Never mind Cathal Ó Searcaigh. Look at this arrogant élite who would seek to silence you should look too hard at one of their number. These are the new secular priesthood, who took the baton of hubris from the staggering old bishops, and whose arrogance, if anything, is even greater.

This is my first internet post. I read sluggerotoole regularly but have never been moved to comment. However, today I am a worried man. And I noticed that Damien, Bock and Dermod were in the same room, so to speak.

Living in London, I normally read the English papers and occasionally the Irish broadsheets, when I get the chance. It was an article by McKittrick in the Independent (13 March) first alerted me to what he described as “support” for the poet from David Norris, the organizers of the Galway Festival and Margaretta D’Arcy who said “his friends are bound to suffer desperate hurt to their self-esteem, a sense of deepest betrayal, irreparable emotional damage; and this will be the real abuse.”

I remember thinking to myself, people rushing to defend Ó Searcaigh may come to regret doing so. I subscribe to Hotpress,ie because of McCann’s articles and was surprised to read Dermod’s article, and I was disappointed to have helped pay for. But Hotpress is an opinion-driven publication. Did the Irish Times print other, less Ó Searcaigh-phile, opinions, or just Dermod’s?

Dermod sounds like an intelligent chap: asking lots of questions, challenging assumptions, writing with passion. And I think he is also clever enough to eventually mull over his own writings and wish to himself that before taking the debate in lots of interesting directions, he had first dealt firmly and squarely with the central issue, that which Damien and Bock have criticised him for avoiding: namely, that it is wrong to run the risk of hurting other people emotionally by having sex with them if you cannot be completely sure that they aren’t just doing what you want to curry favour with you – is it what they really want too? It is difficult to predict what your actions will have on other people, of course, but it is right to err on the side of caution, especially if you are much older than them and in a good position to give them things they want or need.

I suspect Dermod agrees that the poet may have been exploiting some of the boys. In fact, after much searching I found Dermod writing: “[Ó Searcaigh] certainly needs to address the issues raised in the film about
exploitation, and come to terms with the implications of being a rich
Westerner in a poor country, and how that is a perilous path.” Dermod’s massive flaw has been not stating unreservedly and prominently that he recognises Ó Searcaigh may have been doing things that were wrong.

This is the crux. Ó Searcaigh didn’t think what he was doing was wrong – and from his statement still doesn’t. And neither, it seems, did the people who came out in support of him. I think the poet and Dermod will both reflect differently when they take time to think carefully about the importance of erring on the side of caution and trying hard to make sure you don’t exploit others.

I am still trying to work out why Dermod’s arguments have such a defensive tone. Dermod, could you please tell me more what you think is right and wrong when it comes to sexual relations – this is where the debate lies.

Perhaps the documentary could have been better made. Perhaps all the people he had sex didn’t feel exploited and won’t regret it. Perhaps we all have to think more about who we might be exploiting by our actions.

I take my hat off to Neasa Ní Chianáin for getting people talking and thinking. I hope Ó Searcaigh and some of the people who jumped to his defence have a good talk and a good think. And the Leaving Cert teachers and students have a good talk and a good think – anyone interested in the education of young people should make sure his work stays firmly on the syllabus and his life choices are discussed and debated.

Ultimately, we must wonder why so many people publicly defended Ó Searcaigh. I cannot imagine it happening in the press here in London. Can anyone tell me more about those who did and why they did?

Dermod - this is probably the best place to get this point to you, bar an email, so let me respond to one of your accusations/distortions here:

The experiences and opinions of Ó Searcaigh’s partners are valid in this issue but they are not what a society, community or judicial system should base their opinions and actions upon.

At no point did I suggest that the Nepalese boys’ experience is invalid or worthless to the debate and for you to suggest this is a complete distortion of my point - I’m not worried, though, people can read what I said for themselves.

I am disappointed that you decided to spin what I said on more than one occasion and cut off the debate you have said people should have - all under the pretence of it being too long of a discussion to follow.

Jesus, maybe the Donegal county manager should demand a quick shag!

It is just par for the course these days. Instead of anybody accepting any responsibility for anything they do they have a coterie of friends and hangers-on who will muddy the waters and get people focussing on anything but the issue at hand.

Bertie does it all the time, celebrities do it all the time (witness Mel Gibson deflecting his anti-semitism by moving the issue to his ‘alcoholism’), Cathal o Searcaigh’s friends are doing it now. Perhaps there’s a bit of self-preservation involved, they might feel slightly culpable because they helped raised the money he then used to procure young boys with.

The issue is not homosexuality (despite what Norris and others would have you believe), it’s not about the film maker, it’s about a morally bankrupt individual who uses his relative wealth and status to take advantage of young boys.

If this was a 50 year old male poet going to a poor country and buying friendship and sex from young girls or women there’d be fucking murder, and rightly so.

He knows fine well that what he’s doing is wrong. By the letter of the law it may not be but this Peter Pan bollocks is just that. He’s a grown man, an intelligent man and what he’s done is appalling.