ArtsTalk

Having just listened to this interview the following questions come to mind:

1. Has Cathal committed a crime under Nepalese law? Yes or no?

2. If he has not committed a crime, then what exactly is the accusation against him? I assume it is that his behaviour, although not illegal, is considered to be morally distasteful.

3. His behaviour is clearly believed to be morally distasteful by some people. Do these people believe this because they are opposed “in principle” to homosexuality? Yes or no?

4. If the answer is yes, then we are dealing with a simple case of homophobia, since Cathal’s behaviour is nothing more than a particular expression of homosexual behaviour (which, by the way, according to his testimony, did not include penetrative intercourse). If this is the case then we would have to assume that the film – wittingly or unwittingly – is simply promoting homophobia.

6. If the answer to question 3 is no, which is the most likely, then what we have is a belief that certain forms of homosexuality are morally acceptable and others are not, and Cathal’s behaviour falls into the latter category. But on what basis is this distinction made? I understand the young Nepali men were over the age of consent, so we are not dealing with paedophilia.

If we are willing to embrace homosexuality in our society, then we cannot cherry pick which forms of homosexuality are acceptable and which are not (unless of course a crime is committed – e.g. rape or underage sex). This is hypocrisy.

It appears that the charge against him is based on the thesis that the young men in Nepal were groomed by Cathal’s kindness, and that they were therefore unable to think for themselves, or that there were no checks and balances in Nepali society to counteract this supposed evil. But this is all assumption based on a patronising western view of people and society in the developing world. Can it be proven?

Furthermore, whether one agrees with Cathal’s behaviour or not, it is clear that the filmmaker has a lot to answer for in terms of the way the message of the film was presented. For example, why would Cathal agree to the final interview if he had been properly briefed as to the real purpose of the documentary?

As a Christian many would think that I am “officially” supposed to disapprove of homosexuality. Whatever my views about that, I also, as a Christian, disapprove of deceit, injustice and hypocrisy, and from the evidence I have heard so far, there seems to me to be a serious injustice here against this man.