Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Gardai brought into NUIG over same-sex marriage row

135678

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 247 ✭✭saidinmilamber


    Any update on what is going on down in NUIG at the moment?

    They all disbanded at about half 6 today. Here's what happened over the day...
    Ok, it just disbanded entirely about 6pm, so here are some thoughts having seen almost the whole thing.

    First things first, this began as a family, the Burkes of Castlebar, set up a stand in NUIG today at about 1pm in the concourse to promote the NO vote for the referendum for the Student Union of NUI Galway to support the right for same sex couples to marry. This was done legitimately and through the Buildings Office due to their children Enoch Burke and Isaac Burke, student of NUI Galway, holding the positions of auditor of the NUI Galway Christian Union Society and NUI Galway Pro-Life society respectively. This family has frequently been documented to engage in a specific agenda that targets gay rights, from their involvement in opposing the Civil Partnership Bill in 2010, defamation of David Norris later that year during his presidential campaign, their subsequent Supreme Court challenge to Civil Partnership, and other campaigns featuring reliance on linking homosexuality to pedophilia and beastiality.

    Things got heated, when on displaying their posters which linked gay students to pedophilia. One individual pulled down their posters, a struggle ensued, and the table got knocked over. At this point, many students started gathering and declaring their disdain for the Burke family's message. The Gardaí were called by the Burke family, who wished to have their right to lobby for the NO vote maintained.

    The Gardaí arrived shortly after this, and on hearing the Burke family's side of the story, the Gardaí took the student's side and asked them to leave, declared that their posters were slanderous to Irish citizens, and removed most of the posters themselves. Two members of the Burke family threw themselves in the way of one remaining poster dramatically, the Gardaí rolled their eyes and left, stating that this was a matter for the campus security to deal with. The crowds of students gathered around at this point were cheering and celebrating, and were looking at the Burke family with ridicule. The Burke family, instead of leaving, decided to stage a standing protest, which they engaged in silently.

    Following this, GIG Soc and ShoutOut Society (NUIG's LGBT Societies), lead peaceful protests. One in which a same-sex marriage ceremony was staged in front of the Burke family, and another where a ring of students surrounded the family with rainbow placards stating, "Love, Not Hate". Student Union president, Sean Kearns, spoke out in front of the gathered crowds and asked people to disband and that those that disagreed with the family (the majority of those present) could voice their opinion by voting for anyone but Enoch Burke in the upcoming SU election for the position of Equality Officer. Most of the crowd of students disbanded at this point (about 2.30pm).

    At about 3.30pm, things began to heat up again with the arrival of members of the NUI Galway Christian Union Society, and the previously silent Burke family now began exclaiming their rhetoric of linking homosexuals to pedophiles. The crowd of remaining students were encouraged not to engage with them by Maria O'Flaherty, auditor of ShoutOut Soc, but some people booed and shouted for them to leave. The counter-protesters then began to sing "All You Need Is Love" over and over and engaged in a sitting protest in front of them.

    At about 4.30pm, with the arrival of hundreds of new onlookers, the protesters began to complain about their stand being destroyed and their voices silenced. So the crowd responded to that and shut up. Leaders of the counter protest encouraged them to vocalise what their message is, and the crowd obliged. They mainly spoke about how pissed off they were that their posters were removed along with their voices, and that marriage would slip into ruin if gays were to marry. Once they were done, several members of the crowd were allowed to talk, a few apologised for the individual that originally knocked their stand, and explained that these posters and their agenda seeks to remove not only their voices, but their rights as tax payers. The Burkes & Christian Union began shouting down the crowd members, and control of the situation shifted into chaos. Eventually this democracy was restored and the two groups began to communicate and discuss what exactly they were doing right now and that the Burkes should just leave campus.

    This all died down at about 6pm, when most of the students left after being encouraged to by the leaders of the crowd. The Christian Union members also left at this point, leaving behind a now ignored Burke family. They too left at about 6.30pm.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Being a homosexual tarnishes your character "in the eyes of right-thinking members of society"? Nope.

    I'm no legal eagle, but I did study media law modules.

    It would be a false statement would it not?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    jank wrote: »
    Who? Name people who have publicly said that it is OK to physically assault pedophiles in Ireland. Stop digging.
    But shur you know full well the mouth-foaming rage that talk of paedophiles engenders. Just seems obtuse of you. All for the sake of not admitting what's wrong with what these people said, because that would be too much like agreeing with "the liberal fascists" (not that you need to be a liberal fascist to disagree with the Burkes).


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,605 ✭✭✭✭kneemos


    jank wrote: »
    Who? Name people who have publicly said that it is OK to physically assault pedophiles in Ireland. Stop digging.

    Right
    I think I need a shower anyway.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    I reckon a hefty chunk of Irish society does.

    Dunno why you're being so dismissive of it. Seems very disingenuous. You know full well the contempt there is for paedophilia - it has been to the point of hysteria at times.

    If you are going down that road then calling someone a racist or a homophobe should be illegal because it is an incitement of hatred..
    Don't know what the Peter Hitchens thing was about or who it was directed at, but it would be more in the spirit of the discussion at least to indicate which quote by P. Hitchens you're referring to.

    He mentioned that there will be a time in the future that those with conservative views will be subjected to physical harm much like those who had liberal views 50 years ago were subjected to physical harm. Intolerance will not be tolerated!!!

    I just mentioned that it seems we are not too far from that stage.

    It's weird for people to have such disdain for the left of the political spectrum that they'd kinda defend the awful slurs from these people in relation to gay people. Still possible to disagree strongly with far left politics (not always a fan myself) while also disagreeing strongly with this lot.

    People have a disdain for the left because they are hypocrites who claim to be enlightened and educated about such matters. They claim 'free speech' to matters close to their heart e.g. John Waters and Panti yet are so intolerant of views that are not their own and some would support physical acts to stop someone from airing their views. The left are gold when it comes to this. 'Free speech to views we approve of, everyone else is a bigot so we shut them up!'

    You mistake me pointing these facts as somehow defending and even agreeing with what those Burkes said. I absolutely do not agree with their point of view but I do believe they have a right to air them. That is the difference. My rights of free speech do not end when one becomes offended. When people realise that offensive is not enough to shut people up then we can go on and live our lives.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    kneemos wrote: »
    Right
    I think I need a shower anyway.
    So you cannot name anyone?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    But shur you know full well the mouth-foaming rage that talk of paedophiles engenders. Just seems obtuse of you. All for the sake of not admitting what's wrong with what these people said, because that would be too much like agreeing with "the liberal fascists" (not that you need to be a liberal fascist to disagree with the Burkes).

    Yes, there is hysteria when it comes to paedophiles, much like hysteria when it comes to some christian fundamentalists. However, you have not refuted or even attempted to refute my central point, that a compassion of gays to paedophiles is an incitement to violence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    jank wrote: »
    Ah but there is a difference. That is defamation and slander of my name which I have a right to defend in a court of law. This is simple stuff to be honest that you should be aware of. I would have the same right if someone put up a poster of me saying I was a homosexual by the way.

    So you being slandered is bad and we shouldnt have free speech. A group being slandered is ok. And the left are the ones who are hypocrites.
    jank wrote: »
    Yes, there is hysteria when it comes to paedophiles, much like hysteria when it comes to some christian fundamentalists. However, you have not refuted or even attempted to refute my central point, that a compassion of gays to paedophiles is an incitement to violence.

    This is what happens when people think someone is a paedophile
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm

    I dont know of many racists or homophobes that have been chased out of their homes.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    That Burke crowd HAVE been given free speech.

    It just seems fashionable to have a go at people on the left being perceived as not allowing free speech (I agree it happens but sometimes it's claimed that it has happened when it actually hasn't) but not a word against when people on the right don't appear to allow free speech.
    Wonder how many people who will find a way to claim the Burkes are the wronged party here would simultaneously criticise Putin's regime...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭maguic24


    Santa Cruz wrote: »
    I thought we had free speech and freedom of expression in this country or does that apply only to the Panti lovers

    I'm all for free speech but comparing homosexuals to paedophiles? The fudge? Seriously?

    That's like an atheist coming out and saying 'All priests are paedophiles'.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    Any update on what is going on down in NUIG at the moment?

    Load of lads having cans.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    That Burke crowd HAVE been given free speech.

    It just seems fashionable to have a go at people on the left being perceived as not allowing free speech (I agree it happens but sometimes it's claimed that it has happened when it actually hasn't) but not a word against when people on the right don't appear to allow free speech.
    Wonder how many people who will find a way to claim the Burkes are the wronged party here would simultaneously criticise Putin's regime...

    As mentioned above, the burkes were given a chance to speak. I dont see the likes of youth defense giving people a chance to explain.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Nothing really surprising on those posters where they "compare homosexuals to paedophiles" and the like. Pretty much exactly what you'd expect from hardline Christians. Kind of surprised at some of the outrage.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    jank wrote: »
    If you are going down that road then calling someone a racist or a homophobe should be illegal because it is an incitement of hatred..
    If it's proven to be incorrect in court, then it is defamation.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    Bigots and their parade of horribles.
    May they die roarin' whilst wrapped in a pink feather boa.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    So you being slandered is bad and we shouldnt have free speech. A group being slandered is ok. And the left are the ones who are hypocrites.


    I think you need to educate yourself on this before you continue.

    http://www.legalzoom.com/us-law/freedom-speech/free-speech-primer-what-can
    Note the above is the US position. Ireland has much more aggressive anti free speech/defamation laws. Again all one has to point to is the RTE vs John Waters case. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

    This is what happens when people think someone is a paedophile
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm


    I dont know of many racists or homophobes that have been chased out of their homes.

    A 14 year old article. Is that the best one can do. I am sure if you spend 5 more minutes googling you can come up with better. Although this made me laugh.

    ""I'm living with friends at the moment. I won't be returning there again. I think I will look for somewhere more upmarket." Well if you lie down with dogs you will get fleas...:rolleyes:


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    If it's proven to be incorrect in court, then it is defamation.

    So in a round about way you are agreeing with RTE paying off John Waters….? :)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    That Burke crowd HAVE been given free speech.

    It just seems fashionable to have a go at people on the left being perceived as not allowing free speech (I agree it happens but sometimes it's claimed that it has happened when it actually hasn't) but not a word against when people on the right don't appear to allow free speech.
    Wonder how many people who will find a way to claim the Burkes are the wronged party here would simultaneously criticise Putin's regime...

    Perceived? Tell me how does tearing up posters at a University stall led itself to giving someone free speech?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 755 ✭✭✭sea_monkey


    I was there for a few hours of it.

    Their argument was "If its only love that needs to exist to make a marriage then by your logic 50 year old men should be allowed to marry 4 year old boys".
    They were not happy about their stand being destroyed and posters ripped down but to be honest the posters went against the college rules. When they said they felt intimidated by those actions a student responded that they felt intimidated with those posters up on their campus.
    The guards came and went twice, the second time they seemed to be annoyed at being there as there was no sign of any abuse or attacks, basically no need for them there but it seemed like the Burkes were on the phone to them constantly.

    They were quite vocal in wanting to have the right to their opinion. But, to me, an opinion is an idea and a way of thinking about life that is shared among a group of people which allows a society to exist together.

    An opinion ceases to be an opinion when it effects other peoples lives in a negative manner. You may keep it to yourself and live your life accordingly but to force it on others is wrong especially when your only reason for it is the bible.

    The legalization of gay marriage is an opinion shared with the majority of the Irish society so to enter into a public zone and refute that in the manner that they did was always going to be repulsed.

    a pigeon flew overhead a few times which was quite fun.

    Edit: I agree with free speech but abusing the right to free speech by infringing on other peoples equality is wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 247 ✭✭saidinmilamber


    Here's another video from earlier, when the counter-protest sit-in was initiated.



  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    jank wrote: »
    So in a round about way you are agreeing with RTE paying off John Waters….? :)
    Oh I don't know for definite that John Waters is a homophobe - I doubt he hates gay people.
    Opposition to same-sex marriage, while simply an opinion, feeds into homophobia though.
    jank wrote: »
    Perceived? Tell me how does tearing up posters at a University stall led itself to giving someone free speech?
    I meant in general; not this incident specifically.
    Tearing up posters is an idiotic, obnoxious thing to do - even if those whose posters it is are purveyors of idiotic, obnoxious views.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,339 ✭✭✭Artful_Badger


    Looks to me like their points were in relation to the definition of marriage. The posters etc that mentioned paedophilia were also about the definition of marriage and the need to preserve that definition. I think they were wrong in what they were saying but I seen no comparison between gay people and paedophiles.

    Just looks to me like a group set up a stall with permission and had it all wrecked and then were ridiculed, bullied and harassed by a mob.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    These people are c*nts.

    But having said that, they set out to get noticed and get attention so days like this almost play into their hands.

    If they were starved of the oxygen of publicity they might f*ck off back to that hole in Mayo that they come from.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,187 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Debate is one thing. But to stick up inflammatory posters making a connection no matter how tenuous between homosexuality and paedophilia is bordering on incitement to say the least. So therefore any reaction such as right minded people ripping down those posters in a public place is fair game. That's just conscious right thinking people making a stand and policing themselves which is alright by me. There was no mob by all accounts just a lot of people who disagreed with the ohh so minority oddball right religious freaks who are the Burkes and decided to vocally stand up against harassment, intimidation and insightment.

    By all means oppose same sex marriage, by all means spout your religious bs if that is your will, have your free speech but try not to choke on it and don't let the gates (of hell) hit you on your way back down...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,521 ✭✭✭ardle1


    Weddings and Marriage where not set up or constructed for same sex couples! Back in the day off course... Anyway I'll tip on back to the Vaping forum before I upset someone!!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Standman


    Strumms wrote: »
    Debate is one thing. But to stick up inflammatory posters making a connection no matter how tenuous between homosexuality and paedophilia is bordering on incitement to say the least. So therefore any reaction such as right minded people ripping down those posters in a public place is fair game. That's just conscious right thinking people making a stand and policing themselves which is alright by me. There was no mob by all accounts just a lot of people who disagreed with the ohh so minority oddball right religious freaks who are the Burkes and decided to vocally stand up against harassment, intimidation and insightment.

    By all means oppose same sex marriage, by all means spout your religious bs if that is your will, have your free speech but try not to choke on it and don't let the gates (of hell) hit you on your way back down...

    Free speech doesn't cover posters then, in you opinion?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,187 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    Standman wrote: »
    Free speech doesn't cover posters then, in you opinion?


    Where are you getting that from ? :confused: naturally it would.. The issue would be when you abuse said right. Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989 might be some helpful bedtime reading for you , sunshine.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    jank wrote: »
    It would be a false statement would it not?
    Yet not tarnishing your character in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. Jason Donovan took The Face magazine to court over 20 years ago in relation to it saying he was gay - and won. Not because it was deemed libellous but because the magazine was deemed to be calling him liar: pretending to be heterosexual when he was (even though just in their opinion) gay.
    False isn't enough for defamation; false plus damaging the person's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people (it's the stock line) might be.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭jank


    Oh I don't know for definite that John Waters is a homophobe - I doubt he hates gay people.
    Opposition to same-sex marriage, while simply an opinion, feeds into homophobia though.
    .

    Not the question I asked but you are confirming that as a yes, John Waters had a strong case against RTE.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,721 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    Can't help feel that there were a fair few lads, and lasses, there tonight trying to get their hole by being into it!


    Also peodophilha and gay marriage is a stupid connection to make


Advertisement
Advertisement