Nick Griffin is Coming to UCC

Byron85

As per a letter in today's Irish Times.

A chara, – In response to the letter by the Trinity Against Fascism group (December 5th) and a previous letter by Vincent Lavery (November 30th), I wish to question the understanding of free speech in the context of this fiasco. Freedom of speech is not, nor should it ever be subjective, particularly when the speaker in question is an elected official with a democratic mandate.

In light of this, Mr Griffin has accepted an invitation from the UCC Government and Politics Society to speak in a debate on: “The Importance of Free Speech in Modern Society” in the new year.

Our invitation to Mr Griffin is by no means a defence of what he has to say, rather it is a defence of his right to say it. I do hope that University College Cork – a college with strong liberal roots, will not succumb to any outside pressure and prevent this event going ahead.

If we, as a modern society, do not believe in free speech for those whom we disagree with, then perhaps it should be questioned whether we believe in free speech at all. – Is mise,

BEN ENGLISH,

Chair, Government and Politics Society,

University College Cork,

Co Cork.

I would be surprised if this goes ahead but I fully support the right of the Ben English et al to invite him over.

Thoughts?

dlofnep

Let him speak. I believe in free speech.

Manach

So long as all sides remember that UCC security guards must not be inconvienced. I seem to remember a long while back a similar such speaker (David Irving?) was invited, and the security guards bore the brunt of keeping the peace.

tommy21

Let him speak, but let him take the (verbal) backlash also.

closeline

Who is Nick Griffin?? Never heard of him in my life

CCFROM

Nick Griffin is a member of the British National Party, he doesn't really like people coming to live in the UK. In all fairness who in their right minds would like to live in the UK, think we have problems....

Ahh lads... Ye are not seriously going to let him speak are ye????
He denied the holocaust happened ffs.

dlofnep

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh lads... Ye are not seriously going to let him speak are ye????
He denied the holocaust happened ffs.

So you're not familiar with the concept of freedom of speech? Let him speak where his views can be challenged and exposed.

Byron85

As I posted on the Occupy Cork Facebook page:

"I'm glad he has been invited. Why? Firstly, because free speech is a right, regardless of what is being said. Disagree with him all you want, as I do, but he has a right to speak. The second reason i'm glad he has been invited is because I look forward to seeing him get completely destroyed. UCC has a lot of academic heavyweights, as you'd expect in such a place, and there is no way in hell he is going to have an easy ride. When you have people in UCC, such as a former lecturer of mine, who had been exiled from South Africa because of their anti-apartheid work, Griffin is going to be destroyed.

So i'm glad he has been invited. That way everyone can see how much of a deluded maniac he is."

bassey

And what if one person doesn't think he's an idiot? What if even one person thinks he's bang on the money and talking sense?

No platform should be given to fascists.

Eliot Rosewater

Yeah, there is absolutely no such thing as conditional free speech, the point being that it's unconditional.

Disappointing to see so many from Occupy Cork oppose it. You can't fight for freedom and oppose freedom of speech. What I find worrying is that people calling for him to be banned probably don't realise what they are actually suggesting, and this makes me worry about the kind of freedom they would like in this country.

Corkfeen

bassey wrote: »

And what if one person doesn't think he's an idiot? What if even one person thinks he's bang on the money and talking sense?

No platform should be given to fascists.

That almost makes the man a martyr if you don't allow him to speak, it justifies their position that they're speaking the truth and that the elite don't want it revealed. Giving him the opportunity to speak and then questioning him on the stances that he holds is far more likely to expose him and destroy his reputation. So, yes, even vile bastards deserve the right to speak on a public platform.

Fiatach

This won't be going ahead

Eliot Rosewater

bassey wrote: »

No platform should be given to fascists.

You see, the problem is is that the words there cloud your actualy meaning. What you're really saying is "No platform should be given to <those I profusely disagree with>". So where does it stop? Should the right to speak be given out arbitrarily to people? Should people have to agree with you to be allowed speak?

Jimmy Garlic

bassey wrote: »

And what if one person doesn't think he's an idiot? What if even one person thinks he's bang on the money and talking sense?

No platform should be given to fascists.

And who are you to make up someones mind for them?. He should be allowed to speak in the interest of debate, even if you don't like what he has to say.
Denying someone the right to speak purely because you don't like what they have to say is pretty fascist if you ask me.

JohnMearsheimer

Was he invited to UCC before? I seem to remember there was uproar about someone coming to UCC a few years ago, I have it in my head that it was him. I'm probably completely wrong.

Plautus

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Yeah, there is absolutely no such thing as conditional free speech, the point being that it's unconditional.

Well, first of all, if it's the case that there are no conditions attached to free speech then there is almost no country in the world practising free speech. Most countries have defamation laws, incitement to hatred legislation or even variations of the the most basic dictum that you don't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

However, in this case the right of a UCC society to invite anyone they like doesn't seem to be impinging on anyone else. They are free to invite whoever they like.

I still think it's a terrible decision of their's, and one which gives Griffin oxygen and will do nothing but generate acrimony. I wish they had better judgement than the seeking of publicity (there will be quite a bit of it.)

Finally, it is a very important distinction between the question of providing a platform and banning someone from speaking outright as a matter of law. UCC societies are members' organisations. They have a discretion about who they choose to invite. They don't have to invite everyone. Griffin wouldn't have been 'hurt' by not being invited in the first place.

@JohnMearsheimer - that was David Irving. As it happens I don't remember anyone from the History department even daring to dignify the **** by showing up to challenge him. Everyone's sick and tired of the likes of Irving's mental gymnastics (there are textbooks on it at this stage: http://books.google.ie/books?id=P2A8tsiEXNUC&dq=Deborah+Lipstadt&hl=en&ei=AlbmTtuBAYOAhQeP8bTTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ.)

It's about on a par with the merits of attempting a serious discussion in AH

thebigcheese22

Stinks of a publicity stunt tbh, from a society that noone really knows exists

Plautus

Actually, I remember now. Irving's speaking engagement was cancelled due to security concerns and he got catapulted onto ... the Late Late Show with Pat Kenny. The thing was farcical and underlined the shabby judgement of extending an invitation in the first place.

And those security concerns were genuine. There were of course, anti-fascists who made violent threats but there were also white supremacists who photographed UCC students in the likes of the Socialist Society and made dark warnings. They also handed out leaflets attacking the 'pseudo-historians' of UCC.

EyeSight

he'll be speaking on the importance of free speech. it's not a "nationalist" rally. i doubt anyone thinks that irish students want to hear about his views on british nationalism

i think he should be allowed speak

Plautus

EyeSight wrote: »

he'll be speaking on the importance of free speech. it's not a "nationalist" rally. i doubt anyone thinks that irish students want to hear about his views on british nationalism

i think he should be allowed speak

You trust Griffin to stick reliably to script? His ilk is not that well house-trained.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xd814g_bnp-candidate-and-asian-men-clash_news

As it happens no, I don't think anyone is disputing that societies are entitled to invite who they like. Everyone else is, equally, allowed to go 'WTF?'

pow wow

People opposing his visit aren't necessarily opposing free speech but to be honest I think the society could have found someone more worthwhile to defend it. I've met him through work before and he's not a maniac by any means, but for me he's not the right guy for the job.

hoorsmelt

dlofnep wrote: »

So you're not familiar with the concept of freedom of speech? Let him speak where his views can be challenged and exposed.

The BNP deny that right to their opponents in the UK- they have regularly harassed those of different views and ethnicities, they distribute pictures of lefties and anti-racists to neo-Nazis via the RedWatch site, and Griffin is coming here, like Irving, to try and promote and propagate racist ideas. Irving was prevented from speaking last time around, but did go to Cork and met and organised a group of neo-Nazis, who organised themselves via Storm Front and are now active in trying to form a party, the DRM, whose leaders have publicly called for black people and Jews to be killed.

As well, free speech is not an absolute right, one is not allowed to libel others for instance. It is a right and so comes with responsibility, no-one really objects to parties that are anti-immigration and of the far-right like UKIP because they can argue their point without reverting to racism, street fighting or violence against their opponents. Shame on UCC for inviting a known fascist, and next time you try to invite someone like this do a bit of research first into the person, their views and their history before extending the invitation. Griffin certainly is not worthy of a platform.

Jimmy Garlic

hoorsmelt wrote: »

As well, free speech is not an absolute right, one is not allowed to libel others for instance.

Well actually people are allowed to defame others by speaking freely but there can be consequences for doing so. Defamation law does not prohibit free speech, it protects those who have been defamed. Anyone is free to say whatever they like about anyone but there may be consequences if you defame someone.

Denying someone free speech because what they have to say does not correspond with your political/moral etc views is a different matter entirely.
Where do you draw the line?.

hoorsmelt

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Well actually people are allowed to defame others by speaking freely but there can be consequences for doing so. Defamation law does not prohibit free speech, it protects those who have been defamed. Anyone is free to say whatever they like about anyone but there may be consequences if you defame someone.

Ergo it's not free speech, it has legal consequences.

Denying someone free speech because what they have to say does not correspond with your political/moral etc views is a different matter entirely.
Where do you draw the line?.

The line is already drawn, those who actively oppose the state or are members of organisations opposed to the state and banned by the state can be locked up under the Offences Against the State Act. Many people are doing time in Portlaoise for such crimes at this very moment.

Jimmy Garlic

hoorsmelt wrote: »

Ergo it's not free speech, it has legal consequences.

Eh, yes it is, they are free to say something in the first place. Freedom of speech isn't against the law, defamation is.

The line is already drawn, those who actively oppose the state or are members of organisations opposed to the state and banned by the state can be locked up under the Offences Against the State Act. Many people are doing time in Portlaoise for such crimes at this very moment.

Twisted logic. They are not locked up for having an opinion and vocalising it. They are locked up for as you say -being members of organisations opposed to the state and banned by the state.

Buceph

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Eh, yes it is, they are free to say something in the first place. Freedom of speech isn't against the law, defamation is.

Jaysus, there's a bit of bother in Syria over nothing then. They're free to say whatever they want, the snipers taking them out is something completely separate.

:rolleyes:

wakeupireland

Do none of ye who support the so -called "free speech" ideal understand the difference between free speech (that is, as long as the rights of others are not impinged upon) and "hate speech"...

If any of you care to look at what BNP have been saying and doing, there is absolutely no need for Griffin to come and spread hatred here. Just giving him, and the political society some tittilation and free publicity- at the expense of non-whites.

this man hates anyone who is not white- and racial violence has been shown through research to have increased in areas where they have seats.

http://www.reporthatecrime.co.uk/index.php/news/66-rise-in-hate-crime-follows-bnp-council-election-victories

Yet, incredibly, few on campus seem to get it- it may not threaten YOU, but it threatens and harms the non-white students and staff on campus- this event and what he says is dangerous for them...and for the larger Cork area.

Apart from that, many right wing fascists and racist thugs (real, self-proclaimed ones, not the ones you call "fascist" as an insult) attend these events. Do you really want them on campus?

Remember, even if you don't care about the safety and well being of your fellow student colleagues and staff who are not white, the exorbitant foreign fees are badly needed income, are what keep this place running. In Sydney, Indian students were attacked and people stopped sending their kids there...

And when I say danger, I dont mean some abstract idea of "rights" or "threat" or "dignity"- I mean danger of assault, rape (16 year old black girl gang raped, racially motivated) and murder...let alone the real damage this will do to the meagre efforts of racist tolerance and integration work. Dublin bus drivers are verbally abused racially 5 times a day, EVERY DAY at work...that is real, not abstract.

It makes it much harder to stand up for immigrants rights- that is NOT DEMOCRACY, which is what free speech is all about.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/third-of-tds-afraid-to-back-immigrant-rights-2960677.html

I feel so disappointed in those people who are priviledged enough to come to college and get an education, yet who so easily ignore and dismiss their fellow students who are not white. It's real for them, daily- not some abstract idea or human right- they are also human and have a right to walk safe in the streets,and not be hated for not being white.

Wake Up. Grow a heart. Grow an intellect while you're at it! Please act more responsibly and realise that peoples lives are affected by this kind of event.

Free speech is not what Griffin does, and 10 mins online will prove that ( to anyone who is not racist or fascist that is). How would you like to walk out your front door and into a hostile environment of racist hatred...FOR NO GOOD REASON AT ALL??

Conzypet

I for one would love to hear his views in person. The way he was treated in Trinity was cowardly to say the least.

Manach

wakeupireland wrote: »

Do none of ye who support the so -called "free speech" ideal understand the difference between free speech (that is, as long as the rights of others are not impinged upon) and "hate speech"...

I disagree. His political message is wrong, but he has the same rights - as guaranteed by the state to express them subject to the provision of public order, barring "threatening, insulting or abusive words". If Mr. Griffin does stray into this realm, you are free to report him to the authorities, but to seek to deny that UCC's society right to invite due to what might occur harkens to an invidious Nanny-state mentality

Jimmy Garlic

Buceph wrote: »

Jaysus, there's a bit of bother in Syria over nothing then. They're free to say whatever they want, the snipers taking them out is something completely separate.

:rolleyes:

But unlike here freedom of speech is not protected in Syria. That tends to be the way with dictatorships.

wakeupireland

His message has been the same all along, and is well pubilicized. It is not the freedom of speech which is the issue, it is the hate-inciting content which is an infringement on the rights of immigrants and blacks (and several other hate-objects) for their rights. What part of that do you not understand? And if you would so dearly love to hear what he has to say in person, multitudes of his speeches and writings online. You will find little variation. Thus, satisfied, he need not be inflicted on all the rest of us.

There's little point going to complain to the authorities after you've had your head bashed in for being a black or Jew...

Plautus

Eh, yes it is, they are free to say something in the first place. Freedom of speech isn't against the law, defamation is.

That's a rather strange legal interpretation.

Defamatory speech, a form of speech, is penalised, therefore it's not free. Is that hard to understand? The law curbs defamation: you only have to look at how carefully some television and radio debates are moderated to see that in action. That kind of speech is disinecentivised.

In a repressive country they couldn't cut out everyone's vocal chords either - you'd be 'free' to speak and then you'd face the consequences. Oh, but that'd still be free speech, apparently.

Free speech is the ability to speak without facing legal consequences or state violence.

Eliot Rosewater

Plautus wrote: »

Well, first of all, if it's the case that there are no conditions attached to free speech then there is almost no country in the world practising free speech. Most countries have defamation laws, incitement to hatred legislation or even variations of the the most basic dictum that you don't shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.

Yeah, fair enough. But there is a clear qualitative difference between the demands made in this thread and demands to ban people from defaming others, that we can explore if people aren't convinced.

wakeupireland wrote: »

His message has been the same all along, and is well pubilicized. It is not the freedom of speech which is the issue, it is the hate-inciting content which is an infringement on the rights of immigrants and blacks (and several other hate-objects) for their rights. What part of that do you not understand? And if you would so dearly love to hear what he has to say in person, multitudes of his speeches and writings online. You will find little variation. Thus, satisfied, he need not be inflicted on all the rest of us.

So your solution is mob-rule whereby a group of protesters get to decide who speaks and who does not? The proper mechanism would be for Mr Griffin to make his speech and then be taken to court, if necessary, for whatever laws people think he has broken.

The problem with your point of view is that it makes the "granting" of the right to speak totally arbitrary and subjective. All the arguments against Griffin being allowed speak could be translated with little difficulty into arguments against, say, members of Occupy Cork being allowed to speak.

I could say "The USSR ended up a totalitarian state, and this is how Occupy will end up, therefore its members should not be allowed to speak." The flaws in the line of reasoning don't matter - seemingly by your benchmark if one can come up with a argument against someone speaking, then that's good enough. And a mob should enforce it.

Plautus

Yeah, fair enough. But there is a clear qualitative difference between the demands made in this thread and demands to ban people from defaming others, that we can explore if people aren't convinced.

Yes, I agree. I just wanted to register my own disapproval at Griffin's appearance on campus while still being in favour of free speech and the right of a UCC society to make mistakes and invite his type free from violence or the threat of violence

Dudess

I think he should speak - merely so his views can be challenged, but certainly not because of "free speech". Can't believe a university chairperson would have such a simplistic, naive view on same. Free speech isn't subject to limits, no matter what anyone says. There isn't actually free speech in the first place. If there was, the Incitement to Hatred Act wouldn't exist, nor would libel and slander.

Byron85

I hear that student council tonight was a tad "exciting", with some people who attended calling it an "undemocratic stitchup".

Plautus

Byron85 wrote: »

I hear that student council tonight was a tad "exciting", with some people who attended calling it an "undemocratic stitchup".

What went down exactly?

Byron85

Plautus wrote: »

What went down exactly?

Apparently the first motion was altered and turned into a second motion. The second motion was agreed upon, but apparently it wasn't done properly or something along those lines, so a lot of shouting was involved. I wasn't there so i'm only going on the posts of people who were there.

PhatPiggins

dlofnep wrote: »

Let him speak. I believe in free speech.

Free speech is the right to say 2+2=5.

Splike

Sure let him speak if he wants to. However the college should not be funding it. I have no problem without someone spouting BS, its the fact that the college is cutting back on other things while funding this BS.

Eliot Rosewater

Splike wrote: »

Sure let him speak if he wants to. However the college should not be funding it. I have no problem without someone spouting BS, its the fact that the college is cutting back on other things while funding this BS.

The difficulty though is that if the college is to deny funding for people that are out of fashion, they won't be able to come. So though not a direct attempt to stop people visiting, it amount to a de facto prohibition on controversial views.

Byron85

The invitation has officially been withdrawn.

http://www.studentnews.ie/government-politics-society-withdraws-nick-griffin-invite-4469/