Cóir - Good God, What are they good for?

meglome

I was passing 'The Life Shop' on the corner of Parnell Street and Capel Street a short while ago and took the attached picture of the window.

It's good to see in poster form the No side haven't stopped lying or misrepresenting. And really what the hell are these Cóir guys about. Most of what they seem to campaign for is just utter bull**** to begin with, i.e. not even a real issue. We get legal guarantees on abortion and they are still objecting to it.

MultiUmm

Honest to God I've never heard about them before the Lisbon Treaty.

Neither sides groups are people I'd trust or affiliate with. =/

ei.sdraob

that 0.8% figure again ...

is it actually legal to put up clear lies on posters around the country? (hmm again)

Zuiderzee

Hang on, COIR are a tiny splnter, but it is easy for the Yes campaign to promote them as a 'major' group in the no campaign.
You dont hear much about PANA, people.ie and other No groups.

Promoting COIR makes it easy to smear the No side and confuse pople on the issues, it is guilt by association

I guess some supporter gave them an office, as Gen Yes got one on Leeson Street from an undisclosed doner.

meglome

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Hang on, COIR are a tiny splnter, but it is easy for the Yes campaign to promote them as a 'major' group in the no campaign.
You dont hear much about PANA, people.ie and other No groups.

Promoting COIR makes it easy to smear the No side and confuse pople on the issues, it is guilt by association

I guess some supporter gave them an office, as Gen Yes got one on Leeson Street from an undisclosed doner.

You should really protest about all the lies they are telling, I mean they are making the No side look bad.. er no wait...

ei.sdraob

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Hang on, COIR are a tiny splnter, but it is easy for the Yes campaign to promote them as a 'major' group in the no campaign.
You dont hear much about PANA, people.ie and other No groups.

Promoting COIR makes it easy to smear the No side and confuse pople on the issues, it is guilt by association

I guess some supporter gave them an office, as Gen Yes got one on Leeson Street from an undisclosed doner.

one quick question ZZ

do you agree that all of the 3 posters in the image are a lie or irrelevant

Zuiderzee

Sorry - did not see the picture without clicking on the link.
As I have said before, COIR are a crowd of wiedos, I do not take anything they say seriously. Why not look at what PANA and people.ie have to say - just two other groups.

If you take COIR or what they have to say at any level to be rational then look at poster #2. They lie worse than the Government of this country.
95% me arse, that would never happen (except perhaps the UK, and I dont think that would happen even there, Lib dems carry about 15%, pro EU Lab. maybe 10%, soe conservatives add another 5% - bout 70/30 against at worst)
But the Dutch and French did vote against the constitution and we voted against the treaty - same thing in essence according to VGD.
But we will never know until such time as our fellow European citizens are also given the right to make a democratic choice by referendum.

I do think on a pan European level the treaty would fail if it went to the people, particularly on turn out (about 28% in Poland at the last EP elections)
That is why most states went with parliamentry ratificaton

And I wont bother comenting on the others, ask COIR, I have nothing to do with them, but as I said, dont lump all No voters in with that gang

Het-Field

The are an offshoot of extremist Youth Defence, who have stood at the GPO almost every Saturday since 1992, waiving pictures of dead foetus and burnt foetus in the faces of passers by. They are the anti abortion version of the scumbag PETA organisation.

They like to take the most spurious nonsense of the treaties, and rub it in our faces. Abortion, euthanasia, and coerced drug legalisation ahve been thier staple rhetoric since Maastricht in 1993.

The former chairperson's mother famously referred to those who voted for Divorce in 1995 as "Wife Swapping Sodomites" on the TV when blasting Francis Fitzgerald (or maybe it was Nora Owen).

I also believe Mona Cribbin (remember the woman who involved herself with that disgraceful situation in Roscommon, by seeking a court order to prevent the Chidren been taken away from their abusive, and alcoholic mother)) was involved with them

Justin Barrett. Where do we need to start with this fruitcake. Ask the Neo Nazi movement in Germany and Italy, and they will let you know f that guy's pedigree. He has not been seen since he was forced off the speakers podium at a Literary and Historical Society in UCD by anti fascist action (another buch of freaks) in 2004

Look at the Abortion and Ireland Piece to see Mrs MacMathuna
http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0609/qanda_av.html?2385292,null,230

http://www.politics.ie/blogs/tenderloins1/372-election-political-material-part-39-niamh-nic-mhathuna-dublin-central-1992.html


Barrett and the Nazis

http://www.rte.ie/news/2002/1011/Nice.html

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/67054

They are a group which never goes away, and is funded by the Evangelicals in the US. They are liers, and like to misrepresent the truth, and as Aine Ni Chonaill (Immigration Control Platform) once said, YD's actions are far more than just abortion and anti immigration.

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Hang on, COIR are a tiny splnter, but it is easy for the Yes campaign to promote them as a 'major' group in the no campaign.
You dont hear much about PANA, people.ie and other No groups.

Promoting COIR makes it easy to smear the No side and confuse pople on the issues, it is guilt by association

I guess some supporter gave them an office, as Gen Yes got one on Leeson Street from an undisclosed doner.

I know your view is that COIR is a minor element, but I really can't agree. They provide a lot of the posters, they provide a lot of the foot-soldiers, they're very well-funded, they've been active in every major referendum, whether on abortion, divorce, the EU - their best-known poster is probably "Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy" from the 1995 divorce referendum. They're what used to be SPUC, and they're also Youth Defence, the Mother & Child campaign, and lord alone knows what else. They're the reason we have the 40.3.3 Protocol in the Treaties, because they always claim EU treaties will introduce abortion. They endorsed Declan Ganley in the North-West (which probably swung him a sizeable chunk of the Dana vote there), and they provided the 'volunteers' for Caroline Simons' campaign in Dublin. They're connected to Alive! magazine. They've been at their present address for years, and a chunk of their funding comes from SPUC UK.

If you've never heard of any of those groups, I'd have to ask where you've been, and whether this is your first ever referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zuiderzee

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know your view is that COIR is a minor element, but I really can't agree. They provide a lot of the posters, they provide a lot of the foot-soldiers, they're very well-funded, they've been active in every major referendum, whether on abortion, divorce, the EU - their best-known poster is probably "Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy" from the 1995 divorce referendum. They're what used to be SPUC, and they're also Youth Defence, the Mother & Child campaign, and lord alone knows what else. They're the reason we have the 40.3.3 Protocol in the Treaties, because they always claim EU treaties will introduce abortion. They endorsed Declan Ganley in the North-West (which probably swung him a sizeable chunk of the Dana vote there), and they provided the 'volunteers' for Caroline Simons' campaign in Dublin. They're connected to Alive! magazine. They've been at their present address for years, and a chunk of their funding comes from SPUC UK.

If you've never heard of any of those groups, I'd have to ask where you've been, and whether this is your first ever referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

What really turned me off Libertas was the Caroline Simmons connection, count me out for that.
Youth Defence are people who I have fought with.
They were helped by the church during abortion and divorce referendum, that is where there is a lot of money.

But in balance, the Yes side are getting funding from multinationals, if we look under those stones we will again find dirt.

And lobyists, The IIEA is run by Brendan Halligan, he also runs CIPA, a lobbyist company who have worked for the tobacco industry as one of their clients.
Halligan fought our membership of the EEC when we joined.

Having founded the IIEA he has made hundreds of thousands of Euro from Gov depts. .e. tax payers money.

CIPA employed Andrew Byrne, founder of Generation Yes. Employees of CIPA or IIEA still do volunteer work for Gen Yes.
But I do not associate all Gen Yes people with CIPA

COIR sould have their funding looked at, as should Gen. Yes, who gave them the plush office?

meglome

Scofflaw wrote: »

I know your view is that COIR is a minor element, but I really can't agree. They provide a lot of the posters, they provide a lot of the foot-soldiers, they're very well-funded, they've been active in every major referendum, whether on abortion, divorce, the EU - their best-known poster is probably "Hello Divorce Goodbye Daddy" from the 1995 divorce referendum. They're what used to be SPUC, and they're also Youth Defence, the Mother & Child campaign, and lord alone knows what else. They're the reason we have the 40.3.3 Protocol in the Treaties, because they always claim EU treaties will introduce abortion. They endorsed Declan Ganley in the North-West (which probably swung him a sizeable chunk of the Dana vote there), and they provided the 'volunteers' for Caroline Simons' campaign in Dublin. They're connected to Alive! magazine. They've been at their present address for years, and a chunk of their funding comes from SPUC UK.

If you've never heard of any of those groups, I'd have to ask where you've been, and whether this is your first ever referendum.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I really had no idea, it's no wonder I find myself disagreeing with them, strongly disagreeing in most cases..

Scofflaw

Zuiderzee wrote: »

What really turned me off Libertas was the Caroline Simmons connection, count me out for that.
Youth Defence are people who I have fought with.
They were helped by the church during abortion and divorce referendum, that is where there is a lot of money.

But in balance, the Yes side are getting funding from multinationals, if we look under those stones we will again find dirt.

And lobyists, The IIEA is run by Brendan Halligan, he also runs CIPA, a lobbyist company who have worked for the tobacco industry as one of their clients.
Halligan fought our membership of the EEC when we joined.

Having founded the IIEA he has made hundreds of thousands of Euro from Gov depts. .e. tax payers money.

CIPA employed Andrew Byrne, founder of Generation Yes. Employees of CIPA or IIEA still do volunteer work for Gen Yes.
But I do not associate all Gen Yes people with CIPA

COIR sould have their funding looked at, as should Gen. Yes, who gave them the plush office?

I'm not puzzled, let us say, by the corporations. I know where the money comes from there. I wouldn't say that they're funding other people on the Yes side, either. The funding for people like Generation Yes appears to be within what I would call the norm for voluntary groups - someone always provides an office, which is frankly small beer. Those offices along Harcourt would be maybe worth €2k rental for the period of use, but if they're empty, and being donated by the owner, then you're probably talking about an opportunity cost of a couple of hundred - there's a lot of empty office space in the city centre at the moment. The rest of the stuff - well, it might, just might, come to the best part of €10K by the time the whole campaign is over. I don't have a problem with that.

Ryanair is a different ball-game - as I said, there's no difficulty seeing where the money comes from, and there's no attempt to disguise the facts. That allows people to make their own minds up on whether they find it impressive or appalling.

COIR, on the other hand - I don't like political funding from outside the state, and I wouldn't be in the slightest surprised if that's happening. If their funding is entirely from within Ireland, of course, then that's the way it is. I might not like their message, but I would, as they say, defend their right to promote it, even if it is with lies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

I might not like their message, but I would, as they say, defend their right to promote it, even if it is with lies.

I don't know, I wouldn't mind a law being brought in where any demonstratable factual lies on a poster during a campaign earned a hefty fine and a barring order from putting up posters in future if they didn't cease and desist.

Horrible to police of course and all that.

nesf

Zuiderzee wrote: »

Hang on, COIR are a tiny splnter, but it is easy for the Yes campaign to promote them as a 'major' group in the no campaign.
You dont hear much about PANA, people.ie and other No groups.

Here's the thing, COIR as a group are tiny but as an advertising presence they are huge and they get their message out there better than any other group last time bar Libertas (and they came close). Combine this with the utter nutjob nature of the group and you have something that will be brought up time and again by Yes supporters (and many No ones).

However, I don't think anyone here (or at least I hope not) identifies the entire No campaign with COIR. I hate COIR, I detest them in a way that I feel towards no other group. I can actually respect the position of some other No groups, I disagree with them obviously but they have a cogent argument at least.

Steviemak

95% of EU citizens would Vote No! What nonsense.

Of the countries that have voted on Lisbon and the Constitution (same document the No side will say)

Yes - 27 million
No - 23 million

I think we should refer COIR to the 8th Commandment

Red Sleeping Beauty

ei.sdraob wrote: »

one quick question ZZ

do you agree that all of the 3 posters in the image are a lie or irrelevant

The voting rights thing is misrepresented, I've no idea what the second bit is about - I assume it relates to some kind of poll on Europeans and how they'd vote on the treaty ? - and thirdly the freedom bit doesn't relate to the treaty, it's just a slogan.
So one of them directly relate to the text of the Lisbon treaty.

It wouldn't be much for everyone to cite, chapter and verse, where in the Treaty they are referencing or on what point. I saw one of their posters the other day. I won't be involved with them in anyway but I'd like to know if they have any representatives engaging in deabtes or public meetings anywhere.

nesf

Alan Rouge wrote: »

I won't be involved with them in anyway but I'd like to know if they have any representatives engaging in deabtes or public meetings anywhere.

They had one on Q&A last year at the Treaty debate special they had and she just went on and on about how abortion would become a service and be brought in under some freedom of services in the EU bull****. Even when told point blank that this was legally impossible she still maintained the position. I'm not sure if it was deliberate lying or some crazed mind at work tbh.

BlitzKrieg

The 95% comment is a completely overblown representation of something Charlie McCreevy said a month or so back.

http://www.independent.ie/breaking-news/national-news/mccreevy-admits-most-eu-voters-would-reject-lisbon-1792297.html

bijapos

But did Mc Creevy ever actuallt say 95%? I know he puts his foot in it on a regular basis but I dont think he said something as stupid as that this year. Quote on the poster is attributed to 2009.

Personally I find the third poster the most repulsive of all, hardly an organisation in the country who havent used 1916 to promote their ideas at some point.

Hitman Actual

bijapos wrote: »

But did Mc Creevy ever actuallt say 95%? I know he puts his foot in it on a regular basis but I dont think he said something as stupid as that this year. Quote on the poster is attributed to 2009.

Yeah, 95%, this is his quote below. And it was only about 4 weeks ago or so.

wrote:

“When Irish people rejected the Lisbon Treaty a year ago, the initial reaction ranged from shock to horror to temper to vexation. That would be the view of a lot of the people who live in the Brussels beltway. On the other hand, all of the [political leaders] know quite well that if the similar question was put to their electorate by a referendum the answer in 95 per cent of the countries would probably have been No as well... I have always divided the reaction between those two forces: those within the beltway, the ‘fonctionnaires’, those who gasp with horror [on the one hand] and the heads of state, who are far more realistic. They are glad they didn’t have to put the question themselves to their people.”

Dob74

Coir are good for campaigning against the Lisbon treaty, good god.
They have a right to there freedom of speech.
Same as Michael O'Leary.

thebigcheese22

Dob74 wrote: »

Coir are good for campaigning against the Lisbon treaty, good god.
They have a right to there freedom of speech.
Same as Michael O'Leary.

Sorry what? Are you being ironic with the 'good god' comment or what?!

Het-Field

Dob74 wrote: »

Coir are good for campaigning against the Lisbon treaty, good god.
They have a right to there freedom of speech.
Same as Michael O'Leary.

I do believe Michael O Leary has created huge employment, created massive competition in a country dependent on aviation, and offered people from all socio economic backgrounds a chance at a decent holiday in the Sun.

Coir have done noe of this, and have proffered lies and spin. Abortion, Euthanaisa, and drug legalisation is their staple.

Need I say more.

AuRevoir

Het-Field wrote: »

I do believe Michael O Leary has created huge employment, created massive competition in a country dependent on aviation, and offered people from all socio economic backgrounds a chance at a decent holiday in the Sun.

Coir have done noe of this, and have proffered lies and spin. Abortion, Euthanaisa, and drug legalisation is their staple.

Need I say more.

COIR might be headbangers but I doubt they're intent on destroying the country's future, whereas Fianna Fáil the chief backers of this Treaty are planning further damage (via NAMA) as if they hadn't done enough already. Therefore on the scale of headbangers they make COIR look like amateurs.

As for Michael O'Leary to say what he said after the last NO vote and to campaign for a YES now, well he's only embarrassing himself really. To quote :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”.. ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.”

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/10/19/story36862.asp

ei.sdraob

AuRevoir wrote: »

COIR might be headbangers but I doubt they're intent on destroying the country's future, whereas Fianna Fáil the chief backers of this Treaty are planning further damage (via NAMA) as if they hadn't done enough already. Therefore on the scale of headbangers they make COIR look like amateurs.

As for Michael O'Leary to say what he said after the last NO vote and to campaign for a YES now, well he's only embarrassing himself really. To quote :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”.. ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.”

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/10/19/story36862.asp

what does NAMA have to do with Lisbon?

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

what does NAMA have to do with Lisbon?

Guilt by association.

As for Michael O'Leary to say what he said after the last NO vote and to campaign for a YES now, well he's only embarrassing himself really. To quote :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”.. ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.”

Perhaps he didn't mean "in perpetuity, no matter what happens". Respect has to be earned, and then kept.

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome

AuRevoir wrote: »

COIR might be headbangers but I doubt they're intent on destroying the country's future, whereas Fianna Fáil the chief backers of this Treaty are planning further damage (via NAMA) as if they hadn't done enough already. Therefore on the scale of headbangers they make COIR look like amateurs.

Is Cóir constantly telling lies for the good of the country?

I didn't vote Fianna Fail but of course that has nothing whatsoever to do with Lisbon so I'll leave it for a relevant discussion.

AuRevoir wrote: »

As for Michael O'Leary to say what he said after the last NO vote and to campaign for a YES now, well he's only embarrassing himself really. To quote :

‘‘It seems that only in the European Union, Ireland and Zimbabwe you are forced to vote twice,”.. ‘‘The vote should be respected. It is the only democratic thing to do.”

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2008/10/19/story36862.asp

It's a real pity that people never get to change their mind or opinions. If only they would take that rule away.

BlitzKrieg

i saw another poster today from them today where it announced the new minimum wage under lisbon would be £1.84


Would it be a waste of time asking where they got that from?

nesf

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

i saw another poster today from them today where it announced the new minimum wage under lisbon would be £1.84


Would it be a waste of time asking where they got that from?

One of them heard a voice that told them so?

*shrugs*

Their posters are going beyond even the most outlandish stuff they had up for Lisbon I. If they're not careful they're going to alienate quite a lot of otherwise No inclined voters because they're taking the bull**** too far.

meglome

Just went to the shops, North Dublin City centre, and these posters are up all over the place. I'm tempted to get a ladder.

Actually what is the position in a referendum about taking down lies like these? Just curious.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Dob74 wrote: »

Coir are good for campaigning against the Lisbon treaty, good god.
They have a right to there freedom of speech.
Same as Michael O'Leary.

If you don't give freedom of speech to those that you despise then you don't respect or want freedom of speech at all.


With regards specifically to Coir though, they're dangerous to both "sides" of this debate/discussion/treaty referendum because they could swing it either way. They could alienate "no" voters into voting yes with their outlandish claims and they could persuade "yes" voters to vote no with the same slogans and quotes and posters. It'll be interesting to see how much or how little air time they get on radio and telly.