Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The National Party (Also known as the Lets spread some hate party...)

  • 16-11-2016 12:59pm
    #1
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭


    http://www.thejournal.ie/the-national-party-merrion-hotel-3084352-Nov2016/?utm_source=facebook_short

    Some of you might be wondering why I'm posting about this party in this forum, well because they have links to Youth Defense if you go back a few years.
    The party’s release says that the key speakers at the launch would have been its president Justin Barrett, a Tipperary man formerly of action groups Youth Defence and the Mother and Child Campaign, and James Reynolds, a former chairman of the Irish Farmers Association in Longford and current national treasurer of the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers Association (ICSA), and proclaimed deputy president of the new party.

    Some joyful reading on Justin

    https://spotlightontheright.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/no-2-justin-barrett-michael-quinn/
    During the 1990s, Justin Barrett and Michael Quinn were leading members of the militant anti-abortion group Youth Defence.

    They were arrested together, along with six other Youth Defence associates, during a violent picket in May 1998 outside the Adelaide Hospital in Dublin.

    Both men, while retaining links with Youth Defence, went onto become dedicated and committed far-right activists.

    Though the two have dropped out of public activity, it is still useful to trace their political careers. Also pose the question as to why such a number of leading Youth Defence members have become active in right-wing politics ranging from Catholic Irish Nationalism to White Power neo-Fascism.

    Makes me wounder how many other Youth Defence members might be involved


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    I was going to post this in the "gay cake" thread because Merrion cancelled the meeting. Seems like a good example of the flip side of that argument I think.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,223 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    A friend posted about this today on Facebook. And I remembered making a Frisbee out of Justin Barrett's head from his election poster way back.

    Even then people were talking about him going to neo-nazi meetings. Didn't know about the YD connection until today though.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Qs wrote: »
    I was going to post this in the "gay cake" thread because Merrion cancelled the meeting. Seems like a good example of the flip side of that argument I think.

    Not really,
    You can be arrested for hate speech, you can't be arrested for saying gay marriage should be legal.

    They are not equal at all


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/11/16/this-justin-5/
    Dublin agitprop specialists Rabble discussed today’s announcement (and subsequent cancellation on foot of a massive public outcry this morning) of tomorrow’s launch of the National Party at the Merrion Hotel in Dublin. Rabble sez:

    Supposed to be speaking at the launch were Justin Barrett (ex Youth Defence, Mother and Child Campaign, and No to Nice) and James Reynolds, the party’s deputy president.

    Their message is of a similar rhetoric to that of Trump: anti-elitist, anti-immigration, anti multiculturalism, and of course speaking on behalf of the “silent majority”.


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,198 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Justin Barrett is an anagram of 'turban jitters'.

    :D


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    We'll never know if their message is similar to Trump's if your mates keep "no-platforming" them and beating them up outside the venues.

    From your link;
    This new formation, the National Party, has all the hallmarks of a fascist party. Wherever fascism rears its ugly head, there’s violence, unfortunately,” he said, adding that the party and its followers are free to voice their opinions elsewhere.
    The latest controversy comes following a string of attempts to establish Irish political movements which represent far-right ideals over the last year.
    Gardaí were called to the Jury’s Inn hotel on Dublin’s Parnell Street to break up scuffles between rival factions at a launch event for the Identity Ireland group, headed by anti-immigration campaigner Peter O’Loughlin, in March 2015.
    Mr O’Loughlin was later injured in clashes with self-proclaimed anti-fascist protesters in Dublin earlier this year when he attempted to attend the launch of an Irish arm of the German anti-Islam group Pegida.
    Where is this "elsewhere" by the way?

    As for those "clashes".....
    The chairman of Identity Ireland who was hospitalised after being hit in the head with a blunt object while travelling on the Luas has condemned the main Government parties for failing to be unequivocal in their disdain for the attack.
    Mind you, they are right about one thing. Its not all that dissimilar to the hate and violence that seems to follow Trump supporters around.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/national-party-leader-espouses-creation-of-catholic-republic-1.2870955
    In his 1998 book - 'The National Way Forward!' - Justin Barrett espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted, divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues.

    This is his wet dream,


  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Not really,
    You can be arrested for hate speech, you can't be arrested for saying gay marriage should be legal.

    They are not equal at all

    You can't punish people for hate speech until you let them speak.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,386 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Cabaal wrote: »
    In his 1998 book - 'The National Way Forward!' - Justin Barrett espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted, divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues.
    Patriotism? I defer to Ambrose Bierce:
    Patriotism, n. Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of any one ambitious to illuminate his name. In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort of a scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit it is the first.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Qs wrote: »
    You can't punish people for hate speech until you let them speak.

    Nobody has tried to silence him,
    The hotel merely don't want to be associated with a organisation that has a leader associated with hate speech. Pretty logical really.

    This man is against many things in this country that the majority have no issues with, he lives in a hate filled la-la land.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Was he actually convicted of perpetrating hate speech?
    Or is it just that you hate the idea of letting him speak?
    “If men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences that can invite the consideration of mankind, reason is of no use to us; the freedom of speech may be taken away, and dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,636 ✭✭✭feargale


    Let me say at the outset, as appears to be almost obligatory in these threads, that I could not envisage myself putting Mr. Barrett anywhere other than bottom on a ballot paper. Having got that out of the way:
    Cabaal wrote: »

    Do you acknowledge or not his right to express his views and to be heard, or, as in boards, does that right only extend to "correct" views.?

    "He espoused the creation of a “Catholic Republic”, where immigration would be greatly restricted (an “Irish Ireland”), divorce and abortion banned, and patriotism elevated to the highest of public virtues."

    Let's see the "brave" UCD bullies kick the s***e out of those who advocate an Islamic republic with similar and further retrictions.

    P.S. Do you believe the "lady" who first interrupted Barrett in UCD when she says she witnessed no violence? Do you approve of her refusal to condemn violence in those circumstances?


  • Registered Users Posts: 22,198 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Cabaal wrote: »
    he lives in a hate filled la-la land.
    Tipparary?


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    He's No to Nice in both senses.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Nobody has tried to silence him,
    The hotel merely don't want to be associated with a organisation that has a leader associated with hate speech. Pretty logical really.

    This man is against many things in this country that the majority have no issues with, he lives in a hate filled la-la land.

    Of course he does, he's scum. I just don't think we need to silence scum like him. Expose them and defeat them on a level playing field.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33,650 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato
    Restaurant at the End of the Universe


    Refusing to allow someone into your private venue* to spout hateful filth is not 'silencing' them.

    Beating them up in the street and on public transport is, and I've posted before about my objection to that no matter how distasteful the recipients of said beatings may be. Opposing unfavoured ideas with violence is a very dangerous road to go down.


    * Edit: I would exclude universities from this - both because they receive public funds, and because that although the spoutings of the likes of David Irving or Ken Ham are repulsive, if there is anywhere where ideas can and should be challenged it is at a university debate. So "no" to all this no-platform crap.

    It took a while but I don't mind. How does my body look in this light?



  • Registered Users Posts: 726 ✭✭✭The Legend Of Kira


    Cabaal wrote: »

    Barretts Comment about a Catholic republic + his past opposition to divorce + contraception would be issues Id strongly disagree with him on- as I think its people,s own business if they get divorced if the marriage doesn,t work out & its a couples own business if they use contraception to avoid an unwanted pregnancy,, having said that even though I disagree with the guy on those issues I strongly disagree with attempts to silence him which is what that online campaign to get the Merrion hotel to cancel his meeting was all about, you know the whole left wing no platform policy thing- we saw a similar online campaign the previous week regarding Katie Hopkins appearing on the Rte late late show,, to do an analogy here a sec Justin wrote about a Catholic republic in his book etc , & in 2004 was assaulted by self appointed thugs a debate in Ucd, however Anjem Choudary who favours + supports Sharia law spoke at a debate in Trinity his appearance was unopposed by the left there was no campaign to try to stop him speaking nor was he assaulted by anyone,, I think its great hypocrisy from the left to target Justin Barrett for his views but completely unoppose Anjem Choudary making an appearance at a debate in Ireland .

    http://www.irishtimes.com/news/controversial-cleric-to-speak-at-trinity-debate-1.798171

    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/assault-on-speaker-at-ucd-debate-25893151.html


  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    Refusing to allow someone into your private venue* to spout hateful filth is not 'silencing' them.

    That is why I said its analogous to the cake situation. I think if you support Merrion here you should support the nordie homophobe bakers too. Or vice versa. Most people seem to be hypocritical one way or the other.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Qs wrote: »
    That is why I said its analogous to the cake situation. I think if you support Merrion here you should support the nordie homophobe bakers too. Or vice versa. Most people seem to be hypocritical one way or the other.

    You can change your politics but not your sexuality . I don't think politics is covered by the relevant legislation .Probably too broad a category anyway


  • Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    feargale wrote: »
    Do you acknowledge or not his right to express his views and to be heard, or, as in boards, does that right only extend to "correct" views.?
    Nobody has the right to express their views through a private venue or medium.

    Let's just be clear on that.

    Everyone is entitled to hold whatever opinion they wish. However, everyone is not entitled to have that opinion heard. Otherwise we could all rock up to RTE and demand five minutes of airtime.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    I would not be too inclined to focus on "the private venue". We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff, indeed there is a rumour of a bombscare. Until the full facts are known and the Merrion hotel issues a statement saying why they cancelled the event, it cannot be compared to the gay cake controversy in which the equally private owner refused a service on the stated basis that the customer's message clashed with his personal ideology/religion.


  • Registered Users Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Qs


    recedite wrote: »
    We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff

    Thats a lot of wild speculation.
    marienbad wrote: »
    You can change your politics but not your sexuality . I don't think politics is covered by the relevant legislation .Probably too broad a category anyway

    That is true but as soon as you campaign to legalise something that isn't legal it becomes political.

    I hate everything the National Party stand for but I think businesses have an obligation to society and that includes to the parts of society they disagree with. If you are a hotel that normally allows political groups to have meetings in your rooms then you shouldn't be able to refuse a political party even if they are right wing extremists. By all means monitor them and make sure everything is within legal bounds and report them if it isn't but if they aren't breaking the law they should be let have their meeting.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Qs wrote: »
    Thats a lot of wild speculation.



    That is true but as soon as you campaign to legalise something that isn't legal it becomes political.

    I hate everything the National Party stand for but I think businesses have an obligation to society and that includes to the parts of society they disagree with. If you are a hotel that normally allows political groups to have meetings in your rooms then you shouldn't be able to refuse a political party even if they are right wing extremists. By all means monitor them and make sure everything is within legal bounds and report them if it isn't but if they aren't breaking the law they should be let have their meeting.

    I agree with you completely of the free speech and assembly issue . Whether you can compel business entities to open their doors to them when there is a real risk of violence is another thing though .

    But they should be let speak as long as they are within the law .


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    We don't know what threats may have been made against them or their staff, indeed there is a rumour of a bombscare.

    How's that complete and utter speculation going for you?
    :rolleyes:

    I also heard a rumor about WMD's in the conference room,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Cabaal wrote: »
    How's that complete and utter speculation going for you?
    :rolleyes:

    I also heard a rumor
    As I specifically said, a rumour, I even included the "u" in it.
    Nevertheless, a very plausible one.
    marienbad wrote: »
    Whether you can compel business entities to open their doors to them when there is a real risk of violence is another thing though.
    This is a pertinent point. But does it matter from which side the risk of violence is coming from?
    Ultimately, no because public safety is paramount. However if the "antis" are using violence, or the threat of it, to "no-platform" their opposition, then IMO it is incumbent on the state to provide some level of security in order to protect the principle of free speech.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,084 ✭✭✭FA Hayek


    It appears that for the 'progressive establishment' to silence someone all they have to do is scream 'Hate Speech' even though the primary motive is often to not let them speak in the first place. So, how can it be hate speech if they actually say well, nothing.

    I do not like many of his views but he should be allowed air them. In fact his views are pretty much the same as Dr. Ali Selim and he is given a platform on the national media all the time, without the enlightened virtuous left silencing him at every opportunity. In fact, if he was denied a platform in the Merion Hotel I can imagine an anti-islamiphobia campaign on Facebook. The regressive left, it never fails to disappoint.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    As I specifically said, a rumour, I even included the "u" in it.
    Nevertheless, a very plausible one.

    As are the WMD's, just as likely as they were in Iraq.
    As I said, I heard a rumour about WMD's, that cannot be ignored,


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Cabaal wrote: »
    As are the WMD's, just as likely as they were in Iraq. As I said, I heard a rumour about WMD's
    Good for you. I seem to remember that the proprietor in that case (Sadam Hussein) issued a clear statement saying there were none.
    And a guy from some atomic agency went in and said he found none.
    And even the UK guy who was supposed to say that they likely existed, instead said they didn't exist, and was found dead.

    Some rumours are plausible and not denied by the subject.
    Others are implausible and vigorously denied by both the subject and by impartial observers.
    Its up to you to spot the difference.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,441 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    recedite wrote: »
    Good for you. I seem to remember that the proprietor in that case (Sadam Hussein) issued a clear statement saying there were none.
    And a guy from some atomic agency went in and said he found none.
    And even the UK guy who was supposed to say that they likely existed, instead said they didn't exist, and was found dead.

    Some rumours are plausible and not denied by the subject.
    Others are implausible and vigorously denied by both the subject and by impartial observers.
    Its up to you to spot the difference.

    Didn't stop the UK and USA believing they were right and WMD's existed
    Some people just like to believe rumours, even if there's no basis to them


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Didn't stop the UK and USA believing they were right and WMD's existed..
    Not really no, it was just a pretext they were using.


Advertisement