Last week Michelle Martin was released from a Belgian jail, immediately igniting outrage and street protests. Usually I welcome the release of people from the confines of imprisonment regardless of what they have been sent down for. Jails are not nice places and for the most part are staffed by thugs or petty minded jobsworths. Moreover, I am mistrustful of the desire to punish even when I feel the urge myself, and suspect the motives of the punisher as something less than wholesome. The righteous discourse within which the desire to punish is shielded helps mask and sanitise an intrinsic need to inflict suffering. It often appears as a primordial urge rooted in sadistic religious hatred and self righteousness: punish and purify the sinner with fire. No pain more severe.
Yet in this case something just doesn't seem right about the release of this woman. I felt the same way about Myra Hindley, having not the slightest inclination to back any campaign for her freedom when Long Longford was on the go. Likewise for Valerie Bemeriki, the hate queen of Hutu Power, currently serving life. She should stay where she is forever and a day. Tracey Connelly, the mother of Baby P is another who should have experienced a tsunami of societal wrath in response to the crimes she both perpetrated and allowed to be committed against her child. Sadism seems a component part of these people’s psyche. There must be some mechanism, very sparingly applied and only after the greatest of consideration, that permits society to establish a permanent demarcation line between a miniscule number of fiends and the vast swathe of citizens, many of whom have a dubious past themselves but should face no further sanction on account of it.
So who is Michelle Martin and why does she contravene the norm? Martin was the wife of Marc Dutroux, the "Monster of Belgium." Not a crime in itself. That status is bestowed on her courtesy of her being his accomplice. He was a serial killer of young women and children back in the 1990s. He would later be convicted of four murders and jailed for life.
At the same trial Martin was sent down for thirty years. A condition of her release is that she lives in a Belgian convent under the supervision of nuns who offered to take her in. The nuns have made a wrong decision but there is no point in being hard on them as they feel it is the ‘Christian’ thing to do, think they are harming nothing other than opinion, and are very much aware of the public flak that will be hurled their way. Martin has to go somewhere once the judicial decision has been taken to release her so a convent is probably fit for purpose. It might keep her away from outside society.
What is so repulsive about Micelle Martin is the abnormal level of cruelty she displayed during her foray into rape and paedophilia. Her paedophile husband had kidnapped two children and imprisoned them in a purpose built cellar where he abused them. She was fully aware of his activities. When arrested for an unrelated offence Michelle Martin did nothing to help the girls. She didn’t inform the authorities of their whereabouts. Worse, she did not lift a hand to ease their misery. She let both children starve to death although managed to feed her husband's pet dogs. That requires a particular level of cruelty, a severe dearth of empathy and a vast desert of moral indifference to human suffering. It would have been much more compassionate for Martin to have entered the bunker and administered a lethal dose of some toxic substance to the tiny captives. Instead she chose to allow eight year olds Julie Lejeune and Melissa Russo to starve to death.
Having read the shockingly potent book by Sabine Dardenne, one of Dutroux and Martin's victims, who was later rescued by police from the same cellar where the other two children starved to death, it is clear that there is something that can only be described as an unspeakable and irredeemably evil about Michelle Martin. Her's is a character to which no societal bridge should extend.
I am not a subscriber to victims’ justice. It is borne from an understandable frustration but is one which skews perspective and can easily produce more injustice than it redresses. Yet, there must be some mechanism by which society in some very rare but demanding circumstances can state its absolute ethical opposition to particular types of sadism-fuelled criminal behaviour that have exhausted all human understanding and for which there are no mitigating circumstances. For those guilty of their commission there should be no way back.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd agree with that.
ReplyDeleteMaxine Carr was another one. She may not have been aware that Huntley had wee Holly & Jessica and therefore may not have been able to prevent their murders but him asking her to provide him with an alibi must have surely set the alarm bells ringing. She went to great lengths to cover for him.
There's something far more disturbing about a woman being involved in paedophilia & child murders than men. I think as a society we expect women to have some degree of maternal instinct & when none is evident it terrifies us all.
Belfast Bookworm,
ReplyDeleteI never felt that way about her. Didn't like what she done but she was an accomplice after the fact. I think very few people fit the category I was suggesting. Even all the priests guilty of child rape I would not put in there. The most evil people to emerge from the Northern conflict, in my view, were those two committee members who killed the hunger strikers. Yet, bad as they are I would still not put them in that category.
But to be frank it is a feel, very arbitrary, rather than anything measurable or well thought out.
I know she played her part after the murders but I think she gave the alibi, knowing full well it was Huntley, in order to keep him. To actually remain his girlfriend.
ReplyDeleteThat thought sickened me. That a woman would want to, let alone be emotionally able to stay with a monster who could do that to children sickened me to the core. If she/they'd gotten away with it I think the next thing would've been another Brady & Hindley story.
This is really interesting. All the cases cited are ones where children have been abused. I'm old enough to remember the death penalty when on the day of a hanging newspaper front pages had huge block headlines: "Heath Hanged", "Haig Hanged this morning". The death penalty had to be abolished, but I would keep it for one category of criminal: anyone who commits serious physical or sexual child abuse, whether or not it results in death. It has always troubled me as a Christian that the one occasion when Jesus actually judges harshly is on this issue. Yet his 'guideline' was never followed up. In the English translation of the Aramaic Bible it is this: "And everyone who commits an offense against one of these little ones who believe in me, it were profitable for him that a donkey's millstone would be hung around his neck and he be sunk in the depths of the sea.” The English translation of the Greek is more nuanced but the drift is the same. Cause harm to a child and society should impose its harshest penalty. The gut feeling towards people who commit these outrages against children described by the writer is primordial. Ultimately laws were passed to ensure such feelings are not the basis of dispensing justice. But such feelings don't go away. They lie too deep. When a child abuser is let out early we have a deep sense of injustice because our primordial response demands, quite rightly, they are put away for ever. As I said, I wouldn't oppose the reintroduction of the death penalty for these unspeakable crimes, including the army of Catholic priests who have abused their power. The continued presence of such villains pollutes the face of the earth.
ReplyDeleteIt's the sociopathic absence of empathy, remorse or regret that stuns and numbs people. That's why 'normal' people will never understand these animals. It's impossible to comprehend. Some great posts here on the subject. Your mum is your mum, grown men have cried out for their mammy on the battlefield when dying. If ye don't have yer mammy who have ye got? That's why it's so shockingly evil when women are engaged in these crimes. Mind games and control also play a part no doubt. Can't help wonder if Huntley's girlfriend was just a combination of totally dependant and desperate. That Belgian woman should be put in an air tight glass room and allowed to suffocate live on cable tv.
ReplyDeleteI,d rather rot in jail than be released into the custody of a bunch of dickey dodgers,
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly agree with locking these animals up but with the death penalty…not too sure as there have been so many mistakes in the past plus it is too quick…let them rot in prison for the rest of their lives and in solitary confinement, hidden away from the public eye where their captors can inflict whatever Neanderthal actions they so please…hidden away so that they don’t become ‘celebrities’ like Brady and Hindley…although if it were my children who had suffered at their hands I really don’t know how I would react. And I think that this is one of the reasons that people find these crimes revolting – they have children of their own and when they read about such cruelty they think, “what if that were my child” and the revulsion grows….
ReplyDeleteI watched a documentary recently about Ian Brady and Myra Hindley,and it was quite clear that Brady will never see the light of day as a free man,Hindley having died in jail, now heinous as were those murders carried out by that pair and personally I,d have put a bullet in their heads,I couldnt help thinking about those who were brutally butchered by those scumbags the so called Shankill butchers, there is no need to recount their disgusting and brutal methods of torture here suffice to say those innocent victims were BUTCHERED.and yet their leader was given a huge funeral and thousands turned out to pay their "respects"to Lenny, recently we saw the outpouring of grief for BBQ Billy Hunter a workmate to be proud of ,he was convicted of murdering two workmates and yet the community opened a book of condolences for that thug. to say his and Murphy,s gangs activities were political is stretching the truth way past breaking point,so while some scumbags may spend their lives locked up it seem the ones we have here are in a different class or is it that the community they come from just one big parcel of shit,yet these are the communities that qsf would want to be equal with ffs.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with everything said about the despicable behavior who abuse children, I am saddened that not one poster on here has mentioned abortion.
ReplyDeleteAbortion is the ultimate abuse of children.
Most responsible and honest scientist conclude that life begins with conception and of course medical science agrees with this fact.
The unborn child is not as some argue, part of a woman's body. That is, unless she has four eyes, four arms and four legs.
An unborn child is not a potential person, it is a person.
The unborn child has the potential of speech, and thought and many other things as it grows and matures.
My opinion of abortion is not based on my religion; it is based on my morality. It is not a religious issue as the pro-abortionists would have you believe. It is and always has been a moral issue.
As far back as the cruel 1300th century,"Pleading the belly" was recognized to spare the life of the unborn child when a woman was to be executed.
If you do NOT believe or refuse to believe that life begins at conception, would it not be better to error on the side of humanity, and therefore not abort?
I am sorry for the rant but I am passionate about this issue and child abuse.
Funny all those who are in favor of abortion are already born. Who speaks for the innocent unborn child. My voice is but one, but who listens to an old 75 year old senior.
What an unjust society.
Jim Lynch,
ReplyDeleteI could not agree more with your post. It is important that your point here is highlighted:
'My opinion of abortion is not based on my religion; it is based on my morality. It is not a religious issue as the pro-abortionists would have you believe. It is and always has been a moral issue.'
Abortion violently interferes with nature's purpose; it gives rise to a moral corruption of a mother overturning her protective instincts to destroy her new life; it violates the fight to life of an innocent human being.
None of these things make it a religious issue. The only people I know of who regard it as a 'religious issue' are atheists.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI have just listended to you and I am sure many others have too. You will always get your say here. And we welcome the fact that you commented on the matter. I did not see what you said as a rant but a passionate appeal on behalf of your perspective.
There is no one moral compass giving direction on this matter. Even in reading about the thoughts of Aquinas with regard to it, his concept of ensoulment presents an obstacle for arguments like your own. He apparently regarded it as not homicide/murder prior to the ensoulment of the embryo which if I remember correctly was 40 days for girls and 80 for boys or maybe the other way round.
To people like me who don't believe in souls his argument is neither here nor there, but it shows how even within religious circles there has not been one seamless position.
My opinion of abortion is not based on my religion; it is based on my morality.
I think this is the point - your morality. Others have a different morality and see the matter entirely differently fromm yourself. And there is no external moral authority that binds us to one particular view.
There are just some issues that pose moral dilemmas for us all and the answers are not to be found in what has been called 'command moralities.'
It is much better if it is not a religious debate because people tend to switch of when somebody comes along waving the god card. I think much of the power of the anti abortionist argument is lost when the rosary beads are used to strangle oppositional opinions. So it is to your credit that you sought to make your point without any of that.
There you go Jim. That's two of us who listened to you.
ReplyDeleteI said to the judge I looked at it as a white collar crime....he said you killed seven priests!!
ReplyDeleteMoya,
ReplyDeletewould there be enough rope for the clergy?
To John McGirr and Anthony, I thank you both.
ReplyDeleteYou have restored my faith in human nature.
Jim Lynch John McGirr
ReplyDeleteAll societies coalesce on the basis of protection of one's own children.
Those destructive forces that exist, determining the way we think, are motivated by their own pathological and physiologically deviant propensities. Usually greed and money have been the accelerants that propelled the malfunction of the nuclear family. But now we are bombarded by lies subterfuge and filth by so called 'progressives', that we have become desensitised, so as to degrade our own concept of 'human life'.
In short, we have been trained to get well on the very things that make us sick, as a society.
Abortion is Murder.
Jim,
ReplyDeletepleased you got something useful from us.
Talking of "Resident Evil" I see bangers is now to receive a six figure sum in compo for his wrongful conviction in the Sandy Lynch kidnapping, Rumour or more than that has it that at least FIVE INFORMERS were in that room ,its one way of sorting out redundancy payments on a grand scale...
ReplyDeleteAgain talking of "Resident Evil" a 78 year old priest has been charged with fraud,he allegedly gave a woman £140,000 the Maynooth trained boyo must have been giving her something else to.... his lectures on morality must have been something else..bet he was not opposed to abortion esp if it was his!
ReplyDeleteTalking about "Resident Evil"
ReplyDeleteQSF WATCH:
Has anyone seen hide nor hair of that partys Alex the bollocks,
To Truthrevisionist
ReplyDelete"Abortion is murder"
I have always believed abortion is wrong, but if one is a Catholic one has a duty to inform oneself of current theological thinking on this most controversial subject. Jack Mahoney SJ, a renowned Jesuit moral theologian, wrote a little book published in 1984 called ‘Bioethics and Belief: Religion and Medicine in Dialogue’. In it Mahoney examines the ethics of abortion and asks when a foetus acquires a soul, among other issues. It was only after it was published that Rome discovered they had a hydrogen bomb on their hands. They panicked and demanded that Cardinal Hume withdraw the book immediately. Hume had to explain that we lived in a democratic country and that withdrawing it from the publishers and from booksellers wasn't possible in Britain. What Hume did however, was to withdraw the 'Nihil Obstat' which had been granted prior to publication. I said to Professor Mahoney shortly after that happened, "I suppose sales of your book have risen by 100%". He replied: "Wrong. By 400%"!
The great German theologian Karl Rahner thought that it only makes sense to talk about 'ensoulment' after differentiation begins i.e. the cells of the zygote are programmed to develop into particular entities. He also pointed out that the Catholic Church's teaching of immediate ensoulment has to be juxtaposed with the scientific fact that one third to one half of all fertilized ova never survive to implant in the uterus or to differentiate to any degree. From this he concludes that according to the Church's teaching every day countless human beings are damned for eternity. This great theologian then asks whether contemporary Catholic moral theologians "still have the courage to maintain this presupposition". Most Catholics are unaware of the theological discussion surrounding this contentious moral issue, and this ignorance allows Catholic bishops to continue to proclaim a teaching about which there have been fundamental questions for the last 50 years.
Father Mahoney went on to become F.D. Maurice Professor of Moral Theology at King's College, London, the first Jesuit to hold such a revered academic post in London since the Reformation.
Connie Marks,
ReplyDelete'I have always believed abortion is wrong, but if one is a Catholic one has a duty to inform oneself of current theological thinking on this most controversial subject.'
Firstly, this is not a Catholic question, although they do teach on it in line with natural law and with revelation. Secondly,the above quotation is a case of the tail wagging the dog. There is no duty whatsoever for Catholics to inform themselves of the latest theological speculation, which generally reveals itself as yet another rehashed heresy.
In 1995 Pope John Paul II declared that the Church’s teaching on abortion :
"is unchanged and unchangeable. Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written word of God, is transmitted by the Church’s tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal magisterium. No circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit, since it is contrary to the law of God which is written in every human heart, knowable by reason itself, and proclaimed by the Church" (Evangelium Vitae 62).
That is the duty of Catholics, submission to the Church’s teaching. That is why no Catholic can vote for PSF in good conscience.
I don’t know if truthrevisionist is a Catholic of not, but he is certainly expressing Catholic teaching when he says that ‘abortion is murder.’ But that is not only Catholic teaching, it is an expression of truth open to all.
Jihad John and Connie Marks are you pair anywhere near Maynooth?
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteThere is no point in going over the old ground of the earlier discussion and I suspect you are probably as tired of it as I am. But there is something which you could elaborate on. You don’t really seem to confer much legitimacy on John Paul 2 or indeed any pope from Vatican 2. If I am right, how strong is your argument if it relies on that sort of pope to give it authority?
In today’s world I guess many people want to be good Catholics but can’t buy into the notion of showing submission to the teaching of the Church. This is a position reinforced for them by the ‘teachers’ having flouted so much moral law, if I may use the term, by their bad management of the child abuse issue. And if I recall, I think you seemed to believe that John Paul 2 had more to answer for in that respect that the current pope. Many good Catholics could not in all conscience submit to the teaching of those type of people. They would arrive at that position through reasoning. I am not talking either about the teaching on abortion but the issue of teaching in general.
What has voting PSF have to do with it? That sort of threw me
AM,
ReplyDelete‘There is no point in going over the old ground of the earlier discussion and I suspect you are probably as tired of it as I am.’
Yes. I meant to answer your last post. I fully agree it has all been gone over ad nauseam.
‘But there is something which you could elaborate on. You don’t really seem to confer much legitimacy on John Paul 2 or indeed any pope from Vatican 2. If I am right, how strong is your argument if it relies on that sort of pope to give it authority?’
The quotation I gave was one of those rare moments when JPII attempted to engage his full authority. (The only other occasion I know of that he did likewise was when he was speaking on the subject of women ‘priests’).There would be similar statements made by previous popes, but this one was unusual in its clarity, and should carry weight with those who claim to accept JPII.. It shows that he certainly intended to invoke full papal authority in this matter. So, despite my extreme reservations about him, I put it forward on the basis of its clarity, and its expression of the teaching of the Church, even in its post-Vatican II madness.
‘In today’s world I guess many people want to be good Catholics but can’t buy into the notion of showing submission to the teaching of the Church.’
The better course would be to submit to the teaching, while having reservations on the behaviour of many who don’t live up to it, or indeed contradict it in their behaviour.
‘This is a position reinforced for them by the ‘teachers’ having flouted so much moral law, if I may use the term, by their bad management of the child abuse issue.’
I agree that there has been a near total dereliction of duty in most issues within the Church, and in particular when abuse has been allowed to fester. I think that BXVI has certainly tried to put an end to all abuse. The trouble is that the new ‘morality’ that has overcome the Catholic Church since the 2nd Vatican Council is, I believe, a major cause of such abuse, and it will not stop until a true restoration is made.
‘And if I recall, I think you seemed to believe that John Paul 2 had more to answer for in that respect that the current pope. Many good Catholics could not in all conscience submit to the teaching of those type of people. They would arrive at that position through reasoning. I am not talking either about the teaching on abortion but the issue of teaching in general. ‘
A bad teacher can still teach the truth; even if he is not living up to his own teachings. That makes him a hypocrite, but it doesn’t absolve us from following. Of course it would be far preferable to have those whose lives reflected their teachings. We have survived the Borgia Popes. As rotten as our latest ‘Popes’ have been, they are not to those standards yet. Having said that, we have reached a point where humanly speaking all seems lost. I believe in years to come that this period will be used as yet another proof of the divine foundation of the Church, as no human institution could go through this and survive.
‘What has voting PSF have to do with it? That sort of threw me’
PSF recently voted to allow abortion in the Free State, thus it was a sideswipe at those who claim to be Catholics while backing abortion. I am sure that there are other parties that are equally unfit to be voted for, by Catholics, but I am more focused on PSF, given that they used to be Republicans and have duped so many in the Occupied Six Counties who vote for them in such large numbers, often unaware that they are, as Catholics, not permitted to vote for a party that backs the legalisation of abortion.
John,
ReplyDelete"The quotation I gave was one of those rare moments when JPII attempted to engage his full authority."
Hmm. Let me guess: each time JPII spoke with "full authority" and clarity, he just happened to endorse your views?
Jim,
"An unborn child is not a potential person, it is a person.
The unborn child has the potential of speech, and thought and many other things as it grows and matures."
The contents of every testicle and every ovary have potential too, but I'm certainly not going to accord human rights to my own sperm.
Alfie,
ReplyDelete"The quotation I gave was one of those rare moments when JPII attempted to engage his full authority."
'Hmm. Let me guess: each time JPII spoke with "full authority" and clarity, he just happened to endorse your views?'
The entire modern papacy from John XXIII has avoided using its full authority. On those rare occasions that they have, it is clear from the words used and the fact that they explicitly state they are engaging that authority and binding the entire Church.
Eg. Re abortion:
"by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his successors . . . I declare…”
And on women priests:
“… that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.
A pretty poor record though, for one of the longest ‘papacies’ in the history of the Church.
It is noteworthy though that when introducing novelties in doctrine and practice he never attempted to engage full authority. So, Alfie, yes, I do agree with him there, but am not aware that he has made any others that I might disagree with.
Talking of "resident evil" does anyone else find it disgusting when the press in reference to any of the Mc Glinchey boys Dominic and Declan Mc Glinchey use the line "sons of mad dog Mc Glinchey"and one can be sure when any of the pro brit press use this,it is not out of endearment,the demonising of republicans by the state and its lackeys is as active today as it was throughout the so called troubles.
ReplyDelete"RESIDENT EVIL"
ReplyDeleteThere will be no shrine at the Long Kesh Maze site,thats it straight from the horses mouth first minister Peter the punt Robinson and his deputy Martyboy have said so,Martyboy the suspected informer has gone even further to state "that he is relaxed about it" well he would be would,nt he?
ReplyDelete"RESIDENT EVIL" or Jobs for the Boys.Terence Brannigan the chair of the maze/longkesh development corporation is a member of the dup but to balance the books (not a fuckin mission) we have Joe O Donnell,from qsf the bold Joe will bring a wealth of development experience to this venture,he after all was the councillor who acquired land from the H.E, for gardens and then put in planing permission for houses, cheeky Joe will have to be careful how he behaves on this quango none other than ex ruc/psni Duncan Mc Causland will no doubt keep a beady eye on proceedings,
2
John,
ReplyDeleteVery late in the day to be getting back to this. Sorry about that but some things caught my attention.
There would be similar statements made by previous popes, but this one was unusual in its clarity, and should carry weight with those who claim to accept JPII.
But if he has been wrong on so much else and complicit in the cover up of child abuse why would it necessarily follow that it should carry any weight?
It shows that he certainly intended to invoke full papal authority in this matter.
But that has been severely diminished through the person who claims to have such authority.
The better course would be to submit to the teaching, while having reservations on the behaviour of many who don't live up to it, or indeed contradict it in their behaviour.
But there would need to be a compelling reason for them to submit to that authority. Argument by assertion doesn’t work too well.
A bad teacher can still teach the truth
But how are we to tell?
I believe in years to come that this period will be used as yet another proof
of the divine foundation of the Church, as no human institution could go
through this and survive.
Wish being father to the thought and as you probably agree speculative.
Understand what you meant by SF now. I am glad they made that move. I notice McGuinness last night criticising the Marie Stopes clinic in the North
Alfie,
Hmm. Let me guess: each time JPII spoke with "full authority" and clarity, he just happened to endorse your views?
That seems to be the way with religion. It has been said you know god is on your side when he hates the same people you do.