Mark Hamill wrote: » Anyone hear her on Newstalk just now? Basically unchallenged on most/all of her claims. They pointed out that the 4 other Sabbatical Officers were against her, but didn't have any of them on to defend their side. Open letter from Barry Murphy on Monday 23rd, one of those sabbatical officers who supposedly bullied Matie Ascough is here (pretty long so I'm just posting the facebook link, but it seems to be publicly viewable without logging in). Some interesting parts: So it seems that she decided that she couldn't morally stand over what was in the book (despite promising not to even look at it) and then brought up the "suddenly aware of legal advice" excuse to remove it, despite all officers necessarily being aware of the advice twice over at that stage. She said on Newstalk that the page now has phone numbers for various support groups including the SU itself and the SU will give out the same information over the phone that was originally printed there. She claims that this protects the SU from the possibility of legal action, that giving the information by request avoids the issue of printing the information for anyone to see. That seems like a bizarre loophole, does anyone know if it is true? I'm presuming it's not and it's why her approved page isn't really legal either. So much for claims of delegation :rolleyes:.
Mark Hamill wrote: » She said on Newstalk that the page now has phone numbers for various support groups including the SU itself and the SU will give out the same information over the phone that was originally printed there. She claims that this protects the SU from the possibility of legal action, that giving the information by request avoids the issue of printing the information for anyone to see.
Last year the book included information on abortion. We gloated throughout the book that we were doing this illegal thing. Last year's sabbats were all proud of distributing the information. No case was brought against them
recedite wrote: » In that scenario, it would be up to the individual answering the phone what they said on the phone, therefore not necessarily the opinion of the SU and/or its president. Also it would be more in the nature of a private conversation between two individuals, as opposed to the public dissemination of info on illegal acts by the SU. There is a curious quote from the guy there... Miss Ass Cough's basic point is that if he is willing to do something illegal, then it should be on his head only. But it is wrong to force others to participate in an illegal act against their will. Its a fair point IMO. If this guy wants to man the phones, let him give out whatever advice he wants, legal or illegal. At least then it is arguable that he is doing it in a private capacity.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/debate-on-the-8th-your-views-on-irelands-most-devisive-topic-461861.html
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » (copied from the Tuam thread) I see the old '50:50 = balance' fallacy is in action - half the letters published are demanding the full retention of the 8th even though public opinion is overwhelmingly against this and has been for quite some time, pre-dating the citizens' assembly.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » If ever 'pics or GTFO' was appropriate...
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Someone added the writing later and someone painted over the Repeal jumper too. It started out as a pope-like person wearing a repeal jumper. Not surprised the word 'repeal' got painted over, someone is going around Dublin city centre scratching out the word 'repeal' on any stickers they can find. #silenced eh?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » SF are not to be trusted on abortion (as if they're to be trusted on anything) but they're a catholic party don't forget.
aloyisious wrote: » thinking [hoping maybe] that as a woman from the south and a former MEP she mignt not have a doctrine POV on personal issues that affect women [as in pregnancy and abortion] directly in a way no man can be affected.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-41879520 Women from Northern Ireland can now have free abortions through the NHS in Scotland.
aloyisious wrote: » Is this a new change in SF's position on legalisation of abortion in the republic, given that it's Gerry Adams being quoted, or does it have two minds on legalization of abortion depending on which part of Ireland he is referring to? Has the outcome of deliberations within the Citizens Assembly changed his and SF's opinion south of the border to suit party needs?https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/adams-believes-women-should-have-right-to-abortion-1.3280549
recedite wrote: » Already free in England, I'm not sure about Wales.
recedite wrote: » Well, I wouldn't say Wales is quite the same country
aloyisious wrote: » Wales, while a princedom, is part of England
and both countries are one legal jurisdiction.
The State has paid €30,000 in compensation to a woman who had to travel to the UK for an abortion after a fatal foetal abnormality diagnosis.
Earlier this year the UN Human Rights Committee concluded Ms Whelan was subjected to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment in 2010 after a scan revealed her unborn son had holoprosencephaly, a congenital brain malformation occurring in one in 250 pregnancies during early embryo development, and 1 in 10,000 to 1 in 20,000 at term. The condition meant the foetus would likely die in her womb and if carried to term the baby would probably die during labour or soon after. But Ms Whelan was prohibited from having a medical termination in Ireland. She was offered little or no information on her options and was told by her obstetrician to attend ante-natal classes as normal and wait for nature to take its course.
