Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
UL pro life society ???
Options
Comments
-
that's a bit extremeSo I was talking to a friend of mine in clubs and societies this evening and he mentioned that the SU was approving a pro life society. I called bulls**t on this originally but he then showed me the email for their meeting next week at the clubs and socs council.
I strongly object to there being a pro life society so i was wondering if anyone here could help me stop them being setup. Surely the SU cant be supporting this in this day and age.
Also if they cant be stopped then is setting up a pro choice society an option ?0 -
Weren't they looking to restrict their membership according to a poster a couple of days ago? If that approach continued I would have voted against, any C&S membership has to be open to those who want to join, not who the club thinks are worthy of it.
It was open to everyone, the guy asked one question when he was looking to start the society. When someone asks about starting a club/society, they want to limit the membership to die hard people. They are told by the exec that they can't go to council unless they change.The Christian Union represents people who are of the christian faith, it is not an anti-gay, anti abortion, anti-(insert any number of words here) group. That is not the message they are trying to get across, that is not what their society is about.
You realise the christian union is exclusive? Anyone can join but they have in their constitution that anyone who isn't a die hard christian can't vote at their AGM (that needs to be addressed and removed).I'm a little surprised that you are saying that you are ok with students feeling unwelcome on the campus to be honest. C&S try to welcome and represent everyone. Even those members of the failed Life Soc would not feel unwelcome in the C&S. It was not a personal attack on them. The opposite would be true if they had been ratified.
Are you serious? They had to wait a year before going to council. A YEAR. What other society or club has had to wait that long before going to coucil? Then they were voted down but not because they didn't adhere to any rules or regulations for C&S but rather people's personal opinions with no reason given. You do realise the exec had this same debate if they should go forward to council? There is no reason for them not to be a society.
Also a pro-choice society wanted to start at the same time too, but it seems like they couldn't withstand a year's delay.You also open up the possibility of events on campus which could make the campus an unwelcoming place for a student that has had to have an abortion. The SU and C&S should strive to be as inclusive as possible, and I don't think it would be possible to be inclusive if they had ratified that soc. I realise that by not ratifying the soc you may perceive it as being excluded, however I would argue that by making this decision does not make any member of that group feel unwelcome/uncomfortable on campus, whereas the alternative decision would have.
Do you not know what the exec does? OR what Paul is paid for? They/he is there to ensure this doesn't happen.
How can you talk about being inclusive by excluding people? No Muslims, it would make the christians uncomforable? That's your arguement? People who don't like a certain society, they don't join it.0 -
Weren't they looking to restrict their membership according to a poster a couple of days ago? If that approach continued I would have voted against, any C&S membership has to be open to those who want to join, not who the club thinks are worthy of it.
That appeared to be the case when they deferred this vote from the week 1 meeting. Subsequently I emailed their president about this and 2 other issues; my questions and his reply are as follows:1. Is membership of the society open to all members of the campus community who have views on this issue?
Yes, the society is open to all students.
2. Does the society affiliate with any regional, national or international organisations?
We are an independent student-led society without any affiliations to any other organisation.
2a. If so, what organisations and is the society required to pay an affiliation fee to them?
We do not pay affiliation fees to anyone.
(In hindsight I should probably have posted this before the vote took place.)
On the basis of these responses I recommended that my society vote in favour of the proposal. Give them some rope and see what they do with it.
Most of the objections I've seen raised are ideological and that's not a sound basis from which to vote against this at C&S Council.
The only one that potentially holds water is the narrowness of their focus but that finger could potentially be pointed at many existing C&S.
Regarding the comments about the small number of objections compared to the no votes on the night, most committees have spent a lot of time discussing this issue outside of council and would have come to that meeting with their minds made up.Cadroc wrote:Yes there are many groups that don't represent a large population of the student body, but these groups aren't offensive to anyone. The Christian Union represents people who are of the christian faith, it is not an anti-gay, anti abortion, anti-(insert any number of words here) group. That is not the message they are trying to get across, that is not what their society is about.
Muslims might see the Christian Union as offensive to them - sometimes it depends on where you're looking from. It's also possible to extrapolate that the CU might be anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc based on those being contrary to the catechism of most of the Christian Sects, but that'd be unfair. The point being it's easy to speculate on someone's motives (I know I personally jumped to certain conclusions immediately when I saw the proposal for UL Life) but in the absence of evidence it's not really fair to do so.
I'd agree with Ginge in saying that we need to look more carefully at the process involved in setting up/approving a new club or society. For starters, any prospective C/S should be presenting a detailed synopsis of their proposed activity to the council well in advance - it'd cut out a lot of the guessing and supposition such as has gone on through this thread.0 -
@reunion: You show your personal bias here all too well. It's interesting to see how easily you've dismissed the questions raised by the C&S membership on this issue, which suggests that you didn't have an understanding of the issues that the various committees had - which are all valid by definition.
It's worth noting that the prospective "Pro-"Life society could not have formed anyway as it did not meet the criteria laid down in the C&S documents to be a society, so if it had passed the vote, I would immediately have raised that point on why it no longer met the criteria and the soc would have not have progressed as it would not have fulfilled the terms for the trial period.
Only one objection was needed to force the vote, once there were a number of objections it would have been redundant to have more - hence the mismatch between the vote and the objection numbers - not that the mismatch was relevant anyway.
All questions from the floor were valid on the night and you may forget that this is the right of the current C&S members to ask anything of the prospective soc. Even that question about the naming is valid, as to call a soc that fits within the pro-life pigeonhole by any definition, the "life" soc is a bit disingenuous, and that should have been addressed. I asked my own questions as I had an idea that the prospective soc was not being inclusive and would have preferred to be very exclusive, which was at odds with the communications coming from the prospective soc to C&S and I wanted to show that discrepancy. Every other soc that I've known in my time have been crying for more members, and welcomed more members. I can't think of one soc that needed to be as exclusive as this one wanted to be.
Personally, I'm glad that this soc is not under the C&S umbrella, and I am happy that the prospecive soc is not allowed to poster or campaign on campus. Of course the members are allowed to meet up on campus and enjoy being in the company of like-minded individuals as is their right, just not allowed to advertise that fact. My personal view on this is not from the ideological viewpoint, but from what I would consider the best interests of C&S and the membership. Don't forget that my length of time in C&S should give me a fairly good idea what those interests would be.
The only real precedent that has been set is that a prospective soc did not meet the criteria to be formed, causing objections to be raised on the C&S floor to the acceptance of the prospective soc for trial, which resulted in C&S not accepting that soc. No reasons were stated for the failure, therefore there should be no repurcussions for other soc/club formation in the future, unless the future prospective soc fails to meet criteria.0 -
It's worth noting that the prospective "Pro-"Life society could not have formed anyway as it did not meet the criteria laid down in the C&S documents to be a society, so if it had passed the vote, I would immediately have raised that point on why it no longer met the criteria and the soc would have not have progressed as it would not have fulfilled the terms for the trial period.
Maybe you could enlighten us about HOW EXACTLY they didn't meet the criteria? Because I've yet to hear how the exec, Paul and Michelle aren't doing their jobs and why the life society don't meet the C&S criteria.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm surprised you didn't figure this one out, based on what they said on the night. You should really know better..
Clue - it's in the population makeup of the prospective soc.0 -
I'm surprised you didn't figure this one out, based on what they said on the night. You should really know better..
Clue - it's in the population makeup of the prospective soc.
You mean the 20 students from UL, some staff, some Mary I students and some non-students? I believe they said they had around 25 members. 20/25 = 80%. (BTW they aren't even a society yet, making membership numbers totally irrelevant)Current students should account for at least 75% of
the listed membership of the
Society/Club.
should not required; plus they are around that 75% mark anyway.
So are you saying the reason was ignorance? or was it some other vague statement?
I'm still waiting to hear how Paul and Michelle are useless at their jobs and why a vote of no confidence should happen with the exec.0 -
Personally, I'm glad that this soc is not under the C&S umbrella, and I am happy that the prospecive soc is not allowed to poster or campaign on campus. Of course the members are allowed to meet up on campus and enjoy being in the company of like-minded individuals as is their right, just not allowed to advertise that fact. My personal view on this is not from the ideological viewpoint, but from what I would consider the best interests of C&S and the membership. Don't forget that my length of time in C&S should give me a fairly good idea what those interests would be.
How is not allowing a society, who followed the rules and reg of C&S, to have a 15 week trial period the best interests of C&S? In fact that damaging to C&S
Your views on the matter where driven by your ideological view, see your other posts in this thread.0 -
@Reunion: Seems like you have an agenda to push against the C&S council and staff for this exercising of our democratic rights - You're the only one calling for a vote of no confidence. Personally I've no issue with Paul or Michelle. Maybe you've some sour grapes? Is it because C&S decided not to bring this soc under the C&S umbrella, given that you've tried and failed to do something similar in the past as well? Were you even in the room that evening?
I'm basing my viewpoint on the statements that they had "between 15 and 20 students including MaryI students, some staff and some external members", giving a total of "about 25 people". That didn't add up to give the necessary amount of students required to form a C&S club or soc. To proceed to the 15 week trial, this requires at least 25 members. MaryI cannot be full members, not can externals, as per the doc available at Guide to C&S Committee Administration, but that is semantics on the definition of a member of the soc at that stage. Based on that and the soc's own figures at that meeting, my reading of the situation was that they weren't eligible to proceed to the trial at that point. I saw it as Paul trying to do them a favour by getting them in from of C&S to make their case, to allow them the opportunity to go forward for trial. C&S listened, and made their decision, rendering the numbers issue as moot at that point.
It's done now, and that's the end of it for this attempt to form this soc. I do not think that C&S is any worse off for having come to this decision.
@jester252 - I see it as in C&S best interests not to have this soc present, as this type of soc would cause more than the usual sense of bad feeling towards the soc based on my chatting with committee members over the previous weeks, and this sense of bad feeling is not a good thing for C&S. No other soc was as polarising of opinions, and very few opinions were positive. Almost all of the people I chatted with were either against the idea of this type of soc completely, or willing to let them have their trial (against their own personal opinion on the subject) with the hope to see them fail during the trial period.
It is good though that it came before C&S as it allowed people to directly question those wishing to come under the C&S banner, and it allowed a definitive stance to be taken.0 -
@jester252 - I see it as in C&S best interests not to have this soc present, as this type of soc would cause more than the usual sense of bad feeling towards the soc based on my chatting with committee members over the previous weeks, and this sense of bad feeling is not a good thing for C&S.
So it not in the best interest of C&S because you and some others didn't like them?
There are plenty of socs and clubs who have issues with other clubs and soc.No other soc was as polarising of opinions, and very few opinions were positive. Almost all of the people I chatted with were either against the idea of this type of soc completely, or willing to let them have their trial (against their own personal opinion on the subject) with the hope to see them fail during the trial period.
The people you talked to voted against the soc because they didn't like them. That's personal opinion. Nice to see other members of C&S hoping others will fail.It is good though that it came before C&S as it allowed people to directly question those wishing to come under the C&S banner, and it allowed a definitive stance to be taken.
C&S open to everyone*
*those who we decide are the right kind of people.
As for narrow scope
Explain Chess, Poker, Pool and Darts, Men and Women hockey etc.
Lack of member
Explain how Energy where able to have a 15 week trial without any member or a committee?0 -
Advertisement
-
So it not in the best interest of C&S because you and some others didn't like them?
There are plenty of socs and clubs who have issues with other clubs and soc.
The people you talked to voted against the soc because they didn't like them. That's personal opinion. Nice to see other members of C&S hoping others will fail.
C&S open to everyone*
*those who we decide are the right kind of people.
As for narrow scope
Explain Chess, Poker, Pool and Darts, Men and Women hockey etc.
Lack of member
Explain how Energy where able to have a 15 week trial without any member or a committee?
i thought energy had the members initially but couldnt get the soc off the ground agm wise?0 -
-
@Reunion: Seems like you have an agenda to push against the C&S council and staff for this exercising of our democratic rights - You're the only one calling for a vote of no confidence. Personally I've no issue with Paul or Michelle. Maybe you've some sour grapes? Is it because C&S decided not to bring this soc under the C&S umbrella, given that you've tried and failed to do something similar in the past as well? Were you even in the room that evening?
Attacking the poster and not the post? Good job. If you read, I'm asking YOU why YOU THINK Paul, Michelle and the Exec have done a bad job. They CAN'T allow a society which doesn't meet the C&S criteria to go to council. So either A. they did meet the C&S criteria or B. they didn't.
If A. personal opinions stopped them
If B. the Exec, Paul and Michelle did a bad job.I'm basing my viewpoint on the statements that they had "between 15 and 20 students including MaryI students, some staff and some external members", giving a total of "about 25 people". That didn't add up to give the necessary amount of students required to form a C&
...
nity to go forward for trial. C&S listened, and made their decision, rendering the numbers issue as moot at that point.
So how can a society have members when it isn't formed? that's what the 15 week trial is for! The 75% membership is a SUGGESTION not a rule. You clearly don't even have a basic grasp of C&S policy.It's done now, and that's the end of it for this attempt to form this soc. I do not think that C&S is any worse off for having come to this decision.
Actually it isn't. What happens now? Is a life society never allowed to form? No. Can they go to council in 2 weeks? Yes. Does this make the C&S look discriminatory? yesIt is good though that it came before C&S as it allowed people to directly question those wishing to come under the C&S banner, and it allowed a definitive stance to be taken.
Are you saying the C&S is anti-prolife?i thought energy had the members initially but couldnt get the soc off the ground agm wise?
numerous C&S start with 1 -3 members with the hopes that they get the 25 members during the 15 week trial. Some have started only because their governing body started it with the hopes of roping students in0 -
Lots to cover here, so apologies for the length of post and multi-quoting.
You've missed a few options there.If A. personal opinions stopped them
If B. the Exec, Paul and Michelle did a bad job.
C. Life soc misrepresent their membership.
D. Paul / Michelle in an effort to be sure to be non-discriminatory with the sensitive nature of the subject, as well as as being as helpful and generous of their time as always with enthusiastic students, gave the soc every chance possible to succeed.
E. etc.
It's rarely as black and white as you seem to like. Some things never change!
You also failed to read my post above where I explicitly stated I have no issue with Paul or Michelle. I'm not sure what your issue with them is, but I think they do better than C&S deserve in general. Why do you have this issue with them? Do you not think they do a great job?
It appears that the issue with basic C&S policy is with your own grasp of things, and that's surprising given your own history. Or actually, maybe not - it may explain quite a lot..So how can a society have members when it isn't formed? that's what the 15 week trial is for! The 75% membership is a SUGGESTION not a rule. You clearly don't even have a basic grasp of C&S policy.
Please re-read and actually try to comprehend the linked document I posted above - where it clearly states that the soc should have the 25 Members before they can proceed to the trial. Just in case you weren't aware - the 75% recommendation is referring to the ongoing makeup of the club or soc - not at the pre-trial period. That needs the 25 full members. As I suggested, read the docs on the subject, it may educate you.
Actually, yes. They are not allowed to form under the C&S umbrella at this point in time. They are perfectly free to form, just not on campus, just not this semester. Petty obviously this particular instance of a life soc is dead in the water for at least this semester and probably the next academic year. Given your history in C&S/ULSU, I'd have hoped that you'd have a better understanding than you are currently showing of the next steps if any..What happens now? Is a life society never allowed to form?
No they can't come to council in 2 weeks. They would have to re-start the process with Paul et al., and that would take maybe another few months, so you are in error thinking that they can come back next meeting or the one after that. They have no reason to be added to the agenda.Can they go to council in 2 weeks?
Why discriminatory? No-one is on the record stating why they voted why they did, nor should they.Does this make the C&S look discriminatory?
After all, just because you personally are unhappy with the result doesn't make it discriminatory - there needs to be a basis for the discrimination. As it is, there isn't any basis. All forms were followed, and the soc failed to fulfill the criteria to make the trial - end of story.
Why are you saying that C&S are anti-pro-life?Are you saying the C&S is anti-prolife?
I see nothing anti-prolife here, just a failed soc that failed to meet the necessary criteria. The subject of the soc is pretty irrelevant in this.
Many people may have personal opinions on the matter but those are of absolutely no relevance to the failure of the soc to meet the criteria..
If they don't get their 25 members, they fail the trial. Not that hard to see, is it?numerous C&S start with 1 -3 members with the hopes that they get the 25 members during the 15 week trial.
Feels like we're beating a dead horse here, the pro-life group has failed to form a soc, as they didn't meet all the criteria in order to go to trial. There's nothing more to add here at this point in time. Maybe we can resurrect the thread if enough people get together in a few years time to repeat the process.0 -
That document says they need 25 members. but it doesn't say the members have to be 100% students of UL. Can you actually quote the text that says this? Again, it says you need 25 members before you can go to council, which they had.Actually, yes. They are not allowed to form under the C&S umbrella at this point in time. They are perfectly free to form, just not on campus, just not this semester. Petty obviously this particular instance of a life soc is dead in the water for at least this semester and probably the next academic year. Given your history in C&S/ULSU, I'd have hoped that you'd have a better understanding than you are currently showing of the next steps if any..
When has a society not been approved before? I haven't read anywhere that says, once they aren't permitted to go on a 15 week trial; that they are barred and disbanded from C&S and from submitting again. I would agree that if it was to go to council again, they would probably lose.No they can't come to council in 2 weeks. They would have to re-start the process with Paul et al., and that would take maybe another few months, so you are in error thinking that they can come back next meeting or the one after that. They have no reason to be added to the agenda.
It doesn't state that they would have to restart the entire process again but it doesn't state that they can just reapply either.0 -
My reading of the doc was there are full members (staff and UL students) and associate members (Mary I and external). Based on that, was where I read that there were 25 UL students and staff needed to meet the membership number criteria.
However, as I've said already the numbers issue is a moot point anyway given that the prospective soc failed to meet the criteria to go to trial.0 -
-
I saw UL life posters today by the red raisins promoting a meeting on Feb 26th. I later then caught two guys red handed ripping them down. Systematic censorship absolutely disgraceful the students ripping down posters should be ashamed of themselves reported it to security anyway.0
-
Why do you assume it was systematic as opposed to once-off or whimsical?IrishSkyBoxer wrote: »I saw UL life posters today by the red raisins promoting a meeting on Feb 26th. I later then caught two guys red handed ripping them down. Systematic censorship absolutely disgraceful the students ripping down posters should be ashamed of themselves reported it to security anyway.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Normal rules for postering is that there must be a stamp from ULSU, Student Affairs or Student Personnel Services on it. There may be exceptions, particularly for official UL posters. It's up to Campus Security to enforce this though, not individual students. Suspected infringements of postering rules should be reported to security or the SU.0
-
Two questions if I may.
1) Did Life Soc have permission to advertise in the main building? I saw those posters myself and they had no official ULSU or C&S stamp on them.
2) Is that actually what happened or could it be that you passed two guys standing at the notice board reading the posters present and when you returned to the notice board the Life Soc poster had vanished? If the latter is the case and you just made a wild assumption, you might want to be a little more certain about your accusations next time you try to demonise two of your fellow students. I would love to know what exactly you reported to security though if it is the case that you didn't in fact witness posters being "ripped down" first hand.0 -
Anti-bigot bigots? Or just anti-freedom of speech bigots. As a proud member of the pro-life society and people thinking they are entitled to rip down our posters in some form of impotent vigilantism need to check themselves before they wreck themselves. There is a particularly noisy, anti-free speech segment of the student body who should not be encouraged in this activity.0
-
Russellynx wrote: »Anti-bigot bigots? Or just anti-freedom of speech bigots. As a proud member of the pro-life society and people thinking they are entitled to rip down our posters in some form of impotent vigilantism need to check themselves before they wreck themselves. There is a particularly noisy, anti-free speech segment of the student body who should not be encouraged in this activity.
Not particularly interested in your society but did you have permission to put them up? two wrongs dont make a right but I'm interested to see how permission was obtained when your not under the C&S banner.0 -
permission was sought and approved from the su in order to gauge interest in the society and get the required signatures.0
-
Russellynx wrote: »permission was sought and approved from the su in order to gauge interest in the society and get the required signatures.
If permission was granted by the SU why were there no stamps on the posters that I saw? Why would you require signatures considering it is not a recognised society?0 -
Didn't Socialist Youth have that problem a few years ago that they refused to get the stamp of approval and as a result got irate when their posters got torn down?
I assumed it was for anything, even if you are an approved club/society, your poster still has to get SU stamped doesn't it? Otherwise they're fair game for the cleaners/security/whoever clears the boards to take down?0 -
Didn't Socialist Youth have that problem a few years ago that they refused to get the stamp of approval and as a result got irate when their posters got torn down?
I assumed it was for anything, even if you are an approved club/society, your poster still has to get SU stamped doesn't it? Otherwise they're fair game for the cleaners/security/whoever clears the boards to take down?
Ya as far as I know if you don't have a stamp on your poster it can and should be torn down. At least that's what I've heard from the SU all these years!!0 -
The posters had a Su stamp on them0
-
Advertisement
-
Russellynx wrote: »The posters had a Su stamp on them
In that case taking them down was wrong in my books, if its legit then lodge a complaint with the su about it!!0
Advertisement