Justin Barret, Indymedia, Stormfront and UCD

mike65

Surprised no-one has posted about last nights ruck at a debate in UCD which was featured on RTEs Liveline http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/Thu/rte-liveline.smil at the very start. Indymedia contributers are arguing the toss here and Stormfront Ireland sharpen thier axes here. Meanwhile two bodies
mentioned as participants are here and here

What a tangled web of spinning spiders. Was anyone here there? I imagine there must be a number of Trots-er UCD students on boards.ie

Mike.

ps liveline link updated

Sparks

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

dahamsta

Sparks wrote:

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

It's scary how utterly ignorant and pathetically easily led all but a few are, and how creepy the remainder are. I'm a pacifist by nature, but every time I see StormFront I want to flush the entire collective down a toilet, and vomit into it afterwards. The term they use to describe "non-whites" suits them perfectly: Subhuman.

adam

flogen

Sparks wrote:

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

Sadly not, but they are all talk.

For all their beliefs and opinions, they're impossible to pin down. I've been trying to find any Fascist groups in Dublin, but they dont exist. The closest I can get is the Immigration Control Platform.

Justine Barrett and David Noone are the only names floating around the whole country.

If anyone has any information on Dublin groups it would be great, I'm basically trying to write a piece for my college paper on the Nazi community in Dublin, but there doesnt seem to be a real one.

flogen

ionapaul

Those Stormfront posters are real scum alright. It saddens me that people are like that - and are allowed to vote.
To be fair, just read the Indymedia thread, some real idiots there (not in the same league as Stormfront though, not even the same game!), some facist opinions in fact.
When it comes to politics...'moderation in all things', right? Somewhere between the two extremes you will find the golden mean.

DadaKopf

Here's UCD SU officers and other politicos/hacks arguing about what happened.

I wasn't there, so I can't comment what happened.

Redleslie2

If Justing Barrett is such a patriot, why wasn't he watching the match last night like all proper Irish people?

dahamsta

What match?

mike65

Adams is a true patriot - he does'nt watch "foreign games"!

Mike.

Redleslie2

dahamsta wrote:

What match?

The 'Republic of Ireland 2-0 Faroes' one.

mike65 wrote:

Adams is a true patriot - he does'nt watch "foreign games"!

Mike.

Adams!?

dahamsta

Redleslie2 wrote:

Adams!?

LOL. Very Freudian Mike.

BTW, I'll have you know that I spent most of the day today kickstarting the Foot.ie Wiki, so don't be challenging my commitment!

Course there's a difference between doing a wiki and going to games, but that's not the point!

adam

Justin Barrett

Stormfront were certainly "Hot To Trot" last night if any of you were there for the event.

I personally think the event lacked focus overall and would not countenance anysuch again .

flogen

Justin Barrett wrote:

Stormfront were certainly "Hot To Trot" last night if any of you were there for the event.

I personally think the event lacked focus overall and would not countenance anysuch again .

Did you (if you are indeed Justin Barrett) not say on liveline that you were going to UCD again for another debate today?

And what do you mean by "Hot to Trot", as in they were ready to get violent too?

flogen

GuanYin

Haha, that interview is hilarious.

The only thing worse than the type of people like Barrett are the ones who deny it.

"The newspapers don't know my policies!" :rolleyes:

I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear.

FX Meister

Joined Stormfront a while ago to post my thoughts on a few things. Unfortunately all posts are moderated and must be approved before they go up on the board, and if you don't agree with them they don't post your comments. What a bunch of ignorant tossers. And one of the users has a link in his sig to a website claiming Auschwitz was a work camp with cinemas and swimming pools and various other leisure activities. Makes my blood boil

mycroft

Few things;

1. Anyone who shouts "No free speech for fascists" was obviously behind the bike sheds when they were handing out the irony. Or very stupid. Or related to the US republicans who decry terrorists who "hate our freedoms" while at the same time introducing the patriot act.

2. The "interview" with Barrett. Barrett claims the SWP are plotting on indymedia and the site should be monitored. The SWP hate indymedia. It's the only news site which offers detailed criticism of the SWP and their various fronts. Secondly I would suggest that Barrett should has some nerve suggesting the government should monitor indymedia for their behaviour when the site includes articles such as

Barretts links with the European far right were first (rather cynically) brought to light during the second Nice referendum. Back then he pretended to be unaware that the meetings he had attended were neo-Nazi ones. But the Irish Times got hold of the video of the Passau rally at which "40 people were arrested due to violent activity and the meeting was in a hall built by the Nazis for SS rallies. Also present at the event were representatives of the Spanish fascists, Forza Nuova and Irish-based Derek Holland, leader of the English Third Position. "

from here

Glass houses eh Justin?

Furthermore a post on indymedia and on ucd.net asked for debate on what occured. I think the behaviour on indymedia is suprisingly mature. They dispute Barrett's account question the relability of an eye witness, but never the less most comments seem to condemn the behaviour of AFA, for a variety of reasons, mainly that this kind of extremist attitude gives Barrett a chance to shout shrilling and clearly "Am I not wronged", and giving that gormless little runt the oxygen of publicist.

Finally the real criticism should be reserved for UCD's L&H society's frankly appalling behaviour.

Given that one of the leading members of the society, Barry Glynn, thought it would be “hilarious” to publish an article in the University Observer asking students “what ethnic minority do you hate the most?”, we can dismiss the idea that the L & H have any kind of grown-up, responsible attitude to the issue of racism and fascism. Clearly, they see it all as a joke; inviting Barrett was just another prank.

from here

I've long behind of the opinion that UCD's L&H is an amoral, ethicless, talking shop for a group of people with no really interest in debate but rather stirring contraversy for the sake of contraversy. They are reaping what they sow.

GuanYin

Hopefully there will be an investigation by the powers that be in UCD.

Strangely Barrett seems reluctant to involve the Gardai so there has to be something to that.

Student politics is the worst kind (I know firsthand) and the likes of L&H sare the type that give students in this country a bad name.

Redleslie2

mycroft wrote:

1. Anyone who shouts "No free speech for fascists" was obviously behind the bike sheds when they were handing out the irony. Or very stupid.

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

mycroft

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

I should clarify. "No free speech for fascists" is the rallying cry of AFA who have violently clashed (Justin if you're reading this you're lucky it's not the 80s and you weren't speaking in the UK, you'd have walked away with far more than a bruised ego). Someone who feels that they should use violence to stop fascists speaks is an ill informed yob. There are laws to prevent someone insight racial hatred. Use them.

super_furry

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

That's fair enough, but vigilante attacks are not the solution. The fact is, that if no-one rushed the stage, we wouldn't be talking about this, Barrett wouldn't have the chance to air his views in the national media and only the people that were in the room at the time of the debate would have been aware it was even going on. By attacking Barrett, they've given him the publicity he craves.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about?

Not really.

It says that every individual will be held accountable should they say certain things.

Subsequently, it puts pressure on publishers etc. to ensure such things are not said/written within their sphere of influence.

What it does not do is say that anyone who has a history of saying such things should be prevented from saying anything which is effectively the argument put forward in some of those links.....that because Barrett has said objectionable things in the past, that he should not be allowed a platform (or should not have been allowed this particular platform to say anything lest it also turn out to be objectionable.


jc

Stabshauptmann

I'm not sure I agree with Syke when he says "I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear".
I dont see the harm or object to some one listening to a speaker or goup of speakers, sometimes listening to others makes ones own (contradicting )convictions stronger or gives them the insight they need to construct arguements that might persuade ppl away from the convictions they possess. Althought granted, in Barret's case the evidence is pretty damning.

"No free speach for fascists".
I can see the logic in that: If you dont conform to democratic procedure then you wont be accorded it; ie If you advocate violence and attack/ threaten your political opponents then why should you be allowes to similtaniously participate in a democratic debate.

Its not a view however I hold, its my opinion that given the oppurtunity to participate in democratic proceedings and effective encouragement to do so, a movement will move closer to the norm.
Ofcourse the time scale for this might be very long depending on rate of growth and with out doubt all legal actions should be taken against unlawful violence.

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Not really.

It says that every individual will be held accountable should they say certain things.

The law says that racists are not entitled to freely express their views. Mycroft said that anyone who says as much is "stupid". That was my point.

GuanYin

Necromancer wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with Syke when he says "I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear".
I dont see the harm or object to some one listening to a speaker or goup of speakers, sometimes listening to others makes ones own (contradicting )convictions stronger or gives them the insight they need to construct arguements that might persuade ppl away from the convictions they possess. Althought granted, in Barret's case the evidence is pretty damning.

I wasn't referring to whetehr he should have been allowed to speak, I was referring to his interview where he claimed that his views and policies were mis-represented by the general media.

The man took active involvement in a neo nazi function/rally and later feigned innocence as to the true nature of the event. To my mind that either makes him a nationalist racist or someone so stupid that they should never be allowed near an electoral office.

As for his freedom of speech, I would have been in favour of him talking. I got a hell of a lot of grief on boards recently (in the form of reputation messages) for defending a rather obvious stormfronter on boards. The irony is that the last time SF invaded I was probably boards enemy number one, but to be frank I enjoy making racists look stupid and the only way you can achieve that is by letting them air their views and then tearing them assunder. You'll never change them, but in showing them up for their stupidity you will help cement the general opinion against them which will ensure they never become mainstream.

Attacking someone and denying them ssome of the basic rights you are trying to defend brings you to their level. Keep mob practices down back alleys but don't associate them with the democratic process or intellectual debate.

As an aside, recently a stormfronter was charged after sending unsolicited hate male to ethnic workers at an institute. Unfortunately for the SF guy, he didn't send the mail as anonymously as he hoped, he used his work franking machine to postmark them instead of using stamps, so the police arrived at his office (with 6 employees) and took little time to pick out the suspect.
Makes me optimistic that natural selection will weed out these types within a century or so.

Stabshauptmann

As an aside, recently a stormfronter was charged after sending unsolicited hate male to ethnic workers at an institute. Unfortunately for the SF guy, he didn't send the mail as anonymously as he hoped, he used his work franking machine to postmark them instead of using stamps, so the police arrived at his office (with 6 employees) and took little time to pick out the suspect.
Makes me optimistic that natural selection will weed out these types within a century or so.

Ok that IS kinda stupid :boggles:

Redleslie2

super_furry wrote:

That's fair enough, but vigilante attacks are not the solution. The fact is, that if no-one rushed the stage, we wouldn't be talking about this, Barrett wouldn't have the chance to air his views in the national media and only the people that were in the room at the time of the debate would have been aware it was even going on. By attacking Barrett, they've given him the publicity he craves.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But I wonder does anyone give a damn enough to want to volunteer to provide security for Mr.Barrett and protect him from the evil far-left (or far-right if you're Sand) extremists next time?

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

The law says that racists are not entitled to freely express their views.

OK firstly...would you like to print up the text of the law you think says that?

Secondly....even if you do...the following should explain why it doesn't actually say that.....

Freedom of speech <> freedom of responsibility for what was spoken.

See the difference?

If not, then ask yourself this...do you think that slander and libel should be freely allowable? Without consequence?

How about companies issuing false statements of their accounts? Thats a form of speech. Should that also be without consequence?

What about...ooooh....say....a government lieing about its reasons for going to war? Thats also speech, so there should be nothing to prevent it, yes?

Slander, libel and lies have been punishable by law for far longer than what we're discussing here....and I don't hear anyone claiming these should be freely allowed without any possible recrimination.

So I fail to see whats different or special about this case. Its not targetted at racists, or anyone else, nor is it anything new. It is simply saying that while you may be free to say something, you are not free from the responsibility of what you have said.

However, it does not - under any circumstances - suggest that because you have said something objectionable in the past, that you should be denied the right to say something in the present or the future.

This is what is key. It means that - for example - the law should not prevent a group from speaking in public for fear that they will say something unpalatable, but rather should wait until something unacceptable has been said and then hold them accountable for it.


jc

bonkey

Necromancer wrote:

I can see the logic in that: If you dont conform to democratic procedure then you wont be accorded it

That undermines the concept of freedom of speech being a basic human right, as aspired to in the UDHR.

jc

DeVore

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights. Read the last few which speak about the scope of such rights including the right to freedom of speech.

Please. For the love of God and my own tenuous sanity not to mention the last of my hair. Its all VERY VERY clear there. We as a country are signatories of that charter.

DeV.

seamus

mycroft wrote:

I've long behind of the opinion that UCD's L&H is an amoral, ethicless, talking shop for a group of people with no really interest in debate but rather stirring contraversy for the sake of contraversy. They are reaping what they sow.

This is exactly what they want. L & H are not a serious society. Far from it. If L & H were on boards, they would have their own private board, and every so often would appear on politics, post one big troll that gets hundreds of replies and sends people into a tizzy, while everyone else laughs at the goings-on.
What's funny is people taking this seriously, and the Irish media making a big deal out of it. It's a like a troll on a big scale.

bonkey

DeVore wrote:

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights. Read the last few which speak about the scope of such rights including the right to freedom of speech.

For those who don't want to go hunt it down....

Here's the bit deV is referring to. Its article 29.2

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

jc

mycroft

DeVore wrote:

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights.

I dunno, are there pictures in it? Maybe you could read it, and give me the general gist of it?

I can see the logic in that: If you dont conform to democratic procedure then you wont be accorded it; ie If you advocate violence and attack/ threaten your political opponents then why should you be allowes to similtaniously participate in a democratic debate.

Because thats a slippery slope you're taking a first step on. What other rights can they have taken away merely for thinking or believing something?

Allow them to hold their believes, confront them, debate with them, and when necessary and possible prosceute them when you can prove that they have broken the law. By using force to prevent them from speaking you drive them underground and you'll never know where they are speaking. You illicit sympathy for them that they might not recieve and certainly don't deserve.

This is exactly what they want. L & H are not a serious society. Far from it. If L & H were on boards, they would have their own private board, and every so often would appear on politics, post one big troll that gets hundreds of replies and sends people into a tizzy, while everyone else laughs at the goings-on.

I'm this close to ranting about blo*dy students getting jobs (bad sign) I resent them using public funds to fuel their own private gerry springer show. These are spolit little sh*ts (and I've met them, they're a bunch of upper middle class wa*kers for the most part) stirring sh*t on sometimes serious issues spoiling real debate and reducing sometimes serious issues into farces like this. The issue gets muddled, Barrett gets sympathy and publicity.

The Corinthian

mycroft wrote:

I've long behind of the opinion that UCD's L&H is an amoral, ethicless, talking shop for a group of people with no really interest in debate but rather stirring contraversy for the sake of contraversy. They are reaping what they sow.

Nice to see nothing’s changed in the last decade or two in the L&H. Of course, the attitude there has long been one of giving the people bread & circuses and given the reaction both there and here, they did just that.

Redleslie2 wrote:

Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

The majority of those who would argue for the denial of freedom of expression for Fascism do not do so because it has anything to do, or not, with racism. They do so because they are ideologically diametrically, and often violently, opposed to that ideology.

For them it is immaterial that the Fascist incites hatred or not, it is simply that the Fascist it their ideological enemy. After all, you don’t see the SWP on the streets calling for radical Muslims to be denied a public platform because they advocate acts of terror, in particular against Jews. But then again, I suppose the logic there might be akin to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend...”

You gotta love the hypocrisy.

mike65

Justin Barret was just on The Last Word (Today FM) Matt Cooper asked if he'd phone the cops about the assault he said no as he'd been busy what with Galway last night etc. He did'nt sound too pushed to be honest. Cooper should have pointed out it would be a good idea to have the matter on record. Barret managed to declare that all those who voted yes in the referendum agreed with him on immigration!

Mike.

GuanYin

mike65 wrote:

Justin Barret was just on The Last Word (Today FM) Matt Cooper asked if he'd phone the cops about the assault he said no as he'd been busy what with Galway last night etc. He did'nt sound too pushed to be honest. Cooper should have pointed out it would be a good idea to have the matter on record. Barret managed to declare that all those who voted yes in the referendum agreed with him on immigration!

Mike.

I'd noticed the Garda thing alright but you wonder how he managed not to notice the whopping he got in the MEP election.....

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

I'm this close to ranting about blo*dy students getting jobs (bad sign) I resent them using public funds to fuel their own private gerry springer show. These are spolit little sh*ts (and I've met them, they're a bunch of upper middle class wa*kers for the most part) stirring sh*t on sometimes serious issues spoiling real debate and reducing sometimes serious issues into farces like this. The issue gets muddled, Barrett gets sympathy and publicity.

this close... and over the line. The L&H hosted a debate which was held to inform a body of students. A wide and balanced range of guests spoke (or at least tried to) on a very serious topic. If a group of outsiders hadn't been intent on breaking the law (this is my understanding of what happened) then Barrets silly little chat would have been shown up and the number of people who disagree with him would have increased.


[aside], I seriously object to your ill informed diatribe on the economic model of third level education. My old fella went to college and now pays a six figure tax bill. I reckon he's covering my fee's. And a few others peoples as well. You go to college, you doss, you get a better income at the end because you do learn things, you pay higher taxes which makes it worthwhile for the Gov. to have seen you through it. [/aside]

MadsL

mycroft wrote:

I dunno, are there pictures in it? Maybe you could read it, and give me the general gist of it?

This might be what you are looking for....
http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/plain.asp

Can't find the one with pictures tho' (although I have seen it!)

mycroft

uberwolf wrote:

this close... and over the line. The L&H hosted a debate which was held to inform a body of students. A wide and balanced range of guests spoke (or at least tried to) on a very serious topic. If a group of outsiders hadn't been intent on breaking the law (this is my understanding of what happened) then Barrets silly little chat would have been shown up and the number of people who disagree with him would have increased.

Bollocks, I've been invited to a debate in the L&H and it was obvious from the get go that the society was spoiling for a fight. When the speakers myself included refused to rise to it, a number of L&H members made some absurdly outrageous comments and speeches which they obviously didn't believe in just to stir up contraversy. I left with the distinct impression that they were just looking for an entertaining fight, and had no real interest in genuine debate.

Secondly, you made to say like I defend the "attackers" of Barrett, I didn't and in my posts above I say as much

[aside], I seriously object to your ill informed diatribe on the economic model of third level education. My old fella went to college and now pays a six figure tax bill. I reckon he's covering my fee's. And a few others peoples as well. You go to college, you doss, you get a better income at the end because you do learn things, you pay higher taxes which makes it worthwhile for the Gov. to have seen you through it. [/aside]

Oh FFS sake. I was a student, and I am aware that not everyone in college fits the profile I describe. I was describing a specific kind of student with a specific kind of attitude from a specific background. I was not tarring all students with the same brush. Get off your high horse.

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

Bollocks, I've been invited to a debate in the L&H and it was obvious from the get go that the society was spoiling for a fight. When the speakers myself included refused to rise to it, a number of L&H members made some absurdly outrageous comments and speeches which they obviously didn't believe in just to stir up contraversy. I left with the distinct impression that they were just looking for an entertaining fight, and had no real interest in genuine debate.

As you then aware student bodies are by their nature cyclical, new people all the time, your impressions of previous incumbents are of limited validity or instruction when describing new committees. For example this years auditor is, I understand, only in his second year in college. The culture of such an organisation is in constant flux.

mycroft wrote:

Secondly, you made to say like I defend the "attackers" of Barrett, I didn't and in my posts above I say as much

I made to say no such thing. I am merely trying to defend the right of debating societies to host debates. In this particular instance the students wouldn't have had their chance to speak because they only speak after the invited guests. Some external lawbreakers (again my understanding) broke the law. Anyone defending them is scarcely worthy of entering into discussion with. What you said however was that the society was in the wrong for inviting people such as that to the college.

mycroft wrote:

Oh FFS sake. I was a student, and I am aware that not everyone in college fits the profile I describe. I was describing a specific kind of student with a specific kind of attitude from a specific background. I was not tarring all students with the same brush. Get off your high horse.

when you say students you define everyone who goes to college. If you wish to be more specific then do so, reread your post and you'll see that all you say is bloody students, they are bloody sh*ts, upper middle class w*nkers for the most part. No where did you differentiate between students and members of the L&H, or the L&H committee that you met vs. this years committee. It's your high horse, I'm just trying to redirect you .

The issue here, IMO, is not whether Barrett is an idiot, not whether students have the right to here political figures talk (Barrett I'm afraid is such a figure) but about the mentality which legitimatises assault on a man because they are idealogically opposed to him.

bonkey

Gents....

Lets not turn this into a catfight about students. OK? Different people have different opinions about students, but its a seperate topic all by itself.

jc

mycroft

uberwolf wrote:

As you then aware student bodies are by their nature cyclical, new people all the time, your impressions of previous incumbents are of limited validity or instruction when describing new committees. For example this years auditor is, I understand, only in his second year in college. The culture of such an organisation is in constant flux.

Ahem.....

mycroft wrote:

Given that one of the leading members of the society, Barry Glynn, thought it would be “hilarious” to publish an article in the University Observer asking students “what ethnic minority do you hate the most?”, we can dismiss the idea that the L & H have any kind of grown-up, responsible attitude to the issue of racism and fascism. Clearly, they see it all as a joke; inviting Barrett was just another prank.

Yeah no offense there uberwolf but if charming members like Barry Glynn are now invovled I think I'll go and stick with my prejudice for just a little while longer.

I made to say no such thing. I am merely trying to defend the right of debating societies to host debates. In this particular instance the students wouldn't have had their chance to speak because they only speak after the invited guests. Some external lawbreakers (again my understanding) broke the law. Anyone defending them is scarcely worthy of entering into discussion with. What you said however was that the society was in the wrong for inviting people such as that to the college.

No my statement suggests that I object the reasoning by the L&H wish to hold this debate, I suggest that they did not invite Barrett along to engage in real and informed debate (for starts the likelyhood out of getting that out of Barrett in slim at best) I'm suggesting that they held this debate to generate contraversy for the sake of contraversy.

when you say students you define everyone who goes to college. If you wish to be more specific then do so, reread your post and you'll see that all you say is bloody students, they are bloody sh*ts, upper middle class w*nkers for the most part. No where did you differentiate between students and members of the L&H, or the L&H committee that you met vs. this years committee. It's your high horse, I'm just trying to redirect you .

I apologise I thought I was very clear that I was talking about the kind of students who in my mind populate the L&H. I'm sorry your ego got bruised in the crossfire

The issue here, IMO, is not whether Barrett is an idiot, not whether students have the right to here political figures talk (Barrett I'm afraid is such a figure) but about the mentality which legitimatises assault on a man because they are idealogically opposed to him.

Em uberwolf once again, I did not legtimatise his assault (and thats the last time I'll be using that word to describe this incident I think Barrett it's part of his hyberbole) and I kind of resent that he two posts now you've implied that I have.

uberwolf

ok fair enough. MyCroft - friends?

Not a student question per se, but should debating societies and the like give people barretts ilk an audience?

I feel they're entitiled to, informed decisions can only be made with a range of perspectives proposed. Is refusing Barrett the right to talk at a debate on immigration just censorship? presupposing the audience don't need to hear him because the organisers think he's a whack job?

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

I apologise I thought I was very clear that I was talking about the kind of students who in my mind populate the L&H.

i accept that. I didn't pick that up from my read of your post

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry your ego got bruised in the crossfire

well done. You couldn't just accept there's been a misunderstanding. Had to get the dig in.

mycroft wrote:

Em uberwolf once again, I did not legtimatise his assault (and thats the last time I'll be using that word to describe this incident I think Barrett it's part of his hyberbole) and I kind of resent that he two posts now you've implied that I have.

I was trying to move past the storm in the tea cup that our last few posts have generated. I posted originally because I thought the L&H were getting unreasonable press. I can see that your experience has been negative and that they may be children trying to acting like adults. But despite that I thnk the point here is the people that believe assault to be legitimate political means. I was not trying to infer that has anything to do with what you have said - you have made that clear long before I strolled into town - I was trying to move past our 'cup'. Answering what you had said before moving onto the bigger picture. k?

bonkey

uberwolf wrote:

Not a student question per se, but should debating societies and the like give people barretts ilk an audience?

I think that they should have the choice to do so. Its not like they're breaking any laws with their choice of speaker.

What is important is that it is their choice for their event, and once they make it, it is not some dissidents' right nor role to attempt to disrupt that choice.

jc

chewy

but aren't the L & H just creating( and baiting) a Jerry Springer type situation for there amusement just like the phil in tcd always inviting a model or porn star to their opening debate just to get publicity for it... and this year had to fake their own women rights group to cause a fuss it seems?

they didn't just invite a person with far right views to gain a diverse debatte they invited JUSTIN BARRET(tm)

you should expect a bit more

Justin Barrett

The L & H is Irelands Premier debating society . They have a proud history of promoting open debate , sometimes long before any others will consider such a debate .

Many many many issues have been covered by them before they became mainstream and were finally done to death by the fissiparious and long winded pundits of the Sunday Independent .

GuanYin

Justin Barrett wrote:

The L & H is Irelands Premier debating society . They have a proud history of promoting open debate , sometimes long before any others will consider such a debate .

Many many many issues have been covered by them before they became mainstream and were finally done to death by the fissiparious and long winded pundits of the Sunday Independent .

So what you're saying is, as a Nazi, you find them more welcoming towards you than all the sensible societies out there?

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

OK firstly...would you like to print up the text of the law you think says that?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear as usual so certainly m'lud. Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

In summary:

It shall be an offence for a person

( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred, (where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.)

Quite a bit of what qualifies as “hatred” is central to fascist ideology, the doctrine of blood purity and so on, so saying “no free speech for fascists” is essentially just another way of saying “the intolerant will not be tolerated.“ The penalty for holding someone against their will is to hold them against their will, but I doubt whether anyone would claim it‘d be “stupid” to say “lock up kidnappers“. Any reasonably free society has these unfortunate paradoxes. Fascists might point to the bit in the constitution that says it’s “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, then point to the prohibition of incitement to hatred act and squeal about the “irony” and “hypocrisy” of it all. Would they be right?

Anyway, the reason I found Mycroft’s objection to the “no free speech for fascists” slogan curious was because on another thread he said this about Germans.

The generation that grew up after the war, had to deal with realising that their fathers and mothers were either complicent, or stood idly by when one of the greatest crimes againist humanity was commited,

Now I dunno what “complicent” means, a cross between “complicit” and “complacent” maybe. I’m not up on all the latest newspeak. But what were the Germans who “stood idly by” supposed to do exactly? The anti-nazis fought the nazis in the streets and broke up their meetings (until Hitler got into power and sent them to the camps) so I suppose that sort of illegality should be frowned upon. Instead of using violence, should they have concentrated on launching a series of devastatingly hard hitting door to door leaflet campaigns, quickly followed up with a blitz of coffee mornings and sit down protests? Or should they have done nothing, absolutely nothing at all, until the nazis had total control of the country and any kind of anti-nazi activity was virtually impossible. The White Rose movement tried a few non-violent things during the war but they all got done in or locked up sadly.

Personally, although I know which side I like to think I would have preferred to have been on in the Battle of Cable Street in London (300,000 people versus Moseley’s BUF plus the police), I’m in favour of letting neo-nazis organize, if only because I’m curious to see how far they‘d get before collapsing. Everything else in the country is strictly toytown standard so why would Irish fascism be any different?

However, it does not - under any circumstances - suggest that because you have said something objectionable in the past, that you should be denied the right to say something in the present or the future.

This is what is key. It means that - for example - the law should not prevent a group from speaking in public for fear that they will say something unpalatable, but rather should wait until something unacceptable has been said and then hold them accountable for it

I don't disagree. Much. But on the other hand, there's the question of whether it's morally imperative to prevent someone from committing a crime if there's reasonable grounds for believing that one is about to be committed. There was quite a bit of racist banter at the debate according to the reports I saw.

The Corinthian wrote:

The majority of those who would argue for the denial of freedom of expression for Fascism do not do so because it has anything to do, or not, with racism.

Link?

You gotta love the hypocrisy.

With all due respect, given your support for General Pinochet's coup and brutal anti-democratic regime, you're the last, and I mean the very last, person who should be levelling smug accusations of hypocrisy at anyone.


On the subject of incitement to hatred, the mods on the boards seem quite lax about letting abuse be heaped on travellers who are covered by the Act whether people like it or not. Even Gandalf here seems to get stuck in on After Hours.

their "way of life" is defunct and has been for years. Can anyone point out what benefits to society do they offer? Very little and they seem to act without thought for the people who are picking up the tab for their anti-social behaviour, well enough is enough.

“Enough is enough.“ (!!) Sounds quite threatening.

I’ve nothing against Gandalf but does this stuff contravene the Act?

flogen

Redleslie2 wrote:

Fascists might point to the bit in the constitution that says it’s “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, then point to the prohibition of incitement to hatred act and squeal about the “irony” and “hypocrisy” of it all. Would they be right?

Without getting myself onto any one side of this freedom of speech vs. silencing fascists debates (because I believe that people should be stopped from inciting hatred, but people like Barrett whom are allowed to speak prove themselves as bigoted morons and so force a loss of credibility upon themselves), I would say this.

If a fascist says that they have a right to express freely their convictions and opinions, they would be right. However, as an aspect of all democracies, all rights come with in-built responsibilities, and so the responsibilities tied to freedom of speech is that within your freedoms you do not endanger the freedoms, rights and well being of any other human being, so to incite hatred against a race would be denying them their rights as a human.

flogen

arcadegame2004

flogen wrote:

Without getting myself onto any one side of this freedom of speech vs. silencing fascists debates (because I believe that people should be stopped from inciting hatred, but people like Barrett whom are allowed to speak prove themselves as bigoted morons and so force a loss of credibility upon themselves), I would say this.

If a fascist says that they have a right to express freely their convictions and opinions, they would be right. However, as an aspect of all democracies, all rights come with in-built responsibilities, and so the responsibilities tied to freedom of speech is that within your freedoms you do not endanger the freedoms, rights and well being of any other human being, so to incite hatred against a race would be denying them their rights as a human.

flogen

Dearest flogen, I would like to know who appointed you the arbiter of what can and cannot be said in this country? The Irish electorate certainly didn't. You have no right to dictate what those who politically disagree with you can or cannot say because we live in a democracy where the Constitution specifically states we have a right to freedom of speech.

What happened in UCD was an outrageous attack on the principle of free speech held dear by the Irish people. This right was fought for over centuries and we are not about to give it up to a few jumped up yobbos whose views are equally undemocratic as those of fascism, except in the opposite part of the political spectrum.

I do not like Justin Barrett's views on the EU. However, my opinion is reflected in the saying in the US that "I strongly disagree with what your are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I have just listened to the part of Liveline where this was discussed and it is clear from it that Barrett was not even let speak! He was just physically attacked before he could open his mouth! To describe that as attacking "fascism" is incredibly senile. It is obvious from the referendum result that Barrett's views on the need for tougher immigration-controls are widely-shared in this country. If anyone in this country that is against open-door immigration-policies is to be called a fascist, then 80% of us are fascists (in the feeble minds of those who attacked a law-abiding Irish citizen seeking to commit the terrible 'fascist' crime of opening his mouth to utter views in disagreement with the communist left who want to shut up anyone who does not agree with them). For them to call all those who oppose liberal immigration-policies "fascist" is slanderous.

I favour an elected government, in a context where the press and people are free to express political opinions, including all opinions that I personally strongly oppose. That is called democracy - a system that these violent thugs who attacked the rights of Barrett to speak and of the UCD students to hear what he had to say - clearly do not favour. Freedom of speech is an essential part of a democratic society. Undermine it and you are on a slippery-slope to dictatorship.

Redleslie2

A shiny silver sixpence goes to the lad who can dig up AG2004's most lurid anti-immigration "Ireland for the Irish" themed screed.