnation, and really believing that - is going to be a harder piece of child abuse than the comparatively mild sexual abuse. .......

 A critic of Dawkins,  Mike Gene replied:

I think it clear that this is raw anti-religious bigotry. We can ignore the letter from "a woman in America" as a) we have no idea whether her account is valid and b) even if valid, it is an anecdote. Since Dawkins is a drum-banger for science, surely he would recognize science would need much more than a vague anecdote to support this contention.

So let's think through on Dawkins' logic. First, where is the science? What scientific evidence does Dawkins offer to support the contention that believing in Hell is a worse form of abuse than being sexually molested? Where is the evidence of this "grievous mental harm" in bringing up the child Catholic? His biased opinion? His emotional approach? An anecdote?

Secondly, it is ironic that Dawkins has the science backwards. There are plenty of studies to show that sexual molestation of a child can have long term, negative effects. Dismissing it as "a bit of fondling" and being "mental damage anyway" is insulting to the many victims of child molestation. And there are plenty of studies that also show that religious belief and convictions, if held seriously, provide a net positive benefit in terms of psychological and physical health. In other words, contrary to the views of Dawkins, being raised a Catholic is not worse than being sexually abused.

But let's follow through with this example of Dawkins Think. As it stands, it is illegal to sexually molest a child. And, of course, it is not illegal to raise your child as a Catholic. But if it is really more harmful to raise your child as a Catholic than to sexually molest your child, as Dawkins believes, society needs to adjust its laws. According to Dawkins' logic, we should a) either make it illegal to raise your child as a Catholic, as it is worse than pedophilia, or b) legalize pedophilia, since it is not as bad as the legal activity of teaching a child about Hell and Catholicism. Which option would Dawkins choose? It's his logic, thus his choice to clarify.

Consider a simple analogy. The house next to your house goes up for sale. Two families are interested in buy it. The first family is a devout Catholic family. The father is hard working and has broken no laws. But he has taught his kids to believe in Catholic doctrine, including belief in Hell. The second family is not religious. The father is also hard working, but he also sexually molests his kids. In Dawkins World, you hope the child molester moves in next door, as he is not as bad as the Catholic man."

 (C) It Should be Illegal for Parents to Indoctrinate Their Children - Petition Signed by Dawkins

In December 2006, Dawkins signed a Petition that upset some of his most devoted followers - so much so that he quickly withdrew his signature and claimed he had "misunderstood" same. In contrast he has never withdrawn his claim that Catholicism is worse than child abuse. While the latter claim worries some of his followers, it is directly entirely at the Catholic Church and therefore a lot more palatable to anti-clerics).

Martin Wagner of "The Atheist Experience" Blog *** wrote in an article called "Has Dawkins Totally Jumped the Shark":

"The petition, authored by one Jamie Wallis using a service on the No 10 Downing Street website that allows users to write their own petitions and gather signatures right there for the PM's consideration, reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16. In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians. At the age of 16, as with other laws, they would then be considered old enough and educated enough to form their own opinion and follow any particular religion (or none at all) through free thought.

"Whoa.

"Let's run through this.

"The first and most obvious thing that comes to mind is that what the petition asks is something that in America is unequivocally unconstitutional: government intrusion in private religious practice. Ed Brayton, over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars, has gone into outrage overload at this whole thing, declaring that "as far as I'm concerned, this pretty much removes Dawkins from any discussion among reasonable people." He goes on to a laundry list of entirely valid criticisms.

This proposal is every bit as noxious and totalitarian as a proposal from Christian reconstructionists that those who teach their children about witchcraft or atheism should be thrown in jail would be. Just imagine what you would have to do to actually enforce such a law. No one could take their children to church, which means you'd have to literally police the churches to make sure no children went in. Nor could they teach their children about religion at home, read the Bible with them, say prayers with them before they go to bed. The only way to enforce such a law would be to create a society that would make Orwell's 1984 seem optimistic by comparison.

"In case the "thrown in jail" part sounds a little hyperbolic to you, recall that the petition itself uses the word "illegal," and the general idea is that if someone does something illegal, then they've earned at the very least a citation and at worst imprisonment. Does Dawkins really want people to go to jail for taking their kids to Sunday School? Has he really gone that far over the top?" [End of Quotation from Martin Wagner]

*** The Blog motto seems to be "We feed on the blood of the ignorant!" - but they may not be referring to Dawkins!

My Comment: Dawkins withdrew his signature, claiming that he had misunderstood the Petition, believing it only referred to religious schools. The Petition does not mention schools at all and moreover is perfectly in line with Dawkins claim that raising your child as a Catholic is a form of child abuse.

(D) Hitler was not an Atheist; He was a Catholic - as per Richard Dawkins

On 22 September 2010 the UK Guardian reported that "Richard Dawkins has contacted the Guardian to strongly deny that he compared Roman Catholics to Nazis, rather he said that Hitler was a Roman Catholic." The Guardian then gave a detailed account of his speech that included the following:

"The unfortunate little fact that Ratzinger was in the Hitler Youth has been the subject of a widely observed moratorium. I've respected it myself, hitherto. But after the pope's outrageous speech in Edinburgh, blaming atheism for Adolf Hitler, one can't help feeling the gloves are off ..

"Hitler was a Roman Catholic. Or at least he was as much a Roman Catholic as the 5 million so-called Roman Catholics in this country today. For Hitler never renounced his baptismal Catholicism, which was doubtless the criterion for counting the 5 million alleged British Catholics today. You cannot have it both ways. Either you have 5 million British Catholics, in which case you have to have Hitler, too. Or Hitler was not a Catholic, in which case you have to give us an honest figure for the number of genuine Catholics in Britain today – the number who really believe Jesus turns himself into a wafer, as the former Professor Ratzinger presumably does.

"In any case, Hitler certainly was not an atheist. In 1933 he claimed to have "stamped atheism out", having banned most of Germany's atheist organisations, including the German Freethinkers League whose building was then turned into an information bureau for church affairs. ...

"Even if Hitler had been an atheist – as Joseph Stalin more surely was – how dare Ratzinger suggest that atheism has any connection whatsoever with their horrific deeds? Any more than Hitler and Stalin's non-belief in leprechauns or unicorns. Any more than their sporting of a moustache – along with Francisco Franco and Saddam Hussein. There is no logical pathway from atheism to wickedness.

"Unless, that is, you are steeped in the vile obscenity at the heart of Catholic theology. I refer (and I am indebted to Paula Kirby for the point) to the doctrine of original sin. These people believe – and they teach this to tiny children, at the same time as they teach them the terrifying falsehood of hell – that every baby is "born in sin". That would be Adam's sin, by the way: Adam who, as they themselves now admit, never existed.

"Original sin means that, from the moment we are born, we are wicked, corrupt, damned. Unless we believe in their God. Or unless we fall for the carrot of heaven and the stick of hell. That, ladies and gentleman, is the disgusting theory that leads them to presume that it was godlessness that made Hitler and Stalin the monsters that they were. We are all monsters unless redeemed by Jesus. What a vile, depraved, inhuman theory to base your life on. 

"Ratzinger is an enemy of humanity. ..........."

 (E) Extracts from "Hitler's Secret Conversations" (aka "Hitler's Table Talk") regarding Christianity

The book Hitler's Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc. first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler's real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, "Hitler's Table Talk 1941-1944", which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.

All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:

Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together.... The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity's illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.... Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)

10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)

14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)

19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.

21st October, 1941, midday:
Originally, Christianity was merely an incarnation of Bolshevism, the destroyer.... The decisive falsification of Jesus' doctrine was the work of St.Paul. He gave himself to this work... for the purposes of personal exploitation.... Didn't the world see, carried on right into the Middle Ages, the same old system of martyrs, tortures, faggots? Of old, it was in the name of Christianity. Today, it's in the name of Bolshevism. Yesterday the instigator was Saul: the instigator today, Mardochai. Saul was changed into St.Paul, and Mardochai into Karl Marx. By exterminating this pest, we shall do humanity a service of which our soldiers can have no idea. (p 63-65)

13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)

14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don't believe the thing's possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself.... Pure Christianity-- the Christianity of the catacombs-- is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)

9th April, 1942, dinner:
There is something very unhealthy about Christianity (p 339)

27th February, 1942, midday:
It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 years will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278)

(F) MY CONCLUSION

Hitler was in fact, a Social Darwinist who believed in an impersonal Providence which gives victory to the strong by using a process of natural selection to ensure the survival of the fittest. (He objected to Christianity because he saw it as "a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature ..... the systematic cultivation of the human failure".) In addition Hitler - like Dawkins - did not believe in Original Sin - which the Catholic Church regards as a radical weakness in human nature by means of which we have a "natural" tendency to do evil rather than good.

NOTES:

[1] As per Wikipedia "The College Historical Society (CHS) – popularly referred to as The Hist – is one of the two debating societies at Trinity College Dublin. It was established within the college in 1770 and was inspired by the club formed by the philosopher Edmund Burke during his own time in Trinity in 1747. It is the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world. .... Prominent members have included many Irish men and women of note, from the republican revolutionary Theobald Wolfe Tone and the author Bram Stoker, to founding father of the Northern Irish state Edward Carson and first President of Ireland Douglas Hyde, and – in more recent times – Government Ministers Mary Harney (who was the first female auditor of the society) and Brian Lenihan."

Theobald Wolfe Tone, later leader of the United Irishmen rebellion in 1798, was elected auditor in 1785, and future rebel Thomas Addis Emmet was a member of the committee. The society was briefly expelled from the college in 1794, but readmitted on the condition that "No question of modern politics shall be debated". Eight members of The Hist were expelled in 1798 in the run-up to the Rebellion, and a motion was later carried condemning the rebellion, against their former auditor.

Tension between the society and the college flourished in the early nineteenth century, with the auditor being called before the provost in 1810. After a number of members were removed at the request of the college board, the society left the college in 1815. The society continued from 1815 as the Extern Historical Society until 1843, when it reformed within the college again on the condition that no subject of current politics was debated. As per Wikipedia "This provision remains in the Laws of the Hist as a nod to the past, but the college authorities have long since ceased to restrict the subjects of the society's debates." 

The decadence of the oldest surviving undergraduate student society in the world ("we value our members comfort above all else”) is therefore significant and illustrates the truth of the old saying that "A fish rots from the head down"!

[2] The Guardian has a very informative article dated 20 April 2021 on the issue "Richard Dawkins Loses ‘Humanist of the Year’ Title over Trans Comments" The subtitle is "American Humanist Association criticises academic for comments about identity using ‘the guise of scientific discourse’, and withdraws its 1996 honour" 

Like The Hist, the American Humanist Association had no problem with Dawkins' view that raising one's child  as a Catholic is worse than child sex abuse. So exactly WHAT did the AHA object to? 

 On Monday, it announced that it was withdrawing the award, referring to a tweet sent by Dawkins earlier this month, in which he compared trans people to Rachel Dolezal, the civil rights activist who posed as a black woman for years.

“In 2015, Rachel Dolezal, a white chapter president of NAACP, was vilified for identifying as Black,” wrote Dawkins on Twitter. “Some men choose to identify as women, and some women choose to identify as men. You will be vilified if you deny that they literally are what they identify as. Discuss.”

The Guardian article goes on to give details of a statement from the AHA board:

The AHA said that Dawkins had “over the past several years accumulated a history of making statements that use the guise of scientific discourse to demean marginalised groups, an approach antithetical to humanist values”. The evolutionary biologist’s latest comment, the board said, “implies that the identities of transgender individuals are fraudulent, while also simultaneously attacking Black identity as one that can be assumed when convenient”, while his “subsequent attempts at clarification are inadequate and convey neither sensitivity nor sincerity”.

“Consequently, the AHA Board has concluded that Richard Dawkins is no longer deserving of being honored by the AHA, and has voted to withdraw, effective immediately, the 1996 Humanist of the Year award.”

The claim that Dawkins had "accumulated a history of making statements that .. demean marginalised groups" presumably includes his 2015 remark that: “Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.”

[3] The Hist and the American Humanist Association are not the ONLY secular organisations to take offence at Dawkins' tweet. The afore-mentioned Guardian article also quotes Alison Gill, vice president for legal and policy at American Atheists (founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair) and a trans woman. According to The Guardian "she said Dawkins’ comments reinforce dangerous and harmful narratives". She said: “Given the repercussions for the millions of trans people in this country, in this one life we have to live, as an atheist and as a trans woman, I hope that Professor Dawkins treats this issue with greater understanding and respect in the future.”