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.