Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But none of that is to say someone should be penalised for obeying the law in a country.

I'm going to repeat this because it's not getting through, apparently. It's not about breaking or obeying the law.

There is a difference between:

A) "Someone pointed out that information in the handbooks is illegal, so I sought legal advice, here is the legal advice, let's sit down as the SU board to discuss it. I made a commitment to defer on issues involving abortion and I don't want people to think this is because of my personal beliefs, I genuinely think this is just a legal issue, so let's make a joint decision. I know you want to proceed anyway, but the advice warns I could be in trouble too as head of the SU even if I don't hand out the books myself and I don't want to risk any potential legal trouble, so I think we should not do this."

and

"Someone pointed out that information in the handbooks is illegal, so I sought legal advice. No you can't see it, it just says we can't do this because it's illegal. I am in charge and making this executive decision without your input. The end."

Had she done the former, there would be no issue now. She did the latter.

If she had done the former and this impeachment referendum still happened, I would have sympathy for her. She did not. The optics are absolutely terrible for her that her personal bias played no part.

Katie Ascough was democratically elected as president of UCDSU. UCD students have now exercised their right, also democratically, to try to impeach her for a perceived wrongdoing.

It's not bullying to hold this referendum. It's part of the SU constitution. 1,200 students signed the petition because they feel Katie Ascough is not fit to be president of the SU. That mechanism has existed for years.

Jayop wrote: »

Why not go get legal advice to suit your already preconceived idea of whether it's right or not and to suit your clear agenda?

One can't give abortion information unsolicited.
One can't remove a clamp that has been placed by a company or whoever with a legal backing to place a clamp.
One can remove a clamp if not done by a company with legal backing to place clamps on cars, because the person doing the clamping in that case would be acting illegally, meaning you could remove the clamp without consequence.

Grayson wrote: »

Yet this information has been published for years and I don't see us cracking each others skulls open to feast on the goo inside. The country isn't any less civilised because of that information.



The fact is that unions all across the country have been doing this for years and the last time anyone was charged it was in the 80's (Maybe 90's).
Going after the SU is not something the DPP or Gardai are ever going to do. There's no reason to expect them to any time soon. Technically there's a risk but the risk is so incredibly small.

Isn't it great that UCD have someone who actually did their job well in this case?

A member of the public could have made a complaint if they saw it and the Gardai would have been forced to investigate it.
I think it is crazy that some think leaving the SU in the possibility to be exposed to large fines and legal costs was the better option.

Jayop wrote: »

I was being facetious. Thought that was obvious enough.

Maybe answer my last question.

What is my agenda?

The argument in this thread is like saying one is a United fan, but it is fine if Liverpool scored 3 clear offside goals on Saturday as rules are there to be broken.
I don't think so...

Deleted User wrote: »

She's being democratically removed.

It is a bit like Brexit, they voted for it but after the vote they find the facts are different.
If they impeach her now, it will show it was agenda based and not on the actual case, and will not be good for the Repeal the 8th people.

So you think she just found out when she became president?

Would you agree that if she knew prior to becoming union President that it was her civic duty to report it? Yes or no?

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't know how long she knew, or how long the process took.
At the end of the day she closed off an illegality, and one could ask why previous presidents left the SU open to the possibility of legal action.

pilly wrote: »

You really think that the removal of this lady from her position will have an effect on the referendum? Really now Robert? I know you're more intelligent than that.

Little things add up. Over on the Journal, she is getting a lot of support for following legal advice, I think some pro-choice have read this situation wrong.
It is going to be viewed by many as someone who did their job properly being removed because of her personal views, rather than doing the wrong thing.
That is the problem that some refuse to see.
It will be better for the repeal side if the impeachment fails.

Billy86 wrote: »

Abortion information has to do with abortion, and she was mandated to defer issues on the 8th and on pro choice/pro life matters to others which she literally did the opposite of.

A pro choice president would not have done it, which is pretty much the point of the whole thing. None of the other members of the SU would have done it, which is why the all opposed her on it - that's a really weak straw man.

If it had anything to do with protecting students from incriminating themselves, she would not be giving out advise on how to break car clamps in the same publication. If it had to do with her being worried about incriminating herself, then she had every right to step down. Not only did refuse to do that, but she very deliberately fail to fulfill her promised mandate, which the acceptance of the second petition to impeach shows was a poor move.

Was she to defer on having the SU operate within the law?