Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Jelle1880 · 24-09-2017 08:22AM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I note that the Aisling hotel which canceled the pro life conference is due next week to host a meeting by a Humanist group on the touchy subject of assisted suicide ( see screensave ) .

Now what if for the sake if some people were to try pressure the Ashling hotel into canceling this meeting on assisted suicide being held at their venue, should they concede to such pressure ? or should they not concede to pressure ? surely in what,s supposed to be a democratic society we can publicly debate & publicly discuss issues which may be touchy or sensitive ?

Nobody is stopping people from sending angry emails or letters, and the hotel is free to ignore these people..

leggo · 24-09-2017 08:32AM

I'll be voting to repeal the 8th, without question.

But here's the thing...if YOU want it to pass, then have a bit of cop on. These debates are always won by undecided voters. This behaviour is the kind of thing that sways people and should be condemned, ESPECIALLY by people who want it to pass because it threatens what you want to happen! Jumped up people on a high horse acting like they're entitled to have their every half-baked opinion as law while sneering, mocking and yelling at anyone who disagrees is exactly how disgusting stuff like Brexit or Trump being elected creeps up on us. Because that behaviour doesn't convince anyone, in fact it fortifies undecided people's positions and pushes them underground, only to pop back up inconveniently on polling day. That disconnect between the arrogant, sneering left (of which I have likely been one no doubt) and the everyman, undecided voter is what gives stuff like this the strength to rise. It's how the common sense of the media begins to get ignored because they treated the threat of Brexit/Trump as a joke.

Let people be wrong, then engage with them in a meaningful, respectful way which will convince them. There was a period during the same sex marriage referendum when the yes side got nasty and it threatened to derail the whole thing. In the end, it got back on track, but the fact that it was still only 60-40 and by no means a landslide shows that these life-changing votes can swing on small stuff like this.

We need to fix how we engage in social and political discourse fast.

TheShow · 24-09-2017 08:50AM

wes wrote: »

Let look at what the article actually says:

So people on the other side exercising there right to free speech, by contacting the hotel about how there against the event is perfectly valid. Free speech whether the Right likes it or not, is a 2 way street. You can say what you like, but so can the other guy.

If someone doesn't want to do business with a hotel in this case, due to there hosting an ideology they are against, that is there right. The same rights that the pro life group has as well.

Sorry, but your claims of people being silenced or there free speech being violated is simply untrue, and your basically saying people can't disagree with someone, which could also be called an attempt to silence people.

Their, they're and there. Please note these are not interchangeable.
It's ok to exercise your right to free speech and to disagree, but not to the point of intimidation. The hotelier had to cancel due to fear of safety for staff and occupants. Whatever side you're on, mob mentality is not the answer.

20Cent · 24-09-2017 09:20AM

TheShow wrote: »

Their, they're and there. Please note these are not interchangeable.
It's ok to exercise your right to free speech and to disagree, but not to the point of intimidation. The hotelier had to cancel due to fear of safety for staff and occupants. Whatever side you're on, mob mentality is not the answer.

Is there any proof of actual intimidation?

I'd have taken screenshots or recorded it if I was this group.
Seems all there is is the word of the head of this organisation.

dav3 · 24-09-2017 09:27AM

Just so I'm clear, has the hotel actually confirmed that they were harassed and this harassment led them to cancel?
I'm seeing some people passing this off as fact, have I missed a statement from the hotel on this?

As far as I'm aware, the group that were due to give the conference can still be heard pushing their mistruths on various platforms, so they certainly haven't been silenced.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 09:53AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ok. So when poor people voice their opinion its utterly contemptible, but when millionaires fund think tanks or buy newspapers and tv stations so they can have editorial control that's the free market and freedom of speech. Gotcha

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 10:04AM

leggo wrote: »

I'll be voting to repeal the 8th, without question.

But here's the thing...if YOU want it to pass, then have a bit of cop on. These debates are always won by undecided voters. This behaviour is the kind of thing that sways people and should be condemned, ESPECIALLY by people who want it to pass because it threatens what you want to happen! Jumped up people on a high horse acting like they're entitled to have their every half-baked opinion as law while sneering, mocking and yelling at anyone who disagrees is exactly how disgusting stuff like Brexit or Trump being elected creeps up on us. Because that behaviour doesn't convince anyone, in fact it fortifies undecided people's positions and pushes them underground, only to pop back up inconveniently on polling day. That disconnect between the arrogant, sneering left (of which I have likely been one no doubt) and the everyman, undecided voter is what gives stuff like this the strength to rise. It's how the common sense of the media begins to get ignored because they treated the threat of Brexit/Trump as a joke.

Let people be wrong, then engage with them in a meaningful, respectful way which will convince them. There was a period during the same sex marriage referendum when the yes side got nasty and it threatened to derail the whole thing. In the end, it got back on track, but the fact that it was still only 60-40 and by no means a landslide shows that these life-changing votes can swing on small stuff like this.

We need to fix how we engage in social and political discourse fast.

Undecided voters are swung by whoever tells the most convincing lies.

Free speech isn't as simple as some people make out. In the referendum, there will be a referendum commission to try and moderate the debate and stop shenanigans like blatant manipulation and lies. If the UK had one, the 350 million a week lie might have been challenged and brexit would likely have failed.

Slander laws protect individuals from malicious lies, but political misinformation can be way more damaging and can have have long term consequences

Jelle1880 · 24-09-2017 10:18AM

dav3 wrote: »

Just so I'm clear, has the hotel actually confirmed that they were harassed and this harassment led them to cancel?
I'm seeing some people passing this off as fact, have I missed a statement from the hotel on this?

As far as I'm aware, the group that were due to give the conference can still be heard pushing their mistruths on various platforms, so they certainly haven't been silenced.

They have not.

The only people claiming it are the organisers of the event.

But that's good enough for some people to have a go at how their freedom of speech is being destroyed, apparently.

leggo · 24-09-2017 10:22AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Undecided voters are swung by whoever tells the most convincing lies.

Free speech isn't as simple as some people make out. In the referendum, there will be a referendum commission to try and moderate the debate and stop shenanigans like blatant manipulation and lies. If the UK had one, the 350 million a week lie might have been challenged and brexit would likely have failed.

Slander laws protect individuals from malicious lies, but political misinformation can be way more damaging and can have have long term consequences

That becomes true when both arguments cancel each other out like a wall of noise, which is becoming the norm now. In the past (maybe before social media), common sense tended to come to the fore because of the structures we had in place that you speak of. Now that those structures have been broken down because you can entrench yourself and surround your peripherals only with views that support your own, it becomes about who's shouting loudest. So all undecided voters have to make their mind up is to judge which side they identify with most, and stuff like this is going to push them away from the pro-repeal side. As with the SSM referendum, I think the best course of action is to be confident that your argument is right and handle yourself with a bit of class. That's way more persuasive than belitttling others or militantly protesting their right to have a dissenting view.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 10:23AM

leggo wrote: »

I'll be voting to repeal the 8th, without question.

But here's the thing...if YOU want it to pass, then have a bit of cop on. These debates are always won by undecided voters. This behaviour is the kind of thing that sways people and should be condemned, ESPECIALLY by people who want it to pass because it threatens what you want to happen! Jumped up people on a high horse acting like they're entitled to have their every half-baked opinion as law while sneering, mocking and yelling at anyone who disagrees is exactly how disgusting stuff like Brexit or Trump being elected creeps up on us. Because that behaviour doesn't convince anyone, in fact it fortifies undecided people's positions and pushes them underground, only to pop back up inconveniently on polling day. That disconnect between the arrogant, sneering left (of which I have likely been one no doubt) and the everyman, undecided voter is what gives stuff like this the strength to rise. It's how the common sense of the media begins to get ignored because they treated the threat of Brexit/Trump as a joke.

Let people be wrong, then engage with them in a meaningful, respectful way which will convince them. There was a period during the same sex marriage referendum when the yes side got nasty and it threatened to derail the whole thing. In the end, it got back on track, but the fact that it was still only 60-40 and by no means a landslide shows that these life-changing votes can swing on small stuff like this.

We need to fix how we engage in social and political discourse fast.

Why don't you go an look at the ashling hotels page. There was no sneering.

And as for having respectful debates? I'm all up for it but don't expect me to be respectful to a group that lies to vulnerable women. The people that do that should be charged and put in prison. The group should be outlawed and any charitable status should be evoked.
I'm not saying shut down all pro life groups, but when one breaks the law and lies to vulnerable women, then it should be banned. And I don't think it's wrong to alert businesses about these groups.

Yet apparently, thinking that makes me an extreme lefty.

Jelle1880 · 24-09-2017 10:37AM

leggo wrote: »

That becomes true when both arguments cancel each other out like a wall of noise, which is becoming the norm now. In the past (maybe before social media), common sense tended to come to the fore because of the structures we had in place that you speak of. Now that those structures have been broken down because you can entrench yourself and surround your peripherals only with views that support your own, it becomes about who's shouting loudest. So all undecided voters have to make their mind up is to judge which side they identify with most, and stuff like this is going to push them away from the pro-repeal side. As with the SSM referendum, I think the best course of action is to be confident that your argument is right and handle yourself with a bit of class. That's way more persuasive than belitttling others or militantly protesting their right to have a dissenting view.

While you're right about the impact that social media etc. has on entrenching people's views, pretending that before social media debates were civil and structured isn't exactly correct.

Even back to the days of the Romans debates were full of insults and derogatory language towards everyone who disagreed. People simply don't like different opinions than their own.

leggo · 24-09-2017 10:47AM

Grayson wrote: »

Why don't you go an look at the ashling hotels page. There was no sneering.

And as for having respectful debates? I'm all up for it but don't expect me to be respectful to a group that lies to vulnerable women. The people that do that should be charged and put in prison. The group should be outlawed and any charitable status should be evoked.
I'm not saying shut down all pro life groups, but when one breaks the law and lies to vulnerable women, then it should be banned. And I don't think it's wrong to alert businesses about these groups.

Yet apparently, thinking that makes me an extreme lefty.

You realise that protesting their crap only gives them credibility and a sense of martyrdom in the general public's eyes? Treat them as seriously as everyone treated the "Dey want 2 take ar babyes!" crowd in the referendum and the voting will reflect that.

leggo · 24-09-2017 10:51AM

Jelle1880 wrote: »

While you're right about the impact that social media etc. has on entrenching people's views, pretending that before social media debates were civil and structured isn't exactly correct.

Even back to the days of the Romans debates were full of insults and derogatory language towards everyone who disagreed. People simply don't like different opinions than their own.

Oh I'm not blinkered to the fact that discourse, particularly around sensitive subjects like this, has always been problematic. But social media removes the checks and balances that used to allow common sense to emerge (most of the time) in the ballot box, so it doesn't become about the issues anymore and more about the personalities involved and swing voters identifying with one side or the other. So when I see ugly stuff like this (and trying to remove someone's right to have a say, however misguided they are, is ugly) on the side I want to win, I count it as a loss because of how people will perceive it.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 11:00AM

leggo wrote: »

You realise that protesting their crap only gives them credibility and a sense of martyrdom in the general public's eyes? Treat them as seriously as everyone treated the "Dey want 2 take ar babyes!" crowd in the referendum and the voting will reflect that.

Whats crazy about this situation is that this is a group that is despicable. They lie to pregnant women and they're almost certainly lying about the hotel employees getting threatened.

But for some reason people who posted, quite politely, on the hotel facebook page are being portrayed as the bad guys. Letting these people having a paid event, where they can raise money so they can continue the harm they do, is apparently the correct form of action. Simply letting a hotel know who these people are, so the hotel can hake it's own decision, is bad.

That makes no sense. Not logically or ethically.

Now, if any threats actually occurred, that would be wrong, but we have no reliable evidence for this. We only have the word of a group that lies all the time.

leggo · 24-09-2017 11:02AM

The concept of martyrdom really is lost on you, huh?

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 11:06AM

leggo wrote: »

You realise that protesting their crap only gives them credibility and a sense of martyrdom in the general public's eyes? Treat them as seriously as everyone treated the "Dey want 2 take ar babyes!" crowd in the referendum and the voting will reflect that.

There were bad people "on many sides"

You're essentially saying that the only political voice that ordinary people have, the right to protest, is illegitimate and counter productive.

Protest has been a vehicle of change for generations. As long as it's non violent, it's freedom of speech and should be protected.

The 'right' love ineffective protest, but this is the they think protest is great when it's far away and locked into a 'free speech zone'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_speech_zone

(i'm not saying you're personally right wing, but they've steered the narrative this way)

But when a protest actually works and convinces people to change their mind, then this suddenly becomes 'fascism'.

Love how pro-life people support banning information, making it illegal to even talk about abortion, but if pro-choice people use their voice and tell a hotel that they don't agree with a particular organisation with a shady background, this is fascism.

leggo · 24-09-2017 11:12AM

I agree there are bad people on both sides. But I call out the bad people on my side because their actions may turn people against my side. I want the right to be able to say what I like on the matter, so in order to do so I have to extend that right to the opposite side. Debate with them, organise your own events to specifically disprove the bile they put out, but don't protest their right to have a voice and then expect to have a voice yourself. Why can't people get their head around this?

Grayson · 24-09-2017 11:20AM

leggo wrote: »

The concept of martyrdom really is lost on you, huh?

What ever is said or done these guys will claim they're martyrs. It's their standard tactic. You can't stop doing something because they'll say they'ere martyrs. Already in this thread there are people saying that the the entire media is against them.

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 11:38AM

leggo wrote: »

I agree there are bad people on both sides. But I call out the bad people on my side because their actions may turn people against my side. I want the right to be able to say what I like on the matter, so in order to do so I have to extend that right to the opposite side. Debate with them, organise your own events to specifically disprove the bile they put out, but don't protest their right to have a voice and then expect to have a voice yourself. Why can't people get their head around this?

Why does an international PR organisation have a 'right to have a voice'

The world is full of dangerous cults who have absolutely no interest in honest debate. If ISIS had an organisation called friends of ISIS and they were organising events in areas with vulnerable young people and blatantly recruiting people to go and fly to syria and become jihadis, do you think protesting is illegitimate then?

Do you think it would be an attack on free speech if the hotel decided to cancel an event by 'friends of ISIS' because people told them that this is an organisation they don't think should be associated with the hotel?

Akrasia · 24-09-2017 11:46AM

Actually, forget about ISIS. Lets say I book a hotel and hold a conference telling everyone that they shoudn't get vaccines because they cause autism, but instead they should buy my magical armband that cures all illness.

Should people organise counter conferences telling people that I'm a charlatan? or should they just go into the hotel and tell them that I'm a fraudster and they shouldn't be associated with me.

Is it fascism for people to use their voice to tell a hotel that they will think poorly of them if they host a conference that is aimed at spreading misinformation and lies.

leggo · 24-09-2017 11:54AM

That happens though! And there's nothing we can do to stop that kind of crap getting spread because the Internet exists. So instead of trying to push it away and pretending it doesn't exist (like this one conference getting cancelled will be the end of this particular group and the stuff they spread), why not use that energy to create a compelling argument against what they're saying? That might actually change some minds. Stopping them from having their say doesn't change any minds and just gives power to the whole crazy "this is the stuff they don't want you to hear maaaaann" logic that works for them.

It's a matter of priorities, what do you want more: for you personally to not have to see or hear this stuff, or for the majority of people to come around to your way of thinking? This tactic achieves the former but not the latter.

Grayson · 24-09-2017 11:57AM

Strangely though, there are now pro lifers posting on the hotel page. One called them cowardly and said anyone who's pro life should boycott the hotel. That goes further than anything the pro choice people said.

eviltwin · 24-09-2017 12:06PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Actually, forget about ISIS. Lets say I book a hotel and hold a conference telling everyone that they shoudn't get vaccines because they cause autism, but instead they should buy my magical armband that cures all illness.

Should people organise counter conferences telling people that I'm a charlatan? or should they just go into the hotel and tell them that I'm a fraudster and they shouldn't be associated with me.

Is it fascism for people to use their voice to tell a hotel that they will think poorly of them if they host a conference that is aimed at spreading misinformation and lies.

Didn't this happen recently, some yoke faith healer had an event booked in a hotel with some dodgy claim he could cure autism with prayer or something. Media got wind of it, people contacted the venue, talk was cancelled. Where's his cheerleaders?

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 12:11PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

I note that the Aisling hotel which canceled the pro life conference is due next week to host a meeting by a Humanist group on the touchy subject of assisted suicide ( see screensave ) .

Now what if for the sake if some people were to try pressure the Ashling hotel into canceling this meeting on assisted suicide being held at their venue, should they concede to such pressure ? or should they not concede to pressure ? surely in what,s supposed to be a democratic society we can publicly debate & publicly discuss issues which may be touchy or sensitive ?

Major difference is that not making outlandish claims such as abortion causing breast cancer. Pseudo science and factually incorrect propaganda worked against the pro life group. If they engage in unethical behaviour which they are, that can backfire.

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 12:18PM

Akrasia wrote: »

Why does an international PR organisation have a 'right to have a voice'

The world is full of dangerous cults who have absolutely no interest in honest debate. If ISIS had an organisation called friends of ISIS and they were organising events in areas with vulnerable young people and blatantly recruiting people to go and fly to syria and become jihadis, do you think protesting is illegitimate then?

Do you think it would be an attack on free speech if the hotel decided to cancel an event by 'friends of ISIS' because people told them that this is an organisation they don't think should be associated with the hotel?

So who decides who is and who isn't allowed to debate. You?

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 12:22PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So who decides who is and who isn't allowed to debate. You?

Venues do not have to allow groups to give talks if they don't want to. Pro life groups are allowed to give talks in plenty of hotels. This group is particularly controversial hence the loss of venue.

DickSwiveller · 24-09-2017 12:35PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Venues do not have to allow groups to give talks if they don't want to. Pro life groups are allowed to give talks in plenty of hotels. This group is particularly controversial hence the loss of venue.

If opposition groups are putting pressure on venues, then that sort of insidious, nasty approach is restricting free assembly and free thought. What are the pro choice crowd so afraid of?

The word 'controversial', like 'extremist' is completely subjective. It usually means currently not very fashionable.

pitifulgod · 24-09-2017 12:38PM

DickSwiveller wrote: »

If opposition groups are putting pressure on venues, then that sort of insidious, nasty approach is restricting free assembly and free thought. What are the pro choice crowd so afraid of?

The word 'controversial', like 'extremist' is completely subjective. It usually means currently not very fashionable.

If a group is claiming breast cancer is caused by abortion. I'll happily complain to a venue. You have a right to do so and I would view it as the ethical thing to do. I have complained to venues when anti-vaccination groups have talks as I view them as dangerous to public health and not fact based. If you can talk without making rubbish or scaremongering, then I'm unlikely to complain.

I can think of numerous talks that pro life groups have done in venues across the country btw.

SafeSurfer · 24-09-2017 12:46PM

Grayson wrote: »

leggo wrote: »

You realise that protesting their crap only gives them credibility and a sense of martyrdom in the general public's eyes? Treat them as seriously as everyone treated the "Dey want 2 take ar babyes!" crowd in the referendum and the voting will reflect that.

Whats crazy about this situation is that this is a group that is despicable. They lie to pregnant women and they're almost certainly lying about the hotel employees getting threatened.

But for some reason people who posted, quite politely, on the hotel facebook page are being portrayed as the bad guys. Letting these people having a paid event, where they can raise money so they can continue the harm they do, is apparently the correct form of action. Simply letting a hotel know who these people are, so the hotel can hake it's own decision, is bad.

That makes no sense. Not logically or ethically.

Now, if any threats actually occurred, that would be wrong, but we have no reliable evidence for this. We only have the word of a group that lies all the time.

Putting women's lives in danger, lying and encouraging others to lie isn't the preserve of this group.
There was barely a whisper about this story
https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-the-abortion-advice-that-could-put-lives-at-risk-28824188.html

Will I Am Not · 24-09-2017 12:47PM

Saying a foetus is just a clump of cells at 12-18 weeks is every bit as controversial and offensive to some people as saying abortion causes breast cancer.

I say this as someone who would never vote for or against abortion. I can see the argument on both sides and I really wouldn't touch it with a barge pole unless there were a litany of caveats.

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

Comments