Church can no longer remain untouchable

It is almost a month since the publication of the Ryan Commission report outlining the extent of child abuse in religious-run industrial schools for half a century. The outpouring of anger and grief that followed has set the political agenda in a most surprising way. The heads of religious orders have been summoned to Government Buildings, ordered to produce an inventory of their assets, and can now expect a bill of up to ¤500m to atone for the sins and crimes of their sisters, brothers and priests.

But we detect a mood in favour of more profound changes. Almost since its foundation in 1922, the Irish state has genuflected deeply before the altar of the Catholic church. Politicians have literally and metaphorically kissed the rings of bishops. Church and state were so closely intertwined that the republic could feasibly have been defined as a “theocracy” at one point.

It was the state’s deference towards the church that allowed the abuse in industrial schools to continue for so long. As Justice Ryan said in his report, the Department of Education’s “submissive” attitude towards the religious congregations “compromised its ability to carry out its statutory duty of inspection and monitoring of the schools”.

That deference, combined with the sclerotic slothfulness that generally characterises the Irish public service, had another effect: it allowed the Catholic church to take control of the Irish education and health systems. State laziness and indifference has allowed that regime to continue, despite the huge decline in the number of priests and nuns since the 1970s.

Pat Rabbitte, a Labour TD, probably went too far in the Dail last week when he said that “for the first time in our history, public opinion wants an end to the deference and a separation of church and state”. A majority of the public — 95% of whom are believers — may be happy enough with the status quo. But Mr Rabbitte’s party is correct to say this scandal should not go unpunished.

There are 3,200 primary schools in the country, but fewer than 100 of them are owned by the state, according to Labour, with the rest in the hands of the church. Many of these schools are owned by the 18 religious orders which have been indicted in the Ryan report. This is now clearly unacceptable. Those orders were not just guilty of physical, mental and sexual abuse of children for decades — they were also guilty of minimising and denying their crimes right up until this year.

They adopted an aggressive line with the state in the matter of compensation, securing a soft deal, and then didn’t even keep their side of a very lopsided bargain. Up to half the properties that were supposed to be given to the state as part of the infamous ¤128m indemnity deal struck in 2002 still haven’t been handed over. Contrition and atonement are key concepts in the Catholic catechism — we’ve seen precious little of either from most of the 18 religious orders involved.

The Department of Education has refused to answer questions about the precise ownership of the primary school system, even though it is funded by taxpayers. This is unacceptable. Batt O’Keeffe, the education minister, should now order his officials to draw up a full register of ownership and publish it. When that task is complete, the state will be better able to decide what steps it might take to end this decades-old relationship. In the meantime, justice dictates that those schools owned by the religious orders named in the Ryan report be handed over as a matter of urgency.

Muslim waitress wins nearly £3,000 for hurt feelings over skimpy dress

A Muslim cocktail waitress who quit after refusing to wear a bright red dress for work has won almost £3,000 in compensation for sexual harassment.

Fata Lemes, 33, was handed the payout even though a tribunal panel rejected her claim that the dress was “sexually revealing and indecent”.

It concluded that the Bosnian Muslim “holds views about modesty and decency which some might think unusual in Britain in the 21st century”.

But it accepted that Miss Lemes genuinely believed that the short, low-cut dress was “disgusting” and made her look “like a prostitute”.

Bosses at the Rocket bar and restaurant in London’s Mayfair should have made allowance for her feelings and their insistence that she wear the dress amounted to sexual harassment, it ruled.

The panel at Central London Employment Tribunal found that Miss Lemes “overstated” her trauma at being asked to wear the sleeveless dress that was open at the back.

It rejected Miss Lemes’ claim that she was left with no choice but to walk out of her job after just eight days.

It branded her compensation claim of £20,000 including £17,500 for hurt feelings – as “manifestly absurd”.

But it awarded her £2,919.95 for hurt feelings and loss of earnings.

Miss Lemes told the tribunal that she “might as well be naked” in the dress, adding: “I was brought up a Muslim and am not used to wearing sexually attractive clothes.”

A photo of Miss Lemes on Facebook, however, showed her wearing a low cut T-shirt revealing her cleavage.

In its judgment, the panel ruled that restaurant group Spring & Greene, which owns the Rocket chain, must “take their victim as they find her”.

It said of the dress: “It is eye-catching, not only because of its colour but also because of its cut and lines.

“It is clearly a garment for a girl or young woman. It is intended to, and does, show the curves of the body.

“It seeks to make the wearer attractive. It might be seen as a party dress or something to wear at an informal celebration.”

But the panel ruled that wearing the dress could not amount to “conduct of a sexual nature”.

Miss Lemes told how she was pestered for sex by customers at the bar shortly after starting work in May last year.

The tribunal ruled: “In our judgment, the effect of requiring her to wear the dress was to violate her dignity. We further consider that it created for her an environment which was degrading, humiliating and offensive.”

It pointed out that a summer uniform of “brightly coloured, figure-hugging garb” had not been introduced for male waiting staff.

But the tribunal rejected Miss Lemes’ claim of constructive dismissal.

The company’s lawyer Tom Grady told the tribunal: “There is no evidence to support the suggestion that it is a sex club or some sort of seedy brothel.”