I genuinely love the Christian spirit that they’ve shown.

Turning the other cheek seems to be one of those ones that they don’t need to live by and can interpret, like toiling on the Sabbath, eating shellfish, wearing clothes of different cloth, divorce, sex before marriage and homosexuality… Oh no, sorry… Not that last one.

And how greedy members of Iona who weren’t named

Exactly Kevin. Those who took the money come out of this really badly. A donation to charity would have been the Christian thing to do.

And Breda said in her column in the Irish Times that it was never about the money?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-times-columnist-says-rt%C3%A9-libel-payment-was-not-about-the-money-1.1677013

Yes, Kevin, – but they took it anyway didn’t they ;)

Unless you take money you ain’t respected. I think this has something to do with the story of Judas in the Bible.

Just forgiving RTE would have been more christian

The IT article suggests John Waters got 40k. The same man who said gay marriage is a satire intent on destroying the institution of marriage. Is this not weapons grade homophobia?

Weapons grade homophobia? Love it, very well described!

A catholic lobby group screws the national broadcaster of a predominately Catholic country of cash raised from the taxes and licence fees of the mostly catholic population…because a man said a slightly hurtful but 100% true thing about them… Yes…That’s what Jesus would have done!

Not sure who is that jesus character you mentioned there, but most certainly Iona don’t know a word about him.

Not taking an opportunity to reply???John Waters dries up…..
So much for journalists having an opinion on everything….

John Waters is neither a journalist nor does he have any original opinion. He is just a mouthpiece for a very peculiar branch of catholic church fundamentalists.

It shows quite clearly where the Iona Institutes standards, interest and morals actually are.

RTE is a disgrace of an organisation and one has to question its value as a public broadcaster after this debacle. I certainly do not believe they warrant the funding they get from the television license, maybe it is time to boycott it as they only seem to understand something when it has a monetary value.

Hold on..
Breda O Brien claims that she only took money because RTE “refused to apologise” – but they did apologise, and she took the money anyway..

She’s not a homophobe, she just hasn’t the sense to understand what she is implying with what she says – children should have a mother and father, well that’s a lovely sentiment, but by saying it you are insulting all the many family structures that do not consist of “a mother and a father”. And by campaigning against marriage equality because she doesn’t want gay people to get married – she is implying that there is something wrong with gay people’s relationships – and that IS homophobic. She’s just too blinkered to see it. It’s a shame she doesn’t understand the intention of the term homophobia, it’s not an insult, it’s a call to examine your own beliefs, it implies that there is something wrong with them rather than with gay people.

Rather than examine her own beliefs and how irrational they are, she would rather take legal action and continue digging a hole – Colm O Gorman destroyed her on the radio there recently, and she just didn’t have the self awareness to see it. She’s missing a huge opportunity for personal growth here..

I’ll definitely fly home for this.

Not everybody over the age of 30 is an anti-equality, right wing conservative, my peer group in their late 30s to early 50s would be very much pro-equality, you’ll find from generation x on, most people are, that’s why SSM is gradually being legalised all over the world.

@upthepylons, I may be a miserable, bitter old c*nt who hates and fears change, but I am still a miserable, bitter LIBERAL old c*nt who thinks people should be allowed do whatever they want with their penises or vajayjays as long as it’s consensual!

Here’s to a secular state and an end to the influence of the church in this country.

I think it is critical in the run up to the referendum that we are all aware of the disproportionate influence that minority groups like Iona seek to have in our media spaces… This debate is really shining a light on this. Why do people from Iona have such privileged access to appearances on RTE programmes – they have no remit and they don’t represent anybody. What the hell is going on there?

The other thing we need to watch is the pressure that is brought to bear by these minority conservative Catholic groups and individuals, for example through constant official complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – I wonder what effect this has – that they are consistently making these complaints that one person did not get equal media time in a discussion on particular issues during interviews – might this not be an attempt to make broadcasters more liable to make sure these groups get more representation??? However in all fairness, the responses from RTE to the complaints show that they do robustly stand up against such complaints, so that is the good bit.

I think I am more annoyed with this small conservative group in society that are making such a concerted effort to bend everything to their own will – from TV and radio shows to the media and the legislation of the land.

http://www.bai.ie/?page_id=183

@Kevin I was outraged by RTE’s attempts to silence Rory and their decision to use the license fee to fund the Iona institute. But I disagree with you regarding a boycott of the Irish Times. As a liberal I fundamentally believe in the right to free speech. No matter how unpalatable the views of some IT commentators may be, I respect their right to express their views. I don’t respect the views themselves. Pushing the extremists underground has never worked. I say, give them a platform to preach their ideals of inequality. Expose them for what they are. And then give others a voice to oppose them. And point out that being anti gay rights is always homophobic. I may be wrong but it seems your logic for boycotting the IT is that the paper pays people to express views that you don’t agree with it (and views that may offend others). Personally id be scared to read a newspaper where I agreed with every opinion piece. If you believed that a particular newspaper was only giving (or overwhelmingly giving) a voice to homophobes, racists, sexists etc. then I would support a call for a boycott. But not just for giving a voice to the religious right. We shouldn’t pretend these people don’t exist. Instead, like Rory has done, we should expose them for who they really are.

Dermot, I agree with you to a point. I support free speech in every way. If you are anti gay rights so be it but accept the mantle of being a homophobe. I would defend JW’s right to say whatever he likes as long as he accepts that reasonable people have a right to form an opinion of his views that he may not agree with. Fairly simple stuff.

I also agree that they are entitled to their free speech as long as we are entitled to refute it and call it out as we see it.

I suppose Dermot though, the question has to be asked as to why the IT have not just one, but a number of opinionists affiliated with this dubious, relatively small “institute” on their team.

Free speech is important but so is free association. Refusing to buy a newspaper which views and conduct you don’t wish to be associated is a perfectly valid, and important, piece of expression in a democratic state.

I’m not sure that supporting free speech involves an obligation to buy a newspaper.

Kevin, Alan, Peter. I think we’re pretty much all in agreement. David Norris is right to question who the Iona crowd are, who funds them and why they seem to have so much power. If you believe that the IT have a particular bias towards certain lobby groups, then that may be reason to call for a boycott. Nobody should be forced to read a newspaper if they don’t want to. No company should be forced to advertise where they don’t want to. I certainly wasn’t saying that. The point I was making (perhaps not very well) is that calling for a boycott because you don’t agree with a certain commentator may be viewed as trying to silence the opposition. That’s different from calling on a boycott because you believe a newspaper is showing a deliberate bias or is only refusing the right to reply.

Alan – John Waters, Breda O’Brien & Patricia Casey (occasional) and one other individual but I can’t recall their name. Over represented in the IT. The IT itself must have an agenda that desires this lobby group such space. I gave up on the IT a long time ago and would advocate for others to follow.

Kevin, I read the IT daily and I find the fact that there is a heavy Catholic ethos amongst the “commentators” painful. They try a little balance with the odd article by a Skeptic but it’s not enough. The “charity” that runs the IT may be infiltrated by the Knights or some other basket cases.

they would have sued then Helen. It was up to Iona Waters etc to end the issue.

I think the key word there is “unproven”

You see Iona (as the good Christian group) also refused that the money would go to a charity. They also accused Rory of shutting down the debate when they refused a right to reply.

Also there were members of Iona who weren’t named and sued and got money too.

Also, I’m curious. Did Harney sue Cafferty aswell or just RTE?

Yes, I get your point Cpm – I agree with you to a degree, but I suppose what is diffierent here is that the aim of the Iona Institute is to promote traditional marriage and a conservative Catholic ethos in Irish society and law – for all, regardless of their religion, or lack of it.
Could one view the teaching of the Catholic church (and indeed Christian, Muslim, and other religions too) as being ‘homophobic’? Homophobia is defined by the Oxford dictionary online as “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” I am sure most would say they do not hold an extreme or irrational aversion to individual homosexual people, on a personal basis. The traditional religions, and the Iona Institute certainly promotes an extreme, (as it applies to me) traditional, deny-rights-to-anything-other-than-the-traditional-approach to marriage, the family, and society. To me (and I’m obviously not a legal person) there seems to be a big difference between calling a person ‘X’, and saying that an organisation holds values that you feel to be ‘X’. Maybe others will disagree? I see the Iona Institute called for a ‘civil debate’….funny, that, when they did not use their right to reply, or to engage with the debate, and took the money instead.

“You see Iona (as the good Christian group) also refused that the money would go to a charity.”

Aren’t they talking about using the money to set up some memorial fund for the guy who was murdered a few weeks ago?

“They also accused Rory of shutting down the debate when they refused a right to reply.”

There is zero requirement for them to defend themselves, is there anywhere in Irish law a victim has to defend themselves?

“Also, I’m curious. Did Harney sue Cafferty aswell or just RTE?”

I think the payoff was a settlement for the whole affair, it was Newstalk if I recall correctly.

” I agree with you to a degree, but I suppose what is diffierent here is that the aim of the Iona Institute is to promote traditional marriage and a conservative Catholic ethos in Irish society and law – for all, regardless of their religion, or lack of it.”

We can’t really have one law for one group of people, and one for others. Regardless of how despicable that individual, or group, is. That isn’t how our legal system works.

“We can’t really have one law for one group of people, and one for others. Regardless of how despicable that individual, or group, is. That isn’t how our legal system works.”

CPM I agree. I despise laws that favour one group of people, over another. The Irish state has, for too long, legislated for one group of people at the expense of the diversity of all.

I believe in legislation that allow for freedom of conscience depending on your own religion, rather than allowing the ethics of one, specific religion, to dictate the ethics for all in society. And by this I do not mean a ‘free for all’ on ethics, I mean a robust legislation that protects its citizens, but allows for personal beliefs within that system.

Er Helen… All of those religions are blatantly homophobic, as they dictate that rules from 3000 years ago literally apply to today. They have publicly available reference guides that recommend stoning gay, unmarried women who have children & victims of rape. Just because their followers are usually part of the more copped on part of society, doesn’t mean that the prejudice against those above is lifted. And horror cliques like Iona are their to remind them that these sections of society are different/immoral/evil. That is textbook homophobia/misogyny.

It’s by no means clear that a jury would have found this to be defamatory, rather than fair comment. RTE clearly settled for the conservative “make it all go away” option, rather than testing the limits of free speech – a decision plenty of people who agree with free speech and vigorous democracy.

But what it comes down to is that Iona are not willing to make the arguement as to why their views aren’t homophobic (gay people just want to ruin marriage? Come on now) and instead want to just shut down debate. That, frankly, doesn’t imply a lot of confidence in their arguement.

Alien8, I was being measured in my response. And mindful of ‘defamation’ ;-)

“I think the payoff was a settlement for the whole affair, it was Newstalk if I recall correctly.”

So why pursue both RTE and Panti then?

A lot of people are missing the point. No defamation occurred. The reason: Mr O’Neill clarified his understanding of the word homophobia to indicate reasonably how these may fall into that definition. He distinctly clarified this and offered a reasonable opinion based on his understanding of the term. That is not defamation.

“So why pursue both RTE and Panti then?”

I’ve no idea.

Also I’m not buying into IONA are victims at all. They are the ones campaigning against equal rights.

“A lot of people are missing the point. No defamation occurred. The reason: Mr O’Neill clarified his understanding of the word homophobia to indicate reasonably how these may fall into that definition. He distinctly clarified this and offered a reasonable opinion based on his understanding of the term. That is not defamation.”

I doubt his opinion, or personal interpretation of a word, would carry much legal weight or exonerate his behaviour if it went before a court.

It will. Iona are still suing Panti and it will probably end up in court.

No, Cpm, the views of the Irish people deciding on the case would matter. Fingers crossed for you the jury would contain a majority of people who wouldn’t consider a statement such as “gays just want to destroy marriage” to be homophobic.

that is your opinion. RTE’s Senior Counsel obviously felt differently.

This is where you need to examine how a defense would work in these circumstances. In defamation law, only a false statement is actionable, therefore, the understanding and context with which he used the term is very crucial. Under his definition of the term, the statement is not false and therefore should not be actionable.

“Fingers crossed for you the jury would contain a majority of people who wouldn’t consider a statement such as “gays just want to destroy marriage” to be homophobic.”

You’re just being silly now. I’ve absolutely no personal interest in the case. I support gay marriage and detest homophobia, but I also don’t think people should be allowed make allegations like this live on air – regardless of who they are making them about. They’re completely unrelated matters, but you seem unable to separate them because you’re being carried away by your emotions.

How are they allegations. John Waters and Breda O’Brien are against equal rights for LGBT people. That can be viewed as homophobia?

What’s the legal definition of homophobia?

Odd – as I’m the only one who has actually referenced the Defamation Act to make my point! But you and I certainly have different views about the role of national broadcasters and free speech. I believe debate should be encouraged until there’s a court order to stop it and you believe in a very restricted interaction.

That would include allowing the comments of John Waters, regardless of how I feel about them personally. And as I’ve said previously, we have no idea what RTE’s senior counsel said, but they certainly noted a case would be a lot of time and hassle, regardless of who won.

Dave – there’s no legal definition of homophobe. So the members of a potential jury would have to decide whether or not John Waters and Breda O’Brien qualified as homophobic. So it’s the word as popularly understood by the Irish people.

“RTE’s Senior Counsel obviously felt differently”

Counsel’s response was, according to this memo: “that the legal position was far from clear”.

So, they did not say “you’ll lose”, just that the outcome would be uncertain. Surely that’s what courts are for – to make a judgement when the position is unclear?

However RTE seem to have taken great leap from that opinion to: “such a defence is unlikely to succeed before a jury” Uncertain does NOT mean unlikely to succeed. It means uncertain, no more. Pretty much every case that goes into a court has an uncertain outcome.

If RTE have reached a position where unless they are certain to win they won’t bother defending the right to express opinions freely, then they have entirely abdicated their responsibility to providing a platform for opinion. And also left themselves open to vexatious complaints from people who hope that they will capitulate so easily again.

This has implications for everyone, for every contentious issue that comes up. It is not a small mistake.

Thanks Nick. I’ll guess we’ll find out if Panti goes to court.

No wonder Iona are trying to suggest that homophobia is only when you beat up the gays.

They shouldn’t be allowed to make them live on air?

Even if they’re true?

“Pretty much every case that goes into a court has an uncertain outcome.” – great post, Katie.

That goes double, even triple for jury cases. Juries are, by definition, unpredictable. There will never be a perfect case to test the defence of honest opinion – so this one is as good as any, because it’s something which badly needs fleshing out by the courts.

“They shouldn’t be allowed to make them live on air?
Even if they’re true?”

If it’s true it isn’t an allegation, it’s a statement of fact.

Actually the Daily Mail used an ‘honest opinion’ defense in an action taken against them by Denis O’Brien last year in which the opinion based author suggested that O’Brien was a hypocrite. The jury ruled that it was the authors honest opinion but that it was not based in fact and not in the public interest. They awarded damages to Mr O’Brien. I would say neither of the latter too findings could be said in this case and I sincerely hope Mr O’Neill defends himself in court. I believe he would win and it would cause all of the accusers great embarrassment. Best of luck Panti!

The term “Gay Marriage” is itself Homophobic by defining the difference and therefore causes further separation and division. Equal Marriage rights for all would be the correct term.

What is annoying me is hat Iona are saying that they are being called homophobes just because of their opposition to gay marriage. Like that’s the only reason.

Not their opposition to civil partnership
Not their opposition to same sex parents adopting
Not their opposition to LGBT teachers in school

Joe, that’s why I prefer the term ‘Marriage Equality’ to both ‘Gay Marriage’ and ‘Same Sex Marriage’.

The latter two make it seem like we are fighting for a different type of marriage, when really, we are just fighting for equal rights with regards to marriage – marriage equality.

Joe. There will always remain small distinctions between same and opposite sex marriage. For instance in civil annulments the grounds for voidable marriages haven’t been applied to civil partnership annulments. Rules about impotence (used in a technical sense – I’m not trying to insult) don’t apply. Discovering that your spouse is gay is a grounds for annulment because it fundamentally changes the expectations of one spouse. (I took this from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau site.)

There’ll always be some situations in which a distinction needs to be made. When it does what would you find least offensive?

Regardless RTE is ran using mostly public money. I know that gay people are not exempt from paying taxes or tv license fees and those who support gay equality aren’t either .How galling is it that our money was used in this way? Can they state that only money raised from advertising was used to fund this payment ? If they can’t then why in hell should those of us who support Panti fund this payout in any way?

I dont agree. RTE has had to pay out a lot in out of court damages in receny years, most recently to Fr. Reynolds. This case was fairly open and shut and they would have had to pay both sides legal costs and a higher damages figure. The total could easily have run into the 150 to 200 thousand euros ballpark. They made a prudent decision.

Challenge and lose = those people get a lot more money

Result?

The result would be that the defence of honest opinion would be tested in court for the first time and its limitations and protections better understood. A good thing in a democracy.

And I don’t know which potential jurors Brendan’s been speaking to, but the opinions of most Irish people would mean that I doubt it’d be an open and shut case of defamation.

” I truly believe that if RTE had the strength of their convictions and believed in the right to free speech and their position in defending that, they should have fought the case in court, in public.”

The right to freedom of speech does not include the right to defame.

You are just reinforcing my point re views on marriage equality. Just because you (rightly, IMO) believe in it and despise the IONA institute, it doesn’t follow that RTE should have defended the case.

RTE can only defend a case on the basis of the law and the legal advice they receive; principle should never come into it.

RTE were advised that they would probably lose – such a loss would have resulted in Water etc getting multiples of what RTE actually paid out – would you have been happier with that result?

Rte had no choice but to pay out, they were advised they would lose. HSE had no choice but to contend, they were advised they would win. Dept of education had no choice but to contend, they were advised they would win.

I think anyone using public money for legal advise is going to the wrong place, as for every Louise and Brid McCole, there is an Iona that gets the taxpayers favour.

Bob, you clearly disagree with most people on here, who believe that the principle protected should have been that of free speech and pushing the boundaries of vigorous debate and fair comment. Juries are, of course, unpredictable, but if the national broadcaster won’t take a case to about the limits of freedom of expression, who will?

“free speech and pushing the boundaries of vigorous debate and fair comment.”

Again, freedom of speech doesn’t include the right to defame, plus how is it “vigorous debate” or “fair comment” if the accused parties aren’t there to defend themselves.

But that’s the point, there was no judgement of defamation against them.

As has been noted here:

1. It was honest opinion
2. It was mentioned after clarification of a definition
3. There is a case to be made that the positions expressed by those named persons conform to THAT definition

I agree, they don’t have the right to defame. But that didn’t happen here (to a legal certainty at least) and it would have been in the public/license payers’ interest to ensure that this kind of speech is legally protected.

The “actual” definition aside, the definition ascribed by Rory O’Neill (both of which I feel Bo’B, JW, Iona fall under) is what’s up for debate, sadly RTE opted to do the (potentially) less costly thing.

As I’ve said before in other ways, just because it’s the (potentially) cheaper or pragmatic thing to do doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do. And in this instance, I believe that RTE did the wrong thing.

I think this is one part spin, one part damage control and one part a dig at Iona for going public last week.

And as odd as this sounds, we have to thank Iona for going public. It allowed papers and broadcasters to cover this in more detail in the last week than they were able to do in the previous 2 weeks. While the media won’t repeat Panti’s comments, they can easily cover what everyone has been saying about them now that Iona have confirmed there was a settlement and what it related to. it’s given politicians something concrete to raise in various parliaments, and the media can again cover those as well, as well as the online and worldwide reaction to Panti’s Noble Call speech in the Abbey.

I must remember to send them a Thank You card :-)

Nick – it’s not RTE’s role to take cases about the limits of freedom of expression, especially ones that they have been advised they will probably lose.

You also seem to be blinded by the back story here. The fact that this is about marriage equality and the Iona institute is irrelevant.

The problem is the law, as it currently stands.

I’d really recommend you read the Defamation Act of 2009 – You seem a bit unclear on – it the criteria for honest opinion does not require that the person the comments are regarding is present.

“As I’ve said before in other ways, just because it’s the (potentially) cheaper or pragmatic thing to do doesn’t mean that it’s the right thing to do.”

I agree

“And in this instance, I believe that RTE did the wrong thing.”

I disagree. I’d imagine any litigious solicitor would be chomping at the bit to take the case on behalf of the aggrieved.

RTE would have stood to lose millions. I’d imagine they have a perfectly capable, certainly more capable than any of us here discussing this, legal team advising them on the best course of action. Would you rather the Iona Institute, and others, get payments of hundreds of thousands, instead of tens of thousands, if the court had ruled in their favour?

Well, Bob, you have a minority opinion here that the RTE has no public obligation to test the limits of freedom of expression (and of course, it’s your opinion that they’d likely lose.) While you’re welcome to your opinion, in a democracy where the national broadcaster is directly supported by the people, there is an arguement that they have an obligation to listen to the will of the majority.

The fact that it’s about Iona is indeed irrelevant – this is about the defence of honest opinion, which has recently been introduced. We have no idea if the law is the problem if no one is willing to test it.

Actually, Cpm, we have just as much right to speculate as any legal expert as to what a jury would do. A jury isn’t made up of legal experts – it’s made up of common Irish people off the street.

I totally agree with you CPM on your first point.

Cynically and with big € signs in their eyes, solicitors would be queuing up the street to take this one on.

I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting the millions from, because the payment may have been less than the settlement, they may have lost or they may have have the decision over turned on appeal.

I’d rather the Iona Institute got nothing, but I would rather risk them getting more and standing up for our right to call a spade a spade than simply rolling over and any time someone doesn’t like a negative interpretation of their well publicised views.

Let’s be clear that the individuals named (esp JW) are on record with some highly questionable comments relating to homosexuality and SSM. This I feel is enough to warrant fighting the good fight.

Nick – please explain how my having a minority opinion on an internet forum is a relevant point? Cop on.

It’s not my opinion that RTE would likely lose – it’s the opinion of RTE’s lawyers.

Your argument that RTE has an obligation to support the majority opinion is shocking, I suggest you go away and think that one through for a minute or two.

RTE is supposed to be impartial – end of story.

RTE have been advised that they would probably lose – have you thought through what that actually means? Multiples of the payout to those wan#ers – would that be a better result for you?

Unless you are an RTE employer, you have no idea if they were advised they would likely lose. That’s speculation. The RTE legal team could have simply pointed out that juries are unpredictable (they are) and at a minimum, they would have had to pay an expensive retainer and devote a lot of time to the case. Depending on the decision making process at RTE, that could have been enough.

And no – I’m not going to apologise for the view that RTE is supposed to test the limits of free speech, particularly when the majority of people agree with the idea of a free press enforcing vigorous debate. Impartiality does not mean shutting down one side of the debate (as occurred) – it means letting people like John Waters claim that gay people hate marriage and it means letting Rory O’Neill discuss institutionalised homophobia. Until a court order disagrees.

RTE were impartial.

They didn’t fire a confetti gun into the crowd when Rory O’Neill called these people homophobes.

Brendan O’Connor didn’t stare down Camera 1 and say “Ain’t that the God’s honest truth”. He asked a question, he got an answer, he moved on.

He allowed RO’N to express HIS views, whether he agreed with them or not – that is impartiality.

“I’m not entirely sure where you’re getting the millions from, because the payment may have been less than the settlement,”

I’m basing it on the court costs and the possible payout they would have had to make.

” I’m not going to apologise for the view that RTE is supposed to test the limits of free speech”

They’re a TV station, not a civil rights organisation. Their mandate is to make cringe-worthy knock-offs of UK programmes, not test the limits of freedom of speech.

Nope, you’re basing them on your absolute wild guess at the court costs and possible pay outs.

That’s not what their charter says:

http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/public-service-broadcasting-charter.pdf

In your opinion, Cpm. Some of us are a bit more idealistic about the role of the press in a democratic society.

“That’s not what their charter says:
http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/public-service-broadcasting-charter.pdf”

“In your opinion, Cpm. Some of us are a bit more idealistic about the role of the press in a democratic society.”

There’s no mention of freedom of speech in that document that I can see. And again, if there is, freedom of speech does not give anyone the right to defame others.

Anyway, I’ve work to do, and this discussion seems to be going around in circles, so I’m off.

Yes, indeed – you have entered this conversation with the preface that the statements were defamatory (without explaining why, with reference to the Defamation Act.) While that might be your opinion, a vast majority of the pools of potential jurors in a law would disagree. Your basic premise is arguable and really, since it would be a jury trial, no more or less valid than that of anyone else.

And fair enough, you simply believe in quite a limited freedom of expression.

Nick, I am open to correction on this so if I am wrong please let me know but this would be a civil action, not a criminal one and the civil courts in Ireland no longer have a jury, they rulings are made solely by a judge on facts of law.

Elizabeth, that’s generally true. Defamation is the exception. The idea is that since defamation depends so much on what “the man in the street” would view as defamatory, a jury trial is required.

A bit of a quirk in the Irish legal system. ;-)

Thanks Nick, appreciate that clarification. The pursuit of knowledge is never ending ;)

Wishful thinking. Ireland should be much more socially developed at this stage. But due to our culture of cute hoorness and paddywhacking devotion to the catholic church, we are f00ked for many many decades to come.

Morgan, I sincerely hope you are right. I am not quite as optimistic as you are and fear that there are far more latent bigots than people think, and it may emerge in the privacy and anonymity of ballot box.
I do think there is a majority that want equality in society, but a large focus of the campaign should be getting those people off their backsides and voting at the ballot.

@Alan R – If you don’t acknowledge the bigots, do they exist?

Morgan, unfortunately they do exist when they impinge on the rights of others. Many of them seem to think that they so on top of their perfect lives that they need to correct others of the errors of their ways.

“All I got from the Panti speech….” maybe actually listen to what he said the next time, – that’s not what he was saying at all. You are easily “insulted” if you were insulted by that, ….dry your eyes and stop trying to feign being a victim. All this victim complex that heterosexual people seem to fabricating is quite frankily pathetic, and I say that as a hetero myself.

Panti was speaking about how it makes her/him feel. We enjoy the freedom of speech although the BIBLE BELT is still fastened hard enuf for some people to manipulate what homophobia is in this country.

Sorry, I should qualify the above by saying “certain stratas of heterosexual people”, – in fairness I think there is an emerging majority in this country that don’t share that view.

Tom, couple of things.

1. The payment was by RTE. Not an individual, so you get zip
2. You weren’t named so were not defamed
3. There were gay people in that audience, this was not an attack on heterosexuals
4. The play was over, you could have left

Alan, thanks for the usual response of turning on anyone who has an opinion which may even mildly offend you. Labeling everyone as a homophobe, even Panti himself admits to being one, does nobody any favours. Hating yourself and repeatedly stating this also has a negative effect. I am a heterosexual man, but if I go out dressed in drag today, or if I go out dressed as a school boy or in a Barney the dinosaur outfit, then this will attract abuse. This is because it isn’t seen as what society deems as normal. This will never change no matter how many campaigners you have fighting for it.

Sean, I take your points on board and as I’m rushed for time will just reply to the final one. Do you really feel that by turning your back on the source of information ie. Panti, that this will achieve anything? Do you feel that by ignoring what is said will make it go away? Do you like to bury your head in the sand?

Do you refuse to accept the point that maybe some small part of your attitude or societal upbringing results in your being homophobic on at least some level? I mean you felt the need above to stress that you are a heterosexual – why did you feel that necessary? Only heterosexuals can be homophobic? Panti herself admitted she was homophobic to her ‘overly’ gay friend on the train. If you listened to the message, instead of concentrating on the one thing you (had to work at) to take offence at then maybe you would see she called the whole of society a homophobe – which includes you and I and everyone else, not just the few hundred sat in front of her at the Abbey.