Cathal O'Searcaigh

Anyone watch this documentary / film last night? AFAIK, it went ahead despite the protests in the article below. It appears to be quite disturbing but I haven’t read about it in much detail. From today’s Indo:

Norris in plea for O Searcaigh probe

By Aine Kerr Political Correspondent
Wednesday March 12 2008

OUTSPOKEN Senator David Norris yesterday called for the broadcasting of a controversial documentary on the poet Cathal O Searcaigh to be postponed and brought before a Dail committee.

In an impassioned plea in the Seanad, Mr Norris said the Donegal poet, who is accused of having sex with Nepalese teenagers, had been publicly “tried, sentenced and crucified”.

The firestorm of hostile publicity over the poet’s actions may mean that retrospective justice is never done, he said.

A documentary entitled ‘Fairytale of Kathmandu’ was broadcast by RTE last night despite challenges from Mr O Searcaigh’s representatives and supporters and Mr Norris’ call for it to be postponed and dealt with by the joint Oireachtas committee on communications.

Mr Norris said the documentary should be investigated to assess the “truth or falsehood of the techniques” used.

Saw a bit of it and heard some reaction to it on the way down to Limerick this morning.

O’Searcaigh basically did the deed with several young lads from Nepal during his time there. They were all above the age of consent but the majority of them are illiterate and probably don’t even know what ‘gay’ is.

Some said they must have known.

Others say they couldn’t have the intelligence to know.

Que a lot of graphic talk…

There’s allegations that he set up a charity to ‘help’ the people out there and went over to Nepal to oversee the distribution of food and money and what have you. But he reportedly handed over food only to those willing to have sex with him and that’s predatory and fairly despicable if true. A charity worker shouldn’t be rattling those he/she is meant to be helping and shouldn’t make decisions on who’s more worthy of help based on who’ll suck his dicky rock. Based on what I’ve read today this definitely warrants further investigation and it wouldn’t be an exercise in homphobia either - it would be to determine whether somebody acted wholly inappropriately and took advantage of vulnerable young people.

That’s the key point at the end there Bandage. I heard two opposing views on the radio this morning. Eoghan Harris was saying something ridiculous along the lines of “anyone who buys coffee or clothes made in the third world is abusing the third world so why single out Searcaigh?” Honestly can’t believe he tried to present that as a credible defence of the man’s actions.

Didn’t get the name of the other guy but he was a gay bloke who was talking about how Searcaigh exploited vulnerable people. He was at pains to point out that the gay part of it is entirely irrelevant - he only brought it up when Harris said it was an issue. And he’s right. If it was young women he was having sex with it would be equally immoral. Indeed even if they were women of the same age as him it would still be exploitative at best.

There’s no way this isn’t mostly about the gay angle. Firstly, the documentary is called ‘Fairytale of Kathmandu’ -I’m doubting that’s a coincidence. Secondly, if you make a documentary and have genuine concerns about the legality of the subject’s actions, you call the guards. You don’t finish shooting, edit, deliver, and then use the ‘issue’ as hype. As far as I know the documentary points out that it’s all legal(none were underage). It’s not that I don’t think it’s a bit dodgy, but what you have to say it boils down to is that a fat westerner is exploiting vulnerable people of the Orient. That shit happens all the time as we all know, be it Nike, carpets, the drugs trade, or sex holidays in Thailand. There wouldn’t even be a documentary if it wasn’t a pillowbiter.

I agree to an extent Juhniallio but disagree with some of what you’re saying too. I haven’t seen the film but from the reports in the media it appears the film-maker used her position as a then friend of O’Searcaigh to get close to him and accompany him on these trips. She didn’t openly confront him about his behaviour during the film or alert the authorities but instead exploited his trust to an extent by continuing to film until she had enough footage to portray him in such a seedy light. That said he doesn’t seem to do himself much favours either if the reports are to believed. But I disagree with the point that there’s only interest in this because he’s a ‘pillowbiter’. I think it’s pretty sick that he’s apparently using the front of a charity to get sexual favours from young people who are destitute and vulnerable. If any of our other renowned literary people set up a charity to allegedly help young women in the Phillipines and then used this position to have sex with them in return for food, money and household appliances then I’d say there’d be a fair bit of interest in it too.

Fair enough Bandage, but I’ve seen the maker’s take on her closeness to him and it’s not how you paint it. She talked of idolising him and how she only wanted to do a loving portrait of him and his life’s work. She had unlimited access to him and his ‘charity’. So ask him the hard questions. 'Do you only help blokes you bang? What age are they? Do you not think there’s anything immoral about your practice? Now there’s telly worth seeing. Don’t tell him you love him then stitch him up.
I’ve not seen the flick but I sense a bit of sensationalism from the film maker as regars how the show was put together etc. I know a bit about this stuff and smell a rat.
I also think that someone should look into the actual activities of the charity. There has to be records of who was helped. Go there and ask them.
Let me reiterate that I see something pretty wrong with a man his age banging teenage boys.

That’s fair enough too Juhniallio - I think there was slyness and deception used by the film-maker but I still think his actions appear to be despicable and akin to those of a sex tourist. In fact they may be worse given the apparent use of a charity as a front / ruse to bang youngsters . I do reiterate that I think the fact he’s a bumbasher is irrelevant to this (w)hole thing.