My thoughts exactly.
Define “free reign”. I saw nary a pro-Obama demonstrator on-campus; I saw thousands of pro-life demonstrators.
Not really. ND Response activities were held continuously from 10pm Saturday evening through 4pm Sunday afternoon at a variety of campus locations: the Grotto, Alumni Hall Chapel, and South Quad. There weren’t really “strict” rules regarding participation in ND Response’s events; there wasn’t close supervision by NDSP of the goings-on, and no one felt like they were tiptoeing around protesting, attempting to avoid arrest.
Again, do you have any proof that the pro-Obama protesters were ON CAMPUS? I did not personally witness any of them, and none of the news articles I read after the event said that they were on campus, but rather gathered outside the gates where they were free to congregate.
Your facts are wrong here. Pro-life demonstrators who came on campus for the ND Response activities were asked, by ND Response, not to bring signs with graphic abortion images on campus for the activities, because it was a family-friendly event with many children. I saw demonstrators with many other signs (critical of ND and with other pro-life slogans) gathered on campus, and the graphic images stayed along the streets around the perimeter of campus. There are photos to document this.
Again, facts. The fact is that I saw many pro-life t-shirts blasting Obama and ND–worn by protesters on campus.
Do you have any proof whatsoever that pro-Obama demonstrators receiof ved a permit to protest on campus? Honestly, in all charity, you don’t seem to know what you’re talking about here: what was involved in the protests, why a handful pro-life protesters were arrested (for trespassing onto ND’s campus), or what was involved in the permitting process.
I posted news reports and eyewitness testimony which said they had free reign. You’re free to refute those news reports with evidence to the contrary.
As I mentioned before, no pro-Obama demonstrators were “trespassing” because none of them could “trespass” - when one has the “correct” viewpoint, one cannot “trespass”
You seem to rely heavily on public reports. Could you please cite one or more of the reports which state or show that pro-Obama demonstrators were actually on the campus - as opposed to being across the street from the campus? Rach620 was actually on the campus. Given the stories I have read in the news, when I was actually at the scene of the news, it has been my experience that the news is not always as accurate on every detail as one might presume. Since you were not there and you seem to be relying on some stories that put demonstrators on campus, you might offer the source.
I have done so, just look earlier in the thread. I posted many links.
OK, I’ll make it clearer.
Well, tell that to ND when it is their prejudice which is clearly showing.
again, I don’t see any of your cites saying anything that proves this. You were not there, you were not in the administration, you know nothing of the permitting process other than what you have read hither and yon. A non-event is not proof of what you state. Your google seach for arrests does not prove whtehr or not they had permission; it is your presumption that they (pro-Obama demonstrators) did not, not your proof.
If I were in the administration, I would not have approved giving an honorary degree to the Pro-Abortionist in Chief.
And it is the presumption of some that the Pro-Obama demonstrators did not trespass because none were arrested. Will you call it a presumption?
You posted that pro-Obama demonstrators were given “free reign” of campus–that suggests that a) there was a sizable group of pro-Obama protesters; b) these protesters were on campus; c) these protesters were all over campus (so that it could be said they were given “free reign”). Not only does my experience of being on campus that weekend suggest that this was not at all the case–but I can also find NO PUBLIC REPORTS which document anything similar to what you are suggesting. Please, post the links again, if you will, as I’m having a hard time finding them myself.
The protesters at the gates, both pro-life and pro-abortion/pro-Obama, received most of the media coverage. Those who were arrested came from this group which gathered at the gates both on Commencement Day and for weeks before, and from which several people would choose, each time, to walk on to campus where campus police would notify them that they were on private property and that they had to turn back or face arrest.
It would appear that you are not entirely familiar with the issue. ND tried to paly a “balance game” by also inviting the recent US ambasador to the Holy See. She called them at their game. You have missed a signifcant part of the story. Jenkins was trying to be a mini-Hessburg and didn’t come off as even his shadow. Measures to surpress people? Go read Rach620’s posts; Rach was there graduating.
Individual pro-life protesters DID NOT need to seek permits in order to enter campus–so long as they were entering campus in order to participate in ND Response activities. This is because of Notre Dame’s long-standing rule prohibiting groups unaffiliated with the University community from bombarding the university campus to spout off about whatever they feel the need to. Typically, students come to a university to learn. Protests tend to distract from that process.
(The only issue I would take with this particular paragraph is that I saw no students at the rally with these signs or t-shirts–all graduating students wore their caps and gowns, while other undergrads involved in the ND Response activities wore specially made blue and gold ND Response t-shirts that had no anti-ND slogans.)
Your logic is apparently irrefutable. My being there is apparently irrelevant (along with the thousands of other pro-life demonstrators who had free, unimpeded access to campus and to the pro-life activities that took place on campus).
Neither would Rach620, who was graduating, nor would I. Perhaps the subtlety was missed.
No pro-Obama demostrators were arrested. That is a fact. Without further facts, it would be an unfounded presumption that ND either denied those demonstators permission to come on campus but did not arrest them when they did so, or that they even came on campus (at which point the arrest or non-arrest is moot).Hidden_One said:
Just because one was there it doesn’t give a clear picture.
I was there. My observation was that the anti-Obama protesters far exceeded the pro-Obama (and pro-ND) protesters. This is not a casual observation; I spent numerous hours on the campus perimeter.
Pro obama and anti obama,
original post of mine:
EVEN if they were parked illegally, a parking ticket is the proper procedure, not arrest.
To be fair to you, you did say:
Of course, perhaps there was an error in reporting. So I attempted to look up corrections from lifesitenews and found none concerning Notre Dame reporting for the 2009 incident to make sure.
fficial&num=100&filter=0None of the reporting answers the question whether ND, which gave permission to pro-life groups to meet and hold services, etc. during the graduation time may have also given permission to one or more groups to meet the motorcade holding signs. If there was no permission for the group to meet the motorcade, there may or may not be a constitutional question as to the arrest of Karren Torres. The assumption of the writer is that Karen did not have permission, and therefore the demonstrators meeting the motorcade did not have permission. One event does not show proof of the other.original post of mine:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5333239&postcount=127
Links cited:
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/may/09052902.html
EVEN if they were parked illegally, a parking ticket is the proper procedure, not arrest.
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060406.html
To be fair to you, you did say:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5334050&postcount=136
Of course, perhaps there was an error in reporting. So I attempted to look up corrections from lifesitenews and found none concerning Notre Dame reporting for the 2009 incident to make sure.
google.com/search?q=2009+%22notre+dame%22+correction+site:lifesitenews.com&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
I found no corrections posted for the 2009 incident. There were corrections posted for earlier articles (like a 1999 article) So I operate under the assumption that their reporting is truthful.
If permission was required for the pro-lifers, then permission is required for the pro-Obama types.
I say that Jenkins and the administration are pro-abortion, not pro-choice. Who made the stupid decision to give the Pro-Abortionist in Chief an honorary degree?
Well his actions contradict his words. He did no dialogue with the president, and allowed him to basically preach the Anti-Gospel to others.
What are you talking about? I’m quoting them directly. ND let the Obama supporters walk around without any objection while arresting pro-lifers. This is viewpoint discrimination being practiced by ND.