Iona vs Panti

Knasher

Brown Bomber wrote: »

The person suing has to prove that it's false. RTE's legal experts considered it likely that Waters and Iona would be able to prove their innocence and then offered the victims compensation and apologised.

This is exactly wrong. When a legal action is taken the statement is assumed to be defamatory. The defendant in the case can then prove it is true as their defense Defamation Act 2009 s16(1) "It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects."

In this case I also think that the honest opinion defence s20(1) would be very strong.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

So why weren't the legal experts aware of this "track record"? If they were then they wouldn't have considered it likely that they would lose.

This is basically a non-point for many reasons.

Solicitors recommend that innocent clients take plea bargains all the time because the legal systems isn't about truth, it's about who can win.

RTE's legal advisors knew that, even if they could prove homophobia, a jury might not agree; or a judge might hang them on a technicality.

So.

Instead of taking a chance, they played it safe. And hung the gay community by a noose.

Because who cares what a minority group thinks when money is at stake.

Obliq

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Could you unpack that without the ad-homs?

What specifically has he said that makes him look like a fool? Also, why are you allowed to attack him like this when Rory isn't to be allowed to referred to by his job title?

He gets airtime because we live in a democracy. He is either an extremely brave and principled man or he is a shameless opportunist, using the situation to make a name for himself.

Oh for crying out loud, just listen to the fella, will ya? He gets airtime because he's a spokesperson for the "gays against marriage" brigade, which makes him a TINY minority of possibly only one in the country. Haven't heard of any others. Let him speak, by all means, but not on every show, and as somehow REPRESENTATIVE of anyone but his ego and as the IONA pet gay person.

Sarky

Brown Bomber doesn't NEED to listen to someone to get uppity about people criticising their idiotic claims and behaviour. He's hardcore like that.

Kiwi in IE

Perhaps Paddy Manning was a 'patient' of Patricia Caseys, back when homosexuality was considered a 'mental illness'.

SpaceTime

I wouldn't necessarily hang RTE on this either.

At the end of the day, RTE's in a very financially precarious position itself at the moment and doesn't have money to burn. It has to protect its own interests i.e. to remain on air too.

The legal system is actually fundamentally flawed in terms of the scale of costs involved in defending a libel claim.

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

This is basically a non-point for many reasons.

Solicitors recommend that innocent clients take plea bargains all the time because the legal systems isn't about truth, it's about who can win.

RTE's legal advisors knew that, even if they could prove homophobia, a jury might not agree; or a judge might hang them on a technicality.

So.

Instead of taking a chance, they played it safe. And hung the gay community by a noose.

Because who cares what a minority group thinks when money is at stake.

RTEs legal experts considered it probable that they would lose. Not on any technicality, but overall. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges. Evidently Waters and Iona being homophobes is not an objective truth or else the unanimous expert view of legal experts consulted by RTE would have considered it probable that they would win.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

RTEs legal experts considered it probable that they would lose. Not on any technicality, but overall. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges. Evidently Waters and Iona being homophobes is not an objective truth or else the unanimous expert view of legal experts consulted by RTE would have considered it probable that they would win.

First: you obviously can't prove any of this
Second: it's quite easy to prove that Iona is homophobic

Ergo: you're completely wrong

Brown Bomber

Knasher wrote: »

This is exactly wrong. When a legal action is taken the statement is assumed to be defamatory. The defendant in the case can then prove it is true as their defense Defamation Act 2009 s16(1) "It shall be a defence (to be known and in this Act referred to as the “ defence of truth ”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that the statement in respect of which the action was brought is true in all material respects."

In this case I also think that the honest opinion defence s20(1) would be very strong.

Thank you. I had it the wrong way round. It's harder to prove your innocence than the accuser to prove your guily. This just makes it less likely that the accusations were objectively true.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What specifically has he said that makes him look like a fool?

Would you not think a women who campaigns against equal rights for women including the right to vote is a fool?

This is no different, it's all about equal rights.

Only a fool wants less human rights,

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

First: you obviously can't prove any of this

It's all there in black and white in the memo. Assuming it's legit.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Second: it's quite easy to prove that Iona is homophobic

Go on then...

Sarky

Brown Bomber wrote: »

RTEs legal experts considered it probable that they would lose. Not on any technicality, but overall. The truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges. Evidently Waters and Iona being homophobes is not an objective truth or else the unanimous expert view of legal experts consulted by RTE would have considered it probable that they would win.

Jesus, how are you not getting the point of what OscarBravo and Jernal have already said?

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

Would you not think a women who campaigns against equal rights for women including the right to vote is a fool?

This is no different, it's all about equal rights.

Only a fool wants less human rights,

Can you quote him on where he has said he is against women having the vote?

Otherwise you might as well be saying. Only idiots want a pay rise. You aren't an idiot are you?

Brown Bomber

Sarky wrote: »

Jesus, how are you not getting the point of what OscarBravo and Jernal have already said?

How are you not getting the point of what RTEs legal department have said?

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

RTEs legal experts considered it probable that they would lose.

No, they considered it possible they might lose.

Not on any technicality, but overall.

How could you know that unless you're privy to the legal counsel RTE received?

The truth is an absolute defense to defamation charges.Evidently Waters and Iona being homophobes is not an objective truth or else the unanimous expert view of legal experts consulted by RTE would have considered it probable that they would win.

And yet they didn't contest it in a defamation trial. The claim is still out in the open. AFAIK, Rory isn't going to court and he also received a solicitors letter. Those that claimed to be defamed seem to be as equally reticent about having the claims examined in a court room. Why avoid the case if they're guaranteed the win and an even larger payout?

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's all there in black and white in the memo. Assuming it's legit.

MilanPan!c wrote: »

Second: it's quite easy to prove that Iona is homophobic/QUOTE]

Go on then...

Iona have repeatedly pressed society to discriminate against homosexuals. That's a common definition of homophobia.

As for the memo, all we have is a vague explanation of some purported legal advice. Iona's actions and endless homophobic gibber jabber in the media are more than enough to convince any rational person that calling a duck a duck isn't in fact defamation.

It should also be pointed out that by claiming that their solicitors who they employ have them some unclear advice they could claim they weren't censoring anyone, while they still were allowed to censor someone.

Handy.

Knasher

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Waters and Iona being homophobes is not an objective truth

Panti didn't claim that Waters and Iona were homophobes, he claimed that they were "horrible and really mean about gays". Additionally to defend that, he (or RTE) doesn't have to prove it is "objectively true", though that would be one defence, because it is an opinion and not a statement of fact, all he would need to do is prove that it is an honestly held opinion.

Simply winning isn't enough for RTE to justify perusing the case. What RTE needed to decide is if they decided to defend themselves against the charges, how likely it would be that the court would award RTEs legal costs against Iona, €85,000 is a paltry sum compared to the €2m when they were awarded costs in the case that Bannasidhe mentioned.

MilanPan!c

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How are you not getting the point of what RTEs legal department have said?

What they said was "the legal position was far from clear"

Which more or less contradicts the next part: "such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury"

Note that they don't say it won't work because Iona isn't homophobic, but because a jury could be convinced they might not be.

Which is typical legal maneuvering and is unrelated to truth.

Pherekydes

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you quote him on where he has said he is against women having the vote?

He didn't. And it wasn't claimed that he did.

What Cabaal is alluding to is that gay people opposing other gay people having [marriage] equality is similar to women opposing other women having the vote [back in the day] or slaves opposing other slaves having freedom from slavery.

It's called an analogy.

Knasher

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you. I had it the wrong way round. It's harder to prove your innocence than the accuser to prove your guily. This just makes it less likely that the accusations were objectively true.

You're very welcome.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Cabaal wrote: »

Would you not think a women who campaigns against equal rights for women including the right to vote is a fool?

Can you quote him on where he has said he is against women having the vote?

You read that wrong.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

How are you not getting the point of what RTEs legal department have said?

For a person who finds a conspiracy in every blood thing, you can't even tell when a media outlet may simply be covering their asses after an event has horribly backfired on them. Have you actually done any reading into the beliefs of the Iona Institute or John Waters yet?

Explain to me for example, how demanding the right to retain the ability to fire teachers because of their sexual orientation is not homophobic? How is describing gay people as a part of an immense conspiracy to destroy the fabric of society is not homophobic? It's slightly higher brow in terms of wording than using homophobic name for examples.

But that does not mean it isn't homophobic. RTE not entering court case does not mean that the groups and individuals mentioned aren't homophobic. It merely illustrates that they lacked the balls to do what was right.

I'd suspect one of your few reasons for you even engaging in this topic is to disagree with us given your MO. But it would be worth your while to actually genuinely engage with the topic rather than using drug experiences as a reference point in terms of research and constantly disagreeing for the sake of it. RTE not entering a case does not vindicate Iona,it proves absolutely nothing.

Brian Shanahan

SpaceTime wrote: »

The big parties structures and whips are the major problem.

Whips aren't a problem, they're essential to a parliamentary system. The problem is funding, who pays the pols and why.

Obliq

Corkfeen wrote: »

I'd suspect one of your few reasons for you even engaging in this topic is to disagree with us given your MO.

1,371 Replies 34,356 Views

BB is one of the few voices of dissent on this thread, and is well known to us in tone/style. This may be the thread in which he has revealed more about where he's coming from than any other, and to my mind, he has shown more flexibility of thought than I thought he was capable of (so I'm not sure he's still here just for the joys of disagreeing), but bearing in mind that with the best part of 35,000 views, BB is the only one still here speaking for the side that thinks "traditional" is the way forward.....

What can I say? At least you converse BB. More than I can say for some of the drive-by "traditionalists".

Brown Bomber

MilanPan!c wrote: »

What they said was "the legal position was far from clear"

Which more or less contradicts the next part: "such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury"

Note that they don't say it won't work because Iona isn't homophobic, but because a jury could be convinced they might not be.

Which is typical legal maneuvering and is unrelated to truth.

Convinced by what? The facts for and against the accusation.

They considered it "unlikely" that the facts would convince a jury of "reasonable" people" that the allegations were truthful.

Why do you think that is?

swampgas

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Convinced by what? The facts for and against the accusation.

They considered it "unlikely" that the facts would convince a jury of "reasonable" people" that the allegations were truthful.

Why do you think that is?

Ignore courtroom drama on TV. The truth is often a very different thing to what can be legally proven in court, and when a jury decision is based on something as vague as what a so-called "reasonable person" might think, two different juries might well give two different results.

The biggest factor though, as has been pointed out earlier, is not how winnable the case might be, but how much it might cost to fight, and what the likelihood might be of recovering any costs. People like Robert Maxwell were forever suppressing stories by suing for libel all over the place, and it worked pretty well unfortunately.

I'd like to hear someone from Iona come out and defend the actual assertion made against them - that they do not, actually, support discriminating against people because they happen to be gay. I'd be surprised if they do so, though, because they have said the opposite in the past. Instead they are complaining about an allegation which wasn't made, by using a different definition of what "homophobic" means.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can you quote him on where he has said he is against women having the vote

Sigh, Clearly you are unable to understand comparisons......and you are unable to read.

Brown Bomber

Obliq wrote: »

1,371 Replies 34,356 Views

BB is one of the few voices of dissent on this thread, and is well known to us in tone/style. This may be the thread in which he has revealed more about where he's coming from than any other, and to my mind, he has shown more flexibility of thought than I thought he was capable of (so I'm not sure he's still here just for the joys of disagreeing), but bearing in mind that with the best part of 35,000 views, BB is the only one still here speaking for the side that thinks "traditional" is the way forward.....

What can I say? At least you converse BB. More than I can say for some of the drive-by "traditionalists".

Thank you ... I think. May I be honest with you? I am absolutely for equal rights for everyone, and it goes without saying that this includes gay folk. What I have a problem with is the making of loaded accusations on national tv and then playing the victim, and then demonising the actual victim for going through the proper channels to defend their name.

I think not knowing about Iona and Waters has been a blessing in disguise. I have no bias for or against. I can understand the gay community having emotive positions on this but they don't get to define what homophobia is. The last straw for me was shouting down a gay man for being homophobic because his opinion wasn't in line with what they insist it must be.

Homophobia is truly awful, it would be such a shame if people were to dilute it's true meaning for political purposes by silencing people with the accusation.

AerynSun

Pherekydes wrote: »

It's called an analogy.

I think it's called the Stockholm syndrome.

Turtwig

BB,

Please explain explicitly how an accusation of passive aggressive homophobia is loaded.

Also, I take it you don't accept that an undermining culture of subtle remarks and attitudes against gay people isn't damaging to a gay person's morale or esteem? What Waters and Iona say IS hurtful.

Brown Bomber

Cabaal wrote: »

Sigh, Clearly you are unable to understand comparisons......and you are unable to read.

Answer the other question then.

Why can you call a public person a "fool" and I don't get to call a public person by their job title?