EOIN NEESON,
Sir, - I appreciate Senator David Norris's acknowledgement of what I wrote recently (April 4th) about Prof McCormack's investigation of the Black Diaries.
However when he goes on to say that he was "rather saddened" by some aspects of what I said regarding (i) Casement's "alleged degeneracy and sexual perversion" and (ii) the fact that Casement might be portrayed merely as a homosexual icon rather than as the great man he was, he is, I'm afraid, feeling unnecessarily sad. Mainly, it seems, because he misread the article.
Senator Norris quotes the phrase "alleged degeneracy and sexual perversion" out of context. The full sentence is: "It is regrettable that this great pioneer in the field of human rights is more remembered today because of his alleged degeneracy and sexual perversion than because of his years of monumental and mould-breaking humanitarian work in two continents, or for his patriotism." There is no question that such allegations were made. Senator Norris's attribution them to me calls for an apology.
Regarding the second point, I wrote: "In my view it would be a pity if, rather than simply establishing the truth - warts and all - for what it is, an outcome of any conclusive investigation were, as already seems to be on the cards, for Casement to be portrayed merely as some kind of homosexual icon rather than as the great man that he was."
Is there something about the word "merely" that escapes the good senator? I would like to make my position clear. It is of no importance, in my view, whether Casement was or was not homosexual, left-handed, myopic, vivisectionist, vegetarian, Druze, Bantu, raw meat or garlic-eating, etc., etc. His greatness lies in his convictions and in what he stood up and did about them; and, I repeat, it would be a pity if that great truth were to be in any way diminished. - Yours etc.,
EOIN NEESON,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.