Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 12-06-2018 08:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

would be a waste of time money and resources and wouldn't work IMO.
if someone is the type to protest outside a gp who proscribes the abortion pill then it's unlikely an exclusion zone or any other law would stop them. no point in throwing good money after bad IMO.

You cannot actually be fcuking serious. I just refuse to believe that somebody who has spent the last several years repeating the same half dozen crap "arguments" about abortion, one of which is "Just because lots of people are breaking the law or the law is not proving to be a deterrent doesn't mean we should change the law" can type that with a straight face.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 08:08PM

The right to protest doesn’t preempt the right to freedom of movement.

Let’s bold this because it’s important.

In the United States, protesters have had the funny idea in recent years that they have a right to block roadways, interstate highways (Motorways, to ye) etc etc in their political actions. This couldn’t be further from the truth and as we’ve noticed, there have been a heap of arrests for it.

The other problem with this is when you block the freedom of movement, it’s certainly liable to being viewed as a threatening (if not terroristic) action, much to the point where we ended up in Charlottesville, Virginia, where after months of such actions someone took the outrage and bile from the reactions to it and applied it to their accelerator pedal, killing and injuring protesters and pedestrians.

Similar frustrations occurred during the sit-in at the Dakota Access Pipeline construction site where vehicles had to force their way through crowds even those with zero affiliation to the events. There was also damage to construction property and extreme (extreme) littering issues, to the point of being tragically ironic in the midst of a environmentalist political action.

The only thing allowing protests on the doorstep of any clinic or business does is invite vandalism and terroristic threats to the freedom of travel. In practice it would provide far too many opportunities for protesters to damage and vandalize property in close proximity to such locations. One day it might be as simple as gluing the locks shut, another it might be petrol bombs. The only thing being in spitting distance of the place of business will accomplish is to inflame animosity.

No, there is no good reason not to restrict how close you may picket or protest any target location of interest, much less an abortion-providing facility. You can’t convince me that your picket signs won’t have just as much effect 100m away from the door as 10m, unless your only argument is to break the law by harassing and intimidating people traveling in and out of the location.

If you see protesting as standing in front of the politicians driveway and telling him to fcuk off then peaceful and lawful protest just isn’t for you. There should full well be laws in place to ensure such actions are civil disobedience in nature (if not abjectly criminal why way of terroristic threats - harassment and intimidation with the intent of forcing or coercing people to take action otherwise against their will) and that you will see fines or prison time for your trouble.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 08:09PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Sounds more appropriate especially with that posters past remarks calling for gardai to baton charge men women and children if they protest against a concert.

Wow. How principled of you, EOTR!

Overheal · 12-06-2018 08:14PM

Hell you should have to apply for a permit to protest near an abortion facility. The Gardai should be able to readily identify everyone there in the likely event of foul play. It’s encroaching on Doctor-Patient confidentiality to harangue people outside a care facility.

The Legend Of Kira · 12-06-2018 08:17PM

After the jobstown incident with Joan Burton in late 2014 one of the lefts rallying slogans afterwards was " defend the right to protest " .

Regarding possible future protests outside clinics etc, I would defend the right to protest as long as such protests are 1/ peaceful. 2/ no tries to physically stop block or obstruct others from going about their business. 3/ No one is using threats of violence. I view the right to protest as an important right as long as its a balanced approach with balances one persons right to protest with another persons right to go about their business without being physically obstructed.

pitifulgod · 12-06-2018 08:19PM

end of the road wrote: »

which IMO means they can't protest, because a protest will (depending on the protest) need to be held at the building or area that is the specific entity that is of issue with the protesters.

agreed but that's not the point. the point is whether we like them or not, the ICBR have a right to protest and if that is outside a gp, then whether we agree with it or not then that is their democratic right and dispite having no time for them, i will support that democratic right.

There is no right to absolute protest... Absolutism is what gives the likes of the the Phelps family to protest. We limit free speech to many degrees too. Eg hate speech regulations, public disturbance acts etc. Do you support a group's right to protest any funeral? I'm very glad that rational limits are placed on aspects of such rights as they can and do get abused.

I also think every patient deserves to have their mental health and physical health protected to the point where they are not intimidated outside of a hospital. Eg I've gone to my local gp while dealing with depression, I don't think I would go if I knew there would be a picket outside and if I did, I doubt it'd would be good for my health. Imagine doing that while dealing with cancer...

It looks like rationale limits will be put on protesting to the point where there is a buffer zone. They will still be able to protest, just not to the detriment of others.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 08:20PM

Hell if there was an absolute right to protest there should be absolute rights to an abortion.

Have it both ways why don’t you

end of the road · 12-06-2018 08:31PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you support a group's right to protest any funeral?

i do yes. do i believe they should protest however, no . but i will defend their right to do so.

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 08:36PM

end of the road wrote: »

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you support a group's right to protest any funeral?

i do yes. do i believe they should protest however, no . but i will defend their right to do so.

The right will be removed in certain locations. Good news for all concerned!

end of the road · 12-06-2018 08:40PM

Fighting Tao wrote: »

The right will be removed in certain locations. Good news for all concerned!

and IMO it is unlikely to make any difference, i would be surprised if the right isn't still acted upon regardless.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 08:41PM

end of the road wrote: »

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you support a group's right to protest any funeral?

i do yes. do i believe they should protest however, no . but i will defend their right to do so.

How closely? 100m? 10m? In front of the priest? Between the immediate family and the coffin?

pitifulgod · 12-06-2018 08:43PM

Overheal wrote: »

How closely? 100m? 10m? In front of the priest? Between the immediate family and the coffin?

I'm wondering if these guys also support absolutely free speech...

Loafing Oaf · 12-06-2018 08:45PM

Overheal wrote: »

It’s encroaching on Doctor-Patient confidentiality to harangue people outside a care facility.

This is the genius of the GP-led approach. Even at a facility that provides the abortion pill, only a small minority of women in the relevant age will be going in to get it, so haranguing people on the way in to their GP is going to massively annoy the 98% of that doctor's patients who have no concern with abortion.

Yeah_Right · 12-06-2018 08:47PM

end of the road wrote: »

i do yes. do i believe they should protest however, no . but i will defend their right to do so.

What would you think about people protesting the IONA Institute with pictures of the Tuam babies, the Magdaline slaves, priests molesting children? Great big placards right at their front door.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 08:54PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What would you think about people protesting the IONA Institute with pictures of the Tuam babies, the Magdaline slaves, priests molesting children? Great big placards right at their front door.

i would have no issue with people protesting outside the iona institute.

spookwoman · 12-06-2018 09:01PM

Overheal wrote: »

Hell you should have to apply for a permit to protest near an abortion facility. The Gardai should be able to readily identify everyone there in the likely event of foul play. It’s encroaching on Doctor-Patient confidentiality to harangue people outside a care facility.

A lot of these prolife protesters wear body cams eg John D Walshs lot in Waterford. so not only doctor - patient confidentiality there is also data protection

Overheal · 12-06-2018 09:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would have no issue with people protesting outside the iona institute.

You haven’t answered my question. The silence says a lot.

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 09:17PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would have no issue with people protesting outside the iona institute.

Or outside your place or work or home because you voted no?

Overheal · 12-06-2018 09:17PM

spookwoman wrote: »

A lot of these prolife protesters wear body cams eg John D Walshs lot in Waterford. so not only doctor - patient confidentiality there is also data protection

Mmmmmhm. You’ve definitely got the bones of a lawsuit right there.

_Dara_ · 12-06-2018 09:32PM

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

After the jobstown incident with Joan Burton in late 2014 one of the lefts rallying slogans afterwards was " defend the right to protest " .

Regarding possible future protests outside clinics etc, I would defend the right to protest as long as such protests are 1/ peaceful. 2/ no tries to physically stop block or obstruct others from going about their business. 3/ No one is using threats of violence. I view the right to protest as an important right as long as its a balanced approach with balances one persons right to protest with another persons right to go about their business without being physically obstructed.

Outside of extreme left-wingers, the Joan Burton Jobstown incident was widely condemned.

_Dara_ · 12-06-2018 09:38PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This is the genius of the GP-led approach. Even at a facility that provides the abortion pill, only a small minority of women in the relevant age will be going in to get it, so haranguing people on the way in to their GP is going to massively annoy the 98% of that doctor's patients who have no concern with abortion.

+ feckin’ 1.

Unfortunately in the last few years, I have on occasion been mistaken for pregnant when in actual fact, I’m ridden with cancer (the bit of weight gain is related to that - sadly it’s a myth that cancer always makes you a skinnymalink). I’m of child-bearing age. So, would I be a target of protests when in fact I’m going in for prescriptions to treat my terminal illness? It actually makes me angry to think of protesters believing it’s any of their business why someone is visiting a doctor’s surgery. I hope these protests don’t materialise and I’m banking on the smallness of our population being a reason why they won’t ever be widespread.

Cabaal · 12-06-2018 10:05PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

A buffer zone has been required in other states so yep I would view it as a very much so worth considering. The government are also considering, I'm lost on why you would prefer not to prevent picketing outside of a gp's office..

He doesn't want to stop picketing because he supports the no side and hates abortion. Intimation is the name of the game.

end of the road · 12-06-2018 10:19PM

Cabaal wrote: »

He doesn't want to stop picketing because he supports the no side and hates abortion. Intimation is the name of the game.

intimidation is certainly not my game. i already explained why i do not support anything that prevents or restricts protesting. my support of the no side does not mean my support for everything they do, but i will support and defend their right to protest, even if i may not agree with a specific protest they cary out.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 10:32PM

end of the road wrote: »

intimidation is certainly not my game. i already explained why i do not support anything that prevents or restricts protesting. my support of the no side does not mean my support for everything they do, but i will support and defend their right to protest, even if i may not agree with a specific protest they cary out.

How does this square with what Timberrrrrrrr had alleged about your comments wishing that people protesting a concert were baton-charged?

Cabaal · 12-06-2018 10:37PM

Overheal wrote: »

How does this square with what Timberrrrrrrr had alleged about your comments wishing that people protesting a concert were baton-charged?

He defends their right to protest while been beaten to a pulp?

Fighting Tao · 12-06-2018 10:59PM

end of the road wrote: »

intimidation is certainly not my game. i already explained why i do not support anything that prevents or restricts protesting. my support of the no side does not mean my support for everything they do, but i will support and defend their right to protest, even if i may not agree with a specific protest they cary out.

I’m starting to think that you are arguing just for the sake of arguing.

So you’d be happy if a protest was organised against you on a daily basis outside your workplace and home?

pitifulgod · 12-06-2018 11:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

intimidation is certainly not my game. i already explained why i do not support anything that prevents or restricts protesting. my support of the no side does not mean my support for everything they do, but i will support and defend their right to protest, even if i may not agree with a specific protest they cary out.

Do you support absolute free speech so? Honestly I'm stunned that you don't think the well being of those visiting their doctor should be tantamount. That's what you're saying, the impact upon patients comes second.

Overheal · 12-06-2018 11:07PM

pitifulgod wrote: »

Do you support absolute free speech so? Honestly I'm stunned that you don't think the well being of those visiting their doctor should be tantamount. That's what you're saying, the impact upon patients comes second.

As does the right of bereaved people to mourn dead loved ones apparently.

Loafing Oaf · 12-06-2018 11:08PM

_Dara_ wrote: »

I hope these protests don’t materialise and I’m banking on the smallness of our population being a reason why they won’t ever be widespread.

I don't believe they will materialise on any significant scale either. I think the six-month cooling-off period between the referendum and the introduction of abortion services will give the hardcore pro-lifers who might be expected to engage in such protests time to reflect: do I want to become a pariah in my community and risk a prison sentence, and what could I realistically hope to achieve by picketing my local GP anyway? On the other hand, the pro-lifers have been so comprehensively snookered, such protests are about the only option left to them to 'resist' the new abortion regime.

Yeah_Right · 12-06-2018 11:09PM

end of the road wrote: »

i would have no issue with people protesting outside the iona institute.

You only answered half the question. Would you defend their right to use the same tactics as pro-lifers like the ICBR?

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments