Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

safe zones around abortion providers

  • 10-07-2018 6:55am
    #1
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭


    How constitutional is it to ban peaceful protest in public places. I think anyone who stands outside an abortion clinic has a right to do so, so long as they do not get violent or impede movement. I also think it's a scumbag move, but that's a personal opinion. My worry is gov could expend this 'safe zone' idea to a lot of areas, shutting down legit protests.
    Post edited by Sephiroth_dude on


«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    It's over.
    You and your ilk lost by a country mile.

    Get over it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,261 ✭✭✭✭TheValeyard


    I can see it been trialed at the clinics. Then expanded once accepted to no protesting outside the US or Israeli embassy. Or places where government officials are meeting. They would probably end up create protest zones, areas where you are allowed to protest, but it's out of the way and seen as a minor inconvenience.

    All eyes on Kursk. Slava Ukraini.



  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It's over.
    You and your ilk lost by a country mile.

    Get over it.

    Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I can see it been trialed at the clinics. Then expanded once accepted to no protesting outside the US or Israeli embassy. Or places where government officials are meeting. They would probably end up create protest zones, areas where you are allowed to protest, but it's out of the way and seen as a minor inconvenience.
    Given that the proposed exclusion zone legislation will be contained in a health bill, this is paranoid nonsense.

    Any expansion of the idea to non-health contexts would require entirely separate legislation and the public debates and discussions around it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 186 ✭✭HydroTendonMan


    In this case it makes sense. It is there to allow people some privacy and dignity while dealing with a sensitive medical procedure.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.
    No, we had a vote to allow abortion on demand.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭erica74


    Anyone accessing abortion services should be able to do so without the added stress of idiots screaming "baby murderer" or seeing those horrendous posters the ICBR like to hold outside our maternity hospitals. I think these safe zones are an excellent idea. Idiots will continue to protest about abortion for many years to come so safe zones are a way of protecting our women.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,703 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.


    Ahh but this isnt about protesting is it? Its about embarrassing and demeaning the women who may be attending these facilities for numerous and varied reasons.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    And those idiots at the various hospitals already have shown that they cannot be trusted to be respectful. Bringing crap like foetus pictures to a maternity hospital where a woman could be having a traumatic pregnancy, a miscarriage, etc , is BS and should not be allowed.

    I know if it were my wife/partner/daughter/friend in that situation and we were confronted by those idiots (usually old men) I wouldnt trust myself not to react.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    seamus wrote: »
    Given that the proposed exclusion zone legislation will be contained in a health bill, this is paranoid nonsense.

    Any expansion of the idea to non-health contexts would require entirely separate legislation and the public debates and discussions around it.
    A precedent will be set.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    A precedent will be set.
    What precedent would that be then?

    Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

    I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope suggestively caressing some children while dressed up as a devil, and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    amcalester wrote: »
    Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.

    How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    seamus wrote: »
    What precedent would that be then?

    Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

    I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope dressed up as a devil, suggestively caressing some children and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?

    So long as you do not impede movement or incite violence, you can stand outside and church, chapel, temple, synagogue or mosque.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.

    Because it wouldn't really be a protest, it would be an attempt to shame and embarrass women into not having treatment.

    By all means protest if you want, but do it in appropriate places. Outside the Dail for example, that's where the legislation in passed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

    There's always one...

    Surprised it took that long.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,246 ✭✭✭judeboy101


    amcalester wrote: »
    Because it wouldn't really be a protest, it would be an attempt to shame and embarrass women into not having treatment.

    By all means protest if you want, but do it in appropriate places. Outside the Dail for example, that's where the legislation in passed.
    Treatment?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    How does peaceful non violent protest infringe on safety. By all means throw the book at someone who blocks or impedes but its scary to think one cannot even stand in a public place and silently "voice" an opinion.

    Its not peaceful or non violent. Shoving nasty images in peoples faces. Calling them baby murderers etc.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    Treatment?

    Medical treatment yes

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

    We voted 2:1 to allow abortion on demand for whatever reason.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Its not peaceful or non violent. Shoving nasty images in peoples faces. Calling them baby murderers etc.
    hurt feelings and being made uncomfortable is not violence. violence is violence.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    Treatment?

    Yes.
    noun
    the application of medicines, surgery, psychotherapy, etc, to a patient or to a disease or symptom


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    seamus wrote: »
    What precedent would that be then?

    Like I say, paranoid nonsense.

    I guess you'd be fully supportive of me if I were to stand outside a Catholic church with pictures of the pope dressed up as a devil, suggestively caressing some children and calling everyone who entered a paedophile and a rapist then?
    I'd be fully supportive of that.


    #saynopetothepope


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,214 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    hurt feelings and being made uncomfortable is not violence. violence is violence.

    Psychological violence

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,770 ✭✭✭smokingman


    I reckon if these people want to act like we're in the 1600s, the punishment should suit.. get caught doing that vile **** and you get put in stocks for the rest of us to throw rotten veg at.
    Simples


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,792 ✭✭✭✭BattleCorp


    If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

    It's quite clear that the State and the majority of voters in this Country don't consider a lawful termination of pregnancy to be murder.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Psychological violence
    possibly but unless words are a direct incitement to violence then I'm not going to call them non peaceful or "violence". they can be horrible and downright awful but I'm afraid we have to allow people to be hurtful.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 508 ✭✭✭purpleisafruit


    judeboy101 wrote: »
    So long as you do not impede movement or incite violence, you can stand outside and church, chapel, temple, synagogue or mosque.
    So the ICBR aren't looking to incite violence? Their wearing of body cameras isn't to record the happy, supportive reactions of those passing their banners I'm pretty sure.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,675 ✭✭✭the_pen_turner


    I agree with the OP . It's sets a dangerous precedent that the government can decide when and where you can peacefully protest.

    As much as I disagree with this procedure ,anyone doing anything that could screw up any operation should be stopped.
    Sitting there peacefully doesn't do that in my opinion


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,711 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    Do people know that this will be a GP led service so the majority of abortions will be start there and happen at home.

    There is no provision of UK style abortion clinics so protesters would have to go to GP practices and hospitals and somehow be able to spot women in early stages of pregnancy amongst all the other patients.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,030 ✭✭✭Minderbinder


    amcalester wrote: »
    Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.

    No it shouldn’t. They don’t impede each other.

    People have the right to protest in Ireland and if they didn’t we still wouldn’t have abortion.

    The entitlement of some people to tell others what they can and can’t protest against in f**king unbelievable.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Seriously just go p1ss off
    We voted 2:1 to allow abortion on demand for whatever reason.




    Is that true? Genuine question.


    Was it on any major pre-election literature or stated publicly and explicitly for those campaigning for the vote?


    I had the impression that the pro-lifers were claiming this would happen and the pro-choicers were saying it wasn't about that at all


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    Ironically, I notice a lot of the posters here criticizing the OP were screaming the loudest about "right to protest" over in the thread about the Pope's visit.

    Grand when it suits ye eh?

    :pac:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,711 ✭✭✭✭murpho999


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Seriously just go p1ss off
    We voted 2:1 to allow abortion on demand for whatever reason.

    No we didn't.

    We voted to repeal the Eight amendment.
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    However, this was done with the knowledge of the government's proposed legislation to allow abortions up to 12 weeks.

    Some parts may be changed when the time comes but we will not be voting on it.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Is that true? Genuine question.


    Was it on any major pre-election literature or stated publicly and explicitly for those campaigning for the vote?


    I had the impression that the pro-lifers were claiming this would happen and the pro-choicers were saying it wasn't about that at all
    The heads of the bill that the government were intending to bring in in the event of a yes vote were published beforehand
    The referendum was not strictly about abortion... but in practice it was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,749 ✭✭✭Flippyfloppy


    possibly but unless words are a direct incitement to violence then I'm not going to call them non peaceful or "violence". they can be horrible and downright awful but I'm afraid we have to allow people to be hurtful.

    It's actually called Verbal abuse, which is harassment. They wouldn't be long getting arrested doing that.

    The good people of Ireland will ensure that all women will be protected when going for these procedures at such a vulnerable time in their lives.

    The assertion of 'if someone wants to murder a baby'' is as thick. How can it be that hard to understand that people need abortions for a variety of reasons?! So, so closed minded.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    No it shouldn’t. They don’t impede each other.

    People have the right to protest in Ireland and if they didn’t we still wouldn’t have abortion.

    The entitlement of some people to tell others what they can and can’t protest against in f**king unbelievable.

    It's about where they protest, not what they protest.

    A huge difference.

    Go out on the M50 and start to protest (anything at all) and see how long it is before you're moved on by the Guards.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,596 ✭✭✭Hitman3000


    judeboy101 wrote:
    Didn't know we had a vote to recind the right to protest? TiL.


    You have a right to protest, not a right to harass.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    amcalester wrote: »
    Not all rights are absolute, 1 persons right to safe medical treatment should trump another's right to protest.




    Only if they are mutually exclusive. If the protest doesn't physically prevent a person from getting treatment then that argument is irrelevant


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    murpho999 wrote: »
    No we didn't.

    We voted to repeal the Eight amendment.
    Nothing more, nothing less.

    However, this was done with the knowledge of the government's proposed legislation to allow abortions up to 12 weeks.

    Some parts may be changed when the time comes but we will not be voting on it.
    Are you playing?
    We repealed the 8th with full knowlege of the intended bill.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ELM327 wrote: »
    The heads of the bill that the government were intending to bring in in the event of a yes vote were published beforehand
    The referendum was not strictly about abortion... but in practice it was.




    Maybe for you it was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    If someone wants to murder a baby, why should it be made easy for them ?

    Did we vote on murdering babies?

    Or did we vote to repeal the 8th to allow legislation for the regulation of terminating pregnancies?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    It's actually called Verbal abuse, which is harassment. They wouldn't be long getting arrested doing that.

    The good people of Ireland will ensure that all women will be protected when going for these procedures at such a vulnerable time in their lives.

    The assertion of 'if someone wants to murder a baby'' is as thick. How can it be that hard to understand that people need abortions for a variety of reasons?! So, so closed minded.




    Wonder what could be fueling such an idea........





    ELM327 wrote: »
    Seriously just go p1ss off
    We voted 2:1 to allow abortion on demand for whatever reason.
    ELM327 wrote: »
    The heads of the bill that the government were intending to bring in in the event of a yes vote were published beforehand
    The referendum was not strictly about abortion... but in practice it was.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Maybe for you it was.
    Considering the heads of the bill were published and the pro birthers and pro choice campaigns both referred to said bill..... yeah that wasn't just for me.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Wonder what could be fueling such an idea........
    What is your issue with me?
    Can you terminate it please.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,327 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump


    ELM327 wrote: »
    What is your issue with me?
    Can you terminate it please.




    If I could go back in time I might just advise your mother to terminate yourself



    :pac:




    You might want to get over yourself if you think you're that important for anyone to have an issue with you because they quote one of your posts on an internet board to reply to it ffs



    Mod: Banned


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,917 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    If I could go back in time I might just advise your mother to terminate yourself



    :pac:




    You might want to get over yourself if you think you're that important for anyone to have an issue with you because they quote one of your posts on an internet board to reply to it ffs


    2 of them.... to support your nonsense.


    PS: I note you have ignored
    ELM327 wrote: »
    Considering the heads of the bill were published and the pro birthers and pro choice campaigns both referred to said bill..... yeah that wasn't just for me.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,046 ✭✭✭Berserker


    No problem with the exclusion zone myself. However, it'd be foolish to think that something similar will not be introduced for other protests.

    Edit: Think they have something similar in the USA. Recall hearing about protesters being allocated locations where they could stand to protest in NY outside the CoS near Times Square. Think they were cordoned in with barriers. If they protested outside of that area, they were arrested.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,035 ✭✭✭optogirl


    If I could go back in time I might just advise your mother to terminate yourself



    :pac:




    FFS. :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement