Ricochet Member Recommended FeedRecommended by R> Members

Amnesty International Ireland’s Head Calls for Peaceful Pro-life Protestors to Be Jailed.

 

As many of you know, I wrote a blog post about the above twitter Irish personality on Thursday that many of you were kind enough to like, comment, and promote. Sorry to say, I again have to refer to the same individual due to recent events in Ireland. These events are shocking but not surprising considering the modern liberal “mind” across the West.

As many of you know, Ireland legalised abortion on demand, becoming fully legal this month. Since then, more than 20 abortions have been carried out in Ireland with more planned. This may seem small but there were only 24 committed at all last year.

To mark the event, many pro-lifers protested peacefully outside sites they knew were going to be used for abortion. The media went nuts. Social media has hurled abuse and horror at the peaceful protestors and some politicians are calling for exclusion zones to be set. This would be bad; Bunreacht na Eireann Ireland’s constitution allows peaceful protest. It will be difficult for the media and government to do.

Some people have advocated that any pro-lifer near a clinic with a sign or placard should be arrested for harassment. One of the people calling for exclusion zones — and thus a de-facto ban on free speech around abortion clinics and the arrest of protestors — is the above liberal atheist Colm O’Gorman. This may not seem much but Colm is more than just a liberal poser; he leads Amnesty International.

The irony of this should not need to be written out but I shall. Amnesty’s head, an organisation which represents prisoners of conscience, seeks to jail people. Irony. Insane. Pathetic. Modern Ireland.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 7 comments.

  1. Member
    Paddy S Post author

    This is liberal delusion 101. Another reason why I have no faith in secular humanists or liberals when they say they believe in free speech. THE UDHR is the foundation commandments and rule of law for many trendy liberals, but its bankrupt as can be seen with this.

    Rights come from God, not from the state. I remember Reason magazine put it accurately it suits atheists better if rights come from God not the state.

    • #1
    • January 5, 2019 at 6:06 pm
    • 4 likes
  2. Thatcher

    Glad you’re still strong, Paddy; prayers!

    • #2
    • January 5, 2019 at 10:12 pm
    • 4 likes
  3. Coolidge

    Paddy S (View Comment):
    Rights come from God, not from the state. I remember Reason magazine put it accurately it suits atheists better if rights come from God not the state.

    I’m confused by the second sentence. Can you explain?

    • #3
    • January 6, 2019 at 9:59 am
    • Like
  4. Lincoln

    @paddysiochain I suppose we can’t know the torment that Colm O’Gorman might still be suffering with and I am very sorry for him that he experienced such unspeakable evil growing up. But he is driven by his hatred of the church and it’s the innocent unborn that must pay. 

    • #4
    • January 6, 2019 at 12:48 pm
    • 1 like
  5. Coolidge
    TBA

    I have some sympathy with exclusion zones to this limit (only); free access. 

    People have to be able to go where they will. 

    You wanna protest abortion, a school, a business, a military, a _________, go right ahead. But not a) on private property, and b) in such a way that you either touch or bar a person who is attempting to move. 

    To my mind, that is the point where police should start cracking heads, because physical touch and barring entry/movement isn’t speech, it’s battery. 

    I imagine there are legal reasons why this isn’t how its done, but people who steal other people’s right-of-way are criminals in my mind regardless of the justness of their cause. 

    • #5
    • January 6, 2019 at 10:13 pm
    • 2 likes
  6. Thatcher

    ‘Tis only a battle.

    The war never ends.

    • #6
    • January 7, 2019 at 5:28 am
    • 3 likes
  7. Lincoln

    TBA (View Comment):

    I have some sympathy with exclusion zones to this limit (only); free access.

    People have to be able to go where they will.

    You wanna protest abortion, a school, a business, a military, a _________, go right ahead. But not a) on private property, and b) in such a way that you either touch or bar a person who is attempting to move.

    To my mind, that is the point where police should start cracking heads, because physical touch and barring entry/movement isn’t speech, it’s battery.

    I imagine there are legal reasons why this isn’t how its done, but people who steal other people’s right-of-way are criminals in my mind regardless of the justness of their cause.

    Yes I agree with this. I don’t think it would be right to try and prevent or intimidate someone from entering. Maybe any kind of direct engagement is inappropriate. But other than that I think the exclusion zone business is just a clampdown on free speech in case somebody watching might get the idea that maybe abortion isn’t as wonderful as they keep telling us. Pretty much the same reason why they are making doctors refer patients rather than conscientiously object or why they wouldn’t allow any amendments to the bill. Abortion can’t be criticised in case people start remembering why we created the 8th amendment in the first place.

    • #7
    • January 7, 2019 at 2:31 pm
    • 1 like