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…4041434546…82

Comments

  • #1262
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Good to see you are challengeing the gay "homophobe" Paddy Manning on the merits of his argument.


    • extreme right wing gay
    • This one should join Iona
    • Uncle Tom Gay
    • a cocker spaniel
    • babble on and on
    • nobody would want to marry him

    I am responsible for two of the above.

    Given his stance on equal marriage/ abortion etc I think he would fit in well at Iona. It might suit Iona too. They are so ignorant about what homophobia is, that they probably think having an openly gay member would prove they are not homophobic.

    As for no one wanting to marry him. He is obviously happy with the fact that he is excluded from a right available to the rest of the population, and is prepared to campaign to keep it that way. What can you say in response to that that is serious and sensible?

    As for 'challenging the merits of his argument'; maybe I missed something, but I failed to notice any merits in the argument which to challenge.


  • #1263
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    robindch wrote: »
    They might indeed have formed, but while the far larger and younger army is standing ready for combat, the other army chose to open its campaign by directing their most fearless keyboard warriors to take a blind, running leap onto a high horse, only to see them fly over the top and into a huge pile of stinky horse poo.

    My eyes are watering at the thought, and mostly with laughter.

    A protest similar to the one in Dublin is being organised for Cork...we are just waiting for the floodgates to close and the place to dry out... or for a load of water damaged waders/wellys to come on sale.

    :D

    I must admit - I am loving watching this unfold.


    panti-punti-lowest-res.jpg?w=450


  • #1264
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    The thing is that Panti is actually saying something that resonates with everyone who has been oppressed or bullied by 'the powers that be'.

    That's a hell of a lot of people!

    How many people on this forum for example are subtly discriminated against for being atheists ?

    Women, people from 'bad' aread, divorcées, single parents, people from non-mainstream religions, immigrants, ethnic minorities.... etc etc

    Totally agree.

    It's the child with down's syndrome who's left to their own devices because they don't have an SNA. It's the kid who's not catholic and is left out when everyone else in the the class is heading to the church for a practice run of communion. It's the people who want a civil marriage or partnership on a weekend who can't have it because the state service doesn't work those days. It's the woman on maternity leave who isn't told about a promotion opportunity when she's off and doesn't get considered for a more senior role because she's not there.

    I can guarantee no one who has a church wedding or christens their children or does religious ceremonies with them ever has their choices questioned or has to justify them. However well meaning, we got comments that people mightn't think our wedding was 'important enough' to attend as it wasn't in a church. We were asked if we were sure we wanted to not go ahead with a baptism. We were asked what we'd do when the children were left out of indoctrination in school. I don't know anyone who had a church wedding who had to justify it, or who baptized their children who was asked if they were sure they were making the right choice.


  • #1265
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The Oireachtas in it's current incarnation is a waste of space.

    I didn't want Norris to be President because it would have silenced him. We need him angry and uncensored.

    Just like we need Panti free to say it like she sees it out among the ordinary people of Ireland not sitting in that talking shop as an independent or whipped back bencher.

    I don't agree the Oireachtas is waste of space but I do agree that critical voices outside of parliament are needed.

    For example people wanted Vincent Browne and Fintan O Toole in the Oireachtas. To me they are better outside as critical voices.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #1266
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I don't agree the Oireachtas is waste of space but I do agree that critical voices outside of parliament are needed.

    For example people wanted Vincent Browne and Fintan O Toole in the Oireachtas. To me they are better outside as critical voices.

    I think is shouldn't be a waste of space.
    I think we need it not to be a waste of space.

    But I also think that currently between the whip system, the govt majority, the Gang of Four and more use of the Guillotine then even Robespierre would have thought possible - it is a waste of space right now.


  • Advertisement
  • #1267
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Get rid of Eames and Mullen and the Seanad improves a hundredfold.


  • #1268
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    I sent the following email to Iona;

    The recent actions of members of the Iona Institute have been well worth the €85,000 that it has cost taxpayers. Miss Panti's speech highlighting homophobia in society has gone viral globally, drawing attention to the discrimination LGBT people face. He has now won the hearts and minds of many people whom equal marriage does not affect personally, so may have otherwise been more apathetic to the issue. That speech was inspired by Iona. I suspect many people who support equality in society have become more motivated on this issue since your payout and Miss Panti's fabulously heartfelt, eloquent response. A very big well done to you all.


  • #1269
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Interview with an accidental hero.

    Rory O'Neill talks on camera to the Indo.

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/its-definitely-been-stressful-rory-oneill-speaks-to-independentie-about-pantigate-29979270.html


  • #1270
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    A good idea might be to get 500 people to sign a pledge to not pay their tv licenses as a protest.

    500 people going through the courts would affect some change I'd wager.


  • #1271
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    A good idea might be to get 500 people to sign a pledge to not pay their tv licenses as a protest.

    500 people going through the courts would affect some change I'd wager.

    Actually it has little impact because it's not collected by RTE itself and a % now goes to commercial and community broadcasters don't public service content.

    They're very insulated.

    Switching to different channels would be the best way and explaining why to their information line.

    Or better still, on air to Joe!

    It's hard to see how RTE isn't a tad biased. Apart from maybe Vatican radio, who else plays the Angelus on air before their main news bulletin and during their main radio current affairs output (Drive Time) ?!

    It is a bit 'unusual' to put it mildly.


  • Advertisement
  • #1272
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    Actually it has little impact because it's not collected by RTE itself and a % now goes to commercial and community broadcasters don't public service content.

    They're very insulated.

    Switching to different channels would be the best way and explaining why to their information line.

    Or better still, on air to Joe!

    It's hard to see how RTE isn't a tad biased. Apart from maybe Vatican radio, who else plays the Angelus on air before their main news bulletin and during their main radio current affairs output (Drive Time) ?!

    It is a bit 'unusual' to put it mildly.

    It's not about hurting them financially, but protest through civil disobedience.


  • #1273
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Because legal advice isn't purely on the merits of the case, and even less so on the basis of right and wrong. It's more so a cost/benefit analysis-cum-risk assessment.

    The process might go something like this: let's suppose that there's a fifty-fifty chance of the jury finding either for or against RTE. If they find against the station, the cost will be €xxx plus some hefty legal bills on both sides. If they find for the station, we'll simplistically assume that there are no costs (this is not a safe assumption, but let's assume it for the moment).

    The calculus of the decision is: there's a fifty percent chance of an enormous cost to us, so let's compare fifty percent of that enormous cost to the cost of an ex gratia payment: it's clear that the ex gratia payment is the cheaper option.

    Let's imagine that the total cost of a payout would be €100k including legal costs. On the basis of a fifty percent chance of having to pay, the conclusion might be to take a chance on a day in court. On the other hand, if the likely total cost is five million, then even with a mere ten percent chance of having to pay out, it's probably cheaper to just cave in without a fight.

    I know the answer you were looking for is "because the claimants were defamed", but the actual answer is "because you can't depend on a jury not to find that the claimants were defamed, so on balance it's a cheaper option not to defend the claim".

    Why are you supposing it's a 50/50?


    The legal experts within RTE and the legal experts consulted externally both agreed that there was less than 50% chance of Waters and Iona not being able to prove that they aren't homophobes in court.


    If Waters and Iona were provably homophobes then the cheapest option is to go to court and win.


  • #1274
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    ... you're deliberately missing the point. You have to be deliberately missing the point. Please be deliberately missing the point.


  • #1275
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    Sarky wrote: »
    ... you're deliberately missing the point. You have to be deliberately missing the point. Please be deliberately missing the point.
    Think you are tbh. Defamation laws exist to protect people's right to a good name. The truth is a defense.


  • #1276
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The defamation laws weren't tested in this case.


  • #1277
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Sarky wrote: »
    Pretty sure it's everyone. While part of the speech made me consider some little things I do here and there I hadn't really thought of as homophobic, other parts reminded me of my being singled out for a variety of reasons and casual discrimination. Not nearly to the degree that gay people deal with of course, but still, I think there's something in that speech for everyone. And that's a hell of a thing.

    Without a doubt. Irish society seems to always try to self censor itself of folk who don't fit the 'norm'. Homophobia is certainly part of that. Other examples are reactions to men who chose to grow their hair, people who have tattoos and piercings, people who live on the 'wrong side of town' and countless other examples.


  • #1278
    FanMahBrow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15 ✭FanMahBrow


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why are you supposing it's a 50/50?

    The legal experts within RTE and the legal experts consulted externally both agreed that there was less than 50% chance of Waters and Iona not being able to prove that they aren't homophobes in court.

    If Waters and Iona were provably homophobes then the cheapest option is to go to court and win.

    It's got more to do with maths than justice.

    Say that the probability of a jury finding that the deranged defamed Ionanists are not homophobic is only 10%.
    Size of award plus both sides legal fees: 1 million plus

    1 million * 0.10 > 85000 euro. So paying out is often cheaper in cases such as this, unpalatable as it is.


  • #1279
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    P_1 wrote: »
    Without a doubt. Irish society seems to always try to self censor itself of folk who don't fit the 'norm'. Homophobia is certainly part of that. Other examples are reactions to men who chose to grow their hair, people who have tattoos and piercings, people who live on the 'wrong side of town' and countless other examples.

    In fairness, people from the Northside SHOULD be discriminated against.


  • #1280
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Think you are tbh. Defamation laws exist to protect people's right to a good name. The truth is a defense.

    The truth is RTE bottled it and rather than defend Freedom of Speech in a court of law tried to buy their way out of it...

    They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for the pesky loud mouths at Iona.

    It also begs the question - how many other people have RTE paid to go away...?


  • #1281
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    P_1 wrote: »
    Without a doubt. Irish society seems to always try to self censor itself of folk who don't fit the 'norm'. Homophobia is certainly part of that. Other examples are reactions to men who chose to grow their hair, people who have tattoos and piercings, people who live on the 'wrong side of town' and countless other examples.

    Most societies do that to some degree.
    The British class system being a prime example and that's almost what defined society from the Victorian era until the 1960s. Respectability was put above all else. I think we still suffer from a bit of that.


  • Advertisement
  • #1282
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    FanMahBrow wrote: »
    It's got more to do with maths than justice.

    Say that the probability of a jury finding that the deranged defamed Ionanists are not homophobic is only 10%.
    Size of award plus both sides legal fees: 1 million plus

    1 million * 0.10 > 85000 euro. So paying out is often cheaper in cases such as this, unpalatable as it is.

    And in the process gay Irish people are being forced to fund the Iona Institute.


  • #1283
    FanMahBrow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15 ✭FanMahBrow


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    And in the process gay Irish people are being forced to fund the Iona Institute.

    But it has shown them up worldwide to be a bunch of money-grubbing cnuts, so there are positives!


  • #1284
    swampgas
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,615 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Let's say RTE contested the libel case, and lost (because of stupid libel laws and a capricious jury) that might also provide a nice big financial payment for Iona to put in their war chest.

    I'm a bit conflicted - I'd like to see Iona challenged on their "Homophobic? Us? You can't be serious!" stance, however I wouldn't like to see the damages from a badly handled libel case provide them with significant funding either.


  • #1285
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why are you supposing it's a 50/50?


    The legal experts within RTE and the legal experts consulted externally both agreed that there was less than 50% chance of Waters and Iona not being able to prove that they aren't homophobes in court.


    If Waters and Iona were provably homophobes then the cheapest option is to go to court and win.

    I sometimes wonder if the best thing to do would be take out a defamation case against you. Certainly there are public figures in real-life who would have a claim. Your insistence that a secularist was paedophile for instance.

    The law isn't an idealism it's a practicality. Key to that practicality is cost. RTE had at least 5 defamation cases brought against them. They'd have to defend all of them through the courts. Now, let's assume for a second they won all of them. How do you think the €85,000 would fare against the cost of those individual battles? It's most probable that €85,000 would be a significant saving. Now imagine, if the odds of them losing were 1%. Now we're talking potential payout in the millions. As has been mentioned on this thread several times the financially prudent thing to do is payout. RTE are one of the few outlets in the country that could have challenged it and that's why I wish to God they had. They precedent they have set now for the coming referendum is not good.

    There's a reason why pretty much all defamation cases are settled out of court. It's a damning criticism of our legal system that the cases are far too costly to even compete. Iona's legal team knew this. This was a strategic move to stifle debate in the media. Now every media outlet has to discuss SSM on Iona's terms. Including boards. Which may end up being one clusterf­uck of a moderating headache!


  • #1286
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,029 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    Why are you supposing it's a 50/50?


    The legal experts within RTE and the legal experts consulted externally both agreed that there was less than 50% chance of Waters and Iona not being able to prove that they aren't homophobes in court. a chance that they would have to pay a very large damages bill.


    If Waters and Iona were provably homophobes then the cheapest option is to go to court and win.

    100% certainty of paying €85k beats 10% chance of paying €300k every time.

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



  • #1287
    MilanPan!c
    Site Banned Posts: 4,415 ✭✭✭MilanPan!c


    SW wrote: »
    100% certainty of paying €85k beats 10% chance of paying €300k every time.

    Unless you give a **** about freedom of speech.


  • #1288
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Can I still say I think they're a cretinous pack of homophobic bunglec*nts then, or will Boards have to obey a religious conservative lobby group that constantly lies about research and actively campaigns for discrimination against gay people?


  • #1289
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    The costs of the Irish legal system were raised by the Troika from both an economic perspective and also from the point of view of access to justice and timely, cost effective resolution of civil actions.

    It's not the first time that the extreme legal costs have been raised by international observers either.


  • #1290
    Penn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,590 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    swampgas wrote: »
    Let's say RTE contested the libel case, and lost (because of stupid libel laws and a capricious jury) that might also provide a nice big financial payment for Iona to put in their war chest.

    I'm a bit conflicted - I'd like to see Iona challenged on their "Homophobic? Us? You can't be serious!" stance, however I wouldn't like to see the damages from a badly handled libel case provide them with significant funding either.

    To be honest, as disappointed as I was with RTE paying out to Waters & Iona, they've now confirmed that they offered other remedial measures first such as a right to reply and charitable donation. The fact that Waters & Iona refused the charitable donation and took the money for themselves instead is more damning to them than the money is beneficial, coupled with Iona's recent ad looking for donations which instead led to a drive to give donations to marriagequality.ie, it's probably not the worst thing that could have happened.

    If RTE felt they likely wouldn't win it in court, paying them off is a lot better than Iona & Waters standing outside a court smiling after getting a much larger payout and trying to claim the moral high ground.


  • Advertisement
  • #1291
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    MilanPan!c wrote: »
    Unless you give a **** about freedom of speech.

    True, but is being broke and having freedom of speech better than curtailing some aspects of free speech and not being broke?


Advertisement