TCD students cheer islamist Asghar Bukhari and his defence of the Charlie Hebdo k

sf80

"It was as part of a debate on the right to offend. I was on the side of people having the right to say whatever the hell they want, no matter whose panties it bunches"

oh the irony..

strelok

hardly surprising, lots of left wing writers and activists offered pathetic "explanations" of the hebdo murders at the time

jimgoose

It's always the same, going back aeons. Whatever annoys The Man, society, their parents, the Squares maaan. Most of them will grow out of it, the others will cultivate interesting facial hair and go to work in video-game shops. It's a pity this new form of it is so properly destructive.

Crann na Beatha

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose

strelok wrote: »

hardly surprising, lots of left wing writers and activists offered pathetic "explanations" of the hebdo murders at the time

The leftist movement generally has a long and illustrious history of attempting to saw off the branch upon which it is sitting. In the old days it was the Soviet Union that made them all gooey. Now for some reason it is lunatic religion-inspired statist fascism masquerading as Islam. Oh well...

jimgoose

Tarzana2 wrote: »

Eh no, I'm not into censorship. I'd rather someone showed up, gave their talk and bore the brunt if they are complete c*nts. If some ninnys in the audience agree with them, not much you can do, they'd just believe in something else suspect, if not this.

It isn't censorship for an institution to select who comes to speak based on what their views are and the likely content. As the other cheek of the same arse, it is not appropriate to offend whoever you like as deeply as you like in the name of secular, modern, liberated cool-dudery. That's the kind of thing a fifteen-year-old with his head up his hole does. I speak as a libertarian humanist with a healthy streak of Mad O'Duffy.

jungleman

jimgoose wrote: »

It isn't censorship for an institution to select who comes to speak based on what their views are and the likely content. As the other cheek of the same arse, it is not appropriate to offend whoever you like as deeply as you like in the name of secular, modern, liberated cool-dudery. That's the kind of thing a fifteen-year-old with his head up his hole does. I speak as a libertarian humanist with a healthy streak of Mad O'Duffy.

Exactly. Declining to give a platform to someone isn't censorship, it's just exorcising your right to allow if you want to hear what they have to say.

KomradeBishop

Martial9 wrote: »

Yes, he is clearly the issue here. Ashgar Bukhari has previously tried to 'defend' the Charlie Hebdo murders.

Here he is in action 24 hours after they took place:

Thankfully Douglas Murray handed him his arse.

I don't give a toss about that guy anymore than I care for O'Neill. The focus is on the TCD students, and knowing O'Neills shít-stirring in the past, there is likely a lot left out of this story.

Boring username

Well hopefully the Special Branch are paying careful attention to the little pricks who were cheering on cold blooded murder. I would hope that they are being identified as we speak and are added to a watchlist. These smug **** won't be so gobby when they've failed a Garda vetting test when they want a job in computing, teaching, or the civil service.
The advantage of these useful idiots is that the leftists always fracture into breakaway groups, and you'll always have rival factions who will happily snitch on their former 'comrades'. So that can be exploited to its full potential.

Don't get mad, just brush the scum out to the fringes of society where they belong. As long as the radicals can't have any influence on mainstream society then everyone wins.

But it bares repeating time and time and time again-the far right is bad, but the far left is much, much worse.

Saipanne

Boring username wrote: »

Well hopefully the Special Branch are paying careful attention to the little pricks who were cheering on cold blooded murder. I would hope that they are being identified as we speak and are added to a watchlist. These smug **** won't be so gobby when they've failed a Garda vetting test when they want a job in computing, teaching, or the civil service.
The advantage of these useful idiots is that the leftists always fracture into breakaway groups, and you'll always have rival factions who will happily snitch on their former 'comrades'. So that can be exploited to its full potential.

Don't get mad, just brush the scum out to the fringes of society where they belong. As long as the radicals can't have any influence on mainstream society then everyone wins.

But it bares repeating time and time and time again-the far right is bad, but the far left is much, much worse.

Yep. Because with the right, you can always tell that they know they are cünts, they almost like it. But the left actually genuinely believe that they are the good guys. That makes them very dangerous.

suicide_circus

jimgoose wrote: »

The leftist movement generally has a long and illustrious history of attempting to saw off the branch upon which it is sitting. In the old days it was the Soviet Union that made them all gooey. Now for some reason it is lunatic religion-inspired statist fascism masquerading as Islam. Oh well...

That's actually a wonderful analogy.
Anyone remember the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khomeini against novelist Salman Rushdie for writing a novel? The man has had a death sentence hanging over his head for 25 years for writing a book. This is fascism. Make no mistake. And any dimwitted fücks in TCD or anywhere else who defend this mediaeval BULLSHÎT need to be told where to get off. You dont get to threaten or kill people because they offend whatever extremely unlikely desert revelation narrative you adhere to. It's not acceptable and if you like the way western society operates with it's social, religious and personal freedoms you need to say "no" to this cowardly submission to the whims of these religio-fascists.

Herb Powell

Martial9 wrote: »

It is worrying that this sort of stuff is gaining traction in our universities.

I don't know that it is gaining any more traction tbh with you. You'll get opinionated types at these kinds of events, always, and plenty who like to be seen attending.

Boring username wrote: »

Well hopefully the Special Branch are paying careful attention to the little pricks who were cheering on cold blooded murder. I would hope that they are being identified as we speak and are added to a watchlist. These smug **** won't be so gobby when they've failed a Garda vetting test when they want a job in computing, teaching, or the civil service.
The advantage of these useful idiots is that the leftists always fracture into breakaway groups, and you'll always have rival factions who will happily snitch on their former 'comrades'. So that can be exploited to its full potential.

Don't get mad, just brush the scum out to the fringes of society where they belong. As long as the radicals can't have any influence on mainstream society then everyone wins.

But it bares repeating time and time and time again-the far right is bad, but the far left is much, much worse.

lol

Would you say you're an advocate of free speech? Not trying to even take a side on the debate from the article here, I disagree with the victim blaming if it happened like the author says it did, I'm just curious about your opinion.

Boring username

Herb Powell wrote: »

I don't know that it is gaining any more traction tbh with you. You'll get opinionated types at these kinds of events, always, and plenty who like to be seen attending.



lol

Would you say you're an advocate of free speech? Not trying to even take a side on the debate from the article here, I disagree with the victim blaming if it happened like the author says it did, I'm just curious about your opinion.

Yes I would be a full supporter of free speech and expression-just like Charlie Hebdo believed in. Note how I haven't called for anyone to be denied their right to free speech, but if you're going to advocate and cheer for people being slaughtered in an office in Paris because of a cartoon, then you have flagged yourself as a threat to the democratic process and won't be getting rewarded with a well paying job from our society, thank you very much.
You can try and dress this up with all sorts of psuedo-intellectual moral relativism in defence of the students, but these precious little flowers are about to get a crash course in how they world really works outside the pampered halls of political theory and right on pompous political posturing.

Nobody give a sh1t for their starry eyed, fanatical, self indulgent opinions out in the real world. They will simply be bypassed by society without a second thought. The mask has slipped for the far left now-they've spent years successfully diverting attention towards the hate filled antics of the right, but now the wheel is going full circle.

Eugene Norman

jungleman wrote: »

Exactly. Declining to give a platform to someone isn't censorship, it's just exorcising your right to allow if you want to hear what they have to say.

Its definitely censorship by the institution

Nodin

It's amazing how some trinners students have become the ultimate leftwing "source of all that is evil". Hillarious too.

Herb Powell

Boring username wrote: »

Yes I would be a full supporter of free speech and expression-just like Charlie Hebdo believed in. Note how I haven't called for anyone to be denied their right to free speech, but if you're going to advocate and cheer for people being slaughtered in an office in Paris because of a cartoon, then you have flagged yourself as a threat to the democratic process and won't be getting rewarded with a well paying job from our society, thank you very much.
You can try and dress this up with all sorts of psuedo-intellectual moral relativism in defence of the students, but these precious little flowers are about to get a crash course in how they world really works outside the pampered halls of political theory and right on pompous political posturing.

Nobody give a sh1t for their starry eyed, fanatical, self indulgent opinions out in the real world. They will simply be bypassed by society without a second thought. The mask has slipped for the far left now-they've spent years successfully diverting attention towards the hate filled antics of the right, but now the wheel is going full circle.

Well tbh I'd like to see a video of the debate. College debates usually involve a good deal of playing devil's advocate, purely for the sake of one side of the debate. Atm all we're going on is the report of one guy who very clearly doesn't think much of an entire group of people (students) in the first place.

I personally find your idea of surveillence and "flagging" people based on something they may not have even said more worrying than the nutjobs defending the massacre. At least it's easy to spot them and point out what's wrong with their ideas.

If they've been known to spout shhit, then it's ultimately up to the employer to decide whether or not to take them on, but to ban them from society wouldn't really achieve a lot imo.

suicide_circus

Nodin wrote: »

It's amazing how some trinners students have become the ultimate leftwing "source of all that is evil". Hillarious too.

I actually don't think they're left wing. In fact, I suspect them of having no considered principles whatsoever beyond what will endear them to whatever heavily marketed cause is trending.

jungleman

jungleman wrote: »

I don't know why universities give gimps like him the publicity he wants. He spouts misguided nonsense, which anyone in their right mind would laugh at.

Funny they wouldn't give Nick Griifin a platform. Complete bunch of arseholes.

Boring username

Nodin wrote: »

It's amazing how some trinners students have become the ultimate leftwing "source of all that is evil". Hillarious too.

"Hilarious" that supposedly educated students can defend this sort of blatant butchery? I'd get that moral compass re-calibrated, 'comrade'...

https://a248.e.akamai.net/f/1202/1579/4m/i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/01/12/24A1727800000578-2906636-image-a-54_1421069487715.jpg

Nodin

Boring username wrote: »

"Hilarious" that supposedly educated students can defend this sort of blatant butchery? I'd get that moral compass re-calibrated, 'comrade'...

You seem to be one of those that think "educated" and "thick" cannot co-exist. I'd say the most pertinent point on the night was "pissed" but as I wasn't there I can't say for sure.

All we have here is an a/c from the other side, btw. This isn't a third party commenting. It's just an excuse for the usual suspects to have an oul rant.

Azalea

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't give a toss about that guy anymore than I care for O'Neill. The focus is on the TCD students, and knowing O'Neills shít-stirring in the past, there is likely a lot left out of this story.

Possibly (also it's ironic of him to say people should be able to say what they like no matter who it offends... and then get offended himself by how those students expressed themselves; "free speech" is an illusion - it does not exist in an absolute form, no matter where or what or who) but he is describing what actually happened, and it's a fair point that he makes:
There are moronic liberals (and I'd be pretty liberal myself) who will just latch on to any view that is the "correct" one for their ilk. Can you just IMAGINE if it was a white man on a campus making similar points about a massacre in which people "deserved" to be killed? You could only imagine, because it just would not happen.

These eejits would be very supportive of gay rights and feminism too, yet also islamic fundamentalism. Eh...

Donkey Oaty

Nick Griffin should have stuck a tea cosy on his head and brandished a holy book - they'd have rolled out the red carpet then.

KomradeBishop

Boring username wrote: »

"Hilarious" that supposedly educated students can defend this sort of blatant butchery? I'd get that moral compass re-calibrated, 'comrade'...

You haven't even established that students have done any such thing - publications by O'Neill are about as reliable as scrawlings in a toilet stall - so I'll be waiting to hear the other side of this.

R.D. aka MR.D

This isn't a new thing at all. There will always be elements who support extreme views, especially in Universities.

I went to Trinity from 2004-2008 and during that time there was a really disturbing cult that had basically taken over the CU. They did the whole love-bombing thing and then ostracising members who disagreed with them. They believed all sorts of whacky things including biblical literalism. They were a scary bunch, I often wonder if they are still at it.

There were also people who were muslims who believed some pretty interesting stuff too but I remember that difference of opinions was allowed there.

Saipanne

R.D. aka MR.D wrote: »

This isn't a new thing at all. There will always be elements who support extreme views, especially in Universities.

I went to Trinity from 2004-2008 and during that time there was a really disturbing cult that had basically taken over the CU. They did the whole love-bombing thing and then ostracising members who disagreed with them. They believed all sorts of whacky things including biblical literalism. They were a scary bunch, I often wonder if they are still at it.

There were also people who were muslims who believed some pretty interesting stuff too but I remember that difference of opinions was allowed there.

Except apostasy.

walshyn93

Hatless wrote: »

Possibly (also it's ironic of him to say people should be able to say what they like no matter who it offends... and then get offended himself by how those students expressed themselves; "free speech" is an illusion - it does not exist in an absolute form, no matter where or what or who) but he is describing what actually happened, and it's a fair point that he makes:
There are moronic liberals (and I'd be pretty liberal myself) who will just latch on to any view that is the "correct" one for their ilk. Can you just IMAGINE if it was a white man on a campus making similar points about a massacre in which people "deserved" to be killed? You could only imagine, because it just would not happen.

These eejits would be very supportive of gay rights and feminism too, yet also islamic fundamentalism. Eh...

It's not one bit ironic. He's obviously offended and countering it with words rather than violence, a fact that whataboutery merchants seem to miss consistently.

Your argument presupposes that to be fully in favour of free speech means never to argue against anything you disagree with in case you might win a debate and silence the opposition.

OiL RiG

Trinity ****

KomradeBishop

Hatless wrote: »

Possibly (also it's ironic of him to say people should be able to say what they like no matter who it offends... and then get offended himself by how those students expressed themselves; "free speech" is an illusion - it does not exist in an absolute form, no matter where or what or who) but he is describing what actually happened, and it's a fair point that he makes:
There are moronic liberals (and I'd be pretty liberal myself) who will just latch on to any view that is the "correct" one for their ilk. Can you just IMAGINE if it was a white man on a campus making similar points about a massacre in which people "deserved" to be killed? You could only imagine, because it just would not happen.

These eejits would be very supportive of gay rights and feminism too, yet also islamic fundamentalism. Eh...

There is a concerted effort (and I mean that literally - a unified effort among a very wide variety of right-wing publications/authors) to slur 'the left' as acting in that way (and particularly in colleges), by cherry-picking the craziest-of-the-crazy minority of 'left' people, and painting them as representing the whole.

Most of that kind of writing, and bleating on about 'free speech' (as if being criticized for saying something offensive, makes the offensive person a 'victim' - and this is exactly what that O'Neill does, as you correctly allude to - which is nothing to do with free speech), is just propaganda used to try and whip up a controversy out of nothing, to generate more support for right-wing views.

Sure, you will get some loons on the left, spouting regressive/censoring views, but it's pretty much a 'storm in a teacup' type situation, where the views of a tiny minority are grossly disproportionately focused on.
It's my view, that the entire college-campus free-speech issue, is a mostly manufactured myth - that only exists among a tiny minority, and is not this big controversy that people make it out to be - it's just a handy talking-point.


What you never hear these people talk about, is how the financial funding of colleges affects what actually gets taught in these colleges, and itself has a chilling effect not just on free speech, but on the range of what people get taught.

The real controversy, is how financial control of colleges is corrupting what actually gets taught in them - and on how student access to college in many places, is increasingly becoming limited due to finances.

Boring username

suicide_circus wrote: »

I actually don't think they're left wing. In fact, I suspect them of having no considered principles whatsoever beyond what will endear them to whatever heavily marketed cause is trending.

I would have to politely disagree with you. You see, in my experience, lefties come in two basic flavours:

• Clueless but well meaning half wits who don't fully realise what they are getting themselves into (the classic 'useful idiots' as coined by Stalin). They usually grow out of the phase by their mid twenties when they realise the workers paradise ™ is the greatest scam perpetrated in the history of mankind, and it's just an excuse to replace one group of brutal bastards with an even worse group. Meet the new boss etc.....
  
• Then you have the other group, the slick bloodthirsty cut throats who will happily defend each and every atrocity committed in the name of socialism and the state. Their fanaticism is practically indistinguishable from that of religious fanatics, in that their sense of extremist logical and rationality can excuse all sorts of barbarity and violence in the name of the, ahem, 'greater good'.

Either way, both groups are dangerous either because of their lack of the bigger picture, or their greater understanding of it. Just look at how the high priest of socialism Eric Hobesbawn was fawned over by the mainstream media when he died. This is the same 'intellectual' who argued that all the murders, the cutting of throats,
the brutal rapes,
the state surveillance,
the show trials,
the torture of innocents,
the brutal oppression by the jackboot of the state,
the massacre of civilians in Hungary,
the disappearing of intellectuals,
the assassination of artists etc

"would have been worth it if a genuine Communist society had been the result". :eek:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/arts/eric-hobsbawm-british-historian-dies-at-95.html?_r=0

Make no mistake about it, these people are the most dangerous elements in society today, as their bloodthirsty ideology is carefully packaged and presented with a smiling, friendly appearance. Not to mention being tolerated by a drooling media that play along, instead of rightly telling them to fcuk off back to the abattoirs and killing fields of Russia and North Korea.

Can you imagine if a right wing group was given actually given airtime to argue that the holocaust or KKK lynchings would have been justified if 'only they had won'?

Donkey Oaty

Saipanne wrote: »

Except apostasy.

Real hornet's nest that one, but there have been many liberal interpretations over the years by highly-regarded Islamic scholars:

http://apostasyandislam.blogspot.ie/

Unfortunately they still have a fair bit of convincing to do among the faithful.