'No Platform' Policy'

MissMoppet

http://www.facebook.com/events/148444291925535/

The NUI Galway Students' Union has passed a motion through the Students' Union Council entitled the 'No Platform' Policy. This was passed by a majority, however the information was not delivered correctly, an ample time was not given to Class Reps to send the information to their class.

As a consequence, students have complained to the Students' Union and in spite of this, the Students' Union is refusing to allow a referendum on this so that all students can have their say.

We are attempting to collect 500 signatures to call a referendum for all students to be had during the full-time elections.

The fact of the matter is that a body that represents students and is in fact, funded by students is not allowing the wider student population to have their say. I say put your money where your mouth is. If you're so sure that you represent all students or at least a simple majority then let them vote. If the views of the Students' Union Executive Council does actually represent the views of students on this then it shouldn't be a problem....

Lets do it, remember, you control the Union, not the other way around, so demand your say. A small majority made a quick and uninformed decision, and now is our chance to make that same decision again and at the same time learn a little something about Unions and democracy.

Below is the full text of the motion.


Proposed no platform policy:

The Equality Officer proposes the following to Class Reps Council.
That the Students’ Union will be mandated to automatically oppose any invitation to members of the listed organisations to speak at this university.
That SU Officers shall be prohibited from sharing a public platform with members of the listed organisations.
That organisations are able to be added and removed by ballot at class reps council. Proposals will be submitted by class reps or Executive Officers.
The list of organisations under the No Platform Policy shall be reserved for organisations that are deemed to be fascist and/or racist by the Class Reps Council.

Organisations proposed to fall under the NO Platform Policy.
BNP
Combat 18
Hizb ut-Tahrir
MPAC UK (Muslim Public Affairs Committee)
The National Front.
Democratic Right Movement
MPAC Ireland
National Front parties from various other EU countries
The Racial Volunteer Force (Splinter group from C18)
Blood and Honour
British Movement/British National Socialist Movement
Column 88

Thoughts? :rolleyes:

3fullback

That just confused me what exactly is going on here ?

Nailz

Nonsense. I was at a Lit & Deb Soc debate and this was brought up, the proposition of ‘No Platform’ was beaten well. I'm far from a fan of facists like the BNP or anything like that, but oppressing these groups is daft as the likes will just use it in their seige mentally crap. Let them speak if they wish to, the University is full of intelligent people, they're more than able to reject any shower of dickheads for the bull**** they sprout themselves without having the SU or the Council of Class Reps holding their hand and doing it for them

MissMoppet

The event has been deleted off FB..

Pulsating Star

And not to mention the People's National Front....splitters!!

Reillyman

Delighted people are doing something about this, I commented on it in the "daily bitch about NUIG thread." It's an absolute joke, a sin poll showed that almost 50% of students were against the motion and many class reps never even recieved prior warning of it.

This is a complete hijack by the far-left members of the SU, banning movements from the far-right yet at the same time holding SU santioned seminars on Marxism. I'll help out in any way I can for this campaign, I don't think a referendum is too big a task to accomplish.

If freedom of thought and speech cannot be adhered to in University, and the SU feel they need to protect us from such things, it really shows they're colours.

svicks

MissMoppet wrote: »

http://www.facebook.com/events/148444291925535/






Thoughts? :rolleyes:

Yeah. This university has absolutely no need for an "Equality Officer." Christ, thanks for saving us all from these dangerous organizations and keeping our equality intact. I might have gone to a goddam BNP gig and become a racist or something.

Ficheall

Lets do it, remember, you control the Union, not the other way around, so demand your say. A small majority made a quick and uninformed decision, and now is our chance to make that same decision again and at the same time learn a little something about Unions and democracy.

Lisbon, anyone?
I'm fairly sure the organisers of this group were on the other side of that particular fence.

Nailz wrote: »

oppressing these groups is daft as the likes will just use it in their seige mentally crap. Let them speak if they wish to, the University is full of intelligent people, they're more than able to reject any shower of dickheads for the bull**** they sprout themselves without having the SU or the Council of Class Reps holding their hand and doing it for them

svicks wrote: »

Christ, thanks for saving us all from these dangerous organizations and keeping our equality intact. I might have gone to a goddam BNP gig and become a racist or something.

One of the main reasons for the policy, which many people seem to be missing, is not to prevent these people speaking, but to avoid bringing the 'following' they have to Galway. You probably don't remember when David Irving, Holocaust denier and white supremacist, was supposed to come and talk to Lit 'n Deb, back when they were going through their phase of "ooh, let's invite people purely for the sake of controversy..."
I've listened to some of Irving's talks on youtube and whatnot, and he's an eloquent speaker and would give a good talk, I'm sure. Whether giving such delusional people a platform is bad because it encourages them is debatable. The issue for the SU back then was not the worry that students who went to the talk would be convinced that the Holocaust was a lie. The issue was Irving's large following of white supremacists etc. who were planning to come to the talk. NUIG, and Galway in general, has a non-negligible population of non-white people, and if one logged onto websites of Irving's followers at the time, one would have seen that there are some very nasty people on there who were planning to come to Galway for Irving's speech. The SU did not wish to be responsible for dragging that sort of hassle onto Galway's streets and NUIG campus just so that LnD could seem "edgy".
I'm not 100% sure which side of the argument I'm on, but the aforementioned is definitely worth factoring in, and seeing as it hadn't been mentioned yet, I thought I should put it out there.

Reillyman wrote: »

It's an absolute joke, a sin poll showed that almost 50% of students were against the motion and many class reps never even recieved prior warning of it.

Almost 50% were against the motion? How many were for it then?
Could you provide further details of said poll? I'm wondering how they went about selecting an unbiased sample of students and how they posed the question.

Reillyman wrote: »

If freedom of thought and speech cannot be adhered to in University, and the SU feel they need to protect us from such things, it really shows they're colours.

Does it? What colours are those?

BhoscaCapall

I think it's fairly understandable that the college might not want these people or groups on campus. You can't have it both ways though, and part of free-speech is letting these cretins speak.

Personally, I see the silver lining in giving these organisations a platform as they consistently embarrass themselves, and it can also be reassuring whenever their appearances are met with resistance (violent or otherwise).

I don't think the likes of C18 have much of a foothold here, I know there are a few fascist groups operating in Dublin but they are closely monitored by AFA Ireland and generally forced into hiding or complete disbandment.

I do think there should be a referendum and if the study body thinks it's a good idea to let these groups on campus then so be it. The prospect of smashing some fascist's skull in healthy debate might actually motivate me to go into college.

Ficheall

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

I think it's fairly understandable that the college might not want these people or groups on campus. You can't have it both ways though, and part of free-speech is letting these cretins speak.

But who says the college stands for free speech?
And ought the college then pay for food, transport, accommodation and speakers' fees?

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Personally, I see the silver lining in giving these organisations a platform as they consistently embarrass themselves, and it can also be reassuring whenever their appearances are met with resistance (violent or otherwise).

That is assuming they will get embarrassed and desist though.
Firstly, they will always have their followers who laud them and will be the most heeded and audible, so their 'feedback' will be sorely biased.
Further, even if their arguments were refuted, that is unlikely to stop them. There are people who like arguing even if all evidence suggests that they are wrong. It means that they are, at least, being listened to.

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

I do think there should be a referendum and if the study body thinks it's a good idea to let these groups on campus then so be it.

The reason the Union and Class Rep's council are elected is to avoid having to put absolutely everything to a referendum. This particular issue is unlikely to ever affect the majority of students, and as far as I can see the only reason this issue is being harped on is so that certain members of the Union can 'score points' against others.

Raging_Ninja

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

...
Personally, I see the silver lining in giving these organisations a platform as they consistently embarrass themselves, and it can also be reassuring whenever their appearances are met with resistance (violent or otherwise).

I don't think the likes of C18 have much of a foothold here, I know there are a few fascist groups operating in Dublin but they are closely monitored by AFA Ireland and generally forced into hiding or complete disbandment.

I do think there should be a referendum and if the study body thinks it's a good idea to let these groups on campus then so be it. The prospect of smashing some fascist's skull in healthy debate might actually motivate me to go into college.

You're just as bad as some of the 'fascist' organisations out there. Same type of thuggery, maybe for different reasons - but when the end result is the same what the **** is the point?

BhoscaCapall

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

You're just as bad as some of the 'fascist' organisations out there. Same type of thuggery under a different name.

Original.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

What confuses me is that the person leading this campaign spoke at length in favour of the no platform policy at the SU council meeting where it was passed.

Dunny5000

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

What confuses me is that the person leading this campaign spoke at length in favour of the no platform policy at the SU council meeting where it was passed.

There are two leading the campaign, both in favour of the motion.
The problem is not with the motion but how it was brought about. No-one was informed about the debate and it was rushed trough without reps having even the remotest chance to consult their classes.

The vote went through all the right channels in all the wrong ways.

Please don't make the mistake that those leading the campaign are against the policy. As a matter of fact one of them is on the Union, they just both disagree with how it was brought about and are worried it will set a precedent for more votes like it in the future

NuckyT

Am I the only one looking at this thread and wondering 'What the f*ck is going on' ??

Raging_Ninja

NuckyT wrote: »

Am I the only one looking at this thread and wondering 'What the f*ck is going on' ??

class rep meeting a few weeks ago. some far lefties decide they don't like the idea of people with different opinions (far-right in this case) speaking in the university.

vote called on banning members of the su from dealing with organisations some of the lefties don't like. minority of class reps there (which appears to be half the problem), hold a vote without a chance to consult the student body (which seems to be the other half of the problem), motion carried.

people now unhappy, apparently many students oppose the ban, want a referendum.

Ficheall

NuckyT wrote: »

Am I the only one looking at this thread and wondering 'What the f*ck is going on' ??

The union and class reps council voted not to allow certain "dodgy" groups to speak in college.
Certain union members are now complaining that students weren't informed enough and that the vote needs to be put to a referendum so that every student in the college can vote on the issue.

Edit: Eff you Ninja...

MissMoppet

Ficheall wrote: »

The reason the Union and Class Rep's council are elected is to avoid having to put absolutely everything to a referendum. This particular issue is unlikely to ever affect the majority of students, and as far as I can see the only reason this issue is being harped on is so that certain members of the Union can 'score points' against others.

Are they really that bad?

I also agree that it shouldn't go back to referendum.

whadabouchasir

What really annoys me is that they only banned certain groups i.e right wing ones. Eirigi,32 county solidarity movement and other hard line Republican groups weren't banned,even though they too have some seriously dodgy supporters. They just happen to have some sympathisers in the SU. Imo it's nothing short of censorship.

Raging_Ninja

whadabouchasir wrote: »

What really annoys me is that they only banned certain groups i.e right wing ones. Eirigi,32 county solidarity movement and other hard line Republican groups weren't banned,even though they too have some seriously dodgy supporters. They just happen to have some sympathisers in the SU. Imo it's nothing short of censorship.

but they're the good guys

Ficheall

Agreed. In fact, I think we should avoid inviting any political speakers whatsoever to campus.

Reillyman

Ficheall wrote: »

Almost 50% were against the motion? How many were for it then?
Could you provide further details of said poll? I'm wondering how they went about selecting an unbiased sample of students and how they posed the question.

http://issuu.com/fuzzfuzz/docs/20111121_sin_13-06_web/2

Sin Volume 13 Issue 6

"One class-rep reported that he did not receive the motions on the day of the vote and did not have time to consult his class. Other reps did not receive the motions at all and were only introduced to them at the meeting. 48% said they would have voted against the No Platform motion, a sizeable increase on the 3.6% that voted NO at the council meeting."

Ficheall wrote: »

Does it? What colours are those?

Red...

Nailz

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

class rep meeting a few weeks ago. some far lefties decide they don't like the idea of people with different opinions (far-right in this case) speaking in the university.

The epitome of irony when you put it like that.

Reillyman

Nailz wrote: »

The epitome of irony when you put it like that.

Exactly. You gotta love the quote from Will O'Brien,

"Racism and Facism are fundamentally opposed to democracy and are simply incapable of being part of democratic conversation."

Yes Will, as opposed to communism and other far-left ideals, which are very much centered on democracy...

Manco

whadabouchasir wrote: »

What really annoys me is that they only banned certain groups i.e right wing ones. Eirigi,32 county solidarity movement and other hard line Republican groups weren't banned,even though they too have some seriously dodgy supporters. They just happen to have some sympathisers in the SU. Imo it's nothing short of censorship.

What 'sympathisers in the SU' are these, and on what do you base the belief that they support these groups? Or are you attributing views to people that they don't hold?

Ficheall

Reillyman wrote: »

One class-rep reported that he did not receive the motions on the day of the vote and did not have time to consult his class.

Surely a more useful piece of info would have been when he did receive the motions?
Not that I'm disagreeing that the reps should be informed of motions in advance - just saying that this is a rather useless sentence.

On a related note - can someone give me a definition of what a class rep is supposed to do? Are they elected because they supposedly represent an accurate sample of the general views of the class, or are they elected to act as a messenger between the class and the SU, passing information and various votes to and fro. If it is the former then there should be no official need for Class Reps to consult their classes, whereas if it were the latter then they should definitely be given more advance notice of motions etc.

Reillyman wrote: »

48% said they would have voted against the No Platform motion, a sizeable increase on the 3.6% that voted NO at the council meeting.

Does that mean that a majority would still have voted for the motion? It would have been helpful for the writer of the article to include how many abstentions there were, or somesuch.

Reillyman

Ficheall. I gave you the link, I didn't conduct the poll or examine it's findings. I presented quotes from the article that shows, no matter what way you look at it, that the motion was passed very sneakily.

Dunny5000

Ficheall wrote: »

Surely a more useful piece of info would have been when he did receive the motions?
Not that I'm disagreeing that the reps should be informed of motions in advance - just saying that this is a rather useless sentence.

On a related note - can someone give me a definition of what a class rep is supposed to do? Are they elected because they supposedly represent an accurate sample of the general views of the class, or are they elected to act as a messenger between the class and the SU, passing information and various votes to and fro. If it is the former then there should be no official need for Class Reps to consult their classes, whereas if it were the latter then they should definitely be given more advance notice of motions etc.


Does that mean that a majority would still have voted for the motion? It would have been helpful for the writer of the article to include how many abstentions there were, or somesuch.

Class reps: The class reps act as a go between with their classes and the councils. They are supposed to consult their classes before the councils, and after aswell, which rarely happens.

The survey showed a 52-48% majority in favour of the policy. Incidentally the survey talked to more people than actually voted. The point though is that the result of the vote was 96-4% in favour of the motion which is hugely different.

As far as I know there have been a number of complaints from students about the motion and the Union was asked to do a re-vote or a referendum. They have refused and it has led to this.

That is about as much as I know.

PomBear

whadabouchasir wrote: »

What really annoys me is that they only banned certain groups i.e right wing ones. Eirigi,32 county solidarity movement and other hard line Republican groups weren't banned,even though they too have some seriously dodgy supporters. They just happen to have some sympathisers in the SU. Imo it's nothing short of censorship.

I'm sure you can bring a motion quite easily to the Class Reps on it if you wanted, if it annoys you that much.

Also it's pretty slanderous to suggest SU officers have dissident republican sympathies....

Reillyman

Dunny5000 wrote: »

As far as I know there have been a number of complaints from students about the motion and the Union was asked to do a re-vote or a referendum. They have refused and it has led to this.

That's a disgrace. Around the time the article in SIN was published I emailed the SU to complain, Emmett Connolly returned my email, and in part of it he said,

I suppose the system’s value is that it is so flexible, so there’s nothing stopping a student from putting forward another motion at the next SU Council meeting which reverses any previously-taken vote (and of course we would try and promote all future votes much better).

The only reason on that basis a referendum/re-vote has been denied is down to individual SU officers, that seems the logical reason.

aramush

I have been sceptical of the SU for awhile now and ever since the way the Rag Week proposal was handled ive been boycotting any area in which the SU receive our funding (Smokies etc.)

As a member of the SU, I wasn't very uninformed about the whole rag week proposal until it was actually passed (blame class raps, whatever). I'm guessing there where many on the same boat as me, what happened to the peoples having there own say? For such a big decision as that, it should have went to a referendum for the students to get an overall truer picture of peoples opinions. The result may have turned out the same, but thats not the point, we all deserve a voice.

As for this whole issue surfacing, I can't say I'm surprised. Time to get somethings in order.

Ficheall

Reillyman wrote: »

The only reason on that basis a referendum/re-vote has been denied is down to individual SU officers, that seems the logical reason.

Surely the re-vote would have to wait until the next class reps meeting, no?
Or the referendum until the next SU elections which are ages away?
For what it's worth, I agree with the "No Platform" policy, but if they are going to implement it they should implement it fairly across the board.
And while it was inappropriately sneakily pushed through, I don't think it's worth having a referendum on; though perhaps a re-vote at the Class Reps council might be worthwhile.

Reillyman

Ficheall wrote: »

For what it's worth, I agree with the "No Platform" policy, but if they are going to implement it they should implement it fairly across the board.

Hahaha don't worry Ficheall, I never care too much about what anonymous people on a message board think.

Yes, it should be at the next class reps meeting, but Dunny5000 said

As far as I know there have been a number of complaints from students about the motion and the Union was asked to do a re-vote or a referendum. They have refused and it has led to this.

So obviously they are not open to a re-vote.

PomBear

What I don't understand is there's a huge contingency of people giving out about the way class reps are run, the policy and even officers on the SU but yet there are plenty of avenues open to you to change this much like the campaign in the OP but yet i've little belief that for all the giving out, action won't be taking further than typing posts on boards..

I, for one, have done plenty to get things done through the SU and class reps and have run for an SU position before in order to change things I don't like. No point in being just negative, be progressive and constructive

Raging_Ninja

PomBear wrote: »

What I don't understand is there's a huge contingency of people giving out about the way class reps are run, the policy and even officers on the SU but yet there are plenty of avenues open to you to change this much like the campaign in the OP but yet i've little belief that for all the giving out, action won't be taking further than typing posts on boards..

I, for one, have done plenty to get things done through the SU and class reps and have run for an SU position before in order to change things I don't like. No point in being just negative, be progressive and constructive

[while banning opinions you don't like]

Ficheall

Is there any reason that the Class Reps meetings shouldn't be more widely advertised, and the agendas for them circulated to the entire student body in advance of the meetings so that if there is any issue which people feel strongly about, they will be able to attend and voice their opinion?
(Or are they already mentioned in those weekly emails? I never read those.. :-/ )

PomBear

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

[while banning opinions you don't like]

I'm not 100% in favour of the motion, i'd be undecided...

Manco

I agree that the Class Reps system is a joke and completely out of touch. (I don't know either of the class reps for either of the two Final Year Arts subjects I'm studying, or even if they were elected). However, the logical consequence of putting this issue to a referendum is that every single issue they deal with should be put to a referendum.

Why has this issue been singled out in particular? Hmm...

Ficheall

Manco wrote: »

However, the logical consequence of putting this issue to a referendum is that every single issue they deal with should be put to a referendum.

Exactly. Who decides what the College Bar serves for dinner every day? That affects as many students as this "No Platform" policy, surely...

Raging_Ninja

Manco wrote: »

Why has this issue been singled out in particular? Hmm...

limiting freedom of speech in the university perhaps?

Ficheall

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

freedom of speech

Ah, that old chestnut...

PomBear

Ficheall wrote: »

Exactly. Who decides what the College Bar serves for dinner every day? That affects as many students as this "No Platform" policy, surely...

The people who are fronting the campaign said there was a number of complaints about it, class reps not telling their class about motions etc.

But that would have been the same for the RAG week proposal.

It's a joke and i've a number of reforms planned for the SU next year so hopefully will actually get the class reps working for once and not just only seen the organise their class party and get a hoody

Raging_Ninja

Ficheall wrote: »

Ah, that old chestnut...

i just don't like being told what i should and shouldn't be allowed to hear, for fear I might begin to hold the 'wrong' opinions.

it also comes down to the fact that the SU/far-lefties that came up with this scheme don't trust the student body to make the 'right' decisions, so they ran around the issue and did thing with a small minority of the student council and behind closed doors.

Most people only found out about it after the fact.

Manco

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

limiting freedom of speech in the university perhaps?

If someone sent the Sin Newspaper a racist article, and the editor rejected it for publication, would she be 'denying free speech'? No, she'd be upholding Sin as a newspaper for all the students in the university, and rightly so. Likewise, I don't regard No Platform as a denial of free speech; the Student's Union has the duty to uphold the interests of its LGBT, ethnic minority members in opposing various Neo-Fascist groups from appearing on campus.

Y'know, if the likes of Combat 18 didn't pine for a regime that promptly sent people who disagreed with it to gas chambers, I might be more sympathetic to arguments for 'free speech' for them...

Raging_Ninja

Manco wrote: »

If someone sent the Sin Newspaper a racist article, and the editor rejected it for publication, would she be 'denying free speech'? No, she'd be upholding Sin as a newspaper for all the students in the university, and rightly so. Likewise, I don't regard No Platform as a denial of free speech; the Student's Union has the duty to uphold the interests of its LGBT, ethnic minority members in opposing various Neo-Fascist groups from appearing on campus.

Y'know, if the likes of Combat 18 didn't pine for a regime that promptly sent people who disagreed with it to gas chambers, I might be more sympathetic to arguments for 'free speech' for them...

And yet 32 CSM (supporters of a violent terrorist group) are allowed to operate on campus.

Manco

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

And yet 32 CSM (supporters of a violent terrorist group) are allowed to operate on campus.

Example? If there was an attempt to invite one of them to campus, like there was with David Irving, maybe it would be an issue.

Ficheall

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

i just don't like being told what i should and shouldn't be allowed to hear, for fear I might begin to hold the 'wrong' opinions.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the "No Platform" policy was created because the SU is concerned people will be tricked or convinced to hold the "wrong" opinions.
If you want to hear Nick Griffin or David Irving or whoever speaking, there is more than an ample amount of stuff freely available online, which is probably just as likely to sway you.
"Not giving someone a platform" and "censorship" are not the same thing.
That said - the list presented does seem a little one-sided. The policy does say that the list of blocked parties is amendable - it would be interesting to see if that proved to be the case.

Raging_Ninja

Manco wrote: »

Example?

http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/2922.htm

The US govt considers the 32CSM to be an alias of the RIRA. So do the families of victims of the Omagh atrocity.

Manco

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

http://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2001/2922.htm

The US govt considers the 32CSM to be an alias of the RIRA. So do the families of victims of the Omagh atrocity.

I'm well aware of who 32CSM are, thank you. I certainly wouldn't object to them being added to the No Platform list.

Raging_Ninja

Manco wrote: »

I'm well aware of who 32CSM are, thank you. I certainly wouldn't object to them being added to the No Platform list.

Oh right, I wasn't sure what you were referring to.

32CSM exists on campus, I seem to recall them having a table and recruiting at more than one Socs Day.

MissMoppet

It seems to be very badly thought out and rushed.

Anyone else think it may just be for a certain member of the SU to but it on his manifesto for next year.

:rolleyes:

A bit pathetic IMHO.