Thoughts on this Indo piece? "Fears of attack at college pro-life protest"

PrivateEye

Only stumbled across this piece now. I'd heard all about this, but sad to see it made it to the national papers. In my three years in Maynooth, I've seen the religious right get up to all sorts. Surely it's time to come down hard on these people. I'll be sure to ask those running for election positions like President and Welfare what they think of this.

ALISON O'RIORDAN

Sunday February 20 2011

A Member of a pregnancy counselling clinic had to be escorted from Maynooth University last week amid fears of physical attack from 'pro-life' students.

Tensions ran high during Sexual Health Awareness and Guidance (SHAG) week at the one-time clerical university outside Dublin.

A representative from the advice clinic Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices was not safe on the college grounds due to the behaviour of protesters and had to be personally escorted when she arrived at the campus to pre-empt any physical attacks or assaults.

"The representative was met by the Students' Union and was escorted to the hall where the event was taking place. This was due to the number of 'pro-life' protesters. Our representative was also escorted from the venue out a side door," said Gabrielle Malone, programme director of Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices.

Elizabeth Murray, Vice President of NUIM Students' Union, denies any violence occurred but labelled the pro-life protest as "intimidating and upsetting".

Leaflets were given out by the protesters, which Ms Malone said were "grossly misleading and libellous".

There were also reports of water bombs being thrown at the representative of the clinic but the college denies this.

Marie Stopes Reproductive Choices is a Dublin-based sexual and reproductive health specialist where counsellors provide professional support and advice.

The Union of Students in Ireland distributed 40,000 sexual health awareness packs across the country last week. Each pack had a condom and information on contraception.
- ALISON O'RIORDAN

Seren_

Although seeing

ALISON O'RIORDAN

and the fact that the article is poorly written etc makes me :rolleyes:, it does raise a point.

I'm very much pro-choice, but am usually of the opinion that people should be allowed believe what they want (within reason). So if people are pro-life, I usually let them get on with it. However, the "gathering" by the Pro Life Soc on the 16th was ridiculous. I'd love to organise something outside the Arts Block with people standing with pro-choice banners/posters to spite them :P

I do have a point of chagrin with your post though:

In my three years in Maynooth, I've seen the religious right get up to all sorts. Surely it's time to come down hard on these people.

I'm sure a lot of people may think the same about the activities of the left on campus, so is that not a bit of a case of the pot calling the kettle black-ar$e?

PrivateEye

I'd love to organise something outside the Arts Block with people standing with pro-choice banners/posters to spite them

PLAN.


As for comparing them to the left, my big issue with them is their campaign seems to centre around making people feel guilty over excercising their right to a termination. That sort of emotional bullying is not on, and the left is above it. We've also got better taste in posters.

Wendero

Correction please:

The Prolife society was in no way, shape or form part of the protest on the 16th. The protest was done by an independent group, not associated with the society.

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

Correction please:
The Prolife society was in no way, shape or form part of the protest on the 16th. The protest was done by an independent group, not associated with the society.

Do you know which independent group it was? There's lots of rumours flying around but no one seems to want to confirm anything.

Wendero

No, I don't have the name of the group right now (I have heard it but I forgot). The prolife soc is meeting on wednesday, I'll ask our President then. However, there was a representative from that group on the last SU meeting (last wednesday), trying to explain their actions. Despite the fact that everyone could see that we were not connected to that group and that no-one had complained about anything that the actual prolife soc had done, the SU suspended us until they have investigated matters.

This is a major breach against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and the only reason why they did it was because we handed out leaflets which told people about the Labour Party and their pro-abortion stance and urged people to vote for life. It's not a secret that most people in the SU leadership support the Labour party, and they just wanted to "stop the bleeding" that their party had suffered in the polls since they changed their position on abortion. It was a purely political decision, unworthy of any organization which supposedly represent all students (not just the Labour-voting students).

We demand that the SU immediately lifts their suspension and apologizes publicly for their unjust decision. If the suspension continues for long, the SU should definitely have to compensate us financially for this great injustice. When they suspended us, they pretty much said we were guilty despite another group taking responsibility for the actions that people were complaining up (the leaflets about Marie Stopes etc).

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

No, I don't have the name of the group right now (I have heard it but I forgot).

Was the name of the group "Youth Defence"?
Cause if it is, or any group connected to them the rest of the post is kinda moot. I'm sure you know that Pro-Life has gotten in quite a lot of trouble before for bringing in certain groups.

Also my post was an attempt to stop rumours spreading without any facts. Thank you for adding some conspiracy theories to the mix. Nice job.

Also isn't Aengus an FF crony?

Wendero

Pretty sure it wasn't Youth Defence. And we didn't bring that group to campus no matter what you say. We have no connection to them, okay? Stop this silly guilt-by-association.

And do you seriously believe the fact that we campaigned effectively against Labour didn't have any effect, when the majority in the SU are Labour activists?

PrivateEye

No, I don't have the name of the group right now (I have heard it but I forgot).

Handy that you forget. It wasn't Ultrasound was it? US=YD. They seem quite proud of their activity in Maynooth.

Is that stall in the picture the Pro Life Society stall? If so, it's littered with Youth Defence materials.

This week was Clubs and Societies week at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth. YD’s college network, Ultrasound, helped kick off the week by setting up a pro-life stall in Maynooth. The Ultrasound members collected contact information from students interested in becoming active members in the pro-life movement. The leaders of Ultrasound were able to reach out to many new students, who were hugely interested about joining the pro-life network.

Are they a seperate society from the Pro Life society? Or is the Pro Life Society actually now a branch of Youth Defence's Ultrasound front?

Marie Stomps

:rolleyes: I think you mean Marie Stopes. Here's a link for anyone looking for information on their rights regarding a termination

Wendero

Sorry I got the name mixed up, I'm pretty tired by now.

We have no association with the group that was on campus. End of story. So will you please stop the guilt-by-assocation, "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

Pretty sure it wasn't Youth Defence. And we didn't bring that group to campus no matter what you say. We have no connection to them, okay? Stop this silly guilt-by-association.

Never said you did, or insinuated that.
My point was that since Pro Life has been in major trouble before for bringing in other groups that cause trouble, the SU is very warranted in investigating seriously when another group turns up.
It's quite probable that these guys had nothing to do with you, but the SU is right to make sure of this.
What the SU should do is actually inform everyone what exactly is going on and stop rumours and inaccurate assertions (like that those protesters were from Pro Life) from spreading.

Wendero wrote: »

And do you seriously believe the fact that we campaigned effectively against Labour didn't have any effect, when the majority in the SU are Labour activists?

No I don't, because people love to construct conspiracies against themselves when they get in trouble.
But if you've actual evidence for this accusation, then by all means....

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

We have no association with the group that was on campus. End of story. So will you please stop the guilt-by-assocation, "guilty until proven innocent" nonsense.

So when Ultrasound/Youth Defence say:

This week was Clubs and Societies week at the National University of Ireland in Maynooth. YD’s college network, Ultrasound, helped kick off the week by setting up a pro-life stall in Maynooth.

Are they refering to Pro Life or to the crowd outside with the posters?


And looking at the picture on the top of the Youth Defence page it's pretty clear where those big posters the group outside had came from.

So now we have a Youth Defence group outside and a stand which Youth Defence says was a part of their network on the inside, yet you say these two aren't connected?

Ataxia

Wendero wrote: »

Correction please:

The Prolife society was in no way, shape or form part of the protest on the 16th. The protest was done by an independent group, not associated with the society.

Strange how these "outside groups" just keep turning up to campus. It's almost like the Pro-Life Soc were a front...

PrivateEye

Absolutely everything on the table in that photo is from the Youth Defence campaign, and the Youth Defence site is claiming the picture is from Maynooth Fairs Day, and the activists involved from their network. Was this a second Pro Life stall, unconnected to the society, or is that our Pro Life Society?

It's almost like the Pro-Life Soc were a front...

Isn't it just :eek: Imagine!

Seren_

Why is it NUIM that Youth Defence/their assorted cronies allegedly (:rolleyes:) turn up at? If it was a case that they just liked protesting on random college campuses then there could be something to the idea that they just turned up. But seeing as they don't (to my knowledge), I think the Pro Life Soc do have to be investigated.

Ostrom

Wendero wrote: »

Pretty sure it wasn't Youth Defence. And we didn't bring that group to campus no matter what you say. We have no connection to them, okay? Stop this silly guilt-by-association.

And do you seriously believe the fact that we campaigned effectively against Labour didn't have any effect, when the majority in the SU are Labour activists?

You invited them to debate with James McInerney two years ago, which they accepted

AdmaialNimitz

Wendero wrote: »

the SU suspended us until they have investigated matters.

They have? Cos I was at UC too and all I heard was a motion to "Encourage Capitation Committee to suspend the public activities of ANY Club or Society who is under investigation". It is not a binding resolution.

Wendero wrote: »

the only reason why they did it was because we handed out leaflets which told people about the Labour Party and their pro-abortion stance and urged people to vote for life.

Wendero wrote: »

It was a purely political decision

The SU is comprised of people from every side of the political spectrum, I can gaurentee this isnt the case.

leopoldbloom

King Mob wrote: »

Also isn't Aengus an FF crony?

Wait wait wait... what?

banquo

leopoldbloom wrote: »

Wait wait wait... what?

/chuckles

FYR

King Mob wrote: »

Also isn't Aengus an FF crony?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

The Waltzing Consumer

Wow, a pro-life group intimidating people, handing out false literature and acting like stone-age idiots. I can't believe that :eek:

I am very sure the pro-life society have no idea how that happened, and it is 100% believable that they were not involved at all and can't remember the name of the group involved. :rolleyes:

BAN these societies from campus, they are as acceptable as the KKK society or some neo-nazi group. Any group who target, intimidate and menace girls who provide FREE and AVAILABLE information should not be tolerated

Wendero

We handed out leaflets about the election, that's all we did. No posters, nothing. And we are not connected to the other group and certainly didn't invite them to campus. There is nothing to investigate, and no reason for suspension. It is a breach against the principle of innocent until proven guilty, no matter what you think about our society.

We didn't target any girls at all. If anyone intimidated that abortion clinic, it was the other group.

leopoldbloom

leopoldbloom wrote: »

Wait wait wait... what?

Or that might have been the USI president after the fees thing...
I do get confused when people throw out random accusations.

The Waltzing Consumer

Wendero wrote: »

We handed out leaflets about the election, that's all we did. No posters, nothing. And we are not connected to the other group and certainly didn't invite them to campus. There is nothing to investigate, and no reason for suspension. It is a breach against the principle of innocent until proven guilty, no matter what you think about our society.

We didn't target any girls at all. If anyone intimidated that abortion clinic, it was the other group.

I would not believe you for a second, you have literature which is proven to be false, you lie to get your point across, so why in the world would anyone believe your innocent nonsense?

Explain the picture in the first page of this thread. A stall with a NUI Maynooth student (well, he is in an NUI Maynooth hoodie) which is on the YD website. What a coincidence? :rolleyes:

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

We handed out leaflets about the election, that's all we did. No posters, nothing. And we are not connected to the other group and certainly didn't invite them to campus.

So who were the other group?
Are they with Youth Defence?
Are the Pro Life Soc with Youth Defence?

Wendero wrote: »

There is nothing to investigate, and no reason for suspension. It is a breach against the principle of innocent until proven guilty, no matter what you think about our society.

But there is. A cursory look shows that both groups have a possible connection to a larger group. A group which AFAIR have been banned form the campus and Pro Life have gotten in trouble for inviting before.
So yea, they have something to investigate.
And it's not against any principle of innocent until proven guilty, as they suspend you during investigation which would imply that they are yet to find you guilty.
And where was this principle when you accused the SU of being in a conspiracy against Pro Life?

Wendero

You can certainly be a member of youth defense and Prolife soc at the same time, but we did not invite that group to campus, whatever group it was.

Did I try to suspend the SU? No. I simply said that the political sympathies of their members probably played a role when they decided to suspend a society without a shred of evidence against them, a society which had campaigned against the party they support.

philologos

banquo and I were talking about this earlier in the Arts Block. The conclusion we came with was that the Pro-Life Society should have equal right to protest to any other group on the campus, but that they definitely do need to review their etiquette. For example equating Marie Stopes to a Nazi sympathiser and being pro-eugenics while possibly (I don't know if it is) factual it is an ad-hominem and as such is irrelevant because most pro-choicers aren't pro-eugenics, pro-Hitler, or pro-the Nazi party or any of the modern replica versions (that I know of anyway).

Suggestions that I've seen on Facebook for the pro-life view to be effectively driven off campus are also equally ridiculous. Especially since some people who are making these suggestions have been prominent in left-wing protest on this campus over the past 3 years. I welcome protest, but reasonable protest whether or not it's the pro-life society or others.

Hey, we're all adults here. Personally I'm pro-life but I am critical of both sides in this debacle. How about we put down the placards and the words of disbanding the pro-life soc and lets have a rational argument. No ad-hominems allowed. Personally I can see many points to be made for pro-life, but I will only discuss them with people who can promise to me that they won't get hysterical at the first sign of disagreement.

How about a bit of tolerance for eachother, how about civil discussion instead of all this lark?

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

You can certainly be a member of youth defense and Prolife soc at the same time, but we did not invite that group to campus, whatever group it was.

And none of that answers my questions.
So again, Is the Pro Life Soc part of Youth Defence's Network?
If not why does Youth Defence say that they are?

Were the protesters outside part of Youth Defence?
If not why did they have the exact same signs from a picture of a Youth Defence protest?

Is it true that Pro Life have gotten in deep trouble over bringing in Youth Defence?
Is it true or not that Youth Defence is not welcome on campus anymore?

Wendero wrote: »

Did I try to suspend the SU? No. I simply said that the political sympathies of their members probably played a role when they decided to suspend a society without a shred of evidence against them, a society which had campaigned against the party they support.

But you're accusing them of something based on no evidence, you're just assuming based on their political beliefs.
Which is exactly what you are charging other people with doing.

And how come the SU don't get the same "innocent till proven guilty" thing that you keep saying is being denied to you?

Wendero

We were not responsible for those leaflets claiming that Marie Stopes was a nazi sympathizer. I don't know whether she was or not.

We had nothing to do with that protest. We only handed out leaflets outside the John Hume building and possible the Arts block (I didn't personally do anything). I've already answered all of that, and this discussion is getting pointless.

PrivateEye

We were not responsible for those leaflets claiming that Marie Stopes was a nazi sympathizer.

I've seen one of those leaflets from Youth Defence in the past. Pure rubbish, made all the worse by the fact Youth Defence themselves actually have and have always had explicitly clear links to the far-right. Some stuff on that below.

They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the campus again. The fact is that 'Pro Life stall' in the picture on the last page contains nothing but Youth Defence materials. I don't doubt the Maynooth Pro Life Society is nothing but a YD/US/Coir/Whatever-you're-having-yourself Front.

Can someone clarify if the stall pictured on the last page is the Pro Life stall, or was there a seperate YD stall on the day? If that is 'our' Pro Life Society, they're very obviously affiliated to Youth Defence.

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Justin Barrett (b. 1972), was heavily involved in the right-wing Catholic "Youth Defence" organisation which concentrated on American-style anti-abortion activity in Ireland, picking up one conviction for obstructing a Garda in 1999. He rose to prominence as the media-appointed leader of Ireland's 'No to Nice' campaign in 2001 and warned of a "flood" of immigrant workers and one of his group's posters urged voters to "Save Irish Jobs".. Barrett won admirers among European fascists and was a guest speaker at rallies for the fascist groups 'Forza Nuova' in Italy and the NPD in Germany. The media coverage led to Barretts threatening libel proceedings[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Trebuchet MS,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]During this period (90-95), members of Youth Defence also contributed articles to the National Front/International Third Position magazine Candour.[/FONT]

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

We were not responsible for those leaflets claiming that Marie Stopes was a nazi sympathizer. I don't know whether she was or not.

We had nothing to do with that protest. We only handed out leaflets outside the John Hume building and possible the Arts block (I didn't personally do anything). I've already answered all of that, and this discussion is getting pointless.

You haven't answered anything. At all.

Frankly the fact you're not answering the questions tells me that your whining about an SU conspiracy is silly and hypocritical.

I was happy to assume Pro Life had nothing to do with the other protest and that some people are just jumping to conclusions, and maybe try to get the facts.
But watching you weasel away from simple questions and they seeing the obvious connection to the other protest (which again, you refuse to address) personally, makes me believe that Pro Life does indeed need to be investigated seriously.

Good work there Wendero.

The Waltzing Consumer

Jakkass wrote: »

banquo and I were talking about this earlier in the Arts Block. The conclusion we came with was that the Pro-Life Society should have equal right to protest to any other group on the campus, but that they definitely do need to review their etiquette. For example equating Marie Stopes to a Nazi sympathiser and being pro-eugenics while possibly (I don't know if it is) factual it is an ad-hominem and as such is irrelevant because most pro-choicers aren't pro-eugenics, pro-Hitler, or pro-the Nazi party or any of the modern replica versions (that I know of anyway).

Suggestions that I've seen on Facebook for the pro-life view to be effectively driven off campus are also equally ridiculous. Especially since some people who are making these suggestions have been prominent in left-wing protest on this campus over the past 3 years. I welcome protest, but reasonable protest whether or not it's the pro-life society or others.

Hey, we're all adults here. Personally I'm pro-life but I am critical of both sides in this debacle. How about we put down the placards and the words of disbanding the pro-life soc and lets have a rational argument. No ad-hominems allowed. Personally I can see many points to be made for pro-life, but I will only discuss them with people who can promise to me that they won't get hysterical at the first sign of disagreement.

How about a bit of tolerance for eachother, how about civil discussion instead of all this lark?

Grow a backbone for god's sake. You had a group that were handing out false and offensive literature, intimidating and menacing students and guests of the college and have very questionable links with the very anti-gay and anti-abortion Youth Defence and their many fronts. Not only is this picture featuring a Maynooth student, it was full of Youth Defence literature and the question is, is this the pro-life society stall in Maynooth?
http://www.youthdefence.ie/archived-news/ultrasound-hits-the-ground-running-for-students-for-life-in-nui-maynooth/

This "let us have some tolerance for each other" and "critical of both sides" is rubbish. You are trying to be balanced for balance sake. The only criticism you have of the other side (which is what, the vast majority of the student body, who are of different religions, backgrounds, politics, nationalities and views on abortion) is that some facebook page had a few comments from some left-wing students. Wow. That is definately comparable.

We would not be having this discussion if it was some anti-black hate group or anti-immigrant group or anti-catholic group. If it had been any of those, you would condemn it and not bother with this "they have equal right to protest" lark. Because it is an anti-abortion and anti-gay group, you are trying to make them out to be reasonable and logical with the same rights as any other NUIM society. Why? Well, the colleges connections with the Catholic Church spring to mind.

Well, they are not the same, youth defence and its fronts are basically a hate group. If you are happy with having hate groups in NUIM, it says a lot about you. Are Youth Defence and the Pro-Life Society the same thing? Looks like it. Same members, same literature, same stalls, same protest.

PrivateEye

PrivateEye wrote: »

Can someone clarify if the stall pictured on the last page is the Pro Life stall, or was there a seperate YD stall on the day? If that is 'our' Pro Life Society, they're very obviously affiliated to Youth Defence.

I'm pretty sure the picture in the article is of the Pro Life stand on this year's fairs day. If you look behind the guy in the Maynooth hoodie you can see the bar thingie on the walls of the Venue. I remember that's were the Pro Life Soc table was.

If there was another, separate YD/US table that day, I didn't see it or hear about it.

bridmac

Just checked it out there. The news everyone is referring to (taken from the youth defence site regarding a college stand) on this thread is from 2nd October which means it happened in late September. The 1st event referred to (the protest) took place recently so the two events aren't linked. The conspiratorial rant on this thread sounds overly hysterical.

Demonique

Wendero wrote: »

This is a major breach against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and the only reason why they did it was because we handed out leaflets which told people about the Labour Party and their pro-abortion stance and urged people to vote for life. It's not a secret that most people in the SU leadership support the Labour party, and they just wanted to "stop the bleeding" that their party had suffered in the polls since they changed their position on abortion. It was a purely political decision, unworthy of any organization which supposedly represent all students (not just the Labour-voting students).

Shame that the people of Ireland didn't see to care about Labour's pro-choice stance in the recent election

/sarcasm because I don't think it's a shame

The Waltzing Consumer

bridmac wrote: »

Just checked it out there. The news everyone is referring to (taken from the youth defence site regarding a college stand) on this thread is from 2nd October which means it happened in late September. The 1st event referred to (the protest) took place recently so the two events aren't linked. The conspiratorial rant on this thread sounds overly hysterical.

Well, instead of one event that is linking youth defence and the pro-life society, it now becomes two events and more questions about the relationship between hate groups and the pro-life society of NUIM. Thanks for clearing that up!

philologos

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Grow a backbone for god's sake. You had a group that were handing out false and offensive literature, intimidating and menacing students and guests of the college and have very questionable links with the very anti-gay and anti-abortion Youth Defence and their many fronts. Not only is this picture featuring a Maynooth student, it was full of Youth Defence literature and the question is, is this the pro-life society stall in Maynooth?
http://www.youthdefence.ie/archived-news/ultrasound-hits-the-ground-running-for-students-for-life-in-nui-maynooth/

Personally I believe the pro-life society should be able to advocate their views in a rational manner on the campus. That's what they should be allowed to do. I'm not going to "grow a backbone" if that means favouring pro-choice views on this campus to pro-life views because that's absolutely ridiculous. In any case where an abortion clinic (Marie Stopes) is invited to the campus pro-lifers should be able to protest with proper etiquette and in a reasonable manner. What didn't happen was the reasonable manner if there were sensationalist leaflets of that type on campus.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

This "let us have some tolerance for each other" and "critical of both sides" is rubbish. You are trying to be balanced for balance sake. The only criticism you have of the other side (which is what, the vast majority of the student body, who are of different religions, backgrounds, politics, nationalities and views on abortion) is that some facebook page had a few comments from some left-wing students. Wow. That is definately comparable.

In some senses yes they are comparable. My criticism of the pro-choice side is that it is unacceptable to suggest that pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to their views on this campus and I will stand up for their right to profess whatever views they desire. Largely as I think the Students Union has given the Christian Union the right to speak about their Christian faith openly on the campus. I'm glad for this, and I'm glad that this society that I'm involved in has a great relationship with the Students Union. The Students Union gives a voice to a plurality of people who often disagree with eachother. Welcome to the democratisation of views on campus. Universities are where discussions like this occur. You have no right to suggest that peoples shouldn't have a right to discuss their viewpoint on campus. What you do have the right to suggest is that people should do this rationally and without using sensationalist materials.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

We would not be having this discussion if it was some anti-black hate group or anti-immigrant group or anti-catholic group. If it had been any of those, you would condemn it and not bother with this "they have equal right to protest" lark. Because it is an anti-abortion and anti-gay group, you are trying to make them out to be reasonable and logical with the same rights as any other NUIM society. Why? Well, the colleges connections with the Catholic Church spring to mind.

Tripe. A pro-life view is in no way bigoted. They have the full right to protest just as PrivateEye and other activists on this campus do. I advocate freedom of expression. I don't believe in trampling over all those whom I disagree with on campus because that would mean a lot of people being deprived this right on campus. That's where "grace" comes in.

Pro-life views are acceptable to promote on the campus. Obviously homophobic views are not as this is hate speech & illegal.

Edit: By the by, I'm a non-Catholic so I don't see why that would influence my view that there should be a pro-life society on the NUI Maynooth campus.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well, they are not the same, youth defence and its fronts are basically a hate group. If you are happy with having hate groups in NUIM, it says a lot about you. Are Youth Defence and the Pro-Life Society the same thing? Looks like it. Same members, same literature, same stalls, same protest.

Investigate the society. Simple. Tell them not to affiliate with Youth Defence. Personally I think a pro-life society without denominational ties would be better. That's just me though. I believe that there are excellent arguments for a pro-life position which can be argued from a secular perspective. So yeah, I think they have a right to protest but they shouldn't use sensationalist materials just logic and good arguments of which there are an abundance.

Ataxia

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I believe the pro-life society should be able to advocate their views in a rational manner on the campus. That's what they should be allowed to do. I'm not going to "grow a backbone" if that means favouring pro-choice views on this campus to pro-life views because that's absolutely ridiculous. In any case where an abortion clinic (Marie Stopes) is invited to the campus pro-lifers should be able to protest with proper etiquette and in a reasonable manner. What didn't happen was the reasonable manner if there were sensationalist leaflets of that type on campus.



In some senses yes they are comparable. My criticism of the pro-choice side is that it is unacceptable to suggest that pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to their views on this campus and I will stand up for their right to profess whatever views they desire. Largely as I think the Students Union has given the Christian Union the right to speak about their Christian faith openly on the campus. I'm glad for this, and I'm glad that this society that I'm involved in has a great relationship with the Students Union. The Students Union gives a voice to a plurality of people who often disagree with eachother. Welcome to the democratisation of views on campus. Universities are where discussions like this occur. You have no right to suggest that peoples shouldn't have a right to discuss their viewpoint on campus. What you do have the right to suggest is that people should do this rationally and without using sensationalist materials.



Tripe. A pro-life view is in no way bigoted. They have the full right to protest just as PrivateEye and other activists on this campus do. I advocate freedom of expression. I don't believe in trampling over all those whom I disagree with on campus because that would mean a lot of people being deprived this right on campus. That's where "grace" comes in.

Pro-life views are acceptable to promote on the campus. Obviously homophobic views are not as this is hate speech & illegal.



Investigate the society. Simple. Tell them not to affiliate with Youth Defence. Personally I think a pro-life society without denominational ties would be better. That's just me though. I believe that there are excellent arguments for a pro-life position which can be argued from a secular perspective. So yeah, I think they have a right to protest but they shouldn't use sensationalist materials just logic and good arguments of which there are an abundance.

So they should be allowed to go around telling women on campus who have had terminations that they are murderers as long as they do it in a civilised, non-sensationalist way?

philologos

Ataxia wrote: »

So they should be allowed to go around telling women on campus who have had terminations that they are murderers as long as they do it in a civilised, non-sensationalist way?

They should be allowed to argue their case on this campus. Logically why do they oppose abortion-by-choice. As I've said already there are an abundance of reasons brought up every time the subject has been debated on boards. In Humanities and After Hours in particular. People should be free to disagree with each other, and to protest. As I've said already I don't see why you should have the right to protest as you have done with FEE if they don't. As I've said already, I think if it were a secularised movement it could be much better, but it is up to them if they want to do this.

Its a contentious subject and the SU shouldn't actively favour one view over another in this case.

On the same note, pro-choice people should be able to set up a society and to be able to protest in such situations also.

Wendero

I have never called anyone a murderer. You think we are extreme, check out prolifers in Sweden where I come from. We don't have any abortion ban there, so we are playing offense, not defence. No-one from our society has ever called anyone a murderer. Stop mixing us up, don't guilt us by association. In Sweden, we usually compare abortion to the holocaust and ask "Is everyone who persecuted jews a murderer, or could you say that in order to murder, you must kill a human being intentionally, and if you don't know that what you are killing is a human being, you can't do it intentionally and so you don't murder". It's an interesting question. Not even in Sweden do we call the women murderers, that's a title we reserve for the doctors and politicians who allow it to happen.

I'm not catholic either, I grew up pentecostal and am now attending a presbyterian church.

I never knew we had any denominational ties. They surely didn't tell me that when they elected me to the board, despite knowing I'm a protestant. They got some 'splainin to do on our meeting tomorrow.

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

Stop mixing us up, don't guilt us by association.

You mean like how you accused the SU of a conspiracy against Pro Life because a few of the members are in Labour?

Also given the evidence, and your refusal to address the point, you'll have to forgive people for associating you guys with the protesters when it looks like you both are part of the same organisation.

Ataxia

Jakkass wrote: »

Its a contentious subject and the SU shouldn't actively favour one view over another in this case.

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

rcaz

Ataxia wrote: »

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

I agree with you, but I don't think the SU can do that... From the way I understand it, the SU has to support all students equally, which means considering and supporting all students' interests and causes. While I think the pro-life stance here (is this the universal way of approaching 'pro life'?) is completely ridiculous, backward and outdated, I don't expect the SU to be as passionately against it as I am. The SU has no business being passionate about anything other than equality and excellence. Again, this is all from my unresearched, but interested, understanding.

Why is pro-life just anti-abortion? Pro-choice isn't anti-pro-life... And anyway, you all have your way, what are you arguing about?

Wendero

Pro-choicers claim not to be anti-life, but we're not anti-choice either. We believe in choice - you can adopt the baby or raise it yourself. That's fine with us. The only thing you cannot do is kill it.

And the SU should stay neutral in the abortion issue, to suggest anything else is just plain absurd. Also, about the SU and their Labour connections, I'm just saying that everyone is influenced by their views and background when they make decisions. It doesn't even have to be intentional, everyone does it.

We didn't organize the protest. There's nothing more to say about it.

Ataxia

It's a student welfare issue. Right now, the SU is not standing up for the welfare of female students who might need access to abortion services. It's entirely legitimate for the SU to support these women.

Wendero

Wendero wrote: »

Also, about the SU and their Labour connections, I'm just saying that everyone is influenced by their views and background when they make decisions. It doesn't even have to be intentional, everyone does it.

I'm sorry you're still making a baseless accusation of the exact same kind you are accusing others of making against pro life.
You understand that this is very hypocritical right?

Wendero wrote: »

We didn't organize the protest. There's nothing more to say about it.

Well except all the questions you're ignoring.

Why are you not even acknowledging them?

If you're going to throw around serious accusations about bias you should at least have the integrity to answer things honestly.

philologos

Ataxia wrote: »

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

If you search back here, you'll see one of the reasons I decided not to vote for USI was because of this, but hey that's last year right?

The Students Union is intended to represent l students whether pro-life or pro-choice on this campus. Indeed in pretty much the same way I wouldn't expect the Students Union to promote Christianity or atheism on the campus. Instead, they allow other people to do this should they so choose. I don't see the issue. There is a clear discussion to be had on campus over whether or not abortion-by-choice is moral on this campus at least while it remains illegal in the State.

Ataxia wrote: »

It's a student welfare issue. Right now, the SU is not standing up for the welfare of female students who might need access to abortion services. It's entirely legitimate for the SU to support these women.

The word "need" there could be also very debatable. For some it would be in life and death circumstances one I agree with myself actually considering its best to save one life rather than two. Some people go further that one might need it if they don't desire a child at a given point in time. The latter reason I don't think is a good enough reason to justify death (which is what it is if one takes a basic look at the life process thats involved).

El Pr0n wrote: »

Why is pro-life just anti-abortion? Pro-choice isn't anti-pro-life... And anyway, you all have your way, what are you arguing about?

It actually isn't. It extends into areas such as end-of-life ethics (I would support pallative care over euthanasia), the use of adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells (pluripotent adult stem cells now according to research can function in the same manner as embryonic stem cells) URL="http://cis.org.uk/ireland/bioethics-2009/M-Clynes-18-April-2009.mp3"]mp3[/URL URL="http://cis.org.uk/ireland/bioethics-2009/M-Clynes-18-April-2009.pdf"]powerpoint[/URL. Pretty much I support the right to life as the mother of all rights. Without life you have no other rights, end of story. If it is an archaic position to stand up for the rights of those whose rights are ignored then I'm holding an archaic position if that is what you think.

Ataxia

Should the SU stop giving out condoms because there are students who disagree with artificial contraception?

I think a referendum should be held on whether or not the SU should take a pro-choice position. But I doubt there are any Exec. candidates willing to actually do that.

philologos

Ataxia wrote: »

Should the SU stop giving out condoms because there are students who disagree with artificial contraception?

Condoms != advocating abortion
I personally have zero issues with artificial contraception. Personally I'd see it best to wait until marriage but if people do beforehand its obvious that it is best to use contraceptives.

The SU should facilitate that people have the right to a stand on SHAG week including for those who disagree with artificial contraceptives. This is the way that the playing field can be balanced. Students can freely decide what they think for themselves and indeed reject what they find non-sensical as twaddle.

Ataxia wrote: »

I think a referendum should be held on whether or not the SU should take a pro-choice position. But I doubt there are any Exec. candidates willing to actually do that.

I think not. The SU shouldn't push those with minority views or with views in conformity with the majority to the sideline in any respect. The SU isn't just something to be used to enshrine peoples personal opinions. Facilitator of discussion is considerably better.

Seren_

It's ironic that a vast majority of those who have posted on this thread are male (well so it would seem anyway). i'm not saying at all that men can't have opinions on abortion, just that it's women who tend to face the most prejudice with regards it. And the fact that it's womens' bodies that are being legislated against.

Ataxia, I would have to disagree with your point that the SU should hold a referendum to decide whether it's pro-choice or pro-life. First of all, how could we be certain that the pro-choice side would win? A lot of students are pro-life Then would we be stuck as a college who couldn't give advice to students with a crisis pregnancy who were thinking of having an abortion? i.e. if someone went to the Welfare Officer for info, would they have to be told "No, we can't help you there, we're a pro-life SU!" Then there's also the fact that it would create a precedent for any other number of groups to lobby for a referendum. So MSU could end up as a union only for students who are pro-choice, atheist, socialist etc etc etc, thus alienating a lot of the people they are supposed to represent.

Also, it's not like someone's mind can instantly be changed by seeing a few posters of foetuses, or being told thy're a murderer. Do some pro-life groups really think that they can change peoples' perspective on something like abortion just because of that? If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow (as unlikely as that may be :pac:), i'm pretty certain I would have an abortion. Why? Because I'm only 21, have no job, no money, and still in college. That's not a great situation to bring a child into. No matter how many leaflets I was given telling me I was a murderer would change my mind, so why are pro-life groups who engage in such practices so sure that it would?

The Waltzing Consumer

Jackass, people do not mind discussion. I don't think you will find one post on this thread trying to convince anti-abortion people that they are wrong or right, that they should change their views. It is not about that at all. As I said before, the vast majority of students and staff will have completely different views on every issue and that is respected. The problem here is the conduct of the pro-life society which is made up of a very small group of people.

Now, discussion is fine. But why is the pro-life society poster constantly ignoring the questions put to them by other posters on this thread? Look at posts by King Mob and others asking about connections with youth defence. You have repeatedly talked about respecting each other and debate, yet you will see the person from the pro-life society (WENDERO) constantly ignoring all of the questions.

There is a deliberate attempt to ignore the actual conduct of the pro-life society and their actions, and their obvious connections with anti-gay groups, yet you seem to ignore all that and pretend that all sides are as bad as each other. That is not the case, as I said, the other side is comprised of the vast majority of students, it is not actually a side, it is 99.9% of the college.

When freshers week turned violent, the campus and Gardai condemned the actions of a small amount of students. It was not organised and there was no "two sides to the debate". It was simple. Violence and menacing behaviour is not tolerated. Now, it is an actual society with alleged strong links to an anti-gay and anti-abortion hate group who are involved in menacing and threatening behaviour and handing out false literature. Suddenly, it's all "respect each other" and "let's have a debate".

Well, people are trying to debate and discuss. Problem is, one side (the pro-life poster) is not answering any questions put to them. What is your solution for that?