For a long time I've read this site for amusement without ever joining in. The rather disturbing and suddenly vanished Mickey Harte thread, along with the seriousness of the subject he raised, motivate me to throw in my tuppence worth. In case anyone says I am dragging up a mothballed subject, there is still sniping at Mickey on Twitter and even in the Sunday Derry Journal. But the whole episode, and Sinn Fein's dishonesty with its own electorate as shown this very day by signing en bloc the petition of concern at Stormont, raise very awkward questions about Irish nationalism in general which deserve proper debate rather than the petty name-calling into which the last thread descended.
Time for a bit of a reality check. Harte first. Nearly every dimension of his life changed just over two years ago. It really seems only a small number of posters realise the significance of this. Even less on twitter and other online forums. Yes he always been his own man, long before 2011 – a leader and manager of even presidential quality in some people's eyes, or as some others saw him a headstrong and belligerent man who sought too much attention by writing books.
But everything was bound to change for him and his family after the tragedy of Michaela. Let's set aside the share grief and the protracted fiasco in Mauritius and think of the practicalities of domestic life. Whatever brave face he put up, the burden of suffering so publicly must weigh heavily on all. Family life would have to operate differently after a tragedy of that magnitude. Working 9 to 5 as before in the world of property was never a runner. Besides, the way he would see the world, and even more so the way the world would see him, would never be the same. His options were to retreat from public life altogether, or to turn his public tragedy to some good as he would see it. There wasn't really an in-between option. Was he going to maintain a public role in football but ignore all the many requests he would receive nationwide for help after local tragedies, for inspirational talks, for charitable endorsements and much more? It was never in his nature, and he appears to have seen such things as the only positive to be taken from Michaela's death.
Some people don't like what Harte has to say, but he hasn't killed anyone, and I doubt he has hurt many either. He has strong opinions on football. So what? Don't we all? He made a case for Brian Carthy, putting himself out for a friend. Was RTE's response in proportion? He attended a Quinn rally. Big deal. Obviously his arm was twisted to attend, like a string of other GAA personalities. (Colm O'Rourke seems to have as many platforms and opinions as Harte, but somehow he doesn't inspire as much bile online.) The reference used by the defence of Ronan McCusker in his sexual assault case appears a more dubious call, on the face of it. It is certainly disturbing that Harte's name was used in court to try to lessen his crime and punishment. But do we really know the full facts of the case? One story now circulating is that the reference was actually provided for a job application before and then dragged up in court out of context. Perhaps this isn't true, but few of us really know enough to say any better.
It is farcical to claim Harte is abusing his public position by talking about certain subjects. With microphones thrust in front of him he could have said much, much more over the last two years. Rather than condemn his daughter's killers he chose to speak publicly about mercy and forgiveness. He did not speak with anger about Mauritius, when it was the natural human condition of many observers to call for a boycott of the island. He tried to show the Christian and tolerant example which he believed in. Quite the opposite of abusing his position.
Before saying another harsh word about Mickey Harte or anyone else for that matter, they should recall how many harsh things were said about Michaela on this forum and elsewhere when she was alive. Some of the criticisms were completely over the top and often quite vicious. After she died, the same people seemed to conveniently forget their previous bilious commentary about her. If there is a lesson in all of that, it's that we should keep all criticism in proportion, and not demonise those we disagree with.
Now, as for Harte's part in the abortion debate...
Time for a bit of a reality check. Harte first. Nearly every dimension of his life changed just over two years ago. It really seems only a small number of posters realise the significance of this. Even less on twitter and other online forums. Yes he always been his own man, long before 2011 – a leader and manager of even presidential quality in some people's eyes, or as some others saw him a headstrong and belligerent man who sought too much attention by writing books.
But everything was bound to change for him and his family after the tragedy of Michaela. Let's set aside the share grief and the protracted fiasco in Mauritius and think of the practicalities of domestic life. Whatever brave face he put up, the burden of suffering so publicly must weigh heavily on all. Family life would have to operate differently after a tragedy of that magnitude. Working 9 to 5 as before in the world of property was never a runner. Besides, the way he would see the world, and even more so the way the world would see him, would never be the same. His options were to retreat from public life altogether, or to turn his public tragedy to some good as he would see it. There wasn't really an in-between option. Was he going to maintain a public role in football but ignore all the many requests he would receive nationwide for help after local tragedies, for inspirational talks, for charitable endorsements and much more? It was never in his nature, and he appears to have seen such things as the only positive to be taken from Michaela's death.
Some people don't like what Harte has to say, but he hasn't killed anyone, and I doubt he has hurt many either. He has strong opinions on football. So what? Don't we all? He made a case for Brian Carthy, putting himself out for a friend. Was RTE's response in proportion? He attended a Quinn rally. Big deal. Obviously his arm was twisted to attend, like a string of other GAA personalities. (Colm O'Rourke seems to have as many platforms and opinions as Harte, but somehow he doesn't inspire as much bile online.) The reference used by the defence of Ronan McCusker in his sexual assault case appears a more dubious call, on the face of it. It is certainly disturbing that Harte's name was used in court to try to lessen his crime and punishment. But do we really know the full facts of the case? One story now circulating is that the reference was actually provided for a job application before and then dragged up in court out of context. Perhaps this isn't true, but few of us really know enough to say any better.
It is farcical to claim Harte is abusing his public position by talking about certain subjects. With microphones thrust in front of him he could have said much, much more over the last two years. Rather than condemn his daughter's killers he chose to speak publicly about mercy and forgiveness. He did not speak with anger about Mauritius, when it was the natural human condition of many observers to call for a boycott of the island. He tried to show the Christian and tolerant example which he believed in. Quite the opposite of abusing his position.
Before saying another harsh word about Mickey Harte or anyone else for that matter, they should recall how many harsh things were said about Michaela on this forum and elsewhere when she was alive. Some of the criticisms were completely over the top and often quite vicious. After she died, the same people seemed to conveniently forget their previous bilious commentary about her. If there is a lesson in all of that, it's that we should keep all criticism in proportion, and not demonise those we disagree with.
Now, as for Harte's part in the abortion debate...