Calls for Minister for Children Roderic O'Gorman to resign..

keano_afc

the immortals wrote: »

He was hoping it would blow over that's why he took so long to respond, I don't believe for a second he knew nothing about some of thatchell s quotes or interviews, Ireland is in a place now where any criticism or questions asked of anyone who's gay or an ethnic minority can just be accused of being the far right, homophobic, Racist etc, it's a great way to shut people up

He dismisses those who ask him to make a statement regarding Tatchell's comments as far-right homophobes, and then goes ahead and makes a statement regarding Tatchell's comments. He clearly feels question needed to be answered.

suicide_circus

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

The lesson of not doing it? I can agree with you if that's your point.

the lesson of not engaging in that type of bad faith witch hunting yes

John Hutton

dan1895 wrote: »

Was just about to say. Those on Twitter shouting about this were the same who spout other homophobic nonsense.

Those shouting loudest on boards about it were the usual "I'm no fan of Gemma, but...." crowd.

Im presuming thats not aimed at me Dan

In fairness I think we can agree that Tatchell is a controversial figure who has said controversial things. The Minister was photographed with him. I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the Minister about that

The Ministers response is that he didn't know about said controversial statements, only met him once, and as far as he was concerned was just having his picture taken with a prominent LGBT activist and that had he know about the controversial statements he wouldn't have had his picture taken.

Even though homophobes may have been very vocal about this, with ulterior motives, I think it is perfectly legitimate for ordinary people to have raised an eyebrow and wondered what was going on with the picture and association between the Minister and Tatchell. I think there was a legitimate concern there, and this is reflected in the Ministers clarification.

jmayo

John Hutton wrote: »

One of the ways the likes of them get attention is when they talk about things some people perceive as being ignored by "main stream media".

The role of the media is to cover things in a sensible manner, by arriving so late the far right mob (and to be fair ordinary people raised some concerns too, although it is clear that the usual suspects were the most vigorous and energetic in shouting about it) will claim this as a victory and that they forced the media to look at this

And to be fair I think a Minister being photographed with a controversial figure and saying he is legendary is worth a question or two from a journalist about it. Had the media covered this from the outset it would be a two paragraph non story but because the Twitter mob have done the running on it for many days now it is massive news and has empowered the far right (or at least they will feel it has)

Normally I don't like the whole trial by social media, twatter shyte, facefook shyteology, but in this case it is a bit ironic.

It is a someone that gladly used social media to further their own agenda so feck him.
He was quick to use this gent when it suited and if he hadn't checked up on the guys background and public comments before using him on his own social media then he is an even bigger gobshyte than I thought.

Then again I often find greens tend to be sanctimonious eejits that don't often do their research because they tend to assume they know it all.

It is not as if it was some big secret that people only found out about in the last few weeks.

And would people ever grow up about this shyte of the "far right" in Ireland.
The nearest thing we have is the likes of the religious zealots like Barrett and his ilk and dear god they are in the half penny place to what some countries have as right wing.

chosen1

The last three paragraphs in his statement would have been entirely sufficient and would have put the matter to bed.

Instead he had to mention it was fueled by homophobia and this will no doubt keep the issue going. I've no doubt that some of the drivers of this used his sexuality as their motive but there were plenty of genuine people concerned about his association with this chap.

They've all been lumped in together now as being far right or homophobic and my guess is they won't take it lying down.

Expect to hear a lot more about this.

VillageIdiot71

dan1895 wrote: »

Those on Twitter shouting about this were the same who spout other homophobic nonsense.

Maybe, but the Minister now regrets the photo (and, presumably, his earlier comment endorsing Tatchell as a "legend").

You can't say "you are totally right, I am totally wrong", and then criticise the motives of the people pointing out you are wrong. That's incoherent, and shows a degree of arrogance and an unwillingness to learn from clear mistakes.

Grudaire wrote: »

Tatchell has distanced himself from those comments.

And now the Minister has distanced himself from Tatchell, so where does that leave us?

dan1895

John Hutton wrote: »

Im presuming thats not aimed at me Dan

In fairness I think we can agree that Tatchell is a controversial figure who has said controversial things. The Minister was photographed with him. I don't think it is beyond the pale to ask the Minister about that

The Ministers response is that he didn't know about said controversial statements, only met him once, and as far as he was concerned was just having his picture taken with a prominent LGBT activist and that had he know about the controversial statements he wouldn't have had his picture taken.

Even though homophobes may have been very vocal about this, with ulterior motives, I think it is perfectly legitimate for ordinary people to have raised an eyebrow and wondered what was going on with the picture and association between the Minister and Tatchell. I think there was a legitimate concern there, and this is reflected in the Ministers clarification.

Not at all aimed at you, I get your point and Tatchell is indeed controversial but when you look at the post history of those on Twitter saying this you find a lot of other homophobic, rascist, anti-vaxx, Covid hoax nonsense too. A lot of the people but not all of course.

the immortals

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

Well when the actual people who are starting these controversies, that is Gemma is clearly homophobic I don't think it's such a crazy accusation to say it was motivated by homophobia.

I think you're missing the point that the whole thing started because of o gorman and his photo with thatchell calling him a lgbt hero, o gorman is now our minister for children, thatchell once advocated lowering the age of consent to 14, it's not homophobic to be concerned about this situation and it's completely insulting to label anyone concerned as homophobic

Lux23

chosen1 wrote: »

The last three paragraphs in his statement would have been entirely sufficient and would have put the matter to bed.

Instead he had to mention it was fueled by homophobia and this will no doubt keep the issue going. I've no doubt that some of the drivers of this used his sexuality as their motive but there were plenty of genuine people concerned about his association with this chap.

They've all been lumped in together now as being far right or homophobic and my guess is they won't take it lying down.

Expect to hear a lot more about this.

It was fueled by homophobia, this wouldn't happen to a straight man.

Grudaire

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

And now the Minister has distanced himself from Tatchell, so where does that leave us?

Free to focus on other things.

As if this government won't have enough to get flak over without making stupid stuff up..

Limpy

chosen1 wrote: »

The last three paragraphs in his statement would have been entirely sufficient and would have put the matter to bed.

Instead he had to mention it was fueled by homophobia and this will no doubt keep the issue going. I've no doubt that some of the drivers of this used his sexuality as their motive but there were plenty of genuine people concerned about his association with this chap.

They've all been lumped in together now as being far right or homophobic and my guess is they won't take it lying down.

Expect to hear a lot more about this.

That's the strategy of these lefty groups, shut down the opposition. Any legitimate concerns would have you designated a certain type of phobe, to many to list.

Was he aware of this guy before he posed for the photo.

keano_afc

Mayorga wrote: »

Some of the people complaining are probably homophobic. I would say the vast majority are just concerned parents.

Its a poorly put together statement. He distances himself from Tatchell, which is all he was asked to do. Describing everyone who raised this issue as a far-right homphobe is just appallingly ignorant.

Rockbeast2

I'm very happy that he made a statement. I did feel that he should, not that he had to.

I hope we can now let him carry on with his important work and leave this particular matter behind.

Imreoir2

keano_afc wrote: »

Lumping everyone who raised this as "far-right" and homphobic is pretty pathetic. Straight from the Hazel Chu school of diplomacy.

The allegations which came straight from the homophogic far-right were the pathetic thing if you ask me.

People jumping on their bandwagon would want to have a look at themselves and as why they are comfortable with that company.

JohnnyFlash

https://twitter.com/adrianmckenna11/status/1279863776712548352?s=21

This is the sort of stuff politicians have to deal with these days because of social media. It’s extraordinary.

That dude is also a very strong argument for why cannabis shouldn’t be legalised.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

It was fueled by homophobia, this wouldn't happen to a straight man.

Theresa May met him the same year and praised him. I think it's a combination of conspiracy theorists, far right and homophobia. Exact same sort of targeting occurred with Zappone. She was a witch who was gonna engage in child sacrifice was the rhetoric at time.

Mayorga wrote: »

A straight man probably wouldnt call Thatchell the pedo apologist an Lgbt hero and a legend.

A straight woman in the form of Theresa May praised his activism in 2018.

nyc-dublin

suicide_circus wrote: »

Its worth pointing out that it was the "progressive" left who invented this game of trawling through people's social media accounts trying to find "slip ups" in order to cancel people.

Gonna have to post the Jonathan Pie video again;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5TVLEaqqdI

Perfectly said.

donaghs

Lux23 wrote: »

It was fueled by homophobia, this wouldn't happen to a straight man.

Depends what you mean. If a "straight" minister was photographed with Jeffrey Epstein I actually think it would be a much bigger story than this.

Maybe the story can spun another way. Should Roderic be associated with a known "racist" and "transphobe"? Not my words, but those of the UK National Union of Students: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/13/peter-tatchell-snubbed-students-free-speech-veteran-gay-rights-activist
(I think Peter Tatchell is an essentially decent person BTW).

John Hutton

Lux23 wrote: »

It was fueled by homophobia, this wouldn't happen to a straight man.

I believe we will see other people questioned on their associations with Tatchell, and not all of them will be gay

jmayo

Lux23 wrote: »

It was fueled by homophobia, this wouldn't happen to a straight man.

Yeah I know straight men can hang out with who they like and endorse who they like without any consequences. :rolleyes:

Grudaire wrote: »

Free to focus on other things.

As if this government won't have enough to get flak over without making stupid stuff up..

Yeah I mean who cares that a minister for children thinks someone that has advocated lowering the age of consent by a few years is a legend. :rolleyes:

FFS some appear to think that they should be immune from consequences, when forced issue a mealy mouthed retraction, want to quickly move on and label anyone that questions them as homophobic and right wing.

So much for a new politics from our green friends.

Grudaire

Limpy wrote: »

That's the strategy of these lefty groups, shut down the opposition. Any legitimate concerns would have you designated a certain type of phobe, to many to list.

Was he aware of this guy before he posed for the photo.

I mean the strategy of the fringe right seems to be to repeat the same allegations over and over again in the hope that they stick.

And while not ALL commentary/questioning online is homophobhic, there was furore over his kiss at the count centre. Its completely unfair to pretend that there was no undercurrent of homophobia over the last few weeks - only your own fault if you're triggered by it being called out.

eviltwin

If it wasn’t the photo with Tatchell it would be something else. Gem and her followers would find some reason to drag him through the mud because he’s gay.

Lux23

the immortals wrote: »

I think you're missing the point that the whole thing started because of o gorman and his photo with thatchell calling him a lgbt hero, o gorman is now our minister for children, thatchell once advocated lowering the age of consent to 14, it's not homophobic to be concerned about this situation and it's completely insulting to label anyone concerned as homophobic

Thatchell is an LGBT rights activist that had a huge impact on the movement, so I don't think it is wrong to call him hero perse, even if he had questionable views and relationships with dodgy people.

Also, the age of consent is 14 and below in other European countries, including Italy, France and Portugal. I wouldn't call those places paedo paradises.

dan1895

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

https://twitter.com/adrianmckenna11/status/1279863776712548352?s=21

This is the sort of stuff politicians have to deal with these days because of social media. It’s extraordinary.

That dude is also a very strong argument for why cannabis shouldn’t be legalised.

The absolute state of that.

John Hutton

I get where people are coming from about some of the people raising this issue for homophobic reasons, but I think it is a dangerous road to go down to basically say that because a bigot has raised something with bigoted motivations behind it it means that no one else can raise the same issue for legitimate reasons.

It does not automatically follow that a bigot raising an issue for bigoted reasons means that anyone raising the issue is a bigot, or that the very act of raising the issue is bigoted

Treppen

Lux23 wrote: »

Thatchell is an LGBT rights activist that had a huge impact on the movement, so I don't think it is wrong to call him hero perse, even if he had questionable views and relationships with dodgy people.

Also, the age of consent is 14 and below in other European countries, including Italy, France and Portugal. I wouldn't call those places paedo paradises.

Well... Italy kinda is https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/italian-police-smash-nationwide-child-pornography-ring-71606862

eviltwin

John Hutton wrote: »

I get where people are coming from about some of the people raising this issue for homophobic reasons, but I think it is a dangerous road to go down to basically say that because a bigot has raised something with bigoted motivations behind it it means that no one else can raise the same issue for legitimate reasons.

It does not automatically follow that a bigot raising an issue for bigoted reasons means that anyone raising the issue is a bigot, or that the very act of raising the issue is bigoted

I agree with you, even a stopped clock is right twice a day but you’ll need to have more substantial evidence than a random photo to base your concerns on

Imreoir2

chosen1 wrote: »

The last three paragraphs in his statement would have been entirely sufficient and would have put the matter to bed.

Instead he had to mention it was fueled by homophobia and this will no doubt keep the issue going.

It was fueled by homophobia though, that much is blatently obvious. Why should he fear to speak the obvious truth about the motivations of the people who made these allegations. Gemma, Renua, IFP can hardily complain when someone merly describes them accuratly.

Beasty

Some clearly wish to use this as an opportunity to discuss what was already covered in the original thread

I've therefore merged it into the original (still locked) thread where you can read through the whole discussion if you wish