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

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

12467…42

Comments

  • #92
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    There are thousands of venues they can use in Dublin and you can bet someone sympathetic to their point of view will have offered one by now. Being silenced me arse.


  • #93
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There are thousands of venues they can use in Dublin and you can bet someone sympathetic to their point of view will have offered one by now. Being silenced me arse.

    And when they book another one, that venue too will get harassed? Do you realise how myopic your statement is?


  • #94
    Igotadose
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,635 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    FactCheck wrote: »
    The reality is that stuff like this is brilliant when it happens because you get a free article in the paper and maybe even five minutes on Drivetime to whinge about how oppressed your tiny meeting nobody cared about has been.

    Everyone needs to put their knickers back on and calm down. Denial of freedom of speech is a serious problem in Ireland - our pro-"good name" libel laws are among the most restrictive in the Western world. If you care about freedom of speech, this is not the hill to die on. It's stupid. Get a grip everyone.

    Brilliant post. FFS there's a Blasphemy law on the books. Blasphemy...


  • #95
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Bygumbo wrote: »
    And when they book another one, that venue too will get harassed? Do you realise how myopic your statement is?

    I don't believe the original venue or it's staff were subjected to harassment in the first place.


  • #96
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,147 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    eviltwin wrote: »
    There are thousands of venues they can use in Dublin and you can bet someone sympathetic to their point of view will have offered one by now. Being silenced me arse.

    Are they not entitled to hire a venue just like the repeal campaign are?

    If for example a small political party like Solidarity or the Green Party could not secure a hotel venue for a conference because of the threats and opposition of their opponents is that a sign of a healthy society and a functioning democracy?

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • Advertisement
  • #97
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    "Shout down", "silencing". These phrases are in danger of being worn out. Opposing something isn't any of these things. There are very few ways to silence anyone these days, there are numerous avenues to voice your views. It's dramatics to view opposition as an attempt at silencing someone. It's very babyish stuff.

    There's a difference between voicing your objection to something in principle (EG, I don't believe that the pro-life lobby are right and here's why), and actually asking that they be denied a platform (EG, I don't think you should allow the pro-life lobby to speak in your venue, because I don't agree with them).

    The latter very much counts an attempt to silence somebody. Whether they can find another venue or not doesn't change the fact that the people engaging in these campaigns are not merely disagreeing with particular speech, they're taking actual action to disrupt its delivery. Objecting to the mere delivery of a point of view may be perfectly legal, but it's still vile, scummy, and not in keeping with the spirit of what free speech is supposed to be about in a democratic society.


  • #98
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Bygumbo wrote: »
    And when they book another one, that venue too will get harassed? Do you realise how myopic your statement is?

    Maybe. But as pointed out, pro-choice groups face this too. Emotions run high in this debate.


  • #99
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Are they not entitled to hire a venue just like the repeal campaign are?

    If for example a small political party like Solidarity or the Green Party could not secure a hotel venue for a conference because of the threats and opposition of their opponents is that a sign of a healthy society and a functioning democracy?

    They are but the venue has the right to refuse or cancel if they don't want them there. Fuss over nothing imo.


  • #100
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Are they not entitled to hire a venue just like the repeal campaign are?

    If for example a small political party like Solidarity or the Green Party could not secure a hotel venue for a conference because of the threats and opposition of their opponents is that a sign of a healthy society and a functioning democracy?

    The repeal campaign has had venues cancel on them because of pressure from anti choice groups.


  • #101
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    eviltwin wrote: »
    I don't believe the original venue or it's staff were subjected to harassment in the first place.

    And what is that belief based on?

    I don't know any of the details, but assuming the bare bones, that an event was cancelled because of pressure, in whatever form it took, leads me to take the educated guess that harassment (or whatever synonym) is likely. Logical deduction.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I think I despise vast majority of the loudest voices on both sides of debate.

    The same thing happened during the Gay Marriage debate. I supported it and campaigned for it, but some of the less "simple persuasion attempt" and more "shaming / harassing / bullying attempt" tactics of some of my fellow advocates absolutely disgusted me - and worse, I am absolutely positive, probably cost us votes in the long run. People underestimate the willingness of some to vote against something for no reason other than sheer bloody-mindedness at feeling pressured into voting for it. Fundamentally, people don't like being told what to do - much better to ask them to do it instead. It's about messaging. This is something I can see being a massive issue during the eighth amendment referendum campaign, on both sides. It's going to be a bitter, ugly, acrimonious spat and I fear that it will bring out the absolute worst in some people.


  • #103
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    There's a difference between voicing your objection to something in principle (EG, I don't believe that the pro-life lobby are right and here's why), and actually asking that they be denied a platform (EG, I don't think you should allow the pro-life lobby to speak in your venue, because I don't agree with them).

    The latter very much counts an attempt to silence somebody. Whether they can find another venue or not doesn't change the fact that the people engaging in these campaigns are not merely disagreeing with particular speech, they're taking actual action to disrupt its delivery. Objecting to the mere delivery of a point of view may be perfectly legal, but it's still vile, scummy, and not in keeping with the spirit of what free speech is supposed to be about in a democratic society.

    I'm going to keep repeating this because it's being glossed over but pro-choice groups face stiff opposition too, as has been demonstrated by a poster on this thread. It's a trope currently to paint this as a lefty tactic so it's important to put across that it certainly is not just a left wing thing. It's something that happens on both sides among more extreme individuals.

    I agree that the Yes side of the MarRef was at times OTT. But anyone who voted against something they believe in for that reason alone has, quite frankly, got sh1t for brains.


  • #104
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Maybe. But as pointed out, pro-choice groups face this too. Emotions run high in this debate.

    Just for the record, to be clear, I absolutely condemn this as well. Campaigns to make it difficult for people of any political persuasion to set out their stall absolutely repulse me, regardless of whether that stall is advocating more timely repairs of local potholes or forcefully exiling anyone less than six feet tall to the Aran Islands.


  • #105
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    Bygumbo wrote: »
    And what is that belief based on?

    I don't know any of the details, but assuming the bare bones, that an event was cancelled because of pressure, in whatever form it took, leads me to take the educated guess that harassment (or whatever synonym) is likely. Logical deduction.

    The only person to mention harassment is the spokesman for the group involved. No comment from the hotel or it's staff, no evidence of any intimidation. Seeing as the entire talk was based on completely bs I'd hazard a guess this claim is the same. If it turns out there were threats made I will agree with you completely, I have no time for that kind of thing.


  • #106
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Maybe. But as pointed out, pro-choice groups face this too. Emotions run high in this debate.

    Well then its just a complete and utter farce, before its even begun.

    There are 3 or 4 major points to each side. Stick the relevant info in a booklet and have the government send it out to people. To hell with this campaigning nonsense, its basically one group with hyper conviction going door to door annoying people who don't care enough in the first place to think about the issue.

    I think I'm already done with it :P


  • #107
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    eviltwin wrote: »
    The only person to mention harassment is the spokesman for the group involved. No comment from the hotel or it's staff, no evidence of any intimidation. Seeing as the entire talk was based on completely bs I'd hazard a guess this claim is the same. If it turns out there were threats made I will agree with you completely, I have no time for that kind of thing.

    As another poster said its an absolutely toxic issue, and I wouldn't put anything past anyone on either campaigning side.


  • #108
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Bygumbo wrote: »
    Well then its just a complete and utter farce, before its even begun.

    There are 3 or 4 major points to each side. Stick the relevant info in a booklet and have the government send it out to people. To hell with this campaigning nonsense, its basically one group with hyper conviction going door to door annoying people who don't care enough in the first place to think about the issue.

    I think I'm already done with it :P

    I agree, there are plenty of sensible people who take either stance. I just hate the popular view that lefties are the only ones who loudly protest at things.


  • #109
    Vyse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,399 ✭✭✭Vyse


    January wrote: »
    The repeal campaign has had venues cancel on them because of pressure from anti choice groups.

    So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.


  • #110
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Vyse wrote: »
    So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.

    Just like it's anti abortion vs a pro abortion... plenty of terns for either side. You use the one you want and I'll use the one I want.


  • #111
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    Vyse wrote: »
    So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.

    Just ignore everything that's shovelled up in front of your face. Use your own brain.

    Its not like a quantum physics test, most people should be aware of the basic facts and that's enough to make a decision. Anyone going door to door or paying for advertising or shutting down others or having conferences....its for the birds. They are OBVIOUSLY trying to sell their own point of view and they want you to adopt it, not make your own decision.

    As you say, even the twisting of language is pure bullsh0t. Ignore them all.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Can somebody explain this to me.
    If the referendum takes place next year.
    What will we exactly be voting on?
    Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
    In generally I get mixed answers.


  • #113
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Can somebody explain this to me.
    If the referendum takes place next year.
    What will we exactly be voting on?
    Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
    In generally I get mixed answers.

    We don't know yet. The committee that's meeting in the Dail at the moment will put recommendations forward but they will still need to be approved by the government.


  • #114
    amcalester
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭amcalester


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Can somebody explain this to me.
    If the referendum takes place next year.
    What will we exactly be voting on?
    Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
    In generally I get mixed answers.

    Nobody knows yet, the wording of the referendum hasn't been decided yet.


  • #115
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Opposing an argument is different from using intimidation to ensure that the argument cannot be heard.

    It's pretty much impossible to not find an avenue for your views these days. In the past it was much easier, but these days? I see no shortage of right wing opinion in the public sphere.


  • #116
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    January wrote: »
    We don't know yet. The committee that's meeting in the Dail at the moment will put recommendations forward but they will still need to be approved by the government.
    amcalester wrote: »
    Nobody knows yet, the wording of the referendum hasn't been decided yet.

    Thanks!
    If there's any hope of it being removed I think they'll need to let people vote on what exactly they want legalised!


  • #117
    Achasanai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 730 ✭✭✭Achasanai


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Can somebody explain this to me.
    If the referendum takes place next year.
    What will we exactly be voting on?

    My understanding is that we will be asked to vote whether to repeal the 8th and replace with whatever wording the government eventually decides upon. Something middle-of-the-road that will allow for abortion in extremely limited circumstances (rape/incest/threat to life of the mother). Whatever the focus groups agree has a chance of passing.


  • #118
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    It's pretty much impossible to not find an avenue for your views these days. In the past it was much easier, but these days? I see no shortage of right wing opinion in the public sphere.

    So I'm being sincere here, is this really just another incarnation of left versus right?

    I made a comment earlier about us importing political poison from America, is that all everything will boil down to now? Left versus right?

    Cos I can sure as anything see the beginnings of another world war coming out of such narrow mindedness.

    "youre with us or against us!"

    The best thing we'll ever do is distance ourselves culturally and politically as far as possible from that collapsing country. All you have to do is look at the United States and ask one question, "would I like Ireland to be the same way?"


  • #119
    meeeeh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    Bygumbo wrote: »
    So I'm being sincere here, is this really just another incarnation of left versus right?

    I made a comment earlier about us importing political poison from America, is that all everything will boil down to now? Left versus right?
    I agree that left vs right too narrow. I think Solidarity and co are devil's spawn but my views on abortion completely align with theirs. I think there is much more variety in people's opinions.


  • #120
    Bygumbo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 80 ✭✭Bygumbo


    meeeeh wrote: »
    I agree that left vs right too narrow. I think Solidarity and co are devil's spawn but my views on abortion completely align with theirs. I think there is much more variety in people's opinions.

    Its scary how quickly irish people are adopting American attitudes. Its a sad realisation just how little self-identity we have as a nation that we can only mimic another.

    No wonder the world is heading in a certain direction.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    Spider Web
    Closed Accounts Posts: 386 ✭✭Spider Web


    This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false. The organisation in question provides incorrect/false information in relation to health/medicine - this is dangerous and should not be given a platform (my own views on abortion are mixed).

    Consider a hypothetical scenario - where a group with a less conservative message such as "Small boys who show a brief interest in their sisters' dolls are one hundred per cent transgender, fact" are scheduled to give a talk. They're not proffering an opinion - they are stating a falsehood to be fact. Should such misinformation be given a platform?

    So people were right to express an objection.

    However, I saw the hotel's Facebook wall and I think people behaved like complete arseholes to them. And seemed to enjoy it too. Real brave on their keyboards. Some continued to do so after there were murmurings that it looked like the event was going to be cancelled. Couldn't be bothered even reading. Much more fun to keep haranguing a person who may not have had anything to do with the booking, and no say on anything in relation to it. And of course then there were the sneers of "Oh they're fierce quiet" and demands for an answer (as if they've a God-given right to one just because they posted) and "omg dats a discrace im nvr stayin der" idiocy.

    Those objecting should have sent emails and private messages - no need for the wall posts. It's so spiteful to try to ruin a business - no consideration as to the bigger picture and people's jobs there. That's the "I want peace and love and tolerance and fairness and justice... and I'll be a bully until I get it" crowd for ya though.


Advertisement