Society kicked out

sully-gormo

Hey did anyone hear about a TCD Pro Life society that tried to set up stands and sign people up in Freshers' Week. Apparently college security kicked them out.

phelixoflaherty

Probably moved them down to DIT. There's more real life down there

ilovemybrick

Obviously they isn't actually a society.

I didnt see the stand itself during the week. I did hear about it but am not convinced they actually set up a stand.
There have been posters up around but I think people have been fairly efficient at taking them down. I have seen the posters and will continue to remove them.

EGaffney

Ha, the animal liberationists tried the same thing last year.

ilovemybrick

EGaffney wrote: »

Ha, the animal liberationists tried the same thing last year.

That one I saw. Twas bloomin' hilarious.

prothalamium

ilovemybrick wrote: »

There have been posters up around but I think people have been fairly efficient at taking them down. I have seen the posters and will continue to remove them.

I love to read these things.


DUGES was looking forward to a bit of controversy, but it seems whoever put forth the proposal for a Society of the Unborn Child at the end of last year didn't take the usual steps to becoming a provisional society eg. presenting signatories, constitution etc.

I saw posters but no stand.

All should be warned that the majority of anti-choice youth consists of members of Youth Defence, an ultra-right Christian organisation headed by a (literal) neo-Nazi called Justin Barrett. I and many of my pro-choice colleagues have been physically attacked and intimidated by Youth Defence members during our rallies.

read this article: http://www.indymedia.ie/article/67000

Boston

A majority of anti-life youths are members of combat 18. Seriously like.

EGaffney

prothalamium wrote: »

DUGES was looking forward to a bit of controversy

DUGES is not permitted to participate in such controversy, as it is not permitted to advocate any one political opinion.

Which is why the pro-life society will never happen.

Boston

Boston wrote: »

A majority of anti-life youths are members of combat 18. Seriously like.

It is true though - I read it on the internet here.

Scarinae

prothalamium wrote: »

I and many of my pro-choice colleagues have been physically attacked and intimidated by Youth Defence members during our rallies.

So they are pro-life, and also pro-violence?!!

The Indymedia article wrote:

...when anti-choice bigots attacked pro-choice demonstrations with hurleys

:eek:

EGaffney

Well I've seen anti-war groups attack people they disagree with, so I guess anything can happen.

Brian

I saw a small pile of leaflets lying around in the Arts block a few days ago. Left "quite casually" there on a visible flat surface. The leaflet urged the reader to expose the inevitable animal testing that was going on in TCD. I turned the pile of leaflets upside-down and left it there.

Boston

Later I read out the leaflet to a class of captivated cats and gave them a quiz about the particulars. How's that for irony.

Brian

I've always wondered how close to the border of Cruelty to Animals LOLcat images get. I just don't get how they're made.

Boston

They make them from 100% recycled cat.

Brian

Ah, so that's what the little label cats have on their collars says.

melekalikimaka

phelixoflaherty wrote: »

Probably moved them down to DIT. There's more real life down there

oi poshie come down here and say dat... i'll box the ****in face off ya

prothalamium

EGaffney wrote: »

DUGES is not permitted to participate in such controversy, as it is not permitted to advocate any one political opinion.

Which is why the pro-life society will never happen.

We aren't a specifically pro-choice society in that we wouldn't turn away pro-life members, but there are pro-choice members in the society and they will contribute all they want to that end. I would say the same of pro-lifers, but pro-life feminists are hard to come by, really.

I think the 'gender equality' in the soc title makes it pretty obvious that the society would lean heavily toward choice.

Classifying pro-choice as a 'political opinion' puts the main objectives of a lot of our societies into question does it not?

ilovemybrick

prothalamium wrote: »

in that we wouldn't turn away pro-life members

You aren't allowed turn any student or staff member of the college away from membership.

Boston

prothalamium wrote: »

I think the 'gender equality' in the soc title makes it pretty obvious that the society would lean heavily toward choice.

Because gender equality means you can't be pro-life ?

EGaffney

prothalamium wrote: »

We aren't a specifically pro-choice society in that we wouldn't turn away pro-life members, but there are pro-choice members in the society and they will contribute all they want to that end. I would say the same of pro-lifers, but pro-life feminists are hard to come by, really.

I think the 'gender equality' in the soc title makes it pretty obvious that the society would lean heavily toward choice.

Classifying pro-choice as a 'political opinion' puts the main objectives of a lot of our societies into question does it not?

I would check the founding principles of DUGES on that. Fianna Fáil is allowed participate in political events, viz. Fianna Fáil events. Most societies are not. Some are explicitly prohibited from doing so, due to the high risk that a society could be used as a campaigning group. DUGES was granted society status on that very understanding.


Incidentally, I didn't realise you had to be a feminist to support gender equality? And that, I think, is what is meant by confusing a society's purpose with a set of political opinions.

Awayindahils

prothalamium wrote: »

We aren't a specifically pro-choice society in that we wouldn't turn away pro-life members, but there are pro-choice members in the society and they will contribute all they want to that end. I would say the same of pro-lifers, but pro-life feminists are hard to come by, really.

I think the 'gender equality' in the soc title makes it pretty obvious that the society would lean heavily toward choice.

Classifying pro-choice as a 'political opinion' puts the main objectives of a lot of our societies into question does it not?

I think being pro-choice is both a moral and a political thing. In order for you to be able to have the choice in the first place (a decision which is a fairly heavy moral one) there needs to be a change to the constitution. Such a change can only be brought about through a referendum. As such being pro-choice is a political stance.

This said I don't know how pro-choice being a political opinion puts a lot of the societies in danger.

The religious societies and the political parties and possibly DUGES are the only ones which I can think of having wishing/having an society focused reason to have an opinion on such matters. The debating societies just debate them.

prothalamium

EGaffney wrote: »

I would check the founding principles of DUGES on that. Fianna Fáil is allowed participate in political events, viz. Fianna Fáil events. Most societies are not. Some are explicitly prohibited from doing so, due to the high risk that a society could be used as a campaigning group. DUGES was granted society status on that very understanding.

I'm very familiar with our founding principles, thanks.

Incidentally, I didn't realise you had to be a feminist to support gender equality? And that, I think, is what is meant by confusing a society's purpose with a set of political opinions.

It depends on your own standpoint - I personally class all in favour of gender equality as feminists, whether female or male. After all, if you're in favour of equal gender rights, you're in favour of equal rights for women as well as men. That's as feminist as feminism comes. People shy away from the term, which is unfortunate. Incidentally, the soc consists of roughly 50% men who have no problem with the term.

prothalamium

Awayindahils wrote: »

I think being pro-choice is both a moral and a political thing. In order for you to be able to have the choice in the first place (a decision which is a fairly heavy moral one) there needs to be a change to the constitution. Such a change can only be brought about through a referendum. As such being pro-choice is a political stance.

I think you're right in that pro-choice is a political stance, but the right to life of the unborn written into the 1937 Constitution is a blantant gender inequality which is still in effect. What is this society if not one which confronts these issues head on?

N.B. i'm speaking philosophically here. My intention wasn't to imply an official society standpoint one way or another.

prothalamium

Boston wrote: »

Because gender equality means you can't be pro-life ?

That is my personal opinion.

In Ireland, the right to life of a seconds-old embryo negates the right to choice of an adult female.

Time Magazine

I'm forming DUUES, the Dublin University Utero-Equality Society. We'll be encouraging members to come out.

Prothalamium, there is an important distinction between equality-ism and feminism. Supporting equality could reasonably be showing support equal rights for father and mother, both in terms of access and decisions regarding abortion. Similarly supporting equality could be supporting the rights of an eighteen-week-old fetus as much as a thirty-two-week-old one. It must, of course, also support equal pay for women, etc.

Feminism, properly defined, would be for greater rights for women than for men. This is not as ludicrous as it may sound. Women, perhaps, should have more say in disagreements about abortions. However portraying abortion as "an equality issue" is a load of crap.

prothalamium wrote: »

In Ireland, the right to life of a seconds-old embryo negates the right to choice of an adult female.

And a good fucking thing that is, too.

prothalamium

ilovemybrick wrote: »

You aren't allowed turn any student or staff member of the college away from membership.

I was speaking figuratively.

DUGES isn't packed with pro-lifers; hardly gobsmacking. This doesn't mean we would actively make pro-lifers uncomfortable. There is a huge spectrum of feminisms and definitions of what gender equality actually is.

prothalamium

The Economist wrote: »

there is an important distinction between equality-ism and feminism.

There is an important distinction between an Equality Society and a Gender Equality Society.

And you followed this:

However portraying abortion as "an equality issue" is a load of crap.

... with this:

And a good fucking thing that is, too.

re: the right to life of the unborn over the choice of the female carrying it.

Here you both deny any gender inequality in the issue of abortion, disregarding the fact that the constitution which declared this was the very same constitution which barred women from working after marriage, and used the words 'woman' and 'mother' interchangeably), then sit smugly on an unabashed lawful gender discrimination. Right to Life is an outmoded, sexist and Catholic fundamentalist concept along with the other relics you'll find used to be on that piece of paper. I'm embarrassed for you and I will especially when - not if - safe, legal and free abortion arrives on Irish soil.

P.S. I'm delighted you can articulate yourself in such a calm and collected manner, that will separate you from most of your kind, cough cough. I know very well how these discussions go and I'm not getting any deeper into one here. I'll be using far more effective methods.

Cokehead Mother

prothalamium wrote: »

Here you both deny any gender inequality in the issue of abortion, disregarding the fact that the constitution which declared this was the very same constitution which barred women from working after marriage, and used the words 'woman' and 'mother' interchangeably), then sit smugly on an unabashed lawful gender discrimination. Right to Life is an outmoded, sexist and Catholic fundamentalist concept along with the other relics you'll find used to be on that piece of paper. I'm embarrassed for you and I will especially when - not if - safe, legal and free abortion arrives on Irish soil.

Maybe it's just because it's 3am but sweet jesus that's one awful argument. I think you should do some reading. Maybe start here.

While we're on the subject, I think abortion is fucking great and should totally be provided on demand by the HSE.

prothalamium

So one solitary DUGES member sticks her pro-choice neck out to an entire thread of objection.... anybody wanna talk about Falun Dafa's leader's racism, or his condemnation of homosexuality as sub-human? Or that all gays will be destroyed by gods?

That seems pretty political. Maybe I should put forward DUGES as a religion-based soc. Church of the Angry Unshaven Man-Hating Lesbians. See, if our function is vitally irrational, then whatever our official standpoint is is fine! I'm so glad I thought of this.

TomCo

In the spirit of compromise I think we should just kill every tenth child born and be done with it.

Now off to bed.

Boston

prothalamium wrote: »

DUGES isn't packed with pro-lifers; hardly gobsmacking.

Not a whole lot of men either. What steps are you taking to redress the gender imbalance in your own society?

For what its worth I believe that access to abortions is an equality issue, but not one between genders. Infact I think arguing from that stance weakens your case dramatically and drives people away from your crazy, man hating-baby eating, bra burning, welfare collecting, shaven-headed platform. But that's just my opinion.

Time Magazine

prothalamium wrote: »

re: the right to life of the unborn over the choice of the female carrying it.

I don't think equality has anything to do with equalising the gravity of certain choices. I would not value my right to listen to loud music at 3am greater than my neighbour's right to peace and quiet. Surely I'm in the wrong in this case. Equality is not about setting "my right to X" as "his right to Y", but rather that "my right to X" is the same as "his right to X". Rights are not absolute and can be ranked to a certain extent. My right to loud music is overshadowed by neighbour's right to sleep. I firmly believe in my right to protect my property. That doesn't entirely impinge on a thief's right to life: if he is only stealing a €5 note, I cannot shoot him. His right to life is greater than my right to the €5.

This is still consistent with my assertion that people have the right to protect their property. I do not want to suggest that women should have no right to choose. Its very much up to them which husband they marry, career they pursue, clothes they wear, contraception they use, yoghurts they buy. Their right to choose cannot, in my opinion, over-ride a foetus' right to live.

Here you both deny any gender inequality in the issue of abortion

I'm not denying any gender inequality issue in the issue of abortion. At the moment fathers do not have an equal say in the matter. This is inequality.

disregarding the fact that the constitution which declared this was the very same constitution which barred women from working after marriage

Reference? Go on, I dare you to say 41.2.1 barred women from working. Go on.

then sit smugly on an unabashed lawful gender discrimination.

I sit smugly on many unabashed forms of discrimination. The wealthy should pay more tax, that's discrimination of incomea. TAP students should get a helping-hand, that's discrimination of class. Valuing the right of a neighbour to sleep over my right to loud music is discrimination of opposing rights.

I still don't accept valuing the life of a foetus above the right of a parent to abort is a gender issue.

Right to Life is an outmoded

I think it's quite permanent, myself.

sexist

I don't care whether the child turns out to be male or female.

and Catholic

It is Catholic, but not exclusively so. Generally speaking, Catholosism is not humanist. The right to life certainly is.

Catholic fundamentalist

This is almost a contradiction in terms. The defining feature of the RC church over other denominations is the primacy of the pope rather than scripture. Fundamentalism is defined as taking scripture fundamentally, i.e. as a literal interpretation. Abortion, afaik, is not mentioned in the Bible, so any conclusions cannot be considered fundamental but interpretative.

concept along with the other relics you'll find used to be on that piece of paper

Like the freedom of speech, worship and association; the universal franchise; proportional representation; separation of powers; trial by jury in public...?

I'm embarrassed for you and I will especially when - not if - safe, legal and free abortion arrives on Irish soil.

Whether it's made legal here or not is an entirely separate argument to whether it's right or not, or whether it's a gender equality issue or not. Democracy doesn't define morality.

P.S. I'm delighted you can articulate yourself in such a calm and collected manner, that will separate you from most of your kind, cough cough.

"My kind". Delightful.

I know very well how these discussions go and I'm not getting any deeper into one here. I'll be using far more effective methods.

I wouldn't like to see you use less effective methods

EGaffney

prothalamium wrote: »

Right to Life is an outmoded, sexist and Catholic fundamentalist concept along with the other relics you'll find used to be on that piece of paper. I'm embarrassed for you and I will especially when - not if - safe, legal and free abortion arrives on Irish soil.

P.S. I'm delighted you can articulate yourself in such a calm and collected manner, that will separate you from most of your kind, cough cough. I know very well how these discussions go and I'm not getting any deeper into one here. I'll be using far more effective methods.

See, this is the kind of thing that DUGES can't say. Or facilitate. This is what counts as a political view and although the members can and probably do espouse it, they can't use society resources to advocate it.

It's also a very insulting view towards Catholics tbh, but that's beside the point.

Tricity Bendix

EGaffney wrote: »

It's also a very insulting view towards Catholics

In Trinity? Get outtav it!

EGaffney

b.ie curious wrote: »

In Trinity? Get outtav it!

That's also intolerant towards Catholics. They should be allowed in too.

PurpleFistMixer

EGaffney wrote: »

See, this is the kind of thing that DUGES can't say. Or facilitate. This is what counts as a political view and although the members can and probably do espouse it, they can't use society resources to advocate it.

I presume the societies which are clearly political in nature are allowed to do such things, though?

Cantab.

I'm all for any pro-life movements in college.

The irony of all this is that the SU are free to hand out promiscuity packs during College and pay for people to travel to England to have abortions -- using members' money.

Pro-lifers should refuse to pay the levy.

Nobody should be forced to be represented by a union that insults them by rubbing promiscuity packs in their faces during freshers' week.

Brian

The SU pay for people to have abortions? I'd like some tasty sauce with that.

EGaffney

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

I presume the societies which are clearly political in nature are allowed to do such things, though?

Oh yes, within limits. Some are allowed to do so. It'd be silly to ban TCD Labour Youth from registering with conference as TCD Labour Youth. But other societies can't veer into this territory, and DUGES is a case of a society which is not allowed participate in political affairs - there are others also.

PurpleFistMixer

Baza210 wrote: »

The SU pay for people to have abortions? I'd like some tasty sauce with that.

Deadlaí. That can so tie in with a plan me and my friends have - if any of us get preggers, we make a girly weekend, go to Amsterdam (why stop in England?), abortions for all, miniature flags for some, plenty of cake... and subsidised by the SU? Fantastic.

Cantab., maybe you should contact a member of the SU to voice your concerns with them... Welfare officer maybe? I think they're supposed to deal with issues like that. What they could do I don't know, but it sounds like you've got serious issues with them, so maybe they could calm your worries somewhat, or something.

Pet

Nobody should be forced to be represented by a union that insults them by rubbing promiscuity packs in their faces during freshers' week.

Hey, some of us like getting free condoms. What's the matter? Cantab doesn't get no love from the ladies?

the hack wrote:

"My kind". Delightful.

Each of you do equal disservice to your respective sides, tbh.

TomCo

The Economist wrote: »

I don't think equality has anything to do with equalising the gravity of certain choices. I would not value my right to listen to loud music at 3am greater than my neighbour's right to peace and quiet. Surely I'm in the wrong in this case. Equality is not about setting "my right to X" as "his right to Y", but rather that "my right to X" is the same as "his right to X".

If my neighbour was a clump of incognisant cells I don't think it would give a **** how loud I played my music.

EGaffney

I don't think Economist does any disrespect to pro-life people at all, at all. You know, if someone expresses views on the forum consistent with Catholic social teaching, you don't necessarily have to call them sexually immature in response.

Time Magazine

Pet wrote: »

Each of you do equal disservice to your respective sides, tbh.

Great contribution to the debate as per usual, Pet. Keep it up.

Brian

We are all so very cool. In different ways. The Economist wears nice shirts, Pet is evil.

Cantab.

PurpleFistMixer wrote: »

Cantab., maybe you should contact a member of the SU to voice your concerns with them... Welfare officer maybe? I think they're supposed to deal with issues like that.

That would be justifying their perceived authority.

Membership of any union should be optional. The SU are a union with a tradition and deeply-ingrained culture of being widely leftist and aggressively liberal.

No Catholic member of the College can (nor indeed should), be asked to console themselves with this organisation. I'm sure Jews, Muslims and many others would think the same.

I'd sooner go to my see my tutor, write a letter to the TN, or consult a qualified GP than knock on the door of some student-cum-durex-sales-rep in house 6.

The sooner the SU are banished to the Luce Hall, the better.

Pet

You know, if someone expresses views on the forum consistent with Catholic social teaching, you don't necessarily have to call them sexually immature in response.

Well, if someone expresses their views in that judgemental, holier-than-thou outraged-Catholic-farmer way that Cantab tends to express his, it's hard to be mature, sincere and <insert suitable antonym for "facetious" here> in response. But yeah, you're right: I was taking a petty potshot at Cantab., thanks for reminding me I'm better than that.

Great contribution to the debate as per usual, Pet. Keep it up.

Thanks, ~*~bb~*~.

ilovemybrick

Cantab. wrote: »

That would be justifying their perceived authority.

Membership of any union should be optional. The SU are a union with a tradition and deeply-ingrained culture of being widely leftist and aggressively liberal.

No Catholic member of the College can be asked to console themselves with this organisation.

I'd sooner go to my see my tutor, write a letter to the TN, or consult a qualified GP than knock on the door of some student-cum-durex-sales-rep in house 6.

The sooner the SU are banished to the Luce Hall, the better.

The thing about the union is not that it represents you to college but rather that when college wants to talk to students it talks to the union.

Cantab.

Pet wrote: »

Well, if someone expresses their views in that judgemental, holier-than-thou outraged-Catholic-farmer way that Cantab tends to express his, it's hard to be mature, sincere and <insert suitable antonym for "facetious" here> in response. But yeah, you're right: I was taking a petty potshot at Cantab., thanks for reminding me I'm better than that.

I suppose you think we should all subscribe to the holier-than-anything dogma of relativism.

Don't know where the farmer thing comes into it?

PurpleFistMixer

Cantab. wrote: »

That would be justifying their perceived authority.

Membership of any union should be optional. The SU are a union with a tradition and deeply-ingrained culture of being widely leftist and aggressively liberal.

No Catholic member of the College can (nor indeed should), be asked to console themselves with this organisation. I'm sure Jews, Muslims and many others would think the same.

I'd sooner go to my see my tutor, write a letter to the TN, or consult a qualified GP than knock on the door of some student-cum-durex-sales-rep in house 6.

The sooner the SU are banished to the Luce Hall, the better.

Ah right. You object to them, but you can't actually tell them that, or even speak to them, because it may give them some form of authority over you. I thought religious people were all for talking things out and not judging people and stuff.

Though... out of curiosity, do they actually encourage you to take condoms if you see them? I thought it was more of a "have to ask for them, in all the shame, oh the shame of it all" situation.