Mr Michael Kennedy TD had put himself out to argue a comprehensive case against RTE and in defence of the office Mr Cowen occupies.
What follows is very long… I posted it on Leave Conor Casby Alone Facebook Group I have done my best to address each of his points.
___________________________________
I’d like to express my gratitute to the author [Michael Kennedy TD] for such a thought-provoking and spirited contribution. I’d like to respond to each point in turn because each of them represent a point of view.
"1. I accept ‘satire’ in all its forms once it is based in a context of comedy and entertainment."
So you accept ’satire’. Interesting. But what do you mean by putting satire in inverted commas? It undermines the credibility of your assertion, I suggest. By ‘once’ do you mean ‘provided that’? I assume you must be fully aware that satire has never been limited to comedy and entertainment: satire is designed to hurt too. So you surely didn’t mean to say ‘all its forms’?
"2. I believe in the right of free speech."
Would you mind proving this please.
"3. My objection to the RTE News broadcast is based on my belief that the 9pm News is not a comedy or entertainment show but a ‘serious’ issues broadcast that international TV and Media will ‘pick up’ on."
I agree with you that international TV & Media pick up on RTE news, especially when the manner in which the country is being led is so interesting and newsworthy. I am heartened to see that your ‘objection’ is based on a ‘belief’. No doubt you have other beliefs too. You are entitled to believe whatever you like. It is when people try to compel others to believe their beliefs that trouble starts. But I’m sure you already know this.
"4. The fact that minutes after the 9pm News, media in the USA, Australia and the UK had the 2 portraits on their websites proves my point"
It proves lots of other points too.
"5. RTE could have shown the 2 portraits on any of their ‘comedy’ style shows such as Podge and Rodge. I would have no difficulty in accepting such."
I believe you. It is clear that you have difficulty accepting things which you find difficult to accept.
I would like to pay your contribution the respect of taking every word of it seriously. So I’ll continue below… But above all, thank you for putting your full viewpoint up for public scrutiny.
_________________________________
Dear Mr Kennedy,
It is great to see an elected TD show his powers of reasoning: it is vital for citizens to see into the minds of our elected representatives.
"6. In my opinion, the particular broadcast denigrated and belittled the Office and position of An Taoiseach, the Prime Minister of our country. I hold the view that the Office of An Taoiseach / President / Government Minister are bigger than the individuals who hold the position."
Forgive my impulse to say that I agree the office of Mr Cowen is bigger than Mr Cowen himself. Mr Cowen’s office has at its disposal all the organs of state. It is indeed a big and powerful office. The challenge for Mr Cowen is to be big enough to represent that office responsibility and resist the temptation to allow his office to be used irresponsibly, I suggest.
"7. The manner in which the item was broadcast was a gross insult to the Office of An Taoiseach and I would hold the same view if Enda Kenny or Eamon Gilmore held Ministerial positions."
Thank you for such a clear statement. It is difficult to put your point in context. ‘Gross insult’ is a phrase but I have no way of knowing what you would consider a ‘mild’ insult, or an insult deserving prison or worse. I wonder what you’d say if asked for another example of a ‘gross insult’? I have too much respect for your views to take the interpretation that you are using the word ‘gross’ in relation to Mr Cowen’s figure.
"8. The fact that RTE immediately withdrew any further broadcasts before any apology was sought proves they believed it was an inappropriate broadcast."
When you say ‘proves’ what do you mean? Do you mean that it ‘proves’ it to you? If so, you are fully entitled to accept whatever proofs you like. I will defend you right to take anything you like as proof. However, we live in a community. Asserting something is proof, without successful persuasion, is unlikely win you many converts to your point of view. You persuade those who don’t need to be persuaded, your teammates, I submit."
"9. Neither I nor anybody in Fianna Fáil requested the Gardaí to get involved."
Prove this please. You see you haven’t stopped the Gardai staying involved. So the onus of proof lies with you, I’m afraid.
"10. The Galleries in question have confirmed they sought the help of the Gardaí in relation to the breach of security."
Good point. However, the key question is surely why? The relationship between Galleries and the power of the office of the Taoiseach is far from a relationship of equals. If a 12 year old child does something under the influence or peceived influence, of a 40 year old adult, no one holds the child responsible, surely.
"11. The lack of security at these Galleries raises questions – if a valuable painting was stolen in such a casual act, would there not be public uproar?"
Hypothetical. Red herring. Rhetoric - that’s how this seems to me.
"12. The fact that anybody can casually walk in with a picture under one’s arm, pass the door security, walk along the corridors and hang a painting in some exhibition room without any of the Gallery staff witnessing the event is worrying. What if a terrorist planted a bomb or as I have said above, stole a painting?"
Dramatic. What if they urinated on the floor, or brought a potty … It is going to be hard to make a meeting of minds if we launch off in such interesting directions.
The more carefully I consider your points the more I feel I’m in touch with the strongest cast that your colleagues can make, and the more grateful I am to you for representing it.
________________________________________
Mr Kennedy TD, please don’t feel obliged to respond to each of my points. I am doing this out of love. Unpaid time. We citizens pay you a salary to work on such issues and it is Friday evening: time surely for you to rest after the fray.
"13. I regard myself as having a sense of humour and see politicians and others in public life as ‘fair game’ but insulting the Office of An Taoiseach is ‘not on’."
Your self-conception is something you are entitled to. I regard it was one of your fundamental rights: you are free to believe anything you like about yourself, and others for that matter. It will be difficult to persuade most people that you are altruistic enough to regard FF politicians as ‘fair game’ but you give me hope. When say it is ‘not on’ to insult the office of Taoiseach, I worry that I do not understand you. What would you do with me if I were to insult the office? What would you urge others to do with me? What would you turn a blind eye at if I were so guilty.
Unfortunately, I think of the unever balance of power. On one side the organs of state available to the office holder. On the other side, I sleep unprotected in my house. Would you protect me if I insulted the office and people were angry? Who has protected the teacher painter?
"14. If RTE felt the need to include the Sunday Tribune ‘story’ in a news item, they could have reported that 2 Galleries had called in the Gardaí to investigate a breach of security without resorting to ‘gutter style’ attack on the office and position of An Taoiseach."
Perhaps you consider you could run RTE better than RTE? As regards ‘gutter style’, what do you mean by using this judgmental phrase? Please. Do you mean an attack which was particularly effective at communicating with the vast majority of citizens whatever their level of academic education?
I’m unsure how to understand the difference between the ‘office’ and ‘position’ of An Taoiseach. There must be a difference in your mind, but I don’t grasp it.
"15. The international reputation of Ireland can do without our Prime Minister being ridiculed on our national television station."
Agree fully with you. However, there is a snag. You can’t be easily ridiculed if you don’t put yourself in a ridiculous position. It wouldn’t stand up. Crude inappropriate ridicule would be ignored. Unfortunately the popularity of the images, and incredibly interest in the way in which the office holder has handled this upset, suggests that there is something ridiculous here.
Of course, after the fact, we can all think of how he might have handled it with aplomb. There are those who consider that if he’d handled this differently, the fortunes of our political party might have been helped.
"I conclude by saying I felt outraged by the RTE broadcast and I hope I have explained my position."
You do indeed feel outraged. I believe you. I also accept that you hope you have explained your position. I believe you have been courageous and bold (in the best meaning of that word).
Time will tell whether you will turn the tide of international opinion and local opinion. One think is sure, no one will ever accuse you of standing idly by while your leader was lampooned.
_____________________
It would be careless and unrespectful of me to leave you PS without considering it too.
"P.S.1. Kindly advise your address for my records."
My address is Paul O’Mahony, 1 Crawford Woods, Glanmire, Cork."
P.S.2. If this ‘portrait’ was of a woman, would you agree there would be public outrage?"
Hypothetical again. A red herring. We have enough substance to discuss, I suggest.
"P.S.3. Do the feelings of Mrs. Cowen and her two daughters matter in this ‘toilet humour’? What of Brian Cowen’s ageing and sick mother?"
May I begin by saying that I do not know Mrs Cowen and ‘her’ (surely their) daughters. Neither did I know that Mr Cowen ’s mother is ageing and sick. My own mother is ageing (indeed so am I) and I would be grateful if you would pass on my best wishes to her. May she recover and be as well as possible.
What she must think of her son. He has done well in life. She must be terribly proud of him. So must his wife and daughters.
However, my heart goes out to them. If only Mr Cowen had thought more of them before behaving like this. If only he’d put his family first, before what many consider to be his substantial ego. Honestly I can’t understand how he’s put his family through all this.
Now that you’ve my name and address, may I invite you to carry on the discussion, in public if you like, in Cork or even your constituency. We could podcast it, or do it privately.
There are few public representatives who would have argued their case point by point in such an accessible manner. I thank you for helping me clarify my point of view.
In one respect we are equal: one vote each.
All the best,
Paul O’Mahony
(Omniiblog)
Twitter: @omaniblog