Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UL pro life society ???
Options
Comments
-
Except for passing the "any objections?" and resulting vote at C&S you mean? The soc did not meet all of the C&S requirements based on that, so I'm not sure why you are saying that they did...They met all the technical red tape,
And how can you state that you know why people voted the way they did? There was no clarification needed or given at the vote or for the objections. As for what you may think (i.e. your unfounded opinion) as to the reasoning behind the vote, that is of no relevance whatsoever to the process.The only reason they where turned away is because they were not the right kind of people for C&S and people who voted against them didn't want them around.
Fact: Pro-Life were not accepted. End of story. Fact: No reasons were given nor were needed to be given.
I think you are putting your own prejudices into your guessing as to people's motives behind their votes, and that's not a good idea.
Then make sure your posts are clear and concise and accurate - as your error created ambiguity that needed clarification before I could adequately answer your point.Nobody likes a grammar nazi. How does the Life soc affect any C&S like mountain biking and maths? Was the vote based on greed? Did the C&S that voted against them just didn't want to share the funding and take a smaller cut?
As for how having a soc such as the prolife group within C&S affects other clubs, well that's a matter for each individual group to assess and vote as required. I do know exactly why my three committees reached their voting decisions, but I'm not going to enter that discussion here as it's of no relevance to you.
That parade situation is misrepresented badly, and the comparison is not valid here - the prolife group was not voted on because of their beliefs - we do not know nor can we ever know what the reasoning was for the voting as it was not part of the voting process. Any guesses as to the reasoning are nothing more than conjecture, and therefore irrelevant.A bit like how LGBT can march in the New York Paddy's day parade as long as they are not part of an LGBT group.
I can easily continue to claim the truth that C&S is open to all students, as none of the members of the prolife group were prevented from joining C&S at all - you appear to have some confusion about the separation of the personal membership and the group inclusion within C&S. All of the people associated with that prolife group are perfectly welcome to join C&S under any of the C&S groups present at this point, so your point is in reality a non-issue.How can you still claim that C&S is open to all student, when they shut the door to a group of students looking to get involved.
I've spoken at great length with Paul before and after this vote on the immediate and long-term implications (if any). Can you say the same? I'd say I've got a pretty good idea of the man's concerns and where they came from, and it's only about precedent. And as I've stated before the only actual precedent that was set was that C&S exercised their right to refuse a group entry to C&S. As any reasoning behind that vote was neither needed nor given, that was the only precedent that could be set. Do you think that there was another precedent set?I'm not the only one worried about the precedent that this has set. Paul is worried. Do you know think you know more than him and he is wrong to be worried?
There's no automatic right for a group to be given membership of C&S, nor should there be.0 -
Except for passing the "any objections?" and resulting vote at C&S you mean? The soc did not meet all of the C&S requirements based on that, so I'm not sure why you are saying that they did...
And how can you state that you know why people voted the way they did? There was no clarification needed or given at the vote or for the objections. As for what you may think (i.e. your unfounded opinion) as to the reasoning behind the vote, that is of no relevance whatsoever to the process.
Fact: Pro-Life were not accepted. End of story. Fact: No reasons were given nor were needed to be given. I think you are putting your own prejudices into your guessing as to people's motives behind their votes, and that's not a good idea.
Fact: They society met all the requirements before the vote. Therefore non of the objections could be based on a failure to met a technical requirement. The only other reason to rise an object is personal opinion unless you're trolling the C&S council.Then make sure your posts are clear and concise and accurate - as your error created ambiguity that needed clarification before I could adequately answer your point.
As for how having a soc such as the prolife group within C&S affects other clubs, well that's a matter for each individual group to assess and vote as required. I do know exactly why my three committees reached their voting decisions, but I'm not going to enter that discussion here as it's of no relevance to you.
No need to say. Ye are greedy and ye don't want to increase the number of people drawing from the money pool.That parade situation is misrepresented badly, and the comparison is not valid here - the prolife group was not voted on because of their beliefs - we do not know nor can we ever know what the reasoning was for the voting as it was not part of the voting process. Any guesses as to the reasoning are nothing more than conjecture, and therefore irrelevant.
How is it not valid? Members of both groups are still allowed in the organisation that voted against them because they didn't fit the norm, as long as they are not part of the banned groups.I can easily continue to claim the truth that C&S is open to all students, as none of the members of the prolife group were prevented from joining C&S at all - you appear to have some confusion about the separation of the personal membership and the group inclusion within C&S. All of the people associated with that prolife group are perfectly welcome to join C&S under any of the C&S groups present at this point, so your point is in reality a non-issue.
Is it a non-issue because you can't face the hard truth. FACT: C&S shut the door on a group of students looking to get involved. Doesn't scream everyone welcome now does it.I've spoken at great length with Paul before and after this vote on the immediate and long-term implications (if any). Can you say the same? I'd say I've got a pretty good idea of the man's concerns and where they came from, and it's only about precedent. And as I've stated before the only actual precedent that was set was that C&S exercised their right to refuse a group entry to C&S. As any reasoning behind that vote was neither needed nor given, that was the only precedent that could be set. Do you think that there was another precedent set?
There's no automatic right for a group to be given membership of C&S, nor should there be.
Other students are now facing a shut door when they try to get involved. They can jump through all the hoops but for nought because some guy, who never attended one of their event, didn't like them and got his buddy to gang up on the prospective society.
If C&S are all of a sudden doing thinks by the book, maybe they should look into some of the current C&S to make sure they meet code.
What's even worst is that the student that where kicked out of C&S due to the personal opinions of the guys like video games or mountain bikes have to pay for their social life0 -
What's even worst is that the student that where kicked out of C&S due to the personal opinions of the guys like video games or mountain bikes have to pay for their social life
Wait, what people were kicked out of the Game society and Mountain Biking? And what does that have to do with Life soc?0 -
Other students are now facing a shut door when they try to get involved. They can jump through all the hoops but for nought because some guy, who never attended one of their event, didn't like them and got his buddy to gang up on the prospective society.
If C&S are all of a sudden doing thinks by the book, maybe they should look into some of the current C&S to make sure they meet code.
At least one more society has come to council in the intervening period looking to start their trial and been passed. Every group is examined on its own merits.
I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.0 -
Wait, what people were kicked out of the Game society and Mountain Biking? And what does that have to do with Life soc?
I think he's claiming that the committees of those groups voted against Life Soc based on personal motives to get Life Soc kicked out of C&S Council.
He's connecting this to the idea that C&S funding somehow is the sole funding source for the social lives of the committee members of clubs or societies and that groups excluded from the little club have to fund their own social lives.0 -
Advertisement
-
0
-
At least one more society has come to council in the intervening period looking to start their trial and been passed. Every group is examined on its own merits.
I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.
Well their poster who have never have gotten a stamp anyway as they are not part of the SU. Maybe they where looking for support when C&S shut the door in their face.0 -
-
highlydebased wrote: »All posters, regardless of whether something is part of the SU or not must carry an SU stamp.
Nope, I'm certain UL don't want to put an SU stamp on their posters. All Students' Union material require a Students' Union stamp or logo on the poster.
Posters from the stables and other businesses (O'Mahoney's, USIT) don't require an SU stamp. They require their respective logos.0 -
highlydebased wrote: »All posters, regardless of whether something is part of the SU or not must carry an SU stamp.
They can also be stamped by Student Affairs (Chaplaincy, Counselling, etc).
Additionally, you don't have to be part of C&S to get an SU stamp AFAIK.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi,
As the chairperson of UL Life Society, I was interested to find this thread here....
If anyone (whether agreeing or not) would like to meet on campus to discuss this, I'd be more than happy. Just PM me.
I'd like to make several (I hope) informative comments.
First, I respect that there may be some who voted against us who did not do so on ideological grounds. These are the ones who genuinely voted against us because we are a "single issue society". Although I believe it is still against C&S regulations to vote this way (since Council cannot simply ignore the definition of society in the Rulebook, which includes "single issue" societies), I respect this stance. Furthermore, I have (thankfully) met many pro choice people who are reasonable and do not descend to name-calling and harassment as soon as they hear I'm pro life. Many of these have even expressed strong disagreement with us not being given permission to go on trial status.
Second, the Q&A during C&S Council, where I was asked several questions, appears to me to have only had 2 purposes:
1. A last-minute attempt to find a technical excuse for what was clearly a vote based on personal, ideological opinion (since, as Paul Lee testified, we met all the technical requirements), and related to that,
2. An attempt to give the impression of being "nice" and "fair".
I conclude this for a simple reason. From many things I have heard, most committees (all?) had decided how to vote BEFORE the Q&A. Therefore, the Q&A was a kangaroo court.
Third, a comment following on from this observation. The only direct interaction we had with anyone apart from Paul Lee was with someone from Computer Soc (I won't name them). My e-mail to them has been reproduced on this forum already. This means, in effect, that this e-mail (very short!) is the only opportunity we had to make our case before most (all?) committees decided which way to vote.
Fourth, the matter of open membership. The enquiries made regarding our stance of membership were seemingly always made with the intent of finding a technical reason for which to oppose us. Neither the e-mail from Computer Soc, nor the questions during the Q&A, first informed us that we would have to have open membership in order to be a UL approved society. Thus, it seems these questions were framed so as to catch us in a technical error. The truth is, we did not know this was required. Once we knew (through open, honest dialogue with Paul Lee, all recorded by e-mail) we were perfectly willing to have open membership. This bias and desire to find technical fault with us is demonstrated even by the C&S Council chairman's letter to the editor of the Irish Independent, where he continues to promote the myth that we were unwilling to have open membership.
Fifth, the matter of the posters has been addressed in detail in the comments at thejournal.ie article. Anyone actually interested in the truth can, again, ask Paul Lee whether we had permission to get these posters stamped. If any were not stamped, this is simply because I missed some posters while stamping several dozen of them (human error, shocking!). My stamping them was even witnessed by a staff at SU, who will remember, because she came up to me and asked me if I had permission.
Sixth, we have, to this day, and despite raising a formal complaint with the C&S chairman to this effect some time ago, still not received a single, official reason for our rejection from being allowed to go on trial status despite meeting all the requirement. As has been shown in this discussion, not a single objection was heard in Council prior to the vote. The vote should have been postponed until these objections were heard and we had a chance to respond to them.
Lastly, Paul Lee himself, during the Q&A session and before the vote, spoke up and testified that we met all the conditions and that thus there is no mechanism whereby we can be disallowed from becoming a society.
As I said, I'd be happy to meet anyone over a cup of coffee to discuss this.
Oh, I almost forgot, when we did have our information stand in the Red raisins canteen, we were harassed by several UL students (a single girl was at the stall when the harassment started, whom they attempted to bully into leaving the Red Raisins). These students claimed, in an aggressive and bullying manner, several of them surrounding the single girl manning the stall, that our views have no place in the Red Raisins or anywhere else on campus. These students have now been reprimanded by SU. The information and posters we had at the stand were about as mild pro life as you can get without becoming pro choice or completely neutral (the theme was the development of the life of the unborn baby in the womb).0 -
I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.
Hi Chimaera,
I've responded to the poster misunderstanding in my previous post.
We do not represent a national group. We handed out 3 pieces of literature during our information day, all 3 were from 3 different pro life groups, none of which we are affiliated with. We do not receive any funding from them etc we simply used their literature.
As such, I don't see any issue in us getting through a 15 week trial - that is, if everyone else sticks with the C&S Rulebook. Which has already been shown not to be the case (people voting against us despite us meeting all the conditions set out in the Rulebook).0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »if everyone else sticks with the C&S Rulebook. Which has already been shown not to be the case (people voting against us despite us meeting all the conditions set out in the Rulebook).
A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.
As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.
Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.0 -
A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.
As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.
Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.
Call a spade a spade
All C&S Mafia did was let these students know that they where not the right kind of people for C&S regardless of the rules they followed.0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »Fifth, the matter of the posters has been addressed in detail in the comments at thejournal.ie article. Anyone actually interested in the truth can, again, ask Paul Lee whether we had permission to get these posters stamped. If any were not stamped, this is simply because I missed some posters while stamping several dozen of them (human error, shocking!). My stamping them was even witnessed by a staff at SU, who will remember, because she came up to me and asked me if I had permission.
You must be new to this. Stamp the poster before you photocopy them!0 -
Ouch I feel like an idiot now!Delta Kilo wrote: »You must be new to this. Stamp the poster before you photocopy them!
I'll have to figure that out as we normally print them in colour from PDF...0 -
A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.
As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.
Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.
I wonder would people take this view and be satisfied if it had been Out in UL who had been denied trial status despite meeting the technical requirements...0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »I wonder would people take this view and be satisfied if it had been Out in UL who had been denied trial status despite meeting the technical requirements...
Out In Ul represent everyone, regardless of your sexuality, so it's different. There are a lot of straight members in UL as well.0 -
It's a matter of perception.
Generally, advocating for LGBT rights is a positive thing as it involves including a minority who have for a long time been ostracised based on religious and societal norms. It's
On the other hand, advocating the polarised 'Pro-Life' stance on abortion is seen as a religious minority forcing their views on everyone, regardless of whether people accept that religious belief or not. Conceptually, it's similar to a Muslim group advocating for Shariah Law to be applied here.
It's not really a fair comparison.0 -
Out In Ul represent everyone, regardless of your sexuality, so it's different. There are a lot of straight members in UL as well.
Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?Conceptually, it's similar to a Muslim group advocating for Shariah Law to be applied here.
It's not really a fair comparison.
But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??
This seems hypocritical.It's a matter of perception.
Generally, advocating for LGBT rights is a positive thing as it involves including a minority who have for a long time been ostracised based on religious and societal norms. It's
On the other hand, advocating the polarised 'Pro-Life' stance on abortion is seen as a religious minority forcing their views on everyone, regardless of whether people accept that religious belief or not.
Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."
On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?
--
It's becoming clear that C&S has become ideologically-based and no longer represents all students, which include the "religious" "minority" of a "pro life" persuasion. Only such societies as are deemed acceptable to the "majority" will be granted official status. Maybe a referendum on social & political issues are next, so that SU can exclude even more student "minorities"?
P.S.: We're not a religious society. We have at least 1 atheist student as a member.0 -
Advertisement
-
manuelkuhs wrote: »Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?
There's a difference between a person's sexuality and a person's beliefs.0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?
But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??
This seems hypocritical.
Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."
On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?
Out in UL don't ostracise anyone, they are there for those who have been ostracised. False comparison. UL Life Soc are inherently exclusive.
--
It's becoming clear that C&S has become ideologically-based and no longer represents all students, which include the "religious" "minority" of a "pro life" persuasion. Only such societies as are deemed acceptable to the "majority" will be granted official status. Maybe a referendum on social & political issues are next, so that SU can exclude even more student "minorities"?
P.S.: We're not a religious society. We have at least 1 atheist student as a member.
The opposite of religion is not atheism, rather irreligion (religious ---> irreligious that is). Some atheists might also argue that they are in fact religious in some way. Richard Dawkins considers himself religious. Many atheists hold pro life views anyway, so I wouldn't consider this to be surprising.
Answers in bold.0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??
Sadly I was expecting a response like this. I'll repeat: I said conceptually. It's a minority expecting the majority to live life according to its standards. This was more a general observation on the Pro-Life movement as a whole.manuelkuhs wrote: »This seems hypocritical.
Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."
On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?
Perhaps it was unfair to use the word religious, but you are a minority with a view that's unpopular. From what I've seen the majority of Pro-Life proponents are religious, but I'll accept that atheists and agnostics could hold such a view too.
My main point here is that expecting support for an unpopular (and scientifically unsupported) viewpoint is unfortunately wishful thinking.
I'd prefer for C&S sake if the debate had not drifted into the ideological side of the matter but it did, and was always likely to given the nature of the issue at hand.
Personally I disagree with the whole Pro-Life ideology. It's too black-and-white and ignores the nuanced nature of humanity and its problems, not to mention it's continued ignorance of the medical and social scientific evidence on the matter. I'm also not going to get into an ideological debate here: the internet is full of those already.
As a core committee member of a society, I advocated for my society to vote in favour of your society which we did. The vote was not about what you do as a society, it was about allowing you to be a society and that was how I approached it. I also felt that since it was approval of a 15 week trial, the council would have plenty of time to see what you would do before you became a full society.0 -
Just to chime in again.
I'll make it simple from my standpoint.
I've made these comments before on here and on the terrible article posted on The Journal. The definition of what a society is needs to change. It does not fit in with what societies in UL (as part of Clubs & Societies) actually do.
The process was followed, the soc was voted down. If anything what this has done is expose areas within Clubs and Socs that needs clarification perhaps change. There is nothing that says currently that if they meet all the requirements they automatically go through, it says if there an objection is made a vote is held. That is the process as it stands. The reasons for why individual C&S voted they way they did is their prerogative.
With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.
The definition of a society should change.
However, these are important discussions and debates that I feel need to be had.
The SU demonstrated this year that a fund was able to be put in place to run a Yes, No and Neutral campaign for this years referendum. If there was some way possible that something like this could be put in place for when there are big issues affecting the nation (the gay marriage referendum which will be coming up) I think that is a potentially good way about helping support groups, who want to push a single stance on a single issue.
The issues that could be funded by this would need to be approved by Student Council perhaps.
Again I am only throwing out different ideas, because regardless of Pro-Life meeting the requirements of a society currently I do not believe Clubs and Societies are a body or group that should be used for pushing a single stance on a single issue (it does not matter the stance, or the issue). A different mechanism needs to be developed.
Edit: I just want to point out - this year I have zero involvement with C&S Committee, C&S Council or C&S Exec. Just a member.0 -
Ginge Young wrote: »With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.
The people who voted no was only due to them being ideologically against the soc, as they had met all initial requirement. The people who voted yes had could have voted that way with a technical reason.0 -
The people who voted no was only due to them being ideologically against the soc, as they had met all initial requirement. The people who voted yes had could have voted that way with a technical reason.
I know of a handful of C&S who voted no for the reasons I made above. That C&S should not be groups that push a single stance on a single issue and that a better mechanism could be put in place.
All I am saying is that if people are going to keep saying that all those voted no purely because of ideological reasons (and I believe that is wrong to do in an organisation such as C&S) then they need to be prepared that some of those who voted yes may have done so also.
At the end of the day, the vote was held. I'm more interest in moving forward with suggestions that can help.
I don't think there is grounds for appeal because the process was followed. If the process isn't ideal then that is another issue, one which needs to be rectified. There is nothing that says, if an objection is raised, that C&S must vote yes if they meet all the requirements - people have a vote for a reason. The same reason why in Government, just because something meets all the requirements to be passed, it does not necessarily mean that it will be.
I am not saying that is an ideal situation - and I agree that it needs to be fixed. When it comes to membership I do believe C&S are somewhat exposed if they can vote down groups that the meet requirements. But the system as it stands does allow this. There is no grounds for appeal based on that.0 -
I think it very much is the case at this point that the process needs to be changed. It was not really a good idea to have a situation where people can disallow a society that meets requirements on arbitrary or ideological grounds. Unfortunately the system has been tested by this society, and those with the vote didn't prove themselves able to pass it. The best option now is to change the process so that this situation (which I think we can all agree is a problem) can't occur in future.Ginge Young wrote: »I know of a handful of C&S who voted no for the reasons I made above. That C&S should not be groups that push a single stance on a single issue and that a better mechanism could be put in place.
All I am saying is that if people are going to keep saying that all those voted no purely because of ideological reasons (and I believe that is wrong to do in an organisation such as C&S) then they need to be prepared that some of those who voted yes may have done so also.
At the end of the day, the vote was held. I'm more interest in moving forward with suggestions that can help.
I don't think there is grounds for appeal because the process was followed. If the process isn't ideal then that is another issue, one which needs to be rectified. There is nothing that says, if an objection is raised, that C&S must vote yes if they meet all the requirements - people have a vote for a reason. The same reason why in Government, just because something meets all the requirements to be passed, it does not necessarily mean that it will be.
I am not saying that is an ideal situation - and I agree that it needs to be fixed. When it comes to membership I do believe C&S are somewhat exposed if they can vote down groups that the meet requirements. But the system as it stands does allow this. There is no grounds for appeal based on that.0 -
Regardless of whether or not the vote is "valid", I think everyone, whether they agree with it or not, knows one thing:
If the same had happened to e.g. Out in UL, there would be outrage, an appeal, and a reversal. Possibly there would be threats of lawsuit against C&S for homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc.
We all know why the same thing can be done to something like UL Life Soc and most people have the response "it was a democratic process" (something which most people would I think not dare to say if the same had happened to Out in UL).
The reason is: the pro life position is considered, among students and the media, a minority that does not have equal rights.
But woe to you if you do anything to hurt the LGBT cause.
But if you hurt the pro life cause, if you ostracise them, refuse to give them the funding that they (as UL students paying into the C&S fund) deserve, you are applauded or at least acknowledged to have followed the "democratic process".
The truth is that LGBT is no longer a threatened minority - they are a celebrated, privileged minority.
Pro life and other conservative issues are now the threatened minority. They are the new minority that you are allowed (indeed, in many cases, encouraged to) discriminate against.
I find it sad that many progressive liberalists do not see how strongly they are opposing the values they have so strongly campaigned for - equality and protection for minorities.0 -
manuelkuhs wrote: »Regardless of whether or not the vote is "valid", I think everyone, whether they agree with it or not, knows one thing:
If the same had happened to e.g. Out in UL, there would be outrage, an appeal, and a reversal. Possibly there would be threats of lawsuit against C&S for homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc.
We all know why the same thing can be done to something like UL Life Soc and most people have the response "it was a democratic process" (something which most people would I think not dare to say if the same had happened to Out in UL).
The reason is: the pro life position is considered, among students and the media, a minority that does not have equal rights.
But woe to you if you do anything to hurt the LGBT cause.
But if you hurt the pro life cause, if you ostracise them, refuse to give them the funding that they (as UL students paying into the C&S fund) deserve, you are applauded or at least acknowledged to have followed the "democratic process".
The truth is that LGBT is no longer a threatened minority - they are a celebrated, privileged minority.
Pro life and other conservative issues are now the threatened minority. They are the new minority that you are allowed (indeed, in many cases, encouraged to) discriminate against.
I find it sad that many progressive liberalists do not see how strongly they are opposing the values they have so strongly campaigned for - equality and protection for minorities.
Manuel,
With all due respect. The process was followed. I have highlighted that the process may not be perfect, and may in some instances need to be fixed, but it was followed as it currently is written.
Regardless of the process I do not believe that a UL Pro-Life Society, a UL Pro-Choice Society, a UL - Pro-Gay Marriage Society or a UL Pro-Traditional Marraige should be allowed to exist under the umbrella of Clubs and Societies (or any other single stance/issue societies that could exist).
You are continuously nitpicking at the definition of a society as it currently stands. Yes maybe that is there - but that definition does not actually fit for the Societies of this University in my opinion and needs to be changed. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge this, means you are more interested is causing a ****-storm in a teacup then actually understanding and accepting what societies under the C&S umbrella actually are, (The Journal article case in point) regardless of a definition that was written I don't know how long ago.
Regardless of it being there the process was again still followed. Nothing says that if people meet the requirements they have to be voted through if an objection is raised (I don't necessarily agree with this, but again that is the process as it stands).
The fact that you are continuing to make a political argument out of this without even acknowledging or looking at other possible ways through which you can get your message across in the University is laughable.
You cannot compare yourself to Out in UL. Out in UL in this University is a support network for individuals who identify themselves as LGBT or are trying to figure it out. It also incorporates a social aspect for these individuals and they do amazing work to help make people feel welcome.
Your society, is about taking a single political stance on a single issue. The entire purpose was going to be pushing your stance on others in the University. No matter how much you keep going on about this, the process was followed, it was not allowed through and there are no grounds for appeal.
What I want to see moving forward, is that:
1) The definition of a society is changed - so that societies whose whole purpose is to take a single stance on a single issue are not applicable to become societies under C&S.
2) The process of the vote needs to be investigated and tightened up so that when people do meet the criteria the only way they can be voted down is if an objection is raised under the criteria for a society and it is deemed valid.
3) Some sort of fund come available so that issues that are deemed of importance to the student body (by student council) have the opportunity to have campaigns ran on either end of the argument. Similar to the fund that the SU had this year for the referendum.0 -
Advertisement
-
I was not speaking about Out in UL. I pointed out the fact (by definition of the word) that C&S have now "ostracised" UL Pro Life society.Out in UL don't ostracise anyone, they are there for those who have been ostracised. False comparison. UL Life Soc are inherently exclusive.
I think you'll find that this represents the first ideological discussion of the issue in this thread. Also it is not fair to make the claims you make (which are the very claims we deny) and then say you're not willing to discuss them....scientifically unsupported... ignores the nuanced nature of humanity and its problems, not to mention it's continued ignorance of the medical and social scientific evidence on the matter. I'm also not going to get into an ideological debate here: the internet is full of those already.
For the record, the Oireachtas hearings showed that there is no scientific evidence that abortion is a treatment for suicide (the scientific studies fall into two categories: those that show there is no link between abortion and mental wellness, and those that show a slight INCREASE in mental problems following abortion - the most famous studies of the latter are published by a pro choice researcher in New Zealand). The medical experts giving this testimony included those of a pro choice persuasion.
And lastly, you will find that the biological science is agreed that a foetus is the early form of the mammal - i.e. a foetus chicken is a chicken, a foetus dog is a dog, and a foetus human is... a human.I'd prefer for C&S sake if the debate had not drifted into the ideological side of the matter but it did, and was always likely to given the nature of the issue at hand.
I couldn't agree with you more. And I think to any honest observer it seems highly probably that most people voted "no" because they brought in ideology.
Those who voted "no" for ideological reasons were willing to go vote against the fact that we met the technical requirements.With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.
Those who voted "yes" and were ideologically in agreement with us did not vote against the technical facts.
It is against UL's and SU's code of practice and equality to vote ideologically in this case and ignore technical evidence (to put it mildly).Ginge Young wrote: »if there an objection is made a vote is held. That is the process as it stands.
So you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable for C&S to discriminate against the ideological positions of the minority, simply because it was a democratic process?
The fact is that this is not true and goes against SU's code of practice for equality etc.
And you know that's true. You would not be making this defence if it had been Out in UL that was "discriminated" against.
That's a great idea. Somehow I doubt that this would happen, judging from the venom of some (not all!!) pro choices that I've seen, and their willingness to do everything to prevent us having any sort of voice on campus (much less receive SU funding!).Ginge Young wrote: »The SU demonstrated this year that a fund was able to be put in place to run a Yes, No and Neutral campaign for this years referendum. If there was some way possible that something like this could be put in place for when there are big issues affecting the nation (the gay marriage referendum which will be coming up) I think that is a potentially good way about helping support groups, who want to push a single stance on a single issue.
The issues that could be funded by this would need to be approved by Student Council perhaps.0
Advertisement