Don't want to post? Email me instead.

cavehillred AT yahoo.co.uk

Friday, February 22, 2008

Pervert Poet

Pervert poet Cathal O'Searcaigh has apologised for sexually exploiting young boys in Nepal.

Only he hasn't.

What he actually did was apologise 'if his gay lifestyle and relationships had offended anyone.'

Now, the Rape Crisis Centre isn't buying that for a minute. They are rightly still highly concerned about a middle-aged self-styled bohemian who flies to third world countries and plies teens with large amounts of money, first for their sexual favours and secondly in an attempt to buy their silence.

And Colm O'Gorman, spokesman for the One In Four organisation which represents victims of clerical abuse in this country, isn't buying it either. He spoke out strongly this week about how these Nepali boys were exploited and how O'Searcaigh has a case to answer.

What I'm looking forward to, in this week that the gay lobby started officially demanding the right to use the term marriage, is for that self-same lobby to come out in protest at O'Searcaigh defining his abuse of third world boys as a 'gay lifestyle.'

After all, we have heard them condemn from the rooftops for decades any suggestion that homosexuality and sexual exploitation of children are fellow travellers. Paedophiles are paedophiles, whether they prey on girls or boys, we have been told. Homosexuality is nothing to do with it, and men who prey on boys are paedophiles and not gay.

Fair enough. Will the gay lobby in Ireland now take a minute out from their campaign to commandeer the title of a religious sacrament to dignify their own unions, which in any case already have been granted equal rights as heterosexual marriages in Irish law, and condemn this pervert poet?

Let me be clear. I believe in equal rights for all citizens. I firmly support equality under Irish law for gay couples and always have done. However, I see no need for them to be so provocative as to demand a title that has for centuries been reserved for a heterosexual union performed under religious auspices which they do not accept. Civil unions offer equality under Irish law to both religious heterosexual marriages and civil heterosexual unions. Anything else is beyond equality and simply provocation of Irish religious conservatives.

I look forward to seeing some consistency from the gay lobby this time, but I won't hold my breath. The likelihood of them continuing to stand by their former favourite son is as high as the mountains in Nepal amid which pervert poet O'Searcaigh spent his time abusing third world teens.

But if we are to accept, and I do, that paedophiles are paedophiles and not homosexuals when they abuse young boys, then O'Searcaigh is a paedophile and not simply enjoying a 'gay lifestyle.' Does the Irish gay lobby agree?


Missing Neighbour said...

Surprisingly quiet on this one JC. I don't know the ins and outs of the incident you mention so I will keep my comment on the more general area of equal rights for all. I am in complete favour of every citizen being able to live their lives irrespective of race, colour, creed, sex and sexuality. However there are some important issues to observe when people start talking about 'Equal rights' etc...
Let us take for example two things:

1) The recent comments of Edwin Poots about how he fails to understand how a rugby team can be classed as a 'Gay' rugby team and why anyone who is interested in liberty and justice for all would ever want to market a sporting team on the basis of sexuality alone. This is one of the very few times in my life when I found myself agreeing with a DUP politician about anything (Quite unsettling for me might I add). I know the guy who founded the team was quick to reply with the obligatory 'Our doors are open to anyone' line, but by that stage it looked as if they had been rumbled and it smacked of a reply to keep the inevitable lawsuits at bay. Equality? I don’t think so.

2) The inequality between the sexes and the Medias portrayal of this issue. Women being paid less than men? Not in any job that I or indeed my friends (male and female) have ever done. I have had quite a varied and interesting career path up to this point and have had the good fortune to work in several highly paid jobs. Now just to reiterate this point how many professional women get paid less than their male counterparts for doing the same job? The reality is a miniscule amount (if any). For arguments sake lets look at a few jobs: Software engineer (same pay), Doctor (same pay), Nurse (same pay), Teacher (same pay), Dentist (same pay), Shop assistant (same pay0. I could go on here but the list would be too big. So the questions remain where are these poor unfortunates who are earning significantly less than their male counterparts for doing the same job and the same hours?

Maybe some things are more ‘Equal’ than others?

gimme a minute said...

The likelihood of them continuing to stand by their former favourite son

How was he their former favourite son? It was members of Aosdhan that were defending him, and I don't believe that that is an exclusively homosexual organisation.

And why should the 'gay lobby' (watch out everyone, it's the gay lobby, it's just sooo tastefully decorated) be under any more obligation to condemn him than the 'male lobby' or the 'poetry lobby' or the 'Gaelgóir lobby'?

He doesn't appear to be a gay man to me, he appears to be a fucking paedophile and whatever you might choose to imply there is a massive difference.

Informer said...

I am confused abit here, correct me if I am wrong...but is a man that likes young boys and not young girls a Gay PEDO? Lets get down to the noughts and ones here and call a spade a spade!

JC Skinner said...

@Gimme: Aosdana has indeed backed O'Searcaigh significantly in the past, as indeed has the arts council and the arts community in general. No surprise there, given his stature as a leading Irish language poet.
But it is disingenuous of you to suggest that he did not enjoy the backing of the gay community at large, given his self-defined stature as a gay man.
This self-definition was to the forefront again this week in his pathetic explanation/apology of his actions as those of a 'gay lifestyle.'
His actions are those of a predatory paedophile and not those of a gay man.
And I'm still looking forward to the gay community castigating O'Searcaigh for seeking to muddy the waters between the two.
Just to reiterate: It's O'Searcaigh implying that the two are identical, not me. When you cease shooting the messenger, you might want to direct your ire where it is warranted.
@Missing Neighbour: I concur with everything you just said. I got refused entry to a gay bar once because I was discerned by the bouncer as being straight. Can you imagine the lawsuits if it was the other way around?
@Informer: A paedo's a paedo. They like kids. They have a sickness and their actions are illegal and immoral by societal standards. The gender of those they abuse doesn't matter in this regard.

gimme a minute said...

I must have misunderstood. I read an implication that the gay 'lobby' have been supporting O'Searcaigh throughout the recent revelations and attempting to justify his actions. I have seen no evidence of this.

Aosdana on the other hand...

You say:

we have heard them condemn from the rooftops for decades any suggestion that homosexuality and sexual exploitation of children are fellow travellers

There is no reason to believe that their stance O'Searcaigh would be any different.

I have no ire, just an argument. It is your ire that seems to me to be misdirected. If you truly believe that that there is no connection between homosexuality and paedophilia then there should be no more reason to call for condemnation from the gay community than any other community to which O'Searcaigh claims to belong.

JC Skinner said...

Gimme, you're being entirely disingenuous. O'Searcaigh enjoys the overt support of prominent Irish gay people like David Norris. He enjoys the tacit support of the gay community at large via their silence on the matter.
Furthermore, if they do not concur with O'Searcaigh's argument that abusing third world boys for money is a 'gay lifestyle' it is incumbent upon them to come out and say so. After all, he has sought to defend his actions by claiming they are a legitimate homosexual practice. That would seem to be an appalling slur to my mind. So why their reticence in condemning O'Searcaigh? They couldn't possibly AGREE with him, could they?
God knows, they wouldn't be so quiet if some conservative commentator sought to equate homosexuality and paedophilia.

JC Skinner said...

Furthermore, it is incumbent on the homosexual community to respond, because they are who O'Searcaigh is equating with pederasty.
Had he claimed his actions were part of his 'poet lifestyle' or 'gaelgeoir lifestyle' then it would be up to "other communities to which O'Searcaigh belongs" to respond.
But he didn't claim that. He said his actions were part of a GAY lifestyle. Hence the need for the Irish gay community to disown those comments.