NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

_Redzer_ · 06-12-2013 12:00PM

Khannie wrote: »

Agree that these things are wrong. Disagree that anyone should lose the right to say things that you personally disagree with.

It's got nothing to do with me personally disagreeing with somethings that should then banned from discussing.

If it's negatively effect anybody it shouldn't be allowed or encouraged. The issues of racism for example wouldn't affect me much at all in this country but I'd still oppose anything that wanted to segregate a minority regardless. What they're doing isn't beneficial at all so why even put up with it?

They're just the core things that I think should protected -people of race, gender and sexuality. I am for free speech and airing your opinion, but if there's no good at all to come of it, and you're deliberately setting off to negatively affect someone else, then I don't think that should be tolerated.

To be honest what wisdom could a sexist, racist or homophobic person possibly offer us in regard to the treatment of said people?

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:00PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Whatever about free speech, there's an obligation to protect vulnerable people as well.

I don't like that leaflet, but how would you propose the two live side by side? (freedom of speech and the protection of people from those viewpoints that they may disagree with or find upsetting)

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar · 06-12-2013 12:01PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

They're just the core things that I think should protected -people of race, gender and sexuality. I am for free speech and airing your opinion, but if there's no good at all to come of it, and you're deliberately setting off to negatively affect someone else, then I don't think that should be tolerated.

so you're not for free speech or airing your opinion, great. just say that in the future.

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:01PM

Christy42 wrote: »

So if someone were to campaign for black people to leave the college, nonviolently of course, that would be fine? Or what about a campaign for all size ten girls to start losing weight saying that is fat?

I don't understand why you're trying to compare what the LoM had in their poster to this other stuff. Nor is any of it 'fine'. It is possible to disagree with the message without wanting it banned,

Christy42 wrote: »

What the LOM did was bullying and hurtful. NUIG had every right and a duty to protect vulnerable students who could have been hurt by this campaign. Freedom of speech should never be a reason to allow bullying.

Hurtful, certainly. Bullying, not really.
What they are saying about homosexuality is fairly mainstream Catholic teaching, which is often hurtful. Not a good reason to ban it 'though.

freedominacup · 06-12-2013 12:02PM

Christy42 wrote: »

If in a schoolyard a group of kids take a disliking to one and call him names, tell others to not hang around with him it is fine. None of the teachers should step in as it is just preparing them for real life as nothing extreme is going to happen in a school. This was bullying. Bullying should be punished. Hiding behind free speech should not allow it to go on. LOM was suspended which is fine, if they can show they are not just a bunch of trolls and will behave in future I am sure they will be brought back into the fold.

A schoolyard is not a university, a four year old is not someone society regards as an adult a university student is. If you want to start treating uni students like 4 year olds it could probably be organised there might even be something to be said for it. In the meantime we have different standards of care for people of different ages and abilities and different expectations of how well they should be able to stand up for themselves. If a small "handful" of fringe lunatics within a student body of thousands can cause this much upset for posting a few fliers I despair for the future of the country if something serious happens 20 years down the road. Who will they go crying to when they're in charge.

_Redzer_ · 06-12-2013 12:04PM

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

so you're not for free speech or airing your opinion, great. just say that in the future.

I am with conditions, I stated that. Would you rather I racially abused people and then hid behind free speech so as to be completely protected? In that way I could abuse anyone I wanted and do as I pleased without repercussion

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:05PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

If it's negatively effect anybody it shouldn't be allowed or encouraged.

This is where your argument fails. Every viewpoint that you have on *anything* negatively affects somebody.

You believe in the right to divorce? That upsets somebody.
You believe in peoples right to use contraception? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to life? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to choose? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to be homosexual? That upsets somebody.
You believe that women are equal? That upsets somebody.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

The world is just choc full of conflicting viewpoints.

Personally I believe that promoting hatred or violence towards other groups is where the line should be drawn. I disagree with its contents, strongly, but I don't see any hatred or violence being promoted in that leaflet.

GLaDOS · 06-12-2013 12:06PM

Khannie wrote: »

I don't like that leaflet, but how would you propose the two live side by side? (freedom of speech and the protection of people from those viewpoints that they may disagree with or find upsetting)

It's the not the people who might disagree or be upset or offended I was talking about. It's the people who might actually try it and end up in a much worse place than they started with I'd be worried about. When they realise they can't pray away their sexuality, they might start to think there's something really wrong with themselves.

I don't disagree with you in a general sense, but in this specific case I believe they are advertising something actively harmful and for that reason should not be allowed.

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:09PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

It's the not the people who might disagree or be upset or offended I was talking about. It's the people who might actually try it and end up in a much worse place than they started with I'd be worried about. When they realise they can't pray away their sexuality, they might start to think there's something really wrong with themselves.

I don't disagree with you in a general sense, but in this specific case I believe they are advertising something actively harmful and for that reason should not be allowed.

It's a fair point. I would be of the viewpoint that attempting to pray away the gay is ridiculous nonsense. I also believe that there are religious gay people who are probably conflicted about their sexuality and how religion mixes with that. Perhaps these people can help that. I don't think so myself, but I wouldn't suppress the option to distribute a leaflet like the one they did.

Shenshen · 06-12-2013 12:09PM

Khannie wrote: »

This is where your argument fails. Every viewpoint that you have on *anything* negatively affects somebody.

You believe in the right to divorce? That upsets somebody.
You believe in peoples right to use contraception? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to life? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to choose? That upsets somebody.
You believe in the right to be homosexual? That upsets somebody.
You believe that women are equal? That upsets somebody.
And so on, and so on, and so on.

The world is just choc full of conflicting viewpoints.

Personally I believe that promoting hatred or violence towards other groups is where the line should be drawn. I disagree with its contents, strongly, but I don't see any hatred or violence being promoted in that leaflet.

Don't want a divorce? Don't get one.
Don't want to use contraception? Don't.
Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have one.

Don't want others to be gay? Hmmm.... tough.

You can think of people whatever you want, you can even say about people whatever you want. But addressing people asking them to change who they are in order to agree with you? Nope.

freedominacup · 06-12-2013 12:10PM

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I am with conditions, I stated that. Would you rather I racially abused people and then hid behind free speech so as to be completely protected? In that way I could abuse anyone I wanted and do as I pleased without repercussion

Yes absolutely, that's the price you, me and anyone else who considers themselves a liberal has to pay for free speech. The absolute right for any lunatic to say anything he wants to anyone he wants because you never know when the worm will turn and what you consider a mainstream reasoned position will become regarded as a total outlier. You'll want and be glad of freedom of speech if that happens.

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:11PM

Shenshen wrote: »

You can think of people whatever you want, you can even say about people whatever you want. But addressing people asking them to change who they are in order to agree with you? Nope.

But....you're doing that right now. You're engaging in debate on something that you feel strongly about and attempting to change my viewpoint. Which one of us should be suppressed?

freedominacup · 06-12-2013 12:14PM

Shenshen wrote: »

Don't want a divorce? Don't get one.
Don't want to use contraception? Don't.
Don't want to have an abortion? Don't have one.

Don't want others to be gay? Hmmm.... tough.

You can think of people whatever you want, you can even say about people whatever you want. But addressing people asking them to change who they are in order to agree with you? Nope.

Do you really think this country moved from a place with no contracetion, no divorce, no abortion and indecency laws that criminalised homosexuality to where we are without addressing people and asking them to change who they were?

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:16PM

ScienceNerd wrote: »

I don't disagree with you in a general sense, but in this specific case I believe they are advertising something actively harmful and for that reason should not be allowed.

I'm not even sure what 'actively harmful' means, but what in the poster is actively harmful?

It seems to me that the views that the LoM have expressed in the poster are fairly mainstream Catholic teaching.

Khannie · 06-12-2013 12:17PM

Freedom of speech is a much more interesting topic in itself than those pray away the gay mentallers. I'm gonna fire up a new thread....

Links234 · 06-12-2013 12:20PM

I find it very worrying that it's getting lost here that the "reparative/ex-gay therapy" being advertised is an extremely harmful practice, it has never been shown to work, and has resulted in lasting damage for those who have undergone it. People aren't upset over being 'offended' by a poster, people are quite rightly outraged over an extremely harmful and fraudulent practice being advertised by a university society, this is somehow being lost over the din of "free speech, rabble rabble!"

Let me ask something of everyone here, a homeopath who advises people to ignore the advice of their doctors and stop their medical treatment to have some whacky new-age "healing", is that something that should be ok to advertise? Even if it has never been shown to have any benefit, is widely denounced by medical authorities and is shown to have caused harm? And if a homoepath society in a college was offering these services, is that ok?

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:22PM

Links234 wrote: »

I find it very worrying that it's getting lost here that the "reparative/ex-gay therapy" being advertised is an extremely harmful practice, it has never been shown to work, and has resulted in lasting damage for those who have undergone it. People aren't upset over being 'offended' by a poster, people are quite rightly outraged over an extremely harmful and fraudulent practice being advertised by a university society, this is somehow being lost over the din of "free speech, rabble rabble!"

Let me ask something of everyone here, a homeopath who advises people to ignore the advice of their doctors and stop their medical treatment to have some whacky new-age "healing", is that something that should be ok to advertise? Even if it has never been shown to have any benefit, is widely denounced by medical authorities and is shown to have caused harm? And if a homoepath society in a college was offering these services, is that ok?

You think the college should ban the promotion of homeopathy on campus too?

Shenshen · 06-12-2013 12:22PM

Khannie wrote: »

But....you're doing that right now. You're engaging in debate on something that you feel strongly about and attempting to change my viewpoint. Which one of us should be suppressed?

Right, ok, let me explain.
I hold many views. I've changed many (a great many) in my lifetime, some more than once, depending on my understanding of the subject and information available to me.

I also have a sexuality. I have never changed that, nor would I attempt to, and I would be highly offended if someone suggested I should try to do so in order to confirm with their views.

Sexuality is not a point of view. It's not something we read up about and then decide on, it's not something we can change when new information comes to light.

I could hold the view that certain forms of sexuality are preferable to others, which is perfectly fine. Walking up to them and telling them to change a fundamental aspect of their personality and person because of my view isn't.

Shenshen · 06-12-2013 12:24PM

freedominacup wrote: »

Do you really think this country moved from a place with no contracetion, no divorce, no abortion and indecency laws that criminalised homosexuality to where we are without addressing people and asking them to change who they were?

Are people in Ireland forced to use contraception, get divorced or engage in homosexuality?

If not, the question wasn't about people changing, it was about allowing others to do as they please as long as they don't harm anyone.

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:25PM

Links234 wrote: »

I find it very worrying that it's getting lost here that the "reparative/ex-gay therapy" being advertised is an extremely harmful practice, it has never been shown to work, and has resulted in lasting damage for those who have undergone it.

The poster isn't offering that therapy - it's calling on gay people to a life of chastity.

biko · 06-12-2013 12:30PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Well the Bible does say that gay's should be put to death, it's the word of their god

Indeed

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them. (NKJ, Leviticus 20:13)"
You can love Jesus but you can't "love" Jesus.

The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage.

eviltwin · 06-12-2013 12:30PM

Phoebas wrote: »

The poster isn't offering that therapy - it's calling on gay people to a life of chastity.

The posters themselves were very careful not to say anything that could be considered too offensive, its the organisation behind it that is involved in reparative therapy. The danger is a young person in the college, maybe finding it hard to deal with being gay might contact these people and get coerced into it. The college made the right choice. Tbh I'm very surprised at the LOM getting involved with these kinds of right wing groups in the first place.

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:33PM

eviltwin wrote: »

The posters themselves were very careful not to say anything that could be considered too offensive, its the organisation behind it that is involved in reparative therapy. The danger is a young person in the college, maybe finding it hard to deal with being gay might contact these people and get coerced into it. The college made the right choice. Tbh I'm very surprised at the LOM getting involved with these kinds of right wing groups in the first place.

So they're being banned not for what they're saying now, but what they might say in the future?

eviltwin · 06-12-2013 12:41PM

Phoebas wrote: »

So they're being banned not for what they're saying now, but what they might say in the future?

Well if you look at the Courage website it has links to reparative therapy so its not too much of a leap to think that any gay person who contacts them would be "encouraged" shall we say, to give it a go. That is the danger and while that wasn't part of their poster campaign I think it was right to assume that was part of the overall agenda.

People have a right to their opinions and I have no problem with that but the vulnerable also have a right to be protected from groups like this.

Dravokivich · 06-12-2013 12:44PM

Phoebas wrote: »

The poster isn't offering that therapy - it's calling on gay people to a life of chastity.

It's the same thing. They are looking for people to either deny themselves or submit to "normality." The very use of the word "chastity" means to be encouraged by LoM, to not indulge in any form of homosexual intimacy or gratification, because the homosexual person in question, does not have the ability to prevent themselves from indulging in it. Along with promoting the idea that they should not be considering indulging in it, in the first place. In any manner, be it promiscuous, or in a monogamous relationship.

If I was to tell you blankly, to stop being Pheobas, because being Pheobas is not normal. How'd you take that? How'd you take it, if I ran a poster campaign that's sole purpose was to not only help you to stop being Pheobas, but to tell you you shouldn't be and you should be more like Drav and accept me as your guide into who you should be?

Exchange Pheobas for homo and Drav for no-homo. Or whatever it is you feel for and tell me you're not shocked, insulted or targeted against. This is why NUIG have suspended them.

Phoebas wrote: »

So they're being banned not for what they're saying now, but what they might say in the future?

They weren't "banned" solely on the basis of their poster campaign, however it was a part of it. According to the article in the OP, NUIG had issues with LoM as an Organisation in itself. Not being too forthcoming on what they wanted to do at all.

Christy42 · 06-12-2013 12:47PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't understand why you're trying to compare what the LoM had in their poster to this other stuff. Nor is any of it 'fine'. It is possible to disagree with the message without wanting it banned,

Hurtful, certainly. Bullying, not really.
What they are saying about homosexuality is fairly mainstream Catholic teaching, which is often hurtful. Not a good reason to ban it 'though.

But you think they have the right to promote discrimination or encourage people into eating disorders? I don't care if it is mainstream, it is still bullying.

freedominacup wrote: »

A schoolyard is not a university, a four year old is not someone society regards as an adult a university student is. If you want to start treating uni students like 4 year olds it could probably be organised there might even be something to be said for it. In the meantime we have different standards of care for people of different ages and abilities and different expectations of how well they should be able to stand up for themselves. If a small "handful" of fringe lunatics within a student body of thousands can cause this much upset for posting a few fliers I despair for the future of the country if something serious happens 20 years down the road. Who will they go crying to when they're in charge.

Fine replace it with workplace bullying and should a boss step in. Yes this is minor bullying and could have been resolved without the college by simply ripping down the college (of course then LOM would have gone running to the college, what would they do in 20 years when people rip down their posters in the street?). They went through the correct channels so that LOM couldn't complain. We do need people to step in to stop bullying at any age level. No one can defend themselves if there are too many of them so the college needs to be able to deal with bullying. We are a society, this means we should use the protection of one where needed.

Thinking letting bullying go on builds strong individuals is wrong, it merely destroys some that could have been so much more to society.

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:50PM

Dravokivich wrote: »

It's the same thing. They are looking for people to either deny themselves or submit to "normality." The very use of the word "chastity" means to be encouraged by LoM, to not indulge in any form of homosexual intimacy or gratification, because the homosexual person in question, does not have the ability to prevent themselves from indulging in it. Along with promoting the idea that they should not be considering indulging in it, in the first place. In any manner, be it promiscuous, or in a monogamous relationship.

If I was to tell you blankly, to stop being Pheobas, because being Pheobas is not normal. How'd you take that? How'd you take it, if I ran a poster campaign that's sole purpose was to not only help you to stop being Pheobas, but to tell you you shouldn't be and you should be more like Drav and accept me as your guide into who you should be?

Exchange Pheobas for homo and Drav for no-homo. Or whatever it is you feel for and tell me you're not shocked, insulted or targeted against. This is why NUIG have suspended them.

I agree that its all very objectionable (but I don't agree that calling gay people to abstain is the same as offering reparative therapy). I just don't think that the college should be banning objectionable viewpoints.

Phoebas · 06-12-2013 12:52PM

Christy42 wrote: »

But you think they have the right to promote discrimination or encourage people into eating disorders? I don't care if it is mainstream, it is still bullying.

The poster said nothing about eating disorders or discrimination.

whatstherush · 06-12-2013 12:54PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I agree that its all very objectionable (but I don't agree that calling gay people to abstain is the same as offering reparative therapy). I just don't think that the college should be banning objectionable viewpoints.

Are they banning objectionable viewpoints or removing funding and status from a society?

Dravokivich · 06-12-2013 12:54PM

Phoebas wrote: »

I agree that its all very objectionable (but I don't agree that calling gay people to abstain is the same as offering reparative therapy). I just don't think that the college should be banning objectionable viewpoints.

It's a form of conditioning. That's what therapy is. It wasn't objectionable viewpoints they "banned." Nothing has been "banned." They've suspended an organisations application to form a society, as all their society appears to be doing, is targeting a group of individuals and attacking them.

There is nothing to state that the idea of discussing homosexuality, supporting or against, is forbidden there. They just can't endorse a society that is not only staunchly against it, but seeks to target and victimise those who are.

NUIG Suspends Legion of Mary over Leaflets

Comments