“I think the decision by the court in Den Bosch was worse than the abuse itself. Truly outrageous. Judges are supposed to deliver justice, but instead they hit you in the face with all their legal tricks. . . . Honestly, I can’t live with it like this. I was denied the right to call witnesses. That was allowed in Den Bosch, but not in Roermond; so I had already lost. . . . In the end, my claim was rejected on the grounds of the statute of limitations. All kinds of dirty legal manoeuvres. And meanwhile, I still have to prove that I was abused.“
Secondary victimisation
Actor: Arnold-Jan
Item type: Quote from interview
Date: […]
DoJ Researcher: Naomi Ormskerk
DoJ Research project: [Sexual] abuse – The church (PhD)
Language: English
Context
In 2010, the disclosure of several cases of sexual abuse in institutions operated by the Dutch Catholic Church, ignited a national political debate and led to public outrage. With the disclosure of the abuse, victim- survivors demanded justice from Church authorities and the state. Nevertheless, the available justice measures are invariably solely aimed at primary victims. Whilst relatives are often concurrently named with survivors in redress schemes, it is not evident if and how multi-level narratives are established in justice measures. How do primary and secondary victims – such as family members, partners, and children of victim-survivors – experience justice measures allotted by the Church and the state? And what are ‘lessons learned’ when comparing two seemingly different cases of clergy abuse, namely (sexual) abuse in Church institutions and forced labour of former pupils of the Congregation of the Good Shepherd?
