Re-Open Lisbon-Abortion Thread Please

,8,1

I cannot believe that moderator oscarBravo shut down my thread on the Lisbon Treaty and abortion. It is politicised abuse of moderator power on his behalf and the thread should be re-opened. He talks about promoting discussion but himself makes blunt, dictatorial posts such as "What part of ___ is unclear?", leaving no room to consider the finer points.

If a reasonably open forum like Boards.ie doesn't have the guts to talk about Lisbon and Abortion, it's no wonder at all that the media and political parties can't handle it.

If this thread is more appropriate in the development section, feel free to move it there.

sink

You still haven't explained with sufficient evidence how abortion could possibly be introduced. S instead you have resorted to shouting down everyone else with facts to back their arguments up. You're like one of those westbro baptists.

,8,1

I haven't shouted down anyone actually. I made some propositions and questioned the pro-Lisbon consensus that the Maastrict provisions will remain effective. It's up to the reader as to whether they want to consider, accept or reject those propositions. I'm just putting them out there.

IMO it's the pro-Lisbon side that shout people down on abortion. "Oh here's such and such a provision from Maastrict, that should do, if you don't agree, shut up."

As for "not explaining how abortion could be introduced", well I have, quite distinctly. It involves the Charter of Fundamental Rights, the European Court of Justice, and the new primacy that they have.

Again, you don't have to agree with this analysis but nonetheless I did explain how I think it will happen.

Time Magazine

Bye bye, watch your arse on the way out.

By the way, I heard getting hit in the arse by a door is a ploy by Europe to introduce abortions. Careful now.

sink

Where is your evidence? We're all still waiting.

,8,1

Bye bye, watch your arse on the way out.

Excusez-moi? What is this, Soviet-style intellectual integrity?

Where is your evidence? We're all still waiting.

I gave it in this and the original post in the form of logical deductions based on the institutional, legal changes caused by the Lisbon Treaty.

oscarBravo

Moved from Politics/European Union.

This falls under my definition of "soapboxing". The EU treaties explictly recognise Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion. There's nothing to discuss. Even if there was, you had an opportunity to discuss it, and chose not to.

You also obviously haven't read the forum charter. Please do so before posting again.

Time Magazine

,8,1 wrote: »

Excusez-moi? What is this, Soviet-style intellectual integrity?

No, it appears to be Youth Defence-style intellectual integrity.

,8,1

The EU treaties explictly recognise Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion. There's nothing to discuss. Even if there was, you had an opportunity to discuss it, and chose not to.

To the best of my knowledge, Ireland's Constitutional abortion ban only gets a mention in the 1992 Maastrict Treaty which is incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty. The question is, how does this provision stand up to the more fundamental changes that Lisbon will cause. Which include: primacy of the ECJ, primacy of Charter of Fundamental Rights and the novel EU Citizen status.

I do not think it will ultimately stand up, however the question should certainly be up for debate. In legal systems there are contradictions all the time; but when push comes to shove it is the prime authority has the final say.

So, to take it further, that section of Maastrict could be deemed anti-CFR and removed just as the Irish law could be.

There is scarcely any issue on which "there is nothing to discuss", and it's most dubious when someone tries to tell you as much.

Agent Smith

If you dont like how things are done here, kindly go off to politics.ie

Time Magazine

,8,1 wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge, Ireland's Constitutional abortion ban only gets a mention in the 1992 Maastrict Treaty which is incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty.

1. This is not the place to discuss politics; it's a place to discuss moderation. You probably would have known this had you read the charters of the Politics and Feedback forums.
2. You are wrong. There is explicit mention in the Lisbon Treaty about the inclusion of a protocol that essentially states "This Treaty has no power over the Irish constitutional status of abortion."
3. When you were told this, you just ignored what people said. Moreover you got personal and insulting. There was no discussion occurring. In accordance with the Politics charter, the mod thus closed it.
4. As the closure of the thread was correct (though I disagree with it; I would have enjoyed pissing you off more), this thread is useless. This is not censorship, it's ensuring discussion. If you'd like a soapbox, please piss off to another site.

Moriarty

Welcome to Feedback ,8,1. We'll keep your political persuasions under wraps, don't worry ,8,1.. ,H,A ..... ,Hitler,A.... ,H,Adolf...

No one said youth defence/stormfront types were the sharpest tools in the box I guess, I still expected better though.

,8,1

This is not the place to discuss politics; it's a place to discuss moderation.

Aside from the fact that there are unresolved points on the locked thread, I was asked "where is your evidence" here, wasn't I?

When you were told this, you just ignored what people said. Moreover you got personal and insulting.

I did not ignore it as I recognised the Maastrict provisions exist; I just don't think they have any real weight. In terms of blocking an abortion ruling, I don't think it has the power to do that. It's from 1992. It worked in the framework of the EU then but EU will have changed radically after Lisbon.

A more reliable solution if Ireland is interested in preserving our abortion ban, is for the Charter of Fundamental Rights to have "right of the unborn" clause analgous to our own Constitution. I mean, if the EU really does respect our current laws and has no interest in changing them, what harm would such a specific clause in the Fundamental Charter cause?

I did indeed point out that people's own person preference for legalisation of abortion may be stulting their interest in making accurate information available. Nothing unreasonable about suggesting this.

You are wrong. There is explicit mention in the Lisbon Treaty about the inclusion of a protocol that essentially states "This Treaty has no power over the Irish constitutional status of abortion."

A specific quote from the Treaty would be welcome but I do believe that's the Maastrict provision. I.e. of questionable worth in preventing universal on-demand abortion.

As the closure of the thread was correct (though I disagree with it; I would have enjoyed pissing you off more), this thread is useless.

So as your objective on that thread was to just piss someone off, you admit that you're not interested in "discussion occuring"? The least you can do if you really want debate to prosper is to engage in it yourself.

BMH

,8,1 wrote: »

I did not ignore it as I recognised the Maastrict provisions exist; I just don't think they have any real weight. In terms of blocking an abortion ruling, I don't think it has the power to do that. It's from 1992. It worked in the framework of the EU then but EU will have changed radically after Lisbon.

Perhaps the moderator had a similar interpretation of your thread, and decided it simply didn't exist...

,8,1

Welcome to Feedback ,8,1. We'll keep your political persuasions under wraps, don't worry ,8,1.. ,H,A ..... ,Hitler,A.... ,H,Adolf...

Hmm.. I had not noticed that.. You're the one with the Hitler fixation here obviously. ",8,1" rather is a reference to Commodore 64 nostalgia.

Perhaps the moderator had a similar interpretation of your thread, and decided it simply didn't exist...

Similar interpretation, what do you mean? I recognise the existence of the Maastrict Treaty; oscarBravo just locks threads he disagrees with and closes down debate. There's no comparison.

Zaph

Why does abortion constantly rear its head when there's something like this referendum going on? I reckon that for the vast majority of people it's a non-issue, they're going to vote yes or no on the basis of any number of issues before they even get around to considering abortion as a vote decider.

turgon

,8,1 if you didnt pick fights here, you'd get a lot more respect. Instead of fighting, you should be rational and willing to take on other peoples thoughts. If you don't believe them - three simple words to type; "prove that please". That way you can prove your point too. Claiming that the head mod of the soc forums was politicizing the debate and crushing freedom of speech was never going to work in your favour.

BMH

Zaph wrote: »

Why does abortion constantly rear its head when there's something like this referendum going on? I reckon that for the vast majority of people it's a non-issue, they're going to vote yes or no on the basis of any number of issues before they even get around to considering abortion as a vote decider.

If it was actually true it'd be the cornerstone of the No campaign(though it still is for the likes of Cóir and Kathy Sinnott) and the referendum would be easily defeated. As a country with a high church-going population abortion is only a non-issue at the moment as no one wants to debate it -look at the results of the last abortion referendum- and it would spark even greater controversy if such a touchy subject was going to be decided by foreign interests.

,8,1

Why does abortion constantly rear its head when there's something like this referendum going on?

Perhaps because alot of the time it is relevant? Our abortion law is Constitutionally bound, so naturally abortion will tend to come up in Constitutional referendums.

BMH

,8,1 wrote: »

Perhaps because alot of the time it is relevant? Our abortion law is Constitutionally bound, so naturally abortion will tend to come up in Constitutional referendums.

Perhaps he was wondering why it comes up in referenda that clearly have no effect on abortion law, and the answer is fear-mongering by eurosceptics.

Dudess

turgon wrote: »

,8,1 if you didnt pick fights here, you'd get a lot more respect.

And if you didn't push a baffling woman-hating agenda.

Boston

So you're looking to be aborted?

turgon

Dudess wrote: »

And if you didn't push a baffling woman-hating agenda.

I didn't see any women-hating around. In fact I never see it. Its only women anti males really in 21st century. And right too in the past, considering the bad hand women have been dealt over the years. But I think thats kind of over.

Evan Boland wrote:

The Massive Weight of Uncles Wedding Band
Weights Heavily on Aunt Jennifer's Hand

Sorry for being off topic.

BMH

Dudess wrote: »

And if you didn't push a baffling woman-hating agenda.

Please, keep your radical communist notions of 'women's rights' and 'feminism' out of this.

BMH

turgon wrote: »

I didn't see any women-hating around. In fact I never see it. Its only women anti males really in 21st century. And right too in the past, considering the bad hand women have been dealt over the years. But I think thats kind of over.

Evan Boland wrote:

The Massive Weight of Uncles Wedding Band
Weights Heavily on Aunt Jennifer's Hand

Sorry for being off topic.

It's great to see how Leaving Cert poetry has opened your eyes to the current women's conspiracy. Onward, Christian soldier.

Also, it's "sits heavily upon", and the poem is actually by Adrienne Rich, not Eavan Boland.

Dudess

turgon wrote: »

I didn't see any women-hating around. In fact I never see it. Its only women anti males really in 21st century.

I'm referring to the starter of this thread. Have a look at his past unsubstantiated, insane comments about women and feminism - they're... hilarious.

BMH

,8,1 wrote: »

Similar interpretation, what do you mean? I recognise the existence of the Maastrict Treaty; oscarBravo just locks threads he disagrees with and closes down debate. There's no comparison.

You accuse him of brushing aside views he doesn't agree with. You're doing the same, except instead of a bulletin board, you're choosing to ignore European legislation simply because it doesn't fit your agenda.

Dudess wrote:

Oh look, another nut job!

Please, this thread contains a complicated discussion that your woman-brain clearly doesn't understand.

turgon

BMH wrote: »

It's great to see how Leaving Cert poetry has opened your eyes to the current women's conspiracy. Onward, Christian soldier.

Also, it's "sits heavily upon", and the poem is actually by Adrienne Rich, not Eavan Boland.

Wow I really got that one wrong. Studying Boland today. Too much pressure at the moment, thank god it happened here and not instead the exam!!!

By the way, I hate Adrienne Rich for being to single-issue. So I hope I didnt sound too much like I was supporting her.

Gandalf23

Dudess wrote: »

And if you didn't push a baffling woman-hating agenda.

"prove that please"

Dudess

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=56075614&postcount=26

oscarBravo

,8,1 wrote: »

...oscarBravo just locks threads he disagrees with and closes down debate.

Ah, I wondered how long that would take.

If I lock threads I disagree with, we can work on the assumption that any thread in the EU forum expresses an opinion I agree with. Right?

Man, I'm one crazy, mixed-up individual.

BMH

turgon wrote: »

So I hope I didnt sound too much like I was supporting her.

No I think it was pretty clear you weren't.

stovelid

BMH wrote: »

Please, this thread contains a complicated discussion

Maybe it's my man brain, but I don't find it complicated. Tedious and full of sh*t - yes; complicated - no.

Boston

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, I wondered how long that would take.

If I lock threads I disagree with, we can work on the assumption that any thread in the EU forum expresses an opinion I agree with. Right?

Man, I'm one crazy, mixed-up individual.

Admitting the problem is the first step to solving it.

GuanYin

BMH wrote: »

Please, this thread contains a complicated discussion that your woman-brain clearly doesn't understand.

I really, really hope that you piss me off some day.

GuanYin

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, I wondered how long that would take.

If I lock threads I disagree with, we can work on the assumption that any thread in the EU forum expresses an opinion I agree with. Right?

Man, I'm one crazy, mixed-up individual.

Hey, if it makes you feel better, I'd have deleted the thread if you hadn't gotten there first and I don't even get to vote on the issue.

Actually, I *think* through some legal loophole I'm entitled to irish citizenship (I think also french) through my father. If I could get voting rights in time, I think I'd vote yes just to piss the soapboxers off (it is the no vote they're pushing right? I lose track of these things)

jawlie

,8,1 wrote: »

I cannot believe that moderator oscarBravo shut down my thread on the Lisbon Treaty and abortion. It is politicised abuse of moderator power on his behalf and the thread should be re-opened. He talks about promoting discussion but himself makes blunt, dictatorial posts such as "What part of ___ is unclear?", leaving no room to consider the finer points.

The OP is somewhat correct insofar as there is a perception that the moderator oscarbravo does delete posts/threads/opinions and bans profiles from the politics forum with which he either disagrees or does not like.

This has led to an impoverishment in discussion the politics forum in, for example, discussion on the Lisbon treaty. However, the beauty of cyberspace is that, as a result, a substantial part of the discussion has moved away from the politics forum to areas where this particular moderator has no influence.

While I have no doubt oscarbravo and his three or four acolytes would disagree with this perception, the evidence of the shift away from the political forum suggests that others disagree.

Moriarty

/smirks

Maximilian

,8,1 wrote: »

Excusez-moi? What is this, Soviet-style intellectual integrity?

In Soviet Russia, Foetus abort mother.

Winters

From what I can see ... OP started thread and spouted inaccurate information. When people provided facts to contradict said false information, OP/others ignored and continued to spout incorrect information.. thread locked to stop continued false information in the face of factual information.

How is this questionable?

I would do the same.

gandalf

If you can't debate and back up your assertions then threads will be locked and deleted.

It obvious to all you are soap boxing and attempting to preach your agenda without the means to back up what you say.

BMH

stovelid wrote: »

Maybe it's my man brain, but I don't find it complicated. Tedious and full of sh*t - yes; complicated - no.

It's definitely your man-brain.

jawlie

gandalf wrote: »

If you can't debate and back up your assertions then threads will be locked and deleted.

It obvious to all you are soap boxing and attempting to preach your agenda without the means to back up what you say.

If its so obvious to all, then what's the problem?

I've always believed that its best to question and engage with those with whom I disagree. Actually, it can be quite enlightening and interesting too. Are you really suggesting that it's better to just ban them discussing and exclude them if you don't like what someone says?

Maximilian

jawlie wrote: »

If its so obvious to all, then what's the problem?

I've always believed that its best to question and engage with those with whom I disagree. Actually, it can be quite enlightening and interesting too. Are you really suggesting that it's better to just ban them discussing and exclude them if you don't like what someone says?

Try questioning and engaging with someone who cannot or will not see past their own rigid viewpoint. Especially on an essentially anonymous forum. Even more so on AH.

Such people will tend to aggressively defend their view, usually by a priori rationalisation, conceding not a single point. It all usually degenerates into a poo-slingling contest with one or more vapid cretins beings banned. That being the case, locking a thread before all this starts is often the best option.

Free Speech coupled with Interweb Forums is like giving a hand grenade to a monkey.

Not pretty.

Winters

Maximilian wrote: »

Free Speech coupled with Interweb Forums is like giving a hand grenade to a monkey.

Not pretty.

Yet strangely you just cannot look away

jawlie

Maximilian wrote: »

Try questioning and engaging with someone who cannot or will not see past their own rigid viewpoint. Especially on an essentially anonymous forum. Even more so on AH.

Such people will tend to aggressively defend their view, usually by a priori rationalisation, conceding not a single point. It all usually degenerates into a poo-slingling contest with one or more vapid cretins beings banned. That being the case, locking a thread before all this starts is often the best option.

Free Speech coupled with Interweb Forums is like giving a hand grenade to a monkey.

Not pretty.

Of course, one comes across such people in life too. My policy is to avoid them as engaging is of no use.

IRLConor

jawlie wrote: »

I've always believed that its best to question and engage with those with whom I disagree. Actually, it can be quite enlightening and interesting too. Are you really suggesting that it's better to just ban them discussing and exclude them if you don't like what someone says?

If they have their hands over their ears and are shouting misinformation and don't stop spreading the misinformation when presented with the truth then it's best to close the thread.

It's not a question of liking or not liking what they say, it's a matter of "if you're willing to debate, go ahead; if not then go away".

The matter being "discussed" is a very simple one to resolve. There's a very clear statement in the protocols annexed to the treaties which stops the EU from making any law permitting abortion in Ireland. It's black and white with no room for a reasonable interpretation. Even the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin agrees, and he wouldn't do so if there was any doubt in the matter. Anyone arguing otherwise may as well be arguing that the earth is flat, which is OK if you have sufficient evidence and a sufficiently sophisticated argument. Merely repeating "the earth is flat" will get you nowhere.

BMH

jawlie wrote: »

Of course, one comes across such people in life too. My policy is to avoid them as engaging is of no use.

Luckily, this is an internet board; drawing parallels to real life interactions is silly, since closing a thread isn't the same as locking away dissidents.

jawlie

IRLConor wrote: »

If they have their hands over their ears and are shouting misinformation and don't stop spreading the misinformation when presented with the truth then it's best to close the thread.

It's not a question of liking or not liking what they say, it's a matter of "if you're willing to debate, go ahead; if not then go away".

The matter being "discussed" is a very simple one to resolve. There's a very clear statement in the protocols annexed to the treaties which stops the EU from making any law permitting abortion in Ireland. It's black and white with no room for a reasonable interpretation. Even the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin agrees, and he wouldn't do so if there was any doubt in the matter. Anyone arguing otherwise may as well be arguing that the earth is flat, which is OK if you have sufficient evidence and a sufficiently sophisticated argument. Merely repeating "the earth is flat" will get you nowhere.

Just because some people agree "Even the catholic Archbishop of Dublin", doesn't mean there is no room for discussino. In any case, we already have abortion in Ireland, so the whole discussion on abortion seems pointless. I was trying to make a general point and not one specific to abortion.

Dinter

Should be sent to the 'dome tbh.