Ultrasound Group Banned?

Wheely

Hey i just heard that that Ultrasound Pro-Life gruop were supposed to be giving a talk on your campus and you guys had them cancelled...I was just wondering what happened there.anybody who knows anything about it???

Karoma

Good old IndyM' : http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72902

rainbow kirby

Thank the good dude they weren't let speak. I can't stand the amount of bull**** people like that spew.

orangerooster

Saw ads about this on campus,looked like pretty hardcore stuff. If what it says on indymedia is true then they probably shouldnt have been allowed in. That said indymedia isnt really the most balanced place to get info.

Edit: I wouldnt agree with anything this groups views on abortion at all but most of what you read on indymedia isnt the best.

Karoma

orangerooster wrote:

..but most of what you read on indymedia isnt the best.

Aye. Edited my original post to include a pinch of salt
There is some basis for what they say though, and the group is pretty hardcore and has an interesting history.

That said, shouldn't academia encourage freedom of speech and association. If people choose to disagree with their beliefs-then so be it..

Red Alert

why exactly weren't they allowed speak, and who had the authority to decide that?

Wheely

I was thinkin the same thing myself.....Indymedia certainly isnt the most unbiased place to get information....Im a student in NUI Galway where this group are scheduled to speak next Thursday... I was tryin to get some information as to how UCD stopped the event going ahead and if the same thing could be done in Galway. While i dont know much about the group I have heard that they're extremely radical and from what I know of Youth Defence they're terrible. I didnt even know they were associated until I read that link...that said I generally dont believe everything i read on Indymedia....

john^doyle

they're an "Anti-woman group" ??

wtf? how does that work?

rainbow kirby

They're one of those militant pro-life 'women have no right to choose what they do with their bodies' groups. Blecch.

ferdi

"While I disapprove of what you say, I will defend to the death your right to say it"

Red Alert

i think they should be allowed speak, just as ivana backik is allowed speak on th extreme of the other side. some thinly veiled racist talks are allowed take place in UCD (and racial hatred is thank god illegal in ireland). therefore why is an anti-abortion group prevented from speaking, when being anti-abortion is not unlawful. did the SU prevent the talk or who was responsible for it?

everybody deserves the right to be heard so long as they are not breaking the law. i'm sure it would have been quite a heated debate, but everyone from both sides would have gone away more knowledgable and thoughful. just my 0.02c

Tayto2000

Ultrasound got the boot because they are a commercial operation that booked a theatre in arts as a society under Youth Defence (A now defunct society). Only societies and college organisations can book space for free, outside groups have to pay. All this came to light when they got confronted in Arts by some students about who they were and what they were doing handing out fliers. The booking got cancelled as a result.

zap

as far as I know they tried to book the clinton Auditorium as well but have now been cancelled from that.

Red Alert

so if they were prepared to pay for the WJCA then who decided to cancel them? because if it's the SU i'm going to fúcking scream. i think there'd be a clamour of discontent from the SU if a pro-choice person was barred from speaking.

ferdi

Red Alert wrote:

i think there'd be a clamour of discontent from the SU if a pro-choice person was barred from speaking.

of course there would be, and rightly so. i dont understand why they arnt allowed hold their meeting

ozt9vdujny3srf

Red Alert wrote:

just my 0.02c

0.02 of a cent?

Wow, that means your opinion is valued at a hundredth of everyone eles. Surely not even worth listening to.


On-topicwise: I'd be interested to know who stopepd this event and what tehre reasons are for doing so. Censorship like this is a worrying thing to see, especially in a university. And thats just my €2,000,000,000.

Tayto2000

Got bumped about, but last I heard it was going ahead in the old UIC (Now the WJCA). Has it been cancelled from there?

Syth

Anyone who thinks that a group should be banned because that group advocates a point of view different from there own has no right to talk about freedom of speech.

We are not children. We do not need to be protected from harmful words. We are able to see something for crap without you shielding it from us. You are not our parents. We are not children.

Tayto2000

It's still on in the UIC tonight, it was cancelled from Arts.

Vainglory

Posting in an entirely personal capacity...

The talk in the Clinton Institute was cancelled last week (by the college, not the SU, who would have no power to cancel stuff in there) due to insurance reasons. It was cancelled previously in the Arts block because they weren't a college society and had pretended to be when booking it. Now, apparently, Youth Defence have got around the insurance issue, and although the college claim they don't want the talk going ahead, it might still be on this evening.

I do not want this talk to go ahead, but this does not mean I am against the principle of free speech.

Free speech is not the ultimate right which supercedes all other rights.

I will always support free speech when it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. UCD students have a right to feel comfortable and safe and unintimidated in their own university, and for people who have had abortions or whose partners have had abortions, the presence of Youth Defence here will do exactly the opposite.

I have seen members of Youth Defence call women murderers who express a pro-choice view and harrass them to the point of them breaking down into tears. Should they be allowed to do that, on the basis of "free speech"? Of course not. Would it be alright for me to fire a load of racial slurs at someone and defend it by saying I was only exercising my right to free speech? No way. There are limits to free speech and those limits are when you infringe on the rights of others to peaceful enjoyment of their own lives.

A friend of mine in UCD who has had an abortion was too upset to come into college after seeing those provocative posters. This university has a Dignity and Respect policy and the Youth Defence posters contravenes that.

It is not because Youth Defence are pro-life that I do not want them on campus or giving a talk. It is because of the violent nature of their organisation and how they intimidate and harrass women. I have many friends who are pro-life and I often debate the issue with them ; they of course have a perfect right to that view. But YD are a different story altogether, they are dangerous and should be stopped.

...posting in a purely personal capacity..

rainbow kirby

Well said Vainglory.

AngelofFire

These youth defence people are facists, When i was a kid i went on a pro divorce march with my family just before the referendum, they came up and started attacking people with hurling sticks, one of them pushed me over on the ground. i was traumatised for a long time afterwards. During the summer i was at a meeting of the IFPA and they came and started pushing people around and shouting abuse.

These people are Scum and they must be Smashed.

daRobot

These right wing cvnts have no place being on campus.

Debate is fine, intimidation is not.

John_C

daRobot wrote:

Debate is fine, intimidation is not.

I agree they should be allowed to hold the debate and if anyone is attacked or intimidated services should interviene.

The posters were in poor taste (and not put up be a club or society) so should not have been allowed.

Red Alert

nobody is forcing you to go if you do not like the content of the talk. if college did not cancel the talk would you use your position to advocate doing so? i hope you wouldn't, as it prevents anybody making their own informed choice on the matter.

ferdi

ok, sorry to rabbit on about freedom of speech but i seriously believe that not allowing this group to speak is seriously damaging - not to the group but to the university.

i do not believe that stopping this talk/meeting is the answer. if you do not agree with what they stand for, it is your duty as a free thinking human being in a democracy to go to that meeting and argue your position. Banning the confrence is an act worthy of the the government of the peoples republic of china and will ultimatly be looked back on as an act of cowardice and single minded oppression.

Syth

The world in general is not a nice warm fuzzy place. You do not have the right to that. If you can't deal with that, that's your problem. Grow up. You should not ban my free speech just because you are oversensitive.

Vainglory wrote:

Would it be alright for me to fire a load of racial slurs at someone and defend it by saying I was only exercising my right to free speech?

Should the government (in this context college) punish you for doing it? No. If you do it to someone (say calling a group of black men ****) and the assalt you, should they be charged? Almost certainly not.

You should not be banned from saying what you want, but you must accept the consequesces of that. You are not a child, grow up.

Vainglory wrote:

There are limits to free speech and those limits are when you infringe on the rights of others to peaceful enjoyment of their own lives.

I disagree. There are 6 billion different definition of 'peaceful enjoyment of their own life', to ban everything that contravens that would be impossible.

daRobot wrote:

These right wing cvnts have no place being on campus.

I agree. We should not put up with people who want to ban everything they disagree with.

LovelyHurling

The world in general is not a nice warm fuzzy place. You do not have the right to that. If you can't deal with that, that's your problem. Grow up. You should not ban my free speech just because you are oversensitive.

Chillax lads, look at it this way. There are certain debatable arguments that are worthy of public meetings, there are others that are not even worthy of a Sinn fein constituency office (yowza that one was personal!) My point (essentially just a vile regurgitation of Vainglory's point) is that freedom of speech is fine, but freedom to talk complete and utter bull****, while fine in itself, should not be facilitated by a bunch of educators and the educated.

The line that is to be drawn between valid debate and bull**** debate cannot be measured by any very expensive calipers borrowed from the physics department, but quite simply with common sense.

Common sense says no.

I'm not oversensitive to any debatable issue. But the thought of this particular group being given the opportunity to speak in UCD does rile me. Bring a valid pro life vs pro choice debate to the table and 'twill all be rosy.

Red Alert

but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?

parsi

Vainglory wrote:

Posting in an entirely personal capacity...



Free speech is not the ultimate right which supercedes all other rights.

I will always support free speech when it does not infringe upon anyone else's rights. UCD students have a right to feel comfortable and safe and unintimidated in their own university, and for people who have had abortions or whose partners have had abortions, the presence of Youth Defence here will do exactly the opposite.

I have seen members of Youth Defence call women murderers who express a pro-choice view and harrass them to the point of them breaking down into tears. Should they be allowed to do that, on the basis of "free speech"? Of course not. Would it be alright for me to fire a load of racial slurs at someone and defend it by saying I was only exercising my right to free speech? No way. There are limits to free speech and those limits are when you infringe on the rights of others to peaceful enjoyment of their own lives.

So I take it from this that if there was a meeting called which was designed to tarnish all members of the clergy with the same brush you would call for its cancellation ?

I wonder how people get the view that students are radical. From what I've ever seen students are only radical and accepting of free speech and discussion if its one of their accepted subjects or people. In my days we voted to disassociate from USI (rightly so) but during the debates God help you if you were pro-USI.

Ivana Bacik broke the law back in the days of SPUC. But yet it was the SPUC people who were demonised and who were made feel uncomfortable and who were upset by people demanding a right which they deeply believed was wrong. But hey, its sort-of anti-establishment so all the students rowed in behind. Youth Defence took the radically opposite step and were reviled.

Even now you see the silly disputes about banning Coke and Nestle and Caterpillar and you think "how come no-one is proposing a ban on Chinese goods?". Maybe its because the Yankee devils who allow argument are viewed as worse than the Chinese devils who shoot you for arguing...

Vainglory

Red Alert wrote:

but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?

The SU has a clearly defined non-directional policy on abortion and I did state that I was posting in a personal capacity.

For the record, the talk did not go ahead.

the_syco

John_C wrote:

I agree they should be allowed to hold the debate and if anyone is attacked or intimidated services should interviene.

Funny bit was highlighted. What services? The Gardai? Or a few security personal? And what should they intervene with? Youth Defense have a history of using weapons.

=-=

And how would you react if someone asked to hold a discussion in a building you owned, whom you knew had a history of violence, a history of using weapons, and finally, whom you knew would attack anyone else (possibly with weapons) that didn't have the same values as they did?

LovelyHurling

Red Alert wrote:

but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?

Yes I think you might have a point on that one, sometimes the SU strikes me as a particularly odd machine, I think it's time for a valid pro choice vs pro life debate, any ideas if there are plans for a 'replacement debate' without the militia??

John_C

the_syco wrote:

What services?

Sorry for not being clearer. I meant the buildings and services department who are in charge of security in UCD.

Syth

Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

Does anyone know if they actually are violent? The source of this claim is from an article that starts: "Anti-woman group youth defence have organised an anti-choice propaganda meeting for Monday 21st. Their intention was to cloud the abortion debate with falsities and inaccuracies.". It then throws around a few dates of when they used violence, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2003. Pick your favourite. That article also supports the violence that was used against other people. That article is complete rubbish.

Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case. If they really are full of crap, then a few UCD students will be wiser.

LovelyHurling

Syth wrote:

Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

Does anyone know if they actually are violent? The source of this claim is from an article that starts: "Anti-woman group youth defence have organised an anti-choice propaganda meeting for Monday 21st. Their intention was to cloud the abortion debate with falsities and inaccuracies.". It then throws around a few dates of when they used violence, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2003. Pick your favourite. That article also supports the violence that was used against other people. That article is complete rubbish.

Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case. If they really are full of crap, then a few UCD students will be wiser.

Yes. You're making an assumption that the only proof of this groups malevolance is based on this article. They don't have a violent mandate in their constitution as far as I know, but their members are extremists by nature. Justin Barrtt the freakshow for example, who Ive had the misfortune of meeting is a vile ignorant fascist, he really is.

The Nazi's were full of crap and a lot of German's didn't know any wiser. I don't like getting so political in these posts but they're complete salesmen.. selling hollow ideas to people they hope will be easily convinced.

Homerbeer

Who runs the show in UCD? Why do the socialists seem to be the censors? UCD should operate as a place of free speech, a place where peole can broaden their minds. I think that no matter the topic, people should be entitled to make up their minds, agree, or disagree. I think the student union should issue a statement citing reasons as to why this conference was cancelled

Pythia

I don't think it was the SU who stopped it?
YD have a policy of disrupting meetings held by the IFPA or any pro choice meetings. They did that at a YFG meeting about 3 years ago. They are extremist nutcases.

Red Alert

if was stopped for security reasons then so be it. Aisling Kennedy who's in charge of services is actually quite a reasonable person so i'd say there might have been some security problem. fair enough. but the debate remains - is pro-life/pro-choice debate going to be 'allowed' by the left-wing members of the SU? because it seems that they're quite uncomfortable talking about it. if i wanted to discuss computer code, i'd show code samples or flow charts or whatever on screen - why do some people here think that you can talk about abortion without using visual aids? if we allow everything to be stopped just because somebody gets offended by it then we're guilty of stifling debate. we're all adults, if you don't like a poster/slide/overhead just walk on and ignore it.

Syth

LovelyHurling wrote:

You're making an assumption that the only proof of this groups malevolance is based on this article.

Please provide other evidence then.

LovelyHurling wrote:

The Nazi's were full of crap and a lot of German's didn't know any wiser.

LovelyHurling has just broken Godwin's Law, which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1, when this happens the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

The Student's Union has an explicit non-opinion on abortion. In my opinion it should not say anything on this topic one way or the other.

Homerbeer

I agree with love hurling on the violent issue there. Any legal proceedings which were made, Youth defense were on the plaintiff side. They made legal proceedings against family planning on the distribution of abortion info in ireland, and cases against the gardai for assault. In fact any interest group who could be accused of violence is the socialists i.e assaulting justin barret, and michael mac duil

Pythia

This isn't YD vs Socialists. If you don't support YD, it doesnt mean you're a socialist. I don't see why you're bringing that in.

Vainglory

Just to respond to a few points made by various posters…

Syth wrote:

Should the government (in this context college) punish you for doing it? No. If you do it to someone (say calling a group of black men ****) and the assalt you, should they be charged? Almost certainly not.
You should not be banned from saying what you want, but you must accept the consequesces of that. You are not a child, grow up.

Right. So in your ideal world, we can all say whatever we want, with no thought for common decency or civility or incitement to hatred, and anyone who is offended by someone’s words can do whatever they like to them without fear of prosecution.


I don’t think it’s childish to realise that a world like that could never work. I think it’s childish to believe that the world could continue to function if those were the rules.


We live in society. There should be a basic level of common decency that is upheld and not overruled by people shrieking about the importance of free speech. Of course free speech is important. I believe fervently in freedom of expression both for individuals and for the press. However, I do not believe that the right to free speech should be used to quash all other basic rights.

Syth wrote:

I disagree. There are 6 billion different definition of 'peaceful enjoyment of their own life', to ban everything that contravens that would be impossible.

How about we go with this for starters? http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
I’d draw particular attention to Article 29 (2), which states,


(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Syth wrote:

I agree. We should not put up with people who want to ban everything they disagree with.

I do not want to ban everything I disagree with. I do not want to ban pro-life groups, people who have pro-life views, the Catholic Church or anything else. However, I do not want to be complicit in giving a dangerous, violent group like Youth Defence a platform to organise in our university.

parsi wrote:

So I take it from this that if there was a meeting called which was designed to tarnish all members of the clergy with the same brush you would call for its cancellation ?

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. If there was a talk organised which was titled, “All Priests Are Bigoted ****s”, then I doubt I’d be too impressed either.

parsi wrote:

From what I've ever seen students are only radical and accepting of free speech and discussion if its one of their accepted subjects or people.

I am always accepting of free speech. Simultaneously, (and the two are not mutually exclusive), I am never in favour of women being harassed, intimidated and bullied by people with extreme views.

Red Alert wrote:

but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?

As I’ve said, the SU has a non-directive policy on abortion. And to be honest, I’ve never come across people advocating full-term abortion on demand. What I have come across, (and I’d fall into this category myself), are people advocating the right to choose a free, safe and legal abortion if the woman so wishes. We do not encourage abortion. We encourage choice.

LovelyHurling wrote:

sometimes the SU strikes me as a particularly odd machine, I think it's time for a valid pro choice vs pro life debate

If you want to have one, ask your class rep to bring a motion to SU Council. Then there will be a debate. There’s no problem with debate and there never has been.

Syth wrote:

Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

Does anyone know if they actually are violent?

Syth, I have seen Youth Defence members harass a woman, shouting “Murderer” at her until she broke down into tears on a public road. I am not lying. I have heard from countless, varied sources, from people on both the right and the left, that they have a history of violently disrupting meetings, including those of pro-choice activists. Thankfully, I have never personally been on the receiving end of a YD hurley, but I know people who have.

Syth wrote:

Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case.

What is credible evidence? Do you have to see it with your own eyes for it to be credible evidence? When something is reported in the media, do you automatically assume it to be a lie unless you were there when the event took place? I don’t know what I can say to convince you but these people are dangerous, violent, and should not be given the opportunity to organise.

Homerbeer wrote:

Who runs the show in UCD? Why do the socialists seem to be the censors?

The talk was cancelled by the university, not the “socialists”. And I don’t think Brady, Nolan, Clayton etc would take too kindly to being placed in that political bracket.

Homerbeer wrote:

UCD should operate as a place of free speech, a place where peole can broaden their minds. I think that no matter the topic, people should be entitled to make up their minds, agree, or disagree.

Okay. I’ve booked Theatre P next week for a talk entitled, “All Ethnic Minorities are Scum and Must Die, Not To Mention Fat People”.

Homerbeer wrote:

I think the student union should issue a statement citing reasons as to why this conference was cancelled

Why? We didn’t cancel it, nor do we have any position on abortion. Any views I’ve put forward on this thread have been in a personal capacity.

Pythia wrote:

YD have a policy of disrupting meetings held by the IFPA or any pro choice meetings. They did that at a YFG meeting about 3 years ago. They are extremist nutcases.

Amen.

Red Alert wrote:

but the debate remains - is pro-life/pro-choice debate going to be 'allowed' by the left-wing members of the SU? because it seems that they're quite uncomfortable talking about it.

No “left-wing” member of the university is against a reasonable, mature, non-violent debate on the issue of abortion. In fact, I had one last night with my flatmate. As I said previously, if you want a debate, there are ways you can organise one.

Syth wrote:

The Student's Union has an explicit non-opinion on abortion. In my opinion it should not say anything on this topic one way or the other

It doesn’t, at the moment. But the SU is all of you, not me or the other four lads. If you do/do not want it to have an official stance on the issue, then that control is in your hands.

LovelyHurling

Vainglory: <double backflip> Hai-Ya!

Well said. I think that says it all. *Literally* lol. My faculty doesnt do class reps so I hereby nominate you to mention the idea of a re-debate lol.

And I know weve debated this already on here so its old hat by now but isnt it ironic that the SU has no mandate on abortion which affects hundred of irish students - male and female - yet it has had a very definite opinion on Rossport, Shannon-Iraq, and Nestle, which dont affect students to anywhere near the same extent. Sorry if Im opening a can of worms here, dont want to seem *too* pedantic!!

panda100

Just wanted to ask vainglory are you sure the union has an entirely unbiased opinion on abortion.I have it on very good authority from one of the old officers that if a girl comes into the union and wants an abortion then they will fund her the money for it.Of course this is always kept very hush hush I just wanted to know if this is true still?
As for the posters that were up around campus i cannot see how they are particularly harsh-if posters are factual and correct they should certainly be allowed up.I helped bring Dennis Halliday to UCD two years ago for the world aid soc and during his talk he gave particularly graphic depictions of conditions in Iraq.However i dont recall any of the lefts complaining then.Dennis Halliday was telling the truth of what many children in Iraq go through and so while it was not pleasent to listen to i wanted to now the truth about their plight.
Abortion is not a pretty subject.Coming from a purely medical point of view after studying embryology for three years ,abortion isnt something you can take a tablet for and it'l go away.It is a risky and very unpleasent operation.It involves crushing and burning etc and this is exactly what was said on the posters.During the coke campaign in UCD there was a lot of unpleasent posters around depicting killer coke so i find it particularly childish that suddenly all the lefts are getting on their high horse about posters when it doesnt bother them when its THEIR views and THEIR campaigns on the posters.
This thread is not about abortion being right or wrong but as im sure the education officer would agree with that everyone has a right to education.We are all adults in this college,we dont need to be shielded by the union from the harsh cruel realities of the world and abortion is one of theses matters.All students should be allowed the education to know what exactly an abortion entails.So what if on the posters the man said he had to carry the bodies of human foetus's away.We see pictures on the news everyday of dead human bodies be they from a shooting in Clondalkin or after an earthquake in India.

I think many people would have valued from the experience of hearing exactly what goes on at an abortion clinic.I worked in a plastic surgery clinic for the summer and after it am utterly and totally against plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes.Most people are really intrested to hear exactly what went on there (yes we did get lots of fair city actors in)and they even want to hear all the gory details about liposuction and calf implants. Actually It was to many of the 20 or so left protesters who were there last night that i told many of my grusesome stories too about plastic surgery.I just find it very unfair and unjust of them to prevent the going ahead of this talk last night-it really is a case of double standards on their part-its ok for us to to get our point across but not ok for the more conservatives to get their point across.
As for angel of fire and vainglory saying that pro life lobbyists use alot of unsavoury methods and physical force to get their point across-that is just laughable.What are you are bodyguards or something?Security would have been there to handle that im sure.As i said we are all adults on this campus if someone came up to me saying abortion is evil im sure most people would be able to handle that we are all grown up and have to deal with other peoples point of views.And i think it is a case of pot kettle and black for you chris didnt you say you used physical force to stop that van of deportees a couple of weeks ago as many of the guards said at the time that a lot of people could have got hurt from you doing that.
This is not a personal vendetta against chris or jane,i admire their views but when it stops others from hearing other porints of view thats when their points of view lessen a lot in my eyes cos as they know well everyone has a right to say their side of the story.

thecheekofyou

It's on tonight in DCU's Terence Larkin theatre at 7pm.

LovelyHurling

I think many people would have valued from the experience of hearing exactly what goes on at an abortion clinic

Lads I think we're getting confused between a pro life group and the YD which although pro life, is not pro debate. I seriously doubt if anyone here or in UCD would object to a serious pro life group coming in to us.

For the record I havent made up my mind on abortion, but Id rather hear a real debate than a load of loonies of the justin barrett variety roaring down my ear. Wouldnt you?

panda100

Its not about having a debate lovely hurling.You cant really debate anything till you know the facts and the talk would have given people insight into one side of the debate.
Also the power of words mr lovelyhurling-who said anyone would be roaring at this talk? From what I have heared the man and women who are speaking are both quite mild mannered and no 'roaring' will be going on.

LovelyHurling

panda100 wrote:

no 'roaring' will be going on.

You have to admit that quote is quite funny very bishop brennan-esque!

Theyre nutcases. I cant say all of them are but in general... theyre nutcases. Who are the two debating is it thingy with the complicated irish name just curious shes not mildmannered if its her. Panda surely you agree we have to dicern between reliables and unreliables. Lets bring Ruth Cullen or those Pro Life people to ucd instead problem solved? why do we need the weirdos? 'pro life' come across to me as being very educated, reasonable calm and logical in their thinking, whether you agree with them or not.

panda100

LovelyHurling wrote:

You have to admit that quote is quite funny very bishop brennan-esque!

Theyre nutcases. I cant say all of them are but in general... theyre nutcases. Who are the two debating is it thingy with the complicated irish name just curious shes not mildmannered if its her

Yes v.father Ted-down with that sort of thing!:)

you could say that those five shannon protestors are pretty mad nutcases for first of all attacking a war plane and then saying the rosary around it-to me they sound mental saying the rosary on the runway in the middle of shannon airport!However i do not judge them on their actions and would not say they are nutcases for doing this cos unlike a lot of leftys in UCD i am fair and give everyone their right to protest by whatever means they want to.

Stepherunie

I found those posters utterly offensive. If anyone who had had no other choice than to terminate a pregnancy i.e someone who had an agtopic pregnancy or the other condition where the foetus is not viable (can't think of the name) I couldn't begin to know how upsetting and distressing those posters must have been. They shouldn't have been put up end of.