Some time ago, I attended a gathering in Dublin focused on strengthening family life. Needless to say, there was a counter-protest as well; that seems to be de rigueur these days. The contrast between the two groups was obvious and said a great deal about each side.
With the large Garda presence, the barricades, and my unfamiliarity with the area, I mistakenly walked into the counter-protest section. I was approached by someone who appeared to be human—though, given the strange times we are living in, I hesitate to presume gender. The individual certainly appeared female to me, sporting a hideous Mohican hairstyle of indeterminate colour and wearing more rings on various parts of the face than a serial bigamist would have on all his fingers. She asked which group I was supporting, and I meekly replied, “Yours.” She said, “Excellent,” and as she turned away, I executed a hasty U-turn and headed toward the group that, in my view, had reason, sanity, and humour on its side.
The original event—the one I attended—was entitled “Let Women Speak.” A series of women spoke about their devotion to their families, especially their children. In calm yet impassioned words, they expressed their abhorrence of what is proposed to be taught to children in schools and libraries (and what is being paraded on city streets in some countries): the wholly unsuitable importation of agendas regarding sex and gender into the lives of innocent youngsters. Like any mother worthy of the name, they calmly vowed to protect their children from what they saw as insidious, agenda-driven drivel.
One security detail was revealing. Those attending our side were searched by Gardaí—a fairly basic frisk, to be honest. Access to the counter-protest, however, involved no such searches. The reason seems obvious: nobody expected the noise-makers to cause disturbance, but it was certainly possible that our gathering could become the target of threatening or violent behaviour. I note that there is a motion before the European Parliament (B9-0187-2023) seeking to legislate that ANTIFA be declared a terrorist organisation because of its members’ involvement in violent, and possibly life-threatening, activities. On February 14, 2026, a French Catholic, Quentin Deranque, aged 23, was reportedly killed by ANTIFA for celebrating and defending his faith.
As the mothers spoke, the other crowd—with Paul Murphy, TD, in the front row—engaged in their usual unimaginative tactics. Their apparent aim was to make as much noise as possible, perhaps hoping either to drown out our speakers or to dampen our enthusiasm; the result was a total failure. If they were not so potentially dangerous, one might almost feel sorry for them—members of the rent-a-crowd brigade, gullible to a frightening degree and naïve to an incredible extent. I find it perverse that anyone would rally against family life. Certainly, experiences of family life differ: some are happy, some sad, some traumatic. Yet there is no other place where human life can begin and be nurtured than within a family (as discussed in an earlier article of mine).
Make no mistake: the assault on our country, our culture, and especially our youth continues apace. The good news, in my view, is that while such movements may have resources (money), they seem short on intelligence, creativity, calm conviction, and even humour. One of the latest proponents of the “new Ireland” is Ollie Bell, organiser of a “TRANS rights” march in Dublin in May 2024. That such movements receive media attention and coverage should come as no surprise; NGOs, media outlets, and others appear intertwined in what I see as a multi-headed hydra, threatening to undermine and weaken our once-great nation—a nation that never claimed to be a utopian paradise, but which may one day seem like a veritable garden of Eden compared with what is now being imposed on us and future generations.
Reading some of Ollie’s tweets reveals, in my view, someone preoccupied with familiar themes: sexuality, religion, social organisation, and so forth. These topics can indeed be controversial and deserve serious comment and debate. Unfortunately, I believe Ollie has disqualified himself from serious conversation, as his tweets seldom rise above the puerile.
One might even feel sorry for “Comrade Ollie”—as he refers to himself. He seems easily manipulated and perhaps unaware that he may be a pawn in the game of people with motives far more calculating than he could imagine. The “Comrade” label reminds me of the rebel movement in the Philippines in the 1980s (where I have lived for more than 30 years). Some of its leaders were principled individuals, appalled by corruption and incompetence. Yet many of the rank and file were semi-literate farmers, armed with Lee-Enfields and even muskets. The Philippine media often referred to them as Marxist rebels, though the only Marx many of them likely knew was Groucho—and it certainly was not Groucho who wrote Das Kapital. Ollie’s apparent lack of historical awareness may prevent him from recognising the darker associations attached to the term “comrade.”
The petulance of many such activists may ultimately prove their undoing, as more people come to see what they regard as hollow brashness—vapid and devoid of serious thought. If one is going to jump on a bandwagon, it might at least be one grounded in worthy motives. The more the TRANS crowd revel in what critics describe as costumes and empty slogans, the more they risk alienating the majority—and, in my view, that may well shape the future direction of the debate.
Share this: