Iona vs Panti

lazygal · 06-02-2014 11:11PM

Jernal wrote: »

Mammy Jernal just made my night.

Watching Prime Time she just burst in a full out rant about how they were making stuff worse for the referendum side. When asked 'who' she replied:

"The two weirdos on the left. God forgive me! I think both of them might be gay."

Mammy is Ionaphobic.

Penn · 06-02-2014 11:14PM

Nice to see David Quinn trot out his "Paddy's gay so how come he doesn't think it's discrimination?" catchphrase.

It's not exactly "Nice to see you, to see you... Nice", but it's a fan favourite nonetheless.

Didn't get to see most of the debate as I was watching a stream of it and it kept freezing. Can't imagine anything too worthwhile was said.

Corkfeen · 06-02-2014 11:16PM

robindch wrote: »

Ah, at last a bit of class in A+A.

Stop your yammering. More plummage will be ruffled if thee are content with such behaviour. Twaddlecock I say, twaddlecock!

Sarky · 06-02-2014 11:17PM

Jernal wrote: »

Mammy Jernal just made my night.

Mammy Jernal's probably going to get sued.

Turtwig · 06-02-2014 11:19PM

Sarky wrote: »

Mammy Jernal's probably going to get sued.

Ah now that would be quite the pickle for Mr Quinn wouldn't it. Saying he's gay would be attack on his character? Wait, how is being gay an attack on your character David?

Hmm...Sarky, I think you may have come with an LGBT strategy there, perhaps?
Would DQ really sue people for defamation if they consistently claimed he was gay?

The allegation may be false but seeing as he sued a very probable true allegation. . .

Sarky · 06-02-2014 11:25PM

Pretty sure someone already won in court ages ago over being called a homosexual, so it's established as a kind of defamation. Might have been UK, but y'know.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 12:24AM

I wonder if the Ionanists will be receiving many of these in the post:

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/02/06/there-are-several-handy-ways-to-pay-your-tv-licence/

robindch · 07-02-2014 01:21AM

Panti's speech is currently number five on BBC News' website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26075280

BBC wrote:

An impassioned speech by an Irish drag queen about what constitutes homophobia has been viewed more than 300,000 times on YouTube, promoting thousands of comments - it's even been discussed in Ireland's houses of parliament.

Panti Bliss was already an icon of Ireland's gay scene, but her profile has just rocketed. In a speech at the weekend, Panti spoke of the "oppression" she feels as a gay person living in Ireland - including her own sense of internalised oppression. "I knew we were witnessing something great - you could feel it in the room," says Conor Horgan who filmed her speech at the Abbey Theatre in Dublin and is making a documentary about Panti. "It was very, very powerful," he says. "This is a big moment for Ireland."

There have been thousands of tweets on the hashtags #TeamPanti and #Pantigate - most of them supportive, and the video has been translated into French and Russian. Stephen Fry, Lily Savage, and Graham Norton are among the high profile figures to endorse the speech. Madonna even reportedly sent a message. In a tweet, Finton O'Toole, a journalist with the Irish Times called it, "the most eloquent Irish speech since Daniel O'Connell [renowned 18th-19th Century political activist] was in his prime". Lise Hand, a journalist with the Irish Independent, predicted the speech will be debated in schools in years to come. "It was a speech about shame. And God knows that's something of a speciality among the Irish," she wrote.

The response has not been positive across the board. One YouTube comment said: "Men have no business dressing up as women, they need to be men!" And a Fianna Fail senator, Jim Walsh - who has referred to homosexuals as "fairies" in the past - on Wednesday criticised what he called "dangerous, vicious elements within the gay ideological movement".

Rory O'Neill - as Panti is known when not in drag - sparked controversy three weeks ago when he gave a TV interview to RTE, Ireland's national broadcaster. He accused two journalists and a Catholic lobby group of homophobia. They complained and RTE settled the case, paying 85,000 euros (£70,000) in compensation for defamation. The pay-out was the subject of discussion in Ireland's parliament, the Dail on Thursday. Ireland is due to hold a referendum on gay marriage next year.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 01:32AM

robindch wrote: »

Panti's speech is currently number five on BBC News' website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-26075280

Lily Savage is on Team Panti...

.

That's it.

Game over.

DublinWriter · 07-02-2014 06:05AM

Join the Facebook group 'I vow to personally boycott any publication that employs John Waters'.

Obliq · 07-02-2014 08:56AM

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2014/02/speech-by-pat-rabbitte-td-minister-for-communications-energy-and-natural-resources/

Published on Thursday 6th February 2014
SPEECH BY PAT RABBITTE TD Minister for Communications, Energy and Natural Resources

"I also said last week I hoped that people who hold themselves out as commentators on, or contributors to, public debate fully appreciate that debate can be robust, heated, personal and sometimes even hostile.
Politicians are expected – including I suspect by some of the litigants here concerned – to function in such an environment as normal. Why do they apply a different norm to themselves, although they are not averse to name-calling politicians on occasion?

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

While the defamation laws are outside my remit, the Broadcasting Act is not. At present section 39 requires every broadcaster to ensure that nothing is broadcast that may reasonably be regarded as causing offence. That seems to me to be an unfeasibly rigorous approach. We all know how easy it is for some people to be offended – even where offence was not intended and is not objectively ascertainable.

I will shortly be proposing miscellaneous amendments to the Act. Among them I am now considering an amendment that would require broadcasters to avoid causing undue offence. That seems to me to be more objective and more in tune with the realities of public debate."

Good. In future, the kind of "offence" caused to IONA will hopefully be considered well "due". Overdue, even.

Peregrinus · 07-02-2014 09:35AM

Sarky wrote: »

Pretty sure someone already won in court ages ago over being called a homosexual, so it's established as a kind of defamation. Might have been UK, but y'know.

Liberace won damages in England in the 1950s over a column in the Daily Mirror insinuating that he was That Way Inclined. (Who would have though it ??!!).

But defamation is all about community standards. It's the jury that decides, in every case, whether you have been defamed or not, and the fact that an English jury thought in 1956 that it was defamatory to impute homosexuality to someone does not mean that an Irish jury would decide the same thing in 2014.

I doubt myself that an Irish jury would regard it as defamatory to say of someone simply that he was gay. But, with other facts, it could become defamatory - e.g. if he was married, presenting as straight, presenting as monogamous and faithful, etc, to imply that he was gay (certainly, actively gay) would be to imply that he was a liar, was deceiving someone very profoundly, was unfaithful, was an adulterer, was a cheat, was a man living a lie. And of course if he was adopting postures that are not at all homophobic, no sir, perish the thought, such as campaigning against marriage equality or other aspects of gay rights calling him gay would be to imply that he was a hypocrite. And these are all things that would tend to lower his reputation in the eyes of yer' average lad or lassie in the street.

amdublin · 07-02-2014 09:45AM

Considering the reason David Quinn gave for suing Rory last night... could all 89/90% who voted in this poll and are saying yes Iona are homophobic be sued??

Are they going to sue 90% of the country one by one?
Panti just annunciated what a lot of us are thinking judging by this thread.

Damn you RTE for settling *shakes fist*

(Reminder complaints@RTE.ie - even just a two/three liner)

amdublin · 07-02-2014 09:47AM

Oops wrong thread - thought I was in the AH thread. But you get my point!

Peregrinus · 07-02-2014 09:53AM

amdublin wrote: »

Considering the reason David Quinn gave for suing Rory last night... could all 89/90% who voted in this poll and are saying yes Iona are homophobic be sued??

The gratifying irony is that there's probably a lot more people who think that Iona is homophobic today than thought so a month ago. My impression is that this whole thing is rebounding quite badly on Iona and, painful as it has been for Panti, on the whole the epsode will come to be be seen as a step forward.

Bannasidhe · 07-02-2014 10:42AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

The gratifying irony is that there's probably a lot more people who think that Iona is homophobic today than thought so a month ago. My impression is that this whole thing is rebounding quite badly on Iona and, painful as it has been for Panti, on the whole the epsode will come to be be seen as a step forward.

Isn't that always the way it is in Ireland.

It takes what the public believes to be an injustice against an individual to goad us into our next great socially liberal leap forward.

Draconian abortion laws = X Case = X Referendum
Failure to implement X Ref = Savita Halappanavar = Abortion legalised in line with X Ref.

Christine Buckley went on the Late Late Show looking for her parents = Broke the silence about Goldenbridge = The whole Magdalene Laundry/Industrial Schools scandal inflamed the country

Now there is a perception that Panti is being Silenced for saying what most of us think and Ireland is once again very cross at the treatment of an Individual by 'our betters' (or at least those who who think they are...)

I must admit - I never thought I would see the day when the treatment of a Drag Queen would become the focus of attention and that that alone shows just how far we have come in recent decades.

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 12:25PM

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-statement-1304456-Feb2014/

Solicitor for John Waters disputes RTÉ version of Panti events
Solicitor Kevin Brophy claimed RTÉ’s version as “grossly misleading”, adding that Waters proposed the charitable donation.

I guess the heat is getting too much for Waters & Iona and there was only so long they'd remain silent on this,

Now that international media is running with this they are looking like complete idiots so they need to come out with something....regardless of "if" its true or not.

If he claims the 40k should have gone to charity, then why didn't he just say he was giving it to charity as soon as RTE paid him?

Why hasn't he given it to a charity now?....nothing stopping him.

Brown Bomber · 07-02-2014 12:35PM

Cabaal wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/john-waters-statement-1304456-Feb2014/

I guess the heat is getting too much for Waters & Iona and there was only so long they'd remain silent on this,

Now that international media is running with this they are looking like complete idiots so they need to come out with something....regardless of "if" its true or not.

If he claims the 40k should have gone to charity, then why didn't he just say he was giving it to charity as soon as RTE paid him.

Why hasn't he given it to a charity now?....nothing stopping him.

Why do you automatically assume conspiracy without knowing the facts?

Beruthiel · 07-02-2014 12:36PM

Yup.
Just trying to deflect and avoid the real issue here with semantics.

Bottom line JW, you got called on it.
No amount of wriggling will take away from that fact.

Sarky · 07-02-2014 12:37PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume conspiracy without knowing the facts?

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 12:41PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume conspiracy without knowing the facts?

I never thought I'd hear the day. Also this is obviously a man covering himself after a PR disaster.

Cabaal · 07-02-2014 12:45PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why do you automatically assume conspiracy without knowing the facts?

Irony much?

I'm basing this on Brophy's own words

“John Waters then proposed the precise wording of an apology and further proposed that a donation of €15,000 be made to the St. Vincent De Paul to mark the seriousness of the defamatory comments. ......

“Eventually RTE offered €40,000 and this was accepted.

Odd that there's no mention of wanting that 40k to be given to charity by RTE (like he mentions with the 15k), instead he just accepted it.
:rolleyes:

The Black Oil · 07-02-2014 12:46PM

Iona must be loving all the Google Analytics referral traffic from boards.

Brown Bomber · 07-02-2014 01:05PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Irony much?

I'm basing this on Brophy's own words

Odd that there's no mention of wanting that 40k to be given to charity by RTE (like he mentions with the 15k), instead he just accepted it.
:rolleyes:

Why shouldn't accept it? He was defamed. He has every right to be compensated in accordance with the law. Or should the right to a good name only apply to people who you aren't biased against?

How about you base your conspiracy on all of the "words" in that biased and misleading article?

What has been described is a chain of events with the end result being RTE buckling after being unable to prove prove the damaging allegation that they boradcast.

Waters took the higher payment only after RTE played hardball, which is understandble IMO.

Penn · 07-02-2014 01:07PM

From Iona's own Blog:
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3403

Tuesday night’s episode of Tonight with Vincent Browne featured Kevin Brophy, the solicitor who represented The Iona Institute in our dispute with RTE, and Paddy Manning, a gay man who opposes gay marriage, discussing the use of the word ‘homophobia’

Paul Murphy MEP and Noeline Blackwell of the Free Legal Advice Centre were also on the panel.

lazygal · 07-02-2014 01:09PM

I feel sorry for Paddy Manning. Imagine my only reason for appearing on tv was Lazygal, a straight person who agrees with straight marriage and gay marriage.

Jaden · 07-02-2014 01:11PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

He was defamed. He has every right to be compensated in accordance with the law.

This statement is incorrect.

"He alleges he was defamed", I believe is accurate.

Corkfeen · 07-02-2014 01:11PM

Penncil Dick wrote: »

From Iona's own Blog:
http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=3403

He's representative of all so he is.

lazygal · 07-02-2014 01:16PM

I have straight friends who don't want to get married. Sure they represent all straight people.

Penn · 07-02-2014 01:21PM

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why shouldn't accept it? He was defamed. He has every right to be compensated in accordance with the law. Or should the right to a good name only apply to people who you aren't biased against?

How about you base your conspiracy on all of the "words" in that biased and misleading article?

What has been described is a chain of events with the end result being RTE buckling after being unable to prove prove the damaging allegation that they boradcast.

Waters took the higher payment only after RTE played hardball, which is understandble IMO.

I asked yesterday though you may have missed it, but do you think that if some of the people you have claimed are involved in conspiracy theories discovered your posts, they would have rightful claims to sue you for defamation? That people you've linked to having been involved in theories (let's use Larry Silverstein as an example), that you've claimed were complicit in helping to organise the deaths of thousands of people, would be able to sue you?

If Larry Silverstein offered you the chance to pay a nominal fee (say $2000) as a gesture of good faith and issue an apology to him, or you'd have to go to court and prove your claims and face having to pay $1m if you lost, do you think your claims would hold up in court? Do you think that you wouldn't have defamed him? Do you think you'd even have the slightest chance of winning? Or would you pay the $2000, apologise and be done with it.

Once again, you are just as guilty of what you are denouncing

Iona vs Panti

Comments