Originally Posted by Big Brother

A fair question.

Not before the Father Kevin Reynolds debacle.

Before that their bias was very strong but wasn't debated in public

Only when the FKR affair and tweetgate exposed and laid bare the full extent of RTE-Irish Times lib-left bias did they pull back.

Stephen Collins - who I think is a decent sort - was probably held back from writing about it by the more Marxist senior editors in the Irish Times.

Now he's being allowed to write more about it.

But RTE's questioning of the CPA is still tokenistic. They know which side their bread is buttered on

Trade unionists still vastly outnumber critics of the CPA on most RTE programmes that address such issues.

Anyway the purpose of the thread isn't about RTE.

It is about the gross hypcrisy of Labour in allowing their leader in the Seanad to try and censor free speech.

Obviously the vicious freedom hating stickie Stalinist mindset is alive and well in Labour.

Were you dropped on your head by a freedom hating stickie[sic] Stalinist mindset mother as a baby?

Originally Posted by Big Brother

I don't attack her persona. I'm sure she's lovely in person.

I question the constitency of someone who bleats about personal freedoms while trying to censor those whose views she dislikes.

The added hypocrisy here is that RTE / Irish Times have given her far more publicity than she deserves. Having received this freedom, she abuses it to try and deny it to others.

Actually that was a response to another poster rather than your OP, although I don't agree with your comments therein either.

She is asking that emotive materials not be used in an advertising campaign on a sensitive issue. Were the likes of Choice Ireland to run a campaign with pictures of mothers and babies saying "I wish I didn't have him/her" it would be justifiably subject to the same kinds of criticisms. There is no hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech there.

The media pick up on stories that they consider newsworthy and will sell papers/increase ratings, there is no 'publicity agenda' there.

Originally Posted by Partizan

Were you dropped on your head by a freedom hating stickie[sic] Stalinist mindset mother as a baby?

You're of the opinion that BB had a mother? I always thought he was built in an underground lab. I'm more than willing to admit I may have been wrong.

Originally Posted by Big Brother

In fairness to SF public services up north are vastly better than here: The public healthcare system is free and excellent, the public transport runs on time and you get schoolbooks for free.

Nor are local authority managers earning 140k a year nor anything like it.

SF can't control fact that Tories are in power in Westminster, a fact taht strengthens teh case for a 32 county republic.

A goal which Labour - by the way - have utterly abandoned.

All of which was the case before SF got into power.

Originally Posted by Big Brother

Of course it is. Standing for eleciton to a body you don't think should exist is patent double standards.

Did she say she wants to abolish it?

Originally Posted by redhead

I'm sure there are plenty. Do you have any valid criticisms of her performance as a Senator or do you just want to stick to personal attacks?

Yes her hypocrisy as enunciated in the OP is proof enough.

Originally Posted by redhead

Actually that was a response to another poster rather than your OP, although I don't agree with your comments therein either.

She is asking that emotive materials not be used in an advertising campaign on a sensitive issue. Were the likes of Choice Ireland to run a campaign with pictures of mothers and babies saying "I wish I didn't have him/her" it would be justifiably subject to the same kinds of criticisms. There is no hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech there.

The media pick up on stories that they consider newsworthy and will sell papers/increase ratings, there is no 'publicity agenda' there.

Define emotive? You can't. YD are perfectly entitled to put forward their viewpoint. Bacik should come clean and admit that as a peddler of abortion she objects to the fact that others disagree with her rather than pretending this is about advertising standards.

Originally Posted by Garland Names the Skies

Did she say she wants to abolish it?

It is Labour policy is it not?

Originally Posted by Clanrickard

Define emotive? You can't.

Is that rhetorical? Because I can you know, it's not an abstract concept 'arousing strong feelings or appealing to emotion'.

It is Labour policy is it not?

Are people obligated to agree with their parties on every issue?

To be honest even if she did agree with it, the Seanad remains part of the countries legislature until a referendum is passed and so one might still see a need to participate in it until a Unicimerial system is introduced

Originally Posted by Big Brother

Of course it is. Standing for eleciton to a body you don't think should exist is patent double standards.

No, not at all. Reform from within (including reform to the point of abolition) is a perfectly valid approach. Particularly so when you're talking about a legislative entity, the abolition of which would require a particular piece of legislation.

Which do you think would be easier to abolish - a Seanad with a 50/50 split between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, or one comprised solely of anti-abolitionists?

Originally Posted by redhead

Actually that was a response to another poster rather than your OP, although I don't agree with your comments therein either.

She is asking that emotive materials not be used in an advertising campaign on a sensitive issue. Were the likes of Choice Ireland to run a campaign with pictures of mothers and babies saying "I wish I didn't have him/her" it would be justifiably subject to the same kinds of criticisms. There is no hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech there.

The media pick up on stories that they consider newsworthy and will sell papers/increase ratings, there is no 'publicity agenda' there.

What the hell do you mean "emotive"?

This is double speak.

The posters convey the reality that this is a human life at stake.

She and other pro choice people may say this is "emotive"

What they really mean - hypcrites that they are - is that the don't want the truth to be exposed. That abortion is taking a human life.

These are facts which the public have a right to consider.

The use of Stalinist terminology and double speak words "foetus" "emotive" shows a cold calculating hypocrisy at work here.