Those Ads...

Ickle Magoo

Actually, I think the worst kind of politicians are those that get into power and use their new found influence to further their own personal agendas/view-points regardless of the position of those that gave them their seat...

Great way of alienating many of your electorate and ensuring they don't give you another term tho...I suspect he'll regret using his elected position to platform such divisive personal views from.

Morgase

I see what you're saying, Piste, and I'm sure he's now had lots of contact from both pro- and anti-choice people but he's choosing to represent only the side that is in line with how he feels. If he feels strongly about this, then he should have said so to begin with (as in at election time).

If I were in Harris' position, I'd be sure to state clearly what my views are on my electioneering literature / website regarding abortion and other issues such as gay marriage. That way people know what they'd be getting and what stance I'd be taking in the Dáil.

Piste

People weren't calling for politicians to nail their colours to the mast when it comes to abortion during the last general election though. I'm sure people who felt very strongly about it questioned these politicians when canvassing and then voted accordingly. Abortion was sidelined by the economy, education and healthcare and people weren't really talking about individual politicians' viewpoints. I really don't see why he should have to put on a pro-choice face is really he is pro-life, do his pro-life constituents not deserve to be represented as well?

The same can be true of any divisive issue, take austerity -vs- spending stimulus for example: If a politician is advocating one over the other of course he or she is going to be alienating some of their constituents who believe otherwise. To pander to your electorate by making politically expedient statements you don't believe in is just populism.

Ickle Magoo

Piste wrote: »

I really don't see why he should have to put on a pro-choice face is really he is pro-life, do his pro-life constituents not deserve to be represented as well?

Surely BOTH "deserve" to be represented...that's the issue isn't it? If your electorate raise an issue then as an elected representative it's your job to raise those issues for discussion in the Dail. I certainly wouldn't be voting as fit for office again a politician who can't separate their personal feelings/views and represent the interests of both sides on such a sensitive issue...doubly so given the ruling on the X case.

Piste

If the role of TDs is to remain impartial then how could they ever vote on anything/pass any laws if they can't come down on one side of an issue? Do you have the same problem with TDs who come out and say they're pro-choice, even though many of their constituents may be pro-life?

Ickle Magoo

I think if TD's are entrusted with legislating for the nation then it stands to reason they should be made to show complete transparency with regards to how they would vote on these major issues prior to election, especially if it contradicts party policy...and I think that should be the case regardless of whether they are pro or anti-choice.

It worries me greatly that people put their faith in party politics and specific politicians who then ignore the wishes of swathes of those that gave them their seat and legislate for a nation based on nothing more than their own personal beliefs.

If personal gain and personal view is all the matters, all that politicians should concern themselves with, then lets abolish government and put everything to referendum...or, you know, expect those that wish to take on the responsibility of raising legal issues and legal changes do so with the interests of ALL their constituents rather than just themselves.

Piste

To be honest there's a lot to be said for more direct-democracy like the Americans and Swiss do. It means we can't fob off tough decisions on politicians and we get more of a say in what kind of country we want to live in.

Ickle Magoo

And politicians can't pretend Europe hasn't already ruled Ireland violates it's own constitution, fob off the tough decisions for decades &/or merrily ship off their tough decisions to their nearest neighbour so they can pretend to have taken the moral high-ground...

Don't any changes to the Irish constitution have to be put to referendum here anyway?

analucija

I'm disgusted with the views of some FG politicians but I prefer to have representatives who speak their mind and not somebody who decides based on popular opinion. It is impossible to represent every single view and every single vote and what we have today is inderect democracy. Besides if you would give vote to every single person on the list, would then they all have to represent you views? We vote for the least bad option and not for the perfect match and have a chance to revisit the decision in the next election.

Btw this country had a politician who was a master at keeping all sides happy. Do you really want to go there again?

analucija

Piste wrote: »

To be honest there's a lot to be said for more direct-democracy like the Americans and Swiss do. It means we can't fob off tough decisions on politicians and we get more of a say in what kind of country we want to live in.

The direct democracy in Switzerland decided minarets should be banned because they don't match alpine architecture. From experience with pointless referdums I can say they especially attract partisan voters who have no idea what they are voting for or against. Personally I don't think it works.

Fluorescence

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Don't any changes to the Irish constitution have to be put to referendum here anyway?

They do. IIRC, a referendum was held after the X case, which passed allowing abortions in similar circumstances. The people made up their minds, but the successive governments have been dragging their heels. I suspect no-one wants to have it to their name.

I may be remembering it wrong though.

28064212

Fluorescence wrote: »

They do. IIRC, a referendum was held after the X case, which passed allowing abortions in similar circumstances. The people made up their minds, but the successive governments have been dragging their heels. I suspect no-one wants to have it to their name.

I may be remembering it wrong though.

Nearly right. The referendum was actually held in 1983. This inserted this Article: "The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

In the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the 1983 article meant abortion was a right where there was a substantial risk to the woman's life, including the risk of suicide. There was a referendum later that year attempting to remove that right, but it was defeated. Legislation should have been introduced immediately after that by the Fianna Fail-led government, but it never was

In 2002, another referendum was held attempting to remove the right, and again it failed, and again, the Fianna Fail-led government failed to introduce the necessary legislation.

lazygal

The State implemented legislation to deal with the constitutional referendum on judges pay 22 DAYS after the vote. 20 years on and no government has bothered or had the balls to introduce legislation to deal with the X Case decision.

I've communicated my prochoice views to all my TDs, Senators (Trinity bloc) and local politicians. Let's see how many others will do the same. TDs are quick enough to lobby on individual cases, such as asking parliamentary questions or raising topical issues when constituents raise matters, so I would expect nothing less when they're lobbied by the pro-choice people.

I think Simon Harris is confusing personal belief, to which he is of course entitled, with legislating for a referendum passed by the people 20 years ago. If he doesn't like the X Case ruling and constitutional clause, perhaps he should immediately resign his seat to avoid having to vote in favour of abortion.

iguana

Fluorescence wrote: »

They do. IIRC, a referendum was held after the X case, which passed allowing abortions in similar circumstances. The people made up their minds, but the successive governments have been dragging their heels. I suspect no-one wants to have it to their name.

I may be remembering it wrong though.

There were 3 referendums at once. One was to allow the right of travel, which passed. The other was to allow the right of informations, which passed. And the last was to specify that suicidal feelings were not enough to qualify as a threat to the life of the mother. This did not pass.

The purpose of the referendum was to avoid passing legislation on the X-case which had happened earlier that year. The Supreme Court had found, by a large margin of 4:1, that under our constitution suicidal feelings were grounds for abortion, which should be provided in Ireland. The government tried to overturn this decision by getting the public to amend the constitution to state that suicide was not a threat to the life of the mother. The public didn't play ball but the state still refused to legislate.

In 2002, the government still hadn't legislated so tried once again to get us to change the constitution. (Because Bertie promised his dying mother he would not legislate for abortion without trying again to change the constitution.) The proposed amendment of 2002 was very odd. For one if it had passed the legislation would have been written into the constitution, which is extremely unusual as the constitution is a guide not a legislative document. The proposed legislation would have allowed for abortions to be provided under very strict conditions of threat to the mother's life but would not allow for suicide as one of those conditions. It also criminalised abortion and anyone carrying one out or helping someone to procure one would be liable for up to 12 years in prison. I really can't stress how strange it is to have this level of detail in the constitution. There was also a possibility that emergency contraceptives would have been susceptible to legal challenge and some church groups had stated their intention to make the challenge if the referendum passed, but it's quite unclear as to whether or not they would have succeeded.

The reaction to the referendum was a strange one. The moderate pro-life groups, including the RCC, were in favour of the legislation. Women whose lives were at immediate risk, from illnesses like cancer, would have the option to have an abortion here. But nobody else would. The pro-choice groups were opposed to the referendum as it would allow for less choice and would be very difficult to overturn due to the nature of legislation being written into the constitution. But the hardline pro-life groups were also opposed to the legislation as they were opposed to anyone having an abortion ever, even if the pregnancy would kill them. So you had the odd, odd scenario where Youth Defence were appealing for the same result as most people on here would have been.

In the end the results were extremely, extremely close (50.4% against) and showed a sharp rural/urban divide with roughly 80% of those who voted in all Dublin constituencies, the city constituencies of Limerick, Cork, Galway and Waterford and the Kildare and Wicklow constituencies with large Dublin commuter populations voting no.

Faith

Despite the two referenda, and all the fuss being kicked up at the moment, Micheal Martin doesn't think there's a need to legislate for the X case :rolleyes:. I'm so ashamed that he's a TD of my constituency.

Morgase

I just read that now, Faith. How frustrating is it that our representatives think that they know better than the European Court of Human Rights, numerous referenda, and medical professionals. The arrogance!

Ickle Magoo

So it has been put to the people and the elected representatives are deliberately sitting on that result to try to quash any legislation being brought in to reflect the views of those people - and they think that's what passes for democracy?

Outstanding.

seamus

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So it has been put to the people and the elected representatives are deliberately sitting on that result to try to quash any legislation being brought in to reflect the views of those people - and they think that's what passes for democracy?

I can recall at the time of the 2002 referendum, Bertie Ahern promised the the Government would swiftly act on putting in place whatever legislation and governmental organs would be required to uphold the will of the people.

When it was defeated, he expressed regret that it was defeated and then quickly moved to silence any calls to fufill his promise to legislate for the will of the people.

Ten years on, I can smell another referendum on this. The main political parties probably won't be able to come to an agreement about legislation, so the only way to resolve the deadlock without collapsing the government is to put it to referendum.
Of course, since any referendum must include the option to make no change the constitution, they could end up back at square one. But at least then they would be forced to acknowledge that they have to legislate.

A 3-choice referendum seems the most logical;

- Clarify that suicide is grounds for abortion
- Clarify that suicide is not grounds for abortion
- Change nothing and legislate.

Piste

analucija wrote: »

The direct democracy in Switzerland decided minarets should be banned because they don't match alpine architecture. From experience with pointless referdums I can say they especially attract partisan voters who have no idea what they are voting for or against. Personally I don't think it works.

Yes it's a bit extreme in Switzerland- I wouldn't like everything to go to referendum, just certain pieces of legislation. I'm sure smarter people than I could determine what would be suitable for referendum and what wouldn't.

Morag

2/3 of the pictures used in Those ads break the T&C they were sold under and the 3rd one they never bought the right to use it.


http://redlemonade.blogspot.ie/2012/07/terms-and-conditions-tear-your-ads-apart_25.html

The girl in their billboards whose life is supposedly being "torn apart" is from iStockphoto, which you might say is all well and good, until you have a look at their terms and conditions. Namely, their Content License Agreement and the list of prohibited uses.

One of which is as follows:

use or display any Content that features a model or person in a manner (a) that would lead a reasonable person to think that such person uses or personally endorses any business, product, service, cause, association or other endeavour; or (b) except where accompanied by a statement that indicates that the Content is being used for illustrative purposes only and any person depicted in the Content is a model, that depicts such person in a potentially sensitive subject matter, including, but not limited to mental and physical health issues, social issues, sexual or implied sexual activity or preferences, substance abuse, crime, physical or mental abuse or ailments, or any other subject matter that would be reasonably likely to be offensive or unflattering to any person reflected in the Content, unless the Content itself clearly and undisputedly reflects the model or person in such potentially sensitive subject matter in which case the Content may be used or displayed in a manner that portrays the model or person in the same context and to the same degree depicted in the Content itself

I don't know about you, but I certainly don't see a disclaimer anywhere on that billboard.

So V For Vendetta contacted the photographer to let him know that his work was being used in a way that violated iStockphoto's terms and conditions, as well as the rights of his model. The photographer replied, thanking him and agreed that his work should not be used in this manner, also saying that he would get in touch with iStockphoto to see what they could do about the situation.

This news in turn inspired the Bear and I to get all Jessica Fletcher on the other two ads being paraded around the city. So here's what we found.


Well hello you! Yet another iStock image, also violating the site's terms and conditions. There was no contact information for the photographer in this case, so I contacted iStock directly to let them know and got this reply:

Thank you for contacting us.

Please know that we take the rights of our contributors and their models very seriously. We are aware of this situation and are currently working on it. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to send this our way.

It was signed off by a woman from a department called "Compliance Enforcement", which I LOVE the sound of. In my head she goes around kicking doors down and shouting "COMPLY OR DIE, BITCHES!" at nefarious types. Anyway, this leaves the third and final ad. And guess what? We found that photo too!


In this case, the photo in question is the work of an award-winning Swedish photographer and scientist called Lennart Nilsson. Here's an interesting fact about his work that appears on his Wikipedia page:

Although claiming to show the living fetus, Nilsson actually photographed aborted material obtained from women who terminated their pregnancies under Swedish law. Working with dead embryos allowed Nilsson to experiment with lighting, background and positions, such as placing the thumb into the fetus’ mouth. But the origin of the pictures was rarely mentioned, even by 'pro-life' activists, who in the 1970s appropriated these icons.

It doesn't necessarily mean that the photo above is from a terminated pregnancy, but in fairness, it makes it a pretty strong possibility. We got in touch with the Scandanavian photo agency that handles the rights and sale of Nilsson's work, with a link to the above ad using his photo and here's the reply we got:

Thank you very much for sharing this information with us
I look into this and will contact the company because we have not made this sales.


Of course, we haven't heard anything since, as it's between the photo agencies and Youth Defence now. At the very least, I imagine that YD are going to get landed with a massive bill for this, and the Nilsson photo in particular, as I somehow doubt that the work of a world famous photographer comes cheap. I know that they're a ridiculously well funded group, what with their connections to big anti-choice entities in the US, but the fact that we might have managed to cost them a chunk of their money while they peddle misinformation and lies makes me very happy indeed.

MastiffMrs

I've seen these ads at different stations on my train journey,find them very inappropriate and bad taste. Makes me feel that Ireland as a country is supposed to agree with the ads-there aren't any for the opposing side.
I look at the picture of the foetus&imagine how awful it must be for any woman who's had to go through an abortion to see that picture every morning&evening.
They should not have been allowed to be put up, i'll be writing a similar letter to the ones mentioned here in earlier posts.
Hate that politicians care more about their votes than the lives&feelings of real people who have to go through an abortion. The women who came forward recently were so emotional&honest,its a disgrace that they were not taken seriously by men in government.

Morag

If you've not signed this petition, please consider doing so.

http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/the-irish-government-legislate-for-the-x-case-before-the-end-of-2012

Morgase

Last night a woman describing herself as "campaigning against abortion" called to our door. She had pamphlets with something about the evils of birth control on it. I didn't speak to her myself, my boyfriend did, and he pretty much just closed the door on her without taking a leaflet.

Just a heads-up in case it's not merely an isolated incident and anybody wants to be prepared. I don't know if it was a member of Youth Defence or some other group though.

Kooli

Morgase wrote: »

Last night a woman describing herself as "campaigning against abortion" called to our door. She had pamphlets with something about the evils of birth control on it. I didn't speak to her myself, my boyfriend did, and he pretty much just closed the door on her without taking a leaflet.

Just a heads-up in case it's not merely an isolated incident and anybody wants to be prepared. I don't know if it was a member of Youth Defence or some other group though.

Wooooooah!

I really don't know if I'd be able to contain my rage if this happens. How F**king dare they.

Morag

Yep I know two people who had visits from them on a Sunday, roughly after Mass.
One in Mayo and the other in Dublin.

mackg

My housemate answered the door to them a while ago in Cork, not sure when it was because he only mentioned it to me when we were talking about the pro life signs that were around. They were trying to get him to sign some petition. Group was two middle aged women and a priest. He refused to sign and one of the women got a bit aggro and started going on about how they are "killing babies". Priest looked mortified and was trying to get her to shut up and go, housemate just closed the door at that point.

seeing_ie

These are the kind of people funding this billboard campaign.

http://jezebel.com/5936611/the-doctor-who-taught-todd-akin-all-about-legitimate-rape-is-a-real-guy-and-hes-crazy

American evangelicals.

Literally batsh1t crazy and we're allowing them to export it here now.

Wibbs

To be fair S we hardly need to import right wing religious types. We've been growing our own for a very long time.

Kooli

Just seeing Morgase's post now.

Kooli wrote: »

I really don't know if I'd be able to contain my rage if this happens. How F**king dare they.

+1000 I'm not sure if I could be polite enough to just close the door and walk away.

Morgase

Morgase wrote: »

Last night a woman describing herself as "campaigning against abortion" called to our door. She had pamphlets with something about the evils of birth control on it. I didn't speak to her myself, my boyfriend did, and he pretty much just closed the door on her without taking a leaflet.

Just a heads-up in case it's not merely an isolated incident and anybody wants to be prepared. I don't know if it was a member of Youth Defence or some other group though.

Happened to my mother back in 1980 when she was heavily pregnant, campaigners at the door nodded approvingly and said "Well we know which side you're on!" and my ma blew a fuse (hardly the calmest woman at any time), how dare they assume, that just because she was happy to be pregnant, by her husband, with her second child, that she wouldn't support the right to choose for herself or any other woman? It seems to be so black and white with these people, anyone pro choice will automatically have an abortion, and if abortion is legalised, all pregnant women countrywide will be rounded up and forced to abort. The stupids, it just makes my head implode.