Youth Defence write the Observer

The_Minister

Those plucky fellows, youth defence, appear have published their own observer, in which they strike back at the real Observer by apologising to themselves (read it and it makes sense). Anyone else laugh their hole off at this?

Red Alert

yep, was handed to me at the bus stop this evening around 5.

Vainglory

There's about three clear cases of libel in it (University Observer, Ivana Bacik, MRBI) I think it's pathetic to be honest, and a huge waste of money.

Blush_01

It might have had some value if it was printed on softer paper.

TheVan

I hope they are sued out of their tiny little minds....

The Observer should deffo go on a case, ditto with MRBI. Bacik probably won't, she'll take the high moral ground as a politician I'd say.

Pythia

They tried to give it to me but I didn't take it.
Didn't know it was the YDers though. Would've had a great chat with them.

The_Minister

TheVan wrote:

I hope they are sued out of their tiny little minds....

The Observer should deffo go on a case, ditto with MRBI. Bacik probably won't, she'll take the high moral ground as a politician I'd say.

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Vainglory

They probably can't be sued as there's nothing official on the "paper" saying it was produced by YD. They'll probably deny it and have probably covered their tracks as well.

Although - A reporter from the Tribune rang the YD Head Office, didn't identify himself, and said he wanted to talk about a pamphlet that was circulating. The receptionist said "Oh, are you from UCD?" before he had said anything about what pamphlet it was or where it was being circulated. Dunno if that's admissable proof of guilt but it confirms what everyone knows already as far as I'm concerned.

rainbow kirby

Just the sort of thing to make me angry getting on my bus home. YD make my blood boil.

hullaballoo

The_Minister wrote:

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Nah, it's not satire. It would need to refer to itself as a satirical publication for that to work.

TheVan

The_Minister wrote:

I doubt that Bacik can sue, as it was satire, like you'd see in the Phoenix magazine.

Don't think that defence would work. It purported to be the Observer, from using the motto (or what looked like it) to a similar font etc.

There is a reason (believe it or not!), the Turbine has "its satire stupid!" on it every week!

The_Minister

hullaballoo wrote:

Nah, it's not satire. It would need to refer to itself as a satirical publication for that to work.

The article was written by "A. Spoofer". I would qualify that as satire.

panda100

What was written in this paper?
They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

TheVan

True, but you had to read carefully to get that. I think they crossed the line in purporting to be satire. Phoenix is blatantly satire with cartoon speech bubbles on the cover.

Panda100 wrote:

They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

Cos we're living in fear of the terrace

The_Minister

panda100 wrote:

What was written in this paper?
They obviously thought better of giving it out in the terrace.

The guy who handed it to me flew by, practically threw it at me, I'd say they wanted to get out as many as possible without getting caught.

fish-head

Ah Yewt Defednse... pack-o-tossrags.

tintinr35

love it they make this grand bit statement and dont have the balls to stand behind it......typical

Red Alert

We're getting very hot under the collar about it aren't we?

pretty*monster

I could have (grudgingly) admired the gesture if the mock paper had been done with an ounce of style or real wit, but as it stood the whole thing was so bad, and made pro-lifers look so stupid I was half-tempted to believe it was a false flag operation.

Might not be too difficult to prove what group was responsible for the stunt though, the newsletter was obviously printed professionally and there’s only so many companies that could have done it.

the evil lime

I wish I could have seen a copy of that...

Garret

i thought it actually was the observer:p

granted i read the headline and put it down

but boy am i scarleh now:D

The_Minister

the evil lime wrote:

I wish I could have seen a copy of that...

I have one in my locker (keeping it for someone) so ask me if you see me and I'll show you.

elmyra

What I thought was best about it was that it was wrong....that thing on the back page about 'top ten reasons to like unborn babies' or whatever...no. 1 being that they have no rights...when in fact they do. The right to life, if I'm not mistaken, at least in this country. Whoopsies, YD, not so clever...

Garret

elmyra wrote:

What I thought was best about it was that it was wrong....that thing on the back page about 'top ten reasons to like unborn babies' or whatever...no. 1 being that they have no rights...when in fact they do. The right to life, if I'm not mistaken, at least in this country. Whoopsies, YD, not so clever...

i always thought that the problem was that the constitution does not define at what point something becomes a human being and thus gets all those rights



maybe im wrong

dirtydress

I found one outside 911 last night, I thought it was just ridiculous. Rather than officially complain to the paper about the article they decide to resort to childish name-calling in this ridiculous "publication". YD should be extremely ashamed, they've completely let down their entire organisation and now look like a big farce. Join me as we point and laugh at their sorry, cowardice asses.

Sangre

The problem is when the rights of the mother and the unborn child conflict and question arises of which should take precedent.

There obviously needs to be rights to have a conflict in the first place.

ferdi

Red Alert wrote:

We're getting very hot under the collar about it aren't we?

we sure are. wonder why that is;)

Garret

Sangre wrote:

The problem is when the rights of the mother and the unborn child conflict and question arises of which should take precedent.

There obviously needs to be rights to have a conflict in the first place.

ahh coolies;)

Raphael

Tbh I thought it was better than the observer normally is. Twas laminated, kept the rain off better.

singingstranger

Garret wrote:

i always thought that the problem was that the constitution does not define at what point something becomes a human being and thus gets all those rights

Isn't that case about the seperated couple, the woman of which wanted to use the man's frozen sperm to undergo IVF, still in the High Court trying to wrangle that point out?

Also, doesn't the first reason in the Top 10 Reasons thing Elmyra mentioned seem a bit satirical, rather than just stupid?

FionnMatthew

This stunt proves one thing for me.

YD are not a serious pro-life outfit. They are a defamation outfit, an organisation motivated simply by hatred for the pro-choice lobby, and for anyone they see as connected with it.

The fake Observer was not a pro-life pamphlet, but an expensive, time-consuming hate-mail campaign. It does nothing with respect to the abortion debate; it merely calls names and blows raspberries in the most juvenile way possible.

Pro-life politics are merely an excuse for YD to make character slurs against the opponents of the real pro-life lobby.

If it weren't abortion, it'd be something else. They are not fighting for the lives of aborted foetuses. They do aborted children a greater injustice than pro-choice lobbyists supposedly do, by making them an equivocal motivation, using them as a mere pawn in the furtherance of their own goals. They are fighting for themselves, and they just want a scrap, to scratch, bite and sting as much as possible, to do as much damage as they can, on the way to the bottom of the barrel.

I think we should recognise the fake Observer for what it is; not another hard-hitting assault by one of the players in the abortion debate, but something which has little enough to do with abortion, which has more to do with a facile, arbitrary vendetta between a group of people which let's face it, isn't that large.

It's like something out of the Beano. The Toffs and the Geordies, with their banal history of inexplicable opponentship. It's comedy, without the funny part.

Vainglory

FionnMatthew wrote:

This stunt proves one thing for me.

YD are not a serious pro-life outfit. They are a defamation outfit, an organisation motivated simply by hatred for the pro-choice lobby, and for anyone they see as connected with it.

The fake Observer was not a pro-life pamphlet, but an expensive, time-consuming hate-mail campaign. It does nothing with respect to the abortion debate; it merely calls names and blows raspberries in the most juvenile way possible.

Pro-life politics are merely an excuse for YD to make character slurs against the opponents of the real pro-life lobby.

If it weren't abortion, it'd be something else. They are not fighting for the lives of aborted foetuses. They do aborted children a greater injustice than pro-choice lobbyists supposedly do, by making them an equivocal motivation, using them as a mere pawn in the furtherance of their own goals. They are fighting for themselves, and they just want a scrap, to scratch, bite and sting as much as possible, to do as much damage as they can, on the way to the bottom of the barrel.

I think we should recognise the fake Observer for what it is; not another hard-hitting assault by one of the players in the abortion debate, but something which has little enough to do with abortion, which has more to do with a facile, arbitrary vendetta between a group of people which let's face it, isn't that large.

It's like something out of the Beano. The Toffs and the Geordies, with their banal history of inexplicable opponentship. It's comedy, without the funny part.

*applauds*

Word on the proverbial street is that UCD are seriously considering legal action.

singingstranger

Vainglory wrote:

*applauds*

QFT. Even if I do think that this guy and Eoin Macollamh are the same poster.

Vainglory wrote:

Word on the proverbial street is that UCD are seriously considering legal action.

UCD? On what grounds? Surely only the Observer could bring a case?

Stepherunie

pretty*monster wrote:

I could have (grudgingly) admired the gesture if the mock paper had been done with an ounce of style or real wit, but as it stood the whole thing was so bad, and made pro-lifers look so stupid I was half-tempted to believe it was a false flag operation.

Might not be too difficult to prove what group was responsible for the stunt though, the newsletter was obviously printed professionally and there’s only so many companies that could have done it.

Methinks it may be easier than they think - saw them making a promo video about what they were doing today. Refused to take one when they tried to give it to me.

Spectator#1

Stepherunie wrote:

Methinks it may be easier than they think - saw them making a promo video about what they were doing today. Refused to take one when they tried to give it to me.

They were about UCD today? Where and when? Are they still there? Call the guards on them, one of the reasons it would be hard to sue them is because there's no legally defensble evidence that it was Youth Defence.

I've already looked into finding out who printed it but there's a few problems.

1. There's loads of places that can do a job like that.

2. The printer's won't admit it if they did, they're just as liable to be sued as the people who commissioned it.

3. They might not even be in Dublin. I'm fairly sure most of the underground satirical publications (like Piranha) in this country go up North to print stuff to avoid being caught out like that.

Spectator#1

singingstranger wrote:

QFT. Even if I do think that this guy and Eoin Macollamh are the same poster.

I can confirm for you that FionnMatthew is not the same poster as Eoin Macollamh. I don't know who Eoin Macollamh is, granted, but FionnMatthew only posts as FionnMatthew on Boards. I live with him.

Stepherunie

They were around this morning when i was walking down to lectures.

Pythia

I got my hands on a copy today. There was a big pile of them near the Arts Services desk.

singingstranger

Spectator#1 wrote:

I can confirm for you that FionnMatthew is not the same poster as Eoin Macollamh. I don't know who Eoin Macollamh is, granted, but FionnMatthew only posts as FionnMatthew on Boards. I live with him.

Coolage, was just a sneaky suspicion!

Anyway, back on topic... UCD planning legal action? Really? I can't see what grounds they could take a case on, surely only the Observer could take it on the basis of trademark infringement or something?

Spectator#1

singingstranger wrote:

Coolage, was just a sneaky suspicion!

Anyway, back on topic... UCD planning legal action? Really? I can't see what grounds they could take a case on, surely only the Observer could take it on the basis of trademark infringement or something?

The Observer could take action for something along the lines of false impersonation, slander and libel, Ivana Bacik for libel and MRBI for libel, as far as I know.

UCD could take action because you have to get permission to distribute literature inside college grounds if you're not a university society or affiliated to one.

Youth Defence love this stuff though, they exist to churn up cheap publicity for their 'cause'. They ran a campaign opposing the recognition of same-sex couples in this country because 'it threatens the stability of the family'. It seems to me that an organisation like this could only attract the sad cases that don't really understand issues very well and just enjoy annoying people for the sake of it.

The issue of abortion is a complicated one, I recognise that those arguing in opposition to it's legalisation have valid grounds for doing so. I also recognise that I have never seen anything but half-baked, uninformed, reactionary, publicity seeking propoganda from Youth Defense. For this reason I would suggest that anyone who really, genuinely opposes abortion on intellectual and ethical grounds would have absolutely nothing to do with such an organisation of dirtbags.

People like this complicate and muddy what are already difficult public issues like abortion, IVF, cloning, sexual education, divorce, gay marriage, contraception etc... They drag in irrelevant side-issues - for example, the fake Observer took a swipe at the 'socialist' type in UCD - they print reaction inciting material, organise demonstrations and undermine what would otherwise be, for the most part, defensible ethical principles with their carry-on.

It's intellectual debate for people with no intellect.

ferdi

Vainglory wrote:

Word on the proverbial street is that UCD are seriously considering legal action.

i hope nobody in a position to consider legal action in this case will do so, to quote another campus publication - 'Its satire, stupid!' and people who get hot under the collar about satire usually end up with embreo all over their face - again.

i've just read the youth defence 'obsever' myself and while i dont think it does anything for their 'cause', it did get a laugh out of my and it was interesting to read an alternative to the hack fueled, agenda filled rubbish spewed by the usual suspects on this campus, in a manner that resembled the patronising childish tactics of these bodies quite nicely.

speaking as someone who is firmly on the fence as far as this core issue is concerned, i can see people here who are advocating legal action or calling the guards on them ( :rolleyes: ) are clearly doing so because they are chok-o-block with their very own agenda, which is no more 'correct' than that of youth defence and not in order to see justice done.

this is college. this is not the UN. slightly naughty satirical material distributed around campus would only provoke this reaction when it rubs the PC Brigade up the wrong way.

remember - ignore something long enough and it will often go away.

FionnMatthew

speaking as someone who is firmly on the fence as far as this core issue is concerned

Abortion isn't the core issue, Ferdi. Not for YD, not in this instance. Read the fake observer again. It's not about abortion. It's about flaming.

YD put these words in the mouth of the Observer: "We admit our story was a complete spoof. We are a bunch of dorks."

That's not the rhetoric of a body that is engaged with the "core issue" of abortion. That's a slagging match. It has nothing to do with abortion. And it's legally questionable. YD don't care about aborted babies. They care about slinging ****.

It's not satire. It's misquotation, and unlawful impersonation of college publication.

Spectator#1

ferdi wrote:

i hope nobody in a position to consider legal action in this case will do so, to quote another campus publication - 'Its satire, stupid!' and people who get hot under the collar about satire usually end up with embreo all over their face - again.

The point is that the Turbine section in the Tribune is just that, satire, written for the purpose of satire.

Youth Defense, who claim to stand for the 'stability' of the family and the rights of the unborn child, wrote this to slag off and try to undermine a publication who ran a story which painted them in a bad light. It's not satire, it is a vindictive revenge-motivated act which, as FionnMatthew already pointed out, has no real concern with the issue at hand other than a cursory one.

As well as that, satire has to draw attention to itself as satire, which the Turbine does. Nowhere on this publication does the word 'satire' appear, it doesn't matter how obvious the joke names are that have been entered for authors: the publication must specifically state it is intended as satire. Thus it isn't legally considered satire either.

i've just read the youth defence 'obsever' myself and while i dont think it does anything for their 'cause', it did get a laugh out of my and it was interesting to read an alternative to the hack fueled, agenda filled rubbish spewed by the usual suspects on this campus, in a manner that resembled the patronising childish tactics of these bodies quite nicely.

speaking as someone who is firmly on the fence as far as this core issue is concerned, i can see people here who are advocating legal action or calling the guards on them ( :rolleyes: ) are clearly doing so because they are chok-o-block with their very own agenda, which is no more 'correct' than that of youth defence and not in order to see justice done.

I have nothing to do with any movements regarding the abortion issue or any other political issue in this college. I advocate legal action because I consider the fake 'Observer' to be offensive in content, as well as taking exception to the author's flagrant disregard for the law.

While I recognise that there are plenty of reactionary half-wits on the other side of the fence as regards such debates I think that it would be ignorant and presumptuous to dismiss the genuine complaints made about this illegal publication just to spite those people.

It would be a mistake to dismiss everyone but you as being vendetta motivated. It would be a bigger mistake to, for that reason, adopt the opinion that the people who printed this illegal literature don't deserve to be answerable for it.

this is college. this is not the UN.

As UCD is in Ireland - which has been a member of the United Nations since 1955 - technically you would be correct in saying this is the UN.

In any case I can assure you that all sentient parties directly involved in the UN are of roughly the same size, made of the same basic materials, and subject (more or less) to the same problems, impulses and laws as we mere students here in UCD Ireland, although I see how you made that mistake.

remember - ignore something long enough and it will often go away.

Excuse the rather extreme example here but you could make the same 'satire' argument in defense of early anti-semitic propoganda published in the Germany of the 1930's. That problem didn't go away until people actually stopped ignoring it and by then it had done some serious damage, in fact it hasn't completely gone away yet.

Here are a list of some other things that don't go away if ignored:

syphilis,
revolutions,
mosquitoes,
famine,
ethical issues,
examinations,
global warming,
tsunamis,
gravity,


the list goes on...

Unless of course by 'long enough' you meant 'large tracts of time in the region of a thousand years or so' and by 'go away' you actually meant 'overcomes everthing and everyone for whom it is a problem and so - by definition - ceases to be a problem', in which case you're absolutely right.

slightly naughty satirical material distributed around campus would only provoke this reaction when it rubs the PC Brigade up the wrong way.

I suggest you reconsider your attitude regarding everyone else in UCD. There's a lot of people here. Yes, there's a lot of idiots and even some (your word) 'hacks', but there's plenty of intelligent people who think for themselves too and some of them have valid reasons for the opinions they have.

ferdi

FionnMatthew wrote:

YD put these words in the mouth of the Observer: "We admit our story was a complete spoof. We are a bunch of dorks."

you dont say! i thought the Observer themselves had said it!

FionnMatthew wrote:

That's not the rhetoric of a body that is engaged with the "core issue" of abortion. That's a slagging match. It has nothing to do with abortion. And it's legally questionable. YD don't care about aborted babies. They care about slinging ****.

in fairness YD are constantly branded as a bunch of sinister loonies, its hardly a surprise that they react in this manner given the treatment the recieve simply because the hacks have a different view point. and i presume they used these tactics in order to get their point across to a campus which thinks its all grown up but still resembles a school yard.

FionnMatthew wrote:

It's not satire. It's misquotation, and unlawful impersonation of college publication.

Spectator#1 wrote:

As well as that, satire has to draw attention to itself as satire, which the Turbine does. Nowhere on this publication does the word satire appear, it doesn't matter what names are entered for authors, it has to specifically state it is satire. Thus it isn't legally considered satire.

quite simply, get over it.

Spectator#1 wrote:

I have nothing to do with any movements regarding the abortion issue or any other political issue in this college. I advocate legal action because I consider the fake 'Observer' to be offensive in content

what exactly did you find offensive in it?

Spectator#1 wrote:

I can assure you that all parties involved in the UN are roughly the same size, made of the same materials, and subject (more or less) to the same laws as we mere students.

Spectator#1 wrote:

Excuse the rather extreme example here but you could make the same 'satire' argument in defense of early anti-semitic propoganda published in the Germany of the 1930's..

I'm sorry, i cant excuse it. when people resort to bringing up the nazis in relation to something so trivial (thereby trivialising the real horrors of the holocaust) i usually loose any faith in any argument they are making.

Spectator#1 wrote:

Here are a list of some other things that don't go away if ignored:

syphilis,
revolutions,
mosquitoes,
famine,
ethical issues,
examinations,
global warming,
tsunamis,
gravity,


the list goes on....

you clearly didnt get what i was saying.

Spectator#1 wrote:

I suggest you reconsider your attitude regarding everyone else in UCD.

what attitude is that?

Spectator#1 wrote:

There's a lot of people here. Yes, there's a lot of idiots and (your word) hacks, but there's plenty of intelligent people who think for themselves too and some of them have valid reasons for the opinions they have.

true, but none of these have made themselves known here.

honestly, without wanting to get banned for personal abuse, anyone who found this YD yoke personally offensive or who takes it seriously, is a moron. i really dont understand what the fuss is about. there are plenty of other things happening in the univerisity which are far more worthy of this type of hot air.

Chakar

Yeah I got one near Arts Services desk too.I didn't find it at all funny especially the Ivana Bacik and the "MRBI" poll article.

I hope UCD's Building and Services put a stop to this rubbish given out all over the place.

Spectator#1

ferdi wrote:

in fairness YD are constantly branded as a bunch of sinister loonies, its hardly a surprise that they react in this manner given the treatment the recieve simply because the hacks have a different view point. and i presume they used these tactics in order to get their point across to a campus which thinks its all grown up but still resembles a school yard.

Youth Defence have given themselves the public image that they have. They court this kind of controversy in order to further their cause, although why nobody knows, you even agreed that this didn't really address the abortion issue.

To vindicate someone who broke the law by claiming that they had no choice considering their, not inappropriate, public image, is disingenuous. They have a choice in how they carry on and in this case it is, simply, illegal, and so I have evey right to complain about it.

Also, as I stated in the last post, the fact that you see issues in UCD as black and white says more about you than the college. It is not a case of 'hacks' vs 'youth defence'. I am an MA student with no other affiliation to the college who took exception to the publication handed out by UCD, it's that simple.

This is the attitude I accused you of having. UCD resembles a 'school yard' to you because you lack the capacity to discern the points people make in argument. It's not a case of me opposing those who disagree with abortion, I didn't like the publication for a lot of reasons; I thought it was underhanded, bigotted and a little loaded in terms of content as well as illegal.

quite simply, get over it.

This is what your argument has been reduced to. Why are you posting if this is your point? I was offended by the publication, you clearly weren't. I suggest you think a little harder about your own opinions before attempting to impose your apathy on other people.

I'm sorry, i cant excuse it. when people resort to bringing up the nazis in relation to something so trivial (thereby trivialising the real horrors of the holocaust) i usually loose any faith in any argument they are making.

It's actually quite relevant, I suggest you reconsider that principle as well as the rest of your opinions.

Could this poster please be banned? He has nothing to say and his ignorance is irritating. If anyone agrees with me please say so too.

Chakar

Actually yeah he is annoying at the moment because he seems unable to form an argument to back up his opinions.But he shouldn't be banned there wouldn't be a point in doing that.

Basically I don't think he cares about the effect the publication had on other people and his argument is "oh loike leave it alone roysh" because of the 'politically correct' culture unfortunately this publication by YD was libel, defamation and a breach of the rules of the university.Nothing at all to do with the PC brigade.

ferdi

Spectator#1 wrote:

It's actually quite relevant, I suggest you reconsider that principle as well as the rest of your opinions.

you make many suggestions but your post lacks any real content and after reading them i still consider this entire thread and issue a non-runner.[/QUOTE]

Spectator#1 wrote:

Could this poster please be banned? He has nothing to say and his ignorance is irritating. If anyone agrees with me please say so too.

throwing your toys out of the pram impresses no one. you have been using this website a wet weekend. the fact that i irritate you is of no consequence at all. you can add me to your 'ignore' list and you will no longer have to read my posts. i suggest you do so as my towering intellect is obviously too much for you to bear.

Het-Field

I think the quicker we ignore this rubbish the better. We all see Youth Defence for what they really are. Much like Aine Ni Chonaill's immigration control platform, they hang at the fringe of our society, and shall remain their. Equally the will always be discredited as a bunch of lunctics as its membership has included the names of luminaries as big ears, himself Justin Barrett. Dont let me get started on his stupid accent.


However, legal action would be unsuccessful as the Observer didnt suffer any loss from this incident, and its reputation has not been tarnished in the slightest. In fact id say that most people have very little knowledge of Youth defence, and many would not remember them in their more proactive days

ferdi

Chakar wrote:

Actually yeah he is annoying at the moment because he seems unable to form an argument to back up his opinions.

Basically I don't think he cares about the effect the publication had on other people

my point is i dont see how the publication has any 'effect' on other people. it is a stupid piss-take leaflet that will be forgotten next week. that is the crux of my argument.

Chakar wrote:

and his argument is "oh loike leave it alone roysh"

a bit harsh, you've never met me and i dont speak like that.

Chakar

ferdi wrote:

my point is i dont see how the publication has any 'effect' on other people. it is a stupid piss-take leaflet that will be forgotten next week. that is the crux of my argument.

How about the misrepresentation of the figures of people who oppose abortion and the use of a reputable polling agency such as MRBI?.

How about the insulting references to Ivana Bacik a respectable lawyer, Reid Professor of Law in TCD and a aspiring politician?

You're right that the leaflet is a piss take but you're wrong that it had no effect on people.

ferdi wrote:

a bit harsh, you've never met me and i dont speak like that.

Well you came across to me that way.I'm sure you don't speak like that though.:)