Tom Humphries and Paedophilia ??

Tom Humphries - Paedophile ??

It is very dangerous nowadays to point out certain very simple facts - including the fact that an adult who has sex with a 16 year old girl is NOT a paedophile. As per the Wikipedia definition:
"Pedophilia is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger."

On the other hand, "Ephebophilia" is the recognised term for "the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally aged 15 to 19".

I have been writing about false allegations of child abuse for many years now but every time I need to use the latter phrase, I have to look it up in Wikipedia or elsewhere. None of my friends has ever complimented me on my good memory but the main reason I can never recall the word is that the media are intent on demonising men who have sex with adolescents who are below the legal age of consent. But this age varies from country to country even within Europe - and in several European countries, Tom Humphries actions would not even be illegal!

I am no friend of Tom Humphries and I criticised him long before it became compulsory to do so. See my previous article "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria"

However what is now happening to him is wrong. Moreover the level of aggression and hysteria directed at Tom Humphries has ugly implications for anyone who works with children and increases the danger that such workers will be subjected to false allegations.

The following is from a discussion on the website politics.ie regarding Tom Humphries

The Meaning of Paedophilia [1]

Originally posted by Dame Enda on 27 October 2017
The correct term for what he did might be ephebophilia. Paedophilia is when the victim is prepubescent.

My Reply [as Kilbarry1] to Dame Enda
Good point. I have posted similar comments a few times over the years but every time I have to go to the dictionary to check the word. Sex with a 16 year old is not paedophilia. I think some European countries still have 14 as the age of consent or had so until fairly recently. This is from the Wikipedia article on Ephebophilia

Ephebophilia is the primary or exclusive adult sexual interest in mid-to-late adolescents, generally ages 15 to 19. The term was originally used in the late 19th to mid 20th century. It is one of a number of sexual preferences across age groups subsumed under the technical term chronophilia. Ephebophilia strictly denotes the preference for mid-to-late adolescent sexual partners, not the mere presence of some level of sexual attraction.
In research environments, specific terms are used for chronophilias: for instance, ephebophilia to refer to the sexual preference for mid-to-late adolescents, hebephilia to refer to the sexual preference for earlier pubescent individuals, and pedophilia to refer to the sexual preference for prepubescent children. However, the term pedophilia is commonly used by the general public to refer to any sexual interest in minors below the legal age of consent, regardless of their level of physical or mental development [My emphasis]

Wiki makes it sound as though "the general public" may simply be misinformed. In fact their "ignorance" has been stoked by thuggish journalists intent on whipping up hysteria. (I bet the journalists themselves are well aware of the difference.)

Reply to Me by Lumpy Talbot
You can call it what you like but a fifty year old man grooming 14 year old girls for sex is not really something that should spark a discussion of terminology.

The judge in this case had better hope that when this man is released- in what seems likely to be a very short time considering the crime- that such a man with not even a reputation to protect from here on doesn't re-offend in short order.

Reply to Me by darkhorse
The generic term describing sex between a 50+ year old man and a 14 year old girl is paedophilia. Of course there are variants within that but that is the general term describing the events.

The meaning of Paedophilia [2]

My reply to Dark Horse
From the Wikipedia article on Pedophilia [American spelling]
Pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children.
Although girls typically begin the process of puberty at age 10 or 11, and boys at age 11 or 12,  criteria for pedophilia extend the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13

In popular usage, the word pedophilia is often applied to any sexual interest in children or the act of child sexual abuse. This use conflates the sexual attraction to prepubescent children with the act of child sexual abuse, and fails to distinguish between attraction to prepubescent and pubescent or post-pubescent minors. Researchers recommend that these imprecise uses be avoided because although people who commit child sexual abuse are sometimes pedophiles, child sexual abuse offenders are not pedophiles unless they have a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children, and some pedophiles do not molest children.

The age of consent in Sweden is 15. In Denmark it is the same.  In the Slovak Republic it is also 15. In Spain it is 16 but was 13 prior to 2015. In Norway it is 16. In Portugal it is 14 subject to certain limitations. In Italy it is also 14.

Regarding Ireland the Wiki article on Age of Consent comments:
The age of consent in Ireland is 17, in relation to vaginal, oral, or anal sex, and vaginal or anal penetration. This gives it one of the highest ages of consent in the European Union.

Not quite the highest however, because in Malta the age of consent is 18.

Tom Humphries pleaded guilty to having sex with a 16 year old didn't he? This would never be categorised as paedophilia in ANY circumstances. In several European countries it would not even be illegal.

Reply to me by Wagmore
Listen mate- you should have a good chat with yourself. Humphries was a middle aged obese slob who groomed a young teen. It's been reported that one of his many txts requested her to "be my whore." Nothing to see here? Is that the type of country you want to live in? Count me out

The Meaning of Paedophilia [3]

My post of 27 October 2017
Since SWEDEN is often seen as some kind of liberal paradise, I will quote a few interesting snippets from the Wiki article on Ages of Consent in Europe

...Pornography laws were softened in the 1960s. In 1965 there was a review of previous laws governing pornography depicting children as part of the "child's rights to sexuality". From 1971 to 1980 it was legal to buy, sell, and possess child pornography that featured children as young as 10 or 11.....

AND AGAIN:

....The Swedish age of consent [i.e. 15] also applies if the act takes place outside Sweden but the elder person later goes to Sweden. The elder person doesn't have to be a Swedish citizen or resident, but could be a tourist on a temporary visit. This is regardless of the age of consent in the country where the act took place...

And no, having sex with a 15 year old is NOT paedophilia either but if people  want to get hysterical about this kind of thing, they should really be targeting the Swedes!

Reply to me by Ellie08
Kilbarry what is your point here? This is about Ireland, and something that happened here. Stop deflecting it with what the Swedes do or do not. It looks like you're trying to make the point that is is ok by pointing to some other countries laws on this. This is Ireland, and aren't you a brother or ex brother? Surely you should be more interested in Canon law than Swedish law.

Reply to me by darkhorse

Never mind Sweden this is Ireland
We DONT legalise child sex

My reply to ellie08

Sorry it's late at night and I find it difficult to answer in a short space. There is gross and obscene hysteria about child sex abuse in Ireland and everywhere else. It is partly a reaction from the Sex Revolution of the 1960s and 70s - child pornography was legalised in Denmark as well as Sweden, the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) achieved semi-official status in the UK and in Ireland anyone who spoke out in favour of traditional values was routinely sneered at. John Cooney was religious affairs correspondent in the Irish Times at that time and later produced a biography of John Charles McQuaid containing allegations of paedophilia so ludicrous that even anti-clerics were embarrassed.

The same people who launched the anything-goes Sex Revolution are now getting hysterical about child abuse - and they can see no contradiction. It was Mary Whitehouse who opposed the PIE and British civil rights and gay liberation groups that supported them! "Liberals" seem to lack any kind of self-knowledge and rocket from one lunatic extreme to the other. I could write more but that will have to do for the time being.

And incidentally I personally was criticising Tom Humphries long before it became compulsory to do so!
TOM HUMPHRIES, THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AND CHILD ABUSE HYSTERIA
My article concluded as follows:
"Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted."

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [1]

Originally Posted by petaljam 

More to the point though, if you think a support from a poster who consistently supports child abusers is welcome in making a case defending other alleged sex abusers, that really is your own problem, but I can confidently predict that it won't strengthen that case in any normal person's mind.

When he regularly defends child rapists, how could anyone imagine he wouldn't support the alleged rapists of adult women?

Reply by talkingshop 
That's a fairly appalling thing to say about a poster - Kilbarry, I assume?

Reply by myself to petaljam and talkingshop
I saw this exchange some time ago while I was preparing to post on the thread about Mary McAleese. Then I had to go out. I suppose I should have reacted more quickly but I have experienced this kind of thing so often over the years that it doesn't mean much. I remember George Orwell commenting about 1940 that the word "Fascist" no longer signifies anything except that the speaker disagrees with someone else. [I think Orwell wrote  that in an essay called "Politics and the English Language"]. Much the same applies nowadays with calling a person a supporter of rape or child abuse!

The people who do MOST to protect rapists and child abusers are those who make false accusations and I have posted some examples on my blog
"Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ?[1]

In the end the public will become cynical and disbelieve ALL accusers - including those who are telling the truth!

Supporting Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Reply by petaljam
Well, actually IMO those are the people who do third or fourth most to protect them.
The ones who do the most are those who actively cover up for real abusers. Then there are those who know of abuse and possibly of a cover up, but still choose not to get involved by corroborating allegations that they know to be plausible.

Only after those groups is it reasonable to put people making false accusations - and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones.

Response by myself

"and of course the reality is that by false allegations you often mean unproven ones."

You didn't even bother to read the article did you? I refer to SEVEN false allegations. In five cases the accuser was convicted and jailed, in the other two, the accusers admitted that they had lied. (One of the latter was a conscience case - her lie would never have been exposed otherwise; the second was a thug who had already been discredited).

I have a follow-up article to the above. It concerns someone like yourself who made a reckless statement without bothering to consider the evidence (and "reckless" is putting it charitably where this gentleman is concerned.)
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse ? [2]

Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse Hysteria

Tom Humphries

Several years ago I criticised Tom Humphries myself - at a time before it became compulsory to do so - and curiously enough the issue was the hysteria surrounding the topic of child abuse. Having contributed to the hysteria, he has now fallen victim himself. And no I am not saying he is innocent but the savage attacks on him are disproportionate - and they have also extended to the two men who supplied character references to the court. This procedure is recognised in Irish law but the media mob are now demanding that they be fired from their jobs for this supposed "offence".

The  article on my website entitled "Tom Humphries, The Christian Brothers and Child Abuse" is dated 19 April 2011 but refers back to events a decade earlier. On 9th May 2000 Humphries wrote an article in the Irish Times reflecting on his time spent as a schoolboy  in St Joseph's Christian Brothers School in Dublin. He wrote:
 "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

Replying on 12th May, a deputy head of the Christian Brothers,  Brother Michael Murray wrote:

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years. This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

My comment of April 2011 is still valid i.e.
Tom Humphries now seems to have fallen victim to the same kind of hysteria that he once promoted.

The following are the texts of two letters published in the Irish Times in May 2000. I have also added the text of a previous letter from the Christian Brothers dated 9 October 1999 with an accompanying   apology from the editor of the Irish Times. I'm sure it was as sincere as his apology of 15 May 2000!

The Christian Brothers

Irish Times, May 15, 2000

Sir, - Reflecting on his time spent in St Jospeh's CBS, Fairview, Dublin, Tom Humphries states (EL, May 9th): "Now I've seen so many Brothers who once had nicknames and reputations leaving courtrooms with anoraks on their heads and cuffs on their wrists that I wonder. I search the reports for familiar names. I take care with the jokes that I make."

This gives the impression that several members of the congregation have been convicted on abuse charges in our courts and are serving custodial sentences for these crimes. This is not true. One member of the congregation has been convicted on such charges. Mr Humphries's statement that he has seen many members of the congregation leaving courtrooms in handcuffs and with anoraks over their heads is simply untrue.

While stressing that any such conviction is one too many, it is grossly unfair to convict others by association or to blacken the good name of those who dedicated all their working lives to Irish education down through the years.

It is quite disturbing that Mr Humphries can make such an erroneous statement and that his colleague Emmet Oliver can repeat the error on the same page of your paper. It would appear that Mr Humphries actually believes that he has seen photographs of several Christian Brothers leaving our courts having been convicted of child abuse and that he has searched the reports looking for familiar names. It would also appear that Mr Oliver believes this misinformation. Has this belief become part of the mind-set of some journalists?

One mush ask how such misinformation can be published by a reputable newspaper. - Yours, etc.,

Br Michael Murray, Deputy Leader, St Helen's Province, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.

Br Murray is correct and the error is regretted. The cases of a number of other Christian Brothers are pending in the courts and their appearances have been for charge or remand. All defendants have denied the charges. - Ed., IT.


Irish Times, May 18, 2000

A chara, - May I take issue with the article (EL, May 9th) by Tom Humphries on the Christian Brothers, and in particular the Brothers in St Joseph's, Fairview?

I also was at school at St Joseph's (1924-1930). During those six years I never ever saw any of the violent treatment that Tom Humphries talks about, nor ever was there the slightest whiff or whisper of anything unseemly on the part of the Brothers.

If I were not to write the above I would fail badly in the debt I, and so many others, owe the Brothers for their dedication and self-sacrifice. - Is mise,

Fr Tom Ingoldsby SDB, Salesian House, Ballinakill, Portlaoise.

The response of the editor of the Irish Times on 15 May 2000 is reminiscent of his response when the Christian Brothers pointed out another "mistake" in an IT report several months previously. On THAT occasion the "mistake" related to a report of two boys who allegedly died after having being punched in the stomach by a Christian Brother! 

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS AT ARTANE

Letter to Irish Times, 9 October 1999

SIR, - The Christian Brothers note with deep regret and disbelief the seriously misleading article by Patsy McGarry, "Artane Boys faced the music - and straps" (The Irish Times, September 25th). The main source for the story seems to be Mr. Patrick Walsh, a former resident of Artane Industrial School.

 Mr. McGarry made no attempt to check his story with the Christian Brothers. The article refers to boys arriving at the infirmary "clutching their stomachs after being punched by Christian Brothers". In this context Patrick Walsh is quoted as saying that he “recalled two funerals of boys who had been rushed to the Mater Hospital with ‘acute appendicitis’"”.

 It is outrageous that an award winning journalist should include such extremely serious assertions in an article in The Irish Times without even bothering to check the facts. The implication is that the boys who were beaten and seriously injured by the Brothers were then dispatched to hospital where they died. The use of quotation marks around the words "acute appendicitis" seems to imply that the boys died from some other cause. The fact of the matter is that no boy resident in Artane died while Patrick Walsh was there.

 The article also refers to records showing that Patrick Walsh was detained in the infirmary five times between October 1963 and October 1964, “each following severe beatings”. No doubt the reference to records and the inclusion of definite dates are meant to show the authenticity of the story. One would have to ask however if Patsy McGarry has checked these records. In fact the records for Artane Industrial School show that Patrick Walsh was never admitted to the infirmary during that period.

 Your correspondent, and you as Editor, must surely be aware of the Government commission (May 1999) into childhood abuse in reformatory and industrial schools and other places. It is astonishing, therefore, that such an irresponsible and misleading article has been published by The Irish Times. We would ask you please to set the record straight.

 Yours, etc.

Brother J.K. Mullan
 Province Leader
 Christian Brothers Provincialate,
 Cluain Mhuire,
 North Circular Road,
 Dublin 7.

RESPONSE BY IRISH TIMES EDITOR
9 October 1999
A procedural oversight occurred as a result of which Mr. Walsh's allegations were not put to the Christian Brothers in advance of publication.

 A further error took place in citing Mr. Walsh's dates of admission to the infirmary. Artane records show that he was admitted four times between October 1964 and October 1965.

 The Irish Times is happy to put this clarifying information from the Christian Brothers on the public record. The errors are very much regretted.  Ed, IT.

Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [2]

Colm O'Gorman, Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland

This is a follow up to my original article
Are There Very Few False Allegations of Rape and Child Abuse? [1]
(The first two paragraphs below are adapted from the original article. )

Colm O'Gorman and the Insignificance of False Allegations.

Colm O'Gorman is dismissive of the idea that false allegations of rape or child sex abuse, constitute a significant problem.  He wrote in the Irish Times on 29 March 2006 that:
“In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused.”

At the time, Colm O'Gorman was head of the child abuse victims' organisation "One In Four" which he had founded. Two years later, in February 2008 he became Executive Director of Amnesty International Ireland a post he still holds. Evidently Amnesty is in agreement with his views on the non-importance of false allegations!

In response to O'Gorman's March 2006 article,  I wrote a letter to the Irish Times. It wasn't published (I didn't expect it to be) but here it is anyway.

Editor
Irish Times

9 April 2006

Madam,
Writing in the Irish Times on 29 March last, the director of "One in Four" Colm O'Gorman made some remarkable statements in an article headed "There is no evidence to show that the rights of those accused have been abused".

Mr O'Gorman stated: "In the past few months a number of commentators have suggested that grave injustice is being done to priests falsely accused of child sexual abuse. Such suggestions rightly concern fair minded people, but remarkably, no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Did Mr. O'Gorman never hear of the case of Nora Wall, formerly Sister Dominic of the Sisters of Mercy?  In 1999 she became the first woman in the history of the State to be convicted of raping a child AND the first person to get a life sentence for rape. She was also the first person to be convicted on the basis of "Recovered Memory Syndrome". (This kind of evidence is very rare in Ireland but has a long and infamous history in the USA).

Nora Wall was convicted on the word of two women Regina Walsh and her "witness" Patricia Phelan, BOTH of whom had made a string of allegations against other people (mainly relatives and boyfriends). The case started to collapse when they sold their story to The Star newspaper and one of the men who had been accused by Patricia Phelan read it and contacted Nora Wall's family. In December 2005 in the Court of Criminal Appeal, Patricia Phelan finally confessed publicly that she had lied.

In the same newspaper article Regina Walsh stated that she had also been raped by a "black man in Leicester Square". Again it was the first the Defence had heard of this allegation.

At the trial Regina Walsh claimed that one of the rapes occurred on her 12th birthday. She said that Nora Wall held her down while Pablo McCabe raped her. Pablo McCabe was in Mountjoy Prison on that date!! When this was pointed out to the jury they acquitted the two accused on that charge but convicted them on the other allegations. I believe that the only reason for this incredible decision is that Nora Wall had been a nun.  Does Colm O'Gorman have an alternative explanation?

Mr. O'Gorman might like to look at the Judgement of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the Nora Wall case. It is dated 16 December 2005 and is readily available on the Internet.

But perhaps the Nora Wall case is just an aberration? Consider the following.

There are  wild claims that the Christian Brothers and other religious have murdered up to 'hundreds' of the boys in their care. (For example an interview with Mannix Flynn about Letterfrack Industrial School in the Sunday Independent on 22 December 2002). Gardai at Clifden, Co Galway, investigated claims that there were bodies of boys who had died as a result of foul play buried in the grounds of Letterfrack. Early in 2003, the Gardai reported that they had found no evidence to back this up. Superintendent Tony O'Dowd said: "There was no evidence available that would suggest that foul play led to the deaths of anybody buried inside or outside of the cemetery at the old Industrial School in Letterfrack." He added: "There was no evidence of a mass grave."

Then there was the case of former Letterfrack resident, Willie Delaney. His body was exhumed in April 2001 because of claims that he had died as a result of head wounds inflicted by a Christian Brother. The subsequent autopsy revealed that he had died from natural causes and that there was no evidence of a blow to the head.

The list goes on. Patrick Flaherty, who spent some years in the Holy Family School in Renmore, Co Galway said he made two allegations against members of the Brothers of Charity because of 'false memory syndrome'. He later withdrew the allegations. He has also said that while attending a public meeting of the Laffoy Commission in 2003 he overheard other former residents discussing among themselves whether or not to accuse a particular Brother. Some in the group said the Brother had never abused anyone. Others said he should be accused anyway.

The evidence of Patrick Flaherty was not widely reported in the media (I saw it in the Irish Independent on 1st November 2003 and nowhere else). However as head of "One in Four", surely Colm O'Gorman should be aware of it?

 There is no way that Mr. O'Gorman can have missed the allegations about the "killing" of Willie Delaney. The media screamed obscenities at the Christian Brothers. About 20 April 2001,  Evening Herald posters were all over the streets of Dublin proclaiming "Now it's Murder Enquiry". Then the autopsy report was published and the entire media dropped the story like a shot. Yet this was a Blood Libel against the Christian Brothers which was no different from Nazi Blood Libels about the Jews.

Did Colm O'Gorman have anything to say at the time? Will he say something now? How can he possibly maintain that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused."

Yours etc.

Rory Connor

NOTES:
(1)  I was so sure that the Irish Times would not publish this letter that I sent it to Mr. O'Gorman on the same day saying that I did not expect publication and requesting his comments. Maybe he would care to give them now?

(2) I forgot to include the case of Waterford priest Fr Michael Kennedy. In January 2006 i.e. only two months before O'Gorman's statement, two brothers were convicted of trying to extort money from the priest by threatening to make false allegations of child abuse against him.

Colm O'Gorman and the Catholic Church

There was a discussion on the Politics.ie website in May 2009 at the time Colm O'Gorman published his biography 'Beyond Belief'. Naturally I contributed!

In reply to a comment that "It's hard to be very critical of someone who has suffered like that, even when you disagree on the most basic point, as you always have some sympathy", I wrote

I am not so sure about that. The following is part of an interview Colm O'Gorman did with Emily Hourihane in the Sunday Independent today [10 May 2009] - entitled 'The Man Who Faced His Demons'

In 'Beyond Belief', O'Gorman writes, bleakly, "there were two men living in our village who hurt children ... they raped and abused ... I was one of the children they hurt." When I ask him now how this could have happened, why he was not better protected, he responds, "because I was five at a time when this wasn't possible. It was 1971, child sexual abuse didn't exist. I didn't have anything like the level of understanding to know what was happening to me. And at that age, one of the things I knew was that grown-ups hurt you when you'd been bad. So my experience of adults who hurt me, was that they hurt me if it was my fault." ................

When he was seven or eight, an older boy from the area began abusing Colm, abuse which he was by then tragically inured to "accept as normal". 

And after that there was Father Sean Fortune who was the FOURTH person to abuse him - at the age of 14. Most people's character and personality are well formed by the time they are 14 years old. I do intend to read the book but it seems strange that Sean Fortune and the Catholic Church should be the sole focus of O'Gorman's human right's campaign.

Perhaps it's because of the power of the Church? In an interview with John Spain in the Irish Independent yesterday [9 May 2009] - entitled 'About a Boy' Colm O'Gorman explains:

"You have to remember the social and political power the priests had at the time." In the book he brilliantly describes the flagrant way Fortune would arrive in the house and be feted with food as he waited for Colm. In every house he visited in the area, O'Gorman remembers, people deferred to him and lavished attention on him. His own parents were no different."

But does that explain how two other men - and a youth - were able to abuse him, long before Father Fortune appeared on the scene? Why has O'Gorman's entire career been based on the behaviour of the fourth male to have abused him?

Colm O'Gorman and Fr Sean Fortune

Comment by 'asset test'
Yes it is strange that the other abuse happened also. The fact that O'G doesn't refer to this much is again, because those people did not have a worldwide protectorate around them like the clergy did. Maybe he now sees that as a one off travesty. However the ability of priests in any parish to do the same with impunity was rampant (not all did of course, but could have).
Institutional cover up is probably the reason for his focus on Fortune.

My Reply to 'asset test'
I wish I could be more charitable. The following is from a Profile of Colm O'Gorman that appeared in The Sunday Times on 30 April 2006 - entitled Profile: Champion for the abused valiantly joins political fray - Times Online

It was July 1984 and Colm O’Gorman wanted to tell his sister that he had been sexually abused by Fr Sean Fortune. But the words wouldn’t come. Instead, he told her he was gay and that he had been having an affair with the priest, a monstrous character who eventually committed suicide in 1999 while facing 66 charges of molesting young people.  ......When his sister Barbara tracked him down [in Dublin] in 1984, he had found a job in a restaurant and a place to stay. Even though he couldn’t tell her the truth, just telling someone he was gay helped. He became part of the gay scene in Dublin. Previously, when confused about his sexuality, he had thought of himself as “something sick and wrong and evil”, but now this changed. “I will never forget the first time I walked into a meeting and realised, ‘My God, all these people are like me’,” he has said ........

[In London] Things improved in 1994, after he trained as a physical therapist and, for the first time, began to think deeply about his teenage experience.

Word reached him that Fortune was going to celebrate a family wedding, so he didn’t attend. But the priest, according to his sister, was surrounded at the event by a crowd of teenagers. The news triggered O’Gorman into action. He went home, told his father what had happened, and then walked into Wexford garda station and made a statement in March 1995. That action triggered an investigation into Fortune’s activities and led to the uncovering of the widespread sexual abuse in the diocese of Ferns and elsewhere.

Colm O'Gorman was 18 in 1984. According to this article, he was too ashamed to tell his sister that he had been raped by Father Sean Fortune so instead told her he was gay and had an affair with the priest. Am I the only one to see something strange about that scenario? My suggestion: Colm O'Gorman was gay and had been having an affair with Father Fortune!

When O'Gorman denounced Fr Fortune in 1995, the latter was in no position to tell the Gardai that he had been having a sexual affair with O'Gorman prior to 1984. After all, that would have been statutory rape!

This may also explain why Colm O'Gorman finds it so difficult to acknowledge the fact that false allegations of child abuse are a significant problem in Ireland today.

Colm O'Gorman and the Power of the Catholic Church in 1980s Ireland

I wasn't the only one in the Politics.ie discussion to find something strange about Colm O'Gorman's narrative. The following is a comment by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Did anyone else hear the interview with Colm O'Gorman on this morning's Tubridy Show? [12 May 2009]link to audio

I caught the second half in the car, but I've just listened to the whole interview (almost 40 minutes).

I have to say that there is something about his story and/or his way of telling it that leaves me uneasy, because I find it very difficult to believe him. He went into detail about being repeatedly abused by a local old fellow when he was five. In spite of this happening repeatedly and, according to himself, having a devastating effect on him, absolutely nobody seems to have noticed that something was wrong. He explains away his parents' failure to notice anything, but he had five siblings, pals, teachers, etc. Apparently, nobody noticed a change in his personality, signs of depression, terror, confusion, etc.

Then, just three years later, as an 8 year old, he was sexually abused by another local - a teenager this time - and, again, nobody noticed.

Then, when he was 14, he had his first encounter with S. Fortune, who enticed him into bed and abused him, only for C.O'G. (after making a cup of tea for himself) to return to bed and, thereafter, allow Fortune to bully him into continuing the abusive relationship.

Later still, aged 17 and studying hotel management at Cathal Brugha Street, he supplemented his finances by working as a male prostitute (still unaware that he was gay - and this in 1984, not 1948!!).

Repeatedly, Colm depicts himself as lurching between exceptional self-possession (e.g., at 14, he decided to 'take charge' of the relation with Fortune, and even started addressing him as 'John' from the night of their first encounter) and exceptional innocence (in Dublin, several years after the Fortune episode, a man in a public toilet invites him back to his place, and Colm is innocent enough to think that there is nothing sinister about this).

Listening to him, I want to believe his account, but I find it impossible to do so. Even when he describes himself in the present as "a very happy man", I can't believe him. It just doesn't ring true. To me, listening to this interview, he comes across as a troubled individual.

At the end of the interview, I was curious to hear him speaking about himself and his partner having adopted children. Not having read the book, I don't understand the legal status of this adoption, but I would imagine it is unusual in Ireland.

Anyhow, I wish him well.

There followed an exchange of views between 'wexfordman' and 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

Comment by wexfordman

Yes, because in the 70's everyone was an expert in spotting children who were victims of abuse, sure you cold spot them a mile away, thats why we were so quick to react to protect the victims and punish the perpetrators

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

wexfordman, I think there is an elaborate mythology about how benighted and innocent Ireland was back in the 70s. I am older than Mr. O'Gorman, and I can assure you that, from an early age, my schoolmates and myself were well able to spot a dodgy teacher, priest, neighbourhood pest (or even older schoolmate!). Any suspicious behaviour did not pass without comment. By the 1970s, Ireland had been well exposed to the 50s/60s 'youth culture' of sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, etc. Whatever about 'the older generation', a more or less normal teenager would have to have been suffering from sensory deprivation not to be aware of the birds and the bees, and most variations of bird/bee behaviour. It was on TV, in cinemas, in song lyrics, books, magazines, etc., etc.

Comment by wexfordman

Of course he allowed him, sure did;nt all 14 year olds know how to tackle yer basic pervert priest in the 80's, it was part of the school curriculum.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I have seen several photos of Fortune, and I can assure you that if a weird looking creep like that had looked sideways at me when I was 14, I would have been fully aware of the appropriate reaction!

Comment by wexfordman

Ah, I heard differently, perhaps we both need to listen again, cos one of us got it wrong...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'
I am listening again, just to be clear. He agrees with Tubridy's depiction of himself as 'a farm boy' (= 'innocent'?) in Dublin. He spent a few weeks with a student friend, freeloading, and then lived on the streets on and off for six months, "either on the streets ... or I'd get picked up". One night he was sleeping in an underground toilet cubicle in O'Connell Street, and a man asked him if he wanted "to do business", and he agreed (to do business) in order to have a place to sleep. He said he never made much money because "I was a bad prostitute", because he had no business sense. Well, my own recollection of coping with student penury is that there was no shortage of ways to earn a little extra income from part time jobs in bars or restaurants, etc. The best source of information on part time work was fellow students. Had Colm O'Gorman's no friends whatsoever at Cathal Brugha Street? Perhaps his book explains why not?

Comment by wexfordman

WITH REGARDS 1984 V 1948, things were not as different as you think, ffs, condoms were still prohibited, never mind homosexuality.

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I beg to differ. I think things were VERY different indeed. For goodness sake, this was 20 years (!) after The Beatles, Stones, Hendrix, Dylan, Late Late Show, etc., etc. By the 1980s, even Ireland had been well exposed to the best and the worst of what the post-60s world had to offer. Even the stuff that was still officially banned was available via late night British TV channels. How anyone could have remained 'sheltered' from all of that is beyond me.

Comment by wexfordman

He has a partner, a family, kids, a home of his own ...

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I just wondered about the legal status of his children. I am not an expert on adoption procedures or criteria in Ireland, but I haven't heard of other legal adoptions by either single men or gay couples.

Comment by wexfordman

... why should he be happy, having come from where he once was....

Reply by 'Utopian Hermit Monk'

I may be mistaken, and I going strictly on the content and tone of that one interview, but his profession of happiness does not ring true for me. My impression (it is no more than that, since I know very little about the man) is of a troubled individual.

Exchange of Views between Myself and 'Wexfordman' during Politics.ie Debate

I had several exchanges with 'wexfordman' and supporters of his during the discussion on Politics.ie - these included a threat of violence by one of the supporters. I reproduce part of the discussion below - but excluding the physical threat. [I also corrected some spelling errors]

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
No kilbarry, you have said that o'gorman was having an affair with fortune and as such made false allegations against fortune, you further qualified your statement by inferring that that is the reason he has difficulty acknowledging false allegations, by virtue of the fact that he made one himself.

Now apart from the vileness of the suggestion that a 14 yr old is capable of having an affair with an adult in his late 20's or thereabouts, apart from the fact that you claim fortune is guilty of nothing more then than statutory rape, I would suggest you retract it i the interet of the dgds rule!!

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
A 14 year old male is certainly capable of having an affair with an adult - as distinct from being violently raped by an adult - but the actions of the adult are still illegal. The same applies to a 14 year old girl who has consensual sex with a man of 30.  That is why there is an offence of "Statutory Rape" distinct from Rape. A 14 year old is not a helpless infant.

Colm O'Gorman has certainly made a false allegation by stating that "no evidence of any kind has been presented to suggest that false allegations are being made or that the rights of those accused are being abused" and it is NOT a minor issue.

That does not fill me with confidence in relation to other allegations that he has made.

Reply to Me by 'wexfordman' on 12 May 2009
Really, you were in the room, and can verify that he made a false allegation that what heppened to him was against his will ? I think if you beleive he made a false allegation, you should report it to the authorites immediately, you are after all it seems concerned very much with those who do make them, and you have stated as fact that he has done so himself. I suggest you report this to the gardai immediately

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 14 May 2009
Have you reported the false claims you allege cog made re fr fortune to the authorities yet kilbarry?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
Many people have been found NOT guilty of child abuse by the courts over the past decade and more, but few accusers have been convicted of making false allegations. It is a very difficult thing to prove - unless the accuser actually confesses and maybe not even then. One of the two women who slandered Nora Wall  admitted years later that she had lied and was duly forgiven by the former nun. The Gardai and the DPP took no action against her. (Having prosecuted and jailed Nora, they would have looked a bit foolish going after their own witness.)

Strangely enough (or not so strangely) O'Gorman's organisation "One in Four" was involved in one of the few cases where a false accuser was convicted. This was Paul Anderson convicted in June 2007 of falsely accusing a priest of buggering him while giving him First Communion prayer tuition more than 20 years previously. Anderson had been sponsored by "One in Four".

Comment by 'wexfordman' on 16 May 2009
Kilbarry, why dont you come out from behind the anonymous veil you have and make your allegations against a public figure publicly ?

My Reply to 'wexfordman'
I have discussed this kind of issue in public on other websites and in public fora. However where other parties use aliases, so do I. My letter to the Irish Times (see contribution no 15) was of course sent under my own name. Also I was so convinced that the Times would not publish that I sent it to Colm O'Gorman on the same day (9 April 2006). So he knows my name.

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

Kevin Myers, Jews and False Allegations of Anti-Semitism

Kevin Myers

Or an alternative title to this article might be

Jews and Circular Firing Squads

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

Jews and Circular Firing Squads  - Conor Cruise O'Brien

The grotesque fiasco cantered around the firing of Kevin Myers by The Sunday Times is a prime example of Jews shooting themselves in the foot and playing into the hands of their enemies - and at this stage I personally am becoming an enemy! There were TWO previous cases where the results  were not so OBVIOUSLY self-defeating for Jews but the rot was still setting in. I am thinking of the late Conor Cruise O'Brien and also Alan Shatter making false claims about the Catholic Church and the murder of children.

The following is from post #261 re Conor Cruise.

This is the late Conor Cruise O'Brien making allegations that children were murdered by the Christian Brothers - a supporter of Israel peddling Blood libel! Similar to the own goal just scored by Witch-hunters sniffing out anti-Semites in the most unlikely places.

Conor Cruise O'Brien, National Archives, Mary Raftery, Blood Libel

...Article in Irish Independent by CC O’Brien on 15 May 1999 “Child Abuse Issue must be Fearlessly Confronted Now”. Conor Cruise compares the treatment of children by the Catholic Church with the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis. “The holocaust took six million lives, mostly over a three year period. The abuse of children took few actual lives, it did take some but it inflicted great suffering on many thousands of children over several centuries.” ....

Conor Cruise specifically promised to follow up on his allegations but never did. He was unpopular with left wing journalists who - in other circumstances - would have been delighted to demand he provide proof or  apologise for his child-killing claims. However they let him away with that one because it suited their agenda just fine!

Jews and Circular Firing Squads  - Alan Shatter and the Murder of Bernadette Connolly

This is post # 871

Originally Posted by Kilbarry1  [Myself]
Agreed. I sometimes buy the Sunday Times and Kevin Myers column is one of the reasons. Generally I go into my local Easons, take a copy into a corner and go through part 1 in particular to see if it's worth spending my €3. I skimmed through Myers article on page 15, generally agreed with it, certainly did not see it as anti-Semitic (and I support Israel) and decided not to purchase this week. Then I saw the politics thread and bought it after all.

This is a lunatic controversy and when the Jewish lobby calm down they will recognise it as a disaster. From my point of view, this is the THIRD time that I have seen this type of lunacy and I am getting sick of it and reconsidering my attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Reply by L'Chaim

Wow! How some group responds to something somebody wrote would lead you to reconsider your attitude towards Jews and Israel. How fickle that attitude must have been in the first place.

My Reply to L'Chaim

The FIRST episode was when the late Conor Cruise O'Brien promoted Blood Libel against the Christian Brothers - he was echoing Mary Raftery .  The SECOND was the following
Gardai Find No Cover-Up in 1970 Murder of Girl

A GARDA review of the investigation into the murder of 10-year-old Bernadette Connolly 40 years ago has found no evidence of a cover-up.

The child was murdered and her body dumped in a bog in Collooney, Co Sligo, in 1970 -- but 40 years on the killing remains unsolved. The latest review was prompted by concerns that detectives had been hampered in their original investigation because the suspects included a priest who is now dead. But the review has now concluded that there was no evidence that the murder investigation was "impeded or inhibited in any way".

The findings were disclosed by Justice Minister Dermot Ahern in response to a parliamentary question from Alan Shatter, the Fine Gael TD who had previously alleged that the original garda file was shown to a senior member of the Catholic Church........

Mr Shatter alleged in the Dail that Bernadette's murder had not been comprehensively investigated and that a copy of the garda file was given to a senior member of the Catholic Church. The family was promised a full and comprehensive review of the case by Assistant Commissioner Kieran Kenny in December of last year.

In his reply to the parliamentary question, Mr Ahern said: "This review has been completed and the review team has found no evidence to support the view that the original investigation was inhibited or impeded in any way. "A comprehensive meeting was held with members of the person's family in September, 2010, during which their concerns surrounding the investigation were addressed."........

And then a few months later Alan Shatter became Minister for Justice himself!

Jews and Circular Firing Squads - Summary

The first two episodes above had no OBVIOUS negative consequences for the accusers. This was curious in one way since neither CC O'Brien nor Alan Shatter were popular with left wing and "liberal" journalists. However the same journalists shared their hatred for the Catholic Church so had no objection to THAT kind of false accusation (i.e. Blood Libel). The problem is that many of the same journalists are as anti-Semitic as they are anti-Catholic so this kind of action by the Jewish lobby was bound to blow up in their faces at some stage. Now it has. Defaming Kevin Myers as an anti-Semite is not only immoral - it is also profoundly stupid!

Justine McCarthy, Fintan O'Toole and the Power of The Patriarchy

Justine McCarthy

Fintan O'Toole

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!

Irish Salem: Fiona Doyle and George Hook

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?