Are these claims about the referendum true

TheCowboy

i saw an ad for a no vote and upload a section.Are the claims true.? I am not advocating yes or no and do not know much about it but the claims strike me as strange especially 3

Boskowski

I have no dog in this race as I have no vote but this seems absurd. Clutching at straws stuff.

johnnyskeleton

Normally someone making a legal argumrnt will reference the law e.g. if you punh someone you could go to jail under s.2 of the non fatal offeces act. The complete absence of law in that report should tell you something. However, just to be clear:

1) theysay the bible will be illegal. This will not happen. We already have equality enshrined in the constituion but we also have freedom of religion. A person is still free to believe homosexuality is a sin. They are not entitled to go around pestering homosexuals because of this (in my view) because you the existence of one persons right to freedom of reliion and freedom of expression doesnt mean they can go around breaching other peoples rights to freedom of religion, association and bodily integrity. It is a balance. In any event, here is nothing in the referendum to change this one way or another - it is simply permissive of gay marriage and doesnt prejudice any existing right.

2) The right of schools to teach religious values, including on marriage, is already enshrined in legislation. This referendum does nothing to change that. Personally i think that any school that receives state money should not teach mandatory or curricular denominational religion anyway, but the government is happy to fund suh schools anyway.

3) The idea that a person could be punished for not letting their child stay over in another's house is nonsense of the highest order. I really feel embarrassed for the person who said that. Equality laws as hey stand apply to businesses etc not to a private familys private arrangements. Plus, again, nothing in the referendum changes equality law or the other rights in the constitution.

You might be called a bigot by your peers if you dont allow your children to playwith the hildren of gay parents, but thats probably because you are a bigot rather than anything to do with the constitution.

4) The requirement to be forced to provide services is the subject of an ongoing court case in NI, the outcome of which is far from certain there and even less so for the ROI. Its the "gay cakes" case. Personally, I would draw the line as to whether you are required to provide a good/service that you dont approve of or whether you should give them to a person you dont approve of. I'm not in favour of equality legislation whivh requires businesses to provide goods or services which they dont approve of (e.g. sloganised gay rights cakes) but I am very much in favour of laws whih prevent a business refusing to deal with gay people themselves. Its a tricky line to draw and the subject of muh debate.

But, and at the risk of losing my audience it very much bears repeating, equality legislation has nothing to do with the referendum and whatever the outcome of the gay cake case, it will not be affected by the new referendum

TheCowboy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Normally someone making a legal argumrnt will reference the law e.g. if you punh someone you could go to jail under s.2 of the non fatal offeces act. The complete absence of law in that report should tell you something. However, just to be clear:

1) theysay the bible will be illegal. This will not happen. We already have equality enshrined in the constituion but we also have freedom of religion. A person is still free to believe homosexuality is a sin. They are not entitled to go around pestering homosexuals because of this (in my view) because you the existence of one persons right to freedom of reliion and freedom of expression doesnt mean they can go around breaching other peoples rights to freedom of religion, association and bodily integrity. It is a balance. In any event, here is nothing in the referendum to change this one way or another - it is simply permissive of gay marriage and doesnt prejudice any existing right.

2.

3. The idea that a person could be punished for not letting their child stay over in another's house is nonsense of the highest order. I really feel embarrassed for the person who said that. Equality laws as hey stand apply to businesses etc not to a private familys private arrangements. Plus, again, nothing in the referendum changes equality law or the other rights in the constitution.

You might be called a bigot by your peers if you dont allow your children to playwith the hildren of gay parents, but thats probably because you are a bigot rather than anything to do with the constitution.

Thank i thought 3 was complete nonsense. It is probably in breach of the advertising standards

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

i saw an ad for a no vote and upload a section.Are the claims true.? I am not advocating yes or no and do not know much about it but the claims strike me as strange especially 3

Where did you see that advert.

Report it to the asai

Its in breech of the code of practice and the publisher has really feked up even letting that go to print.

It is Actual propaganda

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

Where did you see that advert.

Report it to the asai

Its in breech of the code of practice and the publisher has really feked up even letting that go to print.

It is Actual propaganda

I was in clonmel. it is a local free paper. I snapped the ad but edited here as not sure if could upload all of it

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

I was in clonmel. it is a local free paper. I snapped the ad but edited here as not sure if could upload all of it

That's wise.

Are you going to report it?

If not. Tell me when it was published, the name of the paper, page and if you have a better image PM it to me.

The asai submission is easy enough and your name is not given to the publisher.

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

That's wise.

Are you going to report it?

If not. Tell me when it was published, the name of the paper, page and if you have a better image PM it to me.

The asai submission is easy enough and your name is not given to the publisher.

sent you pm

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

sent you pm

Thanks. There is a LOT wrong with that ad.

I would suspect the publisher is sympathetic to the cause as they have themselves failed to stipulate it is an advert and if it isn't and it is an editorial, it seems to be missing the journalists name.

Could I get the page number, date of print and name of the paper too please. The newspaper should adhere to the guidelines even if the advertiser does not want to.

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

Thanks. There is a LOT wrong with that ad.

I would suspect the publisher is sympathetic to the cause as they have themselves failed to stipulate it is an advert and if it isn't and it is an editorial, it seems to be missing the journalists name.

Could I get the page number, date of print and name of the paper too please. The newspaper should adhere to the guidelines even if the advertiser does not want to.

sent you pm. not sure if i should have called it an ad it is a sort of column the church seem to have and i expect that is why no journalist name appears. So it is their call for a no but does that make it an ad?

if it is a column promoting a church should it say advertorial?

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

sent you pm. not sure if i should have called it an ad it is a sort of column the church seem to have. So it is their call for a no but does that make it an ad?

If its in with the add, in a normal paper not published by the church.

You are right to call it an ad and its In beech of the regulations

I don't have any WiFi for my PC after I switched from Tesco (they doubled their prices). If you have the time, submit it on asai.ie site, takes 5 min

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

If its in with the add, in a normal paper not published by the church.

You are right to call it an ad and its In beech of the regulations

I don't have any WiFi for my PC after I switched from Tesco (they doubled their prices). If you have the time, submit it on asai.ie site, takes 5 min

would not bother with asai. joke. anyway i am not bothered either way was just curious about the content

MouseTail

That couldn't possibly from a mainstream Church? Its just so completely whacky. Definitely report to ASAI.

TheCowboy

MouseTail wrote: »

That couldn't possibly from a mainstream Church? Its just so completely whacky. Definitely report to ASAI.

i am not going to asai i was just curious about the claims

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

would not bother with asai. joke. anyway i am not bothered either way was just curious about the content

I wouldn't be so quick to turn a blind eye to propaganda. You could be victimised next. #hitler

I will submit a complaint on wed and follow it up by sending a newswire to the media outlets to shame the paper in to being more vigilante next time.

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

I wouldn't be so quick to turn a blind eye to propaganda. You could be victimised next. #hitler

I will submit a complaint on wed and follow it up by sending a newswire to the media outlets to shame the paper in to being more vigilante next time.

and are you a yes voter? i have no preference either way

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

and are you a yes voter? i have no preference either way

I am not gay no.

But sure as hell I am not letting lies be printed as fact no matter what the subject is.

Even if it was in my favour. I would complain.


I am not letting my country turn in to the fourth Reich because I turned a blind eye to something that is clearly wrong.

Grolschevik

househero wrote:

I am not gay no.

You don't have to be gay to be a yes voter...

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

I am not gay no.

But sure as hell I am not letting lies be printed as fact no matter what the subject is.

Even if it was in my favour. I would complain.


I am not letting my country turn in to the fourth Reich because I turned a blind eye to something that is clearly wrong.

i did not mean gay but a yes voter

Even if it was in my favour. I would complain.

fair play

Pat Mustard

Mod:

If it's not legal discussion, it's off-topic.

Please move back on topic.

househero

Grolschevik wrote: »

You don't have to be gay to be a yes voter...

Haha hahaha

Thanks for clearing that up for me

Qualitymark

I was out canvassing today, and I found a lot of people were asking me questions about things that have already been decided on and are already in the law, like the right of gay people to adopt children.
People also seemed a little confused - some people, not all - about the fact that this referendum refers only to marriage as recognised by the State, and bears no relation to church marriages.

househero

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

If it's not legal discussion, it's off-topic.

Please move back on topic.

Thanks Mr M.

Me and cowboy have sent the complaint off to the asai and notified the parties involved. Its up to them now.

I don't think either of us have an interest in the outcome. But it is wrong and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. So we made a stand

TheCowboy

househero wrote: »

Thanks Mr M.

Me and cowboy have sent the complaint off to the asai and notified the parties involved. Its up to them now.

I don't think either of us have an interest in the outcome. But it is wrong and it shouldn't have been allowed to happen. So we made a stand

No you have sent a complaint you say. i made no complaint to asai and i notified nobody. i said many times i was not interested in that. I only opened this discussion because i was curious if the claims were true especially number 3

househero

Qualitymark wrote: »

I was out canvassing today, and I found a lot of people were asking me questions about things that have already been decided on and are already in the law, like the right of gay people to adopt children.
People also seemed a little confused - some people, not all - about the fact that this referendum refers only to marriage as recognised by the State, and bears no relation to church marriages.

Its true
But your comments might be better placed in the after hours or politics threads on SSM.

This was about the abuse of media, as a channel for propagander. that's why it was in the legal forum.

It appears to be resolved now
I shall come back to post the asai findings and if necessary. I will take this further to make sure my children do not grow up in a country where propaganda is tolerated. That could be dangerous.

I also think it is VERY naïve that we allow political parties to publish propaganda. If an extreme party were to take power, we have left ourselves open to government mass media abuse.

They are excluded from the asai regulations


We should add propaganda regulations to the constitution

househero

TheCowboy wrote: »

No you have sent a complaint you say. i made no complaint to asai and i notified nobody. i said many times i was not interested in that. I only opened this discussion because i was curious if the claims were true especially number 3

Yea I worded that wrong. I sent off the complaint. Not you.

Pat Mustard

Mod:

househero, you are messing around. Please don't post in this thread again.

househero

Pat Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

househero, you are messing around. Please don't post in this thread again.

How am I messing around.

I just said what I did as the cowboy had sent me a PM nobody could see.


MOD: Banned