Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
DEAR SIR/MADAM,
I am writing to complain about the apology to members of the Iona Institute given by Brendan O’Connor, a broadcaster on RTE television, last weekend in connection with an interview the previous week with Rory O’Neill, a well known gay rights advocate in Ireland.
Mr O’Neill had expressed the view that the Iona Institute was homophobic. He made clear that he did not mean by this that they wanted to beat people up. Rather, he made clear that his definition of homophobia involved treating gays and lesbians differently.
That is, in fact, within the definition of homophobia accepted by many – including the Merriman Webster dictionary, which makes clear that homophobia includes discrimination against gays or lesbians. I refer you in this regard to the definition contained at the following link:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia
Mr O’Neill’s comments arise in a context where the Iona Institute is well known in Ireland for its opposition to affording equal marriage rights to gays and lesbians and also for its opposition to same-sex parenting. It seeks to maintain the current discrimination whereby same-sex couples are prohibited from marrying whereas opposite sex couples are free to do so.
In these circumstances, it is clear that Mr O’Neill was entirely entitled to express his honestly held opinion, which was based on facts that were reasonably known to the public.
It is astonishing, therefore, that RTE, a national broadcaster, should apologise for what Mr O’Neill has stated, censor his interview on the internet and award public money to those in the Iona Institute who have sought to prevent a free debate on equal marriage by preventing gay rights campaigners from uttering in future that opposition to same-sex marriage is homophobic. It is positively Orwellian (or even Putinesque) that, having done so, Mr O’Connor in his apology should stress the importance of free debate, as if Mr O’Neill had in any way tried to impede it.
It appears that there will be a referendum on the introduction of equal marriage in the next two years. By its censorship of Mr O’Neill, RTE has undermined confidence in its impartiality and has also made clear that it will not facilitate a free and fair debate. This is a profoundly serious matter for any broadcaster, not least one which purports to be the national broadcaster.
For these reasons, I wish to complain. Given the seriousness of the implications of what has happened for the ability of LGBT communities to express their opinions in the context of the forthcoming referendum on national television, I am sending a copy of this complaint to Mr Niels Muiznieks, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. You might be good enough to copy your response to Mr Muiznieks also. As you will be aware, Mr Muiznieks has been clear in recent times that silencing voices against homophobia violates human rights. I am sure that, in those circumstances, you will be keen to explain to him why RTE took the actions that it did.
In the event that I do not receive a satisfactory response, I will be writing to the Council of Europe Commissioner and also encouraging NGOs in Ireland also to do so.
However, I should stress that this is not merely a matter affecting LGBT groups. It seems to me that the apology provided by RTE has rather far reaching implications for other groups also. I am sure that RTE would not want to be seen simply to have treated one minority group differently to other groups in society.
In those circumstances, it is now incumbent on RTE to provide clarification on what it will not permit to be stated in other contexts also. RTE should therefore make clear what it will and will not tolerate in the following scenarios:
If, however, any of the above is permissible, will RTE explain why it is not equally permissible to state that a group that campaigns against same-sex marriage is homophobic?
If the above is not now permissible, it is important that the public are made aware of what they may and may not say on Irish television. RTE should therefore issue comprehensive guidance on the above new restrictions to, for example, women TDs, women’s organisations, Northern Ireland politicians, ethnic minority organisations who commonly make such utterances, quite without consequence, on RTE at this time. Please confirm that you are willing to do so. I would also be grateful if you could in due course furnish me and, more importantly, Mr Muiznieks with a copy of any guidance issued.
Yours sincerely,
Brian Barrington
Brian Barrington is a practising barrister and expert on Equality and Human Rights. He has long been involved with the Marriage Equality campaign, offering advice and legal opinion.
This letter first appeared on Marriage Equality’s Facebook page.
Main image by Conor Horgan. Visit his website www.conorhorgan.com, Facebook page or follow him on Twitter @Conor_Horgan
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
What they’re saying is nobody will help you with your mortgage but if you had a heap of loans we will restructure them and stretch out the payments to 5 years or something. A little relief for the person making the payments but it means more interest to the banks. Who are they helping exactly?
There is a legal way of dispatching this debt.
You decide what you can pay back monthly
Inform the debtor of your intention to pay and your committed monthly payment.
Attach your cheque and write official offer on the rear of the letter diagonally
You know have a new legal contract
But you must legally maintain your offer
Every month
Do not make it a stupid amount but what u can afford
More info on you tube
Vaguely true insofar as if you do this a judge will be very reluctant to give any judgement to enforce the original contract. The diagonal writing though?
Dangerous, misleading rubbish.
Please explain why Will.
Happy to oblige, Ryan. Mik’s advice, if followed, will have absolutely no legal effect on one’s obligations and liabilities, and most certainly will not result in “a new legal contract”. Such unilateral action is far more likely to result in services being withdrawn/cut off and debt collection proceedings. Short of bankruptcy, debt restructuring is only possible with the agreement of one’s creditors. Following Mik’s advice is the path to ruin. Negotiate with your creditors, because you can’t dictate to them.
That doesn’t rhyme, Mik
@Mik
Hi Mik
Did you read the book by a man called Darrell O’Dea who challenged the banks on his mortgage and won?
I read it there a few weeks ago. It was poorly written, kind of rush job, but to be fair to the man he pretty much documented his whole experience in great detail.
There’s a great section in the book where he calls out bank of ireland on their fake debt collector and also how he handled extremely aggressive phone calls from bank of ireland’s solictors.
It would give hope to the people who think they have no hope. I’m not yet in that situation, but if my choices were this or repossesion and being chucked out on to the street I would definitely go down the road of challenging the bank. Kenny
@Kenny: my comments above on Mik’s guff are just as applicable to that “book” you mention. Even more so, in fact.
@Will
I also read ‘that book’ and it would be guff only the guy lawfully discharged his mortgage and there’s no police or solicitors chasing after him. He’s living in his house mortgage free at the present. Did you actually read the book or just spewing know it all nonsence?
Exactly kenny it’s a way of keeping your roof over your head but u still owe your debt just extending it over a much longer time
Any roof is better than no roof .
Who do u work for will viper debt collectors lol
@Michael – if you believe that, I have some magic beans to sell you…
@Mik – Any chance you could engage with the substance of my post, rather making daft personal digs?
New initiative but no details…. Wow bet loads of people are feeling the relief on the back of this
We were told the same last year and the year before nothing ever gets done.easy to know noone in the dail needs a mortgage or they would be free with every pint in the dail bar
Wow look what they discovered a child in the street knew that particularly a hungry one I suppose they will give themselves a rise now
Commas and full stops are your free. Use them.
Correction fail.
Damn autocorrect.
Paul,step away from the shovel.
Last time I checked auto correct won’t add in words
More Lies form the Irish Banking Federation!
5 years on nothing done for the victims of corrupt/criminal bankers.
The Irish Banking Federation, A Private Members only club for Snout Nosed Champagne Quaffing Schiesters.
You Bust the country you should be in jail!!
Not pretending to assist your victims!!
Do not pay! Everything should be free – free houses, free electricity, free gas, free health, free cars, free road tax, free insurance, free fuel. Print more money and we will all be rich.
Sarcasm?
If everything was free,they’d be no need to print money.:-)
Good point Norman. And with the money we saved on not printing money we could have even more free stuff.
You wouldn’t save anything since as you suggested everything is free.But i degress read the article,nowhere does it state debtors will or should walk away from their debts.
Exactly the way it is for all our TDs
Oh wait they get a massive salary and 5m worth of a pension too after 4 years
What’s good for the goose
Just like ireland and the the ecb , there’s gonna be no debt write down just stretching it out
Restructuring means still having to pay. .It is basically kicking the can down the road.
Yes and that’s the way it should be. Do you want a something for free and get to keep it at a reduced price? Would you offer any free profit of your house if it continued into profit? Would you give back 200,000 to the tax payer if your house was worth more? No you would not! You would probably re mortgage buy a few buy to let apartments and get a couple of new cars and holidays and live it up like a king and treat your tenants like 2nd class citizens caus they wee not clever enough to buy obnoxiously over priced houses in a little dreary island . But when it’s the other way around its everyone else’s fault and I want my Nama and don’t want all the debt anymore !!! Not saying everyone is like this but plenty are.
Why should someone get to keep an asset they cannot pay for? Makes no sense to someone who can’t even get on the property ladder despite paying 1250/mth rent for last 3 years. Sell up and give the rest of us a chance
Why are there no houses for sale at the moment?Are you confusing asset with a “family home”?
Problem is Sean, the assets are worth a fraction of what they originally where. The majority of borrowers entered contracts in good faith! Banks, builders and estate agents were supposed to be the professionals. The banks were complicit in a lot of bad borrowing yet they get bailed out? and poor auld Joe Soap has to pay the penalty on his own? The government and banking community will continue to divide and conquer unless somebody, everybody stands up and objects!
What else do u want, hard working people who wanted a family, who have found themselves in a difficult situation to be kicked out in the streets, then claim full rent allowance because we’ll have to put them somewhere, then say I don’t know 4-8 years come up and they get the council house which is bought for them by the council €€€. Do u see the dept of your statement. Kicking people out only furthers the problem and quite possibly cost the state much more.
You are right Paul ‘ the excitement of the news got to me
Sorry to be selfish here… But…. What benefits, rewards or incentives will we get for not taking out loans we couldn’t afford just to “get on the property ladder”?
“Peace of mind” unlike the unlucky ones who did.
Fair enough… As long as my taxes doesn’t have to take up the slack!
Sadly you don’t get to decide where your tax goes and never will.
They don’t they take it up for the banks and now will till you and your next 5-6 generations pay for it
While this measure is welcome I wonder how it will work. The banks that have signed up are AIB, BOI,UB, PTSB and KBC. This measure might work if the person needing help has all their liabilities with those banks. In practice I suspect that people have loans (outside of system) as well as a Significant credit card providor MBNA. Additionally, they are saying that the mortgage has to be up to date. Given the way short term creditors Chase their debt they are more likely to be up to date at the expense of the mortgage.
I have a couple of friends who renegotiated with their bank on their mortgages. They made a new deal to pay what they could now that they had been laid off and literally didn’t have the cash any more.
At last a realisation by the banks that people can only pay what they can pay, during a recession
getting unsecured debt paid back was always going to be a damage limitation exercise
Trouble with these debt write-down schemes is that Brendan Kelly-type landlords with 20 plus properties will be in the same queue as folk with only one property.
If a family can’t afford to pay rent, then they have to leave and find something that they can afford. Don’t see why mortgage holders have to be treated like they are special.
That would be fair if there was not a fundamentally dysfunctional and abusive property market. Thankfully I am not a victim but so many people were so badly scammed.
Principal private residences deserve protection. Buy to lets are different.
The IBF has been disingenuous, false and irresponsible in its statements. Do not trust the IBF.
The IBF lavishly entertained the CBI upper echelons and kept the banking regulator sweet. Light touch regulation became collaboration. Wearing the green jersey was the code for back scratching.
Sadly my comment will likely soon be removed. Speaking truth to power is unacceptable in Ireland.
The covered institutions are grossly insolvent if real and actual mortgage impairments were to be fully provisioned. Look at the quarterly reports on mortgage impairments given to the CBI. Unreal.
The IBF is inimical to the public interest.
@ Will
U clearly work for a bank or a debt collection agency or many a solicitor
I never said it dispatched your debt
It’s an old law if I acted upon in a very precise and correct manner
Would restructure your payment to a manageable amount which paid once would have to be paid each and every month till your original debt was dispatched
One missed payment at the new amount wound render your offer null and void
It’s a sticking plaster not a con
To enable people time to educate themselves
About how their bank operates
It’s a last resort situation
But will keep people in their homes with some breathing space
From the wolves that will sell it for a few magic beans and still hang the debt over your head
Mik, the only thing that’s clear here is that you’re definitely not a solicitor, inventing “old laws” and posting misleading rubbish. You would remain bound by the terms of your original credit agreement no matter what you write diagonally.
have your say