Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

recedite

seamus wrote: »

When if you think about it, it was two votes on the right of individuals to equal treatment - one based on sexuality, one based on age. So they both should have passed. But because the latter was barely even looked at, people voted "no" by default.

I think it was looked at alright, but the people rightly saw it as the less important referendum. After all, how many 21 year olds are likely to be selected as candidates for the presidency?
Sure, there have been English monarchs who were barely even teenagers, and Michael Collins was a twenty something. But in modern Ireland the question of whether a 21 year old should be allowed to run for president is a moot question anyway.
So, based on that alone, it was a good idea having that referendum on the same day as the SSM one, otherwise nobody would have bothered showing up to vote.

IMO we should have a Referendum Day once a year, as a permanent calendar fixture. Whatever is going to be voted on, should be voted on then. We would also need at least 6 months notice to consider the wording for each issue. So that would mean only 18 months, at most, to wait for any given issue.
There is a lot of disruption to schools etc for polling stations, so no more than once a year.

The Blasphemy one has been in the pipeline for years. Any day now, they keep saying. Its easy to keep postponing when there is no deadline.

smacl

flaneur wrote: »

That, or maybe a lot or people genuinely didn't see any argument in favour of removing the age limit?

Could be, but I'd tend to agree with Seamus here. Bit like a support act in a gig, more of an opportunity to buy drinks or go to the jacks than anything you'd pay attention to unless you already had an interest. What do you think the turn out would have been if the presidential age issue was the only item on the card?

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Watched 1st few minutes of Tim Jackson and Sean Moncrieff [on F/B] at Newstalk discussing his hunger strike in support of the keep the 8th amendment. Tim told Sean that he is continuing the hunger strike but not always outside at the Dail, moving indoors at a friends house in the evening as he could catch a cold or flu in the outside air [or words to that effect]. He also said he would continue his hunger strike until the Oireachtas abortion committee and Leo Varadkar watched a video of an abortion before deciding on a referendum to what happens the victims. The video was shot on, apparently, the 2nd day of the reported hunger strike.

If one is interested in the [sponsored] Tim Jackson - Newstalk interview video, it is probably available online. I won't promo his POV any further.

Edit/add-on.... ROSA F/B page posted a link to a Sunday Times article in which The Times claims Tim Jackson works at an unregulated crisis pregnancy agency, Gianni Care. Surprisingly I can't find said agency through google. The Times mentioned in the link may be the Irish edition of the Times. The link given is one restricted to a pay-for-view readership but I'll post it anyway as there may PFV people here.... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiv3IOSi7_WAhXJI8AKHVx5BggQFgglMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Fedition%2Fireland%2Fanti-abortion-activist-works-for-crisis-pregnancy-agency-0zdg3jk0j&usg=AFQjCNE9Kd3ruOdgoc_rT47oYVVVqW1EYA

You'll never believe this guys, but he's called off the 'hunger strike'.

http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/home/273149/donegal-anti-abortion-campaigner-ends-hunger-strike-action-in-dublin.html

Must have reached his target weight...

frag420

So he aborted his hunger strike...nice to have the choice i guess!!

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You'll never believe this guys, but he's called off the 'hunger strike'.

http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/home/273149/donegal-anti-abortion-campaigner-ends-hunger-strike-action-in-dublin.html

Must have reached his target weight...

recedite

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Must have reached his target weight...

Yes, he looks well in the photo

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You'll never believe this guys, but he's called off the 'hunger strike'.

http://www.donegaldemocrat.ie/news/home/273149/donegal-anti-abortion-campaigner-ends-hunger-strike-action-in-dublin.html

Must have reached his target weight...

It might have been the Irish Times report in which Leo [and the FG part of Govt] seem to be saying that they are not in favour of abortion as per the view being imputed to the Assembly.

aloyisious

Hopefully what is being reported as happening in Dublin to a group of rape survivors [Unbroken Ireland] re their meeting bookings at two Dublin hotels over the past two days is not going to be a preview of things to come over the next 9 or so months. The Gibson and - EDIT - the Spencer hotel cancelled because they were contacted and threats were allegedly made against their staff if the hotels allowed the booked meetings go ahead. The threats were anonymous. Some-one obviously had knowledge of the two bookings in order for the reported threats to be made.

The meeting were partly arranged by the Life Institute and SPUC is involved in some way. I inputted wording seeking the names of the two hotels and one link popped up..... The link states: An event hosted by Unbroken Ireland, a group which represents and advocates for those affected by pregnancy after rape, has had its booking cancelled after pro-abortion protesters threatened to demonstrate against it. The Life Institute, which is co-hosting the event, hit out at the Gibson Hotel for giving in to intimidation. Spokeswoman Niamh Uí Bhriain said: "It is absolutely shameful that pro-abortion campaigners feel that they can shout everyone down, and that the Gibson Hotel have effectively let Repeal the 8th extremists silence women who have been raped.

"Whatever your views on abortion, I think most people would recognise that these women have an important part to play in the debate – and that their voices are rarely heard. It is frankly disgusting that abortion campaigners want to silence them."

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj2hOiV3MjWAhWoDsAKHcVlBqIQFgg8MAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.spuc.org.uk%2Fnews%2Fnews-stories%2F2017%2Fseptember%2Fpro-abortion-protesters-try-to-silence-rape-survivors&usg=AFQjCNFh4EnS_Ui8CLbmHnYsW4sUiSWLQg

Related matter...... According to Independent.ie two members of Trinity PBP group were seen - and photod - cutting down posters advertising the meeting. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjJ7_GS6sjWAhXnAcAKHWkOCjkQFggmMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.independent.ie%2Firish-news%2Fpeople-before-profit-group-defend-removing-posters-advertising-prolife-event-in-dublin-36176917.html&usg=AFQjCNFISPqwEMfuAwXaAZD6GJclAwk2uw

Samaris

There seems to be two very similar stories going around that are just the opposite from each other

Either a) Unbroken Ireland are a group of (pro-choice) survivors of rape who were shut down by pro-life threats or

b) Unbroken Ireland are a group of (pro-life) survivors of rape from outside the country who were shut down by pro-choice threats.

Something's gotten picked up wrong somewhere by someone, but I'm seeing articles talking from both sides at the moment.

Edit: Neither side is right in ringing in threats against staff either way! I'm inclined to reckon it's the second one, mind you.

Also, who the hell is pro-abortion? It's a neccessary procedure at times, but you'd think people were salivating at the chance to jump on people and abort their children come hell or high water.

Hotblack Desiato

Unless you have concrete evidence of threats retract that.

If we know anything about the anti-choicers it is that they will say and do literally anything and they have a tenuous relationship with the truth.

NB the meeting advertised was not 'survivors of rape' it was 'I was conceived by rape'. Sure none of us know the circumstances of our conception. Women my mother's age had no choice whatsoever about controlling their fertility and marriage was legally a licence to rape until the 1990s.

seamus

Someone pointed out the hypocrisy of this (American) organisation's position yesterday. These women were conceived of rape because their mother chose to carry them to term.

So their aim is to come over here and tell women why it's OK that they should be denied the same choice and be forced to carry the child instead.

aloyisious

Umm, so is "Ireland Unbroken" a U.S. organization and not an Irish one [as it's chosen title suggests]? I can't find an answer using the title to the question. Three of the women who were due to speak at the meetings are from the U.S. according to the organization.

The question of the threats called into the hotels, as I mentioned, required knowledge of the hotels contacted by the persons arranging the bookings. Most bookings are done online or by phone. I reckon it's safe to assume that the organizers phone and computer systems have not been hacked by Pro-choice people or groups with animus in mind, even to people with paranoia in mind, no pun intended.

On the basis of the bookings being cancelled, "Unbroken Ireland" are getting a lot of publicity, incl in the Kilkenny Journal and the Journal.ie on the basis of the alleged threats [from whichever base] called into to the hotels.

Mark Hamill

aloyisious wrote: »

Hopefully what is being reported as happening in Dublin to a group of rape survivors [Unbroken Ireland] re their meeting bookings at two Dublin hotels over the past two days is not going to be a preview of things to come over the next 9 or so months. The Gibson and - EDIT - the Spencer hotel cancelled because they were contacted and threats were allegedly made against their staff if the hotels allowed the booked meetings go ahead. The threats were anonymous. Some-one obviously had knowledge of the two bookings in order for the reported threats to be made.

The meeting were partly arranged by the Life Institute and SPUC is involved in some way. I inputted wording seeking the names of the two hotels and one link popped up..... The link states: An event hosted by Unbroken Ireland, a group which represents and advocates for those affected by pregnancy after rape, has had its booking cancelled after pro-abortion protesters threatened to demonstrate against it.

Hold on, threats of violence or threats of demonstration? I completely condemn threats of violence, but demonstration is completely fine.
And have the hotels confirmed these threats or are the only claims of threats coming from the anti-choice groups (I read somewhere else that the hotels had yet to comment themselves).

kylith

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Hold on, threats of violence or threats of demonstration? I completely condemn threats of violence, but demonstration is completely fine.
And have the hotels confirmed these threats or are the only claims of threats coming from the anti-choice groups (I read somewhere else that the hotels had yet to comment themselves).

The Spencer have stated only that no threats were received by them.

Threats against the hotel or staff are, of course, unconscionable. However, calling the hotel to let them know that if the event occurs there will be a demonstration outside is just good manners.

Samaris

The foreign anti-choice group seems to be winning out in terms of stories. Admittedly, the two contradicting stories I saw were journal.ie and buzzfeed.ie, so I wasn't 100% convinced by either of them. Both of them (with their contradicting headlines) were headlines in the image boxes for breaking stories, which was kinda amusing though (the middle one was regarding PBP removing pro-life posters).

No idea regarding whether it was threats or not, HD, I'm only going on what the newspaper articles were saying, and I gave both versions indicating I didn't know which was true. There is also the third option that someone is lying to spread the idea that one side or the other (presumably the anti-choice/pro-life side) were threatened into silence, but that is getting into speculation beyond what either article alleged.

I really don't know and I'm mostly with aloyisious in that I really hope this isn't going to be a running theme (whatever the truth is) for the next eight months.

pH

We all should be celebrating the 'other sides' ability to put their point across, but instead both sides seem to think that winning is more about silencing the opposition than making a strong and compelling argument for what they believe is right.

This disruption is pretty disgusting. Imagine you organise a rally for 'your side', busy people spend time organising it, speakers are arranged, venues booked, and people who want to hear take time out of their lives to turn up. This should all be countered by a handful of maniacal 'demonstrators' with a megaphone and a few air horns? Because if you support this type of disruption for 'them' it most certainly will be coming for you.

Hotblack Desiato

Samaris wrote: »

No idea regarding whether it was threats or not, HD, I'm only going on what the newspaper articles were saying, and I gave both versions indicating I didn't know which was true.

I should have made it clear, I was replying to the post above yours.

There is also the third option that someone is lying to spread the idea that one side or the other (presumably the anti-choice/pro-life side) were threatened into silence, but that is getting into speculation beyond what either article alleged.

All we have is the word of anti-choice organisations, which is worth nothing imho. Why have they not made a Garda complaint about "threats"? No corroboration from the venues of threats. In some cases, no corroboration that there was ever a booking at all.

Meanwhile IT is reporting that several venues have cancelled pro-choice meetings with little notice and feeble excuses:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/venues-cancelling-meetings-about-abortion-both-sides-say-1.3237621

pH, I don't think anyone is celebrating this or should. Perhaps PBP etc are, I don't know.

seamus

Honestly, I have no issue with venues cancelling events that they don't feel reflects well on them, whether those events are pro-choice or anti-choice. It's a business, its politics will align with whatever is going to make it the most profit. So if they're inundated with complaints, it makes sense for them to cancel it.

One of the more interesting trends that I've noticed though are that pro-choice groups tend to go for more low-key meetings. Coffee mornings in someone's house, a picnic in a park, and other public spaces. And they're virtually always free or request a donation to support the cause.

The anti-choice groups tend to go for high-profile venues like city centre hotels, often there's a mandatory charge on the door, and with the exception of marches they're rarely held in public.

Why aren't they holding coffee mornings in parish halls? Why does there seem to be a lot more subterfuge in both the organisation of, and membership of anti-choice meetings?

Hotblack Desiato

Seamus, venues should make it clear at time of booking provided person booking was upfront about purpose of meeting. Not dick people around with last minute cancellations and BS excuses, e.g. that they don't do political meetings when the councillor booking it had held meetings there for years.

Or just tell the truth and say their holier than thou principles would be offended by brazen hussies organising a pro choice meeting in their venue and they should all go to confession or something :rolleyes:

aloyisious

Ta Hotblack Desiato, for the I/T link.... Didn't work [PFV snag] but I opened today's I/T for a looksee. No joy but found that Brussels had an International Safe Abortion Day protest today, didn't know there was such an international day. Video included of the protest.

Hotblack Desiato

I was on phone earlier so hard to quote articles but here it is:

Venues cancelling meetings about abortion, both sides say

Hotels withdrawing permission for pro- and anti- meetings over 'intimidation'


Both anti-abortion and pro-choice groups have complained about venues withdrawing permission for campaign meetings due to "intimidation" and pressure from rival factions.

Three Dublin hotels have cancelled anti-abortion events this week due to online campaigns from pro-choice activists, according to the organising groups.

The groups allege pro-choice activists engaged in online "abuse" of hotel staff to force the cancellation of the events.

Pro-choice campaigners have in turn complained of a number of venues withdrawing permission for events to be held on their premises due to their "political" character.

Niamh Uhriain of the Life Institute said her organisation, in association with another anti-abortion group, Unbroken, had booked conference facilities in the Gibson Hotel in the IFSC for an event due to be held on Thursday evening.

The event involves women who have been raped or were born as a result of rape speaking on the topic of abortion.

"At the end of last week The Gibson rang and said the event was cancelled. We were pretty shocked," Ms Uhriain said.

The hotel had told her "it was afraid of abortion protesters and of what it would mean for the hotel. They were afraid for the safety of the hotel and the staff. We tried to persuade them but they weren’t persuaded".

Ms Uhriain said the event was then moved to the Spencer Hotel, also in the IFSC, and that the organisers warned the hotel it might get complaints. She said the Spencer cancelled the event three days later, citing abuse and intimidation its staff members were receiving online.

She said activists tracked down the personal social media accounts of hotel staff to object to the event. "I can actually understand where they [the hotel] are coming from; the staff were intimidated."

A spokeswoman for The Spencer refused to say if its staff had received threats or intimidation and said it would not publicly discuss a private contract.

The meeting went ahead last night in a public square around the corner from the Spencer Hotel with a sizeable crowd turning out to hear several speakers talk on the issue of women who become pregnant from rape.

Louise, a woman from the UK who addressed the crowd and asked not to be further identified, was 18 when she was raped and found herself "railroaded" into having an abortion.

"I grieved terribly for the baby," she said. "My feeling is at the moment women and babies in Ireland are protected ... If the eighth amendment is done away with, women will end up having abortions they don’t want."

A number of gardaurrounded the square but there were no signs of counter protests.
Separately, another anti-abortion group, Human Life International, has complained that the Ashling Hotel on Parkgate Street in Dublin refused to host an event it planned for this Saturday on the alleged health consequences of abortion.

"We had booked it a number of weeks ago. We had put a significant amount of money into advertising," said the group’s executive director, Patrick McCrystal. "Folks who advocated a pro-abortion viewpoint started to contact the hotel. The manager himself said there were diatribes, intimidation, threats, to such a degree that he had no choice but to cancel."

Mr McCrystal called on the Garda to investigate alleged threats.

The Ashling Hotel was also asked for comment but had yet to respond.

The Human Life International event is now being hosted by the Spencer Hotel instead. Mr McCrystal said that as far as he knows, it is still going ahead there on Saturday.

Groups campaigning to repeal the eighth amendment also said a number of venues for their meetings had been cancelled due to pressure from anti-abortion activists.

In the last month organisers of three "Repeal the Eighth" meetings in Dublin had to find alternative venues after permission was withdrawn on the grounds that "political meetings" were prohibited.

In Tallaght, People Before Profit councillor Emma Hendrick had to find a new venue for once such meeting she had organised for last Monday after management at the Kilnamanagh Family Recreation Centre called her that morning to cancel it.

She said she had told the centre last month it was for a Repeal the Eighth meeting and there was no problem. But "on Monday morning I got a call from a gentleman at the centre who said the centre didn’t host political meetings. I asked him why I hadn’t been told this before, and he said he had only just found out about the meeting".

When contacted, a spokeswoman for the centre said: "We don’t want to talk about that."

In Raheny, Dublin, Solidarity councillor Michael O’Brien had to find a new venue for a Repeal meeting on September 21st after management at the Grange Woodbine Community Centre cancelled his booking.

When contacted, the club said it had a policy of not allowing political meetings in the bar.

In Ashtown, Dublin, a Repeal meeting planned by Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger was cancelled by the manager of the Douglas and Kaldi cafn early September, the day before it was to take place. Ms Coppinger said she made it "absolutely clear" what the meeting was about when booking.

But Aileen Kelleher, owner of the cafe, said she had not known the meeting was political and cancelled it when this was drawn to her attention. "We don’t allow political meetings," she said. The meeting was held elsewhere.

Any IT articles which are not subscriber-only are easily accessed using private mode/incognito mode on your browser and/or closing it and reopening it again after the five article limit has been reached. They know well how to put articles behind a hard paywall, but for now they are only putting a couple of articles a day behind the hard paywall.

Samaris

Eight months of this..

Also, I see we're right out of the shed getting into the dirt with "pro-abortion". Not to mention whatever the hell is happening with hotels. All this "we didn't realise it was political" stuff is a tad suspicious.

aloyisious

Todays Irish Times comments and letters page has a comment on the last report from the Standard In Public Office Commission noting that greater transparency was needed in regard to funding and expenditure on referendum campaigns. The comment referred to the US election and the investigation into Russian Ads on facebook and how the abortion issue was bound to draw attention and partisan support from outside the jurisdiction. It went on to state that if an overseas entity was to launch a Facebook campaign of Ads, pseudo-news sites and fake accounts, it is possible that this would not be even be recognized until after the vote had taken place and stated that SIPO would not be able to compel FB to hand over any relevant information.

If the above is correct, we may as well get ready for a blizzard of fake accounts and downright lying leading up to the referendum. The war on freedom of expression in relation to the abortion issue was highlighted two days ago when Senator Ronan Mullen told a witness he wasn't happy at the words she was using, he wanted her to use the word "unborn" instead of "feotus" at the hearing.

PopePalpatine

Speaking of Ronan Mullen and Facebook being a platform of fake news, I wonder if a certain pizza tycoon will set up a Russian account to launder his cash.

Hotblack Desiato

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/editorial/abortion-referendum-shadow-campaigns-1.3238555

Abortion referendum: shadow campaigns

Ireland needs to extend the principles of existing electoral legislation to include social media


With only eight or nine months to go to the proposed referendum on the Eighth Amendment, how prepared is the State for the new challenges posed by lightly regulated, transnational social media platforms? Like other democracies, Ireland has built a legal framework to monitor and report on sources of funding for political campaigns, to ensure that broadcasters deal equitably with opposing views, and to prevent intentional dissemination of false information. However, recent experiences in the US, France and Germany have shown such measures fail to take account of a new reality: foreign interests can use services such as Facebook to target individual voters with carefully tailored, often misleading messages which will never be seen by the rest of the population.

In its most recent annual report, the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo) noted that greater transparency was required on funding and expenditure on referendum campaigns. But that hardly begins to take account of what has happened in several major democracies in the past year. In the US, special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference on behalf of Donald Trump’s campaign continues. This week, Facebook admitted it cannot say for certain whether profiles or pages connected to Russia had purchased ads during the French and German election campaigns.

If any issue is guaranteed to draw attention and partisan support from outside this jurisdiction – on both sides of the debate – it is abortion. Currently, if an overseas entity were to launch a Facebook campaign of advertisements, pseudo-news sites and fake accounts, it is possible that this would not even be recognised until after the vote had taken place. And it is clear that Sipo or any other agency would be unable to compel Facebook to hand over any relevant information. This is unacceptable and makes a mockery of the State’s claim to provide an untainted civic space. In common with other democracies, Ireland needs to move swiftly to extend the principles of existing electoral legislation to include social media.

Edit: I don't see how what they're calling for in the last sentence is possible, however desirable it may be.

I can't imagine much in the way of foreign intervention on the pro-choice side, it's run on a shoestring as it is, but the anti-choice side is very well funded (free buses and professionally printed placards) and the source of this funding is not at all clear. It's foreign money from the US which brought us this damn amendment in the first place - it never would have happened if the anti-Roe v. Wade campaigners hadn't considered this country as a suitable battleground where they could pre-empt any legal challenge to our abortion law with a constitutional amendment, in the hope they could then replicate this back 'Stateside'. It's hard to see how the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act could have been found to violate our thoroughly theistic constitution in any case, but they helped inflict the 8th on us anyway.

Hopefully that ignorant prick William Binchy will live long enough to see the vile amendment he drafted overwhelmingly rejected by the Irish people.

Fantastic turnout today, the biggest March For Choice ever and a great atmosphere on the day. Great support from bystanders, the only opposition being the usual religious loon on North Earl Street (we made sure to drown him out!) and no more than one dozen anti-choicers at one point along the way. Their glum faces were apparent. There's really only a few dozen 'true believer' anti-choice activists in this country and most of them are related to each other. Yet RTE etc. give them more or less unlimited airtime. They couldn't even run the report today without giving, and I counted, five anti-choicers their say in the interests of 'balance'. Well RTE and BAI, you can shove your balance where the sun don't shine and we will win at the ballot box and win big. The Irish people are far more compassionate and enlightened than our political class, who still need to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.

recedite

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Edit: I don't see how what they're calling for in the last sentence is possible, however desirable it may be.

I don't see a clampdown on free speech as being either possible or desirable.
That whole IT article is based on a fundamental misunderstanding by the author of the relationship between "the state" and "free speech".

The state has no mandate to ensure that each side gets equal publicity and advertising.
The state is required to ensure that any guidance issued by the government is balanced, and any reporting by the state broadcaster (RTE) is balanced. That requirement does not extend to the regulation of private and/or social media.
Confusion around this issue is probably partly as a result of the whole Trump/Russia mania which has gripped a large number of people unhappy with Trump's election result.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

I don't see a clampdown on free speech as being either possible or desirable.
That whole IT article is based on a fundamental misunderstanding by the author of the relationship between "the state" and "free speech".

The state has no mandate to ensure that each side gets equal publicity and advertising.
The state is required to ensure that any guidance issued by the government is balanced, and any reporting by the state broadcaster (RTE) is balanced. That requirement does not extend to the regulation of private and/or social media.
Confusion around this issue is probably partly as a result of the whole Trump/Russia mania which has gripped a large number of people unhappy with Trump's election result.

I understood the article to be referring to the possibility that GROUPS from OUTSIDE the state might post advertisements and fake news stories on public media sources [which Irish citizens have access to] to interfere in an Irish referendum that is none of said groups affair. It concentrated on SIPO and the monitoring of externally-sourced funding of Irish campaigns for one side or the other of the Irish national abortion debate. It has nothing whatsoever to do with Irish citizens rights of/to free speech.

IMO, the outcome of the referendum vote will have no effect whatsoever on anyone in said foreign GROUPS and any foreign groups interference in our referendums is distinctly unwelcome.

Samaris

aloyisious wrote: »

IMO, the outcome of the referendum vote will have no effect whatsoever on anyone in said foreign GROUPS and any foreign groups interference in our referendums is distinctly unwelcome.

I agree with the second. Past history of recent referendums and elections indicate that the former may be in doubt. Probably comes down to if anyone actually cares enough to interfere on that sort of scale though.

Personally, I expect a sort of interference-lite, people who are interested using methods gleaned from the major interferences we've seen elsewhere, but hopefully without the funds to start dragging in big players like Cambridge Analytica, etc.

If foreign groups want to come in, honestly stand and talk about what they believe in and then go away again, fine. That's putting across an opinion and people will have to judge if their experiences and conclusions are relevant to the Irish people. But it has to be done honestly.

MrPudding

Samaris wrote: »

I agree with the second. Past history of recent referendums and elections indicate that the former may be in doubt. Probably comes down to if anyone actually cares enough to interfere on that sort of scale though.

Personally, I expect a sort of interference-lite, people who are interested using methods gleaned from the major interferences we've seen elsewhere, but hopefully without the funds to start dragging in big players like Cambridge Analytica, etc.

If foreign groups want to come in, honestly stand and talk about what they believe in and then go away again, fine. That's putting across an opinion and people will have to judge if their experiences and conclusions are relevant to the Irish people. But it has to be done honestly.

I don’t know, these groups have deep pockets. I fear their intervention will be anything but “lite”.

MrP

Samaris

I may be being hopeful.

recedite

aloyisious wrote: »

I understood the article to be referring to the possibility that GROUPS from OUTSIDE the state might post advertisements and fake news stories on public media sources [which Irish citizens have access to] to interfere in an Irish referendum that is none of said groups affair.

Yes, and that is still a matter of freedom of speech.
Unless you think that Irish people should not be exposed to any information coming from outside the country? That would be censorship.

If something is genuinely fake or misleading, then presumably the usual channels apply such as the Advertising Standards Authority.