Fairytale of Kathmandu (4 Viewers)

[avernus]

I'm decided.

Clearly cathal's fucked up, but it in no way excuses his actions, regardless of his intentions.

I also have an issue with Neasa though, and it's pretty much the same issue i have with most documentary filmakers who produce this kind of stuff.

If she only discovered what was going on during the filming, and knew that this guy was doing wrong, than why on earth did she not fucking report it to the relevent authorities instead of waiting until the Documentary was screened? I see it as a form of exploitation in itself, and while it may or may not be on the same scale as O snodhaigh, her motives are questionable. And her tone during the narration made me sick.

This is a sorry affair, with no winners, where both parties involved are looking to benefit themselves, no noticeable commitment to doing the right thing.

incidentally, the nepalese authorities would be prosecuting him for being homosexual / having homosexual intercourse - not sexual exploitation. not sex tourism. not abuse of power. so I think that's hardly what was required of her. what's more is that there is an importance to documentary that you're disregarding. I think this is a hugely relevant and pertinent topic and this film has brought some light to it on a national level. of course she would continue to make it - even though it was against her conscience. it's not all about money and celebrity. documentary is about education and some stories should be told. I think this is one of them.

as far as I'm aware, the Gardai are investigating it with regard to his actions in Ireland. and probably with regard to his fundraising and where specifically the money is going.

 

[jane]

Old enough to pull them up, old enough to pull them down.

That is pretty close to being the worst one I've ever heard. The most disgusting one I've heard anyone say is, "Old enough to sit at the table, old enough to eat meat."

 

[Corey]

There was some text at the end of the doc which stated none of the boys shown were under the Nepali age of consent. I was watching this with my housemate who is a solicitor and he was adamant that you can be prosecuted for having sex with someone in a foreign country based on the age of consent of your home country.

This is the main issue. It's a grey area that enables the sex industry in that region. Socially in the West, it's not acceptable, but if they're over the age of consent you cant be prosecuted for it .

Regardless of ages of consent, there is a smell about and a 50 year old having relationships anyone under the age of 19/20. There's a conflict of expierience and awarness in it that cant be ignored.

 

[Corey]

but it was reported to the authorities. Afaik the Gardaí were onto it after the story broke a few months ago and they had been in touch with the Nepalese authorities.

Point taken. Missed the story.

 

[La La]

Regardless of ages of consent, there is a smell about and a 50 year old having relationships anyone under the age of 19/20. There's a conflict of expierience and awarness in it that cant be ignored.

'what is sex?'


that pretty much summed it up for me. shame on him for exploiting such innocence.

 

[jane]

incidentally, the nepalese authorities would be prosecuting him for being homosexual / having homosexual intercourse - not sexual exploitation. not sex tourism. not abuse of power. so I think that's hardly what was required of her.

as far as I'm aware, the Gardai are investigating it with regard to his actions in Ireland. and probably with regard to his fundraising and where specifically the money is going.

Christ, that's even more of a mess. It is a pretty stirring reminder that if the politics of representing the abuse of power are this messy, how much more awful and complicated the abuses themselves are.

It brings up so many issues at the one time that it seems overwhelming. The east-west/rich-poor divide, the nature of charity, the ethics of documentary filmmaking, sexuality, the notion of a universal responsibility to look after, or at least not re-victimise the vulnerable, the inadequacy of the concept of ages of consent where there are other mitigating factors, etc.

 

[Froog]

you can be prosecuted for having sex with people in another country who are under the age of consent in your own country:

Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996

​

2 1996 38
Sexual offences committed outside State. 2.—(1) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, does an act, in a place other than the State ("the place"), against or involving a child which—
( a ) constitutes an offence under the law of the place, and
( b ) if done within the State, would constitute an offence under, or referred to in, an enactment specified in the Schedule to this Act,
he or she shall be guilty of the second-mentioned offence.
(2) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, attempts to commit an offence which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not greater than the penalty to which he or she would have been liable if he or she had been convicted of the principal offence.
(3) Where a person aids, abets, counsels or procures, in the State, the commission of an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, he or she shall be guilty of that offence.
(4) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, aids, abets, counsels or procures, outside the State, the commission of an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, he or she shall be guilty of that offence.
(5) Where a person conspires with, or incites, inside the State, another person to commit an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not exceeding the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the principal offence.
(6) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, conspires with, or incites, outside the State, another person to commit an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not exceeding the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the principal offence.
(7) For the purposes of proceedings for an offence to which this section relates, a person shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the State if he or she has had his or her principal residence within the State for the period of 12 months immediately preceding the alleged commission of the said offence.

​

 

[Corey]

incidentally, the nepalese authorities would be prosecuting him for being homosexual / having homosexual intercourse - not sexual exploitation. not sex tourism. not abuse of power. so I think that's hardly what was required of her. what's more is that there is an importance to documentary that you're disregarding. I think this is a hugely relevant and pertinent topic and this film has brought some light to it on a national level. of course she would continue to make it - even though it was against her conscience. it's not all about money and celebrity. documentary is about education and some stories should be told. I think this is one of them.

as far as I'm aware, the Gardai are investigating it with regard to his actions in Ireland. and probably with regard to his fundraising and where specifically the money is going.

All true.

I did think it was a good documentary. I'm deeply cynical about the majority of irish filmakers, but in retrospect, good documentary is meant to make you question your beliefs and consider the alternative, so yeah, i felt uncomfortable afetr watching it but i realise this was a good thing.

Nobody wins though. That's what gets me.

 

[avernus]

well shit the bed!

aren't they questioning the age of consent at the moment? Ireland has the highest age in europe I think. Spain is 14 I think. there are lots of reasons why 17 is too high. I dunno.

you can be prosecuted for having sex with people in another country who are under the age of consent in your own country:

Sexual Offences (Jurisdiction) Act, 1996

​

2 1996 38
Sexual offences committed outside State. 2.—(1) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, does an act, in a place other than the State ("the place"), against or involving a child which—
( a ) constitutes an offence under the law of the place, and
( b ) if done within the State, would constitute an offence under, or referred to in, an enactment specified in the Schedule to this Act,
he or she shall be guilty of the second-mentioned offence.
(2) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, attempts to commit an offence which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not greater than the penalty to which he or she would have been liable if he or she had been convicted of the principal offence.
(3) Where a person aids, abets, counsels or procures, in the State, the commission of an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, he or she shall be guilty of that offence.
(4) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, aids, abets, counsels or procures, outside the State, the commission of an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section, he or she shall be guilty of that offence.
(5) Where a person conspires with, or incites, inside the State, another person to commit an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not exceeding the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the principal offence.
(6) Where a person, being a citizen of the State or being ordinarily resident in the State, conspires with, or incites, outside the State, another person to commit an offence, which is an offence by virtue of subsection (1) of this section ("the principal offence"), he or she shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to a penalty not exceeding the penalty to which he or she would be liable if he or she were convicted of the principal offence.
(7) For the purposes of proceedings for an offence to which this section relates, a person shall be deemed to be ordinarily resident in the State if he or she has had his or her principal residence within the State for the period of 12 months immediately preceding the alleged commission of the said offence.

​

 

[jane]

This is the main issue. It's a grey area that enables the sex industry in that region. Socially in the West, it's not acceptable, but if they're over the age of consent you cant be prosecuted for it .

Regardless of ages of consent, there is a smell about and a 50 year old having relationships anyone under the age of 19/20. There's a conflict of expierience and awarness in it that cant be ignored.

These for me are kind of key questions. And the fact that when these things are discussed, they frequently speak about the victimised parties as if they can't speak for themselves, or are somehow too naive to recognise their situation.

I know you had problems with the documentary, Corey, but I did think the hotel manager's comments were really vital, and not just to do with the sex industry. The sense of superiority with which a lot of westerners approach the rest of the world is something that must make the 'rest of the world' feel at least a little pissed off. They know full well that this 'charity' that makes westerners feel like such great folks altogether would be a lot less necessary if these same societies in the west were a little less greedy. And yet they are frequently represented as mute.

It's such a complex thing, and I'm sure O Searchaigh has a lot of ways to make excuses for himself.

 

[avernus]

All true.

I did think it was a good documentary. I'm deeply cynical about the majority of irish filmakers, but in retrospect, good documentary is meant to make you question your beliefs and consider the alternative, so yeah, i felt uncomfortable afetr watching it but i realise this was a good thing.

Nobody wins though. That's what gets me.

yeah I know. it's pretty upsetting. I think the attacks Neasa has faced are nothing compared to how she felt about it herself. the voice over might have been a bit wishy washy, but I 100% believe that she suffered in the making of it - as anyone would with a friend and someone you looked up to revealing themselves to be a horror.

 

[jane]

All true.

I did think it was a good documentary. I'm deeply cynical about the majority of irish filmakers, but in retrospect, good documentary is meant to make you question your beliefs and consider the alternative, so yeah, i felt uncomfortable afetr watching it but i realise this was a good thing.

Nobody wins though. That's what gets me.

Not to be playing the wishy-washy card, but I think it was a good doc partly because no one won. Because no one wins in situations of abuse. Ever. If it had had a nice, neat conclusion, it would have been nice, neat, disingenuous package.

Did you see Deliver Us From Evil? It was directed by an American woman called Amy Berg, about an Irish priest based in California who raped kids, all age groups -- babies up to teenagers -- for YEARS, and the church knew about it. It was really well done, but there's this one but where they bring him back to Dublin, and he's walking around Stephen's Green, and you're sitting there, thinking you'd like to run into him yourself, and fucking show him what's what. It wasn't made specifically for an Irish audience, but the parts filmed in Ireland resonated very strongly in the room.

BUT there was one scene where he's standing in front of the playground, and there are kids playing behind him and he's talking about how much he loves raping kids. At that point, I got pretty pissed off at the director. Yes, he's allowed to be around kids because he's not in jail, but I didn't think it was okay to facilitate his being around children jsut for dramatic effect, and I wondered if she would have done the same in an American playground.

It's not the same thing at all, and overall I thought it was an amazing documentary that revealed so much about the Catholic Church's official refusal to deal with clerical abuse, but that scene really upset me.

I watched it in Denzille LAne, and I've never been at a press screening where people got so worked up. Usually everyone sits there and avoids eye contact, but there was open sobbing, passing around of tissues, shouting at the screen, etc. That scene, though -- there was a stunned silence. It went momentarily from, "How could that bastard do that to children!?" to a rage at the director, "How could you put children at risk to make a point you've already made!?"

Anyway, sorry to change tack there. I just thought it relevant to bring up another film that deals with abuse, and the ethics of how things are represented in documentaries. I think, too, the only way she could have presented it was as her own journey. If she'd tried being too objective, it would have been even messier because the situation is far too complicated to assess totally objectively.

 

[maims bond]

I have no qualms with the maker of the documentary save for the fact that she did not protect the identities of the boys involved. If this somehow became known in Nepal they could be in danger.

 

[jane]

I have no qualms with the maker of the documentary save for the fact that she did not protect the identities of the boys involved. If this somehow became known in Nepal they could be in danger.

And to be honest, it's quite likely that it has already become known in Nepal. It's a poor country, but it doesn't mean there's no access to information.

I really hadn't thought of this. Talk about an ingrained sense of western privilege -- it didn't even cross my mind until this morning when I heard something about them not having signed release forms. I don't know if it's true that they did not, but it was the first time I even thought about it.

 

[avernus]

where did you hear this release form business?

 

[jane]

where did you hear this release form business?

It was on Radio 1, I think on Morning Ireland, but it sounded like an offhand comment, and I have no clue about whether it's true. But even if it's not true, the comment itself made me think about the whole issue of privacy for the young men involved.

 

[cesspooldublin]

I'm decided.

Clearly cathal's fucked up, but it in no way excuses his actions, regardless of his intentions.

I also have an issue with Neasa though, and it's pretty much the same issue i have with most documentary filmakers who produce this kind of stuff.

If she only discovered what was going on during the filming, and knew that this guy was doing wrong, than why on earth did she not fucking report it to the relevent authorities instead of waiting until the Documentary was screened? I see it as a form of exploitation in itself, and while it may or may not be on the same scale as O snodhaigh, her motives are questionable. And her tone during the narration made me sick.

This is a sorry affair, with no winners, where both parties involved are looking to benefit themselves, no noticeable commitment to doing the right thing.

This is pretty much what I've been thinking.Neasa including the footage of herself toward the end for the "oh look how concerned I am" effect = oldest trick in the book too.

 

[avernus]

This is pretty much what I've been thinking.Neasa including the footage of herself toward the end for the "oh look how concerned I am" effect = oldest trick in the book too.

is it yeah?

 

[cesspooldublin]

is it yeah?

yeah.
Admittedly, I'm being (very) cynical but I sat and watched the little close ups of her looking upset while confronting the guy at the end, and I thought to myself it was very much a case of her thinking "oh I must make sure everyone can see how uneasy I am so as not to appear passive or complicit in this guy going about his dodgy business". clearly she knew what was going on and stood by and let him get on with it. I couldn't help thinking "has she put this shot in here so we'll forgive her for not speaking up sooner?"


like I don't doubt for one second she genuinely was upset but..i dunno..seemed a bit odd she only came out from behind the camera at that point.

 

[avernus]

yeah.
Admittedly, I'm being (very) cynical but I sat and watched the little close ups of her looking upset while confronting the guy at the end, and I thought to myself it was very much a case of her thinking "oh I must make sure everyone can see how uneasy I am so as not to appear passive or complicit in this guy going about his dodgy business". clearly she knew what was going on and stood by and let him get on with it. I couldn't help thinking "has she put this shot in here so we'll forgive her for not speaking up sooner?"


like I don't doubt for one second she genuinely was upset but..i dunno..seemed a bit odd she only came out from behind the camera at that point.

for someone who can't possibly know her exact thoughts, you're managing to credit her with a serious amount of calculation there - suggesting that her feelings on the matter to be disingenuous and serving solely to distance herself from him and colour the audience's opinion of her. sure you're admitting it's cynicism, but that's not removing the fact that you ultimately think she is complicit somehow. if there had been an extra hour, maybe she would've wrapped it all up for you and showed her going to the cops.

does anyone question journalists on exposé pieces for not going to the relevant authorities before going to print? whether or not she was in constant or zero contact with any authorities or support systems is not something that was incorporated in the film.

aside from that - and I question the likelihood of the police investigating Cathal's behaviour in Nepal to prosecute him for it - the timeline involved here is not mentioned so you can't know when it was brought to relevant authorities. the gardaí certainly weren't watching last night and saying "be the holy god!".