Fairytale of Kathmandu . Neasa Ni Chainain. Maira Mhac an tSaoi. Cathal O’Searcaigh. Child Abuse Ireland . Denial and the Poet.
February 5, 2008
The film Fairytale of Kathmandu by the young Irish director Neasa Ni Chainain , which is due to be shown as part of the Irish Film Festival this month and later to be broadcast by RTE television has opened a new chapter in the history of child abuse in Ireland.
The film was originally planned as a tribute to the poet Cathal O’Searcaigh but the director (who is a neighbour and friend of O’Searcaigh ) found herself witnessing the grooming of young men and boys by O’Searcaigh for sexual purposes and so it ended up a very different movie than what she had planned for.
For the full story behind this you should go to the web site for the film at Fairytale of Kathmandu and click on the ‘press’ tab. Sharkey (his english name ) admits in the movie to having sex with many young men and boys (he uses the term ‘boys’ himself ) and claims that as he puts it , his ‘door is open to everyone’ .
But my reason for writing this post is not so much Sharkey himself or the movie but more about the reaction , or rather one particular reaction to it in Ireland. The film was being discussed today on RTE radio’s ‘Liveline’ otherwise known as ‘The Joe Duffy Show’. While discussing the issues involved Fiona Neary of the Rape Crisis Centre was making a general point about the innocence in sexual matters of young people in Nepal and how we in Ireland really could not fully comprehend just how innocent young boys are in that society etc. A friend of Sharkey’s and a fellow poet Maira Mhac an tSaoiwho was one of Duffeys’ guests took issue with this. She had been defending Sharkey and had accused the director of the movie of betraying a friend etc but at one point she said ” I find it difficult to believe (ie Asian boys being innocent) . ” LITTLE Asian boys are brought up to know about sex. ” The very clear and indeed only possible implication of this remark was that the victims were to blame.
We have all heard this kind of thing before. There are certain people (and not a few of them women ) in Ireland who , when paedophile priests were first exposed denied that such a thing was true and when that became untenable turned their attention to the child victims and questioned the ‘innocence’ of these same victims. It’s an old trick and a dirty one at that.
The Irish Gardai are now investigatingthe matters raised by the movie and no doubt we will hear more about all this in the near future. It’s by no means clear that Sharkey will end up where he belongs….there are issues here that go way beyond the case of Sharkey himself and there are many in the Irish media who will be running to Sharkey’s aid….!!!!!. But what must be said , and stated clearly is that shifting the blame to the victim is never acceptable. The moral bankrupcy which is represented by people like Maira Mhac an tSaoi is something that has been inflicted on children , vulnerable children in Ireland for far too long. Those like Mhac an tSaoi have no role or place in a civilised society. If she had honor she might do the honorable thing……but that would require courage…..and a conscience.
For a fuller understanding of the situation in Nepal see ….”A Situational Anyalsis of Child Sex Tourism in Nepal “.
UPDATE: Since I posted this story the supporters (and there are many ) of Sharkey have been rushing to defend him. Fellow poets and neighbours have been telling us what a wonderful man he is and making much of the fact that what he is involved in may not be illegal in Nepal. It’s quite frightening to hear such people ……they speak of him as a good neighbour , a pillar of the artistic community…..in short we are hearing the same mantra that was put forward while Christian Brothers and Catholic priests were destroying the lives of children in schools and orphanages throughout Ireland. If ever there was an instance of moral relativism then surely this is it. Thousands of Irish men travel to places such as Nepal and Thailand on a regular basis and do so for the sole purpose of having sex with vulnerable young people. The issue here is not only a matter of legality but also one of morality. But it seems that if you a famous poet or a good neighbour these thing just don’t matter.
17 February 08. Just now on the Joe Duffey Show the Irish artist Pauline Bewick has come to the defense of O’Sharkey. She is at the moment working to illustrate a book of his. The entire artistic community of Ireland seems to be falling over itself to protect Sharkey with a total disregard for the victims. She claims her support for him is based on the merit of his poetry and her ‘gut feeling’. She has also described him (as many have) as a very innocent man. She then brought up the age of the victims and the fact that it may not have been illegal. I find myself lost for words. How many more Irish people are going to come forward trying to justify a 50 plus year old man having sex with young boys. It must be stressed here that a sixteen year old boy in Nepal is about as mature in sexual matters as a ten year old Irish boy. Paula Bewick like many others uses the logic that as O’Sharkey is a friend of hers then he cannot be a bad person. In short they and she are using the same argument used by those who stood by as Irish priests and Christian Brother abused vulnerable children here in Ireland. As I said when I first put this post up on my blog , there is more going on here than concerns Cathal O’Scearchaigh…..there’s a hell of a lot more going on and it doesn’t reflect at all well on our Irish society. If the movie ‘Fairytale of Kathmandu’ was about an unemployed man or someone like that none of this would be happening. And the fact that O’Sharkey has been outed by , so to speak , a fellow member of the artistic community is not without significance. And in Ireland the arts and media often overlap which might explain the relative quietness of most of the media in Ireland on this whole matter. Hot Press is due to publish something next week about this business and the author is ‘very angry’ at how Sharkey has been treated while Gay Community News is claiming that it’s O’Sharkey who is being exploited….But I predicted as much when I first posted this in my blog……and I’m not physic or anything like that. Modern Ireland , and the self proclaimed ‘liberal’ elite does not like having what it see’s as one of it’s own being put in the spotlight like this. And the reason is of course that they feel , consciously or otherwise that it’s they who are being judged. Indeed , indeed and as I also said earlier, this story is about a lot more than Cathal O’Searcaigh.
February 7, 2008 at 10:44 am
[...] Blogger Silly Old Twit has loads more on the subject and the post is well worth a read. [...]
February 7, 2008 at 7:06 pm
I have no interest whatsoever in the doings of Cathal O Searchaigh, either as poet or sex tourist. Nonetheless, I bridle at a sentence like: “It must be stressed here that a sixteen year old boy in Nepal is about as mature in sexual matters as a ten year old Irish boy.” How do you know this? This sounds pretty patronising to me.
February 7, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Having been born in the ’40’s in Ireland let me assure you that at 16 I knew a lot less about sex than any 16 year old today. This change was fueled by economic progress in Ireland and all that goes with it. Nepal and it’s people have not had the benifit of such prosperity and are living in a society simular to that of Ireland in the ’50’s. It would be very odd indeed it it’s youth was as mature as that of presend day Irish youth.
February 8, 2008 at 1:34 am
As a gay man and a pseudo-member of the so-called ‘liberal elite’, I’m still bloody horrified by the situation, assuming that the documentary and the Times’ sum-up of it are even vaguely accurate.
February 8, 2008 at 8:44 am
I am not certain of the history of child labor laws in Ireland, but it has been an issue in America and around the world. The ‘innocence’ of these children and the legality of O’Searcaigh’s actions in the Nepali context are not the issues. Trafficking in Kathmandu rivals that of Bangkok. That Nepalese children are more innocent is an irrelevant inference–making this argument is about as useful and as definitively determined as an argument that adults in Bangkok who work in the sex industry are more innocent than European or American adults because they are “used to it.”
One problem with his actions is that there is a question as to whether he left his own context in order to engage in activities that were inaccessible in his homeland. The idea that Nepal is his spiritual home is sickening because he has become a part of an industry that is destroying the spiritual and cultural fabric of the country, among other things. It became an industry because of foreigners who went unchecked.
I could not assert that this kind of activity did not occur before Westerners entered the culture, but it is frowned upon. The industry there thrives because there is a demand. If you talk to Nepalese people they will tell you that it is common knowledge which tourists are there for what–and many are there for victimization.
It is widespread, but that does not make it acceptable.
February 8, 2008 at 10:01 am
Thank you Robert and Marie for your comments. I have never met Sharkey nor have I seen the movie….but the arguments in his defense I have hear before. We’ve all heard them before. Many are also making the point that he is a fine poet ….in much the same way as when speaking of Wagner’s anti semitism people often refer to his genius….meaning that certain people must be judged by different standards…
No one say’s this in very plain english but that is what they mean.
February 8, 2008 at 10:22 am
Totally agree with your comments. I listened with disbelief to those who came rushing to defend him on the Joe Duffy Show. For a man who is seen as their mentor to be having sex with these young men of 16 is completely reprehensible. If this was a teacher having sex with his 16 year old pupils - be they male or female - there would be a public outrage.
February 8, 2008 at 3:02 pm
There is a process by which we deal with sexual abuse. It is not important whether it occurs in Nepal, Timbuktu, or Ballydehob. That process is via the gardai and, if they judge it appropriate, through the courts. My problem with Neasa Ni Chianain is that she has set herself up as a self-contained legal system, which she is not. As soon as she became aware of what she felt to be criminality, she should have handed all her material over at once to the appropriate authorities. She should not have spent 18 months cutting a film while, if she is right, crimes were being committed. The film is not enough evidence. Every inch of tape she shot should have been handed over to the authorities. Why was this not done? Is there a possibility of a mercenary motive? Did she know this would hit a sore spot with us all? If she didn’t she’s very unusual indeed. Something smells, and it’s not only the poet.
February 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Katherine, my reading of the Times article was that she DID hand it all over.
In any case, the police can obtain it as evidence if they’re interested.
I’d be shocked, by the way, if he was actually prosecuted; sex tourism prosecutions are unfortunately very unusual.
February 8, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Katherine ,
If the subject of the movie was a road sweeper you would certainly not be questioning the integrity of the director. And neither would anyone else.
And if I or anyone else were to suggest that documentaries of this sort should be curtailed in some way you would be the first to scream about ‘artistic and journalistic freedom’.
There is a sort of racism at work here that is all too common in certain sections of society. If you feel some indignation then I suggest you reserve it for the plight of young vulnerable people in Nepal and other places…and of course the fact that these things have happened in Nepal IS significant…in the same way as the abuse of children in Ireland happened in orphanages and not private schools or collages..
February 8, 2008 at 6:05 pm
You are quite wrong. A documentary about a roadsweeper would certainly incur my disapproval, as did another documentary by the same director about two quite unknown people. It seems to me that the racism is on your side. If the poet is found guilty by the appropriate authorities, I will disapprove with all my heart. But the matter has no business in the public arena until brought there by the appropriate authorities. Anything else confers on the fourth estate, which is unelected and unanswerable, powers that they do not actually possess and should not exercise.
February 8, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Kathleen ,
When you say the matter has no business in the public arena you are putting yourself in the same position as those in the state and legal sector who in recent times have restricted the concept of democracy to a purely legal concept….as an excuse for banning protest or any other kind of expression of popular discontent….if the media were to wait for legal sanction before doing anything we would all be living in a totalarian state by now.
February 8, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Kathleen,
what on earth is it that makes some people, who I assume are otherwise considerate and have common sense, cling for straws to somehow defend the indefensible? I shuddered when I heard P. Bewick on the Lifeline show.
About your ’straw”: If you knew only a little bit about the situation in Nepal, you’d know that “the appropriate authorities” there would probably easily fail to act anytime soon.
The legality or otherwise of an oldish Irish poet to fondle and bugger virgin Nepalese ‘boys’ (his term!) of 16 years of age in the context of handing out ‘charity’ to them, is a rather unimportant aspect. The gay component seems to cloud the mind of Sharkey’s ‘friends’. This is exploitation at its worst. Full stop.
Sharkey shows the twisted mind we know all too well from pedophiles. “The door was always open…I have done nothing illegal..” etc. To me Sharkey and his defenders sound very similar to:
“I have not duped anybody..I can only say that I have not committed any crime.” This are according to Nepalese police the words of Mr. Kumar, at his arrest yesterday. He is accused in India to have run a big kidney scheme, “harvesting” for example kidneys from impoverished Nepalese people for some 500 dollars per kidney, to sell them on at 15000 dollars. I prefer Kumar’s backside to Sharkey’s face: at least he did not hide his exploitive deals under the disguise of a charitable intent.
February 10, 2008 at 12:09 am
Peter, your answer supports all my arguments. I am not defending paedophilia. I note that respondents pick up single phrases from my postings, or go into the attack ad hominem rather than taking up my single argument: if a crime has been committed, it is inappropriate for it to be tried by television.
February 10, 2008 at 12:57 am
Katherine, I really feel I must repeat myself again. In Britain , the USA and Ireland in recent times many fundamental rights have been suspended by a too narrow and legalistic interpration of democracy…and we all know what that may lead to.
You seem to be argueing for the same thing in the area of law…That we should serve the law rather than it serving us..There has always been a tension between the law which by nature is rigid and the media…there is nothing new about the fact that a media person is addressing something that may or may not come before the courts.But there is a very dangerous trend towards journalists being afraid to express an opinion about anything because of possible legal consequences.
These kind of problems did not exist of course in Hitler’s Germany….But then again the didn’t have any independant film directors either.
February 10, 2008 at 6:35 am
Dear Sillyoldtwit,
In your article, you appear to suggest that all of Cathal O’ Searcaigh’s (CO’S)neighbours are tripping over themselves to support him. This is far from the truth. Many in the Gortahork community are totally disgusted with him. Indeed many have suspected Mr. O’Searcaigh’s relationship with young Nepalese boys who arrived with him to stay with him for months at a time. One elderly neighbour of mine and CO’S said that she always felt it odd but sort of let it go over her head. This may sound as though she were happy to turn a blind eye to events, however there was nothing obvious to suggest a sexual relationship more a feeling that all was not right.
Although, like another local caller to the Joe Duffy show on the 8th February, that you ommitted to mention, who took Paula Bewek to task, this caller said she didn’t like CO’S his offhand attitude. I can relate to this as I have never understood this posturing of Cathal’s as a source of ‘ancient mountain wisdom’, and I do not mean to come across as sneering of the artistic community as they hold him aloft as such. I just don’t recognise the persona he has created.
All I know is that a lot of people in the community are angry and feel hurt, we do not want to be seen as supporting the exploitation and coercion of impoverished children, for that is what they are morally, if not legally.
All the more, as we have historically been an impoverished people ourselves and as such, want to help all underdeveloped communities in other countries flourish in every way.
I for one would like to thank Neasa Ni Chianain for making this film and protecting these young boys, rather than close her eyes like a lot of her fellow artists are at this minute doing.(and no I don’t know her, nor have never met her)
February 10, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I’d just like to agree with Katherine about the 4th Estate. Judgment in these matters should be in the hands of those individuals and institutions whose motivation is justice and not the 4th estate lynch mob, whose moral outrage is generally confined to populist causes. If those institutions don’t exist, or don’t work, then that’s the issue that needs attending to. It’s incredibly hard to get a reasoned public debate on any of this without being accused of supporting paedophilia or the like.
February 10, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Naula , I did not intend to give the impression that all his neighbours were supporting him ….I am sure that most are horrified..
I must say I was not suprised with the reaction to the film but more with the barefacednes of it..one week into this debate and it is quite clear that many who would like to see themselves as liberal , progressive and by implication ,very intelligent are little short
of barbarians..
Over the next week I have no doubt that they will lecture us on due process and the age of consent …But I also believe that these people are overplaying their hand and nobody is impressed ..there has been an attempt by some journalists to suggest that Chainain was naive (willfully) about Gay culture but it’s becoming more obious as time passes that gay people are sickened by O’Searcaigh’s behaviour.
There is also the issue of his books being used in schools….and this is by no means the simple issue that many have represented it to be…no one want’s to be seen as advocating the ‘banning’ of books. This is not some kneejerk reaction of my part , there are real problems here and it will require an open, honest and intelligent debate and the wisdom of a Job to arrive at the right answer..Psuedo-intellectual soundbites will get us nowhere but I’ve no doubt they will be used by many ‘liberals’ in the place of intelligent discussion….How is a teacher to help his students to explore and discuss the inspiration for a poem if that poem is based on something that happened in Nepal ? I am not , let me make it clear , saying that his poetry should not be used in schools but I am saying that it’s something we have to at least think about..There is , I’m sure no simple answer either way….and yes , I’ve read Lorca etc etc but he is part of the cultural history…and there is distance…
It’s a serious matter and deserves a serious debate.
February 10, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Oh, rubbish, sillyoldtwit. Nobody supports paedophilia, not even those who believe O Searcaigh’s version. But to say that I am proposing a narrow definition of paedphilia because I don’t think the media are the ones to pass judgement is, really, just rubbish. I am happy for Cathal O Searcaigh to be subjected to the democratically arranged practice of the law. But if he is found innocent, and he may be, then a terrible crime has been committed. That is just a fact, not an opinion. If of course he is guilty, justice has been delayed, and thus denied.
February 10, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Dear Silly
A lot of people in the artistic community have swallowed O’Searcaigh’s brand of ‘celtic spiritual shtik’ and don’t like the fact they have been sold a rabid pup. One who flies to Nepal on his own largesse to dole out monies raised mainly by fellow Irish artists.From what I can gather there is no transparency nor accountability for the charitable donations. By what criteria does this middle aged, articulate westerner, with his swag give funding?
As to his work, it must to stand alone, although people will measure it against his personal life. Students should be made aware of the allegations and their implications on the philosophy of his poetry. This will inform young adults about all manner of exploitation and coercion, even when dressed with words of love.
February 10, 2008 at 7:30 pm
K , there are quite a lot of people who have been argueing for just that for years in Ireland. Not to mention those who have for years obstructed the police and courts …..and then have the sheer gall to demand that the education of children is best left in their hands..and not a penny in compensation without the threat of court action…No doubt your one of those who believe that the good Sister Stan really was actually blind and deaf and was not aware of things which the dogs in the street knew about….
…the abuse of children was common knowledge in the 50’s , 60’s 70’s 80′..right through to the present..and since the state have abandoned the homless and handed over the care of such to ‘charities’ these same people now controll much of the ’secure housing’ needs of the poor. Hopefully you will never have to experience the downright racist and degrading abuse that is heaped upon the poor and vulnerable by these people. Abuse that I , my wife and children have experience first hand and that continues today. …..Fortunatly I don’t have to tolerate these people any more but I know of many even now who don’t have any choice….and when I speak the name of Sister Stan let me remind you that I speak from personal experience..
Ireland has been in a state of denial for decades and now that most of it’s people are doing quite well and have the benifit of a liberal education (supplied by you know who ) and all that goes with it they would like to forget about some ugly realities……Sharkey may well be a man of some ‘culture’ but it’s by no means unnusual to find that a culture is built on rotton foundations.
I could fool myself into thinking that the Sharkey affair may produce some good in the long run , but I doubt it……
February 10, 2008 at 7:46 pm
Dear Nuala ,
I’m sure your right when you say his work should stand on it’s own…but I can see problems arising. When we put a living poets work on the curriculum we are I feel , not just honoring the work but the man also…..as I say , I honestly don’t know the answer myself but will listen to all reasonable argument (such as you own ) and hopefully will be better able to reach a reasoned conclusion.
February 10, 2008 at 8:24 pm
The only reasoned argument, is the one you yourself quoted in an earlier posts regarding the danger of legislation curtailing journalist’s right to report. One cannot concede with the left hand and simultaneously sanction with the right. It was this very patronising- ‘need to know’ mentality, (mainly operated by the church in Ireland) that allowed a culture of abuse to exist. So no, no censorship of anything ever, however the profits from his book sales should go Child Protection Agencies in Nepal. The same should happen to Glitter and any other sex tourist who exploits children.
Also, some posters above have suggested that most 16 year olds are fully sexually aware, this is true of the western world and possibly true of Nepal, however it is the disparity of power and the ability to exploit that is in question here. One poster above said if it were a teacher and pupil that there would be outrage and she/he would be right, because of the power imbalance. If you add to the age and stature imbalance, the grueling poverty of the Nepalese, you get a very real picture of the level of exploitation. Most 16 year olds, sexually aware or not can be groomed or coerced as they are not that worldly wise.
February 10, 2008 at 8:31 pm
sorry, i meant to add that most 16 year olds and younger teens could be at risk of abuse by someone who sets out to groom them and makes them offers they find hard to refuse. Predators like this, are alas all too worldly to this end.
February 11, 2008 at 1:43 am
This is my last post on this. Sillyoldtwit, I don’t know what you are ranting about. I want civil rights for everybody. You sound a bit like “No free speech for traitors”. We need to examine this matter calmly, and handle it properly. Then all rights will be protected.
February 11, 2008 at 2:07 am
Cathal O’ Searcaigh - he deserves to be castrated! Anyone who uses their western wealth to exploit young boys or girls (children) is a filthy, sick, perverted, lower than animal criminal. I hope he gets jail - then he’ll find out what it’s like to be sexually abused. He’s a filthy bastard! If I met him I’d kick the sh** out of him and then I’d feed him to the lions in Dublin Zoo. He’d never again have the desire to go ’sex shopping’ in Nepal or any where else.
As for Kathleen - get a life! You sound like a high, mighty know-all. You have an answer for everything don’t you. You should realise the world isn’t as perfect as you think it is. The law of the land, especially in Ireland - what a sick joke. More than likely O’ Searcaigh will be spared from the system because he’s one of the elite, who also run the legal system. And what’s more some of ‘them’ probably go on dirty holidays to Nepal & Thailand etc. They wont want ‘rotten cans of worms’ opened in the public domain. You see - the elite are the epitome of the phrase ‘Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.’
If O’ Searcaigh was caught committing sex crimes in an Islamic country he’d be lynched and then put to death. At least Muslim law has something to be said for it.
February 11, 2008 at 9:42 pm
[...] Fairytale of Kathmandu . Posted by sillyoldtwit Filed in Cathal O’Searcaigh, Culture, Current Events, Ireland, Poetry, Religion, crime, discrimination, dublin, irish art, life, media, nepal, politics, radio podcast, sex tourism, society [...]
February 13, 2008 at 6:25 pm
“I have never met Sharkey nor have I seen the movie”
however:
“he deserves to be castrated”.
I hope you aren’t a judge.
February 14, 2008 at 10:17 pm
I loved Cathal O Searcaigh’s poetry. Was a big fan. Now I’m sickened. He was having sex with up to 16 boys a day. The hotel manager in the Buddha Hotel said one boy was bleeding very badly and in pain and The Shark took him to hospital.After his final departure he had an arrangement of their underpants hanging on the wall and a bag containing 50 condoms was found in his room. He went to some college where they’d be and loitered about until he met them. He only preyed on the innocent rural boys. He is an evil predator and sick brute. Get rid of him out of civilised society. And Mary Hannafin is standing up for him too,saying his poetry will not be taken off the Leaving Cert. course. All teachers should refuse to teach the dirty Shark’s poetry. O,the animal. It was the hotel manager who blew his cover when Ni Ciannain returned after the Shark had left. May the evil pervert rot in the darkest jail dungeon. O horror.
February 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“..there has been an attempt by some journalists to suggest that Chainain was naive (willfully) about Gay culture but it’s becoming more obious as time passes that gay people are sickened by O’Searcaigh’s behaviour.”
I sincerely hope that no-one seriously accepted the idea that ‘gay culture’ (as a homosexual, by the way, I’m not convinced there’s really such a thing) involved exploitative sex with children. This is no more true than saying that ’straight culture’ involves, say, availing of the services of a human-trafficked 16 year old prostitute. Certainly this happens; human trafficking is a huge problem, and many or most prostitutes in this country are NOT doing it of their own free will. It would be absurd, though, to say that it was okay because that’s what straight people do.
“There is also the issue of his books being used in schools….and this is by no means the simple issue that many have represented it to be…no one want’s to be seen as advocating the ‘banning’ of books. This is not some kneejerk reaction of my part , there are real problems here and it will require an open, honest and intelligent debate and the wisdom of a Job to arrive at the right answer..”
I don’t see any reason to stop using his books in schools; that the author is a good person has never been part of the selection criteria for that.
February 15, 2008 at 5:18 pm
[...] books be banned ? This is a question that has been raised since the debate began on O’Searcaigh’s activities in Nepal. But I have not heard anyone suggest that books should be in fact be banned at all , rather this is [...]
February 15, 2008 at 9:36 pm
That anyone can suggest that O’Searcaigh was naive is beyond me.The man hails from the hunting grounds of paedophile priest Eugene Greene.He would know personally some of the victims and unless he’s deaf and blind would be well aware of the pain that to this day haunts the parish of Gortahork.Knowing this he still did what he did and arrogantly thought it perfectly acceptable.This suggests to me that the man is in denial.A trait many would recognise in Eugene Greene.To add insult to injury(sexual exploitation),carefully worded letters written to his victims suggesting he might commit suicide are clearly an attempt at emotional blackmail.The man knows no depths.It has not gone unnoticed in Gortahork that for the most part his ardent supporters are those who have something to gain from keeping him afloat.Everyone else is disgusted.
February 17, 2008 at 11:31 pm
I don’t know why some people are supporting him. Hotpress appear to be alarmed by how he has been treated and are promising an article in his defence. Cathal O Searcaigh is finished.
February 20, 2008 at 10:07 pm
So the latest news is that cathal is to set up a trust to administer funds in the future. he says he “will distance myself completely from the distribution of funding for chosen projects.” Why then, are his “adopted” son and his wife involved in the trust? If he was genuine about distancing himself from the distribution of funding, then why not allow an existing registered charity to look after this. Call me cynical, but it looks to me like Mr. Ó Searcaigh is looking to retain to more control of this than he’s letting on.
February 21, 2008 at 12:28 am
But what funds will he be administering in the future? What funds did he administer in the past and are his accounts available? This man is a pederast who will go the way all convicted paedophiles have gone and the sooner the better.
February 21, 2008 at 12:59 am
The fact is that if it had been 16 year old girls in question - this discussion wouldn’t be taking place.
What’s at issue here is the legality of O’Searcaigh’s actions - not the morality - and the fact is that the so called ‘victims’ were above the age of consent.
I’m from the parish of Gortahork - Cathal O Searcaigh is not a paedophile and to even compare him to Eugene Green leads me to assume that what I’m reading here is nothing more than homophobia. Very disappointed.
As to the suggestion that his books should be banned from schools - the same thing was said about Shakespeare back in the day. The only book that needs banning from schools is the bible - as well as the Catholic Church that used it to cause real hurt to people. Stop the witch hunts and wake the hell up.
February 21, 2008 at 9:42 am
Patrick,
All this has nothing to do with homophobia and no one has suggested his books be banned from schools. But to leave his poems on the curriculum is problematic to say the least. Legality is not , and never has been the issue. It’s a question of morality , no more and no less. It’s no accident that words such as homphobic and banning are used in this argument…they are used to avoid the real issue and to give a veneer of liberality to those who don’t want to take hard decisions …and by the way , Sharkey is not Shakespeare…
February 21, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Jeez - there’s a lot more smoke that fire at play on this blog.
Using O Searcaigh as a flag of convenience to beat the ‘elites’ and ‘liberals’ would be well and good if there was any evidence of either (notional) group actually supporting/defending the man. Those who have supported the man seem to fall into two camps - some of his friends, and some of his associates. There’s been primarily silence from everyone else for the good reason that very few people have seen the actual documentary and all people have to go on is secondhand reports. Most people will reserve their opinion until they’re better informed. David Norris admittedly made a kneejerk response to what he suspected was another instance of homophobic moral outrage against older-gay-guy-engaging-in-promescuity-with-younger-legal-men. He’s wrong to have formed that judgement without seeing the film, but that doesn’t make for some sort of ‘liberal elite consensus’. I’ve seen the film amongst an audience of what I’d guess were primarily liberal arty types, and the overall reaction was one of support for the film-maker and disquiet about O Searcaigh’s actions.
And this isn’t an issue of legality. O Searcaigh won’t be found guilty of any crime. The film is clear in flagging all the boys as above the age of consent, and I doubt anyone would want to criminalise O Searcaigh for being gay in a country that notionally jails you for your sexual identity? It is a genuine issue about morality and exploitation. O Searcaigh could go to Italy, or Portugal, or Canada and legally sleep with as many younger boys as he desired. The difference is that he couldn’t turn his own wealth (and the charitable contributions he’s collected from others) into the same tool of leverage he can in Nepal. The ethics of abusing the power of wealth in a poor society for personal sexual gratification (regardless of the supposed sexual naivity of the boys in question) aren’t absolutely clear-cut, but most clear-thinking people will have to acknowlege that there’s distasteful exploitation at play in this case, and the hypocrisy of O Searcaigh in framing his actions as one of pure charity (and lobbying contributions from others to that end) is what damns the man most of all.
February 22, 2008 at 2:03 pm
It is sad to see the above post from Patrick, who says he is from Gortahork and appears very certain that O’Searcaigh has never had sex with young people below the age of consent.
How can he be so positive about this?
I remember only too well, certain people being equally adamant that Eugene Greene was no paedophile.
Alas, Cathal’s supporters in Gortahork, are for the most part ‘blow ins’ from either the ‘artistic mystical tour settlers’ or the gaelig hijacking super sinn feiner catholic right’ …these are O’Searcaigh’s bowers, scrapers and apologists. Indeed most of these people have built industries around the man and want to continue enjoying the filthy lucre.
March 5, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Last night, The View. Robert Ballagh said the documentary is suspicious because the producer changed course during the making of it. He said this in a clear statement, without any reference to anything else. Standalone.
Did I dream this?
Surely if this really happened, Kelly would have said something, anything.
Ann-Marie Hourihane wasn’t having it, though.
I’ve considered Ballagh an Irish art institutional insider for a long time, and nothing wrong with that, thought I.
But this is an outrageously overweening posture from the art establishment, smacks of ivory, towers, and who are you looking at?
And John Kelly, who once was fresh, unconforming, and a welcome change, has spread his ageing middle towards the safety of conservatism.
Damn!
March 9, 2008 at 11:41 am
FAIR TRADE SEX TOURISM
Big stone falls into small Irish poetical pond!
One of our number has been having sex.
(No, that fact is not the stone.
That’s merely a ripple)
He’s been having sex with young men in Nepal.
He’s a sex tourist, dammit!
Not good, not good.
Letters to papers.
Matter of ethics.
But there again on the other hand.
Milton was a PR man for Cromwell.
Great art is above and beyond
These piffling details of the weakness of humanity.
Et cet era.
And bear in mind, he was also teaching them
Useful stuff (apart from sex),
Reading riting ritmetic and so forth.
It could be said, admitted, alright, it was sex tourism,
But it was Fair Trade Sex Tourism.
And anyway, none of this gets to the point.
The real question remains unanswered.
Was he having sex with them in Irish or English?
If the latter, the question of grants and subsidies arise.
There are definite forms to fill, proper procedures,
Arts administrators to keep in jobs.
If none of these things are done properly
Well then the Irish poetical pond would be chaotic.
Might even be poetry.
Couldn’t have that.
All that relevance to reality.
March 9, 2008 at 11:46 am
PS to Poem…
Poetry Ireland continues to publicise O’Searcaigh’s services to the ‘Writers in Schools’ programme…apparantly he specialises in 15-18 years old pupils…
March 12, 2008 at 2:01 am
That favourite sport of puritan Ireland, the witchhunt, seems to once again be in full flow around this documentary. All the ingredients came floating down out of the ether as I watched the documentary on TV tonight: an Irish-speaking artist (kill them all who squander their unearned trust funds on opium and underage whores), the whiff of paedophilia (didnt see it did you ? all the boys/men were of the age of consent however innocent and do-eyed), exploitation of the poor ( since when is a poet classified as being in rich benefactor territory ?), calls for the removal of an artists work due to his “lifestyle choices” () etc
Quite frankly, viewing the documentary made me feel very sad. Sad because the documentary maker had her visions of someone she idolised shattered mid stream by cold hard reality. This lady was IMO very brave to carry on with the film and confront the artist with the ambiguous nature of his activities, Sad because a gay man who came out or tried to come out at a time when being gay was illegal in Ireland had his heart broken at such an early age, he’s still many years later caught up in the turmoil it caused leading him to fly to far flung parts of the planet for whatever it is he actually gets up to (I didnt see it did you ?). And sad, particularly sad at the puritanical reaction it has provoked.
The spectre of young girls and boys having the shit beaten out of them and/or fucked in the ass in some godforsaken Industrial school in the 1950s seems to form a permafrost backdrop to every public discussion around sex. We have to let go of the past, we must move on. Irish culture is NOT rotten to the core. Some Irish people in authority were/are extremely cruel, violent sadisitic etc. But not this man. I think he was very foolish to invite this “friend” to accompany him with a camera into an area of his life that from what I could discern he hasnt yet fully worked through. Surely the ambiguities of his behaviour on display in the film had occured to him before he sanctioned the documentary ? I suspect not, I suspect he is only now joining up the dots and I hope he gets to the end of the journey he has been on.
He certainly does not deserve the lynching some are looking for, another target for their own rage and anger. Go away and think about what it is you are seeking.
As for Thomas comment:
“If O’ Searcaigh was caught committing sex crimes in an Islamic country he’d be lynched and then put to death. At least Muslim law has something to be said for it.”
well I rest my case.
March 12, 2008 at 2:23 pm
according to the hotelier who raised concerns one boy
had to be hospitolised following a sex act with cathal.
he claimed he had multiple partners all young boys - we would , even in our street savvy culture , call 16 year olds boys here too, those of us who are parents to them and we would not , any of us think it appropriate for a
50 yr old man to come as a guest in our home village or town to teach and preach and also screw all our young men sons brothers .Unless they were poor of course , then it seems to be a no contest. It was stated in the doc that he only solicited boys from poorer localities and schools etc. He loitered to solicit them.
Whether you can call him rich or not by celtic tiger standards he represented influence opportunity and
western ”charitable” funds . In the USA female teachers who have had affairs with male students of this age go on a sex offenders list and cannot teach again. As do male teachers.
Cathal O Searchaigh has not been charged with any offence yet so we cant demonise him but I think most intelligent people will see the anomaly in the persona he has constructed for himself between his art his sexuality and his charitable work.
March 13, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I agree it most certainly an issue of morality.
March 13, 2008 at 1:01 pm
I watched the documentary last night and it is obvious what this man was up too.When confronted he spluttered and stumbled and tried to defend his actions.Guilt was written all over him.If he was such a good person why didn’t he set up a school or some sort of charity for these kids instead of bringing them to his room and buying them presents.Why did he not help any girls? If a 50 year old man was bringing young girls to his hotel room and buying them gifts etc it would have been looked at straight away.Unfortunately because he is gay a lot of that community jump to defend him, they look at it with blinkers as if it was an attack on all gays.Come on people use your common sense and stop all this ridiculous liberal spouting crap.The director looked up to him and was in denial most of the time until the hotel owner said something to her.At least she had the courage to face the truth.I am disgusted at how many people are trying to defend this man.He himself stated that these boys didn’t even know what sex was and were very innocent, he even rather sickeningly warned them to watch out for tourists who would exploit their innocence.Again I say if he wanted to help these kids he could have set up a more formal way of doing it…It is glaringly obvious what was in it for this man and each of you that defend him need to look at your own reasons for doing so…It reminds me of the way some wives ignore if their child is being abused by a relative or if they have to face it they somehow blame the child…It means that they dont have to take any responsiblity or that if acknowledged then they have to do something about it…If ignored… then they dont…Wake up
March 15, 2008 at 2:27 am
[...] Damien.So now that more people have seen the documentary about Cathal Ó Searcaigh there’s a greater number of opinions out there than there were at first. Suzy has pointed out her thoughts on the [...]
March 19, 2008 at 8:01 pm
I truly admire the strength of the film director Neasa Ni Chainain for making this documentary. She has a back bone and the artists community shall cherish her.
People, don’t look away, be responsible, speak out, don’t turn away because everything else is unacceptable!
July 6, 2008 at 11:51 am
Well the behavior of the Irish man is unacceptable. I myself was brought up until the age of 15 in Nepal before I moved to the UK. I know 16 year olds don’t know that much about sex in Nepal (I didn’t at age of 16). Moreover, Gay sex is the worst thing that can take place in a country like Nepal. It cannot be compared to thailand where gay sex is practised. I feel sorry for the innocent little children in Nepal and honestly want to spit in the face of that stupid Irish bastard.