Opinions on Ivana Bacik

nlgbbbblth

A radical, relevant, revolutionary person

OR

sickeningly right-on, too woolly etc

I fall into the latter camp btw.

Nuttzz

nlgbbbblth wrote:

sickeningly right-on, too woolly etc

agreed, champange socialist

aidan_walsh

For the clueless (like me), thank you Google. It would be nice if you could take the time to elaborate on your topic in future, kthnksbyelol.

segadreamcast

aidan_walsh wrote:

For the clueless (like me), thank you Google. It would be nice if you could take the time to elaborate on your topic in future, kthnksbyelol.

I don't see why he should have to elaborate. You're the uninformed one, find out yourself.

Anyway - yeah - I'd be stuffing her into the latter camp there I feel.

Kevin_rc_ie

irc, for some reason, i happened to read some blog type thing written about her by Devore when I just joined boards and i at the time took it as gospel truth and decided not to vote for her in the EEs. But then my dad changed my mind.

At the moment, I don't like her, I don't like her version of feminity. I'm not going to elaborate further cos she won't reply (lol).

mike65

Oh exellent, I can play my



card!

I blow hot and cold about her.

Mike.

sceptre

Little from column A, little from column B. If I had to choose between her existing and not existing I'd probably just go for existing so I may be ever so slightly in favour of column A. Then again that's partly because our law professors, political and social commentators and successful or failed politicians are so poor in general (really, so poor) that it probably isn't much of a compliment anyway. I don't have a problem with champagne socialists, Or if there are any ardent capitalists who insist on living on dried bread and gruel I don't have a problem with their existence either. Actually I tend to see it as a good thing rather than all socialists of all extremities or lack of same being restricted to people who work down the mines for fourteen pence a week.

Then again perhaps I'm too woolly myself, I like the notion of representative democracy actually being representative and articulate - I don't have a problem with almost any opinion as long as it's presented reasonably well with some foundation or basis to it. I've got a long list of presented opinions that don't make the grade there and modding the politics forum has significantly added to it.

So on the whole, not entirely positive but not very negative. Now I just sound non-committal - perhaps I should give the bad politician game a lash meself.

John R

I believe there is some rabid hatred of her in some quarters based on something she did involving student union politics. Personally I could not care less about student politics so none of that crap would sway me one way or another.

From what little I have seen she is a little too bleeding heart for my liking although I would class her as considerably less toxic than most of our elected officials.

aodh_rua

I wouldn't agree with her politics, but Ivana is a highly intelligent individual who is easy to talk with and does listen to what is being said. I'd be happy if we'd more of her intellectual calibre in Leinster House on all sides.

On a side note - the Hitler-esque card above can't go without comment. Given that she is of Czech origin and her grandfather fought the Nazis as a partisan I think it's a little off the mark.

Kevin_rc_ie

yeah i forgot to mention she's probably very intelligent. and by very i mean very.

axtradub12

Two words. Lovely Gal

MorningStar

I know very little about her but have a general idea that people think she is the symbol of woolly liberals. From her site I would say you can get the idea that she see what is currently in place is not working. What seems to happen is people have implement the liberal approach and then sya see it doesn't work. It could be good to have somebody in power actually following through.
In saying that I am always weary of anybody who chooses to support womans right and not mens. It seems to be pretty clear that the failing relationships are causing problems with paternity rights and that men are also bottom of all lists for housing etc... Unlike woman men don't naturally help each other out so slowly men are becoming 2nd class citizens. The high suicide rate and criminal behaviour can definitly indicate something isn't working for young men

toiletduck

i'd fall into the latter tbh

Kappar

I've been lectured by her for the past year and she is a very intelligent person she is also a very friendly and amiable person.

I decided to read her book “Kicking and Screaming: Dragging Ireland into the 21st Century” and to be honest I found myself agreeing with a lot of her points mostly regarding secularisation and freedom of speech.

That’s just my two cents

The Corinthian

John R wrote:

I believe there is some rabid hatred of her in some quarters based on something she did involving student union politics. Personally I could not care less about student politics so none of that crap would sway me one way or another.

She was, as TCD Students’ Union President, democratically mandated to vote for a candidate for the USI elections and chose to break that mandate in favour of another candidate who more militant views than the one she was mandated to vote for. The breaking of this mandate was serious enough for her to be forced to resign her SU position - earning her the nickname of the ‘Bounced Czech’.

Personally I wouldn’t hold this against her, but given that she has never expressed any form of regret for this action, I would not consider her trustworthy in future, IMHO.

aodh_rua wrote:

On a side note - the Hitler-esque card above can't go without comment. Given that she is of Czech origin and her grandfather fought the Nazis as a partisan I think it's a little off the mark.

Does that mean that we can’t criticize Israel if they commit human rights abuses by the same logic? Seriously, get over it.

Personally, I think that she’s a very competent individual in her own right and a highly effective self-publicist. But as I pointed out above, her past actions and (more importantly) lack of remorse thereof, lead me to trust her as far as I’d spit a dead rat.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

She was, as TCD Students’ Union President, democratically mandated to vote for a candidate for the USI elections and chose to break that mandate in favour of another candidate who more militant views than the one she was mandated to vote for. The breaking of this mandate was serious enough for her to be forced to resign her SU position - earning her the nickname of the ‘Bounced Czech’.

That does sound a bit bad ... i don't know the ins and outs of TCD SU regulations but are you saying that she had a responsibility to vote for the USI candidate that the students of TCD had voted for and she decided to vote for her own personal favourate? Cause if she did that it shows a lack of respect for democratic process, even one you disagree with. You are supposed to serve the people not yourself. On the other hand SU politics borders on the ridiculous anyway, so I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of how she would act in the "real world"

Kind like if the person elected in the electorial college vote in the USA didn't actually vote for who he/she said they were representing (which is actually legal, and has happened, in some states).

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

On the other hand SU politics borders on the ridiculous anyway, so I suppose it wouldn't necessarily be a reflection of how she would act in the "real world"

It was certainly considered serious enough to merit her resignation at the time and it is frankly the only reflection of how she would act in the "real World" that I have, especially given her apparent lack of remorse in the matter.

And that’s why personally I wouldn’t trust her.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote:

It was certainly considered serious enough to merit her resignation at the time and it is frankly the only reflection of how she would act in the "real World" that I have, especially given her apparent lack of remorse in the matter.

And that’s why personally I wouldn’t trust her.

true ...

what was her justification?

Stabshauptmann

John R wrote:

I believe there is some rabid hatred of her in some quarters based on something she did involving student union politics. Personally I could not care less about student politics so none of that crap would sway me one way or another.

From what little I have seen she is a little too bleeding heart for my liking although I would class her as considerably less toxic than most of our elected officials.

But shows clearly her principals or lack there of.

TBH, I dont trust her, I feel she is two-faced. She belongs to a certain breed of politicians which are becoming more and more prevalent in modern society and I just dont like it.

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote:

what was her justification?

I don't think she really gave one at the time outside of preferring the other candidate; but given I'm having difficulty remembering the names of the candidates to begin with, I'd have to leave that one open, TBH.

Ultimately, whatever the justification it was apparantly insufficient to save her from resignation at the time, it would seem.

Stabshauptmann

The Corinthian wrote:

Does that mean that we can’t criticize Israel if they commit human rights abuses by the same logic? Seriously, get over it.
.

Nicely put

CaptainPeacock

I just wonder what qualifies her to appear on so many non-political shows like The View to review films and other art. She's the Reid Professor of Law (or whateverthefunk), not the Reid Professor of Films. Get someone qualified to review films on The View. You don't get Brendan Kennelly on The Premiership giving his opinion on the day's cross-channel games.

nlgbbbblth

CaptainPeacock wrote:

I just wonder what qualifies her to appear on so many non-political shows like The View to review films and other art.

nothing -

- possibly the assumption that as she has liberal views on political/social issues means she is more likely to be well-informed about films/music/misc art than the ordinary person on the street.

- such an assumption is bOllocks btw

The Corinthian

CaptainPeacock wrote:

I just wonder what qualifies her to appear on so many non-political shows like The View to review films and other art. She's the Reid Professor of Law (or whateverthefunk), not the Reid Professor of Films. Get someone qualified to review films on The View. You don't get Brendan Kennelly on The Premiership giving his opinion on the day's cross-channel games.

As I suggested she is a highly effective self-publicist, however in this case it’s probably more due to RTE’s general level of incompetence when it comes down to sourcing new personalities for any of its programmes. As a result, once you’re on the books, as it were, you’ll tend to be carted out for every second show they do.

ISAW

John R wrote:

I believe there is some rabid hatred of her in some quarters based on something she did involving student union politics.

I think you may be referring to this:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=458076&postcount=8

Personally I could not care less about student politics so none of that crap would sway me one way or another.

As a student I instigated a campaign to free a chinese Student Called zhao Ming ( a member of falun gong/ Falun dafa practitioner) from China. He wsa being kept there and tortured. Could you care less about that?
How about groups of rabid anti abortion students in Youth Defence? Could you care about that?
Actually how can you post that you don't care about something? Can one really express indifference?

From what little I have seen she is a little too bleeding heart for my liking although I would class her as considerably less toxic than most of our elected officials.

And they are "toxic" in what way exactly?

CaptainPeacock

She's actively pro-abortion, if that means anything 2 U. It means, 2 me, that anything she says should be allowed to enter via one ear only to exit via the other.

Ladypawpaw

nlgbbbblth wrote:

A radical, relevant, revolutionary person

OR

sickeningly right-on, too woolly etc

I fall into the latter camp btw.

I've seen her at quite a few gigs - she does have good taste in music.

I voted for her in the last election. However, she does annoy me quite a lot.

After the Mayday "protests" last year she was giving out about the police brutality - a shame she didn't condemn the middle class cliched anarchists chucking stuff at the police as well.

sceptre

CaptainPeacock wrote:

She's actively pro-abortion, if that means anything 2 U. It means, 2 me, that anything she says should be allowed to enter via one ear only to exit via the other.

Rather disapointing that someone's particular view on abortion would be enough that their views on economics, housing, road safety, sugar consumption, beef sales to Iraq, next-day postal delivery, social welfare, neon signage and leather plimsolls would also be dismissed out of hand. Then again, I suppose that's a matter for another thread someday.

The Corinthian

sceptre wrote:

Rather disapointing that someone's particular view on abortion would be enough that their views on economics, housing, road safety, sugar consumption, beef sales to Iraq, next-day postal delivery, social welfare, neon signage and leather plimsolls would also be dismissed out of hand. Then again, I suppose that's a matter for another thread someday.

Not really that irrational; regardless of where you stand on the issue you have to appreciate that for someone who is strongly anti-abortion, it is viewed essentially as the organised homicide of a demographic of Society.

So it would be the equivalent of asking you to vote for a very competent politician with sound views on economics, housing, road safety, sugar consumption, beef sales to Iraq, next-day postal delivery, social welfare, neon signage and leather plimsolls, who also happens to want to gas all Jews.

aodh_rua

The Corinthian wrote:

She was, as TCD Students’ Union President, democratically mandated to vote for a candidate for the USI elections and chose to break that mandate in favour of another candidate who more militant views than the one she was mandated to vote for. The breaking of this mandate was serious enough for her to be forced to resign her SU position - earning her the nickname of the ‘Bounced Czech’.

She didn't resign - but she was impeached and allowed to remain in office as USI congresses happen late in the academic year. I don't know if the decision was based on militancy or something more personal, and she wasn't the only delegate to break mandate.

The nickname was actually a Trinity News headline - "Czech Bounced".

As a former TCDSU officer myself, I think the idea of apologising ten years later for something I did in the Union would be irrelevant so I wouldn't hold her continuing lack of apology against her, especially as she's a grown-up now with a considerable amount of scholarly and professional achievements.

The Corinthian

aodh_rua wrote:

She didn't resign - but she was impeached and allowed to remain in office as USI congresses happen late in the academic year. I don't know if the decision was based on militancy or something more personal, and she wasn't the only delegate to break mandate.

The nickname was actually a Trinity News headline - "Czech Bounced".

Thank you for the corrections. As for her motivations, I didn’t speculate upon then, only commented that she broke her mandate in favour of someone more militant.

As a former TCDSU officer myself, I think the idea of apologising ten years later for something I did in the Union would be irrelevant so I wouldn't hold her continuing lack of apology against her, especially as she's a grown-up now with a considerable amount of scholarly and professional achievements.

That she’s older and with a considerable amount of scholarly and professional achievements does not magically preclude her from being untrustworthy. And presently we have no reason to believe that she would not be justified to be so cavalier with the democratic process again. So it’s regrettably very relevant, even today.

aodh_rua

The Corinthian wrote:

That she’s older and with a considerable amount of scholarly and professional achievements does not magically preclude her from being untrustworthy. And presently we have no reason to believe that she would not be justified to be so cavalier with the democratic process again. So it’s regrettably very relevant, even today.

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

simu

aodh_rua wrote:

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

Yeah, I agree with you about not judging her too much based on her actions as a young student. She seems as "trustworthy" as any other politician out there to me - it's naive to think that anyone can get by in politics without a bit of wrangling and manipulation.

Hobbes

Someone might want to go update wikipedia, all this has been removed from it.

The Corinthian

aodh_rua wrote:

I can see your point of view - I'm just not convinced that her actions in her early 20's, in the middle of a highly divisive and high profile abortion debate,offer the same insight into her personality now as they did then. From my dealings with her, I would find her trustworthy even though I wouldn't agree with many of her opinions.

Fair enough - as long as she could be trusted not do something like that again. And given her subsequent lack of remorse for a highly unethical and anti-democratic action, my gut tells me that she would, regardless of whatever dealings you may have had, or presently have, with her.

In the end, all it apparently requires is another “highly divisive and high profile debate” to justify throwing of the rulebook out the window again.

simu wrote:

She seems as "trustworthy" as any other politician out there to me - it's naive to think that anyone can get by in politics without a bit of wrangling and manipulation.

Except we’re talking about something a bit more serious than ‘a bit of wrangling and manipulation’.

pete

The Corinthian wrote:

Not really that irrational; regardless of where you stand on the issue you have to appreciate that for someone who is strongly anti-abortion, it is viewed essentially as the organised homicide of a demographic of Society.

So it would be the equivalent of asking you to vote for a very competent politician with sound views on economics, housing, road safety, sugar consumption, beef sales to Iraq, next-day postal delivery, social welfare, neon signage and leather plimsolls, who also happens to want to gas all Jews.

Quite probably true, but the suggestion was that disagreeing with a specific opinion held by an individual (i.e. their being pro choice) renders the rest of their views worthless.

Whether you would vote for them or not is another matter entirely and quite irrelevant.

The Corinthian

pete wrote:

Quite probably true, but the suggestion was that disagreeing with a specific opinion held by an individual (i.e. their being pro choice) renders the rest of their views worthless.

Whether you would vote for them or not is another matter entirely and quite irrelevant.

Logically that is correct, however that is not how most think. For example, one could quite logically suggest that the Nazis may have had some good policies and that we should not discount those policies or even the Nazis themselves on the basis that we disagree strongly with other policies that they might have.

In reality because we disagree strongly with other policies, the vast majority of people will render all of their views worthless. If we accept that in one case, then we must in all others.

Hobbes

The Corinthian wrote:

Logically that is correct, however that is not how most think. For example, one could quite logically suggest that the Nazis may have had some good policies and that we should not discount those policies or even the Nazis themselves on the basis that we disagree strongly with other policies that they might have.

Wasn't the woman from Big Brother fired from her TV job for suggesting just that? Another example is how to stop hypothermia, Nazis discovered how to do this, the method in how they did it though is questionable.

Time to invoke Godwins law

This thread has ran it's course anyway-closed

p.s

Nevertheless, there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful. See "Quirk's exception" below.

This will be sucessfull unless fellow pol mods/smods or admins want to add to the thread...