Justin Barret, Indymedia, Stormfront and UCD

mycroft

DeVore wrote:

Please. Everyone read the UN charter of human rights.

I dunno, are there pictures in it? Maybe you could read it, and give me the general gist of it?

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.

Because thats a slippery slope you're taking a first step on. What other rights can they have taken away merely for thinking or believing something?

Allow them to hold their believes, confront them, debate with them, and when necessary and possible prosceute them when you can prove that they have broken the law. By using force to prevent them from speaking you drive them underground and you'll never know where they are speaking. You illicit sympathy for them that they might not recieve and certainly don't deserve.

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.

I'm this close to ranting about blo*dy students getting jobs (bad sign) I resent them using public funds to fuel their own private gerry springer show. These are spolit little sh*ts (and I've met them, they're a bunch of upper middle class wa*kers for the most part) stirring sh*t on sometimes serious issues spoiling real debate and reducing sometimes serious issues into farces like this. The issue gets muddled, Barrett gets sympathy and publicity.

The Corinthian

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.

Nice to see nothing’s changed in the last decade or two in the L&H. Of course, the attitude there has long been one of giving the people bread & circuses and given the reaction both there and here, they did just that.

Redleslie2 wrote:

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.

The majority of those who would argue for the denial of freedom of expression for Fascism do not do so because it has anything to do, or not, with racism. They do so because they are ideologically diametrically, and often violently, opposed to that ideology.

For them it is immaterial that the Fascist incites hatred or not, it is simply that the Fascist it their ideological enemy. After all, you don’t see the SWP on the streets calling for radical Muslims to be denied a public platform because they advocate acts of terror, in particular against Jews. But then again, I suppose the logic there might be akin to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend...”

You gotta love the hypocrisy.

mike65

Justin Barret was just on The Last Word (Today FM) Matt Cooper asked if he'd phone the cops about the assault he said no as he'd been busy what with Galway last night etc. He did'nt sound too pushed to be honest. Cooper should have pointed out it would be a good idea to have the matter on record. Barret managed to declare that all those who voted yes in the referendum agreed with him on immigration!

Mike.

GuanYin

mike65 wrote:

Justin Barret was just on The Last Word (Today FM) Matt Cooper asked if he'd phone the cops about the assault he said no as he'd been busy what with Galway last night etc. He did'nt sound too pushed to be honest. Cooper should have pointed out it would be a good idea to have the matter on record. Barret managed to declare that all those who voted yes in the referendum agreed with him on immigration!

Mike.

I'd noticed the Garda thing alright but you wonder how he managed not to notice the whopping he got in the MEP election.....

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

I'm this close to ranting about blo*dy students getting jobs (bad sign) I resent them using public funds to fuel their own private gerry springer show. These are spolit little sh*ts (and I've met them, they're a bunch of upper middle class wa*kers for the most part) stirring sh*t on sometimes serious issues spoiling real debate and reducing sometimes serious issues into farces like this. The issue gets muddled, Barrett gets sympathy and publicity.

this close... and over the line. The L&H hosted a debate which was held to inform a body of students. A wide and balanced range of guests spoke (or at least tried to) on a very serious topic. If a group of outsiders hadn't been intent on breaking the law (this is my understanding of what happened) then Barrets silly little chat would have been shown up and the number of people who disagree with him would have increased.


[aside], I seriously object to your ill informed diatribe on the economic model of third level education. My old fella went to college and now pays a six figure tax bill. I reckon he's covering my fee's. And a few others peoples as well. You go to college, you doss, you get a better income at the end because you do learn things, you pay higher taxes which makes it worthwhile for the Gov. to have seen you through it. [/aside]

MadsL

mycroft wrote:

I dunno, are there pictures in it? Maybe you could read it, and give me the general gist of it?

This might be what you are looking for....
http://www0.un.org/cyberschoolbus/humanrights/resources/plain.asp

Can't find the one with pictures tho' (although I have seen it!)

mycroft

uberwolf wrote:

this close... and over the line. The L&H hosted a debate which was held to inform a body of students. A wide and balanced range of guests spoke (or at least tried to) on a very serious topic. If a group of outsiders hadn't been intent on breaking the law (this is my understanding of what happened) then Barrets silly little chat would have been shown up and the number of people who disagree with him would have increased.

Bollocks, I've been invited to a debate in the L&H and it was obvious from the get go that the society was spoiling for a fight. When the speakers myself included refused to rise to it, a number of L&H members made some absurdly outrageous comments and speeches which they obviously didn't believe in just to stir up contraversy. I left with the distinct impression that they were just looking for an entertaining fight, and had no real interest in genuine debate.

Secondly, you made to say like I defend the "attackers" of Barrett, I didn't and in my posts above I say as much

[aside], I seriously object to your ill informed diatribe on the economic model of third level education. My old fella went to college and now pays a six figure tax bill. I reckon he's covering my fee's. And a few others peoples as well. You go to college, you doss, you get a better income at the end because you do learn things, you pay higher taxes which makes it worthwhile for the Gov. to have seen you through it. [/aside]

Oh FFS sake. I was a student, and I am aware that not everyone in college fits the profile I describe. I was describing a specific kind of student with a specific kind of attitude from a specific background. I was not tarring all students with the same brush. Get off your high horse.

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

Bollocks, I've been invited to a debate in the L&H and it was obvious from the get go that the society was spoiling for a fight. When the speakers myself included refused to rise to it, a number of L&H members made some absurdly outrageous comments and speeches which they obviously didn't believe in just to stir up contraversy. I left with the distinct impression that they were just looking for an entertaining fight, and had no real interest in genuine debate.

As you then aware student bodies are by their nature cyclical, new people all the time, your impressions of previous incumbents are of limited validity or instruction when describing new committees. For example this years auditor is, I understand, only in his second year in college. The culture of such an organisation is in constant flux.

mycroft wrote:

Secondly, you made to say like I defend the "attackers" of Barrett, I didn't and in my posts above I say as much

I made to say no such thing. I am merely trying to defend the right of debating societies to host debates. In this particular instance the students wouldn't have had their chance to speak because they only speak after the invited guests. Some external lawbreakers (again my understanding) broke the law. Anyone defending them is scarcely worthy of entering into discussion with. What you said however was that the society was in the wrong for inviting people such as that to the college.

mycroft wrote:

Oh FFS sake. I was a student, and I am aware that not everyone in college fits the profile I describe. I was describing a specific kind of student with a specific kind of attitude from a specific background. I was not tarring all students with the same brush. Get off your high horse.

when you say students you define everyone who goes to college. If you wish to be more specific then do so, reread your post and you'll see that all you say is bloody students, they are bloody sh*ts, upper middle class w*nkers for the most part. No where did you differentiate between students and members of the L&H, or the L&H committee that you met vs. this years committee. It's your high horse, I'm just trying to redirect you .

The issue here, IMO, is not whether Barrett is an idiot, not whether students have the right to here political figures talk (Barrett I'm afraid is such a figure) but about the mentality which legitimatises assault on a man because they are idealogically opposed to him.

bonkey

Gents....

Lets not turn this into a catfight about students. OK? Different people have different opinions about students, but its a seperate topic all by itself.

jc

mycroft

uberwolf wrote:

As you then aware student bodies are by their nature cyclical, new people all the time, your impressions of previous incumbents are of limited validity or instruction when describing new committees. For example this years auditor is, I understand, only in his second year in college. The culture of such an organisation is in constant flux.

Ahem.....

mycroft wrote:

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.

Yeah no offense there uberwolf but if charming members like Barry Glynn are now invovled I think I'll go and stick with my prejudice for just a little while longer.

I made to say no such thing. I am merely trying to defend the right of debating societies to host debates. In this particular instance the students wouldn't have had their chance to speak because they only speak after the invited guests. Some external lawbreakers (again my understanding) broke the law. Anyone defending them is scarcely worthy of entering into discussion with. What you said however was that the society was in the wrong for inviting people such as that to the college.

No my statement suggests that I object the reasoning by the L&H wish to hold this debate, I suggest that they did not invite Barrett along to engage in real and informed debate (for starts the likelyhood out of getting that out of Barrett in slim at best) I'm suggesting that they held this debate to generate contraversy for the sake of contraversy.

when you say students you define everyone who goes to college. If you wish to be more specific then do so, reread your post and you'll see that all you say is bloody students, they are bloody sh*ts, upper middle class w*nkers for the most part. No where did you differentiate between students and members of the L&H, or the L&H committee that you met vs. this years committee. It's your high horse, I'm just trying to redirect you .

I apologise I thought I was very clear that I was talking about the kind of students who in my mind populate the L&H. I'm sorry your ego got bruised in the crossfire

The issue here, IMO, is not whether Barrett is an idiot, not whether students have the right to here political figures talk (Barrett I'm afraid is such a figure) but about the mentality which legitimatises assault on a man because they are idealogically opposed to him.

Em uberwolf once again, I did not legtimatise his assault (and thats the last time I'll be using that word to describe this incident I think Barrett it's part of his hyberbole) and I kind of resent that he two posts now you've implied that I have.

uberwolf

ok fair enough. MyCroft - friends?

Not a student question per se, but should debating societies and the like give people barretts ilk an audience?

I feel they're entitiled to, informed decisions can only be made with a range of perspectives proposed. Is refusing Barrett the right to talk at a debate on immigration just censorship? presupposing the audience don't need to hear him because the organisers think he's a whack job?

uberwolf

mycroft wrote:

I apologise I thought I was very clear that I was talking about the kind of students who in my mind populate the L&H.

i accept that. I didn't pick that up from my read of your post

mycroft wrote:

I'm sorry your ego got bruised in the crossfire

well done. You couldn't just accept there's been a misunderstanding. Had to get the dig in.

mycroft wrote:

Em uberwolf once again, I did not legtimatise his assault (and thats the last time I'll be using that word to describe this incident I think Barrett it's part of his hyberbole) and I kind of resent that he two posts now you've implied that I have.

I was trying to move past the storm in the tea cup that our last few posts have generated. I posted originally because I thought the L&H were getting unreasonable press. I can see that your experience has been negative and that they may be children trying to acting like adults. But despite that I thnk the point here is the people that believe assault to be legitimate political means. I was not trying to infer that has anything to do with what you have said - you have made that clear long before I strolled into town - I was trying to move past our 'cup'. Answering what you had said before moving onto the bigger picture. k?

bonkey

uberwolf wrote:

Not a student question per se, but should debating societies and the like give people barretts ilk an audience?

I think that they should have the choice to do so. Its not like they're breaking any laws with their choice of speaker.

What is important is that it is their choice for their event, and once they make it, it is not some dissidents' right nor role to attempt to disrupt that choice.

jc

chewy

but aren't the L & H just creating( and baiting) a Jerry Springer type situation for there amusement just like the phil in tcd always inviting a model or porn star to their opening debate just to get publicity for it... and this year had to fake their own women rights group to cause a fuss it seems?

they didn't just invite a person with far right views to gain a diverse debatte they invited JUSTIN BARRET(tm)

you should expect a bit more

Justin Barrett

The L & H is Irelands Premier debating society . They have a proud history of promoting open debate , sometimes long before any others will consider such a debate .

Many many many issues have been covered by them before they became mainstream and were finally done to death by the fissiparious and long winded pundits of the Sunday Independent .

GuanYin

Justin Barrett wrote:

The L & H is Irelands Premier debating society . They have a proud history of promoting open debate , sometimes long before any others will consider such a debate .

Many many many issues have been covered by them before they became mainstream and were finally done to death by the fissiparious and long winded pundits of the Sunday Independent .

So what you're saying is, as a Nazi, you find them more welcoming towards you than all the sensible societies out there?

Redleslie2

bonkey wrote:

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

Maybe I didn't make myself clear as usual so certainly m'lud. Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

In summary:

It shall be an offence for a person

( a ) to publish or distribute written material,
( b ) to use words, behave or display written material
( c ) to distribute, show or play a recording of visual images or sounds,

if the written material, words, behaviour, visual images or sounds, as the case may be, are threatening, abusive or insulting and are intended or, having regard to all the circumstances, are likely to stir up hatred, (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.)

Quite a bit of what qualifies as “hatred” is central to fascist ideology, the doctrine of blood purity and so on, so saying “no free speech for fascists” is essentially just another way of saying “the intolerant will not be tolerated.“ The penalty for holding someone against their will is to hold them against their will, but I doubt whether anyone would claim it‘d be “stupid” to say “lock up kidnappers“. Any reasonably free society has these unfortunate paradoxes. Fascists might point to the bit in the constitution that says it’s “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, then point to the prohibition of incitement to hatred act and squeal about the “irony” and “hypocrisy” of it all. Would they be right?

Anyway, the reason I found Mycroft’s objection to the “no free speech for fascists” slogan curious was because on another thread he said this about Germans.

The generation that grew up after the war, had to deal with realising that their fathers and mothers were either complicent, or stood idly by when one of the greatest crimes againist humanity was commited,

Now I dunno what “complicent” means, a cross between “complicit” and “complacent” maybe. I’m not up on all the latest newspeak. But what were the Germans who “stood idly by” supposed to do exactly? The anti-nazis fought the nazis in the streets and broke up their meetings (until Hitler got into power and sent them to the camps) so I suppose that sort of illegality should be frowned upon. Instead of using violence, should they have concentrated on launching a series of devastatingly hard hitting door to door leaflet campaigns, quickly followed up with a blitz of coffee mornings and sit down protests? Or should they have done nothing, absolutely nothing at all, until the nazis had total control of the country and any kind of anti-nazi activity was virtually impossible. The White Rose movement tried a few non-violent things during the war but they all got done in or locked up sadly.

Personally, although I know which side I like to think I would have preferred to have been on in the Battle of Cable Street in London (300,000 people versus Moseley’s BUF plus the police), I’m in favour of letting neo-nazis organize, if only because I’m curious to see how far they‘d get before collapsing. Everything else in the country is strictly toytown standard so why would Irish fascism be any different?

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

I don't disagree. Much. But on the other hand, there's the question of whether it's morally imperative to prevent someone from committing a crime if there's reasonable grounds for believing that one is about to be committed. There was quite a bit of racist banter at the debate according to the reports I saw.

The Corinthian wrote:

The majority of those who would argue for the denial of freedom of expression for Fascism do not do so because it has anything to do, or not, with racism.

Link?

You gotta love the hypocrisy.

With all due respect, given your support for General Pinochet's coup and brutal anti-democratic regime, you're the last, and I mean the very last, person who should be levelling smug accusations of hypocrisy at anyone.


On the subject of incitement to hatred, the mods on the boards seem quite lax about letting abuse be heaped on travellers who are covered by the Act whether people like it or not. Even Gandalf here seems to get stuck in on After Hours.

their "way of life" is defunct and has been for years. Can anyone point out what benefits to society do they offer? Very little and they seem to act without thought for the people who are picking up the tab for their anti-social behaviour, well enough is enough.

“Enough is enough.“ (!!) Sounds quite threatening.

I’ve nothing against Gandalf but does this stuff contravene the Act?

flogen

Redleslie2 wrote:

Fascists might point to the bit in the constitution that says it’s “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions”, then point to the prohibition of incitement to hatred act and squeal about the “irony” and “hypocrisy” of it all. Would they be right?

Without getting myself onto any one side of this freedom of speech vs. silencing fascists debates (because I believe that people should be stopped from inciting hatred, but people like Barrett whom are allowed to speak prove themselves as bigoted morons and so force a loss of credibility upon themselves), I would say this.

If a fascist says that they have a right to express freely their convictions and opinions, they would be right. However, as an aspect of all democracies, all rights come with in-built responsibilities, and so the responsibilities tied to freedom of speech is that within your freedoms you do not endanger the freedoms, rights and well being of any other human being, so to incite hatred against a race would be denying them their rights as a human.

flogen

arcadegame2004

flogen wrote:

Without getting myself onto any one side of this freedom of speech vs. silencing fascists debates (because I believe that people should be stopped from inciting hatred, but people like Barrett whom are allowed to speak prove themselves as bigoted morons and so force a loss of credibility upon themselves), I would say this.

If a fascist says that they have a right to express freely their convictions and opinions, they would be right. However, as an aspect of all democracies, all rights come with in-built responsibilities, and so the responsibilities tied to freedom of speech is that within your freedoms you do not endanger the freedoms, rights and well being of any other human being, so to incite hatred against a race would be denying them their rights as a human.

flogen

Dearest flogen, I would like to know who appointed you the arbiter of what can and cannot be said in this country? The Irish electorate certainly didn't. You have no right to dictate what those who politically disagree with you can or cannot say because we live in a democracy where the Constitution specifically states we have a right to freedom of speech.

What happened in UCD was an outrageous attack on the principle of free speech held dear by the Irish people. This right was fought for over centuries and we are not about to give it up to a few jumped up yobbos whose views are equally undemocratic as those of fascism, except in the opposite part of the political spectrum.

I do not like Justin Barrett's views on the EU. However, my opinion is reflected in the saying in the US that "I strongly disagree with what your are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

I have just listened to the part of Liveline where this was discussed and it is clear from it that Barrett was not even let speak! He was just physically attacked before he could open his mouth! To describe that as attacking "fascism" is incredibly senile. It is obvious from the referendum result that Barrett's views on the need for tougher immigration-controls are widely-shared in this country. If anyone in this country that is against open-door immigration-policies is to be called a fascist, then 80% of us are fascists (in the feeble minds of those who attacked a law-abiding Irish citizen seeking to commit the terrible 'fascist' crime of opening his mouth to utter views in disagreement with the communist left who want to shut up anyone who does not agree with them). For them to call all those who oppose liberal immigration-policies "fascist" is slanderous.

I favour an elected government, in a context where the press and people are free to express political opinions, including all opinions that I personally strongly oppose. That is called democracy - a system that these violent thugs who attacked the rights of Barrett to speak and of the UCD students to hear what he had to say - clearly do not favour. Freedom of speech is an essential part of a democratic society. Undermine it and you are on a slippery-slope to dictatorship.

Redleslie2

A shiny silver sixpence goes to the lad who can dig up AG2004's most lurid anti-immigration "Ireland for the Irish" themed screed.

Justin Barrett

arcadegame2004 wrote:

What happened in UCD was an outrageous attack on the principle of free speech held dear by the Irish people.

Thank you my friend.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

Maybe I didn't make myself clear as usual so certainly m'lud. Prohibition of Incitement To Hatred Act, 1989.

Last time I checked, enforcement of such laws applied when you broke them. Not before.

And frankly, I’d rather not leave it to a bunch of tosspots like the SWP-ANL to act as thought police on what we should or should not consider acceptable.

Quite a bit of what qualifies as “hatred” is central to fascist ideology

Are we talking Nazism or Fascism? The former is a subset of the latter not the other way round, after all. So if you are talking about Fascism rather than Nazism, please back that up.

Link?

Why do I need a link for stating an opinion?

Nonetheless, here's a wee one that highlights the links between the SWP (a.k.a. the Anti-Nazi League) and extremist Islamic groups. It is the irony that would cause an alleged anti-racism group to support a group of racists that will lead one to ask why?

The only logical conclusion, other than criminal levels of idiocy, would have to be that they are ultimately not really about anti-racism.

With all due respect, given your support for General Pinochet's coup and brutal anti-democratic regime, you're the last, and I mean the very last, person who should be levelling smug accusations of hypocrisy at anyone.

This from a man who went through hoops to avoid condemning the excesses of either Castro or the Nicaraguan Sandinistas - either of which put Pinochet into the shade in the old repressive abuse of human rights stakes.

And this is indeed the hypocrisy I’m pointing at. You don’t like Fascists, not because of any question of racism or repression, but because you happen to be politically opposed to them. The banner of racism or otherwise is simply used to convince the middle ground that does not share your ideological extreme.

But returning to the point of denying racists public forums is a horrifically counterproductive exercise. The same happened in UCD when David Irvine was to speak at the C+E in the mid 90’s. Any WWII historian could drive a truck through some of his more outlandish claims – and would have, had he been able to speak. Yet, one thing that I noticed after the meeting was cancelled was that numerous people began to give credence on these unuttered, and unquestioned, theories - given that if they were so dangerous to air, there must be something to them.

And so another own-goal was scored by the “the revolution is next Tuesday” brigade.

“Enough is enough.“ (!!) Sounds quite threatening.

Does that mean that if you’re in a minority you’re exempt from anything other than the lightest criticism?

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

Are we talking Nazism or Fascism?

Fascism, nazism, white nationalism, whatever the folks on Stormfront or wherever call it these days. I'm not picky. The Eco definition suits me for the purposes of this case.

Why do I need a link for stating an opinion?

Because it looks like you're just making rubbish up for the sake of it, like fascists and indeed many other classes of fanatics tend to do.

Nonetheless, here's a wee one that highlights the links between the SWP (a.k.a. the Anti-Nazi League) and extremist Islamic groups. It is the irony that would cause an alleged anti-racism group to support a group of racists that will lead one to ask why?

What have the SWP-ANL got to do with this? In Germany the government tried to ban the NPD recently. Is the German government run by the SWP? By people who don't really care about racism really? Are the Germans in cahoots with al-queda? Tinfoil hat case or what.

The only logical conclusion, other than criminal levels of idiocy, would have to be that they are ultimately not really about anti-racism.

The only logical conclusion would have to be that you're talking nonsense tbh.

This from a man who went through hoops to avoid condemning the excesses of either Castro or the Nicaraguan Sandinistas - either of which put Pinochet into the shade in the old repressive abuse of human rights stakes.

I don't recall saying anything in support of either Castro or the sandinistas. I reckon that was just your knee jerk attempt to dodge questions about your support for Pinochet over democracy and put words in my mouth and I wasn't going to play your game thankyou. As it happens I wouldn't be an Amnesty member if I supported political repression torture and the like. But it seems to me that despite appearing to hate the very principles of democracy you insist on trying to lecture people about it. Interesting self-delusion going on there.

And this is indeed the hypocrisy I’m pointing at. You don’t like Fascists, not because of any question of racism or repression, but because you happen to be politically opposed to them. The banner of racism or otherwise is simply used to convince the middle ground that does not share your ideological extreme.

Accusations of hypocrisy from you have no credibility unfortunately.

No, I don't like fascists and I don't like racists very much, sorry. Guilty as charged. Got me bang to rights on that one. So what.

flogen

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Dearest flogen, I would like to know who appointed you the arbiter of what can and cannot be said in this country? The Irish electorate certainly didn't. You have no right to dictate what those who politically disagree with you can or cannot say because we live in a democracy where the Constitution specifically states we have a right to freedom of speech.

Dearest ArcadeGame2004, I agree with you completely, and I never, not for one second said that people should not be allowed to express their views. Please read my posts here carefully next time.

What I did say was that someone making comments that incite hatred are illegal, and that one loses their right to free speech when they cross the line of legallity.

Now, it is of my opinion that Justin Barrett should have been allowed to speak at UCD. I don't agree with him and his peers, and so a reasoned debate would have been the perfect way for people like me to challenge his POV, and show his ideology to be a load of ignorant and bigoted rubbish. Stopping him from speaking can (and will) allow white nationalists to claim us "lefties" are scared of the truth, they allow him to get far more coverage than he deserves, and allow him to avoid stating his case and losing a debate.

flogen

dahamsta

Justin Barrett wrote:

Thank you my friend.

ROFL. Endorse me Justin, I'm much more racialist than him!

flogen wrote:

Now, it is of my opinion that Justin Barrett should have been allowed to speak at UCD.

I don't. Let him build his own bloody platform, he can speak to his heart's content on that. As far as I'm concerned it was pure, pathetic attention-grabbing on the part of the L&H Society. Which isn't to say we don't have our own brand of media whores down here in Cork.

adam

flogen

dahamsta wrote:

I don't. Let him build his own bloody platform, he can speak to his heart's content on that. As far as I'm concerned it was pure, pathetic attention-grabbing on the part of the L&H Society. Which isn't to say we don't have our own brand of media whores down here in Cork.

adam

But do you not agree that by him speaking and then being systematically discredited in public and nearly laughed off stage it would have done him damage, while him being seen as a victim of liberalist oppression (lol... thats most certainly a contradiction in terms ) as he is now just helps him to get publicity and possibly support?

flogen

dahamsta

flogen wrote:

But do you not agree that by him speaking and then being systematically discredited in public and nearly laughed off stage it would have done him damage, while him being seen as a victim of liberalist oppression (lol... thats most certainly a contradiction in terms ) as he is now just helps him to get publicity and possibly support?

I get the impression that he was invited to this debate by the society - correct me if I'm wrong - and if that's the case I think it's a double-edged sword. Yes, lauding him publicly will discredit him, but inviting him there in the first place gives him a sense of legitimacy he simply doesn't deserve. By the same token, if he wants to tell the media that not being invited is some form of oppression, more fool the media for giving him the opportunity to say it. Like I said, let him build his own platform, set up his own debate. Why should this society give him a platform, unless it's to satisfy their own vanity?

adam

flogen

dahamsta wrote:

I get the impression that he was invited to this debate by the society - correct me if I'm wrong - and if that's the case I think it's a double-edged sword. Yes, lauding him publicly will discredit him, but inviting him there in the first place gives him a sense of legitimacy he simply doesn't deserve. By the same token, if he wants to tell the media that not being invited is some form of oppression, more fool the media for giving him the opportunity to say it. Like I said, let him build his own platform, set up his own debate. Why should this society give him a platform, unless it's to satisfy their own vanity?

adam

I see no problem with him having a sense of legitimacy once no one else thinks the same .
If he claimed he wasn't invited to a debate and as a result was being oppressed, I'd be happy to kick the journo who reported it (does that mean I was oppressed too, along with the rest of Ireland? ).
I'm sure he is trying to build his own platform, and start his own debate, but we all know that it will be as genuine as his sanity. Its like stormfront, all self contained, no debate, everyone agreeing with everyone.
Him being invited to a real debate and discredited means he has no chance of fooling a political bystander into thinking his argument is supreme.

flogen

dahamsta

flogen wrote:

I see no problem with him having a sense of legitimacy once no one else thinks the same .

Are you seriously suggesting that people don't and won't? From your own post:

Its like stormfront, all self contained, no debate, everyone agreeing with everyone.

All 35,798 of them. 207 online right now, plus 551 guests. All self-contained, no debate, everyone agreeing with everyone. Pure, undiluted, unadulterated hate. And new people flooding in there every day, being "educated" by these animals.

I realise you're giving me an example of the contrary, what will happen if Barrett and his filthy ilk go "underground", but this is what's happening anyway, and those communities grow every day. I don't see why we should add to it by giving scum like Barrett a legitimate platform.

And the question has to be asked: Were the organisers of this debate really trying to educate, to improve our society? Or were they, as I've already suggested, simply trying to inflate their own sense of sel-importance even further. I find it very difficult to believe that it was all the former with none of the latter.

I'm sorry, I'm a great believer in free speech and for the most part I will defend people's rights to express themselves, but I don't subscribe to the extremist views of people like John Gilmore and other members of the EFF*. I believe in balance; I believe that free speech, like every liberty, needs limits. Giving people like Barrett a legitimate platform, in my view, steps over that line.

adam

*Don't get me wrong, I think the world is a better place for their extremes, because we need their balance. But believing in the need for them doesn't equate with sharing their beliefs.

mike65

dahamsta wrote:

A
I'm sorry, I'm a great believer in free speech and for the most part I will defend people's rights to express themselves...

er Adam surely you either belive in free speech as an absolute or not at all?

Mike.