Tag: debate

This House Would Raise Gender Neutral Children

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

The 14th Ordinary Meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 13th of February in the Senate Room. It was co-hosted by QUB LGBT+

Ellen Murray and Fionn Rodgers took the proposition. Murray argued that gender is such a big part of our lives that separates us into boxes from the day we are born. These boxes can later affect what people do with their lives with society not accepting gender imbalances. If children were raised as gender neutral then they would learn to not discriminate between each other. Rodgers argued that it shouldn’t be up to the parent to force a preconceived idea of gender onto a vulnerable child that is open to learning whatever it is told. By raising children as gender neutral you’d be giving them the right to do what they want.

Charlie Barnes and Brendan Kelters opposed the motion. Barnes argued that it is the gender binary that is the problem and that gender is not, and should not, be a social construct. Instead of raising children as gender neutral he suggested we get parents to realise that there is a spectrum when it comes to gender. Kelters closed the debate. He suggested that gender neutrality is in itself a distinct gender and that the gender binary is rudimentary psychology that shouldn’t be something where you are classified as one or the other. By raising children as gender neutral, it could lead to confusion about how they interpret themselves.

The debate then went to the floor. Both sides summarised and the motion went to a vote. The motion was defeated.    

This House Supports Drone Warfare

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

 

drone

The 13th Ordinary meeting of the 165th Session of the Literific took place on the 6th of
February in the Senate Room.

Alex Horkan and Ryan Jones supported the motion! Horkan argued that no weapon can be said to be used ethically but that war is inevitable so drone warfare must be considered. While warfare should be a last resort, drones allow better and more informed decisions when it comes about. Ryan Jones continued saying he hearts drones. There were some memorable quotes *cough* ‘whether your beliefs are communism, fascism or feminism’ *cough*.He said that like all advances in warfare, drones are necessary as it’s not about how many men you have in war but about how advanced your weapons are.

Henry Adams and James McAlister took the floor in opposition! Adams compared the cause and effect of the situation.  He argued that staying silent about the use of drones and having a lack of transparency would result in dangerous consequences due to an indifference to casualties. McAlister closed the debate. He told the House that it is just a way of allowing the government to make a kill list and carry out secret executions instead of giving trials and that it could escalate to a point where there is a disregard for human life.

We then went to the floor, a vote and the motion passed.

This House Would Have a New Northern Irish Flag

Posted on by The Literific in Uncategorized

NIflag

 

The 12th Ordinary meeting of the 165th session of the Literific took place on the 19th of December in the Elmwood Hall. It began with an opening address from the Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers. She talked about the importance of a united community – her entire speech is here as we probably could not do it justice.

Derek Crosby, Dr Dominic Bryan, Ciaran Gallagher and Tina McKenzie spoke in proposition of the motion. Crosby argued that the Union Jack and tricolour both cause divides in the community and suggest there is no Northern Ireland. Dr Bryan said that while dealing with the past was more important, a new flag would do little harm. Mr Gallagher decided that a flag would be a good foundation for progress, for harmony and peace. He commented that a flag is easier to change than the population. Tina McKenzie, NI21, said that the people of Northern Ireland are united in character and that the real problem is Stormont. She told the House that politicians wish to promote segregation.

Nigel Macauley, Conor Conneally, Trevor Ringland and Andrew Carruthers all spoke for the oposition. Macauley countered the idea that leadership needed to bring both communities together through a flag does not exist, that both communities are separated at birth and trying to force them together would cause riots. Conneally said that flags are boring and if both flags cannot be flown with both communities respecting each other then there should be none. Mr Ringland stated that instead of a flag, he asked that real change be made to tackle sectarianism. Carruthers agreed that time should not be wasted on a flag but to instead spend time to make real change, that a flag would just distract from the real problems.

The debate then went to the floor.
We then went to a vote, there were 34 nays, 4 abstentions and the motion passed with 38 ayes.