Justin Barret, Indymedia, Stormfront and UCD

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

I thought it was Red Action/AFA who intervened at UCD?

therecklessone

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 .

It was a joke when I was in UCD (1995-98) and it sounds like nothing has changed. L & H "debates" were an excuse for ar*eholes to practise their comedy routine and for members to get pi*sed on cheap booze.

Inviting a bigot like you to a "debate" smacks of the sort of sensationalism they were proud of when I was unlucky enough to cross their path. Again, seems like nothing has changed.

Justin Barrett wrote:

Thank you my friend.

Almost positive repped you for that. Almost...

dahamsta

mike65 wrote:

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

Not me Mike. If I were to believe in free speech as an absolute, then, to throw an oldie at you, it should be a-ok for me to walk into your local cinema and yell FIRE at the top of my voice. It all depends on your definition of free speech I guess, but don't definitions create limits too? That's why I don't believe in absolutes when it comes to things like this. It's unworkable. But now we're getting philosophical...

adam

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Dahamasta
inviting him there in the first place gives him a sense of legitimacy he simply doesn't deserve.

Dahamasta I will ask you the same question I posed to flogen: who appointed you to be the arbiter of what views are and are not "legitimate", especially considering the thugs wouldn't even let us hear a word he had to say? Let someone speak please before judging their (nonexistent in this case since he didn't even get to speak) remarks to be "illegitimate"! :rolleyes:

Most of us will find ourselves in the minority on a particular point of political debate some time or another, but that doesn't make either opinion "illegitimate". For all the talk of "fascism" on this thread, those who turn up at these meetings (including the meetings of the Immigration Control Platform) and break them up and commit acts of violence are demonstrating a similar mentality to fascism in terms of wanting to suppress dissent. I frequently have had to listen to political opinions being expressed in the media on a whole range of issues that I am utterly in disagreement with, but doesn't mean I have to right to beat people up or charge into their meetings with the intent of disrupting them.

This authoritarian streak on the part of the extreme Left is this country is totally against democracy and the authorities should ensure that this type of disgraceful violent spectacle stops. It does NO credit in terms of public opinion to those instigating it.

Redleslie2

All we are saying is give fascism a chance. Another one.

Maybe if the evil authoritarian left government in Germany ever succeeds in banning Mr.Barrett's mates the NPD, then we could offer these brave freethinking dissidents political asylum of a sort here. Having a few thousand nazis marching about with their devil may care approach to political correctness will brighten up the place considerably.

If I was a fascist I'd quote Orwell at this point.

Freedom, as Rosa Luxembourg said, is 'freedom for the other fellow'. The same principle is contained in the famous words of Voltaire: 'I detest what you say; I will defend to the death your right to say it'. If the intellectual liberty which without a doubt has been one of the distinguishing marks of western civilization means anything at all, it means that everyone shall have the right to say and to print what he believes to be the truth.

Redleslie2

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.

People like Barrett might prove themselves to be bigoted morons to some people but with others they might appear to be talking common sense. Anyone I spoke to who voted yes in the citizenship referendum did so because they believed that there was sort of invasion going on, and they tended to believe that non-nationals = blacks. But like I said if anyone is really bothered about protecting Barrett's right to do his thing then they can volunteer to be his bodyguards and physically protect him from the red menace or something. Any takers?

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

Dahamasta I will ask you the same question I posed to flogen: who appointed you to be the arbiter of what views are and are not "legitimate",

And off we go again, misinterpreting what people have said....

flogen, and dahamsta have both expressed what are commonly reffered to as opinions. I'm pretty sure you shoul dhave heard of such things, as you seem quite fond of them yourself.

In both sets of posts, I have found them clearly articulating what they believe is acceptable and not. Not once has either said that the system must change to be like their vision, but - at most - that 'twould be better to have the system that way, or that were it up to them that they would change the system to work in such a way.

Now before you go off on another tirade about how unjust it is of them to even suggest that the system should be changed, I would ask youi to review the last (say) 3 to 6 months of your own posts, and either offer us an assurance that this is not hypocritical of you - that you have not once suggested that you support/favour something other than the current legal status quo, or an apology for having dared to presume that you knew what is best for the rest of us in this democratic state. Failing that, an admission of abject hypocracy would probably be your most honest third option.

Most of us will find ourselves in the minority on a particular point of political debate some time or another, but that doesn't make either opinion "illegitimate".

Thats funny....becase your criticism of both flogen and dahamsta would appear to be that they are expressing an "illegitimate" opinion.

For all the talk of "fascism" on this thread,

The vast majority of fascist-related commentary on this thread is from two posters who seem in capable of discussing any topic on this forum where both of them post without one seeking to needle or get a rise out of the other regarding fascism.

are demonstrating a similar mentality to fascism in terms of wanting to suppress dissent.

They're also demonstating a similar mentality to dictatorships of every flavour, extremist religions, communist regimes, non-democrtiac socialist regimes etc. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the only accurate description is that such action is anti-democratic, not that it bears similarities to any other single flavour of political model.

This authoritarian streak on the part of the extreme Left is this country is totally against democracy

The extreme anything will always hav a tendanct to see the democratic fairness of an action as secondary to the desired objective. Why do you think they're classified as extreme in the first place?

and the authorities should ensure that this type of disgraceful violent spectacle stops. It does NO credit in terms of public opinion to those instigating it.

As far as I am aware, either Barrett or the L&H would need to press charges before any action could be taken. Thats not going to happen - at least not by Barrett. There's too much mileage in playing the oppressed. Besides, if he did press charges, it would run the risk of being his McLibel case - where the damage caused by the publicity of the arguments brought out by the defence for their actions outweighs any possible benefit pressing charges would bring.

At the end of the day, Barrett was wronged in being denied to speak. Regardless of whether or not one agrees that the L+H should have invited him, the fact remains that they did so and had every right to do so. However, while Barrett himself refuses to stand up for himself in terms of being set upon, I have no sympathy for him. His refusal to press charges is an implicit acceptance that sometimes the actions which were carried out should be countenanced, which puts him in more-or-less the same boat as those who made it explicitly clear that they believe this when they prevented him from speaking.

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

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.

I’ve no doubt that it suits you for your purposes, but it is even close to a reasonable definition? TBH, given Eco’s history, that’s unlikely. Personally I find P.J. O’Rourke’s definition of Socialism very amusing and they would often coincide with my purposes, but that hardly means that it is wise to accept it as fact, given the biased nature of the author.

Ultimately, the problem with many of your views and definitions are that you appear to cherry pick them on the basis of how they may concur with your pre-existing World view as opposed to their validity or merit.

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.

A bit like the rubbish you spewed out and I challenged you to back it up (still waiting for you to do so, btw)? Serious case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

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.

And I wasn’t discussing the German government. Please try not to change the subject. I was discussing the usual rag tag sorry collection of left wing extremists who will with one hand claim to be anti-racism, and with the other hand give a platform to racists whom they will have common ground with (typically an anti-American slant). I’m sure that kind of arrangement suits them for their purposes too.

I don't recall saying anything in support of either Castro or the sandinistas.

I recall your pained refusal to in anyway condemn those regimes or their actions. It tends to dent ones moral high ground when you seem happy to turn a blind eye to violent repression when it’s done by your ideological bedfellows. I’d review that Amnesty membership if I were you.

Accusations of hypocrisy from you have no credibility unfortunately.

It must be comforting for you to think so.

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.

Actually I don’t know if you don’t like racists. I suspect you could happily share a platform with one if it suited your political purposes. So the jury is out on that one.

arcadegame2004

Originally posted by Bonkey
Now before you go off on another tirade about how unjust it is of them to even suggest that the system should be changed, I would ask youi to review the last (say) 3 to 6 months of your own posts, and either offer us an assurance that this is not hypocritical of you - that you have not once suggested that you support/favour something other than the current legal status quo, or an apology for having dared to presume that you knew what is best for the rest of us in this democratic state. Failing that, an admission of abject hypocracy would probably be your most honest third option.

At least I did not advocate violence as a means for achieving my objectives. It would be nice if some of those defending what happened to Barrett would do the same. There is every consistency in my outlook, in that I am totally opposed to the use of violence to achieve my political objectives.

dahamsta

Just noticed from bonkeys post that AC2004 replied to me. He gets to speak his piece, and I get to ignore it completely and forever simply by pressing a button. Wonderful. Coventry by technology. Now if only there was a way to do that in meatspace. I dunno, perhaps by, like, maybe, not inviting racists and bigots to public debates and giving them a platform to spout their filth? Possibly? Is that not possible? Is there a technical issue? Is this thing on?

adam

arcadegame2004

dahamsta wrote:

Just noticed from bonkeys post that AC2004 replied to me. He gets to speak his piece, and I get to ignore it completely and forever simply by pressing a button. Wonderful. Coventry by technology. Now if only there was a way to do that in meatspace. I dunno, perhaps by, like, maybe, not inviting racists and bigots to public debates and giving them a platform to spout their filth? Possibly? Is that not possible? Is there a technical issue? Is this thing on?

adam

Well at least I am not getting my head smashed in! You're learning!

bonkey

arcadegame2004 wrote:

At least I did not advocate violence as a means for achieving my objectives.

Nor did the people you criticised. Maybe you could answer the criticism I levelled you, rather than making some other stuff up to answer.

You gave out to two posters for offering opinions on the grounds that it is not their job to decide what is right/wrong for Ireland as a people. That is what I was talking about - your hypocracy in giving out to others for doing what you yoruself do.

It would be nice if some of those defending what happened to Barrett would do the same.

What? Who here has advocated the use of violence, and where?

Some have said that these people should not necessarily have the right to express an opinion in public, nut not one of them has come out and said that the correct way to implement this is through the use of violence....nor was that the stated basis for your previous objections.

There is every consistency in my outlook, in that I am totally opposed to the use of violence to achieve my political objectives.

That is not the consistency that I was referring to.

I was referring to the ionconsistency of criticising others for offering opinions on how the state should be run, when it is a pastime you engage in regularly.

Do I really need to quote your own posts back to you to explain how the english you used does not in any way suggest that you were objecting against violence, but rather that they were wrong for daring to suggest that they feel there is a better way?

Funnily though, I suspect that you actually realise all of this and have simply turned your argument this way because you cannot defend the hypocracy.

But please...continue to change your arguments to suit whatever it is you want to avoid addressing. It adds wonders to your credibility and the strength of your argument. Honest.

jc

bonkey

dahamsta wrote:

Now if only there was a way to do that in meatspace. I dunno, perhaps by, like, maybe, not inviting racists and bigots to public debates and giving them a platform to spout their filth?

I think you're confusing two seperate concepts here Adam.

You getting to ignore arcade is akin to you going to the public debate and choosing to step outside the door so as not to hear him speak when he gets his chance. You get to not hear him, and he gets to speak....just like your ignore button.

Not inviting / allowing him to speak at all is more akin to banning him outright so that no-one else can hear him.

And I'm still unclear as to whether you're suggesting that it should be illegal to invite such people, or that we simply shouldn't do it? The whole "don't give them a platform" equates either to "it should be legal, but I don't think people should do it", or "it shouldn't be legal to do it at all", and I really can't figure out which you're suggesting.

jc

dahamsta

bonkey wrote:

I think you're confusing two seperate concepts here Adam.

I'm honestly not bonkey....

You getting to ignore arcade is akin to you going to the public debate and choosing to step outside the door so as not to hear him speak when he gets his chance. You get to not hear him, and he gets to speak....just like your ignore button.

I was being facetious. Boards is nothing like an L&H debate, unless Boards is sending out invites and I didn't hear about it.

And I'm still unclear as to whether you're suggesting that it should be illegal to invite such people, or that we simply shouldn't do it? The whole "don't give them a platform" equates either to "it should be legal, but I don't think people should do it", or "it shouldn't be legal to do it at all", and I really can't figure out which you're suggesting.

I don't think the L&H Society should have invited him, and to be fair I've been pretty clear about that from the start. I don't think anything I said could be construed as suggesting that I think it should be illegal, in fact I don't think I mentioned legality at all?

adam

bonkey

dahamsta wrote:

I'm honestly not bonkey....

I was being facetious.

Maybe I just took your analagy too seriously....

I don't think the L&H Society should have invited him,
...
in fact I don't think I mentioned legality at all?

OK, but once they do invite him (as they did in this instance), where do you stand? You feel he shouldn't be there, but they clearly disagree and your position does seem to say that its up to them although you would encourage a particular decision.

So if they do invite him, then he should subsequently be allowed to speak, yes?

If not, then you are suggesting that there be something which makes it not the L+H's choice.....in other words that it effectively be illegal for them to do this.

That all makes sense, but then I see a comment from you like :

I believe that free speech, like every liberty, needs limits. Giving people like Barrett a legitimate platform, in my view, steps over that line.

If the decision if left to the L+H, then it is free speech regardless of who they choose to invite. If the decision is not left to the L+H, then it is not free speech, as tehre are rules governing who you can invite, which are based o what they have said / are likely say.

This is where I'm unclear. You think there should be a limit to free specch, but not one enforced by law? How would that work, especially if - instead of discussing a L+H organised event, we were discussing a "Barrett Educational Entertainment Inc" organised event? It wouldn't be illegal, but he shouldn't invite himself?

Are you suggesting that in a case like this, while it wouldn't be illegal for the person to speak, nor would it be illegal for someone to disruptively shut him up? Surely thats counter-productive.

I'm not trying to catch you out here...I genuinely can't see how your statements hang together. You don't want him to be allowed to speak, but you seem put out when I suggest that this means you'd want it to be illegal.

Maybe if I ask the more direct question - how do you think groups (like the L+H) should be stopped from giving Barrett a platform if you don't think he should be speaking there?

jc

dahamsta

You're getting into legality again jc, which I didn't touch. I've said quite clearly several times that I don't think UCD L&H shouldn't have invited him, which has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with choice. Since when are limits defined solely by law?

If you want me to answer the specific questions in your post I will, but with all due respect it'll be very hard to do because they're based on a grave misunderstanding of what I've been saying.

adam

bonkey

dahamsta wrote:

You're getting into legality again jc, which I didn't touch. I've said quite clearly several times that I don't think UCD L&H shouldn't have invited him, which has nothing to do with the law, it has to do with choice.

But the point is that they did invite him, and you still have an issue with him being allowed to speak.

This is what I can't understand. You say that freedom of speech should have limits, but those limits appear to be simpy that other people should choose not to give certain types a platform. Thats not a limit...it does absolutely nothing to stop Barrett (or someone else) organising their own events rather than relying on others to invite them, and so does absolutely nothing to limit his freedom of speech.

Since when are limits defined solely by law?

I'm at a loss to think of one which isn't. Anything which isn't backed by forcee of law is - at best - a recommendation rather than a limit, and has absolutely no weight behind it should someone decide to ignore it.

Again - you made reference to Barret's free speech crossing a threshold, but that threshold now seems to be little more than a token "Careful now. Down with that sort of thing" sort of one....because you don't want it legally backed.

Which then leads back to the original issue I guess, which is whether or not whoever-it-was was right to disrupt proceedings. Clearly they felt that Barrett should not be allowed speak, and they set about ensuring that he didn't.

I'm sure you're not advocating their approach, but how else do you envisage limiting freedom of speech when someone chooses to give a platform that you think shouldn't be given?

If you want me to answer the specific questions in your post I will, but with all due respect it'll be very hard to do because they're based on a grave misunderstanding of what I've been saying.

They're based on a lack of understanding, not a misunderstanding.

To me, what you've clarified yoru point as being would be akin to someone saying that they think the urban speed limits should be lowered by 20MPH....but not in law.

You're saying that you think freedom of speech (speed limit) should be limited (dropped) in certain cases (urban speed limits).....but not through a legal change.

Now, to me, as an urban driver, the legal speed limit would still be 30MPH,regardless of whether this non-legal-change came into being or not.

Similarly, I can't see how you can limit a legally-protected right without changing the law.

You obviously don't see it that way...you are in favour of a non-legally-enforced "limit" on freedom of speech - a legally protected right.

If I'm wrong in assuming that this would require a legal change, then I'm wrong....but can you please explain to me how else it could be limited?

I'm nto solely addressing whether or not he L+H should have invited Barrett. I'm addressing the quote I included in my previous post, where you clearly stated that you think allowing such people their freedom of speech is stepping over a line.....and I'm asking how you can possibly do anything about it without changing the law which gives them the right to do exactly what you have a problem with.

jc

Redleslie2

The Corinthian wrote:

<Irrelevant evasive rubbish snipped>

I recall your pained refusal to in anyway condemn those regimes or their actions. It tends to dent ones moral high ground when you seem happy to turn a blind eye to violent repression when it’s done by your ideological bedfellows. I’d review that Amnesty membership if I were you.

Er no, I (and Shotamoose I think) suggested that if you wanted to discuss Cuba or Nicaragua or anywhere else then you could go ahead and start a thread on it instead of trying to go conveniently off topic and dodge uncomfortable questions about Pinochet. Same goes for here.

Actually I don’t know if you don’t like racists. I suspect you could happily share a platform with one if it suited your political purposes. So the jury is out on that one.

Hmm, for my part I suspect that someone is rather more likely to get on with racists if they

a) believe replacing democracy with a fairly bonkers right wing dictatorship = good
and
b) believe that preventing nazis from speaking = bad.

dahamsta

bonkey wrote:

But the point is that they did invite him, and you still have an issue with him being allowed to speak.

I'm having difficulty understanding /your/ point now jc. If a Goverment minister sponsors legislation you disagree with and that legislation subsequently passes, do you immediately fail to have an issue with it any more?

bonkey wrote:

This is what I can't understand. You say that freedom of speech should have limits, but those limits appear to be simpy that other people should choose not to give certain types a platform. Thats not a limit...it does absolutely nothing to stop Barrett (or someone else) organising their own events rather than relying on others to invite them, and so does absolutely nothing to limit his freedom of speech.

It doesn't limit his freedom of speech per se, but it will most likely limit his audience. It's a different type of limit, but it's still a limit. Which is my point.

To use your own example of speed limits, people often impose limits on themselves in certain areas even if lower limits aren't posted. School zones are the obvious example, road works are another. Moreover, these non-existant limits are often policed by the public, by people waving at speeders or approaching them to tell them to slow down. Again, these are different types of limits, but still limits.

bonkey wrote:

I'm addressing the quote I included in my previous post, where you clearly stated that you think allowing such people their freedom of speech is stepping over a line

You mean this?

dahamsta wrote:

Giving people like Barrett a legitimate platform, in my view, steps over that line.

Where does it say there that I think allowing such people their freedom of speech is stepping over the line? How am I intruding on Barrett's right to free speech by saying that I don't believe he should be /given a platform/? Is the /platform/ the right? If that's the case where's my invitation? Where's yours?

adam

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

<Irrelevant evasive rubbish snipped>

This increasingly appears to be your only means of argument. Certainly you’ve made no attempt to answer points made to you, which you conveniently seem to believe are not worth answering.

Er no, I (and Shotamoose I think) suggested that if you wanted to discuss Cuba or Nicaragua or anywhere else then you could go ahead and start a thread on it instead of trying to go conveniently off topic and dodge uncomfortable questions about Pinochet. Same goes for here.

What do you mean “er no”? I said here that you were at pains to avoid or refuse to condemn those regimes and you did. What do you think claiming that something is “off topic” as a means to rule it out is, especially given you’re had no difficulty introducing an off topic discussion from another thread here.

My point there, and here for that matter, is that the double standard that will condemn individuals and groups of one political persuasion for actions while those of another are not condemned for the same actions raises doubt towards the integrity of those making the condemnations and ultimately towards those condemnations.

Hmm, for my part I suspect that someone is rather more likely to get on with racists if they

a) believe replacing democracy with a fairly bonkers right wing dictatorship = good
and
b) believe that preventing nazis from speaking = bad.

All very reminiscent of four legs good, two legs bad.

SkepticOne

Who the L&H decides to invite is their business. We are all entitled to our opinions on the motivations of the L&H in choosing Barret or the appropriateness of the choice but they are entitled to that choice.

The AFA scored a massive own goal in preventing Barret from speaking. Far from their "no platform for fascists" policy, they have inadvertantly handed Barret a much larger platform. Now he can go on the radio complaining of being denied freedom of speech - a far larger platform than a rubbish little student debating society.

Do the AFA really care about defeating racism and facism enough to actually think about what they are doing? I'm tempted to believe that these poeple are actually planted by the far right to undermine the credibility of their opponents.

The whole thing reminds me of the pro-hunt protesters in the British house of commons and seems to be part of a general trend of idiot protest.

dahamsta

SkepticOne wrote:

The AFA scored a massive own goal in preventing Barret from speaking.

This I agree with, and I hope there's been no misunderstanding of my beliefs on this score!

adam

The Corinthian

The problem with the policy of denying ‘Nazis’ a platform to speak is twofold. Firstly, you are relying, typically on a group of self-appointed vigilantes - come political extremists, to tell you who is acceptable and who is not. Secondly, suppression of such arguments automatically grants a certain level of legitimacy to them. For example David Irving (the revisionist historian who has in the past denied that the holocaust occurred) was due to speak in UCD about ten years ago. The debate was cancelled after pressure from the college (it was an election year for the UCD presidency, after all) and numerous demonstrations / threats of violence from the usual suspects (ANL, AFA, RA, SWP, etc.). Result? Many began to ask if there wasn’t something to what this man was saying, given his arguments were so dangerous that we could not be exposed to them. The reality is that while he is actually not a bad historian on the period in general, his arguments and evidence for the debunking of the holocaust are highly suspect to even the untrained eye.

And the same goes for someone like Barrett. Many now will sympathise with the man given he was effectively bullied by a bunch of thugs. And is he a Nazi? Of course, he may well be a Nazi, and a racist, and a closet member of the UKIP for all we know. Unfortunately, our main evidence for his political orientation seems to come from the usual suspects, but we’re hardly going to take their word for it, are we?

The core issue with denying such (or any) individuals a platform is that those who do so are for rather disingenuous motivations. Ultimately, with extremist groups, be they far left or right, is that they will often define themselves in terms of little more than conflict. Just look at either far left or right - we’re talking about skinheads in bomber jackets and Doc Martins - indeed, a member of RA (and actually a very nice person socially) once confessed to me that the colour of the shoelaces was one of the principle differences in uniform between the two extremes.

So really it’s all about Communists (or Socialists) versus Nazis (or Fascists). The racism thing is just a convenient hook for the middle ground to hang their coats on. That’s ultimately why such anti-racism groups will happily speak alongside radical Muslim clerics who will preach that killing a Jew will guarantee you a place in paradise - because it’s not really about racism. Much the same reason that the same individuals will scream “down with Pinochet” and simultaneously cry out “hands off Castro” - even though Castro would probably put Pinochet in the shade on the issue of human rights abuse. You’ll find such inconsistencies and double standards throughout.

In the end, racism, human rights abuse, immigration, third world exploitation, etc are really just side issues (I’m not saying that they are not valid issues, only that for the extremists they are ultimately only side issues). It’s really about the unending political conflict that defines these extremists.

You might say that denying Barrett a platform was an own goal. For them it wasn’t; it provided them with a skirmish in the conflict that defines them and probably even got them a new recruit or two.

In a twisted sort of way, it’s only business.

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

Unfortunately, our main evidence for his political orientation seems to come from the usual suspects, but we’re hardly going to take their word for it, are we?

Funny you should say that, becuase earlier in this thread you were happy to take the word of the "usual suspects" to support your argument.

http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/2321

Presented by you in this post

The Corinthian wrote:

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 might Workers Liberty stand for? Here's a snippet from an article on their site:

As Le Pen and Griffin prepared to leave and the protesters moved into position to stop them, the police protected the fascists. From door to car, to car park exit, to the street, the fascists and the police struggled to edge forward. Banners, eggs, fruit, and bodies blocked their path. Police and the private-hire fascist thugs were stretched to their limits.

The entourage was delayed, the car battered, windscreen wipers snapped off, the car park barrier bent back. One of the rent-a-muscles was left bleeding from the head. It’s fair to say the “warm welcome” promised to Le Pen was not to be had in Manchester.

The Corinthian

therecklessone wrote:

Funny you should say that, becuase earlier in this thread you were happy to take the word of the "usual suspects" to support your argument.

In fairness I was just Googling for an article that highlighted some of those double standards and that was the first one I found. I don’t deny that Workers Liberty is another one of these ga-ga extremist groups.

therecklessone

The Corinthian wrote:

In fairness I was just Googling for an article that highlighted some of those double standards and that was the first one I found. I don’t deny that Workers Liberty is another one of these ga-ga extremist groups.

I accept that, but its still quite amusing you know...

I mean, on a thread in which you argue that

The Corinthian wrote:

It’s really about the unending political conflict that defines these extremists.

(and I agree with you by the way), its rather amusing to see you fall into the same trap. For a start, you lambaste the SWP/ANL:

The Corinthian wrote:

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.

when it was Red Action/AFA who intervened in the proceedings:

Anti Fascist Action (AFA) wishes to state that we are the organisation which prevented the fascist Justin Barrett from speaking at an 'Immigration Debate' in University College Dublin last night. A number of other people attending the event also joined us in preventing a platform being granted to Barrett.

AFA has a policy of 'No Platform' for fascists, which means that anyone attempting to organise fascist or racist political groups will not be permitted to do so. We believe in political and ideological opposition to the far right, and have been active in Ireland for the past 12 years.

The 'No Platform' policy relates to ANYWHERE fascists may attempt to organise or spread their repugnant views. It is quite humourous to hear spokespeople for debating societies attempting to claim UCD as an ideological asylum where the likes of Justin Barrett can claim sanctuary. This is not the case.

Then you cite a dodgy left-wing website as proof of the "dodgy" dealings of the SWP. Seems like you're more interested in attacking your own political adversaries than debating the issue at hand. Sound familiar?

The Corinthian

therecklessone wrote:

I accept that, but its still quite amusing you know...

The source was just sloppiness upon my part and mainly meant to reference that the SWP had happily shared a platform with an Islamic extremist, rather than the editorial slant per say. A more respectable source would be the Times.

For a start, you lambaste the SWP/ANL ... when it was Red Action/AFA who intervened in the proceedings:

Partially correct. The SWP/ANL also actively opposed Barrett speaking, however they tend to be slightly less violent than RA/AFA on account of their being composed of middle class kids on some romantic guilt trip. Thus when they came to the crunch they probably were happy to (mutedly) cheer RA/AFA from the cheap seats at the back.

Then you cite a dodgy left-wing website as proof of the "dodgy" dealings of the SWP. Seems like you're more interested in attacking your own political adversaries than debating the issue at hand. Sound familiar?

In fairness, that’s really the topic of this thread - the skinheads causing havoc on this occasion were left-wing ones. However, I take your point and there is a significant amount of hypocrisy on both sides.

therecklessone

All this talk of RedAction and the SWP and Workers Liberty got me chuckling...

REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fu*king Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah...
JUDITH: Splitters.
P.F.J.: Splitters...
FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG: What?
LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG: We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG: People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG: He's over there.
P.F.J.: Splitter!

bonkey

dahamsta wrote:

I'm having difficulty understanding /your/ point now jc. If a Goverment minister sponsors legislation you disagree with and that legislation subsequently passes, do you immediately fail to have an issue with it any more?

No, but I will have an issue with the legislation and feel that the legislation is what needs to be changed.

You seem/seemed to be saying that you disagree with the legislation, but didn't want it changed (or weren't suggesting that it be changed). And maybe you don't even have a problem with the legislation...

It doesn't limit his freedom of speech per se,

Now things are becoming clearer...

To use your own example of speed limits, people often impose limits on themselves in certain areas even if lower limits aren't posted. School zones are the obvious example, road works are another.

Imposing a limit on yourself is like saying that the likes of Barrett shouldn't allow themselves to be invited (or shouldn't accept invitations) to events such as the L+H.

Alternately, placing a limit on others - as is also done at schools/roadworks etc. can be done in a manner whereby the posted limit is, or is not legally binding.

These two situations are akin to people putting limits on Barrett.

Moreover, these non-existant limits are often policed by the public, by people waving at speeders or approaching them to tell them to slow down.

If the limit isn't legally binding, then its telling nothing to anyone. Its politely asking, and you're legally not culpable if you choose to ignore it. So it only effects those who wish to be limited. I'm pretty sure that Mr. Barrett doesn't fall into this group.

If the limit is legally binding, then it is an actual limit as others (Barrett) will be limited by it, or in breach of the law.

Again, these are different types of limits, but still limits.

I would still argue that the only case where the limit will effect Barrett is where it is a legally-binding one. Anything else either doesn't effect him, or is simply an expression that you wish the world was full of people who thnk and behave differently to what they do at present (i.e. that the L+H would freely choose not to invite Barrett). Neither is a limit in my book, but I guess we'll just have to differ on that.

You mean this?

No, I meant the full quote that I posted. The bit you quoted there, and the line before it. If we include the line you omitted, what you said was :

I believe that free speech, like every liberty, needs limits. Giving people like Barrett a legitimate platform, in my view, steps over that line.

This is the bit that was confusing me. You've now clarified that by saying that what you're talking about isn't a limit per se...which would seem to mean that "the line" that Barrett stepped over isn't a line per se either that should be firmly drawn.

You see, for me, free speech most certainly does need limits. Slander, libel, reckleess endangerment, incitement to hatred....all of these things should not be subservient to the right to say what you want.

But when I would talk about the limits fo free speech...thats what I'd be thinking of - the limits that actually exist which determine what is, and is not, acceptable as free speech. So saying that giving/allowing Barrett a legitimate platform to speak from is crossing that line would (for me) mean that he should be denied that platform, just like we have drawn the line so that libel, slander etc. are over it at present.

Where does it say there that I think allowing such people their freedom of speech is stepping over the line?

Well, you say he shouldn't have a legitimate platform. I read that as meaning that he should not have any legitimate platform because if he only has one, then no matter what it is, he still has "a legitimate platform".

Unless I misread that (or you misphrased it), then that most certainly does infringe on his freedom of speech, because no matter where he tries speaking in public, its classifiable as a platform, and therefore either legitimate (which you don't think he should have access to) or illegitimate (which, by definition, he shouldn't have access to).

Is the /platform/ the right? If that's the case where's my invitation? Where's yours?

Its not about the invitation...its the right to be given one, and the right to accept one should it be given. The L+H should be free to invite whomsoever they choose, and having issued that decision, the person invited should not be prevented from accepting by some law which denies them the right to speak.

IN short:
saying that the L+H shouldn't be allowed to invite Barrett would be an abrogation of his freedom of speech.
Saying that the L+H shouldn't have invited Barrett isn't a limit on anything...its nothing more than a hope or wish that people would behave differently of their own free will.

Your initial statements seemed to come somewhere in between the two. From what I gather, you seem to be saying that its the latter and not the former, except that you call your wish that more people thought like you a limit...

jc

dahamsta

bonkey wrote:

You seem/seemed to be saying that you disagree with the legislation, but didn't want it changed (or weren't suggesting that it be changed). And maybe you don't even have a problem with the legislation...

Using legislation as an example was probably a bad idea. That's all it was, an example. I wasn't talking about legislation literally.

Imposing a limit on yourself is like saying that the likes of Barrett shouldn't allow themselves to be invited (or shouldn't accept invitations) to events such as the L+H.

Indeed, but I wasn't talking about Barrett, I was talking about the organisers of this debate.

Alternately, placing a limit on others - as is also done at schools/roadworks etc. can be done in a manner whereby the posted limit is, or is not legally binding.

Again, indeed. And again, I'm wasn't discussing legality in any way, shape or form, you're the one that brought that to the table. I was talking about self-imposed limits, moral or ethical, or whatever you want to call them yourself. Common-sense would be my preferred term. Of course that would be suggesting that the organisers of the debate don't have common sense, whereas I'd be more inclined to think they knew exactly what they were doing.

You see, for me, free speech most certainly does need limits.

And I wouldn't argue with that either. Slander and libel certainly need to legislated for, although they're most definitely not handled very well in Ireland. Reckless endangerment and incitement to violence too. Hatred is a dodgy one in my view because hatred is so difficult to pin down, but we won't fall out over that. But yes, we need limits, and some of those limits have to be written into law. I don't think it's feasible to define all of the limits in law though, and I think in some cases we need to leave society to it's own devices. Perhaps in this case that system has failed.

On the subject of the platform, I don't think I'm denying Barrett a platform, I'm simply suggesting that he shouldn't be offered one, particularly a(n apparently) prestigious one like L&H. We shouldn't make it easy for people like Barratt, which is most certainly not the same as saying we should physically stop him from using a platform he has been offered. I would simply prefer that he hadn't been offered that platform in the first place, which is what I've been trying to say all along.

It all seems to have gotten very complicated along the way though, which I'm sure will amuse Barrett no end, since it's this kind of discord he intentionally tried to sow. It distracts people from talking about the real issue: Justin Barratt.


adam