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.
Updated 13.58
GREECE TODAY MADE a €459 million loan payment to the IMF after days of uncertainty, but that failed to fully dispel market concerns over its ability to honour its debts.
Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras called for an “honourable compromise” that would reopen Greek access to EU-IMF loans as his finance ministry confirmed the payment had been authorised and the government announced a fresh debt sale to raise cash.
“I am confident that despite the difficulties, all the forces will come to an honourable compromise,” Tsipras said from Moscow during a two-day official visit.
But despite government reassurances and the raising of €1.14 billion from the sale of six-month bonds yesterday, mostly to domestic buyers, Greece remains in a precarious position, shut out from international debt markets and reliant on short-term bonds for borrowing.
Greek banks are dependent on the European Central Bank for financing, but the eurozone’s central bank no longer accepts Greek sovereign bonds as collateral for loans.
Today Tsipras told students at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations his priority was to reach a deal with the EU and keep Greece in the eurozone.
We consider this problem facing us a common European problem and for this reason we seek a joint European solution,” he said.
Since 2010, Athens has received two successive loans from the EU and the IMF totalling €240 billion in exchange for tough austerity measures and sweeping economic reforms.
Tsipras’s government, which took power in January, has engaged in difficult negotiations with European leaders to continue receiving support while easing the austerity requirements in order to boost economic growth.
Experts from the IMF and the European Union are scrutinising a list of economic reforms proposed by Athens in a bid to unlock another €7.2 billion in loans to stave off possible bankruptcy.
Tsipras himself fuelled market fears over Greece’s readiness to pay its debts when he warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel in a letter last month that Athens would not be able to service its debt without more financial help from the European Union.
And in a move that risks further irritating European neighbours, Tsipras has made no secret of seeking closer ties to Russia at a time when Moscow is at loggerheads with the European Union over the conflict in Ukraine.
Closer ties
In his meeting with Putin Wednesday, warm words were exchanged and a vague “joint action plan” on cooperation was agreed upon, with Putin insisting Athens has not asked for financial aid and that a Russian embargo on Greek produce would remain as part of a wider ban on EU agricultural imports.
Greece was particularly hard-hit by the January embargo decision, which was instituted in retaliation for sanctions imposed by the bloc against Moscow, as more than 40% of its exports to Russia were farm products.
In a sign of potential compromise, a proposal to set up joint Russian-Greek companies based in Russia that would provide a loophole in the ban were mooted yesterday by a Greek government source, under which Greek fruits and vegetables would not be considered as exports.
There is a desire from both sides to launch a procedure whereby Russia-based joint companies for Greek exporters of agricultural products,” said the source.
Greece and Russia have talked up the possibility of closer economic ties between the two Christian Orthodox nations ahead of the visit – set to be followed by another trip to Moscow for Tsipras for WWII victory anniversary commemorations in May.
Also prominent among the issues on the agenda was gas and energy cooperation, with Putin and Tsipras mentioning the possibility of Greek involvement in Moscow’s new Turkish Stream pipeline project.
Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis said Tuesday Greece had a “national interest” and was “strongly interested” in extending the planned Turkish-Russian pipeline to its territory.
‘Baby steps’
Back in Brussels, eurozone experts were due to begin the second day of a working meeting on Greece’s reform demands submitted at the end of March.
The discussions were only making “small steps”, even “baby steps”, a source close to the negotiations said.
And the Eurocrats are far from Tsipras’s only problem: a demonstration organised by civil servants’ union Adedy will be held in opposition to the IMF payment, the completion of which is seen as kowtowing to debtors at the expense of workers.
The demonstrators’ call? That Greece’s debt to be wiped out immediately, and in full.
First published 9.18am
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Nothing is stopping him from handing over the 40 grand to charity now.
At least we get to see what 40k worth of hair plugs look like.
Better than the €40 he spent on his current ones!
Crap, is he going to bring us to court now?
I can confirm I did not make these statements and am not a Hairplugaphobe
Call his bluff. Let if go to court!!! Lets see how much support he gets from the public the little rat
free speech and lawyers dont gel, its about money , further is that word in the dictionary and what dose it mean.
Damn I just realised I called him a rat. Send me a DM on twitter John and ill give you my solicitors details you RAT!!
Am I right in my reading of this that Brophy has outlined what both Waters and the clients of the Iona Institute wanted. Does this mean he is representing those clients as well as Waters. If he is, that fact alone is interesting….
Yeses!
Maybe he has handed it over to charity, if he was going to give the first five grand to charity it shows a generous nature and a responsibility to taxpayers money. RTE can easily make it up from cutting vast salaries to celebrities and their perks and expenses. They will have to be careful about defamation in future as they could have been caught for millions.
Oh I suppose you have friends who have hairplugs Brian:-) that’s ok then you’re obviously not a hairplugopgobe
Hairplugophobe
I agree, however Iona would have sidestepped and allowed Waters to go all the way alone with the case. Waters would turn up in court in his unkempt and scruffy as usual and claimed inability to pay when he lost, leaving the taxpayer to carry the costs. RTE have been down this road too many times before with these self appointed celebrity numpties.
John What’s more Interesting waters gets to tell RTE where They are Going Wrong and then Expects To Dictate RTEs Apology To Suit Everyone Else Very Strange Indeed.
Never Had Any Time For Waters Since john Bowman had his show on RTE of a Monday night the topic was a murder In cork anyway waters made a b^*+#+ of himself now sue city sue ,
obama and WIFE were greeted by michael d and his WIFE last time they visited
the gay people are wasting their breath
A commentator who is unhappy about other peoples commentary?
Absolutely shameless!!!
Exactly. This is the man who wrote that gay marriage is an attempt to make a mockery of “traditional” marriage. If that’s not a homophobic statement what does he believe it to be?
we need sensitive not married gays! heres the proof
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2UdeIlrAcw
Exactly. If he expects his freedom of speech he has to expect a challenge. If he can’t take the challenge then perhaps he should take his lily liver and retire into obscurity.
that tv show ‘modern family’ shows gay marriage and people laugh at it
is that homophobic ?
Two things:
1. John Waters is a clown
2. RTE are a bigger bunch of clowns
3. The clowns are suing for defamation by association.
Careful now
john waters is great! you hate your country
@Stephen
John Waters suffers from megalomania and is a hypocrite of the highest order!
Matthias – I hope you have a good lawyer – megalomaniac? Leave your phone turned off tonight! I don’t know what’s would be worse, paying him €40k or having to listen to him for 45 minutes on the phone!!
He was being defamed and he stood up for himself but he done it for the greater good of the discussion. There has been a lot of name calling/ bullying going on already in this debate and maybe this will sort some of that out and make way for the really issues be that what they may. I don’t really know what the pro same sex are afraid off.
Right Niall, and he hasn’t said things that simple minded folk who fall for fallacious rhetoric would have taken to mean that homosexuality was a danger to the fabric of society?
Things that violent homophobes would have seen as justification to attack gay people?
Right..
eye love my cu** tree
Three things:
1.John Waters is entitled to his opinion whether you like it or not
2.you are entitled to yours
3.obama is hetero and Michael D is hetero
as for RTE who are soooo fair and open minded having these ”debates”
please remember the following ,,
ryan tubridy is hetero
brendan o’connor is hetero
pat kenny is hetero
gay byrne is hetero
clare byrne is hetero
miriam is hetero
You are confused I think
“I want an apology and a retraction. Nothing else”
“Let’s talk about it. How about we bring you on the show, give you 40 minutes or so on prime time television to correct the misconceptions about you?”
“No, now I want €15,000 for my favourite Catholic charity and an apology that says John Waters is definitely not a homophobe and is a really good writer with lovely hair.”
“Er, how about we give €5,000 to your charity and a normal apology?”
“No. Now I’m going to sue you.”
“Yikes, here’s €40,000. Now will you go away?”
“Absolutely, Hawaii here I come.”
That seems an accurate summary, lovely hair bit aside. Could probably have done without having a pop at the SVP, they seem a decent lot.
No matter which way you look at it though, the one thing everybody can agree on is that RTE made a hames of it.
Spot on Derek.
Brilliant. Cheers for the laugh, Derek.
do you want to have sex and get pregnant /have kids ?
do you want to have unproductive pointless sex instead ?
do you want to go on TV and lie about people ?
do you want to play the victim after YOU went on tv and made a show of yourself ?
do you want to take some time and maybe decide if you are male or female ?
He got 40 grand for doing noting. He has no right to complain about anything
A drag Queen slanders someone and the victim gets slaughtered by everyone. Seems about right. What a nasty little country this is.
It’s only slander if it’s not true, Tom.
Anonymous troll alert!!
That’s the problem in Ireland. If you tell the truth on a forum, you’re a troll. Irish people hate the truth. Easier then to attack the person telling it. And my name is Tom Doyle. Just don’t want my picture up.
How you pronounce “Tom Doyle”?
If you can’t pronounce it, you really shouldn’t be on here. Do you have trouble reading the stories?
Tom Doyle.
Tweets: 15
First tweet: 23 Hrs ago.
All tweets on the subject of “Pantigate”
Have a good look at yourself in the mirror, Tom.
Sorry, that’s “Tom”
Tom, as Eimear has already said “It’s only slander if it’s not true.”
Had the so-called victims not demanded their payouts, had RTE not folded so easily and actually tested their claims in court, then Mr O’Neill would not have been invited to speak so eloquently on the stage of the Abbey about being an actual victim of homophobia and the video wouldn’t have gone viral and I, along with another 350,000 people around the world, wouldn’t have seen it and wouldn’t have found out about the crassness of the likes of John Waters or the Iona Institute or Breda O’Brien or the dignified articulate strength of Mr O’Neill. Thank God for victims.
Yes nasty country were the likes of Waters and Iona get to hide behind the “sure I was giving my personal opinion not stating fact” defense when called on some of the bullshit they’ve publicly stated but when the tables are turned out come the lawyers. There is a very simple solution and that was the right to reply that was offered, they turned that down so tough to them (lets ignore Waters position at the time on the broadcast commission that ok’d him getting 40K, conflict of interest much?) .
They are use to bullying people left right and center, we’ve seen it over the abortion issue and now the gay marriage issue and it must be such a shock to them that someone has fallen said you know what no I’m not going to roll over. They thought they’d wave their lawyers at the issue, get some cash and it would be forgotten quickly but boy did they not bank on Panti. The footage from Panti’s interview is all over the net, easy to find transcripts of what was said so there’s no were for Waters and Iona to hide, it’s all out in the public view and if they don’t like well tough the country has changed and we are not going to bow down to trumped up little shits like them anymore.
yeah Tom you told the truth alright – quote “If being a racist homophobe means this country is a better place then call me that” nice guy
John waters et al were slandered by this “man”. A payout was given by Rte to avoid it going to court where the payout Would’ve been greater. Why attack the victim here? If John waters had slurred panti, would there be people on here rushing to congratulate him? I think not.
Your first two sentences are factually wrong.
Also, by the admission of the head of RTE, the situation was far from clear.
John Waters et al MAY HAVE BEEN slandered by this man. A payout was given to RTE to avoid it going to court where the payout MAY have been greater.
Tom, Rory O’Neill in women’s clothing is still more of a man than most people.
“man” speaks volumes about you.
Well said Brian.
Really john waters would be well advised to just keep his trap shut lest he manage to put any more feet in there.
He had no right, as a member of the BAI to make that compliant without a legal judgement against Mr O Neill first, and he knows it. Hence why he “resigned”.
And ironically, I seem to remember that Brendan O’Connor DEFENDED John Waters’ reputation at the time of the original broadcast. Which has been very conveniently forgotten about by John Waters and his legal “team”.
sis bonjela…your not even funny..get a life
@Tom Doyle
you might notice from the 151 thumbs down that you’ve got your facts all wrong…
There are a number of Irish newspaper columnists who have been defaming, insulting and offending gay people for decades now in their spiteful, insidious opinion columns… Panti (Rory) got sick of it and he called them out on it… simple as that…
No gay person should have to put with homophobia in any shape or form…
Like all abuse it ranges from subtle to the extreme…
But in many ways the subtle homophobia in opinion pieces can be more damaging because people read it and it gets into their psyches…
@Stephen. I have a life, thanks.
I quoted John Waters. I wasn’t trying to be funny. When I am being funny, I get paid for it!
He’s more of a man than waters ! Oops is that slander ?
Nope.
Slander is spoken, not written… ;-)
But does he want to be a man? If not there’s not much point of him being more man than most.
@ Frank Doyle if anything columnists and the media are promoting gay rights over regular folk. Not fair to say they’ve been gay bashing.
Tom,
“But does he want to be a man? If not there’s not much point of him being more man than most.”
I suggest you teach yourself the difference between a drag performer (like Panti/Rory) and a trans* person.
Yep. Because when gay people get married, their marriages will be super awesome, rather than, you know, the same?
Tom, are you married? And if so, why are you so insecure that your own marriage will be less awesome than these superior gay marriage rights?
“Promoting gay rights over regular folk”
What does that even mean? Are you suggesting giving equal rights to people in same sex relationships will somehow diminish the rights of “regular folk”?
Is that like how when women got the vote men had to stop owning property? Or when black people could sit anywhere they liked on the bus and white people were forbidden from driving cars? I mean that is how it works after all. There’s a finite amount of rights to go round and it’s every cis straight white dude for himself!
(I’m guessing by “regular folk” you mean straight people which includes John Waters who I’d hardly call “regular”)
Regular folk? You don’t consider gay people regular folk?
Changing a name from what? Gay people veer from the regular. I have nothing against gay people but suggesting it is normal is wrong. It is not as genetic as the colour of one’s skin or a choice thing like religion. But it is not regular.
And comparing this to slavery or women’s rights is wrong. Slavery was wrong. Women even having to protest to get the vote was wrong. Of course they were wrong. The gay cause is not the same. Past discriminations based on sex, colour or religion don’t apply to this.
@Tom Doyle…
“Gay rights over regular folk”? …
Do you realize how awful that sounds?
gay people are regular folk…
ffs…
them? Them is us, friends, family members, that guy you passed on the street today ie part of OUR society, citizens of this country and as such should be treated the same as all other citizens.
Your obsession with separating gay people away from “regular folk” is frankly sicking….I’m not gay but certainly don’t put myself in the regular folk box especially if it means having to be counted the same as the likes of you. You claim it’s not the same as discriminating on someone based on race or gender as you don’t think being gay is the same as in your view it’s a choice not something someone is born as but then you say it’s not the same as discriminating against someone based on their religions which is a choice….so gay people aren’t born gay nor do they choose to be gay so what is it in your view…..evil fairies perhaps? Seriously feck off and take your bigotry with you.
I think sickening is the word you’re looking for not sicking.
All you can attack is my bad spelling and grammar….says a lot about your ability to defend your bigoted views doesn’t it? do dyslexic folk fall into the “regular folk” box or the “them” box Is them only made up of gay people or are there others in there? Seriously what exactly is the criteria for regular folk?
@Tom
Are you not exhausted holding in all that bile and venom in your gut?….
You are strangely obsessed with gay people…
might want to have a think about that…
Oh that’s deep Frank. Bit childish though. If i were gay, I’d not be in here fighting the good fight. I’m not hypocritical. I’m “obsessed” with rights for everyone. Not just a select few who really have the same rights as everyone else as it stands. Let them try living somewhere like Uganda where homosexuality is illegal. They’d appreciate this place then. Let panti do a gig over there.
so because people have it worse in other countries sure we should just be grateful and shut up? Women have it far worse in India so no woman in Ireland should ever report a rape or sexual assault again cus sure it could be worse they could be in India.
The situation in Uganda is prime example of a first world country interfering in another country. Uganda had little to no issues with gay people until the american Scott Lively and his like arrived and started preaching to the easily lead and convinced some key politicians that “the evil gays were coming” Lively is being brought up on charges against human rights because of his actions in Uganda. Lively has also had a huge influence in Russia.
In order to improve the lives of people around the world we should be an example to them not imposing our views on them. I am an Irish citizen therefore I will stand up to bigotry in my country as I don’t believe your views are held by the majority Tom, this country is at it’s core a good one and those trying to make it rotten should be called out.
I think this video shows it best. What gays are viewed like in Uganda. Too harsh? You make up your own mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjnrLt3VuSM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
@Tom Doyle…
You sound like a real nice guy Tom..
Are you hitting on me?
Ok Tom, no way are you getting away with calling homosexuality ‘a sickness of sorts’ without clear PROOF. Go for it, the stage is yours
If proof is in capitals does that mean there’s a huge urgency for it?
It does indeed. You make a bold claim, you back it up. Can you back that up with peer reviewed evidence? Or is this just your blinkered opinion?
Think about it like this ailbhe. If everyone on earth were gay, in one hundred years all human life would be gone if things were allowed to proceed naturally. When people are straight, life goes on. Proof enough.
If everybody were straight/fertile, the earth would be so over-populated that it would become entirely unsustainable. No proof just aneqdotal waffle opinion,try again
Yeah and if everyone on earth had cystic fibrosis the whole race would be gone then too. That doesn’t mean CF is unnatural or that we should discriminate against people who have it.
I have plenty of gay friends who have children so that argument is a moot point unless you think that only heterosexual people are fertile?
Kickin’ ass Tom! LOLZ
Eh, the arguments here are just insane. My point was that if things were allowed to progress naturally, without any intervention from science, and if the entire population were gay, then reproduction could not occur. If your gay friends have children, it’s obviously not a child with these two people as biological parents. You have gay friends where either none of them has a biological link to the child or one of them. Not real parents. And two daddies or two mummies. What an abomination.
Ha ha! Have a drink Tom! It’s Friday night, don’t let thoughts of the Gay Apocalypse ruin another weekend for you mate. We’ll all be dead soon, relax and enjoy the ride while it lasts
As yet you have failed to offer any proof of homosexuality being ‘a sickness of sorts’.
So if same sex parents are an abomination, then what are heterosexual parents where one parent has abandoned the other upon finding out about the pregnancy?
What would you call heterosexual parents where one beats the other and the children?
What would you call heterosexual parents where neither parent wanted the child, it is just a product of a night fuelled with copious amounts of alcohol?
What would you call heterosexual parents where the child is raised by drug addicts?
What would you call heterosexual parents where the child is born with alcohol dependency?
If two parents of the same gender, who love and provide for their child are an abomination, surely the above listed parents are much much worse???
How is it any different to discrimination based upon sex or skin colour?
I would suggest you go and take a look at the equality act – because that seems to put discrimination against homosexuals on a par with racism and sexism..
After all – it’s still discrimination..
Bloody hell Tom, 10 minutes on Google would address your concerns about the ‘sickness’ of homosexuality as it relates to reproduction. A basic grasp of evolutionary biology would show you that the success of a species doesn’t rest soley with those specific members that reproduce. At the most basic level non-reproducing individuals have an evolutionary stake in the portion of their genes that reside in their siblings and cousins. Gay people contribute to human society and the success of the species. For just one famous example look at Alan Turing, a gay man who literally saved the world from unimaginable evil, and then imagine the more modest examples that take place every day.
There’s a reason why Tom Doyle’s account is only one day old – he is also “Phill Ewinn” over on Boards.ie – where he’s been banned by the moderators for extensively trolling on this topic. Energy spent rationalising with him is energy spent wasted. Don’t even bother – he lives off of the toxicity of making obscenely prejudicial comments on this about minorities.
@Tom..
You have a classic case of internalized homophobia..
Get out there and get yourself a nice man…
:)
Actually a statement does not have to be untrue to be slanderous.
Ailbhe. It seems that I answered your question. Then you went on a rant about normal parents being alcoholics or so on. That could also apply to homosexual “parents”.
You’re choosing to ignore my sound argument that there would be no natural reproduction without straight people. Simple fact. The disgusting tarring of normal parents that you’ve done there says a lot for your character. Disappointing that someone would sink to that level.
Tom my question was to offer proof that homosexuality is ‘a sickness of sorts’. You failed completely.
You then ‘tarred’ homosexual parents as an ‘abomination’. Again you have failed to explain why.
How is it that I am the one that have sunk to some sort of low level, yet you are the one that thinks you are superior, that without any sort of proof labels a large group of people sick, based solely on your opinion and then calls homosexual parents, people you have never met, an abomination.
You can be sure that parents that teach acceptance, tolerance and love are 100 times better than people like you, people that teach hatred, lies and judges and condems people based on bigoted opinion.
Society has moved on, the majority support tolerance and acceptance. You are the minority now and in sharp decline. It must be awful to be so hate filled.
Anywho, when you get proof, let me know. I’ll make sure to ask next time I see you
Ailbhe you’re missing the point. Again. They’re not real parents. They can’t be. Unless you’ve existed in a parallel universe where same sex couples can naturally reproduce, you’re wrong. And every argument that has been answered by myself correctly has simply led to you going off on a tangent to try to take away from the fact that you’re wrong. It is an abomination. It’s not natural. Simple as!
You’ve answered correctly? I’ve asked for proof, you have not offered any. I’ll ask again, please can you offer proof that homosexuality is ‘a sickness of sorts’?
You do realise that if you were standing in front of a judge and made such bold statements with no backing of any sort, it would be struck from the record as opinion, not fact? Do you understand what proof is, what peer reviewed research is?
With regards to your ‘it’s not natural’ argument, is everything unnatural an abomination?
IVF children? Manufactured drugs that I am sure you have taken? The laptop/phone/device you are using to type on this?
What you call tangents, most people would call debate. You continually make bold statements that are insulting and unfounded. Unless you offer proof, you have n credibility.
Are you seriously bring laptops and phones into the “not natural” argument. As this argument has developed you’ve resorted to more surreal examples, proving you’re badly wrong. I’m talking about natural conception only. Not that difficult to follow.
Some heterosexual couples can conceive naturally and may need assistance. 100 percent of same sex couples can’t conceive naturally. Therefore humans would be extinct in a lifetime if that was the norm. If that’s not an illness I don’t know what is.
If you want a proper argument stick to the scientific facts I’ve brought up, rather than bringing up phones and laptops. Delusional.
So because same sex couples cannot conceive naturally, they are sick? That makes no sense whatsoever! Elderly couples where the woman is post-menpausal cannot conceive, are they sick? Couples that are infertile that cannot conceive naturally are they sick?
A lack of ability to conceive does not indicate illness. Speak to any medical practitioner, your argument is moot. You have still failed to prove your point. And if you continue to insult me, I will continue to report you
Ailbhe, I have not insulted you. I’ve insulted your arguments. Obviously that hurts you. You wouldn’t report me if I was wrong and you felt your argument was winning . And if you cannot conduct a factual argument with me, without throwing in red herrings like laptops, I’m afraid I’m going to have to call a halt to this. I wish you well.
You called me delusional, that is an insult.
Hooker (1957) concluded from her data that homosexuality is not a clinical entity and that homosexuality is not inherently associated with psychopathology.
In a review of published studies comparing homosexual and heterosexual samples on psychological tests, Gonsiorek (1982) found that, although some differences have been observed in test results between homosexuals and heterosexuals, both groups consistently score within the normal range. Gonsiorek concluded that “Homosexuality in and of itself is unrelated to psychological disturbance or maladjustment. Homosexuals as a group are not more psychologically disturbed on account of their homosexuality” (Gonsiorek, 1982, p. 74; see also reviews by Gonsiorek, 1991; Hart, Roback, Tittler, Weitz, Walston & McKee, 1978; Riess, 1980).
Confronted with overwhelming empirical evidence and changing cultural views of homosexuality, psychiatrists and psychologists radically altered their views, beginning in the 1970s.
Tom, here are a small sample of peer reviewed studies that have all found that homosexuality is not an illness, widely accepted by the medical community since the 1970s. You disagree, where is your proof.
Walk away from the argument because you cannot offer proof. No problem buddy, come back when you have some.
I called your argument delusional. But if the cap fits. And it is an illness. Fact.
The medical and psychological community disagrees with you. So no, not fact, simply your opinion.
Please stop using the word fact like you know what it means. Learn the difference between fact and opinion.
Sorry Tom but it’s not an illness and that is a FACT backed up by decades of research. You just putting the word fact in your comments does not change that. Just because it’s something you don’t understand does not make it untrue. Call it delusional all you want, still doesn’t alter the results of all the studies Aibhe has posted information on nor the mountains of other peer review data.
Frankly your hatred for gay people has gone all over the place on this thread and I’m done, you clearly hold a view point that you are unwilling to even consider changing so it’s a waste of time trying to have an intelligent discussion of the issue. You want to believe gay people are ill fine you do that, now go lock yourself in a bunker to be safe from all the evil gays and do us all a favor and don’t come back out.
I’m in a bunker. One constructed of blocks of normality. Cemented together by the love of real people around me. People from natural families. And when I say fact it means it’s a fact. Simple.
No Tom, you stating something as being a fact, does not make it a fact.
The Oxford dictionary: FACT: a thing that is known or proved to be true
The medical community know it not to be true and it is unproven by them and you.
OPINION: a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge
You applying sickness to homosexuality is a view held by you and is unproven. Therefore it is not a FACT it is an OPINION. It’s quite simple
Ailbhe I think it really is time to stop feeding the troll.
But I do love to see him get agitated. Yesterday his response to somebody’s post was ‘Your mom’. It was hilarious!
But then again Ailbhe, am I the one consulting a dictionary for definitions of opinion or fact? I’m clearly not agitated. You’ve gone to the point of typing paragraphs of waffle for every single fact I state. Out of your depth on this I’m afraid. Quote the few pieces of psychology you can remember from the two week sampler course you took in college. It’s all a bit cringe. I deal in science.
The appeal to nature.. Yet another in the long list of fallacies used by those who oppose equality.
Something being “natural” does not infer better. Infertility and conception difficulties are actually quite common amongst heterosexual couples – hence why IVF and many other fertility aids have been developed. If parents adopt – does that make them less parents?
Natural does not infer better. Digoxin is a heart medication made from foxgloves – does this mean foxgloves are better because they’re natural? No.. Because foxgloves are poisonous.
If your reasoning to oppose equality is fallacious then it is irrational and therefore homophobic.
Good day.
I’m not opposing equality. Simply stating the fact that same sex couples can’t naturally have kids. What that has to do with medically produced digitalis is in you head only.
Tom you have called homosexuality a sickness and claim to deal in Science. I have a masters in Science. Do you understand the scientific method? Do you understand a hypothesis? Methodology? Data? Statistical analysis? Conclusion? All of which are necessary to generate a widely accepted theory. You have your opinion, nothing more. You think your opinion is fact, its is not. To be declared a fact it needs to be backed up by large columns of evidence. It is not. I feel sort for you if either a) you don’t understand what facts and opinions are or b) you cannot admit that it is your opinion only. I can respect it if it is your opinion, I would however disagree, however you misrepresent your opinion as fact and therefore garner little respect
No Tom, you’re just making homophobic comments, and do not appear to have any understanding of logic, this would explain your irrational opinions..
If something is a fallacy it means that the logic is inconsistent and therefore wrong. It means that it is an irrational statement.
Someone dealing in science should really know the difference, as logic is required for the scientific method..
Ailbhe. You do not have a masters in science. I don’t know you but I can tell you categorically that it not true. You have an arts degree maybe. You took two weeks of psychology maybe. You maybe did a science subject for leaving cert. The number of question marks does not show a scientific mind. It shows the mind of someone whose job has nothing whatsoever to do with science. Civil service? Florist?
Wow, and now you’re accusing a commenter of lying because you can’t counter her argument..
Argumentum ad hominem.. More fallacious twaddle.. It would be funny if it wasn’t so tragic..
Please don’t feed the troll (Tom Doyle). As I said above, he’s quite obsessed with this issue and has already been banned on Boards.ie – and only argues with those that he gets a reaction from. He selective ignores all other remarks.
He’s probably a reasonably smart wo/man, but sadly for him just not smart *enough* to figure out how to engage in a coherent “debate”.
The only silver lining to come from his trolling is that he nakedly exposes irrational prejudice for all sides to see and in doing so achieves more for the pro-equality movement than he does for his own “side”. But he’s not smart enough to figure that one out either (even though the masses of thumbs are a VERY clear indicator!)
Shanty, because my argument is solid it’s getting to you. I’ve given facts in a calm manner. I’ve refused to react to the bile that you and the purported science graduate have spouted. I don’t wish to continue ad nauseum (see that’s Latin too, I like the pretending to be intelligent thing you did) because it’s clear you’re not getting the point. Deal with the psychological theories and opinions. I’ll debate with someone who speaks in categorical facts. People who bring up laptops and medication when I discuss natural reproduction clearly don’t get the discussion. But that’s ok. We move on.
No. Your argument is not solid. It is based in fallacy.
“fallacy
Pronunciation: /ˈfaləsi /
NOUN (PLURAL FALLACIES)
1a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound arguments:”
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/fallacy
I have pointed out the fallacies that you have committed, therefore I have pointed out the errors in your reasoning. I wasn’t using Latin to sound smart, I was pointing out that you were using an ad hominem argument, if you don’t understand what that means I will refer you to the comments policy rules here at the journal – play the ball and not the man. Because you were unable to refute what Ailbhe said, you decided to make the argument about her. This is argumentum ad hominem, or “argument to the man”.
The appeal to nature as I pointed out above is also a logical fallacy..
Have you any arguments that are NOT based in fallacy?
And it’s Shanti with an I, a “shanty” is something else entirely.. It’s really not that hard to spell..
I prefer spelled it like that. Sounds better anyway and more true to life.
Lol, what a reasoned, intelligent and mature contribution to the debate.. Fancy calling me a poo poo head and sticking your tongue out too?
No.
Tom, I have a masters by research in Rehabilitative Sciences. The title of my thesis was ‘Hip rotation – a comparison of normative values for multi-directional and sagittal plane sports and their relationship to femoral anteversion.
I tested a cohort of sports participants, using three sports, soccer, hurling and running, 24 subjects per groups. I compared hip rotation (internal and external) in the seated and prone lying positions and I also conducted the TPAT or Trochanteric Promenance Angle Test (this is non-invasive test of femoral anteversion, developed by Ruwe et al). I compared results between in sport but I also compare soccer and hurling together -v- running as running is a sagittal plane sport and the previous two are multi-directional (hip movement is forward and backwards or flexion- extension in running, there is a large contribution to rotation and abduction in the field sports). My finding were that hip restriction was observed in the multi-directional group and specifically in the soccer group.
In my opinion it was as a result of what I think is a capsular tightening of the hip joint capsule but while my finding support this, they do not rule in or rule out any specific structures.
Need any more information Tom or shall I outline my methodology fully for you? (By the way it was awarded in October and I graduated, in absentia unfortunately, in Novemeber
Nothing stopping him donating the 40k to the SVP now though is there?!
A spade does not have to accept it is a spade before it can be called a spade. The public can judge when a spade is a spade and John Waters is most definitely a spade whether he accepts it or not!
How I think JW is looking at the moment:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-b0CLD1bmZRM/ULVDiYntQJI/AAAAAAAADgo/wmCK4mzRNZM/s1600/Woody-Harrelson.jpg
Lol probably
He is definitely some sort of tool. He can nominate what sort himself.
@ Sean Gallagher
his latest movie ‘out of the furnace’
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FMZ0dYlocY
now substitute the word everybody for ‘gay people’
ha ha ha
Once a wa**er always a wa**er! Anyone who writes a book called “An intelligent persons guide to modern Ireland” has serious superiority issues. The Dunning-Kruger effect is probably more apt for this Castlerea boy
“The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.”
Never heard of it before – love the second sentence.
Thanks for that. That is Brilliant.
That’s brilliant. Would apply to yer man beside David F*ck**g Quinn of Prime Time last night too.
And many many more Billy :)
He’s not alone in this I reckon
Would that happen to describe almost the entire Dail chamber?!
Aww c@ap , I think I have that Kruger thing
nialls
waters was despised on the saturday night show
because he told the truth
he said
we have to wake up,, we can’t blame FF for every single thing forever
he was right then
and he is right now as well
He was represented in previous defamation cases by the same solicitor . So this is a regular thing ? He’s in the public eye and provides regular commentary and opinion on these issues . He should be prepared for and accept rebuttal . If he felt so strongly about the accusation why didn’t he use his column to reply ?
RTE could do a slideshow of the defamed with their arm around different members of the Gay Community… and promote Gay icons on the slideshow like Elton John, Bert and Ernie from Sesame Street etc etc. The Gays: A great bunch of lads – with an end subliminal credit: Definitely NOT a homophobe… (underline the ‘not’).
On they reckon they shouldn’t have to defend what they say – just that no one should be permitted to challenge their superior opinions..
In reality – perhaps they’ve realised that they can’t defend what they have said. I would certainly hope so, that sort if discrimination based upon sexuality is illegal under the equality act 2004..
He sued the Irish Times (who he writes for as a contractor, not employee) a number if years ago after being called out as a misogynist for writing a misogynistic article. In that case he was awarded €200k, not sure if that was a settlement or a court award. He’s pursued at least 1 other case of defamation and got a settlement.
The problem is the defamation law system, should be decided by a judge, not a jury of people who have nothing better to do than sit on a jury, which is exceptionally easy to get out of.
Actually, Colm, I disagree with that. I think the average person, hearing some of the statements he’s made (gay people hate marriage?) would not have given him anywhere NEAR what RTE gave him to shut up and go away.
The reasoning to keep it as a jury system when most civil trials went to bench trials was the idea that they were a representative of the man of the street. And the man on the street thinks he’s a homophobe.
I completely agree with you Nick, the point i’m making is that the law being in Iona/Waters side isn’t what made RTE settle, it’s that historically jury’s tend to side with the plaintiff in defamation cases, and Waters’ lawyer has a history of convincing jury’s he was defamed when it’s clear to most people that he isn’t. My personal feeling is that that’s down to the quality if jurors, that they aren’t a jury of peers, I admit I may be wrong, but I know I wouldn’t take a week off work to do it.
The gas thing is… I think Waters would make a great gay…. And probably be (even) more successful than he has been in heterosexual relationships. See the importance of the word (even) there!!!
@Colm: you don’t believe that juries do a good job because the people that sit on them are basically wasters, but you’d personally wriggle out of your duty to serve on one? You don’t see a connection there?
@ James Joseph Superior Power
the country is afraid to talk about marriage anymore without being painted as ”homophobes”
Who cares what Waters and his poxy legal team have to say? The best thing about all of this is that him and that shower at Iona have unwittingly brought the issue of gay rights in Ireland to a level never seen before.
When people get their knickers in such a twist over something as simple as gay couples wanting to marry each other you have to wonder what their real agenda is. Otherwise why make such a song and dance over it?
Ultimately the anti SSM brigade have made a massive PR blunder and have actually made their ’cause’ even more laughable than it already was.
Its what is known as the Barbara Striesand Effect. A minor little comment seen by a small number of people which probably would have been forgotten by the time they went to bed, now has world wide status and dominates a huge chunk of public discourse.
Its a total own goal for Waters and the Iona institute.
Spot on – this is probably the best thing that could have happened for the cause of marriage equality in Ireland.
You saw this article too then, yes?
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/02/05/stupid-irish-homophobes-and-their-big-homophobic-fail
@ Briny Boy
that man/woman/whatever the fu** he/ she/ it is panti has brought irish hypocrisy to a level never seen before
we all smile and sing the equality tune (especially on tv and radio)
but give us a referendum and mark my words
this country will show their true colours
has a gay person ever been elected president ? NO
has a gay person ever hosted the late late ? NO
if it walks like a duck……
And all the while his client conflicted by being on the board that regulates RTÉ. Given what his client is quoted as saying in last Sunday’s Indo about RTÉ, he should years ago have resigned that position based on his inability to discharge his statutory functions in relation to RTÉ. This after-the-fact explanation is ridiculous and will do him no favours whatsoever.
Do you mean the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland (BAI)? Because I for one am sick to the teeth of a tiny fanatical religious minority trying in this country pushing themselves onto our national media by any means they can.
The very same BAI website makes illuminating reading – it seems to me you that a very high percentage of official complaints are made by conservative Catholic individuals – along the lines of in this news item your reporter gave a nano-second more time to a speaker of the opposing view to ours!!! This is actually a bit of a campaign it seems to me… might it not make broadcasters more likely to give unrepresentative tiny bodies like the Iona more air time and influence than they deserve? Worrying…
http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183
Whatever the reason, we have to ask ourselves why our national broadcaster gives such access to air time to one small extremist organisation who represent nobody, have no remit, and are not even a real institute… ditto our broadsheet newspapers…
Call his bluff. And Iona. They should go to court on principle at this stage. Plenty of evidence in print and radio to make a strong case I’d imagine.
It will probably end up being argued out in court. Rory O’Neill was showered with similar legal missives, and is not caving without even bothering with a defense, like RTE.
All too often in this country it’s left to individuals to force change and to pursue justice through the courts, with the government and/or large public bodies either failing in their duty to do so or actively in opposition to rights being vindicated.
(gay or straight) people going on television and lying about people (gay or straight) is wrong
forget all the polite PC crap and face facts
defamation of character is wrong
What was wrong with accepting RTEs offer to reply and prove he’s not homophobic. If basing defamation action on his stance that he’s not, he should be able to prove he’s not. Obviously the proof speaks or itself.
other than saying I’m not homophobic, how can a person prove there not homophobic?
Why would someone have to prove the alternative to libel and slander / defamation? The burden of proof is on the accuser, and the law is clear.
Everyone has the right to their good name, and protection against slander and libel.
Or do you believe that slander and libellous statements should be allowed and the civilised rules of society be suspended?
Crazy
Well, he could explain exactly why claiming that equal marriage is “deliberate sabotage of the culture and the relishing of the destruction” is not homophobic. Of course, homophobia isn’t a crime, it’s an adjective. The Irish people have had plenty of time to examine his thinkings and come to the opinion that he’s homophobic.
Well, I’ve got good news for you, Hello! No one can be slandered or libelled in Irish law, as those two torts no longer exist.
Forgive me if I don’t take your legal analysis seriously when you haven’t bothered to read the Defamation Act 2009.
Lindy, one way to prove you’re not Homophobic would be to leave the Catholic Church.
Thx Nick,
Your pedantic irrelevant point is noted, if you read the above you will also notice I said defamation.
The substantial point I made remains valid, which you avoided totally.
Do you disagree with defamation and slanderous remarks being made or not?
Feel free to make some yourself against people, but be prepared to defend yourself in court.
Yes they do – they’ve merely ceased to be “so described”. HelloGoogleTracking’s analysis is correct. The onus would be on RTE to prove that the words were true or honest opinion.
I simply pointed out that your legal analysis is quite lacking.
I’ve actually read the Defamation Act 2009 and in my opinion, the comments fall clearly under the defence of honest opinion. Juries are, of course, unpredictable, but based on the opinion of most Irish people I’ve spoken to, I would venture that a jury would be sympathetic to that arguement.
Also, John Waters would have to prove that THIS ruined his reputation. “Nope, no one thought I was homophobic when I claimed that LGBT couples were out to destroy marriage. But when Rory O’Neil called me on it, my livelihood was ruined!”
Didn’t Panti say “we’re all a little homophobic” himself at some point. I didn’t hear him say it but I saw it quoted.
Exactly. And had BO’C not pressed him for names he probably would have made the comment about subtle homophobia without mentioning any names and everyone would have been happy..
Of course – if everyone would be happy with the rest of the interview – why not leave that bit up? Why not just bleep and black box mouths where names were mentioned?
Good article in todays IT by a gay man on how the charge of homophobia is being misused in this debate. I agree with him.
@Nick beard
The burden of proof is one the person making the defamatory statement, read the Act.
You have it arseways
I’d have to disagree with that guy Drew.
1. Marriage has been redefined several times already and just because “this is how it has always been done” is not a logical reason against change. In fact, it’s a logical fallacy.
2. Polygamy is not comparable to marriage equality. Polygamy is a choice, it’s not a sexual orientation that you have no choice over.
Seeking to deny someone equal treatment before the law because of a trait that they have no control over – be that their gender, their race, their sexuality, their ethnicity, age, etc is discrimination. And we have an equality act in place that is supposed to render this form of discrimination illegal.
Really? Please cite which point of the act. Again, you clearly haven’t read it, as the internet article you referenced below is from a pre-2009 perspective, now it’s a bit more complicated with the affadavit thing.
I think what you mean (although, I may be giving you too much credit) is that they don’t require proof of damage in a personal life or actual ruin professionally?
I’d agree the polygamy reference is useless. But his point on homophobia and motive I do agree with in the marriage debate context. I think that’s the essence of the article.
My god, Nick
Seriously?
First I didn’t reference an article
Secondly, someone accused of defamation, has to PROVE their statement is true.
The alleged victim does not have to prove them false.
As I said before. If I felt gay marriage would undermine the position of father’s rights, as yet I haven’t seen any evidence of it, but if it was shown clearly that it would undermine it, I’d reconsider my support and may vote against it. Would it make me homophobic if I did vote no under such circumstances.
Many times during debates raging here I’ve seen many people accused of homophobia. But, as the IT article points out,. it depends on motive IMO.
Odd, so the statement you quoted in quotation marks wasn’t referencing an internet article with the exact same sentencing? What a coincidence.
And while you still have not referenced an aspect of the legislation, having to prove that a statement is true is NOT quite the same thing as having to prove a statement is defamatory. Again, you don’t seem to have a clear understanding.
Drew, adoption and family rights are being dealt with separately, but it’s worth noting that many gay men are fathers. If someone referred to “fathers rights” and ignored those fathers, it would be worth considering whether they somehow thought gay fathers deserved fewer protections.
By not being a dick like Waters…
Well said shanti
When did I say everyone should be allowed be defamed?? How can it be slander when it’s someone’s honest opinion based on facts and statements that the other person has made.
RTE is a public service broadcaster who is not supposed to sensor information that is in the public interest. It’s a matter of public opinion to decide if what john waters says is homophobic. That’s why they offered him a right to reply. John waters is a journalist who makes a living out of putting his opinions in the public arena. How could he have defended the horrific things he has said about the lgbt community as anything other than homophobic? This debate wouldn’t even be happening if there was any doubt in a reasoned mind that what jw says in the media about gay people is unacceptable.
Siobhan, spot on!
@ sexy Siobhan Gallagher
the poof speaks for it itself ? ? ?
how dare you come on a site like this and make those blatantly homophobic comments
Panti will cry him her it self to sleep after he she it reads your comment
sshhaammeeeeeeee ooonnnnnnnn yyyooouuuuuuu !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“My instructions were very clear at that time. John Waters and the Iona Institute clients wanted an apology and a retraction and nothing else,”
This doesn’t match up to what David Quinn said yesterday in the debate.
Dave, the retraction was not to state that their clients were not homophobic, but rather that Rory comes on and actually stops *thinking* that IonaWaters are totally against his way of life. It would be interest into see Water’s wording – it probably included a statement from RTE that their guests will stop ‘being gay’ in the first place.
Well now nobody thinks he’s a homophobe…
In order to prove defamation, you have to prove that you had a good reputation which was then ruined. I’d love seeing John Waters claim that before the Late, Late Show, NO ONE thought he was homophobic.
Sorry, Saturday Night Show.
Or a misogynist :-D
“RTE proposed a right of reply which was like asking my clients to prove they are not homophobic.”
This is telling. Seemingly John Waters is unable to prove he isn’t homophobic. If that is the case, I don’t see how the statements made on the Saturday Night Show could have been defamatory.
As others have pointed out, this also means that Waters contacted the producers of an RTE show, while he was still a board member of the BAI. Surely this construes an abuse of his position? No wonder he had to resign.
Also, if the original offer to give money to a charity came from Waters, why did he change his mind and keep the money for himself? I am sure the St. Vincent de Paul would love that money to help people.
As for RTÉ’s two day internet search-they mustn’t know how to use google properly. I think everyone can find the piece where Waters referred to gay marriage as “satire” and said gay people were jealous of marriage and wanted to destroy it. Sound pretty homophobic to me.
We need to hear from RTÉ though. Someone is lying as these are two contradictory statements.
Rauidhrí – nobody can prove they’re not homophobic.
It’s not that he could not prove he isn’t homophobic, it was because he is quite media shy and doesn’t want the publicity… Oh wait…
There is no requirement to prove innocence in our legal system, people are innocent until proven guilty.
The same goes for libel / slander / defamation. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
At this stage he should have brought it to court and crucified both RTE and the slanderer in question.
Everyone has the protection of the law against attacks of this kind of their good name, and rightfully so…….the fact remains that making statements like that on live TV is reckless, Stupid, and clearly in breach of the law.
All opinions to the contrary must belong to another reality where the rule of law does not exist, disgraceful
“nobody can prove they’re not homophobic.”
Rory was very nuanced about this, and in the Abbey speech – pointing out that we all have a bit of a homophobe in us somewhere. What he accused them of was failing to recognise this and instead campaigning, actively and over a long period, to restrict the rights of others based on their beliefs.
There is no law against being racist for example, but there are laws against abusing or discriminating against people on the basis of race. You can think whatever racist thought you like, even express whatever racist views you like, but you cannot deny people their rights based on those views.
And so it should be for homophobia.
Hello, just out of curiosity, have you copied and pasted that from an Iona bulletin? Because whoever wrote it know nothing about the legal situation – “libel/slander/defamation?”
And I agree he should have brought it to court – but if you think he would have lost, I don’t think you’ve been consulting very many potential jury members…
Once again Nick,
Your point is irrelevant, never even heard of Iona before this story, couldn’t care less about them.
Im just expressing my opinion, based on facts, rationality and common sense.
You can accuse people of being racist, and you will be brought to court for defamation, same goes for any public attack on the good name of anyone with intent to damage their reputation.
If you are against this principle of human rights, then you are worse than those you are trying to attack.
The same rules protect us all
Have a debate, have a robust debate, i have no strong feelings either way. But don’t be stupid and reduce it to slander (a verb) or defamation against people, and be aware that everyone won’t agree with you.
Make sense?
Odd, because you tend to comment often on articles about abortion and LGBT rights – but know nothing about Iona?
The reason it makes no sense is because you’re operating on the assumption that it was defamatory – which hasn’t been proven. It’s neither defamatory if it’s true or if it’s honest opinion and without a trial, of course, the assumption is that it’s not defamatory (until proven otherwise on the balance of probabilities.) The burden of proof would indeed be on Mr “the gays hate marriage” Waters.
Hello: “same goes for any public attack on the good name of anyone with intent to damage their reputation.”
A public attack such as?: “This is really a kind of satire on marriage which is being conducted by the gay lobby. It’s not that they want to get married; they want to destroy the institution of marriage because they’re envious of it” – John Waters.
Rory O’Neill based his comments on a factual definition of homophobia and fit the comments of the people he referred to as homophobic to that definition. Waters just made sweeping generalisations and assumptions without any factual back-up. Rory O’Neill’s comments fulfil the honest opinion defence under Section 20 of the Defamation Act, Waters’ comments fail to fulfil it.
As an opinion columnist, Waters should know that section of the Act inside out. He should both know better than to claim defamation of someone who was expressing an opinion based on fact on an issue of public interest. And he should know better than to make defamatory comments of his own.
Yes the burden is on the accuser, and John Waters and the Iona mob are accusing Rory of slander, a civil offense, meaning the burden is on them to prove, on balance of proibilities, that his statement is false, has hurt their good reputation, and that they had a good reputation to hurt in the first place.
Their biggest problem would be the fact that they have acting in a way that would be consistent with being homophobic and that would be quite a reasonable view to put forward.
Thank you David – that’s exactly what I was going to say..
Mr O Neill has the right to be presumed innocent until PROVEN guilty.
Can the allegedly defamed parties prove that Mr O Neill defamed them?
Here are the facts of defamation, people here seem to misunderstand it:
“Defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement.”
Ok people?
Now a definition of defamation from the 2009 Act:
“A defamatory statement is one which tends to injure a person’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable members of society.”
Now read and learn, then apply to your opinions, balance objectively the facts, then see if your opinion is justified
@Damien Murphy
No that is not defamation, that is a comment made by an individual expressing an opinion on a matter of public interest, whether you agree or not it isn’t defamation.
Personally I disagree, but again this is irrelevant to what defamation is.
Yes, you are correct insofar as it is an opinion on a matter of public interest. But – it does not have basis in fact, which is required under Section 20.2(b)(I) to fulfil the honest opinion defence.
The opinion expressed would certainly tend to (and the word “tend” is of utmost importance here – it does not actually “have” to) injure the reputation of members of the gay lobby, by suggesting to reasonable members of society the false and unsupported assumption that gay people intend to destroy a social institution.
So, I’m sorry, Hello, but it most certainly *is defamation, as per the definition in Section 2 of the Act, and is further undefended by the honest opinion defence in Section 20, since there is no factual basis for the offending assumptions.
@Nick Beard
I am surprised that being someone who claims to have read the Act, that you don’t have any understanding of its most basic definitions and the balance of proof.
Perhaps you read the wrong act, or didn’t comprehend what you read?
I would suggest you read it again and educate yourself.
LGBT issues, abortion, civil partnership, parental rights, children’s rights, injustice, and balances of rights etc are matters of public interest and debate, and similar to others I would have my own views, when they are topical IO will consider them and raise points I think are valid for consideration.
I would be 100% anti-religious, and a secular atheist, and Iona never crossed my radar before this issue, whether you find it surprising or not.
And I might just add that the Act would also require Waters to prove the intention or the desire of the gay lobby to destroy the institution of marriage, which for what should be blindingly obvious reasons, would be virtually impossible to prove.
Section 20.2(b)(i) regarding what counts as “fact” states that those facts supporting the opinion must be “specified in the statement containing the opinion, or referred to in that statement, that were known, or might reasonably be expected to have been known, by the persons to whom the statement
was published,”
This is not the case in the example of Waters’ statements. In the case of Rory O’Neill, he fully and clearly stated the definition of homophobia – in other words he “specified in the statement containing the opinion.” Waters did not.
@Damien
I can follow your logic, but would disagree. I think it would be a weak argument and stand little chance of success in a court.
However the courts are available to anyone who wishes to bring such a case against John Waters, as the Act is there to protect all.
If you wish to bring such a case, you will expose yourself to all the costs involved if you lose, and you would be foolish to do so without good legal advise.
If it was a clear cut as you claim, why is it you think such a case never happened?
So he’s actually arguing that the statement Waters made was “just commenting on a matter of public interest” while Rory O’Neill was not? Sounds like a typical “I agree, so it’s not defamatory” case.
Also, the presumption of being defamatory has changed slightly after the 2009 Act with all these affidavits. You’re quoting from a website describing the pre 2009 situation. ;-) This is why Google isn’t always perfect.
Because, Hello, the moral victory isn’t worth it to most people when the legal costs are factored in. Whether or not it’s defamatory isn’t affected by how big the group is, but the settlement is, and not a lot of people are willing to invest time and money into a court case with minimal returns (due to the fact that Waters’ statements applied to 10% of Ireland.)
My point is on the logic of it, Hello. And I am well aware of the costs and the need for legal advice and so on. That is not the issue here, and you are venturing off on a tangent. The issue, and the purpose of my comments was to illustrate the holes in your own reading of the legislation. You claimed Waters comments were not defamation, and were his valid opinion, but you only did so by missing out key elements in the legislation. Yet you say you mine is the weak argument.
I have no doubt that were I to take an action (though not being a member of Waters’ “gay lobby” I can’t claim to have been personally defamed by his comments) that his lawyers would strongly debate those points. But I am doing no more here than you – looking at the words that were said through the lens of what the legislation says about defamation and honest opinion,
As to why no one has taken an action, I can’t speak for that. Perhaps because we are not all so delicate and sensitive to offence as Mr Waters. My point is not to demand legal action against him but to illustrate the egregious double standards of a man who made outrageously offensive assumptions about a whole group of society with no basis in fact, who then cries foul as soon as someone calls him out on it in a way that they defend with factual definition. It smacks of insincerity and a lack of journalistic integrity. In my opinion.
Nick Beard,
Arseways again.
Defamation can be against an individual or a corporate body. Which do you think applies to waters comments?
I can’t see how…..however repellent and stupid those comments are, I cannot see defamation.
Next….the burden if proof is on the accused to prove the statements true, FACT. Not the alleged victim to prove the statements false FACT.
Finally I did not reference an article, so again what are you talkin about?
More likely your googling of a quote was wrong, unless of course you can read minds?
Hello: defamation can also be against a “class of person”.
Dude, get some cop on.
You said, “Defamation differs from other torts in that a statement will be presumed to be defamatory until proved otherwise. If a defendant wishes to plead justification as a defence, he has to prove the truth of the statement.” That’s in quotes. If it’s not a quote, why did you put in quotes?
Claiming it’s a “fact” does not make it a fact. Reference to the Act in question (as the lovely Damien has done) does indicate it’s a fact. And if you’d READ the act, you’d know it’s a class of people under Article 10.
READ THE ACT. You’re embarrassing yourself.
Oh, Damien, stop correcting him on what the act said… He said, “fact.” That must mean it’s a fact, obvs!
Nick,
Yes it is a quote, but I did not reference the source. If you had been to third level you would understand what a reference is. The article was http://irishbarrister.com/defamation.html and is post 2009 not pre.
You are simply wrong, with wishy washy allusions to affidavits having more weight than legislation.
Finally, defamation against a class, first learn what it is and how to apply it. If you know then express it, because it is not as straightforward as you assume.
I’m trying to bring clarity and common sense here, it seems obvious Waters was defamed and had every right to defend himself.
Anyone arguing against strong defamatory laws has no respect from me
Actually, that article is a citation-less rip off of this one: http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation, which clearly states it’s pre-2009.
Dude, seriously.
” If you had been to third level you would understand what a reference is.” – Wow, that’s a whole lot of class snobbery right there, by the way.
So you were wrong but refuse to acknowledge it.
My references were post 2009, your assumptions were wrong, my information is accurate.
Defamation is wrong morally and legally and by the definition JW was defamed, no matter how much you wish it was not true.
I don’t want to go in circles, but you took your reference from an article which states that it’s pre-2009. You have provided no other references and don’t seem to understand the 2009 Act.
If you insist on claiming you do and backing that up with “fact!” rather than facts, then there’s no point in interacting with you.
What’s wrong with you?
I posted my reference which was post 2009, and not the one you wrongly assumed. How can you not realise that?
The facts I have posted are fixed matters of law, not opinion.
Good luck, I tried to be reasonable with you, but it is apparently futile, as you refuse to be reasonable.
Good luck to you
Your source http://irishbarrister.com/defamation.html is a word for word rip off of this link http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation.
It’s pre-2009. Do some basic fact checking.
Nick
Wow
Even your “pre 2009″ article states it was written in 2009, it also refers all the changes between 2009 and the repealed 1961 acts. Explaining all concepts in detail, including what I said.
It does refer to further amendments, but none materially relevant to any point I made, which all remain accurate.
Are you for real? Swallow your pride and face it, you got it arseways.
Hello: with regard to defamation against a class of people, the issue is that it is harder to bring a case, because Irish law, unlike British law, requires that an individual must be able to show they were specifically defamed as an individual. That is something of a technicality, but since what we are talking about is what defamation is, not who can bring a case, that technicality is not particularly relevant here. What is relevant is that it is still defamation against a class of people according to the Act, and that defamation against a class still applies to Waters’ words.
You continue to maintain that Waters was defamed, yet so far the extent of your argument against my point that Rory O’Neill’s comments fulfil all criteria of the ‘honest opinion’ defence is to say offhand that it is a weak argument, without saying how, and disregarding the fact that you yourself neglected to account for the essential ‘factual’ criterion. Just saying something is a weak argument without illustrating how is not good enough, especially since your own argument must necessarily be weaker since you overlooked an essential element of the legislation that I had taken into account.
That is a good post Damien,
Your understanding of class defamation matches my own, in that for an individual to bring a case they need to have been identified. IE only a person or corporate body claim to be defamed….but a class is possible but complicated. For these reasons your argument that JW defamed or could be prosecuted as such was a weak argument.
I was not referring to the honest opinion defence as a weak argument at all. It is a valid defence if a judge a jury can be convinced. Perhaps it could be successful if brought to court, my opinion is it would be unlikely. And that it was defamation, but I accept it has not been tested in court.
I can respect you having another opinion no problem. I just explained the reasoning behind my thinking in the matter.
I have no axe to grind either against JW / for him. Or against Panti or for him. I just look at it objectively and it looks clear defamation to me, and personal protection against same is robust here. Which I agree with.
Panti’s opinion could have been expressed without resorting to pejorative labelling of JW.
The right to reply is a chance to clear your name in the media and the public arena-his profession that he is so concerned these remarks will effect. This should have been his chance to defend himself from any wrong doings- in the media. Why did it have to come down to legal actions and defamation. He makes a living from his opinions. No one is saying he can’t defend himself legally, but why not clear his in the arena he uses to spout his vile opinions on other humans just trying to have the same rights as everyone else.
Siochana, I would love to hear Waters try to argue against that. He really should have availed of his right of reply but me may have known that he was trapped.
Hello: I get what you’re saying, but let’s break this down real simply.
You maintain that John Waters was clearly defamed. I say otherwise as Rory O’Neill had claim to the honest opinion defence. You also maintained that Jon Waters’ comments on the “gay lobby” and its desire to destroy marriage as an institution was not defamatory as it was his honest opinion.
The honest opinion defence requires three criteria to be fulfilled in order to succeed as a defence against a charge of defamation.
1. It must be clearly recognisable as opinion. John Waters was writing an opinion piece. Rory O’Neill was on a chat show and was explicitly asked his opinion. They both pass this.
2. It must be on a matter of public interest. It’s a human rights issue – you can hardly get more public interest than that. They both pass this.
3. It must have a factual basis – and crucially, whether the factual basis is valid or not is not relevant, only that it can be shown that the person had a factual basis (even if mistaken) to support their opinion. Rory O’Neill has this basis, as he clearly articulated the definition of homophobia in how he applied it. Therefore he fulfils the third criterion for ‘honest opinion.’ John Waters provided no such factual basis for his professed opinion at the point at which he made it and therefore fails the ‘honest opinion’ test.
So I’m confused how you maintain that John Waters comments are ‘honest opinion’ when they do not fulfil the criteria, but Rory O’Neill’s are defamation despite the fact he does fulfil those criteria.
Also to point out that you again claim only a person or corporation can be defamed. We have already seen that this is not the case, that a class of people can also be defamed – it is just that the wording of the legislation makes it harder for a membership that class to sue. It does not follow that thet have not been defamed.
Lastly, for reasons that I have posted repeatedly over the last few days, it is not accurate to say Rory O’Neill’s comments “pejoratively labelled” John Waters, Breda O’Brien or Iona.
Homophobia is not necessarily a slur or a pejorative term, and certainly not when it is used in the context of its explicitly-stated and valid non-figurative definition, which is precisely how it was used by Rory O’Neill.
The disingenuous attempt to rebrand the word as necessarily pejorative is a cynical attempt to remove or discredit it within a debate forum where it is not only perfectly valid but essential and necessary.
Rory O’Neill’s use of the word was not pejorative but factual and perfectly legitimate, supported by his explicit definition of how he was using the word, and applying the expressed statements of those individuals to that definition.
It cannot be legitimate to prevent people from calling homophobic what demonstrably fits the definition of homophobia.
so waters is wrong ?
when 2 men or 2 women get married and boast that they are ”expecting”
that isn’t a mockery of traditional marriage yeah ??
Shame on both of the recipients of compensation in this case.
Both? Try 6.
Waters and O Brien were directly mentioned so while it’s nonsense there’s still some level of excuse for that.
David Quinn got a pay out. As did Patricia Casey and two other Iona “staff”.. None of these 4 people were mentioned, they were paid out solely for their association with this phoney institute..
Waters is a fool of the highest order; however, it sounds like RTE fu€ked up here.
So are we supposed to believe that he said €15,000, RTE said €5,00….then RTE said, ara would ya look, people are being mean to him, give him €40,000. I find that very hard to believe.
Mr Waters, Belongto are in dire need of a donation and they assist LGBT teens suffering from oppression, depression and suicidal ideation amongst other things. €40,000 would go a long way towards helping real victims of homophobia
Ailbhne O’Nolan
is that the same RTE that pay tubridy over 490 k
while obama gets 300 k
“RTE had spent the previous two days conducting an internet trawl in a fruitless attempt to belatedly substantiate the allegation made by Mr O’Neill.”
Their google skills must be very lacking indeed… his ‘gay people want to destroy marriage’ commentary was as homophobic an opposition to equality as I’ve seen.
@ gofreak
you have 80 green thumbs (so far )
i wonder how those 80 people will vote in the inevitable referendum ?
big difference between sites like this and the voting booth
If RTE can’t find a homophobic comment from John Waters after two days on the internet then that goes a long to explaining the poor quality of their journalism. I mean it’s right there in his articles under a bloody by line in the Irish Times archives.
How Prime Time investigates ever finds out anything is beyond me.
Such a sensitive soul poor old John. Pity he doesn’t take other people’s sensitivity into account.
National broadcaster’s “lack of touch” with the public defies belief !
lack of touch is what happens when you get money (licence fee) from people no questions asked
RTE
the paedo church
the government
they all get money from us,, and will continue to do so
Whats the difference between what rory o neill said and what we think of waters? Why isn’t he suing the journal right now? I mean if sinead o connor kicks you out, there must be something defo up with you
Because the Journal doesn’t have the money to pay out? Defamation cases tend to be taken rather strategically against the person with the biggest pockets.
Waters was only looking out for no.1 here, highly suspicious timing of his resignation from the BAI and them changing their Code of Conduct, as Catherine Murphy said in the Dáil yesterday;
‘So why the rush by RTÉ to apologise and pay? Was it because they were aware of that those complaining had deep pockets and the ability to mount a credible legal challenge? If so, you must ask the question: how did those pockets get so filled? The second issue is: one of the people making complaints, one of the complaints that came was from John Waters who was then a board member of RTÉ’s regulating body, the BAI. Is it not a massive conflict of interest and was RTÉ under additional duress. Why did the BAI suddenly change their code of conduct on the 22nd of January, the day, the same day RTÉ agreed the payout? Is that the reason John Waters resigned from the BAI, on the 24th? Or did you, minister, ask him to resign? Given the massive payout and the obvious conflict of interest, minister, do you believe, as I do, that he should return that money to RTÉ?’
@ Dungeon Master
why did RTE apologise and pay ?
read this :)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Defamation+of+character
Gerard: Read this – and pay particular attention to Section 20. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf
20.—(1) It shall be a defence (to be known, and in this section referred to, as the “defence of honest opinion”) to a defamation action for the defendant to prove that, in the case of a statement
consisting of an opinion, the opinion was honestly held.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), an opinion is honestly held, for the purposes of this section, if—
(a) at the time of the publication of the statement, the defendant believed in the truth of the opinion or, where the defendant is not the author of the opinion, believed that the author believed it to be true
(b)… the opinion was based on allegations of fact— (I) specified in the statement containing the
opinion, or (II) referred to in that statement, that were known, or might reasonably be expected to have been known, by the persons to whom the statement was published
and
(c) the opinion related to a matter of public interest.
“This is not a case of John Waters trying to silence the gay lobby or prevent freedom of speech.” …. But it so is.
Yes, he’s not trying to shut them up, he just doesn’t want anyone to hear what they have to say.. Totally different.
Much like how claiming marriage equality is “a satire” or “must take second place to the common good” is totally not trying to present the notion that gay people are unworthy..
Yeah, we believe you John, thousands wouldn’t, but we do ;)
the gay community and the chicken sh** media are trying to silence the traditional marriage supporters
are they not ?
Il never read anything he ever writes again, disgusting greed.
Ironic how Walters, although involved in this homophobic debate, still allows himself to enter the “campest” of all competitions – EUROVISION !
More than once!!!
They didn’t like his offering and I think that’s why he’s a big ole H word. Teh ghey mafia shot down his song.
This gay mafia, are they related to the Swedish House Mafia by any chance?
Ogochukwu is having lols Waters ,youse solicitor said youse deserve more lol youse deserve 40,000 bitch slaps across face ..lol get outta here ..lol youse won serious money , youse nobody ,,get outta here again ..lol
I disagree with insulting anyone in this case, but if they are going to start a game of he said, she said, then they ought to publish the apology that they had requested. Let people judge for ourselves whether it would have been acceptable or not. Also the notion of proving that they are not homophobic, that is as impossible as definitively proving that they are homophobic… kinda redundant. Is homophobia even a crime, this isn’t the same as the paedophile priest case because if that was proved true, the man was a criminal…Homophobes have every right to walk down the street with the rest of us, like them or not.
This is part of the problem. Homophobia is not defined and like racism or Islamophobia is an amorphous concept. Context is important, as it is in determining if something is defamatory or fair comment.
@Sean Totally fair point.
I’d suggest that Rory O’Neill did exactly that in using his own words to define homophobia, provided context.
It was an amorphous concept (and largely still is) but for the purposes of that conversation, he ascribed a very clear definition to that concept.
Is he involved in the eurovision this year? We might see him on the late late show if he is. Maybe Ryan would give him the right to reply
€40,000, that’s enough to send 250 poor women who can’t pay their TV licence to jail.
I wish John Waters & those in the Iona Institute would understand that if gay marriage becomes a reality in this country, Roman Catholics will still follow their church’s teachings and not marry people of the same sex as themselves…..in the same way that Irish Roman Catholics follow their church’s teachings and don’t have sex before marriage or divorce & remarry in a civil ceremony, or use contraception or undergo IVF when they can’t conceive naturally…oh right I see their problem.
I wish they would just let us vote as soon as possible, it’s going to pass and we will have equality at last but a long lead into the referendum is going to allow some horrible, offensive commentary by a minority of bigots which will cause unnecessary pain.
You can almost smell the panic coming from Iona. Finally being called out on years of getting away it.
Report just in on the apology requested by John Waters from RTE:
“In our haste to rip to shreds to fabric of Irish society, we asked Ms Panti to appear on a show that more people have not seen on YouTube since his appearance than on the station before then, we inadvertently allowed Ms Panti to speak her mind. This was a serious mistake on our part.
We realise that as the fountain of all knowledge, Mr Waters views on all matters should be unchallenged and under no circumstances should anything he says or does be construed as anything other than the unquestionable truth. We now realise that Mr Waters represents, in essence, a vessel for the spirits of Pope John XXIII and Eamon deValera, and under no circumstances should he have been referred to in anything other than glowing terms.
Heres some cash….
Heres some more cash….
Love RTE
P.S. You look nice today.
I’m in a conundrom here, my TV licence is up. But if i pay for a renewal, how do i know that the money won’t be going to another right wing religious nutjob institute who threathen to sue for been called out for what they are? Or should i just send my fee to them directly?
You should not pay at all but use it to go to a nice Ska festival ;-)
I think it’s fair to say that this very public spat with RTÉ does more to tarnish Mr Waters’ shaky reputation than anything said during the original broadcast.
Seems clear to me that this man was never fit to be appointed to the Broadcasting Authority in the first place – and to be paid a wage by the taxpayer for the past 5 years. Just what kind of vetting as to his suitability did the Fianna Fáil administration actually do?
Never realised being a homophobie could get you so much money and attention. I might take a leaf from John’s book and start denying the gays rights myself, If it’ll get me 40 grand.
Jesus that’s a good point. If you call me a homophobe four times and I sue you for each one that’s the mortgage paid off.
Whatev…we know what we know Waters. No amount of spin of column space in the IT will change that. After enduring years of his rants its about time he understood that he is not the god of the heterosexual righteous
I thought defamation was only defamation when the opinion was untrue?…
If we could all sue people every time we felt a bit offended by their opinion of us, we’d all be millionaires…
As gay people, we have to endure defamation and insults all our lives, but the difference is- it’s not imaginary … it’s very real…
Keep your hair on John Waters
On the funny side..
John Waters has entered loads of songs into the Eurovision song contest over the years- does he not realize that the Eurovision song contest is the gayest event in the world? and I can say that because i’m gay…
This is more about opposing social change and stifling debate by the Catholic right wing in this country. In this iinstance both of these recipients of our money are part of this. Since their Alma Mater the R.C church has lost its power to dictate every aspects of our lives their proponents have had to resort to other tactics like trying to restrict our freedom of speech and bring us back to the stone ages. My feelings about J.w. and his tactics are YukYuk Yuk. Please Santy can I be interviewed on the telly -so I can sue– ’cause i have been a good girl. Money for old rope.
His warning before the Children’s Rights referendum that “social workers will sneak into hospitals in the dead of night to snatch children from their mothers” demonstrated perfectly the type of “commentator” he is.
Plus he has silly hair.
“an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people” Oxford Dictionery. The person who made the accusation was very wrong to make this charge. There has been terrible discrimination and misery as a result of society’s past and present attitudes to homosexuality but personal attacks have no place in the course of debate especially if they are untrue. This has continued here. John Waters is a man of high intellect who has contributed greatly to national discourse on many topics. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to take a long look in the mirror. The same applies to the various people associated with the Iona Institute.
You don’t have to accept their views but you must respect the people.
So feeling the need to accuse gay people of jealousy of the majority, feeling it is their duty to campaign AGAINST equal rights for gay people when they say it will destroy society, it is against the greater good and gay people cannot be good parents isn’t both irrational and an aversion. I think you will find the majority of people will disagree with you
Liam, how could someone who is sooooooo wrong so often be an intellectual?
@Liam
We don’t have to a accept their views or respect them as individuals..
Respect is something which has to be earned..
In my opinion organizations and individuals who actively campaign to keep others unequal, inferior or less deserving of human rights, do not deserve my respect…
If they were campaigning against interracial marriage – would that be considered racist?
You bet it would.
Would you have to respect their opinions then?
I disagree with your assessment and description of John Waters. I have looked up the Iona Institute website and viewed the names of the persons listed as being associated with it, and I see no-one of any particular merit.
Waters looks like Catweasel and belongs to that era a sad bigoted headcase.
It’s maybe a niggle, but when an article is published and later updated, it would be really useful to point out what the update was, within the article if appropriate or at the end of it otherwise. The Journal does this quite a lot – updates the article and nobody has a clue what changed.
I’ve noticed this too. I wonder if something is actually updated or do they just want to bring it back to the top of the list to get more views?
Agreed – clarification on what was changed would be nice.
What a despicable turd Mr Waters is. Fork over your ill gotten gains now, to some suitable charity.
I had never heard of Rory o Neill or Panti until his appearance on the Saturday Night Show. Now he is never out of the News. Looks like he did alright out of his remarks…….
LOL, if he didn’t get sued, it would have quieted down in a week. But thanks to the plaintiffs it didn’t. Cause and effect. Simpls.
John Waters.. Iona…
Yawn…
Maybe it’s just because the journal is an inherently liberal publication and the comments are (rightly so) against Waters/Iona’s actions but if that’s the scale of how people feel then how is an institute like this and also people like this flourishing in Ireland.. Our politicians seem to be the same, old conservatives with and old conservative ethos that no longer applies to the modern day Ireland.. Radical change is needed both socially and politically.. A new wave that accepts all colours and creeds and socially and economically we can become a great country once again..
I’ve heard that Iona are mainly funded by sponsors from across the Atlantic in the US, not here in our own country.
Now why would someone over in the states have a vested interested in promoting this crowd? You’ll have to ask them…
Well, Chris, if you read some articles in newsletter, the support groups like Iona and Life Institute because Ireland is the bastion of conservative family values. Funny how none of the Americans who give money want to live in the bastion of conservative family values, however.
There’s an interesting piece on Bock The Robbers blog on who the Iona Institute are, might be worth a look..
I took a look at their accounts for 2012 – they actually don’t have that much money. More likely that they get airtime way beyond their actual position in Irish society because of who their members are.
@Chris
I heard that too…
I suspect that if they are being funded by American groups, they are likely ultra conservative- right wing Christian groups, many of which see Ireland as the last bastion of Catholicism in Europe…
In many ways Ireland has become the battleground for these Catholic culture wars…
I thought it was a really weak move on RTE’s part. I’m absolutely disgusted with how they’ve handled this. And I’m even more disgusted that my TV licence money is going towards this pay-out and the likes of John Waters and his ilk.
RTE, get with the times and show the marginalised in this society a bit of support for a change. You do not reflect the views of the progressive society you are supposed to be representing.
And while we’re on it Brendan O’Connors’ interview with Pussy Riot was utterly abysmal. What a sad excuse for a programme. I’m sick of having to see this kind of sexist and homophobic shite on my television.
Did John Waters have to provide RTE with proof that he is not a homophobic?
If not why not?
If yes than I am sure they will be happy to publish it.
@Vit..
There is some truth in what you are saying, but the reality is- you cannot desire an equal society for all if are against same-sex marriage.
I do think that this debate is good because it will get some people to question why they are so opposed to same-sex marriage… it might be because of homophobia, it might not…or it might be partly…. but the debate itself will get people to question that in their own minds… I think to be honest, a lot of people will realize how silly their prejudices are if they really think about them… and that has to be a good thing in the long run…
Frank, I think we would need to discuss what is, in our understanding, equality, equal society and how we view it. As I said above, I consider every human being to be a unique, precious, valuable and equal person, whether you are gay, lesbian, hetero, big, skinny, tall, short, catholic, protestant, muslim… We’d also need to discuss what is inequality, discrimination, what it is based on and on what we define it, and if supporting the man-woman view of marriage means inequality and discrimination automatically (I don’t think so). And also, what is, for each of us, the purpose of marriage and its role in the society… I do agree that the debate can be helpful, but I maintain it needs to cool down a bit and step back from throwing labels around, because then emotions take over (understandably) and it’s counterproductive.
@Vit Raiser
You can support a man and woman marriage and not be anti same sex marriage. Same sex marriage does not threaten man and woman marriage. There was a time when protestants could not marry catholics… that was bigotry…
The problem is what you are implying is homophobic because you perceive that same sex marriage is a threat to man and woman marriage.
When you say you are supporting man and woman marriage, and by doing that you are not inherently homophobic, that is true…
But…
When you support man and woman marriage and deny same sex marriage you are denying equality therefore you do not consider every human being to be unique, precious, valuable and equal…
You perceive same sex marriage as inferior and the union as not as worthy, valid or valuable as the marriage of a man and a woman… that is prejudiced…
Just playing the devils advocate here against group think (and I know I will be red thumbed to hell and for the record I support marriage and every other kind of equality for all and have no truck with the arch conservatives in Iona): I say that marriage is something that goes beyond a legal contract, that it is a religious bond that exists for the purpose of procreation, that the State has no role in it and that therefore in my church and my belief system there can be no such thing by definition as marriage between two men or two women but of course if the State wants to regulate the civil contract of permanent cohabitation between people of the same and different sexes that is fine… Dies that make me a homophobe? And if the State says I am and imprisons me or punishes me some other way is that an interference in my right to practice a belief system? Just wondering.
No it doesn’t make you a homophobe. It makes you factually incorrect.
Marriage is, at its base, a civil contract, sometimes performed in a registry office, sometimes performed in a church with a lot of pomp and circumstance. If marriage didn’t afford people additional rights and benefits then you would be correct to a certain degree in your assertion that marriage is a religious bond only. The fact that the state affords additional benefits for being married removes your potential definition.
Marriage Equality doesn’t seek to knock down the door of a church and storm religious marriage, it seeks only to address the base level, the civil, state sponsored, legal component of it (which is the one that most care about I would hazard a guess). Being homophobic isn’t illegal, the state would not imprison you for expressing these views, if however you incite violence (intentionally) through your views, then yes I would say the State would and should imprison you.
Answered (I hope) in the spirit that it was asked. I say “you” because you used yourself as an example, I don’t believe that you would adopt that position though.
Your religious beliefs have nothing to do with the social construct that is marriage and even if you were a religious loon Iona style you should still not have a problem with it as gay people will not or ought not to be members of your church in any event. Iona and other religious loons are just shouting to be heard and to keep their power trip or persecution complex going.
There is of course a far easier answer to this conundrum.
The religious institution is not “marriage”, it is Matrimony.
If you only have the matrimony, then it is not considered a legal marriage, the civil marriage register must be signed in order for the union to have legal recognition – otherwise it is solely Matrimony. Legal in canon law, but not the statutory legal system.
No one is campaigning for equal matrimony. The Churches definition of matrimony is not up for debate as it is theirs and they are welcome to it. The states criteria for who may enter a marriage contract is separate, so those arguing about opposing equality in marriage for religious reasons are merely mistaken about what it is they are discussing.
You can procreate without being married.. Your idea of family is born out of your environment and beliefs.. You can object based on your beliefs but we don’t live in a theocracy so your beliefs will remain that.. Beliefs. State law is state law and whether you agree with it or not you must abide by it.. You’re not a homophobe but just because you believe what you believe doesn’t make it right and most certainly doesn’t give you the right to dictate to others how to feel and believe (this is nothing personal, I am just making a point so no offence is intended) imagine a world were heterosexuals were not given the same rights as homosexuals.. In other words imagine if the shoe was on the other foot.. You wouldn’t want a homosexual telling you what is correct in your eyes just because they believe it so and society had made it so.. Doesn’t make it so!
What you say is fxn homophobic No question But the State should stop pandering to churches and not recognise bullshit religious ceremonies as valid marriage contracts. Did the Catholic church not threaten that it would stop the civil end of marriage if equal marriage was brought in? I say let them and let them funk off and whither.
The state doesn’t recognise matrimony though. This is why it’s separate.
At the end of the ceremony the CIVIL marriage register is produced and the couple sign it. If they didn’t do this, then it would be matrimony only – and have no legal standing whatsoever.
In this sense the church have nothing to fear. Matrimony is entirely theirs, no one wants to change it.
Marriage is a separate issue. Hopefully this will be made abundantly clear as we enter the debates for the upcoming referendum. Sadly there are those who wish to try and insinuate that marriage is a religious institution which is completely untrue.
If John Waters really wants to demonstrate (rather than just say) that he’s NOT a homophobe, he should donate the full 40k to LGBTQ right groups and/or LGBTQ support services/charities.
I used to admire Waters as a journalist but he obviously sees himself as something more than that now. He uses the threat of Ireland’s defamation laws in a country where free speech is already stifled. Shame
IT IS SO UNBELIEVABLY SAD THAT OUR FORMER PRESIDENT MARY MC ALEESE AND DONAL OG CUSACK HAVE SAID NOTHING ABOUT ALL OF THIS UNBELEVABLE TREATMENT OF GAY IRISH MEN AND WOMEN. REALLY SAD FOLKS. RORY O NEILL IS AN IRISH HERO TO ME A FELLOW GAY MAN
The three words “previous defamation actions” pretty much sum up John Waters. If he could take it as well as he dishes it out he’d be a great fella. One standard for John Waters and a different one for everybody else.
I’m wondering , as a Christian would John waters love all men equally ? Or does he love straight men more than gay men ? He certainly seems to have his favourites !
Defamation seems like an income supplement harvester. There are some legit cases, no doubt.
But this, in particular, reminds me of a Turkish market in same holiday town where merchant and buyer just huggle opportunistically. It’s MAD!
And I have the feeling if IONA/JWaters sued O’Neill individually, it would have been a different ball all together,. RTE (= anonymous taxpayers) is a soft target, money guaranteed – or at least the way it appears.
When oh when the public servants who manage our money will look after it as if it were their own….. [sigh]
Rory O’Neill has received legal complaints from all parties. I don’t know to what extent these have developed since.
Scrap the second paragraph then, thanks Chris
third rather :-)
Ok so I might be pure stupid here but can someone explain why rte are paying compensation for something this “Panti” person said? Surely if I walked out and insulted or defamed someone id be at fault? Does he work for rte? Im not belittling it just wondering it seems terribly ridiculous is all.
It is ridiculous. There should have been no payout. It should have went to court.
Possibly because had the presenter not asked for examples, no names would have been mentioned..
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding going around. In my view, there are two distinct groups of people that have formed in this debate. One is the group favouring the LBGT stand on marriage and they feel threatened by being discriminated in the debates on the marriage issue (by what they call homophobes, haters). The other one is the man-woman marriage supporters who feel threatened by being discriminated in the debates on the marriage issue as well (by being called homophobes, haters). That’s why this is so painful, emotional and completely unproductive labeling debate that leads nowhere.
The reality, in my view, is that not everyone who prefers gay marriage is seeing the other position as homophobic or hating, and not everyone who prefers the man-woman view of marriage is a homophobe or a hater. I think the debate has been hijacked.
Nonsense- Maximum liberty possible should be a basis for public policy. Where curns are needed and often they are, the onus is on those justifying a restriction to make their case. That means that the onus is on Waters etc. and they don’t mount very strong arguments- it just sounds prejudiced.
The ‘they’re both two sides of the same coin’ argument just collapses the debate like saying ‘the anti-apartheid struggle was hijacked by those against it’.
**curbs**
Let’s take homosexuality out if the equation for a minute.
Let’s say Iona, Waters et al are arguing against interracial marriage.
Waters has said that black people don’t really want to get married, they’re just envious of white people’s marriages and want to destroy them.
Breda O Brien has argued that equality between the races should take second place to the common good – which is white children raised by white parents.
Iona are focusing on the special place that white marriage holds within our society, and have misrepresented research in order to argue their case against black people being allowed to marry.
Now. What do those opinions sound like?
If these people were writing about and arguing these positions, would they not be labelled as racist? If not, why not?
Discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexuality, race, disability, age or ethnicity is illegal here under the equality act. Yet these people are actively seeking for discrimination on the grounds of sexuality to continue.
If someone labels those views as racist it’s the same as labelling their real, and published views, as homophobic.
You are right
The thing is that from my point of view, the preference of the man-woman view of marriage does not automatically mean justifying a restriction, discrimination or inequality. You probably think it does, but could you consider there could be a room for different explanation? I consider every human being to be a unique, precious and valuable person, whether you are gay, lesbian, hetero, big, skinny, tall, short, catholic, protestant, muslim … However the restriction (discrimination, inequality) argument automatically implies, that I consider a person less valuable and want to deny them some rights – which in my case I don’t think is true. This restriction assumption can be easily misleading and it can destroy this marriage debate. In my view, preferring a man-woman type of marriage can coexist with viewing everyone equal (absence of restriction).
Shanti – I would consider your example to be racist. The marriage issue is different in my view. I am not here to defend Iona or whoever involved in the media debate. And I am not pretending there is not true homophobia out there. All I am say is that preferring a man-woman type of marriage doesn’t automatically mean someone being homophobic, hateful or seeing gay people less valuable.
Personal preference is just that, personal. MIf you actively campaign to deny rights to another group in society then it is discrimination.
Hey – if someone would be of the opinion that marriage should be between a man and a woman that’s fine – they don’t have to marry anyone of the same sex. But do they have the right to stop a gay couple getting married?
That’s the difference, either you want everyone to have to conform to your ideals, or you can let people make their own decisions about who they marry.
Why are these people so obsessed with strangers private lives? Why do they see their relationships as superior?
Their opinions merely hint at what lies beneath. They could well believe that their motivations are just and good – but that’s because they aren’t willing to accept that they are uncomfortable with the idea of someone being gay and acting upon it. It stems from a fear of that which they do not understand (and the effects of institutionalised homophobia), if they could recognise it – perhaps they could work on it, and realise that people are people, you sexuality doesn’t make you any more or less of a person – and their private lives are none of yours or my business :)
Spot on Shanti
@Shanti,
I agree completely..
The problem is – homophobia is so pervasive throughout society that often people don’t see that discrimination against gay people is the same as discrimination based on race..
Homophobia needs to be perceived as just as damaging and unacceptable as racism,,
The Iona crowd are offended when people call them homophobes because their homophobia is so pervasive in the wider society – that it seems they can’t even recognize how wrong their prejudices are… maybe they genuinely don’t see how homophobic others perceive them? If so, that’s something they need to work on…
It reminds me of the lingering prejudices that exist in cultures against other cultures, such as the Paddy Irish man jokes in the UK, or the sensitivity of the N word in America…
Just because homophobia is pervasive throughout society doesn’t justify the continuance of it…
@Vit…
You can prefer a ‘man-woman type of marriage’ all you like, just don’t think that you have the right to trample on my preference for a same sex marriage if I wanted that….
I might prefer to watch football, you might prefer rugby, does that mean that you have the right to deny me my equality or my right to happiness? No.. it does not…
Vit, I’d agree that someone preferring male/female marriage doesn’t *automatically* make them homophobic. Personally, I make that assessment when I hear their reasons. And all of the arguments I’ve heard against marriage equality include some form of prejudice or discrimination, which I classify as homophobia.
For example, a common argument is that marriage is about procreation and raising children. The belief is gay couples should be barred from marriage because they can’t procreate together. However, gay people are the only people subjected to that rule; all heterosexual couples are allowed to marry with no reference to their ability to procreate or suitability to raise children. So despite the claim that marriage is about children, no heterosexual couple is excluded from marriage on that basis. That is discrimination based on sexuality, so I think it’s fair to conclude that homophobia is influencing a person’s thinking in some way shape or form. I’d make an assessment on the extent it’s influencing their thinking based on how much they keep reiterating the “marriage is about children” argument after the flaws have been pointed out.
Shanti, I like what you said there. The ideal would be if people could decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives. What creates this tension is that we live in the same State that regulates these things and people now have a chance to influence those regulations. Hence the debate, because people have different views how the State should look like and run things. So I am not surprised that there is a campaign for same sex marriage as well as the opposite sex marriage. They are formed by people who have their own individual private views and they make them public to influence the outcome. Which in my view is ok. They should do it respectfully though. And again, I don’t think all campaigners are haters on either sides (although we have a will unfortunately witness those too). Anyway… at the same time the debate can lead to more understanding across the board, which is good. :)
@Vit…
By its very definition ‘restricting’ or denying a right to someone based on their sexuality, gender, or race is bloody prejudiced…
You seem like a smart guy for gods sake.. how can you not see this?…
@Brian O Sullivan
Good points Brian,
There really is no way you can justify discrimination..
I think that the majority of Irish people probably never really thought that much about why they might be against gay marriage, it’s just been so Catholic centered and homophobic for such a long time here that we all are tainted by homophobia to some degree…
I had a really interesting chat yesterday with a friend, also gay, and we were saying that even most gay men are homophobic to some degree, it’s internalized.. that’s the worst kind…
And then we have the problems of discrimination between gay men and lesbians and vice verse within the ‘gay community’… but that’s a whole other debate and taboo!….
Brian, I see what you’re saying. But even if someone sees one of the roles of marriage in the probability of ability to bring children into this world, it doesn’t automatically mean seeing a gay couple or a gay person less valuable. If their understanding of marriage is such, than same sex marriage doesn’t fit their understanding and that’s why they don’t support it. I think it’s a legitimate position. It might mean they see gay people inferior or something, but it might not, it might still mean they see gay people as precious, valuable and beautiful human beings. It’s like they wouldn’t support same sex marriage the same way they would not support any other referendum issue (like entering EU for example), ie. not because they don’t like gay people and want to discriminate them but because they have their own private values how the future should look like (ie. marriage having the probability of ability to have children or Ireland being part of EU). Do you know what I mean? I don’t see anything wrong on that, if their private motivations are such, ie. without see gay people inferior and in fact seeing them equal already.
Frank, I don’t know… how can you not see what I mean? :)
I am actually delighted with this discussion, good opportunity to think and sort my thoughts. I’ll have to excuse myself now and would like to thank everyone for their views, I really appreciate them. Have a good evening.
@Vit..
What you are outlining is the argument that because something has always been that way somehow means that we should not change it to make it more inclusive…
The whites of deep South USA believed that black people were as inferior to them as animals for a long time…
Does that make it right?…
No…
Inter-racial marriage was unheard of up until relatively recently, it was certainly a taboo up until the 20th century..
In the North of Ireland, sectarian prejudice in embedded in the society..
Not only did Catholics not marry Protestants, those that dared could be tarred, feathered, shot, knee-capped, or at the very least rejected from their communities…
There are still ares of Northern Ireland which are 100% segregated..
If someone sees the role of marriage as primarily for the rearing of children then that’s fine for them.. but they have no right to impose their definition of it on me, nor do they have the right to deny me equal rights in my country because they view it that way..
I do understand what you are trying to say, but unfortunately there is no way to justify a denial of equality based on sexuality…
That’s the way to debate Vit. Although I have a different opinion to yours. You fight your corner eloquently. Have a good night :-)
Vit I do appreciate what you are saying and as other posters have pointed out – I think the reason that this attitude is not recognised as homophobic is because society still carries a lot of institutionalised homophobia.
At the time when interracial marriage was being debated in other countries – most of the same arguments were used by groups equivalent to Iona who wanted to keep things as they were, and didn’t see that they were being discriminatory – because they genuinely felt that black people were different.
Now, we know better. And hopefully in the not to distant future – people will look back on this debate the way we now look back on apartheid.
I have yet to hear someone put forth a rational argument against equality, all I have seen thus far are logical fallacies. This is why I deem those reasons to be homophobic.
How I determine whether someone is actually a homophobe is how they respond to being shown the error of their reasoning. There are some that even when you show them the fallacy and explain why it doesn’t make sense, insist upon continuing to oppose it using those same reasons – that shows that they know their reasoning is faulty, but they don’t care – it’s just an excuse to discriminate – meaning that their true reason for opposition is fear / mistrust / dislike of gay people = homophobia.
People can say homophobic things and not realise that they are so – but once it’s pointed out if they refuse to see their error, then they’re just homophobic..
Comments not allowed on the Anglo trial.
Comments not allowed on the Dail debate last night.
Who is going to rid The Journal of this terrible scourge of censorship.
Free speech for all, even if they are only spouting sh**e.
Comment on a trial on a public website would result in a finding of contempt in quick time.
The Journal would be INSANE to allow it!!!!
Here we go again more pay outs to shut up. Has everyone in Ireland got a hand out for money to ease pain ! Yes they are owed an apology and that’s it. What about Rory the guy out of whose mouth the words came paying any monies owed! Accountability is an adult quality many in Ireland sorely lack . Free money costs someone else guys and its the good old tax player usually
Rory has received legal complaints. The difference is, he is not going to hand over anything without fighting.
It should be up to John Walters to prove he is not homophobic
The magic pleasure of all this is that:
a)Pantigate and Panti have gone mega viral with celebs from all over the world applauding her
b) John Waters is now the Alice Glenn of Modern Ireland with crazies like Breda O’Brien or Kilkenny crazy self loathing gay Paddy Manning there to support him.
I love it!
I think John Waters jusr might be gay! Hide all you want John. Where is that money actually going to go btw?
Niall, that could be a slur on the gay community. I know many gay people. I never met anyone gay who was quite as obnoxious, toxic and as hypocritical as Waters. He is a sad, bitter, self obsessed, nasty individual who uses a solicitor in an attempt to bully.
From reading the article I am curious to the fact his solicitor has acted in other defamation actions for him. Wonder what they were about and how many there was?
John waters is a decent man, and entitled to defend his name.
I think what makes people dislike John Waters, Iona members and their ilk even more is the incredible lack of Christian love, forgiveness, charity or whatever that they show. I am not a Christian myself, but most people would expect more humility, love, forgiveness, love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek – they seem to me to act in direct opposition to this.
Like a conservative politician preaching morality found to have a mistress, we instinctively dislike those who preach Christianity at us but do not live it.
Waters is likely revelling in all of this.
People, marriage is a human construct – you know, one of those things we made up with our human minds!!! We define it as we wish. Meaning is a social construct. Marriage does not exist as an independent thing outside of our minds that has its own definition! The meaning of marriage is contested in society and nobody is right, no matter what they think it is supposed to mean. Times have changed to be more equitable. We can change our own rules about marriage! Remember – we made them up in the first place!
The gay lobby will lose if they keep insulting people don’t care if a man marries or not same as a lot of people but talking to a lot of people about this subject getting sick of the poor me I’m right ur a nazi bullshite
have your say