The Struggle for Recognition: Human Rights and the language of the 'Irish Holocaust' and 'Crimes Against Humanity'

Both before and after I published 'A Magdalene Rose', I have been talking about the failure of four people's Human Rights and their Rights contained within the Irish Constitution.

The story of 'A Magdalene Rose', is principally about a woman who was born and died an Irish citizen, revealing a dark chapter in Ireland’s history.

From the age of 26, she was confined within a system that denied her legal rights and subjected her to decades of institutionalisation. Unfortunately, her experience was not unique. As I seek to build discussions within the Oireachtas, I have estimated that there is a potential 255,000 Irish women and children, who were removed from society, punished, and isolated for perceived moral failings defined by state and religious authorities.

My blog explores the struggle to find the right words to describe these injustices, the debate around the term used by some victims and survivors that what happened to them was an "Irish Holocaust," and the potential application of the phrase "crimes against humanity" under international law.

Commemorative plaque to Ireland's Magdalen Laundry women in St. Stephen's Green, Dublin

Understanding the Historical Context of Institutionalisation in Ireland

Between the 1930s and late 20th century, Ireland operated a network of institutions including Magdalen Laundries, Mother and Baby Homes, Industrial Schools, and County Homes. These institutions were often run by religious orders with state support. Women and children were confined for reasons ranging from pregnancy outside marriage to poverty or being deemed "delinquent."

• Magdalen Laundries forced women to work without pay under harsh conditions.

• Mother and Baby Homes separated mothers from their children, often facilitating forced adoptions.

• Industrial Schools housed children who suffered physical and sexual abuse.

• County Homes served as long-term institutions for those deemed socially unacceptable.

  
  

My own 'Magdalene Rose' spent over 42 years in some of these institutions, reflecting a broader system that denied her personal agency, the lack of choice, separation from her child and partner, the failure to deliver a true legal due process, forced and unpaid labour and the denial of basic human rights and Irish Constitutional rights to thousands.

The Debate Around the Term "Irish Holocaust"

In my personal engagements with Irish victims and survivors, a sizeable number use the phrase "Irish Holocaust" to describe the collective suffering endured by them and many other women and children. This term conveys the scale of trauma and the systematic nature of the abuses.

I think this arises because of the label that is applied to them, that being, "victims" and/or "survivors". Some reject the former because they understandably refuse to be seen as a "victim". Others consider the phrase "survivor" to be nebulous and does not reflect the horrors that they are now publicly considered to have survived..

The irish government generally uses the phrases "victims" "survivors" and has recently through the development of the proposed National Centre for Research & Remembrance, started to use the phrases "affected persons" and "lived experiences". There is a move to also recognise such statuses as being "direct victims" whilst ignoring the addition phrase of "indirect victim", both of which have been defined by the European Court of Human Rights. Being an "direct victim" is easy to identify; an "indirect victim" is a relative of a "direct victim" who seeks to bring their "lived experience" into the realm of a legal challenge or high-level discussion, seeking to achieve justice, to bring justice to the good name of the individual and that of the family.

A micro-scenario (which is if you like the preparation before introduction into the full institutional system), has always puzzled. It concerns the language used about women who escaped Ireland to the UK, because they were pregnant and didn't want to get caught up in the Irish Institutional system. Most gravitated towards an Irish community in the UK and therefore their local Catholic Church. When it was discovered that they were pregnant, their personal control and choices became the responsibility of a 'rescue' society and the Church. The women were then transported back to Ireland and delivered into the hands of nuns or officials from a Mother and Baby Home, and so the whole Institutional experience began in earnest.

When speaking about these women, they are referred to (and sometimes accepted by the women themselves) as "pregnant from Ireland" or "PFI" and in further language, they are described as having being "repatriated". But surely repatriated implies some choice or decision freely made? On speaking to the women, they will tell you that they had no choice. When I have tried to redefine this action as being tantamount to a "religious rendition", some have criticised me because they claim the word "rendition" is used for terrorists and the women were not terrorists. However, research on this area reveals that there is no international legal definition of the word 'rendition' but as a basic definition it is said to be:

"..the movement of detained persons across state boundaries in a manner which is outside of any legal framework.."

It is a debate that introduces all manner of issues, including definitions of words, context, retrospective application and above all, consensus!

If you think about it, even though the generic descriptive phrases that are applied against the institution-type to identify you as a member of that type, the generality of those descriptives nonetheless fail to explain the full nature of the gross human rights violations committed against any victim or survivor.

This is perhaps why some Irish victims or survivors seek to add a context to the label of their suffering by referring to their's and a collective "lived experience", as an 'Irish Holocaust'.

Indeed, the campaigning group, Justice for Magdalenes sought to obtain a judgement against the Irish State before the UN Committee Against Torture, presenting many thousands of pages of that "lived experience' testimony (The Coppin case). If they had been successful in their hard-fought campaign, then arguably any victim or survivor could have then potentially described themselves as a "victim of state-sponsored torture" or a "survivor of state-sponsored torture". It would present a "why" this happened to them, a context. The debate of the "why" and context, is important in another International Law requirement of 'non-recurrence' or "never again" and its role within the National Centre for Research & Remembrance.

But importantly, the fact that you would then have had an expanded generic victim/survivor descriptive, would mean that Industrial Schools, Mother and Baby Homes, Magdalen Laundries and any other Institutional label would then act as the secondary description because you would move from the accountability of the "why" to the secondary of "where". The more sceptical amongst you might argue that the failure of language is deliberate leading to a control of the narrative and a fractured victim/survivor base? I will leave readers to discuss that amongst themselves!

So, the phrase "Irish Holocaust" is not one that I would use and I have cautioned some against its use because of several other concerns:

• Holocaust’s Specific Historical Meaning: The Holocaust refers principally to the genocide of six million Jews and millions of others by Nazi Germany. Using the term outside this context can be seen as diminishing its unique historical significance.

• Risk of Misinterpretation: The term may confuse or alienate audiences unfamiliar with Ireland’s history or the survivors’ experiences.

• Search for Accurate Language: As I have already illustrated, victims and survivors are clearly seeking words that reflect the severity of their experiences, without fully appropriating terms tied to other tragedies, this could lead to difficult narratives if the incorrect expression or phrase is used..

  
  

Despite these concerns, the phrase nonetheless remains a powerful expression of the pain and injustice experienced by a distinct group defined by state and religious morality.

Crimes Against Humanity as a Legal Framework

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court defines crimes against humanity (Articles 7 (10 & (2)) as widespread or systematic attacks against civilians (including gender), with for example imprisonment, torture, forced labor, and persecution. While the statute does not allow retroactive prosecution (Article 24), it offers a framework to understand the nature of abuses in Ireland’s institutions and how language could be used considered and used.

Key points supporting this classification include:

• Systematic Nature: The abuses were not isolated incidents but part of a state-supported system.

• Targeted Group: Women and children were singled out based on moral judgments imposed by authorities.

• Deprivation of Rights: Victims were denied legal due process, agency, physical or mental torture and subjected to forced labor and separation from family.

  
  

Labeling these abuses as crimes against humanity potentially highlights the severity and organised nature of the violations, providing a basis for recognition and justice.

Viewing the gross human rights violations through this lens could potentially help to develop a more accurate descriptive beyond the simple labels that are currently applied.

The Importance of Recognition and Language

Language shapes how history is remembered and justice pursued. The struggle to define what happened to my 'Magdalene Rose' and thousands like her is about more than semantics. It affects:

• Public Awareness: Clear terms help educate society about past wrongs.

• Legal and Moral Accountability: Accurate definitions can support calls for reparations and policy changes.

• Survivor Healing: Recognition validates survivors’ experiences and supports their dignity.

  
  

Alternatives to "Irish Holocaust" potentially include:

• Victim or Survivor of State-Sanctioned Institutional Abuse

• Victim or Survivor of Systematic Moral Persecution

• Victim or Survivor of Crimes Against Humanity in Ireland

• Victim or Survivor of state-sponsored torture

  
  

Each phrase carries different implications but shares the goal of acknowledging the distinct and grave nature of these abuses.

Examples of Institutional Impact on Survivors

The stories in my book, 'A Magdalene Rose' are just some of many other experiences that other survivors recount:

• Forced separation from children, often with no information about their fate.

• Years of unpaid labor in laundries under strict religious control.

• Physical and emotional abuse in schools and homes.

• Social stigma and exclusion after release.

• Illegal Adoption

• Being subjected to Vaccine Trials.

• Racial or other social discrimination.

  
  

These experiences underline the need for terms that capture both the personal and collective trauma.

Moving Forward: What Can Be Done?

To address this history, Ireland and the international community can:

• Help to create a language that will be critical of their past or indeed present actions, bringing not only comfort to the victim/survivor cohort, but a benefit that these same Institutions will be seen as finally coming to terms with the past and submitting to and respecting the application of Human Rights.

• Support survivor-led initiatives to document and share stories.

• Promote education about the institutional abuses in schools and public discourse.

• Consider legal and reparative measures recognising crimes against humanity.

• Create context and answer the question of "why" this happened to victims and survivors, delivering a true 'non-recurrence' or "never again".

• Foster dialogue on appropriate language that respects victims, survivors and historical accuracy, so preventing historical amnesia.

  
  

Recognition is a step toward justice and healing for a community long silenced, whether they are alive or dead.