Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

ejmaztec · 10-10-2012 11:31am

Nodin wrote: »

Ye can't imagine a louis spence level gay collins surviving long on the run though.....

The Tans would have been told to listen out for giggling in the bushes.

walrusgumble · 10-10-2012 11:49am

tomtherobot wrote: »

I found myself leafing through yesterdays Irish Times (it's pretty ****e i know) and found an excerpt from David Norris book, he's talking about the gay right movement in Ireland and goes on to strongly suggest that Roger Casement, Padraig Pearse, Michael Collins and Eoin O'Duffy were gay.

Now personally I don't have a homophobic bone in my body (stop) but isn't it a bit weird outing people like this when there dead? Also, I'd love to know what the republicans here think of this?

I know its been widely suggested before that Roger Casement was gay but the other three came as a bit of a shock to me. For one thing i want me money back from the Liam Neeson/Julia Roberts movie. Damn you Hollywood lies....

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

floggg · 10-10-2012 11:57am

kowloon wrote: »

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's making bad history in bad faith and it's nonsense. You cannot tell the story of Alan Turing without speaking of his orientation, any more than you could describe him without mentioning that he liked breaking codes a bit.

I agree that it's wrong to purposely write out parts of a person's life, but to focus on someone's sex life because they're gay seems a bit like pointing the finger, saying 'this isn't normal'. I'm not sure that's a desired outcome either.

Alan Turing is a bit of a special case because he was treated horribly and prosecuted for being gay, that often gets him an extra line in texts that would only mention him.

Someone's sexuality is only relevant if it weighs in on the topic being written about. If I decided to write about some general and their campaign in whereverland, what they like to get up to in the bedroom, gay or not, is irrelevant. Unless they're banging their chief of staff...

Well why did the Michael Collons film, or indeed the history books generally, include his fiancé Kitty Kiernan? Because she was relevant to who he was and to his story.

And saying he's gay doesn't focus on his sex life, it focuses on his sexual orientation. There is a difference. Nobody has said mentioning Kitty us unfairly dragging up his sex life.

For the record I'm not saying he is gay, or he isn't. I doubt it can be proved conclusively at this stage.

suicide_circus · 10-10-2012 12:01pm

Shall we just assume that all dead people were gay, unless an independent tribunal can determine otherwise?

floggg · 10-10-2012 12:12pm

kowloon wrote: »

I suppose what I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't a cause for incident then, it shouldn't be an important thing to state now, but of course, you're correct: the stigma attached to it would have affected someone, even if they hadn't been outed at the time.

I still wouldn't consider it something worth mentioning in anything other than an account of a person, as opposed to their deeds, if it wasn't cause for anything that could be proven to have an effect on the subject matter. Does being gay make you approach code breaking differently? For example.

Probably. You'd want to be pretty good at deciphering stuff to be able to crack Polari or the Hanky Code!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari

Sir Gallagher · 10-10-2012 12:19pm

It all reminds me a bit of the Rubberbandits song about everybody being in the 'Ra.

rochey84 · 10-10-2012 12:24pm

walrusgumble wrote: »

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

I find what you're saying in the first line of your post to be quite ignorant to be honest, I also find that people are focusing on the claims and how it doesn't matter etc, no-one is talking about the context the claims were made in.

Anyone who read the extract would know that Norris was not suggesting that these men were gay just to "out" them, he was trying to indicate how difficult it was to be gay in this country when he was young because he felt so isolated and as someone aluded to earlier on, the only gay in the country. He is making the point that if he had been thought in school about the sexuality of these heros he might not have felt the way he did.

As any gay person who grew up even in the 90s will tell you, it was a seriously isolated and horrible part of their childhood feeling like you were the only one, that you had no role models and then as you grew older into your sexual experimentation years what Norris says about the cloak and dagger aspect of sexuality was still true less than 20 years ago.

tl;dr, look at the context of the claims before bashing DN over the head for outting them!

ejmaztec · 10-10-2012 1:14pm

I think Norris read somewhere that Michael Collins was bent on victory in his fight with the British, and completely misunderstood it.

Son Of A Vidic · 10-10-2012 1:30pm

tomtherobot wrote: »

Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

So what?

dd972 · 10-10-2012 1:33pm

Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

Yeah....Russel Brand's gay as well :rolleyes:

ejmaztec · 10-10-2012 1:37pm

We've all been gay thanks to all the budgets we've had since the crash.:(

jill_valentine · 10-10-2012 3:19pm

kowloon wrote: »

I suppose what I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't a cause for incident then, it shouldn't be an important thing to state now, but of course, you're correct: the stigma attached to it would have affected someone, even if they hadn't been outed at the time.

I still wouldn't consider it something worth mentioning in anything other than an account of a person, as opposed to their deeds, if it wasn't cause for anything that could be proven to have an effect on the subject matter. Does being gay make you approach code breaking differently? For example.

It could go some way to explain why somebody was, for instance, naturally inclined to distrust authority, or willing to buck mainstream culture. It could explain why somebody was naturally secretive or why they might have had a complex relationship with the church. If somebody is gay in a society that's hostile to gays, it's guaranteed to have a massive impact on their perspective within that society.

As somebody above said, nobody considers it beyond the pale when people talk about Kitty in the context of Collins, or Josephine in the context of Napoleon, because it's understood that the relationships around us and how we choose to behave within them affect our decisions and define us as individuals. People only get squeamish when homosexuality enters the picture, which is why I don't buy the "privacy" argument. The questions don't bother anybody until there's a possibility that they won't like the answers.

Let's pretend, for instance, that Tom Cruise was a historically significant figure rather than an unwatchably cheesy couch jumping lunatic superstar. If you were to try and interpret his fanatical devotion to Scientology in isolation, it might seem totally baffling. If, however, you were aware of the alleged allegations that the COS allegedly "cured" him of his alleged homosexuality and allegedly made arrangements to conceal it - and if you were aware that exactly the same narrative suggested the same of John Travolta long before his recent indiscretions - while at the same time, retaining proof thereof, then it makes more alleged sense. You'd have a much better idea of the kind of psychological and political hold they'd have on him. Just as an entirely hypothetical and I'm sure wholly unfounded example that I've pulled right out of the clear blue sky.

Going back to the example of Turing, his homosexuality is now widely known, but his bearding arrangement with Joan Clarke is no less significant a piece of the puzzle for that, once it's understood as such. If his orientation wasn't known, and it was simply accepted at face value that he and Clarke were a young couple who fell in and out of love, that would offer us so much less insight into the pair of them as human beings and the extraordinary little world of Bletchley Park.

tomtherobot · 10-10-2012 10:06pm

Augmerson wrote: »

He was from Cork. A man. And Irish.

Perhaps all these people should be asked to comment too?

Clearly the defining thing about Michael Collins was the fact he was a republican leader. If i want to talk about something Bertie Ahern did or didn't do, do i have to talk about all men that are Irish from Dublin?

Hazys wrote: »

True or not, what does it have to do with the topic?

Seems like slandering for the sake of it

Well if it's true it's not slandering, that's pretty basic?

And the topic (as I suspect you know) is that given the public associate republicanism with Catholicism and secterian violence how does this fit with a queering up of republican history?

3ndahalfof6 · 10-10-2012 10:17pm

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think Norris read somewhere that Michael Collins was bent on victory in his fight with the British, and completely misunderstood it.

This is true, but the statement was hell bent on getting the english out,

so they reckoned he was gay and his ringer was on fire.

walrusgumble · 11-10-2012 1:59am

rochey84 wrote: »

walrusgumble wrote: »

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

I find what you're saying in the first line of your post to be quite ignorant to be honest, I also find that people are focusing on the claims and how it doesn't matter etc, no-one is talking about the context the claims were made in.

Anyone who read the extract would know that Norris was not suggesting that these men were gay just to "out" them, he was trying to indicate how difficult it was to be gay in this country when he was young because he felt so isolated and as someone aluded to earlier on, the only gay in the country. He is making the point that if he had been thought in school about the sexuality of these heros he might not have felt the way he did.

As any gay person who grew up even in the 90s will tell you, it was a seriously isolated and horrible part of their childhood feeling like you were the only one, that you had no role models and then as you grew older into your sexual experimentation years what Norris says about the cloak and dagger aspect of sexuality was still true less than 20 years ago.

tl;dr, look at the context of the claims before bashing DN over the head for outting them!

I could not give two flying decks what you are waffling on about. Norris intentions are clear and you even proved what I had said, "if it's okay for x,y,z...." granted the reference to marriage was a bit unfair. If they were alive he would rightly be crucified in a court for defamation. Let him pick on less easier targets or at least come up with actual proofs.let him deal with those alive today and see where he gets.he wants to use figures from the past let him , but let him focus in people who were amazingly gay.

Norris is not nor was not accepted by members of society because he is gay, it is because he is an elitist snob (or is perceived as such) and few agree with his politics.the idea that he is led wing, as many perceive him to be is hilarious.

walrusgumble · 11-10-2012 2:07am

tomtherobot wrote: »

Augmerson wrote: »

He was from Cork. A man. And Irish.

Perhaps all these people should be asked to comment too?

Clearly the defining thing about Michael Collins was the fact he was a republican leader. If i want to talk about something Bertie Ahern did or didn't do, do i have to talk about all men that are Irish from Dublin?

Hazys wrote: »

True or not, what does it have to do with the topic?

Seems like slandering for the sake of it

Well if it's true it's not slandering, that's pretty basic?

And the topic (as I suspect you know) is that given the public associate republicanism with Catholicism and secterian violence how does this fit with a queering up of republican history?

It's only true when it is proven to be true and if not, it is defamation. There is no if it's true. Each of these men had enemies who could easily have made claims, whether validly o not. they did with casement and for most part they stuck. O'Duffy claims haven't be refuted and Pearse, well even the few women that knew him thought he was odd. As for Collins , there is little or nothing on him, and he is being branded all sorts of things for womanizer (hardly something catholic Ireland would have approved of) to traitor etc. You cant hide something if there is no actual basis for an allegation.

GRMA · 11-10-2012 2:16am

It is not defamatory to call someone gay.

Something is only defamatory if the statement/allegation is false, or cannot be proven true, and lowers a person in the eyes of a reasonable individual. Being gay is not a bad thing. Thus in the eyes of the 'reasonable man'(a legal construct) someone being gay wouldn't make them think less of that individual.

This is the case even if the allegation does in fact lower the person in the eyes of a lot of people. For example in the 70s there was a case were a man was falsely accused of being a tout, of informing on the IRA, in a newspaper. Not being happy at this allegation he launched legal proceedings and failed because the court ruled that accusing someone of "reporting crimes" couldn't lower that persons standing in the eyes of the aforementioned reasonable man...

Norris is desperate for a few quid so he needs something in his book to stir up controversy and publicity. Mission accomplished!

It wasn't me! · 11-10-2012 2:19am

Defamation? Defamation presumes that the defamatory statement would cause the subject to lose status or otherwise suffer as a result of it. Unless you presume that to describe someone as homosexual is actually a bad thing, and unless the legal system accepts that homosexuality is a material slur on the subject's character (as opposed to a playground insult), then it can't possibly be defamation, any more than me saying my neighbour is made of cheese.

fasttalkerchat · 11-10-2012 2:23am

Nodin wrote: »

Casement, yes. Pearse, maybe, mabye not. O'Duffy, yes - thats out a while.

Collins though? Never heard that before. I'd like to know what he's basing it on.

Apparently he likes hippos though... and Che Guevara liked dolphins.

fasttalkerchat · 11-10-2012 2:25am

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Defamation? Defamation presumes that the defamatory statement would cause the subject to lose status or otherwise suffer as a result of it. Unless you presume that to describe someone as homosexual is actually a bad thing, and unless the legal system accepts that homosexuality is a material slur on the subject's character (as opposed to a playground insult), then it can't possibly be defamation, any more than me saying my neighbour is made of cheese.

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

danger mouse · 11-10-2012 2:28am

This whole thread is sick!

It wasn't me! · 11-10-2012 2:28am

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

Because I would have a demonstrable loss. Where no such incidence occurs, then the "reasonable man" principle stands, and an accusation of homosexuality is not, in and of itself, defamatory.

GRMA · 11-10-2012 2:33am

Norris has a peculiar habit of sexualizing everything, I remember in a documentary about Nelsons Pillar he went on about how it was basically a giant phallus and we castrated ourselves by blowing it up.

As for Pearse, I don't believe he was gay. I've never read anything to suggest he was. He was however painfully shy and perhaps a touch autistic, aspergers.

But really I couldn't give a damn if he was gay. A virtuous person being gay doesn't make homosexuality virtuous, the opposite is true also. It's an irrelevance. Like someones hight, or whether they were left or right handed. So what?

GRMA · 11-10-2012 2:36am

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

Not necessarily, unless you accuse/imply him of having cheated on his wife with a man.

Look at the example I gave, that man lost lots of friends and respect, and was even put in danger by the false accusation that he was a tout. He still couldn't sue for defamation. (well, slander at the time).

walrusgumble · 11-10-2012 2:42am

GRMA wrote: »

It is not defamatory to call someone gay.

Something is only defamatory if the statement/allegation is false, or cannot be proven true, and lowers a person in the eyes of a reasonable individual. Being gay is not a bad thing. Thus in the eyes of the 'reasonable man'(a legal construct) someone being gay wouldn't make them think less of that individual.

This is the case even if the allegation does in fact lower the person in the eyes of a lot of people. For example in the 70s there was a case were a man was falsely accused of being a tout, of informing on the IRA, in a newspaper. Not being happy at this allegation he launched legal proceedings and failed because the court ruled that accusing someone of "reporting crimes" couldn't lower that persons standing in the eyes of the aforementioned reasonable man...

Norris is desperate for a few quid so he needs something in his book to stir up controversy and publicity. Mission accomplished!

It is defamation If you are suggesting wrongly that he is gay, and it is capable of being perceived to suggest that someone is living a lie (eg with a girlfriend ) or acting in double standards or being dishonest to what he says does or allows himself to be perceived. (and the stuff that you mentioned in the first two paragraphs) but calling someone gay on its own when it is not true per se, yes you are correct.however many people have successfully sued against allegations about being gay.

This case of 1970 is peter berry v Irish times For reasons that you Pointed out. Even then odailigh missed the point and this was noted in dissenting judgments. It has no connection allegations of gays on a Sid note being gay back then was illegal) Reynolds v Malacco made the point that you are referring to about gays and even then Reynolds won.

To say that it can never be defamatory is horse manure

jill_valentine · 11-10-2012 3:04am

GRMA wrote: »

But really I couldn't give a damn if he was gay. A virtuous person being gay doesn't make homosexuality virtuous, the opposite is true also. It's an irrelevance. Like someones hight, or whether they were left or right handed. So what?

When the day comes that someone's sexual orientation is of no more consequence to their treatment or lifestyle or place in society than their height or dexterity, then that might start to be true. But I suspect that day won't come any decade soon.

Sister Assumpta · 11-10-2012 3:08am

Riddle101 wrote: »

I've heard the rumor about Micheal Collins being gay. But wasn't he engaged?

Aenaes wrote: »

Collins was engaged and reported to be head over heels in love by his close friends.
In a couple of biographies of him it's suggested he was pretty successful with the ladies during his time spent in London.

This is not intended to ridicule these posters, nor others who made similar comments, but come on guys... a gay person is not someone who physically cannot have sex with the opposite gender nor fall in love with the opposite gender. I know gay guys who "fell in love" with women, when they were really only emotionally infatutated with their girlfriends, as opposed to completely sexually attracted to their girlfriends in the way that a heterosexual might have been. One described his sexual attraction as a natural physiological reaction.

As much as their sexuality is fairly irrelevant (although it does help break down the prejudices aforementioned), I find it fairly bewildering that people still think about - especially historic - homosexuality, along these lines as per the above.

fasttalkerchat · 11-10-2012 3:11am

GRMA wrote: »

Not necessarily, unless you accuse/imply him of having cheated on his wife with a man.

Look at the example I gave, that man lost lots of friends and respect, and was even put in danger by the false accusation that he was a tout. He still couldn't sue for defamation. (well, slander at the time).

Interesting example, although if the alleged "tout" subsequently suffered injury from an assassination attempt the case could swing the other way (I would imagine).

What if you were outed as being gay infront of friends and family causing you embarrassment when in fact it was untrue that you are gay... wouldn't that be damage resulting from defamed character (I use the word defamed very loosely).

stevemac182 · 11-10-2012 6:30am

Cue low-budget Irish blockbuster "Bainne - The True Story of Michael Collins"

trodsky · 11-10-2012 6:46am

Was it true Collins was seen fingering the hole off de Valera outside the GPO before the Easter rising?

Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

Comments