Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

hatrickpatrick

meeeeh wrote: »

I think I despise vast majority of the loudest voices on both sides of debate.

The same thing happened during the Gay Marriage debate. I supported it and campaigned for it, but some of the less "simple persuasion attempt" and more "shaming / harassing / bullying attempt" tactics of some of my fellow advocates absolutely disgusted me - and worse, I am absolutely positive, probably cost us votes in the long run. People underestimate the willingness of some to vote against something for no reason other than sheer bloody-mindedness at feeling pressured into voting for it. Fundamentally, people don't like being told what to do - much better to ask them to do it instead. It's about messaging. This is something I can see being a massive issue during the eighth amendment referendum campaign, on both sides. It's going to be a bitter, ugly, acrimonious spat and I fear that it will bring out the absolute worst in some people.

_Dara_

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

There's a difference between voicing your objection to something in principle (EG, I don't believe that the pro-life lobby are right and here's why), and actually asking that they be denied a platform (EG, I don't think you should allow the pro-life lobby to speak in your venue, because I don't agree with them).

The latter very much counts an attempt to silence somebody. Whether they can find another venue or not doesn't change the fact that the people engaging in these campaigns are not merely disagreeing with particular speech, they're taking actual action to disrupt its delivery. Objecting to the mere delivery of a point of view may be perfectly legal, but it's still vile, scummy, and not in keeping with the spirit of what free speech is supposed to be about in a democratic society.

I'm going to keep repeating this because it's being glossed over but pro-choice groups face stiff opposition too, as has been demonstrated by a poster on this thread. It's a trope currently to paint this as a lefty tactic so it's important to put across that it certainly is not just a left wing thing. It's something that happens on both sides among more extreme individuals.

I agree that the Yes side of the MarRef was at times OTT. But anyone who voted against something they believe in for that reason alone has, quite frankly, got sh1t for brains.

hatrickpatrick

_Dara_ wrote: »

Maybe. But as pointed out, pro-choice groups face this too. Emotions run high in this debate.

Just for the record, to be clear, I absolutely condemn this as well. Campaigns to make it difficult for people of any political persuasion to set out their stall absolutely repulse me, regardless of whether that stall is advocating more timely repairs of local potholes or forcefully exiling anyone less than six feet tall to the Aran Islands.

eviltwin

Bygumbo wrote: »

And what is that belief based on?

I don't know any of the details, but assuming the bare bones, that an event was cancelled because of pressure, in whatever form it took, leads me to take the educated guess that harassment (or whatever synonym) is likely. Logical deduction.

The only person to mention harassment is the spokesman for the group involved. No comment from the hotel or it's staff, no evidence of any intimidation. Seeing as the entire talk was based on completely bs I'd hazard a guess this claim is the same. If it turns out there were threats made I will agree with you completely, I have no time for that kind of thing.

Bygumbo

_Dara_ wrote: »

Maybe. But as pointed out, pro-choice groups face this too. Emotions run high in this debate.

Well then its just a complete and utter farce, before its even begun.

There are 3 or 4 major points to each side. Stick the relevant info in a booklet and have the government send it out to people. To hell with this campaigning nonsense, its basically one group with hyper conviction going door to door annoying people who don't care enough in the first place to think about the issue.

I think I'm already done with it :P

Bygumbo

eviltwin wrote: »

The only person to mention harassment is the spokesman for the group involved. No comment from the hotel or it's staff, no evidence of any intimidation. Seeing as the entire talk was based on completely bs I'd hazard a guess this claim is the same. If it turns out there were threats made I will agree with you completely, I have no time for that kind of thing.

As another poster said its an absolutely toxic issue, and I wouldn't put anything past anyone on either campaigning side.

_Dara_

Bygumbo wrote: »

Well then its just a complete and utter farce, before its even begun.

There are 3 or 4 major points to each side. Stick the relevant info in a booklet and have the government send it out to people. To hell with this campaigning nonsense, its basically one group with hyper conviction going door to door annoying people who don't care enough in the first place to think about the issue.

I think I'm already done with it :P

I agree, there are plenty of sensible people who take either stance. I just hate the popular view that lefties are the only ones who loudly protest at things.

Vyse

January wrote: »

The repeal campaign has had venues cancel on them because of pressure from anti choice groups.

So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.

January

Vyse wrote: »

So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.

Just like it's anti abortion vs a pro abortion... plenty of terns for either side. You use the one you want and I'll use the one I want.

Bygumbo

Vyse wrote: »

So it's anti choice and anti life now? I really need to keep up to speed.

Just ignore everything that's shovelled up in front of your face. Use your own brain.

Its not like a quantum physics test, most people should be aware of the basic facts and that's enough to make a decision. Anyone going door to door or paying for advertising or shutting down others or having conferences....its for the birds. They are OBVIOUSLY trying to sell their own point of view and they want you to adopt it, not make your own decision.

As you say, even the twisting of language is pure bullsh0t. Ignore them all.

freshpopcorn

Can somebody explain this to me.
If the referendum takes place next year.
What will we exactly be voting on?
Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
In generally I get mixed answers.

January

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody explain this to me.
If the referendum takes place next year.
What will we exactly be voting on?
Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
In generally I get mixed answers.

We don't know yet. The committee that's meeting in the Dail at the moment will put recommendations forward but they will still need to be approved by the government.

amcalester

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody explain this to me.
If the referendum takes place next year.
What will we exactly be voting on?
Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
In generally I get mixed answers.

Nobody knows yet, the wording of the referendum hasn't been decided yet.

_Dara_

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Opposing an argument is different from using intimidation to ensure that the argument cannot be heard.

It's pretty much impossible to not find an avenue for your views these days. In the past it was much easier, but these days? I see no shortage of right wing opinion in the public sphere.

freshpopcorn

January wrote: »

We don't know yet. The committee that's meeting in the Dail at the moment will put recommendations forward but they will still need to be approved by the government.

amcalester wrote: »

Nobody knows yet, the wording of the referendum hasn't been decided yet.

Thanks!
If there's any hope of it being removed I think they'll need to let people vote on what exactly they want legalised!

Achasanai

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody explain this to me.
If the referendum takes place next year.
What will we exactly be voting on?

My understanding is that we will be asked to vote whether to repeal the 8th and replace with whatever wording the government eventually decides upon. Something middle-of-the-road that will allow for abortion in extremely limited circumstances (rape/incest/threat to life of the mother). Whatever the focus groups agree has a chance of passing.

Bygumbo

_Dara_ wrote: »

It's pretty much impossible to not find an avenue for your views these days. In the past it was much easier, but these days? I see no shortage of right wing opinion in the public sphere.

So I'm being sincere here, is this really just another incarnation of left versus right?

I made a comment earlier about us importing political poison from America, is that all everything will boil down to now? Left versus right?

Cos I can sure as anything see the beginnings of another world war coming out of such narrow mindedness.

"youre with us or against us!"

The best thing we'll ever do is distance ourselves culturally and politically as far as possible from that collapsing country. All you have to do is look at the United States and ask one question, "would I like Ireland to be the same way?"

meeeeh

Bygumbo wrote: »

So I'm being sincere here, is this really just another incarnation of left versus right?

I made a comment earlier about us importing political poison from America, is that all everything will boil down to now? Left versus right?

I agree that left vs right too narrow. I think Solidarity and co are devil's spawn but my views on abortion completely align with theirs. I think there is much more variety in people's opinions.

Bygumbo

meeeeh wrote: »

I agree that left vs right too narrow. I think Solidarity and co are devil's spawn but my views on abortion completely align with theirs. I think there is much more variety in people's opinions.

Its scary how quickly irish people are adopting American attitudes. Its a sad realisation just how little self-identity we have as a nation that we can only mimic another.

No wonder the world is heading in a certain direction.

Spider Web

This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false. The organisation in question provides incorrect/false information in relation to health/medicine - this is dangerous and should not be given a platform (my own views on abortion are mixed).

Consider a hypothetical scenario - where a group with a less conservative message such as "Small boys who show a brief interest in their sisters' dolls are one hundred per cent transgender, fact" are scheduled to give a talk. They're not proffering an opinion - they are stating a falsehood to be fact. Should such misinformation be given a platform?

So people were right to express an objection.

However, I saw the hotel's Facebook wall and I think people behaved like complete arseholes to them. And seemed to enjoy it too. Real brave on their keyboards. Some continued to do so after there were murmurings that it looked like the event was going to be cancelled. Couldn't be bothered even reading. Much more fun to keep haranguing a person who may not have had anything to do with the booking, and no say on anything in relation to it. And of course then there were the sneers of "Oh they're fierce quiet" and demands for an answer (as if they've a God-given right to one just because they posted) and "omg dats a discrace im nvr stayin der" idiocy.

Those objecting should have sent emails and private messages - no need for the wall posts. It's so spiteful to try to ruin a business - no consideration as to the bigger picture and people's jobs there. That's the "I want peace and love and tolerance and fairness and justice... and I'll be a bully until I get it" crowd for ya though.

Bygumbo

Spider Web wrote: »

This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false. The organisation in question provides incorrect/false information in relation to health/medicine - this is dangerous and should not be given a platform (my own views on abortion are mixed).

Consider a hypothetical scenario - where a group with a less conservative message such as "Small boys who show in interest in their sisters' dolls are one hundred per cent transgender, fact" are scheduled to give a talk. They're not proffering an opinion - they are stating a falsehood to be fact. Should such misinformation be given a platform?

So people were right to express an objection.

However, I saw the hotel's Facebook wall and I think people behaved like complete arseholes to them. And seemed to enjoy it too. Real brave on their keyboards. Some continued to do so after there were murmurings that it looked like the event was going to be cancelled. Couldn't be bothered even reading. Much more fun to keep haranguing a person who may not have had anything to do with the booking, and no say on anything in relation to it. And of course then there were the sneers of "Oh they're fierce quiet" and demands for an answer (as if they've a God-given right to one just because they posted) and "omg dats a discrace im nvr stayin der" idiocy.

Those objecting should have sent emails and private messages - no need for the wall posts. It's so spiteful to try to ruin a business - no consideration as to the bigger picture and people's jobs there. That's the "I want peace and love and tolerance and fairness and justice... and I'll be a bully until I get it" crowd for ya though.

That's exactly what I was talking about before. Social media, in a world that makes any sense, should be wholly shut down a good stretch before the actual referendum (of course its nigh-on impossible as things are).

The whole thing is a joke already, and I would bet you 20 quid that most of the jeerers on that facebook page have probably spent all of 5 seconds thinking about the actual issue.

Its become a popularity contest, a sh-t show, like everything else these days. Just wait for the celebrity endorsements to come along, see who can pull off the "coolest" telly advertisements, listen to who finds the buzziest catchphrase.

These plebs should NOT be allowed to dictate the course of serious issues.

A Little Pony

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Maybe you missed the parts about protesters making personal visits to the hotel to intimidate workers, and the fact that the manager canceled the event due to concerns about the health and safety of his staff.

Harassment, intimidation, and threatening people's health and safety is not a valid exercise of free speech.[/quote]
Why do people just give in to threats? Do people not have convictions anymore and stand up for what they believe in? So many cowards nowadays.

A Little Pony

Spider Web wrote: »

This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false. The organisation in question provides incorrect/false information in relation to health/medicine - this is dangerous and should not be given a platform (my own views on abortion are mixed).

Consider a hypothetical scenario - where a group with a less conservative message such as "Small boys who show a brief interest in their sisters' dolls are one hundred per cent transgender, fact" are scheduled to give a talk. They're not proffering an opinion - they are stating a falsehood to be fact. Should such misinformation be given a platform?

So people were right to express an objection.

However, I saw the hotel's Facebook wall and I think people behaved like complete arseholes to them. And seemed to enjoy it too. Real brave on their keyboards. Some continued to do so after there were murmurings that it looked like the event was going to be cancelled. Couldn't be bothered even reading. Much more fun to keep haranguing a person who may not have had anything to do with the booking, and no say on anything in relation to it. And of course then there were the sneers of "Oh they're fierce quiet" and demands for an answer (as if they've a God-given right to one just because they posted) and "omg dats a discrace im nvr stayin der" idiocy.

Those objecting should have sent emails and private messages - no need for the wall posts. It's so spiteful to try to ruin a business - no consideration as to the bigger picture and people's jobs there. That's the "I want peace and love and tolerance and fairness and justice... and I'll be a bully until I get it" crowd for ya though.

It is opinion, everything is opinion. You have people who believe humans walked the earth next to T Rex's. If you shut down events because of lying involved then you would never have general election debates and politicians would never be allowed to stand for election.

One eyed Jack

Spider Web wrote: »

This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false. The organisation in question provides incorrect/false information in relation to health/medicine - this is dangerous and should not be given a platform (my own views on abortion are mixed).

Consider a hypothetical scenario - where a group with a less conservative message such as "Small boys who show a brief interest in their sisters' dolls are one hundred per cent transgender, fact" are scheduled to give a talk. They're not proffering an opinion - they are stating a falsehood to be fact. Should such misinformation be given a platform?

So people were right to express an objection.

Yes, it should IMO, and let people decide for themselves who and what they choose to believe rather than treating people like children who have no minds of their own and shouldn't be exposed to any ideas that "might be too dangerous for theor little brains to comprehend".

However, I saw the hotel's Facebook wall and I think people behaved like complete arseholes to them. And seemed to enjoy it too. Real brave on their keyboards. Some continued to do so after there were murmurings that it looked like the event was going to be cancelled. Couldn't be bothered even reading. Much more fun to keep haranguing a person who may not have had anything to do with the booking, and no say on anything in relation to it. And of course then there were the sneers of "Oh they're fierce quiet" and demands for an answer (as if they've a God-given right to one just because they posted) and "omg dats a discrace im nvr stayin der" idiocy.

Those objecting should have sent emails and private messages - no need for the wall posts. It's so spiteful to try to ruin a business - no consideration as to the bigger picture and people's jobs there. That's the "I want peace and love and tolerance and fairness and justice... and I'll be a bully until I get it" crowd for ya though.

That's what happens when people are denied a platform - one always presents itself and they find a way to get their message out there to people who are curious as to why a message was deemed by their betters to be too dangerous for them. It's a sort of a reverse psychology based on the assumption that people always want to support the underdog - just make the other side look like the oppressors.

Propaganda, works.

Wibbs

Spider Web wrote: »

This isn't about opinion - it's about what is correct and incorrect, true and false.

Maybe S, but even that is debatable. What is correct and incorrect, true or false also changes over time and every generation or invested interest group is unwaveringly convinced theirs is the correct and the truth and their opposers the incorrect and the false. And "imperial science" isn't so infallible either and both the anti and pro choice can point to their own personal science to back up their respective positions.

Full disclosure: I would be broadly "pro choice" with limits. Mostly time limits. Even in that there have been shifts in the morality position through time. On another thread on the subject a poster(IIRC Seamus. Always worth reading IMH, even if and usually when I disagree with him) noted that in the past in some cultures infanticide in the first year of life was treated as a lesser crime, if it even made it to an official court. Hell it's not so long ago where there was a tacit acceptance of the bucket of water beside the birthing bed, if the newborn was obviously "not fit for life". Today, even the most ardent pro choice individual would baulk at such a thing as a repugnant act. There are always moral limits, where those lines of limit are agreed upon changes over time and culture.

Spider Web

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is opinion, everything is opinion. You have people who believe humans walked the earth next to T Rex's. If you shut down events because of lying involved then you would never have general election debates and politicians would never be allowed to stand for election.

There has to be a line when it comes to falsehoods in relation to health/medical information.
This is already a problem with the anti vaccination loons.

Skylinehead

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I thought you were all about the free market? Hotels can be whatever they want to be no?

A Little Pony

Spider Web wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

It is opinion, everything is opinion. You have people who believe humans walked the earth next to T Rex's. If you shut down events because of lying involved then you would never have general election debates and politicians would never be allowed to stand for election.

There has to be a line when it comes to falsehoods in relation to health/medical information.
This is already a problem with the anti vaccination loons.

Why? If a placebo helps someone then knock themselves out. The method isn't that important, it's the final destination which matters which is people getting healthy. You hear stories all the time of people using alternative medicine and feeling better for it. 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/complementary-alternative-medicine/Pages/complementary-and-alternative-medicine.aspx

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

Why? If a placebo helps someone then knock themselves out. The method isn't that important, it's the final destination which matters which is people getting healthy. You hear stories all the time of people using alternative medicine and feeling better for it. 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/complementary-alternative-medicine/Pages/complementary-and-alternative-medicine.aspx

Because you'll get gowls like this,taking advantage of desperate/vulnerable people


http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=9500



I've read of other faith healers/similar alternative medicine people,telling people to give up their medication etc before they'll help them (for a genorous fee)

hatrickpatrick

Spider Web wrote: »

There has to be a line when it comes to falsehoods in relation to health/medical information.
This is already a problem with the anti vaccination loons.

There are two well documented reasons I can think of off the top of my head for this being a terrible idea.

One is SSRI discontinuation syndrome. SSRI antidepressants mess with brain chemistry to such an extent that for many users, extremely unpleasant and sometimes long term withdrawal symptoms result when quitting after an extended period of use. For years and years, the pharma lobby dismissed these reports as BS and the work of hypochondriac cranks - and as a result the discussion was essentially muted from the mainstream and confined to online echo chambers. There is now widespread acknowledgement of the dangers of these medications, and there have been several huge lawsuits against the companies which marketed them aggressively and dismissed / downplayed the potential devastating health risks,

A similar case involves finasteride, an androgen inhibitor used to treat male hair loss. Because of its long lasting disruption of certain testosterone related hormones, it has resulted in severe and irreversible sexual dysfunction (not just impotence but atrophy / shrinkage of reproductive organs in some cases). Just like with SSRIs, for years these anecdotal reports were dismissed as "fake news" and the work of conspiracy theorists and anti-pharma political ideologies - similarly, recognition of the dangers is slowly dawning and several lawsuits are pending from men whose sex lives were essentially ended by these drugs.

Bottom line is that "correct" medical information may be discovered to be bullsh!t tomorrow, and often is. By defining "correct" medical information and then censoring / restricting discussion deemed to be "false", we risk further marginalising those who experience legitimate side effects which are aggressively denied by the industry, until the number of people whose lives have been f*cked up by them becomes too massive to ignore. In short, this is a perfect example of why even well meaning censorship is just never, ever worth it.

A Little Pony

tomwaterford wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

Why? If a placebo helps someone then knock themselves out. The method isn't that important, it's the final destination which matters which is people getting healthy. You hear stories all the time of people using alternative medicine and feeling better for it. 

http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/complementary-alternative-medicine/Pages/complementary-and-alternative-medicine.aspx

Because you'll get gowls like this,taking advantage of desperate/vulnerable people


http://www.sligotoday.ie/details.php?id=9500

Welcome to the course of human history. It has always happened and will carry on happening. But to think health is a case closed topic as far as the 'truth' is naive way to look at it.

tomwaterford

A Little Pony wrote: »

Welcome to the course of human history. It has always happened and will carry on happening. But to think health is a case closed topic as far as the 'truth' is naive way to look at it.

I've not said that?

But I do believe gowls and money grabbers shouldn't be allowed near vulnerable/desperate people

Anyone,who's spent time around people with terminal illness who were relatively young,will tell you the desperation they have

And to think it's acceptable for someone to come in and take advantage of their desperation them with smelly candles and unproven truths/made up shít is pure and utter wrong

eviltwin

Spider Web wrote: »

There has to be a line when it comes to falsehoods in relation to health/medical information.
This is already a problem with the anti vaccination loons.

I agree but it's not like they were going into schools or anything like that. The meeting was probably only ever going to attract a certain type of person. They were also charging 20 euros for the event which means it would not appeal to the casual passer by.

I'd be more concerned about Ask Majella, the group that was involved in setting this up. The are a 'crisis pregnancy agency' and I'd have concerns about a vulnerable woman contemplating abortion or just after having one being told she has a higher risk of breast cancer and mental health issues.

Simon Harris said he would regulate such agencies but hasn't done anything so far.

Loafing Oaf

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Can somebody explain this to me.
If the referendum takes place next year.
What will we exactly be voting on?
Will we be voting on just removing the 8th amendment from the constitution and allowing the government to decide when abortion should be allowed or will know in advance the circumstances/it will be part of what we'll be voting from.
In generally I get mixed answers.

The indications are that the referendum will be a straight yes or no to delete the 8th amendment but that ahead of the vote that government would publish it give a detailed outline of the legislation with which it intends to replace it. Going by Leo's recent comments this legislation would only permit abortion in very limited circumstances, but it may have to be this restrictive to ensure the referendum passes.

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The indications are that the referendum will be a straight yes or no to delete the 8th amendment but that ahead of the vote that government would publish it give a detailed outline of the legislation with which it intends to replace it. Going by Leo's recent comments this legislation would only permit abortion in very limited circumstances, but it may have to be this restrictive to ensure the referendum passes.

Its not clear yet what we will be voting on. The committee charged with looking at it only started public meetings this week.

Loafing Oaf

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

The indications are that the referendum will be a straight yes or no to delete the 8th amendment but that ahead of the vote that government would publish it give a detailed outline of the legislation with which it intends to replace it. Going by Leo's recent comments this legislation would only permit abortion in very limited circumstances, but it may have to be this restrictive to ensure the referendum passes.

Its not clear yet what we will be voting on. The committee charged with looking at it only started public meetings this week.

I know that I'm just trying to read the tea leaves.

The Legend Of Kira

Some of the left are opposed to people speaking out in favour of controlling Immigration , now some on the left are opposed to people speaking out against abortion, I said before they like to silence/no platform people they generally disagree with, I strongly condemn the cancellation of the booking , for the record Im not a member of any pro life group nor a member of any pro choice group, I gave my own personal view on this issue before on another thread .

SafeSurfer

_Dara_ wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Opposing an argument is different from using intimidation to ensure that the argument cannot be heard.

It's pretty much impossible to not find an avenue for your views these days. In the past it was much easier, but these days? I see no shortage of right wing opinion in the public sphere.

You mean it's impossible not to find an avenue that cannot be shut down by those opposed to your views such as an internet site
That isn't good enough.
Are you familiar with sites such as Speakers Corner in Hyde Park?
Should this and other such locations only be available to the strongest and most aggressive groups?
After all you argue that there are plenty of other avenues open for those who wish to express their views.
Is this what you believe?

blanch152

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

First they came for Kevin Myers, then they came for George Hook. After that, they came for the pro-life campaigners. Whose next? David Quinn? The Iona Institute?

I don't agree with any of their views, but they have a right to be heard.

January

blanch152 wrote: »

First they came for Kevin Myers, then they came for George Hook. After that, they came for the pro-life campaigners. Whose next? David Quinn? The Iona Institute?

I don't agree with any of their views, but they have a right to be heard.

They're not views if they've been proven to be untrue facts though. They are harmful lies.

The_Valeyard

Skylinehead wrote: »

I thought you were all about the free market? Hotels can be whatever they want to be no?

Maybe hotels, but not bakeries?

Im confused these days

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

First they came for Kevin Myers, then they came for George Hook. After that, they came for the pro-life campaigners. Whose next? David Quinn? The Iona Institute?

I don't agree with any of their views, but they have a right to be heard.

Nobody has a right to be heard though, and they don't have a right to cause offence either. People arguing as though their perceived rights are being infringed are never worth listening to IMO. They're not being denied an audience, they're being denied a soap-box.

The Legend Of Kira

wes wrote: »

Let look at what the article actually says:

However they claim that the event was cancelled after the venue received a large amount of negative emails, and social media posts.

"The manager himself spoke to me directly of 50 pages of commentary, emails and social media, that a Facebook page had been set up opposing the conference, as well as diatribe, intimidation, upset of his staff, personal visits to the hotel and threats of protest at the hotel if conference continues. In the interest of Health and safety of his staff, he had to cancel venue".

So people on the other side exercising there right to free speech, by contacting the hotel about how there against the event is perfectly valid. Free speech whether the Right likes it or not, is a 2 way street. You can say what you like, but so can the other guy.

If someone doesn't want to do business with a hotel in this case, due to there hosting an ideology they are against, that is there right. The same rights that the pro life group has as well.

Sorry, but your claims of people being silenced or there free speech being violated is simply untrue, and your basically saying people can't disagree with someone, which could also be called an attempt to silence people.

I underlined some of your post, if people don,t like what someone is saying they can ( 1 ) turn up to the event and during Q and A counter argue some points you don,t agree with or ( 2 ) protest peacefully outside the event . 

They weren,t hosting an idealogy, you say it as if they endorse the speakers , a certain hotel where I used to live one time held different political public meetings, just because different meetings were held there doesn,t mean the hotel endorse the views or the groups.

"" your basically saying people can't disagree with someone "" 

See what I said at the start of my post.

Over a year ago, A Gaa club canceled a public repeal meeting which was due to be chaired by John Lyons of Pbp/Swp, which I also equally condemn, in the facebook post he put up that night he said in his own words " this is a disgraceful denial of free speech " .

_Dara_

SafeSurfer wrote: »

You mean it's impossible not to find an avenue that cannot be shut down by those opposed to your views such as an internet site
That isn't good enough.
Are you familiar with sites such as Speakers Corner in Hyde Park?
Should this and other such locations only be available to the strongest and most aggressive groups?
After all you argue that there are plenty of other avenues open for those who wish to express their views.
Is this what you believe?

Are you saying the likes of Speakers' Corner would be the only avenue? What? Obviously the internet is an avenue. I'm not aware of websites being shut down for espousing a particular viewpoint in this country. Have you got any examples?

Sweetemotion

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody has a right to be heard though, and they don't have a right to cause offence either. People arguing as though their perceived rights are being infringed are never worth listening to IMO. They're not being denied an audience, they're being denied a soap-box.

Everybody has the right to be heard. Who died and made you champion of what is "offence and infringed"

As for soap box, how about you get down from yours and let someone else speak.

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Everybody has the right to be heard. Who died and made you champion of what is "offence and infinged"

As for soap box, how about you get down from yours and let someone else speak.

Now, now, don't be ordering people around, that veers near "shutting down" that poster in the popular parlance of our times.

Sweetemotion

_Dara_ wrote: »

Now, now, don't be ordering people around, that veers near "shutting down" that poster in the popular parlance of our times.

Another self appointed member of public opinion. :rolleyes:

_Dara_

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Another self appointed member of public opinion. :rolleyes:

"Member of public opinion" - well, that almost makes sense, I suppose.

The_Valeyard

Well, I know im great.

The Legend Of Kira

One eyed Jack wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

First they came for Kevin Myers, then they came for George Hook. After that, they came for the pro-life campaigners. Whose next? David Quinn? The Iona Institute?

I don't agree with any of their views, but they have a right to be heard.

Nobody has a right to be heard though, and they don't have a right to cause offence either. People arguing as though their perceived rights are being infringed are never worth listening to IMO. They're not being denied an audience, they're being denied a soap-box.

In what,s supposed to be a democratic society people have a right to freedom of assembly whether it be assemble for a rally/protest or assemble for a public meeting , and people can choose to either ( 1 ) attend public meeting to hear out speakers or ( 2 ) if they disagree with the group hosting the meeting he/she  A/ can choose to ignore the meeting simply don,t go or B/ peacefully protest outside the meeting .