Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/second-petition-to-impeach-pro-life-ucd-student-president-katie-ascough-accepted/ar-AAthFMP?li=AAmb2oK&ocid=ientp

Wonder how much of it is motivated by a decision about an ad in some University publication...and how much is motivated by opposition to her own position on abortion. If the latter, it would seem a little...wrong.

Lollipops23

I would hope it was due to the 8,000 of SU money she spent on unnecessarily reprinting the books because of her own personal views....

Lollipops23

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I would hope it was due to the 8,000 of SU money she spent on unnecessarily reprinting the books because of her own personal views....

The article suggests that that was on the basis of legal advice.

Kimbot

Deleted User wrote: »

The article suggests that that was on the basis of legal advice.

I believe that she claimed she done it because of legal advice. Its not illegal to give information regarding abortions is it??

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Grayson

jonnycivic wrote: »

I believe that she claimed she done it because of legal advice. Its not illegal to give information regarding abortions is it??

But every previous Union for years had the same advice and still printed it. Also the cost of reprinting was more than the cost of a fine. She also said before she was elected that she wouldn't change the union's pro choice stance.

So she lied about what she'd do and then spent the limited money the SU has to avoid a potential fine. A Fine that no SU has has to pay before and a fine that had not been levied. And she spent more money than the non existent fine would be.

That's grounds for impeachment.

jonnycivic

jonnycivic wrote: »

I believe that she claimed she done it because of legal advice. Its not illegal to give information regarding abortions is it??

I think it is, if the material is not sought by the recipient.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/5/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

Grayson

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She said her views wouldn't affect what she would do and that she would respect the unions pro choice stance.

.......

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

eviltwin

The cost to reprint was 8000. A fine, if there was one, would be about 2000.

She wasted money because of her own personal bias. They have every right to petition to have her impeached.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

What was the content she had removed do we know?

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Its not illegal to provide information about abortion since the 14th Amendment.

Yes it is. The Abortion Information Act specifies who can give information on abortion.

frag420

Deleted User wrote: »

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

How long has she been a student there, was she known to bring this breach of the law to the attention of the student union previously? Did she report it to anybody?

Given her background (changing her surname so as not to be identified) and what her family are involved in (IONA Inst, Youth Defence etc, just google her father) there is no doubt that if she had an issue with the content of the publication then she would have made it known loud and clear and kicked up a fuss previously...but she didn't which leads me and many to believe that this was a backhanded and cynical attempt at censorship to suit her, her family and the pro-life agenda!!

Lollipops23

There was also apparently an article in the handbook about how to remove a clamp from your car.....

....also illegal.

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

There is no way that she did not know that the information was illegal before she consulted a lawyer. And there is no way it was removed simply because it was illegal.

It was possible to rewrite the page to present the information in a legal manner. Ms Ascough refused to consider doing this.

....... wrote: »

It specifies how.

And that is information about procuring an abortion - ie, abortion services.

It is not illegal to provide web address of pregnancy help websites and the costs of abortion.

Im not sure re the abortion pills. If it was simply the medical information that they are safe/how to use them then thats not illegal either.

It gave the address for a website that provides abortion pills. That's the illegal part.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Arsemageddon

....... wrote: »

I wonder how she got elected to the position in the first place given her views?

Probably because very few people actually vote in student elections, the main reason being people involved in the SU are gobsh1tes.

Therefore, a small number of people can get their ideal candidate elected.

Arsemageddon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's simply wrong.

The 1995 legislation came after the 14th Amendment and sets out that unsolicited information cannot be provided. And provides for criminal penalties for breach.

Do you know if there have ever been any prosecutions for this?

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Can you give your source that the information presented was illegal?

There was a web address for where to get abortion pills. That's the illegal part, because it's illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland, etc etc.

I will add that that is an educated guess as she won't release the legal advice.

Arsemageddon

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Do you know if there have ever been any prosecutions for this?

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUuAbEkhY8

minikin

Have just looked at the pdf on issuu:

https://issuu.com/yourunionyourvoice/docs/2017-18_winging_it_in_ucd/16?ff=true&e=18225912/53451842

Page 58 and 59 contain information about abortion.
Looks like a decent compromise to me, don’t see why she should be impeached.

This should have been cleared prior to going to press. The students union need to realise that the law applies to them even though they’re students. Looks like Ascough did her duty in protecting the SU from potential problems.

Probably not a surprise that this crowd have no problem trying to terminate her prior to her going the full term.


Last year's edition on issuu:
https://issuu.com/yourunionyourvoice/docs/2016-17_winging_it_in_ucd_web
Page 122 and 123

.......

This post has been deleted.

tuxy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

There was also apparently an article in the handbook about how to remove a clamp from your car.....

....also illegal.

Is it illegal if it's a private company and you return the clamp undamaged?

sunshine and showers

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

It's not as simple as "the piece was illegal".

It's the part where she refused to engage with the other sabbatical officers, the fact that the fine is considerably less than the cost of the reprint, the fact that UCD has a history of challenging laws on reproductive/contraceptive issues through (what some might term) "stunts" like this, and the fact that she did not delegate on this issue like she pledged to do on issues around choice, given the fact that her personal views are at odds with the official SU position.

If it was simply about legality of information, she should have reviewed the whole book and removed the piece on how to take off a clamp.

pilly

sunshine and showers wrote: »

There was a web address for where to get abortion pills. That's the illegal part, because it's illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland, etc etc.

I will add that that is an educated guess as she won't release the legal advice.

So you've made that bit up in other words?

Absolutely heartened that the student electorate at least spot early on when a wrongun has gotten in as is not afraid to take the necessary steps.

What Ascough has attempted here is pretty blatant, it's a clear attempt to remove the material she finds personally objectionable despite that not being her remit and despite it being explicitly against her election promises.

What the hell they were doing letting her in there to begin with.....never mind. They're putting it right now at least.

Reati

tuxy wrote: »

Is it illegal if it's a private company and you return the clamp undamaged?

I think it is now? Looks like this came into force this year.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/13/enacted/en/index.html

Arsemageddon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

That's fair enough.

However, given that such information has been freely available for years without issue it would seem the decision was motivated primarily by her own beliefs with the law being used as an excuse for action.

It seems like a lot of the student body think so as well.

sunshine and showers

pilly wrote: »

So you've made that bit up in other words?

No, it's an educated guess from being a lawyer myself. Giving an address of a website that imports illegal abortion pills into Ireland does not fall under the legal information definition of the Abortion Act, 1995. It could also be interpreted as "promoting abortion".

pilly

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, it's an educated guess from being a lawyer myself. Giving an address of a website that imports illegal abortion pills into Ireland does not fall under the legal information definition of the Abortion Act, 1995. It could also be interpreted as "promoting abortion".

And how do you know there was a website mentioned? That's what I meant.

VinLieger

sunshine and showers wrote: »

No, it's an educated guess from being a lawyer myself. Giving an address of a website that imports illegal abortion pills into Ireland does not fall under the legal information definition of the Abortion Act, 1995. It could also be interpreted as "promoting abortion".

Was there deffinitely a website address in the booklet?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Boom_Bap

From the article.

The information in the 'Winging It' magazine that was removed included pregnancy help websites, the prices of abortion in other countries and information on abortion pills.

While it is lawful to provide information in Ireland about abortions abroad, it is subject to strict conditions.

It does not read that there is a website listed with links to obtain illegal pills. Just information on the pills.

sunshine and showers

I did not make the part about where to get abortion pills up.

The abortion information in the original handbook is almost identical to what was published in last year’s edition, with the exception that students are directed towards a specific website to obtain abortion pills online.

http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/ucdsu-retracts-information-about-abortion-from-handbooks/

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Yes I edited my post to include that link.

I wonder if she (and her family) are being funded by an american pro life group to get this kind of publicity going ?

It honestly wouldn't surprise me if something like this was the goal to get publicity for pro life groups in Ireland and their "silencing". :rolleyes:

pilly

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I did not make the part about where to get abortion pills up.




http://www.universityobserver.ie/news/ucdsu-retracts-information-about-abortion-from-handbooks/

That's fair enough sunshine, but you were reading a different article to the rest of us so it's okay for us to ask where you're getting that information from.

.......

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Iona and youth defence both get ALOT of funding from NA

sunshine and showers

pilly wrote: »

That's fair enough sunshine, but you were reading a different article to the rest of us so it's okay for us to ask where you're getting that information from.

I misunderstood the original issue with my post, since there was confusion over what information may be provided legally.

.......

This post has been deleted.

tritium

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

This seems ro be exactly it. Other SU presidents decided that they'd risk the fine and break the law. This one fixed the issue to comply with the law but fixing it cost more than the potential fine. Tbh the laws a bit of an ass if the sanxtion doesnt encourage compliance, though i suspect legal fees etc could amount to quiet a bit more.

I do have a lot of sympathy for her though, especially when you separate the subject matter from what she's actually done. She's basically being railroaded for not breaking the law. In any other senior role that would be a good attitude.

pilly

VinLieger wrote: »

Iona and youth defence both get ALOT of funding from NA

What's NA?

Mickeroo

pilly wrote: »

What's NA?

North America.

pilly

tritium wrote: »

This seems ro be exactly it. Other SU presidents decided that they'd risk the fine and break the law. This one fixed the issue to comply with the law but fixing it cost more than the potential fine. Tbh the laws a bit of an ass if the sanxtion doesnt encourage compliance, though i suspect legal fees etc could amount to quiet a bit more.

I do have a lot of sympathy for her though, especially when you separate the subject matter from what she's actually done. She's basically being railroaded for not breaking the law. In any other senior role that would be a good attitude.

Yes but this is not the corporate world, it's a student union, it's a right of passage to break the law.

Boom_Bap

pilly wrote: »

What's NA?

Not Applicable

National Rifle Association :P