'No Platform' Policy'

RolandIRL

BhoscaCapall banned for personal abuse. There is to be absolutely no more insults or abuse on this thread. Final warning.

apoch632

Skopzz wrote: »

Some of the militant socialists on here (including the NUIG SU representatives) should understand their involvement will jeopardize their prospects of getting a job. Anything you do with your face or with your name can be easily seen so good luck trying too find a job after you 'mature'.

Their involvement in what will jeopardize their prospects of getting a job?

Cause a considerable number of people in the highest roles in the media and government have been involved in plenty of protests down the years.

I wonder did protesting against Reagan visiting do Michael D. (In a leather jacket no less) any harm?

TheCosmicFrog

Nick Griffin accepts invitation to UCC debate on free speech:
http://www.thejournal.ie/bnps-nick-griffin-set-to-address-ucc-society-on-free-speech-303378-Dec2011/?utm_source=shortlink

Looks like he'll get an Irish university "platform" after all.

bildo

We'll see about that.

WesternNight

bildo wrote: »

We'll see about that.

Them's fightin' words!

Nailz

WesternNight wrote: »

Them's fightin' words!

To be honest, I'd love to see bildo getting into a fist-fight with Nick Griffen.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Dunny5000 wrote: »

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

Thats fair enough, I'd agree that the consultation process isn't working properly.

MindGuru

Did you know that members/"former members" of the IRA were meant to be on that list? But some left-winger quite high up in the SU struck it off.

Banning some peoples right to speech is the start of a downward spiral, is there any measure in place that prevents them from adding groups to that list without a referendum. If there isn't bring a motion before the SU that no one or group may be added to the list without a referendum.

It amazes me they support this ban but at the same time sponsor marxist lessons maybe they should sponsor a lecture which explores the Black book of Communism

Manco

MindGuru wrote: »

Did you know that members/"former members" of the IRA were meant to be on that list? But some left-winger quite high up in the SU struck it off.

Banning some peoples right to speech is the start of a downward spiral, is there any measure in place that prevents them from adding groups to that list without a referendum. If there isn't bring a motion before the SU that no one or group may be added to the list without a referendum.

It amazes me they support this ban but at the same time sponsor marxist lessons maybe they should sponsor a lecture which explores the Black book of Communism

The way some people talk about the SU on this thread reminds me of this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_FV6l-zxyE&feature=related

PomBear

MindGuru wrote: »

Did you know that members/"former members" of the IRA were meant to be on that list? But some left-winger quite high up in the SU struck it off.

Banning some peoples right to speech is the start of a downward spiral, is there any measure in place that prevents them from adding groups to that list without a referendum. If there isn't bring a motion before the SU that no one or group may be added to the list without a referendum.

It amazes me they support this ban but at the same time sponsor marxist lessons maybe they should sponsor a lecture which explores the Black book of Communism

Seen as NUIG have had former members of the IRA on their staff and have lecture theatres named after them, I don't think that'd go down too well.....

bildo

MindGuru wrote: »

Did you know that members/"former members" of the IRA were meant to be on that list? But some left-winger quite high up in the SU struck it off.

No I didn't, I wasn't aware of this at all, interesting as I wrote the policy and am on the SU.
The RIRA were considered for the policy but weren't listed as they are not fascist or violently discriminatory of races this was decided by the whole Exec, not just one or two individuals.

And again, if you feel any additional groups, from any position of the political spectrum, so long as you can demonstrate they are violent and/or discriminatory then please suggest them to your SU or class reps and it will be put to vote.
I know that you won't so what does it matter?

Also I would appreciate if you actually read the policy, you have clearly massively misinterpreted it if you think that this has anything whatsoever from "banning" andyone from doing or saying anything of it infringes on "freedom of speech". It doesn't and I took great care to ensure this was so. The full wording of the policy and a comprehensive interpretation is posted earlier in this thread, I encourage you to actually read it before you comment again.

Ruire

bildo wrote: »

The RIRA were considered for the policy but weren't listed as they are not fascist or violently discriminatory of races this was decided by the whole Exec, not just one or two individuals.

No, it's just pizza delivery men they have a problem with.

Reillyman

bildo wrote: »

No I didn't, I wasn't aware of this at all, interesting as I wrote the policy and am on the SU.
The RIRA were considered for the policy but weren't listed as they are not fascist or violently discriminatory of races this was decided by the whole Exec, not just one or two individuals

That is a disgrace.

Ask Ronan Kerr's family or the families of the Omagh bombing victims do they feel they have been discriminated against.

That is actually quite shocking that an elected Equality Officer would say that.

NUI Galway SU

Reillyman wrote: »

That is a disgrace.

Ask Ronan Kerr's family or the families of the Omagh bombing victims do they feel they have been discriminated against.

That is actually quite shocking that an elected Welfare Officer would say that.

I'm just gonna jump in here real quick. It wasn't an Exec decision to remove any groups, such as the RIRA, from the No Platform policy. The policy was proposed by the Equality Officer - not the Exec - so advice might have been given by individual Exec officers to the proposer on the issue of the RIRA, but there was no Exec decision to exclude the RIRA from the policy, as the policy did not come from the Exec.

And importantly, this has nothing to do with the Welfare Officer; I think you're referring to the Equality Officer though.

Hope that clarifies things.

-Emmet Connolly
SU President

Reillyman

I know Emmet I didn't say it was an exec decison I just thought it was quite disturbing that an elected SU officer would describe the RIRA as "not violently discriminatory."

To be honest it just proves the point that myself and many others have said on this thread, that the policy is not about protecting students, the college etc, but shoving a far-left agenda on the students.

These are the groups listed;

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

I'm not sure but I reckon the combined total of murders committed by these groups combined is close if not zero. The RIRA alone has murdered over 30 innocent civillians. What do you think of that Bildo?

BhoscaCapall

Reillyman wrote: »

The RIRA alone has murdered over 30 innocent civillians. What do you think of that Bildo?

Are you including those who work with a foreign occupying army as 'innocent civilians'?

Raging_Ninja

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Are you including those who work with a foreign occupying army as 'innocent civilians'?

Tell that to the people of Omagh and see what reception you get.

Reillyman

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

Are you including those who work with a foreign occupying army as 'innocent civilians'?

No.

I'm including 29 people including a woman pregnant with twins however.

BhoscaCapall

Raging_Ninja wrote: »

Tell that to the people of Omagh and see what reception you get.

The Omagh bomb is such a grey area surrounded by so many unanswered questions that you'd only look silly if you were to bring it up.

Raging_Ninja

BhoscaCapall wrote: »

The Omagh bomb is such a grey area surrounded by so many unanswered questions that you'd only look silly if you were to bring it up.

Not as much grey area as certain (self-justifying) types would like us to believe.

BhoscaCapall

You look at it and draw your own conclusions I suppose, but I'd find it hard to take seriously any person who didn't at least appreciate the number of mysterious circumstances and events that led up to and followed the bomb.

Red_Wake

RIRA not dangerous?

Targeting civilians isn't something you lads condemn?

It's a damn good thing the SU lads aren't in any form of meaningful government, I'd say bildo here would put out propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.

bildo

Reillyman wrote:

I just thought it was quite disturbing that an elected SU officer would describe the RIRA as "not violently discriminatory."

[

I think you'll find if you stretch those quotation marks that I actually said "Not violently discriminatory against races"
This is something completely different and I would appreciate you not deliberately quoting me out of context, its bad form and you know it. I would also thank you for being so sensationalist.
The RIRA are not racists, they are violent yes and I personally would vehemently oppose any presence of theirs on campus but they are not racist and therefor should not be considered to be put on a list of racist organisations.

The policy wording which I posted here and you clearly haven't read properly specifically says that the list is reserved for organisations that are deemed racist by the class reps and very clearly leaves avenues for students to add or remove organisations if they so wish, if you want the RIRA added then bring it up and SU council or get your class rep to, its than easy!

Reillyman wrote:

To be honest it just proves the point that myself and many others have said on this thread, that the policy is not about protecting students, the college etc, but shoving a far-left agenda on the students.

Wrong, its about combating the possible rise in racism and racist attacks before it becomes a problem which is a very real threat. There are a number of active neo-nazi organisations in this country that are at the moment very small. I want to actively avoid giving them any momentum because in the real world, they kill and beat people who are gay or have dark skin. I have a problem with this sort of behaviour and have done something about it.

And once again, if anyone wants any further groups added to the list either email me or your class rep and it will be voted on in SU Council.
I have made this offer a number of times on this thread and so far no one has taken any further action other than moaning on a message board about a policy they have not properly read.in Ireland. History shows time and time again that racism generally rises in times of economic hardship, this is about taking the initiative and tackling something before it becomes a problem, it has nothing to do with left or right politics, it just so happens that the extreme right have a bit of a historical tendency to act brutally towards people who have different colour skin.

I'm not sure but I reckon the combined total of murders committed by these groups combined is close if not zero. The RIRA alone has murdered over 30 innocent civillians. What do you think of that Bildo?

I think its completely fucked up and the people responsible should serve life sentences. But they are not racist and do not belong on a list of racist organisations. End of. The yorkshire ripper, timothy macveigh or genghis kahn aren't on it either, what's your point?

bildo

Red_Wake wrote: »

RIRA not dangerous?

Targeting civilians isn't something you lads condemn?

Who said this? You're completely fabricating things now, a sure sign of defeat.

Also how on earth is anti-racism "far left"? It's common decency as far as I'm concerned. It's a bit worrying that you think that being against racism in schools is an extremist ideology of any description.
Needless to mention that the SU is a UNION which is actually an inherently "left" organisation, i.e. it looks out for the interest of its members, as a priority and is actively all inclusive.

Reillyman

So just so we all can be clear.

This policy is only about *banning groups that pose a threat against race, sexual orientation etc

It is not about *banning groups from organisations that have murdered and promised to carry on murdering people on this island.

If that is correct then we are all clear on this policy as it stands.

*By banning I mean adehering to the policy that the SU passed.

Carlos Orange

bildo wrote: »

I think its completely fucked up and the people responsible should serve life sentences. But they are not racist and do not belong on a list of racist organisations. End of. The yorkshire ripper, timothy macveigh or genghis kahn aren't on it either, what's your point?

Why is it more racist to murder Nigerians than to murder English people?

Reillyman

bildo wrote: »

The yorkshire ripper, timothy macveigh or genghis kahn aren't on it either, what's your point?

None of them have murdered innocent people on this island.

Reillyman

We have this;

bildo wrote: »

The RIRA were considered for the policy but weren't listed as they are not fascist or violently discriminatory of races this was decided by the whole Exec, not just one or two individuals.

and then this;

NUI Galway SU wrote: »

The policy was proposed by the Equality Officer - not the Exec - so advice might have been given by individual Exec officers to the proposer on the issue of the RIRA, but there was no Exec decision to exclude the RIRA from the policy, as the policy did not come from the Exec.

Could we have some clarification please?

bildo

*Clarification.

It was discussed at the exec and I guess based on the opinions expressed by the Exec officers I took the decision not to include RIRA.

Basically what Emmet is saying is that this motion came from me an me alone, I accept all credit for it. It was discussed at the exec but strictly speaking it wasn't an exec decision, more like me seeking the advice of the exec body about the details of the motion rather then just being headstrong and pushing it through without consulting them. The Exec had an input, but the final drafting of the policy was my decision based on the advice I got from Exec officers during an exec meeting.
I guess I was too hasty to say it was an Exec decision, they were consulted and I amended the motion based on their reactions and suggestions as individual officers and not as an Executive committee but I still wrote and proposed the motion ergo, its 100% my responsibility.

Does that make sense? Politics like this rarely does anyway.

reillyman wrote:

So just so we all can be clear.

This policy is only about *banning groups that pose a threat against race, sexual orientation etc

Wrong again. This policy has nothing whatsoever to do with banning anyone from anything. It simply mandates that the Students' Union take an active position in opposing racism on campus. The SU does not have the authority to dictate what anyone one campus can and can't do, besides employees and officers of the Union for obvious reasons.

I have explained this a number of times in this thread and it is becoming apparently obvious that people here are incapable of reading posts more than a few lines long.

reillyman wrote:

It is not about *banning groups from organisations that have murdered and promised to carry on murdering people on this island.

Correct. If you would like to propose a policy that does this then contact your class rep or write one and submit it to me. Personally I would be very wary of reopening such a sensitive issue, the troubles in the north is something I think we all would like to consign to the past and try and move forward from in a constructive manner. Racism however is a very real and present threat, especially to young people and the disproportionate number of non-white people we have in NUIG compared to most of the rest of the country.

psinno wrote:

Why is it more racist to murder Nigerians than to murder English people?

As a general question, of course it isn't. If you specify WHO is doing the murdering and why then the answer becomes more clear.

Racist organisations target non-whites because they generally believe that they are an inferior race that should be afforded similar rights as animals. This is no exaggeration. In the US black people were literally bred like cattle or horses for about 250 years, someting that a number of white supremacist organisations would only love to go back to. I think a problem here is that a lot of people posting here actually don;t seem to understand what racism actually entails.
Racism is not simply starting a fight with someone with another colour skin from you or using the N word, it involves fundamentally believing that you are superior to the person you are attacking and that people who have the wrong colour skin are effectively sub-humans. THIS is the reality of racism, think yourselves lucky you have never had it endemic in this country before.

Republican organisations such as RIRA and the provos in Ireland target British people because they are perceived to be an aggressive occupying force. Generally republicans don't assert themselves as a superior race to the British, this is why it is more racist for white supremacists to kill Nigerians than it is for Irish republicans to kill British people.
Both are very very wrong, but only one is actually racist.

If Nigerians came over here with tanks bombs and guns and invaded and occupied us and began governing part of Ireland from Nigeria then no, it certainly wouldn't be racist to kill them. It wold be wrong, but the reason behind killing them would be defense and not born out of a sense of superiority.

Likewise, it is not generally racist for Iraqi insurgents to kill British and American soldiers, they are an occupying force and there is no inference of racial superiority. If there is an inference of racial superiority then yes, of course it is racist.

In all cases it is the motivation for violence that dictates racism or not. I do not believe RIRA to be a racist organisation for these reasons. I do believe however that they are bunch of violent deluded murdering nutjobs.

BTW you do realise I am English yeah?

Red_Wake

Racism bad.

Sectarianism ok.

Neo nazis are both sectarian and racist, btw.