Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

Spread

I find Norris a nauseating, egotistical prat. Of course he's selling a book. Will he mention those less than transparent things that he was involved in. I'm glad the people of Ireland told him where to go in his bid for the Presidency.
On his side though ......... it would be easier to read his book than to have to listen to him reading it in that nonsensical accent of his.
Not sure if this is a result of foreign bodies affecting his vocal chords

Hazys

tomtherobot wrote: »

I said republicans are perceived to be more religious and if you can't see why people associate republicanism with sectarian violence that's just nuts.

And yes that's a generalization i'd probably buy into myself to a degree (in so much as i'd buy into any generalization). I just don't perceive any republican figures as very tolerant people.

True or not, what does it have to do with the topic?

Seems like slandering for the sake of it

jill_valentine

kowloon wrote: »

I agree that it's wrong to purposely write out parts of a person's life, but to focus on someone's sex life because they're gay seems a bit like pointing the finger, saying 'this isn't normal'. I'm not sure that's a desired outcome either.

Alan Turing is a bit of a special case because he was treated horribly and prosecuted for being gay, that often gets him an extra line in texts that would only mention him.

Someone's sexuality is only relevant if it weighs in on the topic being written about. If I decided to write about some general and their campaign in whereverland, what they like to get up to in the bedroom, gay or not, is irrelevant. Unless they're banging their chief of staff...

It matters in this regard because, often, it put somebody into a politically vulnerable position that's relevant to any attempt towards interpreting their thought processes. It's not simply a matter of what they "got up to in the bedroom." It's a question of a defining trait and an accompanying lifestyle, whether they suppressed it or obliged it. Being gay or being not gay has a massive effect on the shape of a person's life and the personal interactions they have, whether they're out or not, and decisions they make and attitudes they hold are inevitably coloured by those experiences.

Very frequently, gay and bisexual historical figures fell into some counterculture company and I don't think that's coincidence. If it's important to know, for instance, what religious or cultural background somebody comes from, to cast light on their behaviour, then it's important to know also what their sexual preference was and how that sat in the context of the time.

No I don't think it's right to focus on these things, but they're part of the overall picture. Because straight is the "default", and because of the historical stigma attached, they will be buried unless somebody actively asserts them, and then you'll wind up with a story where half the pages are missing. History is, ultimately, the story of people - of individuals affecting each other, and the consequences thereof. How can you hope to start understanding those figures without such a fundamental piece of the puzzle?

Mickey H

So Collins was apparently gay? I bet he thought the rising was fabulous too.

Sir Gallagher

So maybe one or two of the lads liked a bit of flute now and again, that was their own business.

For a truly sexualy deviant historical Irish figure look no further than James Joyce.

To NORA


Dublin 2 December 1909
………………………….
My love for you allows me to pray to the spirit of eternal beauty and tenderness mirrored in your eyes or fling you down under me on that softy belly of yours and **** you up behind, like a hog riding a sow, glorying in the very stink and sweat that rises from your arse, glorying in the open shape of your upturned dress and white girlish drawers and in the confusion of your flushed cheeks and tangled hair. It allows me to burst into tears of pity and love at some slight word, to tremble with love for you at the sounding of some chord or cadence of music or to lie heads and tails with you feeling your fingers fondling and tickling my ballocks or stuck up in me behind and your hot lips sucking off my cock while my head is wedged in between your fat thighs, my hands clutching the round cushions of your bum and my tongue licking ravenously up your rank red cnut. I have taught you almost to swoon at the hearing of my voice singing or murmuring to your soul the passion and sorrow and mystery of life and at the same time have taught you to make filthy signs to me with your lips and tongue, to provoke me by obscene touches and noises, and even to do in my presence the most shameful and filthy act of the body. You remember the day you pulled up your clothes and let me lie under you looking up at you while you did it? Then you were ashamed even to meet my eyes.


You are mine, darling, mine! I love you. All I have written above is only a moment or two of brutal madness. The last drop of seed has hardly been squirted up your cnut before it is over and my true love for you, the love of my verses, the love of my eyes for your strange luring eyes, comes blowing over my soul like a wind of spices. My prick is still hot and stiff and quivering from the last brutal drive it has given you when a faint hymn is heard rising in tender pitiful worship of you from the dim cloisters of my heart.


Nora, my faithful darling, my seet-eyed blackguard schoolgirl, be my whore, my mistress, as much as you like (my little frigging mistress! My little ****ing whore!) you are always my beautiful wild flower of the hedges, my dark-blue rain-drenched flower.


JIM

50 Shades me bollix.

jill_valentine

Ah Joyce. Now Joyce, there was a pervert to be proud of.

AngryHippie

asherbassad wrote: »

George W Bush a torturer of animals War Criminal & profiteer/merchant of death/warlord/moron
Bennazir Bhutto a corrupt murderess
Dick Cheney a 5 time draft dodger and advocate of torture War Criminal and profiteer/merchant of death/warlord

So the homos and degenerates actually did a spot of fighting for what they thought was right and most took a bullet.
The world leaders, ducked that bullet.
Where are you Blair?

Agreed, it doesn't matter what their personal motivations were, their political motivations were for liberation and independence. Without the bravery and sacrifices made by Casement, Pearse & Collins I believe Ireland would be a very different place.

captainkeg

RoundyMooney wrote: »

Pearse may not have been gay, but...

He may well have been a Paedo?! Mos Def imo, lol that poem is the most Paedo thing I've ever read. nice to know one of our main train stations is named after a Nonce, makes sense i suppose

Cavehill Red

captainkeg wrote: »

He may well have been a Paedo?! Mos Def imo, lol that poem is the most Paedo thing I've ever read. nice to know one of our main train stations is named after a Nonce, makes sense i suppose

People don't like it when you point out the paedo qualities of Pearse. But there's a million per cent more evidence for Pearse being paedo than there is for Collins being gay.
As for Casement, yup, gay. Also a human rights hero. Someone we should definitely be rehabilitating and take pride in. He saved thousands of lives in Africa and South America.
Duffy I know little about. But it wouldn't surprise me.

captainkeg

Cavehill Red wrote: »

People don't like it when you point out the paedo qualities of Pearse. But there's a million per cent more evidence for Pearse being paedo than there is for Collins being gay.
As for Casement, yup, gay. Also a human rights hero. Someone we should definitely be rehabilitating and take pride in. He saved thousands of lives in Africa and South America.
Duffy I know little about. But it wouldn't surprise me.

Yep, hope people dont take my post above as being Homphobic or conflating Homosexuality with Paedophilia. But fk all the evidence points to Pearse being a weirdo paedo.
Think david Norris is a bit of of prat, the 2 articles ive read on the Irish times website paint him as an egotistic pompous eejit. Dont really care where Michael Collins liked to sling his hook but even if we are to believe the testimony of a randomer from x years ago, how does that make him gay? Why does everything have to be so binary?

K-9

Spread wrote: »

I find Norris a nauseating, egotistical prat. Of course he's selling a book. Will he mention those less than transparent things that he was involved in. I'm glad the people of Ireland told him where to go in his bid for the Presidency.
On his side though ......... it would be easier to read his book than to have to listen to him reading it in that nonsensical accent of his.
Not sure if this is a result of foreign bodies affecting his vocal chords

Spread the love.

Cavehill Red

captainkeg wrote: »

Yep, hope people dont take my post above as being Homphobic or conflating Homosexuality with Paedophilia. But fk all the evidence points to Pearse being a weirdo paedo.
Think david Norris is a bit of of prat, the 2 articles ive read on the Irish times website paint him as an egotistic pompous eejit. Dont really care where Michael Collins liked to sling his hook but even if we are to believe the testimony of a randomer from x years ago, how does that make him gay? Why does everything have to be so binary?

In living memory people in this country were housed with umpteen kids sharing beds due to lack of space. It didn't mean they were riding! And Collins was on the run a lot of the time. I've no doubt he spent plenty of nights in safe houses sharing a bed with a bloke. But I doubt they were riding.
Norris, in person, is a very pleasant and charismatic chap, and he did do a lot for gay rights and human rights in his time, and he was indeed shafted by the media during the presidential election, and I support his right to publish a book to put his side of that story out there.
But claiming Michael Collins was gay to gain headlines and sales is indeed pretty facile of him.

Madam_X

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

So maybe one or two of the lads liked a bit of flute now and again, that was their own business.

For a truly sexualy deviant historical Irish figure look no further than James Joyce.



50 Shades me bollix.

:eek:
Yaysus!

D-FENS

Sir Gallagher wrote: »

For a truly sexualy deviant historical Irish figure look no further than James Joyce.

You're right, he's f*cking my sister

Fratton Fred

Cavehill Red wrote: »

People don't like it when you point out the paedo qualities of Pearse. But there's a million per cent more evidence for Pearse being paedo than there is for Collins being gay.
As for Casement, yup, gay. Also a human rights hero. Someone we should definitely be rehabilitating and take pride in. He saved thousands of lives in Africa and South America.
Duffy I know little about. But it wouldn't surprise me.

There are some doubts about his revelations in South America though I believe. His "Black Diaries", if true, would indicate that a lot of the abuse he witnessed there ws more sexual fantasy then reality.

fascinating character Casement, it always surprises me that he isn't held in the same light as the likes of Pearse, but I would suspect that his sexual orientation plays a part in that. We can't have good old Catholic schools teaching about a gay hero can we.

Cavehill Red

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are some doubts about his revelations in South America though I believe. His "Black Diaries", if true, would indicate that a lot of the abuse he witnessed there ws more sexual fantasy then reality.

fascinating character Casement, it always surprises me that he isn't held in the same light as the likes of Pearse, but I would suspect that his sexual orientation plays a part in that. We can't have good old Catholic schools teaching about a gay hero can we.

The really strange thing about that comparison is how Pearse is still lauded, despite the significant question marks over his attitudes towards young boys, while Casement is largely vilified simply for being gay, albeit there was some underage activity there too.
Leaving the sexual shenanigans to one side, if you remove your green-tinted spectacles and look at the world beyond Ireland, there is no comparison as to which was the bigger man or more important person in world history.

OurLadyofKnock

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Shure aren't we all bisexual

I heard you poor wife dosen't know which way to turn.

kowloon

jill_valentine wrote: »

No I don't think it's right to focus on these things, but they're part of the overall picture. Because straight is the "default", and because of the historical stigma attached, they will be buried unless somebody actively asserts them, and then you'll wind up with a story where half the pages are missing. History is, ultimately, the story of people - of individuals affecting each other, and the consequences thereof. How can you hope to start understanding those figures without such a fundamental piece of the puzzle?

I suppose what I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't a cause for incident then, it shouldn't be an important thing to state now, but of course, you're correct: the stigma attached to it would have affected someone, even if they hadn't been outed at the time.

I still wouldn't consider it something worth mentioning in anything other than an account of a person, as opposed to their deeds, if it wasn't cause for anything that could be proven to have an effect on the subject matter. Does being gay make you approach code breaking differently? For example.

steddyeddy

A gay republican. That explains why the unionists didnt like him.

geeky

tomtherobot wrote: »

I found myself leafing through yesterdays Irish Times (it's pretty ****e i know) and found an excerpt from David Norris book, he's talking about the gay right movement in Ireland and goes on to strongly suggest that Roger Casement, Padraig Pearse, Michael Collins and Eoin O'Duffy were gay.

Now personally I don't have a homophobic bone in my body (stop) but isn't it a bit weird outing people like this when there dead? Also, I'd love to know what the republicans here think of this?

I know its been widely suggested before that Roger Casement was gay but the other three came as a bit of a shock to me. For one thing i want me money back from the Liam Neeson/Julia Roberts movie. Damn you Hollywood lies....

I think it's a bit weird, alright, and quite unfair. Collins' sexuality is his own business, same with O'Duffy, Pearse et al.

Casemount, most historians agree, was gay or at least bisexual. Not sure about O'Duffy. With Pearse, people base their assumptions on poetry that would have the Daily Mail/Paedo-hunters mobbing up outside St Endas. but yeah, the Collins rumour is bizarre, and very thin - first I've heard of it.

ejmaztec

Nodin wrote: »

Ye can't imagine a louis spence level gay collins surviving long on the run though.....

The Tans would have been told to listen out for giggling in the bushes.

walrusgumble

tomtherobot wrote: »

I found myself leafing through yesterdays Irish Times (it's pretty ****e i know) and found an excerpt from David Norris book, he's talking about the gay right movement in Ireland and goes on to strongly suggest that Roger Casement, Padraig Pearse, Michael Collins and Eoin O'Duffy were gay.

Now personally I don't have a homophobic bone in my body (stop) but isn't it a bit weird outing people like this when there dead? Also, I'd love to know what the republicans here think of this?

I know its been widely suggested before that Roger Casement was gay but the other three came as a bit of a shock to me. For one thing i want me money back from the Liam Neeson/Julia Roberts movie. Damn you Hollywood lies....

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

floggg

kowloon wrote: »

jill_valentine wrote: »

It's making bad history in bad faith and it's nonsense. You cannot tell the story of Alan Turing without speaking of his orientation, any more than you could describe him without mentioning that he liked breaking codes a bit.

I agree that it's wrong to purposely write out parts of a person's life, but to focus on someone's sex life because they're gay seems a bit like pointing the finger, saying 'this isn't normal'. I'm not sure that's a desired outcome either.

Alan Turing is a bit of a special case because he was treated horribly and prosecuted for being gay, that often gets him an extra line in texts that would only mention him.

Someone's sexuality is only relevant if it weighs in on the topic being written about. If I decided to write about some general and their campaign in whereverland, what they like to get up to in the bedroom, gay or not, is irrelevant. Unless they're banging their chief of staff...

Well why did the Michael Collons film, or indeed the history books generally, include his fiancé Kitty Kiernan? Because she was relevant to who he was and to his story.

And saying he's gay doesn't focus on his sex life, it focuses on his sexual orientation. There is a difference. Nobody has said mentioning Kitty us unfairly dragging up his sex life.

For the record I'm not saying he is gay, or he isn't. I doubt it can be proved conclusively at this stage.

suicide_circus

Shall we just assume that all dead people were gay, unless an independent tribunal can determine otherwise?

floggg

kowloon wrote: »

I suppose what I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't a cause for incident then, it shouldn't be an important thing to state now, but of course, you're correct: the stigma attached to it would have affected someone, even if they hadn't been outed at the time.

I still wouldn't consider it something worth mentioning in anything other than an account of a person, as opposed to their deeds, if it wasn't cause for anything that could be proven to have an effect on the subject matter. Does being gay make you approach code breaking differently? For example.

Probably. You'd want to be pretty good at deciphering stuff to be able to crack Polari or the Hanky Code!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polari

Sir Gallagher

It all reminds me a bit of the Rubberbandits song about everybody being in the 'Ra.

rochey84

walrusgumble wrote: »

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

I find what you're saying in the first line of your post to be quite ignorant to be honest, I also find that people are focusing on the claims and how it doesn't matter etc, no-one is talking about the context the claims were made in.

Anyone who read the extract would know that Norris was not suggesting that these men were gay just to "out" them, he was trying to indicate how difficult it was to be gay in this country when he was young because he felt so isolated and as someone aluded to earlier on, the only gay in the country. He is making the point that if he had been thought in school about the sexuality of these heros he might not have felt the way he did.

As any gay person who grew up even in the 90s will tell you, it was a seriously isolated and horrible part of their childhood feeling like you were the only one, that you had no role models and then as you grew older into your sexual experimentation years what Norris says about the cloak and dagger aspect of sexuality was still true less than 20 years ago.

tl;dr, look at the context of the claims before bashing DN over the head for outting them!

ejmaztec

I think Norris read somewhere that Michael Collins was bent on victory in his fight with the British, and completely misunderstood it.

Son Of A Vidic

tomtherobot wrote: »

Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

So what?

dd972

Seems Michael Collins and Padraig Pearse were gay?

Yeah....Russel Brand's gay as well :rolleyes:

ejmaztec

We've all been gay thanks to all the budgets we've had since the crash.:(

jill_valentine

kowloon wrote: »

I suppose what I was trying to point out was that if it wasn't a cause for incident then, it shouldn't be an important thing to state now, but of course, you're correct: the stigma attached to it would have affected someone, even if they hadn't been outed at the time.

I still wouldn't consider it something worth mentioning in anything other than an account of a person, as opposed to their deeds, if it wasn't cause for anything that could be proven to have an effect on the subject matter. Does being gay make you approach code breaking differently? For example.

It could go some way to explain why somebody was, for instance, naturally inclined to distrust authority, or willing to buck mainstream culture. It could explain why somebody was naturally secretive or why they might have had a complex relationship with the church. If somebody is gay in a society that's hostile to gays, it's guaranteed to have a massive impact on their perspective within that society.

As somebody above said, nobody considers it beyond the pale when people talk about Kitty in the context of Collins, or Josephine in the context of Napoleon, because it's understood that the relationships around us and how we choose to behave within them affect our decisions and define us as individuals. People only get squeamish when homosexuality enters the picture, which is why I don't buy the "privacy" argument. The questions don't bother anybody until there's a possibility that they won't like the answers.

Let's pretend, for instance, that Tom Cruise was a historically significant figure rather than an unwatchably cheesy couch jumping lunatic superstar. If you were to try and interpret his fanatical devotion to Scientology in isolation, it might seem totally baffling. If, however, you were aware of the alleged allegations that the COS allegedly "cured" him of his alleged homosexuality and allegedly made arrangements to conceal it - and if you were aware that exactly the same narrative suggested the same of John Travolta long before his recent indiscretions - while at the same time, retaining proof thereof, then it makes more alleged sense. You'd have a much better idea of the kind of psychological and political hold they'd have on him. Just as an entirely hypothetical and I'm sure wholly unfounded example that I've pulled right out of the clear blue sky.

Going back to the example of Turing, his homosexuality is now widely known, but his bearding arrangement with Joan Clarke is no less significant a piece of the puzzle for that, once it's understood as such. If his orientation wasn't known, and it was simply accepted at face value that he and Clarke were a young couple who fell in and out of love, that would offer us so much less insight into the pair of them as human beings and the extraordinary little world of Bletchley Park.

tomtherobot

Augmerson wrote: »

He was from Cork. A man. And Irish.

Perhaps all these people should be asked to comment too?

Clearly the defining thing about Michael Collins was the fact he was a republican leader. If i want to talk about something Bertie Ahern did or didn't do, do i have to talk about all men that are Irish from Dublin?

Hazys wrote: »

True or not, what does it have to do with the topic?

Seems like slandering for the sake of it

Well if it's true it's not slandering, that's pretty basic?

And the topic (as I suspect you know) is that given the public associate republicanism with Catholicism and secterian violence how does this fit with a queering up of republican history?

3ndahalfof6

ejmaztec wrote: »

I think Norris read somewhere that Michael Collins was bent on victory in his fight with the British, and completely misunderstood it.

This is true, but the statement was hell bent on getting the english out,

so they reckoned he was gay and his ringer was on fire.

walrusgumble

rochey84 wrote: »

walrusgumble wrote: »

Jesus, those gays will try any angle to get their precious gay marriage. "They were gay, so why not x,y,z"

Ya, there were serious allegations about O'Duffy, Suggestions about Pearse - A Morrissey Type. Collins, there were rumours simply because he liked the auld wrestling, TPC dealt with that issue in his book. Collins was also meant to be a bit of a player with the women (or maybe they were vicious rumours to try and discredit him in Catholic Ireland)

Casement was, apparently.

More important issue is, so what? They were rumours and no more. Would Norris dare open his mouth if they were alive today in light of defamation laws? No

I find what you're saying in the first line of your post to be quite ignorant to be honest, I also find that people are focusing on the claims and how it doesn't matter etc, no-one is talking about the context the claims were made in.

Anyone who read the extract would know that Norris was not suggesting that these men were gay just to "out" them, he was trying to indicate how difficult it was to be gay in this country when he was young because he felt so isolated and as someone aluded to earlier on, the only gay in the country. He is making the point that if he had been thought in school about the sexuality of these heros he might not have felt the way he did.

As any gay person who grew up even in the 90s will tell you, it was a seriously isolated and horrible part of their childhood feeling like you were the only one, that you had no role models and then as you grew older into your sexual experimentation years what Norris says about the cloak and dagger aspect of sexuality was still true less than 20 years ago.

tl;dr, look at the context of the claims before bashing DN over the head for outting them!

I could not give two flying decks what you are waffling on about. Norris intentions are clear and you even proved what I had said, "if it's okay for x,y,z...." granted the reference to marriage was a bit unfair. If they were alive he would rightly be crucified in a court for defamation. Let him pick on less easier targets or at least come up with actual proofs.let him deal with those alive today and see where he gets.he wants to use figures from the past let him , but let him focus in people who were amazingly gay.

Norris is not nor was not accepted by members of society because he is gay, it is because he is an elitist snob (or is perceived as such) and few agree with his politics.the idea that he is led wing, as many perceive him to be is hilarious.

walrusgumble

tomtherobot wrote: »

Augmerson wrote: »

He was from Cork. A man. And Irish.

Perhaps all these people should be asked to comment too?

Clearly the defining thing about Michael Collins was the fact he was a republican leader. If i want to talk about something Bertie Ahern did or didn't do, do i have to talk about all men that are Irish from Dublin?

Hazys wrote: »

True or not, what does it have to do with the topic?

Seems like slandering for the sake of it

Well if it's true it's not slandering, that's pretty basic?

And the topic (as I suspect you know) is that given the public associate republicanism with Catholicism and secterian violence how does this fit with a queering up of republican history?

It's only true when it is proven to be true and if not, it is defamation. There is no if it's true. Each of these men had enemies who could easily have made claims, whether validly o not. they did with casement and for most part they stuck. O'Duffy claims haven't be refuted and Pearse, well even the few women that knew him thought he was odd. As for Collins , there is little or nothing on him, and he is being branded all sorts of things for womanizer (hardly something catholic Ireland would have approved of) to traitor etc. You cant hide something if there is no actual basis for an allegation.

GRMA

It is not defamatory to call someone gay.

Something is only defamatory if the statement/allegation is false, or cannot be proven true, and lowers a person in the eyes of a reasonable individual. Being gay is not a bad thing. Thus in the eyes of the 'reasonable man'(a legal construct) someone being gay wouldn't make them think less of that individual.

This is the case even if the allegation does in fact lower the person in the eyes of a lot of people. For example in the 70s there was a case were a man was falsely accused of being a tout, of informing on the IRA, in a newspaper. Not being happy at this allegation he launched legal proceedings and failed because the court ruled that accusing someone of "reporting crimes" couldn't lower that persons standing in the eyes of the aforementioned reasonable man...

Norris is desperate for a few quid so he needs something in his book to stir up controversy and publicity. Mission accomplished!

It wasn't me!

Defamation? Defamation presumes that the defamatory statement would cause the subject to lose status or otherwise suffer as a result of it. Unless you presume that to describe someone as homosexual is actually a bad thing, and unless the legal system accepts that homosexuality is a material slur on the subject's character (as opposed to a playground insult), then it can't possibly be defamation, any more than me saying my neighbour is made of cheese.

fasttalkerchat

Nodin wrote: »

Casement, yes. Pearse, maybe, mabye not. O'Duffy, yes - thats out a while.

Collins though? Never heard that before. I'd like to know what he's basing it on.

Apparently he likes hippos though... and Che Guevara liked dolphins.

fasttalkerchat

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Defamation? Defamation presumes that the defamatory statement would cause the subject to lose status or otherwise suffer as a result of it. Unless you presume that to describe someone as homosexual is actually a bad thing, and unless the legal system accepts that homosexuality is a material slur on the subject's character (as opposed to a playground insult), then it can't possibly be defamation, any more than me saying my neighbour is made of cheese.

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

danger mouse

This whole thread is sick!

It wasn't me!

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

Because I would have a demonstrable loss. Where no such incidence occurs, then the "reasonable man" principle stands, and an accusation of homosexuality is not, in and of itself, defamatory.

GRMA

Norris has a peculiar habit of sexualizing everything, I remember in a documentary about Nelsons Pillar he went on about how it was basically a giant phallus and we castrated ourselves by blowing it up.

As for Pearse, I don't believe he was gay. I've never read anything to suggest he was. He was however painfully shy and perhaps a touch autistic, aspergers.

But really I couldn't give a damn if he was gay. A virtuous person being gay doesn't make homosexuality virtuous, the opposite is true also. It's an irrelevance. Like someones hight, or whether they were left or right handed. So what?

GRMA

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Actually it can be defamation. If I circulated a rumour that you're gay and your wife left you because of it you could quite rightly take me to court for defamation.

Not necessarily, unless you accuse/imply him of having cheated on his wife with a man.

Look at the example I gave, that man lost lots of friends and respect, and was even put in danger by the false accusation that he was a tout. He still couldn't sue for defamation. (well, slander at the time).

walrusgumble

GRMA wrote: »

It is not defamatory to call someone gay.

Something is only defamatory if the statement/allegation is false, or cannot be proven true, and lowers a person in the eyes of a reasonable individual. Being gay is not a bad thing. Thus in the eyes of the 'reasonable man'(a legal construct) someone being gay wouldn't make them think less of that individual.

This is the case even if the allegation does in fact lower the person in the eyes of a lot of people. For example in the 70s there was a case were a man was falsely accused of being a tout, of informing on the IRA, in a newspaper. Not being happy at this allegation he launched legal proceedings and failed because the court ruled that accusing someone of "reporting crimes" couldn't lower that persons standing in the eyes of the aforementioned reasonable man...

Norris is desperate for a few quid so he needs something in his book to stir up controversy and publicity. Mission accomplished!

It is defamation If you are suggesting wrongly that he is gay, and it is capable of being perceived to suggest that someone is living a lie (eg with a girlfriend ) or acting in double standards or being dishonest to what he says does or allows himself to be perceived. (and the stuff that you mentioned in the first two paragraphs) but calling someone gay on its own when it is not true per se, yes you are correct.however many people have successfully sued against allegations about being gay.

This case of 1970 is peter berry v Irish times For reasons that you Pointed out. Even then odailigh missed the point and this was noted in dissenting judgments. It has no connection allegations of gays on a Sid note being gay back then was illegal) Reynolds v Malacco made the point that you are referring to about gays and even then Reynolds won.

To say that it can never be defamatory is horse manure

jill_valentine

GRMA wrote: »

But really I couldn't give a damn if he was gay. A virtuous person being gay doesn't make homosexuality virtuous, the opposite is true also. It's an irrelevance. Like someones hight, or whether they were left or right handed. So what?

When the day comes that someone's sexual orientation is of no more consequence to their treatment or lifestyle or place in society than their height or dexterity, then that might start to be true. But I suspect that day won't come any decade soon.

Sister Assumpta

Riddle101 wrote: »

I've heard the rumor about Micheal Collins being gay. But wasn't he engaged?

Aenaes wrote: »

Collins was engaged and reported to be head over heels in love by his close friends.
In a couple of biographies of him it's suggested he was pretty successful with the ladies during his time spent in London.

This is not intended to ridicule these posters, nor others who made similar comments, but come on guys... a gay person is not someone who physically cannot have sex with the opposite gender nor fall in love with the opposite gender. I know gay guys who "fell in love" with women, when they were really only emotionally infatutated with their girlfriends, as opposed to completely sexually attracted to their girlfriends in the way that a heterosexual might have been. One described his sexual attraction as a natural physiological reaction.

As much as their sexuality is fairly irrelevant (although it does help break down the prejudices aforementioned), I find it fairly bewildering that people still think about - especially historic - homosexuality, along these lines as per the above.

fasttalkerchat

GRMA wrote: »

Not necessarily, unless you accuse/imply him of having cheated on his wife with a man.

Look at the example I gave, that man lost lots of friends and respect, and was even put in danger by the false accusation that he was a tout. He still couldn't sue for defamation. (well, slander at the time).

Interesting example, although if the alleged "tout" subsequently suffered injury from an assassination attempt the case could swing the other way (I would imagine).

What if you were outed as being gay infront of friends and family causing you embarrassment when in fact it was untrue that you are gay... wouldn't that be damage resulting from defamed character (I use the word defamed very loosely).

stevemac182

Cue low-budget Irish blockbuster "Bainne - The True Story of Michael Collins"

trodsky

Was it true Collins was seen fingering the hole off de Valera outside the GPO before the Easter rising?