Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

animaal wrote: »

I'll give it a go. Although somebody with better understanding of the philosophy of our legal system may correct me

The state can and does stop people breaking laws - from light-handed measures such as fines, up to and including imprisonment to ensure you can't continue to break the law. We as citizens empower the state to do this. We give agents of the state a monopoly on the use of violence against others (other than in self defence).

You choose to follow the law because you're civic minded, or because you know that the state has a gun to your head when it tells you obey. The gun is usually a metaphor for some other reprimand, but when in serious cases it can be a real gun. That's hardly giving you a choice.

If I "invited" you to sign a contract while threatening your freedom, or to confiscate money from you if you don't sign, you couldn't be held to it afterwards. It wouldn't be seen that you acted with choice.

Edit: just posted this and saw how long it is. Sorry everyone. Feel free to TLDR
Firstly civic minded is a weird phrase to use. I don't avoid killing people because of civic mindedness. Likewise when I help a homeless charity it's not because I'm civic minded. Both are things I do because i want to. Because I feel it's right. Even though helping the homeless could be considered civic minded.

Likewise I don't not kill someone because it's the law. I don't kill people because I think it's wrong to do so. And when I do something like help the homeless it's because it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law to do it (and it isn't the law).

I'm pretty certain that if you asked people tomorrow if murder was legal would they kill someone they still wouldn't.

Laws really only matter after the fact. People who break laws do so in full knowledge of the consequences. I'm sure if you asked any murderer "Did you know you could go to jail if you got caught" they'd say yes. Yet despite that they still made the choice to break the law.

In fact for certain crimes like murder the severity of the sentence hasn't been a deterrent. The death sentence isn't a deterrent.

There are certain times where there can be a deterrent. You wouldn't rob a bank with armed police in it. You'd slow down when passing a speed camera.

But that brings me to the second point. When there is a knowledge that you would get caught, you still weigh up the consequences. You make an informed decision about the risk.

And in this case there wasn't a risk. For 22 years they'd been publishing similar information.



So there are two ways of looking at this. Is publishing the information the right thing to do. And if it's the right thing but it's illegal, how likely are you to be punished.

The Student union had thought it was the right thing to do to publish the information. They said it was ethical to provide information to students who might need it. And they saw that no-one was ever prosecuted so they considered it safe to do.
Katie on the other hand decided differently. She says it's because of the law, but no-one had ever been charged so there's no risk of punishment. If it's not fear of punishment then it has to be because she thinks it's the ethical thing to do.
If she think's it's the ethical thing then it's because
a) she thinks that the law itself is ethical because it's the law. Or...
b) she thinks removing the information is ethical.

If it's a, then that's just stupid. If it's b it means she did it because she's pro life.

However she explicitly stated that it was because of fear of prosecution that she did it. In that case, she's lying or mistaken because no-one's ever prosecuted over this.

Captain Obvious wrote: »

How do you know she didn't?

If she had reported it, and nothing was done then she knew that she wasn't risking prosecution by putting it in the handbook.

Foxtrol wrote: »

Pro-choice is forcing them to be powerless in what they see as babies being murdered.

Louis CK did a bit where he talks about how crazy people look when they are protesting outside abortion clinics and then goes on to what's even crazier is people thinking that they shouldn't be protesting if they believe babies are being murdered. Imagine believing there was an office were you thought 2 year olds were being murdered on a daily basis and just shrugging your shoulders and trying to do something about it

Nope nope nope, not the same in any way, they aren't babies and they aren't 2 year olds, trying that emotional argument crap is the hallmark of the pro life brigade so you need to just admit that's the camp you sit in.

We are also getting into the tricky area of medical science now so don't try and muddy the facts, unless you can prove you are qualified to discuss this topic then your opinions are invalid because when it comes to science you need to leave your personal beliefs at the door and facts are all that should exist

frag420 wrote: »

So why was she only interested in changing the content and abiding by the law when she got elected?

Surely her civic duty while at UCD prior to being elected was to report this law breaking at the first opportunity but she choose not to. Where was her civic duty before she got elected?

And please, don't for one moment think that she or the IONA did not know the content of the publication prior to her being elected!!

I asked this of another poster twice already and have been ignored, perhaps you can shed some light on this?

For akl we know her sense of civic duty may well align to Ted Bundys, this isn't about civic duty. Once she was an elected officer she has an obligation to the ucdsu, including to the board. That would include not knowingly exposing them to legal action. If she didnt act on the advice she would have been guilty of negligence.

You may well argue that she found a very sneaky way to get what she wanted- though i cant imagine continuing to make the information available in a legally defensible way would have sat well with her. However as an officer of the company she did the right thing

Foxtrol wrote: »

Pro-choice is forcing them to be powerless in what they see as babies being murdered.

Louis CK did a bit where he talks about how crazy people look when they are protesting outside abortion clinics and then goes on to what's even crazier is people thinking that they shouldn't be protesting if they believe babies are being murdered. Imagine believing there was an office were you thought 2 year olds were being murdered on a daily basis and just shrugging your shoulders and trying to do something about it

I get what you're saying here but, again, this is just their belief.

The law says (in places other than Ireland) that no crime is being committed
Medical science says that there is no 'person' to be murdered. A tapeworm has more consciousness than a 12 week foetus.
The Bible says that no crime is being committed. (No punishment until 'ensoulment' at about week 20 when the foetus can be felt moving)

If you don't share their beliefs about the foetus being a person, and the law agrees with you, then someone ,who wants to force you to continue with a pregnancy that you don't want, that may be detrimental to your physical and mental health, that will result in a baby you don't want and can't afford.. well, that person is an asshole if they're standing outside a legal facility verbally abusing you, maybe threatening you, maybe making hoax or real bomb threats, assaulting staff, actually killing people, spitting at you, and calling you a murderer.

They can have their belief, and they can quietly protest it, but they should not be able to force abiding by their beliefs on those who do not share them.

VinLieger wrote: »

Foxtrol wrote: »

Pro-choice is forcing them to be powerless in what they see as babies being murdered.

Louis CK did a bit where he talks about how crazy people look when they are protesting outside abortion clinics and then goes on to what's even crazier is people thinking that they shouldn't be protesting if they believe babies are being murdered. Imagine believing there was an office were you thought 2 year olds were being murdered on a daily basis and just shrugging your shoulders and trying to do something about it

Nope nope nope, not the same in any way, they aren't babies and they aren't 2 year olds, trying that emotional argument crap is the hallmark of the pro life brigade so you need to just admit that's the camp you sit in.

We are also getting into the tricky area of medical science now so don't try and muddy the facts, unless you can prove you are qualified to discuss this topic then your opinions are invalid because when it comes to science you need to leave your personal beliefs at the door and facts are all that should exist

Putting your fingers in your ears and saying 'nope, nope, nope' over and over again won't change their opinion and just because after some reflection I can see where they're coming from doesn't put me in their 'camp'.

It's this kind of toxicness that makes both sides of this debate come across so horribly. It also shows the reason why the SU seems like even more of a farce than it normally is if it is full of these types.

Grayson wrote: »

animaal wrote: »

I'll give it a go. Although somebody with better understanding of the philosophy of our legal system may correct me

The state can and does stop people breaking laws - from light-handed measures such as fines, up to and including imprisonment to ensure you can't continue to break the law. We as citizens empower the state to do this. We give agents of the state a monopoly on the use of violence against others (other than in self defence).

You choose to follow the law because you're civic minded, or because you know that the state has a gun to your head when it tells you obey. The gun is usually a metaphor for some other reprimand, but when in serious cases it can be a real gun. That's hardly giving you a choice.

If I "invited" you to sign a contract while threatening your freedom, or to confiscate money from you if you don't sign, you couldn't be held to it afterwards. It wouldn't be seen that you acted with choice.

Edit: just posted this and saw how long it is. Sorry everyone. Feel free to TLDR
Firstly civic minded is a weird phrase to use. I don't avoid killing people because of civic mindedness. Likewise when I help a homeless charity it's not because I'm civic minded. Both are things I do because i want to. Because I feel it's right. Even though helping the homeless could be considered civic minded.

Likewise I don't not kill someone because it's the law. I don't kill people because I think it's wrong to do so. And when I do something like help the homeless it's because it's the right thing to do, not because it's the law to do it (and it isn't the law).

I'm pretty certain that if you asked people tomorrow if murder was legal would they kill someone they still wouldn't.

Laws really only matter after the fact. People who break laws do so in full knowledge of the consequences. I'm sure if you asked any murderer "Did you know you could go to jail if you got caught" they'd say yes. Yet despite that they still made the choice to break the law.

In fact for certain crimes like murder the severity of the sentence hasn't been a deterrent. The death sentence isn't a deterrent.

There are certain times where there can be a deterrent. You wouldn't rob a bank with armed police in it. You'd slow down when passing a speed camera.

But that brings me to the second point. When there is a knowledge that you would get caught, you still weigh up the consequences. You make an informed decision about the risk.

And in this case there wasn't a risk. For 22 years they'd been publishing similar information.



So there are two ways of looking at this. Is publishing the information the right thing to do. And if it's the right thing but it's illegal, how likely are you to be punished.

The Student union had thought it was the right thing to do to publish the information. They said it was ethical to provide information to students who might need it. And they saw that no-one was ever prosecuted so they considered it safe to do.
Katie on the other hand decided differently. She says it's because of the law, but no-one had ever been charged so there's no risk of punishment. If it's not fear of punishment then it has to be because she thinks it's the ethical thing to do.
If she think's it's the ethical thing then it's because
a) she thinks that the law itself is ethical because it's the law. Or...
b) she thinks removing the information is ethical.

If it's a, then that's just stupid. If it's b it means she did it because she's pro life.

However she explicitly stated that it was because of fear of prosecution that she did it. In that case, she's lying or mistaken because no-one's ever prosecuted over this.

As I said earlier in the thread the 22 years of the same information is simply wrong. Please show me the guide from 1995 which included an internet link to abortion pills.

You also shouldn't be using the actions of previously SUs as precident. They either didn't know of this breach of the law or they knowingly didn't inform their volunteers that they were breaking the law handing out this document. Either option is disgraceful leadership.

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Facts change.
What were accepted as fact in the past have since been proven incorrect.
Some of today's accepted facts will no doubt be proven wrong in the future.

Indeed but in that case we adjust accordingly when they do, all we can do right now is base things off what we know for a fact currently

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread the 22 years of the same information is simply wrong. Please show me the guide from 1995 which included an internet link to abortion pills.

You also shouldn't be using the actions of previously SUs as precident. They either didn't know of this breach of the law or they knowingly didn't inform their volunteers that they were breaking the law handing out this document. Either option is disgraceful leadership.

Previous SU's handed out contraception in violation of the laws at the time, they knowingly and intentionally did this as well as paying the fine associated with the action.... is that awful leadership?

Foxtrol wrote: »

I said you come across horribly not that you are horrible. Like your previous post, this is another example of a side in the repeal debate jumping to see the worst in what someone said. I believe this is the same thing that happened in the Impeachment.

After taking legal advice (from a pro appeal advocate) she changed the page from having abortion information to links to sites that give that exact same information. The way certain people are acting you'd swear she'd gone off and turned it into the pro life guide with free sponsorship given to Iona. People are either purposefully going OTT with their outrage or naturally jumping to see the worst. Either way it is an overreaction but the SU constitution allows for it. I'm hoping the students see through it

Sigh and you are continuing to misrepresent what people are angry about, its no what she did, its that she did it at all after making a promise during the campaign to not get involved in repeal topics due to her very public stance on abortion that is completely opposite to the one declared repeatedly by the student body and the SU

Foxtrol wrote: »

As I said earlier in the thread the 22 years of the same information is simply wrong. Please show me the guide from 1995 which included an internet link to abortion pills.

You also shouldn't be using the actions of previously SUs as precident. They either didn't know of this breach of the law or they knowingly didn't inform their volunteers that they were breaking the law handing out this document. Either option is disgraceful leadership.

You want me to show you a student handbook from before the internet was created. Want a cup of unicorn piss with that?

The SU have said that they know it might be breaking the law but that no-one had ever been charged with it.
You seem to be implying that all the different SU presidents and sabbats over the years hid what was in these books from people. Or that they hid the legality of the material. That's not the case.

Foxtrol wrote: »

You have repeatedly misrepresented what I post and I believe you are doing the same with her when you said she would 'not get involved' when what she promised was to delegate decisions. (I'm open to evidence to the contrary)

Okay did she delegate this decision? No in fact every other sabbatical member opposed the action she took and she did it anyway

Discussions like this as with the hotel cancelling the pro life/anti choice meeting are pointless in my opinion. It consists of a majority of people with entrenched views who will agree or disagree with the OP depending on how they feel it impacts on their entrenched view.

Also, off topic I believe Senator Ronan Mullen and TD Mattie Mc Grath will do everything they possibly can to ensure the referendum does not take place before the popes visit this summer.