Protest in solidarity with Rory O'Neill/ Panti

Annasopra · 02-02-2014 11:50am

garrigus wrote: »

Even though I personally dont agree with them, I think John Waters and the Iona institute people are entitled to their opinion. Its a sad state of affairs when people are shot down because of their views.

Exactly. It's a sad state of affairs that Rory was shot down for his views.

J_E · 02-02-2014 2:04pm

Panti's Abbey speech is beautiful. So so important not to censor these views.

Ambersky · 02-02-2014 9:02pm

Thank you micra Boy for that link to Pantis answer to A Noble Call in the Abbey Theater. I was very moved about how personally he spoke and it reminds me that it is personal, its not just an intellectual argument about finding the correct definition of homophobia, or even, as has happened here on this very forum questions about whether homophobia exists at all.
Homophobia hurts people. Its not up to those who are doing the hurting to say if it hurts or not, its not up to those doing the hurting to define the nature or intensity of the pain and its certainly not up to them to decide whether those being hurt are allowed to talk about it. It is up to those who are being hurt by homophobia to say it hurts, to say how and why it hurts and it is up to those who are doing the hurting to stop.

Just because you may not have experienced homophobia directly as in no one has thrown anything at you or called you names or anything worse doesnt mean its not around. Its just as important for LGBT people to understand what homophobia is, as it is for the Iona Institute crowd to understand it. Probably because a lot of gay rights have been won and society has changed quite a bit, it may be easy for some gay people to simply avoid having to think about homophobia and what it is and what it isnt and just get on with their lives.

My own thoughts are that the time leading up to the referendum on Gay Marriage is going to bring up a display of homophobia that may not be pleasant but may be an education for many of us. We will maybe need think about these challenges even if its just to prevent the things thrown at us from doing any further damage to us Like Panti said in that speech she hates herself when she finds herself checking what was it about her that made others single her out because thats her internalising that there is something wrong with her something to be ashamed of or to keep a check on .
We need to make sure that the so called reasoned arguments dont stick in our heads and make us feel less deserving making us actually side with the homophobes. Thats what internalised homophobia is, its not just an insult to throw at someone, its when we believe and take on even reasoned arguments against us being equal. Many of us grew up believing things like "its ok if your gay but not to flaunt it" or "its ok to be gay but young people shouldnt be encouraged to be gay" etc etc. There are loads of reasoned arguments why LGBT people are fine upstanding individuals but they dont have to be so ... camp, butch, flag waving, loud, out, argumentative, pride going, obvious, different or like us, in particular jobs, in my family, in this church, having any children ....... the real danger is when we believe those arguments ourselves and when we believe them so strongly we say those things against other LGBT people. Its that kind of stuff and more we need to think through and challenge ourselves about before we can argue with anyone.

Id like to think we can use the experience of the Iona Institute silencing Rory, the experience of RTE and the Iona Institute not allowing someone to define an organisation and individuas actively seeking for LGBT people to be treated less than equal as being homophobic in that action, to make us stronger by making us and others think and therefore making us wiser and more capable.

amdublin · 02-02-2014 9:07pm

Better version here

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXayhUzWnl0&feature=youtu.be

Lou.m · 03-02-2014 3:40am

Rory is a great Orator. The Speakers at today's rally were on FIRE ! Well done to the organizers. :-)

J_E · 03-02-2014 3:52am

Lou.m wrote: »

Rory is a great Orator. The Speakers at today's rally were on FIRE ! Well done to the organizers. :-)

The rally was fantastic. My hands were worn out from the clapping. So reassuring to know that people are upset about this, and aren't backing down.

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 8:56am

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.

Daith · 03-02-2014 10:23am

logik.ie wrote: »

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 was libelled and/or slandered Panti.

Imagine how you must feel being told your relationship is not equal to other relationships. Being told that you shouldn't be raising children. Look at Colm O'Gorman a man in a same sex relationship and a father. Constantly told that he shouldn't be bringing up his children.

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 10:33am

Daith wrote: »

Imagine how you must feel being told your relationship is not equal to other relationships. Being told that you shouldn't be raising children. Look at Colm O'Gorman a man in a same sex relationship and a father. Constantly told that he shouldn't be bringing up his children.

It really isn't some sort of competition where, because I imagine one thing about myself, then it's ok to not only libel and slander someone else, but then to go on and celebrate that unfair treatment of someone else.

What does anyone think about someone who seems to say, in your post, that because you feel aggrieved about something, then it's fine to lash out and hurt someone else, and then go out and celebrate publically that you have lashed out and hurt someone else.

It's a shame you seize on this one rather unimportant aspect of my post and ignore the rest.

Daith · 03-02-2014 10:38am

logik.ie wrote: »

It really isn't some sort of competition where, because I imagine one thing about myself, then it's ok to not only libel and slander someone else, but then to go on and celebrate that unfair treatment of someone else.

What does anyone think about someone who seems to say, in your post, that because you feel aggrieved about something, then it's fine to lash out and hurt someone else, and then go out and celebrate publically that you have lashed out and hurt someone else.

It's a shame you seize on this one rather unimportant aspect of my post and ignore the rest.

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.

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

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.

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 10:53am

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.

Daith · 03-02-2014 10:59am

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 11:00am

Lyaiera wrote: »

The truth isn't defamatory.

it was in this case

Daith · 03-02-2014 11:01am

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.

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 11:07am

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.

Daith · 03-02-2014 11:10am

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 11:11am

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.

Annasopra · 03-02-2014 11:19am

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!

Annasopra · 03-02-2014 11:22am

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

it was in this case

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

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 11:22am

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 11:38am

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.

Dr. Shrike · 03-02-2014 4:25pm

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.

keeponhurling · 03-02-2014 4:40pm

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.

logik.ie · 03-02-2014 5:37pm

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.

hotmail.com · 03-02-2014 5:53pm

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.

diddlybit · 03-02-2014 6:01pm

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.

Ambersky · 03-02-2014 6:23pm

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 6:26pm

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

Ambersky · 03-02-2014 6:38pm

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."

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 6:43pm

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.

Daith · 03-02-2014 6:44pm

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.

Daith · 03-02-2014 6:48pm

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.

Ambersky · 03-02-2014 6:54pm

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 03-02-2014 6:59pm

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!

lemon_sherbert · 03-02-2014 7:05pm

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.

Ambersky · 03-02-2014 7:08pm

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

Lou.m · 03-02-2014 11:22pm

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.

Ambersky · 04-02-2014 2:21pm

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.

Hippo · 04-02-2014 2:21pm

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.

Lyaiera · 04-02-2014 3:12pm

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.

Ash.J.Williams · 04-02-2014 3:14pm

Is Paul Murphy MEP the only MEP that works? He's the only one that seems to do anything.

Hippo · 04-02-2014 3:32pm

Lyaiera wrote: »

If it's true it's not defamation.

Yes, truth is one of the defences, though it usually applies to something that can be shown to be a fact, rather than an opinion. 'Honest opinion' would probably have been Rory's best option as a defence, one I think would have had an excellent chance of succeeding.

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 3:35pm

The problem is we don't know if it's libel or not because there was no case.

The parties settled out of court. No judicial process happened.

All we know is that they made a private settlement.

Annasopra · 04-02-2014 3:40pm

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

Is Paul Murphy MEP the only MEP that works? He's the only one that seems to do anything.

No not at all

In fact on LGBT issues a lot of our MEPs are very strong

6 of them have signed the ILGA Europe pledge

http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate/signed

5 of them are members of the EP Intergroup on LGBT rights

http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/about/members/

SpaceTime · 04-02-2014 3:45pm

mango salsa wrote: »

No not at all

In fact on LGBT issues a lot of our MEPs are very strong

6 of them have signed the ILGA Europe pledge

http://www.ilga-europe.org/home/how_we_work/european_institutions/ep2014/candidate/signed

5 of them are members of the EP Intergroup on LGBT rights

http://www.lgbt-ep.eu/about/members/

I would add to that that the current batch of Irish MEPs actually work a lot harder than most of our other politicians! I'm not being at all party political on this, they're an extremely diligent bunch in my experience of them.

They just get little or no attention here because the media tends to ignore the European Parliament or put any coverage on at about 2 in the morning!

Ash885 · 04-02-2014 7:08pm

I'm not sure if the Abbey Theatre talk has been posted already but my goodness, it would bring a tear to a stone. What an excellent orator. I've had lots of respect for Rory beforehand, but this is exceptional. And a lot of it struck a cord with me. By God it was just...so moving!

For those who haven't seen it:

Lou.m · 04-02-2014 7:23pm

David Norris raising it today in the Seanad.

Does anyone know what the apartheid and hairdresser reference is to?

Gosh he is right though. I mean how can they look their colleague in the eye.

hotmail.com · 05-02-2014 12:00am

Vincent Browne discussing the issue tonight, starting now.

diddlybit · 05-02-2014 12:17am

They glad that they appear to be playing the entirity of the clip at the Abbey.

Ambersky · 05-02-2014 12:33am

Just thought Pantigate, bringing an end to silencing discussion on homophobia in this country, has a nice ring to it.

Protest in solidarity with Rory O'Neill/ Panti

Comments