Comments on: FAIRYTALES, FRIENDSHIPS, DELUSIONS

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:54:19 +0000

Because abortion is legal in Nepal. The first government hospital offering free abortions opened in 2002 and large numbers of women are seeking out the service.

And this middle-aged Nepalese could maybe educate our young people, our future legislators after all, on formulating laws on abortion.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:49:11 +0000

That is just bizzare. But ok, whatever makes you happy.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 08:17:13 +0000

Abortion is legal in Ireland if there is a risk to the life of the woman. A provision exists in the Irish constitution to allow Dáil Éireann to legislate on this, however no political party has risked it, and in the meantime, while it is legal in theory, the body that holds medical licences in Ireland considers it malpractice for any doctor to perform an abortion.

I think the supporters of O’Searcaigh should finance a middle-aged Nepalese man on his travels around Ireland, and have him meet young men or young girls for tête-à-têtes in his B&B.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 19:51:13 +0000

What a dumb question.
How about this? How about we talk about the documentary, instead of inventing new ones. If that’s too difficult for you, no problem, I understand. I mean, it´s Ni Chianain who states O Searcaigh didn’t break any laws, not me.

However, if you want to invent documentaries, how about one where a woman goes to England for an abortion. It’s legal there, illegal here. What’s your moral stance on that one?

By: Paul Moloney

Paul Moloney — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:47:03 +0000

“Also, for a movie about sex tourism, it actually states, again at the end, that O Searcaigh did not break any laws. ”

Umm, the point about sex tourism is that the offenders aren’t necessarily break local laws. If O’Searcaigh was paying 15-year-old girls in Thailand for sex, would this be morally OK with you as long as he wasn’t breaking any laws there?

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:22:00 +0000

Who said anything about sweeping it under the carpet? My criticism of Ni Chianain’s documenary is the observation that she made her own feelings and reactions the centre of the story. I mean, she did nothing about sex tourism in Nepal, no wider contextualization - no even for one minute - to place O Searcaigh within the wider problem of sex tourism in Nepal. All she said was, here’s this immoral poet and, well, I’m disgusted. And that it! She ends her film with a poem about broken love, and a note saying that O Searcaign didn’t sleep with anyone under the age of consent.

Since making the film, though, Ni Chianain and her supporters have reacted to ANY criticism of the film as a defense of O Searcaigh.

That’s just daft.

She made a film, she purports to call it a documentary, but when it is analyzed as such, it is found to be wanting.

By: Anna

Anna — Sat, 22 Mar 2008 12:11:19 +0000

You know, I’m glad Ni Chianain made this documentary. It just reminds us that it’s not just in the Catholic church mentality to sweep these issues under the carpet, it seems to be built into the Irish mentality too.

Give me someone making a documentary any day, whether right or wrong, the people will decide anyway, rather than the Ireland of old where we talk about nothing and protect morally indecent people. If it’s a choice, I choose this. And as can be seen, O Searcaigh still has his friends left, and there are those on the other side who now have the power to cross the street when they see him if they wish. Either side you choose, at least you know now the kind of man he is. And whether you see anything right or wrong with that is your own choice.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:00:43 +0000

Thing is, Ni chianain doesn’t mention the charity, nor the €50,000 in her film. Why doesn’t she talk about the charity in her film? The only charity mentioned is the one that she set up on foot of the documentary,” the Kathmandu youth awareness and counseling fund.”

Ni Chianain leaves out so much of this film - so much about O Searcaigh and the charity, about sex tourism in general in Nepal - and what she leaves in his her voiceover and poetry reading. Now. What is THAT about?

All Ni Chianain talks about is her feelings of being let down. That’s why I repeat that her film is not about sex tourism in Nepal, it’s about her own feelings towards O Searcaigh.

It goes back to the poem she reads out at the end of the movie, the broken love. I mean, is that the way to end a film about sex tourism? You’ve got to admit, it’s a bit strange, no? Also, for a movie about sex tourism, it actually states, again at the end, that O Searcaigh did not break any laws. How fucking weird is that? Here’s our awful sex tourist poet. Oh, by the way, no crimes committed.

I find it hard to believe that this type of film would be made anywhere else than in Ireland.

The movie is actually about the Irish sense of morality, and raises issues about the Irish sense of NGOs as the way to solve problems in the Third World. Both unintentional, but there you go.

By: Mark

Mark — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 19:16:54 +0000

e50k in money raised from charitable causes in ireland is a lot of authority and sets him up as a benefactor in a position of authority and trust… that’s just for starters… he sleazier than a sex tourist because he’s not just paying for sex upfront… he has set himself up as their saviour… he has them polishing his shoes, making his bed, genuflecting at his presence… he wants their friendship and love… and ultimately their bodies… if they want to be long-term recipients for clothes, bikes, schooling they know what it is they have to do… twentymajor, inmygrumbleopinion, o’toole et al see that clear as day… it’s not that difficult to call… but some people would defend anything of this nature and pass it off as sexual morality… which i think is sad

By: Niall

Niall — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 14:34:53 +0000

“One could be forgiven for thinking that over the last 10 to 15 years or so that the clergy have been replaced by artists as the spiritual and moral guardians of the island”

I don’t know how anybody could come to that conclusion. I’ve always thought the Irish people rather intolerant of artists, until they began to be lauded in foreign countries and had some tourist value, that is.

Few people who haven’t done the Leaving Cert in recent years heard of O’Searcaigh before this, for example. I suspect a lot of artists and poets wouldn’t mind coming under public scrutiny - it would be the first time many of them had.