Professor Brian MacCraith, Chair of the Independent Future of Media Commission
A newly-established Future of Media Commission intends to “chart a pathway” for public service broadcasting and independent media in Ireland. [My emphasis]
In September 2020, the Irish government announced the new Future of Media Commission, which will examine how “public service objectives” can be funded in a sustainable way, with independent editorial oversight and value for money. The Commission will then make a recommendation on its findings to the government.
As an initial step, the Commission is conducting a public consultation by inviting the views of the public on the key questions to be addressed in its work. The closing date for receipt of public submissions was today Friday 8 January 2020 so (as is my habit) I got mine in at the last minute and here it is.
.Question 1. How should Government develop and support the concept and role of public service media and what should its role in relation to public service content in the wider media be?
You ask "What can be learned from the evolution of public service media over the last decade?"
In 2004 I made an official complaint to Broadcasting Complaints Commission (I think it was then) re RTE's broadcast of the 2002 film "Song for a Raggy Boy" AND RTE notice afterwards inviting people who had been affected by the film to ring a dedicated phone number to voice their pain.
I cannot locate my submission now BUT I referred to it in my Blog article 'Recovered Memory' in Ireland and Allegations of Child Abuse" specifically in the last sections "Patrick Galvin, 'Song for a Raggy Boy' and 'Recovered Memory' " and the Conclusion. The culminating scene in the FILM features a boy being kicked to death by a "Brother in Christ" (Christian Brother backwards). There is no such scene in the 1991 autobiographical BOOK by Patrick Galvin on which the film is supposed to be based, nor of sex abuse either. The murder and sex abuse scenes were added to spice up the film!
When this sort of thing is done to Jews - in the Nazi film Jew Suss that I referred to in my complaint to BCC - it is called Blood Libel. (The 1925 BOOK "Jew Suss" did not include Suss raping or killing anyone.)
The Christian Brothers had to issue a statement saying that Patrick Galvin was never in any institution run by them. However BCC rejected my complaint saying "RTE point out that the film is a work of fiction based on a memoir of actual events. Allowing for dramatic licence therefore, everything depicted in the film does not have to be fully accurate." Indeed you could say the same about the Nazi version of Jew Suss compared to the original! WHY did RTE provide a phone number for members of the public who were inspired by events in the film?
This was OVER 10 years ago but RTE continued in the same vein over the last decade. In 2011 they libelled Fr Kevin Reynolds on Prime Time's "Mission to Prey" as having father a child by raping an underage girl. Instead of a normal investigation of the grotesque claim, they door-stopped him after a First Communion service. They then ignored his offer to take a DNA test and broadcast the libel anyway. A NORMAL conman - motivated by desire for money or fame - would have drawn back at the priest's offer of a DNA test but RTE were blinded by an anti-Clerical hatred no better than the anti-Semite variety!
In 2014 RTE libelled John Waters, Breda O'Brien and other members of the Iona Institute by describing them as Homophobes. It doesn't compare to their previous child rape and murder lies but it stands out because the RTE presenter INVITED "Miss Panti Bliss" to make the comment. To that extent it was well up to RTE's standard! I should also point out that following the libel settlement the then Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte expressed his desire to change the law in order to make it more difficult to sue RTE. If one of his own ideological allies had been libelled, Minister Rabbitte would have said the opposite! I have written about this in "The Role of Pat Rabbitte"
In 2017 RTE libelled Kevin Myers - well known strong supporter of Israel - as a Holocaust-denier following similar libels by Taoiseach Leo Varadkar and Tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald. It took RTE 2 years to apologise even after the Broadcasting Authority had ruled the claim was false. Kevin Myers said he had feared having to sell his house if he lost the libel case - but of course RTE faced no risk at all. I wrote about this in "Kevin Myers and the Age of de Valera and McQuaid"
It is no co-incidence that Kevin Myers is the ONLY journalist to have defended former Sister of Mercy Nora Wall when she was wrongly convicted of rape in 1999. RTE will NEVER libel a "progressive" journalist!
Given THAT background, there's nothing strange about RTE's recent skit featuring God raping Mary and broadcasting it during the Christmas season on the eve of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God on 1st January. There is NO way they would broadcast a skit featuring Muhammed raping a 9 year old girl and do so during Ramadan on the eve of Eid. Just as they wouldn't libel a Muslim cleric with an accusation of fathering a child by raping a girl. I referred above to RTE being motivated by anti-Clerical Hatred BUT Muslims have clerics as well so anti-Catholic hatred is a better description of their attitude!
Question 2. How should public service media be financed sustainably?
You ask "What is the best model for future funding of public service media in Ireland? What approach best supports independent editorial oversight while achieving value for money and delivering on public service aims?"
RTE should be defunded. I read that it receives €180 million from the taxpayer each year. I also see that "public service aims" includes "to ensure that the public has access to high quality, impartial, independent journalism, reporting .. in a balanced way and which contributes to democratic discourse".
In the interests of "balance" would RTE consider broadcasting the film "Jew Suss"? It may be as vile as "Song for a Raggy Boy" and includes scenes not depicted in the (somewhat) more realistic BOOK but at least RTE could say "we're not favouring one side over another".
I was told by a member of Nora Wall's defence team that she was convicted in a climate of hysteria created by the media and SPECIFICALLY by Mary Raftery's States of Fear series, broadcast by RTE just before the trial in 1999! In 2005 I corresponded with then editor of the Irish Times Geraldine Kennedy regarding this issue (among other) and published the exchange on my Blog here: "Mary Raftery and Blood Libel"
This kind of thing has been going on for over 20 years now and I don't believe there is ANY possibility of RTE reforming themselves and delivering "impartial, independent journalism" that "contributes to democratic discourse". In other words, they cannot act as a Public Service Broadcaster and should NOT receive public funds!
Question 3. How should media be governed and regulated?
You ask "Are current legislative and regulatory controls for public service media adequate?"
In my answer to Question 1, I pointed out that, following RTE's libel settlement with John Waters and others in 2014, the then Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte expressed his desire to change the law in order to make it more difficult to sue RTE!
Even before being appointed Minister, Pat Rabbitte had a well-earned reputation as an anti-Catholic bigot especially due to his role in bringing down the Reynolds Government in 1994. In relation to THAT episode, historian Diarmaid Ferriter wrote "Some became angry that when Harry Whelehan was questioned and denied the existence of a Catholic conspiracy within the Attorney-General's office, he felt the need to defend his right to be a practicing Catholic."
If someone like Pat Rabbitte can be appointed Minister for Communications then NO conceivable "legislative and regulatory controls" will force RTE to carry out their duty to act as a Public Service Broadcaster. They should be denied public funding and obliged to to fund themselves by advertisements and subscriptions like other media!
Archbishop Diarmuid AKA Kent Brockman welcoming our Insect Overlords
(A) Former Catholic Ireland and our New Secular (Insect) Overlords
Ladies and Gentlemen .....The Corvair spacecraft has apparently been taken over, 'conquered' if you will, by a master race of giant space ants. It's difficult to tell from this vantage point whether they will consume the captive Earthmen or merely enslave them. One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
And from the other side - Adolf Hitler: "The final state must be: in St Peter's Chair, a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish. The young and healthy are on our side".
I have a previous article on this Blog The Decadence of the Sisters of Mercy describing nuns whose current mental and moral status isn't far removed from that described by Hitler. I have an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin on my old websiteIrishSalem.com Unfortunately his antics cannot be explained or excused by Senility!
This current article is, in part, a response to one by the Religious Affairs correspondent of the Irish Times Patsy McGarry on the Archbishop's forthcoming retirement - "Diarmuid Martin’s Successor Must be Cut From the Same Cloth" (subtitle "Fears Rome will impose an archbishop more interested in protecting its own interests") What our secular elite (or Insect Overlords) require is a prelate with minimal concern for the rights of falsely accused priests like Fr Kevin Reynolds or laity like John Waters BOTH libelled by State broadcaster RTE - as child abuser and homophobe respectively. Or indeed for the rights of a family - including four children - driven out of their home on 4 occasions by mobs. I write about the latter case in Section (E) below .
(B) Archbishop Diarmuid and I
I have had a few run ins with Archbishop Diarmuid over the years. More than a decade ago when I was still (relatively) young and innocent, I sent him two emails regarding false allegations of child abuse against Catholic clergy. I can't locate them just now but they would have been an early version of my article Eight Falsely Accused Bishops (and Archbishops) in Ireland No reply - not even an acknowledgement . A few weeks later I attended the Easter ceremonies in the Pro-Cathedral in Dublin which was my usual annual habit at the time (I have since changed it) and ran into his secretary there. I mentioned it to him and he suggested that I put the emails in writing and send them by post. I did so and again - of course - there was no reply. Some time later I spoke about this episode during a public meeting and said I assumed it was because the Archbishop is a "Liberal" and doesn't communicate with Reactionaries like myself. A very liberal priest there assured me that he had the same problem getting a response and that our Archbishop only communicates with VIPs! (Note [1] and [2] )
My article Irish "Antifa" Attacks Protesters - "Liberal" Irish Media Don't Mind includes a description of an indirect run in with the Archbishop - see section on "The Decadence of Archbishop Diarmuid". I have been at three demonstrations (in favour of Free Speech and opposing the Covid lockdown regulations) at which we were violently attacked by Antifa types - and I barely missed a fourth one which turned out to be the most violent. The Archbishop appears to have said nothing about the attackers but he condemns those of us who were targeted by the thugs. Weimar style decadence!
(C) The Archbishop and Miss Panti Bliss
In February 2014 Irish State broadcaster RTE agreed to pay libel damages to six members of the Iona Institute (for Religion and Society) after a TV broadcast on the Saturday Night Show in which drag queen Rory O'Neill - alias Miss Panti Bliss - described them as Homophobes. It was not a spontaneous act - he was invited by RTE presenter Brendan O'Connor to name names! Irish Times columnist Breda O’Brien told the Irish Times that she and other members of the Iona Institute only sought libel damages after RTÉ refused to apologise over the claim of homophobia.
Ms O’Brien said she was not “remotely interested in money”, but agreed to accept damages because “people don’t take you seriously unless there is some sort of settlement. The key issue here is that RTÉ walked itself into a defamation case and then offered a completely inadequate response which is a right of reply”. She maintained that Saturday Night Show presenter Brendan O’Connor should never have asked Mr O’Neill to name names. “All we wanted was an apology and was offered a completely inadequate response which was a right of reply. It is not up to you to defend yourself. It is up to the organisation that defamed you."
The six Iona members - including another Irish Times journalist John Waters - accepted a modest total amount of €85,000 but there were furious objections in the Irish Parliament and media to any payment. It was necessary for RTÉ’s head of television Glen Killane to explain that the €85,000 payout saved the broadcaster “an absolute multiple” in the long term. Mr Killane said it would have been “absolutely reckless” of RTÉ not to settle the case. He told RTÉ Radio’s News at One programme the broadcaster was faced with six different defamation actions and was told by “very senior counsel” that it was unlikely it would be able to defend any defamation action in court.
So how did the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin react to the libelling by our national broadcaster of what Wikipedia describes as "a socially conservative Roman Catholic advocacy group"? Well naturally he had no objection! According to a report in The National Post (Canada)
The Catholic Church’s senior official in Dublin, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, conceded that the church did harbour people with hostile and un-Christian attitudes toward gays. “Anybody who doesn’t show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God,” Martin said. “They are not just homophobic if they do that. They are actually God-ophobic, because God loves every one of those people.”
O’Neill, as is his style, had a quip to capture the absurdity of his situation. “I love the fact that the archbishop has essentially come out for Team Panti,” he told the AP.
(D) The Archbishop and the Sisters of Mercy
"..a senile officiant; facing him, a few sinister old women, as gaga and poor in spirit as anyone could wish..." Adolf Hitler predicts future of Catholic Church
A few years ago I was told an extra-ordinary story about the Sisters of Mercy and Archbishop Diarmuid. Apparently the Sisters were deeply shocked when the Archbishop threw them to the wolves in the aftermath of the publication of the Ryan Report on industrial schools in May 2009. So the nuns who cheerfully betrayed their own innocent colleagues in a desperate attempt to make themselves popular with "victims", were surprised when the Archbishop did the same to them. Obviously there's no honour among thieves!
I have an article on the Sisters of Mercy in my old website (not Blog) IrishSalem.com This story may be related to the following extract from that article:
Finally and In Conclusion Bishop Willie Walsh was quoted by Patsy McGarry in the Irish Times on 14 November 2009:
He had been speaking recently to the leadership team of the Mercy congregation’s southern province, “women who have given their lives in the service of the church”, and who were “very broken, very sad”. They felt “let down by us, the bishops”.
So that explains nearly a decade and a half of self-degradation by the Sisters of Mercy - and other female religious. It was the Bishops that made them do it!
(E) Is Archbishop Diarmuid Martin a Saviour of the Irish Church? (Politics.ie discussion)
Corelli Dec 18 2011:He is liked and disliked in equal measure in Rome, one hears. Liked because he is the only bishop who has handled the clerical abuse issue properly. Disliked because, for the Roman church, he is an extreme liberal, which to most mortals, would make him a mild conservative.
Kilbarry [Myself]Dec 19 2011: I have a long article on the Archbishop on my website and part of it refers to a discussion on Politics.ie over a year ago [i.e. in 2010].
The Archbishop and Mob Hysteria In June/ July 2010 in Co. Wicklow, a family comprising parents and four children were driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs. On the last occasion the mob burned down their home in Ashford. The reason for the hyteria was that 18 years previously (in 1992) the husband had been convicted of a sex offence against a minor and got a suspended sentence of six months. There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website entitled "Labour Councillors Join Mob Harassment of Innocent Family" and I wrote (among other things}:Labour Councillors Join Mob Harrassment of Innocent Family - Page 18
The family have been hounded out of Kilcoole, Redcross, Rathnew and Ashford. I think they are all in the Archdiocese of Dublin which covers most of Co. Wicklow as well. Ashford certainlly is and that is where their house was burned down. Archbishop Diarmuid Martin has become a great hero of the liberal media because of the way he has dealt with allegations of child sexual abuse. He cannot make a speech without denouncing the evils of abuse and apologising for the way the Church dealt with them in the past. He even put pressure on Bishop Martin Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy Report. (Like the Wicklow mob, the Archbishop seems to believe in guilt by association.) ......Would it be too much to ask the Archbishop to condemn the behaviour of the people who hound an innocent mother and her four children? The mob are abusing these innocents. Moreover the hysteria and fanaticism generated by the mob will rebound on real victims of child sexual abuse in the future. Cynicism is what normally follows after Hysteria.
MY CURRENT COMMENT [Dec 2011]: Archbishop Martin likes to run with the hares and hunt with the hounds. He has no intention of raising issues that might bother Irish "liberals" - for example why did Labour Councillors on Co Wicklow back up the actions of those mobs?
NotAnotherPolitician said: How come he could spend €94,000 on a kitchen for his palace if he is all you make him out to be?
Kilbarry [Myself] - reply to NotAnotherPoliticianDec 19 2011 The fact that he kept his mouth shut when mobs in his diocese drove a family (including 4 children) out of their home on four occasions and burnt the house the last time, is rather more important that what he spends on his kitchen. So is the following from my article Archbishop Diarmuid Martin,
The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin The most egregious example is the Archbishop's treatment of retired auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony. The Archbishop removed Bishop O'Mahony from his position as director of the archdiocese's pilgrimage to Lourdes on the basis that “I regret that you did not express any public clarification or remorse or apology” (letter dated 2 December 2009). However Bishop O’Mahony had sent a statement to the Archbishop’s Director of Communications Annette O’Donnell on 27 October 2009 which concluded : “I profoundly regret that any action or inaction of mine should have contributed to the suffering of even a single child. I want to apologise for my failures from the bottom of my heart”. The statement was not published by the Communications Office but Annette O'Donnell confirmed that the Archbishop had seen it. He made no apology to Dermot O'Mahony and indeed continued to criticise him. ....
Martin told lies about one of his own auxiliary bishops. Presumably he thought he could get away with it because after all, what could Bishop O'Mahony do about it? Well Bishop O'Mahony passed on the correspondence to the Irish Catholic and from there it got to the rest of the media. This was unprecedented in the history of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Martin's treatment of Bishop O'Mahony is one of the major reasons why the Archbishop is disliked and indeed despised by his own priests and by the rest of the hierarchy. The fact that anti-clerics love him goes without saying!
borntorum: The fact that you dislike him only raises my opinion of the man
Kilbarry-reply to borntorum Dec 20 2011: In general do you approve of telling lies - or is it only when a "liberal" slanders a "reactionary"?
On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home?
The Herren said: There is no doubting this man's ability or compassion. Pity he wasting so much of these qualities preaching and practicing mumbo jumbo.
Kilbarry -reply to The Herren Dec 20 2011:I will repeat the second part of a previous post:..."On a related issue do you think the Archbishop - as a self-proclaimed defender of abused children - should have condemned the Wicklow mobs last year especially the mob that burned children out of their home?
The mobs were attacking the home and family of a man who had got a suspended sentence in 1992 for the indecent assault of a minor. The man had four children who were driven out of 4 successive houses by thugs who claimed (like the Archbishop) to be acting in defence of children. These were not the kind of children that our beloved Archbishop wanted to be seen defending. He is interested only in Politically Correct causes and these were NOT PC children!
Kilbarry Feb 27 2012: The following letter appeared in the Irish Times today. In fact there IS a connection between the Archbishop's unwillingness to support falsely accused priests AND his unwillingness to condemn mobs in his Archdiocese who drove a family out of their homes on four successive occasions and burned down the home the fourth time. The protection of children is not the issue here - or at any rate it's not what motives our beloved Archbishop!
Sir, Breda O'Brien (Opinion, February 11th), in writing about the possibility of complacency regarding child abuse, says: "There is also the very real fear among priests that things have moved so far in the opposite direction that any priest is presumed "guilty as charged". There are some bishops . . . who believe it is impossible for a priest to return to ministry even when it is clear that a priest was falsely accused."
The implications of these attitudes for the working relationship between bishop and priest are far-reaching. The promise of respect on behalf of the priest was to be honoured by the bishop with a duty of care. In the past the exaggeration of respect and honour led to a culture of clericalism but their absence now as a result of the abuse crisis has created a vacuum in which trust has been replaced by suspicion on both sides.
Gathering around the bishop as a sign of unity has lost its meaning since I, and many priests like me, on being summoned to Archbishop's House on any issue would not attend unless accompanied by a witness, if not a solicitor. Yours, etc,
Fr GREGORY O'BRIEN PP, St Jude the Apostle, Willington, Templeogue, Dublin 6W.
Warrior of DestinyFeb 27 2012: If Diarmuid Martin became Pope tomorrow he'd be the FDR of the Vatican.
KilbarryFeb 27 2012: Does that mean you approve of his silence when a Wicklow mob burned a family - including four children - out of their home because the father had got a suspended sentence 20 years before? And what about the Labour Councillors in Wicklow who endorsed the action of the mob and voted that anyone who "associated with" a sex offender should be denied housing by the Council. They were referring to the wife and children of this man. Diarmuid Martin had no words of criticism for the mob-endorsing politicians either. That's the way FDR behaved is it?
Des Quirell : I was silent on that issue too. What does that say about me? If he is to comment on every arising issue he'll be damned as in interfering fool.
Kilbarry-Reply to Des QuirellFeb 27 2012: Martin specialises in denouncing child abuse. The four homes attacked by the mob were in his Archdiocese. There was political support for the mobsters from the Labour Party. The mobs claimed to be acting to protect children from the father of the family. This is the issue that has defined Martin's role as Archbishop - but the problem is that the victims were the wife and children of a man who had been convicted of a sex offense 20 years previously. THAT is why Martin kept his mouth shut.
LamportsEdge That's a dangerous title to have in the catholic pantheon of the magisterium ('saviour') ... Martin would want to stay away from Calvary-like hills and run like hell should he spot Shatter looking at him quare like...
KilbarryFeb 27 2012: Martin is regarded as a liberal hero for much the same reason that the [Anglican] "Red Dean" of Canterbury the Rev Hewlett Johnson was similarly regarded half a century ago. The Rev. Johnson denounced the evils of capitalism while proclaiming the "authentic" Christian virtues of Comrade Stalin. He was secretly despised by his progressive friends who regarded him as the greatest "Useful Idiot" of them all.
After Prime Time's case against Fr Kevin Reynolds collapsed, Martin denied that the Irish media in general have any special animus against the Catholic Church. ("Mission to Prey" was just an unfortunate exception it seems.) While I cannot swear that Patsy McGarry and John Cooney see our Archbishop as the CURRENT Most Useful Idiot, I strongly suspect it.
LamportsEdge: Seeing as he has now twice been passed over for a red hat despite being hotly tipped for one I'd say that there is as much evidence for the current Opus vatican to see him as the Useful Idiot in the welter of degeneracy of the Irish church. He was a financial expert seconded to the UN in Geneva and his career was mostly around high finance rather than ideology or ministry- it is possible he was regarded as 'unsoundly liberal' some time ago by the Opus contingent and given the poisoned chalice of an Archbishopric in Ireland to keep him out of the college of cardinals.
Kilbarry - reply to LamportsEdgeFeb 27 2012: I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. My impression is that Martin is widely distrusted and despised by his own priests as a hack who will say anything to make himself popular with the media. The Vatican are certainly aware of this opinion and one solution might be to kick Martin upstairs by making him a Cardinal and giving him a role in "high finance" or whatever. The trouble is that this will be represented by the media as the Vatican going soft on child abuse by removing our journalists own fake hero (and real clown). There is no easy way out of this dilemma but I favour the "kick him upstairs" approach myself.
Corelli: There is to be about 13 more vacancies in the College of Cardinals in the next 12 months with most of the vacant Cardinatial See's having being filled at the last one. Therefore, if Martin is to get the Red Hat within the life time of this present Pope, there is about another 12 months to do it.
There are a number of factors in play. The rumor amongst the Catholic bloggers and papers, is that Martin, actually, has a very good personal relationship with the Pope, and within the Vatican, has still very good relationships within the Curia, having worked there for so long. There is a suggestion that if the Eucharistic Congress is not a disaster he might get one as reward next time. [Emphasis mine, RC]
However, there is ONE HUGE fly in the ointment. Geography. There presently is a living and serving Irish Cardinal, namely that twit Brady, who, with the best will in the world, has not sufficient intellect, charm or influence to be still in the job. The only way Martin could get one in that situation is to get one of the Vatican which automatically gets the Red Hat. Now Martin would, I am sure, like to be back in the Vatican, but there are limited jobs going and he would not like a token appointment in the Curia which would give him title but no power and totally scupper his chances of the "big" job.
Kilbarry - reply to CorelliFeb 27 2012: I am definitely not an insider where these issues are concerned. However, between talking to my few contacts and what was published in the media, I did ascertain one important fact. The two auxiliary bishops of Dublin Eamonn Walsh and Ray Field understood that they had the support of Archbishop Martin for their initial refusal to resign after the publication of the Murphy Report in November 2009. Then suddenly to their amazement and without warning, Martin indicated in a Prime Time programme in December 09,that he did NOT support them.
So they felt that they had no alternative but to tender their resignations to Pope Benedict. However they both wrote personal letters to the Pope saying the SOLE reason for tendering their resignations was Martin's public repudiation of them! Thus Pope Benedict refused to accept their resignations.
If that is the case - and I have good reason to believe that it is - I cannot see how Martin can possibly have a good working relationship with the Pope. I suspect that the door is being left open for him to return to a high-sounding post in the Curia where he can do a lot less harm than as Archbishop of Dublin. That may account for the impression that he is in good odour with the Vatican. In other words it IS a question of kicking him upstairs as soon as it is possible to do so!
Kilbarry -continued: And the following extract from an Irish Times article dated 21 December 2009 tends to support my view. It quotes Eddie Shaw who worked in the Dublin Archdiocese Communications Office in 2002-03:
Eddie Shaw, .... said communications strategy by the archdiocese following publication of the Murphy report had been "catastrophic . . . absolutely catastrophic"
Speaking on RTÉ Radio 1's Marian Finucane programme yesterday, he said: "I think, Marian, it's wrong, the way it was done is wrong. Communicating with people who are your auxiliaries through the Prime Time programme in the way it was done - that was wrong.
"What's going on now this weekend in the papers, with the Archbishop in Rome saying close this matter down until I return to it again in the New Year" , he said. "I will talk specifically for the two men I worked with, Bishop Éamonn Walsh, Bishop Ray Field in particular", he continued. .......
He asked: "How much preparation do you need to prepare for something like this when you know what's coming down the track? How much preparation do you need to be informed, to be advised to have a communications strategy? Can somebody show me where the evidence is of a communications strategy that is based on a church that has a mission to its people?" .......
Asked about Archbishop Martin saying on the same Prime Time programme that since publication of the Murphy report the previous week only two bishops had called him offering support, Mr Shaw said: "I actually don't understand that comment . . . Is that a reflection on the gap that has opened up between one bishop and his brother bishops?Is that a reflection on the way some bishops thought about the way he communicated? I don't know. I can't answer that." ......
"Why not have the people in, talk to them one to one, tell them this is going to happen. Why would you communicate that for the first time, as apparently it was done, across the airwaves on Prime Time?"
Good question and the answer may be that Martin likes the sound of his own voice on TV and just decided - on the spur of the moment - to badmouth his colleagues and his auxiliary Bishops. Nothing would surprise me about that clown!
TolandFeb 28 2012: He seems to me at least a normal, decent human being. In the company he keeps that makes him look like a saint.
Kilbarry - reply to TolandFeb 28 2012: Martin told lies about his auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony and he tried to get Bishop Drennan of Galway (former auxiliary in Dublin) to resign even though NO criticism of him was made in the Murphy Report. The man is a liar and a vicious clown. (In comparison to him the "Red Dean" of Canterbury was at least innocent, although a complete fool!) See in Archbishop Diarmuid Martin
The Archbishop and Auxiliary Bishops of Dublin The most egregious example is the Archbishop's treatment of retired auxiliary Bishop Dermot O'Mahony. The Archbishop removed Bishop O'Mahony from his position as director of the archdiocese's pilgrimage to Lourdes on the basis that "I regret that you did not express any public clarification or remorse or apology" (letter dated 2 December 2009). However Bishop O'Mahony had sent a statement to the Archbishop's Director of Communications Annette O’Donnell on 27 October 2009 which concluded : "I profoundly regret that any action or inaction of mine should have contributed to the suffering of even a single child. I want to apologise for my failures from the bottom of my heart". The statement was not published by the Communications Office but Annette O'Donnell confirmed that the Archbishop had seen it. He made no apology to Dermot O'Mahony and indeed continued to criticise him.
In November 2009 the Archbishop invited the Bishop of Galway Martin Drennan who had previously been an auxiliary Bishop of Dublin to "consider his position" after the publication of the Murphy Report. While the Report mentions Bishop Drennan, it makes no criticism whatsoever of his conduct! In order to consolidate his status as a media hero, does the Archbishop want to hand the media as many heads as possible on a platter?
I did a brief reprise of the subject in January 2016 when I published an article on this Blog:
Kilbarry - Jan 16 2016
Archbishop Diarmuid - Sins of Omission re Child Sex Abuse
There is an article on Archbishop Diarmuid Martin here - based on a Politics.ie discussion in 2010. A family with 4 children had been driven out of their homes on four occasions by mobs in Co. Wicklow when the mobs discoverer that the father had a conviction for sexual contact with a minor nearly 20 years previously. (He got a 6 months suspended sentence which gives some indication of how grave the offence was.) On the FOURTH occasions the woman promised to separate from her husband so naturally the mob reacted differently this time around; they burned the house down with all the family's possessions inside! Wicklow County Council then passed a motion saying that anyone who "consorted with" a sex offender should not be housed by the Council!
So what did Archbishop Diarmuid do - this "Saviour of the Church", this champion of abused children? Why nothing at all. The 4 children of a man convicted of a sex offence almost 20 years before, merited no word of sympathy from the Archbishop.
Karloff: Shocking story. Only thirty years ago these kinds of communities were following moving statues.
I believe (aside from issues relating to the ongoing safety of children) that once any offender serves their sentence then they have served their sentence. In times like this people rely on authority to protect them from the mob as a last line of defence, those political whores in that council are the mob themselves.
Kilbarry Jan 16 2016:Two Labour Party Councillors were responsible for the motions that denied housing to people who "consorted with" sex offenders and thereby supported the actions of the mob. However the motions were passed unanimously by Wicklow County Council in June 2010. Presumably the councilors from other parties were afraid to vote against, because public opinion was on the side of the lynch mob! However an article in the Sunday Independent on 4 July 2010 pointed out that one man DID protest:
One lonely figure stands out as the voice of reason and fairness: Michael Nicholson, the director of services with Wicklow County Council, who called what happened an example of mob mentality, and stands over that remark.
Now all praise to Michael Nicholson, but note that he was a civil servant and NOT a politician and so his job didn't depend on the mob.
However there was one other person who could have intervened with complete safety. This was Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, the cleric who is a hero to nearly all ANTI-clerics in Ireland! The Archbishop can hardly give a speech without apologising for the (real or imagined) sins of the Church against children. [And when I say "imagined" I refer to his attempt to get Bishop Drennan to resign even though NO criticism had been made of him in the Murphy report.] If any OTHER cleric had denounced the Wicklow mobs, he would have been shouted down as a defender of paedophiles but our caring and compassionate Archbishop could have done so - or, at the very least, he could have expressed sympathy for the four children of the family. Archbishop Diarmuid said nothing because he is a fraud whose only concern is to present himself as a hero in the eyes of our "liberal" journalists.
I have a gut feeling that they despise him!
KilbarryFeb 29 2020: I believe Archbishop Martin is due to retire shortly and there may not be the usual year long extension either. For some reason his period in office and his crawling before the secular power remind me of a classic episode in The Simpsons "Deep Space Homer" [see video at beginning of article]
One thing is for certain: there is no stopping them; the ants will soon be here. And I for one welcome our new insect overlords. I'd like to remind them that as a trusted TV personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground sugar caves.
And a great job Diarmuid made of it. However I get the impression that even his anti-clerical admirers are getting just a little bit tired of the guy - one might even say they are bored with his endless speaking pious platitudes to power!
Rory Connor
30 November 2020, amended 2 December 2020
NOTES:
[1] "A very liberal priest there assured me that he had the same problem getting a response and that our Archbishop only communicates with VIPs!"
So why didn't I think of that? Perhaps because I had heard of Archbishop McQuaid's effort to reply personally to every letter he received. See for example Colum Kenny's article "My Hour Alone with John Charles McQuaid" (when he was a schoolboy)
I remember the archbishop later sighing about the amount of correspondence he received from people. He waved a hand across the papers on his desk and muttered: ``They write to me about the system. What system? There are only people''; or words to that effect.
John Charles current successor, Archbishop Diarmuid gets over THAT problem by ignoring correspondence from non-VIPs!
[2] Extract from Phoenix Magazine article on "Patricia Casey" 25 January 2013.
She has a particular disdain for that experienced media operator and career Church diplomat, the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin. Following Martin's description of the latest crop of young priests as "traditional" (conservative) and "fragile", she dissed the Archbishop in vociferous terms in the the Irish Examiner last July [2012]. Querying with ill-disguised sarcasm whether Martin had access to 'fragile' priests psychological assessments, Casey accused Martin of being unwilling to put forward positive solutions to the crisis in the Church. This she argued is because Martin is afraid of what "critics of the church and of religion might say at any given moment", a fear she describes as "crippling". By critics Casey meant the IT [Irish Times] and other liberal pundits whom she believes - not without foundation - Martin is in thrall to.
The astute Casey also believes - again with justification - that amongst among its priests, Martin is the most unpopular prelate to head the Dublin archdiocese for many years. This is partly because of his willingness to suspend any priest against whom an abuse allegation is made pending inquiries but also because of an apparent distain both for lowly clerics and for traditional Catholic mores. In short he is a liberal sheep in Bishop's vestments. Casey's broadside on young priests stung Martin as evidenced by his riposte defending his choice of language about newly ordained priests. When it comes to the crisis engendered by sex abuse in the Church, Casey has been stern and censorious in her description of clerics' deviant behaviour and what must be done. However, she is also critical of those in the Church, like Martin, whom she believes are on the run from aggressive secularists."
Sister Stan Apologises but Defends Nuns against "Elder Abuse"
SUMMARY
Sister Stanislaus Kennedy was the victim of obscene and lying allegations from the late Mary Raftery in 1999. She was subjected to a barrage of abuse from Irish "liberal" journalists for months - until the social worker who was supposed to have informed her about the sexual abuse of children in the 1970s wrote to the Irish Times to state that he had done no such thing. Nothing discouraged, Sister Stan publicly apologised in 2009 for the alleged abuse of children by the Sisters of Charity. In 2015 she bravely defied the Irish Bishops to announce she was voting in favour of same-sex marriage. Then in 2017 she expressed her surprise at the new barrage of abuse directed at the Sisters of Charity during a controversy over the transfer of the National Maternity Hospital which they had founded in the 19th century. She described the lies hurled at her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" - a description which some would regard as pitifully inadequate. Sister Stan is very much on the left "liberal" wing of the Irish Church and has been criticised by conservatives both inside and outside the Church. However it seems to have escaped her attention that the only people to resort to obscene abuse and lies are her own "liberal" friends! [ For a conservative critique of Sister Stan's political and economic ideas see the article by Richard Miller of the Edmund Burke Institute "Sister Stan's Road to Serfdom" ]
Sir - In relation to the recent controversy regarding whether or not Sister Stan knew about sexual abuse in Kilkenny in the late 1970s I would like to put the record straight. I was the childcare worker referred to in the States of Fear programme and in the book Suffer the Little Children, who resigned from St. Joseph's Kilkenny in 1977. I did not tell Sr Stan at any stage that children were being sexually abused in St. Joseph's because I myself was unaware that sexual abuse was occurring. It was in 1995/1996 that I got my first inkling that children had been sexually abused in 1977, almost 20 years after it is alleged that I told Sr Stan. It is my belief today, as it was then, that Sister Stan did everything she could in 1977 regarding the children in St. Joseph's. Yours etc EDWARD MURPHY Westfield Kilkenny 1999 Mary Raftery and Sister Stanislaus (2) Extract from SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN by Mary Raftery and Eoin O'Sullivan ".While the publication of the Kennedy Report was greeted with considerable publicity and wide approval, it was clear that neither the State nor the Catholic Church shared that enthusiasm for change....... A year after the report had been published, one of the civil servants on the Kennedy Committee was to receive the full brunt of criticism from the Catholic Church. At the Church's major seminar on child care in Killarney in 1971, he was called into a room and held to account by the Bishop of Kerry, Eamon Casey, and by Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, even at that stage a major force in the history of child care. They wanted to know how it was that the Department of Education could have presided over a report which gave the religious orders so little credit for their great work on behalf of children for so many decades" Mary Raftery gives the source of the above account as an article by Fintan O'Toole "Not Asking Questions Cold Again Fail Children" Irish Times 21 May 1999. When journalist Breda O'Brien questioned this story she came under attack by Fintan O'Toole. The following is an extract from Breda O'Brien's response in the Irish Times on 10 January 2000. Her article is entitled "A Search for the Truth Does Not Question Reality of Child Abuse". "On December 10th, 1999, Fintan O'Toole declares that "Breda O'Brien, a sincere and committed journalist, has made extravagant claims about her own alleged ability to uncover flawed research in SUFFER THE LITTLE CHILDREN.." (One shudders to think what an insincere and uncommitted journalist might be capable of).......................... O'Toole claims that in the 1970s, Sister Stan, along with Bishop Casey, in a private room berated the two civil servants from the Department of Justice and Education who sat on the Kennedy Committee. O'Toole claims sources who say that this incident happened.
My sources who say it did not happen are; Sister Stan: Risteard MacConcradha, the representative of the Department of Justice; Antoin O'Gormain, the representative of the Department of Education; and Richard O'Donovan, of the Department of Education, secretary to the Kennedy Committee. Who are O'Toole's "sources"? Bishop Casey perhaps?" [Highlighting is mine. RC ] 2005Mary Raftery Slandered Bishop Peter Birch (3) In the early 1960’s Sr Stanislaus was sent to Kilkenny to work alongside the Bishop of Ossory Peter Birch in developing Kilkenny Social Services. For nineteen years until his death in 1981, Bishop Birch was guide and mentor to Sr. Stanislaus as the Kilkenny social services developed into an innovative, comprehensive model of community care becoming a blue-print for the rest of Ireland. Naturally he also attracted the attention of Mary Raftery!
In March 2005 Mary Raftery wrote in the Irish Times - in relation to St Joseph's residential school in Kilkenny run by the Sisters of Charity:
Several of these children, as young as four, were subjected to over a decade of continuous and savage abuse both physical and sexual. We know that a number of them told adults of the torture that they were suffering. We know that a number of prominent individuals, including the local bishop, Dr. Peter Birch, and Sister Stanislaus Kennedy, were made aware of some of the allegations of abuse. We know that for the children concerned little or nothing happened as a result of their complaints.
When challenged by the Superior General of the Sisters of Charity Mary Raftery replied:
I neither stated nor implied that Bishop Birch was aware that boys at St. Joseph's were being sexually abused.
The connivance of the Irish media ensured that Ms Raftery was allowed to get away with her blatant lies!
SISTER STAN AND THE RYAN REPORT (2009)
The Report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse (Ryan Report) was published on 20 May 2009 and depicted residential institutions run by the Catholic Church over decades as places where sexual and physical abuse were endemic. As per Wikipedia "The Report's conclusions section (Chapter 6) supports the overall tenor of the accusations without exception" In effect the Commission ignored allegations that were clearly false while accepting as true any accusation of abuse that the religious orders could not prove was false! 2009 Sr Stan apologises to abuse victims Sister Stanislaus Kennedy - Sorry and ashamed [ RTE News Wednesday, 1 Jul 2009 ]
Sister Stanislaus Kennedy has apologised unreservedly to survivors of child abuse in Catholic-run institutions. Sr Stan said the Sisters of Charity were sad, sorry and ashamed that children suffered physical, emotional and sexual abuse while under their care. She also said that the order must now live up to its financial responsibilities. Sr Stan is a prominent campaigner for homeless people. The order is holding a conference on social justice in Dublin today. The Ryan report into institutional child abuse [and] the economic downturn will be discussed at the conference. Sr Miriam Hennessey of the Sisters of Charity told the conference that the findings of the report were 'overwhelming and disturbing' for all her nuns. On behalf of the congregation, she apologised again to all past pupils for what took place in the institutions under the congregation's care. President Mary McAleese has described the institutional abuse of children as 'a millstone of biblical proportions in Irish history'. Addressing a conference organised, she said the abuse of some of the children in the nuns' care was a sad chapter in their history, which calls for resilience, determination, humility and focus in the journey of amending and healing that lies ahead.
Sr Stanislaus Kennedy has announced she will vote in favour of same-sex marriage in the forthcoming referendum. “I have thought a lot about this,” she told The Irish Times. “I am going to vote Yes in recognition of the gay community as full members of society. They should have an entitlement to marry. It is a civil right and a human right.” Sr Stan (75), as she is widely known, is a member of the congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity and founder of the homeless support organisation Focus Ireland. When asked how she reconciled her position with the Catholic Church’s teaching on the issue, she said she was speaking in a personal capacity. “I have a big commitment to equality for all members of society. It’s what my life has been about. We have discriminated against members of the gay and lesbian community for too long. This is a way of embracing them as full members of society.” She was speaking following a contribution to a conference on the impact of austerity policies organised by the trade union Unite. Catholic Church leaders, however, have strongly supported a No vote in the referendum. Earlier this month, the Catholic primate Archbishop Eamon Martin reiterated the church’s opposition to same-sex unions on the basis that they were not “similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family.” .....
SISTER STAN, THE NATIONAL MATERNITY HOSPITAL AND "ELDER ABUSE"
2017 Depiction of Sisters of Charity Like ‘Elder Abuse’, Says Sr Stan Nun was shocked by some of the ‘very distasteful’ media coverage of the order [Irish Times, Saturday 3 June 2017, article by Paul Cullen] The depiction of the Sisters of Charity during the recent controversy over the transfer of the National Maternity Hospital to St Vincent’s hospital was akin to elder abuse, according to one of the order’s best-known members. Sr Stanislaus Kennedy said she was shocked and surprised by the scale of the controversy over St Vincent’s and the criticisms levelled at her order. “It shook me, it really did.” During the controversy, very little thought was given to the background of the Sisters of Charity and the work its members had done over the years, she said. She said her order had been depicted as “a power-grabbing congregation” and “a group of old ladies who didn’t know what they were doing”. “A lot of the stuff that came out in the media about us was very hurtful. There was a lot of misunderstanding and misrepresentation. It was very distasteful.” Sr Stanislaus, the founder of Focus Ireland and the Immigrant Council of Ireland, said her order had been depicted as “a power-grabbing congregation” and “a group of old ladies who didn’t know what they were doing”. “In another context, this would come under elder abuse,” said the 78-year-old nun. The controversy was sparked by the revelation last month [May 2017] that the Sisters of Charity would own the National Maternity Hospital when it moved from Holles Street to St Vincent’s because it owns the wider campus. Critics claimed the State was “gifting” the new facility to the order, which could have undue influence on the maternity hospital. However, last Monday, the order announced it was withdrawing completely from St Vincent’s and would therefore have no involvement in the NMH when it moves. Minister for Health Simon Harris will next week tell Cabinet his plans for the €300 million project, which is fully supported by both hospitals.
Homeless work Sr Stanislaus pointed out that Sisters of Charity has a long-term record of giving properties away. Thirty years ago, it led the way for other orders by providing Stanhope Street convent in central Dublin for use as housing for the homeless. The order had also provided properties at the North Circular Road, Richmond Road, Harold’s Cross and Baldoyle in Dublin, and in Cork and Waterford, for housing and other charitable purposes.
“We are a hard-working, humble congregation that did its work for years without much notice.”
We are a hard-working, humble congregation that did its work for years without much notice The order gave “quietly, without bells and whistles” but fulfilled what it set out to do in terms of honouring the aims of its founders, Sr Mary Aikenhead, she said. Sr Stanislaus said she knew nuns working in St Vincent’s who had given their lives for the needs of the powerless. “I might be better-known in the media, but I couldn’t hold a candle to these colleagues in terms of lifelong dedication.” Asked whether the order should have done more to put its point of view across, Sr Stanislaus said she could understand why the Sisters would not want to go before “the barrage of the media”. Although she was not involved in the discussions about withdrawing from St Vincent’s, she said she was aware “for a number of years” this was under discussion. Asked whether complete withdrawal had been contemplated, or whether this was a response to the controversy, she said: “I think we would have withdrawn anyway. That was the plan.”
CONCLUSION
I have given prominence to what might be regarded as a minor episode i.e. the claim by Mary Raftery and Fintan O'Toole that at a Conference meeting in 1971, Sister Stan berated a civil servant who sat on the Kennedy Committee on child care for failing to give credit to the Church for its work on behalf of children. This is hardly the worst of the thuggish attacks directed at Sister Stanislaus Kennedy and the Sisters of Charity. However it has its own significance. This is NOT one person's word against another's. Every civil servant who attended the Conference, confirmed to journalist Breda O'Brien that no such episode took place. So where did Raftery and O'Toole get their data from? The same place that an anti-Semite gets his information about Jews? I have a personal interest in the episode where Mary Raftery slandered Dr. Peter Birch. In the 1960s our Novice Master Brother Maurice Kirk used to speak to us about the Bishop of Ossory and the then De La Salle Novitiate in Castletown, Co. Laois is in the diocese of Ossory! Sister Stanislaus did finally speak out last year in the wake of the controversy about the National Maternity Hospital. Her description of the torrent of lies directed at her colleagues as "Elder Abuse" was inadequate and seems to suggest that Catholic nuns are just another group of "vulnerable victims". I don't think she understands what type of society we are living in - or that the liberal Catholics who helped to create it have a moral obligation to try to undo some of the damage they have done!. (For example see my previous article "The Apologies of the Sisters of Mercy...")
Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [1]
Justine McCarthy has an article in the Sunday Times on 15 October 2017, 'Boycott of Newstalk Goes Both Ways Now' that includes sentiments that would cause our FemiNazis to foam with rage if she wasn't one herself.
The sub-heading is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen"
The following is a sample: "The morning Fintan O’Toole wrote in the Irish Times that he would no longer appear on Newstalk radio because it was “flagrantly sexist”, I texted him: “I just want to say, as a woman, thank you for writing that column.” ......... I agreed with O’Toole’s every sentiment, except the very first one in the opening sentence when he modestly opined that his declaration of a boycott was “of no consequence”. It was bound to create ructions, for he is eminent, erudite, and a man. Ergo, he is listened to.......
Women can yell from the rooftops but it takes a man’s voice to make the world listen......Women will continue to need courageous men to speak out until female liberation is credibly delivered.[My emphasis] It is no coincidence, after all, that there is a man in emancipation. ...."
Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex . HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?
Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [2]
I wrote about the Fintan O'Toole article that Justine McCarthy is so keen on here. The title is "Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops" and there is an extract below:
In his article of 12 September entitled "Why I will Not Appear on Newstalk Again" (subtitle "George Hook’s Rape Comments are the Result of the Station’s Flagrantly Sexist Strategy"), Fintan O'Toole begins as follows:
"What I have to say is of no consequence. The organisation against which it is aimed will be no more conscious of it than a speeding car is of a fly mashed into the corner of its windscreen. But here it is anyway: from now on I won’t be appearing on any Newstalk programmes."
O'Toole presents himself as a lone individual who is "speaking truth to power" and bravely taking a stance against "the powers that be". The opposite would be closer to the truth!
Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes a Man’s Voice to Make Society Listen [3]
It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists' reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!
Irish feminists are becoming as stupid as they are vicious. I have written here and elsewhere about Fiona Doyle and her statement that women have the right to walk down the street drunk or naked if they so desire. An aspiring rapist's wet dream!
This type of demand for "Rights" is well expressed in the old doggerel
Here lies the body of Michael Jay Who died maintaining his right of way. He was right, quite right as he sped along, But he's just as dead as if he were wrong.
The stupidity is linked to the fact that feminists believe they can get away with publishing ANY kind of rubbish. They no longer have to exercise their brain cells - and boy does it show!
The following are a couple of comments and my reply
Originally Posted by 'Who is John Galt?'
Just as robbers have no right to steal the Patek Philippe I leave on the passenger seat of my unlocked car.
Of course men do not have the right to rape any woman.
The cops might take a different view of my common sense however.
Reply by 'tokkie' to 'Who is John Galt'
Rape and theft are gulfs apart in terms of crime. So too are the motivations, reasons and logic of the perpetrators behind either crime.
Comparing them is a bit weird. Dark too.
My Reply (Kilbarry1) to 'tokkie'
OK. Take the case of a man who insists on walking through a dangerous area of a city at night and does so regularly, sometimes while drunk as well. The police stop and question him a few times - because no outsider in his right senses should be there at night. The guy insists that he is doing nothing unlawful, he is entitled to walk the streets of his own city and the police are supposed to protect him. All of these are valid points - in the same way that Michael Jay had a valid point (see post #5181). Eventually he is attacked and murdered.
What do you think the police will say among themselves about this guy?
Also his murderer will NOT get a reduced sentence by saying the guy was an idiot who had no business being in the area - but that does not change some basic facts. And one of the facts is that the murder victim WAS an idiot.
Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [4]
Originally Posted by 'talkingshop'
Yeah, I'm not disputing that he [George Hook] probably meant the right thing, but the way he said it was wrong. He suggested "some blame" might be attached to the girl, which could be interpreted as saying that the "blame" for the rape was somehow shared, and that the rapist therefore had less "blame" to carry because of the behavior of the girl. I don't think that is what he meant, but it could be interpreted that way.
Reply by 'Who is John Galt?' A mistake that hardly warranted the explosion of indignation and cleaver-wielding that has ensued since. George Hook has suffered more for that remark than the accused rapist.
My Reply to 'Who is John Galt?' and 'talkingshop'
Yes indeed feminists can talk utter drivel and get away with it whereas if a 'reactionary' puts one foot wrong, he will be savagely criticised. I have written previously how Justine McCarthy got away with her hymn of praise to the Dominant White Male in the form of Fintan O'Toole (Sunday Times, 15 October). I will just repeat a short extract from post #5181
It would be interesting to watch Irish feminists reaction if Breda O'Brien wrote a similar adoring tribute to the Dominant White Male - with David Quinn as the object of her affections!.....
And again
.....Now I do understand that the above is part of a convoluted argument about Victimhood and Oppression. Justine McCarthy did NOT intend to depict herself as a helpless simpering female who is writing a hymn of praise to the dominant male sex . HOWEVER it could certainly be interpreted that way and McCarthy COULD conceivable have her career destroyed by fellow FemiNazis. So why is she allowed to get away with it?
There is also the following in the same article by Justine McCarthy: "Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."
So she was silenced by a belt from the crozier. But hold on - a PRIEST does not have a crozier. Was he even a Parish Priest or just the local curate??
So what is the female equivalent of WIMP and why have Justine's feminist colleagues not criticised her for her cowardice?
Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen [5]
Extracted from a post by 'EPIC SUCCESS' Hook is a drooling simpleton ...... a idiot like George who adjusts his accent for British RP (received pronunciation) speakers, who makes a fool of himself over his obsession with Pamela Anderson, who likes to pontificate, who has a very obvious belief in a class system and sneers at the working class, who works for filth like Denis O'Brien, ........... He has and always will be, radio text bait and certainly not a 'broadcaster' or 'journalist' in the traditional sense of the word.
My Reply to 'EPIC SUCESS'
Any comment on Justine McCarthy's statement about Bishop Brendan Comiskey in the Sunday Times 2 days ago? It is part of an article whose subtitle is "Women Can Shout Out Loud But It Takes A Man's Voice to Make Society Listen" [see post nos 5181 and 5232]
"Twelve years ago, I summoned the courage to write about how Brendan Comiskey, a former Bishop of Ferns, had threatened to rape me in the course of an interview conducted in his house when he was drunk and I was frightened. The next morning, a priest in a Dublin parish denounced me from the pulpit at Sunday mass. I have run scared from discussing the incident in public ever since. Job done. Woman silenced."
"Job done. Woman silenced" because she was afraid of a belt of a priest's walking stick??
The above is part of McCarthy's denunciation of Newstalk and hymn of praise to Dominant White Males (and specifically Fintan O'Toole.) "Drooling simpleton" would be a mild description for Justine McCarthy since the description only targets her intellect and not her morals. Should The Sunday Times take action against her?
