Category Archives: women’s rights

Shut Down the Bogus Crisis Pregnancy Agency

THE “WOMENS’ Resource Centre” (WRC), Dorset Street, has been picketed regularly throughout August by Choice Ireland and supporters. Funnily enough, this organisation that likes to pose as above-board and legitimate, has decided to change its name in the past number of weeks to “Abbey Counselling Centre” due to the bad publicity the pickets have engendered.

By Laura Fitzgerald, Dublin Socialist Youth

Continue reading

Advertisements

Say NO to the Miss UCD pagent

BY ELISA O’DONOVAN – UCD Students Against Sexism

This year see’s the first (and hopefully last!) Miss UCD beauty pageant, sponsored by UCDSU ,alongside trashy tabloids The sun and News of the world. The first Miss UCD takes place on Thursday 17th April. The winner of the ‘competition’ will win automatic entry to Miss Ireland as well as winning beauty makeovers , clothes and a gym membership. Miss Ireland and hence Miss UCD bans all mothers, wives and women under 5’4 from entering.These sexist competitions have no place in Ireland and particularly in UCD. These types of competitions are demeaning and are an excuse for putting sexism on parade They encourage the idea that women should be seen as sex objects to be judged by men, as well as making women believe that to be desirable they have to conform to unrealistic types of ‘beauty’.

The Miss university pageant is doing the rounds in third level colleges throughout Ireland and already a Miss DIT,Miss Portebello,Miss NCI,Miss RCSI,Miss St Pats and Miss Tallaght IT have been ‘crowned’ with extensive positive media coverage. Miss Ireland and Miss world seems to have become an acceptable form of ‘entertainment’ in Ireland despite thats its a competiton that is grossly offensive to both men and women. 

Why oppose it?

It has become normal for young women to be irrationally critical of their bodies. As young women we are bombarded with on average 600 ads/day each telling us how to look .Every week there’s a new part of our body we have to change and look better in order to be accepted and respected by society. The young women most celebrated in Irish media are Katy French, Rossana Davidson ,those that are ‘ beautiful’ and successful with Miss Ireland being the most pictured young women in Irish media. The effect that this has on
women cannot be overstated. In Ireland alone 6000 women suffer from eating disorders compared to 400 men. Self esteem in young Irish females has never been so low. This is because as women we are constantly barraged with how we should and must look. This stereotype of youth, clear skin, sparkling teeth, tanned and toned is a stereotype which is completely reinforced by the Miss Ireland and Miss World franchise. And who does this stereotype benefit? Does it benefit us women? Of course not it directly benefits’s the pockets of the Miss Ireland franchise!

All the time women are struggling with self esteem and self worth while big business is making billions of our insecurities. Miss Ireland helps accelerate these insecurities by allowing wealthy businessmen on the judging panel to choose what society should see as desirable or not. Miss Ireland is not run for fun or for creating opportunities for women as it often proclaims, its sole purpose is to make as much money for the organisers. Millionaire businessman and owner of the Miss Ireland franchise, Krish Naidoa, recently stated in a daily mail article that ‘we ( the miss Ireland organisers) are all in it to make money.’ Like the beauty and diet industrys constantly advertising a new diet trend or latest must have product which as a result doesn’t boost our self esteem it only boosts the enormous profits of the diet/ beauty industry. Last year alone L’oreal made a massive €1.86 billion in profits!

Miss UCD will also contain the famous swimsuit portion. This is where women don bathing suits purely so there bodies can be judged to see if they conform to what is desirable for society I.e. lacking wrinkles, celluite, flab and every other normal constituent of a women’s body. This is a pervasive force not only in shaping our body ideals but also in creating stereotypes on how women should act and be. The female body has become a commodity that can be sold. From playboy bunnies to Miss world women are seen for a sexual use other than as a person with the capacity for independent action and thought. Frequent exposure to media images that sexualize women and girls affect greatly how women conceptualise feminity and sexuality. It leads them to accept more constrained and stereotypical notions about gender roles and sexual roles. Miss world is part of an industry based on portraying women as sexual objects, available to be “consumed” by a male customer. Women’s sexuality is reduced to pleasing men.

What about Student Union involvment? 

Our SU is there to represent us, the students. Its role ,like all students union is to empower and reach out to all students whatever their sex. Students need a strong union to fight for students rights and to campaign,educate and inform students on all issues.

However, this year UCDSU has completely ignored women’s issues on campus. The women’s officer, an active member of fianna fail, has held only one event all year. Women have never been more isolated from the union which can be seen in the fact that we once again have an all male sabbatical team to represent us next year. Considering women are a majority on this campus their issues whether health, social or political should be represented yet they are being completely ignored by UCDSU.

The union justified their reasons for holding the Miss UCD pageantby running it as a charity event for the primary immunodeficiency association; a charity that helps mothers and fathers cope with raising a child with a incurable paediatric condition. It is ironic that in order to raise money to help struggling families the union has to resort to using a competition that bans mothers and wives from entering!

The union should not be holding beauty pageants, they should be fighting to ensure equality for ALL on campus by fighting for; decent child care facilities for mothers and fathers on campus, free smear testing and proper health care facilities for women, fighting for workplace rights,including maternity leave and equal pay; and to speak out against all other forms of discrimination in Belfield.

To oppose union involvement in Miss UCD, UCD students against sexism are holding a mock Miss UCD beauty pageant where the REAL Miss UCD will be crowned. At the event,which will be held Thurs 17th April at 1 outside the arts block, we will be distributing leaflets to highlight some of the challenges facing women in modern Ireland. There will also be speakers present from the Equality department, the Socialist Party and more.

We ask all students and staff from all univeristys who oppose sexism to get involved.Come along on the day,show your support and say NO to sexism! 

Miss Ireland rules: http://www.missnorthernireland.co.uk/rules.php
Miss afterdark rules: http://www.afterdark.ie/content/view/50/54/

 

UCD Students’ Union sponsors Miss UCD competition

Elisa O’Donovan, Dublin Socialist Youth

“Want to be the hottest girl on campus?” This was the slogan used to advertise the first Miss UCD beauty pageant, a competiton sponsored by the UCD Students’ Union in conjunction with the Sun and the News of the World.

UCD Students’ Union, like all student unions, should be vehemently opposed to all forms of sexism and be promoting a positive view of women. Beauty pageants are demeaning to women and are an excuse for putting sexism on parade. They encourage the idea that women should be seen as sex objects to be judged by men, as well as making women believe that to be desirable they have to conform to unrealistic types of “beauty”.

Socialist Party members demanded the immediate withdrawal of support for this so-called competition by the Students’ Union. In response the student union officials justified holding this sexist pageant by running it as a charity event for the primary immunodeficiency association; a charity that helps mothers and fathers cope with raising a child with an incurable paediatric condition.

It is ironic that in order to raise money to help struggling families, UCD Students’ Union has to resort to using a competition that bans mothers and wives from entering! Along with this the competiton banned all women under 5’4”!

History: 90th anniversary of the Russian Revolution – When the working class took power

By Peter Taaffe

The capitalist media have made little comment on the 90th anniversary of the 1917 October Revolution in Russia. Yet on the 80th anniversary in 1997, capitalist commentators and historians produced books and articles seeking to denigrate revolutions in general and the Russian Revolution in particular. This year, just one such book by Robert V. Daniels: The Rise and Fall of Communism in Russia has so far been published.

Peter Taaffe looks at the events of the October revolution and asks: does this comparative silence have something to do with the changed background to discussion about the events of October 1917?

A PDF version is available here

Unlike ten years ago, a kaleidoscope of ‘colour’ or ‘flower’ revolutions in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, and now the ‘saffron’ revolution in Burma, have broken out. These ‘revolutions’ are acceptable to representatives of the possessing classes because they have not challenged the foundations of capitalist rule but, if anything, have sought to consolidate and ‘perfect’ them.

History - 90th anniversary of the Russian RevolutionThe October 1917 Russian Revolution by contrast instituted for the first time working-class power. As tsarist General Zalessky, speaking for the ‘dispossessed’ capitalists and landlords, said when he mournfully surveyed the Russian Revolution:

“Who would believe that the janitor or watchman of the Court building would suddenly become Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, or the hospital orderly manager of the hospital, the barber a big functionary, yesterday’s ensign [junior military officer] the commander-in-chief, yesterday’s lackey or common labourer burgomaster, yesterday’s train oiler chief of division or station superintendent, yesterday’s locksmith head of the factory?”

But that was precisely what Russia became after the Bolsheviks led the Russian masses to overthrow the landlord and capitalist system, crowned by the tsarist dictatorship, that was a torture chamber for the mass of the people. Moreover, only in Russia, following the October overturn, did the workers take power and establish real workers’ democracy.

In the last 90 years there have been many opportunities for the working class to follow the path of the Russian workers of 1917. Robert V. Daniels argues falsely that revolutions are a product of “underdeveloped” societies in the first stages of industrialisation.

Yet, in the post-second world war period, a revolutionary wave even greater than that following the Russian Revolution swept Western Europe – in Italy, in France, even in Britain, where troops voted Labour en masse because they were determined to end the mass unemployment and poverty of the interwar years.

In 1968, in France, there was a general strike of ten million workers, the greatest in history. They occupied the factories and reached out for power but were blocked by the leaders of their own organisations, the Communist Party, trade union and ‘socialist’ leaders.

In the Portuguese Revolution of 1974, the capitalist state disintegrated. The great majority of Portugal’s officer caste was enormously radicalised, moving in the direction of socialism, (in Russia, the officers remained implacably hostile, in the main, to the revolution).

In all these cases, the revolutionary process took place in Europe, in ‘developed’ advanced industrial countries. Revolution, a social overturn, unfolds when there is no other way out. Before this, the masses advance and retreat several times before they believe it is necessary to undertake the ‘final assault’. This is how the Russian Revolution developed over nine months, through different phases of revolution and counter-revolution.

The July Days prepared the ground for the counter-revolution’s offensive, with its brutal hounding of the Bolsheviks and massive slander. This culminated in tsarist General Kornilov’s attempt, under the cover of the Kerensky coalition, to drown the revolution in blood with a march on Petrograd.

The Menshevik/Social Revolutionary coalition government was suspended in mid-air as the masses themselves, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks – some of them released from jail like Trotsky to defend Petrograd – smashed Kornilov’s coup.

Similarly, when General Spinola attempted to derail the revolution in Portugal by seizing power in March 1975, the Portuguese working class, emulating the actions of their brothers and sisters 58 years before – without knowing it – completely undermined Spinola’s forces. Workers’ fraternisation tactics even won over Spinola’s special battalions of paratroopers. This in turn propelled the revolution forward, resulting in 70% of industry being taken over.

Kornilov’s defeat in 1917, however, did not result in a similar outcome because of the Mensheviks’ and Social Revolutionaries’ hostility to the idea of taking power and establishing a socialist regime.

A revolution is not the product of a handful of individuals proceeding to stage a ‘coup’, as capitalist historians argue. Daniels’ book implies that the October Revolution could have been prevented: “The moderate soviet leaders could have forestalled the Bolshevik demand for ‘All power to the soviets’ only by taking full power themselves.”

He cites another historian: “If Kerensky had made immediate peace and given all land to the peasants, it is possible that Lenin would never have come to the Kremlin. Such a programme, of course, was Bolshevism in 1917. Its rejection by the moderate elements assured the triumph of their opponents.”

But these ‘moderates’, tied hand and foot to capitalism and landlordism, could not carry out this programme. Thoroughgoing land reform met the resistance of the landlords and the capitalists, who were very often one and the same, united through bank capital.

The agricultural revolution in Russia – one of the tasks of the capitalist-democratic revolution – could only be implemented by a workers and peasants’ government coming to power. The Bolsheviks, and only the Bolsheviks, worked for this throughout the tumultuous events of 1917.

Initially, the masses were confused and hostile to the Bolsheviks’ ideas. In July, when the Bolsheviks were persecuted and driven underground, the Donetz miners, then under the influence of the compromising Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries, took an oath at a gathering of 5,000 people reading: “We swear by our children, by God… that we will never relinquish the freedom bought with blood on 28 February 1917… we will never listen to the Leninists [who] are leading Russia to ruin, whereas the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks say: ‘The land to the people, land without indemnities; the capitalist structure must fall after the war and in place of capitalism there must be a socialist structure’.”

As Trotsky commented, this oath directed against the Bolsheviks in reality led straight to the Bolshevik revolution. They were the only ones who could give land, peace, bread and freedom. Their opponents were tied to the system that was incapable of delivering this to them.

Slowly, as the masses saw and understood what the Bolsheviks stood for, hostility to their policies was remoulded into deep, implacable support. One soldier in the Moscow garrison said: “After the attempt of Kornilov, all the troops acquired a Bolshevik colour… All were struck by the way in which the statement (of the Bolsheviks) came true… that General Kornilov would soon be at the gates of Petrograd.”

Growth of Bolsheviks

The Bolsheviks grew massively in August and September. The masses “drink up the Bolshevik slogans just as naturally as they breathe air”. Conversely, the Social Revolutionaries and Mensheviks collapsed; the former from 375,000 votes in elections to the Moscow Duma in June to only 54,000 in September.

The Petrograd garrison boasted 90% for the Bolsheviks, in some detachments over 95%. In the shop and factory committees, the same process was clear. At the beginning of the revolution in February, the Bolsheviks were a small minority with 1% or 2% in the soviets and only 4% when Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917.

At that stage, Lenin declared: “We must base ourselves only upon the consciousness of the masses. Even if it is necessary to remain in a minority, so be it … We will carry on the work of criticism in order to free the masses from deceit. Our line will prove right. All the oppressed will come to us. They have no other way out.” And so it proved in the tumultuous months following Kornilov’s defeat.

Revolution is a process, which Daniels points out, “develops over a period of years, through discernible stages”. This description, generally correct in its time-scale, did not apply to Russia because the urgency of ending the slaughter of the first world war gave the revolution its concentrated character and high tempo.

But revolutions, ultimately, arrive at decisive moments when power is posed. If the oppressed masses do not seize the opportunity, then a downswing occurs where the former exploiters seek to take back the revolution’s gains through counter-revolution.

Sometimes this assumes a bloody character, as it did after the defeat of the 1925-27 revolution in China, in the bloody terror of Chiang Kai-shek’s Guomindang and the murder, rape and brutality of invading imperialist armies like the Japanese.

Undoubtedly, if the working class had not taken power, then a new Kornilov and a reign of terror, not the ‘tranquil’ humane capitalist democracy dreamed of by capitalist professors, would have ensued. But a revolution is determined by the whole preceding period and the existence of certain prerequisites. In Russia, the ruling classes – the nobility, monarchy, bureaucracy and the politically weak capitalists, with no real roots in the mass of the people – were rotting away.

The oppressed nationalities’ demands for freedom were denied by the compromisers. The revolt of the peasantry and the demand for the land was widespread. 77% of the peasant departments were in revolt that autumn. The working class – concentrated in big factories and a dynamic force – felt that they “could no longer live like this”. This was undoubtedly the mood in autumn 1917.

These conditions may exist, yet a revolutionary opportunity can still be missed through faulty leadership. History shows this, both before 1917 and since. Friedrich Engels, co-founder of the ideas of scientific socialism with Karl Marx, pointed out that there can be periods in the life of society when 20 years is like one day and then there can be one day when the events of 20 years are concentrated.

Broadly speaking, this is what characterises a revolutionary period. Lenin, in urging the Bolshevik party to lead the revolution, wrote from the Finnish underground where murder threats had driven him after the July days, that the fate of Russia could be decided in two or three days.

In reality, the possibility of the working class and poor peasants taking power lasted only two or three months, probably in September and October. Immediately before the October overturn, the masses in Petrograd and elsewhere were becoming impatient, muttering that perhaps the Bolsheviks were like other parties, would dither and not take power. To the left of the Bolsheviks, the anarchists began to grow.

Fearful that the Bolsheviks could miss the opportunity and, from exile, fearing that even the soviets had degenerated under Menshevik and Social Revolutionary influence, Lenin urged the Bolshevik party to take power, basing itself on the more representative shop stewards and factory committees.

Trotsky, present in Petrograd, was more in touch with the colossal changes being wrought in the soviets. The ‘parent’ of all Russia’s soviets, the Petrograd soviet, swung decisively towards the Bolsheviks. Meanwhile, Kerensky’s coalition government sought to move the most revolutionary battalions of soldiers out of Petrograd, obviously in preparation for a march on ‘Bolshevik’ Petrograd.

To counter this the Petrograd soviet, which had installed Trotsky as its chairman in September, organised a Military Revolutionary Committee to defend the revolution’s gains. This body carried through the October insurrection. For this to be achieved, it needed the existence of the ‘subjective factor’, the Bolshevik party. The existence of this party led to the successful October Revolution.

International impact

Daniels argues that the Bolsheviks failed in their ‘internationalist’ perspective: “Despite the high hopes of 1919, world revolution failed to materialise.” On the contrary, the October Revolution initiated the ‘Ten Days that Shook the World’. Lenin and Trotsky saw the Russian Revolution as the impetus to a European and world revolution.

There were revolutions in Germany in 1918, in Hungary in 1919 and a series of upheavals which, if the working class of the rest of Europe had possessed a leadership like the Bolsheviks, would have completely transformed the situation in Europe and the world, and with it changed history.

The role of a mass party cannot be separated from the process of revolution. It is like the forceps for an obstetrician at a difficult birth. Without this, revolutions can and have resulted in abortions.

Despite abundant revolutionary opportunities in the 20th century and in this one (Nepal, for instance), only in Russia did the working class directly take power and establish – for a short time (1917-23), it is true – workers’ democracy. This meant the election of all officials, the right of recall, no official to receive more than the average worker, etc.

Because of the blight of totalitarian Stalinism, the atrophy and collapse of the old working class organisations – the social democracy and communist parties – and their hollowing out into empty bureaucratic machines, new generations of young people and workers tend to reject the idea of ‘parties’ and even organisation.

Yet, without the lever of a mass party with a farsighted revolutionary leadership, history shows that a revolutionary opportunity can be squandered with terrible consequences for the masses. The lesson of the Russian Revolution is that a party is required but one that bases itself on politically aware workers with their conscious control, democracy and influence reflected at all levels.

The same applies to the kind of state needed in transition from capitalism to socialism. Daniels writes: “Every great revolution has ended in some sort of dictatorship.” So it has been, so it will be in the future, he implies. Entirely discounted are the objective realities confronting revolutions up to now.

For instance, the great 18th century French Revolution took place in a state with a higher economic and cultural level than those surrounding it. Mortally afraid that they would meet the same fate as France’s royalty and aristocracy, feudal Europe, together with the British capitalists, ganged up against revolutionary France. This was one factor leading the revolution from the extreme democracy of the sans culottes through stages to Bonaparte’s dictatorship.

The Russian Revolution, the greatest single event in human history, was carried through on the basis of the most democratic organisations of the working class, the soviets (workers’ committees) and of the most democratic workers’ state ever seen.

It degenerated not because Stalinism was inherent in Marxism-Leninism, as Daniels and others imply, but because of the Russian Revolution’s isolation. Lenin and Trotsky never perceived it possible to establish socialism in isolation in such an economically and culturally backward society. Only the triumph of the European revolution would have guaranteed the maintenance and extension of the democracy from the outset, through the construction of a European socialist united states.

Instead, the young workers’ state was confronted with civil war, as the dispossessed landlords and capitalists collaborated with 21 armies of imperialism to try to destroy this state. At one stage, the revolution was confined to two cities, Petrograd and Moscow. The rest of Russia was in the hands of landlord-capitalist reaction.

However, the revolution’s class and internationalist appeal ultimately led to victory, which would have been impossible without the mass support of the European and worldwide working class.

Daniels’ arguments about Bolshevism’s inherent dictatorial character during the civil war are bogus. He indicts the Bolsheviks for banning parties opposed to them. He leaves out one small detail. All these parties except for the fascistic, right-wing reactionary Black Hundreds, were allowed to exist in the first stage after the revolution. Only when they took up arms, resorted to the methods of civil war, did the Bolsheviks take action.

How did Abraham Lincoln act towards the slaveholders during the American Civil War? Did he allow their representatives to function in areas controlled by the Union? Did Oliver Cromwell and the parliamentary forces in the English Civil War let King Charles I’s forces operate in their areas?

Merely posing the question shows how absurd and abstract is ‘democracy’ for the exploiters in a civil war, a war between the classes. Such methods, however, would not be necessary when a revolution develops in an advanced industrial country, which will inevitably spread internationally. There are now convulsions on the world financial markets – a harbinger of coming economic recession.

Much as some sneer at the prospect of revolution in the modern era, these convulsions, together with massive ‘unfortunate‘ social eruptions (which they freely describe as ‘revolutions’ when they are on capitalism’s ‘periphery’), will become a reality in the 21st century in the ‘advanced’ societies as well.

This is the final article in our series on the events of 1917 in Russia. See below for the first three parts, and a reprint from the 80th Anniversary in 1997.

Russia 1917: The ‘July days’ – Rich in lessons for today by Peter Taaffe in The Socialist (England & Wales)

Russia 1917: Lenin’s April return from exile by Peter Taaffe in The Socialist (England & Wales)

Russia 1917: The February Revolution – What lessons for today? by Peter Taaffe in The Socialist (England & Wales)

Reprint: The legacy of the Russian Revolution by Peter Taaffe in Socialism Today

Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford… Desperate students turn to prostitution

By Elisa O’Donovan

Students across Ireland are having to resort to prostitution in order to pay their way through college.

“19 year old Waterford student, tall attractive, badly in need of a few quid”; “Open minded, young sociology student looking for fun”.

Adverts such as these are now common among the booming business of escort agencies in Ireland – a business that is thriving on the financial insecurities of young female and male students.

It is becoming increasingly more expensive for students to further their education in Ireland. With many students unable to afford decent accommodation or even books for their course, and with agencies such as Escort Ireland network offering students ?135 an hour it is not difficult to see why students are being reduced to selling their bodies in order to afford a decent standard of living. One agency, D4 escort agency, even boasts “many of our ladies are students or recent graduates”.

The lack of any decent affordable accommodation for students reached crisis point this summer with some students having to resort to sleeping on the streets . The maximum higher education grant stands at ?3,420 yet students living in Dublin can expect to pay ?500 a month on accommodation costs alone. With the maximum grant hardly covering living expenses let alone money for food, books, lab equipment etc. students are forced to work low paid inflexible jobs which badly affect their studies. The governments inaction on students plight has only pushed students to desperate measures such as prostitution to see them through their course. The student support bill which was to offer a definite schedule for reform of the grants system is now 6 months overdue.

There is no doubt that the gradual glamorisation of the so-called “sex industry” has had an impact on the attitudes of some students towards prostitution. Escort agencies promise glamour by showing pictures of models in luxury hotels with expensive underwear however the reality is very different. A large majority of prostitutes experience violence including rape, at the hands of men who pay for sex.

When asked about the increasing number of students having to turn to prostitution to pay their way through college, Education Minister, Mary Hannafin ,said she was “appalled” at the situation.

But the government is responsible for this scandal. USI should take on the government and mobilise students nationally in a campaign for a living grant for all students.

Limerick: Abortion demos clash at clinic

Limerick Socialist Youth, Press Release

Gardai were called in to guard the entrance to the Family Planning Clinic on Mallow Street on Monday when pro-life protesters picketed it. The pro-life group, Youth Defence, was also met by a group of young people who attempted to counter them.

A counter demonstration was organized by members of Socialist Youth at short notice. They aimed to “protect the clinic ,and any women going in, from intimidation” according to Cian Prendiville, spokesperson for Socialist Youth, recalling an incident in Dublin in 1999 when a clinic was “stormed” and “occupied” for a couple of hours.

Yesterday’s protest was the Limerick stop-off on Youth Defence’s national tour. They were demanding that women no longer be permitted to travel to England for abortions. Asked why they chose to target the clinic instead of the main streets of Limerick they claimed to know of cases where women had gone to England to get an abortion after attending the clinic.

The flyer they distributed states: “there is never any medical need for an abortion. Women are being exploited by the abortion industry for profit”.

In response Mr. Prendiville from Socialist Youth said: “That is nonsense. There are very real social, economic and health reasons why sometimes women in crisis pregnancies want to have abortions, for instance in the recent Miss D case.”

There were also allegations that one of the members of Youth Defence threatened to stab a counter-protester. The counter-protestor is considering making an official police complaint.

Mr Prendiville went on to say “The real issue is whether women should have to travel away from their friends and family to have an abortion or not. There needs to be free contraception and proper sex education, but we should support the decisions of women in crisis pregnancies too.”

Pictures from the counter-demo can be seen here.

Socialist Youth will be discussing these issues and others at an upcoming forum for young people titled “RESISTANCE” on the 21st of July upstairs in Riddlers Bar on Sarsfield street, Limerick City. A similar event will also be taking place in Dublin on the same date – Click here for full details of both.

Fight for women’s right to choose – Pro-choice rally this Saturday

Fight for women's right to choose - Pro-choice rally this Saturday

Choice Ireland will hold a Pro Choice Rally at 2pm on Saturday 30th June at Central Bank Plaza, Dame St, Dublin 2. The theme of the rally is “Fight for Women’s Right to Choose”. For further information see the Choice Ireland blog.