UL pro life society ???

kragmite · 27-01-2014 2:00am #1

So I was talking to a friend of mine in clubs and societies this evening and he mentioned that the SU was approving a pro life society. I called bulls**t on this originally but he then showed me the email for their meeting next week at the clubs and socs council.

I strongly object to there being a pro life society so i was wondering if anyone here could help me stop them being setup. Surely the SU cant be supporting this in this day and age.

Also if they cant be stopped then is setting up a pro choice society an option ?

Reiver · 27-01-2014 2:09am

I remember seeing some posters around last semester entitled "UL Life". Posters kept getting taking down since they were trying to associate UL with an unapproved name. They must be trying to get official recognition (and a budget) from the university. I'm all for free speech but the political nature of it and the way it'll tarnish the college has me feeling a bit queasy.

On a sidenote, could this mean if I showed there was interest for a Satanic Cattle Mutilation Club, would I be able to go to Council and get monies?:D

Popoutman · 27-01-2014 3:07am

As much as I disagree with an "anti-choice" society being set up - everyone is entitled to their own opinions, just not to stuff those opinions down others' throats. If they stay quiet and do not harass students, then they can meet up at their leisure and discuss whatever anti-choice stuff they want, talk about trips to meet the anti-abortion terrorists in the USA, whatever. They are entitled to band together and form a society as long as that society abides by the rules and regs of C&S and UL, and the HEA.

The prospective new soc will definitely have to tread carefully so as not to run afoul of UL's regulations with the bringing of the college into disrepute. If they do run afoul of the regs, I won't be unhappy to see them sanctioned and restricted.

Hopefully they are classified as a political society, as that has funding restrictions, which will curtail the possibilities.
They won't get a budget for the first year of operation anyway, and I'll be voting against the funding if it comes up at C&S.

fran38 · 27-01-2014 3:42am

I don't accept that a pro life group is in any way political. The principles and ethos of such a group will have it's foundations in religion, the RCC in particular. I find it hypocritical of people giving out about the set up of a group which has life at it's core, and would praise the set up of a pro choice group (if one has not been set up already).
I'm not going to post further on this topic as I feel controversial topics like this will not be solved here. I'm just going to let my humble opinion speak for itself. God bless you all. Peace.

Montjuic · 27-01-2014 3:55am

Nice anti catholic bigots

FionnK86 · 27-01-2014 3:58am

Ahh Societies don't mean that much, get over it. The majority of people in UL will ignore the society if its set up,as would the majority not care about a pro-choice, people dont care in college its not much of a big issue. Some people like to pretend its a big issue, but the big issue for the majority of students is what night they're going out this week and whos out. As an outside observer, a lot of people have "views" on issues just so they have an excuse not to really think about who they are. Its easy to form yourself or others into a stereotype, eg. "bible-bashing,pro-lifers" "peace and love, pro-choicers". But at the end of the day,it doesnt matter. People will only need to deal with it when a situation arises,for example,I have good things and bad things to say about abortion, but will hold my tongue as ive never had to live in that situation. A lot of people think they know what they'd do in that situation but they don't really know.

SamAK · 27-01-2014 4:01am

As long as, like mentioned above, they don't get too big for their boots and start shoving it down people's throats, I think they are perfectly entitled to. I however, am by no means an expert and that's just my off the cuff opinion as of right now.

I make my decision based upon how I would feel if someone tried to tell me I couldn't start up a 'pro choice' group.

Chimaera · 27-01-2014 12:21pm

As far as C&S rules go, any group that can get 25 members together in pursuit of a common interest is entitled to set up a club or society to pursue that interest. They must follow the rules of course, but once they do that, it's unreasonable to deny them the opportunity to set up.

It's the classic case of "I despise what you're saying, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it!".

If they get classified as a political organisation, they are subject to statutory funding limits. IIRC the restrictions on religious societies were lifted some time ago.

@Fionnk86: You realise there are about 3000 students registered as members of clubs and societies on campus? That's a pretty significant number of people. Even allowing for the portion of those who do no more than sign up in September, C&S have a lot of bodies doing stuff. Due to general student apathy, the C&S constituency has enough clout to get referenda passed when they put their mind to it.

To those flinging accusations of 'anti-Catholic bigotry', I say people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Bigotry has been rampant within the RCC for centuries so perhaps they should tend to their own knitting before accusing others of the same.

Popoutman · 27-01-2014 2:49pm

Montjuic wrote: »

Nice anti catholic bigots

Hmm. I wonder who you aimed that at. If it was me - you're mistaken as nowhere in my post did I make any mention of religion.

You may simply be projecting your own inherent bigotry here, but that's hard to ascertain.

-
My issues with this soc being set up are to do with the fact it's a group of people whose entire purpose is to foist their opinion down the throats of others, and nothing else.

I'd feel the same way about an exclusively pro-choice soc as well. It's not the subject matter, it's the intent and purpose methodology that I have issue with.

IrishSkyBoxer · 27-01-2014 8:31pm

must be a really low standard of students these days in UL if they feel so vehemently about a group of like minded people setting up a society.

It's probably just ten of the twenty or so UL students who read boards who are bothered by this.

Ironically enough, some of you should get a life for yourselves and worry about some of the real issues in the world or at least in your University.

ethical · 27-01-2014 8:31pm

Society in general is so full of Sh1t with one group or other trying to get your attention,your money or whatever whether its the big cigarette and alcohol companies or some local pizza delivery company......thats what makes LIFE so interesting.....variety!!!! You do not have to believe everything they tell you!!!

ZomB13 F1Sh · 28-01-2014 2:59am

Wow you think being the educated people that we are you wouldn't give in trying to censor a prospective society, I'm sure there are plenty of people on campus that don't agree with the Christian soc or any young political party but why the need to stop it? If people feel that strongly about it invite them to debate or set up your own pro choice society. But talking about getting it stopped is just ignorant. ( by the way I've no feelings on the matter, I'm just surprised young educated people would try getting something stopped like this)

Reiver · 28-01-2014 12:35pm

Well the way I'd see it, theres 70+ Clubs and Societies on campus already. The budget put aside for them is not going to grow exponentially in response to a new club or society being set up. I've always been glad we don't have a huge mess of political societies(FF/FG excepted. grrr) like other colleges seem to have who siphon off a good bit of a budget (hello UCC). I'd rather not have a pro choice society set up either, if they want to debate the issue, ask the Debating Society. If its non-political and will be Catholic as Fran38 said, then why not join Christian Union? Don't come to Clubs and Societies trying to get money. Where does it stop? Are we going to have a "UL Bomb Afghanistan" followed a week later by "UL Don't Bomb Afghanistan". We've been lucky enough to keep it apolitical as it is, I'd say people would rather not have a rush of lobby groups emerge everytime theres something topical in the media. Theres only a limited amount of money at the moment anyways for everyone to go round, do we really need to splinter it off for something like this that I can't see living a long and cherished life in ULSU C&S?

Clubs and Societies are about getting people who want to kayak or skydive or climb mountains or learn parkour to name a few. Or if you're a bit more sedate, read a book, debate an argument, play chess, do some charity work. Don't try and bring causes into it. A group of like-minded people wanted to set up a Dutch Gold Appreciation society a few years back as well, was it ignorant to stop them?

Sorry you feel that way IrishSkyBoxer. I guess we're just so substandard since we're not a NUI college like our more illustrious brethren, I sincerely hope you are not tarnished by your brief contact with us degenerates. Our low standard in UL is shocking apparently, I hope you don't consider studying here.

Jester252 · 28-01-2014 12:39pm

They have every right to set up a society and more power to them. Just because you don't like a group of people you never met and their ideas doesn't mean you can stop them from having a society.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2014 1:18pm

I'm just hoping they stick to discussing it amongst themselves and allow whoever wants to join. I think it's too tender and emotional a subject for them to go recruiting and/or preaching though and I hope they don't try and stop the SU or the University from showing all the options to those who find themselves pregnant.

Jester252 · 28-01-2014 5:15pm

Like any lobby group they more than will and should be allowed to advocate their side. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make their opinions on a matter worthless. Having them as a society is probability the best way to keep what they advocate in check. If they existed outside of CNS they won't have to follow the rules. I gather that you would not like them posting all staff and all students email with their views kinda like a Marxist group did a few years back? Also as part of CNS any poster or filers will have to be approved by the SU making its less likely that they will use shock images.

reunion · 28-01-2014 5:49pm

Ok I think people need to keep in mind something here; the pro-life society is open to everyone, even pro-choice people.

People are assuming that they will be similar to those extreme pro-life leaflets. Give them a chance, the Christian Union Society doesn't guilt/push their views on every non-christian, the pro-life society might be the same.

If they get too extreme; there will be a boards thread, pro-choice volunteers will be needed to become members and attempt to get pro-choice people on the committee of the pro-life society and we can run it into the ground or make it not so extreme.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2014 9:32pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Like any lobby group they more than will and should be allowed to advocate their side. Just because you don't agree with them doesn't make their opinions on a matter worthless. Having them as a society is probability the best way to keep what they advocate in check. If they existed outside of CNS they won't have to follow the rules. I gather that you would not like them posting all staff and all students email with their views kinda like a Marxist group did a few years back? Also as part of CNS any poster or filers will have to be approved by the SU making its less likely that they will use shock images.

I don't think their opinion is worthless, I think their opinion is entirely up to them. Nor can I say with certainly they will try and change people's opinion on it, but I did say I hope they don't due to the sensitive nature of their society.

Jester252 · 28-01-2014 11:06pm

sup_dude wrote: »

I don't think their opinion is worthless, I think their opinion is entirely up to them. Nor can I say with certainly they will try and change people's opinion on it, but I did say I hope they don't due to the sensitive nature of their society.

Just because its a sensitive topic doesn't mean they shouldn't try and change people opinion nor should they feel pressured into thinking that they can't. The society, like every other society, is set up by a like minded group, who will in turn air their opinion to find other like minded people. Following that logic the LGBT shouldn't try and change people opinion on gay marriage or Christen union shouldn't try and recruit people because they might not be Christen. Debate society will be trouble if people shouldn't discuss and persuade others on sensitive topics.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2014 1:58am

Jester252 wrote: »

Just because its a sensitive topic doesn't mean they shouldn't try and change people opinion nor should they feel pressured into thinking that they can't. The society, like every other society, is set up by a like minded group, who will in turn air their opinion to find other like minded people. Following that logic the LGBT shouldn't try and change people opinion on gay marriage or Christen union shouldn't try and recruit people because they might not be Christen. Debate society will be trouble if people shouldn't discuss and persuade others on sensitive topics.

Your logic here is not quite adding up. There is a difference between letting people know you exist and changing peoples minds. It would be more like the LGBT trying to make people gay or the Christian Society trying to convert people to their religion*. The very purpose of the Debate Soc is for debating so the point here is moot.

*I am aware they don't, which is why I hope the pro life soc don't either.

Jester252 · 29-01-2014 2:53am

sup_dude wrote: »

Your logic here is not quite adding up. There is a difference between letting people know you exist and changing peoples minds. It would be more like the LGBT trying to make people gay or the Christian Society trying to convert people to their religion*. The very purpose of the Debate Soc is for debating so the point here is moot.

*I am aware they don't, which is why I hope the pro life soc don't either.

I suggest you redo your maths. Your logic is flawed. For some reason you seem to think that a pro life society will forcible stop any choice if they are allowed to try and change people's opinion

Pro lifers advocating their ideals on the campus is the same as LGBT Soc promoting same sex marriage. It is the same as Christan Soc promoting Easter. Its the same as Ultimate Frisbee playing outside the library. They would be promoting their society and their core ideal.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2014 10:35am

Jester252 wrote: »

I suggest you redo your maths. Your logic is flawed. For some reason you seem to think that a pro life society will forcible stop any choice if they are allowed to try and change people's opinion

Pro lifers advocating their ideals on the campus is the same as LGBT Soc promoting same sex marriage. It is the same as Christan Soc promoting Easter. Its the same as Ultimate Frisbee playing outside the library. They would be promoting their society and their core ideal.

There is a huge difference between "hey, yeah, we're the ProLife Soc, we exist now so if you're ProLife too, come join us!"
and
"We're ProLife Soc, non members are disgusting people who like to murder babies and we must put a stop to it. Join our Soc, change to ProLife or a)burn forever in hell, or b) be branded a baby murderer"

The latter is what I'm hoping they don't do.
To subscribe to the ideals of ProLife, you'd have to be ProLife. To agree with same sex marriage, you don't have to be gay. None of those societies or clubs try to force themselves upon a person. What I am saying is, and what you seem to keep missing, is that although I can't say they will, I hope they don't go around campus taking the usual stance the ProLife take when trying to "convert" people which is, instead of letting people know they exist, trying to change ProChoice people. Are you saying that ProChoice have no right to their opinion? That they have no rights in saying they don't want people trying to change them? If ProChoice set up a society, I wouldn't want them out around campus trying to convert people either.

reunion · 29-01-2014 11:35am

sup_dude wrote: »

To subscribe to the ideals of ProLife, you'd have to be ProLife. To agree with same sex marriage, you don't have to be gay.

A) you can be gay and be against same sex marriage (rare but possible) and

you can join to learn more about what it means to be pro-life, much like a muslim can join the christian union or a straight person can join out in UL. You don't have to agree 100% with extremist pro-life

sup_dude wrote: »

None of those societies or clubs try to force themselves upon a person.

I have heard from a friend of mine that she was forced to join a club, didn't know anyone in it or even know any rules about the sport but the people cornered her at a recruitment drive and wouldn't let her leave unless she joined.

My point is, just because someone is promoting a club/society that isn't controversial doesn't mean they don't force themselves on a person.

sup_dude wrote: »

although I can't say they will, I hope they don't go around campus taking the usual stance the ProLife take when trying to "convert" people which is, instead of letting people know they exist, trying to change ProChoice people. Are you saying that ProChoice have no right to their opinion? That they have no rights in saying they don't want people trying to change them? If ProChoice set up a society, I wouldn't want them out around campus trying to convert people either.

What a load of bull. When you start with I can't say they will and I'm hoping they won't do... It's obvious that you have assumed they are going to push crap on you and try to convert you and that you'd like to treat them differently.

The reality is, they probably won't and historically (take Christian Union), societies don't force their ideals on you.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2014 12:01pm

reunion wrote: »

A) you can be gay and be against same sex marriage (rare but possible) and you can join to learn more about what it means to be pro-life, much like a muslim can join the christian union or a straight person can join out in UL. You don't have to agree 100% with extremist pro-life

I never said they would be extremists and I did say that whoever wanted to join, could join if they knew it existed.

reunion wrote: »

I have heard from a friend of mine that she was forced to join a club, didn't know anyone in it or even know any rules about the sport but the people cornered her at a recruitment drive and wouldn't let her leave unless she joined.

My point is, just because someone is promoting a club/society that isn't controversial doesn't mean they don't force themselves on a person.

That shouldn't have happened

reunion wrote: »

What a load of bull. When you start with I can't say they will and I'm hoping they won't do... It's obvious that you have assumed they are going to push crap on you and try to convert you and that you'd like to treat them differently.

The reality is, they probably won't and historically (take Christian Union), societies don't force their ideals on you.

Is that obvious? Because that wasn't my intent to come across like that. When I said I can't say they will, it was because I assumed that when I said "I hope", I would end up explaining that I'm not saying they will eventually anyways. When I say I'm not saying they will and hope they don't, what I meant was exactly that.
Which is fine, and I hope these don't either. I think people here believe I have a problem with the society existing but, if you read my posts, that's not the case. I have no problem with the society nor any others. They can work away. I would say here again that I was just hoping they don't do what many ProLifers do and try to force their opinion on others but I can't say they will do it... but that seems to be taken the wrong way.

Can I just say again; I have no problem with this society existing. None, zero, ziltch. There is a small chance they will try to force their opinion on others (and this is entirely based on past experiences with prolife) and I hope they don't, because I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion and, in this topic, many of those opinion are strongly held. There is nothing more to it than that. I apologise if I didn't make myself clear on this and if it was taken the wrong.

reunion · 29-01-2014 12:13pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Can I just say again; I have no problem with this society existing. None, zero, ziltch. There is a small chance they will try to force their opinion on others (and this is entirely based on past experiences with prolife) and I hope they don't, because I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion and, in this topic, many of those opinion are strongly held. There is nothing more to it than that. I apologise if I didn't make myself clear on this and if it was taken the wrong.

it sounded like you were trying to make it a big deal that they could do something.

I suggest the following:

reunion wrote: »

If they get too extreme; there will be a boards thread, pro-choice volunteers will be needed to become members and attempt to get pro-choice people on the committee of the pro-life society and we can run it into the ground or make it not so extreme.

Jester252 · 29-01-2014 12:43pm

sup_dude wrote: »

There is a huge difference between "hey, yeah, we're the ProLife Soc, we exist now so if you're ProLife too, come join us!"
and
"We're ProLife Soc, non members are disgusting people who like to murder babies and we must put a stop to it. Join our Soc, change to ProLife or a)burn forever in hell, or b) be branded a baby murderer"
The latter is what I'm hoping they don't do.

Both are still promotion themselves and their ideals. If Out in UL can try and change someone's opinion on gay marriage why can Prolife try and change someone opinion on abortion?
Nice jumping to a conclusion btw.

To subscribe to the ideals of ProLife, you'd have to be ProLife. To agree with same sex marriage, you don't have to be gay.

You don't have to be prolife to join, you could be open, undecided or pro choice.

None of those societies or clubs try to force themselves upon a person. What I am saying is, and what you seem to keep missing, is that although I can't say they will, I hope they don't go around campus taking the usual stance the ProLife take when trying to "convert" people which is, instead of letting people know they exist, trying to change ProChoice people.

I guess you never been to a recruitment drive? For a society that has just been set up you seem to be making a lot of jumps to what they plan on doing

Are you saying that ProChoice have no right to their opinion? That they have no rights in saying they don't want people trying to change them? If ProChoice set up a society, I wouldn't want them out around campus trying to convert people either.

That has to be the best jump in your whole post. ProChoice has every right to set up a society and try to pormote their ideals, just like ProLife, just like Out in UL, just like Forum soc etc.

If you don't what them out talking about a sensitive subject someone should tell medical soc not to do anything to promote mental health.

Ave Sodalis · 29-01-2014 12:55pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Both are still promotion themselves and their ideals. If Out in UL can try and change someone's opinion on gay marriage why can Prolife try and change someone opinion on abortion?
Nice jumping to a conclusion btw.

Gay marriage affects gay people. ProLife affects other people. However, I am not getting into the pros and cons of prolife vs prochoice itself.

Jester252 wrote: »

You don't have to be prolife to join, you could be open, undecided or pro choice.

I didn't say you had to be? It's not about joining. People can join if they want, whoever can join.

Jester252 wrote: »

I guess you never been to a recruitment drive? For a society that has just been set up you seem to be making a lot of jumps to what they plan on doing

I've been apart of a recruitment drive. I don't see your point...

Jester252 wrote: »

That has to be the best jump in your whole post. ProChoice has every right to set up a society and try to pormote their ideals, just like ProLife, just like Out in UL, just like Forum soc etc.

If you don't what them out talking about a sensitive subject someone should tell medical soc not to do anything to promote mental health.

I didn't say they shouldn't set up a society:

sup_dude wrote: »

Can I just say again; I have no problem with this society existing. None, zero, ziltch. There is a small chance they will try to force their opinion on others (and this is entirely based on past experiences with prolife) and I hope they don't, because I believe everyone has a right to their own opinion and, in this topic, many of those opinion are strongly held. There is nothing more to it than that. I apologise if I didn't make myself clear on this and if it was taken the wrong.

They can talk away amongst themselves. They can let people know they exist. I don't have a problem with the society. I would have a problem if, on the off chance, they might try to force their opinion. There is a huge difference in promoting mental health and forcing prolife opinion or any opinion on people.

Jester252 · 29-01-2014 1:35pm

sup_dude wrote: »

Gay marriage affects gay people. ProLife affects other people. However, I am not getting into the pros and cons of prolife vs prochoice itself.

Gay marriage affects other people too.

I didn't say you had to be? It's not about joining. People can join if they want, whoever can join.

That what is it about? You don't have to be Prolife to support some of their ideas. Undecided or open people might think both sides have good ideas

I've been apart of a recruitment drive. I don't see your point...

Pushy Clubs and Soc trying to recruit new member, some of them who might not be 100% about what the club or soc is about. Something you don't what this soc to do.

I didn't say they shouldn't set up a society:

Than why do you have an issue with Prolife recruiting or promoting?

They can talk away amongst themselves. They can let people know they exist. I don't have a problem with the society. I would have a problem if, on the off chance, they might try to force their opinion. There is a huge difference in promoting mental health and forcing prolife opinion or any opinion on people.

You love jumping to the worst case possible. The soc won't be "forcing" their opinion as no soc can. They can promote their opinion, they can chanllage other and try to change other opinion. Just like every other club and sociality

reunion · 29-01-2014 3:36pm

Rather than jump back into a repetitive conversation

Did these guys actually get the ok from C&S council last night? They aren't listed on the ulwolves site.

Can someone find information about them? What did they submit to the exec? etc.

Ginge Young · 29-01-2014 4:20pm

reunion wrote: »

Rather than jump back into a repetitive conversation

Did these guys actually get the ok from C&S council last night? They aren't listed on the ulwolves site.

Can someone find information about them? What did they submit to the exec? etc.

They did not attend C&S Council last night. From what I have heard they gave apologies the night before? Not quite sure on that though.

They are listed on the wolves site as the Life Society. They are evidently tackling the issue of euthanasia too, which personally in my opinion is a completely and utterly separate issue, granted they all concern 'life'.

reunion · 29-01-2014 4:32pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

They did not attend C&S Council last night. From what I have heard they gave apologies the night before? Not quite sure on that though.

They are listed on the wolves site as the Life Society. They are evidently tackling the issue of euthanasia too, which personally in my opinion is a completely and utterly separate issue, granted they all concern 'life'.

HA so really this thread should be UL Life society.

I thought last night was them wanting to be a society? Surely they have to be there for that to happen?

They don't have a constitution yet or at least the server is saying I'm forbidden to see it.

I wish them well and I hope they don't go too denfensive of the unborn (words from their summary on the wolves site)

wnolan1992 · 29-01-2014 7:42pm

I'd be really curious to see what sort of stuff they'll be doing as a society, events and stuff.

Pro Life table quiz anyone? :P

freyners · 30-01-2014 2:12pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I'd be really curious to see what sort of stuff they'll be doing as a society, events and stuff.

Pro Life table quiz anyone? :P

I imagine its just a talking shop, with the odd rally hooking up with the 'I own a' Institute and Youth Defence to wander around towns.

I could see it facing problems down the line in terms of sufficient members, a lot of people will be turned off by its content to join, even if they hold similar views, especially if it rubs up people the wrong way through their activities. Issues like this are divisive

Beargrylls01 · 31-01-2014 2:45pm

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

must be a really low standard of students these days in UL if they feel so vehemently about a group of like minded people setting up a society.

It's probably just ten of the twenty or so UL students who read boards who are bothered by this.

Ironically enough, some of you should get a life for yourselves and worry about some of the real issues in the world or at least in your University.

If these aren't issues then I don't know what are.

Popoutman · 01-02-2014 5:02am

The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.

The prospective soc made their apologies at about 5pm, about an hour before the meeting was due to start, as apparently they had questions that they had that weren't being answered to their satisfaction - mostly answers that clarified the current state of C&S policies that the socs have to abide by.

The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.

As far as I can gather from talking to the other C&S committee members, the prospective soc will not get ratification from C&S council. Not because the prospective soc is Pro-Life, but because the prospective soc is an extremely narrow-focus group that, based on their own communications so far, are not there to allow like-minded people to group together, but are in existence solely to push that viewpoint on others. Everyone I've talked to has said that the exact same would be said of a Pro-Choice group if it were to be attempted to be formed.

No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.

Personally I do not see the advantage to C&S of having this narrow-focused group being under the C&S umbrella, especially when this viewpoint is already present within the Christian Union society, who would happily accept students that have a pro-life viewpoint. The committees I am on in C&S will all be voting against the ratification, after discussions with our club and society members, as is our right.

IrishSkyBoxer · 01-02-2014 3:29pm

Popoutman wrote: »

The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.

The prospective soc made their apologies at about 5pm, about an hour before the meeting was due to start, as apparently they had questions that they had that weren't being answered to their satisfaction - mostly answers that clarified the current state of C&S policies that the socs have to abide by.

The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.

As far as I can gather from talking to the other C&S committee members, the prospective soc will not get ratification from C&S council. Not because the prospective soc is Pro-Life, but because the prospective soc is an extremely narrow-focus group that, based on their own communications so far, are not there to allow like-minded people to group together, but are in existence solely to push that viewpoint on others. Everyone I've talked to has said that the exact same would be said of a Pro-Choice group if it were to be attempted to be formed.

No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.

Personally I do not see the advantage to C&S of having this narrow-focused group being under the C&S umbrella, especially when this viewpoint is already present within the Christian Union society, who would happily accept students that have a pro-life viewpoint. The committees I am on in C&S will all be voting against the ratification, after discussions with our club and society members, as is our right.

Typical SU scum. Suppose you'll have the gustapo out soon as well for any practicing catholics on campus.

There's a word for what is going on here, it's called tyranny.

Harps back to the days of Cromwell and the Brits, Stalin and Adolf.

Disgrace.

This is UL, not North Korea.

I'd implore you to read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 18 - 20 being most pertinent.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Popoutman · 01-02-2014 4:49pm

@irishskyboxer - the setting up of a soc is a democratic process, ans as such it's perfectly reasonable that the inclusion into C&S is something that is voted on and as such can be freely and perfectly legally be refused.
If you don't like the fact that people may not appreciate their own rights being infringed by non-peaceful assembly by having opinions stuffed down their throats, then I'm afraid that's an issue that only you can resolve.

Nobody's rights are being infringed here. Don't forget that the University grounds and buildings are not public spaces, with everything that is entailed in that.

Gumbi · 01-02-2014 6:48pm

LOL IrishSkyBoxer. Way to misrepresent. Come back when Out in UL are performing straight --> gay conversions.

Jester252 · 01-02-2014 7:13pm

Gumbi wrote: »

LOL IrishSkyBoxer. Way to misrepresent. Come back when Out in UL are performing straight --> gay conversions.

maybe you should come back when UL life are preventing abortions

wnolan1992 · 01-02-2014 7:17pm

Heh, all the same, you'd miss a bit of a ruckus around here. :P

Reiver · 01-02-2014 10:59pm

IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »

Typical SU scum. Suppose you'll have the gustapo out soon as well for any practicing catholics on campus.

There's a word for what is going on here, it's called tyranny.

Harps back to the days of Cromwell and the Brits, Stalin and Adolf.

Disgrace.
[/I]

I personally take offence to you tarnishing Cromwell's reputation there when the man was a staunch Christian who stood up for his beliefs in a troubled time. Excellent general as well, showed those upstart cavaliers what for!

For shame IrishSkyBoxer, that sort of narrow-mindedness cost Caesar the popular vote on the Ides of March.

Actually do you go to UL or are you a travelling troubadour who ventures forth to defend the voiceless?

freyners · 02-02-2014 2:53pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Heh, all the same, you'd miss a bit of a ruckus around here. :P

I was enjoying the peace

Chimaera · 02-02-2014 8:46pm

The issue with these guys is that it looks like they're trying to gain exemptions from the membership rules which every club and society sign up to and continue to abide by when they come under the ULSU banner. The reasoning behind their seeking of these exemptions appears to be so that they can control who is a member and who is not.

It's a condition of forming a club or society that membership must be open to any student or staff member of the university who wishes to join. The only exemptions that might be allowed to exist are for health and safety reasons (I'm not aware of any exemptions currently but this is the only sane reason I can imagine for allowing this). Memberships can be revoked or refused at renewal for discipline reasons, but that's a separate issue.

No one is stopping these guys from meeting if they want to do so. They have the right, as pointed out, to associate freely. What a no-vote from C&S council will mean (if it happens) is that that council is not willing to accept the organisation within its umbrella, and will likely be driven by these guys' desire to have their own rules (like so many more religious organisations).

UL Life will have been made very aware of the rules of C&S before requesting to join. These rules are created by the C&S council and executive and adopted by those bodies - it's not some evil overlord in a dark office drawing up all this stuff and imposing it on the world. It's the governance that C&S have chosen for themselves. If UL Life fail because they want to be selective in their adoption of those rules, it's their own tough luck.

Before I became aware of the issues they had with the rules, I was willing to give these guys a chance to have their trial period (I have a vote on C&S council fwiw) but if they want to play by their own rules because the ones we have don't suit them then I'll be voting no.

reunion · 03-02-2014 5:08pm

Popoutman wrote: »

The guy chairing the prospective Pro-Life soc was asking about restricting the membership of the soc if they were ratified, so as to prevent those with a differing viewpoint joining. This was due to what happened in UCC when a similar soc was formed there, where a large number of pro-choice people joined, and then voted the soc out of existence at an AGM.

Certainly not the first person to ask for selective membership and certainly not the last.

Also sounds similar to my plan for a pro-life society that went too far.

Popoutman wrote: »

No soc has yet been refused ratification by C&S, but this one is likely to set a precedent for this.

And why should a society be refused ratification? If they don't adhere to the C&S guidelines, they can't go to council. If they do, they meet all C&S guidelines and have been reviewed by the C&S exec to not be a duplicate/illegal. This isn't ratification (and it shouldn't be), it is actually just a few points about what they intend to do (so other C&S know why a new club/society are taking money, resources, etc.). How is one/two people meant to reflect the view point of an entire committee/membership about a committee from a 5 second speech? Especially when they haven't seen the documents they have given to the CS exec and that they would be going on a 15 week trial.

A narrow-scope? Define narrow scope for a C&S. Out in UL's scope is vague*; Chess's scope is too specific*.

*Not picking on any C&S.

Popoutman wrote: »

The information that I've been given by the prospective soc was that their sole aim was "to promote the inherent sanctity of life on campus" - a direct quote from the email that I received from them, I don't think that this fits well with the aims of UL Clubs and Societies. It wasn't stated that the soc was to give common ground to those that have that viewpoint, but to push that viewpoint on others. Out in UL don't try to push others on campus to be gay, but they do provide a great framework and support for those that are gay, and I think that if Paddy McHugh were alive today he wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison between the group he did so much work for being compared to this prospective soc.

ok 3 things; A. you haven't mentioned any facts except repeating what is an established aim for them. Socities have many aims and promoting could be guest lectures or it could be handing out flyers. All of which are fine.
Poker have handed out flyers to non-poker people, offered free games for people to play in. Cumann Gaelach's constitution is "To Promote the Use of the Irish Language in UL". They are promoting poker/Irish on campus but when you replace poker/Irish with pro-life a problem exists? Seems kinda strange to me!

B. If you are going to say Paddy McHugh wouldn't be appreciative of the comparison, why do you do it yourself? I didn't know Paddy but, if he is like the people in Out in UL or C&S people I have met, he would be supportive of a new group and people with different ideas and beliefs. He wouldn't rush to judge people and he would be insulted that his good work can't be a standard for others to follow. Why can't the life society provide great framework and support for people who are pregnant and want to keep it but are having doubts about money, educations, etc.?

C. What's the difference between Cumann Gaelach and life society? They both want to promote something on campus and have a similar scope in their aims.

From the C&S website wrote:

UL Life Society exists to promote the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life. This is currently focussed primarily on defence of the unborn. Come join us to voice your support of human life! We seek to do the following on campus: • Promote the inherent dignity and sanctity of human life • Increase awareness and provide information on issues involved in the dignity and sanctity of human life • Engage in a relevant manner UL students, the UL campus community and allied and clustered higher education campuses on life issues, such as abortion and euthanasia. We do this using: • public lectures, talks, and debates, which will include invited prestigious speakers • poster and leaflet, and similar, information campaigns • Promote civic involvement and participation in greater public ‘Life’ related events • Network, co-operate and collaborate with similar societies in other third level institutions

Reiver · 12-02-2014 3:39am

Well it seems its all a moot point now. Democracy had it's say.

UL Life's proposal was beaten in a narrow 21-22 vote for ratification at C/S council tonight. First time a proposal for a new club/society has been denied I think. Some interesting points made from all.

enfant terrible · 12-02-2014 4:05am

Reiver wrote: »

Well it seems its all a moot point now. Democracy had it's say.

UL Life's proposal was beaten in a narrow 21-22 vote for ratification at C/S council tonight. First time a proposal for a new club/society has been denied I think. Some interesting points made from all.

That's sad.

reunion · 12-02-2014 12:00pm

Reiver wrote: »

Well it seems its all a moot point now. Democracy had it's say.

UL Life's proposal was beaten in a narrow 21-22 vote for ratification at C/S council tonight. First time a proposal for a new club/society has been denied I think. Some interesting points made from all.

To put in a bit more of a context:
This society had been approved by the executive and went to council.
This society gave a brief summary of what they do. They have invited guest speakers to talk resulting in 1 event per semester (it took a year to go through exec). They have run 2 events over the last year where they have invited guest speakers to talk; a lecturer from Trinity and some other person.

The floor was open then to questions. The only question that was sensible was from Triona which outlined that this is a sensitive topic and asked a related question (I can't fully remember it). The biggest joke of a question was "why didn't you call yourselves the pro-life society?". Very few relevant points were made.

As per usual objections were invited from the floor. 2 people objected (their objections weren't listed/mentioned/said).

Then, unusually, it was put to a vote to ratify them (a process that was NOT ever used over the last 7 years). So either A. Every C&S in the last 7 years that has been set up is invalid and must go for re-ratification or B. This was a clear blatant discrimination against people who share a different view point to others.

22 voted against while 21 voted for. To put that in perspective 22 people voted against this society on behalf of their Clubs and Societies (I have yet to hear any rational reason why a club or society would reject this society from going on a 15 week trial). What makes this more worrying is 20 of those votes didn't have any objections to them being set up, so it was only a clash of ideals.

Embarrassing for C&S really. Makes a mockery out of everything C&S stands for. You not only have to follow all the guidelines and rules to set up but you have to be popular and ensure no one has any prejudices against you. Every C&S has to be open to everyone but C&S isn't open to everyone.

Jester252 · 12-02-2014 4:35pm

Its a shame CNS always prided itself on welcoming everyone yet going by Reunion post, which I would put a lot of a credibility behind, it seem certain members ganged up to attack a new society due to difference view points. It think it is an absolute joke that 20 people got to vote against it without providing a reason.

Reiver · 12-02-2014 5:16pm

How many clubs and societies are there in total?
If only 43 voted, must have been a lot of abstentions.

Just to be advocatus diabolis though since you've twisted some things:
In actuality though, there were 3 objections and then it went to the vote. Does every club and society have to stand up and give their objection before they're allowed vote?

Only one sensible question? Emma and Paddy also made queries about it being a sensitive topic and Thomas from Out In UL did ask as to whether there was any outside affiliations. Questions about the proposed societies activities were also quite pertinent.

I believe some relevant points were made, especially in regard to the number of members the society holds and how many of those were students. Considering a vague round number was given about both, it was a fair one. Their speaker Manuel said "o we've around 20-25 members" and that he wasn't sure but "15-20 were students".

Did it perhaps go to a vote because there were objections? In your last seven years, was there ever an objection given to the formation of any of the newer clubs and societies like Threads, Parkour or Poker for example? If there was, it would have gone to a vote then surely? When has there last been an objection to a new club or society set up? Paul mentioned issues over the forming of Sinn Féin several years before.

Did the 21 in favour have to give a reason for their vote in ratifying the society?

The joy of subjectivity, we both observed different things from the same meeting which is the beauty of human fallibility. Maybe some of them were wrong when they voted against when they had no rational objection and were perhaps discriminatory and prejudicial in their actions but how do you prove that? As was brought up at the meeting, its a sensitive issue and you don't know peoples backgrounds. And I would also assume that anyone who voted had the backing of their committee on their decision.

@Jester 252 I personally didn't witness any "ganging up", particularly when the individual who asked "why don't you call yourself the Pro-Life Society?" was actually one who voted in favour of them at the end. There was no attacking and I was happy to see everyone was dignified and respectful during the process with no one trying to make a scene out of it or embarrass the two members from the prospective society at the front.

C'est la vie, the vote happened, the majority had their say. If you are morally troubled about it and feel its making a mockery out of C/S then I recommend contacting the appropriate authorities within the university or SU to express your concerns. Keyboard duelling on Boards may soothe the conscience but it won't aid UL Life.

Ginge Young · 12-02-2014 8:05pm

My two cents on this:

I'm still torn over the creation of societies like this. Not over their sensitive nature - not in the slighest - people leave too many topics to the side in some debates because they are 'sensitive' and really they are probably the most important ones we should be having. My issue in effect is that it is a society created around a single issue (granted in this case euthanasia was included also, I know originally that never was).

Should there really be the opportunity for a society to be created over any single issue that is out there? That is the question I've been asking myself with regards this. Should there be a pro-life society, pro-choice society, pro-gay marriage, pro-traditional marriage, pro-marijuana legalization society, anti-marijuana legalization. That is in effect the precedent that was being set if they did go forward.

They are all in effect some very important debates that have been in the media recently worldwide (the list could go on) - but I am not sure Clubs & Societies, through a Students' Union is the best format or structure for them to be created in. I'm not sure if that makes sense (it does in my head at least), or even if there is an alternative structure by which they could be created/supported to carry out these debates.

reunion wrote: »

Then, unusually, it was put to a vote to ratify them (a process that was NOT ever used over the last 7 years).

As memory serves myself, I don't think there was ever any other Club or Society that has gone forward while I have been here that there has actually been an objection to (could be wrong on this). Therefore it is taken that no vote needs to be had. Might be worth reviewing the policy/process, but if there were objections it makes sense to me to have a vote.

I would like to think it didn't come down to a clash of ideals, because it shouldn't. If I still had a vote through my Club/opportunity to speak the objection I would have put forward is what I have detailed above, which is my genuine concern going forward for C&S.

reunion · 12-02-2014 10:09pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

Should there be a pro-life society, pro-choice society, pro-gay marriage, pro-traditional marriage, pro-marijuana legalization society, anti-marijuana legalization. That is in effect the precedent that was being set if they did go forward.

Pro-tea society? pro-Fianna Fail society?

To answer your question, yes, there can be.

Ginge Young wrote: »

I would like to think it didn't come down to a clash of ideals, because it shouldn't. If I still had a vote through my Club/opportunity to speak the objection I would have put forward is what I have detailed above, which is my genuine concern going forward for C&S.

I do understand your point and it can be ridiculous I agree. It would have been great if those types of questions were asked at council; sadly that wasn't even close to the questions asked at council.

Actually, can someone find the definition of a society? (hint: it's in this pdf)

I don't mean to sound like an ahole (I slightly am, I won't lie) but you defined what a society is and said that is why you would have voted no to them...

Sounds more like you want a rewording of what a society IS rather than anything wrong with that particular society.

UL pro life society ???

Comments