UL pro life society ???

Jester252 · 21-02-2014 2:46am

Popoutman wrote: »

To put it simply you are not correct, and you have let your own bias get in the way of a useful answer. Your use of weasel language also gets in the way of any useful attempt to make a point.

You might what to look in the mirror before you call anyone out on their bias mate

Popoutman wrote: »

My issues with this soc being set up are to do with the fact it's a group of people whose entire purpose is to foist their opinion down the throats of others, and nothing else.

I'd feel the same way about an exclusively pro-choice soc as well. It's not the subject matter, it's the intent and purpose methodology that I have issue with.

Nice jump to conclusion before the society was set up.

Popoutman wrote: »

Hopefully they are classified as a political society, as that has funding restrictions, which will curtail the possibilities.
They won't get a budget for the first year of operation anyway, and I'll be voting against the funding if it comes up at C&S.

Nice to see you already made up your mind for a potential future event

Popoutman wrote: »

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.

Your true colours

Maybe you should check your bias at the door instead of letting it leave a mark on C&S history.

The only precedent that has been set is that an objection was raised on the floor that forced a vote, that resulted in a failure for the egroup under consideration to get to start trial period. That's it - there is nothing else to it from a procedural point of view.

Not accord to Paul Lee and I'll take his word over a username on Boards.ie

Nowhere (except in the minds of those that disagreed with the result) was there any mention of what the objection on the floor was, nor was there any description of why any votes were cast in either direction. Welcome to democracy done right! If you disagreed with the decision taken by the c&S committees, then, tough. Nothing can be done about the vote, as it was done correctly (and a lot of work was done to ensure that the procedures were followed as correctly as possible). There's no appeals procedure as there are no grounds for appeal - disagreement with the decision is no grounds for appeal.C&S committees exercised their responsibilities to their members by voting in the best interests of C&S. The fact a majority vote was reached ensures this by definition, whether you or I consider it to be so. Never forget the definition of Democracy - it's mob rule by definition. You've got to learn how to work with the mob instead of against the mob..

If "democracy" was done right

If an entity satisfies the definition of a society and satisfies the pre-requisite steps they still have to be approved or more aptly now maybe "liked" by the members of the Clubs & Society Council.

so my point is where is the start and end point on approving potential societies as people can easily create objections around their own personal beliefs as to why they should not be a society in UL?

explain than why the head guy has these issues?

There is one part of your post that I take real issue with. Nobody in C&S has cast any aspersions about whether the people in the soc were anything other than the nicest of people nor did anyone say that they weren't C&S material - and I take offence that you considered the members of the soc as not the right people for C&S. Their idea for a soc isn't the right thing for C&S but that should not reflect on the members, and it's unfortunate that you show you think that it does.

I never consider the member of Life soc not nice people or the wrong for C&S.

The C&S mob did.

They played by C&S rules but C&S took their ball and went home.

Not a single objection was down to technical reason and if there was one than C&S council royally messed up

entity satisfies the definition of a society and satisfies the pre-requisite steps.

Popoutman · 21-02-2014 4:08am

Jester252 wrote: »

You might what to look in the mirror before you call anyone out on their bias mate

And your point is what exactly? I'm perfectly aware of what my opinions are and what they are based on and I haven't tried to hide them and I'm not afraid of what you or people like you may think of me because of them. I also understand well the difference between what I may personally want, and what may be best for my clubs and my socs, the committees that I represent, and the students that I represent. Hence my voting how I did.

Jester252 wrote: »

Nice jump to conclusion before the society was set up.

Was accurate based on the information I had at the time, which was provided directly to me by the soc's president - you don't get much better a first source than that. Of course he went on to try to clarify, but hey, it's an opinion, and a valid one, no matter how much you disagree with it. I probably had access to more current and better information to base that opinion on at that stage, (especially as you show you don't know how long the soc has been in formation) so I think your argument is a bit specious.

Jester252 wrote: »

Nice to see you already made up your mind for a potential future event

I see that you weren't paying attention in the C&S meeting where the discussion was taking place. This is based entirely on the president's descriptions of the upcoming events. I'm not sure what you thought you heard that day (were you even there at the vote? I'll have to check the attendance and see..) but the vast majority of people there came away with the same impressions that I did, which may suggest that what you picked up may be an error.

Jester252 wrote: »

If "democracy" was done right

Democracy was done right - unless you have an issue with the process? I don't see an issue with the process as it was followed that night. It was done by the book. What is your issue? Is it that you didn't agree with the decision? If that's the case that's unfortunate for you but just something that you have to live with as you don't get to change that decision, and the opportunity to have that decision taken again won't be coming for at least another year or so.

Jester252 wrote: »

I never consider the member of Life soc not nice people or the wrong for C&S.

You've been the only one to state in writing here that they weren't the right people for C&S. Whatever about my own opinions about the soc and its subject matter, I've had nothing but respect for the people involved, unlike you based on your comments above.

Jester252 wrote: »

They played by C&S rules but C&S took their ball and went home.

As is perfectly within the rights of the C&S committees to not accept a prospective soc for whatever reason. That's why a vote was called. Do you not want democracy? I doubt that you have you a better suggestion that would work.

Jester252 wrote: »

Not a single objection was down to technical reason

You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result

Jester252 · 21-02-2014 5:19am

Popoutman wrote: »

And your point is what exactly? I'm perfectly aware of what my opinions are and what they are based on and I haven't tried to hide them and I'm not afraid of what you or people like you may think of me because of them. I also understand well the difference between what I may personally want, and what may be best for my clubs and my socs, the committees that I represent, and the students that I represent. Hence my voting how I did.

Good to see you've admitted to being bias.

Was accurate based on the information I had at the time, which was provided directly to me by the soc's president - you don't get much better a first source than that. Of course he went on to try to clarify, but hey, it's an opinion, and a valid one, no matter how much you disagree with it. I probably had access to more current and better information to base that opinion on at that stage, (especially as you show you don't know how long the soc has been in formation) so I think your argument is a bit specious.

So you formed a base opinion off information that you misunderstood, and than ignored/misunderstood the to clarification. Yet you still voted. I guess you consider ignorance best for C&S.

I see that you weren't paying attention in the C&S meeting where the discussion was taking place. This is based entirely on the president's descriptions of the upcoming events. I'm not sure what you thought you heard that day (were you even there at the vote? I'll have to check the attendance and see..) but the vast majority of people there came away with the same impressions that I did, which may suggest that what you picked up may be an error.

So was voting against them having some funding a personal issue or greed?

Democracy was done right - unless you have an issue with the process? I don't see an issue with the process as it was followed that night. It was done by the book. What is your issue? Is it that you didn't agree with the decision? If that's the case that's unfortunate for you but just something that you have to live with as you don't get to change that decision, and the opportunity to have that decision taken again won't be coming for at least another year or so.

If it was done right why is the head guy questioning it?

You've been the only one to state in writing here that they weren't the right people for C&S. Whatever about my own opinions about the soc and its subject matter, I've had nothing but respect for the people involved, unlike you based on your comments above.

Sigh
Do you know what an observation is?
I didn't vote them down other C&S member, who have stated an issue with their views, did after they had met all the C&S regulations.

Popoutman wrote: »

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.

This paints a nice clear picture that you and other didn't like them or that they didn't fit in with C&S. That they where not "right" for C&S

The issue was never with the Soc, just with the C&S Mafia.

As is perfectly within the rights of the C&S committees to not accept a prospective soc for whatever reason. That's why a vote was called. Do you not want democracy? I doubt that you have you a better suggestion that would work.

Maybe C&S member check their bias at the door and remember that they are voting not for themselves.

You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

I got all the evidence I need.

Technical objections or personal objection, those are the two types

If technical C&S messed up, as the Soc met the requirement

If personal C&S messed up. The organisation is bigger than one person opinion.
Example time
If Out in UL where setting up, is it right that they might fail because someone on a committee doesn't like LGBTQ?

Besides I'm not the only one thinking personal opinion is the issue.

Now do you think personal opinion should be allowed?

If yes that maybe we should stop telling people that C&S welcomes everyone.

Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result

I'm not letting my heart rule my head and I wonder how much confidence do you have in C&S decision, to close the door on a group of students, was the right thing to do seen as you're up at 3 a.m defending it.

reunion · 21-02-2014 6:21pm

Popoutman wrote: »

You've not one shred of evidence from the C&S meetings to support your assertion. There was at least one objection raised. No reason was needed for the objection, none was recorded for the objection - therefore your guess as to the reason is nothing more than that - it's a guess, and based on the conversations I've had with people, you guess inaccurately.

Uh-oh the minutes don't list ANY OBJECTIONS!

Popoutman wrote: »

Jester, I'd suggest that you either accept the decision of C&S, or else you might be better off considering your position on your committee - seeing as you have such an issue with how we run things. You might be less stressed about the situations in C&S and less likely to make as many mistakes as you appear to be making here as a result

You are attacking a poster here; I would kindly ask that personal attacks are left elsewhere.

As for accepting the decision of C&S; Paul's email highlights that even he doesn't know what to do.

My best guess is because A. they meet ALL the criteria to be a society and B. A vote for ratification was a first which, also a first, wasn't ratified.

And if you believe that they did NOT meet the criteria to be a society, then Paul/the exec has failed in his/their job

Polar Ice · 21-02-2014 8:18pm

Popoutman wrote: »

As it is now, the failed soc has no rights to poster on campus or to campaign on campus.

Becoming a club/soc doesn't confer posting rights. Being denied C&S status doesn't deny postering either.

Chimaera wrote: »

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.

Reiver · 21-02-2014 10:04pm

I the issue Polar Ice might be the fact that it states "UL" in the poster, giving the impression its a university sanctioned entity.
But yeah, I'd say you'd be right normally, I mean once you got the stamp you can advertise whatever table quiz/debate/event you want.

<snip real names of posters> it mightn't be in the minutes but for what its worth, Darragh asked of the floor, "Is there any objections?". Three hands went up, it got put to a vote. Thats what happened.

And "C and S Mafia"? Ease off the slurs. It wasn't exactly on a par with the Saint Valentine's Massacre or something you'd see in Donnie Brasco. Theres a lot of upright, clean-living Sicilians and CNS members who'd object to that comparison. This is as bad as Irishskyboxer denouncing the inherent nobility of Cromwell.

Jester252 · 21-02-2014 10:26pm

Reiver wrote: »

<snip real names of posters> it mightn't be in the minutes but for what its worth, Darragh asked of the floor, "Is there any objections?". Three hands went up, it got put to a vote. Thats what happened.

Who are you talking to?

If it not in the minutes kinda hard to support your claim.

And "C and S Mafia"? Grow up a little. It wasn't exactly on a par with the Saint Valentine's Massacre or something you'd see in Donnie Brasco. Theres a lot of upright, clean-living Sicilians and CNS members who'd object to that comparison.

but similar to the St. Valentine Massacre. They where lined in front of C&S and shot down by C&S members, who where pretending to be open minded to all student.

Unless you where referring to the 1999 WWF PPV and I doubt there was a cage match between Paul Lee and UL Life President, with Paul Wight making his début in C&S.

Reiver · 21-02-2014 10:29pm

I will admit the idea of a Thunderdome style cage match with hawkers and spectators baying for blood would be a cool one. Perhaps we could adopt that for new club/society ratification! Props.

It seems to be retreading the same ground, people saying it was enacted fairly, other people saying it wasn't. If the issue has been flagged for further CNS discussion, then we'll see what develops. Boards for all its power will not be able to enhance or rectify the experience. I'm out. See y'all on other threads!

Jester252 · 21-02-2014 10:39pm

This discussion has help highlight major issues with the ratification process.

DK man · 21-02-2014 10:45pm

Is this North Korea? The op sounds like he'd fit right in. Doesn't say much for a ul education

spurious · 22-02-2014 11:31am

Posters are reminded that any 'outing' of other posters real-life names is not done in these parts.

bazkennedy · 21-03-2014 12:30pm

Made the journal today http://www.thejournal.ie/pro-life-university-of-limerick-1372748-Mar2014/

Popoutman · 21-03-2014 2:08pm

Edited to remove a pointless comment as there's no point in continuing this thread.
The pro-life soc is dead in the water this year at least from a C&S perspective. The democratic rights of everyone involved were correctly respected - there's no grounds for an appeal so that'll just be a waste of time for Paul et al.

Jester252 · 21-03-2014 3:20pm

Popoutman wrote: »

Edited to remove a pointless comment as there's no point in continuing this thread.
The pro-life soc is dead in the water this year at least from a C&S perspective. The democratic rights of everyone involved were correctly respected - there's no grounds for an appeal so that'll just be a waste of time for Paul et al.

They do have grounds for an appeal. They met all the requirements for C&S. You don't have a "democratic right" as an elected student to C&S you have a responsibly.

This sets a dangerous precedence for C&S. We know that C&S isn't open to all students.

NoBSLies · 21-03-2014 5:32pm

People have had enough of the lies and victim-playing at this stage. Please God give it a rest already! It happened here already and now again in the Journal. When confronted with the fact the posters from Life Society used for their information day had no ULSU stamp on them the chairman of the Soc stated that all the posters had the stamp. When it was brought to his attention that the there is photographic evidence to prove him wrong he doesn't respond. The society lied to C&S Council and now they try to play the victim. Seriously!? Drop it already or maybe next time be more upfront and honest. Democracy had its say. I mean men get to vote on what women get to do with their vaginas and others get to vote on marriage equality when it in no way effects them. Thats democracy though unfortunately. I often disagree with it for these reasons but I make do because thats how democracy works. Its time Manuel Kuhs and his society just accept reality. They failed, thats all there is to it.

Popoutman · 21-03-2014 8:52pm

Jester252 wrote: »

They do have grounds for an appeal. They met all the requirements for C&S.

You've missed out the requirement for C&S that they did *not* pass. They did not pass the "any objections" question at the C&S meeting, and they did not pass the resulting vote. Being unhappy with the result of a vote is no grounds for an appeal. There were no problems with procedure - therefore no grounds for appeal.

Jester252 wrote: »

You don't have a "democratic right" as an elected student to C&S you have a responsibly.

I presume you meant "responsibility"? If so, then yes all rights confer responsibilities. In this case each C&S member has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their group, and if that means refusing another group entry then that is their democratic right as enabled in the consititution to do so. Or did you mean something else entirely? If so please clarify what you were trying to get across.

Jester252 wrote: »

This sets a dangerous precedence for C&S. We know that C&S isn't open to all students.

As for the openness of C&S to students - I fear you conflate the ability of students to be members of clubs, and clubs/socs being part of C&S. None of the pro-life group were prevented from joining C&S, and they are still perfectly free to join any of the other C&S groups. The pro-life group itself was prevented from joining C&S. Please be aware of the difference, and do not promote incorrect "facts" when discussing this issue.
The only precedent that was set was that the rights of the C&S group were exercised as per the C&S constitution to refuse a group entry to C&S. Nothing more than that, and there's nothing at all dangerous about it given how it was done perfectly correctly and by the C&S book.

Nothing more to see here - please move along..

NewEd · 21-03-2014 11:41pm

Page 19. http://issuu.com/ulsu/docs/an_focal_-_march_2014_-_24_pages
http://www.anfocal.ie/featured/11077/ul-pro-life-society

Jester252 · 22-03-2014 8:25am

Popoutman wrote: »

You've missed out the requirement for C&S that they did *not* pass. They did not pass the "any objections" question at the C&S meeting, and they did not pass the resulting vote. Being unhappy with the result of a vote is no grounds for an appeal. There were no problems with procedure - therefore no grounds for appeal.

A vote tainted with personal opinions. They met all the technical red tape, a lot more than some other C&S's can say. The only reason they where turned away is because they were not the right kind of people for C&S and people who voted against them didn't want them around.

I presume you meant "responsibility"? If so, then yes all rights confer responsibilities. In this case each C&S member has the responsibility to act in the best interests of their group, and if that means refusing another group entry then that is their democratic right as enabled in the consititution to do so. Or did you mean something else entirely? If so please clarify what you were trying to get across.

Nobody likes a grammar nazi. How does the Life soc affect any C&S like mountain biking and maths? Was the vote based on greed? Did the C&S that voted against them just didn't want to share the funding and take a smaller cut?

As for the openness of C&S to students - I fear you conflate the ability of students to be members of clubs, and clubs/socs being part of C&S. None of the pro-life group were prevented from joining C&S, and they are still perfectly free to join any of the other C&S groups. The pro-life group itself was prevented from joining C&S. Please be aware of the difference, and do not promote incorrect "facts" when discussing this issue.
The only precedent that was set was that the rights of the C&S group were exercised as per the C&S constitution to refuse a group entry to C&S. Nothing more than that, and there's nothing at all dangerous about it given how it was done perfectly correctly and by the C&S book.

Nothing more to see here - please move along..

A bit like how LGBT can march in the New York Paddy's day parade as long as they are not part of an LGBT group.
How can you still claim that C&S is open to all student, when they shut the door to a group of students looking to get involved.
I'm not the only one worried about the precedent that this has set. Paul is worried. Do you know think you know more than him and he is wrong to be worried?

wnolan1992 · 22-03-2014 1:31pm

Jester252 wrote: »

A vote tainted with personal opinions.

Is there such a thing as an impartial vote? :pac:

Subutai · 22-03-2014 3:45pm

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Is there such a thing as an impartial vote? :pac:

One could vote on the basis of an application of a rule, like a vote taken by a Jury, for example. Rather than being based on arbitrary personal opinions it is based on consistent application of a principle.

Popoutman · 22-03-2014 10:35pm

Jester252 wrote: »

They met all the technical red tape,

Except for passing the "any objections?" and resulting vote at C&S you mean? The soc did not meet all of the C&S requirements based on that, so I'm not sure why you are saying that they did...

Jester252 wrote: »

The only reason they where turned away is because they were not the right kind of people for C&S and people who voted against them didn't want them around.

And how can you state that you know why people voted the way they did? There was no clarification needed or given at the vote or for the objections. As for what you may think (i.e. your unfounded opinion) as to the reasoning behind the vote, that is of no relevance whatsoever to the process.
Fact: Pro-Life were not accepted. End of story. Fact: No reasons were given nor were needed to be given.

I think you are putting your own prejudices into your guessing as to people's motives behind their votes, and that's not a good idea.

Jester252 wrote: »

Nobody likes a grammar nazi. How does the Life soc affect any C&S like mountain biking and maths? Was the vote based on greed? Did the C&S that voted against them just didn't want to share the funding and take a smaller cut?

Then make sure your posts are clear and concise and accurate - as your error created ambiguity that needed clarification before I could adequately answer your point.

As for how having a soc such as the prolife group within C&S affects other clubs, well that's a matter for each individual group to assess and vote as required. I do know exactly why my three committees reached their voting decisions, but I'm not going to enter that discussion here as it's of no relevance to you.

Jester252 wrote: »

A bit like how LGBT can march in the New York Paddy's day parade as long as they are not part of an LGBT group.

That parade situation is misrepresented badly, and the comparison is not valid here - the prolife group was not voted on because of their beliefs - we do not know nor can we ever know what the reasoning was for the voting as it was not part of the voting process. Any guesses as to the reasoning are nothing more than conjecture, and therefore irrelevant.

Jester252 wrote: »

How can you still claim that C&S is open to all student, when they shut the door to a group of students looking to get involved.

I can easily continue to claim the truth that C&S is open to all students, as none of the members of the prolife group were prevented from joining C&S at all - you appear to have some confusion about the separation of the personal membership and the group inclusion within C&S. All of the people associated with that prolife group are perfectly welcome to join C&S under any of the C&S groups present at this point, so your point is in reality a non-issue.

Jester252 wrote: »

I'm not the only one worried about the precedent that this has set. Paul is worried. Do you know think you know more than him and he is wrong to be worried?

I've spoken at great length with Paul before and after this vote on the immediate and long-term implications (if any). Can you say the same? I'd say I've got a pretty good idea of the man's concerns and where they came from, and it's only about precedent. And as I've stated before the only actual precedent that was set was that C&S exercised their right to refuse a group entry to C&S. As any reasoning behind that vote was neither needed nor given, that was the only precedent that could be set. Do you think that there was another precedent set?
There's no automatic right for a group to be given membership of C&S, nor should there be.

Jester252 · 23-03-2014 2:08am

Popoutman wrote: »

Except for passing the "any objections?" and resulting vote at C&S you mean? The soc did not meet all of the C&S requirements based on that, so I'm not sure why you are saying that they did...

And how can you state that you know why people voted the way they did? There was no clarification needed or given at the vote or for the objections. As for what you may think (i.e. your unfounded opinion) as to the reasoning behind the vote, that is of no relevance whatsoever to the process.
Fact: Pro-Life were not accepted. End of story. Fact: No reasons were given nor were needed to be given. I think you are putting your own prejudices into your guessing as to people's motives behind their votes, and that's not a good idea.

Fact: They society met all the requirements before the vote. Therefore non of the objections could be based on a failure to met a technical requirement. The only other reason to rise an object is personal opinion unless you're trolling the C&S council.

Then make sure your posts are clear and concise and accurate - as your error created ambiguity that needed clarification before I could adequately answer your point.

As for how having a soc such as the prolife group within C&S affects other clubs, well that's a matter for each individual group to assess and vote as required. I do know exactly why my three committees reached their voting decisions, but I'm not going to enter that discussion here as it's of no relevance to you.

No need to say. Ye are greedy and ye don't want to increase the number of people drawing from the money pool.

That parade situation is misrepresented badly, and the comparison is not valid here - the prolife group was not voted on because of their beliefs - we do not know nor can we ever know what the reasoning was for the voting as it was not part of the voting process. Any guesses as to the reasoning are nothing more than conjecture, and therefore irrelevant.

How is it not valid? Members of both groups are still allowed in the organisation that voted against them because they didn't fit the norm, as long as they are not part of the banned groups.

I can easily continue to claim the truth that C&S is open to all students, as none of the members of the prolife group were prevented from joining C&S at all - you appear to have some confusion about the separation of the personal membership and the group inclusion within C&S. All of the people associated with that prolife group are perfectly welcome to join C&S under any of the C&S groups present at this point, so your point is in reality a non-issue.

Is it a non-issue because you can't face the hard truth. FACT: C&S shut the door on a group of students looking to get involved. Doesn't scream everyone welcome now does it.

I've spoken at great length with Paul before and after this vote on the immediate and long-term implications (if any). Can you say the same? I'd say I've got a pretty good idea of the man's concerns and where they came from, and it's only about precedent. And as I've stated before the only actual precedent that was set was that C&S exercised their right to refuse a group entry to C&S. As any reasoning behind that vote was neither needed nor given, that was the only precedent that could be set. Do you think that there was another precedent set?
There's no automatic right for a group to be given membership of C&S, nor should there be.

Other students are now facing a shut door when they try to get involved. They can jump through all the hoops but for nought because some guy, who never attended one of their event, didn't like them and got his buddy to gang up on the prospective society.
If C&S are all of a sudden doing thinks by the book, maybe they should look into some of the current C&S to make sure they meet code.

What's even worst is that the student that where kicked out of C&S due to the personal opinions of the guys like video games or mountain bikes have to pay for their social life

Reiver · 23-03-2014 7:22pm

Jester252 wrote: »

What's even worst is that the student that where kicked out of C&S due to the personal opinions of the guys like video games or mountain bikes have to pay for their social life

Wait, what people were kicked out of the Game society and Mountain Biking? And what does that have to do with Life soc?

Chimaera · 23-03-2014 8:57pm

Jester252 wrote: »

Other students are now facing a shut door when they try to get involved. They can jump through all the hoops but for nought because some guy, who never attended one of their event, didn't like them and got his buddy to gang up on the prospective society.
If C&S are all of a sudden doing thinks by the book, maybe they should look into some of the current C&S to make sure they meet code.

At least one more society has come to council in the intervening period looking to start their trial and been passed. Every group is examined on its own merits.

I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.

Chimaera · 23-03-2014 9:03pm

Reiver wrote: »

Wait, what people were kicked out of the Game society and Mountain Biking? And what does that have to do with Life soc?

I think he's claiming that the committees of those groups voted against Life Soc based on personal motives to get Life Soc kicked out of C&S Council.

He's connecting this to the idea that C&S funding somehow is the sole funding source for the social lives of the committee members of clubs or societies and that groups excluded from the little club have to fund their own social lives.

Reiver · 24-03-2014 12:50am

Chimaera wrote: »

I think he's claiming that the committees of those groups voted against Life Soc based on personal motives to get Life Soc kicked out of C&S Council.

Cheers mate. I felt a bit like I was trying to decode the Enigma machine to make sense of that sentence with all those homophones!

Jester252 · 24-03-2014 2:23am

Chimaera wrote: »

At least one more society has come to council in the intervening period looking to start their trial and been passed. Every group is examined on its own merits.

I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.

Well their poster who have never have gotten a stamp anyway as they are not part of the SU. Maybe they where looking for support when C&S shut the door in their face.

highlydebased · 24-03-2014 10:57am

Jester252 wrote: »

Well their poster who have never have gotten a stamp anyway as they are not part of the SU. .

All posters, regardless of whether something is part of the SU or not must carry an SU stamp.

reunion · 24-03-2014 11:02am

highlydebased wrote: »

All posters, regardless of whether something is part of the SU or not must carry an SU stamp.

Nope, I'm certain UL don't want to put an SU stamp on their posters. All Students' Union material require a Students' Union stamp or logo on the poster.

Posters from the stables and other businesses (O'Mahoney's, USIT) don't require an SU stamp. They require their respective logos.

Chimaera · 24-03-2014 11:08am

highlydebased wrote: »

All posters, regardless of whether something is part of the SU or not must carry an SU stamp.

They can also be stamped by Student Affairs (Chaplaincy, Counselling, etc).

Additionally, you don't have to be part of C&S to get an SU stamp AFAIK.

manuelkuhs · 07-04-2014 2:41pm

Hi,

As the chairperson of UL Life Society, I was interested to find this thread here....

If anyone (whether agreeing or not) would like to meet on campus to discuss this, I'd be more than happy. Just PM me.

I'd like to make several (I hope) informative comments.

First, I respect that there may be some who voted against us who did not do so on ideological grounds. These are the ones who genuinely voted against us because we are a "single issue society". Although I believe it is still against C&S regulations to vote this way (since Council cannot simply ignore the definition of society in the Rulebook, which includes "single issue" societies), I respect this stance. Furthermore, I have (thankfully) met many pro choice people who are reasonable and do not descend to name-calling and harassment as soon as they hear I'm pro life. Many of these have even expressed strong disagreement with us not being given permission to go on trial status.

Second, the Q&A during C&S Council, where I was asked several questions, appears to me to have only had 2 purposes:
1. A last-minute attempt to find a technical excuse for what was clearly a vote based on personal, ideological opinion (since, as Paul Lee testified, we met all the technical requirements), and related to that,
2. An attempt to give the impression of being "nice" and "fair".
I conclude this for a simple reason. From many things I have heard, most committees (all?) had decided how to vote BEFORE the Q&A. Therefore, the Q&A was a kangaroo court.

Third, a comment following on from this observation. The only direct interaction we had with anyone apart from Paul Lee was with someone from Computer Soc (I won't name them). My e-mail to them has been reproduced on this forum already. This means, in effect, that this e-mail (very short!) is the only opportunity we had to make our case before most (all?) committees decided which way to vote.

Fourth, the matter of open membership. The enquiries made regarding our stance of membership were seemingly always made with the intent of finding a technical reason for which to oppose us. Neither the e-mail from Computer Soc, nor the questions during the Q&A, first informed us that we would have to have open membership in order to be a UL approved society. Thus, it seems these questions were framed so as to catch us in a technical error. The truth is, we did not know this was required. Once we knew (through open, honest dialogue with Paul Lee, all recorded by e-mail) we were perfectly willing to have open membership. This bias and desire to find technical fault with us is demonstrated even by the C&S Council chairman's letter to the editor of the Irish Independent, where he continues to promote the myth that we were unwilling to have open membership.

Fifth, the matter of the posters has been addressed in detail in the comments at thejournal.ie article. Anyone actually interested in the truth can, again, ask Paul Lee whether we had permission to get these posters stamped. If any were not stamped, this is simply because I missed some posters while stamping several dozen of them (human error, shocking!). My stamping them was even witnessed by a staff at SU, who will remember, because she came up to me and asked me if I had permission.

Sixth, we have, to this day, and despite raising a formal complaint with the C&S chairman to this effect some time ago, still not received a single, official reason for our rejection from being allowed to go on trial status despite meeting all the requirement. As has been shown in this discussion, not a single objection was heard in Council prior to the vote. The vote should have been postponed until these objections were heard and we had a chance to respond to them.

Lastly, Paul Lee himself, during the Q&A session and before the vote, spoke up and testified that we met all the conditions and that thus there is no mechanism whereby we can be disallowed from becoming a society.

As I said, I'd be happy to meet anyone over a cup of coffee to discuss this.

Oh, I almost forgot, when we did have our information stand in the Red raisins canteen, we were harassed by several UL students (a single girl was at the stall when the harassment started, whom they attempted to bully into leaving the Red Raisins). These students claimed, in an aggressive and bullying manner, several of them surrounding the single girl manning the stall, that our views have no place in the Red Raisins or anywhere else on campus. These students have now been reprimanded by SU. The information and posters we had at the stand were about as mild pro life as you can get without becoming pro choice or completely neutral (the theme was the development of the life of the unborn baby in the womb).

manuelkuhs · 07-04-2014 3:14pm

Chimaera wrote: »

I don't agree with the vote against Life Soc, but looking at their behaviour since I'd have my doubts about them getting past the 15 week trial. Postering without permission to do so; followed up with representing a national group when they claimed to be independent before the vote. Neither of those would go over well with the council.

Hi Chimaera,

I've responded to the poster misunderstanding in my previous post.

We do not represent a national group. We handed out 3 pieces of literature during our information day, all 3 were from 3 different pro life groups, none of which we are affiliated with. We do not receive any funding from them etc we simply used their literature.

As such, I don't see any issue in us getting through a 15 week trial - that is, if everyone else sticks with the C&S Rulebook. Which has already been shown not to be the case (people voting against us despite us meeting all the conditions set out in the Rulebook).

Popoutman · 08-04-2014 2:56am

manuelkuhs wrote: »

if everyone else sticks with the C&S Rulebook. Which has already been shown not to be the case (people voting against us despite us meeting all the conditions set out in the Rulebook).

A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.

As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.

Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.

Jester252 · 08-04-2014 4:52am

Popoutman wrote: »

A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.

As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.

Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.

Call a spade a spade

All C&S Mafia did was let these students know that they where not the right kind of people for C&S regardless of the rules they followed.

Delta Kilo · 08-04-2014 1:46pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Fifth, the matter of the posters has been addressed in detail in the comments at thejournal.ie article. Anyone actually interested in the truth can, again, ask Paul Lee whether we had permission to get these posters stamped. If any were not stamped, this is simply because I missed some posters while stamping several dozen of them (human error, shocking!). My stamping them was even witnessed by a staff at SU, who will remember, because she came up to me and asked me if I had permission.

You must be new to this. Stamp the poster before you photocopy them!

manuelkuhs · 08-04-2014 2:03pm

Delta Kilo wrote: »

You must be new to this. Stamp the poster before you photocopy them!

Ouch I feel like an idiot now!
I'll have to figure that out as we normally print them in colour from PDF...

manuelkuhs · 08-04-2014 2:04pm

Popoutman wrote: »

A quick point of information: Society membership is not automatically guaranteed upon meeting those conditions - you have to have no objections raised at the C&S council meeting, and if there are any objections raised then the vote must be called and passed, as per the rules.

As there were objections from the floor a vote was called, and this vote to allow the soc was defeated, the soc was not brought under the C&S umbrella - and all correct forms were followed.

Just because you disagree with the decision made by the C&S council does not mean that the decision was wrong. And, given that all forms were followed correctly, there are no grounds for an appeal.

I wonder would people take this view and be satisfied if it had been Out in UL who had been denied trial status despite meeting the technical requirements...

Kelefants · 08-04-2014 2:20pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

I wonder would people take this view and be satisfied if it had been Out in UL who had been denied trial status despite meeting the technical requirements...

Out In Ul represent everyone, regardless of your sexuality, so it's different. There are a lot of straight members in UL as well.

Chimaera · 08-04-2014 2:33pm

It's a matter of perception.

Generally, advocating for LGBT rights is a positive thing as it involves including a minority who have for a long time been ostracised based on religious and societal norms. It's

On the other hand, advocating the polarised 'Pro-Life' stance on abortion is seen as a religious minority forcing their views on everyone, regardless of whether people accept that religious belief or not. Conceptually, it's similar to a Muslim group advocating for Shariah Law to be applied here.

It's not really a fair comparison.

manuelkuhs · 08-04-2014 2:55pm

Kelefants wrote: »

Out In Ul represent everyone, regardless of your sexuality, so it's different. There are a lot of straight members in UL as well.

Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?

Chimaera wrote: »

Conceptually, it's similar to a Muslim group advocating for Shariah Law to be applied here.

It's not really a fair comparison.

But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??

Chimaera wrote: »

It's a matter of perception.

Generally, advocating for LGBT rights is a positive thing as it involves including a minority who have for a long time been ostracised based on religious and societal norms. It's

On the other hand, advocating the polarised 'Pro-Life' stance on abortion is seen as a religious minority forcing their views on everyone, regardless of whether people accept that religious belief or not.

This seems hypocritical.

Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."

On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?

--

It's becoming clear that C&S has become ideologically-based and no longer represents all students, which include the "religious" "minority" of a "pro life" persuasion. Only such societies as are deemed acceptable to the "majority" will be granted official status. Maybe a referendum on social & political issues are next, so that SU can exclude even more student "minorities"?

P.S.: We're not a religious society. We have at least 1 atheist student as a member.

Kelefants · 08-04-2014 3:01pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?

There's a difference between a person's sexuality and a person's beliefs.

Gumbi · 08-04-2014 3:06pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Does Out in UL represent those with traditional views of sexuality (i.e. only heterosexuality is morally acceptable)?

But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??

This seems hypocritical.

Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."

On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?

Out in UL don't ostracise anyone, they are there for those who have been ostracised. False comparison. UL Life Soc are inherently exclusive.

--

It's becoming clear that C&S has become ideologically-based and no longer represents all students, which include the "religious" "minority" of a "pro life" persuasion. Only such societies as are deemed acceptable to the "majority" will be granted official status. Maybe a referendum on social & political issues are next, so that SU can exclude even more student "minorities"?

P.S.: We're not a religious society. We have at least 1 atheist student as a member.

The opposite of religion is not atheism, rather irreligion (religious ---> irreligious that is). Some atheists might also argue that they are in fact religious in some way. Richard Dawkins considers himself religious. Many atheists hold pro life views anyway, so I wouldn't consider this to be surprising.

Answers in bold.

Chimaera · 08-04-2014 3:45pm

manuelkuhs wrote: »

But comparing Pro Life to Shariah Law is a fair comparison??

Sadly I was expecting a response like this. I'll repeat: I said conceptually. It's a minority expecting the majority to live life according to its standards. This was more a general observation on the Pro-Life movement as a whole.

manuelkuhs wrote: »

This seems hypocritical.

Out in UL is different because they want protect a "minority" who in the past have "been ostracised based on religious and societal norms."

On the other hand, it's ok to "ostracise" ("exclude from a society or group", such as C&S) UL Life Soc because it is... a "religious" "minority"?

Perhaps it was unfair to use the word religious, but you are a minority with a view that's unpopular. From what I've seen the majority of Pro-Life proponents are religious, but I'll accept that atheists and agnostics could hold such a view too.

My main point here is that expecting support for an unpopular (and scientifically unsupported) viewpoint is unfortunately wishful thinking.

I'd prefer for C&S sake if the debate had not drifted into the ideological side of the matter but it did, and was always likely to given the nature of the issue at hand.

Personally I disagree with the whole Pro-Life ideology. It's too black-and-white and ignores the nuanced nature of humanity and its problems, not to mention it's continued ignorance of the medical and social scientific evidence on the matter. I'm also not going to get into an ideological debate here: the internet is full of those already.

As a core committee member of a society, I advocated for my society to vote in favour of your society which we did. The vote was not about what you do as a society, it was about allowing you to be a society and that was how I approached it. I also felt that since it was approval of a 15 week trial, the council would have plenty of time to see what you would do before you became a full society.

Ginge Young · 08-04-2014 5:58pm

Just to chime in again.

I'll make it simple from my standpoint.

I've made these comments before on here and on the terrible article posted on The Journal. The definition of what a society is needs to change. It does not fit in with what societies in UL (as part of Clubs & Societies) actually do.

The process was followed, the soc was voted down. If anything what this has done is expose areas within Clubs and Socs that needs clarification perhaps change. There is nothing that says currently that if they meet all the requirements they automatically go through, it says if there an objection is made a vote is held. That is the process as it stands. The reasons for why individual C&S voted they way they did is their prerogative.

With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.

The definition of a society should change.

However, these are important discussions and debates that I feel need to be had.

The SU demonstrated this year that a fund was able to be put in place to run a Yes, No and Neutral campaign for this years referendum. If there was some way possible that something like this could be put in place for when there are big issues affecting the nation (the gay marriage referendum which will be coming up) I think that is a potentially good way about helping support groups, who want to push a single stance on a single issue.

The issues that could be funded by this would need to be approved by Student Council perhaps.

Again I am only throwing out different ideas, because regardless of Pro-Life meeting the requirements of a society currently I do not believe Clubs and Societies are a body or group that should be used for pushing a single stance on a single issue (it does not matter the stance, or the issue). A different mechanism needs to be developed.

Edit: I just want to point out - this year I have zero involvement with C&S Committee, C&S Council or C&S Exec. Just a member.

Jester252 · 08-04-2014 6:21pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.

The people who voted no was only due to them being ideologically against the soc, as they had met all initial requirement. The people who voted yes had could have voted that way with a technical reason.

Ginge Young · 08-04-2014 6:34pm

Jester252 wrote: »

The people who voted no was only due to them being ideologically against the soc, as they had met all initial requirement. The people who voted yes had could have voted that way with a technical reason.

I know of a handful of C&S who voted no for the reasons I made above. That C&S should not be groups that push a single stance on a single issue and that a better mechanism could be put in place.

All I am saying is that if people are going to keep saying that all those voted no purely because of ideological reasons (and I believe that is wrong to do in an organisation such as C&S) then they need to be prepared that some of those who voted yes may have done so also.

At the end of the day, the vote was held. I'm more interest in moving forward with suggestions that can help.

I don't think there is grounds for appeal because the process was followed. If the process isn't ideal then that is another issue, one which needs to be rectified. There is nothing that says, if an objection is raised, that C&S must vote yes if they meet all the requirements - people have a vote for a reason. The same reason why in Government, just because something meets all the requirements to be passed, it does not necessarily mean that it will be.

I am not saying that is an ideal situation - and I agree that it needs to be fixed. When it comes to membership I do believe C&S are somewhat exposed if they can vote down groups that the meet requirements. But the system as it stands does allow this. There is no grounds for appeal based on that.

Subutai · 08-04-2014 6:43pm

Ginge Young wrote: »

I know of a handful of C&S who voted no for the reasons I made above. That C&S should not be groups that push a single stance on a single issue and that a better mechanism could be put in place.

All I am saying is that if people are going to keep saying that all those voted no purely because of ideological reasons (and I believe that is wrong to do in an organisation such as C&S) then they need to be prepared that some of those who voted yes may have done so also.

At the end of the day, the vote was held. I'm more interest in moving forward with suggestions that can help.

I don't think there is grounds for appeal because the process was followed. If the process isn't ideal then that is another issue, one which needs to be rectified. There is nothing that says, if an objection is raised, that C&S must vote yes if they meet all the requirements - people have a vote for a reason. The same reason why in Government, just because something meets all the requirements to be passed, it does not necessarily mean that it will be.

I am not saying that is an ideal situation - and I agree that it needs to be fixed. When it comes to membership I do believe C&S are somewhat exposed if they can vote down groups that the meet requirements. But the system as it stands does allow this. There is no grounds for appeal based on that.

I think it very much is the case at this point that the process needs to be changed. It was not really a good idea to have a situation where people can disallow a society that meets requirements on arbitrary or ideological grounds. Unfortunately the system has been tested by this society, and those with the vote didn't prove themselves able to pass it. The best option now is to change the process so that this situation (which I think we can all agree is a problem) can't occur in future.

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 9:23am

Regardless of whether or not the vote is "valid", I think everyone, whether they agree with it or not, knows one thing:

If the same had happened to e.g. Out in UL, there would be outrage, an appeal, and a reversal. Possibly there would be threats of lawsuit against C&S for homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc.

We all know why the same thing can be done to something like UL Life Soc and most people have the response "it was a democratic process" (something which most people would I think not dare to say if the same had happened to Out in UL).

The reason is: the pro life position is considered, among students and the media, a minority that does not have equal rights.

But woe to you if you do anything to hurt the LGBT cause.

But if you hurt the pro life cause, if you ostracise them, refuse to give them the funding that they (as UL students paying into the C&S fund) deserve, you are applauded or at least acknowledged to have followed the "democratic process".

The truth is that LGBT is no longer a threatened minority - they are a celebrated, privileged minority.

Pro life and other conservative issues are now the threatened minority. They are the new minority that you are allowed (indeed, in many cases, encouraged to) discriminate against.

I find it sad that many progressive liberalists do not see how strongly they are opposing the values they have so strongly campaigned for - equality and protection for minorities.

Ginge Young · 09-04-2014 9:45am

manuelkuhs wrote: »

Regardless of whether or not the vote is "valid", I think everyone, whether they agree with it or not, knows one thing:

If the same had happened to e.g. Out in UL, there would be outrage, an appeal, and a reversal. Possibly there would be threats of lawsuit against C&S for homophobia, sexual discrimination, etc.

We all know why the same thing can be done to something like UL Life Soc and most people have the response "it was a democratic process" (something which most people would I think not dare to say if the same had happened to Out in UL).

The reason is: the pro life position is considered, among students and the media, a minority that does not have equal rights.

But woe to you if you do anything to hurt the LGBT cause.

But if you hurt the pro life cause, if you ostracise them, refuse to give them the funding that they (as UL students paying into the C&S fund) deserve, you are applauded or at least acknowledged to have followed the "democratic process".

The truth is that LGBT is no longer a threatened minority - they are a celebrated, privileged minority.

Pro life and other conservative issues are now the threatened minority. They are the new minority that you are allowed (indeed, in many cases, encouraged to) discriminate against.

I find it sad that many progressive liberalists do not see how strongly they are opposing the values they have so strongly campaigned for - equality and protection for minorities.

Manuel,

With all due respect. The process was followed. I have highlighted that the process may not be perfect, and may in some instances need to be fixed, but it was followed as it currently is written.

Regardless of the process I do not believe that a UL Pro-Life Society, a UL Pro-Choice Society, a UL - Pro-Gay Marriage Society or a UL Pro-Traditional Marraige should be allowed to exist under the umbrella of Clubs and Societies (or any other single stance/issue societies that could exist).

You are continuously nitpicking at the definition of a society as it currently stands. Yes maybe that is there - but that definition does not actually fit for the Societies of this University in my opinion and needs to be changed. The fact that you are unwilling to acknowledge this, means you are more interested is causing a ****-storm in a teacup then actually understanding and accepting what societies under the C&S umbrella actually are, (The Journal article case in point) regardless of a definition that was written I don't know how long ago.

Regardless of it being there the process was again still followed. Nothing says that if people meet the requirements they have to be voted through if an objection is raised (I don't necessarily agree with this, but again that is the process as it stands).

The fact that you are continuing to make a political argument out of this without even acknowledging or looking at other possible ways through which you can get your message across in the University is laughable.

You cannot compare yourself to Out in UL. Out in UL in this University is a support network for individuals who identify themselves as LGBT or are trying to figure it out. It also incorporates a social aspect for these individuals and they do amazing work to help make people feel welcome.

Your society, is about taking a single political stance on a single issue. The entire purpose was going to be pushing your stance on others in the University. No matter how much you keep going on about this, the process was followed, it was not allowed through and there are no grounds for appeal.

What I want to see moving forward, is that:

1) The definition of a society is changed - so that societies whose whole purpose is to take a single stance on a single issue are not applicable to become societies under C&S.

2) The process of the vote needs to be investigated and tightened up so that when people do meet the criteria the only way they can be voted down is if an objection is raised under the criteria for a society and it is deemed valid.

3) Some sort of fund come available so that issues that are deemed of importance to the student body (by student council) have the opportunity to have campaigns ran on either end of the argument. Similar to the fund that the SU had this year for the referendum.

manuelkuhs · 09-04-2014 9:46am

Gumbi wrote: »

Out in UL don't ostracise anyone, they are there for those who have been ostracised. False comparison. UL Life Soc are inherently exclusive.

I was not speaking about Out in UL. I pointed out the fact (by definition of the word) that C&S have now "ostracised" UL Pro Life society.

Chimaera wrote: »

...scientifically unsupported... ignores the nuanced nature of humanity and its problems, not to mention it's continued ignorance of the medical and social scientific evidence on the matter. I'm also not going to get into an ideological debate here: the internet is full of those already.

I think you'll find that this represents the first ideological discussion of the issue in this thread. Also it is not fair to make the claims you make (which are the very claims we deny) and then say you're not willing to discuss them.

For the record, the Oireachtas hearings showed that there is no scientific evidence that abortion is a treatment for suicide (the scientific studies fall into two categories: those that show there is no link between abortion and mental wellness, and those that show a slight INCREASE in mental problems following abortion - the most famous studies of the latter are published by a pro choice researcher in New Zealand). The medical experts giving this testimony included those of a pro choice persuasion.

And lastly, you will find that the biological science is agreed that a foetus is the early form of the mammal - i.e. a foetus chicken is a chicken, a foetus dog is a dog, and a foetus human is... a human.

Chimaera wrote: »

I'd prefer for C&S sake if the debate had not drifted into the ideological side of the matter but it did, and was always likely to given the nature of the issue at hand.

I couldn't agree with you more. And I think to any honest observer it seems highly probably that most people voted "no" because they brought in ideology.

Chimaera wrote: »

With that said, I will make the point again that while people here are completely ready to say all those who voted no did so because they are ideologically against this, the same argument can be made with those who voted yes - which that is also an issue if it happened.

Those who voted "no" for ideological reasons were willing to go vote against the fact that we met the technical requirements.

Those who voted "yes" and were ideologically in agreement with us did not vote against the technical facts.

It is against UL's and SU's code of practice and equality to vote ideologically in this case and ignore technical evidence (to put it mildly).

Ginge Young wrote: »

if there an objection is made a vote is held. That is the process as it stands.

So you're saying that it is perfectly acceptable for C&S to discriminate against the ideological positions of the minority, simply because it was a democratic process?

The fact is that this is not true and goes against SU's code of practice for equality etc.

And you know that's true. You would not be making this defence if it had been Out in UL that was "discriminated" against.

Ginge Young wrote: »

The SU demonstrated this year that a fund was able to be put in place to run a Yes, No and Neutral campaign for this years referendum. If there was some way possible that something like this could be put in place for when there are big issues affecting the nation (the gay marriage referendum which will be coming up) I think that is a potentially good way about helping support groups, who want to push a single stance on a single issue.

The issues that could be funded by this would need to be approved by Student Council perhaps.

That's a great idea. Somehow I doubt that this would happen, judging from the venom of some (not all!!) pro choices that I've seen, and their willingness to do everything to prevent us having any sort of voice on campus (much less receive SU funding!).

UL pro life society ???

Comments