Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
COLUMNIST JOHN WATERS is no longer writing for the Irish Times.
A spokesperson at the editor’s office said Waters had “decided to stop contributing columns”.
Waters had written a regular column in the newspaper each Friday for more than two decades, but his articles had not appeared since late January. In its place, the Irish Times had run columns by broadcaster Olivia O’Leary and journalist Kathy Sheridan.
The replacement columns had featured a sentence at the end of each piece saying that John Waters was on leave but that sentence did not run beneath today’s column.
Waters had been a regular freelance columnist at the Irish Times since 1991, but was not on staff. He is also a former media correspondent at the newspaper.
Advertisement
“The editor does wish him well in his future endeavours and recognises his fine contribution to journalism,” the spokesperson for Irish Times editor Kevin O’Sullivan told TheJournal.ie.
Waters is believed to have been unhappy at the Irish Times in the wake of the homophobia debate which ignited after Rory O’Neill – aka Panti – appeared on RTE One’s The Saturday Night Show and was asked to name commentators who he believed were homophobic.
Waters was one of several people named by O’Neill, and who later received a financial settlement from RTE over the comments.
The Phoenix magazine reported last month that Waters also sent legal letters to the Irish Times over a column by journalist Una Mullally about the homophobia debate, demanding a retraction and an apology from his employer.
Waters is also a columnist for the Irish Mail on Sunday.
A call to John Waters was not immediately returned.
Readers like you are keeping these stories free for everyone...
A mix of advertising and supporting contributions helps keep paywalls away from valuable information like this article.
Over 5,000 readers like you have already stepped up and support us with a monthly payment or a once-off donation.
I think you are wrong Joseph , The Irish Times needs people like John Waters , it is well supplied with liberal lefties , Waters is a great writer , without him the paper has lost an alternative to its liberal left agenda , which seems incapable of accepting anything other than obedience to its particular view of the world .
Spot on about the Catholic Church , but all Churches / Religions will fight their own corner , my point is simply that a national newspaper should be conscious of other views in society , John Waters offered a view other than the liberal one , it seems to me that we have gone from a place where conservatism resisted liberalism to a new one where liberals will not tolerate anything except their agenda , and that can only cause trouble .
I agree with Mike Cantwell. The point really isnt what Waters was saying. The point is its an alternative view that should have an airing. Media, in general, does not have a shortage of left leaning columnists. Particularly the IT. It might be because we have a small population and therefore a small number of journalists but we only ever seem to hear the same angle on every issue. Its boring.
Same goes for radio. Switch on Newstalk, RTE Radio 1, Last Word, etc its all the same view point.
If anything Waters was a liability to the centre-right cause. Intelligent editorial balance should give food for thought to all comers. I always felt that if you weren’t lined up with Waters’ agenda there was very little in there of interest. Perhaps his departure will leave space for somebody else with a more engaging style.
You, Sir, are a fool. Furthermore, I am now heartily sick of the way that fascists, religious zealots and supporters of the “free market” have turned the terms ‘liberal’ and ‘populist’ into dirty words. Look at their real meaning and effect and eschew the lazy, buzzword pigeonholing of people which takes place quite deliberately in order to negate the truth of what they are saying.
Sorry, that reply was for Mr. Cantwell. It would really help if, when you reply to a comment, the reply appeared immediately under same – otherwise the reply can appear random or directed at another poster.
I don’t think it’s useful for a national newspaper to “balance” informed, thoughtful opinion and accurate, unbiased news with poorly-written tripe of the sort that Waters produced by the barrel.
There are few, if any, socialists in Ireland. For instance the Labour party and the trade unions do not enact socialism. They claim to but it only lip service.
The world is all neo-con and that includes the “liberal lefties” who really are neither liberal in the true sense nor are they left, accepting the left in politics is socialism,
If instead of hating gays he spouted stuff about hating black people nobody would be paying any attention to him, he’d be considered a middle-ages lunatic.
Instead he rages against the LGBT and that’s somehow ok and criticising him akin to fascism and inciting to hatred.
Good riddance to him. He reached an all time philosophical, theological scientific and journalistic low point when, during the Eucharistic Congress, he attempted to prove that it was possible simultaneously to believe and not believe in the power of a priest to change bread and wine into flesh and blood.
And good riddance. Just seeing his face gives me a bad mood. With a lot of luck we might never hear from him again. Unfortunately I know it won’t be so easy.
Actually the deputy editor, Fintan O’Toole who has had columnar spats with waters (waters always the more tetchy) wrote a slap down column on the rights and responsibilities of a principal contributing opinion writer and criticised the decision to sue.
This was inevitable. I do not however want the Irish times to become the guardian. We need a range of views including those diametrically opposite to maintain textured debate.
I disagree, I think the Irish Times is an absolutely outstanding newspaper. So is the Guardian.
The Guardian reflects the UK’s political divide however in a way that the Irish Times does not.
I think the IT manages to reflect society well and seeks to be balanced and objective in its coverage.
It definitely has an editorial angle but it is not one that is yoked to or against specific political parties. The Guardian is a Labour paper. Full stop.
Wasn’t a fan off Waters, I thought be came across arrogant in this writing and on debated he had on tv. But in saying that he did have a good career. I wish him the best of luck.
Kevin maybe because we can’t all agree on everything and everyone is entitled to their opinion and to express that opinion. I would rarely if ever find myself in agreement with this man, but I respect his right to free speech.
@Kevin, I do hear what your saying. Waters made my blood boil in his writing but I just think that was the point of him; it kinda got the brain going. One of those that when he came on tv your eyes rolled. But you cannot take away the long career he had. Either you like him or not if your commenting on him and his work….positive or negative then he was doing his job right.
That’s easy Dermot as a state we have a specific legislation that Defines and deals with it see below
Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989, proscribes words or behaviours which are “threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred” against “a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation
John waters Aug 2009
“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 and they feel really, that it’s an affront to their equality… This is the interesting thing, when they were fighting for civil unions and I raised the question that what they really wanted was marriage, but that what they were really wanting was adoption and they all denied it, ‘that’s complete paranoia. We have no interest in marriage at all, this is about our civil-rights’…But the next day they got out of bed and started to campaign for marriage.”
“This is really an attempt to discredit an institution, the nominative institution on which society and human civilization is founded. If you do that there will be consequences, and one of them is that marriage will become a nothing.”
So you don’t think his words are insulting or likely to stir up hatred as defined by the legislation quoted? He is insinuating all sorts of strange things about LGBT an an agenda to destroy marriage etc??
Perhaps nobody made a complaint perhaps like what happened with religious institutions and child abuse some people appear to be above the laws of the land who knows but you have agreed his statement is “insulting” and on that basis and the clear and concise definition of hate speech in Irish law this and many other comments he has made is Hate speech
He can not be sued,as the legislation only allows for Criminal prosecution instigated by the state and there is no legislation for civil prosecution. But don’t let facts get in your way!!
I did not agree with everything Waters said or how he wrote and expressed himself.
But that he has gone, in all probability due to the fallout from the slander Rory O’Neill made against him which is unfair.
The GLBT fascists got their man. This should now alert all fair minded people to how this nasty lobby work.
Like all extremists they are a danger to society. For all Water’s faults he knew what he was; he could give it and take it, unlike his GLBT detractors.
And Water’s was slandered. I note O’Neill did not repeat it out of RTE’s studio as he would have had to pay the damages himself. Therefore O’Neill knew what he said was wrong.
“I did not agree with everything Waters said or how he wrote and expressed himself.”
Clearly, you did agree with what he said when you follow this statement with “The GLBT fascists got their man. This should now alert all fair minded people to how this nasty lobby work.”
Nobody made him stop writing so nobody ‘got their man’. Rory O’Neill was not wrong. Waters got above the average annual salary in the form of a pay off, for having the truth spoken about him. He’s a greedy fool that writes a load of BS, unpopular BS at that. He won’t be missed
CMac , I’ve always admired your ability to be personally affronted by broad social trends , conflating gays and peados backfired now got to other insults
Water’s wrot eof marriage as the union of a man with an woman. Civil marriage covers state marriage. In religious terms all mainstream faith groups adhere to marriage as open to the creation of children, with the provision not all couples can have children. That is tradition.
There was a concerted witch hunt against Waters and indeed O’Brien and Iona. There traditional views were not taken as genuine but genuine they indeed are. and the GLBT lobby knew that but still intended taking waters and others down.
That is bully boy tactics. O’Neill never repeated the slander as he would have had to pay damages himself. So he cost RTE the 80,000e.
I notice the terms of abuse made against t he Catholic Church among others by the GLBT lobby. And yes it is a form of fascism. The Church and state have their faults but so too do extreme groups.
Go away back into the arms of the Iona institute. You say you didn’t agree with everything waters wrote. Was it not right wing enough or homophobic enough for your catholic sensitivities? You and Waters are not even worthy of contempt. you are total twazocks
What you wrote about Waters and iona prove my point. An utter intolerance of somebody’s genuinely held beliefs.
A fascist is someone who adopts an extreme viewpoint and libels or slanders other people while claiming to be fair minded themselves when they are anything bit.
And its related to the concept of traditional society that children are for married couples, the couple being a man and woman. The agenda has been thought out and a planned campaign mapped out.
He also wrote that the ‘gays’ are just looking to turn marriage into a ‘satire’. Ridiculous conclusion which was fed from pure homophobia on his part – You cannot deny this. I don’t care how the religious groups define marriage, nobody is going to force any religious institution to carry out a same sex marriage – We are talking about civil marriage and any point people bring up how the bible or some religious leader define marriage is pointless and unrelated.
O’Neill was in his right to say what he did, having previously defined his view on what homophobia is. It was honest opinion and not defamation (slander doesn’t exist within Irish law, btw.)
I worked in HR for years. Believe me in every workplace people take offense to the most minor of issues. His spat with a fellow columnist is nothing in the scheme of things that occur in the workplace.
You criticise what somebody has written about Waters but not what Waters has written about others. You also allude to taking offence with things as something that happens all the time and therefore is a non issue. Waters took offence to being called homophobic, which he doubtlessly is, yet he got litigious and walked away with 40,000. You fail to criticise that.
Your bias is clear for all to see. You have double standards
If Rory O’Neill believed what he said on RTE he would have repeated it in the Abbey. He did not; he stayed well away from the sentiments he expressed just 48 hours before.
Civil marriage is a right and if you let Waters et al get to you on that score it reflects your own insecurity and it allows those who detract the value and progress of civil marriage hit your achilles heel. If I were GLBT I certainly would not want a religious marriage given what the church believe, and does so sincerely. It would not matter a jot to me. I certainly would not want their “blessing”. Waters sincerely marriage is the union of a man with a woman and is open to procreation. If his conclusion is that marriage become a “satire” if gays are let marry that is his problem.
CMAC
Who exactly is this “gay lobby” you speak of?
Who are their members?
Where are they based?
Who is their leader?
What exactly is this ” gay agenda” you speak of also?
i don’t accept tat if something happens all the time it is OK. Waters style is to be thougt provoking and hard hitting. If others do it to him he has taken it, as he should.
Rory O’Neill went too far in what he said, as RTE knew hence the settlement. If others want to have letters sent to waters from their solicitor they are free to do so.But it has not happened in the matter sunder discussion as Waters did not compromise himself;O’Neill had (that illustrates waters caution as an author over the years).
As the law does not consider Waters homophobic it would be hard to win a case claiming he is so.
“A fascist is someone who adopts an extreme viewpoint and libels or slanders other people while claiming to be fair minded themselves when they are anything bit.”
Cmac, please explain how correctly describing Waters comments as homophobic is worse than incorrectly accusing gay people of trying to ruin marriage and steal babies?
“A fascist in someone who adopts an extreme viewpoint and libels and slanders other people while claiming to be fair minded themselves when they are anything bit [sic].”
What a strange and erroneous definition of a fascist. For the record, fascism is extreme authoritarian nationalism. You can’t alter the meaning of well defined terms to suit your agenda.
For someone who doesn’t agree with everything Waters has to say, you’re adept at regurgitating his main talking points.
You can’t keep using the defense of genuinely ‘held beliefs’ every time you feel the need to treat other people as second-class citizens. It’s the 21st century, not the middle ages…
Yes, we are intolerant of your bigoted views, whether they are informed my the bible, Levictus, or you interpreted them off the back of a cornflake box, is immaterial… your prejudice and irrational hatred is still prejudice and irrational hatred. I’m sure most non-bigoted Christians cringe every time people like you hide behind Religion and religious teachings in order to cloak your inherent prejudice and intolerance…
Cop the hell on and get a grip on yourself… The bible is not meant to be taken literally you moron…
And furthermore, it’s an insult when right wing Christian homophobes start pretending they care about children, the Catholic church used and abused hundreds of thousands of children for decades..
Don’t insult people by claiming your homophobic, irrational hatred of gay people has anything to do with children… it’s putrid hatred like yours which damages everyone, including children…
So what if his comments were homophobic? Have we not seen the comments beneath any Journal articles on Immigrants, travellers, the Church, or this one on John Waters.
You’re just as bad, you’re both bigots and should be ashamed of yourselves..
I sincerely hope you have no kids, it would be awful if they had to be exposed to such intolerant prejudice..
I don’t have any respect or time for people like you, you’re an ignorant, homophobic, troll and you make inane comments on ever article that is remotely related to LGBT issues. It is obvious to me, and most sane people that you have a serious problem. You really should go and get help for it…
Oh “you’re an ignorant, homophobic, troll” – there you go again. More name calling.
Considering I’m a staunchly atheist, bisexual, soon to marry another bisexual, stay at home father, I got a good giggle out of your post.
What is clear is you don’t agree with Frank, or even if you question Frank, he resorts to personal abuse as he cannot defend his own watery posts. All bluster and no substance Frank. Anger management, lad. Anger management.
Well, from past articles it seems you just come on to comment in order to inflame and stir it up, so yeah people like you piss me off.. couldn’t care less whether you were bi-sexual or not, if you are, then I find it strange why you consistently defend homophobes like Cmax59… Just doesn’t add up…
Firstly, Panti’s Noble Call in the Abbey was 3 weeks after her appearance on the Saturday Show, not “less than 48 hours”.
Secondly, you can’t say the law doesn’t consider Waters homophobic, as there has been no court case of any description. Waters and the Iona 5 have threatened Panti with legal action, but so far they haven’t acted on that threat. That speaks volumes of how good they think their chances are.
Also, holding prejudiced or bigoted, beliefs doesn’t suddenly become okay just because those beliefs are “genuinely held”. That’s a poor defence for justifying discrimination and it wouldn’t hold any water (no pun intended) with discrimination against any other minority. There’s no reason that it should be a credible defence for discrimination against gay men and women.
I’m not defending him, I’m wary of everyone that has any kind of an opposing view labelled homophobe. I’m also wary of people shutting down debate, and of the Journal not having columnists against gay marriage.
The reasons for that are directly related to the upcoming referendum and the backlash at both the children’s referendum, and Seanad debate. Both were expected to be landslides but one was defeated, and the other a close call directly as a result of a lack of debate. Though not a referendum issue, public support for suicidal ideation during the abortion debate dropped a massive 25% or thereabouts in the 6 month run up to legislation being passed. It was at levels 6 months prior similar to LGBT marriage support now. Voter volatility is high and any predictions on referendums have been wildly inaccurate in recent years.
The biggest threat to gay marriage is the lack of debate. This constant shouting down of anyone that expresses an alternative view is only going to lead to damage in the polling booth.
I agree with some of what you said there, but to be honest I don’t think that by challenging homophobic attitudes on news/social media forums this is going to negatively affect the same-sex marriage debate or the results of the debate. Nobody has shut down debate. The Iona crowd, Waters et all, have been using this red herring as a faux argument. It’s simply not true that challenging homophobic attitudes shuts down debate. I would think that most intelligent, sane, reasonable people have already made up their own minds on the issues.
I haven’t seen a lack of debate at all, and also David Quinn, Patricia, Casey, Breda O’Brien, Ronan Mullen, Lucinda Creighton and their right wing Christian brethren have, and continue to have a very loud, influential and widespread media platforms, in which to wield their ant-gay marriage opinions and views. Minor skirmishes from ordinary citizens on social news/media, facebook or twitter have very little sway compared to national broadsheets and newspaper columns…
I’d agree that we shouldn’t place too much faith in opinion polls, but I’d disagree that opponents are shouted down or branded as homophobic or what not. There have been plenty of debates on radio or TV where pro-equality campaigners have managed to counter the arguments of Iona and their like quite effectively; all without calling them any names.
It’s a common tactic of opponents to play the victim card when they have no other arguments. A representative of Catholic Comment tried that on a Late Late Show debate a few years ago by saying she was always called a bigot, etc, only to have it pointed out to her that no one called her that during the course of the programme. Susan Phillips tried a version of it a few weeks back by equating not agreeing with her opinion with silencing her. And it’s Iona’s latest tactic now.
As I have nothing to do with Iona I have, alas, nowhere to go.
I regard them and you are equally incapable of understanding that people hold sincere views contrary to what you and Iona represent.
But Iona are not bitter in how they express themselves and that comes from, I suspect, the way the were brought up and their belief system. Why do GLBT people hate Christianity? I am at a loss to understand such an attitude.
It was the Monday after the Saturday if i recall correctly. It was mot 3 weeks by any means.
The Abbey address was interesting as O’Neill was so moderate after his immoderate outburst. If he held his opinion as sincerely as he did he would have called Waters a homophobic but he did not (as he would have had to pay defamation and not RTE).
He called himself self-loathing -I thought that unnecessary- but perhaps he projects that opinion of himself onto others, I don’t know but it was an odd sentiment I thought.
If I were Iona I would let Rory O’Neill continue on as any legal action, justified or not, would be too adverse to Iona et al. That I believe was the objective of O’Neill et al.
Nobody is discriminating against GLBT; it is illegal to do so and would serve no purpose. People who have sexual preferences of any kind are entitled to do so but just don’t put it in the public domain, we don’t want to know.
Sorry about the typos but some of my keys on the keyboard fell off after I dropped my computer a few months ago. It is irritating to the eye and makes reading a chore. I am getting a new laptop so that will correct the typos – if not the sentiments. I am sorry if people feel I come across as extreme as it is not my intention.
Tradition or the status quo people find it challenging when systems are changed more so wen it is a radical change (I am not saying whether it is right or wrong) but as with change in the workplace user resistance occurs. People have been used to old ways. And again proper that it it is both illegal and immoral to discriminate against people on race, colour, religious or sexual orientation grounds inter alia.On the postings here some people have no problem making very adverse and unfounded comments against the church and others. It is a two way street.
Cmac
I noticed you never answered any of my questions put to you earlier in the day.
Mr.O’Neills Abbey speech was on the Saturday,one week after the RTE show, so you are incorrect in saying it was Monday.
His speech told of how gay people experience homophobia, and oppression and yes self loathing is a common trait that most gay people feel at some stage so its not an odd sentiment at all.
It wasn’t about Mr Waters at all.
You said Mr O Neill had an objective with/towards Iona , he simply pointed out in a very articulate manner what its like to be gay in Ireland and be subjected to homophobia , subtle or otherwise.
You own homophobia just shone through with your “people who have sexual preferences of any kind are entitled to do so but just dont put it in the public domain, we dont want to know”.
If thats not homophobia I dont know what is .
” Im not homophobic but they should keep it to themselves” ect ect
Cmac
Its quite obvious you simply don’t get it.
CMac, I’m afraid you’re still wrong on the dates. Panti’s Saturday Night interview was on the 11th January and Noble Call was on 1st February, 3 weeks later to the day. You can check for yourself on this article which has both dates – http://www.thejournal.ie/panti-abbey-theatre-speech-1296471-Feb2014/.
You are however correct that legal proceedings would be adverse to Iona and Waters – they would lose. Iona’s David Quinn was outraged that RTE took 12 days to agree to pay them off. Yet, nearly 3 months later there isn’t a whisper about them bringing Panti to court. They know they would lose.
By the way, there is still plenty of discrimination in Ireland against gay and lesbian people. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen. And in some cases, the discrimination is legal, but that doesn’t make it just or right (e.g. Section 37 of the Employment Equality Acts, or the bar on marriage for same sex couples).
Ok Cmac, where to start..
1. Rory didn’t call John Waters homophobic, he said some column writers were mean and nasty about gays – Brendan O Connor then said that he didn’t think John Waters was homophobic and Rory said that the problem was with the word homophobia, perhaps you should hear the interview before you make accusations like that.
2. No court has ruled that defamation occurred.
3. No one is arguing for religious marriage equality – they want access to civil marriage and civil marriage only.
4. Appealing to tradition is logical fallacy, just because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it is the best or only way.
5. John Waters has chosen to stop writing, he was not silenced. Rory O Neill’s interview was removed from the RTE site, if anyone was silenced it was Rory, and it backfired.
6. Even if we are to take the definition of homophobia as an “irrational fear” Waters assertions that gay marriage was a “satire on marriage” that gay people wanted to “destroy” it – these are irrational fears. Of gay people being treated as equal citizens.
Can you think of any other circumstance where a gay person should be denied or excluded from state benefits or tax burdens? If not, why should the civil contract of marriage be any different? Unless you take issue with homosexual relationships, in which case you are indeed homophobic.
Rory O’Neill appeared on the Saturday Night show on the 11th January. Panti made her appearance on the Abbey Stage on the 1st February, after the last performance of The Risen People. In those 3 weeks anyone who follows twitter or other social media will remember that there was an ongoing build up to that appearance including a risible apology by RTE and an unprecedented number of complaints to RTE about that apology.
I’m not sure why you’re trying to misrepresent the sequence of events but if you actually listened to the interview with Rory you’ll notice that he was very considered in laying out the reasons for his opinion as to why certain commentators had written opinions that could be regarded as homophobic. I remember thinking it was a real debate opener. How ironic that the litigants then accused Rory and RTE of ‘shutting down debate’ when they got the lawyers in.
Unfortunately our Defamation law means that mere offence can be considered defamation. In my opinion Iona and John Waters decided to use the letter of the law to defeat the spirit of the law and I’m very pleased it backfired but they, sadly, will never ever get that it did.
Waters never wrote what you claim he did. Some people read his opinion pieces and summed up the contents as you summarized it. Now, whatever Waters may have said he did not say what you quoted. His views were purposefully misrepresented. We have seen a lot of spin and Waters had his opinions misquoted.
Dislike him for his conservative nature, consider him lacking a progressive bone in his body, feel free to dislike his association with the Iona Institute but let it be based on fact and not spin.
I stand corrected. Your dates are correct and mine are not. It was not done on purpose.
Nevertheless my statement that he did not repeat the defamation at the Abbey; that means R O’Neill knew if he said at the Abbey what he said on RTE he would be personally liable for defamation damages and he studiously avoided such defamation.
His statement at the Abbey was a call for empathy and tolerance, it was not meant to be a clarification of previous statements made although he defended himself on that front. As to ‘studiously avoiding’ defaming the people mentioned on the Saturday Night show, he stated that in his ‘gay opinion’ these people had written material and made claims that he felt were homophobic so he hardly avoided the issue that brought the defamation claims against him.
Of course he chose his language very carefully because he had 5 or 6 solicitors letters to worry about! And that’s what I have an objection to: that’s the real shut down of debate in this case, not the accusation of homophobia.
CMac, on one hand you claim Panti intentionally defamed Iona on RTE because she knew Iona wouldn’t sue as any action would be “adverse” to them. And on the other you’re claiming she didn’t defame them in the Abbey because she knew she could be sued for defamation.
Cmac I never said he wrote it. He said it. The transcripts of the interview have been seen by many. Why the denial Cmac?
You defend his.words as honestly held opinion, yet Rory O’Neills honestly held.opinion went to far? I’ll ask again, how I’d what Rory O’Neill said worse than the tripe, the vile sensationalist accusations that have dripped from Waters mouth and pen? (Honestly held opinion there Cmac)
Anyway, Cmac, you have defended Waters and suggested Rory O’Neill went too far. Please outline how exactly what Rory said, where he clarified his use of the word homophobia yet did not direct it at anybody, is worse than Mr. Waters accusing ALL gay people of trying to destroy what they are jealous of i.e. civil marriage and treating children as a commodity, to be stolen from their fathers?
O’Neills interview pales by comparison to the sensationalist lies Mr. Waters spills.
Extreme comments against Iona’s Waters etc as RTE would ave to pay.
At the Abbey a more measured tone no extreme comments as Rory O’Neill would have had to apy ; or, as one commentator noted, he had solicitor letters to worry about.Also, wisely he adopted a moderate aproach.
“or that he has some mad conspiracy theories about children being taken from their parents for gay people to adopt?”
He said unmarried fathers, not parents afaik
Nothing mad about it. It’s a reality. Happens everyday Shanti.
Where Water’s fcuked up was using the word “gay”. There was no need for that. Water’s mistake has, and continues to be, using the word ”gay” or LGBT.
But he’s totally accurate when he says children are routinely taken for adoption against the will of the father. No conspiracy there. The fact he mentioned taken from unmarried fathers – and then given to gay couples was his mistake. That was just silly and needless on his behalf. But it’s also true.
Edit – “But it’s also true” – Will be true, when gay adoption becomes a reality.
Personally I’ve no problem with gay adoption. But I don’t see how Water’s is incorrect when he says children (babies) will be taken against the will of the father and given up for adoption by the mother to couples (gay or otherwise).
I meant that the conspiracy theory was that this was somehow exclusive to gay people. As though it was part of some scheme or plan on their behalf to take children from their fathers. That’s really paranoid when as you say, this is an issue with (some) adoptions in general and is not the fault nor the desire of gay people.
Sam, Waters said GAY couples will take children from their fathers. The whole debate is re his homophobia. Are you desperately trying to divert the course of the debate? Seems like it.
Waters is homophobic, he sensationalist accusation about the LGBT community. Yet he walks away with tens of thousands. He is a greedy homophobic attention seeker. Good riddance to him.
Cmac, you have a poor grasp of defamation laws. Regardless of the medium, if I defame someone, then I’m liable. Whether I do that in print, in broadcast media or in public, I’m still liable. Defaming someone on the national broadcaster doesn’t give me immunity.
There were no extreme comments from Panti in the Abbey because there were no extreme comments in the original interview. Calling someone mean and horrible isn’t defamation. Saying that you think a homophobe is someone who opposes equality and thinks gay people should be treated less than everyone else, isn’t extreme.
I really wish Iona’s supporters would stop making Iona out to be the victims here. Iona were only interested in the money and it blew up in their faces. The sooner their supporters realise that that’s what motivated Iona, the better.
Sam, there are very few domestic adoptions in Ireland, approximately 50 per year. That’s less than one a week, so children are not routinely put up for adoption against their fathers will, and it certainly doesn’t happen every day.
You’ll get no argument from me that the rights of unmarried fathers needs to be improved, but that’s got nothing to do LGBT rights. Allowing gay couples to marry or adopt jointly won’t increase the number of children being put up for adoption, or being taken from unmarried fathers. One must question why Waters chose to conflate the issues, and based on his other comments, I think it’s a fair assumption that he was engaging in scaremongering.
” Are you desperately trying to divert the course of the debate? Seems like it.”
No. In every state/country whereby LGBT adoption has been legalised there has been a huge demand on adoption agencies. If you research it, instead of finger pointing at me, you’ll find I’m right on that one.There are now adoption droughts everywhere LGBT adoption has been legalised.
But, crucially. in some they have actually changed the law resultantly. In fact they’ve changed the wording of the law and removed the term mother and father, and replaced it with parent. Such changes have a huge impact whether you like it or not.
Sam, I’m having difficulty finding evidence of this sudden drought in adoptees you speak of. I see some things about there being a shortage of white babies, but not because of LGBT adoption. I also see a lot about older kids being desperately in need of parents, and shortages in adoptive parents.
It would help if I could see where you are getting this from because perhaps searching “adoption shortage” and “adoption shortage due to Marriage equality” was not sufficient.
Sam, an adoption drought is a good thing, isn’t it? It means that children are being placed quickly with suitable families and aren’t left in long term care.
I have to ask what this has to do with children being put up for adoption without their father’s consent. That’s the point being made by Waters. Is there evidence that this happens more in countries that allow gay couples to adopt?
In Ireland, the issue around unmarried fathers isn’t connected to letting gay couples adopt jointly. It’s that the Constitution gives the family formed through marriage greater status over other types of family. The Children’s referendum took some steps to balance that by putting children’s rights, not the parents’ rights, at the core of issues related to child welfare. That’s why Shatter’s Child & Family Relationship bill will give automatic guardianship to unmarried fathers. Changes to the adoption laws will also be required as a result of the Children’s referendum (married couples will also now be able to put children up for adoption), so that will be an opportunity for unmarried fathers to air their concerns with adoption laws.
“Sam, an adoption drought is a good thing, isn’t it? It means that children are being placed quickly with suitable families and aren’t left in long term care.”
Yes. Absolutely.
“That’s the point being made by Waters. Is there evidence that this happens more in countries that allow gay couples to adopt?”
That’s not the immediate issue Brian. But over the course of time – legally – it’s not so clear.
For example what happens when a country’s central institution is desexed and the individuals within such an institution can morph back and forth between sex, gender, mother and father, husband and wife, boy and girl, son and daughter, male and female, heterosexual marriage, trans marriage, and same sex marriage?
Dr Lydia Foy is on the verge of making that a reality (and best of luck to her, I support her)
But if you put both those scenarios alone side by side, it can only lead to the further diminishment of fathers.
But, will any of the above in any way change a mothers constitutional right to her own child? No, no way. It’s written in stone.
Will it affect a fathers? Of course it will.
“In Ireland, the issue around unmarried fathers isn’t connected to letting gay couples adopt jointly. It’s that the Constitution gives the family formed through marriage greater status over other types of family”
I agree fully. All families should have constitutional protection (in an ideal world), and the primary reason I will vote yes in the upcoming referendum is to make damn sure that the children, in particular, of LGBT couples are protected in law. That’s the clincher for me.
But we may have a few hundred LGBT marriages a year, yet we have 200,000 (CSO) unmarried fathers and multiples of that in terms of unmarried families. My concern is, and still is, they will be affected by a combination of gay marriage and a legal recognition of trans. I cannot see how it won’t have a major impact on unmarried families and unmarried fathers too.
Sam, fathers rights are not where they should be, granted. The new legislation on its way goes some way towards protecting them further while also allowing alternative parents to be protected too. It’s a legal mine field and as it all plays out, the law will need tweeking here and there to fully protect all parents and children.
Waters has accused LGBT people of wanting to STEAL children from fathers. While fathers rights are in no way good enough, it is simply NOT the case that LGBT people want to steal children from biological fathers, no matter how you dress it up. LGBT people want to give children a safe, loving home. It’s the law that is the issue, not those that wish to adopt.
Water’s accusations are inflammatory, sensationalist, homophobic and incredibly insulting, no matter what angle you look at it Sam. That’s the point being made, not that fathers rights are fine, they’re not, the point is Water’s claims are absurd.
When you threaten legal action against one of your own colleagues it creates a conflict of interest so one of you has to go. Turns out it was him. I won’t miss having to lie down in a darkened room after trying to de-code his ‘writing’ .
Well in fairness, Kathy Sinnott and Water’s almost singlehandedly beat the Government in the childrens referendum despite the Government machine and media favouring it.
Watch him turn up at the Independent group,following in the footsteps of the stellar (ooogghh) Dan O’Brien.Watters Dan O’Brien and Eoghan Harris ,shoot me please.
Fare thee well then Waters, John
You did go on, and on and on
from your pulpit high above
’til Panti’s galant little shove
made you richer, gratis RTE,
when we’d already had enough of ye.
Enjoy retirement, Sunday Male -
your Southside life inside the Pale,
your mind a mess of Catholic pottage,
your retreat a once plain Sligo cottage
your food a fine old Wheatfield stew
your song of nothing compares to U.
In my blog about Lorna Byrne I praised the Irish Times for being the only paper not to fall for profit driven journalistic sensationalism by publishing stories about her. The Indo was the exact opposite. The Irish Times are the last standing real newspaper in Ireland. This is yet another reason to congratulate them.
Nobody will miss this bigoted arrogant fool!
He can write his nonsense now in the tabloids where he belongs or maybe grab a cosy consultancy job with the Iona Institute or Opus Dei….
It will be found that Bullying always backfires, but can’t blame sincere people limiting public arena. J.Waters and others will do good elsewhere with the time saved not feeding trolls.
Where’s my comment gone, Christine? All I said was that Waters has a lump sum of money to live on for a while. How exactly did that breach journal comment rules?
The broadsheets have become bland rags more interested in entertainment news than hard news. The IT gave up its paper of record status. There’s nothing left.
It’s also true of the UK press. The Guardian has gone the same way.
Under Geraldine Kennedy and all who followed her as editor the Irish Times lost its former status. It is pro-government whether that is FF/PD pr FG/Labour or whatever may emerge after the next general election. It mirrors RTE in that respect.
Big loss for any national newspaper , one of the few journalist that had integrity and intelligence & didn’t write on conventional populous topics. Irish times won’t be any loss they’ve been boring and crap in recent years.
A lot of the content in the it is syndicated from the guardian, telegraph, English times – you’d be better off buying them if your not too fussed about local news – plus they are cheaper
Fare thee well then Waters, John
You did go on, and on and on
from your pulpit high above
’til Panti’s galant little shove
made you richer, gratis RTE,
when we’d already tired of ye.
Enjoy retirement, Sunday Male -
your Southside life inside the Pale,
your mind a mess of Catholic pottage,
your retreat a once plain Sligo cottage
your food a fine old Wheatfield stew
your song of nothing compares to U.
I am inclined to believe he must be doing something very good. You all cheered as Bertie was busy crushing our country, that for you all to be mocking and denigrating this writer must mean he is standing up for someone or something he believes in and is being put down for it.
Amazing to see everyone so riled up by someone willing to think for themselves.
Fair dues to him.
For all you bully’s and cowards willing to kick someone from the safety of a mob, a word of warning, its only a matter of time before the mob rounds on you.
John is correct, not maybe, but is. Read the article those of you who speak out “at” him. Most of it is hate. Nothing to do with Iona, most people don’t even know who they are? who are they?
Ray D'Arcy 'hugely' disappointed with RTÉ management as he leaves in shock move
5 hrs ago
100k
RTÉ Drive Time debate
'What's your party piece?': Four things to know from the first head-to-head presidential debate
1 hr ago
8.1k
60
still working 9 to 5
'I ain't dead yet!': Dolly Parton reassures fans after sister asked for prayers for the singer
Updated
8 Oct
35.2k
32
Your Cookies. Your Choice.
Cookies help provide our news service while also enabling the advertising needed to fund this work.
We categorise cookies as Necessary, Performance (used to analyse the site performance) and Targeting (used to target advertising which helps us keep this service free).
We and our 241 partners store and access personal data, like browsing data or unique identifiers, on your device. Selecting Accept All enables tracking technologies to support the purposes shown under we and our partners process data to provide. If trackers are disabled, some content and ads you see may not be as relevant to you. You can resurface this menu to change your choices or withdraw consent at any time by clicking the Cookie Preferences link on the bottom of the webpage . Your choices will have effect within our Website. For more details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
We and our vendors process data for the following purposes:
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
Cookies Preference Centre
We process your data to deliver content or advertisements and measure the delivery of such content or advertisements to extract insights about our website. We share this information with our partners on the basis of consent. You may exercise your right to consent, based on a specific purpose below or at a partner level in the link under each purpose. Some vendors may process your data based on their legitimate interests, which does not require your consent. You cannot object to tracking technologies placed to ensure security, prevent fraud, fix errors, or deliver and present advertising and content, and precise geolocation data and active scanning of device characteristics for identification may be used to support this purpose. This exception does not apply to targeted advertising. These choices will be signaled to our vendors participating in the Transparency and Consent Framework. The choices you make regarding the purposes and vendors listed in this notice are saved and stored locally on your device for a maximum duration of 1 year.
Manage Consent Preferences
Necessary Cookies
Always Active
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
Social Media Cookies
These cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.
Targeting Cookies
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
Functional Cookies
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
Performance Cookies
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Store and/or access information on a device 172 partners can use this purpose
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development 220 partners can use this purpose
Use limited data to select advertising 180 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Create profiles for personalised advertising 137 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Use profiles to select personalised advertising 139 partners can use this purpose
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Create profiles to personalise content 54 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Use profiles to select personalised content 51 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Measure advertising performance 195 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Measure content performance 80 partners can use this purpose
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Understand audiences through statistics or combinations of data from different sources 124 partners can use this purpose
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Develop and improve services 130 partners can use this purpose
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Use limited data to select content 54 partners can use this purpose
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
Use precise geolocation data 68 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Actively scan device characteristics for identification 40 partners can use this special feature
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Ensure security, prevent and detect fraud, and fix errors 135 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Deliver and present advertising and content 138 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Match and combine data from other data sources 107 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Link different devices 73 partners can use this feature
Always Active
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Identify devices based on information transmitted automatically 131 partners can use this feature
Always Active
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
Save and communicate privacy choices 119 partners can use this special purpose
Always Active
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say