Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 10:41AM

This post has been deleted.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 10:42AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

I understand what it means to be entirely pro life but could you explain to me what you mean when you say you are "entirely pro choice".

January · 22-09-2017 10:44AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The hotel didn't fear for the safety of its staff, the hotel have not come out and said this publicly, this is made up nonsense from the organisation that had the meeting cancelled.

Nobody was harassed or intimidated, people posted publicly on the wall of the facebook page of the hotel because they were ignoring any private messages, emails and phone calls that had been made. There were no threats made to the staff of the hotel, if they had not cancelled the meeting then there would have been a silent protest outside of the hotel the day of the conference. Nobody was going to go charging into the hotel and try to ambush the conference.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2017 10:46AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I understand what it means to be entirely pro life but could you explain to me what you mean when you say you are "entirely pro choice".

I mean I do not just hold some pro choice position as some kind of leftist or atheist default, but I have sat down and considered the issue at great length, challenged my own motivations and biases and reasoning for holding the position, sat at length with the anti choice crowd to listen to their views and their claimed basis for holding them (there was not much of this, almost none at all, just appeals of "look at the pictures maaaan")........... in other words I do not just hold the position but I know exactly why I hold it.......... and having done all that have become quite activist in the realm rather than someone who just sits back and waits for the next vote to come along.

Permabear · 22-09-2017 10:46AM

This post has been deleted.

Crea · 22-09-2017 10:55AM

The hotel haven't made a statement to the press. It's all hearsay through HLI

ohnonotgmail · 22-09-2017 10:56AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

the newspaper article only quotes the group that wanted to hold the event. they dont quote the hotel.

"The manager himself spoke to me directly of 50 pages of commentary, emails and social media, that a Facebook page had been set up opposing the conference, as well as diatribe, intimidation, upset of his staff, personal visits to the hotel and threats of protest at the hotel if conference continues. In the interest of Health and safety of his staff, he had to cancel venue".

no mention there of the staff being harassed.

SafeSurfer · 22-09-2017 11:00AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I mean I do not just hold some pro choice position as some kind of leftist or atheist default, but I have sat down and considered the issue at great length, challenged my own motivations and biases and reasoning for holding the position, sat at length with the anti choice crowd to listen to their views and their claimed basis for holding them (there was not much of this, almost none at all, just appeals of "look at the pictures maaaan")........... in other words I do not just hold the position but I know exactly why I hold it.......... and having done all that have become quite activist in the realm rather than someone who just sits back and waits for the next vote to come along.

Thank you for the explanation. It is always heartening to hear of informed opinions rather than knee jerk reactions to issues.
I had mistakenly assumed an "entirely pro choice" view was one that supports choice without restriction.

Skylinehead · 22-09-2017 11:00AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'll wait until the hotel says that, not some crackpots.

keano_afc · 22-09-2017 11:10AM

Interesting dichotomy here from the usual posters.

"Yeah the hotel took the booking, but they're totally within their right to cancel the booking once they find out who the group is"

"But the bakery took the order for the cake! It doesnt matter if they disagree with the message, their beliefs arent relevant. Bake the cake!"

Permabear · 22-09-2017 11:10AM

This post has been deleted.

super_furry · 22-09-2017 11:11AM

keano_afc wrote: »

Interesting dichotomy here from the usual posters.

"Yeah the hotel took the booking, but they're totally within their right to cancel the booking once they find out who the group is"

"But the bakery took the order for the cake! It doesnt matter if they disagree with the message, their beliefs arent relevant. Bake the cake!"

Not at all. In both instances, both service providers should have the choice.

Will I Am Not · 22-09-2017 11:14AM

We are only hearing from the side that had their meeting cancelled but you can't really say "This is made up nonsense" without proof either.

super_furry · 22-09-2017 11:15AM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

We are only hearing from the side that had their meeting cancelled but you can't really say "This is made up nonsense" without proof either.

I can based on the people who are making the claims. They lie to women, they lie to the press and I've no doubt they're lying about the harassment of hotel staff.

Will I Am Not · 22-09-2017 11:16AM

super_furry wrote: »

I can based on the people who are making the claims. They lie to women, they lie to the press and I've no doubt they're lying about the harassment of hotel staff.

You can guess. You can't make a factual claim like that.

super_furry · 22-09-2017 11:19AM

The Fake Sheikh wrote: »

You can guess. You can't make a factual claim like that.

Yeah I can. I'm pretty comfortable in stating that I don't believe them and that they're lying.

Will I Am Not · 22-09-2017 11:21AM

super_furry wrote: »

Yeah I can. I'm pretty comfortable in stating that I don't believe them and that they're lying.

That's different than saying "This is made up nonsense"

Stonedpilot · 22-09-2017 11:34AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Sorry I dont believe you. You sat down (where?) and spoke to pro life people and they just pointed at fetus pictures whilst stoned?!?.
Not buying it. You cant point and laugh at something that never happened.

I once asked a pro abortion woman to explain her position and she started screaming my body my choice pulled out a knife and chased me around Graton Street.

Making up stuff is great!.

Also I prefer the term pro abortion to pro choice. Call a spade a spade.

Billy86 · 22-09-2017 11:35AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

Some of the left are opposed to people speaking out in favour of controlling Immigration , now some on the left are opposed to people speaking out against abortion, I said before they like to silence/no platform people they generally disagree with, I strongly condemn the cancellation of the booking , for the record Im not a member of any pro life group nor a member of any pro choice group, I gave my own personal view on this issue before on another thread .

"The left" just did what the right want us all to have the right to do - voice their opinion, which in this case was negative - and in turn the business decided it was a better business decision to cancel the function.

Is there something wrong with those people voicing their opinion?

The_Valeyard · 22-09-2017 11:36AM

Billy86 wrote: »

"The left" just did what the right want us all to have the right to do - voice their opinion, which in this case was negative - and in turn the business decided it was a better business decision to cancel the function.

Is there something wrong with those people voicing their opinion?

If it was a bakery they'd be up in court.

osarusan · 22-09-2017 11:38AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If it was a bakery they'd be up in court.

If the police found reasonable evidence that the people/group discriminated against were discriminated against because of something that is protected under discrimination laws, they'd be up in court.

Billy86 · 22-09-2017 11:39AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If it was a bakery they'd be up in court.

People would be up in court for expressing unhappiness with a bakery?

The_Valeyard · 22-09-2017 11:42AM

Billy86 wrote: »

People would be up in court for expressing unhappiness with a bakery?

The whole gay cake thing.

I just find this whole thing bizarre. It's like Two groups with placards and signs protesting. Bakery has the right to choose it's Business, other group says no, discrimination, etc. Hotel refuses pro life meeting, says how the business can choose crowd are saying discrimination and the other lot are saying free choice.

MadHatter shouting "change places"

January · 22-09-2017 11:44AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

If it was a bakery they'd be up in court.

No they wouldn't, if an anti-choice group walked in and asked for a cake to be baked with a picture of a dead foetus put on top then the bakery would be well within their right to decline their business.

gctest50 · 22-09-2017 11:46AM

and :

http://bit.ly/2fFHnjM

The European Parliament (EP) adopted a parliamentary report which charges “the denial of sexual and reproductive health and rights services, including safe and legal abortion, is a form of violence against women and girls”

January · 22-09-2017 11:47AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Have a look at the hotel's facebook page, nobody made threats, nobody harassed or intimidated anybody. In fact, there's a first-hand experience of one woman who actually visited the hotel to speak to a manager and was screeched at by an assistant manager. There was no facebook page set up either.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-09-2017 11:51AM

SafeSurfer wrote: »

I had mistakenly assumed an "entirely pro choice" view was one that supports choice without restriction.

No thankfully I am not aware of too many people who support that line of thought. On boards.ie for example I have become aware of, I think, three of them. Two of them never offered their reasoning for the position AT ALL. While the third one offered nothing more than the claim that Hillary Clinton agrees with him before getting very abusive and then running out of the thread he posted it on.

So suffice to say no, it is not a position I hold nor have seen supported.

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Sorry I dont believe you. You sat down (where?) and spoke to pro life people and they just pointed at fetus pictures whilst stoned?!?.

Well firstly I did not say they were stoned. I was likening their delivery TO a stoned drawl. That is to say, they delivered the line in that elongated "Hey maaaaahhhhn" way that stoners talk in. Whether they themselves were actually stoned is not information I have, or claim to.

However I did indeed sit down with them and they did indeed reply as I described. This was some time ago now I admit, back when they used to have information stalls in front of the Central Bank in Dublin. Do you remember them? The ones with the pictures of fetuses that were, of course, of the fetus at stages MUCH later in the development process than when the VAST majority of abortions actually occur at.

I saw them there quite often and when I was in the process of examining my own positions on abortion....... and trying to determine what my position on abortion should be.... I made a point of including them in my process.

I cleared a whole Saturday for it, and I went in and essentially introduced myself and said "Look I am trying to determine my own position on this issue, could you guys let me know your thinking and reasoning on it..... what your issues are....."

They pointed at the pictures and asked had I seen them. I said that I indeed had seen them, but I was still keen to hear their reasoning behind being anti abortion and anti choice on abortion. To which they jusst reiterated, as I said above, "Look at the pictures maaaaaaan".

Stonedpilot wrote: »

I once asked a pro abortion woman

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Also I prefer the term pro abortion to pro choice. Call a spade a spade.

You must introduce us. I have been heavily involved in campaigning for abortion choice and I have yet to meet anyone who could be described as, let alone describes themselves as "pro abortion".

The reality is that every pro-choice person I have met is anti abortion. In that they would ideally live in a world where no one had to have one and no one ever had one. They therefore ALSO campaign for every initiative that reduces abortions. Improved, cheaper, more widely available contraception. Better more comprehensive and understandable support for single mothers and other families in strife. Better and more importantly EARLIER sexual education programs in our schools. And so on.

Strangely I have met many people who are anti abortion who are also anti those initiative. The catholic church for example has long been anti abortion and has also historically been known to be anti contraception. While many people I have met who are anti abortion are also anti sex education for young children...... which they justify behind some empty and meaningless guise of "protecting childhood innocence".

So regardless of what terms you personally prefer.... that is your business............ calling something that is not a spade "a spade" is not about to magically turn it into one. You can call a giraffe a spade all you like, no one wants to stop you I suspect, but it will not make it a spade either.

The definitions you PREFER and the definitions that are actually descriptively accurate..... are not seemingly the same things.

Billy86 · 22-09-2017 11:59AM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The whole gay cake thing.

I just find this whole thing bizarre. It's like Two groups with placards and signs protesting. Bakery has the right to choose it's Business, other group says no, discrimination, etc. Hotel refuses pro life meeting, says how the business can choose crowd are saying discrimination and the other lot are saying free choice.

MadHatter shouting "change places"

Except the bakery fell under refusing to serve a protected group from discrimination with no other basis than their discrimination against that group. This isn't a good comparison as the hotel originally did allow the group (who do not fall under protection from discrimination) to host their function there, and then cancelled it not even based on their own personal beliefs, but on the opinions of the public as they felt it would impact their reputation/bottom line moving forward.

This came about from the public exercising their free speech and expressing their opinions, which going by their previous posts I would figure would be something a poster like The Legend of Kira holds very dear and is happy to see being utilised.

dav3 · 22-09-2017 12:11PM

The_Valeyard wrote: »

The whole gay cake thing.

I just find this whole thing bizarre. It's like Two groups with placards and signs protesting. Bakery has the right to choose it's Business, other group says no, discrimination, etc. Hotel refuses pro life meeting, says how the business can choose crowd are saying discrimination and the other lot are saying free choice.

MadHatter shouting "change places"

I think you may need to brush up on your knowledge of the Equal Status Act.

The_Valeyard · 22-09-2017 12:13PM

dav3 wrote: »

I think you may need to brush up on your knowledge of the Equal Status Act.

I think you need to understand what I'm saying about each group protesting and claiming their stance.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments