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

Ultrasound Group Banned?

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 37,302 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    John_C wrote:
    I agree they should be allowed to hold the debate and if anyone is attacked or intimidated services should interviene.
    Funny bit was highlighted. What services? The Gardai? Or a few security personal? And what should they intervene with? Youth Defense have a history of using weapons.

    =-=

    And how would you react if someone asked to hold a discussion in a building you owned, whom you knew had a history of violence, a history of using weapons, and finally, whom you knew would attack anyone else (possibly with weapons) that didn't have the same values as they did?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    Red Alert wrote:
    but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?

    Yes I think you might have a point on that one, sometimes the SU strikes me as a particularly odd machine, I think it's time for a valid pro choice vs pro life debate, any ideas if there are plans for a 'replacement debate' without the militia??


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    the_syco wrote:
    What services?
    Sorry for not being clearer. I meant the buildings and services department who are in charge of security in UCD.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

    Does anyone know if they actually are violent? The source of this claim is from an article that starts: "Anti-woman group youth defence have organised an anti-choice propaganda meeting for Monday 21st. Their intention was to cloud the abortion debate with falsities and inaccuracies.". It then throws around a few dates of when they used violence, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2003. Pick your favourite. That article also supports the violence that was used against other people. That article is complete rubbish.

    Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case. If they really are full of crap, then a few UCD students will be wiser.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    Syth wrote:
    Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

    Does anyone know if they actually are violent? The source of this claim is from an article that starts: "Anti-woman group youth defence have organised an anti-choice propaganda meeting for Monday 21st. Their intention was to cloud the abortion debate with falsities and inaccuracies.". It then throws around a few dates of when they used violence, 1992, 1994, 1998, 2003. Pick your favourite. That article also supports the violence that was used against other people. That article is complete rubbish.

    Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case. If they really are full of crap, then a few UCD students will be wiser.

    Yes. You're making an assumption that the only proof of this groups malevolance is based on this article. They don't have a violent mandate in their constitution as far as I know, but their members are extremists by nature. Justin Barrtt the freakshow for example, who Ive had the misfortune of meeting is a vile ignorant fascist, he really is.

    The Nazi's were full of crap and a lot of German's didn't know any wiser. I don't like getting so political in these posts but they're complete salesmen.. selling hollow ideas to people they hope will be easily convinced.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12 Homerbeer


    Who runs the show in UCD? Why do the socialists seem to be the censors? UCD should operate as a place of free speech, a place where peole can broaden their minds. I think that no matter the topic, people should be entitled to make up their minds, agree, or disagree. I think the student union should issue a statement citing reasons as to why this conference was cancelled


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,469 ✭✭✭Pythia


    I don't think it was the SU who stopped it?
    YD have a policy of disrupting meetings held by the IFPA or any pro choice meetings. They did that at a YFG meeting about 3 years ago. They are extremist nutcases.


  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 7,486 ✭✭✭Red Alert


    if was stopped for security reasons then so be it. Aisling Kennedy who's in charge of services is actually quite a reasonable person so i'd say there might have been some security problem. fair enough. but the debate remains - is pro-life/pro-choice debate going to be 'allowed' by the left-wing members of the SU? because it seems that they're quite uncomfortable talking about it. if i wanted to discuss computer code, i'd show code samples or flow charts or whatever on screen - why do some people here think that you can talk about abortion without using visual aids? if we allow everything to be stopped just because somebody gets offended by it then we're guilty of stifling debate. we're all adults, if you don't like a poster/slide/overhead just walk on and ignore it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    You're making an assumption that the only proof of this groups malevolance is based on this article.
    Please provide other evidence then.
    The Nazi's were full of crap and a lot of German's didn't know any wiser.
    LovelyHurling has just broken Godwin's Law, which states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1, when this happens the thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress."

    The Student's Union has an explicit non-opinion on abortion. In my opinion it should not say anything on this topic one way or the other.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 12 Homerbeer


    I agree with love hurling on the violent issue there. Any legal proceedings which were made, Youth defense were on the plaintiff side. They made legal proceedings against family planning on the distribution of abortion info in ireland, and cases against the gardai for assault. In fact any interest group who could be accused of violence is the socialists i.e assaulting justin barret, and michael mac duil


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,469 ✭✭✭Pythia


    This isn't YD vs Socialists. If you don't support YD, it doesnt mean you're a socialist. I don't see why you're bringing that in.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Vainglory


    Just to respond to a few points made by various posters…

    Syth wrote:
    Should the government (in this context college) punish you for doing it? No. If you do it to someone (say calling a group of black men ****) and the assalt you, should they be charged? Almost certainly not.
    You should not be banned from saying what you want, but you must accept the consequesces of that. You are not a child, grow up.


    Right. So in your ideal world, we can all say whatever we want, with no thought for common decency or civility or incitement to hatred, and anyone who is offended by someone’s words can do whatever they like to them without fear of prosecution.


    I don’t think it’s childish to realise that a world like that could never work. I think it’s childish to believe that the world could continue to function if those were the rules.


    We live in society. There should be a basic level of common decency that is upheld and not overruled by people shrieking about the importance of free speech. Of course free speech is important. I believe fervently in freedom of expression both for individuals and for the press. However, I do not believe that the right to free speech should be used to quash all other basic rights.

    Syth wrote:
    I disagree. There are 6 billion different definition of 'peaceful enjoyment of their own life', to ban everything that contravens that would be impossible.


    How about we go with this for starters? http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
    I’d draw particular attention to Article 29 (2), which states,


    (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

    Syth wrote:
    I agree. We should not put up with people who want to ban everything they disagree with.


    I do not want to ban everything I disagree with. I do not want to ban pro-life groups, people who have pro-life views, the Catholic Church or anything else. However, I do not want to be complicit in giving a dangerous, violent group like Youth Defence a platform to organise in our university.

    parsi wrote:
    So I take it from this that if there was a meeting called which was designed to tarnish all members of the clergy with the same brush you would call for its cancellation ?


    I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. If there was a talk organised which was titled, “All Priests Are Bigoted ****s”, then I doubt I’d be too impressed either.
    parsi wrote:
    From what I've ever seen students are only radical and accepting of free speech and discussion if its one of their accepted subjects or people.


    I am always accepting of free speech. Simultaneously, (and the two are not mutually exclusive), I am never in favour of women being harassed, intimidated and bullied by people with extreme views.

    Red Alert wrote:
    but it seems anything pro-life is disparaged by the SU whereas people advocating near-full-term abortion on demand have no problem getting airtime from those who matter?


    As I’ve said, the SU has a non-directive policy on abortion. And to be honest, I’ve never come across people advocating full-term abortion on demand. What I have come across, (and I’d fall into this category myself), are people advocating the right to choose a free, safe and legal abortion if the woman so wishes. We do not encourage abortion. We encourage choice.

    sometimes the SU strikes me as a particularly odd machine, I think it's time for a valid pro choice vs pro life debate


    If you want to have one, ask your class rep to bring a motion to SU Council. Then there will be a debate. There’s no problem with debate and there never has been.

    Syth wrote:
    Has anyone been to a talk by these "Youth Defence" people?

    Does anyone know if they actually are violent?


    Syth, I have seen Youth Defence members harass a woman, shouting “Murderer” at her until she broke down into tears on a public road. I am not lying. I have heard from countless, varied sources, from people on both the right and the left, that they have a history of violently disrupting meetings, including those of pro-choice activists. Thankfully, I have never personally been on the receiving end of a YD hurley, but I know people who have.

    Syth wrote:
    Since we have no (credible) evidence of when this group ever did anything wrong (disagreeing with you is not a crime!), they should be allowed to make their case.


    What is credible evidence? Do you have to see it with your own eyes for it to be credible evidence? When something is reported in the media, do you automatically assume it to be a lie unless you were there when the event took place? I don’t know what I can say to convince you but these people are dangerous, violent, and should not be given the opportunity to organise.

    Homerbeer wrote:
    Who runs the show in UCD? Why do the socialists seem to be the censors?


    The talk was cancelled by the university, not the “socialists”. And I don’t think Brady, Nolan, Clayton etc would take too kindly to being placed in that political bracket.

    Homerbeer wrote:
    UCD should operate as a place of free speech, a place where peole can broaden their minds. I think that no matter the topic, people should be entitled to make up their minds, agree, or disagree.


    Okay. I’ve booked Theatre P next week for a talk entitled, “All Ethnic Minorities are Scum and Must Die, Not To Mention Fat People”.

    Homerbeer wrote:
    I think the student union should issue a statement citing reasons as to why this conference was cancelled


    Why? We didn’t cancel it, nor do we have any position on abortion. Any views I’ve put forward on this thread have been in a personal capacity.

    Pythia wrote:
    YD have a policy of disrupting meetings held by the IFPA or any pro choice meetings. They did that at a YFG meeting about 3 years ago. They are extremist nutcases.


    Amen.

    Red Alert wrote:
    but the debate remains - is pro-life/pro-choice debate going to be 'allowed' by the left-wing members of the SU? because it seems that they're quite uncomfortable talking about it.


    No “left-wing” member of the university is against a reasonable, mature, non-violent debate on the issue of abortion. In fact, I had one last night with my flatmate. As I said previously, if you want a debate, there are ways you can organise one.

    Syth wrote:
    The Student's Union has an explicit non-opinion on abortion. In my opinion it should not say anything on this topic one way or the other


    It doesn’t, at the moment. But the SU is all of you, not me or the other four lads. If you do/do not want it to have an official stance on the issue, then that control is in your hands.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    Vainglory: <double backflip> Hai-Ya!

    Well said. I think that says it all. *Literally* lol. My faculty doesnt do class reps so I hereby nominate you to mention the idea of a re-debate lol.

    And I know weve debated this already on here so its old hat by now but isnt it ironic that the SU has no mandate on abortion which affects hundred of irish students - male and female - yet it has had a very definite opinion on Rossport, Shannon-Iraq, and Nestle, which dont affect students to anywhere near the same extent. Sorry if Im opening a can of worms here, dont want to seem *too* pedantic!!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Just wanted to ask vainglory are you sure the union has an entirely unbiased opinion on abortion.I have it on very good authority from one of the old officers that if a girl comes into the union and wants an abortion then they will fund her the money for it.Of course this is always kept very hush hush I just wanted to know if this is true still?
    As for the posters that were up around campus i cannot see how they are particularly harsh-if posters are factual and correct they should certainly be allowed up.I helped bring Dennis Halliday to UCD two years ago for the world aid soc and during his talk he gave particularly graphic depictions of conditions in Iraq.However i dont recall any of the lefts complaining then.Dennis Halliday was telling the truth of what many children in Iraq go through and so while it was not pleasent to listen to i wanted to now the truth about their plight.
    Abortion is not a pretty subject.Coming from a purely medical point of view after studying embryology for three years ,abortion isnt something you can take a tablet for and it'l go away.It is a risky and very unpleasent operation.It involves crushing and burning etc and this is exactly what was said on the posters.During the coke campaign in UCD there was a lot of unpleasent posters around depicting killer coke so i find it particularly childish that suddenly all the lefts are getting on their high horse about posters when it doesnt bother them when its THEIR views and THEIR campaigns on the posters.
    This thread is not about abortion being right or wrong but as im sure the education officer would agree with that everyone has a right to education.We are all adults in this college,we dont need to be shielded by the union from the harsh cruel realities of the world and abortion is one of theses matters.All students should be allowed the education to know what exactly an abortion entails.So what if on the posters the man said he had to carry the bodies of human foetus's away.We see pictures on the news everyday of dead human bodies be they from a shooting in Clondalkin or after an earthquake in India.

    I think many people would have valued from the experience of hearing exactly what goes on at an abortion clinic.I worked in a plastic surgery clinic for the summer and after it am utterly and totally against plastic surgery for cosmetic purposes.Most people are really intrested to hear exactly what went on there (yes we did get lots of fair city actors in)and they even want to hear all the gory details about liposuction and calf implants. Actually It was to many of the 20 or so left protesters who were there last night that i told many of my grusesome stories too about plastic surgery.I just find it very unfair and unjust of them to prevent the going ahead of this talk last night-it really is a case of double standards on their part-its ok for us to to get our point across but not ok for the more conservatives to get their point across.
    As for angel of fire and vainglory saying that pro life lobbyists use alot of unsavoury methods and physical force to get their point across-that is just laughable.What are you are bodyguards or something?Security would have been there to handle that im sure.As i said we are all adults on this campus if someone came up to me saying abortion is evil im sure most people would be able to handle that we are all grown up and have to deal with other peoples point of views.And i think it is a case of pot kettle and black for you chris didnt you say you used physical force to stop that van of deportees a couple of weeks ago as many of the guards said at the time that a lot of people could have got hurt from you doing that.
    This is not a personal vendetta against chris or jane,i admire their views but when it stops others from hearing other porints of view thats when their points of view lessen a lot in my eyes cos as they know well everyone has a right to say their side of the story.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 37 thecheekofyou


    It's on tonight in DCU's Terence Larkin theatre at 7pm.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    I think many people would have valued from the experience of hearing exactly what goes on at an abortion clinic

    Lads I think we're getting confused between a pro life group and the YD which although pro life, is not pro debate. I seriously doubt if anyone here or in UCD would object to a serious pro life group coming in to us.

    For the record I havent made up my mind on abortion, but Id rather hear a real debate than a load of loonies of the justin barrett variety roaring down my ear. Wouldnt you?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    Its not about having a debate lovely hurling.You cant really debate anything till you know the facts and the talk would have given people insight into one side of the debate.
    Also the power of words mr lovelyhurling-who said anyone would be roaring at this talk? From what I have heared the man and women who are speaking are both quite mild mannered and no 'roaring' will be going on.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    panda100 wrote:
    no 'roaring' will be going on.

    You have to admit that quote is quite funny very bishop brennan-esque!

    Theyre nutcases. I cant say all of them are but in general... theyre nutcases. Who are the two debating is it thingy with the complicated irish name just curious shes not mildmannered if its her. Panda surely you agree we have to dicern between reliables and unreliables. Lets bring Ruth Cullen or those Pro Life people to ucd instead problem solved? why do we need the weirdos? 'pro life' come across to me as being very educated, reasonable calm and logical in their thinking, whether you agree with them or not.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,551 ✭✭✭panda100


    You have to admit that quote is quite funny very bishop brennan-esque!

    Theyre nutcases. I cant say all of them are but in general... theyre nutcases. Who are the two debating is it thingy with the complicated irish name just curious shes not mildmannered if its her

    Yes v.father Ted-down with that sort of thing!:)

    you could say that those five shannon protestors are pretty mad nutcases for first of all attacking a war plane and then saying the rosary around it-to me they sound mental saying the rosary on the runway in the middle of shannon airport!However i do not judge them on their actions and would not say they are nutcases for doing this cos unlike a lot of leftys in UCD i am fair and give everyone their right to protest by whatever means they want to.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,158 ✭✭✭Stepherunie


    I found those posters utterly offensive. If anyone who had had no other choice than to terminate a pregnancy i.e someone who had an agtopic pregnancy or the other condition where the foetus is not viable (can't think of the name) I couldn't begin to know how upsetting and distressing those posters must have been. They shouldn't have been put up end of.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    Under Irish law abortion is murder, unless it's used to prevent a woman from commiting suicide. Thus anyone in Ireland who advocates legal abortions for non-suicidal women is promoting murder. We cannot let these people who promote murder (in Irish law's eyes) speak. They are promoting violence and murder (in the eyes of the law).

    Good thing there is no law against speaking about things that are violent. Freedom of speech is a good thing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,016 ✭✭✭Blush_01


    That's etopic, Steph. Baby growing in fallopian tube = bad, funnily enough.

    Oh come on Rory. Be realistic. There's free speech and then there's being damned offensive and having no respect for anyone but yourself.

    It's all well and good to be pro-life if you're a) male [controversial, I know, and I apologise] or b) in a position where you're female and know you have support. Luckily, I know I am, should I ever get pregnant [crosses legs]. But there are hundreds of people walking this campus on a daily basis who can't say that they could cope with a pregnancy either mentally or physically, not to mention financially. And, funnily enough, after a pregnancy comes - a baby! Like puppies, babies aren't for christmas. They're a lifetime commitment, and they're not something you can cope with easily on your own. And unlike dogs, people tend frown on you selling your baby on if you get bored with it. Before someone brings up adoption, that's easier said than done. It's just not an option for some people. So personally I'm pro-life for me, because I have a support system that allows me to be, but I'm pro-choice.

    People who have adoptions are affected by them for the rest of their lives. I doubt it's something you forget very easily or quickly. And to have posters displayed prominently on campus where a woman says she should be blind, burned and dead because of her own choices is her business - not something she should force on others. I found those posters ruthlessly inconsiderate and offensive. You have NO idea what another person on this campus is going through. The girl sitting beside you in your lecture could be preganant, on her own and have nowhere to turn. You just can't tell. And to have pictures of a smiling woman screaming how evil you'll be if you make the choice that seems to be the only one open to you is more pressure than many people can take.

    Next time you're walking over the flyover bridge on the right hand side, look at the cement slab beside the railing. That's what can happen when you're pregnant and feel you have nowhere else to turn. Then talk about free speech for manipulative and vicious money-grubbing pro-life organisations like Ultrasound. Because you can be sure those speakers aren't coming over here on their own steam, and aren't giving us the benefit of their wisdom for nothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 801 ✭✭✭Vainglory


    Bravo. As I've said before, free speech is not the King of all rights, it does not supercede all other rights, and you cannot infringe on everyone else's rights just so your right to free speech is upheld.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,598 ✭✭✭ferdi


    good girl panda


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,238 ✭✭✭humbert


    Before this thread started I would have said I was absolutely and unequivocally pro free speech but in relation to this issue I think the college can’t condone a group ridiculing and promoting hatred toward a portion of it’s student populous. I didn’t read the posters and don’t know anything about the group in question, from what I’ve read the posters sound unnecessarily disturbing, I’m absolutely for people being informed on the subject but from an unbiased perspective and by choice, Blush_01 is right, it is unfair to put up posters all around the place condemning people who could well be in a fragile state of mind. I also think this issue should be primarily an ethical one and secondarily a legal one. Like Blush I’m pro choice, I would like to see every pregnancy turn into a child growing up as a member of a loving family but each person and their situation is different and therefore I think one undiscriminating law (with the exception of the risk of suicide) for everyone isn’t ideal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    Vainglory wrote:
    Bravo. As I've said before, free speech is not the King of all rights, it does not supercede all other rights, and you cannot infringe on everyone else's rights just so your right to free speech is upheld.
    No-one has the right not to never be offended. If someone or something offends you, that doesn't always mean your rights have been violated. Anti-abortionist genuinly believe that abortion is murder. I'm sure anti-abortionists are very offended by the legality of abortion in some countries, should we ban talk about abortion purely because they are offended by it?

    If we allow this kind of logic we won't be able to say anything.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 955 ✭✭✭LovelyHurling


    Syth wrote:
    No-one has the right not to never be offended.
    If we allow this kind of logic we won't be able to say anything.

    Please tell me that was irony


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,865 ✭✭✭Syth


    Please tell me that was irony
    Eh? I can't see the irony. Please explain.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,029 ✭✭✭John_C


    Syth wrote:
    Eh? I can't see the irony. Please explain.
    I think it's the combination of a tripple negative with a statement that he might not be able to say anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 40 craiglen


    I once used a quadruple negative


Advertisement