Should the Iona Institute back off?

23-05-2015 2:23am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

Wait, no, that was Iona.

Ah that's simply wrong.

Defamation is not merely criticism.

By all means let's get hysterical because Iona filled RTEs legal obligation to split coverage 50/50, but let's not make up accusations.

Incidentally, access to the Courts to redress defamation is actually the essence of democracy, the Courts being a fundamental arm of democracy.

Dexter Bip · 23-05-2015 2:23am

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

Got it in one... .

Doctor Jimbob · 23-05-2015 2:28am

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah that's simply wrong.

Defamation is not merely criticism.

By all means let's get hysterical because Iona filled RTEs legal obligation to split coverage 50/50, but let's not make up accusations.

Incidentally, access to the Courts to redress defamation is actually the essence of democracy, the Courts being a fundamental arm of democracy.

Defamation my hole. What was said to that crowd was no worse than the bigoted nonsense they based their recent campaign around. I'm all for them remaining in the public eye, they have as much a right to be there as anyone else, but they're going to have to deal with people calling them what they are without running to the lawyers if they want to be taken even remotely seriously.

sink · 23-05-2015 2:31am

SpaceTime wrote: »

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.

I disagree on your final point. I believe Iona are the lesser of two evils. The other evil being a corporate dominated media environment where money buys the (favorable) airtime, just take a look at the USA to see where that rabbit hole will lead you. No, I say kill them with limelight, sensible people see them for what they are and the more airtime they get the more despised they become.

Doctor Jimbob · 23-05-2015 2:32am

sink wrote: »

I disagree on your final point. I believe Iona are the lesser of two evils. The other evil being a corporate dominated media environment where money buys the (favorable) airtime, just take a look at the USA to see where that rabbit hole will lead you. No I say kill them with limelight, sensible people see them for what they are and the more airtime they get the more despised they become.

I'd agree with that for the most part, but I think the 'sensible people' part is a bit harsh. It's easy to be taken in by their nonsense if you don't feel like looking into just how shady they are in the background.

superelliptic · 23-05-2015 2:56am

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.

And yet exactly the same could be said for the Yes campaigners.

23-05-2015 2:57am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Defamation my hole...

Well clearly RTEs legal team, presumably pretty well up on the law of defamation, didn't agree with your hole!

uch · 23-05-2015 3:00am

Ah Lads we should have a good aul Mass to sort it out !

Victor · 23-05-2015 3:44am

You seem to be fundamentally confused.

anna080 wrote: »

In the same way party politicians have to step down after defeat

There is no obligation to step down. Politicians are replaced after elections for practical reasons (they / their policies weren't appealing enough), not for legal / rules-based reasons.

Should people who fails a job interview give up all work or attempts at work? Should teams that lose a game disband?

worded · 23-05-2015 3:57am

On a scale of 1 to Iona how bigoted are you?

I like that expression

23-05-2015 4:03am

worded wrote: »

On a scale of 1 to Iona how bigoted are you?

I like that expression

With 1 being "I hate Catholics and their opinions" and Iona being at the other end?

animaal · 23-05-2015 4:06am

The Iona Institute appears to take some positions I don't agree with. However, a yes result doesn't mean the Iona Institute should back off any more than a no result means the gay community should back off.

anna080 wrote: »

we are a democracy and all, but

Is this the new "I'm not racist, but..." ?

mcmoustache · 23-05-2015 5:27am

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? Are you sure that's the word you were looking for?

Let me help...

Palestinians are oppressed. Kurds are oppressed in Turkey. Oppression is a strong word.

Are you suggesting that having people disagree with the No campaign on twitter is oppression?

Really?

I mean Really?

iDave · 23-05-2015 8:34am

If we have a blasphemy referendum and that passes it will show them up to be very out of touch. A second referendum defeat in a row ffs.
Ideally they'd disband but whatever it is about religion it makes people very stubborn.

LorMal · 23-05-2015 8:38am

mcmoustache wrote: »

Oppressed? Are you sure that's the word you were looking for?

Let me help...

Palestinians are oppressed. Kurds are oppressed in Turkey. Oppression is a strong word.

Are you suggesting that having people disagree with the No campaign on twitter is oppression?

Really?

I mean Really?

A bit hysterical, no? unclench your panties there

LorMal · 23-05-2015 8:42am

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

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

Wait, no, that was Iona.

Well, that's just not what happened.
But what is happening is people being sued for not baking SSM cakes.
That's oppression.

Fat Christy · 23-05-2015 8:51am

Christ no, sure their such nutjobs, they're usually an advantage to the opposing side. Their 'every child needs a mammy and daddy' only served to offend widows, single parents, adopted children, children in care etc. I know a lot of people who voted yes just because they hated Iona and how offensive their posters were.

joe swanson · 23-05-2015 8:52am

Some people seem to think freedom of expression is a right only if your saying the right things.

People who shout them down and say they should be put out of existence are surely the biggest hypocrites of all.

Equality?

volchitsa · 23-05-2015 8:58am

LorMal wrote: »

Well, that's just not what happened.
But what is happening is people being sued for not baking SSM cakes.
That's oppression.

OMG, I didn't bake one either, will I get sued?

Oh wait, it wasn't "people being sued for not baking SSM cakes", it was a company accepting an order and then breaking the contract for a reason that is not allowed under Northern Ireland's very strict (naturally) anti-discrimination legislation.

(On the subject of the OP, I think the more we see Iona the better, they drive everyone into the arms of whatever they're opposing. But it's a slightly painful process alright, having to watch them display their craziness to the world.)

frostyjacks · 23-05-2015 9:02am

The country would be a very boring place to live if there was no difference of opinions. If they're not breaking the law I don't really care what they get up to.

LorMal · 23-05-2015 9:10am

volchitsa wrote: »

OMG, I didn't bake one either, will I get sued?

Oh wait, it wasn't "people being sued for not baking SSM cakes", it was a company accepting an order and then breaking the contract for a reason that is not allowed under Northern Ireland's very strict (naturally) anti-discrimination legislation.

(On the subject of the OP, I think the more we see Iona the better, they drive everyone into the arms of whatever they're opposing. But it's a slightly painful process alright, having to watch them display their craziness to the world.)[/

The company was dragged through the courts and fined for not agreeing to bake a cake with a message supporting SSM.
To me, that's a worrying development. We need to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
The fact that you support this development only proves to underline my concern.

volchitsa · 23-05-2015 9:15am

LorMal wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

OMG, I didn't bake one either, will I get sued?

Oh wait, it wasn't "people being sued for not baking SSM cakes", it was a company accepting an order and then breaking the contract for a reason that is not allowed under Northern Ireland's very strict (naturally) anti-discrimination legislation.

(On the subject of the OP, I think the more we see Iona the better, they drive everyone into the arms of whatever they're opposing. But it's a slightly painful process alright, having to watch them display their craziness to the world.)

The company was dragged through the courts and fined for not agreeing to bake a cake with a message supporting SSM.
To me, that's a worrying development. We need to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
The fact that you support this development only proves to underline my concern.

Do you understand that commercial law doesn't allow companies to break contracts willy nilly? And that Northern Ireland has historical reasons to be particularly severe about companies refusing to work with minorities?

Or are you determined to play the victimization card no matter what?
Too much doesn't work you know. it's a double edged sword, that.

daUbiq · 23-05-2015 9:16am

Yes they should, they're obviously head bangers.

LorMal · 23-05-2015 9:18am

volchitsa wrote: »

Do you understand that commercial law doesn't allow companies to break contracts willy nilly? And that Northern Ireland has historical reasons to be particularly severe about companies refusing to work with minorities?

Or are you determined to play the victimization card no matter what?
Too much doesn't work you know. it's a double edged sword, that.

Willy Nilly. Unfortunate term given the context.

volchitsa · 23-05-2015 9:24am

LorMal wrote: »

Willy Nilly. Unfortunate term given the context.

Freudian slip I guess.

wendell borton · 23-05-2015 9:42am

Its only right that a counterpoint be put across in big decisions. Following a single agenda with little dissent is not a good thing, just look at where the past obsequiousness to the church lead us.

If those counter augment's don't stand up to scrutiny all it can do is to strengthen the opposing view or vice versa.

RobertKK · 23-05-2015 9:50am

YFlyer wrote: »

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

Well that is what I was told, Ireland is a small country and it is hard to find people on the conservative side when it comes to debate, as most don't want to get involved with the media.

RobertKK · 23-05-2015 9:51am

joe swanson wrote: »

Some people seem to think freedom of expression is a right only if your saying the right things.

People who shout them down and say they should be put out of existence are surely the biggest hypocrites of all.

Equality?

Exactly, I might not agree with someone, but everyone has a right to express their opinion in a peaceful manner.

Alexis Sanchez · 23-05-2015 10:08am

RobertKK wrote: »

Exactly, I might not agree with someone, but everyone has a right to express their opinion in a peaceful manner.

Would that include generalizations of races?

PopePalpatine · 23-05-2015 10:10am

jonny666 wrote: »

What Americans??

This might be a good place to start: http://www.bocktherobber.com/2013/06/what-exactly-is-the-iona-institute/

Doctor Jimbob · 23-05-2015 10:10am

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well clearly RTEs legal team, presumably pretty well up on the law of defamation, didn't agree with your hole!

Obviously don't agree with you, but I couldn't help a chuckle at that one!

Seriously though, I think it's hypocritical that they cry foul when someone brands them as something they don't like, yet they can use whatever language they like to insult whoever they happen to be campaigning against.

colossus-x · 23-05-2015 10:12am

It's was the very fact that we have the Iona crowd aka religious right that played its part in a high turnout imo. I think ppl who were hitherto unaware of them were simply aghast at the lot of them. Did any of them think they came across well on TV , such as Paddy Manning or Ronan Mullins? Look at Mullings on Prime Time for example. What a vile performance. I think the vast majority of ppl were utterly disgusted with them. They could not come across as GENUINE with their main objection argument. Good riddance to religious zealous and idealists who have no place or clout left in this country and that's what I'm most happy about today ! Totally over the moon !

LorMal · 23-05-2015 10:19am

I really hope we don't go down the road of suppressing dissenting voices - through the courts, the media or on the web.
I remember the suppressive atmosphere of Holy Catholic Ireland in the 70s. It's beginning to feel like Holy Liberal Ireland now - with similar suppression of dissenting voices being called for.

23-05-2015 10:20am

colossus-x wrote: »

It's was the very fact that we have the Iona crowd aka religious right that played its part in a high turnout imo. I think ppl who were hitherto unaware of them were simply aghast at the lot of them. Did any of them think they came across well on TV , such as Paddy Manning or Ronan Mullins? Look at Mullings on Prime Time for example. What a vile performance. I think the vast majority of ppl were utterly disgusted with them. They could not come across as GENUINE with their main objection argument. Good riddance to religious zealous and idealists who have no place or clout left in this country and that's what I'm most happy about today ! Totally over the moon !

Didn't see that, but Mullen is one of the few politicians that make the Seanad relevant. I don't agree with his stance, but he can articulate a good argument in that forum. I think it's very healthy in a democracy that all voices are heard, even if we may not like what they say.

colossus-x · 23-05-2015 10:57am

Deleted User wrote: »

Didn't see that, but Mullen is one of the few politicians that make the Seanad relevant. I don't agree with his stance, but he can articulate a good argument in that forum. I think it's very healthy in a democracy that all voices are heard, even if we may not like what they say.

I didn't mean to center my point around Mullen particularly , he wasn't the only one. You didn't really say anything about my main point only 'you didn't' see it'. Fine ! I really don't care today !

pablomakaveli · 23-05-2015 11:09am

I despise organizations like Iona and YD but they should be given the oppurtunity to speak. It's better to let idiots and bigots air their views and then watch as they're picked apart.

LorMal · 23-05-2015 11:20am

The level of debate on this issue was astonishingly poor. Those who opposed amendment were very poorly represented by the likes of David Quinn and the Iona Institute. His rallying call to the 'over 55s and Rural Ireland' was pathetic - making it out that only old codgers and culchies were opposed to the Amendment.
The problem was that few who that concerns about the amendment wanted to be lambasted and denigrated on social media and held up to be homophobic.

It's amendment was passed through a campaign of vitriol unfortunately. It's a pity, because what is a nice victory for a small group in our society has turned into a nasty and bitter hatefest.

23-05-2015 11:46am

colossus-x wrote: »

I didn't mean to center my point around Mullen particularly , he wasn't the only one. You didn't really say anything about my main point only 'you didn't' see it'. Fine ! I really don't care today !

It seemed a rant about some Mullings guy. He was mentioned twice in a short post. Assumed you meant Mullen and answered.

Not a NSA agent · 23-05-2015 12:11pm

Groups like iona are handy, so extreme that even the people they think they represent are put off by them.

No idea how they think they know what they're talking about. 2 of them have phds in theology and economics. Hardly experts on marriage or children.

23-05-2015 12:56pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

No idea how they think they know what they're talking about. 2 of them have phds in theology and economics. Hardly experts on marriage or children.

Is that really valid?

Think if we extended the logic to homosexuals, "their opinions are invalid, hardly experts on marriage or children".

What courses or lifestyle makes one an expert on marriage and children. A Catholic with 10 kids and a degree in sociology?

Not a NSA agent · 23-05-2015 1:32pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Is that really valid?

Think if we extended the logic to homosexuals, "their opinions are invalid, hardly experts on marriage or children".

What courses or lifestyle makes one an expert on marriage and children. A Catholic with 10 kids and a degree in sociology?

If children's charities, psychologists, lawyers and people who know what they are talking about are telling me I should vote yes why would I listen to lolek? Why would I believe they are right and everyone else is wrong?

So far today you come across someone just looking for an argument.

Mesrine65 · 23-05-2015 2:46pm

Should the Iona Institute back off?

I'd be happy if they'd just fúck off!

LuckyLloyd · 23-05-2015 2:51pm

Abortion next please. We can break these people over the next few years and smash their influence on Irish society forever.

K4t · 23-05-2015 2:58pm

LorMal wrote: »

I really hope we don't go down the road of suppressing dissenting voices - through the courts, the media or on the web.
I remember the suppressive atmosphere of Holy Catholic Ireland in the 70s. It's beginning to feel like Holy Liberal Ireland now - with similar suppression of dissenting voices being called for.

The only side which attempted to suppress people was the No side, through ironically claiming that they were being bullied and silenced, to avoid having their arguments scrutinised and ridiculed. The No side, while much smaller in size to the yes side, was given equal broadcast time and equally represented in all debates. Yet, simply for the fact that their views were not being agreed with, and challenged and criticised, they had the gall to spin an argument about being silenced and unfairly treated. Nonsense. Nonsense. And more nonsense. Just like their actual arguments against same sex marriage.

hmmm · 23-05-2015 3:01pm

The Iona & religious right strategy now is to cement themselves as the spokespersons of the 35% - they want to be seen as the leaders of those who spoke "no" and to get that group on side. They're going to play the long game here.

That's why I think it's important not to be too magnanimous, or to nod your head when they come with bull**** phrases like "I have lots of gay friends, but ....". They will roll back this referendum and every piece of civil rights legislation we have if they could.

mcmoustache · 23-05-2015 3:05pm

LorMal wrote: »

A bit hysterical, no? unclench your panties there

It was close to 5 in the morning and I was quite drunk. I'm amazed that I could even spell.

The point still stands: the "No" side was not "Oppresssed". Their arguments were misleading and, especially here, often idiotic and they got called out on it.

They got 50-50 airtime despite representing the views of about a third of the population. That's not oppression. If anything they had additional priviledges.

To see an example of oppression, just look at how gey people were treated in this country over the years by people who's views align with the "No" campaign.

Kermit.de.frog · 23-05-2015 3:10pm

They are an advocacy group for people they represent. Regardless of what you think of them this is a democracy and everyone should be represented.

Liamario · 23-05-2015 3:12pm

I don't think Iona should back off. I think they should **** OFF!!

This result shows out of touch that they are, as if their offensive posters and pamphlets weren't enough.

Not a NSA agent · 23-05-2015 3:15pm

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They are an advocacy group for people they represent. Regardless of what you think of them this is a democracy and everyone should be represented.

A part of that 35% has no more love for them than any yes voter.

It's a referendum, what do they need representation for?
Who represents those who lost every other referendum?

Kermit.de.frog · 23-05-2015 3:52pm

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

A part of that 35% has no more love for them than any yes voter.

It's a referendum, what do they need representation for?
Who represents those who lost every other referendum?

You can not blame anyone for getting the best representation for their views that they can. That is the idea in a democratic society. It applies to all interest groups.

Should the Iona Institute back off?

Comments