|
|
|
|
DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS
|
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948
On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE:
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,
Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,
Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,
Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.
Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.
Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.
Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.
(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.
Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.
Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.
Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.
Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.
Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.
(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.
(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.
************
THE REAL THREAT TO MARRIAGE
The U.S. has faced many justice and due process of the law challenges in the past and will continue to face challenges relating to the equality of all persons in the future.
The REAL THREAT in our society today is NOT terrorism, NOT immigration reform and NOT defining the institution of marriage.
The REAL THREAT is the failure to acknowledge and correct that wrongs that have been committed against precious children, vulnerable adults and families who have been left with life-long disabilities because of heinous crimes relating to sex abuse.
In our society, it is denied due process of the law, denied justice and intentional delays via our country's court systems and legislation process that will destroy the moral, legal and economic foundations in the U.S.
Due process of the law and justice are NOT arbitrary rights based on religious and political affiliations. Intentional abuses of the judicial and legislative process have checks and balances that demand accountability. Delayed and/or denied justice does not protect children and adults from sex abuse crimes and other dangers.
QUESTION: Why have hundreds of precious children and vulnerable adults been sexually abused by employees of religious institutions? As a society, why have we failed to demand accountability in a criminal or civil court of law for employees of religious institutions who sexually abused a child or vulnerable adult? As a society, why have we allowed expired statutes of limitation and/or absence of legislation returning due process in a court of law to victims of past sex abuse crimes?
Freedom of religion privileges have NEVER allowed sex abuse crimes, failures to report sex abuse crimes and/or obstructions of justice, judicial abuse and intentional delays that result in expired statutes of limitation.
---------------------------------
Comment by Debby Bodkin | Jun. 6, 2006, 7:11 am |
Why is it that the GOP is always so willing, ready and able to cast the first stone especially when it relates to adultery or the sudden aggressive platform to define the institution of marriage in the US Constitution?
Adultery is wrong in accordance with the teachings of the bible; and adultery involves 2 consenting adults who have made personal choices.
Is it the GOP's responsibility to change the US constitution to define the institution of marriage when there are so many other serious issues pending in the US today?
Just imagine how many childhood victims of clergy sexual misconduct NEVER had the choice to enter into sex abuses by a person employed by a religious institution.
Question to the GOP: Fight for those who were sexually abused as children and NEVER had a choice.
Legislation nationwide, similar to California's 2003 Sex Abuse Law, will return due process and justice to victims of past sex abuse crimes.
What is more important?
1. Publicly exposing adulters.
2. Defining the institution of marriage.
3. Returning due process and a day in court to childhood survivors of clergy sex abuse crimes.
-------------------------------------
** WHY DOES A CIVIL "WINDOW" PROTECT KIDS?
Thanks to the tireless efforts of hundreds of caring Catholics and dedicated survivors, lawmakers in several states are considering civil "windows" (like California's) to expose the predators, protect the vulnerable and heal the wounded. And because of Bishop Thomas Gumbleton's recent disclosure of his victimization and his support for such "windows," the issue is beginning to attract more public attention.
Years and years of our own research, experience and advocacy (along with history, psychology and common sense) convince us that a civil "window" is the single most effective step toward preventing future abuse. Here's how:
1) Exposing predators. The "window" enables victims to publicly expose the predators who hurt them, through the open, impartial, time-tested American judicial system. It means that parents, neighbors and employers will know about potentially dangerous men.
2) Exposing enablers. Through the balanced judicial process - depositions, discovery, interrogatories and sworn testimony - anyone who ignored a sex crime, shielded a molester, destroyed a document or deceived a victim's family may also be exposed. Ohio families deserve to know whether their pastor or day care center director or athletic association harbored a sex offender, stonewalled a prosecutor, or lied to a parent. Ohio citizens deserve to know whether a diocese or a summer camp director knowingly hired child molesters.
3) Fear of litigation. Without the "window," a supervisor who's been lax about child safety has no incentive to change bad habits or work harder. With the "window," decision-makers will know that if they insensitively shun a victim or recklessly endanger a child, they may be exposed in court and face consequences for having done so.
4) Fear of financial consequences. Passage of the "window" will prod defense lawyers, public relations staff and others to beef up child sex abuse prevention and education.
Concerned employees will start asking their super- visors "Do we do background checks on everyone here?" and "Are we ready for a potential lawsuit?"
Smart organizations will start or expand efforts to train adults about reporting abuse and teach kids about "safe touch," knowing that - victims are less inclined to sue an institution that seems to take abuse seriously, judges and juries are more lenient with institutions that are already addressing the problem which led to a lawsuit.
---------------------------
** CLOCK STOPS IN SEX ABUSE CASES
State extends statute of limitations during dispute over priests' files, Alan Cooperman, Washington Post
Friday, April 4, 2003
California enacted emergency legislation Thursday to stop the clock on its statute of limitations in child sexual abuse cases while the Los Angeles district attorney fights Cardinal Roger Mahony over access to priests' personnel files.
Lawyers for the archdiocese of Los Angeles argued in court this week that the files are protected by the First Amendment and should remain confidential. District Attorney Steve Cooley, who has subpoenaed the records in a grand jury investigation, contends that they could help corroborate allegations that date back decades. The epicenter of the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church has shifted this year from Boston to Los Angeles because of the grand jury probe and a deluge of civil lawsuits that imperil the finances of California dioceses.
The Legislature stepped into the fray after prosecutors warned that, starting next week, some accused child abusers would go free because a year of wrangling over the church's files has eaten up the time in which prosecutors must file charges. The emergency bill passed both houses unanimously and was signed into law by Gov. Gray Davis Thursday afternoon. It freezes the legal clock on criminal cases until the dispute over personnel records is settled.
Facing Mahony's continued resistance, prosecutors accused the cardinal of reneging on his promise of full cooperation. They point to Mahony's own words from last May: "We want every single thing out, open and dealt with, period." Tod Tamberg, a spokesman for the Los Angeles archdiocese, denied that Mahony has changed his position or been uncooperative. He said the archdiocese turned over the names of accused priests, their alleged victims and the dates and other circumstances contained in its records. But, he said, the church does not believe that it should hand over psychotherapy reports and files on the "pastoral counseling" of priests by their bishops.
"It's in everyone's interest for this to be dealt with openly and honestly, so that we can begin the process of healing," Tamberg said. "At the same time, all the rights and privileges of all the parties have to be weighed. That's not backing away from openness. It's trying to reach justice in a balanced and fair way."
Recognizing that victims often bury their experiences in shame and silence, California's Legislature decided in 1994 to repeal its three-year statute of limitations and allow victims of child sexual abuse to report such crimes at any time in their lives.
But the 1994 law stipulated that once a report is made to police, prosecutors have just one year to file charges and must present convincing independent evidence to corroborate the victim's story. Prosecutors believe church files could provide such evidence. The challenge was brought by Marion Stogner, 70, who was charged in 1998 with molesting his daughters more than three decades ago. He contended the charges violated the Constitution's prohibition on ex post facto laws. The California Supreme Court rejected his argument in 1998, but the U.S. Supreme Court took it up on appeal.
Though the charges against Stogner have nothing to do with clergy abuse, a decision in his favor could reopen scores of convictions in California and undermine laws in many other states that have retroactively extended the time limits on sex abuse prosecutions. California also has made a huge change in its statute of limitations on civil lawsuits, opening a one-year window in 2003 for victims of child sexual abuse to file claims, no matter how long ago the abuse occurred. The resulting deluge of about 300 suits threatens the finances of dioceses statewide, including the large archdiocese of Los Angeles, which forecasts a budget deficit of $5.7 million this fiscal year and has cut 60 staff positions.
|
Comment by Debby Bodkin | Jun. 6, 2006, 7:11 am
Posted: http://www.pensitoreview.com/2006/06/05/the-real-threat-to-marriage-top-10-gop-adulterers/
*******************
The Real Threat to Marriage
Why is it that the GOP is always so willing, ready and able to cast the first stone especially when it relates to adultery or the sudden aggressive platform to define the institution of marriage in the US Constitution?
Adultery is wrong in accordance with the teachings of the bible; and adultery involves 2 consenting adults who have made personal choices.
Is it the GOP’s responsibility to change the US constitution to define the institution of marriage when there are so many other serious issues pending in the US today?
Just imagine how many childhood victims of clergy sexual misconduct NEVER had the choice to enter into sex abuses by a person employed by a religious institution.
To the GOP: Fight for those who were sexually abused as children and NEVER had a choice.
Legislation nationwide, similar to California’s 2003 Sex Abuse Law, will return due process and justice to victims of past sex abuse crimes.
What is more important?
1. Publicly exposing adulters.
2. Defining the institution of marriage.
3. Returning due process and a day in court to childhood survivors of clergy sex abuse crimes.
**************************
| SUPPORT LEGISLATION IN OHIO!
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED TO OHIO JUDICIARY COMMITTEE:
January 11, 2006
SUBMITTED BY: Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton, DD, Auxiliary Bishop - Archdiocese of Detroit, 4860 15th Street, Detroit MI 48208
TO: Ohio House of Representatives Judiciary Committee and
Chairman Willamowski and members of the House Judiciary Committee:
I am Thomas Gumbleton, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you regarding Senate Bill 17.
From the outset I wish to make it very clear that I do not speak in any official capacity on behalf of the Archdiocese of Detroit, nor any regional nor national group of bishops. However, I come before you as a priest of the Catholic church for almost 50 years and a bishop for almost 38 years. I have had many years of pastoral and administrative experience at both the parish and diocesan levels.
I also speak from my experience of listening and attempting to be responsive to the tragic stories of victims of sexual abuse. Finally, I speak out of my own experience of being exploited as a teenager through inappropriate touching by a priest.
I know you have listened for hours to the grim stories of many victims and their family members of sexual abuse by Catholic clergy. I thank you for doing this. And, if I may, I extend a very sincere apology to the men and women in this room who were sexually assaulted by Catholic priests and other church leaders. I also apologize to the parents, spouses, siblings and other family members and friends of the victims. I know you, too, have suffered. I am so sorry for what each of you has endured. I know that there is no way to repair shattered innocence or to restore stolen childhoods. But I do offer my sincere apologies to all of you for what you have suffered.
Let me take just a short time to explain why I feel it is important to modify the statute of limitations in order to provide an opportunity for these victims of sexual abuse to have their “day in court.”
First of all, I am here because there is still the strong likelihood that some perpetrators have not yet been brought to account. That is why I support the one year civil window. I do believe that the abusers need to be exposed. I also believe that this can only be assured if the possibility exists to bring these matters into a civil court of law. By doing this we will increase, as far as humanly possible, the protection from becoming victims of sexual abuse that all children have a right to.
Secondly, I am persuaded that this is the most effective way to make all those responsible, bishops who protected priest-perpetrators as well as priest themselves, truly accountable for this tragedy, and to deter similar recklessness or wrong-doing in the future, by any decision-makers, inside or outside the church.
Thirdly, by bringing these cases to full exposure and full accountability we have a better possibility of restoring credibility in church leaders as moral teachers and guides.
In a recent issue of American magazine (December 5, 2005), David Hollenback makes the following statement:
In the United States, the recent scandal of sexual abuse by members of the clergy has also seriously undermined the capacity of the Catholic community to address issues of justice and peace. Through the years since the council, I have been very much involved in preaching, teaching and writing about the church’s social mission. In the past few years since the scope of the sexual abuse problem has come to light, I have experienced a new tone of skepticism and even cynicism in the response of some to discussions of the council’s social teachings. Often the first words I hear following a talk on social justice are comments that question whether any church official has the credibility to speak about justice at all. Since clerics themselves have committed grave injustices of abuse against young people and since bishops have failed to intervene to stop this abuse or sought to cover it up, more than a few feel that church social teaching ring with hypocrisy.
This has been exactly my experience. It reinforces the statement from the 1971 Synod of Bishops on Justice In The World: “anyone who ventures to speak to people about justice must first be just in their eyes.”
When every bishop in every diocese cooperates in bringing about a genuinely just resolution of every charge of sexual abuse, I believe we will once more be perceived as credible moral teachers. Thus what is good for the victims will likewise be good for the church.
Those are my reasons for supporting the window. To allow this may cause pain, embarrassment and sacrifice for our church, especially in the short term. It may cause some hardship for us financially. It might seem easier to keep the evils hidden, to move on and trust that the future will be better. But I am convinced that a settlement of every case by our court system is the only way to protect children and to heal the brokenness within the church.
I urge you to approve this proposed legislation so that justice will prevail, abuse will be prevented, and the healing of victims will proceed.
Thank you.
**************
TESTIMONY SUBMITTED
January 11, 2006
Kristine Ward, National V. P. Voice of the Faithful, and chair of the lay reform organization's Dayton (Ohio) affiliate; 937 272 0308 cell
The truth is painful every time we hear it. That is no less so today with Bishop Gumbleton's revelation. Bishop Gumbleton, like all survivors, deserves the sincere apology of his Church backed by a real quest for true reform.
His disclosure serves to underscore what the survivors have taught the Church and society at large - that it takes a very long time to come to terms with abuse. This is why access to justice should be afforded to victims of sexual abuse through "windows" that allow for a look back period.
What we don't know does harm us. When we don't have knowledge of who sexual predators are children are at risk. When the Bishops cover up abuse and block reforms the Church suffers for sure but society loses the strength of a moral pillar.
Only truth and the willingness to seek it will lead us from the depth of this scandal and cure the laryngitis in the Church's moral voice.
Ohio lawmakers see today that the wall of Bishop opposition to the "window" provision of Ohio Senate Bill 17 is not solid. We call upon members of the Ohio House, holders of the public trust, to seize this opportunity to learn the need for all of the provisions of Senate Bill 17.
Bishops should lead, not impede. Led now by one of their own there is a sliver of hope that Bishops could drop their opposition to the look back window and allow wrongs to be righted, children to be protected, and access to justice to be obtained.
--------------------------------------------------------
** WRITTEN TESTIMONY SUBMITTED
November 22, 2005
Debby Bodkin, Founder, Catholics4justice.com
Dear Committee Members:
Thank you for today's hearing and for your consideration of legislation in Ohio that will return the rights of victims of past sex abuse crimes to have their day in an Ohio court of law. Although I cannot be present today, my heart and prayers are with the victims who have found the courage to speak to you today. I respectfully submit this letter for your consideration.
My name is Debby Bodkin, aka Debby Bartholomew-Bodkin. Without stating specifics, I am a non-politically connected Catholic mother who has raised children in Orange County, California. During the past 25 years, I have worked as a legal assistant for various law firms throughout California. My background as a legal assistant has given me a strong foundation relating to the "intent" versus the "letter" of our country's laws and I have been blessed with working for intelligent and ethical attorneys that have taught me many life lessons.
I am also the Founder of a website entitled www.catholics4justice.com, which focuses on the protections of children and those who protect them as "mandated reporters". It is my sincere belief that Catholic Bishops have made progress relating to the protections of children, but there is still much to be accomplished and we need your help.
My personal family experiences during the past 4 years have led me to the Survivors of those Abused by Priests (SNAP) organization and my mission in life is now writing "Letters to the Editors" and sending them via the internet, with the hope that someday all victims of clergy sex abuse crimes will have the opportunity to reclaim their fight for justice in a civil court of law.
I have annoyed many journalists, religious and political leaders during the past 4 years and unfortunately, my personal and family life have suffered for my public statements. It has not been easy but I know those who love me will forgive me and/or understand the importance of speaking out on matters of public concern, without fear, whether it concerns us personally or not.
Since the sex abuse scandals erupted, many have heard that victims' attorneys are out for money and/or the media has exaggerated the clergy sex abuse scandals. This is not true. Victims' attorneys believe in the victims' fight for their day in court and often, they have placed their professional and political careers at risk to represent victims who needed them.
Many journalists have also opened their hearts to victims of abuse so their stories could go public. They too have risked their careers and reputations by publishing sensitive stories relating to powerful religious institutions. Without the media, the public would still be in the dark about the sex abuse crimes committed against unsuspecting children and their families and so many children would still be at risk of danger.
As government leaders, you have the power today to "fix" the wrongs that have been committed against innocent children, vulnerable adults and their families in the State of Ohio. California's 2003 Sex Abuse Law also included a one year "retroactive" window to allow victims of past sex abuse allegation, facing expired statute of limitations, to file civil lawsuits in a court of law.
This "retroactive" window is the key to what has been revealed in California and without it, the truth would not be public. Please learn from California's history. California was blessed with elected government officials who placed their political and religious views aside so that victims and their families could seek justice in a court of law.
As you listen to the courageous victims today, please never forget that any one of the victims could have been one of your children or someone dear to your heart. My life's path changed after hearing the personal stories of sex abuse victims and parents of victims whose lives were destroyed because of these horrific crimes. For me, Mary Grant and Joelle Casteix changed my life by sharing their painful stories of abuse because both victims attended the same schools and parishes my children also attended. Despite knowledge of the sex abuse crimes committed against children, priests were continually placed at my children's schools, without my knowledge. This is wrong!
Mary and Joelle, just like so many other victims, have the courage to take their pain and suffering public so that no other child will be forced to live in shame and silence. Victims and their families often suffer a lifetime of addictions, depression and so many other life-long struggles. Today, they are here to speak to you. Thank you.
New legislation in Ohio will not hurt the Catholic Church -- it is not an injustice. There are insurance coverage laws and as long as the "intent" of those laws is honored, the Church is protected from the "abuse" of the laws and will not suffer financial ruin.
The Catholic Church and other religious institutions claim the First Amendment Establishment Clause to escape moral and legal accountability forced upon them from the sex abuse scandals and the public outcry of abuse victims. This was not the "intent" of our founding fathers -- and we can only hope they are not watching the tragic consequences of this abuse.
As Americans, we are guaranteed freedom of religion BUT freedom of religion does not define into sexually abusing children, covering up the crimes, intimidating "mandated" reporters, ignoring employee "Whistleblower" protections or abusing our country's judicial system.
When the Catholic sex abuse scandals erupted in 2001, the influence of the Catholic Church in the religious, political and government arenas became more evident than ever before in our country's history. There are still many "unresolved" allegations of clergy sex crimes nationwide, very few priests were sent to jail for their crimes and there are still many victims nationwide who are suffering in silence and face expirations of statute of limitations.
Our country's children are now safer from sex abuse crimes but there is still much work to be accomplished. The intervention of elected government officials, new legislation and the support of non-abuse Catholics and non-Catholics nationwide must join the efforts of abuse victims and their families -- or children will never be safe in the future.
There are many laws protecting children from all types of dangers. The Gun Free Schools Act of 2000 is a law that was passed after the Columbine HS shooting tragedy that occurred on April 20, 1999. Families who lost children that tragic day fought for legislation nationwide so no other parent would send their child to school and get a "frightening" phone call or news alert, that there had been a high school shooting. Children are now safer from school zone violence than they were before the Columbine HS shooting tragedy - similar to the way children are now safer from clergy sex abuses because of the courage of sex abuse victims to tell their stories.
In my opinion, we can no longer pretend that the sex abuse scandals are an exaggeration of the media, the victims' attorneys or the victims. This is no longer a "taboo" subject. Sex abuse crimes are society's problems to fix, correct and prevent. The only way this can happen is to pass legislation nationwide that will open a one year "retroactive" window so victims of past sex abuses can have their day in court. Please allow Ohio to follow California in new legislation, with the hope that other states will soon follow.
Please listen carefully to the victims today and open your hearts. It will not be easy because you will feel pain like you have never felt before when you realize how many precious lives were destroyed by sex abuse crimes by religious clergy and persons in position of trust.
Without justice, there will be no peace and without peace, our country's freedoms are meaningless. Our thoughts and prayers in California are with you today.
Debby Bodkin, Supporter,
Survivors of those Abused by Priests
and Founder, www.catholics4justice.com
info@catholics4justice.com
|
|
LEGISLATION & COURT DEVELOPMENTS:
MICHIGAN:
Abuse victims turn to Legislature for help
1/14/2006, 8:02 a.m. ET
The Associated Press
(AP) — LEGAL ROADBLOCK: Michigan courts say alleged victims of long-ago sexual abuse can't file civil lawsuits against alleged molesters because of the statute of limitations. Now, they can sue for just a year after turning 18.
NEW LAW: Victims want the Legislature to open up a two-year window during which they could sue.
SUPPORT: Lawsuits are the best way to hold perpetrators accountable, victims say, partly because time limits usually bar criminal charges in cases involving decades-old abuse.
OPPOSITION: The Roman Catholic Church, worried about a flood of cases being filed against priests, says Michigan should stay in the mainstream of national law.
------------------------
OREGON:
Judge OKs church lawsuits
Thursday, January 12, 2006 1:26 PM PST
PORTLAND (AP) - A federal judge has cleared the way for lawsuits claiming sexual abuse by priests to move forward after keeping them on hold since July 2004 when the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Portland became the first diocese in the nation to declare bankruptcy.
The ruling Wednesday by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Elizabeth Perris will allow trials to proceed for as many as 100 alleged victims, including the one whose pending trial forced Archbishop John Vlazny to decide to seek protection from creditors.
A man identified by the initials “C.B.” claims he was molested in the early 1980s in Seaside by the Rev. Maurice Grammond, who was accused of abuse by more than 50 alleged victims. The latest complaint naming Grammond was filed Wednesday.
The bankruptcy blocked the C.B. trial. But court records indicate that attorneys were prepared to argue that archdiocese officials knew about Grammond sexually abusing children for more than 20 years and responded by moving him from parish to parish.
Church officials have denied moving Grammond in response to allegations of misconduct. Church lawyers have attacked the evidence, calling much of it unreliable and uncorroborated.
It was not clear which case will go to trial first, and it could take months before a trial begins. Perris said she believed that letting juries decide damages would help parties agree on a settlement. She also ruled Wednesday that creditors can offer their own settlement plan after the archdiocese proposed $40 million to settle an estimated 100 claims.
Albert Kennedy, bankruptcy attorney for the alleged victims, plans to submit a plan before a Feb. 14 hearing on the church's offer.
-------------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
