Nonetheless there’s something awkward about sending the same people to the competition twice. I realise we’re all frozen in a post-Lehman’s moment but can we not even come up with another trashy confection with so many idle and under-employed in the country?

Jedward: Human Rights defenders?

The Eurovision Song Contest has often been muddled up in politics, whether in the ubiquitous bloc voting, the raw musical expression of national egos and manias or even famously in the triggering of national revolution (the singing of the Portuguese entry in 1974 was the signal for beginning the Carnation Revolution there).

In fact in conception there’s an inherent political mandate for the contest as a festival of European solidarity and friendship.

So perhaps we can vary or re imagine our entry in that regard.

Last year’s winner, and thus this year’s host, Azerbaijan, is not well-regarded currently for its attitudes to human rights. I don’t refer to their winning entry last year though to call a spade a spade, it’s a bit crap:

No, I mean the recent report from Human Rights Watch cataloging a host of breaches human rights there. I won’t run through them all but they are substantial.

So here’s the pitch. This year Ireland is chairing the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe of which Azerbaijan is a member. The OSCE is required to promote the full respect of human rights. So I’m wondering, if, with this in mind, our Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Eamon Gilmore, while OSCE chair, might not pick up the phone to the brothers Grimes.

He only needs to give them a short lesson, with lots of pictures if need be, and perhaps have someone right a few words for them to blurt to the European continent in their singular manner. It wouldn’t be much but it might redeem the whole nutty event a little so why not? And if the Economist thinks Engelbert Humperdinck might defend human rights, why not deploy Jedward, a weapon of significant magnitude and reach!

Hey John, hey Edward, hey Eamon! Ohmigod! Totally!

Take this week’s chart topper: Real Steel certainly didn’t strike me as much of a proposition when it was in the cinema, but I wonder is it a film people are willing to watch though unwilling to pay for and thus more likely to top the charts for illegal downloads than others. These charts clearly don’t reflect the real worth of product but is the dynamic that distinguishes this consumption measurable?

So is it possible to take a film’s performance in paid legal consumption, compare against illegal unpaid consumption, measure the difference controlling for audience profile’s technical abilities etc etc, and discover a quantum that describes how willing people are to watch something, but are unwilling to pay: the Too Shit To Pay/Just Good Enough to Watch co-efficient (or TSTP/JGETW co-efficient… yes I would consider renaming it!)

Can some number cruncher start working on this? I lack skill, will, time…

Well in an excellent piece on the Econonomist Free Exchange blog they accuse the ECB of doing just that, but doing it with the entire Eurozone:
Who killed the euro zone?

An institution that professes itself terrified of inflation has undertaken a policy programme that actively inflated the debt of Eurozone members and turned the attention of the markets on that sovereign debt to the point where the bond market is now broken.

We hear a lot of talk of the break up of the Euro, the death of the currency, but it is the institution that wields the most power, the ECB, that may be recast in the fire.

Mary Rafferty in particular did this with the help of excellent work by a highly professional team including Eoin O’Sullivan of Trinity. The laxity of standards of the Mission to Prey production will be examined by the investigations in train so I’m not getting into that in any depth, in the meantime I highly recommend a read of Vincent Browne’s critical take on the affair in the Sunday Business Post (27/11/11).

But I want to take a moment here to point out what I believe is a calculated untruth that is being propagated by defenders of the institutional Church.

Taking the opportunity that has arisen from the injustice suffered by Fr Reynolds, certain commentators have used the incident to allege that the media is institutionally biased against the Catholic Church, that an agenda is being pursued and that the real effect of that is discoverable in attitudes to the Church amongst the population at large.

Firstly it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc argument to claim that a) because the population at large  tend to disproportionately over-estimate the extent of child sexual abuse among priests, the media must be responsible for creating a false image, and because the media is responsible for a false image, it must be unduly selective in reporting priestly abuse above other forms. The further extension of this fallacious logic is to say that if the media is unduly over-concentrating on cases of child sexual abuse it must be driven by a bias or agenda hostile to the Church. The great secularising bogey-man.

That argument conveniently relies on a figure for reported allegations of cases of child sexual abuse. We’ll look at that figure shortly but let me argue that this figure is the bare minimum for the level of abuse and, crucially, completely misses the systemic failure that most of the population now understand the Church to have been guilty of. Such a figure doesn’t extend the portrait of responsibility to those in the Church who were aware of child sexual abuse and stood by while it occurred or covered it up. That taint is likely to be part of the public perception of the extent of abuse. The use of these figures to paint a minimal picture of sexual abuse of children is a denial of institutional responsibility and the institutional character of the problem of sexual abuse of minors among Catholic priests

So the argument is logically dodgy, and the real figure cited is likely a  minimum and probably not the understanding of what the public have in mind when apportioning responsibility.

But even if the argument held, and that minimum figure wasn’t understating abuse, there remains the question if the media is responsible for a false popular perception, what is that perception? And here is where some commentators are being willfully misleading.

The finding that the Irish Catholic takes from the Iona Institute’s presentation of Amárach Research is reported as follows: “One in five respondents believed that half or more priests had abused a child. The most-authoritative study, conducted in the United States, puts the number of priests accused of abuse at 4pc”

So the perception of abuse is being compared with the 2004 John Jay Report’s findings. Some initial observations: 1) The US is not Ireland, 2) The John Jay Report was commissioned by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and was a survey in which individual Dioceses examined their own files and responded.

We are all too aware of what occurs when Bishops are left to be responsible for monitoring and reporting abuse & allegations or conducting an internal audit. But suspend all judgement of the motives or methodologies of the John Jay Report, extend it the authority granted by the Irish Catholic, accept that it can be used to pretend that the Irish context is similar and that we can infer that the same figures hold here. Let’s pretend 4% of Irish priests were accused of sexual abuse of a minor between 1950 and 2002.

Further, pretend the argument above is not logically fallacious. The John JayReport, upon whose 4% figure Breda O’Brien (on Tonight With Vincent Browne), Senator Rónán Mullen (on Marian Finucane’s radio show) and David Quinn (on Today with Pat Kenny) used to construct their allegation of bias against the Irish media, is fully titled The Nature and Scope of the Problem of Sexual Abuse of Minors by Catholic Priests and Deacons in the United States.

It deals with sexual abuse of minors. The question asked of respondents in the Amárach Research reads as follows:

Q. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of Irish priests are guilty of child abuse?

No mention of strictly sexual abuse there, which is what that 4% figure relates to. Child abuse is the subject of the Amárach Research question, NOT the extent  of the narrower and particular crime of sexual abuse of a minor. Most Irish people would, I contend, distinguish between the broad sense of child abuse by priests including deprivation in institutions such as Letterfrack, the thrashings handed out by priests and brothers in schools, the verbal abuse etc and the particular cases of child sexual abuse. It’s simply not the case that the question mimics the John Jay Report. It does not ask:

Q. In your opinion, approximately what percentage of Irish priests have been accused of sexual abuse of a minor that has been reported to their Bishops?

The Amárach Research/Iona Institute can be accessed here:
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Attitudes%20to%20Church%20poll.pdf

You can see that on the page 9 they insert the text:

Average Estimate = 28%. Actual = 4% accused*
* Source: John Jay College of Criminal Justice

Even here the Iona Institute have failed to resist the temptation to misrepresent. That 4% relates to 6,700 substantiated accusations against 4,392 priests in the USA (4% of 109,694) but filtered out 4,000 allegations for various reasons.

But there is simply no comparison between what is claimed to be perception and reality by the Iona Institute. The whole argument as presented over the past week is a completely false construction based on a figure from a foreign source, a fallacious logic and a piece of research that is being falsely presented and in total it amounts to an dishonest argument, that  public defenders of the Catholic hierarchy are either too ignorant to spot or are wilfully spreading to suit an agenda of their own.

So what’s the takeaway here? Be very very cautious of the assertions that the Iona Institute makes, of the research it commissions and how it uses it, of the sources it selects and the commentators who are parrot their talking points on the airwaves.

There is in all probability an over-estimation of the sexual abuse of minors by priests, it’s probably nothing like the magnitude alleged above, and exists for the reasons that the Church had an institutional role, Priests involved themselves professionally in roles in close proximity to minors and the abusers were part of a group that pronounced on matters of morality and most strikingly on matters of sexual morality. Whereas most other abuse occurred in people’s homes, where the media have little right to intrude, and where there are a different far more complex set of responses that the media have no role in amerliorating

But it bears no relevance to the case of the horrible wrong that was done to Fr Reynolds.

The Pot is, in calling the Kettle black, is precisely that.

———

If this sounds like a re-run of the problems Sony encountered that’s because to all intents and purposes, it is. I’m not a gamer, I bought one game using Steam, Half Life 2. There was no reason why I should have left my credit card details with them and yet I’m sure they structured their service so that I did without thinking too hard about it. In fact it makes less sense that I left my credit card details with Valve than if I left them with the staff of my local bookshop where I make many more purchases in a year than I ever will from Valve or even with the butcher up the road.

So this morning I’m sitting down and trying to draw up a list of the sites and services that have my credit card details and I’m a little shocked at myself. Not that these sites aren’t trustworthy, it’s more the case that there is no compelling reason for me to have given these companies permission to keep this information.

So this morning, having been told to monitor my credit cards by a company I made one or two purchases from my advice is to do a personal data census:

Who has your credit card details and why?

Ticketmaster? Amazon? Play.com? Web hosting companies? Cinema websites?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/9521963.stm

———–

Just sharing two further, disturbing stories on the maltreatment and alleged torture of Bahraini medics published today:

Bahrain doctors tortured into confessing, say families
By Rupert Wingfield-Hayes BBC News, Bahrain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13851761

Bahraini leadership faces new claims that torture took place in hospital
By Alistair Dawber, The Independent, London
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/bahraini-leadership-faces-new-claims-that-torture-took-place-in-hospital-2299944.html

• On Tuesday Maureen O’Sullivan questioned Eamon Gilmore on Holohan’s attendance at the RCSI graduation ceremony and the probity of that.
• On Wednesday Prof MX FitzGerald wrote a letter to the Irish Times voicing his disgust and disappointment with Irish medical organistaions: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2011/0622/1224299383224.html
• Which sparked a debate on RTÉ Radio One’s Liveline programme including a contribution from Prof Damian McCormack. I was on air briefly. A very interesting and enlightening piece form the Liveline team. One retired consultant called in to say he was returning his degrees in protest. You can listen here: http://www.rte.ie/radio1/player_av.html?0,null,200,http://dynamic.rte.ie/quickaxs/209-r1-liveline.smil
• Today’s Irish Times includes further coverage and two letters, one from myself: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0623/1224299455606.html

Meanwhile, the Khalifa Royal family, who have been backed by the Gulf Cooperation Council, are trying 48 surgeons, doctors, paramedics and nurses, who had the temerity to treat injured demonstrators cleared from Pearl Square in a crackdown by the Kingdom’s Sunni controlled authorities, in a military court. They are being charged with attempting to topple the state, apparently by doing their best to help the wounded brought to the Salmaniya Medical Centre. You can (and should) read Robert Fisk’s indignant report, published in today’s Independent here.

The army used extraordinary violence against unarmed Shia pro-democracy protestors while GCC troops stationed in neighbouring Saudi Arabia entered the Kingdom to act as a backstop. Their subsequent prosecution of protestors has resulted in claims of torture, and in the case of the doctors facing charges, at least one faces the death penalty. The Shia constitute the majority of the population, but Bahrain, effectively a client state of Saudi Arabia in many respects, is ruled by a Sunni elite and royal family who appear to have little interest in any real reform.

Amongst the charged are graduates of the RCSI who are bearers of Irish NUI degrees, some of whom are former employees of the Irish health system. Dr Ruarí Hanley of the Irish Medical Times has been drawing attention to the whole affair (read his column on the RCSI and IMO’s silence here, and his letter to the Irish Times here), and successfully lobbied deputies in the Dáil to quiz Foreign Affairs Minister Eamon Gilmore on the issue (Irish Medical Times report here).

While the Minister’s written reply makes a great show of concern it appears this has not stopped his civil servant, and representative of this country to Saudi Arabia, Ambassador Dr Niall Holohan from appearing alongside Prince Al Khalifa at the RCSI graduation ceremony in Bahrain. The Department of Foreign Affairs has washed its hands of responding to the ill-treatment of these unfortunate doctors by the Bahraini authorities on the basis that they are not Irish citizens, the Phoenix reported recently. In the final sentence of the reply Minister Gilmore states “that the relationship between the RCSI and the Government of Bahrain would be very much a matter for those parties themselves.” This statement is quite clearly at odds with the fact of Ambassador Holohan’s presence in Bahrain in the company of that country’s Prime Minister at an RCSI occasion.

The RCSI clearly have a commitment and duty to the students to whom they are currently providing an education in Bahrain. Yet there exists also an economic interest in the form the very high fees charged for this education that trades on the fine reputation of the RCSI, and Irish medicine and medical instruction. That very reputation though might be in the process of being sullied by what’s currently occuring to RCSI graduates under the very noses of the RCSI and the Department of Foreign Affairs in that Kingdom.

In the extensive Irish Times report written by correspondent Jamie Smyth, the RCSI claim to not “comment publicly on a political situation, or individual cases” while also maintaining that any commercial interest is subordinate to their duty to their students and has not motivated any silence on their part.

Whether or not that is the case, the events in Bahrain are certain to give prospective students, such as this young woman in Singapore, pause for thought, given the high fees and potential political instability. It also raises serious questions about the RCSI’s involvement in Bahrain, the attitude of the Department of Foreign Affairs to the Kingdom, and the NUI Senate’s participation in awarding degrees in countries with atrocious human rights records and vindictive attitudes to NUI graduates doing their humane work.

—UPDATE— June 15th 18:55

The Department of Foreign Affairs have confirmed to me, after making enquiries, that Ambassador Holohan did attend the graduation but have stressed his presence was “in a private capacity as he is not yet formally accredited to Bahrain and therefore does not have any official standing in Bahrain.” The Department maintain they are communicating the Tánaiste and Government’s concern “through our Embassy in Riyadh and all other appropriate channels.” A meeting is being requested with the Bahraini Ambassador to Saudi Arabia at the earliest opportunity to hand over a copy of the Tánaiste’s statement  and to make clear the Government’s concerns and displeasure regarding the prosecution & maltreatement of the medical personnel.

The Department did not answer enquires as to whether they were aware of Ambassador Holohan’s travelling to Bahrain, whether there had been any counsel given to the RCSI over their position in Bahrain and the prosecution of medical staff there, or whether the Embassy or Ambassador have had any communication with the staff in question or relatives of the staff.

—Futher Reading—

Bahrain has retained lawyers and is threatening to sue Robert Fisk for his reporting:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/06/14/uk-bahrain-britain-lawsuit-idUKTRE75D6E820110614?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

Also, Nic Robertson’s CNN report:

Doctors and nurses on trial in Bahrain (CNN Report)

And Richard Sollom,deputy director of Physicians for Human Rights, on Bahraini treatment of medical professionals:

http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/05/17/bahrain_medical_professional

MSNBC – US envoy: Bahrain detainees need rights protection

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43406347/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/us-envoy-bahrain-detainees-need-rights-protection/

The movie Atlas Shrugged is opening this weekend. The book came out in 1957 and it was absolutely panned by critics.

Some of the readers didn’t like the criticism. Here’s one such response:

November 3, 1957:

To the Editor:

Atlas Shrugged is a celebration of life and happiness. Justice is unrelenting. Creative individuals and undeviating purpose and rationality achieve joy and fulfillment. Parasites who persistently avoid either purpose or reason perish as they should. Mr. Hicks suspiciously wonders “about a person who sustains such a mood through the writing of 1,168 pages and some fourteen years of work.” This reader wonders about a person who finds unrelenting justice personally disturbing.

Alan Greenspan, NY

Yes, this is real.