NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

Truley

News article here http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1205/491018-nuig-legion-mary/

NUI Galway have suspended the Legion of Mary from operating as a college society following complaints over homophobic posters they distributed on campus.

Personally I'm happy to see this action taken by the University.

Authorities at the National University of Ireland in Galway have suspended the Legion of Mary as a college society.
A4-sized posters that triggered the suspension of the organisation were placed on a noticeboard outside the library reading room last week.
The poster in question was from a grouping calling itself the Courage Community.
It invited people with "same sex attractions" to "develop an interior life of chastity ... to move beyond the confines of the homosexual label to a more complete identity in Christ".
The poster stated that this "purity matters initiative" was in conjunction with the NUIG Legion of Mary society.
NUI Galway says it is committed to protecting the liberty and equality of all students.
It reviewed the actions of the society in the context of the University's code of conduct and policies governing harassment.
This led to the immediate suspension of the Legion of Mary. It is understood the society had only a handful of members.
In the region of 70 complaints were received.

mud

Was this the "pray away the gay" crowd?

Glad the university stepped in.

errlloyd

I actually don't understand religious societies on campuses at all these days. It would actually be incredibly easy for them be popular. College students have such low expectations of the church that all they have to do is be a little bit nice and they will probably impress people. Instead they seem to take it as challenge to exceed people's already incredibly low expectations, something they are incredibly ****ing good at it.

I think the Chaplain in Trinity (I didn't go there) is pretty sound with the old advice and free soup stuff, more of that, less of the killing of the gays.

LoonyLovegood

I'm an NUIG student, and I'm glad they were banned because of this particular incident. But I have to admit, while I'm not religious, the chaplancy here is fantastic with helping people with any issues they have.

Daqster

Someone should get one those big outdoor projection kits and screen Where The Boys Aren't 7 on the largest walls on the NUIG campus, on a Sunday.

WilyCoyote

Legion Of Mary? How did they achieve such prominence? A single mother who had her husband cuckholded by a ghost. And a cult built around her. Truly amazing the power of the mind. Jesus H Christ!

padd b1975

errlloyd wrote: »

I actually don't understand religious societies on campuses at all these days. It would actually be incredibly easy for them be popular. College students have such low expectations of the church that all they have to do is be a little bit nice and they will probably impress people. Instead they seem to take it as challenge to exceed people's already incredibly low expectations, something they are incredibly ****ing good at it.

I think the Chaplain in Trinity (I didn't go there) is pretty sound with the old advice and free soup stuff, more of that, less of the killing of the gays.

How many gays have the Legion of Mary killed?

Cabaal

padd b1975 wrote: »

How many gays have the Legion of Mary killed?

Well the Bible does say that gay's should be put to death, it's the word of their god

efb

The chaplains were dead on alright. But there was a lot of crazies between the anti war, anti abortion and gaelgoirz on campus

BMJD

I wanna see a Legion Of Doom Vs Legion Of Mary deathmatch

gandalf

Hmm I thought the Legion of Mary were a fairly benign bunch. Wouldn't surprise me if you found that it was the same wacko's from Youth Defense involved with the hand of Opus Dei directing in the background.

Whoever is behind it fair play to the authorities in NUIG in nipping this particular flavour of hate crime in the bud.

cletus van damme

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outraged if somebody was silenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

Daith

I actually didn't see the fuss either. Far better than the society getting no interest whatsoever than ending it. Though I'd argue there could be room for an LGBT religious soc or inviting religious leaders to speak at the LGBT soc.

Having saying that I didn't realize Christians were supposed to live a life of chastity. How quaint.

_Redzer_

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outrage if somebody wassilenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

Freedom of speech only works until somebody is starting to be negatively affected. Freedom of speech would not permit racism or something like this.

Why this shouldn't have happened is because it makes being gay appear as something negative that can be 'fixed'. And that's ignoring the fact that these 'pray the gay away' things don't even work in the first place, so how would that affect someone who actually was gay and wasn't comfortable deal with their sexuality, tried to fix themselves and found out it wasn't working. That's not healthy.

Best to keep a positive message that it's nothing wrong in the first place and nothing needing of a fix. It's far, far healthier.

Dravokivich

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outrage if somebody wassilenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

It's not about silencing opposition ideals. It's about not endorsing them. NUIG would have been seen as party to the campaign by allowing the posters to remain on their property, posted up by a body of their students.

Benny_Cake

gandalf wrote: »

Hmm I thought the Legion of Mary were a fairly benign bunch. Wouldn't surprise me if you found that it was the same wacko's from Youth Defense involved with the hand of Opus Dei directing in the background.

Whoever is behind it fair play to the authorities in NUIG in nipping this particular flavour of hate crime in the bud.

I suspect it may be a solo run on the part of the NUIG group. I find it very hard to believe that an organisation with deep roots in Ireland such as the LoM has would get involved with this ex-gay nonsense. They would know that it would be a message that would get a frosty reception, even from more conservative types.

Shenshen

cletus van damme wrote: »

I disagree , nothing is achieved in silencing different opinions.
The same people would be outraged if somebody was silenced by a tinpot dictator 1000's of miles away.
So in essence they admit they are selective in their opinions of who is entitled to free speech and dissent.

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

and based on the picture on rte.ie I don't see how a reasonable person can suggest this is harassment.

There's nobody stopping them for putting up posters like this in their own front gardens, if they so wish, or elsewhere with permission of the owner of the place.

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

Benny_Cake

cletus van damme wrote: »

I don't think anybody should have the right that their lifestyle is above reproach.
But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

Tbh these are the people who I'd be most concerned about. Despite what some may think, it is perfectly possible to be gay and Christian and to imply that young people should have to choose is cruel.

If people are struggling come to terms with their sexuality, it would be far better to provide any necessary counselling to allow them to do so and live a life of integrity.

freedominacup

Shenshen wrote: »

There's nobody stopping them for putting up posters like this in their own front gardens, if they so wish, or elsewhere with permission of the owner of the place.

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

Here it is in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with Irish people who consider themselves "liberal". You think that a university of all places should stifle ideas and debate? Off all institutions anywhere in the country a university should encourage people to express their ideas. The loony ones like those expressed in the poster in the OP will very quickly be exposed for the nonsense they are but only if they are debated.

I would be regarded by many as conservative but I'm one person you could rely on to back you regardless of how distasteful I find your views if anyone/any authority tries to shut you down, unless you are actually inciting violence. So maybe I'm a bit liberal certainly a lot more liberal than the cretins who think shutting these people down is the correct course of action.

cletus van damme

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Freedom of speech only works until somebody is starting to be negatively affected. Freedom of speech would not permit racism or something like this.

Why this shouldn't have happened is because it makes being gay appear as something negative that can be 'fixed'. And that's ignoring the fact that these 'pray the gay away' things don't even work in the first place, so how would that affect someone who actually was gay and wasn't comfortable deal with their sexuality, tried to fix themselves and found out it wasn't working. That's not healthy.

Best to keep a positive message that it's nothing wrong in the first place and nothing needing of a fix. It's far, far healthier.

I don't disagree much with you tbh.

But I think they are entitled to claim that being gay is somewhat negative - being critical of a section of society isn't a terrible thing.

They appear in the case to do it in a quite benign way - which is essentially my point I can't see it as harassment.

as for offering a service that mightn't work - they wouldn't be the only ones, in fairness.
Are we going to ban all cults / religious or Weight watchers(!) for false advertising?

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's not about silencing opposition ideals. It's about not endorsing them. NUIG would have been seen as party to the campaign by allowing the posters to remain on their property, posted up by a body of their students.

I see your point. But NUIG allow a host of of varied groups to poster at will.
They singled this one cos the group don't agree with their ideals.

Saying "i'm don't think this life is a good one " is perfectly reasonable as it wasn't in an aggressive threatening manner.

If it's a gay rights Issue then I'd argue that for true gay rights - it has to happen naturally without enforcement and allow for people to be critical.

GLaDOS

cletus van damme wrote: »

But this is aimed at gay people who are religious and struggling with that internal conflict - why not allow an avenue for them . They clearly exist.

"Pray out the Gay" isn't a solution, it's a harmful exercise where people are basically told what they are isn't right and needs to be changed. It would be similar to advertising homeopathy for illnesses. You can argue that it's harmless if people want to try it, but if there's a serious issue there, not treating it properly can lead to serious problems. I know I wouldn't want to be seen endorsing something like that.

Daith

cletus van damme wrote: »

But I think they are entitled to claim that being gay is somewhat negative - being critical of a section of society isn't a terrible thing.

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

Dravokivich

cletus van damme wrote: »

I see your point. But NUIG allow a host of of varied groups to poster at will.
They singled this one cos the group don't agree with their ideals.

Saying "i'm don't think this life is a good one " is perfectly reasonable as it wasn't in an aggressive threatening manner.

If it's a gay rights Issue then I'd argue that for true gay rights - it has to happen naturally without enforcement and allow for people to be critical.

The content does not need to be expressed in a direct and vulgar manner for it to be considered aggressive. There were a multitude of complaints in regards to the campaign and the general feedback received by NUIG appeared to be as follows:

"The Societies Chairperson at the University, Patrick O'Flaherty, said he had been contacted by a number of students who were upset or felt threatened by the content of the poster."

If there were such issue's with other poster campaigns that had similar affects to students at NUIG, I'd expect NUIG to react in a similar manner on behalf and in consideration of their students.

freedominacup

Daith wrote: »

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

Absolutely, I'd even throw a few cent in the collection bucket, it's always good to see youngsters getting involved in social activities. It's your opinion and you're entitled to express it and I'm entitled to engage you in debate about if I wish or to just as publically dismiss your beliefs as the mis-informed ramblings of a weak mind, to which you're entitled to counter with anything you like as long as you're not encouraging people to physically attack me.

Phoebas

Shenshen wrote: »

NUIG are well within their rights to restrict what can be said and shown within their own buildings.

They're a public organisation, so they aren't (or at least shouldn't be) within their rights to restrict free speech.

golfball37

This is a joke. Liberals believe they have a monopoly on idealism when in fact whats happened in here in NUIG, whether you agree or not with the LOM, is closer to facism than anything pertaining to Liberalism.

cletus van damme

Daith wrote: »

Sorry the fcuk?

If I set up a Atheist group who's message is to convert those backwards religious people because that's a negative thing that would be fine with you?

don't they exist already?
But yes.
Saying "I don't agree" isn't a bad thing - we can debate it out.
even prove them wrong.
I might not agree with them but I support their right to have an opinion and express it without censor.
you can be as critical in return.

Is that a bad thing?

freedominacup

Dravokivich wrote: »

The content does not need to be expressed in a direct and vulgar manner for it to be considered aggressive. There were a multitude of complaints in regards to the campaign and the general feedback received by NUIG appeared to be as follows:

"The Societies Chairperson at the University, Patrick O'Flaherty, said he had been contacted by a number of students who were upset or felt threatened by the content of the poster."

If there were such issue's with other poster campaigns that had similar affects to students at NUIG, I'd expect NUIG to react in a similar manner on behalf and in consideration of their students.

That number of students should cowboy the f**k up.

Dravokivich

freedominacup wrote: »

That number of students should cowboy the f**k up.

I believe that was the Legion of Mary's problem with them in the first place.

Daith

cletus van damme wrote: »

don't they exist already?
But yes.
Saying "I don't agree" isn't a bad thing - we can debate it out.
even prove them wrong.
I might not agree with them but I support their right to have an opinion and express it without censor.
you can be as critical in return.

Is that a bad thing?

Ok that's the issue. As an independent society they have the right. As a society on campus their rights come from the college itself. They don't have a right to do anything.

They are more than welcome to setup their own independent group if they want.

padd b1975

freedominacup wrote: »

Here it is in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with Irish people who consider themselves "liberal". You think that ua university of all places should stifle ideas and debate? Off all institutions anywhere in the country a university shIould encourage people to express their ideas. The loony ones like those expressed in the poster in the OP will very quickly be exposed for the nonsense they are but only if they are debated.

I would be regarded by many as conservative but I'm one person you could rely on to back you regardless of how distasteful I find your views if anyone/any authority tries to shut you down, unless you are actually inciting violence. So maybe I'm a bit liberal certainly a lot more liberal than the cretins who think shutting these people down is the correct course of action.

+1.

I have come to the conclusion that there are no true liberals in Ireland, just a gang of loonies who jump subjectively onto whatever populist bandwagon is passing on any given day and then proceed to shout down at anyone that dares to express a different opinion.

freedominacup

Daith wrote: »

Ok that's the issue. As an independent society they have the right. As a society on campus their rights come from the college itself. They don't have a right to do anything.

They are more than welcome to setup their own independent group if they want.

And the college itself need a better reason than "we don't like what they are saying", or the fact that a few students were upset by something to ban it.
College is about the interchange of ideas above all not just the promotion of certain viewpoints.

tigger123

freedominacup wrote: »

That number of students should cowboy the f**k up.

How do you mean? They should be tougher and just take the homophobic sentiments on the chin?

Shenshen

freedominacup wrote: »

Here it is in a nutshell, everything that's wrong with Irish people who consider themselves "liberal". You think that a university of all places should stifle ideas and debate? Off all institutions anywhere in the country a university should encourage people to express their ideas. The loony ones like those expressed in the poster in the OP will very quickly be exposed for the nonsense they are but only if they are debated.

I would be regarded by many as conservative but I'm one person you could rely on to back you regardless of how distasteful I find your views if anyone/any authority tries to shut you down, unless you are actually inciting violence. So maybe I'm a bit liberal certainly a lot more liberal than the cretins who think shutting these people down is the correct course of action.

Well, I'm neither Irish nor would I call myself "liberal".
Yes, a university should encourage the exchange of ideas, and no, it should not value one opinion over another without reason or evidence.

But it also needs to ensure that the students attending can do so in a positive and encouraging atmosphere.
And it does have every right to not allow certain campaigns to take place within its walls if it feels that this will negatively affect their students.

_Redzer_

cletus van damme wrote: »

I don't disagree much with you tbh.

But I think they are entitled to claim that being gay is somewhat negative - being critical of a section of society isn't a terrible thing.

They appear in the case to do it in a quite benign way - which is essentially my point I can't see it as harassment.

as for offering a service that mightn't work - they wouldn't be the only ones, in fairness.
Are we going to ban all cults / religious or Weight watchers(!) for false advertising?



I see your point. But NUIG allow a host of of varied groups to poster at will.
They singled this one cos the group don't agree with their ideals.

Saying "i'm don't think this life is a good one " is perfectly reasonable as it wasn't in an aggressive threatening manner.

If it's a gay rights Issue then I'd argue that for true gay rights - it has to happen naturally without enforcement and allow for people to be critical.

What if they were negatively screeching about black people being beneath them and not wanting them around. Would that be treated differently?

No it wouldn't be tolerated either because it's wrong. There's no difference between that example and the one in NUIG.

You can have an opinion, but your opinion can be wrong and you don't always get a right to air it to the deferment of others. I'd expect a pro-sexist and racist society to be shut down just as quickly.

Shenshen

Phoebas wrote: »

They're a public organisation, so they aren't (or at least shouldn't be) within their rights to restrict free speech.

Er... no, actually. As a public organisation, they are actually obliged to restrict free speech if it negatively affects people in their charge, in this case their students.

errlloyd

The problem is that while giving a small percentage of gay people the option to seek help in prayer, it is indirectly telling all the other gay people they have some sort of problem and they should be aiming to "fix" themselves.

With the massive level of depression in the same - sex community, it is really playing to the vulnerabilities of the most vulnerable students in the college.

Imagine beauty soc put up a poster advertising skin bleaching for black people. Something like "wanna feel beautiful, why not get your skin bleached?" now skin bleaching whitening is a pretty normal thing in certain parts of the world, but if you advertised it here it would be an indirect way of saying "being black is not okay, it's something you should try fix"

Daith

freedominacup wrote: »

And the college itself need a better reason than "we don't like what they are saying", or the fact that a few students were upset by something to ban it.

That's not their reason. They're actually reason is that it goes against Irish law and against the University's code of conduct.

http://www.thejournal.ie/galway-purity-society-suspended-1207203-Dec2013/

“NUI Galway is committed to protecting the liberty and equality of all students and does not condone such behaviour,” the university said in a statement.

“”NUI Galway has a pluralist ethos and will not condone the production and dissemination of any material by students which discriminates against other students. Discrimination or implied or direct harassment, on the basis of sexual orientation and/or religion, is contrary to Irish and European law.

“The Vice-President for the Student Experience initiated a process of enquiry to review the actions of the Society in question in the context of the University code of conduct, the University policy on harassment and Irish and European equality law.”

Dravokivich

freedominacup wrote: »

And the college itself need a better reason than "we don't like what they are saying", or the fact that a few students were upset by something to ban it.
College is about the interchange of ideas above all not just the promotion of certain viewpoints.

It's about specialising and gaining advanced knowledge of various subjects.

There also appears to have been further issues with this Legion of Mary group.

"As part of the application to become a fully-fledged society, its committee was asked to provide information as to its aims and objectives.

This did not happen. Concerns about the lack of clarification contributed to the decision to suspend the society. "

This isn't the battle of Freedom of Speech you make it out to seem.

_Redzer_

freedominacup wrote: »

And the college itself need a better reason than "we don't like what they are saying", or the fact that a few students were upset by something to ban it.
College is about the interchange of ideas above all not just the promotion of certain viewpoints.

This is such an idiotic point. Should we all exchange ideas of racism and sexism too to promote certain viewpoints?

Eh, no.

freedominacup

tigger123 wrote: »

How do you mean? They should be tougher and just take the homophobic sentiments on the chin?

No that should be tougher and engage the fools expressing the homophobic sentiments head on and expose their nonsense for what it is rather than going running to mammy to complain about the bold girls hurting their feelings. They should have left that at home when packed their bags and headed for college.

Khannie

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Freedom of speech only works until somebody is starting to be negatively affected.

That's not true. Not at all. I believe that people are free to say things that I don't like, whether they upset me or not. My viewpoint is just that - a viewpoint. I can't say that it is categorically wrong to attempt to pray away the gay. I don't agree with it (it seems like nonsense), but that's just my viewpoint.

Khannie

_Redzer_ wrote: »

This is such an idiotic point. Should we all exchange ideas of racism and sexism too to promote certain viewpoints?

Yes. Yes we should. That way we can expose them for how ridiculous they are. What if someone decides it's time to ban something you feel strongly about? Who gets to decide what's OK to discuss and what's not?

_Redzer_

Khannie wrote: »

That's not true. Not at all. I believe that people are free to say things that I don't like, whether they upset me or not. My viewpoint is just that - a viewpoint. I can't say that it is categorically wrong to attempt to pray away the gay. I don't agree with it (it seems like nonsense), but that's just my viewpoint.

"Woman belong in the kitchen and shouldn't be allowed to vote, their place is beneath their husbands".

"Black people are inferior and should be segregated from the rest of society".

Those opinions are very much wrong. If you're using your free speech to negatively impact somebody else you've lost that right, and nobody should put up with that.

Khannie

_Redzer_ wrote: »

"Woman belong in the kitchen and shouldn't be allowed to vote, their place is beneath their husbands".

"Black people are inferior and should be segregated from the rest of society".

Those opinions are very much wrong. If you're using your free speech to negatively impact somebody else you've lost that right, and nobody should put up with that.

Agree that these things are wrong. Disagree that anyone should lose the right to say things that you personally disagree with.

freedominacup

_Redzer_ wrote: »

This is such an idiotic point. Should we all exchange ideas of racism and sexism too to promote certain viewpoints?

Eh, no.

Eh, yes. Free speech is free speech. The only limit IMO is if the speaker/publisher is actually saying that certain groups are to be attacked. I have no interest in promoting racism, sexism or homophobia but I believe the only way to expose this type of nonsense for what it is, is to engage the promoters of it in debate.

You can convince yourself of your liberal credentials if you like but if you are in favour of censorship you're kidding yourself about where you actually stand.

Christy42

Phoebas wrote: »

They're a public organisation, so they aren't (or at least shouldn't be) within their rights to restrict free speech.

So if someone were to campaign for black people to leave the college, nonviolently of course, that would be fine? Or what about a campaign for all size ten girls to start losing weight saying that is fat?

What the LOM did was bullying and hurtful. NUIG had every right and a duty to protect vulnerable students who could have been hurt by this campaign. Freedom of speech should never be a reason to allow bullying.

_Redzer_

Khannie wrote: »

Yes. Yes we should. That way we can expose them for how ridiculous they are. What if someone decides it's time to ban something you feel strongly about? Who gets to decide what's OK to discuss and what's not?

All forms of racism and segregation are wrong. It's just that easy, because honestly it is ridiculous with no logical reason behind why you should permit that.

How is letting these people offer ways to pray the gay away exposing their ridiculousness? It's just doing harm more than anything and sending negative messages. There's no redeeming that at all or spinning it in a positive light.

I Heart Internet

NUIG and the Legion of Mary are right to be concerened about this and to investigate.

The LoM becasue a small, recently emerged (this LoM group was only founded last year it seems) has taken a solo run and endorsed some questionable (to say the least) campaign/organisation.

The NUIG becase this group appears to have no formal structure - may be just a bunch of trouble makers wanting to stir discord.

Khannie

_Redzer_ wrote: »

All forms of racism and segregation are wrong. It's just that easy, because honestly it is ridiculous with no logical reason behind why you should permit that.

How is letting these people offer ways to pray the gay away exposing their ridiculousness? It's just doing harm more than anything and sending negative messages. There's no redeeming that at all or spinning it in a positive light.

We're agreed on that. What we're disagreeing on is their right to make tools of themselves.

_Redzer_

freedominacup wrote: »

Eh, yes. Free speech is free speech. The only limit IMO is if the speaker/publisher is actually saying that certain groups are to be attacked. I have no interest in promoting racism, sexism or homophobia but I believe the only way to expose this type of nonsense for what it is, is to engage the promoters of it in debate.

You can convince yourself of your liberal credentials if you like but if you are in favour of censorship you're kidding yourself about where you actually stand.

I hate how liberal is thrown around to dismiss any view as nonsense. It's quite pathetic in a debate tbh. I'm left centre and all my views are not just liberal.