Demystifying the Fairytale of Kathmandu
Mar 12th, 2008 by Donagh
Dermod Moore has done us a great service. I missed last night’s RTE documentary Fairytale of Kathmandu on Donegal poet Cathal Ó Searcaigh and how he apparently sexually exploited young Nepalese men. I caught the end in which Ó Searcaigh seemed to condemn himself. In a long, apparently unedited, sequence where the documentary film-maker Neasa Ní Chianán leveled her accusations that the boys he was involved with were naïve and in some cases unaware of what homosexuality was, Ó Searcaigh said that yes, he did have sex with them and asked what was wrong with that.
The implication was clear as a bell. Ó Searcaigh, who has always been openly gay, was unaware that his actions were exploitative. One of the boys called Ó Searcaigh his god. What else could we think except that Ó Searcaigh used his status with these young ‘venerable’ poor people in order to satisfy his sordid desire for sex – and worse, that his moral compass was so out of line that he was unable to see that this was wrong?
However, from the accounts I read this morning it was shameful television, not because of Ó Searcaigh alleged actions, but because of how the documentary was constructed. We know this because those who Ní Chianán interviewed for the documentary are furious at how they were depicted. Friends of Ó Searcaigh have put together a DVD that was distributed to journalists at a press conference convened yesterday by Ó Searcaigh’s media advisor Liam Gaskin, which Dermod has described in detail.
It is naïve to think that a documentary is the clear distillation of objective facts and that the film-maker will always go to extraordinary lengths to get every side of the story in order to make their case. But judging by the accounts described by Dermod Ní Chianán film uses interviews selectively, and failed to ask the permission of those people who spoke while in the presence of Ó Searcaigh whether she could use what they said for the documentary. If she had done this they might have refused, but it also denied them the opportunity to confirm what they really thought of Ó Searcaigh, and judging by Dermod’s account that would have been overwhelmingly positive.
What is repeated by many of those interviewed in the DVD distributed at the press conference is that Ní Chianán was ignorant of Nepalese culture. Clearly there is more to come out as this controversy develops more momentum – and it should – but I’d like to quote a section where Dermod transcribes the comments made by Yutso Arishama, a writer and a translator of Ó Searcaigh’s work.
“If this film-maker had gone to any of the restaurants, she would find loads of teenage girls being used by the Western tourists. You don’t have to go more than one minute from the Buddha Hotel. I wonder why she is not worried about these innocent girls? How she is worried about Cathal’s friends, being “exploited” by Cathal? You’ll see so many teenage girls being everyday being used by these tourists, no investigation required to see this see this sort of thing. She says she’s so sensitive, she’s so worried about her son, about the children.. if she’s so worried, why doesn’t she make a story about Nepal, about these Nepalese children? Why just Cathal? Why just Cathal’s friends? I invite her to come to Nepal, go to all these dance restaurants, she’ll make a wonderful story about child exploitation. But just concentrating on this one person, and then seeing whole world of inhumanity and suffering in this? This is atrocious, this is so biased. This is demonizing Cathal, this is demonizing a gay writer. Like women here demonize men, a transexual man, or a man seen talking to five, six young men, young women, would be seen as a monster. Nepalese society is so sensitive to these things, in its makeup, in its intrinsic relationships, in its large families.
At the moment Nepal is passing through a very critical phase. This poet, this prophet, this saint, from Ireland came and tried to help these young people. He translated lots of Nepalese poets in Irish pages. This man was a bridge between Nepal and Ireland, between Nepal and Europe. This man is being demonized. I invite this film maker to come to these restaurants, and find the very visual, very simmering evidences of all that she’s trying to prove with Cathal. And she’ll find none with Cathal. She just has to come. This is absolutely outrageous. I can’t understand all this. I want to say one message. Cathal is openly gay, and I’m telling all my friends that Cathal is going to be one of the greatest writers of the century in the years to come. I am telling my friends, the whole enigma of Cathal. His generosity, his openness, has come to his own disadvantage. And that’s what happens with good people.”
So why is Ó Searcaigh being demonized in this way? Is there a homophobic element to this? Dermod also quotes the speech given by David Norris yesterday in the Senate.
“An attempt is being made to create such a fire storm of hostile publicity that justice may never retrospectively be done.
This film was selectively leaked to quarters were it could be calculated to do most damage and most dangerously inflame opinion. The subject of the film has been tried, sentenced and crucified already. And what of the youths involved? Despite pious protests they have been most callously exposed in a dangerously homophobic society and then left to sink or swim on their own. So much for the alleged concern of RTE and the film-makers for their welfare. I am aware of the existence of a smear campaign against any who dare raise their voice to ask these questions.
I am aware also of possible damage to my own standing in this community that I love. But I have chosen to make this intervention in what I consider to be the most appropriate place the free parliament of the Irish people because I love justice and truth even more than I fear any misunderstanding of my motives in so doing.”
I would suggest that the film itself was not overtly homophobic in its intention, but that it was aware of how the topic would be discussed within an Irish context and that our innate conservative opinion would do the work that the film claimed it had not set out to do.
At the end of the documentary the voice over, which I presume is Ní Chianán’s, suggested that the motivation for doing the documentary was not to explore what had eventually been uncovered. The implication is that, like Christopher Isherwood’s opening line in Goodbye to Berlin that the eye is a camera, unblinking and that it records only what it sees.
Maybe so, but the eye does not operate on its own; it is controlled by a mind which chooses what it wants to see.
But enough bombast from me. I just hope that RTE, aware of their influence on public opinion chooses to offer some balance and accept some of those invitations to come to Nepal to talk to Ó Searcaigh’s friends.
Hugh Green has seen it though.
And I have seen it :
http://fichefocal.blogspot.com/2008/03/fantasy-in-kathmandu.html
But I don’t agree in full with the point about the girls. For sure the fact that this is gay sex is likely to play to certain prejudices. However, it is not fair to say to an artist - hey, why didn’t you do this on girls. That’s like saying to Seamas Heaney, why don’t you write us one on the celtic tiger please. But here’s the point: Ní Chianáin set out to make a docu on a man who claimed Nepal was his spiritual home, who said he admired and was protective of the innocence of Nepali youth, who loved their open, tactile nature. And who was going there to give Alms and meet his Friends. And then she discovers, hey, wait a minute.. And she explores and then confronts the terrible gap between what Ó Searcaigh says and what he does.
If she saw some worse injustice on the way should she stop and say, to tell with the O Searcaigh film, this is more worthy? Should all artists do that? I don’t think so. She made the film she made and we should assess that film instead of the one she didn’t make.
All of that being said, I believe Ó Searcaigh should not be harassed and hounded. His reputation may be in tatters, but he should be left alone. You breach some of society’s moral codes and that’s what happens - that’s life. Sexual exploitation of men or women is wrong. If Bertie Ahern was found with a hooker, could he remain in office?
It is sad but true also that our tabloid instincts, not just in the media but in us as a nation, will direct us away from the niggly question of prostitution in Ireland and sexual exploitation generally and will focus on the seedy side of this single story. Again, sad, but that’s life.
I heard about this case about three weeks ago, when Mary Hanifin announced that she was shocked by the reports in the documentary, and that although it was not up to her to decide the Irish ciriculumn, she tohught it best if Ó Searcaigh was dropped from it. At that time, I thought the documentary had already been shown. Now I find out it was broadcast for the first time last night.
Looks like they’ve used Ó Searcaigh´s homosexuality and (quite frankly exploitative, but technically legal) practises in order to make a buck.
In fairness, though, RTE did give David Irving 20 minutes of national broadcast airtime to say that “holocaust” was a 1970s invention. which was nice.
Conor,
About RTE: though I think Ó Searcaigh was wrong, and Ó Cianán had every right to make the film, I see very little public service remit being fulfilled by its broadcast. And I agree with those who argue that a debate on sexual exploitation and/or sex tourism would be far more valuable. We all know how seriously RTE takes its public service remit! And it is no surprise that they chose to show the film. Having made their decision to show it, however, I don’t think they should have pulled back because a few outraged letter writers in the Irish times think the film was ill conceived.
About Irving. I wrote on my blog that I was glad that RTE allowed him to speak. I’ve been thinking about that a couple of times since. I suppose my starting point is freedom of speech (though I acknowledge that such freedom has limits). But, and I admit being slow here, I’m now beginning to see the difference between being allowed to speak and being invited to speak by a public service broadcaster. One way of thinking about it is to ask: does Irving need to be rebutted? Does it help his cause to marginalise him or is it better to take him head on? You could say, he’s old news now since he’s been rebutted so many times. But there is still huge demand to hear him speak and College debating societies never cease to be attracted to asking him to come along.
And then she discovers, hey, wait a minute.. And she explores and then confronts the terrible gap between what Ó Searcaigh says and what he does.But there are suggestions that she visited Nepal before the filming of the documentary and that she was perfectly aware of his proclivities. It seems that her ‘narrative’ that she really admired Ó Searcaigh and that she happened upon his relationship with these young men by accident is not exactly true.
There is also the fact, mentioned by Quentin Fottrell this morning on Morning Ireland, that many of those who were interviewed didn’t give permission. Quintin still thinks that Ó Searcaigh was exploiting them, but there is another cultural issue here. I haven’t seen it but there seems to be no understanding or indeed interest in Napelese society and culture.
The fact that so many on the PR released DVD seem to be saying things that run counter to the emphasis taken by Ní Chianán should not be ignored. These people do not feel exploited, even though they are now in their early 20s. Some of them say that Ní Chianán approach to the topic is one steeped in European, and indeed Irish preconceptions. It is emphasised that the boys are ‘venerable’, poor, and under educated. In reports its also emphasised that the country is poverty stricken, and on Morning Ireland it mentioned that only one in five women (I think) can read.
The film was made two years ago, yet in that time she didn’t go back to ask them how they were affected. This would have proved her thesis, yet many of those who were filmed were never contacted again.
The problem seems to be that people are uncomfortable, as Dermod mentioned, with relationships occurring between older Western men and younger Asian men. However, I don’t necessarily think it’s connected to homosexuality (although those prejudices are feeding into it). The other night I watch a program about older men going out with teenagers. It was all very tongue in cheek. Everyone was having a laugh.
Ó Searcaigh could indeed have been exploitative, but the film seems to have so much baggage, prejudices and preconceived ideas tied into it that its difficult to know for sure.
Conor, was it 20 minutes? It seemed longer. The argument that having a public debate with a real historian and a fake historian gives credibility to the fake historian when they don’t deserve it seems to haven conveniently forgotten by our national broadcaster.
your post doesn’t help the reputation of blogging … you haven’t seen it … yet you quote comments from someone (who admits in an update) his position is flawed … the film is not perfect … but to jump on that to the detriment of everything else … saying it demonises O’Searcaigh in a homophobic society … to say ‘why doesn’t she film older men with girls’ instead or in addition to it … doesn’t do anything to explore the issues or get near the real truth… this is the film she made, deal with it … you’re on a loser here… and as for the paranoid fairy-tale remark … that’s just more scraping the bottom of the barrel…
Donagh,
I’m afraid I don’t accept the argument about understanding Nepalese culture and their value system. A penis in your hand that you rather you hadn’t seen is a penis in your hand that you rather you hadn’t seen.
I have travelled a little around East Asia. I have seen sex tourism - up front in your face. It is not pretty. And nothing can convince me that those young people are in suffering anything other than exploitation. If there is a cultural issue here it is the sheer disparity in power and status between a Westerner and someone who is destitute. That is the root of the flattery and the fawning, and the unfortunate tragedy of having to make very difficult choices which we never have to make. If I ride this fat man, I can pay for my college next year.
I’m sure this film does have baggage. But not nearly as much as Cathal Ó Searcaigh.
About Irving. Yes, exactly. The trouble is, who decides who is fake? Is he fake because we don’t agree with him? Apparently Irving’s knowledge of the Second World from the German side is immense.
Mark, you’re right. I shouldn’t have commented on something I haven’t seen. It goes against my own instincts, I have to say. That Dermod provided the update does change things of course. My post was a reaction to what I read in Dermod’s original description of the DVD. However, just because there was an error in ascribing the name of one of the people in the DVD does this dismiss everything else that was said? Or indeed, contradict the point of view of David Norris as expressed in the Seanad?
I certainly shouldn’t have suggested that O’Searcaigh is being demonised - I was repeating the phrase used by Arishama in the DVD. However RTE has significant power to make an accusation that is difficult for an individual to rebutt without resorting to the libel court and within the public discourse discussion of the issue is made more complicated by the sexuality of the individual and the prejudices against it.
this is the film she made, deal with it Again, I can’t even do that because I haven’t seen it. But I don’t accept the argument that she made the film and that I can’t question how it was put together.
It does undermine it … but it doesn’t take away from the issue that david norris is ignoring .. the real issue … he is about 15 years out of date on this one … it’s a tragedy to see someone as powerful and wonderful as him get it so wrong… the focus on the creativity of the film is almost too intellectual and clever for its own good … the facts within it speak for themselves … they are facts o’searcaigh himself doesn’t deny … he just says he didn’t abuse them BY having sex with them but he doesn’t deny the sex … that’s the interpretation … most sane people (in my opinion) see that aspect as a problem…
As with Conor, I saw this issue surfacing a couple of weeks ago on other blogs and had thought the documentary had already aired. Again, I haven’t seen it (and am thus commenting from as weak a position as you, Donagh) but initially - hearing the names ‘Hanafin’ and ‘Joe Duffy’ in the mix, I thought it was a simple homophobic persecution issue. Fairly soon, looking over the blog postings and comments it became apparent to me that the issue was a good bit more complex.
I think the hompophobic aspect is pretty small cheese compared to the ‘Rich westerner exploits persons from developing world’ aspect - whether the exploited be male or female. Can’t help thinking of that Houllebecq book. And a post-fall Wilde in Tunisia with Gide. Or Burroughs, Orton etc. in Tangiers - it’s been going on for a long time, this sort of stuff. Whatever about this ‘They don’t understand Nepalese society’ argument - not too sure Nepalese societal structures had anticipated planeloads of westerners arriving en masse.
Tomaltach, thanks for that mental image. I’m as disgusted by sex tourism as you are. I find what Ó Searcaigh was alleged to be involved in distasteful. However, this was not a film about sex tourism, which is clearly and unambiguously exploitative. The allegation is that Ó Searcaigh was no better than a 50 something Insurance salesman picking up teenage Nepalese girls in a Kathmandu piano bar and that he was bringing shame on Ireland because he was effectively an ambassador for Irish culture and charity while doing so. However, the film was not about sex tourism, nor did it wish to explore it. It showed Ó Searcaigh in a situation that suggested that this was what he was up to. Because Sex tourism in Nepal and other Asian countries is well known, you might argue, there was no need to even mention it - its a given and the situation in which Ó Searcaigh could be seen spoke for itself. Sex tourism is a phenomenon in Nepal, Ó Searcaigh was hanging out and sleeping with teenage boys and young men, therefore Ó Searcaigh is a sex tourist. But why not explore it? Why not go deeper into the story and talk to those who were originally filmed with Ó Searcaigh and find out about their life - what they really though of Ó Searcaigh when he wasn’t around. I’m not suggesting that the film-maker should have taken on the burden of trying to solve all the world’s problems or become a campaigner against the evils of sex tourism. But there seems to be little interest in the real lives of those people who she has used as props to destroy the reputation of Ó Searcaigh. Now, perhaps his reputation deserves to be destroyed.
My entire post was written not as a reaction to the film which as I’ve said countless times I have not seen. It was written to highlight Dermod’s post and David Norris’ speech in the Seanad. Both of these highlight the fact that despite all the disgust expressed, despite all the horror at Ó Searcaigh’s alleged actions no one gives a FUCK what those who are supposed to be exploited think. They’re adults, they can clearly think for themselves. They’re articulate and it seems, angry. Excuse me for sounding like the piss-poor Arts graduate that I am, but whatever happened to the notion of post-colonial discourses where the subaltern speaks?
Regarding Irving, it was clear from his Late Late show performance that he is riding on the Free Speech ticket, twisting the words of liberals back on themselves as they get tangled up in the importance of ‘freedom’ etc etc.
The argument I mentioned comes from Deborah Lipstadt’s book Denying the Holocaust, in which she stated that Irving was a bigot and not a proper historian. Irving sued her for libel and lost. The Cambridge historian Richard J Evan’s, who’s In Defence of History is definitely worth reading if you haven’t, was called as an expert witness and said in his testemony:
While its not exactly relevant regarding your point about the right to free speech you should really check out this thread over on Cedars. Its excellent, particularly SonofStan’s contributions – although Conor’s has of good ones in there too.
the facts within it speak for themselves
Mark, my point in writing the post was to suggest that there was more to this than we were seeing. The film didn’t base itself on facts, but rather appearances, to a certain extent. Its true that exploitation is about the abuse of power, where you have the means to make people do things you want them to do, often against their own interest because you have something that they need. In the case of Ó Searcaigh, there was also the matter of his cultural standing - that he was a respected poet coming from a ‘Western’ nation to a piddling country without a Nobel Prize winning writer to its name.
Certainly some facts have become known, of this there is no doubt. Ó Searcaigh slept with older teenagers and young adult men in Nepal. However, that’s where the facts end. Everything else is just conjecture and the impression made based on the images of Ó Searcaigh with these young people. If the film was interested in facts, it would have dug deeper - asked the friends of Ó Searcaigh more questions, looked into their personal and economic circumstances, asked them between the time the original filming and the time it was being put into production (the filming was conducted two years ago) how they feel about Ó Searcaigh. My post was based on Dermod’s description of the testimony of those people and their reaction to the film - and although a mistake was made in identifying one individual this no way discounts what others had to say.
Mark, I hope you don’t think I’m insane - it would be so easy for me to express my disgust and drop this. But I also hope you don’t think that these people are incapable of understanding whether they were exploited or not, or that the exploitation is so ingrained that it’s accepted as normal.
Seán, I’m not excusing what Ó Searcaigh allegedly did by suggesting that ‘we don’t understand Nepalese culture etc etc’. The cultural aspect was a point made by the Nepalese, not me. Regarding the increases in sex tourism, well, that’s Globalisation for you. The ‘West’ tries its best to prevent those from poor nations coming to their countries, but it takes advantage of cheap flights to send out their fat, lusty insurance salesmen to take advantage of people in a place where the weak dollar can buy so much more than you get in Rome, for example.
To paraphrase a well-known thinker: they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented by Martina Devlin.
On Irving, I thought RTE performed a useful service in allowing him to speak. He revealed himself as a Hitler-loving crank (his current ‘non-denial’ of the holocaust is concerned primarily with improving Hitler’s reputation: it was all Heydrich and Himmler’s fault and the great man had nothing to do with it), and not to be taken seriously under any circumstances. I say so in the hope that perhaps after that appearance up-and-coming controversialists in student debating societies will be more likely to look elsewhere for their moronic ‘free speech’ debates.
they must be represented by Martina Devlin.
Oh, Sweet Lord…
Still, if Gerri Halliwell can the UN representative for poor, bulbous-bellied, fly-bothered children, why not?
On Irving, yes, that’s a good point. He did only have that argument to go on, that we have no hard explicit evidence that Hitler meant when he authorized the final solution that they should kill ALL Jews they can get their hands on.
And this of course weakens his freedom of speech platform, because all Irving can say is that people are denying him the right to quibble about a technicality.
Donagh,
I take your point about the mental image - that was a low ball on my part. I suppose I was overreacting to my interpretation of some of the cultural arguments which say, don’t judge this, there’s a cultural divide we cannot understand.
I fully agree the film could have done more - to explore what these men felt, their backgrounds etc. But I don’t agree with you that Ó Searcaigh slept with older teenagers and young adult men in Nepal. However, that’s where the facts end. I would add two points. 1. Ó Searcaigh invited one of them back to the hotel for help with lessons. But they didn’t do lessons. When confronted about having sex instead of giving lessons, he said yes, but we did lessons as well. 2 Ó Searcaigh’s reaction to the confrontation at the end was devastating. You can hold the camera whatever way you like, but he was shaken and put up no credibile defence. In fact, he admitted there was an exploitative dimension to these encounters.
I’m afraid, having watched the film, I find it very very difficult to reach any conclusion other than Ó Searcaigh at the very least was effectively paying these very young men for sex.
The mistaken identity thing is also a weakness. Suppose Ní Chianáin came out and said, oh, actually, that guy in the second interview is the wrong chap, he hadn’t slept with Ó Searcaigh. Well her critics would be down on her like a ton of bricks. To me, the mistaken identity undermines the defence.
there’s a cultural divide we cannot understand.
I would like the take the heat out of this emotive issue, but I have to say that I never made this particular argument. Again, the cultural issue was made by one of the Nepalese contributors to the DVD. However, you were reacting to an argument so I’m not going to take issue with it.
Ó Searcaigh invited one of them back to the hotel for help with lessons. But they didn’t do lessons. When confronted about having sex instead of giving lessons, he said yes, but we did lessons as well.
I can’t comment on the veracity of this or whether it constitutes a fact. But lets look at it in another context, that of the development of a mutually consensual sexual relationship between a male secondary school teacher and a female student studying for the Leaving Cert. Now, I’ve have heard of these situations happening before. While not extraordinary common they do happen relatively frequently, in Ireland. Certainly they are scandalous, but on the same scale? With a film crew revealing the relationship and a national broadcaster fanning the controversy? However, because Ó Searcaigh situation occurred in Nepal and because sex tourism occurs in Nepal the situation is hugely and significantly different.
Ó Searcaigh’s reaction to the confrontation at the end was devastating. You can hold the camera whatever way you like, but he was shaken and put up no credible defense. In fact, he admitted there was an exploitative dimension to these encounters.
Of course he was. He’s naive, he was driven by desire, he is perhaps deluded. But he’s not stupid.
The mistaken identity thing is also a weakness. Suppose Ní Chianáin came out and said, oh, actually, that guy in the second interview is the wrong chap, he hadn’t slept with Ó Searcaigh. Well her critics would be down on her like a ton of bricks. To me, the mistaken identity undermines the defense.
When making a case in law, for example, the prosecutor must provide evidence to prove their claim beyond reasonable doubt. So if part of their evidence is false, whether by accident or design the rest of their testimony may be undermined, depending on how much of it relied on the piece of evidence in question. However, when defending the case the defendant has only to throw doubt on the evidence produced by the prosecution. In this situation part of the defense was inaccurate - by mistake - but the rest of the testimony continues to throw doubt on the accusations made in the film, in terms of whether the people were exploited or not.
Listen Tomaltach, condemn him all you like, but do so not on the strength of the film alone. All I am arguing for is to look at the case based on what you see in the film AND the opinions expressed by the Nepalese who have provided it in the DVD.
People who have been arguing about this seem happy to ignore them and to stick solidly to what they saw in the film. I think, in order to be fair, it’s a mistake to that.
I take your point about the evidence. And yes, that is right.
But I don’t accept the parallel you draw with the student and teacher. That is an organic relationship that, for all its flaws, develops over time. Ó Searcaigh had many many boys visiting his room in a short space of time. And some hadn’t really known him before. In one case cited in the film he met a boy at a campus. In another he met a boy on a trekk. Can we believe, even if all these boys were gay, that they would all find him so attractive. I’m sorry, this is like Bertie’s finances - there is no hard legal evidence he was doing wrong, but the story is simply not believable.
You are right about looking farther a field for evidence. To be honest I am quite suspicious of the so called DVD. There is a strong motive here for Ó Searcaigh’s friends to piece together a defence. Let’s get some of these men to deny it, type stuff. At least in the main film I know that one person on the film was not lying or bribed: Ó Searcaigh himself, who admitted having sex with multiple boys and that the relationship had an exploitative dimension.
And lest I seem like I want Ó Searcaigh hung, drawn, and quartered. I don’t. In the eyes of the law he is innocent. It is reported today that he has gone into hiding. I hope he is not going to be tormented or hounded - though sadly I fear he may be. That kind of behavour towards him is wrong. But I have made my own judgement of the film. He is not certainly not guilty of a heinous wrong. But in my view he was wrong to treat those boys as he did.
I also missed this program because I didn’t realise that RTE had rescheduled it to air 2 days earlier than announced. Does anyone know if it’s going to be shown again?
…. comments made by Yutso Arishama, a writer and a translator of Ó Searcaigh’s work: “This poet, this prophet, this saint, from Ireland came and tried to help these young people….”
anyone would think that Arishama was actually referring to St Patrick the way he lauds Ó Searcaigh. such eulology is way over the top for a mere Irish mortal. his long hagiographical piece has a strong whiff of spin to me….
Certainly there’s a bit of hyperbole going on. I wish I could have seen the documentary, but by all accounts it has hardly the most balanced of items. Ok. Ó Searcaigh´s actions have been far from laudable - but his punishment has been total and very very public. I doubt very much if we’ll be getting a poetry reading from Ó Searcaigh on Irish shores in the near or even distant future.
“The allegation is that Ó Searcaigh was no better than a 50 something Insurance salesman picking up teenage Nepalese girls in a Kathmandu piano bar”
He wasn’t - Insurance salesmen tend to use their own money when indulging in sex tourism, Cathal has been paying for his own sexual satisfaction, at least partly, out of money donated by people like you and me by organising fund raising events for “15 kids from penniless families”.
As to why the boys have changed their stories, well maybe that’s down to the suicide notes that Cathal has sent to his young “friends”, or the fact that, according to the hotel manager, Cathal’s ’spiritual son’ has been buying their silence with money provided by Cathal.
Someone from RTÉ said on the radio last week that it was unlikely to be broadcast again, but the film is available on bittorrent at the moment if anyone is interested.
Cheers for the tip John. I must have a look for it.
You got a source for any of that John?
€50,000 charity extravaganza:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/revealed-how-poet-set-up-charity-fund-1315024.html and various other papers over the last week or so
suicide note: Sunday Times, 10th feb
RTÉ woman on radio:
matt cooper’s show last wednesday or thursday
hey this is bikalpa bartaula from nepal. this act of homosexuality is a seryous crime in the nepalese culture and also sexual violence in the nepalese legacy. i believe that the documentary is correct.Ó Searcaigh is not allowed to visit nepal any more . this people has shamed the holy nepal. i personally know a boy exploited by the poet and feel sorry about him.
this person has seriouly comitted a crime against the nepalese culture.
i have heard about the film but not able to watch it. how can i do it in nepal?