O Searchaigh and the Moral Majority

by C Murray Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:19

http://sillyoldtwit.com

The documentary accuses O Searchaigh of Grooming young Nepalese men for sex and is
therefore handled in such a way by the film-maker. I would suggest that if the documentary
maker had these concerns then her evidentiary material should not have been aired but
given instead to the Nepalese and Irish authorities, instead she has suceeded in creating
a trial by media against the poet- which does absolutely nothing to help the teenagers
she claims to defend nor for O Searchaigh.

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84128

but the film-maker has earned for herself a name and thats what it's all about in the business..
quite simply 'trial by media' obfuscates any chance of a fair and impartial trial by law in the
case of serious accusations of grooming- RTE chose to begin the trial by media of a poet
last night in order to boost it's viewing figures.

by Daithí Lacha Wed Mar 12, 2008 11:45

I wonder what C Murray would have to say if a heterosexual 50 year old poet was filmed going to an impoverished country, plying young 16 year old girls with lavish gifts and ending up with a harem of 50 or more sexual toys in his stable.
Would he ( or she) be outraged at the film maker who drew attention to this?
Another Donegal writer, Seosamh Mac Grianna, once wrote:
"Deir siad go bhfui an fhírinne searbh ach, creid mise, ní searbh atá sí ach garbh agus sin an fáth go seachantar í."
Ná seachnaimís an fhírinne níos mó!

by Stuart Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:07

O'Searcaigh paid young people huge amounts of money in exchange for sex, in a country where the GDP is 800 euro a year. Although it has been widely stated that the people featured in the documentary were "over the age of consent", they were paid for engaging in criminal conduct because sex between men and sex between women is illegal in Nepal. Of course it would be preferable if homosexuality were not illegal, but the criminality is just a tiny part of the legacy of harm O'Searcaigh has caused these people. His complete absence of empathy and critical awareness was abominable, but typical of adults engaged in abusive grooming.

That the young men were so naive and vulnerable was plain from the documentary, in which the pained conflicting emotions and shame were so obvious on their faces.

What O'Searcaigh did to these people was inexcusable and he would probably not have been able to engage in such conduct with young women, about which the local population would probably have spoken out, and for which the local police would probably have arrested him under Nepalese morality laws.

A fifty-year-old man hanging around Irish colleges offering teenagers money for sex would be lynched - besides which sex with the young men (under 17) shown in the documentary IS illegal in Ireland.

by C Murray Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:09

I drew attention to the fact that the RTE documentary has holes in it. Like all documentaries
(some of which have been explored on this newswire) it is subject to the limitation of:
1. The maker.
2.The advertising revenues of the station, (which has utilised media, including press,
to leak information over a period of two months to ensure that there was an audience
for the show and to ensure that the audience was suitably primed)

I suggest that the issue is grounded in homophobia and that this sells, despite Fred
Johnson's assertions that members of Aosdana 'played the gay card to traduce RTE' (!).

The info coming from the film and the production values suggest that O Searchaigh
'groomed teenage boys for sex'- they did not accuse him of paedophilia nor did they
say that he was an offender. Instead of bits being left on the cutting room floor or
being sent to the Nepalese authorities RTE chose to flagship the documentary to
a society that does not discuss homosexuality- gay lifestyle- and in an atmosphere
which compared O Searchaigh's activities to that of the RC church during the sex abuse
scandals...

1.There is a vast difference between the rape of a child which is an act of power and
violation that has gone unfaced in this country for generations and teenage sex by consent
with an older male (the grooming aspect is still being investigated)
2. There is a vast difference between having genuine concerns over the poet's activity
and utilising it to sell revenue and garner audience.

if O Searchaigh is proven to be a 'groomer' then this can only mitigate against any
future trial by creating a huge question mark over his activity in Nepal..

As to homosexual writing, some of the best poets are and were gay and I count O
Searcaigh amongst them. but will mention Ginsberg and Lorca as two writers who
have the quality of writing exhibited in his works.

If people want to examine the issue of AIDS, Rent boys and Pre-teen sex on the
streets of Dublin go ahead. they get more money if they don't use a condom
and there are very few places of safety for them to go- but subjecting O Searchaigh
to trial by media inquisition on the basis of a documentary that does not allow
for full discussion of the issues ,shows RTE to be incapable of balance for the
simple reason that the programme should never have gone to air and the issues
should have been raised elsewhere. It should be investigated.

by Straight man Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:52

I'd say Cathal was at the milder end of grooming. He wants people around him who will smile and laugh all the time, and came across as shy and insecure. But not insincere.

In the third world smiles come with gifts. When I worked with an NGO some years ago some of my co-workers were clearly there for sex. I've seen much worse than the stuff in the documentary that still didn't quite amount to prostitution or forced sex.

What interested me most was that when he was "confronted" about the awkward questions by the director at the end, they both spoke in English. The two gaeligoiri from the gaeltacht couldn't hack it. What was read of his poetry was rather nicely sentimental but not outstandingly good.

A poet is supposed to be sensitive and yet he was unguarded or open (unworried?) about stating his infatuation for some of the boys. He wasn't noticeably helping old ladies, grandfathers or young girls, just boys. You don't have to be a homophobe to draw an obvious conclusion there. I'm a fan of David Norris but think he has over-reacted here.

There is the further question as to why public money is being applied to extend his house, yet he can afford to swan off to Nepal for months on end. Mea culpa, it's the cultural networking Aosdana thing.

All documentaries have to be edited, and she made the point that she was a local admirer who changed her mind and gave her reasons. A good job by her, and for me it didn't paint him in the very lurid light that we read in the papers.

by jim Wed Mar 12, 2008 12:57

O' Searchaigh is being hung out to dry.

The hyprocrisy surrounding this controversy is laughable.

Every weekend the butter-wouldn't-melt-in-their-mouths teenage sons and daughters of the moral majority are going out drinking alcohol, experimenting with drugs and having sex.

O' Searchaigh is a lightening rod for all those frustrated fascists and lefties and middle of the road schoes who despair at the moral degeneracy of the youth who are being corrupted by the "bad example" of their elders.

Even though the parents of these teenage "tearaways" themselves rebelled against the social fascism of Catholic Ireland and continue to drink heavily, take drugs and sleep around well into middle age.

Still they go to mass and drag their kids to Irish classes where they read (O'Searchaigh's poetry), holy communion, confirmation and wedding celebrations where "chase" blushing brides are married off followed by a booze up of course which accompanies ever Irish get together.

When they see their own kids merely follow their example they get a guilty conscience.

Ah Catholic guilt where would we Irish be without it eh?

Has nothing changed since the time a certain Fine Gael government minister was ranting about "leftwing queers" in RTE?

It seems there is a campaign to undermine the efforts of homosexuals to achieve parity with their pure upright respectable mass going heterosexual peers who adore Jesus at ceremonies celebrated by child abusing priests.

Are they terrified that the shock horror that benders might want to marry and adopt?!!!

A movie star macho hard drinking ubercad Colin Farrell who went to Hollywood and chased everything with a skirt and a pulse by all accounts is quite rightly celebrated as a loveable rogue in the mold of the Clancy Brothers and Michael Collins.

However a gentle kind hearted man like O'Searchaigh who goes on holiday enjoying the company of young men is seen as some kind of fiend to be pilloried.

Roger Casement was a screaming homo but his sexuality was scrubbed from the record by die hards who could not believe that an Irish patriot could be a bumboy.

Are we returning to the Victorian Jesuit style morality of yesteryear?

Are Alive, The irish Catholic, David Quinn and Bishop Martin to become our new moral gatekeepers?

by Jim Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:12

None of the young men was under the age of consent so what's the problem here?
What is so reprehensible about using the services of prostitutes?
The illegality of prostitution is based totally on hysterical self-righteousness.
If prostitution is legalised, regulated and policied to ensure sex-workers are not being force to work against their will then what's the problem?
Mr. Steve Wright who trawled Ipswitch looking for prostitutes to sadistically torture and murder could not operate in the an open legal regulated industry.
How many sex crimes, rapes and murders are the result of unsatisfied sexual drives?
Many young men who kill women are actually extremely sexually frustrated and if they could avail of the services of prostitutes in licensed establishments rather than encounters up dark allies or in the backs of cars in "lover's lanes" all the better.
It is unspoken fact that many gay men live in terror in Dublin for fear of violent homophobic attacks - many of these attacks are no doubt perpetrated by closet homosexuals and bisexuals who are terrified that the sight of openly gay men will encourage them to blurt out their own feelings and expose themselves.

If O' Searchaigh is going to a foreign country and enjoys the company of young men who are consenting adults who benefit financially then it is a reflection of the primitive disapproval of homosexuality in supposedly post-Catholic Ireland and an indictment of our stupid fussy attitudes to sex generally.

by Tom Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:25

If O'Searcaigh was grooming and molesting 16 year old boys in working class Dublin or Limerick he would be universally ostracised by now. I notice a certain imperialist attitude towards the poor of Nepal in all of this.

The most telling part of the documentary came at the end when CO'S, in his cottage, was confronted with the reality of his actions. The fairytale atmosphere of the holiday was gone and he was exposed on his own turf. His acute embarrassment and floundering answers said it all. He exhibited shame..

by - Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:27

a national broadcaster made shit of a poet's reputation by opening a can of worms on
teenage sexual activity, grooming, the difference between consensual sex and sex as
violation/rape was not alluded to (in any way shape or form).

in the very tightest analysis someone put their desire to make a name above the
reputation of a poet and inferred quite wrongly that there is no working difference between
teenage homosexuality and to use a jargon word beloved of the moral majority:

'predation through exploitation'.

This documentary was never about violation nor was it nor was it about rape.
it was about puritanical exploitation of an artist by a film-maker to achieve
mass audience. She has suceeded in setting the wolves on someone who does not
deserve it- I say it again- if there was anything that suggested RC child abuse type-stuff
then it was not 'for the National airwaves', it never was about that, it was simply about
destruction and fame.

buts thats Eire for you- we cannot tell the difference between consent and violation
cos sex is something not discussed by the 'Tutters!' + thats why kids get attacked
parents won't talk and educate- (they like to witch-hunt and judge).

by jim Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:36

"If O'Searcaigh was grooming and molesting 16 year old boys in working class Dublin or Limerick he would be universally ostracised by now."

Because big strapping working class heroes in Dublin and Limerick can't be mincing about with the pink brigade can they? Shaming the long line of working class martyrs like Connally and Larkin eh?

And who would do the "ostracising" now?

The Dundon gang or the Finglas crew?

Meanwhile what about all the 16 year old girls falling pregnant in working class Dublin and Limerick?

I wonder who could be responsible for that?

by Tom Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:39

"I say it again- if there was anything that suggested RC child abuse type-stuff
then it was not 'for the National airwaves'"
Yes by all means, let's keep it secret ....oh wait...

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Wed Mar 12, 2008 13:47

I saw half the program last night. It was a pretty pedestrian affair. We were told that gay men like sex. We were also told that youth is sexually attractive, and that sometimes gay men are not immune to this fact. It was also implied that people sometimes are influenced in their actions by money and that people who have money have an advantage over people who do not have money. Now if the film maker was making a program about the likes Sor Michael Smurfitt and his activities in South America, Id say she was doing something useful. But Smurfitt has lots of money and could easily crush our intrepid film maker - so she picks a soft target for her expose; a gay poet.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Wed Mar 12, 2008 14:07

I wonder if our film maker (who I never heard of before, and I doubt will ever hear of again once this 15 minutes of fame is over) has ever worn a blouse or a pair of knickers made in a third world sweat shop? If the answer is yes, then I have a suggestion for the subject of her next film - her good self. That might actually be an interesting film.

by ?? Wed Mar 12, 2008 14:50

The boys featured last night were most definitely being exploited. Anyone who has travelled in the developing world will know how Westerners are perceived as being super rich. O'Searchaigh took advantage of that. From his way of speaking, it was hard to work out if he realised this or if he genuinely saw nothing wrong in what he was doing.
The distress of some of the boys interviewed was clear to see. An earlier post made a very good point about the reaction to this issue if it were young girls that were being exploited like this. No doubt, there are some commentaters who are using this to pursue a homophobic agenda, However, we have to step away from all of that and just see it as it is- a middle aged Westerner giving money and gifts to impoverished Nepalese teenagers in exchange for sex.

by media watcher Wed Mar 12, 2008 15:16

So, an acknowledged Irish language poet who has openly declared his sexual orientation gets inveigled into participating in a documentary on his educational charity work in Nepal, and the maker of the programme homes in on his amorous attentions in a way that damages his public standing among poetry readers in Ireland. The poet was given to understand that it was to be an Irish language documentary focusing sympathetically on Nepal and his positive work there; but the documentary maker had another, undeclared, agenda.

The first question that occurs is the ethics of this personal deception.

Another question that occurs is: does such a programme serve the public interest, or does it feed a latent public prurience?

Investigative journalism has uncovered some serious injustices in Irish society down through the years. Was this programme investigative? Did it uncover any injustice?

Mr. O'Searcaigh's poetry will survive the test of time and any aspersions on his character this programme may cast on his personality. The TV programme will add to a widespread public feeling that there are limits to investigative journalism, that press freedom should have limits, that there is no such thing as unfettered freedom of expression.

by Stuart Wed Mar 12, 2008 15:46

People keep falsely claiming that "None of the young men was under the age of consent".

The teenagers featured in the documentary would be under the age of consent if they were in Ireland. There is no age of consent for homosexual acts in Nepal, so the acts were in any case against Nepalese law for these youths. It is possible that Neasa ni Chianain completely misunderstood O’Searcaigh's interactions with an emerging gay rights sub-culture in Kathmandu, but that possibility seems minutely remote.

It is very sad to see a comparatively rich person abuse wealth and trust in this way, and to show so little comprehension of the enduring damage that grooming and abuse has on his victims.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 16:51

Talking about the issue of consent - the program makers failed to get a release form signed from any of the men interviewed. Is it one law for westerners and another for everyone else - or does RTE give a fvck as long as they get sensational copy? The other issue is that RTE has exposed these young men to a lot more harm than O Searcaigh ever did. Now their names and their sexuality is going to be splashed all over the Nepalese media - without their consent. Will RTE apologise to them for this abuse? These young men have since claimed that they were duped by the film maker into making statements out of context - but they did not have the funds to get an injunction against RTE. Meanwhile, O Searcaigh has let the young men know that he understands what happened and that he still feels nothing but love towards them. While RTE walks away, the damage done, and forgets that these young men ever existed, O Searcaigh continues to support them in any way he can.

by on the one road Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:12

consent is based on someone freely agreeing to something they know the consequences of. consent is broken in peadophilia when children don't understand and rape where concent is not given, generaly society is moraly outraged and has passed law's to that effect. The poet irespective of his sexual oriantation was sailing very close to the general understanding of concent when relationships are built up with sexualy inexperienced people on the basis of what seems financil reward, there seems to be a huge inbalence in the relationships and as such it is fair that people question it moraly and as such was a worth while docomentry

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:32

Thats just my point. these young men did not realise that their words would be twisted as part of a character assassination and they did not realise that they would be subjected to the trauma of having their lives laid open for public amusement. In short they did not give their consent to RTE.

If RTE are concerned about unbalanced financial relationships, why arent they making programs exposing Irish capitalists every day of the week? No, of course they dont, because they consider unbalanced financial relationships to be the norm. In the end this was just cheap sensationalism on the part of RTE - playing up to the sexual hypocracy of the Irish middle classes, along with their pleasure in being titillated by the intimate details of other people's sex lives.

The film maker told O Searcaigh that she was making a film in Irish, and the poet spoke Irish throughout. But this film maker knew the audience she wanted. Not educated Irish speakers, but the kind of lunk heads that hate everything Irish and are ready to tap into her homophobe agenda.

by Ex-development worker Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:32

I've worked as a volunteer in Africa for a well-known aid agency. I know that locals regard foreigners in general as rich, even though aid volunteers tend to be on allowances that are modest in terms of average Irish industrial incomes. In such situations the locals can be in awe of the foreign development workers and this can lead to diminished resistance to sexual "passes". I am aware of a married man working as an agriculturalist for a Scandanavian aid agency who hired a teenage village girl as a housekeeper in an African country. He soon had her living in as his willing mistress, paid her a reasonable wage and he treated her amicably, even taking her for a seaside holiday to a neighbouring country. (His wife back in Scandanavia never found out, lucky for him.) Now I know that the teenage village girl was just over the age of consent and knew what she was doing, but I think her consent was much influenced by the aid worker's economic status and by the age gap - he was about 35 and she was about 19. The point I am making is that in the third world because of endemic poverty emotional relationships between foreigners and locals are generally unequal. The possibilities for sexual seduction are numerous.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:37

How many beautiful western models have you seen on the arms of fat, ugly, old - but extremely rich, men? Its not only in the third world that money turns a very plain man into a very attractive one.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 17:43

Probably she had even stronger enticements than financial ones....

by Francis Kelly Wed Mar 12, 2008 18:34

Each person can say what they guy did was right or was wrong. There are a couple of different paths by which a person could have arrived at their decision. the path of deliberation would of course say more about the deliberator than O Searcaigh. But there is one path that will most certainly be the least travelled upon no matter how this whole thing ends up.
Accepting , as we must at this point in time, that O Searcaigh broke no laws, then we must ultimately accept that our opinions are just that - opinions and nothing more. We must take that one step further and , regardless of our own personal opinion, accept that a sexually mature person with deeply engrained sexual habits and patterns is entitled to initiate legal sexual activity with younger people , regardless of how sexually inexperienced and self unanware that person is. And by all accounts Nepalese society seems to be an utterly unsexualised society where it is highly likely that a young man will have had no sexual initiation of even a childish nature by the time he gets married.

Then we must each ask ourselves if we have an opinion on whether there is a difference between a homosexual person initiating a homosexual encounter with an uninitiated youth and a hetrosexual person doing exactly the same.

Personally, my opinion is that there is a difference between these scenarios. The difference being that the far greater majority of people find that they are hetrosexual in orientation and logically I deduce that the majority of the youths in the documentary were hetrosexual.
O Searcaigh used his money and influence to initiate them into a homosexual lifestyle. Personally I think it was wrong for him to presume to do this regardless of all other circumstances and deliberations.

by C Murray Wed Mar 12, 2008 19:01

They want to take him off the Leaving Certificate list and burn his books- interesting, this time last
year I put up a small piece about who they want to put on the Junior Cert list (Celia Ahern's
'Rainbows')

I am going to add in some screaming homosexual Ginsberg for the Puritanical who do
not wish their little babies to be exposed to Joyce's 'Little Brown Fuckbirds' or Lorca's
description of New York as :- Landscape of a Vomiting Multitude.

maybe we should look at the sucess of Tony Harrison's operating menage a trois
or Genet's 'Our Lady of the Flowers'- literature is about pushing the boundaries of
imagination. O Searchaigh does that in language and hopefully will continue to so do,
that people might get the benefit of great Irish Poetry unadulterated by a documentary
maker's extreme predijuice and a broadcaster's desire for negative publicity.

http://www.poetryireland.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=570

Allen Ginsberg did not attend the funeral of his mum Naomi cos he got a new young
lover, he had later heard that not enough men attended to form a minyan, thus the mourning
prayer- The kaddish- was not read for her. He redressed the issue by composing his
Kaddish which is filled with imaes not for the very faint hearted including his use
of mind-bending drugs. (it should be on the leaving cert course... but maybe its a third level
thing).
http://aosdana.artscouncil.ie

by on the one road Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:16

i would have presumed so to but the previous poster thinks there is a comparision between both situations so i don't know.

agree taking his poems of the leaving cert is unfair. the poems should stand or fall on there on merit

by Bréan de Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:39

'What interested me most was that when he was "confronted" about the awkward questions by the director at the end, they both spoke in English. The two gaeligoiri from the gaeltacht couldn't hack it'

Come on Straight Man, less of the anti-Irish stuff please and deal with the issues raised in the program. Any socio-linguist will tell you that people use different ways of speaking and language, depending on the persons involved and the context of the conversation. It is quite clear that the friendship that existed between the director and the poet had broken down, a friendship that had developed through Irish. To speak Irish in Ireland today is a very personal experience, between friends generally. It's clear that that personal relationship had broken down and required a new distant way of communication to deal with the uncomfortable situation, hence the English. It is not an ideal situation for the Irish language and it's speakers to be in, but it doesn't help when people use every oppurtunity to attack the language and it's speakers. The bigger problem is perhaps that some people can't deal with anything dealing with the language and it's speakers without taking the opportunity to launch an attack.

by Stuart Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:41

Re: Cael "Probably she had even stronger enticements than financial ones...." - isn't it exactly the point that O'Searchaigh induced vulnerable people from a position of extreme inequality, whilst the babysitter (whilst demonstrating lack of judgement) did not?

As for the revived discussion about removing his works from the Leaving Cert, Ms Hanafin really put the boot in on behalf of societal homophobia when she said that "questions about the lifestyle of the poet might cause difficulty for students". Removing his works would be a tragedy.

by on the one road Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:47

i watched the film and listened to the debate surrounding it for the last few weeks. i came to a conclusion not based on antagonism or support for the language, on an other issue maybe the language has turned a corner, but on this issue i think it's unfair to link the two. as a piece of work let the subject matter stand on it's own.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:50

"What interested me most was that when he was "confronted" about the awkward questions by the director at the end, they both spoke in English. The two gaeligoiri from the gaeltacht couldn't hack it'"

This is rubbish. The film maker, dont know her name, used English throughout the show. No doubt she initiated the conversation in English and O Searcaigh was too polite to tell her to fvck off. This person wanted her little expose played out for the gallery. Its a pity that the poet was too naive to see through her tricks.

As for the guy above who thinks that you can turn a straight individual into a gay individual at sixteen years of age - well, you havent read much psychology have you, a chara?

I have to say that its only in an intellectual backwater like Ireland that a great poet would be subjected to this rubbish by talentless hypocrites.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 21:58

As for the question of removing the poet's work from the Leaving Cert. Well, they will also have to remove pretty much everyone who ever wrote anything worth reading for pretty much the same reasons. Maybe Bertie will write his Gombeen Memoirs for Leaving Cert. consumption? Doesnt matter that it will be the tale of how he helped his gombeen dig-out chums to rob the Irish people blind and keep the Irish economy in the dark ages during ten years of unprecedented global boom - as long as there's no gay sex in it.

by on the one road Wed Mar 12, 2008 22:01

who said you can turn a teenager into a homosexual, missed that. great poets don't have any special rights

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 22:24

Francis Kelly did above.

Great poets dont have special rights? Perhaps in some respects they do. But besides that question, O Searcaigh did nothing that millions of straight men are not doing every day of the week. If he was not a great poet no-body would have bothered making this film in the first place. Perhaps this lady was just peeved that nobody was paying her any sexual attentions?

by Ossie Wed Mar 12, 2008 22:49

I wonder what the parents of these boys thought of O'Searcaigh's antics. Do they have parents?
Maybe he'll find out when next he visits Nepal.
Is he going back? If not why not?

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 22:58

O Searcaigh has been back in Nepal many times. If their parents had any objections they had plenty of chance to raise them before now. the fact is they havent. Maybe in Nepal sixteen year olds arent treated as infants. I nearly said "like in Ireland" but in Ireland the 16 year olds totally ignore the antics of the lunatics who want to pretend that they are still children.

by Jogging Joe Wed Mar 12, 2008 22:58

Cael, I don't know how great O'Searchaigh is, but query your assertion that "...only in an intellectual backwater like Ireland [ ] a great poet would be subjected to this rubbish by talentless hypocrites."

The great American poet and literary editor Ezra Pound was arrested, tried for treason, found insane and confined to a mental hospital after WW2 on account of his having made radio broadcasts of a literary nature in Italy during the war.

Some years ago (maybe 30, am not sure) an English gay poet called Kirkup was successfully prosecuted in a British court for publishing a poem in which a gay Roman centurion at the foot of Christ's cross imagines having an erotic encounter with the crucified one.

Two themes in this thread I disagree with so far are (a) the suggestion that a poet, regardless of repute in literary circles, should have his personal life treated differently from people of other occupations, and (b) that the national discussion arising from a sneaky TV documentary, well publicised in advance of screening, is somehow a peculiar by-product of Irish religious circumstances. Remember the Bill and Monica national debate in USA? Or the British Attorney General who was forced to resign after the police caught him kerb-crawling in the vicinity of King's Cross railway station?

Ireland like many other small countries is having its emotional and intellectual life dangerously dominated by the media. I'd advise citizens to stop buying titillating newspapers and switch off their TV sets for periods of time and start living inner lives.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 23:00

The big question is what will RTE do to sort out the problems they have created for these young men? My guess is that RTE will just grab the money and run.

by Cael Wed Mar 12, 2008 23:07

Jogging Joe, a chara, I didnt say that Ireland was the only intellectual backwater where this could happen, but I said it could only happen in an intellectual backwater. I stand by that assertion.

Actually, I dont believe this has anything to do with religion. The fools who are behind this witch hunt are the same kind of fools who want us to drink coffee without caffine in it, booze without alcohol in it and would prefer us to be on the old age pension before we could go for a fvck.

by Francis Kelly Thu Mar 13, 2008 00:45

Cael,

After following back through the exchange it seems that you claimed I said the following:

"you can turn a straight individual into a gay individual at sixteen years of age ."

Categorically, I did not say that.

I just asked one question - is there is a difference between a homosexual person initiating a homosexual encounter with an uninitiated youth and a hetrosexual person doing exactly the same.

There is no need to misrepresent , simply answer or ignore my question

by Bernie Thu Mar 13, 2008 01:02

A lengthy comment with interesting links, here:

http://dublinopinion.com/

by - Thu Mar 13, 2008 12:46

O Searchaigh is a poet from work- a lot of work.

The issue of consent and teenage sex is what is goin' on, and we nay talk of it cos parents think that all the dirty
little secrets can be hidden under the marriage bed,thats where repressions cultivate and mushroom.

Many many people in the state do not like to talk of :

female sexuality.
abortion
gay sex.
pills
potions
S+M
but they will talk of the 'roles' of men and women within the narrow confines of some moralistic scaffolding,
it suits the perverse to create an image of disneyland nicety that is utterly sexless, and no-one buys it.

O Searchaigh is an innocent. He deserves apology and he deserves restoration of reputation.
as to RTE and sex , well, we could look at how many female newsreaders have shagged cabinet ministers.

by Rational Ecologist Thu Mar 13, 2008 13:01

Big difference between a female newsreader, adult, shagging a politician( adult?) and what this documentary featured. This is not about homosexuality but rather paedophilia and power.
The documentary should be investigated and O' Searcaigh pursued. Would you defend all those Catholic clergy who abused so many over the years?
Grow up!!!

by newbie Thu Mar 13, 2008 13:40

In Holland the law says that a sex abuse case (in the widest sense) must be judged on the relative ages of those involved.

So a boy-girl pair aged 15 and 14, or a gay pair aged 14 and 16, would not be prosecuted, but say a man aged 26 and a girl of 14, or a gay aged 40 sleeping with a 15 year old, has an element of abuse.

What has a 50-year-old heavy-set balding poet got going for him in a country where few can read and nobody can speak Irish? Just his money.

by C Murray Thu Mar 13, 2008 14:09

we could go to June 2006 where the criminalisation of sexual activity was launched by
the then minister for justice Mc Dowell, which said that boys could go to prison for sex.

I do not have the time now to go into the legal- but suggest you enter 'Pat Rabbitte's
questions to the Tanaiste' into the search engine and peruse the http://www.oireachtas.ie
site for the debates of June 1st and 2nd 2006.

from this it can be discerned that currently on the statutes is a piece of legislation
that includes 'section 5' of the criminal laws sexual offences bill (2006 ) and
amended to include solicitation (2007). The solictiation offence was added when
it became evident that internet grooming was on the rise after a series of arrests
incl. at the Chief State Solicitor's Office.

The Law is unconstitutional and the whole Dail voted for it (included in that, the
Seanad, where Norris applauded the re-arrest of 'A' and the passing of the Bill
in emergency session).

The consent issue and the issue of protection necessitates a constitutional
referendum (Ireland is one of the few developed countries that does not have the
rights of the child written onto the statute).

As I pointed out at the beginning of this piece. Cathal O Searchaigh is entitled to presumption
of innocence but has been given by RTE a trial by television on an issue which the
legislature has not even been able to get correct (due to an unwillingness to face the
issues of child abuse and consent).

As I pointed out at the beginning of this piece, the film was motivated by budget
and if the film-maker had serious qualms re paedohillia then she automatically
mitigated against her case by starting a witch-hunt against a poet by not submitting
her material to authorities but by insisting on airing it for a national audience
who like the legislature do not discuss these issues and bracket everything into
one big 'Gay' area.

O Searchaigh has been subject to a media trial by fire that has absolutely nothing to
do with what he did or did not do and all to do with garnering audience figures.
Look at the Oireachtas debates on Sex Laws and Consent and deal with the issues:-
there has to be a very clear distinction made between what constitutes abuse and
what constitutes consent activity. This distinction was not made as a result of the
'A' and 'CC' cases because the Government at the time did not face it.
The two committees formed to look at consent and constitutional reform have
made reports and the referendum on protection has been put back to 2009.

= The Laws are still on the statute.

Rte does not deal with that issue.

by Cael Thu Mar 13, 2008 14:11

To Francis Kelly:

Nobody is "uninitiated" in sex by 16 years of age. They are initiated in fantasy. Either that fantasy will be a homosexual or a hetrosexual one. Nothing that happens in the real world will change that. Indeed, if you take a Freudian approach, the decision is made by the time you are five years of age.

Not to anyone in particular:

The coverage of this whole subject has been very sloppy minded indeed. It has been claimed that homosexuality is illegal in Nepal. This is false. There are five gay men running for the next elections on gay issues. There is a large park in central Katmandu, where gay man "cruise" openly and without harassment from the police.

Certain elements, not being able to find enough "evil" in this show's allegations, have tried to pay the pedophilia card, knowing that once the word pedophile has been thrown in the ring, all rational thought will vanish. There is no question of O Searcaigh being a pedophile. There is no question of him having relations with children. The young men involved were all over the legal age of consent. You only take away the meaning of the word pedophile, if you say that someone who finds a sixteen year old attractive is a pedophile. You then have no word left to describe someone who is attracted to pre-pubescent children.

Some of the more stupid Irish commentators have been saying that young people in Nepal dont know what sex is. This is garbage that could only come from such a sexually immature country as Ireland. In Nepal, young children are well aware of what sex is, and there is no attempt on the part of adults to hide this knowledge from them - as is the case in Ireland.

by john Thu Mar 13, 2008 14:44

cael do you have teenage children yourself or nephews or nieces. If one of your kids just above the age of concent started a relationship with someone 30+ years there senior, would the thaught that they were being taken advantage of cross your mind at all. as parent as well as being worried by people being attracted to the youth of my kids iam more worried about people being attracted to there inocence and there gulability and someone manipulating them for there own end. They can hold there own among there peers but someone old richer and supoosedly wiser than them, it's not a fair match.

by Stuart Thu Mar 13, 2008 14:48

Cael: "It has been claimed that homosexuality is illegal in Nepal. This is false."

Sex between men and sex between women are both illegal in Nepal, as are a host of other "immoral" activities that O'Searcaigh (and many other visitors) engaged in. Hopefully that will change in the current move from parliamentary monarchy to democracy.

Stop all the tangential crap, moral relativism and half-baked references to Irish society. This man abused his position of wealth and trust, plain and simple. His supposed charity is a fraud, his supposed love a series of abuses. This is the same sex tourism as you find in Thailand, Vietnam, Goa and a host of other places, and indefensible in all.

by Jogging Joe Thu Mar 13, 2008 15:28

I have to agree with Stuart that we're getting tangential posts, here and in other places, on the Nepal sad business, and half-baked references to the diminished intelligence of Irish society. Anytime individuals raise the spectre of morals we are told that "such a sexually immature country as Ireland" has hangups peculiar to itself that are not found in other economically developed societies. We are being continually described in the media and elsewhere as a peculiar society, as therefore not participating in a common world humanity. The intellectual and emotional results of such self-deprecating stereotyping is that we can behave mentally like grownup children, awaiting signals from our betters abroad (preferably Britain and America - societies like Spain, Germany or France don't get priority despite proximity and historical links) before we think about issues. If we want to shrug off such stereotyping we'll have to start thinking, talking and acting on our own initiative without first looking over our shoulders to see what an imaginary host of glaring intelligentsia in other countries think of us.

by worker - socialist Thu Mar 13, 2008 16:36

There seem to be double standards all over this. I didn't see any of the PC middle class running to the defence of the exploiter of a young women who had his case thrown out of court recently.

Neither did they rally to the cause of 'poor' Garry Glitter another exploiter of youngsters.

That's not to say that this mans poetry should be taken off the leaving cert. If it is good then let it be.

But if you really think it is ok for a fifty year old man to buy sex from youngsters then I don't know where the left is going. Saying that criticising him is just homophobia is bullshit.

I read lots of left and liberal media and have yet to see anyone writing that sex tourism is ok.

Yet this man went to Nepal in come charitable guise and 'supported' young men at a price.

by Brand Ireland Thu Mar 13, 2008 18:28

ask RTE why they do not deal with RC abuse of under-aged children?
ask RTE why they did not cover the emergegency laws of 2006?
ask RTE why they refuse to contextualise the issues of child sex abuse and name them
for what they are?
ask RTe why documentaries with victims of sex abuse are avoided?

ask RTe where they got the moral authority to subject a writer to 'Trial by media'
in the absence of discussion on the very real issue of indemnity and state pursuant
of victims of child sex abuse for costs?

then contextualise the issue of rape as violation and the issue of gay lifestyle,
put through the filter of a puritanism (which increases attack) by refusing to talk about why
the current government has supported through refusal to engage with Laffoy* on
the issue of sex abuse leading to the resignation of the Judge.

RTE refuses to contextualise the issue but subjects people to Trial solely on the
basis of the whim of a film-maker who is concerned in advertising her wares..

interesting that RTE did not submit the film to the authorities but chose to air it.
and many, many people can see the holes in their case for proceeding against
best advice in the issue- but the reputation and health of an individual is nothing
to an institution such as RTE.

Shame!

Ms Mary Hanafin's dept (then under Dempsey) obstructed the Laffoy commission on
child abuse- you may not say anything on consent because it has not been dealt with
by the state or the media.

by Cael Thu Mar 13, 2008 19:28

Well, jogging joe, if the treatment of this case is anything to go on Ireland still does have a very long way to go when it comes to shaking off the hypocracy. I see the front of the Irish Independent is wringing its hands about O Searcaigh's adventures, but, strangely enough, I have never seen as much as one article in the Indo about the way desperately poor immigrants are put in danger every day running between cars selling the Evening Herald. O Searcaigh didnt actually put anyones life in danger to get what he wanted - unlike a certain Knight of the British Realm (who Im sure would put this site out of operation if I named him.)

On the question of legal action. Sadly the young men who have had their faces plastered all over the media - without their ever having signed a release form - do not have the funds to prosecute Ms. Ní Chianán and RTE for that abuse. What about inequal relations there? Will RTE provide them with the money for such legal action? I very much doubt it. RTE has got its spectacular, now it will leave these young men to their fate. However, the poet has promised not to abandon them. I trust he will keep that promise.

People are still saying that homosexuality is illegal in Nepal. Please check the facts. Its not.

If Ms. Ní Chianán and RTE are examples of Ireland's "maturity" then God help us. A rational person would have approached this in a totally different way. First and formost should have been a desire not to expose these men to further distress - not to splash their faces all over the gutter press. If O Searcaigh has problems, then the way to help him with those problems certainly wasnt to throw him to the media hounds to be torn apart for the amusment and titillation of their paying customers.

I think we all know the bottom line in this story. Ms. Ní Chianán has never demonstrated any particular talent or aptitude for film making. It is highly unlikely that she would ever have got funding for this project if she had not been able to promise sensational headlines at the end of it. We see that she used English right through the show, although most English speakers would have little or no knowledge of Irish poetry or Irish poets and, normally, would never watch a program on an English language poet never mind an Irish one.

by Francis Kelly Thu Mar 13, 2008 19:28

Cael, To me you directed the following :

"Nobody is "uninitiated" in sex by 16 years of age. They are initiated in fantasy. Either that fantasy will be a homosexual or a hetrosexual one. Nothing that happens in the real world will change that. Indeed, if you take a Freudian approach, the decision is made by the time you are five years of age."

I really must say that this is the most ridiculous assertion I have ever read.

There are plenty of people that are uninitiated in sex at sixteen. Maybe not so many in Ireland or the West in General but there are other societies where sex is not pushed in your face at every turn from the first day you open your eyes.
In Nepal, by all reports, it is apparently very normal for young people not to engage in sex or sexual contact with anyone until they are married into an arranged marriage. In this context when a youth asks the question "What is sex"? It is completely fesible that the question is utterly forthright and he deserves a full and honest answer from a person who cares.
In a vacuum of information and external stimulation you claim that "fantasy" will be the young man's guidance in what can be one of the most character defining experiences in life. That has to be the most absurd proposition I've ever encountered.

Fact is, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of his actions which seem to be completely legal, O Searcaigh's had another responsibility to the young men who asked "what is sex". He should have not presumed to omit the fact that in the vast majorty of instances a pleasurable sexual experience will require the presence of a member of the opposite sex.

by Cael Thu Mar 13, 2008 20:00

Francis, a chara, I said that human being are well and truly sexualised in the fantasy by the time they are sixteen - not always in action, but in fantasy. Its fantasy that is the key element in sexualisation - not an actual event at sixteen years of age.

Now when someone speaking to you in a foreign language asks you what a word in your language means, for example "sex," it does not imply that they are unaware of the concept "sex", just your signifier for it. Do you really imagine that sixteen year olds in any part of the world dont know what sex is? Until very recently in Nepal, girls were long mothers by sixteen.

by Cael Thu Mar 13, 2008 20:22

I would also like to ask Ms. Ní Chianán and RTE will they be giving the young men in question all the proceeds from this show? Or will they, unlike the poet, just exploit the men and give them absolutely nothing in return?

by Francis Kelly Thu Mar 13, 2008 21:36

Cael,

Yes I do really imagine that people in parts of the world do not know what sex is by the time they are sixteen. I would go so far as to say that in this highly sexualised society in which we live where kids are bombarded day and night with hard and soft porn, that plenty of kids think they know what sex is and dont. They know lots of stuff about the graphic details and positions and variations of techniques etc. they know the most strange details that some mature adults in sexual relationships mightnt know.
But they really dont have a clue as to the potential sex has to enhance or ruin their lives. they have no idea of the emotional and spiritual and psychological complications that sex will bring to their lives.

Now take a young person who has no internet , no education, no titillation or imagery no young lover to practice and learn with Just a young person with the instinctual urge to have 'Sex" and be part of the sexual world. The concept is universal and knows no lingual boundaries. When the person asks "What is sex" its not like asking " what is transmogrification". this "fantasy" you speak of is the primal and instinctual and hormonal sexual concept that is in us all. These Nepalese young men had no information to formulate even a skeletal foundation with which to address their instincts.
When they asked " what is sex" the answer, if coming from an honest source, should embrace the natural fact that in the majority of cases it occurs between members of the opposite sex. My point is that O Searcaigh took for granted his right to initiate sex with sexually immature people, he also presumed to leave aside the detail that by virtue of the law of averages, these young men were probably not homosexual. This second point,in itself , cannot be overlooked as any part of the greater deliberations on this matter.

by Jap's Eye Thu Mar 13, 2008 22:51

Smooth youth leaves us all,
Valleys fall and shroud with mist.
Warm centre, Spring has turned.

by Stuart Thu Mar 13, 2008 22:59

Cael: "People are still saying that homosexuality is illegal in Nepal. Please check the facts. Its not."

I most certainly have checked and am very aware of international legislation of sexual consent. The Nepalese law forbids "unnatural" sexual acts between men and between women. People are arrested, prosecuted and found guilty of whatever the courts find "unnatural". There is additional legislation covering immoral conduct, which may apply to the manner in which these serial relationships were initiated, and to the issue of payment for sex. Several factions active in the transformation of Nepalese government are outright opposed to all homosexual conduct, so future legislation could go either way, but hopefully towards international norms of freedom of sexual expression.

In any case, the Nepalese High Commission has stated categorically that the young men in the film could not provide legal consent because the conduct is illegal. Various NGOs have additionally denounced the exploitation of young Nepalese for the sexual gratification of tourists.

by Rational Ecologist Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:46

By your last contribution, you seem to be saying that it okay to exploit someone, as long as you give them something in return. It's very surprising that so many contributors on this website parrot the capitalist/ corporate line of sex as commodity and young people as same.

by C Murray Fri Mar 14, 2008 13:27

the issue was simple enough;

RTE showcased (after a build up of media leakage) a slanted documentary on the sex life of a poet
which made serious accusations against the writer (O Searchaigh)- for entertainment.

There was no accusation of Paedophillia.
There was no accusation of child-rape.
There was a failure to contextualise the cultural issue.
There was and has been no discussion on consent (cos we avoid serious issues such as child sexual abuse
and protection laws in Ireland).
The point made (and Clare Duggan's defence in the I.T letters page skims the issue) was that the media,
represented here by the National broadcaster saw fit to condemn without context the reputation of a private
individual in a slanted, boring, puritanical and unappealing manner.

add to that Des Hanafin's daughter (Mary Hanafin TD) has been making noises on Leaving cert students.
(I'd rather my kids read O Searchaigh and Wilde than Celia effing Ahern anyday).

I believe that RTE did not take the film-makers accusations seriously enough to go to the Nepalese
authorities nor the Dept of Foreign affairs- but to launch the film onto a National market for advertising
revenue- the title of the thing was enough to put me off-

if they want to go gutter-press then indeed start investigating the moral guardians of this
society -they might uncover a 'Spitzer' or two-

by Martin Fri Mar 14, 2008 13:32

So the author has not seen the documentary yet feels compelled to write about it. Smacks of a certain something.

by C Murray Fri Mar 14, 2008 13:41

I read. I listen to the radio. I am a writer. I followed this story over weeks through print and radio.

and I do not watch television. I am a reader of Cathal O Searchaigh's and I do not see why I should expose myself
to cheap ad -driven telly crap to know precisely what is going on.

the doc was reviewed here btw- and it confirmed what I said.
Puritanical slant to destroy reputation is not good programme making- I want to see RTE doing
stuff like Primetime on Tara (last night) and questioning the government- it is their job.

we get david irving and homophobic shite.

I am also a member of IPWWC and Poetry Ireland - RTE did not balance accusation
with discussion.

by Rational Ecologist Fri Mar 14, 2008 14:12

When you refer to homophobia just what are you referring to? This documentary alludes to sex with very young boys. This has nothing to do with homosexuality and in fact your insinuation that it does is offensive to gay people.
Noone is suggesting trial by TV but the information does warrant being pursued.

by observer Fri Mar 14, 2008 14:16

So if a 50 year man had sex with your 16 year old son/brother in return for "gifts" would you be pleased do you think?

by Cael Fri Mar 14, 2008 15:30

Stuart, as you say, anal sex is illegal in Nepal, gay or straight its still illegal. That is not the same thing as saying that homosexuality is illegal.

by Cael Fri Mar 14, 2008 15:36

Tom Francis:

First you said that young people in Nepal dont know what sex is, now your saying that while they may know what sex is, they may not have your full comprehension of the full implications of the sexual act. I doubt if thats really a functional definition of knowledge.

by Cael Fri Mar 14, 2008 15:50

Rational Ecologist, I never said that it was alright to exploit people. What Im complaining about is the outright hypocracy of RTE and the general media treatment of all this. The media in Ireland is built on and funded by outright exploitation - but they never mention that. Im also concerned about the amount of factual inaccuracy being splashed about by people who should know better. It appears that O Searcaigh has done nothing illegal and there is no question of him being afforded an opportunity to answer questions in a court. Instead we have had a TV show which merely presented a personal TV prosecution by one individual, who had complete control over editing and what the camera saw. Indeed, she made verbal accusations during the program that were unsubstantiated by the camera. There was no cross examination of her accusations.

Actually, the media was not the appropriate place for any sort of treatment of this case. RTE certainly havnt helped these young men and they certainly havnt helped Cathal O Searcaigh. If Ms. Ní Chianán was genuinely concerned about what was happening - instead of seeing it as a business opportunity, she would have gone about things in a very different way. Whats the point in having social services if we're just going to splash people with problems all over the gutter press?

by Cael Fri Mar 14, 2008 16:01

It seems that RTE had 250,000 viewers for that show. An incredible figure for a program on that life of any poet, not to mind one writing in the Irish language. Given the media build up that was generated for this show, including a showing at the Dublin film festival, I wonder did RTE hike up the advertising rates for slots around this show? If so, by how much?

Again, I will ask: Will RTE and Ms. Ní Chianán hand over this money to be used for the welfare of the young men, who's participation they included without even getting a signed release form, and who's names and faces are splashed all over the Irish and Nepalese - and world internet - media?

by Francis Kelly Fri Mar 14, 2008 16:10

Cael,

I think perhaps you are being disingeuous now , but for arguments sake I will clarify for you.
I am sure there are plenty of sixteen year olds around the world who know nothing of sex. Some think they know it all. Some know they know nothing. They do all have the same desires to be initiated into this world of adulthood where they will be loved and wanted and physically carressed. This notion is universal and knows no lingual boundaries. The human instinct is universal to all humans.

Those knowledgable youths will know that that hetrosexual sex is the norm for the majority of people and they will also have education in procreational sexual intercourse.
Those completely factually ignorant youths may possibly not know even that much.

The difference being that whilst a youth from the first category may consent to having a sexual experience with a much older person he has the necessary basic tools to select only to participate such an experience with a member of the opposite sex. For even if he is not sure of his own orientation he will at least be aware of the fact that by the law of averages he is hetrosexual.

A youth from the second category will not necessarily have the tools to make even this basic decision and whilst he may consent to sex with a much older person he may not be aware that homosexual sex is not the mainstream sexual experience. Later in his life when by he realises that he is completely hetrosexual he may find himself deeply emothionally traumatised by his homosexual experience.

Therefore I vehemently do not agree with the likes of Rational Ecologist above who says :

"This has nothing to do with homosexuality and in fact your insinuation that it does is offensive to gay people."

It has everything to do with Homosexuality. There are two aspects what O Searcaigh did.

1: He decided to initiate sexual encounters with young men even though he was far older than they were, risking violating their innocence.
2: He decided to initiate Homosexual acts with yong men even though they were probably hetrosexual, risking violating the orientation of their sexuality.

by Cael Fri Mar 14, 2008 18:30

Francis, a chara, I really dont believe that there is a single sixteen year old on planet Earth who dosnt know what sex is - unless, perhaps, some mentally handicapped people.

Your suggestion that you can turn a hetrosexual subject into a homosexual one, or visa versa, is certainly not backed up by any research that I know of. In times past people thought that homosexuals could be "converted" by "treatment", but this idea is not taken seriously any more. Its true that a lot of people are bi-sexual. Many of these accept the social "norm" and never experiment with the homosexual aspect of their subjectivity. Others do for one reason or another. One of these reasons may be meeting an older person who leads them to do so. So in that respect I agree with you. I believe that some may well feel guilt and regret about this - mostly because of the conflict it raises with social norms. Thats one reason why I am annoyed with RTE. This film has put these young men under the media spotlight and hightened any conflict they may already have felt. I cannot see but that they will be deeply traumatised by being put under this spotlight.

by C murray Fri Mar 14, 2008 19:20

http://www.reed.edu/news_center/multimedia/2007-08/gins....html
http://www.reed.edu/news_center/multimedia/index.html

by Francis Kelly Fri Mar 14, 2008 20:58

Cael,

Your suggestion that I suggested that someone can be turned into a homosexual is utterly ridiculous. I didnt suggest anything of the sort.All your stuff about treatments and bisexuals is from your own imagination, a Chara.

If an older person has a responsibility to respect the innocence of a sexually immature person, he or she also has a responsibility to respect the orientation of a sexually immature person. Given the law of averages, it should be presumed that most of those youths were hetrosexual. O Searcaigh seems to have paid little attention to this point regardless of his consideration regarding their age.

Its a very simple point, with some very complex ramifications for O Searcaigh , the youths and human society in general

by Stuart Sat Mar 15, 2008 12:29

Cael, I do wish you would actually check some real facts rather than spouting imaginative nonsense. Nepalese law prohibits "unnatural acts" (whatever they may be), sex between men or between women, and various other "immoral conduct". There is no reference to anal sex in the statutes, so you are again on a diversionary tangent in saying "anal sex is illegal in Nepal, gay or straight its still illegal". Nepalese law is currently ambiguous on this issue, but frequently convict people for homosexual acts.

A rich westerner procuring sex would most likely fall under one or both categories. The behaviour shown is exploitation and risks life-long trauma to the young people shown in the documentary.

A middle-aged man would not survive long trying to procure sex from teenagers outside Irish colleges. An NGO or charity employee would be dismissed for what was shown in the documentary - hence O'Searcaigh's "private" charitable acts. Nobody can defend this behaviour, and none of the comments above even attempt to, but (like Brother David Gibson's myriad diversions from the abuse perpetrated by his colleagues in the Christian Brothers) they send the debate down pointless tangents and cast blame on everyone but the perpetrator.

by - Sat Mar 15, 2008 14:51

The issue was utilisation of national media (National Broadcaster=RTE) to initiate a
trial by media against a private individual (in the absence of debate on the very serious
issue of child sexual abuse in state and church run institutions)

cos gay stuff is not discussed in any meaningful way- the whole area of understanding
consent issues and making a fair and unbiased distinction between male adolesence
and children- a poet and man is subject to print media debate/radio debate/abuse
and tutting.

The issue of paedophilia did not come into the film.The issue of rape did not come into it.
The issue of exploitation did- but was left unexplored.

because we have a cultivated laissez-faire attitude to 'not discussing things' the net
result is serious allegations against an individual that are allowed be open to interpretation
by those who would not listen to the whole story and brought it down to an experiential level
of interpretation. A disservice was done to the kids and the poet-
was there a disclaimer broadcast at time of transmission?

If the director felt so seriously then she should have gone to the authorities (Ireland and Nepal)
and kept the thing off the air until the thing was investigated- which wassaid in the very first comment.

by Cael Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:00

Stuart, I didnt hear anyone saying that O Searcaigh was trying to procure sex outside colleges in Nepal, so why bring up this stretch of the imagination? Though this little imaginative scenario has been bouncing around the gutter press so much in the last few days it would have been difficult for you to avoid it. Is what he is actually accused of not bad enough that you have to put frills on it?

by Cael Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:02

Convicting people for "unnatural acts" is not the same as making homsexuality illegal.

by Cael Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:13

Francis, there is no point in us getting into a long debate about wheather these young men are gay or straight or bi-sexual. The fact is we dont know. All we have seen is a one hour TV show, and a poorly made one at that. I dont think it is even right that we should be sitting at computer screens discussing their sexuality. Its really not our business. Relations between human beings are complex and a TV show is too clumsy and brutish an implement with which to disect them.

by Fag Hag Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:19

They have opened the door to tabloid + gutter press analysis which convinces the faint-hearted
hetrosexual Irish male (represented in a myriad of comments above) that 'ag crusail'
is about dirty old men with sweeties in their pockets.

(or failing that certain arch preceptors who utilised binoculars to investigate the underwear
of sports playing youths at many RC schools, not to mention amassing the largest
and bluest collection of pornographic materials and sexology manuals in the history
of the state...)

RTE subjected O Searchaigh to witch-hunt for viewing figures and opened the door
to people who have cultivated ignorance about 'sex', this is why religious dominance
is so fucking wrong- it claims to deal with 'words' but denies words that are alive;
and in Moriarty's words on Tenebrae from the 'Tridium Sacrum'- when Xtianity
denies personal gethsemane- there and then it is in trouble.

allowing people to lapse into infantilism rather than face issues is what has
allowed over and over again abuse in state and religious institutions. O searchaigh
was a cruiser, maybe a fool but imagined gay scenarios of commentators here
show what shite they unleashed.

:-(

by Cael Sat Mar 15, 2008 19:25

Fag Hag, I have to disagree with you that religion has anything to do with this particular witch hunt. The churches have rightly stayed off this band wagon. Its being mostly driven by the media in an effort to make money. Simple as that. Needless to say, none of that money will be used to help the "stars" of this circus, i.e the young men in Nepal and Cathal O Searcaigh.

by Frank Dertrick Sat Mar 15, 2008 20:30

If the fat , bald 50 year old poet thinks that what he is doing is OK, why did he go to Nepal to do it? Why not offer money to 16-17 year old boys in Ballymun or Moyross.
Why hide away in a poor country? If he is confident that he is not doing anything wrong, why not act out his fantasies here?

My guess is that the fat bald 50 year old knows exactly what he is doing is wrong and its sad that sections of the gay community allow themselves to be linked with evil by defending acts which have nothing to do with homosexuality but everything to do with exploitation.

As for cael, who includes Republicanism in their title, you belittle the term with your defence of exploitation of the weakest. Perhaps you needed to be reminded of the proclamation's reference to cherishing all the children equally.

by Duff Sat Mar 15, 2008 23:42

Those who come on this website and those who occupy the media trying to defend the indefensible
ought to hang their heads in shame.

by Deirdre Clancy Sun Mar 16, 2008 02:23

I'm amazed that the one article on Indymedia around this controversy is advocating in favour of O'Searcaigh. The quality of his poetry is totally irrelevant. The fact remains that, under the auspices of charity work, he has been shown convincingly to be exploiting teenage boys. The issue here is whether the 'consent' is informed and educated. It seemed clear from the faces and words of some of the boys interviewed in the documentary and from what we know about the culture of Nepal that it wasn't, and unlike C. Murray in the original posting, I watched the documentary. He should not be immune from moral accountability just because he is a respected poet.

It's a red herring to call the airing of this documentary and its attending controversy homophobia. This has nothing to do with O'Searcaigh's sexual orientation. If he were a heterosexual man and those exploited were young girls, I would feel the very same about it; and I'm quite sure that most sex tourism is done by hetersexuals. Neasa Ni Chainain has done a public service in exposing this 'philanthropic' work for what it actually is. It alarms and disappoints me that those with so much cultural capital are so morally confused and cloudy in their judgment - and there is serious moral relativism in that Irish Times letter signed by his fellow artists, requesting that the documentary not be aired. As for the questioning of the credibility of Ni Chainain that's occurring - well, that's just shooting the messenger, something that seems to occur with increasing regularity in Irish public life. Let's remember that she was invited by O'Searcaigh himself to film his life, and in the end, she did what any talented documentary-maker of integrity would do, which is to get to the truth of a situation. No wonder she is being scapegoated; it's a favourite Irish pastime when it comes to certain types of disclosure.

The precious hand-wringing over whether or not the documentary should have been aired on the part of what I can only now see as a bunch of hopelessly out of touch luvvies leaves me cold. These people are clearly deeply uneducated about the long-term psychological and emotional effects that a serious violation of sexual boundaries can have on a young person. It can take years of hard work to get over such a violation at a vulnerable age. The look of loss on the face of the boy who said he was 'bought' said it all. While O'Searcaigh clearly needs help, and perhaps tough love, it's about time some of his so-called 'friends' started worrying about the welfare of the teenagers in question as well. The reaction of the artistic elite is Eurocentrism at its worst. I bet none of them would feel the same if it was one of their children, grandchildren, nieces or nephews who had been exploited in such a manner. RTE made the right call on this occasion.

by High Heel Sneaker. Sun Mar 16, 2008 03:46

There is no prima facie evidence against Cathal O'Searcaigh, it is all hearsay and circumstantial and would not stand up in a Court of Law.

Not surprising in a country like Ireland where not only homosexual people but even harmless transvestite people are subject to abuse and even attack on he streets.

by T. Dewar Sun Mar 16, 2008 04:06

O Searchaigh is an exploiter of the weak, the poor and the powerless. He is also a moral imbecile. His supporters, such as 'Seantor' Harris and Senator Norris have lost touch with reality.

by C Murray Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:26

for the simple reason that I believe that if the film-maker was performing a public service
then she lacked excellence of approach- the film (as I said in comments) should have
gone to Nepalese and Irish authorites (and not after the horse bolted, in this case,
not after it was aired nationally to an audience of people who cannot even approach
the issue of child safety and sex abuse within the Understanding of the rights of the child-
which in this country , alone among developed nations cannot transpose them into law
without a constitutional referendum on article 41.1 of the constitution)
will I go on about in family incest?
will I go an about RC abuse in state and educational institutions?

there was an accusation against O Searchaigh of exploitation-not of paedophillia
not of rape.
whilst the upholders of the law that denies rights to kids who are raped and must
waive anonymity in our courts to secure criminal conviction stands. I stand
by my defence of O Searchaigh (in his output and his innocence, which allows for thickness too)

Our christian constitution allows for childrens rights to occur only within the family and
by extension the moral authority of a catholic church that cannot even face its own
legacy of abuse/rape and paedophillia.

I asked that if a conversation occurs on the issue of exploitation and abuse happens
that the poet be given (as all are entitle to) the presumption of innocence and
the relevant criminal investigation.

to Deirdre, my name is Chris , as you know.

The media is not the moral arbiter of a society that does not allow fair play and
RTE acted irresponsibly cos there will never, ever be a trial on the issues
due to extreme predijuice. Does everyone here imagine that we have discussed
theses issues-with Section 5 on the statutes?

what a heap of horseshit-

Dail Eireann has not looked at sex trafficking, rape, or consent except through the
lens of RC morality- therefore this will continue to happen. I am surprised at the
willingness of adherents to RC morality who jump in condemnation and refuse
to look at their inability to debate issues of -privacy and consent issues-

by Frank Dertrick Sun Mar 16, 2008 11:32

"Not surprising in a country like Ireland where not only homosexual people but even harmless transvestite people are subject to abuse and even attack on he streets. "

and definately not surprising in a country like Nepal where children are sexually and physically abused by predators even if they are not homosexual or harmless transvestites.

Not surprising that fat bald poets prey on these poor souls for cheap sexual gratification in a similar way that paedo priests did in poor old ireland in the years gone by.

Not surprising that certain people would defend this. In fact, by defending this you are agreeing with it.

by C Murray Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:02

Oh !

One other thing, watching telly programmes that clearly attempt to moralise on issues
half-discussed and uninvestigated; but flagged as 'socially responsible' is a passive
and unhealthy activity.

I certainly believe people should read more books.

(the documentary was flagged for the voyeurs, over a period of weeks.
we all get choices about what we choose to buy into- public humiliation
of an individual (who happens to be a poet) is a bit gladiatorial for my taste.

* I personally believe that those who support trial by media in the absence of
criminal investigation and without presumption of innocence are collusive in
human rights abuses...*

=its a matter for the courts and not the 'parliament of birds'
(i am not writing anymore on the issue)

by Deirdre Clancy Sun Mar 16, 2008 14:35

Chris wrote: "One other thing, watching telly programmes that clearly attempt to moralise on issues
half-discussed and uninvestigated; but flagged as 'socially responsible' is a passive
and unhealthy activity."

Documentaries that investigate the truth of situations have a long and venerable history. But, above and beyond that, are you saying that, for example, Prime Time shouldn't have made a film about Leas Cross and made moral judgments on what was going on there? Personally, I think the Prime Time Investiages team did a public service for all those who may have to face looking into caring options for elderly relatives at some stage. I didn't enjoy watching the documentary, and found it very upsetting, but I'm sure as hell grateful that they made it. Is this in any way different from what Ni C. has done? I don't think so myself.

"I certainly believe people should read more books."

What are you saying here, Chris? Are you seriously suggesting that those of us who agree with the airing of this documentary are somehow semi-literate? I mean, you mention the term 'half-discussed' - and yet your own posting is full of non-sequitors. I have had occasion in recent times in the course of work to attend fairly extensive lectures in the long-term effects of the type of activities O'Searcaigh is engaging in on those victimised. I have also had occasion in the course of training to read books on the issue. You have no business suggesting that an appreciation for the television as a medium, at least within certain rational limits, means that people aren't readers. So, just for the record, I'm a pretty voracious reader on all sorts of genres and subjects, but I do watch TV selectively as well; sometimes for enjoyment - but also because there's is often good investigative journalism on it.

Chris wrote -- "(the documentary was flagged for the voyeurs, over a period of weeks.
we all get choices about what we choose to buy into- public humiliation
of an individual (who happens to be a poet) is a bit gladiatorial for my taste."

Perhaps there was some voyeurism involved in the tabloid media's coverage of the issue (I didn't see any of that), but those of us who felt it was doing the public a favour to air the documentary are not voyeurs. I watched it because I thought it would be good to have an informed opinion when it came up in conversation, which it invariably has. I didn't enjoy the film - in fact, it was highly depressing. However, it was also a responsible piece of film-making. My only issue was to wonder why it took Neasa Ni C. so long to confront the issue, and yet part of me could understand her reservations. Had she confronted him in Nepal, the project could well have been aborted. As it was, she got very good footage, including of the interview of the very articulate hotel manager, who had a weary tone of someone who was used to Westerners dispensing largesse to the local population with heavy strings attached. There are many issues raised by this film that go beyond sexual exploitation; issues of economic disparity and power dynamics are also woven as a theme throughout the narrative.

Chris wrote -- * I personally believe that those who support trial by media in the absence of
criminal investigation and without presumption of innocence are collusive in
human rights abuses...*

Get real, Chris. The only human rights abuses that have occurred in this whole sorry scenario have occurred in Nepal. And as for the idea of presumption of innocence pending a criminal investigation - that is nihil ad rem. He probably won't be prosecuted, as he seems to have been clever enough to bypass the law. Some people are. The law isn't perfect and doesn't cover all problematic behaviour. In the area of sexual grooming and assault, so much is context dependent. In this case, the enormous power differential is the issue, and the law doesn't cover that in this instance.

by Cael Sun Mar 16, 2008 15:11

Dierdre, do you really think it was a "public service" to splash the names and faces of these young men all over the gutter press in Ireland and Nepal? What effect do you think that has on them and their families? Do you really believe it has improved their lives? How has your life been improved by knowing who they are? Do you personally intend helping them now that you know who they are? Will you ever pass a begger on the street again pretending not to even see them? Will you make sure never to use products made in Asian sweat shops? Will you campaign against land and housing speculation in Ireland, against Landlordism and against exploiting foreign (and Irish) workers? Because if you dont, this show certainly didnt do much of a public service to you. Exploitation is the back bone of Irish life. RTE makes popular TV programs showing how to speculate on "property" and how to condemn poorer people to the position of your tenents, then how to squeeze the last drop of blood out of them with your rack rents - and then RTE has the cheek to talk about anyone else. When you have a society so based on exploitation and highway robbery of the weak by the strong as we have in Ireland, then exploitation is the way of life.

As for the person above who made a comparison between his show and the documentry on Leas Cross - it is a very different situation. As far as I remember an effort was made to respect the privacy of the old people in question. Far from respecting these young men, they were simply used as cannon fodder. Not a second's thought was given to the effect this show would have on them and their families. Im sure if this film had been made in Ireland, RTE would have been forced to respect the privacy and annonymity of the men in question. But, sure they were only foreigners, as far as RTE and Ms. Ni Chianan were concerned. They were not even given the courtacy of being asked to sign release forms so that the interviews could legally be used.

by tomeile Sun Mar 16, 2008 15:53

If Cathal O Searchaigh had any sort of a record for fighting homophobia in Nepal , people might have been more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt ,but that doesn’t appear to be the case . I haven’t seen any statements from him condemning the Nepalese government’s policy towards gay rights - which is one of indulgence towards rich westerners combined with the most primitive intolerance to that country’s own gay community. Conditions for Gays and lesbians in Nepal are appalling . The majority of gays there are forced to marry against their will according to Utopia ,the S.E. Asian gay website .
http://www.utopia-asia.com/unews/article_2004_02_27_180...7.htm

After last year’s peace deal between the Nepalese Government and Maoists guerillas , Nepalese gays ,lesbians and transgendered men (metis) , had hoped their situation would improve ,but conditions have actually become “much worse” for them according to Gay News .
see :
Metis: Victims of Political Change in Nepal?-By Sunil Pant UKgaynews.org 11/26/06

Under the monarchy , gays ,lesbians and metis were subject to constant harassment by the police .But, since the Maoist leader ,Prachanda , reached a deal with the monarchists last year ,his guerillas have had a chance to get in on the gaybashing act ,with maoist cadres roaming from house to house in areas under their control ordering owners not to rent rooms to gays. Representatives of the gay community were told by the Maoist leadership that their homosexuality was a byproduct of capitalism which under socialism would not exist.
http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/sexualminorities/Nepalgay...7.pdf

Two young lesbians escaped last year from Maoist guerrillas who had arrested them in southern Nepal after discovering they were gay . Dukhani Choudhary, 16, and Sarita Choudhury, 20, who worked as cleaners at an AIDS trust were subjected to months of cruelty by the Maoists . Blue Diamond , a Nepalese gay advocacy group , said that the women were taken to a rebel camp, questioned and beaten until they renounced homosexuality.
http://www.asylumlaw.org/docs/sexualminorities/Nepalgay...7.pdf

Members of the LGBT community in Nepal are arbitrarily arrested, held without a hearing and beaten and tortured by prison guards. While RTE may for its own reasons have done a job on Mr O Searchaigh ,the furore over his ‘harsh treatment’ by the Irish establishment should be kept in perspective .

by Cael Sun Mar 16, 2008 18:23

Tomeile, you seem to have addressed that last post to me, but Im afraid to say that I fail to see the logic in it. Are you saying that if O Searcaigh was more outspoken against the Nepalese government and the Maoists that RTE would have had even less of a point in showing this poorly made and ill concieved program?

by Deirdre Clancy Mon Mar 17, 2008 00:48

Cael, you're confusing a lot of different issues here, and provided a list of red herrings. As it happens I do make an effort to buy fair trade and avoid sweatshop made products, and I do care about the homeless, and a host of other issues (though like all activists I choose my battles, being a human being, with many limitations - but still, I think that my having been an integral part of one of the very few meaningful Irish legal victories in relation to the human rights of Iraqi people is at least evidence that I'm not devoid of a social/global conscience, as you seem to be implying). But you're really just distracting from the main issues with your list of the ills of Irish society. There are problems in Irish society (though there are many positive things about our country too). All I'm saying is that we shouldn't import our problems and dysfuctions. As one poster pointed out, if these 16/17-year-old boys were Irish and related to any one of the people defending the bard in question, there would be uproar and distaste (though, admittedly, I wouldn't feel quite as confident there would be similar uproar and distaste on the part of the chattering classes if they were drug addict teenagers from some of the economically neglected suburbs of Dublin). But because they're Nepalese, everyone is worried about the welfare of the bard, rather than about the true victims in this whole scenario. I am not saying that O'Searcaigh's friends should initiate a witch hunt, but the least good friends do is hold you to account when you're in the wrong.

As for their identity being on our TV screens, that's another distraction. There was a counsellor from a reputable NGO with the film-maker as she interviewed the boys. If they lived in Ireland, it might be a concern, but they don't. Whoever you are, you clearly have a vested interest in distracting from the real problem here, which is exploitation. I'm not interested in a witch-hunt against one individual - I would even go so far as to say it's important to treat O'Searcaigh with compassion, because there are clearly deep unresolved issues there. I do, however, think there should be a broader discussion about the tendencey of Western countries to export their dysfunctional people abroad to third world countries and allow them to exploit the less well off. Again, this is nothing to do with orientation; the vast majority of the exploitation occurs at the hands of middle-aged, heterosexual men. Overall, though, I think RTE was right to broadcast the documentary.

by sit on my pal & tell me that you love me Mon Mar 17, 2008 01:21

Charles Parker began his witness statements by confirming he was 21years old as did Edward Shelley in the criminal trial of Oscar Wilde from April 26 to May 1, 1895 in which they reported on their contact as male prostitutes in 1891 when both were 17 years of age with Oscar Wilde & Alfred Douglas.

I sometimes wonder why Wilde is now primarily known not as a sparkling wit who took on the ruling English class of the British Empire but as the first "gay man" of the oddly termed LGBT community. We seem to completely overlook his sexual exploitation of teenagers.

Excellent comment Deirdre. I don't think comparisons of epithets, spondee, pentameters or taste in clothing between Wilde & O Searcaigh are worthwhile, but a RTE documentary on the true sins of Wilde that is the only sins of wilde is long overdue. I'm linking back to Deirdre's comment. I don't want to distract from it.
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86647?comment_limit=0&c...23301

by Barry Mon Mar 17, 2008 02:29

I wish cael would stop referring to the teenagers whove been sexually exploited and abused by this sordid old man as " men" . Theyre just kids , adolescents .
Im also disgusted that many peoples reactions to this sick and predatory exploitation is being described as homophobia . OSearcaighs predatory actions are simply unnacceptable . The way the middle class luvvie community has leaped to his defence illustrates their complete moral bankruptcy . The fact his victims are foreigners and unbelievably poor seems to make them lesser human beings , simply there to service the needs and lusts of a seedy old exploiter of a man .

I also doubt very much that these children were themselves homosexual inclined , which makes it an even more gross and unnatural sexual violation in my opinion and has probably mentally scarred them for life . The odds of OSearcaighs " gaydar" being so finely tuned are as astronomic as that of scores of Nepalese teenagers being seduced by the fat , balding middle aged predators sex appeal . Apparently the old poets sex appeal had no effect upon Nepalese homosexuals in their late teens , twenties , 30s , 40s or those in his own age bracket , their 50s .

This is yet another instance of sexual exploitation of the poor by the rich in of the poorest countries on earth . Nepal has a long and depressing history of feudalism , with rich landowners simply taking and abusing any woman from a poor background that caught their eye as of right . It would be reasonable to assume this happened to young boys also . Up until very recently this was the norm in Nepal . The despicable practice was only curtailed in recent years with the advent of a major maoist insurgency in which peasant women became front line guerilla fighters . Feudal landowners were often subject to revolutionary justice and retribution from the previously disempowered women theyd exploited . Simply put their victims tried them in a revolutionary military court for their crimes and then executed them . OSearcigh seems to have taken full advantage of the fact that Kathmandu was the only region of Nepal under the monarchies control , which permitted his exploitation of youngsters to carry on without hindrance as was the norm in relationships between rich and poor . The powerful and the powerless .

by C Murray Mon Mar 17, 2008 11:46

I actually resent the fact that defenders of o searchaigh are defined as 'chattering classes' and intellectuals.

I am neither.

I objected to and will continue to object to a film-maker who broke the rules, she subjected a writer and the kids
to trial by media- in the absence of any discussion on issues of abuse and consent in this state.

the gutterpress (and I include RTE in that) have opened a can of worms in where the intelligent Irish
people imagine that they are discussing class and homophobia when they will not address the issues
in their own legislature.

as to sex abuse and institutional abuse which bertie/eoghan/ enda do not discuss , nor do they discuss
sex trafficking or consent or rape infrasturcture- i have written more on the issue over two years than
most of the contributors to this thread.

so I ask- does RTE have the moral authority to start the conversation in the absence of
discussion on the issues and then subject Cathal O searchaigh to multiple and extraordinary abusive attacks
through print and radio media.

I think they fucked up badly - I would like to see them covering the legal reasons for referendum,
for emergency laws, for paedophile rings in official addresses.

they do not- they are irresponsible and as I said in first comment.
Ms Vendetta shld if having any concern sent her piece of film to irish and nepalses authorities and not abused
the privacies of her subjects.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:32

"I objected to and will continue to object to a film-maker who broke the rules, she subjected a writer and
the kids to trial by media- in the absence of any discussion on issues of abuse and consent in this state." -

A charter for censorship where the only information given to the public has to conform to a pre-defined
set of rules. Who will make these rules - the State? Who will oversee their enforcement - the State?
The broadcast of this film was an exercise in Freedom of the Press.

As for citing 'moral authority' - that's a bit rich when you consider the content of the film.

by Deirdre Clancy Mon Mar 17, 2008 14:21

"'I actually resent the fact that defenders of o searchaigh are defined as 'chattering classes' and intellectuals."

I referred to some of the people defending O'Searcaigh as luvvies and the chattering classes in one of my earlier postings on this thread. I was actually referring to the morally confused, relativistic letter in the Irish Times opposing the broadcasting of the documentary.
As for these people being intellectuals - I am beginning to doubt that. Intellectuals tend to have an expansive worldview and can see beyond their own elite social grouping. These individuals can't see the wood for the trees.

"I objected to and will continue to object to a film-maker who broke the rules, she subjected a writer and the kids to trial by media- in the absence of any discussion on issues of abuse and consent in this state."

Actually, she didn't subject anyone to trial by media. She didn't have to do much to get to the facts of the situation; they were right there in front of her eyes. I have seen some strange commentaries in the media which blasted Ni Chianain as much as O'Searcaigh (Medb Ruane wrote a very strange, contradictory article on the subject). But actually, Ni Chianain has done us all a favour. Now that's one less 'charity' we have to choose from. If I want to give away some spare cash or set up a standing order, I know to give it to John O'Shea's Goal or Trocaire, because I know it's going to used for good, rather than administered randomly in the streets to any good-looking boy that might happen to pass.

"the gutterpress (and I include RTE in that) have opened a can of worms in where the intelligent Irish
people imagine that they are discussing class and homophobia when they will not address the issues in their own legislature."

Most of the commentary I've seen has been fairly considered. To include RTE in the category 'gutter press' is taking things a bit far. Yes, there is some popular programming that's somewhat dire, but there is also some very responsible programming. Broadcasting that documentary was one of the most responsible decisions they've made in a long time. I've also mentioned Prime Time Investigates (rather than the discussion part of the Prime Time) as another stellar example of responsible programming on RTE (apparently, their latest target is shifty landlords - I can't wait for that one, about time someone got on their high horse about that).

Actually, this particular can of worms needs to be opened. Again, you mention homophobia; I've already covered this in an earlier posting. O'Searcaigh's orientation is irrelevant here. As for not discussing the issues in our own legislature, I only saw a discussion of it a month or so ago on Questions and Answers. And I've heard discussions on RTE radio about it. Now, far be it from me to become one of RTE's great defenders. I have had serious issues with them at times in the past, including the mis-reporting of the Shannon action I was involved with (wherein Cathy Halloran said there was violence and the Guards told the truth that there wasn't, yet RTE never retracted that). But to call RTE gutter press is a bit much, surely.

by tomeile Mon Mar 17, 2008 17:06

“Are you saying that if O Searcaigh was more outspoken against the Nepalese government and the Maoists that RTE would have had even less of a point in showing this poorly made and ill concieved program?”

What I’m saying about O’Searcaigh is that he seemed to be ,just like any other rich westerner , looking after his own interests . In doing that ,he was indulged by the Nepalese authorities . Nepal’s own gay community is given completely different treatment from the Nepalese state . The latter has recently been incorporating former Maoist guerillas into its ranks in a process which we are familiar with in Ireland ,and subsequently conditions have become much worse for gays and lesbians because of the rotten attitudes of Maoism towards gay liberation .
I didn’t see the program , so I can’t say if it was poorly made or not . Like you and Chris ,I wonder why RTE allowed it to be broadcast - I’m sure it would not have been out of any genuine concern for the street kids of Kathmandu . It wouldn’t have been out of homophobia either though as RTE is always very careful to present itself as a model of political correctness in that regard .
I don’t agree with C. Murray’s explanation that , “RTE are guided quite simply by advertising Revenue and Budgetary Concerns” . How does that square with their playing of the Angelus during what would be prime advertising revenue time ? . RTE is first and foremost a political institution – it’s the state broadcaster. The fact that Eoghain Harris has come out and condemned the program suggests to me that there is something of a power struggle going on in D4 at the moment and that O’Searcaigh has been unwittingly caught up in it .

by C Murray Mon Mar 17, 2008 17:29

Is it not our so called Government who must discuss the issue of abuse, consent and referendum change?
Is it not for the authorities to investigate the accusations made by the film?
Would that not have been easier in the absence of what appears to be a concerted campaign by print and radio
media on the issues raised in the film?
will that become even more difficult to prove in the event of a trial on issues raised by the documentary
because they were aired nationally before they went to the relevant departments?

I sat in the Dail and watched the emergency laws (Criminal Laws, Sexual Offences 2006/2007) being
voted in on June 2nd 2006. RTE did not discuss the lack of approach of the Dept of Justice to the issue
of consent and statutory rape through programming (primetime or otherwise)

I mean must we allow the media to lead on issues nationally which do drag private individuals through
the mire until we begin discussing them?

Personally I made it as clear as I could that these issues must be discussed at the level of legislature
and not on National telly, and I do believe that anything that comes of this is only the torment of an
individual in the absence of NGO/RCC input into these issues that have gone ignored for generations.

we need to guarantee the rights of the child in Irish law.
(that requires referendum- this has been put back to 2009)
We need to discuss sexual crime and we do not.
we need proper rape infrastructure and intelligent sex education programmes in this country.
I have witnessed, myself, concerted efforts by catholic parents to change safety programmes and
sex education programmes and disallow them in the national school my son attended.

against this backdrop- which I termed 'cultivated ignorance on matters of sex', I think and feel that
Mr O searchaigh deserved better than having this exposure, (and he has been exposed to snarling
gutter press abuse) than a 'Trial by Media'.

That is what it amounts to.

it is not a public service to expose someone to that in order to begin a conversation long delayed
by temerity that continually exposes kids to danger because we don't discuss them in our Dail,
I mean what the hell are they there for if they cannot institute protection laws and sex trafficking
laws because the protection of children in our constitution is not guaranteed except within the
primacy of the family?

( I said this many comments up)

eveyone has an opinion on O searchaigh, I feel for him and the kids who were exposed by a film-maker
who had no scruples about what she did. Thats not public service, I say it again why did she not
volunteer the film to committee and authority?

by Wilder Mon Mar 17, 2008 17:41

The age of consent in England is 16. People go there all of the time and have sex with 16 year olds. Now what are you going to do about that ? Why no documentaries, no missions to save the "children"?

16 year olds are not children they are young adults. Someone who has sex with a 16 year old is not a pedophile. If there was any rationality here instead of hyprocisy from left and right then the age of consent would be reduced to 16 here.

Having said that I do acknowledge that a 50 year old westerner and a 16 year old Nepalese are in an unequal relationship but lets have a sense of proportion.

Apart from RSF, dissident "republicans" seem to relish an opportunity to stick the boot into gay people. Next Barry and tomeile will be telling us that Casement was straight and had affairs with Constance Maekevicez and Maud Gonne.

This is not the first time that tomeile has had a go at the Nepalese Maoists on Indymedia. tomeiles real problems with the Nepalese Maoists stem from the fact that they have declared a ceasefire and have enterted a peace process. tomeile doesnt like ceasefires or peace processes.

Eoghan Harris hasnt worked for RTE in about 15 years so its irrational to suggest that his opinion would have anything to do with a power struggle there. It just goes to show that even Eoghan has some principles.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 17:52

"I have witnessed, myself, concerted efforts by catholic parents to change safety programmes and
sex education programmes and disallow them in the national school my son attended."

Parents must never, never be allowed to have any say in the sexual education of their children. The State
knows best in these matters. Parents are only interested in the physical and emotional welfare of their
children whereas the State has bigger fish to fry, agendas to pursue and loud-mouthed lobby groups to
satisfy.

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:00

Dierdre, if there was a competant councillor with this film unit s/he would have insisted that the men's faces be blocked out and thier identities with held. There would have been an insistance on the bare minimum of professional procedure, such as getting signed release forms for the interviews. I believe you said above that you had some training yourself in these matters. It seems incredible to me that you agree with exposing these men to the gutter press in Ireland and Nepal. I asked you before, but you did not answer. What effect do you think this exposure has had on on these men and their families, who have to live in a generally homophobic society? It seems now that the Nepalese police will be calling around to their houses. Do you think these men and their families will be looking forward to that? We have heard above that these same police have been guilty of harassing and even assaulting gay people. If this is correct, then I wonder what methods they will use to get the answers they want?

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:06

Barry, how many sixteen year olds went out to fight and die for this country? Were they men or boys? At sixteen, a bit of both I suppose.

by Wilder Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:09

Well said indeed. In those 28 words you said more than many have in their lenghty contributions above.

by Deirdre Clancy Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:17

"What effect do you think this exposure has had on on these men and their families, who have to live in a generally homophobic society? It seems now that the Nepalese police will be calling around to their houses. Do you think these men and their families will be looking forward to that? We have heard above that these same police have been guilty of harassing and even assaulting gay people. If this is correct, then I wonder what methods they will use to get the answers they want?"

Cael - firstly, there is no way the young people portrayed in that film could be described as men. Again, I think you're indulging in distraction, Cael. The effect of police interviews will be nothing to the long-term effects of the grooming and exploitation that has occurred. Also, you're conflating the issues with ones of homophobia again. Do I believe all of these teenagers are gay? Some may be, but I doubt all of them are. Has the film been shown in Nepal? I doubt it, somehow. If you can provide me with information that it has been shown in Nepal, then come back to me and I'll give you a reaction to your question about exposure. There was, as I said, a person from a reputable NGO with the boys as they were interviewed, so I find it hard to believe that proper procedures weren't followed. It seems to me that those defending the indefensible are flailing around looking for arguments to distract from the main issue, which is the power differential in terms of both age and economics between O'Searcaigh and these kids. If they were men in their twenties or thirties, I might think differently. But they're not.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:21

"Barry, how many sixteen year olds went out to fight and die for this country? Were they men or boys? At sixteen, a bit of both I suppose."

I suppose if it were Africa instead of Nepal then we could extend the analogy to include child soldiers.
A few 'dirty old men' would be very happy with that one.

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:31

Dierdre, you may not call them men, thats your personal opinion and nothing more. I think that the voting age should be sixteen, that my opinion. Many sixteen year olds have a great deal more to offer than the present crowd in Leinster House.

The effects of the police interrogations, and the neighbours watching these men being hauled away to police stations may have no effect on you, RTE or Ms. Ni Cianan, but it will have a great deal of effect on the people involved. That may be a distraction for you, but it is a terrible trauma for them. This is exactly why RTE have been so clumsy and ignorent in all this. They have acted like a bull in a china shop. This is not surprising. If RTE had any competence in this matter then we would not need social services and professionals would not have to spend years studying the complexity of the human mind. We could just send in Ms. Ni Cianan to do a hatched job on any problems that arise.

Dierdre, I cant believe that you are still insisting that proper procedures were followed. Would you like the face of the woman at the centre of the X Case to have her face splashed all over the media? Or is she more important because she is Irish?

As to the question of wheather the men were gay or not, that hardly matters now in regard to how they will be treated. They will be sitigmatised by the Nepalese police and media anyway.

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:35

"I suppose if it were Africa instead of Nepal then we could extend the analogy to include child soldiers.
A few 'dirty old men' would be very happy with that one."

Marty, Im sure lots of dirty old men are very happy in Africa and other places - though probably not so happy if their intended victim is pointing an AK-47 at their heads.

by Wilder Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:38

How can you describe 16 year olds as children? If you really believed this then you would try and have 16 year olds kepty off anti war demos. If they are children then they are being brainwashed. But you dont. 16 year olds have a right to make their own choice. Not to have you making it for them. Again, what about England? Do you see it as Soddom & Gomorrah? its legal to have sex with 16 year olds there.

This is about the railroading of a gayman and an unholy alliance of left & right are involved in the witch hunt.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:44

"The effects of the police interrogations, and the neighbours watching these men being hauled away to police stations may have no effect on you, RTE or Ms. Ni Cianan, but it will have a great deal of effect on the people involved. That may be a distraction for you, but it is a terrible trauma for them.......
..........As to the question of wheather the men were gay or not, that hardly matters now in regard to how they will be treated. They will be sitigmatised by the Nepalese police and media anyway."

Of course we know all this to be factual because you just said so - right?

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 18:52

I think if RTE had done a little research, or, indeed, paid any attention at all to what they were doing, they would have realised that this was a likely outcome. I dont know it is a fact. We dont know much facts about this whole sorry business at all, and yet some of us have no hesititation in jumping to judgement. But the very possibility of it becoming a fact should have been enough for RTE to leave this work to those who are qualified to do it. If RTE hears of abuse they should report it to those who are trained to deal with it - not stir up a media feeding frenzy, with no idea of what effects that will have on those concerned.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:03

I disagree. We have plenty of facts, enough to draw the safe conclusion that CO'S was engaging in sexual
exploitation of boys, at least as young as 16, for which he may face prosecution.
We also know that there are a lot of people, who should know better, who are more than willing to shoot
the messenger in a twisted effort to turn this into a homophobic witch hunt.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/interpol-given-....html

by just asking Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:07

Marty, Besides young men at 16 now becoming boys, are there 'boys' over the age of 16?

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:18

Marty, its lucky that you wont be the judge and jury if you think that a one hour show by a wannabe film maker is enough to convict a man. It will not be enough to convict anybody of anything, but it will be enough to destroy lives through ignorance.

Your comment about shooting the messenger is ridiculous. If Ms. Ni Cianan had a message then she should have delivered it to the correct address, i.e. social services in Ireland and Nepal. It was not correct for her to treat it as a business opportunity and a way to get her 15 minutes of fame.

by eamo - self Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:30

They have a European wide network of Officers , men and women , who bring sexual predators etc to justice.

If he hasn't done anything illegal, then they won't 'set him up' !

They will dis-passionately look at all the evidence , birth certs etc etc

They take it very seriously.

They have much expereince in such cases.

They care about exploited and horribly injured children on the other side of the World.

Hail Interpol !

by Frank Dertrick Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:45

Cael asks "how many sixteen year olds went out to fight and die for this country? Were they men or boys? At sixteen, a bit of both I suppose."

One would hope that they fought for the ideals outlined in the 1916
Proclomation and not for the right of a fat, bald 50 year old predator to exploit other 16 year olds. They fought againt the exploiter !!

Cael. you let down republicans by supporting exploitation of the weak. Perhaps your republicanism is the republicanism of George Bush and not Connolly and Tone.

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 19:58

Frank, a chara, you would have done better to read what I wrote before you commented. Calling someone a man is not the same thing as saying its alright to exploit him. I am against this film because it exploits the young men and O Searcaigh. It has contributed absolutely nothing to the welfare of anybody concerned. As has been pointed out many times on this thread, we have social services to deal with these matters, we do not need a novice film maker crashing about in a very delicate case. I have nothing against her making films against exploitation. She did not have to move out of Ireland to do it. But in cases where sexual abuse is imputed and individuals lives might be destroyed by clumsy handling, then its safe to say that the media is too clumsy an impliment. The media build up to the screening of this show - which attracted an incredible 250,000 viewers - showed that a careful and caring approach was simply not on RTE's agenda.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 20:03

"just asking:
..Besides young men at 16 now becoming boys, are there 'boys' over the age of 16?"

I think the standard reply is - " I can be whatever you want me to be"

by just asking Mon Mar 17, 2008 20:10

so there is no age at which boys become men, to you anyway?

by Frank Dertrick Mon Mar 17, 2008 20:12

Cael, you poor deluded person.
You say the programme has achieved nothing.
You say we have social workers to look after thise matters.
How sad of you.
The programme was successful because it has exposed a fat bald 50 year exploiter and predator and has made sure we all know this exploitation exists. As for the social workers you have so much faith in, I presume our "local" issues are being dealt with by these wonderful people or is it only me that thinks many young children continue to suffer because of inaction.
Your and other defenders of the indefensible attempts to shoot the messenger will no doubt prevent more truths from being exposed..
Finally, being on the same side as Eoin Harris sums up your politics.

by Marty Mon Mar 17, 2008 20:24

Sorry 'just asking' but it's the way you ask them.
Here's another answer - the maximum age for admission to the Boy Scouts is eighteen. Maybe you
want to take issue with them?
Hope that clears it up.

by brian holmes Mon Mar 17, 2008 20:25

Could Frank actually address what Cael actually says/writes. That is the normal manner in which debates are . Or else keep it for the letters to the sun or some other low brow red top.

by Cael Mon Mar 17, 2008 22:33

Well Frank, you may find me poor, sad and deluded, but I continue to believe that accusations of sexual abuse are better investigated by people who have been trained to investigate them, rather than by novice film makers.

If you needed this program to tell you that sexual and other forms of exploitation exist, then Im not sure which one of us is the sadder.

A number of the more aggressive posters on this thread have called attention to the physical appearance of the poet. "Fat" and "Bald" being the most used adjectives. Im not sure if you mean that all people who are fat and bald are disgusting and less deserving than people who are slim and with a full head of hair, or are you saying that fat bald exploiters are worse than slim hairy exploiters?

Im not sure if you are aware of the implications of what you say at all. You criticise the social services because child abuse continues to exist, and you say it is because of the inaction of professionals in this area. You then praise Ms. Ní Chianán for storming in and pushing the slow moving professionals aside. She nailed her man without any need of boring social workers, police, courts, presentation of evidence that can be cross examined, or any of that boring old nonsense. Nor did she stop, for one second, to think of the catastrophic effects of splashing the young men's faces all over the media. Needless to say, the boring social workers might have considered that it would be better to help the poet rather than throw him to the media dogs, they might have considered it better to help these young men rather than turn their lives into an international media circus.

by James Campbell Thu Mar 20, 2008 01:46

"fairytale" on the Pirate Bay
An Indymedia contributor has learned that the controversial documentary by filmmaker Neasa Ní Chianáin has now been made available on the equally controversial "Pirate Bay" peer to peer network.
Just days after the film was finally broadcast by the national broadcaster which had commissioned it, film enthusiasts have made it available to the public through the pirate bay peer-to-peer network. While the move may further stir the already heated debate about the film, film "pirate" Comandanteloof defended the move to Indymedia in an exclusive interview.

Asked whether the move would not lead to accusations from the O Searcaigh "camp" that this was part of a witch-hunt, Comandanteloof responded: "it may well do, but that is a matter for them. What is important is that this debate continues. It is a healthy thing. Obviously a key part of informed debate is having the relevant information. Whatever your position on the film, you cannot deny that you need to see it before you are fit to comment on it. A rather disturbing aspect of the debate over these past few weeks is the number of editorials, opinion pieces, letters and other media contributions that were made by people who had not seen the film, but seemed to know so much about it. Thankfully the film was broadcast at last. Now there is a chance for individuals who did not see it on RTÉ to see it for themselves."

At the time of writing, this Indymedia contributor could neither contact spokespersons for Vinegar Hill productions or for Cathal O Searcaigh.