Should the Iona Institute back off?

retro:electro · 22-05-2015 11:58pm #1

Let's say there is a high yes majority tomorrow (over 65%) should the Iona Institute back off slightly and not be given such a public platform? In the same way party politicians have to step down after defeat, I think it's only right that they back off somewhat. I'm not calling for an obliteration of the Institute or anything, we are a democracy and all, but surely it would be respectful to democracy if they, ya know, went away for a small while since their views (hopefully) don't reflect those of the Irish public.
Thoughts?

Giblet · 23-05-2015 12:00am

I think the 'f' and 'u' keys on your keyboard are broken.

silverfeather · 23-05-2015 12:01am

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not calling for an obliteration of the Institute or anything, but surely it would be respectful to democracy if they, ya know, went away for a small while.
Thoughts?

Respect for democracy would mean they are actually entitled to be here no matter how much I disagree with them. However I do wish they would refrain from gagging those who want to contradict their opinions or how they label themselves.

If they have a platform to voice an opinion we are allowed to listen to that opinion and call them homophobes or bigots.

I do wish they would go away. But I think democracy is not so simplistic.

P_1 · 23-05-2015 12:04am

No that would be rather undemocratic. However either way a critical official eye needs to be cast over their charity, tax exempt status.

retro:electro · 23-05-2015 12:13am

P_1 wrote: »

No that would be rather undemocratic. However either way a critical official eye needs to be cast over their charity, tax exempt status.

But theyre an embarrassment. I mean they're everywhere. They assert themselves as if they are the voice of the nation. Im not saying they need to get lost, just wish they would stfu for a while.

Carlos Orange · 23-05-2015 12:15am

P_1 wrote: »

No that would be rather undemocratic. However either way a critical official eye needs to be cast over their charity, tax exempt status.

Seems doubtful since someone disagreeing with something isn't a reason something isn't a charity. A quick Google gives

In accordance with section 3 (1) of the Charities Act 2009 each of the following shall be a charitable purpose:

Trusts for the Relief of Poverty
Trusts for the Advancement of Education
Trusts for the Advancement of Religion
Trusts for Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community

which seems like a pretty low bar for the Iona Institute to reach.

hotmail.com · 23-05-2015 12:16am

They are toxic. They may well have to withdraw their key personalities and rebrand. But sadly, the Catholic fundamentalists won't go away.

They will blame all sorts of things if there is a Yes vote and won't publicly admit that they themselves were part of the problem.

Drexel · 23-05-2015 12:17am

Who is actually funding these nutters? They seem to have plenty of money

P_1 · 23-05-2015 12:17am

anna080 wrote: »

But theyre an embarrassment. I mean they're everywhere. They assert themselves as if they are the voice of the nation. Im not saying they need to get lost, just wish they would stfu for a while.

I won't argue there, however if we applied the same criteria in a legal basis, Rockabill would be rather crowded very quickly once we banish all our embarrassments there.

Like it or not, once someone has the money, contacts and lack of law breaking they're free as a daisy to irritate us till the cows come home

donvito99 · 23-05-2015 12:17am

jonny666 wrote: »

Who is actually funding these nutters? They seem to have plenty of money

The fecking Americans.

bodice ripper · 23-05-2015 12:18am

No, I want them in the public eye while they watch the country they want to live in slip away from them.

And then put them in stocks outside Tara Street station.

Arsemageddon · 23-05-2015 12:19am

I'd happily feed them to the lions.

They're just a shower of cvnts

P_1 · 23-05-2015 12:19am

psinno wrote: »

Seems doubtful since someone disagreeing with something isn't a reason something isn't a charity. A quick Google gives

In accordance with section 3 (1) of the Charities Act 2009 each of the following shall be a charitable purpose:

Trusts for the Relief of Poverty
Trusts for the Advancement of Education
Trusts for the Advancement of Religion
Trusts for Other Purposes Beneficial to the Community

which seems like a pretty low bar for the Iona Institute to reach.

Grand job I've now found another criterion to grill any potential general election candidate over so. That section of an act has no business existing in a secular republic, particularly when we need every penny we can get our hands on.

RobertKK · 23-05-2015 12:19am

At the time of the abortion debates, I was having a discussion on twitter with a presenter on RTE. The person said that there is only a small number of people who will appear on TV or radio, and this is why the same people appear again and again.

23-05-2015 12:20am

Who silences the silencers?

Drexel · 23-05-2015 12:20am

donvito99 wrote: »

The fecking Americans.

What Americans??

emersyn · 23-05-2015 12:21am

jonny666 wrote: »

Who is actually funding these nutters? They seem to have plenty of money

I would guess their main income is from suing RTE every time someone dares to argue with them

Knasher · 23-05-2015 12:23am

Nope, they can do what they like. Thankfully we don't have to listen to them 50% of the time any more.

silverfeather · 23-05-2015 12:26am

jonny666 wrote: »

Who is actually funding these nutters? They seem to have plenty of money

Lolek Ltd, Trading as "The Iona Institute"

https://search.cro.ie/company/

You could try a search.

But it's unlikely they would identify donors anymore than a commercial company would identify customers.

The reason accounts have to be filed under the companies act is so that people can see the solvency of a company. For that you need only know the amounts of donations, sales or subscriptions etc. But you don't need to know who gives the money.

The admin contact is a Patrick Kenny. There head office appears to be in Merrion Square. I think it's the office of St. Joseph's young Priest Society in the same building but I don't know if there is an actual link between them.

They are a regged charity and don't pay tax.

By the way this status also means donations qualify for tax relief for wealthy donators.

Carlos Orange · 23-05-2015 12:27am

P_1 wrote: »

Grand job I've now found another criterion to grill any potential general election candidate over so. That section of an act has no business existing in a secular republic, particularly when we need every penny we can get our hands on.

Always worth knowing what you want from your local politician but I'm don't see the church being taxed any time soon.

silverfeather · 23-05-2015 12:33am

If you really want an insight ....Ronan Mullen was working as spokesperson for Cardinal Desmond Connell at the time of the awful abuse scandals. Desmond Connells neglect of those cases was so bad the church replaced him with Archbishop Martin. Connell insured his archdiocese from abuse allegations as early as 1988. Nice guy. Ronan Mullen was his spokesperson. Yeah ...the no side posters ...yeah

But bring it up and you are derailing the agenda ..of course.

YFlyer · 23-05-2015 12:42am

RobertKK wrote: »

At the time of the abortion debates, I was having a discussion on twitter with a presenter on RTE. The person said that there is only a small number of people who will appear on TV or radio, and this is why the same people appear again and again.

I doubt that. Plenty of organisations or groups would bite the hand off you to be on radio or TV.

Taco Chips · 23-05-2015 12:50am

They are the creepiest, most insidious collection of scumbags I have ever had the misfortune to be regularly confronted with. They very obviously do not represent many Irish people and their prominence in the media is grossly out of proportion. It makes me sick to think that the likes of David Quinn, Breda O'Brien et al were regularly complaining about being silenced and afraid to speak out in their weekly newspaper columns, radio interviews and television appearances. Their means of propaganda is so sneaky and despicable. Absolute horrid, bigoted bunch of cretins.

23-05-2015 12:52am

anna080 wrote: »

But theyre an embarrassment. I mean they're everywhere. They assert themselves as if they are the voice of the nation. Im not saying they need to get lost, just wish they would stfu for a while.

I can honestly say from one day to the next I never see or hear of them. Where are they in this "everywhere"? The first time they surfaced in my consciousness was during that Panti controversy. Anyone who finds them outspoken would have been blown away by groups like SPUC and Youth Defence who swung into action during abortion debates.

K4t · 23-05-2015 12:58am

YFlyer wrote: »

I doubt that. Plenty of organisations or groups would bite the hand off you to be on radio or TV.

Regarding the Marriage equality referendum, they were on rte so much because they were the ONLY real opposition, apart from the splinter group Mothers and Fathers Don't Matter. They're all linked.

For the Yes side you could have had any number of independent organisations such as the Law society of Ireland, Psychological society of Ireland, not to mention the Chidren's groups like Barnardos and the ISPCC, any political party, probably any international human rights organisation etc etc. But of course this was all groupthink according to Iona; and not simply people and organisations who disagree with religious fundamentalist beliefs determining our laws, especially when said beliefs oppose equality.

retro:electro · 23-05-2015 1:00am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I can honestly say from one day to the next I never see or hear of them. Where are they in this "everywhere"? The first time they surfaced in my consciousness was during that Panti controversy. Anyone who finds them outspoken would have been blown away by groups like SPUC and Youth Defence who swung into action during abortion debates.

Tv, radio, newspaper. I can't watch a bloody video on YouTube without them popping up ffs

It's scary to what kind of a country we'd be living in if they had their way.

I get that the media needed them this time for balance but if its a yes majority I think they should back off for a while.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:01am

If the press ignored them then they would fade away.

Guy:Incognito · 23-05-2015 1:04am

They should back off a cliff.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:04am

silverfeather wrote: »

Lolek Ltd, Trading as "The Iona Institute"

https://search.cro.ie/company/

You could try a search.

But it's unlikely they would identify donors anymore than a commercial company would identify customers.

The reason accounts have to be filed under the companies act is so that people can see the solvency of a company. For that you need only know the amounts of donations, sales or subscriptions etc. But you don't need to know who gives the money.

The admin contact is a Patrick Kenny. There head office appears to be in Merrion Square. I think it's the office of St. Joseph's young Priest Society in the same building but I don't know if there is an actual link between them.

They are a regged charity and don't pay tax.

By the way this status also means donations qualify for tax relief for wealthy donators.

I thought that under tax law you could not be both a limited company and a charity.

23-05-2015 1:05am

anna080 wrote: »

Tv, radio, newspaper. I can't watch a bloody video on YouTube without them popping up ffs

I never see them on tv or hear them on the radio. I take it they are on RTE a lot? I really only listen to Newstalk or local radio, and watch anything but RTE.

Don't see them on FB either. Are they in one of those ads you skip over after 5 seconds? I never sit through them.

As I said they seem a whole lot less visible than groups in other battles, with SPUC and Youth Defence taking over the Courts and going out with placards showing aborted fetuses.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:06am

Deleted User wrote: »

I never see them on tv or hear them on the radio. I take it they are on RTE a lot? I really only listen to Newstalk or local radio, and watch anything but RTE.

Don't see them on FB either. Are they in one of those ads you skip over after 5 seconds? I never sit through them.

As I said they seem a whole lot less visible than groups in other battles, with SPUC and Youth Defence taking over the Courts and going out with placards showing aborted fetuses.

My guess is that they also fund the other groups to do most of their dirty work.

23-05-2015 1:08am

traprunner wrote: »

My guess is that they also fund the other groups to do most of their dirty work.

It seems a bit far fetched.

So they love the limelight and are "everywhere"...but they don't and get others to front the debate?

Could we make up our minds on this?

Fleawuss · 23-05-2015 1:08am

Iona stands for Catholicism. To show them up its only necessary to explain catholic beliefs to rational human beings. Body and blood of a two thousand year old Palestinian anyone?

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:10am

Deleted User wrote: »

It seems a bit far fetched.

So they love the limelight and are "everywhere"...but they don't and get others to front the debate?

Could we make up our minds on this?

I mean they love the limelight of TV and radio but Youth Defence and Mothers and Fathers Matter would be the more militant on the ground element.

23-05-2015 1:21am

traprunner wrote: »

I mean they love the limelight of TV and radio but Youth Defence and Mothers and Fathers Matter would be the more militant on the ground element.

So they are not on the ground then?

Will you and anna sort out if they are everywhere, or in the background, or everywhere just on RTE, or Youtube, or funding others to be everywhere, and let me know? Cos as I said I go from one day to the next and manage to avoid them altogether. Maybe it a Dublin thing? They have little or no presence here in Kerry.

silverfeather · 23-05-2015 1:23am

traprunner wrote: »

If the press ignored them then they would fade away.

They are like a squeaky wheel they get attention and that makes media gold.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:25am

Deleted User wrote: »

So they are not on the ground then?

Will you and anna sort out if they are everywhere, or in the background, or everywhere just on RTE, or Youtube, or funding others to be everywhere, and let me know? Cos as I said I go from one day to the next and manage to avoid them altogether. Maybe it a Dublin thing? They have little or no presence here in Kerry.

Did you not read the post you quoted?

SpaceTime · 23-05-2015 1:28am

The issue is actually fairly simple:

Broadcasters are required by regulations to provide balance and in referenda 50:50 coverage.

Ireland oddly enough doesn't actually have tons of conservatives to chose from. Even the Catholic Church seemed very conflicted about supporting a No vote and sort of did a "careful now" "down with that sort of thing" style token protest in case Rome gets angry with them.

So, the Iona crowd are quite handy for filling that gap in guest booking.

The big issue is the BAI's interpretation of the Crotty Judgement which is where all these rules stem from.

I actually find Ireland still has a default position where the state feels it should control broadcasting. It doesn't control the press or the internet, so why should radio and TV be forced to comply with a whole load of very over the top regulation and on top of that be subject to a complaint-driven enforcement system?!

We have to drop this notion that the Government needs to micro-manage broadcasters.

23-05-2015 1:31am

traprunner wrote: »

Did you not read the post you quoted?

I did.

And the one before it, where you conceded your position is based on a guess. As I said, mine is that they are not in my "everywhere" at all, and suspect most of my friends would say "Iona what now".

Fleawuss · 23-05-2015 1:33am

Iona is off the coast of Scotland.

LorMal · 23-05-2015 1:33am

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I'd happily feed them to the lions.

They're just a shower of cvnts

Absolutely zero respect for the point of view opposing your own. Very undemocratic really. I'm for the yes side but I have no respect for the way the no side has been oppressed

SpaceTime · 23-05-2015 1:36am

At the end of the day, they're just a lobby group.

If the electorate shows the Government they've no interest in their policies, they'll become irrelevant anyway.

Power is what you just exercised today with a pencil. All a lobby group can do is attempt to sway public opinion.

I don't agree with anything they say, but I wouldn't agree with any forced shutdown of any group either. They're entitled to express an opinion, we're equally entitled to ignore them or critique them. We have no obligation to respect an opinion expressed, just the right to express it.

Their power only comes from people taking them seriously. If that stops, their power fades. Simple as that really.

I dislike them, but I don't honestly think they're anymore than a group of religious lobbyists.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:36am

Deleted User wrote: »

I did.

And the one before it, where you conceded your position is based on a guess. As I said, mine is that they are not in my "everywhere" at all, and suspect most of my friends would say "Iona what now".

.........Iona
..... /........\ .....
Youth D. Mothers + Fathers

* had to put in dots to space

Iona do mainly media appearances. The others do the work on the ground when they perceive a risk to the catholic religion. The names of the ground teams/groups change depending on what they are objecting to.

23-05-2015 1:40am

traprunner wrote: »

Iona
/ \
Youth D. Mothers + Fathers

Iona do mainly media appearances. The others do the work on the ground when they perceive a risk to the catholic religion. The names of the ground teams/groups change depending on what they are objecting to.

You are developing this "guess" into quite the theory, with a structure, allocating different functions to different groups etc!

It's all still a "guess" though, I mean you did start this angle by saying...

traprunner wrote: »

My guess is that they also fund the other groups to do most of their dirty work.

traprunner · 23-05-2015 1:42am

Deleted User wrote: »

You are developing this "guess" into quite the theory, with a structure, allocating different functions to different groups etc!

It's all still a "guess" though, I mean you did start this angle by saying...

Next I'll hear is 'solicitors'

PS. You should re-quote to get the spacing I half fixed

23-05-2015 1:46am

traprunner wrote: »

PS. You should re-quote to get the spacing I half fixed

I did notice. It was neat!

captbarnacles · 23-05-2015 1:46am

LorMal wrote: »

Absolutely zero respect for the point of view opposing your own. Very undemocratic really. I'm for the yes side but I have no respect for the way the no side has been oppressed

Oppressed by who???

retro:electro · 23-05-2015 1:50am

LorMal wrote: »

Absolutely zero respect for the point of view opposing your own. Very undemocratic really. I'm for the yes side but I have no respect for the way the no side has been oppressed

How exactly were they oppressed? If that's how they work when they're oppressed then I wouldn't like to hear them when they're encouraged

23-05-2015 1:55am

anna080 wrote: »

How exactly were they oppressed? If that's how they act when they're oppressed then I wouldn't like to hear them when they're unreserved.

Again, maybe we in Kerry have been deprived, but how did they act?

I seem to have missed some very ugly campaign. I thought the sum total was perhaps a few rounds of John Waters on some Late Late Show type programmes - and sure all you can really do with John is point and laugh - but judging by this thread there was a much more objectionable presence than that.

retro:electro · 23-05-2015 2:06am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Again, maybe we in Kerry have been deprived, but how did they act?

I seem to have missed some very ugly campaign. I thought the sum total was perhaps a few rounds of John Waters on some Late Late Show type programmes - and sure all you can really do with John is point and laugh - but judging by this thread there was a much more objectionable presence than that.

Spreading misinformation in relation to children as well as dropping as many red herrings as they could. They're a very real threat to the progression of this country.

Doctor Jimbob · 23-05-2015 2:18am

LorMal wrote: »

Absolutely zero respect for the point of view opposing your own. Very undemocratic really. I'm for the yes side but I have no respect for the way the no side has been oppressed

Yeah, it was really undemocratic they way the yes side sued RTE for daring to criticize them.

Wait, no, that was Iona.

Should the Iona Institute back off?

Comments