Iona vs Panti

jank

Nodin wrote: »

The difference between the specific and the general is evidently lost on you.

Ah so it’s OK to mock and ridicule a group of people that share a common cause or belief system but not a specific person.. let me have a quick look at the charter and see if this is the case..


Nope, sorry. Try again.

Peregrinus

Like a lot of people on this thread, my own understanding and use of the term "homophobia" is a broad one. If you advocate treatment of gay people, on account of their gayness, which is disadvantageous to them, that's homophobic. Your motivation is largely irrelevant. You can certainly have what we might term "well-intentioned" homophobia.

But, if RTE were to defend a libel action here, the issue of how I understand and use the term, or how BB understands and used it, would be irrelevant. What is says in the dictionary is not terribly relevant either. In legal terms, what matters is how the "ordinary, right-thinking citizen" understands and uses the term - the citizen who is neither outstanding enlightened nor outstandingly bigotted; neither very wise nor very stupid; neither very liberal nor very conservative. In practical terms, the "ordinary, right-thinking citizen" is taken to be embodied in the collective view of the jury. If they think that what, e.g., John Waters has written and said justifies calling him a homophobe, given how they understand and use the word, RTE will win; if they don't, RTE will lose.

And that's a huge risk for RTE, given that "homophobe" is an emotionally laden term with - as we can see in this thread - considerable disgreement between people about what it means and when it's justified.

So, I can see why RTE would not wish to fight a defamation action on this. As I've said before, I wish they would, but I understand why they won't.

But the inference that BB draws that, because RTE has caved, therefore Waters et al have been vindicated and that none of them can be considered homophobes is completely unwarranted. RTE's decision doesn't mean anything of the kind.

david75

They're holding a debate on the Saturday night show about homophobia, tomorrow night. No idea who is going to take part. And sadly it'll probably only be a small segment of the show.
Not sure of the topic, think it probably is about the definition of homophobia.
Easily going to Beth's biggest ratings pull this show ever gets.

Sarky

And now that RTE has shown everyone that you're not allowed criticise the Iona crowd in any way, there's no way it will be within sniffing distance of being balanced.

J_E

What are the bets the Saturday Night show segment about this issue will be all of 5-10 mins? They did that stunt with The God Slot debacle too, super sensationalist headline, then less than quarter of the actual show...

The damage done is irreversible.

david75

Yeah, overall I can't see it being helpful to the situation.

Sarky

Worth another mention:

Complaints@rte.ie

When you get the generic stock reply, complaints@bai.ie

david75

Is there a good template for the BAI complaint?
I've done my RTE complaint and got the brush off.
Just not sure what the position should be I complaining to the BAI

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And this "proof" you say that Rory is in possession of, that which makes his accusation truthful, why didn't he share it with RTE's legal department?

AFAIK RTE didn't approach Rory with regard to the apology before they aired it.

But based on Rorys explanation of homophobia:

What it boils down to is if you’re going to argue that gay people need to be treated in any way differently than everybody else or should be in anyway less, or their relationships should be in anyway less then I’m sorry, yes you are a homophobe and the good thing to do is to sit, step back, recognise that you have some homophobic tendencies and work on that. You know stop spending so much of your life you know devoting energies to writing things, arguing things, coming on TV to do anything to try and stop people achieving what they think they need for happiness.

How much more proof would they want? Everyone is aware of Waters + Iona being very vocal about not allowing marriage equality for same-sex couples.

david75

Did any of you hear Breda O Brien on the radio the other night?
She did herself and her position no favours at all.

Cabaal

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My brief definition of homophobia is "hating SOMEONE because they are gay" I just don't see this with opposition to gay marriage. Of course someone could be against gay marriage for homophobic reasons but that is not the only explanation so we cannot conclude IMO that to be against gay marriage is de-facto homophobia.

ah ok so,
All those 1950's American's that were against a mixed race marriage weren't racists at all, they just didn't didn't want black people to marry a white person.

They just thought it was wrong and it would undermine society,
Thanks for clearing that up.
:rolleyes:

So these picture do not include any racist people


Either does this one


and these pictures do not have any homophobic people in them...apparently




Something closer to home, yep apparently these are not homophobic either

J_E

david75 wrote: »

Did any of you hear Breda O Brien on the radio the other night?
She did herself and her position no favours at all.

She demonstrated some very bad manners in terms of overcutting over speakers constantly and cited an Educate Together figure, only for Educate Together to text RTE to confirm that her number was off by a massive degree. the "Don't panic darling" comment was cringey on her behalf, along with that deafening radio silence at the starting debate...

https://soundcloud.com/user727747666/rteld-debate


Also something to ponder over, quite an interesting parallel here;

david75

Good points.
Marriage was undermined the moment divorce was allowed. That's the biggest threat to marriage and cheapened the whole institution of it. The gays are mad late to the party:)

Cabaal

david75 wrote: »

Good points.
Marriage was undermined the moment divorce was allowed. That's the biggest threat to marriage and cheapened the whole institution of it. The gays are mad late to the party:)

Nope, equal rights to women was the first step in undermining marriage....apparently.
After all the Catholic Church was against women's suffrage movement,

Of course, as we've learned from this thread from some users and Iona,
if you were against equal rights to women you are not a misogynist and you are not sexist.
:pac:

Ash.J.Williams

Sarky wrote: »

And now that RTE has shown everyone that you're not allowed criticise the Iona crowd in any way, there's no way it will be within sniffing distance of being balanced.

you can criticize the f** out of them if they are there ?

FouxDaFaFa

david75 wrote: »

They're holding a debate on the Saturday night show about homophobia, tomorrow night. No idea who is going to take part. And sadly it'll probably only be a small segment of the show.
Not sure of the topic, think it probably is about the definition of homophobia.
Easily going to Beth's biggest ratings pull this show ever gets.

Apparently some members of Pussy Riot. (Really). If they're flying them in from Russia, that would imply it will be a big part of the show.

It seems the wrong venue for it though, the Saturday Night show isn't used to serious debate.

J_E

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Apparently some members of Pussy Riot. (Really). If they're flying them in from Russia, that would imply it will be a big part of the show.

It seems the wrong venue for it though, the Saturday Night show isn't used to serious debate.

Something deliciously ironic about talking to Pussy Riot about why they were imprisoned, after having censored discussion just the week before...

5uspect

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

Nice, ignore my post completely.

Delirium

RTE’s Censorship and Double Standards Condones Prejudice. (from http://claredaly.ie)

Comments made by Rory O’Neill on the Brendan O’Connor show, described the Iona Institute and journalist John Waters, both of whom are known for their opposition to equal marriage rights to same sex couples and for opposing same-sex parenting, as homophobic. If you argue that homosexual people are not entitled to the same consideration as straight people then you are, by definition, a homophobe.


The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”. If you watch the link below which contains a number of quotes from members of the IONA institute and John Waters it is clear that they are both arguing to maintain a discrimination against gay couples who are prohibited from marrying. This is to treat one group of people differently to another so that they are at a disadvantage based on their sexuality. This promotes inequality and is in fact homophobic.

...

The actions of the national broadcaster in apologising only serves to condone the deeply held prejudices. The apology itself begs further questions, as part of the apology Mr O’Connor bizarrely stated, “It’s an important part of democratic debate that people must be able to hold dissenting views on controversial issues…” So it is ok to hold a dissenting view which is perceived by many to be prejudice but if we express an opinion on your dissenting/prejudiced view we will be censored. The double standards and contradictions are glaring. If someone is known publicly as a racist and we correctly label them a racist will we have to issue an apology to that racist for calling them eh a Racist?

J_E

Rory could lose the shirt off his back or the roof over his head because of a simple rant. I rant I thought was hilarious. Waters didn't find it funny. The fact that theres people on here provoking him into an unwinable court battle is astounding.
Surely waters could just pick up the phone and have half a dozen gay people appear as witnesses that share his views on marriage? I don't get the fuss. If Rory gets a few gigs out of this thats great. But tgats all I thought he intended it to be. A publicity stunt.

Whaaaaaaaaaat? You're definitely taking the piss here. So much wrong with that statement it's not even funny. Rory is successful man and a highly influential figure for gay rights in Ireland, not sure why he'd need any sort of publicity stunt. It was never him that made the big deal out of anything. Go back to the drawing board...in fact, I think it would be better if you counted to 10 before typing a response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dEvGtwMNfw

from link to Clare Daly's site on last page.

J_E

@philipoconnor: So of almost 900 complaints, none were about Rory's comments being offensive, according to RTE press office.

Still no statement in sight from RTE addressing this. Very telling.

diddlybit

Cydoniac wrote: »

@philipoconnor: So of almost 900 complaints, none were about Rory's comments being offensive, according to RTE press office.

Still no statement in sight from RTE addressing this. Very telling.

I think the slot on the Saturday Night Show this weekend could be a sad little stunt to try placate people in the hope that they will not have to disclose the reason behind or the amount of damages.

robindch

Once more unto the breach for Brendan O'Connor:

http://thedailyedge.thejournal.ie/saturday-night-show-homophobia-debate-1291287-Jan2014/

TheJournal wrote:

THE SATURDAY NIGHT Show is set to host a debate on homophobia this Saturday night. The show, presented by Brendan O’Connor, is at the centre of controversy after it apologised for remarks made about homophobia on the programme nearly three weeks ago. According to a statement from RTE, this week,

RTE wrote:

The Saturday Night Show will host a debate on homophobia; what constitutes homophobia and who gets to define the word?

A spokesman from RTE indicated that details of who will feature on the panel will be announced closer to transmission. Also on the show this week are two members of Russian punk protest group Pussy Riot, Nadezhda Tolokonnikova and Maria Alyokhina.

Sarky

Another TD agrees RTE are out of line:

http://claredaly.ie/rtes-censorship-and-double-standards-condones-prejudice/

This is getting an awful lot of coverage sepite the near-total blackout by the traditional media. This is a Good Thing.

J_E

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!


Fair play to many individual Bloggers and TheJournal.ie, Broadsheet.ie for covering this topic in detail when the mainstream media outlets obviously won't.

diddlybit

Cydoniac wrote: »

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!

:rolleyes: is all I can muster up for that ad.

Cabaal

Cydoniac wrote: »

This posted in Irish Catholic today;

https://twitter.com/SineadOCarroll/status/429181539474472960/photo/1

Ker-ching!

Interesting that the advert mentions nothing about what is apparently attacking marriage, is it a t-rex, is it godzilla? Nope its gay people just wanting to get married.

Just find it odd they won't mention gay people in the advert, so very very odd.

diddlybit

Cabaal wrote: »

Just find it odd they won't mention gay people in the advert, so very very odd.

It's their new rhetoric: appear balanced, rational and definately not homophobis. Unfortunate for them thay so many of their comments are so readily available online.

I onlly noticed now that they are calling for donations.:eek: RTE's cheque must not have cleared yet.

J_E

diddlybit wrote: »

It's their new rhetoric: appear balanced, rational and definately not homophobis. Unfortunate for them thay so many of their comments are so readily available online.

I onlly noticed now that they are calling for donations.:eek: RTE's cheque must not have cleared yet.

Do one better and vote with your wallet (like a certain State broadcaster)
http://www.marriagequality.ie/donate

lazygal

Do they have to disclose anything about donations?

J_E

lazygal wrote: »

Do they have to disclose anything about donations?

Being a commercial State broadcaster, I'm not sure they do, unless a public commission is made.

If this new charity regulatory body was put into order, the information would probably be freely available.

lazygal

Cydoniac wrote: »

Being a commercial State broadcaster, I'm not sure they do, unless a public commission is made.

If this new charity regulatory body was put into order, the information would probably be freely available.

Sorry I meant Iona. But also I wonder what amount rte has just given to protect marriage with women in white dresses and bouquets and mens.

Brown Bomber

diddlybit wrote: »

I think the slot on the Saturday Night Show this weekend could be a sad little stunt to try placate people in the hope that they will not have to disclose the reason behind or the amount of damages.

They already have disclosed the reason in their apology.


Now, on the Saturday night show two weeks ago comments were made by a guest suggesting the journalist and broadcaster John Waters, Breda O’Brien and some members of the Iona institute are homophobic. These are not the views of RTÉ and we would like to apologise for any upset or distress caused to the individuals named or identified. It is an important part of democratic debate that people must be able to hold dissenting views on controversial issues.

SpaceTime

As far as I'm aware they are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

http://www.rte.ie/about/en/serving-our-audience/2012/0417/317444-rte-and-freedom-of-information/

J_E

lazygal wrote: »

Sorry I meant Iona. But also I wonder what amount rte has just given to protect marriage with women in white dresses and bouquets and mens.

Hmm...Iona is a registered charity and I don't think they have to disclose certain donations as such. I have the nagging feeling that with RTE/Iona's unwillingness to disclose the number, the mention of it now 'not being a nominal fee', and just general suspicion, suggests it was more than a token gesture.

Brown Bomber

SW wrote: »

RTE’s Censorship and Double Standards Condones Prejudice. (from http://claredaly.ie)

Shame she has to twist the facts and lie by omission...


Clare:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.


The reality: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobe#homophobia__5
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

SpaceTime

There's always the Public Accounts Committee... They're really in top form these days.

Bannasidhe

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again thanks for your honesty. Is that actual homophobia though? I'm confused what homophobia now is though...

Is a homophobic gay man akin to a self-hating Jew? That is a label that is used as a perjorative against Jews who don't allign with the mainstream views. No Jew would accept such a label on themselves, it will always come from the outside.

Look up Roy Cohn and Keith O Brien.

Sarky

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shame she has to twist the facts and lie by omission...


Clare:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.


The reality: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobe#homophobia__5
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

Heh, you're struggling and you know it.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shame she has to twist the facts and lie by omission...


Clare:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.


The reality: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobe#homophobia__5
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

It's pretty extreme to attempt to limit the rights of a group for no apparent reason. Also pretty extreme to rely on debunked studies. Also pretty extreme for John Waters(and Iona for that matter) to claim a gay conspiracy to destroy fabric of society. But don't let that get in your way.

Brown Bomber

[-0-] wrote: »

It is a genuine question that should be open for public discussion, not hidden away in a private conversation. People are banned publicly, why not discuss why they have been allowed back?

It's funny that you are trying to have me censored for my views on a thread condemning censorship.


I would have been banned for making the post you just made and completely ignoring the mod instruction.

Cabaal

Isn't it nice when less people pay attention to Brown Bombers desperate attempts to justify Iona's position of discrimination against gay people.

Brown Bomber

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's pretty extreme to attempt to limit the rights of a group for no apparent reason. Also pretty extreme to rely on debunked studies. Also pretty extreme for John Waters(and Iona for that matter) to claim a gay conspiracy to destroy fabric of society. But don't let that get in your way.

My way of what? I was merely pointing out Clare Daly's twisting of the facts to suit her argument.

J_E

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My way of what? I was merely pointing out Clare Daly's twisting of the facts to suit her argument.

Omitting one word is hardly 'twisting' the facts. You might want to check up on Iona for that, Breda O Brien misquoting an Educate Together figure on radio only for Ed Together texting RTE at the end of the show and proving her to be wrong by a longshot (1300 instead of about 260)

Delirium

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Shame she has to twist the facts and lie by omission...

Clare:
The Oxford English Dictionary defines homophobia as “aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people”.


The reality: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia?q=homophobe#homophobia__5
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.

she basically said the dictionary says homophobia is "a strong dislike or disinclination (aversion) of homosexulity or homosexuals".

You're sayings she lied because she didn't say, "an extremely strong dislike or disinclination (aversion) of homosexulity or homosexuals".

That's pretty weak stuff, BB.

Penn

Brown Bomber wrote: »

My way of what? I was merely pointing out Clare Daly's twisting of the facts to suit her argument.

Xenophobia in the OED is defined as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries"

Islamophobia in the OED is defined as "a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"

From a post of yours in this forum approx 2 months ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87768021&postcount=514

If they have a problem with Middle-Eastern people because they perceive them to be Muslim based on their physical appearance then it is obviously Islamophobia combined with a form of racism. Pointless getting too bogged down in labels though; hatred is hatred.

"If they have a problem with Middle-Eastern people because they perceive them to be Muslim based on their physical appearance" doesn't equate to "hatred or fear" or an "intense or irrational dislike or fear", so how come that's Islamophobia, but what Clare Daly was referring to isn't homophobia?

Going to the extent of publicly supporting the denial of basic human rights based upon your disinclination is certainly 'extreme' no?

Perhaps we should have someone reference the Oxford Dictionary's definition of extreme.

Bannasidhe

Penncil Dick wrote: »

Xenophobia in the OED is defined as "intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries"

Islamophobia in the OED is defined as "a hatred or fear of Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force"

From a post of yours in this forum approx 2 months ago:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=87768021&postcount=514


"If they have a problem with Middle-Eastern people because they perceive them to be Muslim based on their physical appearance" doesn't equate to "hatred or fear" or an "intense or irrational dislike or fear", so how come that's Islamophobia, but what Clare Daly was referring to isn't homophobia?

Because it doesn't fit the argument BB is making about a TV show he didn't see and the reaction to a sustained bully media campaign by a Religiously inspired lobby group in a country he doesn't live in?

lazygal

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-quinn/can-we-have-a-respectful-debate-on-samesex-marriage-i-dont-think-so-29966462.html


Ya BIG MEANIES. David's friends are the REAL VICTIMS.