Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Nobody wants to stop you campaigning or debating. EOTR said that somebody in your position is not allowed to vote

Wanna check that again? I am afraid you could not be more wrong....

end of the road wrote: »

also those living abroad should but out of this referendum altogether, no interfering and trying to get people to vote a certain way whether it be for or against repeal, or any other type of interference.

end of the road wrote: »

people living abroad shouldn't return to campaign either. stay away and let those of us who actually live here on a permanent basis do the campaigning and voting.

As it happens the number of people whom I have talked to who were not going to vote at all, but will now vote yes after I begged, cajoled, prodded and mydered them is around 20.

Not a huge number but a nice feeling for someone who has no vote themselves. And that is so far only from people I knew in my university days. I have not yet turned my eye to my family and extended family living in Ireland who are, traditionally, not generally the voting type. But I got them motivated for the last referendum, I will do so again.

And I have no idea how many people I influence on this forum and the others I post on. Again probably small, but I get some private and the occasional public message saying I have had an effect there.

I am by no means as certain about the result of this referendum as I was the last time (where I had not a single doubt at all in my mind as to which way the result would go, while this time I have MANY). But I am doing my bit and no bluff or bluster from EOTR is going to be able to stop me. But as I keep saying I do so hope they try.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

... the time to do something about it is when the register is compiled. Any time after that is too late.

Well no, the concerned citizen, on seeing Nozz arrive into the polling station, or Peregrinus slipping that snickers bar into his pocket, can either speak up or remain silent at that moment in time.

BTW, you know all those people in the polling station sitting on the other side of the tables, they are the nosy neighbours/concerned citizens who are supposed to have a fair idea who is who when they walk in. Probably more so in a rural area than a city area, but in my local polling station only about half the people take their ID/polling card out of their pocket.

lazygal

recedite wrote: »

Well no, the concerned citizen, on seeing Nozz arrive into the polling station, or Peregrinus slipping that snickers bar into his pocket, can either speak up or remain silent at that moment in time.

BTW, you know all those people in the polling station sitting on the other side of the tables, they are the nosy neighbours/concerned citizens who are supposed to have a fair idea who is who when they walk in. Probably more so in a rural area than a city area, but in my local polling station only about half the people take their ID/polling card out of their pocket.

People aren't usually assigned to the polling stations in their own area for votes.

seamus

recedite wrote: »

Well no, the concerned citizen, on seeing Nozz arrive into the polling station, or Peregrinus slipping that snickers bar into his pocket, can either speak up or remain silent at that moment in time.

BTW, you know all those people in the polling station sitting on the other side of the tables, they are the nosy neighbours/concerned citizens who are supposed to have a fair idea who is who when they walk in. Probably more so in a rural area than a city area, but in my local polling station only about half the people take their ID/polling card out of their pocket.

The people sitting at the desk aren't going to say, "Michael John has been in America as far as I know, I think I'm going to kick up a fuss here". They'll see that Michael John's name is on the register, give him his votes and cross off his name.

You would also have to remember that you will have a tough time actually stopping someone voting. My understanding is that the personation agents can only stop you voting if you cannot establish your identity. However, if you present your passport showing your name is Michael John Murphy, there's not much they can do.
Stopping you voting might be up there as a constitutional breach and seen as a form of political interference in the process. The process of proving that one has committed electoral fraud is a criminal one that will take months to establish, long after the result is known.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wanna check that again?
As it happens the number of people whom I have talked to who were not going to vote at all, but will now vote yes after I begged, cajoled, prodded and mydered them is around 20.

Well fair enough. But I would differentiate between that and a foreign organisation campaigning here. Though I wouldn't necessarily ban that either. Its a sliding scale really, which is self regulating to a certain extent. The more removed a person or individual is from what is happening in Ireland (geographically or psychologically) the less incentive they have to get involved anyway.

recedite

seamus wrote: »

The people sitting at the desk aren't going to say, "Michael John has been in America as far as I know, I think I'm going to kick up a fuss here". They'll see that Michael John's name is on the register, give him his votes and cross off his name.

And what about the Garda who is standing there? Supposing the person at the desk was to say in a loud voice "Ah I see Michael John's back from America. Is that 10 years now he's been living over there?"

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Well no, the concerned citizen, on seeing Nozz arrive into the polling station, or Peregrinus slipping that snickers bar into his pocket, can either speak up or remain silent at that moment in time.

BTW, you know all those people in the polling station sitting on the other side of the tables, they are the nosy neighbours/concerned citizens who are supposed to have a fair idea who is who when they walk in. Probably more so in a rural area than a city area, but in my local polling station only about half the people take their ID/polling card out of their pocket.

But that's my point. If you're on the register, you can vote. There's a limited range of questions you can be asked in a polling station. "Are you recedite? Are you over 18? Have you already voted in this election?" "Are you entitled to be registered?" is not a question that can be put. You are registered; on polling day, they won't look behind that.

This is a feature, not a bug. The idea is that it's not fair to "ambush" a voter at the polling station with demands that he prove his entitlement to vote which, even if he is fully entitled, he might not be able to prove. The whole point of having a register is to identify those entitled to vote in advance of any election or referendum. By the time polling comes around, that particular question is closed.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

And what about the Garda who is standing there? Supposing the person at the desk was to say in a loud voice "Ah I see Michael John's back from America. Is that 10 years now he's been living over there?"

If the garda is sufficiently diligent, he may note what is happening with a view to later prosecution if anybody makes a complaint. (As already noted, it is an offence to vote if you're not entitled to be registered.) But he himself will not challenge you, or attempt to prevent you from voting, because he is familiar with Electoral Act 1992 s. 11.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

he is familiar with Electoral Act 1992 s. 11.

Even the last paragraph ..

(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as entitling any person to vote who is not entitled to do so, or as relieving him from any penalties to which he may be liable for voting.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Well fair enough. But I would differentiate between that and a foreign organisation campaigning here.

As would I, and I think Micheal Nugent to name one has recently been campaigning around the laws involving foreign investment in certain organizations? I have to admit it is outside my realm of knowledge and understanding.

But at least we can now agree EOTR did actually say what I claimed, and it was not just about voting.

recedite wrote: »

The more removed a person or individual is from what is happening in Ireland (geographically or psychologically) the less incentive they have to get involved anyway.

I guess that is contextual as you say. I fully expect at some point to move back to Ireland. So I have a vested interest in influencing the direction Ireland takes. Especially, having two children, in terms of family and school. And I clearly have, and exercise, levels of influence that EOTR flappingly and ineffectually would attempt to claim I shouldn't.

To be honest I just want to see such a user try and stop the buses get off the ferry. It would be..... the highlight of the trip. But alas actually engaging is not something that tends to happen there. It is more hit and run.

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

Even the last paragraph ..

The last paragraph means that, if you do vote and are charged with voting when not entitled to be on the register, you can't point to anything in s. 11 and claim that it entitled you to vote, or protects you from the penalties for doing so.

seamus

Peregrinus wrote: »

The last paragraph means that, if you do vote and are charged with voting when not entitled to be on the register, you can't point to anything in s. 11 and claim that it entitled you to vote, or protects you from the penalties for doing so.

Or indeed, you cannot point to the lack of anything to claim said entitlement.

That is, one cannot claim that because you weren't challenged at a polling station, then by implication you were entitled to vote.

My understanding is that much of this came in because Sinn Féin had developed tactics of driving busloads of people to polling stations and demanding their constitutional right to vote despite not being on the register. The laws governing voting were kind of uncoordinated so confusion reigned.

Ultimately the electoral acts copperfastened the law that if you're not on the register, you can't vote, no ifs or buts. But the balance of that was that anyone on the register is then assumed entitled to vote.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

Or indeed, you cannot point to the lack of anything to claim said entitlement.

That is, one cannot claim that because you weren't challenged at a polling station, then by implication you were entitled to vote.

My understanding is that much of this came in because Sinn Féin had developed tactics of driving busloads of people to polling stations and demanding their constitutional right to vote despite not being on the register. The laws governing voting were kind of uncoordinated so confusion reigned.

Ultimately the electoral acts copperfastened the law that if you're not on the register, you can't vote, no ifs or buts. But the balance of that was that anyone on the register is then assumed entitled to vote.

No, this goes back to British days, and it's also the system in Britain.

Remember, in the UK and Ireland, unlike most continental countries, we have no system of population registration, identity cards, etc. The government does not know the identities of its own citizens.

For a long time, entitlement to vote was very confined - freemen of the city, burgesses of towns, large landowners, people of relative standing in their own communities. Voting was public, and generally identifying eligible voters was not a problem; they were well-known in their communities. So you don't need a register of electors.

But once you have anything like widespread adult male suffrage, identifying those eligible becomes a problem. The solution to the problem was to give local governments the job of identifying, every year, everyone in their area who met the residence, property, sex etc qualifications to vote, and of compiling a register of those names. Hence, the register of electors.

The result is that the business of determining whether someone is entitled to vote and the business of actually voting have always been quite separate processes, conducted at different times, and by different people. Even if you are eligible to vote, if you're not on the register you cannot vote; the law on this has always been clear. Conversely if you are on the register, you can vote. You could always be prosecuted for fraud, etc, in connection with getting your name on the register, but I think it's only relatively recently that they introduced an offence of voting while on the register, but not being entiltled to be.

aloyisious

recedite wrote: »

And what about the Garda who is standing there? Supposing the person at the desk was to say in a loud voice "Ah I see Michael John's back from America. Is that 10 years now he's been living over there?"

That would simply be an overheard comment, not an official complaint [nor a challenge] via the person in charge of the polling station to the Garda that a voting illegality had occurred or was likely to occur.

Re your other piece: If they are not living here, and not all that interested in the outcome, then they should be excluded from the vote.: the notion that some-one would use personal time to travel home from abroad for the purpose of casting a personal vote on an item, and would have no interest in the outcome of the vote [therefore presumably also in the item being voted on] would - IMO - be strange...

Re what Peregrinus wrote above, it's possible that the change in law was as a result of one well known senior [political party] person ending up in court for voting separately in two different polling stations as a result of being on the register in two separate voting areas [something about the use of two addresses for the purpose of registering to vote].

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

The last paragraph means that, if you do vote and are charged with voting when not entitled to be on the register, you can't point to anything in s. 11 and claim that it entitled you to vote, or protects you from the penalties for doing so.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Conversely if you are on the register, you can vote. You could always be prosecuted for fraud, etc, in connection with getting your name on the register..

I get what you are suggesting, but its a somewhat "jesuitical" argument IMO.
If you are not legally entitled to vote, then you can't legally vote IMO. Maybe you can get away with voting, but only fraudulently.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

“The pro-life side can just as easily make the claim that there are as many, if not more, Irish people living abroad who appreciate the special value of the Eighth Amendment as a result of living in countries where there is zero respect for the right to life of unborn babies following the introduction of abortion.”.

Any actual evidence of this though? I guess if we're mostly talking about people coming from Britain, there wouldn't be much of that element...

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Any actual evidence of this though? I guess if we're mostly talking about people coming from Britain, there wouldn't be much of that element...

I don't have that evidence. It's just the last part of the quote from Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro-Life campaign in the Section titled "Anti-abortion Side", an unverified claim.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/abroad/illegal-emigrant-voting-how-hometovote-could-backfire-1.3385321

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

I get what you are suggesting, but its a somewhat "jesuitical" argument IMO.
If you are not legally entitled to vote, then you can't legally vote IMO. Maybe you can get away with voting, but only fraudulently.

Oh, absolutely. I'm not suggesting that people who aren't entitled to vote but are on the register should vote. They should not.

My point is that, if you're concerned about the possibility of unentitled people voting, what you need to do is make sure their names aren't on the register. If you wait until polling day to do anything about it, you're too late. You won't be able to stop them voting.

Lorddrakul

On the N3 eastbound after the Clonee on-ramp heading towards the M50 this morning, was a white van with the ad spouting the incorrect stats about abortions of Downs Syndrome affected pregnancies in Britain.

It was where the speed van usually sits, but to allow the ad to be legible by the passing traffic, it was quite dangerously parked.

I sincerely hope such tactics backfire on the that side of the Repeal the 8th debate.

end of the road

Lorddrakul wrote: »

On the N3 eastbound after the Clonee on-ramp heading towards the M50 this morning, was a white van with the ad spouting the incorrect stats about abortions of Downs Syndrome affected pregnancies in Britain.

It was where the speed van usually sits, but to allow the ad to be legible by the passing traffic, it was quite dangerously parked.

I sincerely hope such tactics backfire on the that side of the Repeal the 8th debate.

they won't backfire as anyone who would be against these posters have already made up their mind, and the few who may vote repeal on the basis of them are going to do so anyway. also, according to an article in another thread (i will try and dig it up if i can find it) the poster seems to be actually correct in relation to the amount of abortions of ds babies.

nozzferrahhtoo

Lorddrakul wrote: »

the ad spouting the incorrect stats about abortions of Downs Syndrome

Did the poster happen to explain what is actually wrong with the termination of a fetus that has been discovered early in gestation to be carrying DS? Because no one, least of all on this thread, has managed to explain that one to me yet.

Sure some people do not want access to abortion to be provided AT ALL. But I am not talking about that. I am talking about what SPECIFICALLY is meant to be wrong with abortion in relation to DS.

Or is it JUST that they are against abortion entirely, but they think DS pulls more heart strings and there is nothing specifically wrong with it at all?

aloyisious

The Protect the 8th group, it seems, are a little upset with Simon Harris as, as a Govt Minister he said he would help the Pro Choice campaign. Last Saturday's Irish Times mentioned that Simon Harris met two Pro-choice groups the previous day [Friday] to discuss the upcoming referendum....

Excarpt from report: Minister for Health Simon Harris has offered his political support and assistance to two pro-choice campaign groups seeking a repeal of the Eighth Amendment.
Mr Harris met the Women’s Council of Ireland and the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment on Friday afternoon to discuss the upcoming referendum on Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, which places the life of the mother and the unborn on an equal footing.
The Minister outlined to both groups the process ahead of the referendum, which is due to be held by the end of May, and the key dates in the Government’s timeline.
Speaking to The Irish Times, Mr Harris said: “I was delighted to meet with representatives of the Coalition to Repeal the Eighth Amendment and the National Women’s Council of Ireland to brief them.
“A strong civil society campaign will be key in the weeks ahead and I look forward to helping in any way I can.”

...........................................................................................................................................................

The upset the Protect the 8th group feels is added to by the fact that the NWCI is tax funded and is NOT registered with the Standards in Public Office Commission. This non-registration info is on the Protect the 8th facebook page. I have no idea if the NWCI actually has any legal obligation to register with the SiPOC. I can't help feeling it is no coincidence that the P.T.8th group has released the non-registration data, the taxpayer-funding of the NWCI and the fact that Simon Harris is a Govt Minister meeting with the NWCI from the Pro-choice campaign.

Speaking of the Pro-Life posters, there's one located on Castle St in Bray on the approach from the Dublin Rd side with a quote about UK DS abortions statistics. I will have to check what the stats mentioned on it are.

aloyisious

Bray Pro-life Ad wording- In Britain "Limited Abortion" kills 1 in 4 babies......

pleas advice

well, 1 in 5 pregnancies are aborted, which equates to 1/4 the number of babies...

Pherekydes

Spontaneous abortion kills 1 in 2.

But the "pro-lifers" love that.

pleas advice

thats natural though

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Or is it JUST that they are against abortion entirely,

mostly this

but they think DS pulls more heart strings and there is nothing specifically wrong with it at all?

it does kinda cross a line thats getting close to 'eugenics' as well though (I know it wont be mandatory, or state sponsored, but the feeling is there)

end of the road

pleas advice wrote: »

mostly this

it does kinda cross a line thats getting close to 'eugenics' as well though (I know it wont be mandatory, or state sponsored, but the feeling is there)

exactly. in my opinion it's the start of creating a world where everyone is the same, where once it has reached it's outcome people will be deluded into thinking imperfection doesn't exist.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

well, 1 in 5 pregnancies are aborted, which equates to 1/4 the number of babies...

Eh, the Ad message read's as 1 in 4 UK babies are aborted. That's out of every four, one is aborted, leaving three not aborted. Unless there is some other form of life that can be aborted outside pregnancy.

pleas advice

any link to the ad?