Iona vs Panti

J_E · 31-01-2014 01:35PM

diddlybit wrote: »

Seriously? I hope that it's not due to a fear of ligitation.

To be honest, I'm not sure. There are already some strongly worded comments - I imagine at the moment all mainstream news outlets are feeling a tad paranoid right now.

lazygal · 31-01-2014 01:36PM

Some of those pages take ages to moderate comments so I wouldn't panic yet.

Have a Hawaiin pizza and chillax. Maybe Dav could do the same.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 02:07PM

My very observent OH (*waves) is currently drafting up a letter of complaint to RTE and came across the following from their regs:

(b) the broadcast treatment of current affairs, including matters which are either of public controversy or the subject of current public debate, is fair to all interests concerned and that the broadcast matter is presented in an objective and impartial manner and without any expression of his or her own views, except that should it prove impracticable in relation to a single broadcast to apply this paragraph, two or more related broadcasts may be considered as a whole, if the broadcasts are transmitted within a reasonable period of each other.

It appears the rather hastily arranged panel scheduled for next Saturday may be an attempt by the broadcaster to stifle the flood of complaints by complying with their regulations. Especially as I just got a reply from them with this tacked on (my argument in my email was that they had breeched the above reg):

In the context of your mail, you may be interested to know that the upcoming edition of The Saturday Night Show will host a debate on homophobia, asking: what constitutes homophobia and who gets to define the word? Details of the participating panellists will be announced closer to transmission.

Links234 · 31-01-2014 02:16PM

vitani wrote: »

In fairness to him, those emails he quotes are abhorrent and anyone who sends them is doing nothing to further the cause of same-sex marriage.

You're assuming that those emails are genuine, and not being misreported by the same folks who regularly misrepresent numbers and findings of studies to support their own agenda?

I mean, is David Quinn known for his honesty?

Mark Hamill · 31-01-2014 02:19PM

vitani wrote: »

In fairness to him, those emails he quotes are abhorrent and anyone who sends them is doing nothing to further the cause of same-sex marriage.

But that's as far as my sympathy goes. That column is hysterical, and not in the funny sense.

Assuming those anonymous emails are genuine of course.

I also like how he equates an email telling them in no uncertain terms to kill themselves with tweets telling them that their organisation is "sickening, disgusting and absolutely horrible as an organisation" and that they "use religion as a smokescreen to inspire hatred across our land. It is repulsive".

Knasher · 31-01-2014 02:29PM

Links234 wrote: »

You're assuming that those emails are genuine.

Honestly I think it is a fairly safe assumption. If you set yourself up as a public campaigner for anything then you are going to get some hate mail. I'd find it hard to believe that what Iona does wouldn't garner some, and I doubt they would bother to make it up when they undoubtedly have some lying around.

But he did give four examples of what he considers hate mail, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the second two. It is surprising that they couldn't even come up with 4 proper examples of hate mail.

J_E · 31-01-2014 02:30PM

diddlybit wrote: »

My very observent OH (*waves) is currently drafting up a letter of complaint to RTE and came across the following from their regs:

It appears the rather hastily arranged panel scheduled for next Saturday may be an attempt by the broadcaster to stifle the flood of complaints by complying with their regulations. Especially as I just got a reply from them with this tacked on (my argument in my email was that they had breeched the above reg):

[/COLOR]

Well, this explains an awful lot. They aren't genuinely interested in a discussion about homophobia (which seemed suspicious as hell anyway), they're just covering their ass. It's looking worse and worse for them.

Daith · 31-01-2014 02:31PM

Links234 wrote: »

I mean, is David Quinn known for his honesty?

The same David Quinn who was suggesting bullying at the constitutional convention? Surely not

Delirium · 31-01-2014 02:32PM

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Assuming those anonymous emails are genuine of course.

I also like how he equates an email telling them in no uncertain terms to kill themselves with tweets telling them that their organisation is "sickening, disgusting and absolutely horrible as an organisation" and that they "use religion as a smokescreen to inspire hatred across our land. It is repulsive".

no surprise, did the same with the "river of bile" list. People who just disagreed with him were added to the list with the trolls:rolleyes:

Links234 · 31-01-2014 03:14PM

Knasher wrote: »

Honestly I think it is a fairly safe assumption. If you set yourself up as a public campaigner for anything then you are going to get some hate mail. I'd find it hard to believe that what Iona does wouldn't garner some, and I doubt they would bother to make it up when they undoubtedly have some lying around.

But he did give four examples of what he considers hate mail, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with the second two. It is surprising that they couldn't even come up with 4 proper examples of hate mail.

I don't disagree generally speaking that anyone in the public light can recieve hate mail, but I've seen it too many times already that anti-LGBT proponents invent or greatly exaggerate tales of abuse to think that there's not a gigantic possibility that Quinn is just out and out making **** up.

rughdh · 31-01-2014 03:43PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Rather selfish to not think of the children.

Study: Children Of Divorced Parents Are More Likely To Be Unhappy And Feel Unfulfilled

http://elitedaily.com/news/world/study-children-of-divorced-parents-are-more-likely-to-be-unhappy-and-feel-unfulfilled/

Children Of Divorced Parents Are More Likely To End Their Own Marriages

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/26714.php

United States: Studies Show Children of Divorce Struggle with Relationships as Adults

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/253612/divorce/Studies+Show+Children+of+Divorce+Struggle+with+Relationships+as+Adults

Children of divorced parents more likely to start smoking, study finds

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130314110251.htm

Kids Of Divorce And Suicide: New Study Shows Link

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/divorce-and-suicidal-idea_n_812456.html

etc

Broken home children are 'five times more likely to suffer mental troubles'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1079510/Children-broken-homes-times-likely-suffer-mental-troubles-says-Government-study.html#ixzz2rtxluWvP

Studies schmuddies!!! It's the dysfunction that inevitably leads to breakup that screws up the kids. Regardless of your gender and whether you're married to a man, woman or bicycle, if you are not a self-aware, emotionally mature, emotionally intelligent, insightful, well-rounded individual your kids will suffer whether you stay married, get divorced or whatever.

It's not that divorcing is not "thinking of the children", it's not growing yourself up emotionally and taking responsibility for your own conduct as an adult. Often it's just the one parent that thinks of the children. Sometimes it's neither. Sometimes it both.

david75 · 31-01-2014 04:31PM

Delighted. The Indo published my comment. Put that in yer pipe Mr Quinn

Cat Melodeon · 31-01-2014 04:35PM

diddlybit wrote: »

My very observent OH (*waves) is currently drafting up a letter of complaint to RTE and came across the following from their regs:

It appears the rather hastily arranged panel scheduled for next Saturday may be an attempt by the broadcaster to stifle the flood of complaints by complying with their regulations. Especially as I just got a reply from them with this tacked on (my argument in my email was that they had breeched the above reg):

[/COLOR]

I wonder will the Saturday night show discuss what constitutes an 'institute' while they're working on their homophobia definition. Such terms are carefully protected in the UK and elsewhere as being "organisations that carry out research of the highest standing" and I don't think some recently prominent 'institutes' quite make the cut.

vitani · 31-01-2014 04:53PM

From their Facebook page:

"We’ll be talking about homophobia, internet hate campaigns and freedom of speech."

Internet hate campaigns?!

I'm holding off my scream of frustration in the blind hope that the internet hate campaigns comment doesn't refer to threads like this, Panti talking on Twitter and Facebook events, which people are reduced to using after the mainstream media completely ignored this issue as it played out.

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 05:02PM

vitani wrote: »

From their Facebook page:

"We’ll be talking about homophobia, internet hate campaigns and freedom of speech."

One hopes they'll discuss this lovely video that promotes discrimination (interesting that it has comments disabled on youtube),

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaRK-0W5HQI

After all, you should treat a unique situation in a unique way...black people are unique thats why they weren't allowed to go to white schools or marry white people.

Using Iona's reasoning and logic such a argument against black people isn't racist....its just treating something unique differently

Penn · 31-01-2014 05:13PM

Cabaal wrote: »

One hopes they'll discuss this lovely video that promotes discrimination (interesting that it has comments disabled on youtube),

After all, you should treat a unique situation in a unique way...black people are unique thats why they weren't allowed to go to white schools or marry white people.

Using Iona's reasoning and logic such a argument against black people isn't racist....its just treating something unique differently

"Of course, not all married couples will have children, but forget about that for the moment as it defeats our argument. Look! More colours and shapes!"

david75 · 31-01-2014 05:15PM

I've a sneaking suspicion the pussy riot element of SNS is going to be used to ambush the pro gay marriage side on Saturday, and have us tarred by association.
Some of their antics and previous exploits, before the one that mare them fanous, are truly disgusting, and a few of them are gay.

Daith · 31-01-2014 05:16PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

"Of course, not all married couples will have children, but forget about that for the moment as it defeats our argument. Look! More colours and shapes!"

"What a gay person may actually be the biological parent of that child and why can't they marry...oh ah look a ghost!"

"Oh what a married couple are not forced to have children when they marry? Ah well"

"What what? A non-married couple raising a child? That means the child will not have the best outcome in life! What, now they are married? Now the child will have the best in life. Everything has just changed"

Penn · 31-01-2014 05:22PM

david75 wrote: »

I've a sneaking suspicion the pussy riot element of SNS is going to be used to ambush the pro gay marriage side on Saturday, and have us tarred by association.
Some of their antics and previous exploits, before the one that mare them fanous, are truly disgusting, and a few of them are gay.

In fairness, I think Pussy Riot were booked before RTE decided to go with the debate too.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 05:27PM

Pat Rabbitte has released a statement on the matter:

The Minister for Communications, Energy & Natural Resources, Pat Rabbitte T.D, today made the following statement:

“Speaking personally, I have never used the term ‘homophobe’ to describe those who disagree with me on issues of gay equality in general or gay marriage in particular. It is too loaded a term to be used to categorise those who hold contrary views on what is a matter for legitimate public debate.

That said, I would also hope that people and institutions that hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate – as most politicians do – that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile. If you enter the arena, you cannot expect that the Queensbury Rules will always apply.

It would be a matter of serious concern if recourse to our defamation laws was to have a chilling effect on the conduct of public debate on this issue, in the lead-in to the forthcoming referendum on gay marriage.

I have no intention of interfering in RTÉ’s management of the litigation claims against it. But I do expect that RTÉ remains fully committed to its chief obligation as a public service broadcaster – to ensure the full and free exchange of information and opinion on all matters of legitimate public interest.”

http://www.dcenr.gov.ie/Press+Releases/2013/Defamation+law+must+not+have+chilling+effect+on+legitimate+public+debate+-+Rabbitte.htm

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 05:27PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

In fairness, I think Pussy Riot were booked before RTE decided to go with the debate too.

Pussy Riot;s appearance on the show could really hurt Iona, at the end of the day Pussy Riot will be likely talking about religion taking hold in Russia and how this is crushing people's rights which resulted in jail time for them,

They'll then cut to a debate with Iona (most likely) debating the rights and wrongs of gay people and no doubt marriage will come into it,

So religion restricting rights and freedoms in Ireland as well, thats not a good image.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 05:27PM

Seems fairly reasonable except for the bit about not interfering in the litigation.

Daith · 31-01-2014 05:34PM

diddlybit wrote: »

Seems fairly reasonable except for the bit about not interfering in the litigation.

He can't really but it's more than I expected.

RTE need to release a statement stating why the money was paid and for what reason.

magicbastarder · 31-01-2014 05:39PM

Daith wrote: »

RTE need to release a statement stating why the money was paid and for what reason.

might have cost them 10 grand. which is a bt cheaper than fighting a slander case through the courts.
people are complaining about their taxpayer's money being used to fund litigation for iona; if using taxpayer funds wisely is an important part of RTE's job, there's an argument to be made there that - fiscally - they chose the wsie course.

Sarky · 31-01-2014 05:39PM

Surely if anyone could interfere in RTE-based litigation it's the minister for communication?

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 05:41PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

might have cost them 10 grand.

The rumour is that is was 30k (or52k) for Waters and 11k each for the members of the Iona Institute. That's a substantial amount.

Cabaal · 31-01-2014 05:41PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

might have cost them 10 grand. which is a bt cheaper than fighting a slander case through the courts.
people are complaining about their taxpayer's money being used to fund litigation for iona; if using taxpayer funds wisely is an important part of RTE's job, there's an argument to be made there that - fiscally - they chose the wsie course.

Ah now,
We're talking about RTE, a company that was spending 100 grand sending out RTE guides to ex employee's.

I'd much rather they have fought this, caving in was a bad move.

If Iona were really upset about what was said then surely Rory would have been the actual target on the basis that he is the person that apparently said something wrong.

Daith · 31-01-2014 05:42PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

might have cost them 10 grand. which is a bt cheaper than fighting a slander case through the courts.
people are complaining about their taxpayer's money being used to fund litigation for iona; if using taxpayer funds wisely is an important part of RTE's job, there's an argument to be made there that - fiscally - they chose the wsie course.

Sorry but this isn't the point. RTE need to explain for what reason they chose to payout.

Otherwise we don't know what can and can't be said on RTE.

diddlybit · 31-01-2014 05:42PM

Sarky wrote: »

Surely if anyone could interfere in RTE-based litigation it's the minister for communication?

That's what i thought, but I presuem the loophole is that the payout could be considered a 'legitimate public interest'.

SpaceTime · 31-01-2014 05:43PM

Sarky wrote: »

Surely if anyone could interfere in RTE-based litigation it's the minister for communication?

RTE's an unusual setup. I'd actually have to look it up to be sure, and that's despite knowing a fair bit about Irish media structures.

AFAIK, it's not actually a semi-state company. It was spun out of the old Department of Post and Telegraphs in 1961 and became its own authority. However, it's not like CIE, An Post, Bord na Mona, Bord Gais, the old Telecom Eireann (pre privatisation) or the ESB or any of those bodies.

So, I'm not sure if the RTE Authority's directly accountable to the Minister for Communication in the way that he'd be the sole shareholder at a semi-state.

It's a QANGO more like the HSE in some ways and not in others.

Part of the way its structured was to give it editorial autonomy, similar to BBC.
So, I'm not sure that there's any precedent of a minister directly getting involved. That's also the logic behind the license fee rather than funding directly from taxation i.e. it gets autonomy from government.

It's an odd one. I'm going to have a good read up on it tonight though just out of curiosity.

Iona vs Panti

Comments