Petition to impeach pro life UCD SU President...

kylith

sunshine and showers wrote: »

Yeah, none of those were my argument, but thanks for your input.

She did not delegate, or even accept input from sabbatical officers, on a matter she could be seen to be biased in. A matter that falls under her whole "my being pro-life will not affect the SU pro-choice position" campaign promise. People are píssed about that.

She did not sit down with her team and say, "look I queried this and it turns out it's illegal, here is the legal advice, let's decide what to do together". She took an executive decision, sharing none of her legal advice, and refused to engage with the sabbatical team on the matter.

It's about much more than the legal advice and you are avoiding that point.

Lets not forget either that she refused to simply reword the material to bring it in line with the legal advise; she insisted it be removed completely.

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That quote reads to me like they were relayed the confent of the legal advice, not actually shown it. Irish Times reporting that they were not shown the legal advice.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/anti-abortion-ucd-students-union-president-says-she-has-been-subject-of-bullying-campaign-1.3253522?mode=amp

It seems then that the only information that the SUC had was from her, and it is possible that they did not believe she was giving them the whole truth. It is very possible that they believed she was, again, lying to them (as she had done re: delegating reproductive rights decisions) to further her own agenda.

RobertKK

She was not campaigning in this instance so it is irrelevant if it was about abortion, drugs, how to murder a fellow student...all she got was legal advice which was to protect the SU and keep them within the grounds of legality.
The book removed the illegal information and replaced it with where to get that information legally.
There was no campaigning on abortion going on so no reason to step aside.

tritium

sunshine and showers wrote: »

That quote reads to me like they were relayed the confent of the legal advice, not actually shown it. Irish Times reporting that they were not shown the legal advice.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/anti-abortion-ucd-students-union-president-says-she-has-been-subject-of-bullying-campaign-1.3253522?mode=amp

This is a bit im struggling with

while abortion information which had legal implications was removed from the magazine, it was replaced with “contact details for agencies where the same abortion information could be sought in a solicited, legal way.”

So in spite of whats being claimed here the imformation wasn't just stripped out? This implies it was replaced with a different way of obtaining the same information, in a manner that didn't expose the SU to legal action. So what exactly is the issue with that?

Captain Obvious

Jayop wrote: »

Fine you carry on making up points and arguments that people are making. Robert and Conor are doing so so I guess one more will make a good team.

You said she did it for spurious reasons. She didn't. She received legal advice. You've made an issue of the advice. You've also brought up the lack of previous prosecutions multiple times. Where you bringing that up for the fun of it? I think it's fairly obvious you think she should have ignored the advice.

But you are right, the main issue is that she said she would stay clear of abortion issues while campaigning. How is this grounds for impeachment though?

Jayop

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You said she did it for spurious reasons. She didn't. She received legal advice. You've made an issue of the advice. You've also brought up the lack of previous prosecutions multiple times. Where you bringing that up for the fun of it? I think it's fairly obvious you think she should have ignored the advice.

But you are right, the main issue is that she said she would stay clear of abortion issues while campaigning. How is this grounds for impeachment though?

I did not at any point say that because someone wasn't convicted of something in the past it was fine to do it now which is the strawman bs point I'm referring to.

If she lied in order to get elected, then spent money on the very thing that she lied about saying she wouldn't do against the wishes of the su, legal or not then that for me is grounds for impeachment.

If the roles were reversed and she was in a pro life su, campaigned that she wouldn't get involved as she was pro choice then at the first opportunity started pushing a pro choice agenda you can be sure that the people defending her here would see the problem.

RobertKK

Jayop wrote: »

I did not at any point say that because someone wasn't convicted of something in the past it was fine to do it now which is the strawman bs point I'm referring to.

If she lied in order to get elected, then spent money on the very thing that she lied about saying she wouldn't do against the wishes of the su, legal or not then that for me is grounds for impeachment.

If the roles were reversed and she was in a pro life su, campaigned that she wouldn't get involved as she was pro choice then at the first opportunity started pushing a pro choice agenda you can be sure that the people defending her here would see the problem.

So you believe it is in the interest of the SU to publish illegal material?
Did she campaign that she would work to get the SU into legal trouble?
Is it her responsibility to avoid this?

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

She was not campaigning in this instance so it is irrelevant if it was about abortion, drugs, how to murder a fellow student...all she got was legal advice which was to protect the SU and keep them within the grounds of legality.
The book removed the illegal information and replaced it with where to get that information legally.
There was no campaigning on abortion going on so no reason to step aside.

What are you even on about? So once a campaign is over, all the promises made during it no longer count? She literally campaigned on abortion, promising to defer to the rest of them on issues relating to Repeal. She had two choices: defer to the rest of the SU which would have meant the information being published, or resign. She chose neither and has since republished meaning doing so again would be an even bigger waste of time and money, so they're helping her get to the same conclusion as if she chose the latter.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

She was not campaigning in this instance so it is irrelevant if it was about abortion, drugs, how to murder a fellow student...all she got was legal advice which was to protect the SU and keep them within the grounds of legality.
The book removed the illegal information and replaced it with where to get that information legally.
There was no campaigning on abortion going on so no reason to step aside.

The campaigning is of course relevant. Her campaign promise is that she would stay away from abortion topics, then she got legal advice which she refused to let others see and made a unilateral decision regarding the topic of abortion.

Captain Obvious

Jayop wrote: »

I did not at any point say that because someone wasn't convicted of something in the past it was fine to do it now which is the strawman bs point I'm referring to.

You didn't. You just keep bringing it up without making a point. I think it's fair to infer your point from it.

Jayop wrote: »

If she lied in order to get elected, then spent money on the very thing that she lied about saying she wouldn't do against the wishes of the su, legal or not then that for me is grounds for impeachment.

Have you a source for that though? Is the SU not governed by Articles that deem what is impeachable?

Jayop wrote: »

If the roles were reversed and she was in a pro life su, campaigned that she wouldn't get involved as she was pro choice then at the first opportunity started pushing a pro choice agenda you can be sure that the people defending her here would see the problem.

I doubt most of us would even have heard of it. So are you now implying that anyone who disagrees with her impeachment is pro-life?

RobertKK

tritium wrote: »

This is a bit im struggling with



So in spite of whats being claimed here the imformation wasn't just stripped out? This implies it was replaced with a different way of obtaining the same information, in a manner that didn't expose the SU to legal action. So what exactly is the issue with that?

It is her personal views and her father that is the problem.
Doing her job properly is not the problem.

Prochoice people who are making this an issue fail to see that this type of tactic is only damaging to what they want.

Jayop

RobertKK wrote: »

So you believe it is in the interest of the SU to publish illegal material?
Did she campaign that she would work to get the SU into legal trouble?
Is it her responsibility to avoid this?

If the su believes that publishing illegal material is in the best interests of its students then yes it's their right to do that and face the consequences. As they have done more brazenly in the past.

She campaigned that she would stay out of this and she didn't. She lied.

No, she knew the position prior to taking the role. If she was unable to comply with this position she should have resigned if she could not accept it.

kylith

tritium wrote: »

This is a bit im struggling with



So in spite of whats being claimed here the imformation wasn't just stripped out? This implies it was replaced with a different way of obtaining the same information, in a manner that didn't expose the SU to legal action. So what exactly is the issue with that?

The issue is that it may not be possible for someone to contact the agencies to get the information; for example, if they have a very conservative family or if they are in an abuse relationship, and phone and internet use are monitored. Giving those people some information is better than nothing.

Jayop

Captain Obvious wrote: »

You didn't. You just keep bringing it up without making a point. I think it's fair to infer your point from it.



Have you a source for that though? Is the SU not governed by Articles that deem what is impeachable?



I doubt most of us would even have heard of it. So are you now implying that anyone who disagrees with her impeachment is pro-life?

1) Carry on making stuff up. Easy to see through you.

2) Nope, I don't but it's happened so I guess it is within the article.

3) In this thread, the majority are, yes.

RobertKK

Jayop wrote: »

If the su believes that publishing illegal material is in the best interests of its students then yes it's their right to do that and face the consequences. As they have done more brazenly in the past.

She campaigned that she would stay out of this and she didn't. She lied.

No, she knew the position prior to taking the role. If she was unable to comply with this position she should have resigned if she could not accept it.

So potentially saving the SU many thousands of euro as legal fees would have to be included with the fines.
You think the possibility of an open ended cost was better for the SU than a fixed reprinting cost which she was advised to do.
That would be an open case impeachment for such irresponsibility in the light she got legal advice about how to proceed with the issue.
She did the right thing.

kylith

RobertKK wrote: »

It is her personal views and her father that is the problem.
Doing her job properly is not the problem.

Prochoice people who are making this an issue fail to see that this type of tactic is only damaging to what they want.

She is not doing her job properly when she is making promises and then breaking them at the first opportunity.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

It is her personal views and her father that is the problem.
Doing her job properly is not the problem.

Prochoice people who are making this an issue fail to see that this type of tactic is only damaging to what they want.

Doing her job properly is 100% of the problem here, as her mandate was to defer such instances to the other members of the SU, which she chose not to do even when they made it very clear they did not agree with her decision.

Jayop

RobertKK wrote: »

It is her personal views and her father that is the problem.
Doing her job properly is not the problem.

Prochoice people who are making this an issue fail to see that this type of tactic is only damaging to what they want.

I don't think it's damaging at all to call out someone for being absolutely dishonest in how they behave in order to push a political agenda.

Captain Obvious

Jayop wrote: »

1) Carry on making stuff up. Easy to see through you.

2) Nope, I don't but it's happened so I guess it is within the article.

3) In this thread, the majority are, yes.

1) What am I making up exactly?

2) Didn't think so.

3) Easy way to avoid discussion I suppose. Deflect or defame right?

Captain Obvious

Billy86 wrote: »

Doing her job properly is 100% of the problem here, as her mandate was to defer such instances to the other members of the SU, which she chose not to do even when they made it very clear they did not agree with her decision.

Where was this mandate set out?

Jayop

RobertKK wrote: »

So potentially saving the SU many thousands of euro as legal fees would have to be included with the fines.
You think the possibility of an open ended cost was better for the SU than a fixed reprinting cost which she was advised to do.
That would be an open case impeachment for such irresponsibility in the light she got legal advice about how to proceed with the issue.
She did the right thing.

A stop Robert. You're doing more dancing around the issue than I thought possible.

It's really simple and I'll condense it for you.

Person campaigns with a promise to not do something.

Person upon being successful in this campaign on the back of this promise then does the exact opposite..

That's the problem. Avoid it all you like but it won't go away and she will he impeached.

Jayop

Captain Obvious wrote: »

1) What am I making up exactly?

2) Didn't think so.

3) Easy way to avoid discussion I suppose. Deflect or defame right?

1) That I said it was fine to do something illegal if it wasn't prosecuted before.

2) She is currently being impeached for this so it's fair to assume it's within the articles of impeachment.

3) LOL if you think calling someone pro life is defaming them then that says something about your views on pro lifers.

RobertKK

Some people here are saying legal advice should be ignored because it disagrees with their pro abortion views.

Yet the republished book, replaced the illegal information with legal information about where to get the information that was removed.
She didn’t remove abortion information, she had a book with illegal information simply replaced with where to go to get information.
She was not campaigning for or against abortion, people are making that that issue.
She was keeping the book within the law of the land.

People who are arguing against her at this stage are simply saying people should break the law.

Jayop

Sometimes people should break the law if they believe that law is worth breaking and dealing with the consequences. It's a well know form of protest. Sure haven't pro life people broken plenty of laws over the years in a bit to further their agenda?

RobertKK

Jayop wrote: »

A stop Robert. You're doing more dancing around the issue than I thought possible.

It's really simple and I'll condense it for you.

Person campaigns with a promise to not do something.

Person upon being successful in this campaign on the back of this promise then does the exact opposite..

That's the problem. Avoid it all you like but it won't go away and she will he impeached.

She may be impeached for her personal views on abortion more so than anything.
We see in this thread how personal views are reflected on to her, rather than she was simply doing her job properly and keeping a book within the laws of the land.

VinLieger

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Where was this mandate set out?

It was a promise she made when campaigning, people voted for her under the impression she would keep to that.

Jayop

RobertKK wrote: »

She may be impeached for her personal views on abortion more so than anything.
We see in this thread how personal views are reflected on to her, rather than she was simply doing her job properly and keeping a book within the laws of the land.

He job is not to stay within the laws of the land. He job is to act in the best interests of the su and the student body. In this case that would have meant passing this off to the people she promised she would do if she was uncomfortable with that position that the body had decided upon then step down.

RobertKK

Jayop wrote: »

Sometimes people should break the law if they believe that law is worth breaking and dealing with the consequences. It's a well know form of protest. Sure haven't pro life people broken plenty of laws over the years in a bit to further their agenda?

So it is ok to make personal choices on what laws to break?
People do this all the time with rape, murder, burglary, speeding and killing people.
We live in a civilised society where we don’t get to pick and choose which laws must be followed and which laws we can break if we think it is ok.

AudreyHepburn

listermint wrote: »

I assume because she campaigned and won based on it.


Your thoughts please?

She said she would defer to them not break the law for them.

In all honesty this whole thing seems to have more to with a dislike of Katie’s personal views , to which she is absolutely entitled, then about the removal of clearly illegal content.

.......

This post has been deleted.

VinLieger

RobertKK wrote: »

Some people here are saying legal advice should be ignored because it disagrees with their pro abortion views.

Yet the republished book, replaced the illegal information with legal information about where to get the information that was removed.
She didn’t remove abortion information, she had a book with illegal information simply replaced with where to go to get information.
She was not campaigning for or against abortion, people are making that that issue.
She was keeping the book within the law of the land.

People who are arguing against her at this stage are simply saying people should break the law.

No they aren't you are straw manning all over the place.

You know what she should have done to avoid all of this? Keep to her promise and pass this situation along with the received legal advice on to the rest of the SU elected sabbatical officers to make the decision, exactly as she promised she would do for any issue that related to her pro life agenda during the election.

RobertKK

Jayop wrote: »

He job is not to stay within the laws of the land. He job is to act in the best interests of the su and the student body. In this case that would have meant passing this off to the people she promised she would do if she was uncomfortable with that position that the body had decided upon then step down.

The SU has to obey the laws of the land, unless you are saying they are a law on to themselves.

Billy86

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

She said she would defer to them not break the law for them.

In all honesty this whole thing seems to have more to with a dislike of Katie’s personal views , to which she is absolutely entitled, then about the removal of clearly illegal content.

If she was not willing to defer to them on Repeal or Pro-Choice issues, despite her mandate being to do so, then she should have resigned.

The victim card doesn't work here since they voted her to the position despite her personal views, as she said she would not get involved in these matters and would defer to others... only to get directly involved in these matters and overrule all others (kind of the opposite of deferring).

This issue has everything to do with her very deliberately breaking her mandate despite the other members of the SU board all disagreeing with her decision that she said she would never make.

RobertKK

VinLieger wrote: »

No they aren't you are straw manning all over the place.

You know what she should have done to avoid all of this? Keep to her promise and pass this situation along with the received legal advice on to the rest of the SU elected sabbatical officers to make the decision, exactly as she promised she would do for any issue that related to her pro life agenda during the election.

That is not relevant, she was not getting involved in an abortion debate, it was a legal point in regards to the SU and remember earlier in this thread it was the €8,000 that was the issue.
Which was actually €7,000 and which would have cost the same if she had stood aside

People are upset she did the right thing legally for the SU and the biggest issue is her pro life personal views which were not expressed in the book.

.......

This post has been deleted.

B0jangles

Isn't it a bit odd Robert, that in her no doubt sincere and honest zeal to do her very best to protect the student union from legal costs and possible legal repercussions that Katie Ascough AKA Katie Martin acted in a way which is 100% in line with her own personal ideology and 100% at odds with the stated position of the SU (which was established with a vote by the student body).

She said her personal beliefs on abortion would not affect her actions as leader of the SU; instead she almost immediately reneged on her election promises and chose instead to act on her personal beliefs.

This is a little crusade by an Iona-offshoot, it's nothing to do with the welfare of the UCD student body.

In a sense, she chose the Nuclear Option for maximum publicity and so she could play the martyr. It's a role that comes all-too easily to that type of person.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

If she was not willing to defer to them on Repeal or Pro-Choice issues, despite her mandate being to do so, then she should have resigned.

The victim card doesn't work here since they voted her to the position despite her personal views, as she said she would not get involved in these matters and would defer to others... only to get directly involved in these matters and overrule all others (kind of the opposite of deferring).

This issue has everything to do with her very deliberately breaking her mandate despite the other members of the SU board all disagreeing with her decision that she said she would never make.

It has ZERO to do with repeal the 8th.

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But she wasn't denying access, she was complying with the law. And she has every right to comply with the law.

Maybe previous SU Presidents broke the law.

Your honour. I’m glad we have you, ajudge on Boards to inform us.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Grayson

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I honestly don't understand the furor over this - are the Repeal side really that militant and determined that they alone are right that they would impeach some-one simply for not breaking the law?

I am Pro Choice myself but like it or not abortion is, for the time being, illegal and she was well within her rights, not to mention legally obliged, to remove that content.

Would you really rather she broke the law just to gain brownie points with the Repeal camp?

As for her personal opinions she is absolutely entitled to them and should not be impeached for them - that goes completely against the democracy that gave the title of President.

What happened though is that she campaigned on a promise and broke the promise within weeks of taking office. And it's the UCD students who will decide what happens to her.
And it's not as if she went looking for general legal advice. She deliberately sought out legal advice about the abortion information. The legal letter doesn't mention anything else.
So within weeks of taking office she went looking for a pro life issue that she could act on.

Plus it's worth mentioning that the SU, and other student unions, have been publishing this information for years so it's highly unlikely that any prosecution would have occurred.

Tenigate wrote: »

It's more ethical to comply with the law than to break the law and pay a fine.

Fair play to this highly ethical, moral and law abiding lady!

I don't think you know what ethics are. Because something is legal does not make it ethical. In fact legality and ethics are rarely related. Most laws like traffic laws have nothing to do with ethics.
In this case the SU have taken the position that the most ethical thing to do is provide their students with all the information they might need should they face a crisis pregnancy. And honestly if the two options are remove the information or tell the students the information, then telling them is the ethical thing to do.
Saying that it's ethical to remove the information simply because it's legal is an appeal to authority which is the worst ethical argument there is.

Red_Wake wrote: »

However, none of this is really matters to our buddies in the Pro Choice movement[I find it particularly odious that they refer to the pro-life movement as anti-choice, how would they react to being called anti-life>], who'll probably hound this attractive girl until such time as they find another public figure to browbeat.

That bit is just bizarre

pilly

Blasphemy is also against the law.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

People who are arguing against her at this stage are simply saying people should break the law.

Repeat this all you want, it was not her decision to make and if she disagreed with it she needed to resign from her post rather than break her mandate and prove herself a liar. There's no two ways about it.

She chose neither, so if she gets impeached she absolutely deserves it.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This is trolling at this stage.

Wilful ignorance - when someone repeatedly refuses to acknowledge the same point being made over and over (by multiple posters).

Maybe multiple posters are simply wrong, and their personal views on abortion has clouded their minds.

Yesterday37

I really don't like this. Sounds like something that would have happened during the dark days of Ireland's past. If Students feel that aggrieved they should organize and run a better candidate with Pro Choice views next time.

RobertKK

Billy86 wrote: »

Repeat this all you want, it was not her decision to make and if she disagreed with it she needed to resign from her post rather than break her mandate and prove herself a liar. There's no two ways about it.

She chose neither, so if she gets impeached she absolutely deserves it.

Did she make the legal decision that it was illegal and the book itself should be republished?

VinLieger

Yesterday37 wrote: »

I really don't like this. Sounds like something that would have happened during the dark days of Ireland's past. If Students feel that aggrieved they should organize and run a better candidate with Pro Choice views next time.

LOL impeachment which is a democratically accepted institution the world over and a pretty modern one at that is something from the dark days of the past?

Thats some logical reaching......

B0jangles

Ah look, RobertKK to be fair - you blathered on for months and months about how Trump was a better choice that Clinton was because she was such a massive war-monger -now that Trump is playing honest-to-god nuclear chicken with North Korea, AND maybe Iran, just for laughs!, you're nowhere to be seen. Now you're adopting a frankly unbelievable position on this Katie Ascough/Martin business - I for one would welcome a little more honest argumentation, a little less jesuitical posturing.

AudreyHepburn

Jayop wrote: »

Sometimes people should break the law if they believe that law is worth breaking and dealing with the consequences. It's a well know form of protest. Sure haven't pro life people broken plenty of laws over the years in a bit to further their agenda?

Utter rubbish - you don’t get a free pass to break laws just because you do not agree with and you certainly don’t have the right to impeach someone for holding a different view.

Post like this are exactly why I dislike the pro abortion side so much.

Billy86

RobertKK wrote: »

Did she make the legal decision that it was illegal and the book itself should be republished?

Yes, she herself made the decision to republish the book despite the other members -who she was mandated to defer to on these issues- being in complete disagreement with her on it.

At this point, she had two options: respect and comply with their decision, or resign from her post if she felt strongly enough about it or felt any actual threat of legal reprecussions. She did neither, so if she gets impeached she absolutely deserves it.

Yesterday37

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL impeachment which is a democratically accepted institution the world over and a pretty modern one at that is something from the dark days of the past?

Thats some logical reaching......

Yeah lets starting impeachment proceedings if you're side lose an election. How about next year the Pro Lifers organize a petition to impeach the next President for Pro Choice activities.

WinnyThePoo

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe multiple posters are simply wrong, and their personal views on abortion has clouded their minds.

This is an utterly hilarious statement coming from you. She's reaping what she sowed.