Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

1…2829313334…42

Comments

  • #902
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    There have been no threats made to hotel staff. Yes there have been phonecalls and messages sent to hotels but none of them were threats. I dId say that taking down the posters shouldn't have happened, if you look back and check, so I do acknowledge that sometimes things go too far, yes.


  • #903
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    I,l quote Peaders original tweet & he referred to both Spencer + Gibson hotel being targeted.

    https://twitter.com/Toibin1/status/913098939049660416

    Are you saying that the Spencer hotel staff were threatened, contrary to what the hotel itself has said regarding the claim?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #904
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,645 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    Grayson wrote: »
    There have been loads of pro life events in hotels in Ireland. Can you point to one that had a big protest outside?

    Also, all the facebook posts and news articles have pro lifers explicitly saying that the staff experienced threats and intimidation. In which case they're lying.

    Doesn't need to have happened before, given the passions around the issue and the looming referendum it's reasonable for the hotel to fear it.

    The only reasonable explanation for what happened here is that the hotel cancelled the event in response to some form of 'intervention' by pro-choice activists designed to achieve that end. To me, whether that intervention involved threats/intimidation is kind of beside the point. This type of 'no-platforming' is very difficult to justify no matter how politely and respectfully it's done...


  • #905
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Only two Tds have publicly called out this thuggish behaviour from extreme element involved in repeal Peader Toibin + Mattie Mcgrath.

    The hotel has specified there were not threats made. So tds talking rubbish in Dail is what you're describing...


  • #906
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Doesn't need to have happened before, given the passions around the issue and the looming referendum it's reasonable for the hotel to fear it.

    The only reasonable explanation for what happened here is that the hotel cancelled the event in response to some form of 'intervention' by pro-choice activists designed to achieve that end. To me, whether that intervention involved threats/intimidation is kind of beside the point. This type of 'no-platforming' is very difficult to justify no matter how politely and respectfully it's done...


    that is not the only reasonable explanation. it just happens to be the one that suits you.


  • Advertisement
  • #907
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Delirium wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    I,l quote Peaders original tweet & he referred to both Spencer + Gibson hotel being targeted.

    https://twitter.com/Toibin1/status/913098939049660416

    Are you saying that the Spencer hotel staff were threatened, contrary to what the hotel itself has said regarding the claim?
    Im quoting what the Spencer said from an Irish times article today.

    "" said it would not publicly discuss a private contact ""

    As I said certain info prob won,t be publicly disclosed.

    429167.png


  • #908
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    That's seems like a very reasonable solution and a very civic minded stance. I think if the public are told they will be made pay for the abortions of others it would make up a lot of people's minds on the issue.

    Many, many, many women and men and families have raised happy, healthy kids that, while they were pregnant they did not want and could not afford.
    Why is it that some mothers who gave children up for adoption spend years trying to contact them?


    On your purely economic argument. If we are to honestly perform a cost benefit analysis you would have to take into consideration the potential of the child not aborted to become a valuable member of society. A tax payer contributing much more than the cost of saved children's allowance.
    The potential to become a much loved brother, sister, mother, father grandparent, friend, colleague, neighbour.

    How do we calculate the cost of this lost potential against the benefit of reduced maternity and child allowance costs?

    If we're going to go down this road, which is probably complex enough to deserve its own thread, then we also have to factor overpopulation into the mix. The planet's population has rocketed in the last century - hell even Ireland's has, hence one of the reasons for soaring property prices. So if we're going at this issue from an economic / greater good perspective, it's lunacy to force people to have kids when they don't want them - we should be thanking them for contributing to a much needed population growth deceleration.


  • #909
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Only two Tds have publicly called out this thuggish behaviour from extreme element involved in repeal Peader Toibin + Mattie Mcgrath.

    The hotel has specified there were not threats made. So tds talking rubbish in Dail is what you're describing...
    They willing to call out thuggish behavior to silence rape victims , tearing posters + pressuring venues to cancel their meetings, unlike certain left Tds .


  • #910
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,645 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    ELM327 wrote: »
    There's too much " believe

    "in the article for it to be relevant.

    Well FG TDs will effectively have a veto on whatever legislation is introduced if and when the referendum is passed, so I posit that what they 'believe'/are reading in the latest opinion polls (delete as appropriate) is highly relevant. Yes it's theoretically possible for the legislation to be approved with the support of less than half of FG TDs, but I think it's very unlikely Leo would introduce legislation if it looked like that would happen...


  • #911
    Stonedpilot
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,253 ✭✭✭Stonedpilot


    keano_afc wrote: »
    Would be a lot easier if the hotels just said why they cancelled the event.


    Perhaps they don't want staff members being attacked and possibly killed by unhinged pro abortion zealots?.

    from thejournal.
    It has been alleged that staff members received death threats online after it emerged the Spencer Hotel was to host the event after The Gibson cancelled. A complaint has not yet been made to gardaí over the incident but TheJournal.ie has been made aware of the specific nature of the threats.


  • Advertisement
  • #912
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    They willing to call out thuggish behavior to silence rape victims , tearing posters + pressuring venues to cancel their meetings, unlike certain left Tds .

    But the hotel has specified there wasn't threats. The two pro life politicians are making up thuggish behaviour....


  • #913
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,151 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Im quoting what the Spencer said from an Irish times article today.

    "" said it would not publicly discuss a private contact ""

    As I said certain info prob won,t be publicly disclosed.

    429167.png

    And I'm quoting what the Spencer hotel to another reporter (the two tweets I posted) which is more recent.

    AFAIK, the IT are just posting the same story the Journal did.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #914
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,645 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that is not the only reasonable explanation. it just happens to be the one that suits you.

    Well what do you suggest might have happened instead?


  • #915
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Doesn't need to have happened before, given the passions around the issue and the looming referendum it's reasonable for the hotel to fear it.

    The only reasonable explanation for what happened here is that the hotel cancelled the event in response to some form of 'intervention' by pro-choice activists designed to achieve that end. To me, whether that intervention involved threats/intimidation is kind of beside the point. This type of 'no-platforming' is very difficult to justify no matter how politely and respectfully it's done...
    It's perfectly easy to justify. If everyone is entitled to a platform, an expression of opinion, then pro-choice people are perfectly entitled to "intervene" and let a hotel know that they are losing customers through a business decision to host pro-life groups.

    If that's what happened.

    Any road, the group attempting to host the meeting are an American activist group with no presence in Ireland so their "right" to be heard in Ireland on the abortion issue is tenuous at best.

    There are plenty of locations where these groups can have a platform without fear of cancellation. One might even suggest that if you were to host a couple of meetings and then arrange to get them cancelled in a big public way, you'll stir up controversy and greater interest in your meeting when it does eventually happen.


  • #916
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    seamus wrote: »
    It's perfectly easy to justify. If everyone is entitled to a platform, an expression of opinion, then pro-choice people are perfectly entitled to "intervene" and let a hotel know that they are losing customers through a business decision to host pro-life groups.

    If that's what happened.

    Any road, the group attempting to host the meeting are an American activist group with no presence in Ireland so their "right" to be heard in Ireland on the abortion issue is tenuous at best.

    They're entitled to, it just makes them utter scumbags. Are you familiar with the concept of the letter vs the spirit of the law? Opposing people being given a platform may fall under free speech, but it's in total opposition to the spirit of it.


  • #917
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    They willing to call out thuggish behavior to silence rape victims , tearing posters + pressuring venues to cancel their meetings, unlike certain left Tds .

    But the hotel has specified there wasn't threats. The two pro life politicians are making up thuggish behaviour....
    Trinity People Before Profit posted a photo of two of members with FB status that they taking down posters advertsing meetings held by rape victims + people conceived in rape = attempt to silence rape victims = thuggery .

    429177.jpg


  • #918
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    According to Peader Toibin it has, Im referring to this tweet & quoting him.

    https://twitter.com/Toibin1/status/913102530795773956

    Certain details prob won,t be made public info, if threats are being investigated .

    And according to January, it hasn't. Both Paedar Toibin and January are as credible as each other on the matter.


  • #919
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Well what do you suggest might have happened instead?


    the hotels realised who it was that had actually booked. some people have a conscience.


  • #920
    Lux23
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    I posted on one hotel's page and all I said was "Disappointed that the xx hotel is hosting this event". It wasn't a threat of any kind and I never made any grand statements about never giving them business. I imagine the vast majority of other people that contacted them did something fairly similar.


  • #921
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    Trinity People Before Profit posted a photo of two of members with FB status that they taking down posters.
    429177.jpg

    that was posted up a long time ago and already discussed.


  • Advertisement
  • #922
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the hotels realised who it was that had actually booked. some people have a conscience.

    And/or people who frequent the hotel either as staying guests or for the cafe/restaurant/bar/functions/etc may have told them if the hotel were to host such a function, they would be taking their business elsewhere in the future. Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with.


  • #923
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Billy86 wrote: »
    And/or people who frequent the hotel either as staying guests or for the cafe/restaurant/bar/functions/etc may have told them if the hotel were to host such a function, they would be taking their business elsewhere in the future. Which there is absolutely nothing wrong with.


    also a reasonable explanation.


  • #924
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    seamus wrote: »
    One might even suggest that if you were to host a couple of meetings and then arrange to get them cancelled in a big public way, you'll stir up controversy and greater interest in your meeting when it does eventually happen.

    People wouldn't do that, would they!!!????!!!! :pac:


  • #925
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    that was posted up a long time ago and already discussed.

    Don't worry, Kira knows. They were the one who posted it.


  • #926
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    seamus wrote: »
    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Doesn't need to have happened before, given the passions around the issue and the looming referendum it's reasonable for the hotel to fear it.

    The only reasonable explanation for what happened here is that the hotel cancelled the event in response to some form of 'intervention' by pro-choice activists designed to achieve that end. To me, whether that intervention involved threats/intimidation is kind of beside the point. This type of 'no-platforming' is very difficult to justify no matter how politely and respectfully it's done...
    It's perfectly easy to justify. If everyone is entitled to a platform, an expression of opinion, then pro-choice people are perfectly entitled to "intervene" and let a hotel know that they are losing customers through a business decision to host pro-life groups.

    If that's what happened.

    Any road, the group attempting to host the meeting are an American activist group with no presence in Ireland so their "right" to be heard in Ireland on the abortion issue is tenuous at best.

    There are plenty of locations where these groups can have a platform without fear of cancellation. One might even suggest that if you were to host a couple of meetings and then arrange to get them cancelled in a big public way, you'll stir up controversy and greater interest in your meeting when it does eventually happen.
    They are intervening to stifle open democratic debate & to stop other people making their case, in Dublin + Cork -activists involved with far left groups are behind this, its odd if they re so confident of the 8th amendment being repealed that they seek to silence rape victims from speaking in a public venue .


  • #927
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,645 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    seamus wrote: »
    It's perfectly easy to justify. If everyone is entitled to a platform, an expression of opinion, then pro-choice people are perfectly entitled to "intervene" and let a hotel know that they are losing customers through a business decision to host pro-life groups.

    Well I don't find it an acceptable tactic, and to me it sullies whatever cause it is being used to advance. As hatrickpatrick says, totally against the spirit of free speech...


  • #928
    The Legend Of Kira
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Lux23 wrote: »
    I posted on one hotel's page and all I said was "Disappointed that the xx hotel is hosting this event". It wasn't a threat of any kind and I never made any grand statements about never giving them business. I imagine the vast majority of other people that contacted them did something fairly similar.
    If you re so confident in your own arguments that people are on your side, why are so afraid of the opposing side being openly heard out ?


  • #929
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Opposing people being given a platform may fall under free speech, but it's in total opposition to the spirit of it.
    My hole. That's just weasel words.

    Free speech as a principle is that someone should be free to express their opinion without fear of the state taking action against them.

    The principle does not require individuals to tolerate the speech of others, it does not require anyone to listen, and it does not require anyone to stand by and let them speak.

    Platform denial is a form of free speech in itself; a quiet protest in opposition.

    It only becomes a violation of free speech when that platform is denied permanently and/or is denied by the state.

    Like I say, there are plenty of places this group can host their "meetings" without fear that they'll be cancelled. There is no violation of free speech taking place.


  • #930
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,129 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    seamus wrote: »
    My hole.

    Free speech as a principle is that someone should be free to express their opinion without fear of the state taking action against them.

    The principle does not require individuals to tolerate the speech of others, it does not require anyone to listen, and it does not require anyone to stand by and let them speak.

    Platform denial is a form of free speech in itself; a quiet protest in opposition.

    It only becomes a violation of free speech when that platform is denied permanently.

    Like I say, there are plenty of places this group can host their "meetings" without fear that they'll be cancelled. There is no violation of free speech taking place.

    i'm still trying to work out how they can afford to book these fancy hotels. the spencer and the gibson are not cheap.


  • Advertisement
  • #931
    Billy86
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,495 ✭✭✭✭Billy86


    The Legend Of Kira wrote: »
    They are intervening to stifle open democratic debate & to stop other people making their case, in Dublin + Cork -activists involved with far left groups are behind this, its odd if they re so confident of the 8th amendment being repealed that they seek to silence rape victims from speaking in a public venue .
    Question for you.

    I have already said I don't mind either way really if the talks went ahead or not... but let's say I didn't want them to. If it was my opinion that I didn't think these beliefs should go ahead. Do I not have the right to -peacefully, of course- express that opinion?


Advertisement