Video: 3 Lovely Dublin Old Ladies - Very Funny! (wait 1/2 minute to load)

Photo Minute: Oughterard and Maam Cross in Galway 1961

Oughterard in 1961

                                           Coming from the mart in Maam Cross 1961

Wahlberg has not reformed: Lawyer

A former prosecutor who secured a civil rights injunction against a young Mark Wahlberg after he hurled rocks and racial slurs at black schoolchildren has said he should not be pardoned for an attack on two Asian men two years later.

Judith Beals, a former Massachusetts assistant attorney general, said she believed in "forgiveness and reconciliation" but Transformers actor Mark's request should be denied because he had not acknowledged the racial element of his crimes in documents he filed with the state last November.

"That acknowledgement of the crime and that facing of history is absolutely critical in the issuing of a pardon," she said.

Mark, who became rapper Marky Mark and then an A-list actor nominated for an Oscar, acknowledged in his pardon application that he was high on marijuana and drugs at the time. He said he had since dedicated himself to becoming a better person as an adult.

"I've been looking for redemption (since) the day I woke up and realised that I done some horrific things and was on a path of self-destruction, as well as causing a lot of people harm," Mark, 43, whose films include Boogie Nights and Lone Survivor, said in a December interview.

"When I decided to go and petition for a pardon, it wasn't based on the things I accomplished in my career. It's been the things I've been able to do in my personal life: giving back to the community and helping kids, especially inner-city kids and at-risk youth and kids growing up in that same situation."

Mark wants to be officially cleared of a 1988 incident in which he hit a Vietnamese man on the head with a wooden stick while trying to steal drink from a convenience store. Wahlberg, then 16, punched another Vietnamese man in the face while trying to avoid police.

He ended up being convicted as an adult of assault and other charges and was sentenced to three months in jail. He was released after about 45 days.

Judith said what made Mark's 1988 crimes unique was that, just two years earlier, he had been issued a court order triggering criminal charges in the event he committed another hate crime.

According to court filings in that 1986 case, which Ms Beals prosecuted, Wahlberg and two white friends chased three black siblings in Boston's Dorchester neighbourhood, throwing rocks and yelling racial epithets.

The following day Mark and a larger group of white friends harassed a group of mostly black children until an ambulance driver intervened.

Judith argued that Mark's status and wealth should not place him in a better position than others to erase his misdeeds. She also suggested hate crimes should be held to a higher standard.

Meanwhile Mark's film Transformers: Age Of Extinction is heading the nominations at this year's Golden Raspberry Awards, known as the Razzies.

The action sequel led all films with seven nominations, including worst picture, worst sequel, worst screenplay and worst screen combo.

Transformers is also up for worst director for Michael Bay, worst supporting actress for Nicola Peltz, and worst supporting actor for Kelsey Grammer, who was also recognised for his supporting parts in The Expendables 3, Legends Of Oz and Think Like A Man Too.

This year's other worst picture nominees are Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas, Left Behind, The Legend Of Hercules and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

The Razzies, launched in 1980 as a spoof of Hollywood's awards season, has also added a new category this year called the redeemer award that lauds past honourees.

Press Association

Photo Minute: Stunning Iceland (1/2 minute to load)

The law against blasphemy must be removed

I refer to Dr Ali Selim's threatening of the Irish media with legal action

if they publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoon he finds offensive and while

others found so offensive that they killed 12 people 

('Islamic cleric threatens Irish publications with legal action if they publish offending cartoon', January 8).

First, how nice of Dr Selim to assure us that lives will not be in danger. It is reassuring that lives will not be in danger if a humorous cartoon is published in a democratic republic which upholds those essentials of democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of speech.

But, the reality is that people would have grounds to be worried if they were to publish the cartoon. We have been here before with the Danish cartoons, which were followed by hundreds of deaths and attacks on Christians, churches and European diplomatic missions.

When have also been here with the fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989, when the head of Iran's hardline theocracy backed the murder of a foreign national. Why? Because he considered the writer's work of fiction offensive. The book's Japanese translator was stabbed to death in 1991. Its Italian translator was seriously injured in a stabbing in Milan in 1991. Its Norway publisher was shot three times in an attempted assassination in Oslo in October 1993. The book's Turkish translator was the intended target in the events which led to the Sivas massacre in 1993, which caused the deaths of 37 people.

You reported that Dr Selim "insisted that he believed in freedom of expression and speech. However, he said that the image was offensive to equality". An explanation of how the cartoon is offensive to equality is not proffered. Perhaps Dr Selim might enlighten us.

This brings us to the related issue of blasphemy. Dr Ali Selim previously argued in your newspaper against the abolition of the offence of blasphemy from our Constitution ('Blasphemy offence is vital to our peaceful co-existence', February 10, 2014).

Dr Selim said that blasphemy laws are "abused" in other countries. It would be more accurate to say that blasphemy laws are not abused - but enforced - in other countries. In Egypt, insulting Islam and Muhammad has resulted in the death penalty.

Do we really want to live in a country where being involved in the likes of a humorous cartoon, 'Fr Ted' or 'The Life of Brian' could result in a fine of up to €25,000?

The law against blasphemy is an anachronism and should be removed.

Rob Sadlier

Rathfarnham, Dublin 16

Chance to open doors to garda transparency

Government was not sad to see the back of Simon O’Brien, who has quit as chair of GSOC, but he did a good job and serious thought is needed on a successor, writes

The tone of the farewell to Simon O’Brien said it all. Following the announcement on Wednesday that he was leaving his position as chair of the Garda Ombudsman Commission (GSOC), the Department of Justice issued the mandatory cupla focal. “The minister thanks Mr O’Brien for the important contribution he made in his role as chairperson of GSOC as well as the valuable contribution to his previous role in the Garda Inspectorate, and wishes him all the best in his endeavours in his new career.”

Less than effusive and even a few adjectives short of complimentary. O’Brien’s contribution in GSOC was “important”, but not “valuable”. There is no mention of the challenges he faced during his three year-tenure at the helm of a body still struggling to find its feet. Nothing about how he was in situ when GSOC had to battle to assert its independence in a culture still resisting oversight. From the Government’s point of view, it’s easy to see why they are not sorry to see the back of him. O’Brien’s tenure was marked by a major controversy in GSOC, one which contributed to the loss of serious political capital by the Government. It fed into wider controversies around An Garda Siochana, which ultimately led Enda Kenny to effectively sack his justice minister. When things get that bad in government it matters not a whit how well a public servant performed his duty. All he will be remembered for in the upper echelons of Fine Gael is that he was a figure in the vortex of garda/justice issues that dogged the Government for the first half of last year.

The controversies surfaced with the publication of a story in early February that GSOC had conducted an investigation the previous September into suspicions that its Dublin office was being bugged. The obvious suspects, if bugging had occurred, were members of the gardai. When the story broke, the reaction to the story illustrated the challenges faced by O’Brien and his two commissioner colleagues. Instead of expressing worry at any possible bugging, the minister for Justice Alan Shatter carpeted O’Brien for not having informed him of the investigation.

This position was endorsed by Enda Kenny, who erroneously quoted the law. The then garda commissioner came out fighting, claiming nobody in his force had been involved in any bugging. How exactly he knew that none of the 13,000 members of the force could have been involved was something of a mystery. What emerged from the reaction was that instead of regarding suspicions about bugging as being a possible attack on an independent oversight body, GSOC was itself put in the dock. Elements of the government, the gardai — including staff associations— and the media all heaped pressure on O’Brien. “Is his position tenable” became a refrain on the airwaves.

Major focus was also put on the presence of a “leak” within GSOC. In reality, the only real criticism that could have been levelled at O’Brien during that period was that he had succumbed to a carpeting from the minister. As the head of an oversight body, O’Brien should arguably have reacted by handing in his resignation, for the sake of GSOC’s independence. To do so, however, in light of the onslaught against him from the force and elements of the media, might have given the impression he was leaving under a cloud. He made the decision to stick it out. He was thus to emerge as the last man standing as Shatter, Callinan and the secretary general of the Department of Justice Brian Purcell all exited office.

An investigation by retired judge John Cooke concluded that there was no evidence to suggest actual bugging, but, despite attempts to spin the story, this conclusion did not undermine how O’Brien and his colleagues had, for the most part, acted. Yet, some continued to target O’Brien as the villain of the piece. Speaking from the backbenches last September, Shatter couldn’t hide his bitterness as to how things had turned out. “From the start of this affair (the alleged bugging), GSOC have sought to cover up and keep secret a disturbing level of incompetence and failure to comply with their statutory obligations,” he said. As with other comments from the former minister, these were delivered under Dail privilege, where reputations can be kicked around free gratis. (Shatter’s a great cook though, having been awarded four stars in his appearance in TV3’s The Restaurant this week).

In reality, O’Brien was in charge of GSOC at a time of fierce resistance to proper oversight from both garda management and rank and file members. The Department of Justice, and its minister, showed little interest in backing up GSOC’s efforts at any juncture, and this was the context that informed the flow of events surrounding the whole bugging controversy.

Now, with O’Brien’s decision to return to a position in the UK, the Government has an opportunity to demonstrate that its fidelity to reform is more than just platitudes. In appointing a successor, consideration must be given to the status of the office. The first chair of GSOC was a high court judge, Kevin Haugh, who died while still serving. He was succeeded by a former secretary general of a government department, Dermot Gallagher. Then came O’Brien, a competent and senior cop with a good record. It would be difficult to envisage the late judge Haugh being dished out the kind of treatment that O’Brien received from senior ministers and the gardai. It would be nearly impossible to envisage a high court judge subjecting him or herself to a carpeting from the minister for justice.

Why not appoint a legal figure of such standing to succeed O’Brien? GSOC was set up in the aftermath of the Morris Tribunal, which exposed major flaws in oversight and management in the force. The office was the main plank of a set of reforms designed to drag accountability within the force into the 21st century. That initial burst of enthusiasm evaporated over time, when it became plain that in order to do its job properly, GSOC would impact greatly on prevailing garda culture.

Now is the chance to show that the oversight body can play an independent and constructive role in reform. The appointment of a figure with serious clout, allied to further empowering the body would show that real change is this time informed by serious political will. 

Michael Clifford

Photo minute: Spot the owl (1/2 minute to load)