Wow, they walk a tightrope of what is considered discrimination. I’m pretty sure you could apply their loose logic to many past instances of discrimination. I’m sure if he was aware of this Dr. Martin Luther King would be spinning in his grave. Because you know, because we have different colour skin, it’s totally okay to treat people in a different way, I’m sure the people who instigated centuries of slavery were just misguided and this is what they actually meant. FFS.

The only group I can compare these idiots to is the Westboro Baptist Church.
Why religious dullards like this are even listened to signifies a much broader problem with our culture.

[ This comment has been removed by the Journal ]

From David Quinn’s personal Twitter account:

“‏@DavQuinn Just heard. Seemingly we hadn’t responded to an email from them verifying our account”

Not the big Liberal/Google conspiracy that he had made it out to be, just poor email etiquette.
If Google were going to start censoring, their first port of call would be Westboro Baptist Church. Iona, despite their own lofty notions, would be fairly far down the pecking order.

Well look no further than yesterday’s court case where a man walked out of court after admitting to sexually abusing his daughter. If he had been in a heterosexual rel… oh wait. He was.

They’d probably say have the gay baby and then pray the gay away!

Cos that totally works, Conor!
/sarcasm

Yeh I’ve just seen that, god forbid that Individuals voice different opinions to this video, and actually be allowed to think for themselves, omg.

im sure though that someone would have reported this video before they would an nicki minaj, its normally only when complaints come in that they investigate. you cant help but notice that its a rather narrow minded view if nothing else from this video. Maybe they have insulted people with it

But it’s not discrimination to treat different situations in different ways?

They broke rule 7.9 of Youtube’s community guidelines

http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

and I have seen channels being disabled for similar reasons

“7.9 You further understand and acknowledge that in using the Service, you may be exposed to Content that is factually inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or otherwise objectionable to you. You agree to waive, and hereby do waive, any legal or equitable rights or remedies you have or may have against YouTube with respect to any such Content.”

How can you break rule 7.9??
The people who objected to the video were teh ones unaware of rule 7.9…

My bad, I meant 7.8, though now Youtube has reinstated it I guess they don’t find the content offensive, which is disappointing

“7.8 On becoming aware of any potential violation of these Terms”…

That just says if you violate the terms. So again, which terms did they violate?

Frankly, if youtube removed everything anyone found offensive, it’d be a pretty small site…

They broke this rule “we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity).”

http://www.youtube.com/t/community_guidelines?gl=IE&hl=en-GB

But it is open to their interpretation as a private company obviously

Is it now hate-speech to say: “I think marriage should be between one man and one woman”?

Yes it is James

It is now hate-speech to say anything against gay people, black people, non-Irish nationals, travelers, women or any religion that is not the Catholic church. In other words, it is still socially acceptable to slag off Irish straight white settled males, especially if they are practicing Catholics!

Read the article again! It’s a storm in a tea cup. Iona forgot to send back the email verifying their account so the account was removed automatically. No conspiracy or censorship. Iona should now shout out a very large apology!

There is no such thing as free speech, except alone in a soundproofed room.

Believing that marriage between persons of the same sex is wrong on religious grounds is NOT homophobia!!

Yes it is, it also means the entire religion is homophobic

As a gay atheist it’s not very often I find myself in agreement with David Quinn but it’s ridiculous to censor him just because someone doesn’t agree with his views. If that was to happen most of the accounts on YouTube would have to come down for offending someone. Free speech means allowing people you disagree with to have their say, if you disagree then set up an account pointing out where you believe he is wrong. Censorship is a slippery slope, would you like it if YouTube blocked accounts that carried your point of view?

it is Patrick:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/homophobia

” : irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals “

Private company with their own community guidelines though.

They broke Rule 7.9 here: http://www.youtube.com/static?template=terms

You should read 7.9. They didn’t break that. In fact 7.9 as I read it is aimed at the viewers of YouTube content not the posters…

Could they have broken rule 7.9 if they tried to take a legal (copyright) claim against someone using their youtube content? I.e. the parody videos that have been made?

The freedom of speech line toted by Quinn is a smokescreen as far as I can see, youtube have had far worse stuff up for far longer and its highly unlikely their account was removed because of the content of the ‘marriage’ video.

Wish people could see clearer through this ridiculous scaremongering and constant acting like they’re the ones being discriminated against.

My bad Ciaran, it was 7.8 of the ToS I was referring to, which allows them to disable accounts if found in violation of this community guidelines

“we do not permit hate speech (speech which attacks or demeans a group based on race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status and sexual orientation/gender identity).”

But it is up to them as a private company to interpret that obviously

The IONA institute is comprised of little more than a crappy low quality selection of religious nut jobs. The more they communicate with the wider world the better.

They need to be seen and heard for what they are and for what they represent.

And shouting on the journal.
I love it!

god usually replies for him, but he still had a hangover from the march at the weekend…

In reply to Ah tis himself.

I’m a Catholic aswell, and your Liberal views are NOT appreciated.

Ah, yes, Free Speech for those you agree with!
Hate speech being defined as anything you disagree with.

The most ludicrous thing of course is that they advocate what’s the law as now. So agreeing wih the law is hate speech…

Go on, admit it to yourself. You’re against Free Speech.

they are not a “hate” group just because they don’t agree with homosexual marriage – don’t be so melo-dramatic or just plain twisting the truth. They have the right to oppose what they see as wrong the same as you have – but nobody has the right to put the name “hate” group on another
.

Laws can and will be changed. Plenty of past laws legalised hate and discrimination. One by one they have been knocked down. As will the anti gay Laws.
Stupidest argument ever put forward.

So why are the Iona Institute a “Hate Group”?

You can be pro or anti gay marriage, I don’t care. But when you go out of you’re way to impose your views on others by making ads and videos to actively restrict the rights of others, then you’re a hate group. Or just a d**k.

You can be pro or anti gay marriage as long as you don’t tell anyone about it?

This is a democracy. The laws should be the will of the people.
They and you have a right for their voice to be heard about ANY issue.

Disagreeing with you is not a “hate crime”.

People’s human rights i.e. the right to marry the person you love should never be put to the public vote!

Yes James you are correct. You are entitled to your opinion as am I. These people are going out of their way to impose their views and doing so with the aim of restricting the life opportunities of others. This is not a nice thing to do . A hateful thing to do, if you will.

Whether I agree or disagree with gay adoption or artificial insemination is irrelevant, as I do not try to prevent others from living a happy life.

What about all the hatred being incited & expressed on THIS website?

I read an article yesterday on ‘the Journal’, on Lucinda Creighton expressing ‘Pro Life’ views. Was pretty disgusted at the flood of personal abuse directed against her, on some of the comments.
So its ok for ‘the Journal’ but not the ‘Iona Institute’.
As for hatred, some of you might need to take a look at yourselves.

Wow James, you really know how to put the rhetorical in question

So believing a child needs a mother and father is a hate crime now?
Jez…

If I tried to voice opinions on such an institutes message board or Facebook page it would be deleted… I wouldn’t expect otherwise or fruitlessly complain

If you said you hate the iona institute on facebook it would be deleted?
Really? Why, what powers they have!

YouTube is a site full of videos (for example) glorifying the Waffen-SS, so is a video saying a child needs a mother and father worse than that?

He means if he said that on a facebook page related to IONA.

So if he went to facebook page like this one: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Iona-Institute/129350957106205

and posted up “I hate you, you is all mean nasty and smells of poo!” that would probably get deleted.

I doubt anyone would be all that surprised.

Google’s corporate motto and ethos ‘don’t be evil’ I think spreading bigotry and hatred might conflict with as much…

I got blocked from Youth Defences page for requesting evidence of a claim that they made.. They still spam my news feed with their “sponsored posts” though.. They can block me but I can’t block them.. How…..fair..

Really Aah ’tis himself?, all that video does is parody the Iona Institute’s own video (and rather well I think), it is far from disgusting, unlike the Iona Institute’s video which is aimed at continuing to deny LGBT people and their families the same rights and protections that any other family would receive.
The Iona Institute and its supporters can tell themselves what ever they want but what they are doing is the very definition of the word discrimination.

Having been given a platform to air your illiberal views, you are aware of how utterly thick your comment makes you look? Sorry, proves you to be.

Absolutely Paddy, dead right. the Liberals are always the most intolerant of other views. they want to shut everyone up that they dont agree with.

Oh sorry, I didn’t realise that “liberals” were the main shareholders in Google and were also running its operations. Good point lads!

It’s all part of the gay agenda Paddy. Do you have a coy or should I send you a link?

*copy, not coy

They are not imposing their views, they are expressing their views, world of difference

I honestly don’t think that is the case. Google’s community standards page makes it clear this process is never automated, no matter how many submissions. A user always checks, and they check against the Terms of Use. So either a TOU breach did occur or, as it seems, a user thought one had occured but then this was reversed.

P.

It still wouldn’t surprise me if that were the case.

Not one little bit.

Free speech doesn’t exist on a privately owned site. If the owner doesn’t like it they can and will remove it for whatever reason they wish. You can be removed from a persons home, a place of retail or an Internet site by the owner for acting or speaking in a way they do not agree with.

I think it’s fair to silence those who stigmatise people based on their sexual orientation. Do you not think that idiotic Iona video is a bigoted piece of work squarely aimed at marginalising homosexuals? it is the right thinking person duty to silence the bigoted, the prejudiced, the ignorant when they wilfully go out and discriminate against other people.

There was no attempt to stigmatise or marginalise anyone based on their sexual orientation. Their belief is that society needs the institution of marriage(one man and one woman) to provide the best setting for the development of children. Don’t believe that yourself? Fine, you’ve got the right to express your opinions. Once you start trying to silence them it is you who is acting in a prejudiced and discriminatory manner.

it is a mistaken belief based on prejudice.

Leopoldo, I’m not saying gays shouldn’t have kids but wouldn’t a child growing up with a mother and father be the ideal situation? If that’s what they’re saying then how is it wrong?

James I think the one most serious consideration is that kids deserve to have loving, responsible and nurturing parents.

Just because they have a mum and a dad doesn’t guarantee anything other than the sex of their parents. We should see people as individuals on their own merit – if they are good parents then they are good parents, if they’re not they’re not.. Their sexual preference is not related to their parenting skills.

I’m not saying they wouldn’t raise a kid right because they’re gay. We’ll just say there’s a mix of people with same morals, jobs, income and health, It’s my opinion that a kid would be better off with with parents of both sexes than two of the same or one of either. My opinion is that this is the ideal situation (and I know you’ll probably say that this isn’t always possible…… yes, I do realise that).

I’m sorry James, I can’t see your point.. I mean – having two parents is a bonus. But I just can’t get my head around why they need to be male and female, unless we are to make the assumption that these kids will never come into contact with the other sex in their families and that is quite unlikely..

It would be similar to assuming a single mum of a boy will not have any male role models around for him..

Single parents have a much harder job because they are doing it alone, but some of them do amazing jobs, not all – but quite a few.

Again, it’s all down to the individual, I still can’t get my head around this notion that a two parent family must be made up of a man and a woman, I can’t see how that makes it any better or worse by virtue of their gender alone..

Shanti you can’t see the forest for the trees because of your obvious hate of the RCC. I never said it was a MUST I said it was the ideal situation. This is what I hate about the typical lefty journal poster, you twist words to make it seem that the other person said something they didn’t (you are always at it) and the worst part is you know you do it. I form my opinion that it is the ideal situation because we are basically the same human beings we were 10,000 years ago and evolution determined this to be the best set up. So you’ll excuse me while I trust more in evolution than a modern day liberal.

@ James Attley, well your comment betrays a total lack of knowledge of social anthropology. The nuclear family is a comparatively recent phenomenon. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that two women, two men or any less suitable as parents.

The prevalent form of family is the single parent family. This is often a sole female parent.

Overall, my concern is that a minority of fathers can be abusive. An abusive father is much worse than an absent father. It is a interesting aspect that many men who have has a sole female parent often do better in life than men who have a domineering father.

Heterosexual parenthood is not perfect. Remember what Lowry the famous English poet said.

I was not aware of anti-catholic sentiment from Shanti-Om but I should declare that although I am tolerant of Individual Roman Catholics, I am hugely critical and adversely disposed to the institution of he Roman Catholic Church, which I consider based on history, evidence and personal experience to be a malign and deeply toxic institution. Look at the Spanish Inquisition, the invasion of South America, the genocidal conflicts, the Rwandan genocide.

My great grandfather was excommunicated by Archbishop McHale for his Land League organisation.

My personal experience is that in 1959 my left hand was badly broken by a nun in order to prevent me from writing with my left hand because I am left handed. My left hand is deformed and arthritic. It is unusable. I was repeatedly thrashed in front of the class and ostracised. To my shame, I was terrified and weak as a child but it has made me a stronger adult, questioning, hard headed and aware of the evils of a woman hating, child abuse concealing, authoritarian, prejudiced and fascist organisation which has managed to outweigh the good done by a minority of its clergy.

So, from me, let me say to you, that an organisation should be judged by its actions and policies. In that regard the Roman Catholic Church is found wanting in so many ways that a multi volume work would not adequately cover the evils done by the Roman Catholic Church.

Shanti you can’t see the forest for the trees because of your obvious hate of the RCC.

I’m sorry – is that a straw man? Where did I mention the church?

I never said it was a MUST I said it was the ideal situation.

I realise that – and I explained that I couldn’t see why the sex of the parent was that important if their ability to parent was sufficient.

This is what I hate about the typical lefty journal poster, you twist words to make it seem that the other person said something they didn’t (you are always at it) and the worst part is you know you do it.

Lol, do you see the irony in this statement?

I form my opinion that it is the ideal situation because we are basically the same human beings we were 10,000 years ago and evolution determined this to be the best set up. So you’ll excuse me while I trust more in evolution than a modern day liberal.

And a massive over quota batch of red herring with a slew of circumstantial ad hominems..

My point was that to say a family needs specifically a mum and a dad as opposed to one or the other or two of the same is indeed an ideal but it’s not real life, nor is it guaranteed to work out ideally. It’s based on a preconception of gender roles which is in itself sexist – men are just as capable of all the traits women are, and vice versa, to suggest otherwise is denigrating to both sexes.

Where did all that vitriol come from? It certainly didn’t originate with me..

Peter if anything the nuclear family is in decline and I’m sorry to hear that type of thing happened to you. I have no love for that organisation but I don’t let it blind me.
Shanti so you agree with what I said in the first place. Why couldn’t you just say that? “It’s based on a preconception of gender roles which is in itself sexist” ha ha…… Ill have to remember that next time a woman in the office asks me to lift something for her because its heavy. Night night, you stay classy!

Well, you put your comment out there and I sought to engage with you. The ideal situation of all is that a baby grows up with its own two parents, and that they will be good parents..
It’s a lovely thought, but as you admitted – it’s merely an ideal.

So why did you bring it up? We all know what the ideal situation may be, and we also know (and you admitted) it’s not always realistic. In this video the ideal is being held up as the only situation worth pursuing and so for this reason we should deny one group from their opportunity to be parents, perhaps you wouldn’t, but if that’s the case – why mention it?

As for the heavy lifting – have to admit I always found that part of health and safety really stupid.. I know guys who couldn’t lift what the law says they should, and women who have no problem lifting way more than they are permitted, its all down to size and ability.. Again – making broad assumptions based on gender alone is quite silly..

I only said it because no one had and the comment I replied to seemed the best place to put it.
It’s not really a silly general assumption when (on average) men are bigger/ stronger than women, which would fit in with the lack of evidence of any matriarchal society.

Three times as many thumbs down as thumbs up? The reactions to this issue and some of the comments are priceless. A south park episode could literally write itself. The whole thing is beyond satire

You should be more tolerant yourself.

Daragh, what exactly is biased about this article and what evidence do you have that it was copied and pasted from the Irish Times?

In fairness it should have been put to David Quinn that if he’s so worried about censorship, why did he disable comments and ‘likes’ for that video on YouTube?