Kevin Myers and the Age of De Valera and McQuaid

John Charles McQuaid and Eamon De Valera

[The following is based on a discussion on the Politics.ie website entitled "Kevin Myers Kills His Own Career" ]

Now that "the tumult and the shouting dies" (sort of) maybe it's time for a summing up. I am combining a couple of previous posts below. In the two original posts,  I was trying to imagine how future historians will report on this episode - and especially how they will report on the behaviour of our beloved Taoiseach and Tanaiste. [Irish Prime Minister and Deputy PM for you foreigners].

Both the Taoiseach and the Tanaiste have said that the Sunday Times have taken the right action in apologising and dropping Kevin Myers following his controversial column on Sunday [30 July 2017].

During their visit to Waterford on Monday, the two government leaders were asked their opinion on Mr Myers's column.

"I read the article and it is misogynistic and anti-Semitic in my view and I think The Sunday Times has taken the appropriate action," Mr Varadkar said.

The Tanaiste Frances Fitzgerald said: "I regret that the article was published, I have to say, in the first place but certainly I think that now the right action has been taken and there’s an onus on everyone, including the media obviously, to make sure that articles like that do not appear."......

Let's suppose that this had happened in the 1950s - that dark and repressive period of our history. The Irish Press publishes an article that some see as critical of the Catholic Church. There is a hysterical outcry that leads to the firing of the journalist and sudden allegations that an article he wrote in the 1940s was ALSO anti-Catholic. Both de Valera and Sean Lemass join in denouncing the journalist and Lemass explicitly states that all such articles should be banned in future.

But in fact the journalist is a practising Catholic, the article is NOT anti-clerical and Archbishop McQuaid has to make a public statement pointing this out!

Can you imagine what our historians- and journalists - would be writing about this episode today?

My Further Comment
The above analogy isn't enough to convey the lunacy and hypocrisy that constitutes "debate" in modern Ireland. The Jewish Representative Council of Ireland has  supported Kevin Myers. If a similar episode had happened in the 1950s, you would have to imagine that even AFTER John Charles declared that the journalist was NOT anti-Catholic, the hysterical loonies went ahead and wrecked the guy's career anyway!

Still Later Comment

I have previously quoted the imbecilic remarks of our beloved Taoiseach and Tanaiste on the necessity of censoring the evil ideas of Kevin Myers. I was somewhat surprised because both are Fine Gael, but former Tanaiste Joan Burton doesn't surprise me at all:

Sunday Times' probe into How Myers Article was Published 

..... Meanwhile, former tánaiste [Deputy PM] Joan Burton has said newspaper editors need to ensure articles which are grossly prejudicial to women should never be published. Ms Burton welcomed Mr Myers's apology, but said steps should be taken to ensure similar pieces are not published in future. "Gross prejudice against women should have no place in modern journalism and it is an editor's responsibility to ensure the kind of prejudice we've seen this week doesn't happen again," she said.....

This is PRECISELY what I would expect of a Labour Party Female Politician,  but the fact that Fine Gael beat her to it is genuinely troubling.

FINAL Comment:
I summed up at one point by writing: "I just re-located the FINAL part of my analogy of the 1950s in which I imagine Leo Varadkar and Frances Fitzgerald as de Valera and Lemass, the Jewish Representative Council of Ireland as John Charles McQuaid and Kevin Myers as a hapless Catholic traditionalist who is being denounced by the mob as an Enemy of the Church. The difference nowadays is that the mob are so out of control that even the Archbishop can't stop them!"

Will any of the foregoing personnel who are still among the living, be pleased with the role I have allocated them in this little parable? Well hopefully not; it's intended as a tribute to the deceased anyway!

Comment July 2018 - But maybe he is a “misogynist??
But is Kevin Myers a “misogynist”?  When Nora Wall was falsely convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment, Kevin Myers was the ONLY journalist to speak out on her behalf.  However according to the Wikipedia article on Nora Wall “The director of the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre, Olive Braiden, welcomed the imposition of a maximum sentence, and said it would ensure that Nora Wall would be monitored for the rest of her life to prevent recurrence.”.......No comment from Ms Braiden after the case against Nora Wall collapsed.

 Being opposed to THAT kind of Feminism does not make anyone a “misogynist”! 

Comment 19 November 2019

RTE Apologises to Journalist Kevin Myers for 'Untrue and Defamatory' Claim he was a 'Holocaust Denier' Irish Independent 19 November 2019

RTE has issued an on-air apology to journalist Kevin Myers as part of an out-of-court settlement reached between himself and the State broadcaster. Mr Myers had launched a defamation suit against RTE after it described him as a 'holocaust denier' during a broadcast on its flagship news and current affairs show 'Morning Ireland' in July, 2017.

As part of the undisclosed settlement, newsreader Bryan Dobson read out the apology just before the 9am news on Morning Ireland today.

He stated: "Morning Ireland introduced an item that suggested that Kevin Myers was a holocaust denier. This was untrue and defamatory of Mr Myer's character. Morning Ireland acknowledges that Mr Myers has, for over three decades, repeatedly testified to the scale and wickedness of Hitler's Final Solution. Morning Ireland acknowledges the damage done to Mr Myer's reputation. We regret this and unreservedly apologise."

A statement from Mr Myer's solicitor Eamonn Denieffe this afternoon said: " On behalf of our client, Mr Kevin Myers, we wish to confirm that a satisfactory settlement has been reached with RTE in relation to a broadcast on 'Morning Ireland' on July 31, 2017. This broadcast resulted in an action for defamation against RTE which has now been settled. This settlement includes a broadcast apology, an acknowledgment of factual errors that resulted in reputational harm to Mr Myers, the payment of damages and his legal costs.”

Mr Myers declined to comment as did RTE.

The settlement follows a ruling by the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland in February, 2018 which upheld a complaint from a member of the public that RTE's depiction of Mr Myers as a holocaust denier was "unfair."

 

MY CONCLUSION [December 2020]

In July 2017 journalist Kevin Myers was libelled by our Irish Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, a previous Deputy Prime Minister AND by State Broadcaster RTE. It's a series of events unprecedented in the history of the Irish State, of the EU and probably of any democratic society!

Kevin Myers is the only journalist to have defended former Sister of Mercy Nora Wall in June 1999 when she was falsely convicted of raping a child.*** He is also a strong critic of the Provisional IRA whose political wing Sinn Fein are currently (December 2020) the main opposition party and are likely to come to power after the next Irish General Election. We are a society that is spewing on itself!

*** In contrast, our last EU Commissioner Phil Hogan and last Minister for Justice Charlie Flanagan both used Parliamentary Privilege to libel Nora.

 

See also articles Kevin Myers and J.K. Rowling; Kevin Myers, Vanessa Feltz and Anti-Semitism; and  Kevin Myers, Jews and False Allegations of Anti-Semitism

Fintan O'Toole and the Two Archbishops

Fintan O'Toole

Archbishop Eamon Martin (Catholic) and Richard Clarke (Anglican)

Fintan O'Toole "columnist, literary editor and drama critic for the Irish Times" is described by Wikipedia as having "generally left-wing views" which is a curious way of putting it and might suggest that he occasionally expresses viewpoints that stray from the strictly orthodox. This is not correct!

The following is from a discussion on the politics.ie website regarding George Hook Note that the two Archbishops I refer to in the title, are John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973 and the current Church of Ireland Primate Richard Clarke. (For obvious reasons, there is no photo of those two  standing side by side but I'm sure that, given the opportunity, Fintan O'Toole would write a kindly review of a book that slandered Archbishop Eamon Martin!)

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!


Fintan O'Toole and Believing Lies

Original Post by Surkov
There is a piece on this by Fintan O'Toole in the Irish Times where he lambasts Newstalk. In his mind, he seems to imagine that the entire organisation is corrupt, hateful, etc. As though some cancer of hate had metasticised to an horrific extent.

Admittedly I don't listen to it all that much, but Newstalk seems pretty standard fare to me. Why does FOT hate it so much? Did they do something to him in the past that made it personal for him

Reply by Kilbarry1
I don't know the specifics of why Fintan O'Toole hates Newstalk. I have his article in front of me now and it is indeed grossly over the top.  One clue as to his attitude. In 1999 John Cooney former Religious Affairs correspondent for the IT (and future one for the Indo) published a biography of John Charles McQuaid that depicted him as a homosexual paedophile. The allegations were panned by every historian who reviewed the book and by ALMOST every journalist. (Guess who was the exception.) Reviewers who praised the remainder of the book said that Cooney should have omitted the Paedo claims. Most anti-clerics were annoyed and embarrassed; I recall one guy who REGRETTED that the accusation might create sympathy for the late Archbishop!

The exception was of course Fintan O'Toole. Not that he exactly believed the claims but he WANTED to believe them. The article entitled "Cooney Has At Least Posed Right Question" was published in the Irish Times on 26 November 1999.
"...   In the midst of the recent controversy over the allegations in John Cooney's new book that John Charles McQuaid had an unhealthy sexual interest in young boys, I began to interrogate that old memory. Was it just an innocent encounter with a nice old man who was privately more at ease with children than his stern public demeanour would suggest? Or must all such memories now be lit with the sinister glow of corruption?

The answer, tentative and paradoxical though it must be, is probably "yes" in both cases. Certainly, John Cooney's suggestions are not backed by anything approaching an acceptable level of historical evidence. But at the same time anyone reading another book published this week has to acknowledge that everything we know about the history of the State has to be re-examined from the bleak perspective of its most vulnerable children." [The book was "Suffer the Little Children" by Mary Raftery]   .........

"Speculating about the nature of John Charles McQuaid's sexuality, as John Cooney does, may not be the right answer. But John Cooney at least managed, as no historian has done, to pose the right question. ....."

O'Toole's thuggish desire to believe lies because those lies would depict his enemies in a bad light, may throw some light on his  rant in today's IT!

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop Richard Clarke

Interesting Article by Church of Ireland Archbishop (and Primate) Richard Clarke in Irish Times on 12 September. In the PRINT version it is headed "Defensive Rage of Social Media is Horrifying" with sub-heading "Reasoned persuasion has been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines"

It is a truism that we are living in a culture of adversarial anger. We most readily discover our identity not by establishing what we are, but in finding and vilifying those who are against us. A cursory engagement with social media will horrify most of us. It reveals a pervasive if anonymised defensive rage. It is an inchoate anger that can also present itself – even more dangerously – in the casual savage violence visible throughout our island.

In an apparent corollary, civic discourse (and not merely within political life) is likewise being steadily degraded as a stark binary pose on all issues becomes the predominant public mindset – no reasoned discussion, simply some new scheme presented with a minimum of nuance and a surfeit of self-righteous assertiveness.

The routes of reasoned persuasion have been replaced by the hasty production of battle-lines. In the midst of this is it not sensible to suggest that more wholesome conversations are needed in our public discourse? In particular, we surely need to consider together not simply the latest momentary squabble but far deeper matters. ......

It seems to me that the remainder of the article is a bit disconnected from this beginning. Did the Archbishop do a last minute revision in order to take on board the hysteria surrounding George Hook??

Also his article is on the same page as Fintan O'Toole's preposterous one "Why I Won't be Appearing on Newstalk any more." It functions as a kind of response to O'Toole's rant!
NOTE: See Post #1835 concerning Fintan O'Toole vs a different Archbishop!

Newstalk Managing Editor Patricia Monahan Replies to Fintan O’Toole

However I see that Newstalk managing editor Patricia Monahan replied to Fintan O’Toole on 16 September in an article entitled All who work in Newstalk subject of outrageously unfair attack

Among the points she makes are:

....... O’Toole chose to ignore several salient facts, most importantly the number of women employed by the station and their impact on the daily output. Would it not have been worth mentioning that I as a woman, am Newstalk’s managing editor, that the chairperson of our group is a woman, or that our head of news is a woman? At Newstalk, the majority of our production staff are women. As editor, I am the final decision-maker on all editorial matters and have responsibility for content produced by the station across all platforms. But my work apparently deserves no recognition because I am not a presenter. Do I not qualify as female representation because my voice is not heard on-air? ....

Does [Fintan O'Toole] conclude that we are all party to a concerted effort by the station to “keep women presenters off the airwaves” and that I as the principal editorial decision-maker proactively restructured the schedule to do just that in a “highly conscious” manner? .....

As a commercial station in Newstalk we fight for audience share in every quarter hour of every day, as if our lives depend on it. And the truth is, our livelihoods do. That is the commercial reality of our business. Almost €40 million has been invested in Newstalk in a media landscape where the State-owned broadcaster is given the lion’s share of the €330 million collected in television licence fees. We don’t have the luxury of hiring men or women because it is the politically correct thing to do. We make decisions that make sense for the business....

And Finally:
One is only left to wonder why he never bothered to tell anyone at Newstalk how “flagrantly . . . and systematically sexist” the station was on any of his visits to our studios. [My emphasis]

The last point is the key one. Fintan O'Toole joined a lynch mob BECAUSE it was a lynch mob.

Fiona Doyle and George Hook

Fiona Doyle

According to the Irish Independent on 8th September:

Victim blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George [Hook] is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. "Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a women and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame. [My Emphasis]

"What George said is that a man can't help himself if he comes across a drunk woman. It takes the responsibility off men. Men should know not to touch a woman."

Fiona said that the comments broadcast earlier today were "old fashioned" and that it brings women back centuries. "George Hook needs to get off his dinosaur backside and see the impact of what he is saying on young women."

She added that campaigners, gardai and the rape crisis centres have been working with women to get them to come forward after a rape. "We're working so hard to get women to stand up and come forward without thinking they are responsible.

"It's a big thing for women to blame themselves after a rape happens. It's very hard for women to get over something like that and to tell women that it's their fault is outrageous." Fiona said that George Hook's comments will "pull out that stigma that women are responsible".

"No man has a right to touch a women. It's that simple." [My Emphasis]

Again there was some disagreement on this issue during the course of a discussion on Politics.ie

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [1]
........40 years ago, we had already reached the point where a male  doctor had to be very careful when informing a female patient that her STD problem had something to do with the number of her sexual partners. We are now reaching the stage where a male has to be cautious when he advises a woman to take care of her physical safety. Especially if he tells her that she has a responsibility to do so!

ON THE OTHER HAND feminists can say exactly what they like - no matter how preposterous, illegal or dangerous to other women. The following is also a repeat of a post from ages ago (well about a week)

Feminist heroine Fiona Doyle said something  a lot crazier and seems to have got away with it - as per the Irish Independent yesterday.
'Way too soon to tell' if George Hook will face formal internal investigation over rape comments

....Speaking to Independent.ie following the broadcast of the show on Friday, rape victim and campaigner Fiona Doyle said Mr Hook's comments were "outrageous and offensive". Her father Patrick O'Brien (79) was sentenced to 12 years in prison in 2013 for raping and sexually abusing his daughter from 1973 to 1982.

Ms Doyle said: "Victim-blaming is all too familiar to women in Ireland. George is giving the message that men can do what they want and it is the drunken woman who is to blame. Women have the right to be drunk. They have the right to say no. They have the right to walk down the street naked if they wish. Men have no right to rape a woman and people like George Hook need to stop circulating the message that women are to blame."...

Of course a woman does NOT have the right to walk down the street naked if she wants; she would be arrested for public indecency. An additional reason for the arrest would be that a naked drunk woman is putting herself in danger of sexual assault but Fiona Doyle is either unaware or uninterested in some basic facts, so eager is she to denounce George Hook!

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [2]

However let's take a charitable interpretation of Fiona Doyle's words. She doesn't LITERALLY mean that women should behave in a manner that is stupid, illegal and actually facilitates rapists. She WANTS to make the point that rapists are fully responsible for their own actions but has mis-spoke herself in the process. George Hook has specifically condemned rapists, wants to make the point that women should take precautions to protect themselves and MAY have strayed into "victim blaming" in the process.  Nevertheless it is obviously Fiona Doyle who has completely over-stepped the mark and made comments that could endanger women. There's no way she should be allowed to get away with it in view of what is happening to George Hook. This hysterical over-reaction by the media  has nothing to do with any desire to protect vulnerable women.

Reply by Jimmy Two Times
What a load of nonsense. Fiona Doyle wasn't chairing a national radio show.  The ott reaction to this Hook issue is from the Rightist snowflakes whingeing about him getting suspended for making an idiot of himself

"A Woman Has the Right to Walk Down the Street Drunk and Naked If She Wants" says Feminist [3]

I suspect that one reason Fiona Doyle made her ludicrous statement is that she knew that she could get away with anything. If she HAD been chairing a national radio show it wouldn't have made any difference. Do you suppose that Fintan O'Toole and our Minister for Justice would have been lining up to condemn her? The hysterical reaction against George Hook is based on the fact that he is supposed to be  a reactionary. John Cooney was a former religious affairs correspondent for the Irish Times when he made allegations of paedophilia against John Charles McQuaid that were so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed and annoyed. I recall one reviewer who REGRETTED that the transparently false allegations might create sympathy for the late Archbishop. A few years later Cooney was appointed Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent. There was no campaign of denunciation directed against Cooney's appointment - precisely because he was a liberal. (OTOH suppose that  an  Irish Catholic journalist made similar false allegations against a former Church of Ireland Archbishop - how would HIS career have developed subsequently?)

Reply by PeaceGoalie
A related point is that many of these women are just as thick as bricks and logic and maturity are beyond them. Many men are the same, and even some transexual freaks

Why are Feminists and Liberals So Stupid?

The problem is not low IQ or similar but the fact that they can say ANYTHING and expect to get away with it. I have written here and elsewhere about a certain type of anti-clerical allegation that I call "Murder of the Undead" or "Victimless Murders" [try googling the terms]  i.e. journalists and/or leaders of "Victim" groups claim that children were murdered by brothers or nuns - at times when no child died of ANY cause. Why couldn't the journalists do a bit of research, find the name of a child who actually died and accuse the Church of murdering THAT child? Well they sometimes do that also BUT they know they don't need to; because they know there will be no consequences of their lies. So they become lazy and stupid and sometimes they do get themselves into serious trouble (Like the RTE clowns who accused a priest of rape and fathering a child - they actually ignored his offer to take a DNA test before they broadcast the libel!)

John Cooney - New(?) Allegations against Archbishop McQuaid

The General Humbert Summer School which is directed by John Cooney starts tomorrow in Co. Mayo. According to Phoenix magazine, John Cooney is poised to make further "revelations" about John Charles McQuaid. The following is from a discussion on the www.politics.ie website
http://www.politics.ie/current-affairs/135682-holy-father-rejects-resignation-two-dublin-bishops-10.html

Originally Posted by Kilbarry1 View Post
Slight correction. Cooney has already repeated his slander against Archbishop McQuaid at the Daniel Corkery Summer School in July - with (of course) no reaction from Diarmuid Martin. However Phoenix expect him to do so again at his own General Humbert Summer School which starts on 17 August:

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/cooneyvsmcquaid-30july10.php

Last Friday (23rd July 2010), the Daniel Corkery Summer School heard Cooney deliver a thundering peroration of his allegations against McQuaid with what he said is additional evidence and the promise of further revealations to come in his forthcoming book, The Curse Of McQuaid. His book, Cooney claims, 'will provide numerous sordid details of McQuaid's dark secret.'

Cooney's speech last week also referred to what he claimed was further evidence of McQuaid's sexual activity. These, the journalist said, were advances made, not to children but to a young priest and 2 clerical students resulting in 2 Garda investigations into these allegations made in the the 1960's and early '70's. Cooney told his audience that the investigations cleared McQuaid - unsurprisingly, given the period - but he also claimed that the files have gone missing. Cooney also referred to other evidence he says he has unearthed in recent years which provide similar evidence against McQuaid.

Expect more fireworks at Cooney's own summer school, the General Humbert Summer School beginning 17 August.

By the sound of it Cooney's LATEST (?) allegtions against the late Archbishop are not exactly new. They sound very like issues that were treated by Jody Corcoran then political editor of the Sunday Independent in an article dated 7 November 1999.
http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/gardainvestigationcleared-07nov99.php

The article begins:

A GARDA investigation into allegations of illegal homosexual acts and paedophilia at two Dublin diocesan colleges more than 20 years ago [i.e. in the 1970s] cleared the late Archbishop John Charles McQuaid of any involvement, the Sunday Independent has learned. The now retired Garda detective inspector who led the investigation said three students were dismissed from the colleges, and while Dr McQuaid was also investigated, no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part was discovered.

In the course of the investigation, the gardaí questioned a gay student priest about an incident in Lourdes which involved Dr McQuaid, but found no evidence of wrongdoing. The incident formed a small part of a more extensive Garda investigation into what were then illegal homosexual acts between two student priests at All Hallows College in Drumcondra, Dublin, and a third student at the nearby Clonliffe College. That investigation had its origins in an anonymous letter to the then head of All Hallows which contained unproven allegations of child sexual abuse against the two All Hallows students.

This sounds very like Cooney's latest allegations as outlined in Phoenix Magazine recently. I note that he says that the investigations cleared McQuaid "unsurprisingly, given the period". Is he claiming a cover up by the Gardai and by the Attorney General's office and if so why is he saying this now? The retired Garda detective inspector who carried out the investigations was 83 when he spoke to the Sunday Independent in 1999.

The 1999 article ended:

Mr Devane prepared a file which was forwarded to his chief superintendent at Whitehall and to the Attorney-General. Charges were never brought. Mr Devane is adamant that no pressure was applied by the Church authorities to drop the charges. ``I recommended that no charges be brought. I thought they had been through enough,'' he said. ``They were thrown out of the college, their parents were involved and, anyway, they would have probably got the Probation Act. There was no point in putting them through all that the publicity and everything.''
Cooney's General Humbert Summer School starts tomorrow so perhaps all will be revealed then!

John Cooney and John Charles McQuaid

The following is the introduction to the section on my website http://www.irishsalem.com re John Cooney

http://www.irishsalem.com/individuals/writers-and-journalists/John-Cooney/index.php

John Cooney and John Charles McQuaid

John Cooney is currently Religious Affairs correspondent for the Irish Independent, having held a similar position in the Irish Times during the 1970s. He is best known for his 1999 biography of John Charles McQuaid who was Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1972 and was Ireland's best known Catholic prelate since independence. In the book "John Charles McQuaid: Ruler of Catholic Ireland", Cooney depicts him as a homesexual paedophile. The allegation is rejected by all historians and almost all other journalists (with Irish Times jounalist Fintan O'Toole being a partial exception.) Even historians who praise the remainder of the book, say that the child abuse allegations are nonsence and that Cooney should have omitted them. However the controversy did not prevent Cooney's appointment to the Religious Affairs post in the Independent in 2004.

See also the section "John Charles McQuaid" in the "Accused Individuals" part of the website.