01.30.08
Today
What an awful awful story this is – four teachers in a primary school abusing children from the 1960′s to 1980′s. That kind of abuse cannot take place without people knowing and turning their backs. One teacher admitted he selected his victim because he was poor and malnourished – figured he wouldn’t get any grief from the parents – and he was right. Other people knew about it. That is absolutely certain.
Meanwhile the other day, Myers wrote a column which shows the utterly bizarre logic the “anti-feminists” are willing to employ.
He describes a court case which can be summarised as follows:
- girl out for night with friends gets pissed and goes back to a friend’s bedsit with a strange (ie previously unknown to her) guy – she and the friends crash out.
- she wakes up and yer man and herself are having sex. She protests in some way (Myers says she said she had no protection) – the guy withdraws and on the advice of her friends leaves.
- later she makes an allegation of rape. He presents himself at the Garda Station and co-operates fully with the investigation but says there was no rape – they woke up together, began having sex and when asked to, he stopped.
Myers says “drunken, remorseful girls can do a couple of things after they’ve discovered they’re having sex, or just had it, without knowing too much about it. They can write the night off as human folly, blaming themselves and the men concerned for getting so drunk so as not even to be conscious of, never mind responsible for, their deeds, in which there is no conscious consent, no conscious denial, no conscious intent, no conscious assent, and most of all, no conscious violation.
Or they can go to the gardai — which is what happened here.”
Now, so far I agree with him. Date rape is really complex and I could write a long, long essay on the whole issue. Suffice to say that I don’t agree that all rapes are equal and that the young woman who gets pissed and gets intimate with a stranger is equal in status to the woman who is attacked and raped either outside or in her own home. If a car is stolen, a car is stolen – a crime has been committed and the thief should be prosecuted. If I leave my car in a notorious blackspot with a laptop visible on the back seat – I can still expect justice from the gardai, but any decent friend will say “you idiot – why did you park your car there in the first place?”
ANYWAY, so he’s not being Mr Sensitive with his language and could keep his column to this point, but then he goes on to explain that a previous trial of this man couldn’t reach a verdict and in THIS trial, the man was acquitted! by a jury made up of 11 women.
What conclusion does he draw? That it appears that men can get justice EVEN from women in a rape case? That women clearly expect their peers to behave responsibly and that a regrettable grubby incident between two drunk people is not necessarily a rape. That society can be expected to see sense?
No, he says IF the jury members were men, they probably would have found him guilty and THEREFORE! feminism is terrible because it would have been feminist propaganda that the men would have believed.
Reality doesn’t suit his argument – so let’s ignore that and speculate about things that didn’t happen (as opposed to what actually did) in order to have a go at feminists. Sigh…
Ray said,
January 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Kevin Myers. What a dick.
V said,
January 30, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Thanks for keeping me up to date on the rape and pedos news while I’m away Sarah!
Tomaltach said,
January 30, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Sarah, I read the article at the time and I agree fully with its central contention: that girls who get legless and end up having sex only have themselves to blame. The same for boys. I know a young man who had drunken casual sex unprotected and became a father as a result. Not the best way to start out in life. Myres is right to wonder if people shouldn’t begin to be responsible for their own actions.
He was right too to wonder if the jury had randomly ended up with 11 women or if it was engineered in this way. As you know jurys aren’t random selections, they are to some degree engineered. The question is whether the sex of this jury was engineered.
It is true that his final swipe at feminism was a poor way to finish up. But I don’t agree with you that he had no right to speculate. It’s his article, he can speculate when he wants.
Ray’s comment says more about himself that it does about Myers – one of Ireland’s most courageous and brilliant journalists.
Sarah said,
January 30, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Agree on the jury point – it did seem odd. HOWEVER maybe there is a pattern – maybe defence solicitors know that women will actually judge other women more harshly whereas a man might think the fellow was letting the side down. So that’s a good point there too. That’s another column too!
In fact if he wanted a go at feminism there is a definite case to be made that a strain of feminism does not serve young women well when it tells them they have the right to act as they please and dress as they please without the corresponding responsibility to their own security and protect themselves..
ANYWAY great points to be made out of the incident but blaming feminism for a hypothetical result, instead of drawing conclusions from an actual event, diminished his point.
His one on Simon Wiesanthal was interesting today.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/wiesenthal-was-a-liar–but-that-doesnt-fit-the-fairytale-1277027.html
Again, 5 points jumbled up in one column but interesting nevertheless
Jim Jones said,
January 30, 2008 at 6:13 pm
I read the article and also the comments afterwards and found the following:
I’ve prosecuted probably one hundred sexual assault cases and tried at least a dozen of them. I learned early to choose male jurors over women. Generally speaking, women (and Op-Ed columnists) tend to be skeptical of other women; just as men tend to be skeptical of other men (apart from your average Op-Ed columnist). When watching the trial of a man accused of sexually assaulting a woman, women quite naturally put themselves in the place of the victim while men, quite naturally, view things from the defendant’s perspective. Each tend to ak themselves “What would I have done?” Sitting sober in the jury box, men tend to answer that question thus – “Despite the obvious temptation, under those circumstances it would be wrong for me to take advantage of the lady – regardless of how bollixed she was.” Women tend to answer the question thus – “Why, that that drunken scrubber.” This theory goes against the lay person’s natural instincts but I assure you it is fail-safe.
Posted by John Gamble
Hopefully, John Gamble is only pretending to hold the positions he alludes to. By claiming that men always put themselves in the defendant’s position whereas women always put themselves in the place of the victim is such a sexist presumption to make. Are none of us capable of making rational judgments based on the facts presented? If what he says is true, jury trials should be done away with. Where is the actual Justice if what he says is true? Is he getting rapists off by skewing the jury against the victim?
He might say that men tend to be skeptical of other men but anyone would have to be skeptical of this individual.
Elizabeth said,
January 30, 2008 at 7:08 pm
The article is quite difficult to read, given its confused and rambling nature. I am not familiar with this case but, according to Myers, two very different versions of events were given to the court – he said “he woke to find her hand on his leg, and soon they started having sex. When she said (by his account) that she had no protection, he withdrew. And then they got dressed. He agreed that he had not asked for permission to have sex”. However, she told the court “she had gone to sleep and had woken up to find herself having uninvited sex with the man”.
So it seems the case was about which version of events the jury believed: in the man’s version there was implied consent although she had not expressed it verbally (not rape), in the woman’s version there was no consent as she woke up to find someone having sex with her (rape).
However, he then goes on to treat the case as if the issue to be decided by the jury was whether drunken consent is true consent – “Anyway, as we know, these 10 jurywomen presumably accepted that, merely because the complainant said she was unaware of having consented, this did not necessarily mean that the accused consciously intended non-consensual sex.”.
No – what clearly happened was that the jury did not find there was enough evidence to support her version of events of having woken up to find him having sex with her because, if they had, they would have had to find him guilty – nobody could think that an unconscious woman is consenting to sex. Presumably they were influenced by the fact that she did not alert the three other people in the room to what was going on, as you would expect from someone who was having sex against their will. Nothing as exciting as feminist conspiracies or rigged juries, just people doing their civic duty and applying the required standards of proof to the evidence.
Sarah said,
January 30, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Well, the thing is, the jury decision in this case would prove his point. I suppose we’d have to have some data BUT given that the defence allowed a jury with 10 women would mean that the defence are well aware of the pattern.
Elizabeth said,
January 30, 2008 at 7:41 pm
In a criminal trial, both the accused and the prosecution can object to a maximum of five jurors each. As the prosecution didn’t object either, it would seem that neither side saw any advantage or disadvantage to an all female panel, but trusted they would carry out their civic duty as responsible people. You can’t generalise to such an extent anyway. If the jury’s decision was based on personal feelings rather than the application of legal principles, some women might identify with the complainant, feel she was taken advantage of and want to convict, others might feel she was asking for it and yet others might identify with the man’s mother and want to acquit! It came down to whose version was more credible.
Jim Jones said,
January 30, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Well put, Elizabeth.
I just hope the comment by John Gamble isn’t a true reflection of how the legal teams work or how people actually behave.
Sarah said,
January 30, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Hmmm but given that they were both drunk and its really his word against hers then there is no evidence – its just – who do you believe? I don’t doubt that jurists take their responsibilities seriously but surely it would be difficult to remove “identification” from the process?
Juries may well be brilliant but they do have their limitations. For example, it is well known that people with any excuse try to get out of it (personally I’d love to do it!) so anyone with a job can get out of it quite easily. Juries tend to made up of people who are retired or are unemployed. I’ve heard before arguments that juries are not our peers, they are the people who had no good excuse to get out of jury duty. Now in this case, it sounds like they made the right decision…
Andrew Lawlor said,
January 30, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Sarah,
Good point about juries being made up of retired/unemployed pople. It’s a bit like the saying that opinion polls are made up of the opinions of people who didn’t have the wit to avoid the guy with the clip-board.
I’m a bit surprised that people are so shocked by the workings of our legal system. A relative of mine recently had discussions in the High Court with a barrister. At the first mention of the word ‘fair’ the barrister made it quite clear that proceedings in the High Court have nothing whatsoever to do with fair. We do need to realise that our legal sytem does not dispense justice, it dispenses Law. Whether that law is either fair or just makes no difference to the solicitors and barristers. And that is as it should be. A solicitor who operates within the rules to ‘skew’ a jury in his favour is representing his client to the best of his ability. If he was representing you or I we would demand nothng less.
As for Kevin Myers. Well, perhaps Ray need to work on his vocabluary. Myers may well be a dick, but if he is he deserves a little more in the way of explanation as to why Ray thinks he is a dick. I believe Myers is a hugely important contributor to debate in his country. Certainly he is far more important than John Waters. Myers consistently kick starts debate on subjects that other journalists are inclined to run a mile from. When he bangs on about immigration being the end of the world as we know it he doesn’t find an ally in this blogger. However, he does so honestly and you know he believes what he is saying.
Does any of that make him a dick? Ray, please expand on the subject.
Niall said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:05 am
I don’t know Myers, but from what I’ve read of the man it seems as though he imagines himself as some sort of public service intellectual, bravely swimming against the tide of conventional leftist wisdom that most journalists sponged up during their formative years. Personally, I think his articles read as though he’s a cranky old fart who attempts to write provocative articles by phrasing things in a sensationalist manner, dropping names and stringing together unrelated anecdotes. And yes, you could probably say the same about Waters.
It may be true that there are certain subjects most journalists stray away from, but that really doesn’t excuse Myer’s silly approach. If you’re going to write about a controversial topic – especially if you’re writing to advocate an approach that certain undesirable elements would find desirable – then you dump the sensationalism, you insert any necessary caveats and you pay attention to the nuances. You don’t write in a fashion that evokes images of a Daily Mail journalist receiving the gift of a thesaurus from Santa Claus on Xmas morning.
Elizabeth said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:23 am
In a criminal trial, it is not just a case of who you believe or identify with – in order to convict, the jury must be convinced “beyond all reasonable doubt” of the accused’s guilt. This is explained to the jury. In a civil trial, the standard of proof is the much lower one of “on the balance of probabilities”.
In this case, the man was accused of having sex with a woman without her consent while she was asleep, which he denied. Presumably evidence was given by the woman and by the three other people who were also present at the time. Presumably there was also forensic evidence. Having listened to all the evidence, the jury decided that they had reasonable doubts about his guilt (that is not necessarily the same as saying they believed him) and could not therefore convict. A previous jury in the case had decided they were unable to reach a verdict. Just because someone is acquitted doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t do it – it means there was not enough evidence to convict them.
It is true that juries are made up disproportionately of the retired and unemployed. The employed and self-employed tend to get themselves excused from jury service, often because they cannot afford the time off work rather than because they are disinterested. This is obviously a great flaw in the jury system. However, despite that, I think most criminal lawyers would say that juries get it right most of the time and make their decisions on the basis of the evidence, or the lack thereof, rather than their personal prejudices or who they identify with (no more than judges do).
donkykemore said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:35 am
Lets indulge in a mental experiment here; Einstein was fond of these I believe, so Indulge me please.
If the man had had more to drink than the woman ( or none at all ) and was considerably younger – say 18 and she 55; and let us say she was ugly and he an Adonis , and let us presume that she had the apartment , the car and the cocaine and she- post event – after some deliberation and consultation with the sisters , then discovered he had slept with another woman the following night , decided that she had not expressly consented to intercourse, and as she was taking off her knickers anyway , he took advantage of her equivocation and .. well..rogered her ..
Would you say, Kevin , that a crime of rape had been committed .
I just wonder. There would have been no consensual prelude , the woman would have been deemed more compus mentus than the man , It might even be construed that she initiated the process and seemed even to parley with the notion of some sort of activity ; she just had’nt decided exactly on the degree , but since she discovered he was having it off with another woman reserved the right to post respectively decide she was raped.
I am a Jesuit boy . I should know but I dont .
What do you think.
Ray said,
January 31, 2008 at 8:32 am
My vocabulary?
Kevin Myers is a pompous, reactionary dick. He affects an avuncular manner which is instead reminiscent of the gentleman’s club, his ‘courageous contrarianism’ is simple kowtowing to the remnants of an imperial mindset (is it coincidental that he flourished at D’Olier Street under the chairmanship of the major?), and as a novelist… well, I won’t dwell on his novels. He might choose to be a dick, I’m guessing he didn’t choose to be talentless.
Is that better? Or do I have to explain why ‘starting a debate’ is not necessarily a laudable endeavour, if one always chooses to start the debate from the most reactionary position possible?
Andrew Lawlor said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Much better, Ray. However, I do believe that Myers is sincere in the points that he put forward. If you compare what he has to say about immigration with the utter blandness coming from our elected representatives (Ned O’Keefe excepted, of course), there is no doubt which of tem have moved the debate to where it should be. Myers has claimed that mass immigration
will have dire consequences for Irish society. I don’t agree with him. Immigration will affect Irish society in good and bad ways, but I don’t think we need to get hysterical about it. Our political leaders prefer to waffle about multi-culturalism, enrichment of society, ethnic diversity etc. while enforcing one of the strictest deportation policies in Europe. All of this while talking out of the side of their mouths about ‘undocumented Irish’ in the US.
So to summarise. Myers is not a prick. Yes he may be reactionary, he may tend towards zenophobia, but just because we don’t agree with him doesn’t make him a prick.
Ray said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:43 pm
He’s a reactionary xenophobe prone to burbling on about political correctness and feminism gone mad, but because he’s not ashamed of his xenophobia and is a sincere reactionary, I can’t call him a dick?
What a strange person you are.
Andrew Lawlor said,
January 31, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Of course, xenophobia has got an x and not a z. And you did call Myers a dick and not a prick.
Tell me Ray. Who else is raising the issues around immigration that are going to have serious effects on this society. (When I say serious I don’t necessarily mean negative). All of the voluntary groups working with immigrants take the same view. You cannot say anything negative about immigration or immigrants.
As for political correctness. I call it political cowardice. When someone takes from what I might say a meaning or an offence that wasn’t offered or intended, well that is their problem. Political cowardice strangles debate. It would be more constructive to condemn Myers for what he says and thinks rather than for the way he says it.
Tomaltach said,
January 31, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Ray,
I would say starting a debate is laudable regardless. You don’t like the fact that he often starts the debate in a provocative way in a head on collision with some or other comfortable national consensus or taboo. In other words, you don’t value his starting the debate because you passionately disagree with what he says.
Down the years Myers took many a position which drew a wrath bordering on hysteria from the chattering media classes and armchair republicans. About the Irish involvement in WWI, about IRA/sinn fein, about the rising. If he would often go too far in his arguments, at least he opened up these areas for a more honest discussion and there is certainly a far more even treatment of these subjects today (not soley as a result of Myers, I’m just saying he took part in breaking the myths)
I certainly don’t find each and every one of his articles to be riveting. But hang on – this guy is writing four days a week. Try writing four columns a week that have something important to say every time. Impossible. If he hits the mark every few weeks that’s an achievement. And I argue that he does.
Anyway, when he is at his best, no one comes anywhere close in terms of turning a phrase or punching home a point, or breaking a taboo, or for that matter making you laugh.
No, thank God for Myers. I wish we had far more of his calibre.
Ray said,
January 31, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Okay then. Myers says “Africans who were just off the boat were allowed to accuse us of racism for not having school places awaiting their children” The growth of Dublin’s commuter belt is not a surprise, it does not take seven years to plan new school places, and the problem many face is not just an absolute shortage of places but a particular shortage of places for people like them. Myers glosses over all of this to complain about uppity Africans wanting us to give them a handout. He’s a dick.
Happy?
Ray said,
January 31, 2008 at 2:02 pm
No, starting a debate is not laudable regardless. I dislike the fact that he ‘starts a debate’ from a reactionary position, and doesn’t budge from that spot. What makes this ‘starting a debate’ and not ‘blathering on like Colonel Blimp’?
Re. Myers on the IRA, the Rising, WWI – give me a break. His positions are the very epitome of ‘West Brit’, a set of opinions that (whatever their merits) were hardly without their champions before Our Kev put pen to paper.
How can anyone find any of his articles riveting, when they are all so completely predictable? Is there anyone left in Ireland who couldn’t tell you what position Myers is going to take on a subject within five minutes of him raising it?
Tomaltach said,
January 31, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Ray,
You are right that Myers wasn’t the first to puncture the romantic nationalist mythology: the 800 years of oppression school, with its Brits out slogans, and misty eyed notions of Gaeldom that would make you wrench. No, he wasn’t the first to call a spade a spade in relation to the callous, murderous campaign by the IRA in the North. Not the first in any of these – but he certainly made these points eloquently and with force. Precisely how it needed to be done.
Ray, your view and mine are never going to converge about Mr Myers. But there is one fact over which we cannot quarrel: he has been one of the most prominent and discussed names in the Irish broadsheets for a decade and a half. When he parted ways with the Irish Times, the Indo grabbed him with both hands. If he is was neither relevant nor riveting, why would the country’s two biggest papers have given him so much space for so long?
Ray said,
January 31, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Ah, the “500 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong” school of criticism. So basically, Myers is the Garry Bushell of Irish journalism?
Rob Hickey said,
January 31, 2008 at 3:53 pm
I think that everyone on this blog is a dick **SPARK**.
How about that?
donkykemore said,
January 31, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Myers’ authority to WW1 vets or the IRA is what Bono is to charity- hollow , vacuous ,pretentious and phoney – He also has a most disconcerting habit of pouting like boybands; a habit which was fashionable among 60′s Trinity grads.
They got it from Oxbridge- Brideshead revisited and all that , and in a strange way he reminds me of that sybarite of Waugh’s – Anthony Blanche.
Ah Kevin . Yes . Every time he writes it is a Gethsemane journey for the reader.
One waits for the crucification , but one waits in vain,
Andrew Lawlor said,
January 31, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Rob, drawing from my exensive knowlege of the bleedin’ obvious let me say- you’re on this blog.
Ray said,
February 1, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Breaking news – Kevin Myers still a dick
Today’s column is another example of the kind of thing Sarah points to above. “What actually happened = alright, what only happened in my head = AWFUL BECAUSE OF FEMINISM”