nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

lazygal

Does anyone know anything about this organisation? Where it is funded from and by whom? Who runs it? Why it gets such a platform? I've been digging around a bit but its very difficult to find out anything about it.

I'm also mystified as to why David Quinn appears so often representing a relatively new body which seems to be largly self-appointed and why he is allowed such a platform.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Galvasean

For a crew so quick to whine about their free speech being censored on RTE's Prime Time the other night, they sure are quick to threaten legal action in order to try silence the opinions of others.

Sarky

They're bible bashers, hypocrisy is second nature to them.

SebBerkovich

Sarky wrote: »

They're bible bashers, hypocrisy is second nature to them.

I'd go as far as saying it could be their first nature...

VinLieger

Bit of a streisand effect here? Pretty sure anythime he blows his nose the college papers are gonna be all over him now, would love to see them all gang up on him for the laugh

Galvasean

VinLieger wrote: »

Bit of a streisand effect here? Pretty sure anythime he blows his nose the college papers are gonna be all over him now, would love to see them all gang up on oppress him for the laugh

:cool:

Bobby42

Just to add, I think his demands are absolutely ridiculous.

Mr. Quinn’s representative made five demands in relation to the story: that it be retracted, that we issue an apology for its publication, that we offer Mr. Quinn a right-of-reply inside the next print edition, that we offer his representatives editorial oversight over a subsequent article on The University Times‘ settlement of their case, and that we make a contribution to Mr. Quinn’s legal costs in pursuing this case.

This to me reeks of desperation. It's like they know they're onto a loosing argument.

I actually sent quinn a few tweets but he has never replied to me. I think its because he secretly knows I'm right.

After watching the prime time show I got the feeling that they can no longer hide behind the mask of concern for children, and it all really boils down to out and out homophobia.

They argue that a child should be with their married biological mother and father, and that this is the "ideal" family situation.

However, there are many family situations that do not match this "ideal".

Single parents.
Blended families.
Step mothers/fathers.
LGBT couples.

So, by their own definition, these families are not ideal, and apparently pose a risk to the children involved.

However, it is only marriage equality that they are campaigning against.

They released a video against marriage equality, but no video against divorce or pre marital sex.

Surely, if the welfare of children was at the heart of their opposition to marriage equality, the other types of families that don't match the iona institute's definition of "ideal" would get an equal measure of campaigning?

the culture of deference

Galvasean wrote: »

For a crew so quick to whine about their free speech being censored on RTE's Prime Time the other night, they sure are quick to threaten legal action in order to try silence the opinions of others.

How are the religious getting away with spreading this hatred. They can't even use the bible for protection.

from wiki

The Bible, especially the Old Testament, contains some passages commonly interpreted as condemning homosexuality. Leviticus 18:22, says "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah is also commonly seen as a condemnation of homosexuality. Christians and Jews who oppose homosexuality often cite such passages;

historical context and interpretation is more complicated.

Scholarly debate over the interpretation of these passages has focused on placing them in proper historical context, for instance pointing out that Sodom's sins are historically interpreted as being other than homosexuality, and on the translation of rare or unusual words in the passages in question. In Religion Dispatches magazine, Candace Chellew-Hodge argues that the six or so verses that are often cited to condemn LGBT people are referring instead to "abusive sex." She states that the Bible has no condemnation for "loving, committed, gay and lesbian relationships" and that Jesus was silent on the subject.[24]

The official teaching of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality, with which, however, many Catholics disagree, is that same-sex behavior should not be expressed.[25] The Catechism of the Catholic Church States that, "'homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.'...They are contrary to the natural law.... Under no circumstances can they be approved."[26] The Catholic Church also campaigns politically against LGBT rights.

Can IONA be prosecuted

C.2. Criminal Law - Hate Crime
[10]. The only criminal statute in Ireland dealing specifically with hate
speech is the Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989. This
statute makes it an offence to incite hatred against a group of persons
in the state or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality,
religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the traveller
community or sexual orientation.

If an incident of hate speech or hate
crime occurs, it is dealt with as an offence of ‘assault’, ‘assault
causing harm’ or ‘assault causing serious harm’, as defined by the
Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997.8 In sentencing, an
assault committed due to the sexual orientation of the victim is not
considered an aggravating circumstance.

Delirium

Bobby42 wrote: »

Just to add, I think his demands are absolutely ridiculous.

This to me reeks of desperation. It's like they know they're onto a loosing argument.

I actually sent quinn a few tweets but he has never replied to me. I think its because he secretly knows I'm right.

After watching the prime time show I got the feeling that they can no longer hide behind the mask of concern for children, and it all really boils down to out and out homophobia.

They argue that a child should be with their married biological mother and father, and that this is the "ideal" family situation.

However, there are many family situations that do not match this "ideal".

Single parents.

Blended families.

Step mothers/fathers.

LGBT couples.

So, by their own definition, these families are not ideal, and apparently pose a risk to the children involved.

However, it is only marriage equality that they are campaigning against.

They released a video against marriage equality, but no video against divorce or pre marital sex.

Surely, if the welfare of children was at the heart of their opposition to marriage equality, the other types of families that don't match the iona institute's definition of "ideal" would get an equal measure of campaigning?

They're hoping people don't examine the obvious omissions (those you've listed above) because they'd lose what little support they have if people did. There would have to be state mandated marriages or the removal of children from single families to hold to the standard Iona are claiming to be chasing.:eek:

Flier

Add to the list families who adopt and / or foster.

Bobby42

Yeah there's probably a lot more to add to the list I posted there.

My brother has a blended family, the kids there are doing fine, despite what the iona institute thinks.

What they're doing at this stage is trying to make their homophobia more marketable with some faux concern for the children.

The Black Oil

Every other week Whyona are in the news - be it self-publicity or something else.

Whatever about the request for an apology, etc, the one about a contribution towards legal costs is particularly pathetic.

Hotblack Desiato

Bobby42 wrote: »

Here's the Trinity News Editorial:

We have encouraged Mr. Quinn and his representatives to pursue this matter through the Press Council but, at the time of writing, the threat of legal action remained outstanding.

They should've referred them to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram :

An unlikely piece of British legal history occurred in what is now referred to as the "case" of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971). The plaintiff was the subject of an article relating to illicit payments, and the magazine [Private Eye] had ample evidence to back up the article. Arkell's lawyers wrote a letter which concluded: "His attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of your reply." The magazine's response was, in full: "We acknowledge your letter of 29th April referring to Mr J. Arkell. We note that Mr Arkell's attitude to damages will be governed by the nature of our reply and would therefore be grateful if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."

:pac:

Obliq

Brilliant!

Cork Boy

Re Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)

Back when the press had a pair and were not full of churnalists.

the culture of deference

ninja900 wrote: »

if you would inform us what his attitude to damages would be, were he to learn that the nature of our reply is as follows: fuck off."

:pac:

Reminds me of Dawkins quoting the new scientist editor

"Science is interesting and if you don't agree you can **** off"

Bobby42

David Quinn keeping it classy as always...

Sarky

I'd love to see the look on his face during this Savita inquest. Christ, I bet it's priceless.

PopePalpatine

Even the look of him churns my stomach.

The Black Oil

As that's a medical tweet are we to presume he's going to audition for a part in a male led remake - Dr. Quinn: Medicine Man?

Benny_Cake

Bobby42 wrote: »

David Quinn keeping it classy as always...

If Ireland had been an unsafe place to have a caesarean at the time and there was no alternative, it might be a valid point. Since c-sections were perfectly safe here, the procedure was little more than needless butchery. Quinn isn't stupid, so he's obviously trying to belittle the ordeal that these women went through. It's a cruel attitude to take, but if you're looking to corner the local niche as a right wing culture warrior, it makes sense I guess. Much of the posts on that Twitter account are out and out trolling anyway.

Galvasean

He's not really trolling, just appealing to a lucrative niche market, ie: ultra-conservatives. The IONA Institute is essentially the Irish Tea Party.

robindch

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Even the look of him churns my stomach.

He's quite a small chap (in height, I mean). I bumped into him some months ago at a skeptics talk, where he and John Witters were about to spend their evening lecturing to a room almost entirely filled with elderly or lonesome-looking men.

Having a discussion with him flitted briefly across my mind, before I thought the better of it and did what he deserves most of all -- just being ignored.

Sarky

I disagree, I think what he most deserves is a long series of sharp slaps across the face until whatever demon of bats*t insane has possessed him gets a headache and leaves.

Peregrinus

robindch wrote: »

He's quite a small chap (in height, I mean). I bumped into him some months ago at a skeptics talk, where he and John Witters were about to spend their evening lecturing to a room almost entirely filled with elderly or lonesome-looking men.he better of it and did what he deserves most of all -- just being ignored.

Whereas the skeptics talk, presumably, was going to be delivered to an audience consisting largely of snogging teenagers?

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

Whereas the skeptics talk, presumably, was going to be delivered to an audience consisting largely of snogging teenagers?

I'd say (a) the average skeptic had at least twenty years on the average Waters fan, and (b) many skeptics disappeared upstairs for beer and giggles once the talk was over, while the entire Waters crew slowly wheezed up the stairs from the basement, pulled their anoraks close around themselves and scuttled off quickly into the night, snogless.

Sarky

Probably all having unsafe fornication-heavy threesomes and fraping eachother on the face books.

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

while the entire Waters crew slowly wheezed up the stairs from the basement, pulled their anoraks close around themselves and scuttled off quickly into the night, snogless.

Well, at least they didn't use the elevator lift.

the culture of deference

Today's arse spoutings from dave

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-samesex-marriage-would-deny-distinct-roles-of-mums-and-dads-29191235.html

Gay marriage supporters don't only want to make marriage gender neutral. They want to make parenthood gender neutral.

They want us to agree that marriage should be for any two people who love each other, regardless of sex, and that having two loving parents is just the same as having a loving mother and father.

These two demands are inseparable. You can't have one without the other and they amount to an outright denial of sexual complementarity.

Stark

Heaven forbid if Daddy from a traditional marriage isn't all beer and football and bread winning and Mammy isn't all makeup and handbags and staying at home baking the cakes.

Obliq

Stark wrote: »

Heaven forbid if Daddy from a traditional marriage isn't all beer and football and bread winning and Mammy isn't all makeup and handbags and staying at home baking the cakes.

Why, that might mean that there could be men who can do makeup and style an outfit? And Mammy has a little problem with the beer and staying out half the night? Oh JAYSUS, we're ruined. RUINED.