L&H Abortion Debate

Pythia

I read this on another website about the L&H abortion debate that was due to be held last Wed but was cancelled.

What do people think about this?

On Wednesday, some people in the L&H (Literary and Historical Society - the college debating union) received calls from members of Youth Defence, warning of violence if the evening's debate on abortion went ahead.

The L&H were unable to ensure the safety of the pro-choice speakers, so was forced to cancel the debate. One person received a text proposing a riot in the theatre where the debate was being held. The L&H put up notices saying that the debate was cancelled, but gave a different reason.

Riamfada

id be pro-life and I think its disgraceful that some people cant conduct themselves in a manner befitting third level students. However we have seen that a large number of pro-lifers in society are violent in their views. Stupid really because for me it pushed me to pro choice for years.

humbert

Where is that quoted from? If it's true, and I wouldn't be surprised, it makes me angry to think that such stupid people can affect the rest of us so easily.

Pythia

A thread on politics.ie

humbert

I saw the poster about the cancellation around campus, couldn't get a balance or something, didn't understand what was ment.

Riamfada

humbert wrote:

I saw the poster about the cancellation around campus, couldn't get a balance or something, didn't understand what was ment.

likewise but it seems more likely that the prolifers would go to such lengths to prevent people from being informed on the subject and to impose their ideas on the rest of the world.

Sangre

Well there is a lawsoc abortion debate for next week anyway.
Big man rich will protect us all.

Dave!

F*ckin scumbags!!!

The_Minister

Are you sure that this is true? On the newswire, they said it was due to an inbalence in the number of speakers.

griffdaddy

debates are very rarely if ever cancelled for an imbalance of speakers, you can always find a dummy speaker willing to stand in who can give some form of argument. i'd say we organise a prochoice rally on campus and flush out these idiots once and for all with a good kick up the arse. regardless of your views, they are the last thing you want to become

Dave!

hear hear!

fish-head

I'd be up for a good riot I think.. If it went ahead you could single out the Youth Defence people and have them banned from the college or expelled or whatever the proper protocol is.

Het-Field

God I hate Youth Defence and Anti Fascist Action. I really think its time we get Aine Ni Chonaill to campaign to deport all members of Youth Defence andAnti Fascist Action. Debates are about information and learning. Im totally pro life, and i subscribe to the consistent life ethic but i hate fascist organisations

Riamfada

its not like they havnt done stuff like this before

Indymedia wrote:

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. Earlier today members of youth defence were seen handing out their propaganda in UCD. Alliance for choice activists approached the group and informed them that they could not hand out that literature unless they were a society or even students. There activities were reported to arts services who upon receiving knowledge of this Services escorted the group off campus, and then cancelled the event organised by youth defence for Monday 21st.

typical action for people who cant actually support their points with logic

Sangre

The hypocrasy some of the above posters is deliciously ironic.

Het-Field

griffdaddy wrote:

debates are very rarely if ever cancelled for an imbalance of speakers, you can always find a dummy speaker willing to stand in who can give some form of argument. i'd say we organise a prochoice rally on campus and flush out these idiots once and for all with a good kick up the arse. regardless of your views, they are the last thing you want to become

Sorry, but your argument is not dis similer to that of Youth Defence. This business of a kick up the arse, and crushing the movement is fascism. Im Pro Life, but ill stand my ground and argue my point. Violence, coercion etc is just wrong. Im entitled to my view but i wont force it on top of people with a "gun to their head

The_Minister

The_Minister wrote:

Are you sure that this is true? On the newswire, they said it was due to an inbalence in the number of speakers.

It is possible that the two are related.

Het-Field

Well groups have often tried to infiltrate debates before so its always a possibility. Last year there was supposed to be an Immigration debate on the 9th November. However, it never went ahead because of certain reasons. They are contained in the link. So if there was any infiltration which contributed to the order paper being lopsided, it would not be beyond the realm of possibility. The L&H are a very noble organisation who want to debate and inform people, and provide topical and progressive debates. However, extremists have often tried to use it as a platform without being invited to speak. Disregard the title of the link. It is just lies. The fascists tried to infiltrate the debate of their own accord

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=637&results_offset=420

fatal

****!!!!
I saw the posters saying that it was going to be cancelled but presumed that it would be rescheduled,is that not the case?
Why are outsiders allowed to the debates anyway?Allowing only students that are members of the society being discussed would surely lessen the threat of such "riots"

Jonny Arson

I think after the Justin Barrett riot a couple of years ago L&H did absolutely the right thing for health safety (and publicity) reasons but sadly for the wrong reasons of curbing free speech and open discussion because of a few facist morons. Shame. Revenge from Youth Defence after the Justin Barret affair maybe??

Dave!

Haha I was gonna put that quote in my sig too Zane! Quality

Het-Field

fatal wrote:

****!!!!
I saw the posters saying that it was going to be cancelled but presumed that it would be rescheduled,is that not the case?
Why are outsiders allowed to the debates anyway?Allowing only students that are members of the society being discussed would surely lessen the threat of such "riots"

They arent, but they just turn up anyway. The internet makes it very easy for extremists to keep in contact, and weather they are coming to protest or incite they see it as theeir right to turn up.

Down with extremists

fatal

Het-Field wrote:

They arent, but they just turn up anyway. The internet makes it very easy for extremists to keep in contact, and weather they are coming to protest or incite they see it as theeir right to turn up.

Down with extremists

Id love to beat the crap outta a few of them if they decide to show up at future L&H debates and decide to "riot"

fatal

fatal wrote:

Id love to beat the crap outta a few of them if they decide to show up at future L&H debates and decide to "riot"

Yes, that'll show that you're much better then they are.

Het-Field

eh, dont think ill join ya on that one. One senses they have friends with jackboots and shaved heads

fish-head

Those kind of people just dont belong in a place of enlightenment and education.

The_Minister

Grimes wrote:

its not like they havnt done stuff like this before

typical action for people who cant actually support their points with logic

Grimes, that's from Indymedia, their articles tend to be as unbiased as an obituary. If it had been pro-choice people handing out leaflets then they would have been "heroes". I wouldn't trust indymedia for the weather let alone accusations against an organisation that is deeply unpopular with indymedia's audience.

Jonny Arson

University Observer 26th October 2004 edition ''L&H Debate ends in riot'' if anyone wants to give it a look

http://www.ucd.ie/observer/v11i04/v11i04.pdf

Lessons really had to be learned after that

griffdaddy

my post was not at all hypocritical, if it was, i would've said, let's kick the shít out of them for believing our views are wrong, whereas what i was getting at was let's kick the shít out them for being unruly prícks who wont allow poeple express their views regardless. the validity of someone's point of view is lost once they impose it on others by running around shouting shít and acting violently. To promote an enviroment conducive to open debate, idiots like them have to be removed, one way or another. i'd love to combat a group of violent and riled up, politicised, middle class díck heads with a point of information but the fact that they're rioting against free arguement negates that approach. if they came in during one of my debates and started acting up i'd have no problem using force to remove them, regardless of subject matter, be it that this house believes that the eurosaver menu is a false economy or that this house believes every woman has the right to choose. this argument of hoew to treat violent opposition just comes down to a matter of opinion at the end of the day, but i'm certainly no hypocrit. i understnad exactly where you're coming from though and can see how it could be perceived as being hypocritical

griffdaddy

Het-Field wrote:

Sorry, but your argument is not dis similer to that of Youth Defence. This business of a kick up the arse, and crushing the movement is fascism. Im Pro Life, but ill stand my ground and argue my point. Violence, coercion etc is just wrong. Im entitled to my view but i wont force it on top of people with a "gun to their head

i dont really think it would be fascism to crush these guys, they're point of view isnt valid, they're methods of demonstration are not valid, they are criminals and thugs and should be treated as such. they're well organised as was said before, and they disperse too quickly to have the guards do anything, i just think the best thing to is to try and beat some sense into them, which is not strictly illegal or unethical or hypocritical if they're the ones who began the violence

Het-Field

griffdaddy wrote:

i dont really think it would be fascism to crush these guys, they're point of view isnt valid, they're methods of demonstration are not valid, they are criminals and thugs and should be treated as such. they're well organised as was said before, and they disperse too quickly to have the guards do anything, i just think the best thing to is to try and beat some sense into them, which is not strictly illegal or unethical or hypocritical if they're the ones who began the violence

Well, last time a fascist had the **** beaten out of him in UCD was at Barrettgate. Justin Barrett, a former PRO of Youth Defence, was filmed at a Nationalist meeting in Germany in 2000. The meeting was held by many former Nazi sympathisers. Barrett had a high profile in the 1990's as a reuslt of the Divorce Referenda where he campainged on the No side. When his side were defeated, he screameds into an RTE camera "your all a bunch of wife swapping sodamites" He was equally prominant in the No to Nice campaign. However, during the second referenda he was discredited by the leek of his extreme right wing links.

Two years later he was speaking at an abortion debate with Aine Ni Chonaill, Phillip Watt and a woman called Denese something. Anyway Barrett, Joe Duffy and Richard Butler were all assaulted by a group of people who wished to squash the fascist arguments. However, it became clear that they were indeed the fascists.

Most fascists are just, as Conor McGowan of UCDSU would put it "keyboard warriors". They are too afraid to come out of the closet and make their feelings known in public. Barrett is a fascist (read his book "the national way forward), but on that evening Barrett didnt look like it

griffdaddy

the thing there is that those idiots instigated the violence in a non-violent setting, and it cant be 'justified' (:D ) as they were attacking poeple who were arguing in a civilised, regardless of content, capacity.
I'd agree one hundred per cent about most fascists being keyboard warriors, they almost remind me of butters out of south park sometimes, putting on costumes and running around the place thinking they're somekind of evil super heroes, causing, as they like to put it, 'mass disruption!' To be honest it's these kind of sneaky, stupid tactics that píss me off so much and would like to see them take a beating, or at least be compromised physically. i couldn't give a shít what someone's views are on abortion, i have mine and would defend them and speak about why i have them happily, stopping short of promoting them. the whole idea of trying to change someone's mind who's at a complete pole to you is pointless. if these guys are so prolife why dont they go and convert the neutrals, rather than attempting to convert peole who have taken time to research the topic to such a degree that they can speak at/attend a debate on the subject and make up their own mind? If the LandH had a high level of pro-choice commitee members and ran with this debate knowing these guys were coming, they'd have practically handed the debate to the pro choice side. i'm pro choice myself, and wouldn't want to win an argument or referendum ad hominem because of these chaps. actually how to normal prolife people here feel about these guys and their views in general?

The_Minister

griffdaddy wrote:

i dont really think it would be fascism to crush these guys, they're point of view isnt valid, they're methods of demonstration are not valid, they are criminals and thugs and should be treated as such. they're well organised as was said before, and they disperse too quickly to have the guards do anything, i just think the best thing to is to try and beat some sense into them, which is not strictly illegal or unethical or hypocritical if they're the ones who began the violence

It's nice to judge isn't it?

Riamfada

The_Minister wrote:

against an organisation that is deeply unpopular with indymedia's audience.

An oraganisation that is becoming deeply unpopular with most people due to their "you are either with us or against us" attitude.

harrybosch

hey guys, just to let you all know that lawsoc is having an abortion debate on tuesday evening round 7. come along if you interested, should be a great debate with some excellent speakers planned to speak at the debate. pm me if you want anymore details

Het-Field

Who are the guest speakers

griffdaddy

The_Minister wrote:

It's nice to judge isn't it?

i meant their point of view that violence and disruption are good ways of addressing a particular issue, not their views on abortion or otherwise. do you hold that i'm wrong to judge them on their actions, which are a manifestation of their point of views, which we are all in agreement are stupid?

Chakar

Thats a pity the debate was cancelled the L&H could have got Services in to make sure everything was in order.

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Pythia

Chakar wrote:

Thats a pity the debate was cancelled the L&H could have got Services in to make sure everything was in order.

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Well maybe he didn't. I'm not saying this is fact.

Blush_01

Chakar wrote:

I asked Irwin the treasurer of the society on why the debate was cancelled.He lied to me!!

Conor, grow up.

griffdaddy wrote:

i meant their point of view that violence and disruption are good ways of addressing a particular issue, not their views on abortion or otherwise. do you hold that i'm wrong to judge them on their actions, which are a manifestation of their point of views, which we are all in agreement are stupid?

I think the problem here is that you're advocating violence, which was what they were also proposed to be using in order to get their point across. It makes you no better than them. Actually, no, it makes you worse than them, because you claim to know better, and are proposing a solution based on acting in a reprehensible manner regardless.

I think the crux of the issue here is that regardless of whether you're pro-life or pro-choice, you should be allowed to voice and attempt to support your views. Regardless of whether they're "right" or "wrong". The cancellation of the debate was indubitably a good idea. The L&H had problems with riots before, and it was definitely a smart move not to take the risk when such a sensitive issue was for debate.

Keep in mind, in a society of debaters, people can advocate a side without actually agreeing with their own points. It's perfectly possible to create a solid arguement to oppose your own personal beliefs, even if you still feel that the opposite of what you're saying is more socially beneficial/"right"/"true".

Umaro

*sob* Now we won't be able to express our pretentious opinions!!

elmyra

Umaro wrote:

*sob* Now we won't be able to express our pretentious opinions!!

Umaro, you mind reader. That was exactly what went through my head when I heard it was cancelled!

griffdaddy

Blush_01 wrote:

I think the problem here is that you're advocating violence, which was what they were also proposed to be using in order to get their point across. It makes you no better than them. Actually, no, it makes you worse than them, because you claim to know better, and are proposing a solution based on acting in a reprehensible manner regardless.

i'm advocating retalitory counter-violence which is entirely a different matter. who says it's so reprehensible? you might say 'oh, you're worse because you think you're right' but either you agree that i am right i.e. their violence is wrong, or you think that i'm wrong i.e. their violence is right. in a nutshell my rightness is universal, being in the interests of the majority i.e. everyone except them, who are the protagonists. They lose the right to be treated non-violently once they themselves initiate the violence. You can take what i'm saying out of context if you like ( i was being facititous about the pro-choice rally ambush) but i'm still of the opinion that the only way to deal with a group of people who refuse to allow free debate and are pretty much beyond the reaches of the law because of the anonymity of their group should be engaged in violence, hopefully leading to detention. haha, you got me sounding like i'm writing some code of war or something now! . i'm sorry but i cant see any other viable way of dealing with these guys. I don't know what you were trying to say in your last paragraph, i've been debating for 6 years and know how to construct a depersonalised arguement, like that time i had to argue pro-paedophilia! although you were probably talking to people in general and not me

Blush_01

griffdaddy wrote:

i'm advocating retalitory counter-violence which is entirely a different matter. who says it's so reprehensible? you might say 'oh, you're worse because you think you're right' but either you agree that i am right i.e. their violence is wrong, or you think that i'm wrong i.e. their violence is right. in a nutshell my rightness is universal, being in the interests of the majority i.e. everyone except them, who are the protagonists. They lose the right to be treated non-violently once they themselves initiate the violence. You can take what i'm saying out of context if you like ( i was being facititous about the pro-choice rally ambush) but i'm still of the opinion that the only way to deal with a group of people who refuse to allow free debate and are pretty much beyond the reaches of the law because of the anonymity of their group should be engaged in violence, hopefully leading to detention. haha, you got me sounding like i'm writing some code of war or something now! . i'm sorry but i cant see any other viable way of dealing with these guys. I don't know what you were trying to say in your last paragraph, i've been debating for 6 years and know how to construct a depersonalised arguement, like that time i had to argue pro-paedophilia! although you were probably talking to people in general and not me

I was, that's why I seperated it from the rest of what I said. Only the first part after your quote pertained to what you'd said.

Re: bold I don't believe that violence solves anything. Believing that you're wrong to advocate launching a so-called counter attack (although what you said sounded more like "attack them before they attack us", to be honest) doesn't mean I condone violence on the part of either group. If you can't prove your point without fists etc. then you don't have much of a point do you? I stand by what I said. You openly acknowledged that violent action on the behalf of your so-called opposition is wrong, yet feel perfectly ok with using violence yourself against them. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? "It's wrong for them to do it, but it's ok if we do what they've done wrong, since they've already done it."? Does two wrongs don't make a right ring any bells?

griffdaddy

Blush_01 wrote:

I was, that's why I seperated it from the rest of what I said. Only the first part after your quote pertained to what you'd said.

Re: bold I don't believe that violence solves anything. Believing that you're wrong to advocate launching a so-called counter attack (although what you said sounded more like "attack them before they attack us", to be honest) doesn't mean I condone violence on the part of either group. If you can't prove your point without fists etc. then you don't have much of a point do you? I stand by what I said. You openly acknowledged that violent action on the behalf of your so-called opposition is wrong, yet feel perfectly ok with using violence yourself against them. Can you not see the hypocrisy in that? "It's wrong for them to do it, but it's ok if we do what they've done wrong, since they've already done it."? Does two wrongs don't make a right ring any bells?

to be honest i think this debate is pretty circular and opinion based and probably can't really go anywhere, i believe that violence as a defense against violence is acceptable, you dont. it's not hypocrisy per se, as although i'd be commiting the same act as them. i'd be doing it a)only after they had instigated it, b)in defense of something which is universally right i.e. the freedom of others to express their opinions peacefully. if i criticised them for forcing their opinions on others with violence, and then forced my opinion on others with violence, i would be a hypocrit. what i'd be defending with violence against them is not my opinion, neither would i have anything to gain from it, it's a universal justice. i can see exactly where you're coming from though, and can see why you believe it's wrong, as a lot of people would, it's a matter of opinion. out of curiousity, and hypothetically (as if this whole debate isnt anyway:D ) if i came around your house and punched you in the face for disagreeing with me on this one, would you punch me back?

Blush_01

No. But you'd bloody hope you had good legal support.

Where is the LawSoc debate on?

NiallOh

Blush_01 wrote:

No. But you'd bloody hope you had good legal support.

Where is the LawSoc debate on?

The LawSoc debate is on this Tuesday, at 7:00 in Theatre Q, Arts. Guest speakers:
- William Binchy, Legal Advisor of the Pro Life Campaign
- Georgette Forney, founder of American "Silent No More Awareness Campaign"
- Rev. Vincent Twomey, Professor of Moral Theology
- Representitives from pro-choice organisations such as the IFPA and Body
- A balanced number of student speakers

The motion for the debate is "That This House Would Legalise Abortion on Demand" - like they have in England. I'd encourage everyone to attend as it should be a passionate and informative debate.

Chakar

Blush_01 wrote:

Conor, grow up.

That is deliciously ironic :rolleyes:

hullaballoo

[modbit]Ladies, lads, calm down.

If I even get a sniff of anyone trying to use this board to organise a riot or otherwise satisfy a political agenda, I won't be slow in dealing with it appropriately.[/modbit]

While I'm neutral on the abortion issue (I fail to see how a man could possibly take a stance on something that clearly concerns women), I do have something to say about the advocation of violence.

Firstly, YD are plainly extremists who have no place in UCD (they aren't a society afaik). Therefore, they have absolutely no prerogative to even attend an L&H debate, let alone threaten people in connection with the debate.

Secondly, advocating riots against violence is equally ludicrous. "Counter-violence" is no justification at all. If they use violence, let them suffer the political repercussions. People who think violence solves political problems are thankfully in a minority, so although it's not pleasant for the targets of the violence, they're hardly going to gain a majority vote by beating up students at an academic debate. Are they?

Dave!

hulla a man is in just as good a position as a woman to have a moral opinion on abortion. You don't have to have a womb to be able to discuss the ethical conflicts involved. But that's neither here nor there, just wanted to point it out.

hullaballoo

Yeah, but again, that's your opinion. I was just stating mine. I wasn't saying for a second that just because that's what I believe, that anyone else should. I don't try to enforce my political views on anyone, and I generally keep them to myself where they belong.

I use my vote instead of keyboard kombat.