Excellent article about Nick Griffin coming to speak at UCC

suarez

http://www.universitytimes.ie/?p=7469

Hope the whole city protests against this.

trendyvicar

suarez wrote: »

http://www.universitytimes.ie/?p=7469

Hope the whole city protests against this.

Did they ever protest against SF/IRA? Or is it only English 'fascists' that annoy The Irish?

cavedave

But Enda Kenny isn’t Joseph Stalin, unfortunately for our economy, and it was the people, rather than the establishment, who objected to this vile brand of drivel.

Is this saying that Stalin was good for the soviet economy?

In spite of early breakdowns and failures, the first two Five-Year Plans achieved rapid industrialization from a very low economic base. While it is generally agreed that the Soviet Union achieved significant levels of economic growth under Stalin, the precise rate of growth is disputed. It is not disputed, however, that these gains were accomplished at the cost of millions of lives. Official Soviet estimates stated the annual rate of growth at 13.9%; Russian and Western estimates gave lower figures of 5.8% and even 2.9%. Indeed, one estimate is that Soviet growth became temporarily much higher after Stalin's death

Free speech campaigners tend to be against government preventing people speaking. If the people in Trinity or UCC who invited Griffin want to uninvite him that is their business. As long as the government do not try to make his speech illegal is it a free speech issue?

JustinDee

trendyvicar wrote: »

Did they ever protest against SF/IRA?

Yes. You must have been asleep to think 'they' didn't.

trendyvicar wrote: »

Or is it only English 'fascists' that annoy The Irish?

No need to be so protective of him. He's (thankfully) not very welcome here. No amount of moral relativism about paramilitary nutjobs will justify his politics.

RichieC

surely there's more articlate people that can make the case Griffen would sweat and mumble out.. he really isnt college debate material. Pat Condell would be a far better invite.. he's not a holocaust denier either.

woodoo

Let the man say what he has to say and people can agree or disagree with him as they please.

The Waltzing Consumer

suarez wrote: »

http://www.universitytimes.ie/?p=7469

Hope the whole city protests against this.

That's a terrible article.

It actually expresses disappointment that Enda Kenny is not Stalin when it comes to the economy. :eek:

Did you write the article cause it's just wished that Enda was more like a mass murderer?

Suryavarman

I can never understand why people protest against Nick Griffin taking part in debates. They not only show themselves to be enemies of free speech but also take away the chance to show what a fool Nick Griffin and the other members of the BNP are.

Manach

Mr Griffin can come and speak as is his invited right, I just hope the UCC room is absolutely empty as people have much things to do than listen to his tosh.

RichieC

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

suarez wrote: »

http://www.universitytimes.ie/?p=7469

Hope the whole city protests against this.

That's a terrible article.

It actually expresses disappointment that Enda Kenny is not Stalin when it comes to the economy. :eek:

Did you write the article cause it's just wished that Enda was more like a mass murderer?

I think you're reading too much into that tbh.

Sonnenblumen

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can never understand why people protest against Nick Griffin taking part in debates. They not only show themselves to be enemies of free speech but also take away the chance to show what a fool Nick Griffin and the other members of the BNP are.

So he's a fool because his views are contrary to yours? Now that's foolish.

RichieC

he's a bigoted little fascist who denies the holocast. that makes him a fool.

he isnt even charasmatic or particularly intelligent.

UglyBolloxFace

By refusing to let him engage in debate, we are just giving him credence and showing affront to free speech.

The best thing to do would be to let him say what he has to say, which will show him and his party up for the idiotic racists that they are.

RichieC

agreed. but why dont they invite a ukip spokesperson instead?

MungBean

That article is a bit of a joke to be honest. Referencing picketing funerals of dead soldiers in America as some sort of proof that freedom of speech has "gone mad" like it has one damn thing to do with a guy invited to speak at a university over here.

Nobody is obliged to listen to him. He's not going out of his way to hassle anyone. He was invited to speak to people who wanted to listen to him and challenge him for whatever reason.

So not only is the author of that article and everyone else who is against him coming over trying to shut him up because you dont like what he says. Your trying to tell everyone else what we can and cannot listen to and debate. And in the case of the writer of the article calling those who disagree idiots.

Ya dont like him dont listen to him, dont go to the talk. People are too eager to go out of their way to find stuff that bothers them these days.

Ellis Dee

I'm inclined to think it's better to let creeps like him come out from under their rocks and say what they have to say so that people know what they are about. They should also face rigorous questioning. Anything else only confers a sort of martyr status on them. When they have to spell out their policies in the full glare of publicity, they inevitably have to tone it down and reject or condemn the more thuggish policies that some of the hard men in their movement advocate. And that will only increase tensions within them and, hopefully, lead to their eventual crumbling and disappearance.

Kinski

This UCC society are giving a platform to a racist and calling it a victory for free speech? A lot of people seem to have a problem distinguishing between the law permitting people to say whatever they choose to say, and society denying dangerous extremists with ludicrous and offensive views a platform to air their opinions. "Engaging" these kind of people in debate is just lending their position a dignity it doesn't deserve. Shame on these people for inviting him.

BluntGuy

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can never understand why people protest against Nick Griffin taking part in debates. They not only show themselves to be enemies of free speech but also take away the chance to show what a fool Nick Griffin and the other members of the BNP are.

Says you.

Some of us, as the poster above eloquently put it, simply feel that inviting people who hold extreme views such as his to serious debates, lends their position a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. This is not the same as arguing they shouldn't have a right to express those views.

Serious issues such as immigration and its supposed effects on society and the economy, require serious, considered discussion. In this spirit, I would not consider entertaining poorly thought-out rhetoric from rigid inarticulate neo-fascists to be a constructive use of time, and it reflects poorly on the institution that such a low calibre of guest would be given the time of day.

That said the article was fairly crap. It would've done better to attack the content (or lack of) in his argument.

RichieC

I suspect the idea is to invite griffen instead of the more moderate nationalists in tbe ukip so as to stack the cards against the position. hes a train wreak and I could probably argue the position better than him.

Sonnenblumen

BluntGuy wrote: »

Says you.

Some of us, as the poster above eloquently put it, simply feel that inviting people who hold extreme views such as his to serious debates, lends their position a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. This is not the same as arguing they shouldn't have a right to express those views.

Serious issues such as immigration and its supposed effects on society and the economy, require serious, considered discussion. In this spirit, I would not consider entertaining poorly thought-out rhetoric from rigid inarticulate neo-fascists to be a constructive use of time, and it reflects poorly on the institution that such a low calibre of guest would be given the time of day.

That said the article was fairly crap. It would've done better to attack the content (or lack of) in his argument.

Nothing "supposed" about the many effects and not all positive!

Suryavarman

BluntGuy wrote: »

Says you.

Indeed I do.

Some of us, as the poster above eloquently put it, simply feel that inviting people who hold extreme views such as his to serious debates, lends their position a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. This is not the same as arguing they shouldn't have a right to express those views.

I agree that it can be an unwise decision to give these bigots a platform for their ideas. I do believe that generally it is a better idea to debate them and embarrass them and to highlight how flawed their ideas are. We obviously disagree on this point but I can see where you are coming from.

As for your last point I'm sure that applies to many of the people in this thread. From reading the piece though I get the impression that the writer doesn't believe they should have the right to express their views. As far as I remember there was many members of the Socialist party at Trinity College objecting to the right of fascists to free speech as well as opposing the debate that was supposed to take place.

Serious issues such as immigration and its supposed effects on society and the economy, require serious, considered discussion. In this spirit, I would not consider entertaining poorly thought-out rhetoric from rigid inarticulate neo-fascists to be a constructive use of time, and it reflects poorly on the institution that such a low calibre of guest would be given the time of day.

I believe that immigration brings a net positive to society and the economy so I would believe it to be a good idea to bring that up against these bigots. Do you not agree that it would be a good idea to show that these people are not only wrong but in fact the opposite of what they say is true?

That said the article was fairly crap. It would've done better to attack the content (or lack of) in his argument.

Agreed. I've read a couple of Mr. Kenny's articles and I must say it is unlikely that he has a future in journalism. I've found that the most vocal opponents of these debates often prefer to make a case for why fascists shouldn't be allowed to speak as opposed to highlighting the many flaws of their positions.

Gnasher1970

That's true and frankly I don't much care whether Nick Griffin talks in Cork or doesn't. He's a nasty political opportunist of the worst sort, who will happily lie, change his position, deny his past and say just about anything for the advancement of his cause, and the BNP have consistently had a strategy of exaggerating, hyping, scare-mongering and, literally, inventing stories that play on people's anxieties about immigration.

I've written this before but Griffin himself used to have two pigs named Anne and Frank, wrote a booklet about control of the world media called "Who are the Mindbenders?", referred to a man who made a complaint against him as "this bloody Jew...whose only claim is that his grandparents died in the Holocaust’, has called the Holocaust "the hoax of the Twentieth Century", and who was convicted in 1998 of distributing anti-semitic material likely to incite racial hatred.

Then, suddenly, when it became politically expedient, he had a Damascene conversion and realised that "Islam is the biggest threat Britain has ever faced". He told an Israeli newspaper that the BNP has "no time for anti-Semites" and the BNP website said "the BNP is in no way anti-Semitic nor do we deny the Holocaust." That's quite a U-turn.

When challenged by the American far-right about their new-found love for Israel, Griffin wrote "It’s better to be a little cynical on this issue and stand a chance of winning than to fret about which bunch of liars are lying in this particular instance and in so doing miss a great political opportunity to surf our message into the public mind on the back of a media tsunami of ‘Islamophobia’.”

When you're dealing with that level of cynicism and dishonesty, you need to hope that people will see through it. The British public certainly did last time out. Hopefully, there'll be someone in Cork to put him in his grubby, racist box.

lugha

Kinski wrote: »

A lot of people seem to have a problem distinguishing between the law permitting people to say whatever they choose to say, and society denying dangerous extremists with ludicrous and offensive views a platform to air their opinions.

As am I . I don’t see how you can simultaneously argue that people should be permitted to say what they choose but that their opinions may not be ludicrous or offensive? Who for example gets to decide what is or is not offensive? The communists powers that were would no doubt have found much of what the late Vaclav Havel had to say rather offensive; presumably you would not have adviced that he be censored?

Which is not to say that people can say what they like. There are many practical restrictions that can apply other the frivolous “shouting fire in a theatre” one that is trotted out. For example, individuals can reasonably be impeded from disclosing commercially or militarily sensitive information.

But when it comes to expressing an opinion, it seems a reasonable attitude to take by default is to permit people to say what they please. And the onus should be on those who think such utterances should be censored, to justify it. Some times a credible justification can be provide, slander/libel for example. But that their opinions are ludicrous (!) or offensive is not quite enough for me.

Kinski wrote: »

"Engaging" these kind of people in debate is just lending their position a dignity it doesn't deserve.

There is of course a practical problem here. If you refuse to allow people to air their views you are not in a great position to determine that their views are indeed offensive. Or even ludicrous.

Eliot Rosewater

There is an inherent problem with making the statement "No platform for fascists". To see this, write it instead as "No platform for A" and try to figure out what kind of words one can put in for A. Clearly we can have A = "fascists". But, generally speaking, your criteria for justifying that will always be subjective. And then generally, your criteria for what other words can be slotted into A in that sentence will always be subjective.

Once you deny a platform for one group of people on the basis of subjective opinions, other groups can also be denied a platform and, to be consistent, you can't really argue with it.

So, for example, I could say "No platform for Occupy protesters". I'll justify this with some subjective reasoning (that I don't believe, btw, but that's not the point): I think that if Occupy spread their opinions too much the people will vote in hard Left parties and the country will be destroyed economically, therefore Occupy should not be allowed have a platform.

That argument against Occupy is no weaker or stronger than the arguments against Griffin. If you merely just disagree I can say "well, Griffin isn't allowed a platform because of your subjective opinions, so ditto with Occupy and my subjective opinions." The problem, in a nutshell, is that if you make these anti-free speech statements for one group based on subjective crtieria, you logically permit a situation in which any group can be denied a platform.


And just to address the rights issue. The UCC SU phrased it as "Mr. Griffin's right to free speech should not be allowed trump the LGBT community's right to equality". That's basically an argument from authority, citing rights to make one's subjective opinion seem stronger. For the reductio ad absurdum: should I be banned from arguing that members of the LGBT community be denied the right to donate blood because, in that case, my right to free speech would be working against their right to absolute equality?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

AlekSmart

BluntGuy wrote: »

Says you.

Some of us, as the poster above eloquently put it, simply feel that inviting people who hold extreme views such as his to serious debates, lends their position a level of legitimacy it does not deserve. This is not the same as arguing they shouldn't have a right to express those views.

Serious issues such as immigration and its supposed effects on society and the economy, require serious, considered discussion. In this spirit, I would not consider entertaining poorly thought-out rhetoric from rigid inarticulate neo-fascists to be a constructive use of time, and it reflects poorly on the institution that such a low calibre of guest would be given the time of day.

That said the article was fairly crap. It would've done better to attack the content (or lack of) in his argument.

Surely the term "serious debate" of itself indicates the only approach to challenging Nick Griffin's opinions ?

If he's not expressing these contentious views then no "serious debate" is ever going to be possible.

Is it preferable therefore that Griffin and the BNP should only be allowed to simply "think" as they do and never be subjected to having to "seriously debate" their position ?

It could be argued that entertaining "Poorly thought-out Rhetoric" is something which is not specific to the Nick Griffin viewpoint,as significant poor-thought and rhetoric can also be found on the opposing side,is this to be left undabated also ?

What may be worrying many posters,I fear,is that in a country which has a bit to go yet in lowering its expectations of living standards the Human Nature factor may kick-in and BNP like organizations assume a greater role in public representation.

If,by seeking to censor The BNP and Nick Griffin's opinions,one assumes that the populace won't notice them,then I would differ on that.
The same populace will,however,notice and question why they are deemed unable to make their own minds up on the issue.

Dirk Gently

When it comes to Nick Griffin the more exposure he gets the weaker his following will be. He is hopelessly outclassed when ever debated. He is however a very efficient scammer which is where his interest lies moreso than politics, using his political party basically for accepting donations from gullable far right mugs and equally gullable european union officials.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

BluntGuy

AlekSmart wrote: »

Surely the term "serious debate" of itself indicates the only approach to challenging Nick Griffin's opinions ?

If he's not expressing these contentious views then no "serious debate" is ever going to be possible.

Is it preferable therefore that Griffin and the BNP should only be allowed to simply "think" as they do and never be subjected to having to "seriously debate" their position ?

Absolutely not, but if you are choosing to hold a debate about immigration in which you hope a useful discourse is had, why would you select a contributor on the complete extreme with poor debating skills and a rigid, inflexible viewpoint. If we hadn't heard his stuff all before I might be more inclined to agree that the university is correct in "standing up for free speech" and giving him the time of day. However, his view is already widely known, he has had plenty of opportunities to have a platform for his opinion before, he has had his opinion challenged numerous times before, and he has proven himself to be a crap debater with poorly thought-out extreme arguments.

In light of this, why not invite a more capable contributor who is able to make the case well? With Griffin all that's inevitably thought about is the racism and the fascist slants which ensures that the issue of immigration and how people actually feel about it gets swept under entirely. The article in the OP alludes to this. The lack of content in his arguments also aids in this. This is not productive. Personally I think there's a degree of sensationalism involved in their selection of Griffin too.

It could be argued that entertaining "Poorly thought-out Rhetoric" is something which is not specific to the Nick Griffin viewpoint,as significant poor-thought and rhetoric can also be found on the opposing side,is this to be left undabated also ?

Why not simply find a debater who can present that side well too, then? The right to freedom of speech does not mean you do not use rational discretion when selecting the participants of your debate. Do you want people who are going to contribute something new, useful and insightful to the debate or people you know are just going to repeat the same tired old rhetoric (on either side).

What may be worrying many posters,I fear,is that in a country which has a bit to go yet in lowering its expectations of living standards the Human Nature factor may kick-in and BNP like organizations assume a greater role in public representation

If,by seeking to censor The BNP and Nick Griffin's opinions,one assumes that the populace won't notice them,then I would differ on that.
The same populace will,however,notice and question why they are deemed unable to make their own minds up on the issue.

I am not seeking to "censor" his opinion. He has no right to be automatically involved in any privately organised debate. I don't see how having a problem with the fact they invited him over other more capable contributors is the same as denying him the right to free speech. As I said before, if you are reputable institution attempting to hold a constructive debate, why not invite someone who can argue an anti-immigration/nationalist position coherently, rather than someone who spouts off the same repetitive garbage.

I absolutely support the right to freedom of speech and of expression. This doesn't mean I blindly support giving everyone's opinion equal weight and airtime. Just because Billy Biscuits has a right to take part in a debate doesn't mean I'd invite him to do so. Particularly if, based on his previous appearances, he is going to have nothing useful to add to the conversation.

Of course, this is subjective, but have you never watched a debate in which you wished the person arguing for your position knew their facts better, or that they'd gotten someone else? That isn't arguing against their right to hold and express those opinions, but it is arguing that the organisers of the debate made a poor selection. Indeed I am quite "pro-immigration" (a term I don't really think makes a whole lot of sense but I use it in the absence of any better term), and I feel it's far too easy to simply invite a well-known extreme bigot whose opinions can be cut to pieces with ease. Why give undue weight to that opinion and contributor when there are many others who could make a better case?

I think the UCC organisers made a poor choice and going on about "free speech" doesn't take away from the poor quality of debater they selected. Nor does it de-legitimise criticism of their choice. I'll happily make the same criticism about the fact Joe Higgins is constantly on Vincent Browne. I have nothing against him having the right to express his opinion, I do have a problem with the fact that he says the same thing every time he appears, and that a better contributor could probably be selected.

However, perhaps I have strayed off topic a little. I disagree with the article in question, which seems rather lamely, to be flailing about in a desperate attempt to make "I don't like Nick Griffin! He shouldn't come here! Waaah!" look like some kind of highly-reasoned, deep philosophical point about free speech. In the end it simply embarrasses itself lurching from one paragraph that misses the point to next, before ending in a crumpled heap of nonsensical silliness.

Those useful idiots at UCC preaching tolerance for intolerance would do well to think about that.

Rubbish.

BlaasForRafa

RichieC wrote: »

I suspect the idea is to invite griffen instead of the more moderate nationalists in tbe ukip so as to stack the cards against the position. hes a train wreak and I could probably argue the position better than him.

It also gets column inches that someone more moderate would. If people people feel strongly about him they should question him rationally and calmly tear his idiotic beliefs to shreds.

walshb

MungBean wrote: »

That article is a bit of a joke to be honest. Referencing picketing funerals of dead soldiers in America as some sort of proof that freedom of speech has "gone mad" like it has one damn thing to do with a guy invited to speak at a university over here.

Nobody is obliged to listen to him. He's not going out of his way to hassle anyone. He was invited to speak to people who wanted to listen to him and challenge him for whatever reason.

So not only is the author of that article and everyone else who is against him coming over trying to shut him up because you dont like what he says. Your trying to tell everyone else what we can and cannot listen to and debate. And in the case of the writer of the article calling those who disagree idiots.

Ya dont like him dont listen to him, dont go to the talk. People are too eager to go out of their way to find stuff that bothers them these days.

I was thinking the same thing myself. Picketing of a funeral and spreading hate at a funeral is not really the same as Nick Griffin speaking at a college that invited him to speak.

Dudess

Once more, the teenage free speech naivety. Free speech does not exist. That said, I think he should speak - in order to be ridiculed.

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can never understand why people protest against Nick Griffin taking part in debates. They not only show themselves to be enemies of free speech but also take away the chance to show what a fool Nick Griffin and the other members of the BNP are.

So he's a fool because his views are contrary to yours? Now that's foolish.

Bit more to it than not agreeing with him. As you know.

Byron85

The main issue, according to those planning to try and get the event cancelled, is that his visit could galvanise neo-nazi groups around the country and here in Cork. The groups do exist; in fact I know one or two of the people in such groups to see around and I also know their names. It's a legitimate enough concern.

I'm somewhat on the fence about the whole issue myself. I have stated that I value freedom of speech more than stopping him from speaking but the retort(s) i've received has been that i'm not the one that will pay the price for him being allowed to speak. That it will be minorities who will pay the price.

Also, there will be a public meeting in early January to decide what's going to be done and also, if groups from outside of UCC should be allowed to take part in any campaign against his visit. Personally, i'm against any outside group being allowed to take part as I fear it could be hijacked.

Anyway, like I said, i'm somewhat on the fence about the whole thing.

MungBean

Dudess wrote: »

Once more, the teenage free speech naivety. Free speech does not exist. That said, I think he should speak - in order to be ridiculed.

Free speech exists to an extent. I dont see how its naive to think that a person should be allowed to air their views when invited to do so for the purpose of debating those views.

What strikes me as naive is people thinking anything can be gained from denying that.

Dudess

It either does or does not exist unconditionally - and it doesn't. The fact he would - rightly - be prevented from speaking at a synagogue demonstrates how it doesn't exist.
People can't just say what they like wherever and to whomever - thankfully. It's far more just to be concerned about the rights of those on the receiving end of hate speech than the rights of fuk-wits.
But I think he should speak at UCC because it's not a sensitive place like a synagogue - not for his free speech rights though.

sarumite

MungBean wrote: »

Free speech exists to an extent. I dont see how its naive to think that a person should be allowed to air their views when invited to do so for the purpose of debating those views.

What strikes me as naive is people thinking anything can be gained from denying that.

Somehow I feel your brand of common sense and logic won't sit well with those who prefer the outrage.

sarumite

Dudess wrote: »

It either does or does not exist unconditionally - and it doesn't. The fact he would - rightly - be prevented from speaking at a synagogue demonstrates how it doesn't exist.
People can't just say what they like wherever and to whomever - thankfully. It's far more just to be concerned about the rights of those on the receiving end of hate speech than the rights of fuk-wits.
But I think he should speak at UCC because it's not a sensitive place like a synagogue - not for his free speech rights though.

The problem is when the the those on the "receiving end" and those who are "fuk-wits" gets a little muddy. I believe the Catholic Church are the fuk-wits on many of their social policies, however I do not feel they should be prevented from preaching to their followers.

Kinski

lugha wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't say that. Denying someone access to a speaking platform within the public sphere is not the same as denying them their right to free speech. For example, the fact that I do not have the opportunity to state my views on broadcast media in no way compromises my right to free speech. The BNP are a legal party in the UK; they are permitted to maintain a website, produce and distribute literature outlining their views, hold meetings, stand for election, and so on. As such, their views are widely disseminated and can be accessed easily. But given the extreme nature of those views, most other parties are unwilling to engage in debate with them.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

That argument against Occupy is no weaker or stronger than the arguments against Griffin. If you merely just disagree I can say "well, Griffin isn't allowed a platform because of your subjective opinions, so ditto with Occupy and my subjective opinions." The problem, in a nutshell, is that if you make these anti-free speech statements for one group based on subjective crtieria, you logically permit a situation in which any group can be denied a platform.

Okay, so how subjective is my opinion that the Holocaust (or "Holohoax" according to Griffin) did happen?

Permabear wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You don't see any irony in the fact that at the same time as you are forcefully making a case in the feedback thread for tighter moderation of this forum, including arguing for infractions for posters who "continue insisting that something is factually true after it has been repeatedly debunked," you are at the same time defending Mr. Holohoax's access to other forums within the public sphere which aspire to host serious political debate? If you think that having posters on here spouting arguments backed by nothing but fictions hinders serious discussion, why isn't the same true of letting Griffin speak at college debates, let alone on national broadcast media?

This is Orwellian, pure and simple.

Given that Orwell stated his ambition in the Spanish Civil War was to kill at least one fascist, I think his solution for the likes of Griffin might have involved a little more than just denying him the opportunity to speak at a UCC society debate.

lugha

Kinski wrote: »

Denying someone access to a speaking platform within the public sphere is not the same as denying them their right to free speech. For example, the fact that I do not have the opportunity to state my views on broadcast media in no way compromises my right to free speech.

Denying access to a scarce resource like broadcast media for pragmatic reasons is not the same as denying someone a platform because you don’t like what they say. And the latter does amount to a denial of free speech, that those who are so denied may have access to other media modes does not change this.

lugha

sarumite wrote: »

The problem is when the the those on the "receiving end" and those who are "fuk-wits" gets a little muddy. I believe the Catholic Church are the fuk-wits on many of their social policies, however I do not feel they should be prevented from preaching to their followers.

I think it might be an interesting exercise to imagine this debate taking place 60 years ago in Ireland where instead of Nick Griffin spreading “hate” we had some godless type promoting all manner of debauchery including the plainly “offensive” idea that sodomy between two men might be tolerated, God help us! Surely appealing to the moral zeitgeist when deciding who does and does not get to speak is troublesome?

And of course, despite the considerable power of the clergy, the godless lot with their liberal ideas did eventually win the day. One would have to suspect that if there is a willingness to entertain Griffin’s ideas (I don’t think there is) then you would have to imagine that they will eventually take hold. And of course, I don't think it is credible to argue that someone should be permitted to speak but not if the effect is to further promote their message.

MungBean

Dudess wrote: »

It either does or does not exist unconditionally - and it doesn't. The fact he would - rightly - be prevented from speaking at a synagogue demonstrates how it doesn't exist.
People can't just say what they like wherever and to whomever - thankfully. It's far more just to be concerned about the rights of those on the receiving end of hate speech than the rights of fuk-wits.
But I think he should speak at UCC because it's not a sensitive place like a synagogue- not for his free speech rights though.

It does exist.

The right to freedom of expression is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR

In Ireland, the right to free speech is guaranteed under the Constitution (Article 40.6.1.i)

Depending on whether or not your opinions encroach on the rights of others though your right to free speech may be limited.

Whether or not he would be prevented by law from speaking at a synagogue is irrelevant. He is not prevented by law from voicing his opinion when invited to do so at a university. It wasnt freedom of speech as defined by the laws of society that stopped the talk. It was stopped by a group of angry people who didnt want to hear (or want anyone else to hear) what this guy had to say.

Kinski

lugha wrote: »

Denying access to a scarce resource like broadcast media for pragmatic reasons is not the same as denying someone a platform because you don’t like what they say. And the latter does amount to a denial of free speech, that those who are so denied may have access to other media modes does not change this.

Platforms to speak at college debates aren't open to all comers either. This UCC event and a television current affairs both have to invite people to voice their opinions. If this is done in a serious way, then one expects the issuing of invites to depend on some kind of judgement that the invitees will have something worthwhile to contribute. So it's not a denial of free speech to argue that a known racist has no place on the panel.

Dudess

sarumite wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

It either does or does not exist unconditionally - and it doesn't. The fact he would - rightly - be prevented from speaking at a synagogue demonstrates how it doesn't exist.
People can't just say what they like wherever and to whomever - thankfully. It's far more just to be concerned about the rights of those on the receiving end of hate speech than the rights of fuk-wits.
But I think he should speak at UCC because it's not a sensitive place like a synagogue - not for his free speech rights though.

The problem is when the the those on the "receiving end" and those who are "fuk-wits" gets a little muddy. I believe the Catholic Church are the fuk-wits on many of their social policies, however I do not feel they should be prevented from preaching to their followers.

Exactly. To their followers. They're not offending anyone then are they?
MungBean, free speech does not exist unconditionally - you said yourself it exists only to an extent. Incitement To Hatred Act - already proof of the limits to free speech. And thank goodness for that.
Most of the time when I see whinges for free speech, they're coming from idiots who want the right to say dickish things to people. It dismays me that intelligent people are so concerned about the rights of bigots and monsters instead of those on the receiving end - and has a whiff of "Look at me and how outside the box I am".
In my opinion, people should be able to express their views in a public sphere but subject to limits. A university isn't like a flashpoint area in the north, so fair enough.

MungBean

Dudess wrote: »

Exactly. To their followers. They're not offending anyone then are they?

MungBean, free speech does not exist unconditionally - you said yourself it exists only to an extent. Incitement To Hatred Act - already proof of the limits to free speech. And thank goodness for that.
Most of the time when I see whinges for free speech, they're coming from idiots who want the right to say dickish things to people. It dismays me that intelligent people are so concerned about the rights of bigots and monsters instead of those on the receiving end - and has a whiff of "Look at me and how outside the box I am".

How is it any different for people willingly going to church to hear these things and people willingly going to a debate at a university to hear these things ? Out of the two the church is much more dangerous to society promoting blind acceptance of myths and nonsense to people (even children) under penalty of eternal damnation. While the college debate is educated people questioning the validity of the opinions being made in an effort to find out whether they are right or wrong and if the latter just how wrong they are.

Free speech exists its just a matter of how much of a right you have to it. Thats what I meant by it exists to an extent, the extent the law will allow. In your own words theres a "limit to free speech". However if you are not breaking that act you are not limited in expressing your opinion. Plenty of people have full right to express themselves because they do not encroach on others rights with their opinions. Free speech isnt a licence to insult as you describe it, its an ability to express yourself without censorship.

In my opinion, people should be able to express their views in a public sphere but subject to limits. A university isn't like a flashpoint area in the north, so fair enough.

That is the way things are. Some people seem to think they can redefine those limits based on their own personal view though which is my issue. I hope your not lumping me in with those you perceive as idiots whinging for the right to say dickish things.

lugha

Kinski wrote: »

Platforms to speak at college debates aren't open to all comers either. This UCC event and a television current affairs both have to invite people to voice their opinions. If this is done in a serious way, then one expects the issuing of invites to depend on some kind of judgement that the invitees will have something worthwhile to contribute. So it's not a denial of free speech to argue that a known racist has no place on the panel.

Fine but the debate here is not about the merits of Griffin as a debater. Perhaps he would make for a very poor choice, that is a matter for the invitees. Those that object to him being invited do so not because he makes for a poor debater, they do so because they disapprove of what he has to say. And that is a denial of free speech.

Dudess wrote: »

Incitement To Hatred Act - already proof of the limits to free speech. And thank goodness for that.

I wouldn’t thank anyone for that. Incitement to hatred legislation may be necessary but it is a necessary evil. It reflects more on the incited that the inciter that they respond to words, however objectionable or obnoxious they might be, with violence or threats of violence.

Dudess

MungBean wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Exactly. To their followers. They're not offending anyone then are they?

I hope your not lumping me in with those you perceive as idiots whinging for the right to say dickish things.

No I'm not. But I can't understand the defence of such people's rights over the rights of their targets. Screwed up priority.
It does seem like an intellectual privilege of white westerners too.

Absolute free speech does not exist though, therefore that to me indicates free speech does not exist.

Sonnenblumen

Dudess wrote: »

Absolute free speech does not exist though, therefore that to me indicates free speech does not exist.

I wouldn't worry about the absolute, intellectual ability is much more likely to have a determining effect.

Dudess

Sonnenblumen wrote: »

Dudess wrote: »

Absolute free speech does not exist though, therefore that to me indicates free speech does not exist.

I wouldn't worry about the absolute, intellectual ability is much more likely to have a determining effect.

Ach it's not that confusing.

walrusgumble

Suryavarman wrote: »

I can never understand why people protest against Nick Griffin taking part in debates. They not only show themselves to be enemies of free speech but also take away the chance to show what a fool Nick Griffin and the other members of the BNP are.

They obviously do not trust the people, and fear that a large number would be convinced by people like Griffen. Not a good way to go, it says little for their convictions then, if they are not prepared to fight for them.

I hope someone points out to him that in the past groups like the BNP were publicly anti Irish, ironically some of the BNP, I recall Griffin (hey hey) claimed some had Irish Backgrounds - True Brit eh?

SeanW

Kinski wrote: »

Platforms to speak at college debates aren't open to all comers either. This UCC event and a television current affairs both have to invite people to voice their opinions.

Correct.

If this is done in a serious way, then one expects the issuing of invites to depend on some kind of judgement that the invitees will have something worthwhile to contribute.

Also correct, but getting into subjectivity.

So it's not a denial of free speech to argue that a known racist has no place on the panel.

But who decides that? The panel? Or just you?

FWIW I think the BNP are slimebags, granted I don't know that much about their stance and frankly I don't care, but Pat Condell, who is a UK native and very clued in, thinks that they'd "repatriate the blacks and gas the Jews" given the chance.

I also agree with others here who have suggested that right-of-centre views on Europe and/or immigration could have been more credibly represented by Pat Condell or a representative of UKIP, such as Nigel Farage.

But ultimately, that is a decision to be made by the people hosting the discussion, using whatever criteria they deem fit. I for one hope he does come to speak and like Mahmoud Ahmedinajihad at Columbia or wherever it was, gets hammered by the questions and statements from the panel and the audience. That would be ideal.

Kinski

SeanW wrote: »

But who decides that? The panel? Or just you?

People are hardly likely to take notice of one person's objection, so no, not just me. But Griffin's proposed appearance at UCC has, like the previous one in Trinity, been called off.