Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Protest in solidarity with Rory O'Neill/ Panti

Options
135

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    logik.ie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭logik.ie


    Daith wrote: »
    It's fine to lash out and hurt someone? Panti was asked by the presenter who she thought was homophobic. Hardly lashing out at people.

    Libel and/or slander is "lashing out", and if you'd rather use a different term thats your choice. To argue about semantics seems to miss the point.
    Daith wrote: »

    RTE were also in the wrong for linking the editing of the interview to the tragic death of Tom O'Gorman.

    I have no doubt RTE may well have been wrong, but don't see the relevance and it seems you are looking for any excuse you can find to excuse libel and/or slander.
    Daith wrote: »
    The rally on Sunday was not about celebrating calling people homophobes. It was the fact that gay people can not use a word which does apply to people. There are homophobes in the world even if they don't believe they are.

    Of course anyone can use any words they like. Unfortunately if you call someone else a homophobe in public you are then subject to the libel and/or slander laws.

    You seem to want to claim some special hurt that you are not allowed to use the work "homophobe". If a str8 person had called the same people "homophobes" on the same tv programme, they would also have been subjected to the same laws of libel and/or slander.

    No one, either gay or str8, is permitted to go around libelling or slandering others.


  • Options
    #63
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    logik.ie wrote: »
    No one, either gay or str8, is permitted to go around libelling or slandering others.

    What you are saying is that no one is allowed to use the word homophobe.

    I think you missed the entire point of the protest on Sunday.


  • Options
    #64
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    The truth isn't defamatory.
    it was in this case


  • Options
    #65
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    it was in this case

    No, RTE paid out before it went to court. Nothing was proven.

    There is still a lawsuit against Panti so you'll need to wait until that case is over.


  • Options
    #66
    logik.ie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭logik.ie


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    it was in this case

    That's a matter of opinion and is, eventually, up to the courts to decide.

    Legally, it seems RTE's lawyers agree with your view, as do the Lawyers for the individuals who claim they had been libelled and/or slandered.

    Actually, there may well be a good argument to be made that being homophobic is not an abusive term, and is not a libellous or slanderous term. In our society, it's not outlawed to be homophobic, any more than it is outlawed to dislike blue cheese.

    While I don't agree with anyone who thinks that to be homosexual is not equal to being heterosexual or asexual, they have a perfect right to hold such views, just as I have a right to oppose such views.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    logik.ie wrote: »
    While I don't agree with anyone who thinks that to be homosexual is not equal to being heterosexual or asexual, they have a perfect right to hold such views, just as I have a right to oppose such views.

    The thing is "homophobe" is a term for people who holds those views. Much like being a racist can be someone who believes that black people are not equal to white people.

    They have a right as you said to hold views but everyone has a right to call them out of they find those views offensive.


  • Options
    #68
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    logik.ie wrote: »
    That's a matter of opinion and is, eventually, up to the courts to decide.

    Legally, it seems RTE's lawyers agree with your view, as do the Lawyers for the individuals who claim they had been libelled and/or slandered.

    Actually, there may well be a good argument to be made that being homophobic is not an abusive term, and is not a libellous or slanderous term. In our society, it's not outlawed to be homophobic, any more than it is outlawed to dislike blue cheese.

    While I don't agree with anyone who thinks that to be homosexual is not equal to being heterosexual or asexual, they have a perfect right to hold such views, just as I have a right to oppose such views.
    absolutely, it's not actually my view, but with defamation it can be clear cut sometimes..I could say something true here about the last government and individual politicians and i would be right....but i would also be defaming them.


  • Options
    #69
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,870 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    logik.ie wrote: »
    In Ireland there are laws of libel and slander, and they apply to everyone equally.

    Why do some people demand the right to silence or libel others because they don't agree with their views?

    We have the right to free speech, and that includes free speech for others whose views we may disagree with. The libel & slander laws are there to make sure we are all protected from abuse.

    The reaction by sections of the gay community, as expressed here and elsewhere, is playing into the hands of people like those who RTE have, unfortunately, paid this money to.

    Imagine how it would feel if the tables were turned, Panti was libelled and/or slandered on the programme, and called some sort of pervert, and sections of the str8 community came out in support of those who had libelled and/or slandered Panti with street parties and rallies in support of those who libelled and/or slandered Panti.

    Its a little sad, and ironic, that the LGBT movement for many years stood up for, and demanded, fair treatment for all, and now some in the LGBT movement actually celebrate unfair treatment for some.

    How refreshing it might have been to have seen a mature LGBT movement being able to condemn the libellous an/or slanderous remarks themselves.
    The only ones who have demanded silencing of their opponents in this debate are Iona and John Waters!

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #70
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,870 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    it was in this case

    NO. The courts have not found Pantis comments to be libellous/slanderous or defamatory.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #71
    logik.ie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭logik.ie


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    absolutely, it's not actually my view, but with defamation it can be clear cut sometimes..I could say something true here about the last government and individual politicians and i would be right....but i would also be defaming them.

    I can completely understand how the lawyers may have panicked, and thinking about it in the clear light of day it may be that to call someone "homophobic" may not be, in itself, actionable.

    The OED defines homophobia as an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. To have an aversion is not, in itself, a crime, and the grey area is in how one expresses that aversion.

    For example, many have an aversion to the RC church, (which might be called "churchophobia"), and express their views in very direct and overtly hostile language. But that is not actionable by the church.

    To be prosecuted for holding a view is unlikely to succeed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    logik.ie wrote: »
    I can completely understand how the lawyers may have panicked, and thinking about it in the clear light of day it may be that to call someone "homophobic" may not be, in itself, actionable.

    The OED defines homophobia as an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people. To have an aversion is not, in itself, a crime, and the grey area is in how one expresses that aversion.

    For example, many have an aversion to the RC church, (which might be called "churchophobia"), and express their views in very direct and overtly hostile language. But that is not actionable by the church.

    To be prosecuted for holding a view is unlikely to succeed.
    it wasn't rory's fault, it was RTE's but i think the issue was names were mentioned.


  • Options
    #73
    Dr. Shrike
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Dr. Shrike


    The "funny" thing is, I would normally use the word homophobic to describe the more polite types of anti-gay behaviour. For instance I would consider the murder of gays and lesbians to be far too heinous to use a relatively tidy word like homophobic. I wouldn't be surprised if many LGBT people felt the same way.


  • Options
    #74
    keeponhurling
    Registered Users Posts: 5,116 ✭✭✭keeponhurling


    If you're going to defame somebody on national TV, it's much better if you refer to specific stuff or even better if they are on the programme to have right of reply.
    As mentioned already on the thread, RTE didn't pay out for no reason.

    I think in any referendum, if you call people who don't agree with you names, it's makes you look bad.
    It alienates people, partiularly "floating voters", who might not have made their mind up.

    Perhaps the people lobbying for gay marriage in Ireland should take a leaf out of New Zealand's book with their (succesful) gay marriage campaign, and try to be more understanding over those who hold a different opinion, try to acknowledge their concerns and persuade them.

    Not abusing people, it simply doesn't work.


  • Options
    #75
    logik.ie
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7 ✭logik.ie


    keeponhurling wrote: »

    Perhaps the people lobbying for gay marriage in Ireland should take a leaf out of New Zealand's book with their (succesful) gay marriage campaign, and try to be more understanding over those who hold a different opinion, try to acknowledge their concerns and persuade them.

    Not abusing people, it simply doesn't work.

    Those who oppose equality for LGBT people are a small rump and the vast majority of Irish people now accept that to be gay is to be entirely normal.

    I'd also argue that to keep attacking those in the anti gay rump is to continue to give them a credibility, and a higher profile, which otherwise they would no longer have in modern Ireland.


  • Options
    #76
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users Posts: 13,070 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    If you're going to defame somebody on national TV, it's much better if you refer to specific stuff or even better if they are on the programme to have right of reply.
    As mentioned already on the thread, RTE didn't pay out for no reason.

    I think in any referendum, if you call people who don't agree with you names, it's makes you look bad.
    It alienates people, partiularly "floating voters", who might not have made their mind up.

    Perhaps the people lobbying for gay marriage in Ireland should take a leaf out of New Zealand's book with their (succesful) gay marriage campaign, and try to be more understanding over those who hold a different opinion, try to acknowledge their concerns and persuade them.

    Not abusing people, it simply doesn't work.


    Some gay people justifiably get fed up with the anti-gay lobby. They have been hearing anti-gay statements all their lives, many remember it being illegal to be gay. Many gay couples can't hold hands in public, kiss in public, declare their couple status in the workplace. Not to mention the isolation many gay teenagers have to endure as they conceal their orientation and often suppress it as a result.

    So yes it gets annoying for gay people to listen to some people consistently attacking them and their desire for equal rights.

    And now we are told that we should listen to their views, their fears..well many of us are tired of listening.


  • Options
    #77
    diddlybit
    Registered Users Posts: 1,026 ✭✭✭diddlybit


    hotmail.com wrote: »

    And now we are told that we should listen to their views, their fears..well many of us are tired of listening.


    Well said. We shouldn't have to prove to the world that we can parent or that our relationships are nor 'lesser' to heterosexual relationships.

    I particularily love this:



    My god though, the referendum seems so, so far away. It's going to be a long year.


  • Options
    #78
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    logik.ie said
    Those who oppose equality for LGBT people are a small rump and the vast majority of Irish people now accept that to be gay is to be entirely normal.

    The anti gay group may be small but because RTE are legally obliged to give equal air time to the case for and against a referendum issue the anti gay crowd will appear to be equal in number and relevance to those who hold more liberal views. Thats a problem and I think RTE are especially sensitive on these issues since the controversy around the Prime Time program that was broadcast with false information about a priest. They got a lot of criticism for being too liberal, anti church, etc and for not having enough programs presenting and representing the conservative population in Ireland.
    logik.ie said
    I can completely understand how the lawyers may have panicked, and thinking about it in the clear light of day it may be that to call someone "homophobic" may not be, in itself, actionable.........

    To be prosecuted for holding a view is unlikely to succeed.

    I think this issue is about a genuine lack of understanding about what it means when you say someone is homophobic or perhaps more accurately to say that what someone has said or done is homophobic. It is not defamitory or an outrageous thing to say about someone.
    Rory was very clear on the Saturday Night show and in her speech in the Abbey Panti was at pains to point out that being raised in our culture everyone is homophobic to a greater or lesser extent and it is in recognising that fact that we can move on from there.

    To my mind there is a very clear reversal going on around the issue of just who is silencing who.
    Members of the Iona Institute silenced Rory and penalised RTE.
    But in a reversal of what actually happened, members of the Iona Institute now claim it is they who are being silenced.
    This is backlash stuff which regularly happens when a minority group starts to take for granted some of the gains made, the dominant group starts to say "We are the ones being discriminated against now". Its a reversal.
    Iona says we have to silence people because if we dont silence them they will damage our free speech. Classic.


  • Options
    #79
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    from my understanding of defamation it's if the "victim" "feels" they have been defamed, that's often enough to get a result...


  • Options
    #80
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Ash J Williams said
    from my understanding of defamation it's if the "victim" "feels" they have been defamed, that's often enough to get a result...

    Yes this is what a reversal is about. The people belonging to the dominant group who hold the power and have things that they wish to deny to the non dominant group ie marriage in this case, say "We are now the Victims" "They want to destroy and change marriage " "We have every right to defend ourselves against them".
    The dominant group say we are now the victims our way of life is being threatened by the non dominant group wanting inclusion.

    Feeling threatened by people wanting inclusion is something you can talk about and hopefully get help for, but it does not give you the right to exclude others from their entitlements. Feeling upset by your exclusion from equal rights is something you can talk about and which may help motivate you and others to understand that you need and are entitled to equal treatment under the law. All Upset feelings do not require the same remedy.

    Thats how social backlashes and reversals happen.
    It goes along with "we have to silence them to promote free speech."


  • Options
    #81
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Ambersky wrote: »
    Yes this is what a reversal is about. The people belonging to the dominant group who hold the power and have things that they wish to deny to the non dominant group ie marriage in this case, say "We are now the Victims" "They want to destroy and change marriage " "We have every right to defend ourselves against them".
    The dominant group say we are now the victims our way of life is being threatened by the non dominant group wanting inclusion.
    Thats how social backlashes and reversals happen.
    It goes along with "we have to silence them to promote free speech."
    What i was saying was more like...if person A calls person B a slapper, person B issues legal threat to person A, Person A says "ah sure it was only a bit of banter"...person B says "i feel i was defamed"....the law will swing in favour of person B

    Iona could define homophobia as people who beat up gays and "feel" that's what they are accused of.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    keeponhurling wrote: »
    If you're going to defame somebody on national TV, it's much better if you refer to specific stuff or even better if they are on the programme to have right of reply.

    Iona declined a right of reply. Under broadcasting regulations it doesn't have to be on the same show but two different shows can be viewed as one show.

    As has been constantly pointed out it was RTE who asked the question.
    keeponhurling wrote: »
    Not abusing people, it simply doesn't work.

    Which is why Iona and their ilk will not win. You can't keep telling people that others are not equal because of their sexuality.

    Im sure people like Colm O'Gorman are sick and tired being told they shouldn't be raising their children too.


  • Options
    #83
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,934 ✭✭✭Daith


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Iona could define homophobia as people who beat up gays and "feel" that's what they are accused of.

    Iona have already said they are being called homophobes because they believe in marriage for man woman and children.

    That's not what Rory said.


  • Options
    #84
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Hopefully the law isnt about what people feel things mean but what they actually do mean.
    Hopefully it isnt either about what they felt was said but what was actually said.


  • Options
    #85
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    Ambersky wrote: »
    Hopefully the law isnt about what people feel things mean but what they actually do mean.
    Hopefully it isnt either about what they felt was said but what was actually said.
    from experience it's not!


  • Options
    #86
    lemon_sherbert
    Registered Users Posts: 716 ✭✭✭lemon_sherbert


    Ambersky wrote: »
    Hopefully the law isnt about what people feel things mean but what they actually do mean.
    Hopefully it isnt either about what they felt was said but what was actually said.

    It's not about what a person feels - the test for defamation is whether the person subjected to the allegedly defamatory remark is consequently lowered in the eyes of a reasonable member of society - so it's what an outsider would consider. I.e. Would the average person think less of the subject of the remark on hearing it. It's not how the subject feels, but rather how the remark affects their reputation.
    However, there is a very clear defence of honest opinion under the 2009 Act, (what used to be known as fair comment) which in my mind is in place precisely to cover comments such as Rory made - honestly held opinions on matters of public importance. How RTE's lawyers could have decided so quickly that there was a potential case and to settle so quickly, when the legal case is marginal, makes me think that this was not a legal decision - someone higher up wanted this to go away.


  • Options
    #87
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Ash J Williams
    from experience it's not!
    Sounds a bit like you've had a bad experience of the legal system Ash J Williams and you would not be alone in that, if thats the case, its partly why I said "hopefully". But in taking about the rights and wrongs of issues I think and believe Rory didnt say anything defamatory. I think it is important to keep saying this and to listen to what he said and is saying. I also think talking about Iona having a point and thinking things like we shouldnt be attacking the anti gay lobby, is taking on their thinking and not seeing the reversals and backlash for what it is. Thats my opinion.
    I think we need to learn to unravel the reversal speak and learn to hear what is actually being said. Its too easy to listen to so called reasonable debate, as Panti called it, and be wound around to thinking maybe we are going too far, maybe they do have a point, maybe we should just shut up and put up.

    Thanks for the clarity lemon sherbert


  • Options
    #88
    Lou.m
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,532 ✭✭✭Lou.m


    Panti in the Huffington Post and Iownya Institute called out for what they are under parliamentary privilege. :-)

    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...=1391456569218

    MEP Paul Murphy names known people as homophobes under parliamentary privilege.


  • Options
    #89
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    That link didnt work Lou.m here it is on YouTube.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV6NVeWGqoQ

    Also it seems Pantis speech has gone viral so Yay public reaction seems to be building against the silencing of people speaking out about homophobia and the when where and how they experience it.


  • Options
    #90
    Hippo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,877 ✭✭✭Hippo


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    What i was saying was more like...if person A calls person B a slapper, person B issues legal threat to person A, Person A says "ah sure it was only a bit of banter"...person B says "i feel i was defamed"....the law will swing in favour of person B

    Without wanting to be too legalistic about it, defamation is defined under the 2009 Act as 'a statement that tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society'. A person may feel they've been defamed by a written or spoken statement but there's no guarantee a court will 'swing in their favour' simply because of that. In this case it's my opinion that RTE were perhaps a little quick off the mark caving in, I'd like to have seen the Iona Institute argue the point in court.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    Hippo wrote: »
    Without wanting to be too legalistic about it, defamation is defined under the 2009 Act as 'a statement that tends to injure a person's reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society'. A person may feel they've been defamed by a written or spoken statement but there's no guarantee a court will 'swing in their favour' simply because of that. In this case it's my opinion that RTE were perhaps a little quick off the mark caving in, I'd like to have seen the Iona Institute argue the point in court.

    If it's true it's not defamation.


Advertisement