UL pro life society ???

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 10:10am

Ginge Young wrote: »

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...

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.

Ergo I'm not "nitpicking at the definition of a society as it currently stands". Were Paul Lee and the Executive Council also "nitpicking" when they stated that we met all the technical requirements?

Ginge Young wrote: »

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.

First of all, I have always acknowledged (see what I said in the interview as quoted in thejournal.ie, what I said in the comments there, and what I've said in this forum) that there are motivations for voting against us other than ideological grounds.

Second, I think it is clear to me who first made it a "political argument" - I suspect the majority of those who voted "no".

Again, if UL did not have Out in UL, and if we were a society which wanted to promote the ideology of LGBT, and if there had been a "no" vote, you can be sure of what would happen then... The simple fact is that many think our ideological position is a minority against which it is permissible to discriminate.

The fact is that this "no" vote, whether it actually is the case or not, gives the impression to Ireland that ULSU discriminates based on ideology.

And we are not to blame for that. We did not vote "no". Paul Lee and the executive council agreed that we met all the technical requirements. An Focal made the decision to go public (we intended to keep things quiet because we did not wish to make a ruckus, we only wanted to be given trial status and treated fairly).

At best, you could argue that it is ambiguity or weakness in the C&S rules that are to blame.

But I think the truth is that the impression given is correct. Because I suspect most "no" votes were exactly for that reason.

Beargrylls01 · 09-04-2014 10:31am

Pro-Life groups have always been their own worst enemy when it comes to sounding valid or relevant. No doubt about it. Too many students associate it as pushing views on others and that works against them.

Pro-Life campaigns have traditionally being laced with bitterness, shame and just outright lies (ie the youtube advertising campaign that maintained 60 or 70 thousand irish people turned out to protest in dublin, manipulating camera footage to that effect and putting it in writing, when in fact there were a couple hundred).

Students don't care about you're agenda and just want to go about their business

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 11:01am

Beargrylls01 wrote: »

Pro-Life campaigns have traditionally being laced with bitterness, shame and just outright lies (ie the youtube advertising campaign that maintained 60 or 70 thousand irish people turned out to protest in dublin, manipulating camera footage to that effect and putting it in writing, when in fact there were a couple hundred)

Continuing the old tradition of some liberals of demonising the opposition by refusing to distinguish between radical elements (which exist in every movement including pro choice) and the "normal" majority. Do you treat Muslims the same way?

A few weeks ago we had our information stand in the Red Raisins canteen. It was probably about as mildly "pro life" as you can get without being neutral or pro choice. Yet we had a group of students bully and harass the girl that was at the stand alone for a while. (The girl raised a formal complaint and the students have been reprimanded by SU).

I don't conclude from this that all pro choice people engage in such harassment and threatening behaviour. In fact, I personally know many who don't. There were plenty of pro choice people who came up to us at the stand and had good, civil conversation with us. All the pro life people I know are also aware (and thankful) for this.

highlydebased · 09-04-2014 1:13pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

(The girl raised a formal complaint and the students have been reprimanded by SU).

Just out of interest- how can the SU reprimand a student?

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 1:25pm

highlydebased wrote: »

Just out of interest- how can the SU reprimand a student?

Not sure about all the different procedures/possibilities in general, but in this case the students were contacted by the SU Welfare Officer who told/reminded them of UL's equality policy and warned that if they did it again the issue could be brought to the "discipline process" (not sure exactly what that process would look like).

Beargrylls01 · 09-04-2014 1:29pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Continuing the old tradition of some liberals of demonising the opposition by refusing to distinguish between radical elements (which exist in every movement including pro choice) and the "normal" majority. Do you treat Muslims the same way?

A few weeks ago we had our information stand in the Red Raisins canteen. It was probably about as mildly "pro life" as you can get without being neutral or pro choice. Yet we had a group of students bully and harass the girl that was at the stand alone for a while. (The girl raised a formal complaint and the students have been reprimanded by SU).

I don't conclude from this that all pro choice people engage in such harassment and threatening behaviour. In fact, I personally know many who don't. There were plenty of pro choice people who came up to us at the stand and had good, civil conversation with us. All the pro life people I know are also aware (and thankful) for this.

To start things off, the vast vast majority of us don't identify as liberals/conservatives, most young people aren't too involved with the political side of Ireland, we just want other people to go about their business doing whatever they are doing. So I am not continuing anybodies tradition, just trying to weigh in what has being pretty frustrating to read.

If I was pressed to put my opinion out there, I would fathom a guess that the vast majority of people in UL are not 'pro abortion', they are pro birth control, and pro choice, which are different things altogether. I have no idea how I would vote if it ever came up because I haven't decided yet.

It is well known that pro life people all over America resort to petty tactics all the time, spreading lies, fear and hatred. I guess UL students if they were asked as a body would wholly reject the possibility of this ever coming back to being a norm.

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 1:38pm

Beargrylls01 wrote: »

It is well known that pro life people all over America resort to petty tactics all the time, spreading lies, fear and hatred. I guess UL students if they were asked as a body would wholly reject the possibility of this ever coming back to being a norm.

So "spreading lies, fear and hatred" is the "norm" of the pro life movement.

Sad to see you're continuing this demonisation and gross generalisation.

"It is well known" - perhaps in the biased, liberal mindset. The hard evidence, however, is pretty weak. A couple of radicals doing radical things is nothing new, every movement has those.

Including pro choice. As was witnessed a few weeks ago in UL (which you seem to wish to ignore).

Ginge Young · 09-04-2014 1:39pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

The fact is that this "no" vote, whether it actually is the case or not, gives the impression to Ireland that ULSU discriminates based on ideology.

The impression to Ireland? That is laughable, the simple fact that you are already stating "whether or not it was the case" means that I am have complete lack of respect for your stance.

My stance has always been looking at this from the outside, and coming up with solutions of how this can progress forward. But you, you have just stated that even though you cannot determine for 100% the actual case as to why some C&S Reps voted no (or Yes for that matter) you are still going to condemn the entire group and promote this condemnation in the media.

You are doing the promotion of an equal debate on this issue no good. When things don't go your way you kick up a fuss and play the discrimination card. There are many forms of discrimination in this world, of varying degrees and I believe it is insulting that you are using it to label the entirety of Clubs and Societies in this way.

I maintain that regardless of the rules, no groups that take a single stance on a single issue should be allowed in C&S. It does not go with the ethos of the group or what they are there for. Because a technical definition allows this (which is quite old) does not negate the fact that I believe that should be changed. I am not involved directly anymore but I will making this point clear.

I have offered suggestions regarding funding from the SU. But again, you play the victim card. "They won't give us money to do that". You are clearly not understanding the system I am proposing.

1) A fund is put in place by the SU for issues.
2) Issues of importance are approved by Student Council (proposals obviously submitted on different things and debate had).
3) At this point a fund is put in place for information campaigns (on both sides).

I have offered suggestions on how I think the system should change.

But you, you just keep on flogging this victim thing, which in reality can achieve nothing because you have no grounds for appeal based on the current system.

So really what you should be doing is try to be pro-active in coming up with solutions to the problem, instead of again politicizing this entire thing (when again, you have quite readily addmitted, you can't sure of the reason why everyone voted.)

OldNotWIse · 09-04-2014 1:42pm

Why would you bother trying to stop them? Unless membership is mandatory, interest groups are perfectly entitled to set up their own socs if they want - much the same way that nobody would (or should) stop a pro choice group of individuals setting one up. We had an LGBT society in our college - the straight people didnt seem to mind, even though it hardly mattered to them.

We are all entitled to our values, and we are also entitled to ignore those we dont agree with.

ps when you leave college and go out into the real world, you'll look back with longing on the days that you had the energy to summon rage over something like this

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 1:54pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

The impression to Ireland? That is laughable, the simple fact that you are already stating "whether or not it was the case" means that I am have complete lack of respect for your stance.

I think you misunderstood me. "The impression to Ireland" refers to how this was published in the national media (including Irish Independent) with headlines such as "UL Life Society first to be refused status...". The "whether or not" refers to the simple fact that public opinion is not necessarily correct.

Ginge Young wrote: »

you are still going to condemn the entire group and promote this condemnation in the media.

I have never "condemned the entire group" - in fact I still think highly of many C&S people who are pro choice, and I respect those who voted against us not for ideological reasons but because of the "single issue society" thing.

Ginge Young wrote: »

When things don't go your way you kick up a fuss and play the discrimination card. There are many forms of discrimination in this world, of varying degrees and I believe it is insulting that you are using it to label the entirety of Clubs and Societies in this way.

Again, I've never "labeled the entirety of C&S this way".

It's easy to tell people to accept things when you're not the one being being negatively influenced.

And I know several pro choice people in C&S who are unhappy and uncomfortable with the vote for the same reasons I am. Which is why I hope that things could still change, especially remembering how close the vote was.

The reality is that if we were an LGBT group almost everyone would be joining in "kicking up a fuss and play[ing] the discrimination card". But conservative causes are not allowed to do this of course.

If you look at the history of things, and if you speak to Paul Lee about it, you'll notice that we never tried to "kick up a fuss". All we wanted was fair treatment. Even after the initial "no" vote we didn't go campaigning publicly, complaining to newspapers. We were in discussion with Paul Lee for 4 weeks, waiting patiently if we might get to appeal or something like that. In fact, when we were first approached by a newspaper about the story (which was after An Focal published it), we requested them to hold off on the story as long as possible as we didn't want controversy but were hoping to simply get recognition by C&S.

We are pursuing this because not being recognised by C&S means not only no C&S funding, but perhaps more importantly (probably) no access to poster boards and no access to the recruitment drive. Those things are pretty debilitating, especially for a young, small society.

Ginge Young · 09-04-2014 2:07pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

If you look at the history of things, and if you speak to Paul Lee about it, you'll notice that we never tried to "kick up a fuss".

I see no need to respond to the rest of your post because again I will simply be repeating myself.

When I say "kick up a fuss" I mean everything that has happened since then, here and in the media.

To this date - you have offered no potential solutions of moving forward other than complaining that the vote was not right and that you are being discriminated against.

You have offered nothing by way of how Clubs and Socs policy should change.

You have offered nothing by way of how you can move forward to promote yourselves in other ways.

I have offered several ideas on how this should move forward.

Again, even if this was a group that sole purpose was to push 'Gay is OK' to everyone on campus then I would still have an issue (Out in UL are much more than promoting that message). As I would if there was an attempt to set up a society to promote a Yes in the upcoming referendum on gay marriage. Those are not societies. The same as I do not view Pro-Life as a society under C&S.

Even if you had gotten through. I would still be pushing this, and if it would have passed it would most likely end up seeing you de-recognised as a society.

So really, moving forward the discussion of what a society is, is what needs to happen. Everything else comes after this.

There are no grounds for appeal - we can keep beating at each other as to why people voted the way they did, but we will not know all these reasons - so now it is time to move forward with new ideas of what can happen in the future.

That will be my final post here. I see no purpose in this thread continuing. It has been a pretty comprehensive discussion.

Also - newspapers love a good headline, its much easier to sell something that appears on the surface to be controversial.

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 2:16pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

To this date - you have offered no potential solutions of moving forward other than complaining that the vote was not right and that you are being discriminated against.

You have offered nothing by way of how Clubs and Socs policy should change.

You have offered nothing by way of how you can move forward to promote yourselves in other ways.

I have offered several ideas on how this should move forward.

I apologise for this, and I appreciate that you've made the suggestion you have regarding funding for issues.

Fundamentally the reason is that I'm not a C&S person and thus am not an expert on "the way forward". I have no say in policy change and it is certainly not my responsibility. Whatever way you look at it the vote was a mess, at best because of weakness/ambiguity in the Rulebook.

Try to think of what it must be like to spend a full year, in close advisement from Paul Lee, working towards going on trial status, making sure we meet all the requirements, only to be voted down - without a single reason being officially given.

I also think it is unreasonable to expect us to think that it's a pure coincidence that the first society that is ever voted down just happens to be a pro life society.

After the initial vote we were in contact with Paul Lee and asked him what we could do (since we have no C&S expertise). He has given us advise, which we are following.

Also AFAIK C&SC are discussing if and if so when we can appeal, or perhaps, try again to be recognised.

wnolan1992 · 09-04-2014 6:08pm

I reckon, as a compromise, we should set up a "Cuddling Puppies Society", where each week we get 50 puppies and members meet up and cuddle them for 10 minutes. I think that'd make everyone much happier than any society about Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

#wnolan4prez2015

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 7:11pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I reckon, as a compromise, we should set up a "Cuddling Puppies Society", where each week we get 50 puppies and members meet up and cuddle them for 10 minutes. I think that'd make everyone much happier than any society about Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

#wnolan4prez2015

lol

freyners · 09-04-2014 7:55pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I reckon, as a compromise, we should set up a "Cuddling Puppies Society", where each week we get 50 puppies and members meet up and cuddle them for 10 minutes. I think that'd make everyone much happier than any society about Pro-Life or Pro-Choice.

#wnolan4prez2015

blatent plagarism

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-22514562

catallus · 09-04-2014 8:08pm

Maybe they should make membership of all the clubs mandatory. Might help get more people involved.

BriBrows · 09-04-2014 10:09pm

My points have more than likely already been made before, but just wanted to finally give some of my opinions.

manuelkuhs wrote: »

The reality is that if we were an LGBT group almost everyone would be joining in "kicking up a fuss and play[ing] the discrimination card". But conservative causes are not allowed to do this of course.

Just want to reply to this part as a member of Out in UL and someone who is involved in Clubs and Societies on campus. The LGBTQ society on campus has been around for years, it was created x many years after homosexuality became legal in Ireland in 1993. As LGBTQ members of society we face discrimination everyday in our everyday lives whether it be blatant homophobia by use of slurs, or subtle homophobia like someone using the word gay to describe things they do not like. e.g. "This essay is so gay" - (Actual words I have heard come from a student).

Out in UL creates a safe space for LGBTQ+ students to come together, share experiences, make friends with people that face the same problems as them on a daily basis. It is a society that helps students in numerous ways. Out in UL does not solely campaign for LGBTQ rights on a national level, we inform our members of the goings on of Queer rights in member meetings and on special cases bring our voices to the student population of UL.

My point is that the Pro-Life society had a very specific ideal that they wanted to uphold: to inform, campaign and educate people on the Pro-Life movement. I personally am Pro-Choice but I see no problem with that. I believe everyone is entitled to their views. My problem with the society was that I don't believe that it should be an official ULSU society. I believe that the society should be separate from C&S because it is not open to every student/member of staff, it has a very limited purpose and so would alienate students that are not Pro-Life. Would Pro-Choice students be welcome to join? How would they be treated in the society if they did want to join? What about people who are unsure about their choice, would they be swayed in one direction or another. Another problem is where the society was getting their information from. They would have to ensure that all information shared was 100% true, verified and credible. I have seen complete bull on some fliers handed to me from certain groups (not in UL).
Also some students feel very strongly about the issue and would members of the society feel like they comfortable to be seen as a member? What would be the privacy policy? Most students I have spoken to have had a negative reaction to a Pro-Life Society being set up on campus. What would this do for membership?

The only way I see any Life society on campus is if it encompasses both views on the issue. Gives an equal amount of information on both sides of the argument and does not sway anyone's opinion. But being realistic, that would never happen. I agree with GingeYoung though, that a society that only advocates for one political point is not something that the campus needs. Whether it be for Equal Marriage or the Abortion debate.

manuelkuhs · 10-04-2014 10:28am

BriBrows wrote: »

Just want to reply to this part as a member of Out in UL and someone who is involved in Clubs and Societies on campus. The LGBTQ society on campus has been around for years, it was created x many years after homosexuality became legal in Ireland in 1993. As LGBTQ members of society we face discrimination everyday in our everyday lives whether it be blatant homophobia by use of slurs, or subtle homophobia like someone using the word gay to describe things they do not like. e.g. "This essay is so gay" - (Actual words I have heard come from a student).

I am truly sorry about this. As someone who was bullied a little at school (technically I'm a German immigrant and was thus usually called a Nazi by people who didn't like me...), I especially despise any form of bullying.

BriBrows wrote: »

I believe that the society should be separate from C&S because it is not open to every student/member of staff

I am somewhat saddened that this misrepresentation continues.

If this were true, then Paul Lee and the Exec were wrong in considering us as having met all the requirements.

Furthermore, this kind of argumentation shows the fundamental bias against us. The normal approach to take would be to say to us, BEFORE the vote, something like "By the way, you know you have to have open membership? So if currently you don't, maybe you need to open it up before applying".

Of course, that never happened. The only person (apart from Paul Lee) who contacted us before the vote simply asked if we had open membership.

The exact same setting up of a trap happened during the Q&A.

BriBrows wrote: »

I believe that the society should be separate from C&S because... it has a very limited purpose

The current, official definition of a society in the C&S Rulebook is:

Societies are formed for a specific purpose, namely to campaign a certain ideal. Societies are seen as gathering places for cultural and/or intellectual advancement of institution members.

It seems to me that the proper and honest way to address disagreement with this is not to underhandedly vote against societies which don't meet what you think SHOULD be in the Rulebook but is not, but rather to organise a change in the official definition. Else the Rulebook becomes a joke.

And again, this argumentation shows the fundamental bias. If there was no bias, the emphasis from people like you would be "UL Life Soc, you can't be a C&S Soc if you're a single issue society. Maybe look at setting up more as a a community group, like Out in UL...."

Again, we heard nothing like this before the vote. In fact, we didn't even hear the "single issue society" before the vote. And we were certainly never told by those promoting this idea that the Rulebook INCLUDES (not excludes) single issue societies.

BriBrows wrote: »

I believe that the society should be separate from C&S because... it has a very limited purpose and so would alienate students that are not Pro-Life

Just to be clear, are you saying that if a society (or club) results in someone feeling "alienated" from it they should not be allowed to be a society?

BriBrows wrote: »

Would Pro-Choice students be welcome to join? How would they be treated in the society if they did want to join?

I'm not sure how many more times we have to say "Our society is open to all students". Maybe we need to take a public oath to this effect in front of C&S Council or something??

This misrepresentation is so bad that even the C&S Council chairperson allowed himself to publicly promote this misinformation by repeating the claim in the Irish Independent.

The fact is that over the year of our operation we have had many civil and friendly conversations with pro choice people who were arguing for the pro choice position.

So far, the only aggressiveness and harassment has been from pro choice people shown to us. This happened not only last year, but also this year, in which case the students were reprimanded by SU.

BriBrows wrote: »

How would they be treated in the society if they did want to join? What about people who are unsure about their choice, would they be swayed in one direction or another. Another problem is where the society was getting their information from. They would have to ensure that all information shared was 100% true, verified and credible.

So, if a prospective club or society is suspected (not proven!) to not be 100% perfect then they won't be allowed go on trial status?

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to pro life causes?

Jester252 · 10-04-2014 11:11am

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.

And what I'm saying is that people who voted yes could have for a technical reasons, something that somebody who vote no can't say.
The no vote was always from an ideological standpoint. Unless C&S member voted no due to greed as initial post in this thread suggest.

While you admit that they is an issue with the current C&S procedure you rather move on and let a group of student who wanted to be involved fall through the cracks.

manuelkuhs · 10-04-2014 11:17am

Jester252 wrote: »

While you admit that they is an issue with the current C&S procedure you rather move on and let a group of student who wanted to be involved fall through the cracks.

Indeed. I'd say it's pretty safe to suggest that if the same had happened to something like Out in UL, C&S Council would have it sorted and fixed immediately. And they'd find a way to allow an appeal ASAP.

Ginge Young · 10-04-2014 1:32pm

Jester252 wrote: »

And what I'm saying is that people who voted yes could have for a technical reasons, something that somebody who vote no can't say.
The no vote was always from an ideological standpoint. Unless C&S member voted no due to greed as initial post in this thread suggest.

While you admit that they is an issue with the current C&S procedure you rather move on and let a group of student who wanted to be involved fall through the cracks.

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but felt the need to respond to this.

There is nothing in the rules that says just because a group meet the requirements that they have to be put through by vote. I have readily admitted that I think this needs to change. I know some who voted 'no' because of the single issue society thing. While the rulebook's current definition allows for this, they voted no because they think this needs to change. There is nothing that says they can't do this. They have a free vote that they can use how they wish, for whatever reasons they want (similar to TD's in the Government). Something I think needs to be examined further and clarified.

But while I do think it needs to change I would rather move on, as the rules were followed as they stand and so there is no grounds for appeal.

I have in no way showed I want to let a group of students fall through the cracks. In fact I am one of the few people who actually offered solutions that this may progress forward.

I will say though, that I personally believe that the rulebooks definition of a society needs to change and that groups who want to run information campaigns on important issues that effect us all should be supported in some way. I do not believe the C&S structure is the means to do this (for reasons previously outlined) - and with respect to that I believe I have offered at least one reasonable way by which they can be supported.

So please, I would appreciate it if you did not make it seem as though I am trying to neglect a group of students and sweep this under the rug. My suggestions have come directly based off of everything that happened and have in fact been trying to help the group. I have suggested two major changes to C&S policy - that is not moving on and letting them slip through the cracks - this is fixing the cracks and *trying* to provide them with a solution that holds with my own personal beliefs and I dare something Manuel seemed open to.

Edit: Now I'm done.

BriBrows · 10-04-2014 1:56pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

the emphasis from people like you would be "UL Life Soc, you can't be a C&S Soc if you're a single issue society. Maybe look at setting up more as a a community group, like Out in UL...."

Like I said above I believe a community group made up of those pro life and pro choice would not be a bad idea if it was handled well. i.e. no bias, pressure or bullying. That is just my opinion. Like has been said before the rulebook does need to be changed BUT everyone who voted, voted with their opinions just like they were expected to do.

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Just to be clear, are you saying that if a society (or club) results in someone feeling "alienated" from it they should not be allowed to be a society?

What I was saying is many people are affected by the set up of UL Life soc in different ways. If a student/any member of the college who travelled to the UK for an abortion was unknowingly approached by the society and asked about her interest they would feel alienated. As would people who are Pro-Choice. Would they have to set up their own society to feel their views were being voiced?

manuelkuhs wrote: »

I'm not sure how many more times we have to say "Our society is open to all students". Maybe we need to take a public oath to this effect in front of C&S Council or something??

I presumed all members would be allowed join in accordance with the rules, but I certainly would not feel comfortable joining as I have been harassed by members of other Pro Life societies (obviously not on campus), how would committee ensure that no ones voice was being silenced? It is difficult in every society to make sure no one is being mistreated, if pro choice members joined would they been seen as less important members by pro life members? What would committee do to combat this? I was not there on the night but these are the questions I would have asked.

manuelkuhs · 10-04-2014 1:58pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

So please, I would appreciate it if you did not make it seem as though I am trying to neglect a group of students and sweep this under the rug. My suggestions have come directly based off of everything that happened and have in fact been trying to help the group. I have suggested two major changes to C&S policy - that is not moving on and letting them slip through the cracks - this is fixing the cracks and *trying* to provide them with a solution that holds with my own personal beliefs and I dare something Manuel seemed open to.

Edit: Now I'm done.

I apologise that I have not sounded as appreciative as I should have at your attempts to find a reasonable solution.

I do believe your suggestion is a good idea (though I remain doubtful that we would actually receive funding to promote pro life ideals on campus - but I'd be happy to be proven wrong!).

However, I still maintain that it cannot be correct to vote "no" for a reason which is against the Rulebook as it stands - i.e. to vote "no" because you think single issue societies should not be allowed when the Rulebook definition clearly includes "single issue societies". This seems to make a mockery out of the Rulebook.

manuelkuhs · 10-04-2014 2:11pm

BriBrows wrote: »

What I was saying is many people are affected by the set up of UL Life soc in different ways. If a student/any member of the college who travelled to the UK for an abortion was unknowingly approached by the society and asked about her interest they would feel alienated. As would people who are Pro-Choice. Would they have to set up their own society to feel their views were being voiced?

We are very aware of the sensitivity of the issue. If you have seen any of the activities we have engaged in, you'll know that we've always been very careful in this regard. Ultimately, however, it is a simple fact of life that free speech will offend someone, somewhere. If we start thinking that free speech should be limited to where "no one is offended", then we can't have free speech. The fact is, as a person who strongly believes that human life begins as conception, I find a defence of abortion as being morally acceptable offensive. But I would never dream to say to a pro choice person "you can't say that because it offends me". Again, this is not to defend aggressive behaviour on the part of some pro life people (I'm well aware that there's radical pro life people, just like on the other side, and I reject both).

However, I don't see how any of this is reason to prevent a society from going on a 15 week trial?

BriBrows wrote: »

I presumed all members would be allowed join in accordance with the rules, but I certainly would not feel comfortable joining as I have been harassed by members of other Pro Life societies (obviously not on campus), how would committee ensure that no ones voice was being silenced? It is difficult in every society to make sure no one is being mistreated, if pro choice members joined would they been seen as less important members by pro life members? What would committee do to combat this? I was not there on the night but these are the questions I would have asked.

First of all, I again fail to see how this would prevent us going into a 15 week trial. It is, again, a case of us being treated guilty until proven innocent - except we are not given the opportunity to prove ourselves innocent.

As I've mentioned, we have had many civil and friendly discussions (even almost debates) with pro choice people when we had our events. We have no personal animosity towards pro choice people. I dare say everyone in our society has plenty of friends that are pro choice.

As to "feeling uncomfortable joining", I would feel uncomfortable joining Fine Gael because of how I view their actions regarding introducing abortion in Ireland and breaking election promises etc. I would feel uncomfortable joining Out in UL because I hold to traditional views of sexuality, and I suspect many in Out in UL would feel uncomfortable at me joining (one of them recently told me they would feel uncomfortable even meeting me for coffee! - does that make them "phobic" of people like me I wonder

. And I seriously wonder what would happen if I started speaking, in a polite and proper way, about my beliefs regarding sexuality in an Out in UL event. To be honest, I wouldn't have the guts to find out.

Jester252 · 10-04-2014 7:26pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

I know I said I wouldn't post again, but felt the need to respond to this.

There is nothing in the rules that says just because a group meet the requirements that they have to be put through by vote. I have readily admitted that I think this needs to change. I know some who voted 'no' because of the single issue society thing. While the rulebook's current definition allows for this, they voted no because they think this needs to change. There is nothing that says they can't do this. They have a free vote that they can use how they wish, for whatever reasons they want (similar to TD's in the Government). Something I think needs to be examined further and clarified.

But while I do think it needs to change I would rather move on, as the rules were followed as they stand and so there is no grounds for appeal.

I have in no way showed I want to let a group of students fall through the cracks. In fact I am one of the few people who actually offered solutions that this may progress forward.

I will say though, that I personally believe that the rulebooks definition of a society needs to change and that groups who want to run information campaigns on important issues that effect us all should be supported in some way. I do not believe the C&S structure is the means to do this (for reasons previously outlined) - and with respect to that I believe I have offered at least one reasonable way by which they can be supported.

So please, I would appreciate it if you did not make it seem as though I am trying to neglect a group of students and sweep this under the rug. My suggestions have come directly based off of everything that happened and have in fact been trying to help the group. I have suggested two major changes to C&S policy - that is not moving on and letting them slip through the cracks - this is fixing the cracks and *trying* to provide them with a solution that holds with my own personal beliefs and I dare something Manuel seemed open to.

Edit: Now I'm done.

If C&S is so against single issue societies, explain why horse racing and chess exist. Also care to explain why gender specific clubs like rugby and hockey exist if alienation is another issue?

Have you done anything about the issue? It easy to say what should be done

Reiver · 10-04-2014 8:21pm

Jester252 wrote: »

If C&S is so against single issue societies, explain why horse racing and chess exist. Also care to explain why gender specific clubs like rugby and hockey exist if alienation is another issue?

Have you done anything about the issue? It easy to say what should be done

I don't believe there is a horse racing society? There is an Equestrian Club. I'm not even sure if racing is one of their activities as I do believe they offer instruction in general equine care, learning how to ride and control the creature as well as more advanced sections such as dressage and show-jumping.

I'm also not sure if Chess would be defined as an "issue". Possibly a philosophy or way of life for those at grandmaster level but I'm not sure if any in UL are up that far yet. Chess as a club would tend to compete in competitions etc?

And those clubs I'd wager are separated for the purposes of competition and tournaments to allow both genders to compete fairly. On the social side of things, both committees would cooperate strongly and there is a strong link between Men and Ladies Rugby in UL in particular.

Similarly prior to the formation of Men's Hockey, male students with an interest in hockey did partake in training sessions that the Ladies team ran. The formation of the club was because they wanted to compete which they were unable to do so as a member of Ladies Hockey.

Hope this helps clear up a couple of your queries.

Jester252 · 10-04-2014 8:48pm

Reiver wrote: »

I don't believe there is a horse racing society? There is an Equestrian Club. I'm not even sure if racing is one of their activities as I do believe they offer instruction in general equine care, learning how to ride and control the creature as well as more advanced sections such as dressage and show-jumping.

I'm also not sure if Chess would be defined as an "issue". Possibly a philosophy or way of life for those at grandmaster level but I'm not sure if any in UL are up that far yet. Chess as a club would tend to compete in competitions etc?

And those clubs I'd wager are separated for the purposes of competition and tournaments to allow both genders to compete fairly. On the social side of things, both committees would cooperate strongly and there is a strong link between Men and Ladies Rugby in UL in particular.

Similarly prior to the formation of Men's Hockey, male students with an interest in hockey did partake in training sessions that the Ladies team ran. The formation of the club was because they wanted to compete which they were unable to do so as a member of Ladies Hockey.

Hope this helps clear up a couple of your queries.

There is a horse racing society, check out the C&S website. How come GAA and basketball are able to have male and female teams? Also how is Maths society a thing?

Reiver · 10-04-2014 8:57pm

Jaysus that is fair bad alright, next we'll have a Dutch Gold one.

GAA from what I understand are an anomaly in C/S. They've even got a full-time club development officer to cater for them under the auspices of the Sports Department. The other field sports regrettably don't appear to have as much popular backing or support. I believe for a while they weren't even part of C/S so they must have some arrangement sorted or something.

Same way Literary Society is a thing I guess. Probably started for Mathematics students the same way Law Soc, Marketing etc all exist but open to all students.

freyners · 10-04-2014 9:22pm

Jester252 wrote:

. Also care to explain why gender specific clubs like rugby and hockey exist if alienation is another issue?

for rugby its mainly because Women's and Men's rugby competitions were run by two separate organisations in the past, therefore it made sense for the clubs to remain apart as there were different structures to follow, unlike GAA which are run by the same institution.

Also alienation for the sport itself is not there, the clubs just recently held a joint ball to celebrate both clubs acheivements

Jester252 · 10-04-2014 9:55pm

UL Life whould have been involved in the C&S ball, so there couldn't have been alienation

Also both team are involved in leagues under Student Sport Ireland.

UL pro life society ???

Comments