Protest outside NUIG

lion_bar

Anyone know why those 3 people are protesting outside NUIG?
Just curious...

biko

No signs or anything?

zarquon

Having to go back to lectures after Rag Week?

Shady Tady

Think they are part of that jailbreak thing where you go as far away from your college without funds!

zarquon

Shady Tady wrote: »

Think they are part of that jailbreak thing where you go as far away from your college without funds!

Why would they be protesting then?

Savin

I asked them last week, IIRC...

They are affiliated to the nuig prolife society "protesting in a personal capacity". Each time they put up prolife society posters about the campus they are torn down by either students or on opposing society. They are protesting that particular members of staff to take action to prevent it.

This may or may not be comprehensive so take it with a pinch of salt...

renegademaster

there were 3/4 individuals protesting the other day about not being able to display anti-choice meetings in the college without their promotional material being taken down

Storm 10

There are about six outside the University at the moment with large placards, could not make them out while driving.

lion_bar

there was something about "posters" on their placards, but couldn't read it as I went past.
Thanks

renegademaster

Storm 10 wrote: »

There are about six outside the University at the moment with large placards, could not make them out while driving.

lol

Squeeonline

Probably members of that well known Mayo family. They are horrible human beings.

Foxx92

Savin wrote: »

Each time they put up prolife society posters about the campus they are torn down by either students or on opposing society. They are protesting that particular members of staff to take action to prevent it.

This may or may not be comprehensive so take it with a pinch of salt...

The su already decided its stance on the issue: Article Here . But it is being appealed on the next su votes http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/index.php/component/k2/item/886-su-weekly-email-20th-february-2014

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

The su already decided its stance on the issue: Article Here . But it is being appealed on the next su votes http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/index.php/component/k2/item/886-su-weekly-email-20th-february-2014

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

renegademaster

zarquon wrote: »

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

absolutely nothing you can do about people taking down posters, as soon as they're put up and you walk away any randomer can take it down a second later

oh and btw the big bad world is a majority dictatorship

Laviski

unless your walking by the notice board on a daily basis doesn't matter what you put up.

someone will always be quick enough to take it down and replace it with their own.

dilallio

zarquon wrote: »

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

When I was 12 (many years ago), pro-lifers were let into our secondary school and were allowed to display a glass jar containing a dead foetus floating in liquid to the first year classes.

I now have no time for these people no matter how good (or naive) their intentions are. Even today, their methods are awful and they have no hesitation in showing disturbing images to young children on Shop Street.

renegademaster

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

When I was 12 (many years ago), pro-lifers were let into our secondary school and were allowed to display a glass jar containing a dead foetus floating in liquid to the first year classes.

I now have no time for these people no matter how good (or naive) their intentions are. Even today, their methods are awful and they have no hesitation in showing disturbing images to young children on Shop Street.

one of them tried to get up in my face on shop st because i was pointing out to them all that they were breaking the litter by-laws of galway by giving out flyers, how i lol'd in the guys face as he tried to physically intimidate me, that really gets under my skin (i was bullied in school) so i had a word in his ear and he backed away quick enough!!

Mrs OBumble

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

The truth (about anything, not just this) often is offensive.

I suspect you mean graphic rather than offensive.

Personally I find the idea of a university suppressing any ideas far more offensive that I will ever find pictures of babies on either side of the birth canal. (Even ones with three heads and no vital organs - yes, it happens.)

Das Kitty

This was always the case in NUIG where postering locations are always packed. People cover and pull down other people's posters. People are probably making a sport out of pulling down the prolife ones, especially now as they're out protesting.

Foxx92

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

Just from what I've seen some of the material is more condescending than graphic, stuff like "Would you kill a baby" and the likes. In saying that, there is a lot of pro-life posters that arrange debates on the issue and don't resort to that. Equally, a lot of pro-choice posters get taken down (not by the college).

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

Just from what I've seen some of the material is more condescending than graphic, stuff like "Would you kill a baby" and the likes. In saying that, there is a lot of pro-life posters that arrange debates on the issue and don't resort to that. Equally, a lot of pro-choice posters get taken down (not by the college).

Whilst very childish, if one side of a debate resorts to taken down collateral from the opposing side then some "tit for tat" is fair play i.e. rather than protesting the pro-lifers should just return the favour and take down the pro-choice material considering that is what was done to them

In a democratic country where free speech should be available i do hate this atitude of trying to control message to the masses because the authorities simply disagree. Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Foxx92

zarquon wrote: »

In a democratic country where free speech should be available i do hate this atitude of trying to control message to the masses because the authorities simply disagree. Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Yeah, agree with you there. Although, resorting to basically insulting somebody because of their view on a topic that is not so black and white is annoying.

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

Yeah, agree with you there. Although, resorting to basically insulting somebody because of their view on a topic that is not so black and white is annoying.

This happens in every facet of life whether your a capitalist/socialist, FF/FG, smoker/non smoker etc. Both sides always see the other as offensive condescending, insulting etc and this will never change. You will always be annoyed if you are on the receiving end.

What is wrong though is when one side tries to oppress the other through existing power.

Whatever side i agree with on this, both the pro-life and pro-choice should be allowed to campaign equally. Their material is equally offensive to the other side so that is not a basis for the undemocratic removal of posters.

dilallio

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The truth (about anything, not just this) often is offensive.

I suspect you mean graphic rather than offensive.

Personally I find the idea of a university suppressing any ideas far more offensive that I will ever find pictures of babies on either side of the birth canal. (Even ones with three heads and no vital organs - yes, it happens.)

Yes - graphic describes what I meant better.

inisboffin

zarquon wrote: »

What is wrong though is when one side tries to oppress the other through existing power.
.

Yup this is wrong. A Government is an existing power too. Right to choice is right to life. No one should be forced to have or not have abortions...

renegademaster

inisboffin wrote: »

Yup this is wrong. A Government is an existing power too. Right to choice is right to life. No one should be forced to have or not have abortions...

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

zarquon

renegademaster wrote: »

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

Umm, you seem to lack objectivity......lets be clear here, both sides are forcing their own viewpoint in the debate and that's how debate works!

BTW how does removing prolife material from the college and banning official support of prolife NOT constitute forcing a pro-choice viewpoint :rolleyes:

It seems to me that while that both sides are trying to force opinion, one side in particular is acting more forceably right now despite your unsupported stance to the contrary

renegademaster

zarquon wrote: »

Umm, you seem to lack objectivity......lets be clear here, both sides are forcing their own viewpoint in the debate and that's how debate works!

BTW how does removing prolife material from the college and banning official support of prolife NOT constitute forcing a pro-choice viewpoint :rolleyes:

It seems to me that while that both sides are trying to force opinion, one side in particular is acting more forceably right now despite your unsupported stance to the contrary

ok, let's be real clear, opinion is one thing but actively encouraging the illegality of abortion over allowing people to choose whether they have an abortion or not, is not a debate

zarquon

renegademaster wrote: »

ok, let's be real clear, opinion is one thing but actively encouraging the illegality of abortion over allowing people to choose whether they have an abortion or not, is not a debate

I think you'll find it is a debate. Proposing to keep an existing law in lieu of a constitutional change is very much a debate. It is nonsensical to say that someone who opposes your belief is not engaging in debate just because you happen to disagree with them. You are entitled to your opinion though and the ability to express it, it's just a shame that you feel those who oppose your opinion do not deserve the right to express or put forward their opinions or proposals.

People need to make up their mind whether they want to live in a democratic or dictorial society. Just look at eastern europe and the middle east to see how the latter functions and decide if that's the type of society you want to live in.

The term pro-choice is laughable. It is really "pro-abortion choice". Pro choice as a general term points to democratic choice which is being forcibly removed from NUIG as the moment therefore it's really "pro choice if you agree with the powers that be" otherwise it's "anti-choice" to practice what you believe.

inisboffin

renegademaster wrote: »

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

I think if you reread what I said you'll find there is agreement.

inisboffin

zarquon wrote: »

.
The term pro-choice is laughable. It is really "pro-abortion choice". Pro choice as a general term points to democratic choice which is being forcibly removed from NUIG as the moment therefore it's really "pro choice if you agree with the powers that be" otherwise it's "anti-choice" to practice what you believe.

Whether we like it or not, two 'arguments' are creeping into this thread. One is the actual 'pro-choice vs pro-life' debate (and arguably the latter name is an even dafter name for a 'side'). The other is the discussion whether or not removing materials from campus is in breach of free speech. There is also the point of a SU taking a 'stance' for one side or the other. Although hard to separate these discussions, I think we have to in order to discuss on topic.

h2005

zarquon wrote: »

I think you'll find it is a debate. Proposing to keep an existing law in lieu of a constitutional change is very much a debate. It is nonsensical to say that someone who opposes your belief is not engaging in debate just because you happen to disagree with them. You are entitled to your opinion though and the ability to express it, it's just a shame that you feel those who oppose your opinion do not deserve the right to express or put forward their opinions or proposals.

People need to make up their mind whether they want to live in a democratic or dictorial society. Just look at eastern europe and the middle east to see how the latter functions and decide if that's the type of society you want to live in.

The term pro-choice is laughable. It is really "pro-abortion choice". Pro choice as a general term points to democratic choice which is being forcibly removed from NUIG as the moment therefore it's really "pro choice if you agree with the powers that be" otherwise it's "anti-choice" to practice what you believe.

Pro-choice is pretty straight forward for me. You can either choose to or choose not to have an abortion. Not much else to it.

Ficheall

I would have voted against the referendum last year, though I am pro-choice.
Firstly, the main idea was to change the SU's stance from being "neutral" to being "pro-choice". I don't see what exactly the difference is, as far as the information provided is concerned.
Secondly, there was no clear definition of what was being voted on - full reproductive rights? What are they? "Well, y'know... a woman's right to have an abortion and stuff..."
And the "every available measure" which the SU were to take to enforce this right - no details as to what that might entail either. If anyone could link to more information on either of these this time around, it would be much appreciated.
Thirdly, you can get some right eejits "representing" the student body - as with politicians in general, I suppose... It's an important issue though, and I'd hate to see it degraded by tactics such as "Come march with us against abortion and get a free goodie bag..."*



*In reference to free goodie bags offered to those who attended previous marches for free fees.

Squeeonline

I am also pro-choice and didn't like the idea of the SU taking a side on this. The first referendum was terribly worded but I didn't want to be against it because then I'd be one of them.

If the anti-choice side had won the first referendum, I couldn't have lived with myself. I know a lot of people felt the same way. They didn't want to be seen to be on the same side as that prominent Mayo family or people who display graphic/disturbing images on shop street.

Ficheall wrote: »

I would have voted against the referendum last year, though I am pro-choice.
Firstly, the main idea was to change the SU's stance from being "neutral" to being "pro-choice". I don't see what exactly the difference is, as far as the information provided is concerned.
Secondly, there was no clear definition of what was being voted on - full reproductive rights? What are they? "Well, y'know... a woman's right to have an abortion and stuff..."
And the "every available measure" which the SU were to take to enforce this right - no details as to what that might entail either. If anyone could link to more information on either of these this time around, it would be much appreciated.
Thirdly, you can get some right eejits "representing" the student body - as with politicians in general, I suppose... It's an important issue though, and I'd hate to see it degraded by tactics such as "Come march with us against abortion and get a free goodie bag..."*



*In reference to free goodie bags offered to those who attended previous marches for free fees.

Mrs OBumble

h2005 wrote: »

Pro-choice is pretty straight forward for me. You can either choose to or choose not to have an abortion. Not much else to it.

But Irish women already have that. They simply have to fly to England to exercise the first option.

Which makes me think it's more complicated than that.

renegademaster

renegademaster wrote: »

ok, let's be real clear, opinion is one thing but actively encouraging the illegality of abortion over allowing people to choose whether they have an abortion or not, is not a debate

There are a lot of things that we don't have a choice in and a lot of people believe abortion should remain one of them. Life threatening situations for the mother are obviously a different matter.

zarquon

So is the SU taking a pro euthanasia stance or is the right to choose to end a life only deemed more convenient at one end of the life spectrum.

ben.schlomo

zarquon wrote: »

So is the SU taking a pro euthanasia stance or is the right to choose to end a life only deemed more convenient at one end of the life spectrum.

Really should take your agenda to a different thread.

zarquon

ben.schlomo wrote: »

Really should take your agenda to a different thread.

Because you disagree with it? Seriously it's bad enough that the SU and students are removing material they disagree with but now on a public forum those aligned with the SU by means of being of the same opinion are now telling people to move out of threads discussing the issue? I have as much right to post in this thread as you do!

It seems that a cohort of people do not like democratic process. If only Enda Kenny was more like Adolf Hitler, i'm sure Ireland would be much more progressive then :rolleyes:

ben.schlomo

zarquon wrote: »

Because you disagree with it? Seriously it's bad enough that the SU and students are removing material they disagree with but now on a public forum those aligned with the SU by means of being of the same opinion are now telling people to move out of threads discussing the issue? I have as much right to post in this thread as you do!

It seems that a cohort of people do not like democratic process. If only Enda Kenny was more like Adolf Hitler, i'm sure Ireland would be much more progressive then :rolleyes:

You do like a rant and an overreaction dont you, oh and a :rolleyes:. This thread is about the protest and what theyre protesting about, its not about the NUI SU or euthanasia or agendas that arent in line with yours. You are derailing it with your ramblings and as has been said by students in NUI material from both sides is regularly removed, are you a student, does it affect you in some way or is just affecting just your religious beliefs. As for my suggestion, you should move your pro life stuff to an appropriate thread in a forum designed for it, politics maybe. That make it easier for you? Cue the :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Redhairedguy

Let's keep this discussion focused ladies and gents. The topic of pro-life vs. pro-choice is much bigger than is able for the auld Galway forum. NUIG... SU... free speech... agendas... That's all fair game.

WallyGUFC

Where is the evidence that the SU has removed posters, and that the pro-life crowd have done the same? Maybe it's just students doing it themselves, without any affiliation to the SU. Maybe it's drunken people stumbling home through the college at 3 in the morning.

Also, why do the SU even have a stance on this? Surely they should just be neutral. Posters up now saying there's another referendum soon to change the stance back to neutral.

Why were the protesting outside rather than in front of quad or library?
Are they students?

I'm not sure what the college or students union can do to stop people tearing down others posters.

Mike747

There was a poster up today: 'anti-women, anti-gay, pro-life bigots go away'.

I don't follow the logic, how does being pro-life make you anti-gay?

Squeeonline

Mike747 wrote: »

There was a poster up today: 'anti-women, anti-gay, pro-life bigots go away'.

I don't follow the logic, how does being pro-life make you anti-gay?

The implication is that largely those who hold one conservative value frequently hold at least one more.

Wompa1

Squeeonline wrote: »

The implication is that largely those who hold one conservative value frequently hold at least one more.

Yeah that's what's being implied. It's offensive, tear it down I say! Tear it down!

Isn't there a way that both sides can be dissatisfied?

Redhairedguy

Wompa1 wrote: »

Isn't there a way that both sides can be dissatisfied?

Bring back the floods!!!

endacl

inisboffin wrote: »

Whether we like it or not, two 'arguments' are creeping into this thread. One is the actual 'pro-choice vs pro-life' debate (and arguably the latter name is an even dafter name for a 'side'). The other is the discussion whether or not removing materials from campus is in breach of free speech. There is also the point of a SU taking a 'stance' for one side or the other. Although hard to separate these discussions, I think we have to in order to discuss on topic.

It could of course be argued that taking down the posters is an act of free speech.

inisboffin

endacl wrote: »

It could of course be argued that taking down the posters is an act of free speech.

It could.

emt16

Deleted User wrote: »

Why were the protesting outside rather than in front of quad or library?
Are they students?

I'm not sure what the college or students union can do to stop people tearing down others posters.

From what I heard, they are protesting outside the Quad so that the vice president of student experience sees them on a daily basis and changes the poster policy i.e. gets someone to police the erection of posters.

The only thing is, the vice president is on sick leave

Robbo

emt16 wrote: »

From what I heard, they are protesting outside the Quad so that the vice president of student experience sees them on a daily basis and changes the poster policy i.e. gets someone to police the erection of posters.

The only thing is, the vice president is on sick leave

You'll get that alright from that lot, erection policing. Be pure, be vigilant, behave.