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
Is it a case of weak Welfare Officer......Weak President
Options
Comments
-
singingstranger wrote:Isn't that the same thing though, except they don't even get as far as the corridor? Say the girl I talked about above is going through the Fresher's Guide looking for Dan/Barry's phone number to make an appointment, and come across the details for clinics. And go ahead without letting the Officer talk them through their four options. It's very cold, and almost gives the Welfare Officer carte blanche to go away and do whatever they like in the office time normally used with personal pregnancy cases.
To come back to one of my main points, Gav...it's quite patronising to assume that every girl would like to be talked through their four options.
We can only assume that in the case you hypothesise about, if the girl saw the abortion clinics address and decided that she wanted to have an abortion, she had made her mind up herself and decided she did not need any counselling or tissues. Otherwise, would you rather argue that this poor girl was misguided, and confused etc? If you do, then you can't really say that you respect a woman's ability to choose for herself without "help" or "advice". Because that is precisely what that girl would have done. Who are you, or anyone to say that she only made that decision because she was upset and confused?
If the girl saw the numbers but proceeded to Dan's office for help and advice, then we can assume that she falls into the category who feel that they WOULD like assistance and advice. And that's fine too.0 -
Check your PM btw.0
-
Jane,
I'm not goint to get into the substance of the discussion but may I ask what brought it to a head? Was there a motion passed or is it on the basis of the union's 'non directive' policy that you're acting? If you're going to invite the union into a court case, even one that you feel confident of winning, I think that you should make sure to have a good mandate. Otherwise I feel that you should distribute the information at your own risk.0 -
Look for the most part we're not stupid - I mean a pregnant girl isn't going to be flipping through the freshers guide, see the info and think "ah hey an abortion I'll go get me one of them". No girl would get that done without researching all the paths available to them. Even if they're scared, worried, don't want to talk to someone, it doesnt make them stupid like!0
-
panda100 wrote:What the fcku do you think Dan is a doctor referrening patients on to surgeons? No one but a fully qualified trained doctor has the right to refer a patient on to a surgeon.You are doing a very naieve and immature thing by posting those addresses on to your door Jane.
Im saying this as a medical student who for every 1000 cases theres one case that doesnt go quite right.This isnt to add to hysteria around getting surgery.But only doctors now the good surgeons and whats right for the patients.How exactly does a 2nd arts education officer from Ireland have the right to refer patients to good surgeons in a foreign country......Its taking a huge risk and I just think its a dangerous thing to do when its a young girls health at risk.
I appreciate your point Jane on knowing Dan personally.
Are you really going to stop women from getting the best advice possible from the IFPA just to make it 'easier' for you or one of dans friends to get the addresses of abortion clinics?
I was actually waiting for it, when I started this thread Vainglory Pm'd me and said that she could see the thread turning into a campaign against her.
I was hoping this wouldn’t happen but panda seriously...wtf? You just keep pissing me off with your constant need to disagree with everything vainglory says (by the way I don’t know either of you personally). You say above that Dan is not a qualified doctor/surgeon etc....well neither are u, 2nd/ or third yr med student at best with, I would imagine little if any actual experience with patients so to be honest vainglory is just as qualified as you or I to do the job she is in. to be fair how is Dan, a second arts student of French and whatever else fit to deal with depressed/pregnant/alcoholic/suicidal students, all he or for that matter any other sabbat officer got was an intro to the job from their predecessor and to be honest I think we should all be glad that you withdrew your name from the welfare officer race if you are going to take such a head in the sand stance.
The very fact that the education officer in the students union had to be the one to stand up and provide the information (panda no one was referring anyone.... dramasoc is on the bottom floor of the arts block) is a disgrace. If any woman is looking for information as regards any choice that must be made, if anyone in the union is fit to provide it, I do believe the welfare officer should not have to say " oh sorry, actually the education officer is the only one with enough backbone to provide information on the subject so finish your cuppa her office is two doors down" (not an actual quote just incase I would be shot)
my original point at the start of the thread was and still is that if the incoming president wants to be sucessfull he needs to grow some backbone and stop being such a coaster!0 -
Advertisement
-
get real, do u actually think her actions are going to lead to a court case ffs think i used the dramasoc thing already!!!John_C wrote:Jane,
I'm not goint to get into the substance of the discussion but may I ask what brought it to a head? Was there a motion passed or is it on the basis of the union's 'non directive' policy that you're acting? If you're going to invite the union into a court case, even one that you feel confident of winning, I think that you should make sure to have a good mandate. Otherwise I feel that you should distribute the information at your own risk.0 -
Apparently women aren't stupid. I'm pretty sure that that's true. So assuming they're not stupid, surely if they're not going to go to the welfare officer to have a discussion about their options and find out everything they can from there, they'll go somewhere else, or work independently. Therefore, I don't see that the Union has a responsibility to give out the illegal information it was displaying unless it is asked for it. Now, if you know the welfare officer, and you don't feel comfortable talking to them, you'll probably go somewhere else. But I find the fact that information such as addresses being postered in the Union corridor where, let's face it, it'll only be seen by people who're interested in talking to someone anyway (because I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who wanders the union corridor just to get their jollies) is just inflammatory and is being done to make a point. I'm also pretty sure that the next time we have an abortion referendum (which would be a bloody good idea aaaany time now) abortion will be legalised. So, if someone's going to see someone who'll give them the information if they ask for it, and to put it up publicly on the Union corridor directly contravenes Irish law, and therefore puts the SU in a position of flaunting it's law-breaking stance, why do it? It seems to be a pretty silly idea. And, as I've already said, a needlessly inflammatory one. Or are women stupid after all, because I'm sure I just don't get it.
Being pro-choice doesn't mean you're not pro-life. It just means you're not imposing your beliefs on others. Just because you have the luxury of knowing you'd have support if you got pregnant and could afford (both mentally and financially) to keed a child you hadn't planned doesn't mean that everyone is in your shoes. So for all of you who think that pro-life is the only way, just think about how many different situations you could be in, and remember - it's the only way for you. But not everyone's in your position.0 -
panda100 wrote:tbh I dont think thats a very good attitude to have,especially form somone who ran for a sabbat position.I wouldnt be laughing if someone I didnt want to get elecetd got elected.I would be quite concerned and doing my best to make sure people got involved in the union next year instead of trying to make a joke out of Dan.
Panda, does everything have to become a sanctimonius personal attack with you?
For your information I am quite concerded and doing my best to make sure people get involved next year.
But I'm also, tired and cynical after a year of all this union malarky and if I didn't laugh at all the sh*t that goes on in this college I'd most likely go completely mental.0 -
None of this is personal how many times do I havce to stress this.Im sorry that I have a lot of different opinions then people on this forum.That is something I cant help.Im sorry if this comes across as being personal but it really is not.
I think Gav is right here at the end of the day this comes down to differing opinions.Nothing is going to be solved uunless Dans and Abeys motion is passed. I have said why I think writing addresses in the freshers guide is a dangerous idea and how not doing it may protect a small minority.
My opinion differs from somone else-its really not personal.:)
Tin tin,I think this proves that Dan is a strong welfare officer and will be a good president.He's has had a year in the job as welfare office dealing with students day in and day out.Jane has had a year as being education officer.Who do you think knows more what is right for students in regards to abortion......someone who has dealt with crisis prgnancy and ran shag weeks all year or someone who has been in charge of modualrisation and semesterisation all year.....
Once again this is NOT a personal attack in Jane.I fail to see how I can make an argument here without bringing her into it as she is the one instegating this debate.
The best way top solve this now is to pass Abeys and Dans motion and we can run a referendum on campus to see wether the 13year old non directive stance is still wanted by the students or not.That is the last I have to say on the matter0 -
Also I just want to put dan apparently 'not following the students wishes' into perspective. I for one am glad he is not following the wishes of the unelected political wannabees that make up council.How many times on these boards have we seen council pass a motion that is hugely unrepresentative of the students wishes. Maybe I should jog your memories.....
This year the union were willing to pay 500 euro for a protesters fee's.This at the same time was while the fashion show (my own personal feelings about it aside) which helps countless of charitys and brings alot of people from different facultys together was in crisis.The fact that the union placed the importance of bailing out one guy who broke the law and failed to help bail out one of the biggest UCD events show how unrepresentative of our college they are.Now Im not saying that the union could have payed for the fashion show to go ahead but the union evidently have money to burn and could have helped the struggling fashion show out until they found a sponser.
Secondly,this year we have seen motions passed everyweek to do with union pins and union workers.we have seen our president and education officer spend their time finding out about builders pay,working conditions and union standards on building sites.
Thirdly,we have seen union pass the motions to back the Irish ferry workers,sacked dunnes stores workers.We have seen them hire buses week in and out to bring students to anti war protests,anti deportation marches in and out of town.
Call me cynical if I respect Dan for going against the wishes of this hugely unrepresentative union.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
*grits teeth*John_C wrote:Jane,
I'm not goint to get into the substance of the discussion but may I ask what brought it to a head? Was there a motion passed or is it on the basis of the union's 'non directive' policy that you're acting? If you're going to invite the union into a court case, even one that you feel confident of winning, I think that you should make sure to have a good mandate. Otherwise I feel that you should distribute the information at your own risk.
Hi John,
What brought it to a head, for me, was when two class reps proposed a motion asking the Welfare Officer to fulfill the mandate which provides for all information on crisis pregnancy options to be made available by the Union, both verbally and in Union publications, including abortion. Council, for whatever reason, voted against this (but it’s important to note that this doesn’t change overall Union policy, it’s just an indication of how about 20 or so of 32 people felt at any one time on Council). I thought that this was wrong and I feel responsible to uphold Union policy, even if it falls outside my brief. I would prefer if Dan would do it, but he won’t, so that’s why I’m doing it. I would prefer if they agreed to put it in the Freshers’ Guide, but they won’t, so that’s why it’s on my door.
It should be noted that I didn’t propose the motion and I didn’t even know those two class reps had before I saw it posted on the newswire by the secretary a week earlier.
With regard to the “risk” of a court case, I think it’s important to explain to people properly exactly what the risks are.
There is no chance whatsoever that we could lose any shops, bars, offices etc. None. For the following reasons.
1. I cannot be sued in this matter. It is purely criminal law. Only the DPP can bring any action against me. Therefore, there is no chance of the union having to pay any “damages”. You do not pay damages to the state if they prosecute you.
2. If we were to lose the case (and the chances of that happening is also quite slim, going on advice from three separate and unconnected barristers), then the maximum fine we can receive is 2000 euro. We probably spend more on posters in a month in the SU than 2000 euro.
3. In a criminal case, the costs of the state prosecution’s legal team CANNOT be awarded against you.
4. As regards our own legal costs, if this came to trial then every pro choice barrister in the state would be fighting over the right to represent us for free. Two have already offered.
Any ridiculous scaremongering about “losing everything” should be seen for exactly what it is, i.e. completely unsubstantiated and unresearched rubbish.
I believe strongly, John, that the risk of losing 2000 euro is not great enough to argue against standing up for what is right, and for what the members want (if someone would like to argue that this is not what the members want, then they’ll have to call another referendum first.)Blush_01 wrote:Therefore, I don't see that the Union has a responsibility to give out the illegal information it was displaying unless it is asked for it. .
I agree. But it was asked for. Information on abortion was asked for, both verbally and in union publications, by the student body in 1993. Since then, nobody has even attempted to overturn this decision. However, it is everyone’s right to try, if they feel strongly enough about it.Blush_01 wrote:But I find the fact that information such as addresses being postered in the Union corridor where, let's face it, it'll only be seen by people who're interested in talking to someone anyway (because I'm pretty sure I don't know anyone who wanders the union corridor just to get their jollies) is just inflammatory and is being done to make a point. .
Yes, it is to make a point. My point is that it should be in the Freshers’ Guide, as requested by the students, and so no woman is compelled to talk to a third party if they don’t want to before getting an abortion.Blush_01 wrote:So, if someone's going to see someone who'll give them the information if they ask for it.
What if you quite simply don’t want to have to ask Dan, or any other Welfare officer, for the information? I’m sure as hell that I wouldn’t be able to. I’d prefer to find the addresses in the Freshers’ Guide, in the comfort of my own home, and discuss it with whomever else was involved in the situation.Blush_01 wrote:and to put it up publicly on the Union corridor directly contravenes Irish law, and therefore puts the SU in a position of flaunting it's law-breaking stance, why do it? .
Well, it’s not completely clear that it does directly contravene Irish law. It’s still a pretty grey area and we would have some defence if it was brought to court. But as I have always, always said..I would prefer it to be in the Freshers’ Guide. If I get an undertaking that it will be there, then that poster will come down.panda100 wrote:I think Gav is right here at the end of the day this comes down to differing opinions.Nothing is going to be solved uunless Dans and Abeys motion is passed.
I think it’s also important to note here, that Dan and Abey’s proposed referendum would not make the situation regarding information in the Freshers’ Guide any clearer than it is now.
Dan and Abey want the union to operate the non-directive policy as far as the law allows.
‘Abortion and the Law’ James Kingston, Ivana Bacik 1997 p196-197 - says that the issue of whether SU guides came under the act was never resolved by the Supreme Court.
It is therefore not illegal for the information to be contained in the Freshers’ Guide. It is not explicitly legal either, but the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” must apply here.
Whether the information is legal or not all depends on whether a court decides if a Freshers’ Guide is solicited information (requested, and therefore legal) or unsolicited information (unrequested, and therefore illegal). There is quite a strong case for it being solicited material, as the information was requested by members of an organisation, and then put into a publication which is not posted to people, but people choose to take.
For these reasons, and the blurry law, if the referendum was passed, you would still have people like me arguing that the information in the Freshers’ Guide was legal, and people like Dan arguing that it wasn’t. However, it would remain exactly that; just arguing between two people with different opinions. Neither side has any basis in law for their argument, and Dan could not use the wording of the referendum “within the law” as a reason not to publish that information.
The only way to ascertain whether the guides or solicited or unsolicited would be for:
UCDSU to go ahead print and distribute the guides containing the clinic addresses (though not advertise or promote them)
UCDSU to be prosecuted
And only then can the courts make a judgement and only then would we know for certain.
As I’ve pointed out, this would in all likelihood cost UCDSU a maximum of 2000 euro, IF we lost.
SO WHY DON’T WE DO IT? Make a stand for reproductive rights, make a stand for the right to information. Stand up for the wishes of the members and challenge this ridiculous law, which only perpetrates the head-in-the-sand mentality of the Irish government when it comes to abortion, and only aids the stigma of abortion which probably plays a huge role in mental health problems for post-abortion patients.
It’s really a question of if you want your SU to stand up for your rights, no matter what, or if you want us to crumble in the face of any opposition, no matter how ridiculous that opposition is.
However, (and as far as I’m concerned, this is a shame), there is statistically more likelihood of us being prosecuted for file sharing music in the Union corridor than there is for distributing abortion information. The DPP won’t go near it. Because the State don’t like prosecuting students, especially over something as divisive as abortion.0 -
For the benefit of people still in the dark about "Abey and Dan's motion":
This'll be up for discussion at Council next Wednesday at 6pm in the Astra Hall. Come one, come all...Council notes that abortion remains an unresolved and contentious issue in Ireland.
Council notes that USI current policy passed at USI national congress 2006 to lobby the government and other relevant bodies to develop greater access to abortion services for all women within the State.
Council notes the disagreements and confusion about what the current non-directive policy of UCD student Union is.
Council respects differing student opinions.
Council notes with concern that over 6000 women every year are forced to leave Ireland to avail of abortion services outside of the state.
Council calls for UCD STUDENTS’ UNION to hold a referendum to ask its students if they wish to extend the current UCDSU non-directive policy, to allow the student union to campaign for abortion services to be legalized within Ireland as well as campaign for greater funding for all choices.
We wish the referendum to take place during the 2006-2007 Council elections.
The wording of the referendum will be as follows, pending legal review.
"We, the students, wish to maintain the current non-directive policy on giving out information on pregnancy options to students, operated within the law.
We, the students, believe all options should be available and that for both legal and financial reasons not all of the options are available to all.
We, the students, wish for the student union to campaign for abortion services to be legalized within Ireland through a national referendum, and in addition campaign for greater funding for all choices to make them truly available for all."
Proposed by Abey Campbell, Postgraduate Science
Seconded by Dan Hayden, Welfare Vice-President0 -
panda100 wrote:The best way top solve this now is to pass Abeys and Dans motion and we can run a referendum on campus to see wether the 13year old non directive stance is still wanted by the students or not.That is the last I have to say on the matter
As I’ve said, that won’t solve your problem with the Freshers’ Guide. And er, Dan and Abey’s motion, if passed, would maintain the non-directive stance. If it was defeated, then there would be no policy change. Policy is created by passing motions. If you want the Union to explicitly change its non directive stance and not provide information on abortion, then you will have to word a referendum exactly like that for any policy change to take place.panda100 wrote:Also I just want to put dan apparently 'not following the students wishes' into perspective. I for one am glad he is not following the wishes of the unelected political wannabees that make up council. .
Um, Council voted with Dan on this, actually. It was the students, the ordinary membership, who voted for it (yes yes, thirteen years ago, but no student has felt strongly enough about the issue to bring a referendum about it since, so why do we assume opinion has changed just because time has passed? I would actually guess that general student opinion is MORE pro-choice and pro-information now than it was 13 years ago. A certain set of class reps perhaps being slightly pro-life or wary of breaking the law shouldn't overrule that.).panda100 wrote:.Now Im not saying that the union could have payed for the fashion show to go ahead but the union evidently have money to burn and could have helped the struggling fashion show out until they found a sponser.
I’m a little confused. Why are you talking about the fashion show? And if we have money to burn, then surely we can afford the 2000 euro risk that would clear up this legal mess about the Freshers’ Guide once and for all and give us proper answers, right?panda100 wrote:.Call me cynical if I respect Dan for going against the wishes of this hugely unrepresentative union.
Dan went WITH the wishes of (your words) the “hugely unrepresentative union”. So if council is unrepresentative of the wishes of the student body, and council voted against having information about abortion available, then 2+2=……..?0 -
Gav, post mine too, I don't know how to do that fancy thing. Or maybe I'm lazy.0
-
The motion was defeated by 21 votes to 9. I should point out that there were abstentions, and that Council was quorate at the time.Vainglory wrote:it’s just an indication of how about 20 or so of 32 people felt at any one time on Council0 -
The things I do for my Officers...Vainglory wrote:Gav, post mine too, I don't know how to do that fancy thing. Or maybe I'm lazy.Council notes the recent concerns about the legality of the non-directive policy raised by members of SU Council.
Council further notes the proposed referendum which, if passed, would mandate the Students’ Union to carry out the non-directive policy only as far as allowed by law.
Council affirms the importance of determining without question what exactly falls into the category of “illegal” information before such a question is put to the student body, to avoid such confusion occurring again.
Council notes that the term “solicited” information is not defined in the Abortion Information Act 1995 and that it is untested whether or not a Students’ Union Freshers’ Guide would be unsolicited (illegal) or solicited (legal) information.1 As it stands, statements about a Freshers’ Guide being solicited or unsolicited information are purely statements of opinion and not of fact.
Council therefore affirms that if this referendum were to be passed with the current wording, the situation regarding UK crisis pregnancy information agencies information in the Freshers’ Guide would remain unclear and solve nothing.
Council therefore mandates the President (both current and future officers) to ascertain without doubt (ie not just from the opinion of various legal advisors, but to discover in actual fact) whether such information on crisis pregnancy agencies in the UK and other countries contained in the Freshers’ Guide would be considered by a court of law to be solicited information (legal) or unsolicited information (illegal).
If this motion is passed, Council strongly encourages itself to reject the proposed referendum motion until such time as the situation regarding the legality of phone numbers and addresses of UK and other countries crisis pregnancy agencies in the Freshers’ Guide has been discovered, for the sake of clarity and to remove any confusion.
However, if the motion regarding the referendum is passed, Council still mandates the incoming President to discover the legality of the situation regarding phone numbers and addresses of UK and other countries crisis pregnancy agencies in the Freshers’ Guide by such time as the referendum dates are announced by the Returning Officer.
Proposed by Jane Horgan-Jones, Education Officer
Seconded by Kate O’Hanlon, 2nd Arts
-
Footnote:
1 “Abortion and the Law” James Kingston, Ivana Bacik 1997 p196-197 - says that the issue of whether SU guides came under the act was never resolved by the Supreme Court in SPUC vs. Grogan0 -
singingstranger wrote:The motion was defeated by 21 votes to 9. I should point out that there were abstentions, and that Council was quorate at the time.
Yep..sooo..I said 20 or so people voted for it. You said 21. I'd say I was pretty accurate there?0 -
I wasn't questioning, I was merely being statistical. Come on, I'm a mathlete, it's what I do...0
-
Ok well we'll wait to see what happens at council then next week.I wish I could tell my rep how to vote..alas I do not know who mine is...Im hope all those at council vote for what there class want and not what they personally want as has been done a lot in the past.I think this is an important issue and classes should be informed of it and ask their class how to vote.So I hope Chris,Ian,Kate,Colm and all those thar read these board have the honesty and maturity to do that instead of voting for their own personal view0
-
Advertisement
-
Thanks for the answer Jane,
What is the text of the referendum in the 1990's?0 -
It is generally accepted to be (perhaps grammar is different)..
That the Union should provide information on all options in a crisis pregnancy both verbally and in Union publications, including abortion.0 -
thats true the union shud be providing information and not taking a pro/choice/life stance0
-
The Welfare Vice-President does do everything legally possible provide students with all the information and options. Welfare officers under go strict training in what they are both allowed and not allowed to do. The welfare VP will provide people with all the information including the number of clinics in the UK in a one to one situation but for legal reasons it cannot published. If you look at the survival guide it contains two pages on crisis pregnancy and the only thing it doesn’t include is a phone number which as I said above is available on a one to one basis.
The union has a non-directive policy on crisis pregnancy and the welfare is required to follow this.0 -
-
in the case of UCD sabbat officers and the other sabbats from colleges that are members of USI they all undergo training the summer together organised by USI given by professionals in the relevant field.0
-
zap wrote:The Welfare Vice-President does do everything legally possible provide students with all the information and options.
I'm afraid this is entirely untrue. It is not illegal to put contact details for crisis pregnancy agencies in Britain etc in the Freshers' Guide, but the Welfare VP does not do it.0 -
I was under the impression that since the Student Guide is unsolicited material it was illegal to have the information there.Vainglory wrote:I'm afraid this is entirely untrue. It is not illegal to put contact details for crisis pregnancy agencies in Britain etc in the Freshers' Guide, but the Welfare VP does not do it.0 -
Firespinner wrote:I was under the impression that since the Student Guide is unsolicited material it was illegal to have the information there.
It was never decided by SPUC vs Grogan whether SU Guides were solicited or unsolicited, ie legal or illegal.
“Abortion and the Law” James Kingston, Ivana Bacik 1997 p196-197 - says that the issue of whether SU guides came under the act was never resolved by the Supreme Court in SPUC vs. Grogan
In fact, we'd probably have a very strong case for information in SU Guides being solicited information, as it was requested by the members of the organisation in a referendum. Also, the guides aren't posted to people; people choose to take them.0 -
Advertisement
-
People are handed them in bags (I was). I did not know at the time that the bag contained the Fresher's guide. Also I'm fairly sure that having them on that desk in the Freshers tent is counted as unsolicited as well. The Supreme Court has not decided but there is much case law on the subject of solicited v. unsolicited already and that would be taken into accountVainglory wrote:It was never decided by SPUC vs Grogan whether SU Guides were solicited or unsolicited, ie legal or illegal.
“Abortion and the Law” James Kingston, Ivana Bacik 1997 p196-197 - says that the issue of whether SU guides came under the act was never resolved by the Supreme Court in SPUC vs. Grogan
In fact, we'd probably have a very strong case for information in SU Guides being solicited information, as it was requested by the members of the organisation in a referendum. Also, the guides aren't posted to people; people choose to take them.0
Advertisement