Cathal O'Searcaigh exploiter not benefactor

lostexpectation

anyone read the article or listen to joe duffy for the past two days, cathal o'searcaigh of leaving cert poet fame apparently does charity work in nepal, thats what I read in an article about him a while back turns out a fan of his went with him to make a film about him and discovered he often had sex with the young boys(16+) he helped with paying for their school etc...!!!!

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/452362/Fairytale-of-Kathmandu/overview

its awful, you can't do that with people your supposed to helping and who are in a vunerable position compared to a wealthy westerner

Sherifu

The poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh has described allegations made about him in the documentary 'Fairytale of Kathmandu' as distorted and inaccurate.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0205/osearcaigh.html


Well, he is kind of denying it...

It's not that hard for Westerners with money to exploit people in these poor countries.

Skitbra

Listening to Liveline again today about the situation. It's quite astounding to hear people come on and try to defend his actions. They must be wearing blinkers or blindfolds.

"Oh I know him really well"
"He's great. He wouldn't harm anyone"

He's sexually abusing children in Nepal.
Wake up!

It really infuriates me. :mad:

Marshy

Skitbra wrote: »

Listening to Liveline again today about the situation. It's quite astounding to hear people come on and try to defend his actions. They must be wearing blinkers or blindfolds.

He's sexually abusing children in Nepal.
Wake up!

It really infuriates me. :mad:

Well now, hang on a sec. It hasn't been proven as yet that these boys were under the age of consent. Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.

If you ask me, Neasa Ní Chianáin, who's responsible for this documentary, is seeking her 15 mins of fame from the whole escapade.

Skitbra

Marshy wrote: »

Well now, hang on a sec. It hasn't been proven as yet that these boys were under the age of consent. Innocent until proven guilty in my eyes.

If you ask me, Neasa Ní Chianáin, who's responsible for this documentary, is seeking her 15 mins of fame from the whole escapade.

Well your response is exactly the kind of defense that his friends are putting up.
I don't care if they were under the age of consent. He's still sexually exploiting them. He's wealthy (relative to them) and they are poor. He's a national disgrace.

Marshy

Skitbra wrote: »

I don't care if they were under the age of consent.

Well thats where you and the law seemingly differ on this matter.

He's still sexually exploiting them. He's wealthy (relative to them) and they are poor. He's a national disgrace.

All I'll say is we're totally relying on Neasa Ní Chianáin's word here. Calling him a national disgrace at this stage when he hasn't be found guilty of anything is very unfair in my mind.

Piste

The age of consent in Nepal is 16, it's the homosexuality part that's illegal, but according to one person on the Joe Duffy show many Nepalese men's first sexual exprience is with another man, and homosexuality is quite commonplace there.

Marshy

Piste wrote: »

The age of consent in Nepal is 16, it's the homosexuality part that's illegal, but according to one person on the Joe Duffy show many Nepalese men's first sexual exprience is with another man, and homosexuality is quite commonplace there.

Well I think it goes without saying that there's something wrong if someone is arrested for 'homosexual acts' in this day and age.

azezil

I fail to see the issue, if its consensual and legal.

tbh

I would hate to think that a 52-year old man is playing "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" with a 16 year old, regardless of gender.

I will say this tho, I would guess that those women from Donegal who were in tears on Liveline about the treatment the guy was getting would probably feel differently if it were their 16-year olds the guy was shagging, and that to me is the nub of the matter.

Morlar

azezil wrote: »

I fail to see the issue, if its consensual and legal.

A 52 yr old man preying on economically vulnerable children is disgusting - I dont care if its legal or not. And not really caring about the 'but 16 makes them fair game' argument either. It would be a shame if the local authorities cant intercede to cut down on this - it would protect their vulnerable minors and also do their legitimiate tourist trade a world of good.

bullpost

Not sure though how common a first experience at 16 would be with a 52 year old ?

Piste wrote: »

The age of consent in Nepal is 16, it's the homosexuality part that's illegal, but according to one person on the Joe Duffy show many Nepalese men's first sexual exprience is with another man, and homosexuality is quite commonplace there.

azezil

Some young guys prefer older men, as I said, if its legal and consensual, i.e. they want to and are not bribed or what have you in any way, then I don't see an issue, some people mature quicker than others.

nacho libre

azezil wrote: »

Some young guys prefer older men, as I said, if its legal and consensual, i.e. they want to and are not bribed or what have you in any way, then I don't see an issue, some people mature quicker than others.

it's not legal under irish law. so there is a possibility he could face criminal charges here for engaging in sex with a minor while abroad. doubtful it will happen but no harm to let the brat stew for a while.

Skitbra

azezil wrote: »

Some young guys prefer older men, as I said, if its legal and consensual, i.e. they want to and are not bribed or what have you in any way, then I don't see an issue, some people mature quicker than others.

Maybe you're trying to justify it to yourself that it's ok somehow?
Of course it's wrong and I have to say it's worrying to see a moderator on boards thinking like this. I mean, have you really thought properly about it? It's morally wrong and disgusting.

azezil

Says who, you? Who made you a moral authority on anything? Who are you to judge?

Morlar

azezil wrote: »

Says who, you? Who made you a moral authority on anything? Who are you to judge?

I find it wrong and disgusting too and I am entitled to my opinion and to express it. I dont know how you could engage in activity that could be physically any closer to paedophilia but remain on the other side of it.

We are talking literally about one hairs breadth away from outright paedophilia & it staggers me how anyone could try and make excuses for this.

The_Minister

azezil wrote: »

I fail to see the issue, if its consensual and legal.

It's a huge power-imbalence though. It's like a teacher and a pupil, or a doctor and a patient. The authority and control that one holds over the other makes it exploitative.
He controls their education and welfare, even if he doesn't directly threaten them, he still holds unfair influence over them.

Morlar

The_Minister wrote: »

It's a huge power-imbalence though. It's like a teacher and a pupil, or a doctor and a patient. The authority and control that one holds over the other makes it exploitative.
He controls their education and welfare, even if he doesn't directly threaten them, he still holds unfair influence over them.

I think its a combination of both tbh - equally the power dynamic as much as the sleaziness of the age difference. imo.

merrionsq

azezil wrote: »

Says who, you? Who made you a moral authority on anything? Who are you to judge?

"Hey man, lets like not judge the man. Everyone's opinion is equally valid, there's no such thing as right and wrong".

Sorry for the paraphrase there but, I think we know why most people would be worried by a story like this. To begin, most people don't need to be a "moral authority" to know that murder and paedophilia are wrong.

So what about Cathal? If they are under the age of consent and he knows it, then he most certainly has done wrong, and should be punished.

Lets say these kids are over the age of consent. I think that lets him of the hook in terms of punishment, but not necessarily from a moral point of view. We should of course wait till all the fact emerge, but the way the story is emerging at the moment it looks like he used his financial power to procure sex from older teenagers/younger men. If this was the case I'm not sure if this is all hunky dory - especially considering the poverty of people in Nepal, compared with Ireland.

Jack Sheehan

Just because it was legal does not mean it was right. The Nepalese government is not the moral authority on this.

azezil

I believe they're in a better position to say if its morally right or wrong than we do, it is their country after all. We have our standards here but their standards are undoubtedly different, should everyone be bound by the morals and standards of conduct of their own country? I think not, the individual is subject to the authority of the land in which the act takes place.

If it had happened here, yes it would be breaking the law so he should be punished, but if their laws say you're old enough to have sex at 16, so be it.

Lockstep

azezil wrote: »

I believe they're in a better position to say if its morally right or wrong than we do, it is their country after all. We have our standards here but their standards are undoubtedly different, should everyone be bound by the morals and standards of conduct of their own country? I think not, the individual is subject to the authority of the land in which the act takes place.

If it had happened here, yes it would be breaking the law so he should be punished, but if their laws say you're old enough to have sex at 16, so be it.

+1

Ethically, I personally find fault with it as there is a huge power imbalence.

If the guys are consenting and legal age in Nepal then there really isn't anything I can argue against without bringing my morals into it.

tbh

Jack Sheehan wrote: »

Just because it was legal does not mean it was right. The Nepalese government is not the moral authority on this.

as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it means. Anything else is just a point of view. And how patronising is your post?

the_syco

lostexpectation wrote: »

thats what I read in an article about him a while back turns out a fan of his went with him to make a film about him and discovered he often had sex with the young boys(16+) he helped with paying for their school etc...!!!!

azezil wrote: »

Some young guys prefer older men, as I said, if its legal and consensual, i.e. they want to and are not bribed or what have you in any way, then I don't see an issue, some people mature quicker than others.

:rolleyes: Payment sounds bad.

is_that_so

There are occasions when legality may not be good enough. Just because you can does not mean that you should even be involved in an relationship, benign or otherwise, with people so young. As an adult there is an onus on you to apply some type of standard, address questions of propriety and go beyond "well s/he's legal". It is also important to define the bounds of such relationships. I have no idea what the man was or was not doing but I certainly wonder if how he was dealing with his friendship with these people would be seen as just that. At the very least he appears to have been remiss in considering his responsibilities as the adult.

I remember having an extensive discussion with a guy who found himself between "temptation" and doing what was right. The young man in question was legal but he still had to ask the question if it was right?
In the end doing the right thing was the way to go.

The_Minister

tbh wrote: »

as a matter of fact, that's exactly what it means. Anything else is just a point of view. And how patronising is your post?

Used to be that women working in the civil service in Ireland, were forced to retire upon marraige. It was legal, but was it right?

tinala

the whole cathal o'searcaigh thing is a POWER issue, not a gay issue.
it is sad to see his pals all closing ranks, even though he is clearly abusing his power on innocent boys/ young men. If it's all so above board, let him open a 'summer school' in donegal and send irish lads and young men there - see the reaction then when they discover how their middle-aged mentor is taking advantage of them - and he is - make no mistake. It is similar to the priests of yore abusing their power. We are all so bloody 'liberal' that we don't see exploitation even when it is right in front of us. It is orally wrong to take advantage of them - even if they're dirt poor, uneducated and clueless - it's a crime, it really is.

Not all abusers are monsters - sometimes they are nice people, kind people even belonging to the establishment - like the christian brothers once were. Cathal did not rape anyone or use violence, but he misused his power - just like michael jackson did - and violated those sexually innocent boys - who were not gay - who were like children in terms of innocence. it's not a witch hunt - but we need to send the message that is NOT ok to have youngsters over for sex, especially if they are innocent - and no matter how rich or kind or poetic you are with your words - it is still abusing young men - and definately not 'empowering' them as he claims. it is all quite disheartening to see how blase the reaction is to sin - how we've gone so far we don't recognise abuse for what it is. time to call a spade a spade - and no eloquence can hide that. the only reason he gets away with this horse **** is because they are young, poor and POWERLESS and he is rich,(relatively to them), western and beyond the law - he believes. well done to the lady who showed him in his true colours. we have to see that child abuse is not black and white and even nice folk do it but it must be stopped - now.

tinala

just imagine:
a man in his 50's moves in next door - he's great with the kids - encouraging etc... but then you hear from a few friends he's been inviting your teenagers and twenty-somethings over for 'sleep-overs' where he has sex with them (they were virgins ). how would you feel?

or if your 16 year old girl was seduced by a middle aged man? that cool?
no.

Sherifu

Nice first post tinala. I agree with you. It is about power and money. It is a financial arrangement no matter how anyone may try to spin it. Prostitution is illegal in Nepal even if it is legal for 16 year old boys to have sex with old men this is prostitution in my mind.

tinala wrote: »

It is orally wrong to take advantage of them

Best typo ever.

tinala

thanks for pointing out typo !!! well spotted !!

well, none of us feel comfortable with the truth; we in the west are still exploiting the poor third world.

that is why philipino women are here as nannies while their own kids are back at home for years and years .... that is why we adopt asian babies here when we can't have our own - and not the other way around... that is why eastern europeans are mopping our floors with their phd's and doctorates... not beacuse we are better or more intelligent or more 'moral'.... the truth is we hold the purse strings now. absolute power = absolute danger.

that is why we must not condone cathal's actions, even if he is one of our own....

Marshy

tinala wrote: »

the only reason he gets away with this horse **** is because they are young, poor and POWERLESS and he is rich,(relatively to them), western and beyond the law - he believes. well done to the lady who showed him in his true colours.

How does O'Searcaigh claim to be above the law as you say? I mean he hasn't even been proven guilty of anything as yet.

And on the point about this lady, it would seem clear that she's only interested in gaining publicity for her film and fame at the expense of a genuinely talented individual.

I don't neccessarily agree with what O'Searcaigh has allegedly done but I do believe the criticism of him has been totally over the top.

nacho libre

Marshy wrote: »

How does O'Searcaigh claim to be above the law as you say? I mean he hasn't even been proven guilty of anything as yet.

And on the point about this lady, it would seem clear that she's only interested in gaining publicity for her film and fame at the expense of a genuinely talented individual.

I don't neccessarily agree with what O'Searcaigh has allegedly done but I do believe the criticism of him has been totally over the top.

yeah it's all her fault for exposing it. how dare she bring this to the attention of the public. he should be left alone to continue exploiting these nepalese teenagers for sex. it's really disgraceful that anyone would want to excoriate him for it.

Marshy

nacho libre wrote: »

yeah it's all her fault for exposing it. how dare she bring this to the attention of the public. he should be left alone to continue exploiting these nepalese teenagers for sex. it's really disgraceful that anyone would want to excoriate him for it.

But why should she feel she has to tell the whole world about it? Ok if she feels strongly about the issue, go to the authorities and leave it at that. I think its quite pathetic if she's trying to cash in on the fiasco.

fits

I dont know much about this story, but there are two things I wonder...

Is 16 in Nepal the same as 16 in Ireland?

Would there have been as much fuss if it had been heterosexual rather than homosexual relations?

That is all.

nacho libre

Marshy wrote: »

But why should she feel she has to tell the whole world about it? Ok if she feels strongly about the issue, go to the authorities and leave it at that. I think its quite pathetic if she's trying to cash in on the fiasco.

perhaps she is motivated by her convictions rather than by financial gain.
she thought highly of him and subsequently discovered he wasn't worth of that estimation afterall.
Also, don't journalists have a duty to the public? he may have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law but as we all know just because something is legally ok does not mean it is ethically or morally ok.

The fact that he is a celebrated wordsmith does not mean he is any different from any wealthy western man that goes to the far east looking for sex with young people.

DadaKopf

tinala wrote: »

just imagine:
a man in his 50's moves in next door - he's great with the kids - encouraging etc... but then you hear from a few friends he's been inviting your teenagers and twenty-somethings over for 'sleep-overs' where he has sex with them (they were virgins ). how would you feel?

or if your 16 year old girl was seduced by a middle aged man? that cool?
no.

Absolutely, tinala. If people imagine the situation being reversed, and a 50 year old millionaire (male or female) regularly visits a remote village in Donegal and pays teenagers for sex, boys or girls, (or offers them equivalent inducements), people would be baying for the millionaire's blood.

anomie_desuetud

nacho libre wrote: »

perhaps she is motivated by her convictions rather than by financial gain.
she thought highly of him and subsequently discovered he wasn't worth of that estimation afterall.
Also, don't journalists have a duty to the public? he may have done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law but as we all know just because something is legally ok does not mean it is ethically or morally ok.

The fact that he is a celebrated wordsmith does not mean he is any different from any wealthy western man that goes to the far east looking for sex with young people.

It's horrifying that this man's name is being dragged through the worst kind of mud on the word of an up-to-now unknown filmmaker.
The only facts we know about Cathal is that he slept with some teenage Nepalese guys, because his quote stating that has been broadcast.

On the other hand, we know 1. that this woman, Neasa, previously made a film about Cathal which bombed. It was based on his charitable work in Nepal.
2. She made a second film, based on his sexual activities over there, and wasn't upfront about her intentions to him.
3. She didn't go to the authorities with her suspicions during the making of the first film, after making the first film or during the filming of the second movie. It was only when the film was finished and entered into a film festival in Amsterdam that she spoke to them.
4. She told the local HSE officials. They showed little interest but when she insisted they act they passed on her work of art to social services. The gardaí were eventually involved. They didn't act until the major media controversy started.
5. Disappointed with the response of the HSE, and bearing in mind that her big moment in Amsterdam was fast approaching, she went to the Rape Crisis Network, tipped off a few journalists and did everything she could to set the ball rolling.

What followed was a review in the Irish Times which provoked all sorts of outrage. This woman did not care about the teenagers; she cared about her film.

The thought of a man getting off on guys nearly 40 years younger gives me the shivers but I shudder way more at the realisation how easy it is to ruin a man in this country, based on nothing more than hearsay and lingering edits of distressed teens.
Now that Neasa has finally got around to telling people her suspicions, let's have an enquiry and only then decide if this man is the worst kind of evil monster or just a highly sexed sugardaddy.

Zulu

azezil wrote: »

I believe they're in a better position to say if its morally right or wrong than we do, it is their country after all.

Thats an interesting point Azezil, but I don't know it holds much weight. While the UN might be slow to react, do they not exert common morals over different countries? Will they not (albeit slowly) intervene when a country's morals become unpalatable?

We have our standards here but their standards are undoubtedly different, should everyone be bound by the morals and standards of conduct of their own country? I think not, the individual is subject to the authority of the land in which the act takes place.

...so if I move to a country that is ethnically cleansing homosexuals and gypsies, it's ok for me to kill homosexuals and gypsies? Do you REALLY believe that?

azezil

I believe every country is entitled to have its own sovereign rights, while I may not agree with them, I would respect them.

Zulu

That's fair enough I suppose, but do you not think we have a responsibility to every other human on this planet?
I mean, isn't our responsibility to deliver people from slavery for example? Or to secure against persecution? Personally I believe in basic human rights for all, regardless of sovereign rights.

Do you really agree that sovereign rights should supersede basic human rights?

azezil

Of course not, and I fail to see how human rights has anything to do with this case?

The age of sexual consent is 17yrs of age here, 16 there, are you saying a year make that much of a difference in ones sexual development and ability to choose?

Zulu

azezil wrote: »

Of course not, and I fail to see how human rights has anything to do with this case?

I was just interested how far you would apply that logic.

The age of sexual consent is 17yrs of age here, 16 there, are you saying a year make that much of a difference in ones sexual development and ability to choose?

I think that there is a huge difference between a 16 & 17 year old experimenting, and a mature adult taking advantage.

azezil

And if said 16 or 17yr old choose to experiment with an older man, is it still wrong?

Zulu

I believe so, yes. The child should be protected.

I read somewhere that in some countries, they have in effect a tierd system to the age of consent (I don't know where tbh). The idea was that should a 15 and a 16 year old have sex it wasn't illegal, but if a 15 and 19 had sex it was, and that it was fair game after 18. (basically, assuming that there was a large age gap it was legally ok) Which I think is a step in the right direction.

Whatever about this case, I personally find the whole child-sex tourism morally repulsive.

azezil

That's all well and good, but the fact remains, in Nepal where this encounter occurred the legal age of consent is 16, there is no mention of him ever forcing himself upon any of these young men.

One can but wonder if there'd be such an uproar if it were a 50 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old, I'd wager nothing would be said.

Tha Gopher

azezil wrote: »

Of course not, and I fail to see how human rights has anything to do with this case?

The age of sexual consent is 17yrs of age here, 16 there, are you saying a year make that much of a difference in ones sexual development and ability to choose?

Lets say its 15 somewhere else.
Does that mean people from that country should be allowed to do it with 14 year olds?

Hey, whats another year!



This O`Sercaigh guy rather reminds me of the South Park Super Adventurers Club tbh.

Bottle_of_Smoke

anomie_desuetud wrote: »

On the other hand, we know 1. that this woman, Neasa, previously made a film about Cathal which bombed. It was based on his charitable work in Nepal.
2. She made a second film, based on his sexual activities over there, and wasn't upfront about her intentions to him.
3. She didn't go to the authorities with her suspicions during the making of the first film, after making the first film or during the filming of the second movie. It was only when the film was finished and entered into a film festival in Amsterdam that she spoke to them.
4. She told the local HSE officials. They showed little interest but when she insisted they act they passed on her work of art to social services. The gardaí were eventually involved. They didn't act until the major media controversy started.
5. Disappointed with the response of the HSE, and bearing in mind that her big moment in Amsterdam was fast approaching, she went to the Rape Crisis Network, tipped off a few journalists and did everything she could to set the ball rolling.

What followed was a review in the Irish Times which provoked all sorts of outrage. This woman did not care about the teenagers; she cared about her film.

.

Why are you bringing this up? Does a desperate journalist make his actions any less wrong? Your post is like those f*ckwits who argue evolution is wrong based on racist comments by Darwin.

Anyway I'm glad she did all that, presuming she did actually do it. What he did was sick.

Sure a 16 year old from the local girlschool might be nice & tight but there's no way I'd go there. And I'm only 22. This guy is taking advantage of their mental age with his authority. Given he's paying for their education it's pretty much indirect prostitution. Wonder what effect it's gonna have on them thinking about him. Hope his career's f*cked & his life ruined.

Thumpette

I think Azezil is totally missing the point of this controversy. This is not about 16, 17, whatever age men choosing to explore their sexuality, this is about them being forced by their unfortunate circumstances to basically 'sell' themselves in order to have some sort of decent stab at an education and a life. We can hardly blame them for that, but it can only be possible for people to sell themselves in this way if there are men like Cathal O Searcaigh willing to take advantage of their circumstances. I am from the same area as O'Searcaigh, and I think it is fair to say, no matter how 'open his door' may be in Donegal he doesnt get many young men or boys going there to have sex with him. He knows as well as anyone else that these boys are only there for what he can offer them, and as far as I'm concerned he has pretty low moral values to take them up on this. Particularly, I might add, when he has spend the last 10+ years spouting all this noncence about the beautiful innocence of the people and his great work here. He painted himself as the generous benefactor- now people see the reality. I think the really sad thing is, I bet he genuinely feels he hass done nothing wrong.

nacho libre

Thumpette wrote: »

Particularly, I might add, when he has spend the last 10+ years spouting all this noncence about the beautiful innocence of the people and his great work here. He painted himself as the generous benefactor- now people see the reality. I think the really sad thing is, I bet he genuinely feels he hass done nothing wrong.

Exactly. He is a complete fraud.
Even if the journalists motives were not virtuous i'm glad he has being exposed for what he did. Why anyone would seek to defend his actions is troublesome.

fly_agaric

azezil wrote: »

One can but wonder if there'd be such an uproar if it were a 50 year old woman having sex with a 16 year old, I'd wager nothing would be said.

You may well be correct but that still doesn't make it okay does it? Such a double standard just highlights a blind spot of people (its more difficult for us to see women as having power over men/boys or exploiting men/boys in such a situation).