Iona vs Panti

jank · 31-01-2014 08:30AM

Nodin wrote: »

The difference between the specific and the general is evidently lost on you.

Ah so it’s OK to mock and ridicule a group of people that share a common cause or belief system but not a specific person.. let me have a quick look at the charter and see if this is the case..

Nope, sorry. Try again.

Peregrinus · 31-01-2014 08:52AM

Like a lot of people on this thread, my own understanding and use of the term "homophobia" is a broad one. If you advocate treatment of gay people, on account of their gayness, which is disadvantageous to them, that's homophobic. Your motivation is largely irrelevant. You can certainly have what we might term "well-intentioned" homophobia.

But, if RTE were to defend a libel action here, the issue of how I understand and use the term, or how BB understands and used it, would be irrelevant. What is says in the dictionary is not terribly relevant either. In legal terms, what matters is how the "ordinary, right-thinking citizen" understands and uses the term - the citizen who is neither outstanding enlightened nor outstandingly bigotted; neither very wise nor very stupid; neither very liberal nor very conservative. In practical terms, the "ordinary, right-thinking citizen" is taken to be embodied in the collective view of the jury. If they think that what, e.g., John Waters has written and said justifies calling him a homophobe, given how they understand and use the word, RTE will win; if they don't, RTE will lose.

And that's a huge risk for RTE, given that "homophobe" is an emotionally laden term with - as we can see in this thread - considerable disgreement between people about what it means and when it's justified.

So, I can see why RTE would not wish to fight a defamation action on this. As I've said before, I wish they would, but I understand why they won't.

But the inference that BB draws that, because RTE has caved, therefore Waters et al have been vindicated and that none of them can be considered homophobes is completely unwarranted. RTE's decision doesn't mean anything of the kind.

david75 · 31-01-2014 08:57AM

They're holding a debate on the Saturday night show about homophobia, tomorrow night. No idea who is going to take part. And sadly it'll probably only be a small segment of the show.
Not sure of the topic, think it probably is about the definition of homophobia.
Easily going to Beth's biggest ratings pull this show ever gets.

Sarky · 31-01-2014 09:05AM

And now that RTE has shown everyone that you're not allowed criticise the Iona crowd in any way, there's no way it will be within sniffing distance of being balanced.

J_E · 31-01-2014 09:07AM

What are the bets the Saturday Night show segment about this issue will be all of 5-10 mins? They did that stunt with The God Slot debacle too, super sensationalist headline, then less than quarter of the actual show...

The damage done is irreversible.

david75 · 31-01-2014 09:09AM

Yeah, overall I can't see it being helpful to the situation.

Sarky · 31-01-2014 09:28AM

Worth another mention:

Complaints@rte.ie

When you get the generic stock reply, complaints@bai.ie

david75 · 31-01-2014 09:30AM

Is there a good template for the BAI complaint?
I've done my RTE complaint and got the brush off.
Just not sure what the position should be I complaining to the BAI

Delirium · 31-01-2014 09:41AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this "proof" you say that Rory is in possession of, that which makes his accusation truthful, why didn't he share it with RTE's legal department?

AFAIK RTE didn't approach Rory with regard to the apology before they aired it.

But based on Rorys explanation of homophobia:

What it boils down to is if you’re going to argue that gay people need to be treated in any way differently than everybody else or should be in anyway less, or their relationships should be in anyway less then I’m sorry, yes you are a homophobe and the good thing to do is to sit, step back, recognise that you have some homophobic tendencies and work on that. You know stop spending so much of your life you know devoting energies to writing things, arguing things, coming on TV to do anything to try and stop people achieving what they think they need for happiness.

How much more proof would they want? Everyone is aware of Waters + Iona being very vocal about not allowing marriage equality for same-sex couples.

david75 · 31-01-2014 09:48AM

Did any of you hear Breda O Brien on the radio the other night?
She did herself and her position no favours at all.

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 09:52AM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My brief definition of homophobia is "hating SOMEONE because they are gay" I just don't see this with opposition to gay marriage. Of course someone could be against gay marriage for homophobic reasons but that is not the only explanation so we cannot conclude IMO that to be against gay marriage is de-facto homophobia.

ah ok so,
All those 1950's American's that were against a mixed race marriage weren't racists at all, they just didn't didn't want black people to marry a white person.

They just thought it was wrong and it would undermine society,
Thanks for clearing that up.
:rolleyes:

So these picture do not include any racist people

Either does this one

and these pictures do not have any homophobic people in them...apparently

Something closer to home, yep apparently these are not homophobic either
europe-584-0.jpg%3Fw%3D262

J_E · 31-01-2014 09:56AM

david75 wrote: »

Did any of you hear Breda O Brien on the radio the other night?
She did herself and her position no favours at all.

She demonstrated some very bad manners in terms of overcutting over speakers constantly and cited an Educate Together figure, only for Educate Together to text RTE to confirm that her number was off by a massive degree. the "Don't panic darling" comment was cringey on her behalf, along with that deafening radio silence at the starting debate...

https://soundcloud.com/user727747666/rteld-debate

Also something to ponder over, quite an interesting parallel here;

BfPJCfsCUAAM-V3.jpg:large

david75 · 31-01-2014 10:07AM

Good points.
Marriage was undermined the moment divorce was allowed. That's the biggest threat to marriage and cheapened the whole institution of it. The gays are mad late to the party:)

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 10:12AM

david75 wrote: »

Good points.
Marriage was undermined the moment divorce was allowed. That's the biggest threat to marriage and cheapened the whole institution of it. The gays are mad late to the party:)

Nope, equal rights to women was the first step in undermining marriage....apparently.
After all the Catholic Church was against women's suffrage movement,

Of course, as we've learned from this thread from some users and Iona,
if you were against equal rights to women you are not a misogynist and you are not sexist.
:pac:

Ash.J.Williams · 31-01-2014 10:17AM

Sarky wrote: »

And now that RTE has shown everyone that you're not allowed criticise the Iona crowd in any way, there's no way it will be within sniffing distance of being balanced.

you can criticize the f** out of them if they are there ?

FouxDaFaFa · 31-01-2014 10:22AM

david75 wrote: »

They're holding a debate on the Saturday night show about homophobia, tomorrow night. No idea who is going to take part. And sadly it'll probably only be a small segment of the show.
Not sure of the topic, think it probably is about the definition of homophobia.
Easily going to Beth's biggest ratings pull this show ever gets.

Apparently some members of Pussy Riot. (Really). If they're flying them in from Russia, that would imply it will be a big part of the show.

It seems the wrong venue for it though, the Saturday Night show isn't used to serious debate.

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:28AM

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Apparently some members of Pussy Riot. (Really). If they're flying them in from Russia, that would imply it will be a big part of the show.

It seems the wrong venue for it though, the Saturday Night show isn't used to serious debate.

Something deliciously ironic about talking to Pussy Riot about why they were imprisoned, after having censored discussion just the week before...

5uspect · 31-01-2014 10:29AM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

Nice, ignore my post completely.

Delirium · 31-01-2014 10:31AM

RTE’s Censorship and Double Standards Condones Prejudice. (from http://claredaly.ie)

Comments made by Rory O’Neill on the Brendan O’Connor show, described the Iona Institute and journalist John Waters, both of whom are known for their opposition to equal marriage rights to same sex couples and for opposing same-sex parenting, as homophobic. If you argue that homosexual people are not entitled to the same consideration as straight people then you are, by definition, a homophobe.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”. If you watch the link below which contains a number of quotes from members of the IONA institute and John Waters it is clear that they are both arguing to maintain a discrimination against gay couples who are prohibited from marrying. This is to treat one group of people differently to another so that they are at a disadvantage based on their sexuality. This promotes inequality and is in fact homophobic.

...

The actions of the national broadcaster in apologising only serves to condone the deeply held prejudices. The apology itself begs further questions, as part of the apology Mr O’Connor bizarrely stated, “It’s an important part of democratic debate that people must be able to hold dissenting views on controversial issues…” So it is ok to hold a dissenting view which is perceived by many to be prejudice but if we express an opinion on your dissenting/prejudiced view we will be censored. The double standards and contradictions are glaring. If someone is known publicly as a racist and we correctly label them a racist will we have to issue an apology to that racist for calling them eh a Racist?

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:31AM

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? You're definitely taking the piss here. So much wrong with that statement it's not even funny. Rory is successful man and a highly influential figure for gay rights in Ireland, not sure why he'd need any sort of publicity stunt. It was never him that made the big deal out of anything. Go back to the drawing board...in fact, I think it would be better if you counted to 10 before typing a response.

31-01-2014 10:42AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dEvGtwMNfw

from link to Clare Daly's site on last page.

J_E · 31-01-2014 10:59AM

@philipoconnor: So of almost 900 complaints, none were about Rory's comments being offensive, according to RTE press office.

Still no statement in sight from RTE addressing this. Very telling.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 11:36AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

@philipoconnor: So of almost 900 complaints, none were about Rory's comments being offensive, according to RTE press office.

Still no statement in sight from RTE addressing this. Very telling.

I think the slot on the Saturday Night Show this weekend could be a sad little stunt to try placate people in the hope that they will not have to disclose the reason behind or the amount of damages.

robindch · 31-01-2014 11:45AM

Once more unto the breach for Brendan O'Connor:

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/

TheJournal wrote:

THE SATURDAY NIGHT Show is set to host a debate on homophobia this Saturday night. The show, presented by Brendan O’Connor, is at the centre of controversy after it apologised for remarks made about homophobia on the programme nearly three weeks ago. According to a statement from RTE, this week,

RTE wrote:

The Saturday Night Show will host a debate on homophobia; what constitutes homophobia and who gets to define the word?

A spokesman from RTE indicated that details of who will feature on the panel will be announced closer to transmission. Also on the show this week are two members of Russian punk protest group Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina.

Sarky · 31-01-2014 11:50AM

Another TD agrees RTE are out of line:

http://claredaly.ie/rtes-censorship-and-double-standards-condones-prejudice/

This is getting an awful lot of coverage sepite the near-total blackout by the traditional media. This is a Good Thing.

J_E · 31-01-2014 11:56AM

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!

Fair play to many individual Bloggers and TheJournal.ie, Broadsheet.ie for covering this topic in detail when the mainstream media outlets obviously won't.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 11:57AM

Cydoniac wrote: »

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!

:rolleyes: is all I can muster up for that ad.

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 12:18PM

Cydoniac wrote: »

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!

Interesting that the advert mentions nothing about what is apparently attacking marriage, is it a t-rex, is it godzilla? Nope its gay people just wanting to get married.

Just find it odd they won't mention gay people in the advert, so very very odd.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 12:22PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Just find it odd they won't mention gay people in the advert, so very very odd.

It's their new rhetoric: appear balanced, rational and definately not homophobis. Unfortunate for them thay so many of their comments are so readily available online.

I onlly noticed now that they are calling for donations.:eek: RTE's cheque must not have cleared yet.

J_E · 31-01-2014 12:25PM

diddlybit wrote: »

It's their new rhetoric: appear balanced, rational and definately not homophobis. Unfortunate for them thay so many of their comments are so readily available online.

I onlly noticed now that they are calling for donations.:eek: RTE's cheque must not have cleared yet.

Do one better and vote with your wallet (like a certain State broadcaster)
http://www.marriagequality.ie/donate