Justin Barret, Indymedia, Stormfront and UCD

mike65

Surprised no-one has posted about last nights ruck at a debate in UCD which was featured on RTEs Liveline http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/Thu/rte-liveline.smil at the very start. Indymedia contributers are arguing the toss here and Stormfront Ireland sharpen thier axes here. Meanwhile two bodies
mentioned as participants are here and here

What a tangled web of spinning spiders. Was anyone here there? I imagine there must be a number of Trots-er UCD students on boards.ie

Mike.

ps liveline link updated

Sparks

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

dahamsta

Sparks wrote:

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

It's scary how utterly ignorant and pathetically easily led all but a few are, and how creepy the remainder are. I'm a pacifist by nature, but every time I see StormFront I want to flush the entire collective down a toilet, and vomit into it afterwards. The term they use to describe "non-whites" suits them perfectly: Subhuman.

adam

flogen

Sparks wrote:

Please tell me that that Stormfront crowd is some kind of obscure gag, like the Leitrim Free Republic lads...

Sadly not, but they are all talk.

For all their beliefs and opinions, they're impossible to pin down. I've been trying to find any Fascist groups in Dublin, but they dont exist. The closest I can get is the Immigration Control Platform.

Justine Barrett and David Noone are the only names floating around the whole country.

If anyone has any information on Dublin groups it would be great, I'm basically trying to write a piece for my college paper on the Nazi community in Dublin, but there doesnt seem to be a real one.

flogen

ionapaul

Those Stormfront posters are real scum alright. It saddens me that people are like that - and are allowed to vote.
To be fair, just read the Indymedia thread, some real idiots there (not in the same league as Stormfront though, not even the same game!), some facist opinions in fact.
When it comes to politics...'moderation in all things', right? Somewhere between the two extremes you will find the golden mean.

DadaKopf

Here's UCD SU officers and other politicos/hacks arguing about what happened.

I wasn't there, so I can't comment what happened.

Redleslie2

If Justing Barrett is such a patriot, why wasn't he watching the match last night like all proper Irish people?

dahamsta

What match?

mike65

Adams is a true patriot - he does'nt watch "foreign games"!

Mike.

Redleslie2

dahamsta wrote:

What match?

The 'Republic of Ireland 2-0 Faroes' one.

mike65 wrote:

Adams is a true patriot - he does'nt watch "foreign games"!

Mike.

Adams!?

dahamsta

Redleslie2 wrote:

Adams!?

LOL. Very Freudian Mike.

BTW, I'll have you know that I spent most of the day today kickstarting the Foot.ie Wiki, so don't be challenging my commitment!

Course there's a difference between doing a wiki and going to games, but that's not the point!

adam

Justin Barrett

Stormfront were certainly "Hot To Trot" last night if any of you were there for the event.

I personally think the event lacked focus overall and would not countenance anysuch again .

flogen

Justin Barrett wrote:

Stormfront were certainly "Hot To Trot" last night if any of you were there for the event.

I personally think the event lacked focus overall and would not countenance anysuch again .

Did you (if you are indeed Justin Barrett) not say on liveline that you were going to UCD again for another debate today?

And what do you mean by "Hot to Trot", as in they were ready to get violent too?

flogen

GuanYin

Haha, that interview is hilarious.

The only thing worse than the type of people like Barrett are the ones who deny it.

"The newspapers don't know my policies!" :rolleyes:

I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear.

FX Meister

Joined Stormfront a while ago to post my thoughts on a few things. Unfortunately all posts are moderated and must be approved before they go up on the board, and if you don't agree with them they don't post your comments. What a bunch of ignorant tossers. And one of the users has a link in his sig to a website claiming Auschwitz was a work camp with cinemas and swimming pools and various other leisure activities. Makes my blood boil

mycroft

Few things;

1. Anyone who shouts "No free speech for fascists" was obviously behind the bike sheds when they were handing out the irony. Or very stupid. Or related to the US republicans who decry terrorists who "hate our freedoms" while at the same time introducing the patriot act.

2. The "interview" with Barrett. Barrett claims the SWP are plotting on indymedia and the site should be monitored. The SWP hate indymedia. It's the only news site which offers detailed criticism of the SWP and their various fronts. Secondly I would suggest that Barrett should has some nerve suggesting the government should monitor indymedia for their behaviour when the site includes articles such as

Barretts links with the European far right were first (rather cynically) brought to light during the second Nice referendum. Back then he pretended to be unaware that the meetings he had attended were neo-Nazi ones. But the Irish Times got hold of the video of the Passau rally at which "40 people were arrested due to violent activity and the meeting was in a hall built by the Nazis for SS rallies. Also present at the event were representatives of the Spanish fascists, Forza Nuova and Irish-based Derek Holland, leader of the English Third Position. "

from here

Glass houses eh Justin?

Furthermore a post on indymedia and on ucd.net asked for debate on what occured. I think the behaviour on indymedia is suprisingly mature. They dispute Barrett's account question the relability of an eye witness, but never the less most comments seem to condemn the behaviour of AFA, for a variety of reasons, mainly that this kind of extremist attitude gives Barrett a chance to shout shrilling and clearly "Am I not wronged", and giving that gormless little runt the oxygen of publicist.

Finally the real criticism should be reserved for UCD's L&H society's frankly appalling behaviour.

Given that one of the leading members of the society, Barry Glynn, thought it would be “hilarious” to publish an article in the University Observer asking students “what ethnic minority do you hate the most?”, we can dismiss the idea that the L & H have any kind of grown-up, responsible attitude to the issue of racism and fascism. Clearly, they see it all as a joke; inviting Barrett was just another prank.

from here

I've long behind of the opinion that UCD's L&H is an amoral, ethicless, talking shop for a group of people with no really interest in debate but rather stirring contraversy for the sake of contraversy. They are reaping what they sow.

GuanYin

Hopefully there will be an investigation by the powers that be in UCD.

Strangely Barrett seems reluctant to involve the Gardai so there has to be something to that.

Student politics is the worst kind (I know firsthand) and the likes of L&H sare the type that give students in this country a bad name.

Redleslie2

mycroft wrote:

1. Anyone who shouts "No free speech for fascists" was obviously behind the bike sheds when they were handing out the irony. Or very stupid.

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

mycroft

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation. Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

I should clarify. "No free speech for fascists" is the rallying cry of AFA who have violently clashed (Justin if you're reading this you're lucky it's not the 80s and you weren't speaking in the UK, you'd have walked away with far more than a bruised ego). Someone who feels that they should use violence to stop fascists speaks is an ill informed yob. There are laws to prevent someone insight racial hatred. Use them.

super_furry

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about? Where "hatred" means hatred against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation.

Of course a certain class of fascist would argue that racism is not part of his particular ideology but that's by the by, especially with regard to Barrett and stormfront "white nationalist" types.

That's fair enough, but vigilante attacks are not the solution. The fact is, that if no-one rushed the stage, we wouldn't be talking about this, Barrett wouldn't have the chance to air his views in the national media and only the people that were in the room at the time of the debate would have been aware it was even going on. By attacking Barrett, they've given him the publicity he craves.

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why? Isn't that basically what the prohibition of incitement to hatred act is about?

Not really.

It says that every individual will be held accountable should they say certain things.

Subsequently, it puts pressure on publishers etc. to ensure such things are not said/written within their sphere of influence.

What it does not do is say that anyone who has a history of saying such things should be prevented from saying anything which is effectively the argument put forward in some of those links.....that because Barrett has said objectionable things in the past, that he should not be allowed a platform (or should not have been allowed this particular platform to say anything lest it also turn out to be objectionable.


jc

Stabshauptmann

I'm not sure I agree with Syke when he says "I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear".
I dont see the harm or object to some one listening to a speaker or goup of speakers, sometimes listening to others makes ones own (contradicting )convictions stronger or gives them the insight they need to construct arguements that might persuade ppl away from the convictions they possess. Althought granted, in Barret's case the evidence is pretty damning.

"No free speach for fascists".
I can see the logic in that: If you dont conform to democratic procedure then you wont be accorded it; ie If you advocate violence and attack/ threaten your political opponents then why should you be allowes to similtaniously participate in a democratic debate.

Its not a view however I hold, its my opinion that given the oppurtunity to participate in democratic proceedings and effective encouragement to do so, a movement will move closer to the norm.
Ofcourse the time scale for this might be very long depending on rate of growth and with out doubt all legal actions should be taken against unlawful violence.

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

Not really.

It says that every individual will be held accountable should they say certain things.

The law says that racists are not entitled to freely express their views. Mycroft said that anyone who says as much is "stupid". That was my point.

GuanYin

Necromancer wrote:

I'm not sure I agree with Syke when he says "I would have thought that anyone caught attending a new nazi function would have his policies set pretty clear".
I dont see the harm or object to some one listening to a speaker or goup of speakers, sometimes listening to others makes ones own (contradicting )convictions stronger or gives them the insight they need to construct arguements that might persuade ppl away from the convictions they possess. Althought granted, in Barret's case the evidence is pretty damning.

I wasn't referring to whetehr he should have been allowed to speak, I was referring to his interview where he claimed that his views and policies were mis-represented by the general media.

The man took active involvement in a neo nazi function/rally and later feigned innocence as to the true nature of the event. To my mind that either makes him a nationalist racist or someone so stupid that they should never be allowed near an electoral office.

As for his freedom of speech, I would have been in favour of him talking. I got a hell of a lot of grief on boards recently (in the form of reputation messages) for defending a rather obvious stormfronter on boards. The irony is that the last time SF invaded I was probably boards enemy number one, but to be frank I enjoy making racists look stupid and the only way you can achieve that is by letting them air their views and then tearing them assunder. You'll never change them, but in showing them up for their stupidity you will help cement the general opinion against them which will ensure they never become mainstream.

Attacking someone and denying them ssome of the basic rights you are trying to defend brings you to their level. Keep mob practices down back alleys but don't associate them with the democratic process or intellectual debate.

As an aside, recently a stormfronter was charged after sending unsolicited hate male to ethnic workers at an institute. Unfortunately for the SF guy, he didn't send the mail as anonymously as he hoped, he used his work franking machine to postmark them instead of using stamps, so the police arrived at his office (with 6 employees) and took little time to pick out the suspect.
Makes me optimistic that natural selection will weed out these types within a century or so.

Stabshauptmann

As an aside, recently a stormfronter was charged after sending unsolicited hate male to ethnic workers at an institute. Unfortunately for the SF guy, he didn't send the mail as anonymously as he hoped, he used his work franking machine to postmark them instead of using stamps, so the police arrived at his office (with 6 employees) and took little time to pick out the suspect.
Makes me optimistic that natural selection will weed out these types within a century or so.

Ok that IS kinda stupid :boggles:

Redleslie2

super_furry wrote:

That's fair enough, but vigilante attacks are not the solution. The fact is, that if no-one rushed the stage, we wouldn't be talking about this, Barrett wouldn't have the chance to air his views in the national media and only the people that were in the room at the time of the debate would have been aware it was even going on. By attacking Barrett, they've given him the publicity he craves.

I'm not disagreeing with you.

But I wonder does anyone give a damn enough to want to volunteer to provide security for Mr.Barrett and protect him from the evil far-left (or far-right if you're Sand) extremists next time?

bonkey

Redleslie2 wrote:

The law says that racists are not entitled to freely express their views.

OK firstly...would you like to print up the text of the law you think says that?

Secondly....even if you do...the following should explain why it doesn't actually say that.....

Freedom of speech <> freedom of responsibility for what was spoken.

See the difference?

If not, then ask yourself this...do you think that slander and libel should be freely allowable? Without consequence?

How about companies issuing false statements of their accounts? Thats a form of speech. Should that also be without consequence?

What about...ooooh....say....a government lieing about its reasons for going to war? Thats also speech, so there should be nothing to prevent it, yes?

Slander, libel and lies have been punishable by law for far longer than what we're discussing here....and I don't hear anyone claiming these should be freely allowed without any possible recrimination.

So I fail to see whats different or special about this case. Its not targetted at racists, or anyone else, nor is it anything new. It is simply saying that while you may be free to say something, you are not free from the responsibility of what you have said.

However, it does not - under any circumstances - suggest that because you have said something objectionable in the past, that you should be denied the right to say something in the present or the future.

This is what is key. It means that - for example - the law should not prevent a group from speaking in public for fear that they will say something unpalatable, but rather should wait until something unacceptable has been said and then hold them accountable for it.


jc

bonkey

Necromancer wrote:

I can see the logic in that: If you dont conform to democratic procedure then you wont be accorded it

That undermines the concept of freedom of speech being a basic human right, as aspired to in the UDHR.

jc

DeVore

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights. Read the last few which speak about the scope of such rights including the right to freedom of speech.

Please. For the love of God and my own tenuous sanity not to mention the last of my hair. Its all VERY VERY clear there. We as a country are signatories of that charter.

DeV.

seamus

mycroft wrote:

I've long behind of the opinion that UCD's L&H is an amoral, ethicless, talking shop for a group of people with no really interest in debate but rather stirring contraversy for the sake of contraversy. They are reaping what they sow.

This is exactly what they want. L & H are not a serious society. Far from it. If L & H were on boards, they would have their own private board, and every so often would appear on politics, post one big troll that gets hundreds of replies and sends people into a tizzy, while everyone else laughs at the goings-on.
What's funny is people taking this seriously, and the Irish media making a big deal out of it. It's a like a troll on a big scale.

bonkey

DeVore wrote:

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights. Read the last few which speak about the scope of such rights including the right to freedom of speech.

For those who don't want to go hunt it down....

Here's the bit deV is referring to. Its article 29.2

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

jc