nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

[Deleted User]

http://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/second-petition-to-impeach-pro-life-ucd-student-president-katie-ascough-accepted/ar-AAthFMP?li=AAmb2oK&ocid=ientp

Wonder how much of it is motivated by a decision about an ad in some University publication...and how much is motivated by opposition to her own position on abortion. If the latter, it would seem a little...wrong.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

sunshine and showers

pilly wrote: »

So you've made that bit up in other words?

No, it's an educated guess from being a lawyer myself. Giving an address of a website that imports illegal abortion pills into Ireland does not fall under the legal information definition of the Abortion Act, 1995. It could also be interpreted as "promoting abortion".

Arsemageddon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

That's fair enough.

However, given that such information has been freely available for years without issue it would seem the decision was motivated primarily by her own beliefs with the law being used as an excuse for action.

It seems like a lot of the student body think so as well.

Reati

tuxy wrote: »

Is it illegal if it's a private company and you return the clamp undamaged?

I think it is now? Looks like this came into force this year.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2015/act/13/enacted/en/index.html

[Deleted User]

Absolutely heartened that the student electorate at least spot early on when a wrongun has gotten in as is not afraid to take the necessary steps.

What Ascough has attempted here is pretty blatant, it's a clear attempt to remove the material she finds personally objectionable despite that not being her remit and despite it being explicitly against her election promises.

What the hell they were doing letting her in there to begin with.....never mind. They're putting it right now at least.

pilly

sunshine and showers wrote: »

There was a web address for where to get abortion pills. That's the illegal part, because it's illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland, etc etc.

I will add that that is an educated guess as she won't release the legal advice.

So you've made that bit up in other words?

sunshine and showers

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

It's not as simple as "the piece was illegal".

It's the part where she refused to engage with the other sabbatical officers, the fact that the fine is considerably less than the cost of the reprint, the fact that UCD has a history of challenging laws on reproductive/contraceptive issues through (what some might term) "stunts" like this, and the fact that she did not delegate on this issue like she pledged to do on issues around choice, given the fact that her personal views are at odds with the official SU position.

If it was simply about legality of information, she should have reviewed the whole book and removed the piece on how to take off a clamp.

tuxy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

There was also apparently an article in the handbook about how to remove a clamp from your car.....

....also illegal.

Is it illegal if it's a private company and you return the clamp undamaged?

.......

This post has been deleted.

minikin

Have just looked at the pdf on issuu:

https://issuu.com/yourunionyourvoice/docs/2017-18_winging_it_in_ucd/16?ff=true&e=18225912/53451842

Page 58 and 59 contain information about abortion.
Looks like a decent compromise to me, don’t see why she should be impeached.

This should have been cleared prior to going to press. The students union need to realise that the law applies to them even though they’re students. Looks like Ascough did her duty in protecting the SU from potential problems.

Probably not a surprise that this crowd have no problem trying to terminate her prior to her going the full term.

Last year's edition on issuu:
https://issuu.com/yourunionyourvoice/docs/2016-17_winging_it_in_ucd_web
Page 122 and 123

Outlaw Pete

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MUuAbEkhY8

[Deleted User]

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Do you know if there have ever been any prosecutions for this?

I doubt it. Certainly not aware of any.

I'm not in favour her stance. It just seems to me that if a person takes a position that the law must be complied with, even at some expense, they should not be penalised for it.

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Can you give your source that the information presented was illegal?

There was a web address for where to get abortion pills. That's the illegal part, because it's illegal to procure an abortion in Ireland, etc etc.

I will add that that is an educated guess as she won't release the legal advice.

Arsemageddon

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That's simply wrong.

The 1995 legislation came after the 14th Amendment and sets out that unsolicited information cannot be provided. And provides for criminal penalties for breach.

Do you know if there have ever been any prosecutions for this?

Arsemageddon

....... wrote: »

I wonder how she got elected to the position in the first place given her views?

Probably because very few people actually vote in student elections, the main reason being people involved in the SU are gobsh1tes.

Therefore, a small number of people can get their ideal candidate elected.

.......

This post has been deleted.

sunshine and showers

There is no way that she did not know that the information was illegal before she consulted a lawyer. And there is no way it was removed simply because it was illegal.

It was possible to rewrite the page to present the information in a legal manner. Ms Ascough refused to consider doing this.

....... wrote: »

It specifies how.

And that is information about procuring an abortion - ie, abortion services.

It is not illegal to provide web address of pregnancy help websites and the costs of abortion.

Im not sure re the abortion pills. If it was simply the medical information that they are safe/how to use them then thats not illegal either.

It gave the address for a website that provides abortion pills. That's the illegal part.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Lollipops23

There was also apparently an article in the handbook about how to remove a clamp from your car.....

....also illegal.

frag420

Deleted User wrote: »

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

How long has she been a student there, was she known to bring this breach of the law to the attention of the student union previously? Did she report it to anybody?

Given her background (changing her surname so as not to be identified) and what her family are involved in (IONA Inst, Youth Defence etc, just google her father) there is no doubt that if she had an issue with the content of the publication then she would have made it known loud and clear and kicked up a fuss previously...but she didn't which leads me and many to believe that this was a backhanded and cynical attempt at censorship to suit her, her family and the pro-life agenda!!

sunshine and showers

....... wrote: »

Its not illegal to provide information about abortion since the 14th Amendment.

Yes it is. The Abortion Information Act specifies who can give information on abortion.

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

What was the content she had removed do we know?

.......

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin

The cost to reprint was 8000. A fine, if there was one, would be about 2000.

She wasted money because of her own personal bias. They have every right to petition to have her impeached.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

Grayson

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She said her views wouldn't affect what she would do and that she would respect the unions pro choice stance.

[Deleted User]

jonnycivic wrote: »

I believe that she claimed she done it because of legal advice. Its not illegal to give information regarding abortions is it??

I think it is, if the material is not sought by the recipient.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/5/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

Grayson

jonnycivic wrote: »

I believe that she claimed she done it because of legal advice. Its not illegal to give information regarding abortions is it??

But every previous Union for years had the same advice and still printed it. Also the cost of reprinting was more than the cost of a fine. She also said before she was elected that she wouldn't change the union's pro choice stance.

So she lied about what she'd do and then spent the limited money the SU has to avoid a potential fine. A Fine that no SU has has to pay before and a fine that had not been levied. And she spent more money than the non existent fine would be.

That's grounds for impeachment.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.