Rosary-chanting protesters force euthanasia talk to be abandoned

Nodin

ThePoxyIndo wrote:

CONTROVERSIAL euthanasia lecture was abandoned amid chaotic scenes last night while a senior British medical ethics expert had a private security escort for his own protection.
Prof Len Doyal was visibly shaken after his lecture on euthanasia couldn't even commence after he was heckled and jeered by more than 20 angry pro-life protesters who had taken up position in the Cork University Hospital (CUH) lecture theatre.
Protesters, some from the right-wing Youth Defence group, shouted that euthanasia was State-sponsored murder -- and dozens began loudly chanting the Rosary.
At one point, a protester shouted abuse directly into Prof Doyal's face. All efforts to introduce Prof Doyal for his lecture were drowned out by shouts and jeers.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/rosarychanting-protesters-force-euthanasia-talk-to-be-abandoned-1705229.html

I see that particular shower of gobshites haven't gone away....now they're fighting for the right of the born to die badly.

velocirafter

It's absoultely ridiculous, I have no particular opinion on euthenasia, to be honest I havent given it proper thought but there is no harm in having a lecture on the topic. Maybe these protesters could have attended the lecture and asked some testing questions instead of throwing the toys out of the pram and shouting him down

MrJoeSoap

I'd like to see a video of this. Once again, a good example of people letting religion get in the way of common sense, decency and compassion for fellow humans.

PS - Why ThePoxyIndo?

Borneo Fnctn

They have a right to protest against euthanasia, but they certainly didn't help their case by chanting the rosary and intimidating people. They've made themselves look like right wing christian zealots.

Mena

I'm wondering why anyone would be intimidated by a tiny crowd of 20 zealots. Surely they could have ignored them and gone ahead with the lecture? If they were making that much noise, why not have them removed by security?

the_syco

Mena wrote: »

If they were making that much noise, why not have them removed by security?

I doubt there'd be enough security to get rid of 20 scumbags, who are doing a cordinated attack on one person.

Nodin

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

PS - Why ThePoxyIndo?

......because thats what I call the Indo, when not calling it the "Blueshirt". Couldn't find a mention on the Times so I had to use it.

Mena

the_syco wrote: »

I doubt there'd be enough security to get rid of 20 scumbags, who are doing a cordinated attack on one person.

Well I cant speak for CUH at all but we always had plenty of security available when we hosted "controversial" lectures. It smacks of bad planning, but then, I don't have all the facts.

MrJoeSoap

Nodin wrote: »

......because thats what I call the Indo, when not calling it the "Blueshirt". Couldn't find a mention on the Times so I had to use it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0410/1224244363098.html

A SPEECH by a proponent of euthanasia was called off at Cork University Hospital (CUH) yesterday after protesters voiced their opposition.

Prof Len Doyal, a supporter of euthanasia and emeritus professor of medical ethics at the London School of Medicine and Dentistry and St Bartholomew’s Hospital, was due to address an audience at CUH as part of a lecture series organised by the hospital’s ethics committee.

More than 100 protesters lined the entrance to the hospital and the auditorium as part of a peaceful demonstration against the content of the lecture.

Ethics committee chairman Prof Eamonn Quigley introduced Prof Doyal, but was interrupted by a protester who approached the podium and demanded the lecture be halted, branding the content “murderous”. The lecture was promptly cancelled and Prof Doyal was escorted from the auditorium by hospital security personnel.

Speaking to The Irish Times , last night, Prof Doyal described the experience as “disturbing and distressing”.

He said: “There was no intent on my part to give a lecture and leave, the whole point was that it should be a debate . . . with people free to disagree with me as part of a discussion . . .What is most disturbing is what this means for free speech, which is also upheld in your constitution.”

Health Service Executive (HSE) spokeswoman Christine Eckersley said the lecture was cancelled in the interests of public safety. However, protesters denied there was any threat to public safety.

“The HSE will make us out to be religious zealots but we are not. We are all individual protesters here,” said anti-euthanasia protester Margaret Hurley, from Bishopstown in Cork.

Outside the hospital entrance, protester Moira O’Regan, from Cork, said she was present as a voice for elderly people: “This lecture has nothing to do with providing care for people.”

A spokeswoman for the HSE said: “The hospital fully appreciates that this is a very sensitive topic for many groups and individuals and is aware of the potential for misunderstanding which the title of the lecture may convey, but would again categorically state that CUH does not support euthanasia.”

PDN

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

The tactics mentioned in that article certainly isn't a way I would choose to behave - but its been done a thousand times before for anti-apartheid, gay rights, Brits out, anti G-20, etc, etc. etc.

As a taxpayer I don't see why a publicly funded institution should be giving a platform to somebody advocating acts that are illegal. Our Constitution grants free speech, and that applies equally to Professor Doyal or Fred Phelps, but I would prefer them to use privately funded venues and facilities.

Mena

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

Since I used the "zealots" line, I'm sure you're referring to me. You'll be happy to know that I call these other protesters zealots as well. Hippies the lot of them

Dades

Anyone hear the soundbytes of the protesters on NewsTalk? All thou shalt not kill... it's murder... I believe in God... etc.

One particular tool asked something like "would you pass a law allowing violence??"...

I mean wtf?! Mind your own frickin' business.

Mena

Dades wrote: »

Anyone hear the soundbytes of the protesters on NewsTalk? All thou shalt not kill... it's murder... I believe in God... etc.

One particular tool asked something like "would you pass a law allowing violence??"...

I mean wtf?! Mind your own frickin' business.

One wonders if they actually understand what Euthanasia is, or are they confusing it with abortion or capital punishment or some such...

MG

It's gettin more like the 1980s by the day

velocirafter

Mena wrote: »

One wonders if they actually understand what Euthanasia is, or are they confusing it with abortion or capital punishment or some such...

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

conlonbmw

I heard the women on the radio quoting "thou shall not kill", how f*ckin stupid are religous people?. I cannot understand how you can believe in something that is fiction that stemmed from superstition and contradicts itself at every turn.

How many people have been murdered in religions name, or directly by the church itself.

They are F*cking Imbecciles.

coffee_cake

Regardless of their religious or moral beliefs, they can protest all they want but they shouldn't be preventing a lecture on the subject going ahead. And asking intelligent questions/discussion/debate.

stevejazzx

velocirafter wrote: »

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

It's hardly surprising that people who believe in invisible things get confused from time to time:)

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that people who believe in invisible things get confused from time to time:)

Change the record.

Bduffman

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.
The tactics mentioned in that article certainly isn't a way I would choose to behave - but its been done a thousand times before for anti-apartheid, gay rights, Brits out, anti G-20, etc, etc. etc.

You see what you are doing here don't you? You seem to be insinuating that posters here agree with the curbing of free speech when it agrees with their point of view but criticise it when it doesn't.
I see no poster here that stated that. But it doesn't stop you throwing it up there & then shooting it down. I'm afraid you're only arguing with yourself.

PDN wrote: »

As a taxpayer I don't see why a publicly funded institution should be giving a platform to somebody advocating acts that are illegal. Our Constitution grants free speech, and that applies equally to Professor Doyal or Fred Phelps, but I would prefer them to use privately funded venues and facilities.

By your logic we should never discuss anything that is currently illegal in a public forum. There have been many discussions about the legalisation of drugs for example. How would any laws be changed if its not discussed while its still illegal

Dades

PDN wrote: »

It's funny how when we are in agreement with protestors (eg anti-Iraq War) then they are simply exercising their democratic free speech. However, when we don't agree with the protestors then they are scumbags and zealots.

I respect their right to free speech as much as I respect the right to claim their views are archaic and interfering.

And I wouldn't call them scumbags, but are you suggesting they aren't zealots?

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Change the record.

Don't smilely faces count for anything anymore?

Fanny Cradock

stevejazzx wrote: »

Don't smilely faces count for anything anymore?

After seeing countless variations of the same joke I'm going to say, no, they don't.

Woger

velocirafter wrote: »

I'd say they get confused about alot of things

Both you are so smug, lying in a hospital bed for years with zero brain activity or in crippling pain is a sign of love and compassion. That's why Brendan Smyth had a quick death.

stevejazzx

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

After seeing countless variations of the same joke I'm going to say, no, they don't.

Fair enough.
On topic
It is very sad to see this kind of thing. I just heard the news with, who I imagine is the same woman alreay mentioned, shouting about murder. It just beggers belief how and why some poeple achieve this great big mixing up of ideas in thier heads - sad and in this case very annoying too.

Galvasean

On the topic of free speech, the protesters should have listened to what the speaker had to say, then challenged his views in a civil manner. Instead they tried the old 'he who shouts the loudest wins the debate' trick, making them look quite foolish.
If they know they're right they should be able to win an open debate.

velocirafter

The thing is they we're just anti euthenasia they were anti euthenasia debates aswell. I hope none of these people have any authority in their lives, the idea that you are not even allowed discuss a topic that you are not in favour of is repulsive

Borneo Fnctn

Bduffman wrote: »

You see what you are doing here don't you? You seem to be insinuating that posters here agree with the curbing of free speech when it agrees with their point of view but criticise it when it doesn't.
I see no poster here that stated that. But it doesn't stop you throwing it up there & then shooting it down. I'm afraid you're only arguing with yourself.

[/I]

+1

Fanny Cradock

Galvasean wrote: »

If they know they're right they should be able to win an open debate.

Well, while I agree that they should have conducted themselves in a more 'civilised' and mature manner, it isn't accurate to say that what is right (assuming there is such thing in a debate like this) will always win out in an open debate.

conlonbmw

bluewolf wrote: »

Regardless of their religious or moral beliefs, they can protest all they want but they shouldn't be preventing a lecture on the subject going ahead. And asking intelligent questions/discussion/debate.

Correct.

I am always amazed that church spokesman are allowed an opinion on anything that is based in fact.

Galvasean

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

it isn't accurate to say that what is right (assuming there is such thing in a debate like this) will always win out in an open debate.

Actually you're right. That is true.
Still, yelling down you opponent is a bad tactic, unless you're on the O' Reilly Factor.