Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

harassment is already illegal. already covered and dealt with by existing law.
protesting is perfectly legal, and if anyone does go over board the law is already perfectly capable of dealing with it.
so you have no complaint, apart from the fact people have a different view to you, for which i'm afraid you are going to just have to deal with as the rest of us do on a daily basis.

Would you, therefor, have no problem with protestors carrying posters with deliberately upsetting faked images outside or in the vicinity of hospitals or GP's clinics being prosecuted for using the posters with provocative intent, given that the protestors would have put some thought into the images they chose to use at the protest, knowing the effect the posters would be liable to have on people attending at said premises? Protestors carry an obligation to obey the law at all times, and that includes not behaving in a manner intended to provoke a disturbance of the peace.

In connection with your answer and presumed point of view about anti-abortion protests outside homes: quote, why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere? my answer is because disruption to someone is unavoidable. unquote.... If people who claim to be pro-life can protest outside the homes of others, then you can see that the same rule could disquietingly apply to their homes as well by people with the opposing point of view. Not that I would imagine Pro-choice people would stoop so low as to do so.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

for the most part no, however there probably would be the odd case where i specifically wouldn't condemn it as long as it was peaceful. but ideally people shouldn't protest there given it is a private home and is not part of the job for which a politician is involved in doing.
for me private homes are not comparable to public buildings or even business buildings.

You were very careful in choosing your words there. Politicians do work at home, so it is part of their job. There is no reason to "protest" at hospitals other than to try and impede access. If they were serious about getting the legislation changed they would be outside the dail, but they arent. Now ask yourself why they aren't? Because it's not about the legislation it's about the people accessing healthcare and trying to impede it.

Salary Negotiator

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Tell me, do you think it is reasonable for people to 'protest' outside a politicians home?

That depends on whether eotr agrees with the protestors or the politician.

Bannasidhe

uptherebels wrote: »

You were very careful in choosing your words there. Politicians do work at home, so it is part of their job. There is no reason to "protest" at hospitals other than to try and impede access. If they were serious about getting the legislation changed they would be outside the dail, but they arent. Now ask yourself why they aren't? Because it's not about the legislation it's about the people accessing healthcare and trying to impede it.

Exactly.
It isn't 'protest' as the places they are 'protesting' are not responsible for the legislation they are protesting.
It is harassment as they are trying to directly dissuade people from accessing a legal service they (the placard wavers) disagree with.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Would you, therefor, have no problem with protestors carrying posters with deliberately upsetting faked images outside or in the vicinity of hospitals or GP's clinics being prosecuted for using the posters with provocative intent, given that the protestors would have put some thought into the images they chose to use at the protest, knowing the effect the posters would be liable to have on people attending at said premises? Protestors carry an obligation to obey the law at all times, and that includes not behaving in a manner intended to provoke a disturbance of the peace.

In connection with your answer and presumed point of view about anti-abortion protests outside homes: quote, why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere? my answer is because disruption to someone is unavoidable. unquote.... If people who claim to be pro-life can protest outside the homes of others, then you can see that the same rule could disquietingly apply to their homes as well by people with the opposing point of view. Not that I would imagine Pro-choice people would stoop so low as to do so.

i would not support such prosecutions no, as protests are generally designed to provoke a reaction, as in bring about change in relation to the issue being protested about.
i am satisfied that the things that would need to be prosecuted are already so and existing laws work perfectly in that regard in my view, as all competing rights co-exist.
i would not support prosecutions for simply showing an immage whether it be fake or not, if it is fake then that will be found out quite easily i would think which would achieve more then any prosecution ever could.
in relation to your second point, most people are unlikely to be protesting outside someone's home regardless of their persuasion on any issue.
i do not believe we can say with certainty that no person of any specific persuasion on an issue would ever protest outside a home, or even do any specific thing, as every individual is different, and being of a persuasion on an issue is not a specific key to the type of individual someone is as a whole.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Exactly.
It isn't 'protest' as the places they are 'protesting' are not responsible for the legislation they are protesting.
It is harassment as they are trying to directly dissuade people from accessing a legal service they (the placard wavers) disagree with.

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
simply trying to get someone to change their mind and not do something is not harassment of itself, it would be impossible for it to be so as doing the same in relation to any other issue would be harassment if that was the case, which i would expect would create all sorts of problems.
any possible forceful method carried out in relation to achieveing the aim is already illegal to the best of my knowledge, and if there is actual harassment going on at any protest anywhere then the law deals with it and it is covered under existing law, to the best of my knowledge.
as i see it, the ability to access abortion and the right to protest, co-exist perfectly in ireland, not that there are any protests in ireland really, and what ones there have been since the legislation was introduced have been so tiny as to be insignifficant.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
simply trying to get someone to change their mind and not do something is not harassment of itself, it would be impossible for it to be so as doing the same in relation to any other issue would be harassment if that was the case, which i would expect would create all sorts of problems.
any possible forceful method carried out in relation to achieveing the aim is already illegal to the best of my knowledge, and if there is actual harassment going on at any protest anywhere then the law deals with it and it is covered under existing law, to the best of my knowledge.
as i see it, the ability to access abortion and the right to protest, co-exist perfectly in ireland, not that there are any protests in ireland really, and what ones there have been since the legislation was introduced have been so tiny as to be insignifficant.

the protests against abortion at hospitals and doctors surgerys is targeted at the women seeking abortion. why else would they hold up fake pictures of foetuses. A nurse or a doctor wouldn't be bothered by it, they know it is a fake. A woman in crisis might not and be swayed by it. that is the intention of those images. to deceive pregnant woment who might seek an abortion. The pro-life crowd are completely dishonest.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

why should anyone be subject to the disruption of any protest anywhere?

they shouldn't

the right to protest being somehow accepted as a right to disrupt needs a good long look

Bannasidhe

end of the road wrote: »

the places are responsible for carrying out the issue that the protesters have an issue with however, so i would argue it can still be legitimately classed as protest.
.

Firstly, as medical matters are strictly confidential between patient and medical staff they are places the protestors assume practices they disagree with are being carried out - if they know for sure then someone within that place needs to be fired immediately.

So these guardians of public morality are 'protesting' that a legal medical service may possibly might be being provided at a given location at a given time.
They are also places that carry out a myriad of medical services - and each and every personal availing of these services should be allowed to do so without being subjected to the assumptions of self appointed moral guardians.

They are harassing people who are going to see a doctor for reasons that are no bodies business but their own. They are targeting one particular demographic.

If they want to protest feck off to the gates of whomever writes the legislation.

smacl

Protesting in such as way as to intentionally upset vulnerable people seeking medical attention is morally reprehensible and in my opinion should be both banned and prosecuted where the ban in breached. It is trying to bully others into accepting an anachronistic minority moral position that runs contrary to the clearly stated position of a large majority in this country. I'd also have serious concerns about external foreign influences and financing in all of this.

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

Protesting in such as way as to intentionally upset vulnerable people seeking medical attention is morally reprehensible and in my opinion should be both banned and prosecuted where the ban in breached. It is trying to bully others into accepting an anachronistic minority moral position that runs contrary to the clearly stated position of a large majority in this country. I'd also have serious concerns about external foreign influences and financing in all of this.

and how far would this go, would we start prosecuting everyone for upsetting someone/hurting their feelings because they are deemed to be vunnerable?
or is it just for abortion, and why just abortion? what makes abortion so special?
and any sort of protest could be argued by those who disagree with it is attempting to bully people to accept a position that may or may not be a minority position. so therefore surely we must just bann protests altogether and prosecute people who take part in them?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

and how far would this go, would we start prosecuting everyone for upsetting someone/hurting their feelings because they are deemed to be vunnerable?
or is it just for abortion, and why just abortion? what makes abortion so special?
and any sort of protest could be argued by those who disagree with it is attempting to bully people to accept a position that may or may not be a minority position. so therefore surely we must just bann protests altogether and prosecute people who take part in them?

wrong as usual. Its not about abortion. it's about access to healthcare and access to healthcare is special. those "protests" don't just affect people who are going to have an abortion. A protest almost anywhere else doesn't impede other peoples rights.
So no, not every protest can be argued as bullying people as not all protests are equal. There are legitimate protests and then there are "protests" that are designed to do nothing else other than try and impede other peoples rights, in this case access to healthcare.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

There's obviously a tension between my right not to be harrassed and your right to free speech and/or assembly. I agree with you that, when I'm seeking medical treatment, my right probably trumps yours. But it does raise wider questions; is this particular context the only one in which my right trumps yours? If so, why? If not, in what other contexts or situations are your rights of free speech and assembly to be denied in order for me not to feel harassed?

Notice I said accessing healthcare facilities - not seeking treatment - because the staff also have the right to go to work without being harassed by lunatics.

The real question is why do they feel the need to exercise their speech in that particular place - hospitals and GPs surgeries do not determine what our laws are. The appropriate venue for protest is the Dail.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i would not support such prosecutions no, as protests are generally designed to provoke a reaction, as in bring about change in relation to the issue being protested about.
i am satisfied that the things that would need to be prosecuted are already so and existing laws work perfectly in that regard in my view, as all competing rights co-exist.
i would not support prosecutions for simply showing an immage whether it be fake or not, if it is fake then that will be found out quite easily i would think which would achieve more then any prosecution ever could.
in relation to your second point, most people are unlikely to be protesting outside someone's home regardless of their persuasion on any issue.
i do not believe we can say with certainty that no person of any specific persuasion on an issue would ever protest outside a home, or even do any specific thing, as every individual is different, and being of a persuasion on an issue is not a specific key to the type of individual someone is as a whole

In so far as it's all done in the cause of saving babies and against women's legal choices, it's plain what the protests outside hospitals and clinics are really about, pushing Irish women back into the fold of collective mind control. I see your response to my point of the protestors choosing to use fake images designed to provoke a reaction leading to a breach of the peace is that it's OK with you. That's malicious aforethought in my book.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

wrong as usual. Its not about abortion. it's about access to healthcare and access to healthcare is special. those "protests" don't just affect people who are going to have an abortion. A protest almost anywhere else doesn't impede other peoples rights.
So no, not every protest can be argued as bullying people as not all protests are equal. There are legitimate protests and then there are "protests" that are designed to do nothing else other than try and impede other peoples rights, in this case access to healthcare.

i would suggest that it does seem to be specifically about abortion, because i have not heard of anyone suggesting any laws preventing protests at various places before the discussions began surrounding the referendum to repeal the 8th.
a protest somewhere else actually does impeed someone's rights if they cause disruption, the ability to get around, so therefore i would suggest that actually health care is not special, and if you want to bann protests around certain facilities involved in it because it disrupts people, you should surely be looking to bann all or most protests, because they do cause some bit of disruption to somebody.
peaceful protests are legitimate to the protesters, who believe the issue they are protesting against should be highlighted, disagreement with a protest doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or illegitimate.

aloyisious wrote: »

In so far as it's all done in the cause of saving babies and against women's legal choices, it's plain what the protests outside hospitals and clinics are really about, pushing Irish women back into the fold of collective mind control. I see your response to my point of the protestors choosing to use fake images designed to provoke a reaction leading to a breach of the peace is that it's OK with you. That's malicious aforethought in my book.

i do not support prosecutions for simply showing an image which may or may not be fake, or which may simply upset someone, as anyone can be upset by any image.
if an image has text on it threatening violence or suggest someone should commit violence then they are already prosecuted and i am fine with that.
essentially, not liking an image is not enough for me to be using the courts, and someone engaging in a breach of the peace over an image they dislike is the one in the greatest wrong.
i support one's right to be able to show images in public which highlight an issue they have disagreement with, however it does not mean i will always agree with them doing it in certain cases.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

i would suggest that it does seem to be specifically about abortion, because i have not heard of anyone suggesting any laws preventing protests at various places before the discussions began surrounding the referendum to repeal the 8th.
a protest somewhere else actually does impeed someone's rights if they cause disruption, the ability to get around, so therefore i would suggest that actually health care is not special, and if you want to bann protests around certain facilities involved in it because it disrupts people, you should surely be looking to bann all or most protests, because they do cause some bit of disruption to somebody.
peaceful protests are legitimate to the protesters, who believe the issue they are protesting against should be highlighted, disagreement with a protest doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong or illegitimate.

How many other protests have you seen which attempt to impede access to healthcare? Abortion is the reason they "protesting" it is not the reason why people take an issue with it.
Nobody has a right to have unfettered access down a street or to not hear the chants of a passing protest while they are having a coffee. That you would consider it an example to argue for attempting to impede access to healthcare is bewildering.
If it was about highlighting the issue they would be outside the dail. Like I have already said, it's not about highlighting any issue it's about impeding access.

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

How many other protests have you seen which attempt to impede access to healthcare? Abortion is the reason they "protesting" it is not the reason why people take an issue with it.
Nobody has a right to have unfettered access down a street or to not hear the chants of a passing protest while they are having a coffee. That you would consider it an example to argue for attempting to impede access to healthcare is bewildering.
If it was about highlighting the issue they would be outside the dail. Like I have already said, it's not about highlighting any issue it's about impeding access.

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

A gathering of 100 or so people outside the national maternity hospital isn't small.

it is however less than the number that marched looking for exclusion zones to be put in place, so it's not just a tiny amount of people on the internet who want exclusion zones in place.

Igotadose

Know anyone with Coronavirus? Tell them to join a protest. Problem solved!

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

A gathering of 100 or so people outside the national maternity hospital isn't small.

it is however less than the number that marched looking for exclusion zones to be put in place, so it's not just a tiny amount of people on the internet who want exclusion zones in place.

they were both still small in the great scheme of protests.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

they were both still small in the great scheme of protests.

Again not just a tiny amount of people on the internet looking for exclusion zones as your claiming.

The numbers are larger for exclusion zones, the protesters outside hospitals appear to be shipped in, similar to the members of protest against those marching for exclusion zones.

Also going by your logic of hospitals and doctor surgeries being the correct place to protest, perhaps churches, fake pregnancy advice centres and the iona offices should be places to protest for the introduction of exclusion zones.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

they were both still small in the great scheme of protests.

100 people standing by the pedestrian crossing lights at the junction of Merrion Sq and Mount St Lower across from the hospital a small group? It's a good thing Irish people don't have a habit of waiting for the green man light before crossing roads.

end of the road

DubInMeath wrote: »

Again not just a tiny amount of people on the internet looking for exclusion zones as your claiming.

The numbers are larger for exclusion zones, the protesters outside hospitals appear to be shipped in, similar to the members of protest against those marching for exclusion zones.

Also going by your logic of hospitals and doctor surgeries being the correct place to protest, perhaps churches, fake pregnancy advice centres and the iona offices should be places to protest for the introduction of exclusion zones.

well, they can certainly protest away at those places, however it isn't churches and iona etc calling for a protest bann, to my knowledge.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

You failed to mention which others protests have attempted to impede access to healthcare!!
If you can't think of any then say so.
If it was a non issue, then there wouldn't be talk of exclusion zones in the first place.
No they don't need to go to the dail but if they were Interested in changing the legislation that is where they would be. But like we are all aware, it isn't about the legislation. It's about impeding access

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

one does not need to specifically go to the dail to highlight an issue. going there may certainly help, but it's not obligatory or even specifically necessary.
only protesters themselves know why they protest where they protest unless they specifically tell us why, and if they are protesting against say, abortion, then one of the places they are going to protest outside is where they take place, generally dedicated abortion clinics, hence ireland's lack of such protests or at least signifficant ones due to the lack of them here.
the 1 or 2 protests here in ireland against abortion since the legislation was introduced, have been so tiny that it's not surprising it seems to be a non-issue outside a tiny amount of people, mainly on the internet, at least from what i can see.

You failed to mention which others protests have attempted to impede access to healthcare!!
If you can't think of any then say so.
If it was a non issue, then there wouldn't be talk of exclusion zones in the first place.
No they don't need to go to the dail but if they were Interested in changing the legislation that is where they would be. But like we are all aware, it isn't about the legislation. It's about impeding access

end of the road

uptherebels wrote: »

You failed to mention which others protests have attempted to impede access to healthcare!!
If you can't think of any then say so.

well yes obviously i don't know of any such protests intending to impeed any access to health care, as i would have mentioned them if i did.

uptherebels wrote: »

If it was a non issue, then there wouldn't be talk of exclusion zones in the first place.

i would tend to disagree.
i think there would be talk of them regardless, because of the fact opposition to abortion exists in the first place.

uptherebels wrote: »

No they don't need to go to the dail but if they were Interested in changing the legislation that is where they would be.

again not necessarily, it's highlighting the issue which i would expect is their priority and once that is done, then job done.
i would assume that if they do feel a protest at the dail is worth while, then they will do it, but i would only expect those involved will know what will work for them, i certainly don't anyway.

uptherebels wrote: »

But like we are all aware, it isn't about the legislation. It's about impeding access

well no, to be fair we aren't all aware what their protests are about.
we can certainly speculate as to what they may be about, but whatever about you, i certainly don't know what they may or may not be about other then they have a disagreement with abortion in whatever form their disagreement may be.
so i could certainly not say with any certainty what their motives are or aren't because i don't know.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

well no, to be fair we aren't all aware what their protests are about.
we can certainly speculate as to what they may be about, but whatever about you, i certainly don't know what they may or may not be about other then they have a disagreement with abortion in whatever form their disagreement may be.
so i could certainly not say with any certainty what their motives are or aren't because i don't know.

Can you translate for us what you mean by the above?

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

Can you translate for us what you mean by the above?

Google translate say:
There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

end of the road

end of the road wrote: »

well, they can certainly protest away at those places, however it isn't churches and iona etc calling for a protest bann, to my knowledge.

Iona especially are digging in about exclusion zones not being put in place, I'd imagine that either they would change tack if protesting occurred at their office or members homes, or they would try and play the martyr card for a while.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Can you translate for us what you mean by the above?

well as said, apart from a disagreement with abortion in whichever form their disagreement takes, i'm suggesting to the poster i replied to that while he may believe he has the answer as to what their motive other then that may be, unless they specifically tell us that his view is their motive, we don't really know for sure and probably can only speculate, that i certainly don't know any other motives they have apart from they have a disagreement with abortion, whether they want it to be more restricted, or in the very odd case banned outright.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Iona especially are digging in about exclusion zones not being put in place, I'd imagine that either they would change tack if protesting occurred at their office or members homes, or they would try and play the martyr card for a while.

iona may do whatever, or not, i certainly don't know either way.

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

well as said, apart from a disagreement with abortion in whichever form their disagreement takes, i'm suggesting to the poster i replied to that while he may believe he has the answer as to what their motive other then that may be, unless they specifically tell us that his view is their motive, we don't really know for sure and probably can only speculate, that i certainly don't know any other motives they have apart from they have a disagreement with abortion.

Well, that they have a disagreement with abortion is a cert. As for quibbling about whether they are split on the legal provision of abortion within Irish healthcare as it stands, it's not worth the effort. They are simply faced with that fact and some refuse to accept it and the referendum result, while those others who do accept it do so because they don't want to step outside the bounds of the law. Do you actually think anyone thinks the anti-abortion protestors have an ulterior secret motive beyond their stated opposition to abortion or is that just speculation on your part?