Protest outside NUIG

lion_bar

Anyone know why those 3 people are protesting outside NUIG?
Just curious...

biko

No signs or anything?

zarquon

Having to go back to lectures after Rag Week?

Shady Tady

Think they are part of that jailbreak thing where you go as far away from your college without funds!

zarquon

Shady Tady wrote: »

Think they are part of that jailbreak thing where you go as far away from your college without funds!

Why would they be protesting then?

Savin

I asked them last week, IIRC...

They are affiliated to the nuig prolife society "protesting in a personal capacity". Each time they put up prolife society posters about the campus they are torn down by either students or on opposing society. They are protesting that particular members of staff to take action to prevent it.

This may or may not be comprehensive so take it with a pinch of salt...

renegademaster

there were 3/4 individuals protesting the other day about not being able to display anti-choice meetings in the college without their promotional material being taken down

Storm 10

There are about six outside the University at the moment with large placards, could not make them out while driving.

lion_bar

there was something about "posters" on their placards, but couldn't read it as I went past.
Thanks

renegademaster

Storm 10 wrote: »

There are about six outside the University at the moment with large placards, could not make them out while driving.

lol

Squeeonline

Probably members of that well known Mayo family. They are horrible human beings.

Foxx92

Savin wrote: »

Each time they put up prolife society posters about the campus they are torn down by either students or on opposing society. They are protesting that particular members of staff to take action to prevent it.

This may or may not be comprehensive so take it with a pinch of salt...

The su already decided its stance on the issue: Article Here . But it is being appealed on the next su votes http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/index.php/component/k2/item/886-su-weekly-email-20th-february-2014

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

The su already decided its stance on the issue: Article Here . But it is being appealed on the next su votes http://www.su.nuigalway.ie/index.php/component/k2/item/886-su-weekly-email-20th-february-2014

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

renegademaster

zarquon wrote: »

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

absolutely nothing you can do about people taking down posters, as soon as they're put up and you walk away any randomer can take it down a second later

oh and btw the big bad world is a majority dictatorship

Laviski

unless your walking by the notice board on a daily basis doesn't matter what you put up.

someone will always be quick enough to take it down and replace it with their own.

dilallio

zarquon wrote: »

I understand the pro-choice stance is officially adopted by the SU now but surely the SU nor the student body cannot democratically take it upon themselves to remove literature campaigning for pro-life.

If this is the case then NUIG is turning into a majority dicatorship.

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

When I was 12 (many years ago), pro-lifers were let into our secondary school and were allowed to display a glass jar containing a dead foetus floating in liquid to the first year classes.

I now have no time for these people no matter how good (or naive) their intentions are. Even today, their methods are awful and they have no hesitation in showing disturbing images to young children on Shop Street.

renegademaster

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

When I was 12 (many years ago), pro-lifers were let into our secondary school and were allowed to display a glass jar containing a dead foetus floating in liquid to the first year classes.

I now have no time for these people no matter how good (or naive) their intentions are. Even today, their methods are awful and they have no hesitation in showing disturbing images to young children on Shop Street.

one of them tried to get up in my face on shop st because i was pointing out to them all that they were breaking the litter by-laws of galway by giving out flyers, how i lol'd in the guys face as he tried to physically intimidate me, that really gets under my skin (i was bullied in school) so i had a word in his ear and he backed away quick enough!!

Mrs OBumble

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

The truth (about anything, not just this) often is offensive.

I suspect you mean graphic rather than offensive.

Personally I find the idea of a university suppressing any ideas far more offensive that I will ever find pictures of babies on either side of the birth canal. (Even ones with three heads and no vital organs - yes, it happens.)

Das Kitty

This was always the case in NUIG where postering locations are always packed. People cover and pull down other people's posters. People are probably making a sport out of pulling down the prolife ones, especially now as they're out protesting.

Foxx92

dilallio wrote: »

I agree, as long as the pro-life material isn't offensive.

Just from what I've seen some of the material is more condescending than graphic, stuff like "Would you kill a baby" and the likes. In saying that, there is a lot of pro-life posters that arrange debates on the issue and don't resort to that. Equally, a lot of pro-choice posters get taken down (not by the college).

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

Just from what I've seen some of the material is more condescending than graphic, stuff like "Would you kill a baby" and the likes. In saying that, there is a lot of pro-life posters that arrange debates on the issue and don't resort to that. Equally, a lot of pro-choice posters get taken down (not by the college).

Whilst very childish, if one side of a debate resorts to taken down collateral from the opposing side then some "tit for tat" is fair play i.e. rather than protesting the pro-lifers should just return the favour and take down the pro-choice material considering that is what was done to them

In a democratic country where free speech should be available i do hate this atitude of trying to control message to the masses because the authorities simply disagree. Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Foxx92

zarquon wrote: »

In a democratic country where free speech should be available i do hate this atitude of trying to control message to the masses because the authorities simply disagree. Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to express that opinion whether you agree or disagree with it.

Yeah, agree with you there. Although, resorting to basically insulting somebody because of their view on a topic that is not so black and white is annoying.

zarquon

Foxx92 wrote: »

Yeah, agree with you there. Although, resorting to basically insulting somebody because of their view on a topic that is not so black and white is annoying.

This happens in every facet of life whether your a capitalist/socialist, FF/FG, smoker/non smoker etc. Both sides always see the other as offensive condescending, insulting etc and this will never change. You will always be annoyed if you are on the receiving end.

What is wrong though is when one side tries to oppress the other through existing power.

Whatever side i agree with on this, both the pro-life and pro-choice should be allowed to campaign equally. Their material is equally offensive to the other side so that is not a basis for the undemocratic removal of posters.

dilallio

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The truth (about anything, not just this) often is offensive.

I suspect you mean graphic rather than offensive.

Personally I find the idea of a university suppressing any ideas far more offensive that I will ever find pictures of babies on either side of the birth canal. (Even ones with three heads and no vital organs - yes, it happens.)

Yes - graphic describes what I meant better.

inisboffin

zarquon wrote: »

What is wrong though is when one side tries to oppress the other through existing power.
.

Yup this is wrong. A Government is an existing power too. Right to choice is right to life. No one should be forced to have or not have abortions...

renegademaster

inisboffin wrote: »

Yup this is wrong. A Government is an existing power too. Right to choice is right to life. No one should be forced to have or not have abortions...

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

zarquon

renegademaster wrote: »

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

Umm, you seem to lack objectivity......lets be clear here, both sides are forcing their own viewpoint in the debate and that's how debate works!

BTW how does removing prolife material from the college and banning official support of prolife NOT constitute forcing a pro-choice viewpoint :rolleyes:

It seems to me that while that both sides are trying to force opinion, one side in particular is acting more forceably right now despite your unsupported stance to the contrary

renegademaster

zarquon wrote: »

Umm, you seem to lack objectivity......lets be clear here, both sides are forcing their own viewpoint in the debate and that's how debate works!

BTW how does removing prolife material from the college and banning official support of prolife NOT constitute forcing a pro-choice viewpoint :rolleyes:

It seems to me that while that both sides are trying to force opinion, one side in particular is acting more forceably right now despite your unsupported stance to the contrary

ok, let's be real clear, opinion is one thing but actively encouraging the illegality of abortion over allowing people to choose whether they have an abortion or not, is not a debate

zarquon

renegademaster wrote: »

ok, let's be real clear, opinion is one thing but actively encouraging the illegality of abortion over allowing people to choose whether they have an abortion or not, is not a debate

I think you'll find it is a debate. Proposing to keep an existing law in lieu of a constitutional change is very much a debate. It is nonsensical to say that someone who opposes your belief is not engaging in debate just because you happen to disagree with them. You are entitled to your opinion though and the ability to express it, it's just a shame that you feel those who oppose your opinion do not deserve the right to express or put forward their opinions or proposals.

People need to make up their mind whether they want to live in a democratic or dictorial society. Just look at eastern europe and the middle east to see how the latter functions and decide if that's the type of society you want to live in.

The term pro-choice is laughable. It is really "pro-abortion choice". Pro choice as a general term points to democratic choice which is being forcibly removed from NUIG as the moment therefore it's really "pro choice if you agree with the powers that be" otherwise it's "anti-choice" to practice what you believe.

inisboffin

renegademaster wrote: »

lets get this clear, one side is fighting for the right to have an abortion and the other is fighting for abortion to be illegal,

only one side forcing anything in this debate and that's the anti-choicers

I think if you reread what I said you'll find there is agreement.

inisboffin

zarquon wrote: »

.
The term pro-choice is laughable. It is really "pro-abortion choice". Pro choice as a general term points to democratic choice which is being forcibly removed from NUIG as the moment therefore it's really "pro choice if you agree with the powers that be" otherwise it's "anti-choice" to practice what you believe.

Whether we like it or not, two 'arguments' are creeping into this thread. One is the actual 'pro-choice vs pro-life' debate (and arguably the latter name is an even dafter name for a 'side'). The other is the discussion whether or not removing materials from campus is in breach of free speech. There is also the point of a SU taking a 'stance' for one side or the other. Although hard to separate these discussions, I think we have to in order to discuss on topic.