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
Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?
Options
Comments
-
-
No
I heard a rumour they gave it all away to homeless causes. I don't know to be honest. I somehow doubt it.EuskalHerria wrote: »It sells newspapers and gets online views that probably push up as revenue. They are almost bulletproof as long as they rope in large opposition and their own core of similarly ultra catholic followers.
I heard a rumour that the compensation was released online. All three have received a €100 bar tab in the George. Any truth I wonder?
I'm starting to get the impression you haven't a lot to constructively contribute to the discussion.Beware the lack of oxygen can affect your brain.0 -
NoIf RTE are looking for this to go away, hence a payment, why did they not get them to sign a non disclosure agreement? Surely they knew Iona institute would go for a victory lap once they got their pockets lined.
Plus didn't a reply someone received from rte earlier say that this was a legal matter and because of this they would not be able to discuss it. They have settled now and clearly no non disclosure was signed, so anyone know what they issue would be?0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »However, Starkey is questioning why Gay people would want to copy hetro-normative practices as those practices are themselves flawed. That is a common theme on the debate on same-sex marriage within the wider Gay community. Some fear the loss of what makes the Gay community unique as it's culture gets absorbed into the wider heterosexual social norms.
Yet, we never if rarely here this point of view on the mainstream. From the way I see it on threads such as this, if you are not 100% for Gay Marriage with no equivocation or reservations than it is fair game to call you a bigot and homophobe. I.E the world is a simple black and white. Of course people have different opinions from the two that are usually highlighted, the simple yes or no, for or against. Starkey provides one and as I demonstrated he is correctly not labelled a homophobe yet if one had to do the ultimate cheery pick to see what binary box he would fall in, it would be on the against side.... so he’s a homophobe to some in this black and white world of ours..:rolleyes: Would be nice to live in a simple world.Bannasidhe wrote: »Iona and their ilk are coming from a place that says 'I can avail of this but you can't because I don't approve of you.' That is the totality of their argument. They have no issue with marriage in and of itself - they just want to exclude those whose 'lifestyle' they disapprove of from availing of it.
I think their argument is actually more than that in fairness and imo is coming from the basis of the traditional family unit where men and women join in some union be it civil or religious to raise a family purely for practical reasons. In their opinion because of this society benefits as a whole due to children being raised in more stable households. Others may disagree and I would not wholly agree with their notion either but at least it’s an argument worth arguing and thinking over rather than the simple ‘They hate us!! Arrrrgh to the battlefields!!”.
The romantic notion of marriage is a very new concept. Marriage for the rich and powerful was about forging ties and alliances in order to remain in their place of empowerment, for the poor it was purely survival. It wasn’t practical for gays to marry as they could not have children yet in certain places throughout history they were riding each other like it was going out of fashion. Similarly it’s not practical for a man to marry his sister as most likely the children will have some major health issues.
It is kind of ironic that people are fighting for the right to marry yet not doing much to actually curb the issues that are blighting western society due to marriage breakdowns and their associated problems and fallout. In an ideal world gay marriage would strengthen this (I hope it may) but once the battle is won the energy and critical mass behind it will rally behind some other niche middle class issue leaving the actual marriage debate in the dust.0 -
EuskalHerria wrote: »Absolutely. John Waters and Breda O'Brian are employed not due to their inciteful (more inciting) pieces, it's because they're controversial. I'd wager more people opposed to their opinion actually read their articles than are in favour. This thread is 68 pages long for example. They live for the oxygen of infamy and their opportunity for publicity.
I actually raised this issue over in A+A as they have some love/hate relationship with John Waters. When I stated that they were actually financilly supporting him with their constant running updates on his daily/weekly columns and opinion peices in the media it was met with some scorn, as if I was a danger and threat to their enjoyment where emotions , feelings and a level of perceived enlightenment was overriding logic and rational. Humans are indeed funny beings.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nojank wrote:Yet, we never if rarely here this point of view on the mainstream. From the way I see it on threads such as this, if you are not 100% for Gay Marriage with no equivocation or reservations than it is fair game to call you a bigot and homophobe
But...that's not how it works. If someone provides a sound argument, they're not going to be shot down. It's just that most against arguments have shown either an inner disdain of homosexuals marrying 'just because I say so', a fear of the unknown, or because they are afraid it will derail traditional values, or thereabouts. You mentioned Starkey again, but his argument is one that is being discussed in gay circles seriously and is a valid one. That's something that should be left to democratic process. Unfortunately, it is not only the gay community left to vote on this, hence the large debates and discussions, mainly stemming from heterosexuals who provide irrational arguments (this sounds unfair, but read back on the thread, particularly some key players who have posted regularly, and you'll see this)
Generally speaking, mob mentalities are bad, and I don't think people have been so black and white as you have suggested. There have been some very solid arguments put on the forum with evidence to back it up, why disregard that for the sake of a sensationalist statement?
...unless you'd rather I just shout 'you're a homophobic bigot!' and do away with reason altogether :pac:0 -
Kiwi in IE wrote: »If he and Iona wish to voice their bigoted, homophobic opinions constantly over National media in the name of free speech, then they must accept the free speech of others who point out that they are homophobic bigots.
Not nessesarily, in Ireland anyway. There is a thing called libel where someone who has been unfairly defamed can take legal recourse. Good luck on boards.ie if you want to start a thread saying that a TD or a public figure took bribes or molested a kid.
It would be up to the courts to determine if indeed Iona/David Quinn are a homophobic organisation/person or not (and what determines bigotry/homophobia, and of course the where one has freedom of conscience and religion) if the courts for example found they were not in any way shape or form, then any publication either online or in media that labels them such could result in a court action. That is my understanding of it anyway.
It is a little more complicated to state that freedom of speech means you can call whomever what you want, what you want in public.0 -
-
-
Excellent submission by a member of the RTÉ Audience Council to the RTÉ Board:
http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/01/28/not-going-away-3/
I'm intrigued as to what will follow.0 -
Advertisement
-
No
The problem is, RTE have already played game, set and match on this without any court involved, not to mention paying out Iona for their offense.Not nessesarily, in Ireland anyway. There is a thing called libel where someone who has been unfairly defamed can take legal recourse. Good luck on boards.ie if you want to start a thread saying that a TD or a public figure took bribes or molested a kid.
It would be up to the courts to determine if indeed Iona/David Quinn are a homophobic organisation/person or not (and what determines bigotry/homophobia, and of course the where one has freedom of conscience and religion) if the courts for example found they were not in any way shape or form, then any publication either online or in media that labels them such could result in a court action. That is my understanding of it anyway.
It is a little more complicated to state that freedom of speech means you can call whomever what you want, what you want in public.
Let's remember, Rory never once called them homophobic directly. It was BOC who first mentioned the term at all!
Let's get some clarity here on the subject of John Waters/Breda O Brien being homophobic, as they were the two mentioned.It is never pleasant to take a stance like this, and it must be a thousand times less pleasant to be the person who is told that important values like equality must take second place to the common good. I would prefer if the conflict could be wished away, but it can’t.
Subtle, yet obvious.Headlined; Gay lobby mangles meaning of marriage
'This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby,' Waters said. ‘It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it;
‘This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing;
‘It is a deliberate sabotage of the culture and the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satire…. But sometimes you have to allow things to happen for the consequences to become obvious...'0 -
Yet who determines the validity of arguments in the general public discourse. You? Me? John Waters or Claire Daly? For all I know Starkey's argument could rubbish so its fair game to call him a homophobe. I could also think Iona may have a valid argument against gay marriage.But...that's not how it works. If someone provides a sound argument, they're not going to be shot down. It's just that most against arguments have shown either an inner disdain of homosexuals marrying 'just because I say so', a fear of the unknown, or because they are afraid it will derail traditional values, or thereabouts. You mentioned Starkey again, but his argument is one that is being discussed in gay circles seriously and is a valid one.
[QUOTE=Cydoniac;88718341
People will have different opinions but blind namecalling and mudslinging gets one nowhere expect the pollorisation of opinion that this thread is an example of. Id say if one was to sit down with a David Quinn or a John Waters or whomever they hate or disagree with totally id say they would find they agree on many things but would disagree strongly on others, yet we focus always on that 5%, 10% and label them as we deem appropriate. [/QUOTE]
That's something that should be left to democratic process. Unfortunately, it is not only the gay community left to vote on this, hence the large debates and discussions, mainly stemming from heterosexuals who provide irrational arguments (this sounds unfair, but read back on the thread, particularly some key players who have posted regularly, and you'll see this) [/QUOTE]
All arguments put forward are where one disagrees are irrational in their eye. Nothing new there. People always believe they are in the 'right' both morally and rationally. I hate that term by the way.
Generally speaking, mob mentalities are bad, and I don't think people have been so black and white as you have suggested. There have been some very solid arguments put on the forum with evidence to back it up, why disregard that for the sake of a sensationalist statement?
Yes, I agree mob mentalities are bad, yet the mob is hard to rail against and it is even harder not to get sucked in. These AH discussion always goes like this as people use it to soap box their particular views ad nauseum. Gay marriage, abortion, gun control in the US, Israel/Palestine, SinnFein/IRA are the usual culprits.
...unless you'd rather I just shout 'you're a homophobic bigot!' and do away with reason altogether :pac :
There is no infallibility in believing your argument is more reasonable either.0 -
NoThere is no infallibility in believing your argument is more reasonable either.
Yes, there is. For a start, it's substantiated, it is given a suitable backing. Very few posters on the other side have provided evidence to support their claims, rather dodging and throwing in unrelated topics in a tedious manner. Prove me wrong if I have missed something though in the thread pertaining to this.
This 'fair game to call ___ a homophobe' has already been explained before. That wording makes it sound more akin to a lynch mob, that it is not.For all I know Starkey's argument could rubbish so its fair game to call him a homophobe.
I believe in calling a spade a spade. I don't throw the term around flippantly like some out there may do, but it serves its function.
You're welcome to put forward your theories on this, but don't expect them to be uncontested, just as any other poster's point is open to discussion.I could also think Iona may have a valid argument against gay marriage.0 -
The problem is, RTE have already played game, set and match on this without any court involved, not to mention paying out Iona for their offense.
Which in some ways would articulate their fear of actually going to court over this. You don't think that they didn't consult legal advice regarding this? If they were so quick to carry a retraction and pay Iona out then only a bigger handslap would have awaited them under a sitting of the courts.0 -
No
Their judgement over this and their God Slot tweet would give indication that either their legal team isn't as up to scratch as one would think, or that it was a panic reaction when Iona (and more namely, their own at the time John Waters) pressurised them. Which one do you think sounds more likely? I felt it was a rather spineless way of handling things - it shows a lack of faith (no pun intended) in their own authority. Their motives remain unclear, and vaguely sinister in a way.Which in some ways would articulate their fear of actually going to court over this. You don't think that they didn't consult legal advice regarding this? If they were so quick to carry a retraction and pay Iona out then only a bigger handslap would have awaited them under a sitting of the courts.
On another note, Iona petitioned against same-sex civil partnerships, suggesting they have a limited set of rights and be called domestic partnerships as not to exclude standard partnerships, and that they were secondary to opposite sex partnerships. They also claim that they wish well for gay rights as much as anyone else. They can't have it both ways...0 -
Yes, there is. For a start, it's substantiated, it is given a suitable backing. Very few posters on the other side have provided evidence to support their claims, rather dodging and throwing in unrelated topics in a tedious manner. Prove me wrong if I have missed something though in the thread pertaining to this.
Yes, you can reason your argument with points, facts, studies and so on....but it does not make one infallable. Your point may end up infinitely better but it is not infallible. Thats a mistake many make and it shows easily.This 'fair game to call ___ a homophobe' has already been explained before. That wording makes it sound more akin to a lynch mob, that it is not.
I believe in calling a spade a spade. I don't throw the term around flippantly like some out there may do, but it serves its function..
What is the function of labelling? Tell me.You're welcome to put forward your theories on this, but don't expect them to be uncontested, just as any other poster's point is open to discussion.
Cherry picking quotes again, I was merely drawing attention that one could agree with polar opposite opinions that have in their own eyes a reasonable cause.0 -
No
Of course it doesn't, but it sure gives it a lot more credibility than someone who makes a point because 'that's how it is' or something similar. I don't remember saying my views were the absolute. Perhaps you misread something I said.Yes, you can reason your argument with points, facts, studies and so on....but it does not make one infallable. Your point may end up infinitely better but it is not infallible. Thats a mistake many make and it shows easily.
I am not sure what you're looking for here? Describing someone's attitudes/person in a short phrase? the word 'homophobic' serves a specific function, and when it is used correctly, is perfectly valid.What is the function of labelling? Tell me.
That's a bit silly, so do you! If someone has a point they want to make, and can give it a credible backing, of course it will have serious discussion. I have mentioned this several times now. You are welcome to show me how that isn't happening.Cherry picking quotes again, I was merely drawing attention that one could agree with polar opposite opinions that have in their own eyes a reasonable cause.0 -
Their judgement over this and their God Slot tweet would give indication that either their legal team isn't as up to scratch as one would think, or that it was a panic reaction when Iona (and more namely, their own at the time John Waters) pressurised them. Which one do you think sounds more likely? I felt it was a rather spineless way of handling things - it shows a lack of faith (no pun intended) in their own authority. Their motives remain unclear, and vaguely sinister in a way.
You actually think the legal team screen all their tweets and comments online??
Tell me, say this went to court and it was found that RTE did indeed participate in defaming whomever which resulted in a huge fine. Who would that benefit.... seeing as RTE is paid for by the tax payer. Their responsibility is to the tax payer, not fight for the rights of others through the courts. RTE should be as boring and neutral as they come, leave the moral crusades to either private groups or private media outlets.0 -
Of course it doesn't, but it sure gives it a lot more credibility than someone who makes a point because 'that's how it is' or something similar. I don't remember saying my views were the absolute. Perhaps you misread something I said.
But you would like to believe they are absolute or at least superior to other who have a different opinion.I am not sure what you're looking for here? Describing someone's attitudes/person in a short phrase? the word 'homophobic' serves a specific function, and when it is used correctly, is perfectly valid.
Correct, yet as I said. Instead of actually arguing the points like grown ups people prefer to defame the opposite opinion. Read sig.That's a bit silly, so do you! If someone has a point they want to make, and can give it a credible backing, of course it will have serious discussion. I have mentioned this several times now. You are welcome to show me how that isn't happening.
Credible is the key word as one can dismiss anything or argument put forward they do not believe as credible.0 -
No
It was a single tweet that caused the commotion. 'Can gays be cured of being gay'? It ended up being an irresponsible but sensationalist tweet that counted for about 8 minutes of the actual show. Not a huge deal but tactless all the same.You actually think the legal team screen all their tweets and comments online??
You don't understand though...can't you see the implications of a state broadcaster that looks to be backing a certain side on the foot of a hot and controversial topic for many people? The tax payer should know what their money is going to and why, at the very least. RTE won't disclose this (and I believe they are under no obligation to, being a commercial state body) and understandably a lot of people are angry that their money is being paid out in this manner over something that should never have been censored in such a manner. The point isn't just 'did RTE participate in this', it's that there was an abuse of power, and that they are subject to manipulation by a highly influential non-state body, which has been shown before by their inordinate media appearances, but this time on a much more embedded level.Tell me, say this went to court and it was found that RTE did indeed participate in defaming whomever which resulted in a huge fine. Who would that benefit.... seeing as RTE is paid for by the tax payer. Their responsibility is to the tax payer, not fight for the rights of others through the courts. RTE should be as boring and neutral as they come, leave the moral crusades to either private groups or private media outlets.
Please don't use the term 'moral crusades' in that sense, it's awfully telling.
Again, not sure quite what you're talking about here. This is beginning to sound like another Phill Ewinn-esque roundabout debate. Of course, anyone who puts their point across would like to believe they are right. I am open to being proven wrong on certain things. However, I am not going to let someone make inferences that I am an inferior person in this country and don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, as has been suggested before. So yes, in that sense, I will argue back an opinion I find unfounded and/or untrue.But you would like to believe they are absolute or at least superior to other who have a different opinion.
What are you looking for out of this thread though? You seem to only want to argue the toss about liberal agendas at play - not much in the area of relative discussion. If you want to spend 10 pages philosophising about whether I think my opinion is 'right' or not, forget it. If you'd rather argue the discussion on Iona Institute as a possibly homophobic body, I'm all ears.0 -
Advertisement
-
It was a single tweet that caused the commotion. 'Can gays be cured of being gay'? It ended up being an irresponsible but sensationalist tweet that counted for about 8 minutes of the actual show. Not a huge deal but tactless all the same.
The tweet was a mountain out of a mole hill and never actually suggested that "Gays could be cured" it was merely just advertising a program (controversially though) on the radio that dealt with it. Anyway, they retracted it (which you agreed with) yet when they distance themselves to equally controversial comments made by a guest on the show you say they should have stood their grounds. Small pot, meet black.You don't understand though...can't you see the implications of a state broadcaster that looks to be backing a certain side on the foot of a hot and controversial topic for many people? The tax payer should know what their money is going to and why, at the very least. RTE won't disclose this (and I believe they are under no obligation to, being a commercial state body) and understandably a lot of people are angry that their money is being paid out in this manner over something that should never have been censored in such a manner. The point isn't just 'did RTE participate in this', it's that there was an abuse of power, and that they are subject to manipulation by a highly influential non-state body, which has been shown before by their inordinate media appearances, but this time on a much more embedded level.
Hold on. First you are saying that RTE are siding with the Iona institute and are somehow backing their position via this retraction. You are hinting about a conspiracy even though there is no evidence to back this up. Yet then complain that the Iona institute are receiving too much air time even though they are pretty much the main/only group opposing this motion of Gay Marriage which will be voted on this year which as you pointed out correctly is a hot and controversial topic. Would you rather they said nothing?
RTE are subject to the laws of the land as are all media outlets. They are also subject to the taxpayer something commercial stations are not, therefore they have a mandate to be impartial at all times. They made their decision based on those reasons alone I would gather, nothing else and until I have evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that.
You say manipulation; I would say doing their job. They received a legal threat and RTE had to respond in kind. They have no mandate to go off on a crusade and waste tax payers money to fight this. Even private media outlets like the journal online disabled comments to such stories they posted because of legal advice. I would hazard a guess that boards.ie have been keeping a close eye on this as well and if they received a legal letter from Iona/David Quinn or John Waters then all discussion relating to this issue would be banned outright on the entire board. Were you around for the MCD/Oxygen issue? If so you will know what I am talking about.Please don't use the term 'moral crusades' in that sense, it's awfully telling.
Yet this is what you want from RTE?Again, not sure quite what you're talking about here. This is beginning to sound like another Phill Ewinn-esque roundabout debate. Of course, anyone who puts their point across would like to believe they are right. I am open to being proven wrong on certain things. However, I am not going to let someone make inferences that I am an inferior person in this country and don't deserve the same rights as everyone else, as has been suggested before. So yes, in that sense, I will argue back an opinion I find unfounded and/or untrue.
What are you looking for out of this thread though? You seem to only want to argue the toss about liberal agendas at play - not much in the area of relative discussion. If you want to spend 10 pages philosophising about whether I think my opinion is 'right' or not, forget it. If you'd rather argue the discussion on Iona Institute as a possibly homophobic body, I'm all ears.
My original point to bring this to a close is to counter the perception that some people have that their opinion is better, right or superior because it originates from the enlightened left wing spectrum of the political wheel. Plenty of evidence here (not you specially to be fair) to back this up.0 -
By the way, I dissagree with the strength of libel laws in Ireland and would prefer a US style of free speech culture here in Europe and Ireland where you can call people almost anything you want (there is still libel laws there though), the other side of the coin is that the KKK, neo - Nazis and all kinds are able to protest and view their weird and wonderful views in public, in other words one cant go off crying to daddy (the state) because your feelings got hurt. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
But that is not what is under discussion now, RTE and others are subject to Irish law.0 -
No
I listened to the show, and hence I said it was just silly sensationalism. It was still a damaging comment in context though, you can't see that? It was irresponsible as I said. The comment Rory made was nowhere near as controversial as you're making it out to be. It was senseless of him to mention a BAI member, but hardly what he said could be taken as any more than an observation. As posted previously in this thread, make of Water's comments what you will. Don't you think they are intrinsically homophobic? Let's face it, this is a guy who has commented on inferiority of women, athiesm, etc. Hardly a clean sheet here. You're very quick to assume things that I didn't say. I noticed it's not the first time you've done it on Boards either.The tweet was a mountain out of a mole hill and never actually suggested that "Gays could be cured" it was merely just advertising a program (controversially though) on the radio that dealt with it. Anyway, they retracted it (which you agreed with) yet when they distance themselves to equally controversial comments made by a guest on the show you say they should have stood their grounds. Small pot, meet black.
You're right, I was hinting about a conspiracy, which is pure speculation. However, it's odd that they get such a high amount of media coverage, as if they are the only group debating the subject, which they are not. There are a lot of good insightful opinion pieces in the thread that highlight this in more detail.Hold on. First you are saying that RTE are siding with the Iona institute and are somehow backing their position via this retraction. You are hinting about a conspiracy even though there is no evidence to back this up. Yet then complain that the Iona institute are receiving too much air time even though they are pretty much the main/only group opposing this motion of Gay Marriage which will be voted on this year which as you pointed out correctly is a hot and controversial topic. Would you rather they said nothing?
The case surely was not a strong enough one for defamation. Defamation laws are made so that people don't cry wolf every time a suspect comment is made. Again, Rory never uses the word homophobe, and even then is very clear in the context of the word. I consider it quite hypocritical of John Waters to cry about being silenced by the 'gay lobby' then do the same when he didn't like what he heard.RTE are subject to the laws of the land as are all media outlets. They are also subject to the taxpayer something commercial stations are not, therefore they have a mandate to be impartial at all times. They made their decision based on those reasons alone I would gather, nothing else and until I have evidence to the contrary I will continue to believe that.
You say manipulation; I would say doing their job. They received a legal threat and RTE had to respond in kind. They have no mandate to go off on a crusade and waste tax payers money to fight this. Even private media outlets like the journal online disabled comments to such stories they posted because of legal advice. I would hazard a guess that boards.ie have been keeping a close eye on this as well and if they received a legal letter from Iona/David Quinn or John Waters they all discussion relating to this issue would be banned outright on the entire board. Were you around for the MCD/Oxygen issue?
What people want from RTE is a little more integrity and transparency in regards to this.Yet this is what you want from RTE?
Not interested in this discussion, that's for the Politics forum, it is also (yes) your opinion. I don't consider myself 'enlightened', I am directly affected by the topic so of course I have somewhat more experience than those who aren't gay, and am more critical of those who do not provide a decent counter-argument, but it doesn't automatically make me perfect. Again, you are making assumptions which are wrong, I wish you'd stop doing that. Please don't start political wankery on me, I am not interested in the Left VS Right thing, it's playground fight stuff. This point adds 0 to the discussion.My original point to bring this to a close is to counter the perception that some people have that their opinion is better, right or superior because it originates from the enlightened left wing spectrum of the political wheel. Plenty of evidence here (not you specially to be fair) to back this up.
This and a few other comments you made initially gave me the impression this wasn't a discussion that interested you...what is your own stance on Iona and gay marriage?Ah jaysus, not this $hite again....0 -
I listened to the show, and hence I said it was just silly sensationalism. It was still a damaging comment in context though, you can't see that? It was irresponsible as I said. The comment Rory made was nowhere near as controversial as you're making it out to be. It was senseless of him to mention a BAI member, but hardly what he said could be taken as any more than an observation. As posted previously in this thread, make of Water's comments what you will. Don't you think they are intrinsically homophobic? Let's face it, this is a guy who has commented on inferiority of women, athiesm, etc. Hardly a clean sheet here. You're very quick to assume things that I didn't say. I noticed it's not the first time you've done it on Boards either.
Interestingly that you still persist in playing up the tweet (irresponsible and damaging) and playing down the comments (not controversial and merely an observation). One can’t have it both ways I am afraid and yes that is the game you are trying to play.
Yawn. So, you bring up this conspiracy theory once again, yet you have no proof or evidence to back up your claim what so ever, yet still believe it. Irony of irony’s isn’t this what you are saying that the Iona institute and others do in relation to Gay Marriage. Make statements based on emotion and claim it as otherwise? You do not see the irony of this? Stop with the conspiracy stuff, it makes your argument worth bubbles.You're right, I was hinting about a conspiracy, which is pure speculation. However, it's odd that they get such a high amount of media coverage, as if they are the only group debating the subject, which they are not. There are a lot of good insightful opinion pieces in the thread that highlight this in more detail.
No, defamation laws are not made for that (have no idea what you actually mean). Defamation laws are there to protect ones character against false and untrue accusations made in the public sphere that cannot be proved. It is not to stop people to cry wolf.The case surely was not a strong enough one for defamation. Defamation laws are made so that people don't cry wolf every time a suspect comment is made. Again, Rory never uses the word homophobe, and even then is very clear in the context of the word. I consider it quite hypocritical of John Waters to cry about being silenced by the 'gay lobby' then do the same when he didn't like what he heard.
No, its what you want. There is a difference. You do not speak for everyone, everybody or every tax payer. RTE has no obligation to go off and fight this in the courts. If you want to set up your own newspaper or radio station then by all means do and you can call whomever all the names you want, do expect legal letters in the post though as you will have to appear in court and stand over your claims. Easy to be an internet warrior, but if you have a lawsuit that could cost millions on your hands then level headedness must prevail.What people want from RTE is a little more integrity and transparency in regards to this.
Should I make up a conspiracy theory on the fly?
Not interested in this discussion, that's for the Politics forum, it is also (yes) your opinion. I don't consider myself 'enlightened', I am directly affected by the topic so of course I have somewhat more experience than those who aren't gay, and am more critical of those who do not provide a decent counter-argument, but it doesn't automatically make me perfect.
I could not give a **** to be honest about the Iona institute or who marries who tbh. What does bug me are opportunists who use this topic for political expediency, people who climb on their high horse, people who sneer at those who have a different opinion while at the same time most of those could not give crap about marriage itself.This and a few other comments you made initially gave me the impression this wasn't a discussion that interested you...what is your own stance on Iona and gay marriage?0 -
NoIf I have high powered solicitors it seems I can get RTE to not broadcast anything against me. Control through fear, now where did I see that before...0
-
NoThe people Brian Dobson called idiots on the news should get onto their solicitor keeeer ching.0
-
NoBrian Barrington, Barrister has complained to RTEA quick letter to RTE:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to complain about the apology to members of the Iona Institute given by Brendan O'Connor, a broadcaster on RTE television, last weekend in connection with an interview the previous week with Rory O'Neill, a well known gay rights advocate in Ireland.
Mr O'Neill had expressed the view that the Iona Institute was homophobic. He made clear that he did not mean by this that they wanted to beat people up. Rather, he made clear that his definition of homophobia involved treating gays and lesbians differently.
That is, in fact, within the definition of homophobia accepted by many - including the Merriman Webster dictionary, which makes clear that homophobia includes discrimination against gays or lesbians. I refer you in this regard to the definition contained at the following link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Mr O'Neill's comments arise in a context where the Iona Institute is well known in Ireland for its opposition to affording equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians and also for its opposition to same sex parenting. It seeks to maintain the current discrimination whereby same sex couples are prohibited from marrying whereas opposite sex couples are free to do so.
In these circumstances, it is clear that Mr O'Neill was entirely entitled to express his honestly held opinion, which was based on facts that were reasonably known to the public.
It is astonishing, therefore, that RTE, a national broadcaster, should apologise for what Mr O'Neill has stated, censor his interview on the internet and award public money to those in the Iona Institute who have sought to prevent a free debate on equal marriage by preventing gay rights campaigners from uttering in future that opposition to same sex marriage is homophobic. It is positively Orwellian (or even Putinesque) that, having done so, Mr O'Connor in his apology should stress the importance of free debate, as if Mr O'Neill had in any way tried to impede it.
It appears that there will be a referendum on the introduction of equal marriage in the next two years. By its censorship of Mr O'Neill, RTE has undermined confidence in its impartiality and has also made clear that it will not facilitate a free and fair debate. This is a profoundly serious matter for any broadcaster, not least one which purports to be the national broadcaster.
For these reasons, I wish to complain. Given the seriousness of the implications of what has happened for the ability of LGBT communities to express their opinions in the context of the forthcoming referendum on national television, I am sending a copy of this complaint to Mr Niels Muiznieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. You might be good enough to copy your response to Mr Muiznieks also. As you will be aware, Mr Muiznieks has been clear in recent times that silencing voices against homophobia violates human rights. I am sure that, in those circumstances, you will be keen to explain to him why RTE took the actions that it did.
In the event that I do not receive a satisfactory response, I will be writing to the Council of Europe Commissioner and also encouraging NGOs in Ireland also to do so.
However, I should stress that this is not merely a matter affecting LGBT groups. It seems to me that the apology provided by RTE has rather far reaching implications for other groups also. I am sure that RTE would not want to be seen simply to have treated one minority group differently to other groups in society.
In those circumstances, it is now incumbent on RTE to provide clarification on what it will not permit to be stated in other contexts also. RTE should therefore make clear what it will and will not tolerate in the following scenarios:
a. a person states that women should not be allowed to work outside the home. Is it permissible on Irish Television to offer the opinion that the person is a misogynist, even if one makes clear that he or she believes that misogyny includes discrimination against women?
b. a person states that Ireland should have fewer immigrants. Will RTE censor any person who states that the speaker is xenophobic?
c. a Northern Ireland politician objects to an Orange Order march, stating that the Orange Order is sectarian. Will RTE prevent the broadcast of such utterances and provide compensation to leading lights in the Orange Order?
If, however, any of the above is permissible, will RTE explain why it is not equally permissible to state that a group that campaigns against same sex marriage is homophobic?
If the above is not now permissible, it is important that the public are made aware of what they may and may not say on Irish television. RTE should therefore issue comprehensive guidance on the above new restrictions to, for example, women TDs, women's organisations, Northern Ireland politicians, ethnic minority organisations who commonly make such utterances, quite without consequence, on RTE at this time. Please confirm that you are willing to do so. I would also be grateful if you could in due course furnish me and, more importantly, Mr Muiznieks with a copy of any guidance issued.
Yours sincerely,
Brian BarringtonIt 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
0 -
Nomango salsa wrote: »Brian Barrington, Barrister has complained to RTE
I completely agree with Brian Barrington and fair play to him for his letter
It is an absolute disgrace that RTE have paid even a cent to the Iona institute for this 'incident'
Their libel case would have been laughed out of court.
Q1, Does the Iona Institute campaign to deny the right of homosexual people to marry each other and to adopt children
Q2. Does the Iona Institute hold the position that Homosexuality is a sin and that practicing homosexuals are doing something immoral.
Q3. Does the Iona Institute actively campaign to protect the right for religious institutions to actively discriminate against homosexuals in employment (ie their recent Submission to the Equality Authority on Section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts)
http://ionainstitute.org/assets/files/Section%2037%20submission.pdf
If any of the above is true, them the Iona institute fits the description of Homophobic as is widely understood and RTE should not have censored the debate nor should they have paid damages to the Iona institute (money which they will, no doubt, put to use in further campaigning against equality for homosexual people)0 -
NoThis is what kinda annoys me about this and other social topics currently in vogue. If one has an opinion that does not conform to the accepted D4 middle class Labour types than they must be a bigot, homophobe, hate women and eat babies for breakfast. "Intollarance will not be tolerated!!" is the mantra. Plenty of evidence for it here where mudslinging and name calling is the preferred modus operand of debate rather than actual debating.
We are in danger of substituting one form of puritan social conservatism with a liberal mainstream thought process where one cannot even express an opinion that differs from whats thought to be normal or accepted.
By the way, it is the same in many countries and I think personally the media have a lot to answer for.
What annoys me is how some people don't really grasp free speech.
"Conservative" types will exercise their right of free speech to say something which many will find to be inaccurate or offensive. "Liberal mainstream"/"liberal facist" types will then exercise their own right of free speech to counter that argument and to point out that it is inaccurate or offensive.
The "conservative" types will then accuse the liberals of denying them free speech - not appreciating that if free speech gives you a right to say something offensive, it must also give the offended the right of reply.
In reality, the problem is that the "conservatives" struggle with the shift in the balance of opinions, and whereas they were free to say this sort of thing with impunity in the past as popular opinion sided with them, opinions have thankfully moved on and bigotry and hatred are now challenged.
Whereas before the conservatives position was taken as given, now it is being challenged and exposed for what it is. And so if it seems to most that it appears bigoted, racist, sexist or homophobic it will be called as such.
Unfortunately for the conservatives, they haven't quite adjusted to this shift in the balance of power, and having to defend the indefensible.
So they fall back argument is to say that the liberals are shutting down free speech.
Not true - it's simple a case of liberals using their own free speech to hold a light to ugly or inaccurate opinions.
And here's the proof - try and find a substantive counter argument to marriage equality that's not rooted in religion, tradition for tradition's sake or the long debunked fallacy that same sex couples cannot raise children successfully or will pass on gender or sexuality issues to their children.
Once you hold a light up to the argument, it's found to be baseless. And if you are opposed to equal rights for a minority without any objectively justifiable reason, then that is a very strong indication of bigotry.0 -
Advertisement
-
You know a few years ago Ireland used to top the press freedom index.
Over the last while we've been slipping down quite rapidly.
This will probably knock us down a few more places.0
Advertisement