Fergus Finlay: I would like to meet Natasha O'Brien and tell her how very sorry I am

I’ve tried to live a life based on respect, but I know I’ve failed far too often. (In an airport the other night, I asked a woman serving us coffee to smile, because she seemed a bit unfriendly. My daughter Vicky rounded on me, telling me I hadn’t a clue what was going on in that person’s life and I’d no right to speak to her that way. Vicky was right.) I’ve also made it a lifelong rule never to pretend that I know what happens in a courtroom when I wasn’t there. I might have heard some expression of remorse, perhaps — none was reported in any of the media accounts.

But that wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, have mattered. Whatever rationale was offered, it remains completely inexplicable that a man who inflicts vicious violence on a woman and then boasts about it to his friends is still a free man. 

There are, apparently, “enquiries” now to be undertaken by the army, and there remains the possibility that the sentence could be appealed by the DPP. In so far as it is possible to tell, he remains on the payroll as one of our defenders for the time being.

Why? Why is it always the case that perpetrators must get “due process”, when the truth is so obvious and not denied by anyone? What is the due process we owe women attacked by men?

The Irish Defence Forces sets out its mission and its values on the front page of its website. They couldn’t be clearer and they are there for all to see. They’re even couched in language which is addressed very specifically to the men and women who serve at every level in the army.

That’s probably necessary because of the history of discrimination and abuse within the Defence Forces, a history which has now led to a Tribunal of Enquiry. That Tribunal, of course, was only established after a brave and determined campaign by the Women of Honour group, and it remains to be seen whether at the end of the day it will make any difference.

There are, the Defence Forces say, six values which “form the bedrock of the organisation and are central to our effectiveness”. Respect, loyalty, selflessness, physical courage, moral courage, and integrity.

Respect — "You must treat … those with whom you come into contact … with dignity, respect, tolerance and understanding”.

Physical Courage — “You must have the physical courage to persevere with the mission regardless of dangers and difficulties”.

Moral Courage — “You must do what you know is right, not what is easier or popular”.

Integrity — “Be truthful, reliable and honourable”.

We now know that the Defence Forces has within its ranks at least one serving soldier to whom those values mean nothing. And it’s making “enquiries”.

So what should the rest of us do? Or think?

The last time I wrote about a subject like this was when the Central Statistics Office published a study about the historical experiences of Irish women in relation to sexual violence. Its main headline, you might remember, was that more than half of all women in Ireland had experienced some form of sexual violence in their lives.

I made the point in that article that that’s an awful lot of perpetrators. And I’m not just talking about men who abuse women. Throughout my lifetime and long before it has been only men who have created the systems and the rules and the culture and the mores that belittle and demean women. Throughout our history it has been men who have evaded their responsibilities, often by running legal defences that seek to blame the victim of an attack for the violence perpetrated on them.

(By the way when I wrote that piece about sexual violence in Ireland it led to a lot of heated reaction. A lot of people agreed with the basic point that we have to face the perpetrators, but some (men) decided to rally behind a chant of “not all men”. And, perhaps not surprisingly, some of the more delightful types on social media argued that the CSO study proved that women were more prey to violence only because of a rise in inward migration — even though that was clearly, palpably and obviously false and had nothing to do with a historical analysis.) 

But it goes on and on. Women’s Aid last week published its impact report for 2023 which recorded more than 40,000 disclosures of domestic abuse against women and children, the highest ever in its history. Some 86% of the women who had been in contact with Women’s Aid had been abused by a current or former male partner. In fact, the organisation has been able to establish that at least one in four women in Ireland are subjected to some form of abuse from a current or former partner.

Every day of every year, the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre (with whom I work on a voluntary basis) works with women who have been sexually attacked by men. They constantly work to change attitudes, especially through their massive We Consent campaign. But everyone who works in this area knows what a constant uphill battle this is.

Because of men. Because of the harm that men do. Because the only people who can change that — who can eliminate that harm — are men. It is men who commit the violence. 

Whether we like it or not, we are the men who run the systems, appoint the judges, set the standards, and then apply the rules we have devised. And men walk free.

Because of men, the absolute minimum that we have to do right now is apologise to Natasha O’Brien. When she spoke at a rally in Limerick at the weekend, she said: “We all deserve change, we all deserve better, the victims should not be forced to suffer again and again."

But there will be more suffering, more victims. It will happen again and again. Because of men.