Jorg Haider painting the town red tonight

DadaKopf

Mods: feel free to close or move the topic. I got a text message just now which I think people would like to know:

Jorg Haider is taking part in a debate in Trinity College tonight.

I expect most people are free to attend and there is a protest outside Trinity at 7pm for those who can't get in to keep them occupied.

mike65

Hmmm, mixed feling about protesting against individuals
like Haider, its pretty much grist to thier mill. Something to post on the website.

I'd sooner see nasty ****s like Haider exposed through debate than a paint bomb....

Whats the debate concerning?

Mike.

bonkey

Originally posted by mike65
Hmmm, mixed feling about protesting against individuals like Haider

Not me. It warms my heart to see how we cherish our democratic system.

The reason people are complaining about Haider is not because he's a nasty piece of work (which I mostly agree with), but because he's a nasty piece of work who got elected in a fair and democratic manner into a position they're worried he might do something in that they disagree with.

Good ol' democracy....

I'd sooner see nasty ****s like Haider exposed through debate than a paint bomb....

Absolutely.

jc

Pompey Magnus

So much for democracy in this country, the Gardai were preventing non students from entering Trinity to protest, so we allow Nazis have their opinions heard but those opposed to him and his ilk are silenced.
Also I was amazed to see Ruari Quinn representing the Labour party entertaining Haider tonight in Trinity. Shameful!

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
So much for democracy in this country, the Gardai were preventing non students from entering Trinity to protest, so we allow Nazis have their opinions heard but those opposed to him and his ilk are silenced.

Now thats just not true.

First of all, those opposed to him and his ilk were not silenced. They were refused admission to the grounds of a University.

If you check, I'm pretty sure that you will find that a University is not a "public place", in the sense that the University retains the rights to control admission to its grounds. They have every right to refuse entry to uninvited non-students, for whatever reason.

Do not mistake your right to protest peacefully with your (non-existent) right to protest (peacefully, I assume) in any location you choose. One is protected by law, and the other isnt even on the radar.

Still, considering your defense of decidedly non-democratic activities by the IRA in other threads, and your mistaken belief that articles 2 and 3 somehow meant the UK was not recognised as the ruling government in the North, I'm hardly surprised that you see this as an abrogation of your rights as well.

dathi1

What makes Jorg Haider a nazi? Just because socialist worker says he is? Its a pity we have'nt more Politicians like Jorg here..instead we have a load of neo liberal ****heads.

DadaKopf

Ruarai Quinn

Now, I'm sure he wasn't supporting him, now was he? And, well, isn't it better to engage with people whose views you don't like than to shut them out? Isn't understanding and working through things what democracy is all about?

And anyway, the protestors may not have made their protest at the place they wanted but they still made their opposition known and that's enough.

Also: what bonkey said.

bonkey

Originally posted by dathi1
What makes Jorg Haider a nazi?

Well, a lot of people got upset when he commented that the nazi party did have some worthy ideals.


jc

mike65

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, a lot of people got upset when he commented that the nazi party did have some worthy ideals.


jc

Well they sure knew how to build roads and railways...
for tank transporters admitedly...

Mike.

DadaKopf

Yeah, and the Americans sure knew how to build highways. For tank transporters admittedly.

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

Sparks

The reason people are complaining about Haider is not because he's a nasty piece of work (which I mostly agree with), but because he's a nasty piece of work who got elected in a fair and democratic manner into a position they're worried he might do something in that they disagree with.

Actually, I think that's mixing up two seperate complaints - there's the complaint that Haider is a nasty piece of work, and there's the complaint that people elected him, which applies more to voter apathy and the democratic process rather than to Haider specifically. Both are valid, as frankly the idea of a nazi sympathiser gaining a position of political power does rather scare the bejaysus out of me, not so much from the historical spectre as from the implications of their political beliefs. It's scary enough with one Bush in power, thanks. And democracy is one of those common sense ideas that does not always bear close inspection.

Also, there's a lot being said about the protest against Haider (and on the private property note, who called in the Gardai, or did people mix up the Gardai and the College security staff?); relatively little has been said about the protest in support of free speech that was scheduled for 1900 in front square.

And on the "worthy ideals" - lots of parties state they have worthy ideals - it's their day-to-day standards and the means they choose to achieve their ends that worry the rest of us. And it's not just the neo-Nazi parties, at least one seemingly moderate government in Sweden has practised eugenics, and many other seemingly moderate governments have coverty, tacitly or overtly supported some seriously questionable (ethicly) policies.

Of course, at the end of the day, this level of exposure is more than likely precisely the kind of reaction that Haiger would have most wanted - like the attacks on civil liberties in the US, our reaction to the issue has given the protaganist what he most wanted in the first place.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Isn't understanding and working through things what democracy is all about?

If I recall it was giving Hitler a platform to speak that put him into the public arena in the first place and I don't believe ANYONE who preaches and promotes hate (and I mean anyone!!!) should be allowed to get their message publicised. And anyone who thinks concentration camps were "punishment" camps, like Haider should have no place in Ireland today.

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
If I recall it was giving Hitler a platform to speak that put him into the public arena in the first place

And if you go and do your research, you'll find out that he did nothing at the time which would make anyone believe that he shouldnt be given a public arena. It was only later that he started to let his extremist views become more prominent.

What are you suggesting - a full background check and psych analysis on anyone who ever wants to enter public service or speak in a public forum?

and I don't believe ANYONE who preaches and promotes hate (and I mean anyone!!!) should be allowed to get their message publicised.

OK, but define hate.

Don't just give me nice examples of what should be banned - draw the line in the sand, and show how you can clearly define what is and is not permissable, and lets see where it leaves us.

And anyone who thinks concentration camps were "punishment" camps, like Haider should have no place in Ireland today.

Is that a touch of hate for the man I hear??? Preaching exclusion against him because of his beliefs? Better make sure thats not illegal under the law you want....

Haider has every right so speak here. He has broken no laws in this country, nor is there any credible reason to deny him entry.

You have the right to protest. I'm assuming you did protest, based on your above posts.

I assume you did so in an intelligent and responsible manner - not chanting some banal slogan like "Haider go Home" or looking to disrupt the event which he was attending, but rather by making a clear point about how abhorrent you find his policies, what those policies are, and so on?

After all, anything less would only be forcing the public to decide who is worse - the respectable guy who plays within the rules but believes differently to me, or the angry mob who want to decide for us who is entitled to the freedoms of our law by taking the law into their own hands.

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by dathi1
What makes Jorg Haider a nazi? Just because socialist worker says he is? Its a pity we have'nt more Politicians like Jorg here..instead we have a load of neo liberal ****heads.

The irony is that for much of the time, most far-left groups need the far right to justify their existence. Were a Spanish or Italian politician, who believed that there had been merits to Fascism in Spain/Italy, to come over to Ireland and speak, the same groups would come out in force and label them Nazis - which would be factually and idologically incorrect, but great propaganda.

The reality is that for such far left groups, it really has nothing to do with Nazism, racism or the holocaust. It’s all about ideological labelling and their need of an Us versus Them scenario.

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, a lot of people got upset when he commented that the nazi party did have some worthy ideals.

I suppose we should drop Keynesian economics because Keynes thought the Nazis had a cool economic position..?

(Actually we probably should drop Keynesian economics, at this stage, but largely because it’s outdated – but that’s another discussion).

Originally posted by spandauballet
If I recall it was giving Hitler a platform to speak that put him into the public arena in the first place and I don't believe ANYONE who preaches and promotes hate (and I mean anyone!!!) should be allowed to get their message publicised. And anyone who thinks concentration camps were "punishment" camps, like Haider should have no place in Ireland today.

You know you appear to be preaching a promoting a fair bit of hate yourself.

“Do not do battle with monsters, lest you become a monster”, and all that. It’s all pretty ironic, methinks.

I would question your place in Ireland today.

Pompey Magnus

Amazing, just amazing. We have people here who condemn supporters of Sinn Fein as being terrorist sympathisers whenever a viewpoint is tried to be put across but then defend a Nazi's right to a view, without condemning it, who described members of the Waffen-SS as men of " good character" and "honour", who oversaw the killing of MILLIONS. "There are in this world still decent people, who have character and who remain true to their beliefs despite the strongest headwind, and who remain true to their beliefs to this day."Haider, addressing former Waffen SS members, 1995. Your telling me that if Adams said similar about the IRA, you would defend his right, as strongly as you have for Haider, to say such? The hell you would.


"Jorg Haider's extreme views are a potential danger to public order and public security. We must exercise our legal right to make him stay at home. Letting Haider in sends a signal to the resurgent far right in Europe that they will be given a place at the table." David Blunkett. Corinthian, is he a man promoting hate and does he have a place in todays society?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by spandauballet
Corinthian, is he a man promoting hate and does he have a place in todays society?

I never commented on what he was promoting, tbh.

A simply pointed out that you are promoting hate.

Meh

Originally posted by spandauballet
Your telling me that if Adams said similar about the IRA, you would defend his right, as strongly as you have for Haider, to say such? The hell you would.

In the words of Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." As long as Mr. Adams isn't directly advocating violence or racial hatred, he has a right to say whatever he wants in this country.,and people have a right to protest his views. I personally disagree strongly with him and everything he stands for, but I find censorship to be just as offensive.

In fact, I haven't seen anyone on this board argue that we should bring back Section 31 and censor Sinn Fein. So your argument is a perfect example of a straw man.

Disagreeing with someone does not mean that you think they should be censored. Saying that someone should have the right to free speech doesn't mean that you agree with them.

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
Amazing, just amazing. We have people here who condemn supporters of Sinn Fein as being terrorist sympathisers whenever a viewpoint is tried to be put across but then defend a Nazi's right to a view, without condemning it,

Now, thats not whats happening at all.

You are condemning Haider's right to express his view. We are saying that he has every right to speak, just as you have every right to protest.

You should look at your own viewpoints about hate-mongering though. Repeatedly referring to Haider as a Nazi comes across to me as exactly the type of hate-mongering I thought you said shouldnt be tolerated from anyone?

I must be mistaken.....but I cant see what I'm missing.

Could you explain to me what he's actually done which is so bad that it makes your statements truthful, and your insistence that he be gagged meritous?

Or would you rather just continue and exercise your right to free speech to petition the denial of his, based on nothing more than outrage?

jc

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
I never commented on what he was promoting, tbh.

A simply pointed out that you are promoting hate.

But surely you see the comparison, I don't want Haider to promoting anti-semitism in this country and Blunkett didn't want him to spread his message in Britain so I repeat, is he spreading hate? point out the differences or is in in fact nothing to do with this at all and is it in fact because I'm a member of Sinn Fein that you imply I'm apparently a hate-filled monster?

"Repeatedly referring to Haider as a Nazi comes across to me as exactly the type of hate-mongering I thought you said shouldnt be tolerated from anyone?"

u wot bonkey? How is refering to a man with such Nazis sympathies as a Nazi, hate-mongering? Would it be hate mongering to call Hitler a Nazi. I don't understant your logic.

"Could you explain to me what he's actually done which is so bad that it makes your statements truthful, and your insistence that he be gagged meritous?"

He trivialised the Nazi-regime and has caused insult to jewish holocaust survivors by trying to visit a concentration camp in Italy, a man who implied those in the camps were there for punishment.


"In fact, I haven't seen anyone on this board argue that we should bring back Section 31 and censor Sinn Fein. So your argument is a perfect example of a straw man"

Thanks for bringing this up this interesting point Meh, what did you or indeed any of you do to campaign against the silencing of Sinn Fein representatives under Sec. 31?

Meh

Originally posted by spandauballet
u wot bonkey? How is refering to a man with such Nazis sympathies as a Nazi, hate-mongering? Would it be hate mongering to call Hitler a Nazi. I don't understant your logic.

I think "Nazi" is a pretty fair description of Haider. But since he's not actually a paid-up member of the NSDAP, it is technically incorrect. Can we agree on calling him a "Nazi-sympathizer"?

Thanks for bringing this up this interesting point Meh, what did you or indeed any of you do to campaign against the silencing of Sinn Fein representatives under Sec. 31?

Nothing whatsoever. I believe that Section 31 was wrong, and that Sinn Féin should not have been censored, but it didn't bother me enough for me to campaign against it. I wouldn't bother going to a protest supporting Haider's right to free speech either.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by spandauballet
But surely you see the comparison, I don't want Haider to promoting anti-semitism in this country and Blunkett didn't want him to spread his message in Britain so I repeat, is he spreading hate? point out the differences or is in in fact nothing to do with this at all and is it in fact because I'm a member of Sinn Fein that you imply I'm apparently a hate-filled monster?

Your membership to Sinn Fein is irrelevant outside of the obvious hypocrisy of promoting censorship against someone you disagree with while attacking censorship against those you agree with.

That you are willing to deny the right to speak to someone you disagree with and demonise them does make you hate-filled monster. Regardless of who they are.

u wot bonkey? How is refering to a man with such Nazis sympathies as a Nazi, hate-mongering? Would it be hate mongering to call Hitler a Nazi. I don't understant your logic.

How about we call you a Nazi and deny you the right to answer back and defend yourself then? Can’t you see the danger in such moral orthodoxy?

I’m not saying that Haider is not a Nazi. I’m saying that you might as well be.

He trivialised the Nazi-regime and has caused insult to jewish holocaust survivors by trying to visit a concentration camp in Italy, a man who implied those in the camps were there for punishment.

I’ll take your word for it. The man should be shot.

Actually, let’s round anyone like him up and put them all in detention camps.

I heard a rumour that there’s a lecturer in UCD that may have suggested once, in pub, that it was only five and a half million deaths during the holocaust - good enough reason for him to lose his job, methinks (I just made that up, but hell - who cares).

Thanks for bringing this up this interesting point Meh, what did you or indeed any of you do to campaign against the silencing of Sinn Fein representatives under Sec. 31?

No, but I’m not campaigning for Haider either.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Meh
it didn't bother me enough for me to campaign against it. I wouldn't bother going to a protest supporting Haider's right to free speech either.

do you not see that you are in fact now campaigning for Haider's right to free speach yet for SF you didn't. Do you not see this as strange that if this is the case, you would speak up for a "Nazi-Sympathiser's" rights and not for Sinn Fein, regardless of your views on Sec.31? Why is that do you think?

Meh

Originally posted by spandauballet
do you not see that you are in fact now campaigning for Haider's right to free speach

No I'm not. I made it perfectly clear I wouldn't bother attending any protest in favour of Haider's right to free speech.

Do you not see this as strange that if this is the case, you would speak up for a "Nazi-Sympathiser's" rights and not for Sinn Fein, regardless of your views on Sec.31?

My opinions on SF and Haider are exactly the same when it comes to free speech:

• I don't agree with what they say
• I support their right to say it, as long as they don't directly advocate violence or racial hatred

If someone posted on this board calling for Section 31 to be revived, I'd disagree with them. Just as I have in this thread, with the calls for Haider to be silenced.

Pompey Magnus

So do you accept the Austrian peoples democratic right to have elected him and his party to government a few years ago and presumably condemn the EU for pressurising Austria to remove him with trade embargo by every other EU nation, thereby limiting those Austrian peoples to having their ultra-right wings heard in a European stage in an attempt to rid Europe once and for all of these xenophobic viewpoints (lets not kid ourselves here, thats what they are)?
We see the danger of these people by just looking at the BNP in Britain promoting anti-everyone but British policies. But then I'm sure all those Asian who were beaten to a pulp and had their homes burned in by these thugs may be a little upset but hey, God bless free speech.

Meh

Originally posted by spandauballet
But then I'm sure all those Asian who were beaten to a pulp and had their homes burned in by these thugs may be a little upset but hey, God bless free speech.

Are you even reading my posts?

Originally posted by Meh:
as long as they don't directly advocate violence or racial hatred

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Meh
I support their right to say it, as long as they don't directly advocate violence or racial hatred

Let me get this straight, your saying that Haider in fact does not advocate racial hatred, his admiration for Nazi "labour" practices and support for Hitlers murder squad, the SS are justifiable, his claiming that Jews in concentration camps were criminals weren't offensive to the survivors and their families?

bonkey

Originally posted by spandauballet
So do you accept the Austrian peoples democratic right to have elected him and his party to government a few years ago and presumably condemn the EU for pressurising Austria to remove him with trade embargo by every other EU nation, thereby limiting those Austrian peoples to having their ultra-right wings heard in a European stage in an attempt to rid Europe once and for all of these xenophobic viewpoints (lets not kid ourselves here, thats what they are)?

Absolutely. I havent seen him do anything violent, or indeed encorage anything illegal in any way. I see no reason for him to be disqualified as a candidate for election, and I support the right of the public to have their choice of people elected.

That said, in cause you want to launch off on another "well, I bet you didnt..." about something republican related, I will point out that I did absolutely nothing except express my criticism of the reaction to Europe's censure here, and perhaps over a pint in the pub. If asked to consider the right or wrong of some other issue (which you no doubt are going to do, given that this question must be leading somewhere), I will probably offer a similar opinion based on the same criteria.

As for your "not hatemongering", answer me this. Haider is not a member of the Nazi party as already pointed out. The only possible two reasons anyone could have for making such a claim is either that they havent a clue what they're talking about, or that they deliberately want to incorrectly associate him with something to strengthen their "argument" from having made that association.

If Nazis were terrible and to be hated, and he's a nazi...then he must be terrible and to be hated....right?

Only he's not a Nazi, and you're still trying to make that connection - consciously or subconsciously you are hatemongering.

So - which is it? Misinformed, or deliberately misleading? And if the latter, then what reason if not to turn people against him more?

jc

Meh

First of all, :rolleyes:. I don't think I've ever had someone misinterpret my words so badly.

Originally posted by spandauballet
Let me get this straight, your saying that Haider in fact does not advocate racial hatred

No I'm not. I'm saying that he should be allowed say whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't cross the line of advocating violence/racial hatred. If he does say something advocating racial hatred or violence while he's in this country, then he should be prosecuted under the relevant laws.

, his admiration for Nazi "labour" practices and support for Hitlers murder squad, the SS are justifiable

No I'm not.

his claiming that Jews in concentration camps were criminals weren't offensive to the survivors and their families?

Again, no. I find these comments offensive as well. But that in itself isn't a valid reason to censor them. What about when people start finding your opinions offensive and decide they want to censor people you agree with (as happened with Section 31)?

Pompey Magnus

All right then, if it bugs you that much then he may not be a Nazi proper as you so rightly pointed out he isn't a member of the Nazi party (probably as it ended its existance in 1945), but by being in his own "non-nazi" party he can always have people like yourself defending him as being entirely democratic and inclusive and Mr. Nice-Guy. You could call his party the " Luvy-Duvy Kiss- Kiss We Love Everyone"Party but it still dosn't change what it is. He has fascist sympathies and in my opinion there shouldn't be any place for fascism in todays Europe.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Meh
First of all, :rolleyes:. I don't think I've ever had someone misinterpret my words so badly.No I'm not. I'm saying that he should be allowed say whatever he wants, as long as he doesn't cross the line of advocating violence/racial hatred.

no offence intended but what I was saying was do you not see these remarks as condoning the actions of Hitler and thereby inciting an preception of Hitler being correct, and I'm sure you're not saying that Hitlers views were not violent and race hating!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by spandauballet
He has fascist sympathies and in my opinion there shouldn't be any place for fascism in todays Europe.

Are we talking about Nazism or Fascism? Nazism was the German version or interpretation of Fascism and differed to Fascism in other countries? Should someone who thought that Franco wasn't such a bad old guy (and you'll also find a good few of them in Spain, btw) be censored?

Of course, you've declared yourself as a member of Sinn Fein, which lat time I checked was socialist, as well as being nationalist in its ideology.

Nationalist. Socialist. Ironic.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Of course, you've declared yourself as a member of Sinn Fein, which lat time I checked was socialist, as well as being nationalist in its ideology.

Nationalist. Socialist. Ironic.

oh I love it, Sinn Fein always manages to be portraided as the Communist Nazi party whenever it suits. I feel that somehow the socialist part of the National Socialist party fell by the wayside if it was ever there at all.

Sparks

The difference between Hitler (and Haider, and Pol Pot and their ilk) and the drunk guy at the bar that says that all his problems are the fault of some ethnic group, is that people listened to Hitler and voted for him.

You want to solve the problem, solve that one. The free speech problem is irrelevant. If people were rational and sane all the time, anyone could say anything they wanted without the rest of us getting worried that they would incite violence.

Boils down to education in the end.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by spandauballet
oh I love it, Sinn Fein always manages to be portraided as the Communist Nazi party whenever it suits. I feel that somehow the socialist part of the National Socialist party fell by the wayside if it was ever there at all.

You're kind of missing the point. And I did explain it. Repeatedly.

Originally posted by Sparks
You want to solve the problem, solve that one.

I have observed, however, that those interested in such censorship are more often less interested in solving the problem as they are in perpetuating a confrontational reson d’etre.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

dathi1

The difference between Hitler (and Haider, and Pol Pot and their ilk) and the drunk guy at the bar that says that all his problems are the fault of some ethnic group, is that people listened to Hitler and voted for him.

Haider never blamed certain ethnic groups for anything!...if you go to the freedom party's website you will see that they recognise 3 main ethnic groups that make up the Austrian Culture and Tradition...including Roma Gypsies.

The Freedom Party Of Austria.
http://www.fpoe.at/

Now when it comes to illegal and uncontrollable immigration such as we are currently experiencing here in Ireland they have the right idea. STOP IT.
They also put forward some points on the fallacy of rampant multiculturalism and how it supposedly enriches society etc.

Sparks

Now when it comes to illegal and uncontrollable immigration such as we are currently experiencing here in Ireland they have the right idea. STOP IT.

Indeed. Now that's hypocritical given our history, don't you think?
Besides, we wouldn't have the immigration problem if we'd gotten off our asses and done something while the balkans were tearing each other up only a few years ago. So frankly I think that the current "problem" is one we had a hand in makeing, and saying that we should stop it shows a lack of responsibility.

Haider never blamed certain ethnic groups for anything!

And Bush never said it's about the oil overtly either.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Sparks

daveirl,
So what do you think is causing the rise in immigration levels then?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Von

Originally posted by bonkey
If you check, I'm pretty sure that you will find that a University is not a "public place", in the sense that the University retains the rights to control admission to its grounds. They have every right to refuse entry to uninvited non-students, for whatever reason.

I went to a couple of debates in trinity before christmas and had no bother getting in at all even though there was a heavy security presence for the one on NI which featured some fairly controversial characters from the north's political playpen. Can't blame whoever's in charge for refusing entry for non-students in some instances though.

But look...


The new face of spooky euro neo-nastyness actually looks like it could be fun.

Sparks

So? Forgotten the teletubbies and barney already?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Von

I take it all back! This man must be stopped!