Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Iona vs Panti

1…1920222425…82

Comments

  • #632
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    Brendan O'Connor:
    On one side, you have a bunch of preening, highly strung queenie types and on the other side you have the gays

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/brendan-oconnor/debate-that-dare-not-speak-its-name-29971736.html

    That was actually quite funny.


  • #633
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    porsche959 wrote: »
    I agree with this article. The underlying issue is the poor protections for free speech under Irish law.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/free-speech-and-not-gay-marriage-is-real-issue-here-29971583.html


    "I SUSPECT not that many members of the general populace are lying awake in their beds at night worrying about the current "homophobia" debate. Partly that's because most people are not really engaged"

    John Waters gets 30K for being accurately described......that's enough to deprive one of sleep.


  • #634
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    I'm actually getting angrier about this. John Waters getting a years salary for many people for being called out on his actual beliefs is rage inducing.


  • #635
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    lazygal wrote: »
    I'm actually getting angrier about this. John Waters getting a years salary for many people for being called out on his actual beliefs is rage inducing.

    /\

    There ye go. And it's not like he has unknown funds behind him like Iona, so folding early was a bit much.


  • #636
    SeomraGlas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1 ✭SeomraGlas


    lazygal wrote: »
    I'm actually getting angrier about this. John Waters getting a years salary for many people for being called out on his actual beliefs is rage inducing.

    This is sickening. Absolutely rage inducing.


  • Advertisement
  • #637
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    lazygal wrote: »
    ninja900 wrote: »
    Hopefully the quid pro quo for the Iona payoff is that RTE will now choose not to have them on, or mentioned on TV, at all.
    That'd be awesome. Maybe the Lord does work in mysterious ways.
    Even at 85 grand, that's money well spent.


  • #638
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,591 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    robindch wrote: »
    Even at 85 grand, that's money well spent.

    All we need now is someone at the Irish Times to call them homophobes and we might never see an article from any of them ever again.


  • #639
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    unfortunately, the irish times are even less able than RTE to afford expensive legal action.


  • #640
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    I wonder if Iona et al haven't managed a bit of an own goal here? They have challenged an assertion that they are homophobic, and accepted damages from RTE, in a very public way. However the assertion they challenged, made by Rory O'Neill, was very clearly one where homophobia refers simply to discrimination against homosexuals.

    So if any of the Iona crew now write or say that discrimination against gay people is valid (because of their fears for children or society or whatever) they are effectively admitting that they accepted those damages in bad faith.

    From a PR point of view, they might really have boxed themselves into a corner.


  • #641
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    swampgas wrote: »
    From a PR point of view, they might really have boxed themselves into a corner.

    It might take them a while (and some considerable public debate) before they cop onto that though...


  • Advertisement
  • #642
    vitani
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,824 ✭✭✭vitani


    swampgas wrote: »
    I wonder if Iona et al haven't managed a bit of an own goal here? They have challenged an assertion that they are homophobic, and accepted damages from RTE, in a very public way. However the assertion they challenged, made by Rory O'Neill, was very clearly one where homophobia refers simply to discrimination against homosexuals.

    So if any of the Iona crew now write or say that discrimination against gay people is valid (because of their fears for children or society or whatever) they are effectively admitting that they accepted those damages in bad faith.

    From a PR point of view, they might really have boxed themselves into a corner.

    They also have people really paying attention to the rubbish they've been spouting. I was giving out about the payouts to my mother and she asked if JW was homophobic, as she wouldn't have thought so. I was able to give her a couple of examples of things he has said or written.

    For every person who thinks that they were vindicated because RTE paid out, there's probably three or four who've looked into it and believe RTE paid out in error.


  • #643
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    In case it wasn't posted, here's pantis excellent speech from last night. Every word of it is true for every homosexual person in this country. http://theworkingclassheroes.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/panti-bliss-inspirational-speech-at-the-abbey/


  • #644
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    vitani wrote: »
    I was able to give her a couple of examples of things he has said or written.
    Can you provide them here so we can get to the bottom of this?
    vitani wrote: »
    For every person who thinks that they were vindicated because RTE paid out, there's probably three or four who've looked into it and believe RTE paid out in error.
    The fact of the matter is that Iona and Waters were compensated and apologised to for damaging their name. How is that not vindication?


  • #645
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Dig up BB. Dig up.


  • #646
    AerynSun
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 544 ✭✭✭AerynSun


    david75 wrote: »
    Dig up BB. Dig up.

    Ah sure now Australia is just two spades away... :P


  • #647
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I'd be very slow to believe that the address those emails were sent from didn't end in "@iona.ie" or equivalent.

    This kind of thing is very much reminiscent of when Shrub first stole the White House and his staffers spent the best part of a week spreading a lie that the outgoing Clinton administration thrashed the building, including spreading faeces around the place and destroying all communications equipment, try to deflect attention away from your wrongdoing by spreading lies about the opposition doing wrong.
    Eh no, not like that all. If a gay Irishman receives death threats for his opposition to gay marriage it stands to reason that these people would too.
    http://thickerthantalk.blogspot.se/2014/01/monstrosity-of-free-speech.html
    As a gay man I have come to loathe the smug, self appointed representatives of gaydom, the activists that claim to speak for me while viciously trying to shut me up. One had the stupidity to tell me on live radio that he "represented gay people" and it is possible that he believed he did. Others have applied all the strength of their fourth-hand, fifth-rate amateur psychology to declare me a self-loathing, damage-internalising, Stockholm syndrome-suffering, homophobic, mentally ill Judas with a desire for cheap publicity. Still others have expressed a simple, and to them, rational desire to kill me.

    I have gotten off lightly.


  • #648
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    david75 wrote: »
    Dig up BB. Dig up.
    In fairness, if anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John Waters is a homophobe then I will be the the one casting the first stone. Haven't seen anything that comes close to justifying such a horrible accusation.


  • #649
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Oh god.


  • #650
    Doctor DooM
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 25,872 Mod ✭✭✭✭Doctor DooM


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In fairness, if anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John Waters is a homophobe then I will be the the one casting the first stone. Haven't seen anything that comes close to justifying such a horrible accusation.

    Going to give this one the answer it deserves.

    Lol.


  • #651
    porsche959
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,499 ✭✭✭porsche959


    I'm inclined to agree with BB that Waters probably isn't a homophobe. Panti didn't (directly) say he is either. That's why I say it's the law that is to blame. The law is indeed an ass.

    If you ask me there are shades of the McAlpine case in this.

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lord-mcalpine-dead-tory-grandee-3034606


  • Advertisement
  • #652
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In fairness, if anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that John Waters is a homophobe then I will be the the one casting the first stone. Haven't seen anything that comes close to justifying such a horrible accusation.

    BB, if Waters' tirade that 'the gays' are not in fact after equality, but merely trying to gain marriage rights so that they can relish in the destruction of society, does not count as homophobic in your book, then you've set the goalposts for what you're defining as homophobia so far and narrow that none of us here can see what it is. Your definition for homophobia could be "sitting in one's underwear drinking gin and screaming at the television while balancing a weeble-wobble on your head" for all anyone can tell! For someone complaining about the redefinition of words and misrepresentation of the definition of homophobic, it's a particularly perplexing situation when you ask if someone can prove something that's been shown to be clear countless times already.


  • #653
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    porsche959 wrote: »
    I agree with this article. The underlying issue is the poor protections for free speech under Irish law.

    http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/free-speech-and-not-gay-marriage-is-real-issue-here-29971583.html
    Partly that's because most people are not really engaged
    I think this is really the comment that needs to be explored. Out of all the possible issues that Government might propose to put to a referendum, why is this largely irrelevant topic being proposed at all?

    The issue is the misplaced sense of political priorities. Can I propose a Constitutional Amendment to change the law of gravity so that fat people weigh less? Because that would matter about as much as this.


  • #654
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I would just say the law hasn't even been given an opportunity to be an ass.

    They allegedly came to a private settlement.
    We have no idea whether this would stand up in an Irish court or not.

    So I'm reserving my judgement on the legal system.


  • #655
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Links234 wrote: »
    BB, if Waters' tirade that 'the gays' are not in fact after equality, but merely trying to gain marriage rights so that they can relish in the destruction of society, does not count as homophobic in your book, then you've set the goalposts for what you're defining as homophobia so far and narrow that none of us here can see what it is. Your definition for homophobia could be "sitting in one's underwear drinking gin and screaming at the television while balancing a weeble-wobble on your head" for all anyone can tell! For someone complaining about the redefinition of words and misrepresentation of the definition of homophobic, it's a particularly perplexing situation when you ask if someone can prove something that's been shown to be clear countless times already.

    This is starting to sound a bit like the Gay Lobby's version of the Ant-Defamation League, I really hope it doesn't go down that route of branding and labelling people to silence them.

    I'd accept without reservation that "'the gays' are not in fact after equality, but merely trying to gain marriage rights so that they can relish in the destruction of society" is homophobic.

    Can you link to it so I can have a look? Is this an isolated incident? Is there a pattern? I don't think a single homophobic incident qualifies you as being a homophobe, something that is part of the fabric of your identity.


  • #656
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Doctor DooM wrote: »
    Going to give this one the answer it deserves.

    Lol.

    Alternatively you could just provide the evidence that RTE's legal department didn't possess that proves Waters is a homophobe.


  • #657
    magicbastarder
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 52,358 CMod ✭✭✭✭magicbastarder


    maybe someone can explain to me what the issue was since no-one actually said 'john waters is a homophobe'.


  • #658
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    @BB Link to the interview with Waters
    “This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality… This is the interesting thing, when they were fighting for civil unions and I raised the question that what they really wanted was marriage, but that what they were really wanting was adoption and they all denied it, ‘that’s complete paranoia. We have no interest in marriage at all, this is about our civil-rights’…But the next day they got out of bed and started to campaign for marriage.”

    “This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing.”

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #659
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    This is starting to sound a bit like the Gay Lobby's version of the Ant-Defamation League, I really hope it doesn't go down that route of branding and labelling people to silence them.

    Only one side of the debate has attempted to silence people, and that is Iona and Waters.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    I'd accept without reservation that "'the gays' are not in fact after equality, but merely trying to gain marriage rights so that they can relish in the destruction of society" is homophobic.

    Can you link to it so I can have a look? Is this an isolated incident? Is there a pattern? I don't think a single homophobic incident qualifies you as being a homophobe, something that is part of the fabric of your identity.

    I hope you're actually being genuine here, because I find it hard to believe you're this oblivious to the topic of discussion, but anyway...

    http://collegetribune.ie/index.php/2012/08/gay-marriage-is-a-product-of-this-bunker-mentality/
    This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality…

    There’s this inexorable campaign by people who really have no particular stake in it other than they want to destroy what exists… they want to walk into the big-top with a chainsaw and they want to say ‘that pole in the middle is in the way, we’re going to cut it’ and they start cutting it, and that’s what they’re doing…

    It is a deliberate sabotage of the culture”, continues Waters, “and the relishing of the destruction as a result. Gay marriage is a satire…

    Not to mention many other of his comments, the vile comment about "Lesbians playing house", etc. Yes, there is a pattern here, yes John Waters has repeatedly make similar statements about how marriage equality will bring about destruction, unfounded nonsense that is essentially fearmongering and drumming up hatred, you would agree?


  • #660
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    SW wrote: »
    @BB Link to the interview with Waters
    While John Waters can overstate it, he has a point in surfacing the Pythonesque quality of the debate.


  • Advertisement
  • #661
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    magicbastarder wrote: »
    maybe someone can explain to me what the issue was since no-one actually said 'john waters is a homophobe'.

    John Waters is a homophobe. There, I've said it.


Advertisement