Thoughts on this Indo piece? "Fears of attack at college pro-life protest"

The Waltzing Consumer · 01-03-2011 05:47PM

Jakkass wrote: »

banquo and I were talking about this earlier in the Arts Block. The conclusion we came with was that the Pro-Life Society should have equal right to protest to any other group on the campus, but that they definitely do need to review their etiquette. For example equating Marie Stopes to a Nazi sympathiser and being pro-eugenics while possibly (I don't know if it is) factual it is an ad-hominem and as such is irrelevant because most pro-choicers aren't pro-eugenics, pro-Hitler, or pro-the Nazi party or any of the modern replica versions (that I know of anyway).

Suggestions that I've seen on Facebook for the pro-life view to be effectively driven off campus are also equally ridiculous. Especially since some people who are making these suggestions have been prominent in left-wing protest on this campus over the past 3 years. I welcome protest, but reasonable protest whether or not it's the pro-life society or others.

Hey, we're all adults here. Personally I'm pro-life but I am critical of both sides in this debacle. How about we put down the placards and the words of disbanding the pro-life soc and lets have a rational argument. No ad-hominems allowed. Personally I can see many points to be made for pro-life, but I will only discuss them with people who can promise to me that they won't get hysterical at the first sign of disagreement.

How about a bit of tolerance for eachother, how about civil discussion instead of all this lark?

Grow a backbone for god's sake. You had a group that were handing out false and offensive literature, intimidating and menacing students and guests of the college and have very questionable links with the very anti-gay and anti-abortion Youth Defence and their many fronts. Not only is this picture featuring a Maynooth student, it was full of Youth Defence literature and the question is, is this the pro-life society stall in Maynooth?
http://www.youthdefence.ie/archived-news/ultrasound-hits-the-ground-running-for-students-for-life-in-nui-maynooth/

This "let us have some tolerance for each other" and "critical of both sides" is rubbish. You are trying to be balanced for balance sake. The only criticism you have of the other side (which is what, the vast majority of the student body, who are of different religions, backgrounds, politics, nationalities and views on abortion) is that some facebook page had a few comments from some left-wing students. Wow. That is definately comparable.

We would not be having this discussion if it was some anti-black hate group or anti-immigrant group or anti-catholic group. If it had been any of those, you would condemn it and not bother with this "they have equal right to protest" lark. Because it is an anti-abortion and anti-gay group, you are trying to make them out to be reasonable and logical with the same rights as any other NUIM society. Why? Well, the colleges connections with the Catholic Church spring to mind.

Well, they are not the same, youth defence and its fronts are basically a hate group. If you are happy with having hate groups in NUIM, it says a lot about you. Are Youth Defence and the Pro-Life Society the same thing? Looks like it. Same members, same literature, same stalls, same protest.

01-03-2011 05:50PM

PrivateEye wrote: »

Can someone clarify if the stall pictured on the last page is the Pro Life stall, or was there a seperate YD stall on the day? If that is 'our' Pro Life Society, they're very obviously affiliated to Youth Defence.

I'm pretty sure the picture in the article is of the Pro Life stand on this year's fairs day. If you look behind the guy in the Maynooth hoodie you can see the bar thingie on the walls of the Venue. I remember that's were the Pro Life Soc table was.

If there was another, separate YD/US table that day, I didn't see it or hear about it.

bridmac · 01-03-2011 06:13PM

Just checked it out there. The news everyone is referring to (taken from the youth defence site regarding a college stand) on this thread is from 2nd October which means it happened in late September. The 1st event referred to (the protest) took place recently so the two events aren't linked. The conspiratorial rant on this thread sounds overly hysterical.

Demonique · 01-03-2011 06:27PM

Wendero wrote: »

This is a major breach against the principle of "innocent until proven guilty", and the only reason why they did it was because we handed out leaflets which told people about the Labour Party and their pro-abortion stance and urged people to vote for life. It's not a secret that most people in the SU leadership support the Labour party, and they just wanted to "stop the bleeding" that their party had suffered in the polls since they changed their position on abortion. It was a purely political decision, unworthy of any organization which supposedly represent all students (not just the Labour-voting students).

Shame that the people of Ireland didn't see to care about Labour's pro-choice stance in the recent election

/sarcasm because I don't think it's a shame

The Waltzing Consumer · 01-03-2011 07:03PM

bridmac wrote: »

Just checked it out there. The news everyone is referring to (taken from the youth defence site regarding a college stand) on this thread is from 2nd October which means it happened in late September. The 1st event referred to (the protest) took place recently so the two events aren't linked. The conspiratorial rant on this thread sounds overly hysterical.

Well, instead of one event that is linking youth defence and the pro-life society, it now becomes two events and more questions about the relationship between hate groups and the pro-life society of NUIM. Thanks for clearing that up!

philologos · 01-03-2011 11:06PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Grow a backbone for god's sake. You had a group that were handing out false and offensive literature, intimidating and menacing students and guests of the college and have very questionable links with the very anti-gay and anti-abortion Youth Defence and their many fronts. Not only is this picture featuring a Maynooth student, it was full of Youth Defence literature and the question is, is this the pro-life society stall in Maynooth?
http://www.youthdefence.ie/archived-news/ultrasound-hits-the-ground-running-for-students-for-life-in-nui-maynooth/

Personally I believe the pro-life society should be able to advocate their views in a rational manner on the campus. That's what they should be allowed to do. I'm not going to "grow a backbone" if that means favouring pro-choice views on this campus to pro-life views because that's absolutely ridiculous. In any case where an abortion clinic (Marie Stopes) is invited to the campus pro-lifers should be able to protest with proper etiquette and in a reasonable manner. What didn't happen was the reasonable manner if there were sensationalist leaflets of that type on campus.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

This "let us have some tolerance for each other" and "critical of both sides" is rubbish. You are trying to be balanced for balance sake. The only criticism you have of the other side (which is what, the vast majority of the student body, who are of different religions, backgrounds, politics, nationalities and views on abortion) is that some facebook page had a few comments from some left-wing students. Wow. That is definately comparable.

In some senses yes they are comparable. My criticism of the pro-choice side is that it is unacceptable to suggest that pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to their views on this campus and I will stand up for their right to profess whatever views they desire. Largely as I think the Students Union has given the Christian Union the right to speak about their Christian faith openly on the campus. I'm glad for this, and I'm glad that this society that I'm involved in has a great relationship with the Students Union. The Students Union gives a voice to a plurality of people who often disagree with eachother. Welcome to the democratisation of views on campus. Universities are where discussions like this occur. You have no right to suggest that peoples shouldn't have a right to discuss their viewpoint on campus. What you do have the right to suggest is that people should do this rationally and without using sensationalist materials.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

We would not be having this discussion if it was some anti-black hate group or anti-immigrant group or anti-catholic group. If it had been any of those, you would condemn it and not bother with this "they have equal right to protest" lark. Because it is an anti-abortion and anti-gay group, you are trying to make them out to be reasonable and logical with the same rights as any other NUIM society. Why? Well, the colleges connections with the Catholic Church spring to mind.

Tripe. A pro-life view is in no way bigoted. They have the full right to protest just as PrivateEye and other activists on this campus do. I advocate freedom of expression. I don't believe in trampling over all those whom I disagree with on campus because that would mean a lot of people being deprived this right on campus. That's where "grace" comes in.

Pro-life views are acceptable to promote on the campus. Obviously homophobic views are not as this is hate speech & illegal.

Edit: By the by, I'm a non-Catholic so I don't see why that would influence my view that there should be a pro-life society on the NUI Maynooth campus.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well, they are not the same, youth defence and its fronts are basically a hate group. If you are happy with having hate groups in NUIM, it says a lot about you. Are Youth Defence and the Pro-Life Society the same thing? Looks like it. Same members, same literature, same stalls, same protest.

Investigate the society. Simple. Tell them not to affiliate with Youth Defence. Personally I think a pro-life society without denominational ties would be better. That's just me though. I believe that there are excellent arguments for a pro-life position which can be argued from a secular perspective. So yeah, I think they have a right to protest but they shouldn't use sensationalist materials just logic and good arguments of which there are an abundance.

Ataxia · 01-03-2011 11:16PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally I believe the pro-life society should be able to advocate their views in a rational manner on the campus. That's what they should be allowed to do. I'm not going to "grow a backbone" if that means favouring pro-choice views on this campus to pro-life views because that's absolutely ridiculous. In any case where an abortion clinic (Marie Stopes) is invited to the campus pro-lifers should be able to protest with proper etiquette and in a reasonable manner. What didn't happen was the reasonable manner if there were sensationalist leaflets of that type on campus.

In some senses yes they are comparable. My criticism of the pro-choice side is that it is unacceptable to suggest that pro-lifers shouldn't have the right to their views on this campus and I will stand up for their right to profess whatever views they desire. Largely as I think the Students Union has given the Christian Union the right to speak about their Christian faith openly on the campus. I'm glad for this, and I'm glad that this society that I'm involved in has a great relationship with the Students Union. The Students Union gives a voice to a plurality of people who often disagree with eachother. Welcome to the democratisation of views on campus. Universities are where discussions like this occur. You have no right to suggest that peoples shouldn't have a right to discuss their viewpoint on campus. What you do have the right to suggest is that people should do this rationally and without using sensationalist materials.

Tripe. A pro-life view is in no way bigoted. They have the full right to protest just as PrivateEye and other activists on this campus do. I advocate freedom of expression. I don't believe in trampling over all those whom I disagree with on campus because that would mean a lot of people being deprived this right on campus. That's where "grace" comes in.

Pro-life views are acceptable to promote on the campus. Obviously homophobic views are not as this is hate speech & illegal.

Investigate the society. Simple. Tell them not to affiliate with Youth Defence. Personally I think a pro-life society without denominational ties would be better. That's just me though. I believe that there are excellent arguments for a pro-life position which can be argued from a secular perspective. So yeah, I think they have a right to protest but they shouldn't use sensationalist materials just logic and good arguments of which there are an abundance.

So they should be allowed to go around telling women on campus who have had terminations that they are murderers as long as they do it in a civilised, non-sensationalist way?

philologos · 01-03-2011 11:23PM

Ataxia wrote: »

So they should be allowed to go around telling women on campus who have had terminations that they are murderers as long as they do it in a civilised, non-sensationalist way?

They should be allowed to argue their case on this campus. Logically why do they oppose abortion-by-choice. As I've said already there are an abundance of reasons brought up every time the subject has been debated on boards. In Humanities and After Hours in particular. People should be free to disagree with each other, and to protest. As I've said already I don't see why you should have the right to protest as you have done with FEE if they don't. As I've said already, I think if it were a secularised movement it could be much better, but it is up to them if they want to do this.

Its a contentious subject and the SU shouldn't actively favour one view over another in this case.

On the same note, pro-choice people should be able to set up a society and to be able to protest in such situations also.

Wendero · 01-03-2011 11:58PM

I have never called anyone a murderer. You think we are extreme, check out prolifers in Sweden where I come from. We don't have any abortion ban there, so we are playing offense, not defence. No-one from our society has ever called anyone a murderer. Stop mixing us up, don't guilt us by association. In Sweden, we usually compare abortion to the holocaust and ask "Is everyone who persecuted jews a murderer, or could you say that in order to murder, you must kill a human being intentionally, and if you don't know that what you are killing is a human being, you can't do it intentionally and so you don't murder". It's an interesting question. Not even in Sweden do we call the women murderers, that's a title we reserve for the doctors and politicians who allow it to happen.

I'm not catholic either, I grew up pentecostal and am now attending a presbyterian church.

I never knew we had any denominational ties. They surely didn't tell me that when they elected me to the board, despite knowing I'm a protestant. They got some 'splainin to do on our meeting tomorrow.

02-03-2011 12:10AM

Wendero wrote: »

Stop mixing us up, don't guilt us by association.

You mean like how you accused the SU of a conspiracy against Pro Life because a few of the members are in Labour?

Also given the evidence, and your refusal to address the point, you'll have to forgive people for associating you guys with the protesters when it looks like you both are part of the same organisation.

Ataxia · 02-03-2011 12:42AM

Jakkass wrote: »

Its a contentious subject and the SU shouldn't actively favour one view over another in this case.

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

rcaz · 02-03-2011 01:14AM

Ataxia wrote: »

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

I agree with you, but I don't think the SU can do that... From the way I understand it, the SU has to support all students equally, which means considering and supporting all students' interests and causes. While I think the pro-life stance here (is this the universal way of approaching 'pro life'?) is completely ridiculous, backward and outdated, I don't expect the SU to be as passionately against it as I am. The SU has no business being passionate about anything other than equality and excellence. Again, this is all from my unresearched, but interested, understanding.

Why is pro-life just anti-abortion? Pro-choice isn't anti-pro-life... And anyway, you all have your way, what are you arguing about?

Wendero · 02-03-2011 01:25AM

Pro-choicers claim not to be anti-life, but we're not anti-choice either. We believe in choice - you can adopt the baby or raise it yourself. That's fine with us. The only thing you cannot do is kill it.

And the SU should stay neutral in the abortion issue, to suggest anything else is just plain absurd. Also, about the SU and their Labour connections, I'm just saying that everyone is influenced by their views and background when they make decisions. It doesn't even have to be intentional, everyone does it.

We didn't organize the protest. There's nothing more to say about it.

Ataxia · 02-03-2011 01:37AM

It's a student welfare issue. Right now, the SU is not standing up for the welfare of female students who might need access to abortion services. It's entirely legitimate for the SU to support these women.

02-03-2011 01:52AM

Wendero wrote: »

Also, about the SU and their Labour connections, I'm just saying that everyone is influenced by their views and background when they make decisions. It doesn't even have to be intentional, everyone does it.

I'm sorry you're still making a baseless accusation of the exact same kind you are accusing others of making against pro life.
You understand that this is very hypocritical right?

Wendero wrote: »

We didn't organize the protest. There's nothing more to say about it.

Well except all the questions you're ignoring.

Why are you not even acknowledging them?

If you're going to throw around serious accusations about bias you should at least have the integrity to answer things honestly.

philologos · 02-03-2011 07:17AM

Ataxia wrote: »

I couldn't agree less. The SU should, like USI, come out strongly in favour of a woman's right to choose.

If you search back here, you'll see one of the reasons I decided not to vote for USI was because of this, but hey that's last year right?

The Students Union is intended to represent l students whether pro-life or pro-choice on this campus. Indeed in pretty much the same way I wouldn't expect the Students Union to promote Christianity or atheism on the campus. Instead, they allow other people to do this should they so choose. I don't see the issue. There is a clear discussion to be had on campus over whether or not abortion-by-choice is moral on this campus at least while it remains illegal in the State.

Ataxia wrote: »

It's a student welfare issue. Right now, the SU is not standing up for the welfare of female students who might need access to abortion services. It's entirely legitimate for the SU to support these women.

The word "need" there could be also very debatable. For some it would be in life and death circumstances one I agree with myself actually considering its best to save one life rather than two. Some people go further that one might need it if they don't desire a child at a given point in time. The latter reason I don't think is a good enough reason to justify death (which is what it is if one takes a basic look at the life process thats involved).

El Pr0n wrote: »

Why is pro-life just anti-abortion? Pro-choice isn't anti-pro-life... And anyway, you all have your way, what are you arguing about?

It actually isn't. It extends into areas such as end-of-life ethics (I would support pallative care over euthanasia), the use of adult stem cells rather than embryonic stem cells (pluripotent adult stem cells now according to research can function in the same manner as embryonic stem cells) URL="http://cis.org.uk/ireland/bioethics-2009/M-Clynes-18-April-2009.mp3"]mp3[/URL URL="http://cis.org.uk/ireland/bioethics-2009/M-Clynes-18-April-2009.pdf"]powerpoint[/URL. Pretty much I support the right to life as the mother of all rights. Without life you have no other rights, end of story. If it is an archaic position to stand up for the rights of those whose rights are ignored then I'm holding an archaic position if that is what you think.

Ataxia · 02-03-2011 08:46AM

Should the SU stop giving out condoms because there are students who disagree with artificial contraception?

I think a referendum should be held on whether or not the SU should take a pro-choice position. But I doubt there are any Exec. candidates willing to actually do that.

philologos · 02-03-2011 09:10AM

Ataxia wrote: »

Should the SU stop giving out condoms because there are students who disagree with artificial contraception?

Condoms != advocating abortion
I personally have zero issues with artificial contraception. Personally I'd see it best to wait until marriage but if people do beforehand its obvious that it is best to use contraceptives.

The SU should facilitate that people have the right to a stand on SHAG week including for those who disagree with artificial contraceptives. This is the way that the playing field can be balanced. Students can freely decide what they think for themselves and indeed reject what they find non-sensical as twaddle.

Ataxia wrote: »

I think a referendum should be held on whether or not the SU should take a pro-choice position. But I doubt there are any Exec. candidates willing to actually do that.

I think not. The SU shouldn't push those with minority views or with views in conformity with the majority to the sideline in any respect. The SU isn't just something to be used to enshrine peoples personal opinions. Facilitator of discussion is considerably better.

Seren_ · 02-03-2011 12:05PM

It's ironic that a vast majority of those who have posted on this thread are male (well so it would seem anyway). i'm not saying at all that men can't have opinions on abortion, just that it's women who tend to face the most prejudice with regards it. And the fact that it's womens' bodies that are being legislated against.

Ataxia, I would have to disagree with your point that the SU should hold a referendum to decide whether it's pro-choice or pro-life. First of all, how could we be certain that the pro-choice side would win? A lot of students are pro-life

Then would we be stuck as a college who couldn't give advice to students with a crisis pregnancy who were thinking of having an abortion? i.e. if someone went to the Welfare Officer for info, would they have to be told "No, we can't help you there, we're a pro-life SU!" Then there's also the fact that it would create a precedent for any other number of groups to lobby for a referendum. So MSU could end up as a union only for students who are pro-choice, atheist, socialist etc etc etc, thus alienating a lot of the people they are supposed to represent.

Also, it's not like someone's mind can instantly be changed by seeing a few posters of foetuses, or being told thy're a murderer. Do some pro-life groups really think that they can change peoples' perspective on something like abortion just because of that? If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow (as unlikely as that may be :pac:), i'm pretty certain I would have an abortion. Why? Because I'm only 21, have no job, no money, and still in college. That's not a great situation to bring a child into. No matter how many leaflets I was given telling me I was a murderer would change my mind, so why are pro-life groups who engage in such practices so sure that it would?

The Waltzing Consumer · 02-03-2011 12:11PM

Jackass, people do not mind discussion. I don't think you will find one post on this thread trying to convince anti-abortion people that they are wrong or right, that they should change their views. It is not about that at all. As I said before, the vast majority of students and staff will have completely different views on every issue and that is respected. The problem here is the conduct of the pro-life society which is made up of a very small group of people.

Now, discussion is fine. But why is the pro-life society poster constantly ignoring the questions put to them by other posters on this thread? Look at posts by King Mob and others asking about connections with youth defence. You have repeatedly talked about respecting each other and debate, yet you will see the person from the pro-life society (WENDERO) constantly ignoring all of the questions.

There is a deliberate attempt to ignore the actual conduct of the pro-life society and their actions, and their obvious connections with anti-gay groups, yet you seem to ignore all that and pretend that all sides are as bad as each other. That is not the case, as I said, the other side is comprised of the vast majority of students, it is not actually a side, it is 99.9% of the college.

When freshers week turned violent, the campus and Gardai condemned the actions of a small amount of students. It was not organised and there was no "two sides to the debate". It was simple. Violence and menacing behaviour is not tolerated. Now, it is an actual society with alleged strong links to an anti-gay and anti-abortion hate group who are involved in menacing and threatening behaviour and handing out false literature. Suddenly, it's all "respect each other" and "let's have a debate".

Well, people are trying to debate and discuss. Problem is, one side (the pro-life poster) is not answering any questions put to them. What is your solution for that?

02-03-2011 12:34PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Condoms != advocating abortion
I personally have zero issues with artificial contraception. Personally I'd see it best to wait until marriage but if people do beforehand its obvious that it is best to use contraceptives.

The SU should facilitate that people have the right to a stand on SHAG week including for those who disagree with artificial contraceptives. This is the way that the playing field can be balanced. Students can freely decide what they think for themselves and indeed reject what they find non-sensical as twaddle.

Ataxia, makes a valid point here.
They're not saying that condoms are the exact same as abortion, rather that some students disapprove of artificial contraception just as some disapprove of abortion.
So if your point that the SU should represent all students and be neutral on such contentious issues and therefore not provide support for those seeking an abortion is to stand, then you must also extend it to other issues like condoms (and even stuff like vaccines and "conventional medicine") and therefore the SU shouldn't give them out for free.
Whether or not you personally feel that condoms are a good thing is irrelevant, you just need one student who thinks the opposite for your logic to apply.
But as with the condom example, student's health and wellbeing should take precedence over the views of a minority.

But the point of the thread is not the morality of abortion, it's the conduct of the Pro Life society.
They were given a stand and their right to say their piece, but it's becoming increasingly clear someone connected to Youth Defence to which Pro Life is obviously connected abused this right.
And now we have a member of Pro Life acting dishonestly and throwing around very serious accusations.

I really wish some one from the SU would actually say something about this and clear some of the ambiguity up. Maybe even a "we can't comment at the moment" or something.

philologos · 02-03-2011 01:37PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Jackass, people do not mind discussion. I don't think you will find one post on this thread trying to convince anti-abortion people that they are wrong or right, that they should change their views. It is not about that at all. As I said before, the vast majority of students and staff will have completely different views on every issue and that is respected. The problem here is the conduct of the pro-life society which is made up of a very small group of people.

Great. As I would see it it would be better for the SU to meet with the pro-life society and try and resolve any issues.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Now, discussion is fine. But why is the pro-life society poster constantly ignoring the questions put to them by other posters on this thread? Look at posts by King Mob and others asking about connections with youth defence. You have repeatedly talked about respecting each other and debate, yet you will see the person from the pro-life society (WENDERO) constantly ignoring all of the questions.

Well, from the website it does look like there is some form of clear connection. That's my honest conclusion. Perhaps they could consider affiliating with SPUC instead. I've repeatedly talked about this because I think it's the model we need to consider instead of taking the Ataxia / PrivateEye approach. Their views should have no more objective basis in the Students Union than any other view.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

There is a deliberate attempt to ignore the actual conduct of the pro-life society and their actions, and their obvious connections with anti-gay groups, yet you seem to ignore all that and pretend that all sides are as bad as each other. That is not the case, as I said, the other side is comprised of the vast majority of students, it is not actually a side, it is 99.9% of the college.

Not at all. They need to be resolved. Its objectively wrong to say that 99.9% of the college are pro-choice. My point ultimately is that pro-lifers need to have a continued voice on the campus but that the approach needs to be very seriously reconsidered.

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

When freshers week turned violent, the campus and Gardai condemned the actions of a small amount of students. It was not organised and there was no "two sides to the debate". It was simple. Violence and menacing behaviour is not tolerated. Now, it is an actual society with alleged strong links to an anti-gay and anti-abortion hate group who are involved in menacing and threatening behaviour and handing out false literature. Suddenly, it's all "respect each other" and "let's have a debate".

Which literature are you referring to? The ad-hominem attack on Marie Stopes or?

OK, if we're talking about disbanding the society. Would it be acceptable to you if someone else set it up next year with a different approach or is it just a blanket ban on pro-life representation on campus?

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well, people are trying to debate and discuss. Problem is, one side (the pro-life poster) is not answering any questions put to them. What is your solution for that?

My thinking is he doesn't know of the affiliations but others might. This is why the SU needs to get into dialogue with the pro-life society about what etiquette is required.

The Waltzing Consumer · 02-03-2011 01:53PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Great. As I would see it it would be better for the SU to meet with the pro-life society and try and resolve any issues.

Well, that is definitely needed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Well, from the website it does look like there is some form of clear connection. That's my honest conclusion. Perhaps they could consider affiliating with SPUC instead. I've repeatedly talked about this because I think it's the model we need to consider instead of taking the Ataxia / PrivateEye approach. Their views should have no more objective basis in the Students Union than any other view.

Well, I would understand what your saying, disagree slightly though.

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. They need to be resolved. Its objectively wrong to say that 99.9% of the college are pro-choice. My point ultimately is that pro-lifers need to have a continued voice on the campus but that the approach needs to be very seriously reconsidered.

I NEVER said 99.9% of the college is pro-choice, I have implicitly said that there is a mixture of every view and opinion. My point was, 99.9% of the college have different views on everything and get on and there is none of these problems. The problem is the behaviour of a small group of extreme pro-lifers in the society.

Jakkass wrote: »

Which literature are you referring to? The ad-hominem attack on Marie Stopes or?

OK, if we're talking about disbanding the society. Would it be acceptable to you if someone else set it up next year with a different approach or is it just a blanket ban on pro-life representation on campus?

The youth defence literature.

I think it is fine to set up a society if that society adheres to a strict code of conduct which should be for everyone.

Jakkass wrote: »

My thinking is he doesn't know of the affiliations but others might. This is why the SU needs to get into dialogue with the pro-life society about what etiquette is required.

They do, and if they are found to have been complicit in this scummish behaviour, they should be thrown out of the pro-life society or if the society itself is responsible, then it should be suspended. I would say the same if any society had acted the way this society has allegedly acted.

Thoughts on this Indo piece? "Fears of attack at college pro-life protest"

Comments