Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k · 21-09-2017 11:27PM

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

For a group of people who are always banging on about choice it's a bit strange that they don't want people with a different view to have any voice in the debate.

And before somebody starts with the opinion that anyone with balls has no right to talk on this it's worth noting that many on the pro life side are women.

I don't care what at sex they are, their say stops at their own body. Another woman has as much say over my body or my life as a man does, that's none.

One eyed Jack · 21-09-2017 11:28PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Everybody has the right to be heard. Who died and made you champion of what is "offence and infringed"

As for soap box, how about you get down from yours and let someone else speak.

Knock yourself out and point out to me where in the Irish Constitution it says anywhere that anyone has the right to be heard.

As for letting someone else speak, well, you just did.

SafeSurfer · 21-09-2017 11:38PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

First they came for Kevin Myers, then they came for George Hook. After that, they came for the pro-life campaigners. Whose next? David Quinn? The Iona Institute?

I don't agree with any of their views, but they have a right to be heard.

Nobody has a right to be heard though, and they don't have a right to cause offence either. People arguing as though their perceived rights are being infringed are never worth listening to IMO. They're not being denied an audience, they're being denied a soap-box.

So you believe that nobody has a right to be heard?
What about the victims of clerical abuse?
The survivors of The Hillsborough Disaster? Bloody Sunday?
You say some people are never worth listening to? Who decides who has a right to be listened to? You?

gctest50 · 21-09-2017 11:41PM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Everybody has the right to be heard. Who died and made you champion of what is "offence and infringed"

As for soap box, how about you get down from yours and let someone else speak.

That crew have no more interest in the abortion issue than the cat

They are just using it to gather money for whatever brand of crazy they are really peddling

Sweetemotion wrote: »

............

Everybody has the right to be heard. .

They haven't if they can't back it up :

http://www.thejournal.ie/genesis-ii-bishop-mms-autism-cure-3051148-Oct2016/

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/parents-quizzed-over-bleach-treatment-for-autism-323563.html

some just need to be "cured" - this one took off his armband and went home -

it's a miracle :

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 11:41PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So you believe that nobody has a right to be heard?
What about the victims of clerical abuse?
The survivors of The Hillsborough Disaster? Bloody Sunday?
You say some people are never worth listening to? Who decides who has a right to be listened to? You?

I think he means that the right to free speech isn't enshrined in our constitution contrary to popular belief.

Sweetemotion · 21-09-2017 11:47PM

gctest50 wrote: »

That crew have no more interest in the abortion issue than the cat

They are just using it to gather money for whatever brand of crazy they are really peddling

They haven't if they can't back it up :

some just need to be "cured" - this one took off his armband and went home -

it's a miracle :

So just use violence against anyone who disagrees with your politically views.

Remind me again who are the "Nazis"?

SafeSurfer · 21-09-2017 11:57PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

So you believe that nobody has a right to be heard?
What about the victims of clerical abuse?
The survivors of The Hillsborough Disaster? Bloody Sunday?
You say some people are never worth listening to? Who decides who has a right to be listened to? You?

I think he means that the right to free speech isn't enshrined in our constitution contrary to popular belief.

I presume you are aware of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union passed in the Lisbon Treaty.

_Dara_ · 21-09-2017 11:59PM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I presume you are aware of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union passed in the Lisbon Treaty.

Do elaborate. Come on, don't be a pricktease.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 12:02AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I presume you are aware of the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union passed in the Lisbon Treaty.

Do elaborate. Come on, don't be a pricktease.

I presume you also have Google. You already seem to have lots of time on your hand and an ability to interpret what other posters really mean in their own posts :-)

Subzero3 · 22-09-2017 12:03AM

George Soros throwing sponsorship money behind all these abortion groups

gctest50 · 22-09-2017 12:09AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I presume you also have Google. You already seem to have lots of time on your hand and an ability to interpret what other posters really mean in their own posts :-)

hmmmm

gctest50 wrote: »

........... some just need to be "cured"

see that some , it makes all the difference

you're skipping details to suit your little "everyone is the best so they are" posts

Sweetemotion wrote: »

So just use violence against anyone who disagrees with your politically views.

It's ok to be intolerant of intolerance

Sweetemotion wrote: »

..Remind me again who are the "Nazis"?

See the video there, that bloke wearing the nazi swastika on the wrong arm, that's one

.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 12:14AM

Subzero3 wrote: »

George Soros throwing sponsorship money behind all these abortion groups

The Open Society Foundation. Social agitation makes for strange bedfellows. One of the top 30 richest people in the world, a ruthless hedge fund boss funding organisations in an alliance with Ruth Coppinger who called for Dell to be nationalised!
I wonder who is using who?

Sweetemotion · 22-09-2017 12:15AM

gctest50 wrote: »

hmmmm

It's ok to be intolerant of intolerance

You are more nazi than that guy in the video and you don't even see it.

gctest50 · 22-09-2017 12:36AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

You are more nazi than that guy in the video and you don't even see it.

Am I ? for real ?

_Dara_ · 22-09-2017 12:37AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I presume you also have Google. You already seem to have lots of time on your hand and an ability to interpret what other posters really mean in their own posts :-)

No, no, you go on. Knock yourself out. This is a discussion board, where would it be if we all spent our time scouring google instead? You have the information, enlighten me.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 12:41AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I presume you also have Google. You already seem to have lots of time on your hand and an ability to interpret what other posters really mean in their own posts :-)

No, no, you go on. Knock yourself out. This is a discussion board, where would it be if we all spent our time scouring google instead? You have the information, enlighten me.

Lazy, argumentative and convinced they are right. I'm guessing undergraduate. :-)

_Dara_ · 22-09-2017 12:53AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Lazy, argumentative and convinced they are right. I'm guessing undergraduate. :-)

Undergraduate + ten years.

It's a simple request. What's the big deal?

hatrickpatrick · 22-09-2017 02:00AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

Do elaborate. Come on, don't be a pricktease.

Do we have to bring our weiners into this?

_Dara_ · 22-09-2017 04:54AM

Wibbs wrote: »

And "imperial science" isn't so infallible either and both the anti and pro choice can point to their own personal science to back up their respective positions.

You mean empirical science? Yeah, it can be wrong but by its definition, it's only interested in cold, hard observation so it's much more cut and dried than moral "rights" and "wrongs".

22-09-2017 05:44AM

frag420 wrote: »

Sure the Pro Life crowd have no issues intimidating women looking for health advice, holding up graphic placards, spitting on women, shouting at them...

I for one will be dropping into the Aisling Hotel and buying a few drinks there next time I am home!!

Haven't they? Everyone I know who is Pro Life hates that stuff.

Could you cite a source for your implied suggestion that being Pro Life per se means support for spitting on women. The link seems, at most, "well they are the same side of the debate as the tiiiiiiiiiiiiiiny numbers who do".

Which is as utterly idiotic as saying "do you like Ireland? No issues with blowing up kids so".

22-09-2017 05:53AM

January wrote: »

They're not views if they've been proven to be untrue facts though. They are harmful lies.

There is no requirement that people give speeches or opinions that are honest or scientifically accurate. Otherwise the first forum that would be shut down is the Dail!

You are entitled to give a speech that is inaccurate or open to challenge. The next person is entitled to challenge it, or give their own speech. The use of intimation or threats to prevent the former is pathetic. And that's the same for both sides.

Annasopra · 22-09-2017 08:20AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Another self appointed member of public opinion. :rolleyes:

Its true though. You are saying everyone has the right to be heard but OEJ should shut up cause you don't like what he has to say. Do you not see any irony or hypocrisy?

Annasopra · 22-09-2017 08:26AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I think he means that the right to free speech isn't enshrined in our constitution contrary to popular belief.

It isn't. That's true. The right to freedom of expression is of course enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights though. Ireland is subject to International Human Rights law.

Annasopra · 22-09-2017 08:28AM

Subzero3 wrote: »

George Soros throwing sponsorship money behind all these abortion groups

Who is funding all the pro life groups? Everyone knows there is millions of American dollars pouring in here to find them right now.

20Cent · 22-09-2017 08:30AM

Sweetemotion wrote: »

gctest50 wrote: »

hmmmm

It's ok to be intolerant of intolerance

You are more nazi than that guy in the video and you don't even see it.

It's not ok to be tolerant of intolerance.

Wibbs · 22-09-2017 08:49AM

_Dara_ wrote: »

You mean empirical science?

>-<
Damned spellcheck and lazy proofreading(the suggestion I even proofread....)

Imperial Scientist. Checking out his new iPod design.

Yeah, it can be wrong but by its definition, it's only interested in cold, hard observation so it's much more cut and dried than moral "rights" and "wrongs".

On the face of it yes, but in practice all too often not so much. Biases in science can be very strong. Some areas of scientific enquiry can be quite vague. Depending on the observer(s) results can vary, sometimes wildly disagree. Scientific facts change over time. When used as evidence by non scientific/political groups cherrypicking is all too common. So it's not nearly so cold and hard as it appears and should be.

Triangle · 22-09-2017 09:07AM

January wrote: »

Exactly, there is no evidence yet this crowd still spout their nonsense. The venue was not intimidated, people made contact with the hotel via social media and phonecalls to express their disappointment at the hotel giving a platform to such heinous untruths (it wasn't only the breast cancer link they were peddling, it was also that women who have abortions suffer severe mental health disorders because of them), similar to how anti-choicers have done to venues holding pro-choice meetings.

I'm sorry January, but there are alot of organisations out there peddling stupidity/lies in my opinion. But it's not my place to stop them or prohibit them. I'll disagree with them and voice my opinion, but they have the right to tell it as they see it and ALOT of people take hearsay as proof.
These organisations could be any number of religious organisations (that have no proof but preach like they have), or governments peddling half truths, or large corporations misleading share holders. But I'm not going to go around and stop them from speaking. Everyone of us has a responsibility to make our own decisions in life and even more to respect each others ownership of this personal right of choice and decision making.
If John wants to invest in an sun salon in the Sahara - I'm not going to get in his way.......

seanin4711 · 22-09-2017 09:16AM

El Weirdo wrote: »

As far as I got.

two sides to everything

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2017 09:57AM

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Extremely dangerous people those whom cannot even tolerate others views.

Neither side is blameless in that of course. Just because in THIS case it was a pro life event that was bullied away, that does not mean this is some "leftist" thing in play. Do not use the questionable actions of a handful of loud mouth brutes to score points in some kind of new-age partisan "left against right" narrative in your own head.

We have similar events all over the world from BOTH sides of this debate. And need I point out that it was the anti-choice people, not the pro-choice ones, who have murdered abortion doctors or bombed abortion clinics.

The moment people attack discourse, we have a problem. Both sides should be allowed speak and hold their talks and demonstrations.

As someone who is entirely pro-choice I see no benefit in shutting down Anti Choice talks and events. Their arguments and reasoning is so poor (often non existent and reliant solely on buzz words and emotive photographs of a fetus)........ that I think we in the pro choice movement can do nothing better than let them speak and hang themselves with their own tosh and nonsense.

I have sat down and talked with these people. ASKED them to explain their position to me. And simply been told "Look at the pictures maaaaan!!!" in a stoned empty drawl. If that is all they have then please PLEASE let them speak. We get to point and laugh.

Crea · 22-09-2017 10:23AM

People don't seem to realise that nothing needs to replace the 8th ammendment. This is a part if the constitution, if it us removed absolutely nothing changes in real terms. According to our laws abortion is still illegal even with the ammendment removed.
What removing the ammendment does do is allow for the law to be changed to allow, for example, termination for fatal foetal abnormalities.
If anyone thinks it's going to open the door to a free for all hasn't been paying attention to the way our politicians work. They are an extremely conservative lot who shy away from social change. I think we'd be lucky to have any change in current abortion law on the next 10 years.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments