Deaglán, what’s your definition of a verbal slip? Something you say off the cuff, and without really thinking it through?
Because Cullen “chose his words carefully when he spoke” (RTE News http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0122/cullenm.html). That’s from the Minister’s own mouth a day later. And from the speech itself:
“That was how it felt – and I use those words very carefully – but that was actually how I felt. As it progressed I said to myself I don’t feel like that. I actually go to bed every night knowing that I was going to be raped the following day.”

That’s hardly an “unfortunate and insensitive verbal slip” is it?

A) Martin Cullen has been quite clear that his words were chosen very deliberately. There was no “slip”. This is a man who, having considered the matter, genuinely thinks the very best comparison to what he experienced is that of rape.

B) You cannot, alas, legislate for what happens in playgrounds. But whatever about school bullies, the media never went near Martin Cullen’s children. I didn’t even know he had kids until he spoke about them. Now the whole country knows about their difficult time in schools, because their Father chose to make them an issue.

Unfortunately for Cullen, the rest of his speech was lucid, clear, and filled with good points.

Unfortunately whoever gave him the all clear to go ahead with it while leaving his comparison in made a grievous error. (He does have someone to double check his speeches, right?!)

Dear God, Deaglán, are you for real?

Cullen’s remarks were not simply “unfortunate and inappropriate,” and they won’t become so no matter how many times you repeat yourself. They were considered and deliberately included in his prepared speech, as Cullen has said himself.

The only person to “trivialised” rape and sexual violence was Cullen himself by his use of the comparison. The only objections I have heard or read are based on just that: his use of that comparison which was plainly crass, wrong and insulting to survivors.

Your remark that objections to Cullen’s use of words are a “disingenuous and opportunistic pursuit of a political agenda against Cullen” is disgraceful.

“Disgraceful”??? Get a grip. It is quite clear what is going on here. Martin Cullen, whatever you may think about his performance as a minister etc, has raised valid questions about the media and privacy, especially family privacy. The fact that he used an unfortunate and inappropriate analogy (by referring to rape in his attempt to convey what it felt like to be subject to such media coverage) is not a valid reason for turning the debate away from the privacy issue. Rape and how it can be stamped out is a subject of such major importance that it deserves to be discussed in its own right. I contend that those who are seeking to divert the discussion away from the privacy issue are misguided and, in some cases, motivated by opportunistic political considerations. It is right and proper that anti-rape campaigners should vehemently object to Cullen’s inappropriate language but that’s not an excuse for others who would seek to shelve the privacy debate.

Interesting how privacy never applies to people who aren’t part of the middle class – you never see any attempts to protect the privacy of people in court who would not be from a middle class background. Yet for the Lillis case the justice system goes out of its way to bend to the wants of those facing court – no arriving in handcuffs for Mr Lillis and then after being found guilty he is allowed walk out of court to ’settle his affairs’ …

As for Cullen – no, using the word rape was not ‘unfortunate’ it is totally unacceptable and he should be roasted alive until he publicly and sincerely apologises for using it. By your actions ye be judged … and by his actions he is not only one of the worst cabinet members at the moment, but in the history of the State. There is not one single achievement he can lay claim to although there are many failures he directly caused.

Deaglán, privacy also throws up the companion issues of transparency and veracity.

Martin Cullen said in his speech that certain things happened that if they did occur are wholly disgraceful and wrong but we’ve only his word for it. He says a journalist entered his house when his daughter was home alone, who was this person? What complaint was made to the journalist’s employer, does there exist any record of this? Or are we to rely solely on his word for it?

There is also the assertion that his sons got a hiding or a beating for as he says defending their father’s reputation but how did they seek to defend it? Who threw the first punch? We don’t know and again there appears to be no record of any assaults occurring.

People including politicians are entitled to privacy but then they bring up something from their private life and use it to support a point they should be able to stand over it. Martin Cullen has a history of saying things he can’t stand over or back up, he did this on e-voting along with other policy decisions.

How do we as members of the public know that any of these things occurred?