Outright lies in Campaign

Anne1982h

Why are the pro life side allowed to spread lies unchecked? Who should be making sure things are factual and people are informed on the facts? The misinformation given out so far has been staggering and the campaign is only getting started. There was a claim about Down syndrome which the journal fact checked as completely inaccurate. There was some nurse working in an abortion theatre who was splashed over billboards saying he’ll never forgot what he saw who turned out to not be a nurse or have worked in an abortion threatre at all!!!!! (seriously how are they allowed get away with this).. there’s a poster saying if you are opposed to abortion at six months vote no even though this isn’t what we are voting on. There’s a video of ‘two leading obstetricians’ who it turns out are retired and both have been in court over mistreatment of Patients ( in particular one very scary case where the doctor had to admit liability for a baby being born severely brain damaged due to how he handled the birth). There’s the argument put forward that pro choice fundraising was illegal and pointing out an Austrian citizen who donated as evidence - it turns out she was an Irish citizen but no apology was given for lying about her. There were accusations of pro choice marchers holding fascist signs and how they were fascists. It turned out these had been given to young people who wouldn’t know the symbol as free posters for the march by someone on the pro life side. Other parades saw pro life people holding up risible and provocative signs on a pro choice march trying to turn people against the pro choice side. All this was uncovered but again no apology forthcoming from the pro life side or acknowledgement of wrong doing. There was a girl pro life spokesperson who gave a fake name to the BBC when interviewed so it wouldn’t emerge she was the daughter of one of the heads of the Iona Institute. This is just the things I’ve heard about and I’m not even involved in the campaign. It’s like their approach is the end justifies the means and to hell with facts. I’ve never seen anything like it in a referendum.

gmisk

Those are only some of the ones known about...I would think there are a lot more, I think a lot of people like John Mc Guirk just throw mud in the hope some of it might stick or fool some people (a la trump).

He has history....a lot more just look at his twitter feed to see the madness!
e.g. https://twitter.com/Gintonious/status/984348559683280897
https://www.herald.ie/news/spindoctor-calls-libertas-poll-failure-simons-psychotic-bitch-27915407.html

Other parades saw pro life people holding up risible and provocative signs on a pro choice march trying to turn people against the pro choice side.
It was lucky this one was caught on camera there is also a video
https://twitter.com/daithigor/status/779726277032968192?lang=en

Anne1982h

But who is responsible for ensuring this doesn’t happen? There are large pro life meetings being held across Ireland. Those who attend will be basing their vote on incendiary lies which prompts them to vote against repeal. Surely you can’t actively mis inform citizens in a referendum? Is there no government body over seeing this? I just can’t understand how they are allowed keep this up without having to put public retractions for lies out in the public domain?

gmisk

https://twitter.com/maireadenright/status/983277171480453120
Another poster which is spouting rubbish

Zubeneschamali

Anne1982h wrote: »

But who is responsible for ensuring this doesn’t happen?

Not the Advertising Standards Authority anyhow:

Some individuals, representatives and interest groups may have concerns about the content of marketing communications and advertising regarding the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation.

While the ASAI Code remit encompasses many areas of commercial marketing communications, the ASAI Code does not apply, amongst other things, to non-commercial marketing communications with the principal purpose of expressing an advertiser’s position on a political, religious, or social matter or on an issue of public interest.

The ASAI is therefore not in a position to address any complaints regarding advertising concerning the 8th Amendment of the Constitution and related Referendum/legislation unless the content specifically contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

We therefore, ask that you please refrain from submitting any related complaints unless the marketing communication contains a commercial element, such as fundraising.

Hotblack Desiato

Pure cop-out from the ASAI, but what else would you expect?

It would be funny though to have one of the god-botherer advertisers seen all too frequently on Irish Rail (and now creeping onto Dublin Bus as well :mad: ) be dragged in and forced to prove the accuracy of their claims...

For Forks Sake

More on "Noel the nurse".

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

For Forks Sake

Another good thread on the sort of antics being carried out: https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/977849018331090944

amdublin

I've decided that every time I see something untrue in this referendum I'll donate a fiver here

https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf1

Thanks folks. With this old thread here now there goes my drinking money for the weekend!

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

I've decided that every time I see something untrue in this referendum I'll donate a fiver here

https://togetherforyes.causevox.com/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=post&utm_campaign=cf1

Thanks folks. With this old thread here now there goes my drinking money for the weekend!

Jesus you must normally drink a shocking amount!

gmisk

For Forks Sake wrote: »

More on "Noel the nurse".

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/03/08/a-pro-life-pattern/

Jesus he couldnt even spell the word practitioner in his fake qualification!

gmisk

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2018/04/12/if-you-mark-yes-that-pencil-becomes-a-knife/
Are we voting on exterminating the homeless next?
John Waters zzz

GLaDOS

I had been wondering about the accuracy of a number of posters, it's a disgrace that this is allowed unchecked.

Inquitus

Was just looking at the bookies odds there, Yes is the favourite in every voting region, from 1/50 at best to 5/6 at worst.

Akrasia

Maybe this thread or one like it should be formatted with bullet points of Proven lies by the pro life campaign?

The op could then be edited to add further instances as they are discovered?

Timberrrrrrrr

Akrasia wrote: »

Maybe this thread or one like it should be formatted with bullet points of Proven lies by the pro life campaign?

The op could then be edited to add further instances as they are discovered?

Would the boards.ie servers be up to storing that much false information:D

Inquitus

Inquitus wrote: »

Was just looking at the bookies odds there, Yes is the favourite in every voting region, from 1/50 at best to 5/6 at worst.

Paddy Power have no repeal as follows:
4/11 for Donegal
1/2 for Mayo
1/4 for Roscommon
4/6 for Longford Westmeath
1/3for Monaghan
8/15 Sligo Leitrim

The following counties are 5/6 (a toss-up, not favorite):
Offaly
Limerick County
Galway East
Carlow Kilkenny

gmisk

Deleted User wrote: »

Paddy Power have no repeal as follows:
4/11 for Donegal
1/2 for Mayo
1/4 for Roscommon
4/6 for Longford Westmeath
1/3for Monaghan
8/15 Sligo Leitrim

The following counties are 5/6 (a toss-up, not favorite):
Offaly
Limerick County
Galway East
Carlow Kilkenny

Do you have the overall odds for yes and no?

Anne1982h

Akrasia wrote: »

Maybe this thread or one like it should be formatted with bullet points of Proven lies by the pro life campaign?

The op could then be edited to add further instances as they are discovered?

My worry with all this is that it is well and good for internet users but those elderly who are known to have a great voter turnout are being spoon fed these lies in face to face so called ‘monster meetings’ and will accept them as fact and vote on that basis.

I was discussing this with my Oh and he did point out the ridiculous lies around Brexit that were taken as fact. Unfortunately we may find ourselves in the same situation where people vote to keep the 8th on the basis of mistruths about removing it.

Inquitus

gmisk wrote: »

Do you have the overall odds for yes and no?

1/5 Yes 7/2 No

Inquitus

Deleted User wrote: »

Paddy Power have no repeal as follows:
4/11 for Donegal
1/2 for Mayo
1/4 for Roscommon
4/6 for Longford Westmeath
1/3for Monaghan
8/15 Sligo Leitrim

The following counties are 5/6 (a toss-up, not favorite):
Offaly
Limerick County
Galway East
Carlow Kilkenny

Aye my bad as I flicked through them I assumed Yes was always on the left, but that is not the case, the favoured result is.

AnneFrank

I'm in the 7/2 camp so.
In relation to the op, i'm sure there is lies on both sides of the campaign, they always turn ugly no matter what the subject matter unfortunately it's human nature.

Timberrrrrrrr

AnneFrank wrote: »

I'm in the 7/2 camp so.
In relation to the op, i'm sure there is lies on both sides of the campaign, they always turn ugly no matter what the subject matter unfortunately it's human nature.

Would you care to list the lies from the pro-choice side?

oscarBravo

AnneFrank wrote: »

I'm in the 7/2 camp so.
In relation to the op, i'm sure there is lies on both sides of the campaign, they always turn ugly no matter what the subject matter unfortunately it's human nature.

"On both sides. On both sides."

If you see lies from the Repeal campaign, feel free to point them out.

rawn

My favorite lie is an ad that popped up during a mobile phone game i was playing. It was a 5 second video with the title "a doctor speaking out about how dangerous abortions are". The doctor in the video was Leo Varadkar! He did speak about abortion, but not about danger involved. I took a screenshot and reported it, haven't seen it since.

AnneFrank

rawn wrote: »

My favorite lie is an ad that popped up during a mobile phone game i was playing. It was a 5 second video of "a doctor speaking out about how dangerous abortions are". The "doctor" in the video was Leo Varadkar! I took a screenshot reported it, haven't seen it since.

He is a qualified Doctor though ?

rawn

AnneFrank wrote: »

rawn wrote: »

My favorite lie is an ad that popped up during a mobile phone game i was playing. It was a 5 second video of "a doctor speaking out about how dangerous abortions are". The "doctor" in the video was Leo Varadkar! I took a screenshot reported it, haven't seen it since.

He is a qualified Doctor though ?

Sorry, I should have been more clear, in the 5 second clip he does talk about abortion, but not that it's dangerous!

gmisk

rawn wrote: »

Sorry, I should have been more clear, in the 5 second clip he does talk about abortion, but not that it's dangerous!

Maybe edit your post....because thats exactly what you said....

Infini

gmisk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maireadenright/status/983277171480453120
Another poster which is spouting rubbish

I saw that the other day. Really is ridiculous when outright BS is trying to be passed off as facts. Max would be 12 weeks in most circumstances which is 3 months. The rare exceptuon to this would be Fatal Fetal Abnormality under which the baby is dead to rights and will not survive period.

finbar10

gmisk wrote: »

https://twitter.com/maireadenright/status/983277171480453120
Another poster which is spouting rubbish

A lot of tenuous statements are made in referendum campaigns that are unlikely to come to pass, e.g. plenty in the Lisbon referendum campaigns. This doesn't mean you can say for definite they are lies as per the thread title. If the poster said "five months" it would be on somewhat more solid ground (the government Heads of Bill does propose to allow abortions on the signatures of two doctors on the grounds of serious risk to mental or physical health up to "viablity": a term somewhat open to interpretation but probably around 24 weeks). However, to play devil's advocate, this referendum is primarily about changing the constitution (not really the initial legislation that is being proposed). A future government *might* change legislation to encompass 6 months (perhaps not likely, but nonetheless technically possible).

finbar10

rawn wrote: »

My favorite lie is an ad that popped up during a mobile phone game i was playing. It was a 5 second video with the title "a doctor speaking out about how dangerous abortions are". The doctor in the video was Leo Varadkar! He did speak about abortion, but not about danger involved. I took a screenshot and reported it, haven't seen it since.

You mean this ad here using an old interview with Leo Varadkar? Obviously, he has very much changed his views in the interim. However, he is a doctor and what he says in the clip is:

In countries with very liberal laws, like Britain for example, not only do they end the life of the unborn, they also put women at risk because women can die as a result of their termination, can be injured as a result of them, or even lose their fertility

It is very cheeky and perhaps not very sportsmanly , but the title "a doctor speaking out about how dangerous abortions are" is not actually that inaccurate.

Hotblack Desiato

That's a lie. A legal abortion in a developed country is always safer than continuing the pregnancy.

finbar10

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's a lie. A legal abortion in a developed country is always safer than continuing the pregnancy.

Is that a reply to my last post? If so, what's a lie? What Leo Varadkar said? I'm not defending what he said (would have some issues with it myself); just saying the title ascribed to the ad is a reasonable enough summary of what he said.

Hotblack Desiato

finbar10 wrote: »

If so, what's a lie? What Leo Varadkar said?

Yes.

finbar10

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes.

Sure. As pro-life arguments go, that was a fairly crap one by Varadkar. Maybe it was taken out of context or whatever, and the whole thing sounded more reasonable in totality (I don't know). I think the point of that clip was to emphasize his about-face.

robp

Lie

Pregnant woman with cancer cannot avail of treatment in Ireland

Myth
https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/982147407524741121

Facts
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=24968
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9tyh4zRsE8

robp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's a lie. A legal abortion in a developed country is always safer than continuing the pregnancy.

Nope. Claims require evidence and your claim doesn't take into account the enormous variation in early vs late abortion and the huge variation in maternal deaths country to country.

Seth Brundle

robp wrote: »

Lie

Pregnant woman with cancer cannot avail of treatment in Ireland

Myth
https://twitter.com/john_mcguirk/status/982147407524741121

Is there any evidence of John's allegation apart from his tweet?

Hotblack Desiato

robp wrote: »

Nope. Claims require evidence and your claim doesn't take into account the enormous variation in early vs late abortion and the huge variation in maternal deaths country to country.

This (greater risk to health by proceeding with the pregnancy, than not - limited to 24 weeks - in the opinion, formed in good faith, of two registered medical practitioners) is what is set out in section 1(1) (a) of the UK Abortion Act 1967, and about 95% of abortions in the UK take place on these grounds.

The other grounds

(b) risk of permanent damage to the woman's health
(c) risk to life greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) risk of severe handicap

have no time limit and are used much more rarely. (d) is about 1% of abortions in the UK.

Also worth noting (2004 figures, on the phone so it's the best I can find for now) 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less.

Neddyusa

kbannon wrote: »

Is there any evidence of John's allegation apart from his tweet?

From the IT article:

For example, a pro-choice meeting in Kildare was recently told that a woman who has cancer while pregnant cannot avail of chemotherapy in Ireland. This is simply false, and it appals me that such a claim would ever be made about our health service. Let there be no doubt: in such a situation, a woman can indeed be treated, even if the treatment leads to a detrimental outcome for the unborn child.

However, we now also now know that research has shown that chemotherapy and other treatments are usually safe for the unborn child.

Dr Frédéric Amant has been described by the Lancet as “leading the agenda on cancer in pregnancy”. His research, published in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at the European Cancer Congress, showed that cancer treatments for the mother do not harm the unborn child as was previously believed.

My colleagues in Ireland in oncology practice tell me they have always been able to achieve an optimal cancer treatment for the mother without the need to forgo the life of the child. There is no question of women being denied life-saving cancer treatment because of the amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/medical-myths-about-eighth-amendment-must-be-challenged-1.3451748

Hotblack Desiato

That article is an opinion piece from a pro-life doctor.

Other doctors have written into the IT saying that they disagree with the claims made.

We have documented cases of women in Ireland being refused cancer treatment if pregnant, and of women receiving cancer treatment having to submit a negative pregnancy test before undergoing each round of chemotherapy.

pitifulgod

Neddyusa wrote: »

From the IT article:

For example, a pro-choice meeting in Kildare was recently told that a woman who has cancer while pregnant cannot avail of chemotherapy in Ireland. This is simply false, and it appals me that such a claim would ever be made about our health service. Let there be no doubt: in such a situation, a woman can indeed be treated, even if the treatment leads to a detrimental outcome for the unborn child.

However, we now also now know that research has shown that chemotherapy and other treatments are usually safe for the unborn child.

Dr Frédéric Amant has been described by the Lancet as “leading the agenda on cancer in pregnancy”. His research, published in peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at the European Cancer Congress, showed that cancer treatments for the mother do not harm the unborn child as was previously believed.

My colleagues in Ireland in oncology practice tell me they have always been able to achieve an optimal cancer treatment for the mother without the need to forgo the life of the child. There is no question of women being denied life-saving cancer treatment because of the amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/medical-myths-about-eighth-amendment-must-be-challenged-1.3451748

Drug trials don't allow pregnant women to participate so it's definitive that women are denied this treatment. Example being Michelle Harte.

gmisk

A couple more
https://twitter.com/ArtimusFoul/status/988898040604917766

Seemingly Leitrim and Donegal are exactly the same place....
https://twitter.com/lifeinstitute/status/987623031982952449

robp

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This (greater risk to health by proceeding with the pregnancy, than not - limited to 24 weeks - in the opinion, formed in good faith, of two registered medical practitioners) is what is set out in section 1(1) (a) of the UK Abortion Act 1967, and about 95% of abortions in the UK take place on these grounds.

The other grounds

(b) risk of permanent damage to the woman's health
(c) risk to life greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
(d) risk of severe handicap

have no time limit and are used much more rarely. (d) is about 1% of abortions in the UK.

Also worth noting (2004 figures, on the phone so it's the best I can find for now) 87% of abortions were performed at 12 weeks or less.

The percent of abortion that are late are high but the numbers involved are no less shocking because so many abortions occur. The fact is that risk of death from abortion is not zero and increases in late abortions.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That article is an opinion piece from a pro-life doctor.

Other doctors have written into the IT saying that they disagree with the claims made.

We have documented cases of women in Ireland being refused cancer treatment if pregnant, and of women receiving cancer treatment having to submit a negative pregnancy test before undergoing each round of chemotherapy.

If those reports are true they are rare aberration. The Michelle Harte was one and hence money was paid out. if it was Irish policy the HSE would not have paid out. Being asked to do a pregnancy test is not the say as being refused treatment and I do not find it all worrying.

robp

pitifulgod wrote: »

Drug trials don't allow pregnant women to participate so it's definitive that women are denied this treatment. Example being Michelle Harte.

Sourceless?

gmisk

robp wrote: »

Sourceless?

I know it was tweeted by professor Louise Kenny when John Mc Guirk was spouting his usual rubbish...I know which one I would tend to believe
https://twitter.com/louiseckenny/status/983064303111692288

For Forks Sake

Well, this is... different...

Zubeneschamali

Anything identifying the author/campaign/printer on that one?

For Forks Sake

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Anything identifying the author/campaign/printer on that one?

Not that I could see from the car. There's quite a few of them up around the Newlands Cross/Belgard road area.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Anything identifying the author/campaign/printer on that one?

There's definitely some small print underneath VOTE at the bottom, but it looks very short compared to the two or three lines other posters have.

Zubeneschamali

https://irishelectionliterature.com/2017/01/26/leaflet-from-cherish-all-the-children-equally-republican-progressive-pro-life/ looks to be the same slogan from back in 2017.

"Republican. Progressive. Pro-life"

Continuity Iona? The Real SPUC? Republican Youth Defence?

here they are on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Cherishallthechildrenequally/

And Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/cherishallthechildrenequally