UCDSU attempts to silence UCD Alliance For Choice

by Darren Cogavin - Socialist Party and UCD Alliance for Choice (pc) Mon Apr 10, 2006 15:37

If proof were needed that careerism is an endemic danger in the student movement, then study Dan Hayden's trajectory from liberal fluff to po-faced populist. In the context of the Right attempting to abolish the women’s officer, and basing himself on a mawkish fetishisation of an unjust law, he is leading the attack to overturn the UCDSU's commitment to deliver information on all options in a crisis pregnancy. This is symptomatic of the rot that is now standard for the faux liberal opportunists in our union.

Control over fertility is crucial for women studying in further or higher education. The introduction of free, safe and legal abortion would allow women to control when, and if, to have children, thus boosting their education and employment prospects, incomes and opportunities. Women, including graduates, still face a huge gender pay gap and are under-represented in nearly all positions of power in society.

Despite the abhorrent absence of abortion rights, abortion is very much a reality of Irish life. Each year, about 10,000 Irish women travel to England to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Statistics collected by the English NHS show over 7,000 women from the South and about 2,000 from the North travel each year - that's over 150 women every week. It can be fairly assumed that many of these young women are students or alumni of this university. What does Dan Hayden say to these women?

The 1993 referendum, mandating the Union to provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, is a stinging indictment against the clerical state’s hypocrisy that ignores the reality of abortion in Ireland. UCD students fought hard to win access to information on abortion. Dan Hayden’s flagrant misrepresentation and dishonesty on this issue indicates the depth the union leadership will stoop to next year - curtailing democracy to satisfy their own selfish whims.

A whole press release from UCD Alliance for Choice to mark International Women’s Day has been taken down because it provided written information on abortion services that are not available on the union corridor or in any union publication. The Right defend clerical fascists right to free speech yet debate here is being stifled. Militant anti-abortionists will be exhuberent, both in Belfield and beyond, and are already deriving sado-masochistic pleasure in attaching provocative posters to Jane’s office door.

The challenge for pro-choice activists is to organise, transforming UCD Alliance for Choice from a propaganda group resurrected when rights are under attack to a pro-active organisation basing itself on a focussed, targeted approach. We need to make slogans like “Not the Church, not the state, women must decide their fate” as common currency as they were back in the days when the UCDSU and USI courageously fought the State on these issues.

by Darren - UCD Alliance for Choice Mon Apr 10, 2006 14:13

UCD Alliance for Choice can be contacted at [email protected]

by ucd student Mon Apr 10, 2006 12:13

Since when is there a Ucd Alliance for Choice? Do you have some contact info...i'd like to get involved.

by Niav - BODY/AFC Mon Apr 10, 2006 10:16

Well done Jane and all in UCD Alliance For Choice. The 1995 Information Act is an insult to the women of Ireland and completely pointless and serves only to cause further distress to women in already stresful situations.

by Solicitor - ICCL Sun Apr 09, 2006 19:08

End of story Leftywaych.
Jane has not broken the law.
Dan Hayden and Dave Curran are a complete disgrace having sold out their comrades for power.
Shame.

by gaz Sun Apr 09, 2006 06:54

the problem ucdsu has is not over its non-directive stance. the problem is that it doesn't believe that providing info on abortion clinics is part of providing information "on all pregnancy options" both verbally and in union publications. Instead of the union itself providing the info as the referendum says it *refers* women to places where they can obtain this info such as the well women clinic.

a whole press release from international womens day which conatins clinic info was taken down rather than the "offending" text simply being removed. UCDSUs editorial board operates no open editorial list were people can discuss and views reasons for deletion despite such a policy having been in place before and using the sam eopen source software indymedia uses

by dk Sun Apr 09, 2006 06:25

"Again i doubt that agencies have a pro-abortion agenda but there are a number of crisis pregnancy agencies with a pro-life agenda that will direct a woman to maintain the pregnancy rather than being non-directive and allowing a woman to make her her own choice"

I totally agree with the above statement.

Pro-choice = no stance.

The clue is in the pro, meaning 'in favour of';

and choice, meaning 'the act of selecting from a range of options' (all of the options is most desirable).

The law allows individuals and groups to make available information on abortion services outside of the state but does not allow anyone to direct a woman to have an abortion or influence HER descision.

However, there is no obligation on the part of the information provider to supply details of such options and the law allows for such providers to influence women along a pro-life agenda.

The bottom line is that the law allows the limitation of information and the promotion of ideology for pro-lifers. The UCDSU non-directive mandate seeks to counter the possibility of imbalance in the information provided by UCD Student's Union. The provision of such information is NOT AGAINST THE LAW.

by Gaz B -(A)- Sat Apr 08, 2006 23:26

Well, the powers that be at UCDSU appear to have finally embraced some kind of neo-stalinism. A refendum passed in ucd in 93 stated that "UCD Students’ Union shall provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, including abortion, both verbally and in union publications"

Choosing to travel abroad for a termination is one of several options available to women yet UCDSU refuses to carry out its mandate to provide ALL information. UCDSU has actively tried to censor anyone who does try to provide this information. Recent posts by the UCD Alliance for Choice have been entirely deleted. This is wholly unessecary. Even if UCDSU believed that it genuinely had not got a mandate to provide this information, there is no reason to take down an entire article and thread when removing the "offending" text alone would be a more democratic method.

the original article is one such story. Another previously archived story about international womens day which contained abortion clinic info was also deleted earlier today but can still be found cached at
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:cb1Bp9hmNzYJ:www.uc...&cd=1

by Leftywatch Sat Apr 08, 2006 23:03

Sorry, but Jane broke the law here. That is disgraceful. It is not even her brief, she should deal with educational issues and leave issues like this to either Dan Hayden or Michelle Kileen. If Jane is caught giving ouat information like this, she is liable to be sanctioned by the law, and in the true spirit of UCDSU'S left, they will pull out a motion asking for solidarity with Jane and a mandate to pay her fine (which will toll around £2,000). This is a very different case to Darragh McHugh's and The Ballybrack Three (where laws were circumnavigated (not totally broken)), Jane stood up at council and flagrently admitted that she would break the law and break the law she did. Elisa makes an excellent point in saying that she would rather go to Dan, than take the numbers down from Janes door, it was wholly wrong of her. Weather or not you agree, the law is the law. It may be outdated and archaic, but if you think so it does not make one wit of difference. Good work, to the sabbat who took the info down they cllearly are more law abiding than Jane who let her personal feelings enter her job (which is another disgrace)

I urge UCDSU to heavily sanction Jane

by Gaz Barrett -(A)- Sat Apr 08, 2006 21:26

deleted comments
--------------------------------------
by bob Friday, Apr 7 2006, 5:32pm

good lord

---------------------------------------
Shame!! by Ciarán Weafer Friday, Apr 7 2006, 5:54pm

Dan Hayden you are a disgrace! Your actions are shameful in that you are first of all unwilling to carry out this mandate yourself but to actively set out to undermine others who will not be so filpent as yourself in the face of democracy is an insult to the office of welfare officer!

My opinions of you have been justified!!

----------------------------------------------------------
it's about time by Kate Friday, Apr 7 2006, 6:13pm

Well done to Jane for taking a stand on reproductive rights.

--------------------------------------------------------
What non-directive means. by Name witheld for personal reasons Friday, Apr 7 2006, 7:14pm

UCDSU has a non-directive stance on abortion.This means that UCDSU does not take a stance on the issue. In a country where the majority of people are pro-life, this is the only possible fair and democratic stance to take.

If the student body was to be surveyed, there would be a reasonably even split between "pro-life" and "pro-choice". If UCDSU was to break the law in order to facilitate a pro-choice stance, it would be in breach of it's mandates. Though I personally take a pro-coice stance, I would not be in favour of UCDSU taking one.

Furthermore, UCDSU can't take a pro-choice stance without another referendum.Non-directive doesn't mean a pro-life stance.Non-directive doesn't mean a pro-choice stance.It means NO STANCE.

As it is, UCDSU gives a lot of information out and provides contact details of abortion clinics on a one-to-one basis. To go further would be to take a definite stance and thus unconstitutional.

Note:I have witheld my name in order to avoid personal attacks, given the nature of this debate and the vehemence with which people hold their views on it

-----------------------------------------------------------
Question; by Pierce Farrell - UCDSU Friday, Apr 7 2006, 7:47pm

What was the information posted on the door of the Education Vice-President's office?

Was it the contact details for a few abortion clinics in the countries mentioned above?

ORWas it the contact details for a few (ideally impartial and objective) crisis pregnancy agencies in the countries mentioned above?

If it was the first then I think the Welfare Vice-President was correct in taking down this free advertising.

This material would have been biased towards a course of action involving terminating a pregnancy.If it was the second then I think the Welfare Vice-President should have ensured those foreign crisis pregnancy agencies were free from any hidden agenda.

There is a paid part-time Research and Development Officer to assist him in this. If those agencies had any question marks surrounding them then their contact details should have been removed while the rest remained available.

Please remember that approximately 10-12% of the Union membership are foreign and may desire to discuss their situation with someone who shares their first language.Addittionally, some of these individuals are from countries where abortion is permitted.

----------------------------------------------------------------
nope by Gaz B -(A)- Friday, Apr 7 2006, 8:19pm

"UCDSU has a non-directive stance on abortion.This means that UCDSU does not take a stance on the issue."

non-directive means that UCDSU respects a womens right to choose to terminate a pregnancy along with other possible choices such as carrying through the pregnancy, adoption etc. By respecting a womens right to choose, rather than only directing a woman to maintain the pregnancy, a non-directive stance and UCDSU is pro-choice.

"If UCDSU was to break the law in order to facilitate a pro-choice stance, it would be in breach of it's mandates."

no it wouldn't, it's perfectly within it's mandate the was passed by a referendum.

"Furthermore, UCDSU can't take a pro-choice stance without another referendum."

UCDSU is pro-choice. Another referendum is not required in order for UCDSU to provide information on ALL the options available to a women.

"This material would have been biased towards a course of action involving terminating a pregnancy."

I doubt that any agency is pro-abortion, would force or encourage a women to have a termination. That is ultimately the womans decision.

"should have ensured those foreign crisis pregnancy agencies were free from any hidden agenda"

Again i doubt that agencies have a pro-abortion agenda but there are a number of crisis pregnancy agencies with a pro-life agenda that will direct a woman to maintain the pregnancy rather than being non-directive and allowing a woman to make her her own choice

add your comments

COMMENTS
show latest comments first show comment titles only

jump to comment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

no wonder women dont want to get involved in the union
by elisa Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 12:28pm

As a women,its this sort of shenenigans that makes me stay away from getting involved in the union.Id rather go into Dans office then stand outside miss Horgans Jones office scribiling down addresses of surgerys in a forign country.
What next Anto Kelly posting addresses of plastic surgeys in south Africa on his door?I was thinking of getting a bit of a nip and a tuck before the UCD ball after seeing him posing beside miss world and the three irish models.

add your comments

Don't Change!
by Elisa's Admirer Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 12:44pm

No need Elisa, you look fine as you are ;)

add your comments

Call another referendum
by Gav Reilly - Secretary, UCDSU Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 2:44pm
[email protected]

Somebody better move for another referendum at the next Council - YES or NO to overturn the 1993 mandate (whether it's valid or not at this stage, a NO vote should give it another 10 year life) or I'm f**king resigning. No f**king way do I have the patience to stand around while a load of officers either can't make up their minds about whether a mandate is valid after ten years or not(*), or whether it's valid if it's voted for by a student body from 1993 (Jesus, only Abey or Pierce could still be around from back then when "we" - ha! - voted in that one...) or where we can't even f**king decide which matters more, a mandate 13 years old or another contrary one from 3 nights ago. My f**king God.

Times like these that I get VERY pissed off about not being allowed to speak at Council or submit motions. Please, just, somebody do the f**king right thing and put a motion in so that we can sort this crap out.

And while I'm at it, why the f**k hasn't somebody rung the bloody Legal Advisor any time in the last twelve years, since Article 40.3.3 was amended, to see whether we can give out this f**king information or not?!

To paraphrase, I am very very very very very very very very p*ssed off. F**KING VERY.

(*) - Absolutely no offence to the officers concerned, but for God's sake, can somebody not try and bring in some Union legislation saying how long a motion is valid for? I mean, who's idea was it that a Council motion on policy is valid for five years, or that a Referendum on policy is valid for ten? And why does this informal legislation show contempt for our basic demoractic tool, Council, by saying that its policy decisions lapse quicker than those made by Referendum when Councillors (are supposed to) vote according to their constituents?

add your comments

Bravo
by Conor Dixon Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 3:00pm

Bravo the record for the most "f**king" on this newswire goes to Gav Reilly. Although I do agree with him wholeheartedly. Sort this mess out.

add your comments

get a life (geddit!)
by Valentino Rossi Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 3:50pm

An abortion clinic is a business. Simple as that. If an upset UCD student rings them, they won't get impartial advice like the welfare officer would give. They'll get someone on the phone trying to sell them a product. The salesman on the other end of the line will go to any lengths to sell that product. As any anarchist will tell you, that's the problem with capatilism. The trouble here is that we're not talking about trying to sell shampoo, we're talking about pregnancy termination!
Jane and the rest of you, stop this self-publicising ego trip before someone gets hurt.

add your comments

pro-life troll watch
by Emma Goldman Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 4:08pm

"As any anarchist will tell you, that's the problem with capatilism"
any simplistic economically deterministic anarachist

Rossi is a troll. Diverting discussion from the issue of abortion info into a debate on left - wing ideology was also their tactic on http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1027&search_...rtion

don't get sucked in, debate the issue

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=440&search_t...rtion

add your comments

Stand Up and Do the Job.
by Oisín - SP (per. cap.) Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 4:54pm

A motion is valid until it is repealed by the body that made it. ie the 1993 policy can only be overturned by referendum. There is no restriction on mandates lasting over 10 years.

I think it is a disgrace that any officer would disrespect the policy of the SU. It shows contempt to students. Dan's alleged actions are worrying. If officers go against the union's democratically decided policy it's a receipe for undemocratic and unaccountable officers. If Dan has a problem with the existing policy he can initiate a referendum- any student can do this if they disagree with a policy.

There is another question as to illegality. Dan told us he'd 'go all the way for students' if elected president. Clearly this is not the case as he puts the will of the government ahead of the will of the students he is meant to represent. As a students union officer it's the job and duty to implement union policy and give an honest open accountable lead on issues. An SU officer's job is not to be weak when faced with the state (btw no chance of getting prosecuted in this case!).

UCDSU has defied the law before. Particularly on the question of abortion. Sitting back weak-kneed before the authorities will win you nothing.

add your comments

How brave.
by INFORMATION Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 4:59pm

The 1993 refernedum was held after the X-Case and the Grogan case. Therefore information within the meaning of the SU constitution had to comply with the meaning of information at that(and this) time. That interpretation of information would be covered to the full by UCDSU's current non-directive policy. Any other reading of information in the 1993 SU referendum would have meant that the constitution mandated Sabbatical officers to act illegally, which is in itself illegal. Thus the referendum cannot have given Jane what she is looking for.
Given that the referedum was held over a decade ago and the council motion had its ass kicked 4 days ago it seems clear where we stand. The 1993 referendum can only support the non-directive policy and the result from council does so.
As for Jane's intentions they can only be truely obvious to her. Student Unions have in the past been used as launching boards for just such illegal activity, not because of someone's radicalism or bravery but because the union might have to pick up the tab for any legal bills. Why not wait until there is no chance that UCD students will have to pay for Jane's legal fees or the union itself is injuncted and then act on your own iniciative Jane?
I agree with Gav that clarification of the issues before the students of the college would be best. With the advice of the Union's legal advisor the situation will become clear as will the dangers and ineffectual nature of Jane's actions.

add your comments

sigh..
by Gaz B -(A)- Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 5:35pm

i think this thread has kind of missed the opportunity to rationally discuss womens right to bodily self-determination.The issue about legality does my head in. Homosexual acts were illegal in Ireland until the beginning of the 90s but that law and laws on artificial contraception were successfully defied, challenged and overturned the law of the State. The abortion issue is still the one issue the pro-life campaign is clinging onto on an island in a sea of changing social attitudes.

Nowhere in ucds constitutiion does it state that officers and UCDSU policies will only be carried out as far as the states legal framework provides. Theres a similar contradiction with trade unions democratically deciding to carry out illegal acts such as secondary picketing, breaking injunctions etc.

With regards to the council motion, refenda take precendence over council.

"As for Jane's intentions they can only be truely obvious to her."
Carrying out the unions mandate. Not just her intentions but the intentions of the majority who passed the referendum.

To put this in context, we a re talking about giving out addresses and phones numbers. How this distribution can still be illegal and cause so many people to foam at the mouth is beyond me. Providing this information is not going to open the floodgates of women chatering their own planes to go and have abortions. The right to control your own body is a fundamental right - not one granted by politicians and judges. Unfortunately its a privilege not granted to working class women who can't afford to trave abroad.

17 women a day...and thats the women we know of already have to go to ludicris lengths.

An irish solution to an irish problem.

add your comments

There is no mandate to give out phone numbers of abortion clinics.
by Dave C Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 5:37pm

I have been doing some research on this topic since the motion was put to council. From what I can tell there is nothing in the 1993 referendum that mandated officers to give out contact details of abortion clinics. The referendum wording was to give out "information" on all pregnancy options. The reason the referendum was called was because since 1989 UCDSU policy was to not give out *any information* at all, after a referendum was passed in that year.

Jane wrote:
“It is a worrying trend that some officers this year appear to think that they are above mandates given to them by the students of UCD."

So there is no such mandate. If it was the intention of the 1993 referendum to make SU officers break the law, it would have been explicitly stated. The actual intention of the 1993 referendum was to reverse the policy adopted in 1989.

The 1993 referendum was to give out abortion information. Here is the wording, according to an article on www.ucdsu.net:

"That UCD Students’ Union shall provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, including abortion, both verbally and in union publications."
http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=1083

This is what we do at the moment. See the freshers guide for example for info on abortion and the other options.

Some people are interpreting the referendum to mean that the SU should illegally give out phone numbers and contact details. This is untrue.

The referendum mandates the SU to give out "information". Now to understand what they meant by "information" we have to look at the context:

In 1989 UCD students voted, in a referendum to restrict the giving out of information -any information at all- about abortion. This meant turning away a student if they came asking about abortion.

In 1992 Irish law was changed after the X case, to allow information about abortion to be given out. So the year after, UCD Students Union ran a referendum which was passed, which changed the policy adopted in 1989. Because UCDSU policy since the 1989 referendum was for no information whatsoever to be given out, the 1993 refenendum sought to reverse this -since after all the law had just been changed.

So the purpose of the 1993 referendum was not to make SU officers give out contact details, which would have been illegal. It was instead to reverse the policy adopted in the 1989 referendum which forbade the SU giving out any information at all about abortion.

So to repeat again, there is no mandate from students to give out phone numbers of abortion clinics.

There is, however a mandate from SU council *not* to give out contact details. The motion at last council calling for it to be given out was roundly defeated. To ignore this mandate is highly undemocratic.

add your comments

lack of records a hinderence
by Gaz B -(A)- Saturday, Apr 8 2006, 6:05pm

in the late 80s it wasnt clear if providing information about abortion clinics in the UK was against the law. SPUC successfully won legal judgements against family planning clinics including the Well Woman. In 89, it was decided at council to provide information to women who sought it. Also in 1989 a Union general meeting (how the hell did they ever hod one of those) continue providing counselling and "information". Unfortunately i don't have the exact wording from the general meeting.

in November of 1989, a referendum in saw students vote by 55% to 45% to prevent the provision of non-directive counselling and abortion information by the SU. this was overturned after the x case refendum when in January 1993 the students were asked if they believed:

That UCD Students’ Union shall provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, including abortion, both verbally and in union publications

The referendum was passed with 3559 votes for, 1792 against.

Dave said that: "The referendum mandates the SU to give out "information". Now to understand what they meant by "information" we have to look at the context:"

the refendum passed states that the Su "provide non-directive counselling and information on all pregnancy options, including abortion, both verbally and in union publications"

travelling abroad for an abortion is an option (one of several). to not provide information on where to have a termination abroad would be breaking the mandate to provde information on "non-directive counselling and information on ALL pregnancy options"

i dont see how all options could not includeinfo on clinics abroad

add your comments