'No Platform' Policy'

What I don't understand is there's a huge contingency of people giving out about the way class reps are run, the policy and even officers on the SU but yet there are plenty of avenues open to you to change this much like the campaign in the OP but yet i've little belief that for all the giving out, action won't be taking further than typing posts on boards..

I, for one, have done plenty to get things done through the SU and class reps and have run for an SU position before in order to change things I don't like. No point in being just negative, be progressive and constructive

Manco wrote: »

Why has this issue been singled out in particular? Hmm...

limiting freedom of speech in the university perhaps?

Ficheall wrote: »

Exactly. Who decides what the College Bar serves for dinner every day? That affects as many students as this "No Platform" policy, surely...

The people who are fronting the campaign said there was a number of complaints about it, class reps not telling their class about motions etc.

But that would have been the same for the RAG week proposal.

It's a joke and i've a number of reforms planned for the SU next year so hopefully will actually get the class reps working for once and not just only seen the organise their class party and get a hoody

Manco wrote: »

Example?

http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/2922.htm

The US govt considers the 32CSM to be an alias of the RIRA. So do the families of victims of the Omagh atrocity.

Manco wrote: »

I'm well aware of who 32CSM are, thank you. I certainly wouldn't object to them being added to the No Platform list.

Oh right, I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

32CSM exists on campus, I seem to recall them having a table and recruiting at more than one Socs Day.

whadabouchasir wrote: »

Ah you're misrepresenting me now I suggested that some members might be sympathetic towards republicanism I didn't for a minute imply that the SU were supporting terrorism and if it was picked up that way then i'm sorry.Clearly some members of the SU do have left wing and republican view I mean,you do have a James Connolly quote as your sig!I'm just concerned that the views of the SU officers MAY have impacted on the groups which were included on the list.

I have a quote as it represents my politics and feel it is relevent today, I am a supporter of Sinn Féin, one member of the exec supports SF, maybe more do, I don't know...

It's a big allegation to make about people is all i'm saying and be fair to people that are not present to respond to that allegation is all i'm saying

whadabouchasir wrote: »

I just think that it's a massive coincidence that all of these banned groups happen to be right wing ones,while you yourself have acknowledged that SOME members of the SU do have left wing views. i'm NOT saying that the SU are misusing their power to deliberately ban groups that they don't like,I think that the idea behind the ban,to stop potentially dangerous groups from causing trouble is a good one,it's just a pity that this ban wasn't extended to cover these left wing groups as well.

As I've said in an earlier post, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else proposing that motion yourself through class reps....

Yo! Thought a thread on this would pop up on boards.
I'm the Equality Officer and I wrote this proposal and I have to say that there is quite a bit of misinformation in this thread.

First of all, after I wrote this I took it to the Exec who all agreed with it but it was decided to go through class reps. We presented the case and there was an informed debate on the subject for nearly half an hour. After this debate the class reps voted 96% in favour of the motion. Both of the guys heading this referendum campaign voted in favour of this motion is is also worth noting.
This is how democracy works and I refute any claim that this was put through in any sort of underhand manner.
I am aware that there were many class reps who for whatever reason were not informed of the motions or that many did not consult their classes and agree that this is a massive problem. But I have to point out that this is something that I have brought up time and time again with the Exec and I have openly said that there are problems with the information structure between the SU, class reps and students. In fact I am pretty sure it is something I have argued at every single SU council so far.
It is the responsibility of the Education Officer and the Conveners to ensure that students are represented and if there is perceived to be a problem it is here that we should be focusing.

On the referendum:
It was asked at the Exec that we call for a referendum on the motion by the lads organising the campaign and discussed at length. We chose not to call for a referendum for a number of reasons. First of all the class reps council have a higher executive power than the Exec and after they have decided on something only a few weeks ago could be called to referendum by the Exec then this would be an act that undermined the class reps. This would be a really serious issue and would be incredibly irresponsible of the Exec. Secondly because if we called a referendum on this simply at a request then this would literally open the flood gates for calls for referendums on everything that has been decided on all year.
At the end of the day this is representative democracy in action. People who run for positions and turn up to vote are the people who make decisions, we all know this. 96% of the class reps who turned up and voted after a good informative debate with me answering any question they asked about the motion and for the Exec to undermine this decision is just not on. It would be calling no confidence in the SU Council.
However, it is written into the constitution that upon the collection of 500 signatures a referendum must be called. If there are 500 signatures collected then this is a clear demonstration that there is considerable opposition then of course there should be a referendum. This is the avenue the constitution outlines and this equally applies to everyone.

On the actual policy:
There is an awful lot of misinformation here regarding the actual policy and allow me to clear a few things up.
This policy does NOT ban anyone from being invited or speaking at this university.
Repeat; THIS POLICY DOES NOT BAN ANYONE FROM BEING INVITED OR SPEAKING AT THIS UNIVERSITY.
It mandates that if a member of one of the listed organisations is invited that the Student's Union should oppose it. That is all
In my opinion this is just common sense. Students' Unions oppose racism de facto anyway, they would have to in order to represent everyone at college. It is simply a symbolic message that racism is not something that is welcome here among the students of NUI Galway. I would assume that this would be an accurate representation. I hope so anyway.
I really would encourage people to actually read the motion before making their minds up on it.

Another point. The whole issue regarding freedom of speech is very distracting. I fail to see any restriction on freedom of speech here, as previously mentioned, THIS POLICY DOES NOT BAN ANYONE FROM BEING INVITED TO OR SPEAKING AT THIS CAMPUS.
It does forbid SU Officers sharing a platform with organisation but this can hardly be considered censorship, there are LOADS of things I just can;t say about the SU and things in general as an officer but I accept that as it is my job that i chose to do.

This policy also has avenues for amendments. If you want to add or remove any organisation you simply need to get your class rep to make a request and it will be voted on. It is not simply reserved for rightwing organisations, it is reserved for violent hate organisations, this has noting to do with politics. If you wish to add any other violent left wing organisations then you are free to go about it.
I am proud of this policy and I hope it remains, violent racist organisations have a history of gaining strength during times of economic hardship and I believe that is it important for large organisations representing young people such as NUIG SU to openly oppose racism in all its forms.
I would really hate to see a rise in racism here in Ireland and I want the SU to do all it can to stand against it publicly.


TL;DR
1)Motions passed through 2 democratic processes and has been voted on by a massive majority of student reps.
2)THIS POLICY DOES NOT BAN ANYONE FROM BEING INVITED TO OR SPEAKING AT COLLEGE meaning this has nothing to do with freedom of speech.
3) Motion = Racism is bad and students should oppose it - yes or no
4)If you have a problem with how this decision was made and voted on, your issue is not with the policy its self but the competence of the political infrastructure that is in place within the SU. If this is the case, there are plenty of more interesting and effective referendums that you could be calling for...
5)If you want your SU to do something then talk to them.
6)If you still want a referendum then sign the petition and it will happen, that is what everyone else has to do if they want to change the constitution or go back on a class reps decision.
7)XXX G'luck in your exams XXX

Will O'Brien - Equality Officer