unbelievablely true - Paralympians 'disgusted' by Sunday Independent article

MiCr0

By Noel O'Reilly in Sydney Last updated: 08:58

The Chef de Mission of the Irish Paralympic team, Mr Jim McBride, has registered his "disgust" at the comments made by Miss Mary Ellen Synon concerning the Parlaympic Games.

Mr McBride said that he will be contacting the Chief Executive of the Sydney Paralympic Organising Committee, Ms Lois Appleby, regarding the issue before making a statement later today.

In a column which appeared in yesterday’s Sunday Independent Miss Synon described the Games as "grotesque" and "perverse". She went on to pour scorn on the Paralympic movement, saying physical competition is not about finding someone who can wobble his way around a track in a wheelchair, or can swim from one end of a pool to the other by braille."

Mr McBride will also be contacting the Minister for Sport, Tourism and Recreation, Dr Jim McDaid, to seek advice on the matter.

you really have to wonder what sort of writer and editor lets this sort of article be published in a national newspaper.

MiCr0

Baz_

Yes it is disgraceful and I would also like to register my disgust, right here and now.

My god, I can't even comment on it, because there would be too much speculation about what she was thinking at the time, I mean these people (paralympians) want to be fit (unlike myself, who is a fat *******) and want to prove how good they are at their chosen sport, just like michael johnson, sonia o'sullivan etc. The writer needs to explain herself, because I just don't understand her motives. 'nuff said

Hobbes

Maybe the writer was just looking for a way to get fired?

Doesn't the story have to be screened by 2-3 people before it even makes it into a paper? It would mean that at least 3 people agree with her.

Excelsior

she gets paid exactly to this. cause controversy. i stoppped reading the independent and the brilliant brendan o'connor and declan lynch because of this woman. she is the most appaling excuse for a literate intelligent person i have ever come across.
i had a run in with her once before when i worked in maplin and she was a disgruntled customer. not a nice lady capable of spouting great bs in search of a little infamy i fear.

C B

Excelsior
Since when could the words brilliant, intelligent or literate by ascribed to Brendan (i'm a fat ****er with a chip on my shoulder) O'Connor. or anybody else who writes for the Indo.

TwoShedsJackson

That woman disgusts me.

Excelsior

pardon me cb. your elequontly worded response has shown me how neglectful i was in endorsing him.
he is from cork after all.

Bard

Originally posted by C B:
Excelsior
Since when could the words brilliant, intelligent or literate by ascribed to Brendan (i'm a fat ****er with a chip on my shoulder) O'Connor. or anybody else who writes for the Indo.

The man should be beaten off the set of any RTÉ show he tries to do with a hefty stick with nails sticking out of the end. Oh arrr.........

---

Jak

What a bit(h.

Jak

On another note,

I'd like to see a list of the sporting achievements that ***** has.

The more I thought about this, the more it got to me. It is an absolute disgrace that a paper would allow such an article to be published to generate controversy. It really is a pretty sick sign of the times.

I think I'll go write that jumped up ***** a letter.

JAK

tHE vAGGABOND

Same bird who said travellers were 'animals' (among other things) some time back if I remember correct...

I dont mean to be a spectic but the simple reason she got away with saying it is that next week they have said the SinDo will print 2 pages to letters about the metter, and half the country will buy it, and therefore circulation will soar

Lump

She deserves to have her legs broken for that In my honest opinion.

John

pepperkin

Well, someday she'll be the b*tch in a wheelchair, and we will all get together and send her an invitation to the Paralympics, the snot-nosed 'ho!
She's one of those people Fate LOOVES to f*** with...she'll get hers, the ignorant [censored].
In the meantime, everyone pour your hearts out to the [censored] in nasty letters.

TwoShedsJackson

Aengus Fanning, the editor of the Sindo has apologised for the comments. I love the 'we did not mean to cause offence to the disabled' like the article calls them 'lame & grotesque' so they have a nerve saying that.

Nice to see that the tabloids are digging up the dirt on her now - lets see if she takes it as well as she gives it.

Bard

That apology...
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/front/2000/1025/fro3.htm

Hrmmmm...!

---

Hobbes

heh heh That was an apology? I didn't hear any remorse in her comments. More along the lines of "Read my story".

Derek Bell

Originally posted by Hobbes:
Maybe the writer was just looking for a way to get fired?

Nope, Mary Ellen Synon has written drivel like this before - I think she was investigated for Incitement to Hatred.

Personally, I think satire is a better reaction than suing to think kind of scrawling.

A few months back, when the elderly people were found dead in a house in Leixlip, she said they would have made the perfect neighbours!

Derek Bell

Originally posted by Jak:
On another note,

I'd like to see a list of the sporting achievements that ***** has.

The more I thought about this, the more it got to me. It is an absolute disgrace that a paper would allow such an article to be published to generate controversy. It really is a pretty sick sign of the times.

I'd like to see a list of journalistic achievements the hack Synon has.

I'm not surprised that the article was published in that paper - it *is* the Sindo, after all.

Derek Bell

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
Nice to see that the tabloids are digging up the dirt on her now - lets see if she takes it as well as she gives it.

She had a fling with the governor of the Bank of England - even having it off in his office. (Would that make him a Bonk Governor?)

Take it

I can't say I've watch much of the paralypics but I did find it a bit disturbing to see the javelin throw with ppl in wheelchairs and swimmers with one leg etc. and some people don't find it disturbing thats fine.

But what about freedom of speech if she felt that way about the paralypics is she not initialed to have her say? anyone else is initialed to have there say and argue against it. If the artical was edited would it be ok? or is that not just adjusting the media to keep people happy (which goes on a lot I know).

She had every right to print that article. Articles are printed saying motor racing is a load of $hite cars driving around a track or players chasing a round ball is boring blah blah to me that's the same thing but because its the paralympics everyone blows it out of proportion and sees it as rasict.

Maybe I'm wrong but does anyone else agree?

pepperkin

No, you're right, she had every right to print any article she likes.
Thing is what people NEVER understand is that your rights only go as far as the next persons begins.
That is to say, a person has the right to try to kill someone else, but the other person ALSO has the right to want to live, nullifying person ones rights...
A persons rights are not omnipotent. They have to consider who elses rights they are infringing upon when they decide to enact their own.
In this case, she had the right to print the article, and other people have the right to be ****ed about her callous, uncaring remarks, as well.
It goes both ways.
People in the paralympics work VERY hard, often harder than their physically fit counterparts, to compete. I myself admire their strength, their courage, and their determination to succeed far more than I would someone with full physical capacity. That's just me. I don't find it painful to watch them, because THEY are proud of who they are, and they don't give a damn what the world thinks.
If we were ALL born with no legs, then the person born with two legs (and whom would have MUCH greater maneuverability and options than the rest of the no-leggers) most would hate him, call him a "freak" and make him feel substandard when in reality, the closed minded are the substandard because they cannot accept differences. Differences mean different ways of learning, different scopes for observation, and actually BENEFIT *ALL* people, as differences aid in looking at the world from every angle, why can't many people understand that?
I'm preaching, aren't I...
*shuts up*
bad Pepper, bad Pepper...
In any case I think I have made my point...
I'm entitled to that with my human rights, lol!

Take it

Yes point taken!

But I feel there are a lot maybe not the majority but a lot of people that feel the same as she did and she just voiced her opinion in the paper just like I can on these boards there nothing stopping me.

Yes fair play to them making it to the paralympics I'm sure it was hard work very hard work but that doesn't change my view on the paralypics when I see it on tele I find it hard to watch why? I don't know its just a natural thing to me to find it hard to watch and yes if we had no legs and one person did id probably do the same thing.

That is to say, a person has the right to try to kill someone else, but the other person ALSO has the right to want to live, nullifying person ones rights...
A persons rights are not omnipotent. They have to consider who elses rights they are infringing upon when they decide to enact their own.

Nobody has the right to kill anybody and she didn't infringe anybody elses rights. She may have hurt people with the article and you're right people have a right to be ticked off just as much as I have a right to agree with her and that she had to print that article.

[This message has been edited by Take it (edited 30-10-2000).]

plastic membrane

i dont think its a question of the opinions she spouted, more the astonishingly inappropriate language she used. There is such a thing called tact, and it appears that she (or the editors of the Sunday Indo, ever the paragon of brilliant journalism) has very little of that.

---

Im going to the bear fights tomorrow, want to come with ??

Jak

Free Speech ... She doesn't deserve it.

Personally I see a great difference between free speech on a social level and on a journalistic level (but I have neither the time nor inclination to argue this).

End of the day, she is a sad, immature self righteous whore.

I followed a fair bit of the Para Games, and found some (not all, but the same went for the other Games) of the events very entertaining and exciting.

I appreciate some people may find it a little disconcerting to watch, but if you ever meet a Para competitor it will likely change your view.

I train a fair amount, and having seen a guy in a wheelchair training in a gym I was in one day, it amazed me to see how he had modified so many excercises to allow himself to train to the full extent. At the time, I thought that it was impressive that someone who suffered an accident like that, would then, rather than quit, find ways to train around it.

There is all the same preparation, discipline, determination and effort in those competitors as others, and that is what makes the events worth watching in both cases.

A close Swim race is exciting regardless of the times, and lets face it, not many of you really think about the times in anything other than the 100m.

Anyhows,

Shes a *****,

JAK.

Jak

She knew exactly what she was doing when she was writing that piece.

Trouble with apologies is they always come after the damage.

Talliesin

For those who don't remember, Synon is also the immigrant who wrote articles about the need to stop immigration!

I don't give a **** about Synon's "Freedom of Speech".

At the Nuremberg trials the editor of Der Strümer was hung, because his "Freedom of Speech" (which the courts of the pre-Nazi era had defended when he was sued by a Jew for defamation) helped kill 6million people.

The Freedom of Speech I am willing to defend is that of the UN Declaration of Human Rights (Article 19:
"Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.")

Because this is qualified by Article 30:
"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein."

In otherwords hate-speech is not protected, therefore any claim to defend Synon on the grounds of "free-speech" is bogus.

pepperkin

Jak said..."End of the day, she is a sad, immature self righteous whore. "

Bingo. (but you forgot condescending, callous, insensitive, superficial, and ignorant. But who's counting?)


Jak said.."I train a fair amount, and having seen a guy in a wheelchair training in a gym I was in one day, it amazed me to see how he had modified so many excercises to allow himself to train to the full extent. At the time, I thought that it was impressive that someone who suffered an accident like that, would then, rather than quit, find ways to train around it."

Completely! I agree. It's impressive. I can't find it painful to watch, I find it the same as any other Olympic sport...exciting, and awe inspiring. (I can't jump 20 meters...) I have had many friends in wheelchairs, due to differing circumstances (car accident, birth defects) and I found them all incredible people with amazing stamina. How can anyone look down upon other people for slight differences is beyond me...


Jak also said (getting tired of being quoted yet, Jak?)"She knew exactly what she was doing when she was writing that piece."

Damn right she did, and I still think she should spend a week or two in a wheelchair and we'll see what she says then. Don't look down on people until you have been in their shoes. (or chair, or whatever.)And with that, I'm done

C B

Of course she has the freedeom to say what she likes, as we have the right to ignore her. If anybody is really ****ed off about this then don't buy the Indo anymore (or check who advertises in it and write to them saying you won't buy their product. I think that there are alot of self-righteous PC morans feigning offence when they probably didn't even read the article (i know i didn't)

Jak

Originally posted by C B:
I think that there are alot of self-righteous PC morans feigning offence when they probably didn't even read the article (i know i didn't)

Surely you mean Morons?

Anyhows,

I never buy the Indo. I have no intention of ever buying it.

The first I heard of this article was here, then I read it, then I heard a few radio discussions on the subject.

I despise this sort of "journalism". I also despise self righteous and uneducated PC exhibitionism.

There is nothing PC about saying what she did was wrong. You know me quite well CB, I am anything but mild in a lot of my viewpoints, nor do I get attached to PC causes.

However, I fail to see why this woman should be allowed to publicly denigrate in one fell swoop all the achievements of every Paralympic Athlete without recourse.

Just because we can choose to ignore her does not imply that she can say whatever the **** she feels like. Free speech has and requires boundaries in the public domain.

JAK.

Take it

(ive lost a long post i posted so this is shorter and to the point)

She was obiously forced to make that apoligy which made her look worse.

by Jak
However, I fail to see why this woman should be allowed to publicly denigrate in one fell swoop all the achievements of every Paralympic Athlete without recourse.

Good point

But if she critisied lets say the body building compitision saying its sick all those muscles etc. etc. would there be as much up-roar? it's just because its a touchy subject theres up-roar. If the people in the paralypics want to be treated the same as any other sports person they should be able to take some critisim aswell as anyone else.

Yes she did use the wrong words in the article i agree there. Yes we do have the right to critise her aswell i never said we didn't.

I IN NO WAY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DISABLED PEOPLE my mam is disabled with a very bad back im just sticking up for a side of the story which i think everyone was overlooking theres always 2 sides to a story.

Repeating that: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH A DISABLED PERSON!!

Derek Bell

Originally posted by Take it:
But what about freedom of speech if she felt that way about the paralypics is she not initialed to have her say?

Although I disagree deeply with what she said and found her article offensive, I would agree she has the right to free expression. Just like I have the right to criticise her writing.

What I found interesting is that she apologised for causing offence and said she didn't intend to cause any - she hasn't apologised before for causing offence.

C B

Originally posted by Jak:
Surely you mean Morons?

No I meant Morans (did you see the way Kevin Moran reacted and that Moran family up the road from me ...... )

Originally posted by Jak:

Just because we can choose to ignore her does not imply that she can say whatever the **** she feels like. Free speech has and requires boundaries in the public domain.

Mmmmm.. "Limits to Our Freedom" isn't this the calling card of the Republican Party (Reagan and Bush).
In truth Jak most people here believe what she said was utterly wrong but that does not diminish her right to say it. I believe that most people (in wider society) are faking offence to make themselves feel better about their own intolerence and hypocracy.

P.S an interesting aside - The Irish Wheelchair Association have noticed a huge upswing in donations and every government minister is suddenly desperate to here their budget submission : So every cloud has a silver lining.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 01-11-2000).]

Bard

Originally posted by C B:
Mmmmm.. "Limits to Our Freedom" isn't this the calling card of the Republican Party (Reagan and Bush).

Who really cares about the régimes or ideals of Reagan and Bush? This is Ireland, not America, the "land of the free"... and may we be grateful for what we've got.

In truth Jak most people here believe what she said was utterly wrong but that does not diminish her right to say it.

Agreed. Just because she's been completely insensitive and cruel in her remarks doesn't reduce in any way her right to express such an opinion. What should influence her though is the responsibility bestowed upon her and the natural expectations there should be of her in her position as a print journalist who's words are read by a large amount of the Irish populous... oh and those little thing called "tact", "common sense" and "conscience" which don't seem to have affected her yet.

The Irish Wheelchair Association have noticed a huge upswing in donations and every government minister is suddenly desperate to here their budget submission : So every cloud has a silver lining.

As someone who did a small amount of work before helping out the Irish Wheelchair Association, and as a wholehearted supporter of theirs, I know about the great work they do and it's brilliant to see them benefit in any way, even if the improvement in donations to them is so rare and needs a public controversy like this to bring the good work they do to the fore.

Long may the increase in donations to them continue.

---

[This message has been edited by Bard (edited 02-11-2000).]

Talliesin

there are alot of self-righteous PC morans feigning offence

Funny, I'd associate the phrase "self-righteous PC morans[sic]" with the Jeffersonian First Amendment Fundamentalists who argue that we need "Freedom of Speech"[sic] at any cost like the ACLU who defend pornographers, nazis, rapists and pædophiles while real abuses of Freedom of Speech happen every day without even being acknowledged.

C B

Originally posted by Bard
Who really cares about the régimes or ideals of Reagan and Bush? This is Ireland, not America, the "land of the free"... and may we be grateful for what we've got.

Well its a question of hypocracy. We either have a free press or we don't there is no in between. Therefore she can publish what she likes.
It's ironic how all the psuedo-liberal PC warriors want us to live in a police state

C B

Personally I would rather have the option of ignoring the stupid ***** myself then have somebody else do it for me. And risk my own opinions being deemed unsuitable for public expression.
Can I assume that everybody who would deny Miss. Synon her freedom of speech also believes that the Internet should be have an external censor?
I would find such a development abhorent. Take these boards for example we all have the opportunity to express our (differing) opinions and these are moderated. If somebody were to post what she did in her article I would hope that Castor would delete it. If he choose not to I may stop using the Boards but I would not like to see them closed down.
freedom of expression is a universal issue if it is denied to one then it is denied to all.

p.s. - Most importantly banning/censoring the expression of opinions will not make the opinions go away it will simply let us ignore the problem in peace.

TwoShedsJackson

Originally posted by C B:

If somebody were to post what she did in her article I would hope that Castor would delete it. If he choose not to I may stop using the Boards but I would not like to see them closed down.
freedom of expression is a universal issue if it is denied to one then it is denied to all.

p.s. - Most importantly banning/censoring the expression of opinions will not make the opinions go away it will simply let us ignore the problem in peace.

I would consider whether or not to delete/censor any topic or post on an indivdual basis or if I got any complaints about it.

Your post is contradictiory C B, you would hope that I would censor an offensive post on the boards yet you then state (correctly) that banning the post only lets us ignore an ignorant person in peace. Do you favour or oppose a censoring system for the internet, if a practical one could be put in place?

I oppose any form of censorship and feel that everyone is entitled to express themselves as they like, just as I am entitled to think they are an a$$hole for it.

It does people good to be reminded that there are bigots, rascists and fools in society that need to be confronted and opposed lest their views become that of the majority.

Hobbes

Let her type away I say. See how long it takes for thier advertising to be pulled because the companies find thier reporters offensive.

C B

Originally posted by Castor Troy:
I would consider whether or not to delete/censor any topic or post on an indivdual basis or if I got any complaints about it.

Your post is contradictiory C B, you would hope that I would censor an offensive post on the boards yet you then state (correctly) that banning the post only lets us ignore an ignorant person in peace. Do you favour or oppose a censoring system for the internet, if a practical one could be put in place?

My post isn't contradictory. I stated that I don't want to see external censor. Of course there will always be internal censor in a colective organisation (editors in newspapers; moderators in chat rooms/bulliten boards) due to collective responsibility.
If ppl on the boards continually expressed the kind of opinions in that the indo prints I would probably stop reading and posting because the internal censor wasn't operating in an appropriate manner.

Jak

In this case,

Her right to free speech caused significant and direct offence to a large body of people.

Censorship in this case, is not to spare us all from considering her distasteful viewpoint, but rather to prevent her from offending others for her own personal gain.

As an aside, I doubt if the woman actually has any strong convictions on the matter, she is simply taking an opportunity to grab some attention.

Mainstream media requires a little more tact and management.

C B

Originally posted by Jak:


Mainstream media requires a little more tact and management.

Yes, I agree entirely. It would be preferable if such fringe opinions were confined to the fringe media. The people to blame for this are the editors of the Indo not the author of the article. She has a right to say and write whatever she feels like (as we all do) and the Indo has a choice whether or not to publish it. They chose to and i for one am not happy that they did but do not believe that there should be a state enforced sanction for their "error" (can't think of a better word)

---

All and all the world is small enough for both of us to meet upon the interstate.

tHE vAGGABOND

Ireland does not have the right to free speech anywhere in its laws. Legally, no one has any rights to free speech here

Hence when the same woman wrote about travellers, she could not hide behind free speech or anything else, she was chaged with 'Inciting hatred' - which is a criminal offence...

C B

Originally posted by tHE vAGGABOND
Ireland does not have the right to free speech anywhere in its laws. Legally, no one has any rights to free speech here

Article 40 of Bunreacht na hEireann sets out the fundemental rights of citizens. Paragraph 6 Point 1.i allows for;

The right of the citizens to express freely
their convictions and opinions.

The qualifications of this right state that "the organs of public opinion .... shall not be used to undermine public order, morality, or the authuority of the State"

So while it could be spuriously argued that Synon's article undermines morality it is simply untrue to say that there is no right to freedom of speech.

---

All and all the world is small enough for both of us to meet upon the interstate.

[This message has been edited by C B (edited 02-11-2000).]

C B

Oh yeah!! and I suppose it might undermine public order: If you count the boistrous protest of the PC policemen

Hobbes

Also you have the right to free speech under EU law as well I believe.

As mentioned many times before though it doesn't give you the right to use any medium as you see fit.

So if the paper refused to print her story they would not be restricting her freedom of speech.

tHE vAGGABOND

In the USA, it seems to me, you can say what you want and one of the things you can 'hide behind' is freedom of speech. Of course there are exceptions either way. Look at extremists, pornographers and the like, they hide behind freedom of speech and freedom of expression. While it may not be successful on every single occasion, it is, at the very least, a very strong argument!

While we may have the right to express opinions alright, In my experience, our ( quite) tight libel laws and other case law makes the actual right quite restrictive. The same would go with EU law. I may be wrong but not all EU law is blanket across all member states, in every circumstance. I seem to remember that with regard to speech and expression there was some hassle as there is a large degree of difference in the laws of the member states (ie: Netherlands and us for example!!)

But your right, shes a right wing b1tch!

I’m sure its been said here, but what happened was she submitted her article at some funny time, when the editor of the paper was not about. So some random sub-editor passed the article...

BTW - apparently she wrote an article a few months back trying to back the theories behind the KKK!!

TwoShedsJackson

Freedom of Speech is 'protected' in the USA

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

which is somewhat more broad than our own Bunracht na hEireann.

TwoShedsJackson

Amendment XXVII

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

actually our friends in Dail Eireann might do well to enact something similar if they want to restore some sort of credibility to their positions.

Jak

We don't have a free press, and thankfully not.

As Tal mentioned, if free speech/free press means people can say/publish whatever they like, we would have all sorts of fkin sick publications out there.

I can't understand this all or nothing approach to things. How about a bit of balance? Just because someone edits some *****es article on paralympians on the grounds it may cause serious offence and belittle the achievements of them, does not mean we are losing some valuable voice in society.

Boundaries and limits can and should be set.

And don't expect me to post them up here, the thread would take up too much time which I dont have.

However, it is quite possible to put together a well balanced board of people to represent the nations various interests with regards to media.

Then allow these people to censor.

Her article was a cheap attempt to generate controversy and get a little limelight. I wish here a speedy death ... in the world of journalism.

I took offence, as i thought it was plain nasty to publicly belittle the achievments of others for no purpose other than to make herself seem important and interesting.

JAK.

ps- If i were to take any of you into a public setting and label you a freak, inferior and sub-human, would it make much of a difference to you if the Inferior sub-human freak fund got an extra £20's a day?

Talliesin

CB, for all your PC bull**** about Freedom of Speech I fail to see how you can complain about people defining this as hate-speech and wishing to see it prosecuted (whether through the courts or through public outrage) as such.

Freedom of Speech is an essential part of democracy and a freedom I am willing do defend (I have in the past distributed information which was banned by the Irish State).

First Amendment Fundamentalism however (I imagine in Ireland we could call this Article 40 Fundamentalism) serves nobody's Freedom except for pornographers, pædophiles and bigots.

TwoShedsJackson

Talliesin, if you really beleive in the freedom of speech you must also extend that to pornographers, paedophiles & bigots, or it is the height of hypocrisy.

Bigots invariably take the 'enough rope to hang themselves' approach soon enough.