A Pro-Life demonstration outside the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission

Gorugeen Fingleton writes:

I wondered would it be possible to ask Legal Coffee Drinker about legislation to combat the use of disturbing images.

The relevant law is The Criminal Justice (public order) Act 1994, section 7. In Criminal Law (Charleton, McDermott, Bolger 1999) they specifically mention the use of section 7 against anti abortion campaigners.

If this is quoted to a Garda they supposedly can act on it. However, when it was quoted recently the person was told that ‘higher ups’ have said the imagery is not illegal.

It’d be great to get some clarity on this…?

Legal Coffee Drinker responds:

“An interesting query! Section 7(1) of the Criminal Justice (Public Order) Act 1994 states as follows:-

“It shall be an offence for any person in a public place to distribute or display any writing, sign or visible representation which is threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace may be occasioned.”

As a minimum, it would need to be shown that the material was ‘obscene’ for it to breach Section 7(1). I have not been able to find any reported Irish cases on the point, but there is a recent relevant Australian decision.

In Fraser v County Court of Victoria & Anor [2017] VSC 83 (21 March 2017) the Supreme Court of Victoria (Emerton J) defined ‘obscene’ as “at the highest end of what is disgusting, repugnant, repulsive or offensive, having regard to contemporary community standards… images that are of the most seriously shocking type.”

Based on this definition, she held that the display of a poster featuring photographs of abandoned foetuses was the “display of an obscene figure in a public place” contrary to s 17(1) (b) of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic).

This case represents a significant extension of the definition of ‘obscene’, previously defined by Australian courts [Crowe v Graham [1968] HCA 6; (1968) 121 CLR 375] as something which, by reason of the manner in which it dealt with sexual matters, transgressed the generally accepted bounds of decency.

Were it to be followed in Ireland, Emerton J’s definition would potentially prohibit the public display of anything offensive ‘having regard to contemporary community standards‘.

The difficulty is of course that even a short historical review shows many activities, exercised as of right in Ireland today, which would only a few years ago have been quite likely to satisfy this test.

If the definition of ‘obscene’ in Fraser is to be adopted for the purposes of suppressing posters by the pro-life movement, this could potentially have knock-on effects for freedom of speech and social change generally, a generation or so down the line…

Rollingnews

92 thoughts on “Graphic Clarity

  1. Shane Duffy

    Is it ok to use disturbing images when protesting against hare coursing, lab testing make-up on animals etc? Surely what’s good for the goose etc etc?

  2. Jonickal

    That’s a disgusting image for sure, but I’m still going to vote yes in the referendum because abortions are handy if we make a mistake by getting inconveniently pregnant. It’s just the way things are now a days. Get used to it.

    1. david

      We need clarity from the medical profession that this is what a foetus looks like at 10 weeks
      if it is to me this is nearly a fully formed human baby
      So the limit must be reduced to an age when the foetus is not developed to resemble a baby
      This is one reason of many why the whole thing that is proposed must be laid out on the referendum ballot paper
      We cannot walk ourselves into another situation where another savita dies or any mentally or physically handicapped child is terminated or abortion replaces contraception

      1. Nigel

        They’ve made their intentions about a post-Repeal regime quite clear, but since you can’t even manage to get it together enough to find out what a fetus really looks like at 11 weeks with the entire power of the internet at your disposal, and since you seem to be about to base your vote on what something may or may not look like, I question your ability and your judgement when it comes to detecting dangerous ambiguities in any proposed legislation. The 8th Amendment killed Savita. Don’t invoke her name to oppose its repeal. That’s genuinely obscene. But I suspect it’s supposed to be.

        1. david

          What killed savita was the decision by the doctors to leave a dead baby in her causing sepsis
          It was not the eight amendment they could of saved her life but their moral beliefs reflected in their actions
          A doctor is about saving lives and they chose to do what they did
          Actually I am very familiar with what a foetus looks like there is even a site that has diagrams of them week by week
          We can also say that your repeal the eight are using the death of savita and other women as a pin up to push for abortion on demand
          I find that quite obscene and disgusting of you to try and use that one against me and the tactics so this country allows abortion on demand

          1. Frill the 8th

            and I think it is obscene and disgusting that anyone should say I can’t have an abortion here
            under the Irish health Care system
            and under the eye of my own doctors

            why da rhymes with múc should I leave the city where I live
            na’ mind the Country where I live
            to put myself into the hands of a Medical team that don’t even know my name

            and pay them!!!

            c’mere are you a Kerry man by any chance

          2. Nigel

            They did what they did because of the 8th.

            ‘I find that quite obscene and disgusting’

            No you don’t.

      2. Basil Brush

        This is an incredible argument and am sure you are not the only one who believes that in circumstances when a human fetus doesnt resemble a human baby then its ok to abort. I believe there are many left leaning, liberal minded people in this country who are disturbed by the ‘clump of cells’ argument. Unlike the marriage referendum, I think many will be surprised with how close this referendum will be.

        1. Frill the 8th

          you know double B
          up to about 2 weeks ago I would have agreed the ta/ nil would be a lot closer together

          not now,
          the anti side made a right show of themselves with McGuirk and his trap, infiltrating the Repeal March with fascist symbols, the fake actors and the misleading ads.

          And tis worse they’re getting
          The voting population have had enough of bogus preaching and infomercials, durty tricks, pretendy faith in religious waffle, phoney religious institutions masquerading as looking after children, young girls and the vulnerable, cranky old men who having seen a horn in years, and anyone who thinks women should not have equal right to ANYTHING

          I’m not suggesting the result to remove the 8th will be in the vicinity of the marriage referendum
          But it will be absolute definite
          and in no doubt about the majority decision

          1. Andrew

            You are overestimating the reach the likes of John McGuirk has and seriously underestimating those who pay no attention to marches or twitter etc.
            I think it will be very close.
            I hope the repeal vote wins but I’m not confident about it at all.

          2. Frill the 8th

            I might be overestimating the reach of that gimp
            but I am certain the voting population are now well aware of the mockey-ah Nurse Pattern stroke they tried on with their posters, leaflets, launches and mobile billboards

            whether they were aware of McGuirk’s continued insistence and Social Media defense
            and or they knew he was behind the fake campaign from the start and just kept spinning until it made Mainstream

            it doesn’t matter
            the everyday Irish voter is a lot more informed and savvy than most give them credit for
            Particularly the Keep it crowd

            they really do think religious pros and their nutty devotees and enforcers still have influence

          3. Basil Brush

            cheers Frilly, I understand what you mean regarding McGuirk, however in this instance I must disagree with you and agree with Andrew. Abortion is the most divisive and emotive subject. It is so complicated there are only grey areas. I dont think with such a subject that media commentators or policitians can have any real influence over the general public. I also believe we have gown up as a nation and are no longer swayed by the Church in that respect, thank Christ! Its much deeper than that and flippancy on either side of the debate is seen through and rightly despised. I think the pro-choice argument of ‘clump of cells’ or ‘zygote’ just sits uneasily with most. If we are having to make grown up choices then we need to name it…the ending of a life, regardless of the reasons. The reasons being varied and justified by those who need an abortion.The biological/philosphical debate regarding start of life would need to be agreed upon in that respect. With regard to pro-life and whatever ‘tactics’ their groups use…have you seen the Louis C.K special? (prior to being out of favour) He makes an excellent point.. these people genuinely believe that babies are being murdered in abortion clinics…if we were to believe that babies were being murdered in our local health centres…then Im sure the majority of us would do something about it. Or would we just turn a blind eye?

        2. david

          Frill the eighth
          I am Dublin born but not reared
          Reared in England and Jewish
          Married and happily married for over 25 years with no children and no holy Joe who wears a hair shirt or a believer of flagellation
          But I understand one thing that one must know exactly what one is voting for
          This referendum is replacing something for what exactly?
          What might replace this could be ten times worse
          Constitutional law is a very serious matter and very complex
          The fact they are not including what is exactly to replace the eight on the ballot paper sends alarm bells ringing simply due to the fact the Irish government have a natural ability to cock everything up

          1. ReproBertie (SCU)

            I’ve told you this before but you don’t want to hear it. What will be replacing the 8th will be on the ballot paper. The question on the ballot paper will be asking us if we agree to placing the new wording in the constitution in place of the old wording.

            What the new wording won’t do is get into specifics of law around abortion because, as the 8th has shown, the constitution needs to be vague with the specifics in other, more adjustable legislation.

            The outline of that legislation is already out there for anyone interested and includes things like consultations with 2 doctors, a cooling off period and access up to 12 weeks.

      3. Listrade

        Replace the “we” with “i”, because you may need some basic biology information.

        At 10 weeks it is a fetus (at the end of the 10th week anyway), before that it is an embryo.

  3. The Old Boy

    Obscenity Trial – two words to strike fear and dread into the heart of any prosecutor.

    Police hate investigating these cases and the DPP will rarely find that there is a public interest in pursuing a prosecution. Even if there is a prosecution, a well-advised defendant will elect jury trial, where there will almost invariably be a handful of jurors who won’t think whatever it is to be obscene.

    Add to that the inevitable media circus, the fact that it becomes a cause célèbre for one side or another and the (fairly slim) risk of creating a martyr and it’s no wonder that no-one gets prosecuted in these sorts of circumstances.

  4. newsjustin

    Imagine being in favour of something, even campaigning for it to be legal, that one can’t stand to look at and one deems obscene.

    That’s quite weird.

    1. Janet, I ate my Avatar

      I am not a fan of open heart surgery images but it’s a necessity,
      one a 2 year old doesn’t need to see and have nightmares about

    2. The Old Boy

      I imagine one might find a large pornographic image displayed on a public street obscene without wishing to ban sexual intercourse.

      That, of course, is not weird in the slightest.

      1. david

        When we are voting for something we must be informed as to what will result
        And believe me this is what we are voting for
        The legislation must only be
        Rape
        Incest
        Fatal foetal abnormality
        Simple
        And it must be stated on the ballot paper for you simply cannot trust our politicians to do something that is not a total cock up

        1. ReproBertie

          You don’t get to tell us what we can have. This is a democracy, not a dictatorship.

          1. david

            We are talking about the law of the land
            This is our constitution which is based on a referendum
            So it is up to the people to decide
            So your post
            You do not get to tell us sums you up
            You seem to favour a dictatorship as we have to live to your views
            Which is not my ways so who is the dictator here ?

          2. ReproBertie (SCU)

            “The legislation must only be”

            You are the one dictating under what conditions we are to be allowed abortions. The Citizens Asembley and the Oireachtas Commitee have already recommended terms. We don’t need you deciding for the rest of us.

    1. david

      And that’s the outside if you enlarge it you will see fully formed fingers toes
      Inside is the brain nearly formed and the vital organs?

  5. dav

    Legal Coffee Drinker Does Ireland have “Freedom of Speech”? as in something that protected by the constitution?

    1. Braaap

      providing that it may not be used to undermine “public order or morality or the authority of the State” or be blasphemous, seditious, or indecent in matter..

    2. The Old Boy

      Article 40.6.1 reads as follows:

      The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality: –

      “i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions. The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

      The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

      As you can see, it is a highly qualified protection.

      1. Legal Coffee Drinker

        Dav, the Old Boy and Braap are spot on. The Constitution allows freedom of speech to be restricted if ‘indecent’ rather than ‘obscene’; I would read this as closer to the old sexually linked definition of obscenity – if Emerton J’s decision were to be followed here on the definition of ‘obscenity’ I wonder if it would be constitutional?

        There was an interesting consideration of freedom of speech in this context by the UK courts in R v BBC ex parte Pro-Life Alliance in which the House of Lords (taking a different view from the lower Court of Appeal) held that the refusal of the BBC to show graphic images of abortion contained in a pro-life party’s election broadcast did not breach freedom of speech. However this was a slightly different situation as restrictions on the right to display something in public are arguably a greater restriction on the right to free speech than restrictions on broadcasting something on television. The decision (like the Australian one mentioned in the post) has been criticised as unduly restrictive on the right to free speech.

        You can read the House of Lords decision in full here:-

        https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030515/bbc-1.htm

        It seems like there has been some consideration of this in the US also (where freedom of speech is regarded as hugely important) but nothing conclusive as yet.

        http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2013/08/26/the_supreme_court_has_allowed_censorship_of_anti_abortion_protests_why_that.html

        1. The Old Boy

          I think such a case would be slightly easier to prosecute in Ireland than here in England, although probably not by much.

          The Irish statutory test hangs doesn’t tackle the definition of the word “obscene”, save that to complete the offence the publisher must intend to provoke breach of the peace or be reckless as to whether they do so.

          The English statutory test uses the formulation “liable to deprave and corrupt”, a wording that has been a boon to defence counsel as it tended to lead to a prosecution witness straight from central casting being asked whether they had indeed been depraved or corrupted by the steamier chapters of Lady Chatterley’s Lover. Even if they answered yes, it is usually easy to demonstrate that nothing about their lifestyle demonstrated the slightest depravity or corruption.

          LCD, I can’t remember the last time a prosecution was brought under s7 CJ(PO)A 94 in a case regarding a banner, poster or other printed material, although I have been out of the Irish loop for a while.

          1. Legal Coffee Drinker

            @TheOldBoy

            Thanks for that.

            I just did a search on nexis for the Public Order Act and there was a case against an anti-abortion campaigner under Section 7 thrown out in Limerick City Court in December 1995. Mr John Harney (68), Rosahane, Dooradoyle Road, Limerick, was charged with distributing or displaying writing, or visual representation sign which was threatening, abusive or obscene, with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, or being reckless as to whether a breach of the peace might have been occasioned. The material depicted an aborted foetus. Judge Michael Reilly said he was satisfied, in dismissing the summons, that a strict interpretation of the Act and in the absence of any further evidence a breach of the peace had not been likely. It’s not clear if he needed to decide the obscenity point.

            There was also a successful prosecution of the Arch Druid of Tara and Ireland in Kilkenny in 1996 for various offences including distributing “a writing” which was threatening, abusive, insulting or obscene with the intent of provoking a breach of the peace. No details are given of what was in the writing and my knowledge of Irish druidism is somewhat limited but I suspect it was threatening, abusive or insulting rather than obscene.

          2. The Old Boy

            Many thanks for that LCD – I no longer have subscriptions to the Irish material. I suspected that sort of timescale was involved.

            It’s the definition of obscene that’s the real sticking point. It is far easier to prove that something is threatening or abusive.

            For information and entertainment value, our druidic friend was also “summonsed for breaking a pane of glass valued £75 in Kilkenny on October 10th; being intoxicated and a danger to himself or others; engaging in offensive conduct in that he used insulting words, and engaging in threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with the intent of provoking a breach of the peace.”

            Edit: I have just remembered who he is and that I have had the distinct displeasure of heaving to deal with him on one or two occasions. It’s a small world.

  6. Daisy Chainsaw

    They’ve lost the argument if all they have left is their faked abortion fetish porn. They can’t discuss it on its own merits because they won’t admit that religious fundamentalism is still behind their anti choice stance, so they resort to posters that are the equivalent of screaming in someone’s face to force them to listen.

    If people against clerical abuse had large banners of a priest forcing oral sex on a 10 year old boy, the first people complaining would be the same people with the gore porn.

    1. newsjustin

      I think you’ll find that most pro life people are happy to discuss abortion “on its own merits”. It tends to be pro choice people who can’t admit to themselves that abortion ends the life of a human foetus.

      There was an interesting conversation on Matt Cooper at the end of last week where a GP representing Together4Yes responded to Matt’s point about there being a live human foetus with a heartbeat involved.

      He said (And I’m paraphrasing here but please feel free to listen back and correct me) that he finds it unhelpful to think about the foetus or discuss it at all when consulting with someone with a crisis pregnancy. Considering the live, growing foetus in that situation is not helpful or relevant he believes.

      1. Nigel

        It doesn’t really matter what it is or what it looks like, if a woman doesn’t want to go through with the pregnancy at that point she shouldn’t have to. It’s her decision, her freedom.

        1. BobBobBob

          > It’s her decision, her freedom.

          Not everyone agrees that it is the decision of one person alone. The choice argument isn’t as convincing as arguing that abortion is sometimes unavoidable and necessary. There are plenty of people who clearly aren’t trying to convince anyone though (calling abortion a sin obviously wont ever convince an aethist).

          I think the most compelling argument is that something needs to change and the only way that can happen is to repeal the 8th. (Even so the lack of certainty about what comes after means some people will reject repeal outright. Although there is proposed legislation there’s no guarantee that’s what we will ultimately end up getting, the likes of Coveney have already said they wont vote for it.)

    2. david

      If this is. A ten week old aborted foetus it is neither obscene or pornographic
      This is exactly what Is going to happen and what people will be voting on
      This is reality
      I simply cannot vote for something like this
      The legislation is to stop another savita or a mothers life in danger due to a dead foetus poisoning her
      It is not about a alternative to contraception
      You can rubbish what you want but it dose not alter he fact
      this is what we are talking about
      As with your compares to child porn featuring oral sex with priests well I rest my case

      1. Brother Barnabas

        “Do you have a condom, babe?”

        “Sure don’t need one… can just have an abortion,” said nobody ever.

      2. Listrade

        Would you object to a similar sized poster graphically showing the death of a woman who had died say in similar circumstances to Savita?

        Or maybe the scene of a suicide after a woman killed herself due to pregnancy?

        I mean, if we’re all about showing the reality of the situation, it can be balanced out.

        1. Frill the 8th

          well I definitely would be upset by anything like that

          in fact it would probably make me more determined to ensure such things never happen again

        2. david

          No I would not
          The referendum is about this and they way its been hijacked the referendum will be rejected or should be because they have expanded this to abortion on demand
          A thing I do not want
          If it was only fatal foetal abnormality suicide or incest and rape I would support it but the fact its been expanded I cannot support it
          At one stage the quango or citizens assembly wanted fatal dropped off fatal foetal abnormality because it was offensive which made it foetal abnormality which technically brought in mentally handicapped or physically handicapped a sort of Hitler scenario of pre war Nazi Germany
          My big concern is on the ballot paper is not the exact wording of what will replace the eight which sends alarm bells ringing
          And because of that the pro choice lobby will vilify and ridicule and belittle anyone who dose not go with their views
          This is our constitution to be decided by the people not political parties or trendy empowerment bullshitters with catchy slogans
          This is the people of Ireland no matter their values religion or morals

          1. Listrade

            Who is “they”? Be more specific. Or maybe don’t because you tend to lie or at least change your alleged position daily. You started out weeks ago saying you were reasonable and open to being persuaded and now it’s just unintelligible bile.

            But nothing has changed in the campaign in that time, only your facade.

            It is what it is. In order to bring in legislation we need the referendum. Do you need special intelligence to realise legislation will probably be akin to GB’s? Not really, just some common sense and ability to read between the headlines.

            Is it hard to research this? Is it hard to see that there are clear guidelines in GB for medical practitioners? That it isn’t abortion on demand? Not really. But then that’s what a reasonable person would do, someone who really is open to being persuaded or at least discussing.

            Btw, you miss out suicide risk and mental health in all your “allowed” cases for rape. No Biggie. Well apart from the whole X Case. And the Supreme Court.

            But that might require empathy and not bile. Might be out of your wheelhouse.

          2. david

            Listrade my position is clear
            Fatal foetal abnormality
            Incest
            Rape
            Go through my posts they have not shifted
            And the drivel and twisting of my words show your tolerance
            Keep it up
            The repeal mob will ensure the referendum is doomed
            A simple solution for women forced to leave this country with dying foetuses in their wombs or victims of rape
            Three simple things for a referendum
            Rape
            Dead foetus
            Incest

  7. Martco

    it’s interesting to see the ole “bucket of guts method” getting wheeled out.
    I wondered if it would show up atall, I’m a bit surprised….these days I’d have thought its fairly ineffectual (if not actually counterproductive) as a method of scare & shaping opinion (unlike the 80’s when movies like The Exorcist were able to scare the bejasus out of people with some very limited makeup & tech)..I know my teenage horror movie pair would spend 2 mins standing in front of it picking & poking holes in that imagery.

    now it’s lunchtime, time for some very nice lamb kidneys in red wine! (Delia)

    1. david

      Are you a smoker
      Look at your packet of cigarettes
      The graphic images show the nature of cancers
      This poster shows the reality of abortion
      This is why to replace the eight we must be aware no matter exactly how distasteful it is what exactly what we are voting for
      And it must be on the ballot paper clear concise and accurate

      1. Nigel

        Cigarettes are available in every shop, and cause cancer. Abortions are a medical procedure done under medical supervision with all pertinent information supplied by the relevant medical professionals, protected by medical rules of privacy. It’s more like billboards with images of cancerous cells to shame people with cancer for having cancer.

      2. Frill the 8th

        c’mere David

        I don’t hav’ta go to another country to buy fags
        and I pay tax to the Irish Exchequer

        I know the risks of smoking
        and I accept them

        after that its none of your business wether I smoke or not
        same with family planning and my sex life

        or how I vote

  8. newsjustin

    It is effective in highlighting the nature of abortion. As is flagging the impact on people with Down Syndrome elsewhere.

    The fact that some pro-choice campaigners get so exercised about these things and want to silence the message is all the proof you need.

    1. Nigel

      Of course, pro-choicers are cold calculating political monsters who can’t be genuinely concerned about the affects such arguments and displays have on people affected in various ways by those issues. Pro-lifers, meanwhile, have been shown to engage in fraudulent behaviour and rather revolting dirty tricks and can be entirely trusted to be honest and considerate in their campaigns.

    2. dan

      And that’s entirely the question: Is a fetus a person? Unless you’re religious the answer is no. And if you are religious, that’s your call, and everyone else should get to make that call in line with their own views.
      Abortion has no effect on people with Down’s syndrome, because people can’t be aborted.
      Pro-choice people are more than willing to allow the message be heard, most even seem to agree with it’s conclusions, it’s the lies they have an issue with, and the arrogance, and authoritarianism.

      1. newsjustin

        “Is a fetus a person? Unless you’re religious the answer is no.”

        “…people can’t be aborted.”

        In fairness, that’s simplistic nonsense.

      2. BobBobBob

        > And that’s entirely the question: Is a fetus a person? Unless you’re religious the answer is no.

        I don’t think the question can be reduced to a religious non religious argument.

        “Unfortunately there’s no agreement in medicine, philosophy or theology as to what stage of foetal development should be associated with the right to life.”
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

        The BBC have a whole lot of information about abortion, objectively listing all kinds of views on the matter, and I really think it helps to understand where other people might be coming from on the issue:
        http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/

    3. Martco

      surprised you think it’s effective (whatever about the logic driving it)

      as I wrote earlier maybe in the 80’s but the kids today are a step ahead of bucket o guts & there won’t be many adults buying either. undermines is more my belief anyway. your side are always going to have weak points & I’m sure you genuinely believe in vice versa

    4. Alastair

      It’s highlighting what would be an exceptionally late abortion on the basis of risk to the life of the mother – or to put it more bluntly, an avoidance of the rather less emotive visuals of a typical pre-ten week abortion.

      It’s also flagging the lie of any impact on Down Syndrome births, given that there’s no test available within the mooted ten week elective abortion period.

      So, yeah – not really highlighting anything but a bucket of suitably gory red herrings.

  9. Frill the 8th

    thanks LCD
    wouldn’t mind hearing from a OBGYN either

    ’cause if you ask me
    that image is touched up

    with red sauce

    like
    if we’re to prove having regard to contemporary community standards
    surely we need to know if the image is accurate or not

  10. Bs

    Surely if you ring the Gards, tell them there is an obscene image being shown and that a breach of the peace is imminent I.e I’m about to kick off at the religious fundamentalists in the middle of the street, they need to take action by removing the offending image?

  11. Barely Bitter

    A ten week fetus is 1 1/4 inches (nearly the size of a kumquat) and is the earliest stage that the fetus (can even be called a fetus) begins to resemble something close to an infant. This does not mean that it’s brain and nervous system function the same way. Regardless, nearly 90% of abortions happen in the first twelve weeks and the majority (around 66%) happen in the first eight weeks. The anti-choicers are using the only tactic they have, moral panic and shock. The same cadre that used this tactic for the divorce ref and the marriage ref are twisting facts and hoping people are too disgusted to investigate themselves.

      1. Frill the 8th

        it could be a Tiny Tears covered in red sauce

        and there’s a lad there to film reaction to it

        1. newsjustin

          Do you think it’s the remains of a 10 week foetus Frilly? Or is it something else? Serious question, cos people complain about these and mutter things about them being tweeked or made-up, etc. But then they’re slow to give a straight answer.

          1. Frill the 8th

            no
            and introducing that as evidence that it is the remains of a 10 wk foetus
            human or otherwise
            wouldn’t get very far
            in any Court
            especially the CCJ in Parkgate Street where it was last seen

            there is no supporting evidence to confirm the image is accurate;
            that it was captured in a controlled, verified, and an independent forensically sound manner
            signed of/ certified by a real Medical Professional and witnessed
            or even given a scale example like a Euro coin

            btw, anyone that had a miss will tell ya that is not a 10 week anything
            only the product of desperate control freaks who fear not having anything left to preach about
            and therefore nothing to beg for money on

          2. newsjustin

            So you think it may not even be a human foetus of any age?

            I must say, there’s been so much fuss (for years now I guess) about these kind of images. On the one hand they are called fakes. But at the same time the fakes are deeply inappropriate and offensive.

            It would be good if those making the counter claim (that they aren’t 10 week old foetuses) offered some doctor or clinician to give their professional view on the matter. Would Prof Boylan clarify the matter, I wonder?

          3. newsjustin

            Yes, a group such as Doctors4Choice could examine the images and see if they appear to be what they purport to be. Or a group from Doctors4the8th. Or doctors from both bodies.

            Would be good to settle the matter.

          4. mildred st. meadowlark

            Or just have a read of Jonsmoke’s comment up above there yeah?

            Might answer your question du jour .

  12. Frill the 8th

    c’mere
    are ye sure this is even real?

    looks like an on-location shoot to me

    see the lad in red…..

    he’s filming

  13. Andy

    I have no problem with these types of posters. They’re not nice to look at but so be it.

    There’s a lot of stuff the pro choice lobby would like to gloss over, but at the end of the day, a fetus is killed.

    I’m pro choice. Let women do what they want.

  14. Iwerzon

    I reported similar images when I visited the GPO recently as I had my 4yr old daughter with me. Anti abortion crowd had covered the entrance with disturbing photos. I called the guards and fair play they did arrive and I saw them speak to the protesters but after a minute the guard walked on and nothing was done. I had a feeling the protesters had some legaleze spake prepared and bamboozled the poor young fella.

    1. david

      The graphic images show exactly what is being aborted
      They must be shown
      this is what people are voting for
      We are talking life and death

Comments are closed.