Iona vs Panti

Turtwig · 05-02-2014 08:02PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Sigh, Clearly you are unable to understand comparisons......and you are unable to read.

I understand that you're frustrated but please refrain from these type of remarks. Same goes for Obliq.

lazygal · 05-02-2014 08:05PM

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/05/the-gay-ideological-movement

Jim Walsh and Ronan Mullen at it again.

Corkfeen · 05-02-2014 08:05PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you ... I think. May I be honest with you? I am absolutely for equal rights for everyone, and it goes without saying that this includes gay folk. What I have a problem with is the making of loaded accusations on national tv and then playing the victim, and then demonising the actual victim for going through the proper channels to defend their name.

I think not knowing about Iona and Waters has been a blessing in disguise. I have no bias for or against. I can understand the gay community having emotive positions on this but they don't get to define what homophobia is. The last straw for me was shouting down a gay man for being homophobic because his opinion wasn't in line with what they insist it must be.

Homophobia is truly awful, it would be such a shame if people were to dilute it's true meaning for political purposes by silencing people with the accusation.

Only one person was silenced,his name is Rory. If you're going to deny an organisation or person is homophobic,one requires knowledge of the person or organisation.

For example,when I was doing my history degree when I wrote an essay. There was plenty of subjects that I had no knowledge of that I wrote essays on however I did not write the essay without doing any research on the grounds I would be unbiased as a result. Because that would be bloody idiotic.

But sure there's nothing homophobic about firing people because of their sexual orientations..... Or repeatedly trying to limit the rights of a group for no reasonable reason.

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2014 08:09PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Thank you ... I think. May I be honest with you? I am absolutely for equal rights for everyone, and it goes without saying that this includes gay folk. What I have a problem with is the making of loaded accusations on national tv and then playing the victim, and then demonising the actual victim for going through the proper channels to defend their name.

I think not knowing about Iona and Waters has been a blessing in disguise. I have no bias for or against. I can understand the gay community having emotive positions on this but they don't get to define what homophobia is. The last straw for me was shouting down a gay man for being homophobic because his opinion wasn't in line with what they insist it must be.

Homophobia is truly awful, it would be such a shame if people were to dilute it's true meaning for political purposes by silencing people with the accusation.

But because you do not know Iona and Waters or their drip drip bile you are blind to the context.

They have been demonising gay people via every available media for years and they got called on it but rather than defend themselves they chose to impose censorship.

Neither Iona or Waters have missed the opportunity to make ' loaded accusations on national tv' and they are the ones who then play the victim when called on it.

They had the opportunity to go to court and be vindicated.

They chose hush money but forgot to hush and now find themselves in a PR disaster of their own making because people in Ireland have heard their bile and are well aware of their views because they have been telling us their views constantly for years.

AND yes - the Gay Community does get to define what homophobia is because we are it's victims.

Tell me - would you tell your wife she, as a Black woman, doesn't get to define what racism is but Legion Wasa do???

Cabaal · 05-02-2014 08:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Answer the other question then.

Why can you call a public person a "fool" and I don't get to call a public person by their job title?

I've no idea what your on about job title?? , if it's to do with Rory then perhaps you were corrected by a mod? If so, then take that up with the mod if you're unhappy about it.

If you have an issue with me calling someone a fool because they are gay and are happy to campaign against gay rights and equal treatment then hard luck.

If i met a women who was campaigning against equal treatment for women I'd also call them foolish, I'd happily say it to their face also.

If you think I'm being abuse somehow then report the post,

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 08:11PM

Jernal wrote: »

BB,

Please explain explicitly how an accusation of passive aggressive homophobia is loaded.

Also, I take it you don't accept that an undermining culture of subtle remarks and attitudes against gay people isn't damaging to a gay person's morale or esteem? What Waters and Iona say IS hurtful.

Let me tell you the more I've learned about Waters, which to be fair to him this is probably not the place to get a neutral view the more I am turned off of him. He certainly has an agenda, and If he is a "homophobe", which is not an impossibility he has managed to masque it successfully. Attacking the "gay lobby" is no more homophobic than attacking Islamists is Islamophobic.

I accept what he says is hurtful, absolutely. Ideally, the world would have less John Waters and more people prepared to live and let live, though he is as entitled to express his opinion as anyone else.

As for offense, and I don't mean you but there seems to be a complete double-standard to the feelings of Muslims and the feelings of homosexuals in this forum.

Corkfeen · 05-02-2014 08:15PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me tell you the more I've learned about Waters, which to be fair to him this is probably not the place to get a neutral view the more I am turned off of him. He certainly has an agenda, and If he is a "homophobe", which is not an impossibility he has managed to masque it successfully. Attacking the "gay lobby" is no more homophobic than attacking Islamists is Islamophobic.

I accept what he says is hurtful, absolutely. Ideally, the world would have less John Waters and more people prepared to live and let live, though he is as entitled to express his opinion as anyone else.

As for offense, and I don't mean you but there seems to be a complete double-standard to the feelings of Muslims and the feelings of homosexuals in this forum.

If a group campaign for the right to fire teachers because they are Muslim,are they Islamophobic? :rolleyes: Waters' comments are unquestionably homophobic but you're desperate to disagree with the members of the forum. Go into After Hours which is primarily not A&A users,the vast majority still conclude that Iona are homophobic. They're not simply going up against a 'gay lobby',they want to limit that group's rights because they are homophobic. How much more clear can a person be?

MilanPan!c · 05-02-2014 08:16PM

So we're all clear, by many a person's definition, being opposed to gay marriage or adoption or supporting anything but equal treatment under the law IS homophobia.

Iona have CLEARLY advocated for unequal treatment of gay couples. They are by definition homophobic.

Bannasidhe · 05-02-2014 08:17PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me tell you the more I've learned about Waters, which to be fair to him this is probably not the place to get a neutral view the more I am turned off of him. He certainly has an agenda, and If he is a "homophobe", which is not an impossibility he has managed to masque it successfully. Attacking the "gay lobby" is no more homophobic than attacking Islamists is Islamophobic.

I accept what he says is hurtful, absolutely. Ideally, the world would have less John Waters and more people prepared to live and let live, though he is as entitled to express his opinion as anyone else.

As for offense, and I don't mean you but there seems to be a complete double-standard to the feelings of Muslims and the feelings of homosexuals in this forum.

Who the bloody hell mentioned Muslims in this thread besides you???

BB - We are not talking about a minority group called Muslims.

We are talking about a a different minority group called Homosexuals and although there are homosexual Muslims we are specifically discussing hatred or/aversion to homosexuals not Muslims so do please try and stay on topic or start another blasted thread on homophobic Islamobhobia.

Penn · 05-02-2014 08:23PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

As for offense, and I don't mean you but there seems to be a complete double-standard to the feelings of Muslims and the feelings of homosexuals in this forum.

Likewise there's a double-standard in your defence of Muslims and your defence of Iona/Waters in this forum. You decry Draw Muhammad Day (established as an expression of free speech) because it offends Muslims and leads to Islamophobia, but support Iona/Waters' right to say things which offend homosexuals and say it doesn't constitute homophobia.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 08:33PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

If a group campaign for the right to fire teachers because they are Muslim,are they Islamophobic? :rolleyes: Waters' comments are unquestionably homophobic but you're desperate to disagree with the members of the forum. Go into After Hours which is primarily not A&A users,the vast majority still conclude that Iona are homophobic. They're not simply going up against a 'gay lobby',they want to limit that group's rights because they are homophobic. How much more clear can a person be?

It is unquestionably homophobic to campaign to remove gay teachers from their jobs because they are gay.

Can you link to an official document outlining Iona's campaign?

Corkfeen · 05-02-2014 08:36PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is unquestionably homophobic to campaign to remove gay teachers from their jobs because they are gay.

Can you link to an official document outlining Iona's campaign?

Here you go. 'Open contradiction of the ethos' that is mentioned in the document as the acceptable grounds for firing the unacceptable too gay for example. Freedom to fire is what the document demands. It may be diplomatic language but it's entirely homophobic.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Section%2037%20submission.pdf

MilanPan!c · 05-02-2014 08:43PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is unquestionably homophobic to campaign to remove gay teachers from their jobs because they are gay.

Can you link to an official document outlining Iona's campaign?

They have repeatedly called in to state discriminate against gays. Their website is a good place to start if you're interested, but sure any of their media appearances around civil unions or gay couples adopting children will also do in a pinch.

robindch · 05-02-2014 08:44PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

RTEs legal experts considered it probable that they would lose.

No. RTE's legal advisors considered it cheaper to pay 85k than contest it in court.

In that, I think RTE are correct and the law is an ass.

Turtwig · 05-02-2014 08:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Let me tell you the more I've learned about Waters, which to be fair to him this is probably not the place to get a neutral view the more I am turned off of him. He certainly has an agenda, and If he is a "homophobe", which is not an impossibility he has managed to masque it successfully. Attacking the "gay lobby" is no more homophobic than attacking Islamists is Islamophobic.

I accept what he says is hurtful, absolutely. Ideally, the world would have less John Waters and more people prepared to live and let live, though he is as entitled to express his opinion as anyone else.

As for offense, and I don't mean you but there seems to be a complete double-standard to the feelings of Muslims and the feelings of homosexuals in this forum.

Islam isn't a race or gender; it's an idea. No idea deserves absolute protection. Everybody has a right to their opinion and to express that opinion but they do not have the right to be free from criticism. Especially if they wish to use those ideals to dictate public policy.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 08:56PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

Here you go. 'Open contradiction of the ethos' that is mentioned in the document as the acceptable grounds for firing the unacceptable too gay for example. Freedom to fire is what the document demands. It may be diplomatic language but it's entirely homophobic.
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Section%2037%20submission.pdf

Correct me if I am wrong but their position is that religious employers should be able to hire people of religion first?

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 08:57PM

Jernal wrote: »

Islam isn't a race or gender; it's an idea. No idea deserves absolute protection. Everybody has a right to their opinion and to express that opinion but they do not have the right to be free from criticism. Especially if they wish to use those ideals to dictate public policy.

... like the gay lobby, for example?

oscarBravo · 05-02-2014 09:00PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He couldn't sue me because truth is a defense.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

Truth is a defence - but the existence of a defence doesn't mean you can't be sued. It means that you might - might - be able to successfully defend the suit.

Even if you were confident that you could defend the suit, the idea that it can be done at no cost is a complete misunderstanding.

If it suits your agenda to insist that the only reason to settle out of court is a certainty that you couldn't possibly win the case, then that's what you're going to believe, but believing something doesn't make it true.

oscarBravo · 05-02-2014 09:01PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... like the gay lobby, for example?

Do you have a postal address or phone number for this lobby?

lazygal · 05-02-2014 09:02PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

... like the gay lobby, for example?

No, no, no. You mean the gay agenda. The gay lobby is in front of the gay reception, adjacent to the gay bar.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 09:02PM

robindch wrote: »

No. RTE's legal advisors considered it cheaper to pay 85k than contest it in court.
.

I am afraid you are mistaken. From the memo.

As a dual-funded public body, RTÉ should not knowingly progress to defend an action when it is advised, internally and externally, that such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury.

FanMahBrow · 05-02-2014 09:03PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He couldn't sue me because truth is a defense.

BB, you have a strange understanding of how the law works, despite your semester of media law.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 09:09PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Do you have a postal address or phone number for this lobby?

2 Exchange Street Upper, Dublin 8 tel: + 353 (1) 6728650

oscarBravo · 05-02-2014 09:10PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

2 Exchange Street Upper, Dublin 8 tel: + 353 (1) 6728650

I'm not aware that GLEN have applied for an exemption from criticism.

FanMahBrow · 05-02-2014 09:16PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I am afraid you are mistaken. From the memo:
As a dual-funded public body, RTÉ should not knowingly progress to defend an action when it is advised, internally and externally, that such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury.

Here's a bit more context:

RTE Statement wrote:

However, based on the facts of what was broadcast, and having regard for broadcasting compliance issues, the seriousness of the legal complaints, and the decision by the complainants not to accept RTÉ’s proposed remedies, we decided that a settlement was the most prudent course of action. Senior counsel was consulted and confirmed that the legal position was far from clear.

As a dual-funded public body, RTÉ should not knowingly progress to defend an action when it is advised, internally and externally, that such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury.

So, what is the "such a defence" referred to here? Could it be the "legal position being far from clear" ?

RTE statement is here.

Brown Bomber · 05-02-2014 09:16PM

FanMahBrow wrote: »

BB, you have a strange understanding of how the law works, despite your semester of media law.

I wasn't a good student. All I remember is getting annoyed by people having difficulty understanding that libel and liable were two different words and a snooker commentator getting successfully sued because by a table manufacturer because he said "the table tells lies".

I mispoke then, I should have said succesfully sued - an impossibility when they are suing based on something that is probably true.

Corkfeen · 05-02-2014 09:17PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Correct me if I am wrong but their position is that religious employers should be able to hire people of religion first?

Nope,not simply that. It argues that one should be able to fire a person based on their sexual orientation. They are specifically arguing against a proposal by the government to amend section 37. Section 37 is being amended because it's wide open to being abused because of an employer disagreeing with a person's sexuality for example.

By not amending it, the country would retain a situation where a person of a different sexual orientation applying for a job in a hospital with a Catholic ethos or schools which are pretty much all Catholic can be fired. The fear is an entirely credible one and it forces a person into a situation where they could be fired by simply being openly gay.

Undermining a Catholic ethos is pretty damn broad as grounds to fire.

The Black Oil · 05-02-2014 10:14PM

Handy little timeline of how things have unfolded here over at Storify.

Obliq · 05-02-2014 10:15PM

Jernal wrote: »

I understand that you're frustrated but please refrain from these type of remarks. Same goes for Obliq.

Um, sorry....I know I didn't come back to this thread, so the context is long gone, but I'm a bit lost on what I should refrain from? Maybe I should PM this question as I don't get this Jernal, tbh.

Also, BB, I just saw your reply to my post ages back. Sorry not to reply back in timely fashion - cooking dinner.

(Fack, just had a long reply nearly finished and lost it due to touch pad sensitivity. Bum. It was good though. Never mind....)

Annasopra · 05-02-2014 10:53PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is unquestionably homophobic to campaign to remove gay teachers from their jobs because they are gay.

Can you link to an official document outlining Iona's campaign?

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/assets/files/Section%2037%20submission.pdf

Iona vs Panti

Comments