David Irving to speak in NUI Galway

Het-Field

brianthebard wrote: »

What business is it of yours so if he protests?

Protests are fine...and I fully expect them. Its a business of mine if he encourages an act of assault against another Human Being. Where is the line drawn between vaild assault and invalid assault. Blurring the line could be a very dangerous thing

OhNoYouDidn't

Het-Field wrote: »

Protests are fine...and I fully expect them. Its a business of mine if he encourages an act of assault against another Human Being. Where is the line drawn between vaild assault and invalid assault. Blurring the line could be a very dangerous thing

Look, I 100% understand yourself and Corianthian on this. I have appointed myself a moral guardian and censor here and that is not a particularly good thing. There are dangerous potential outcomes to my approach here.

But I will make a stand on Nazi's and holocaust deniars who do so to sanitise the Third Reich with a view to increasing the possibilty of the fourth and feel quite justified in doing so. It as an extraodinary danger requiring extraordinary response.

Someone mentioned Justin Barratt. A dangerous little twerp, but a different league to Irving. I would not defend denying him a platform.

My final word to Corinthian. Much as I hate to clash swords with a fellow Gaiman fan, your condescending tone towords me and the 'plebs' does you no favours.

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I am 100% serious.

Physically stop him getting on the stage and then seek a proper explainiation as to what brain surgeon invited him to NUIG and hold them accountable.

If I didn't know any better, looking at this statement I would wonder what are you trying to avoid being exposed. You should notice you are making a disservice to your cause.

OhNoYouDidn't

Zynks wrote: »

If I didn't know any better, looking at this statement I would wonder what are you trying to avoid being exposed. You should notice you are making a disservice to your cause.

Exposed?

Proven lies about the Holocaust, Hitlers role in it and an attempt to favourably compare Allied actions during the war like Dresden to Axis ones like Auschwitz which is what he does.

He calls Ann Franks diary a forgery ffs.

Thats what I don't feel falls under the 'freedom of speech' bracket. And you know the rest.

People may disagree with the no free speech for Nazi's line, but don't pretentend you don't understand it.

Kama

I don't understand it; I find it logically incoherent, it translates as 'no free speech for stuff I happen not to like' tbqfh. I think it's more honest and coherent to say that one isn't for free speech, than to qualify it with 'except Nazis'. Arguing that its a singular incomparable case also seems misguided and difficult to support: no free speech for Terrarist, Zionists, Anarchists, insert your group of choice.

Yet the strongest argument for me is that pragmatic one: ban them, and you grant them mystique, grant them the position of the victim, and create an impression that their arguments are so strong that they can't be refuted. As far as I can tell, Irvings career and livelihood now relies on him exploiting his 'controversial' or 'banned' nature. Student groups with little imagination of what a 'radical' statement is invite him, equally imagination-limited groups call for him to be beaten the crap out of.

Everyone wins, YAY! :rolleyes:

In my epeenion, the 'platform' and 'intellectual capital' is being given him by the 'No platform for Nazis' approach; it's seems quite counter-productive to me. Rather than 'starving them of oxygen', it's a little more like mushrooms tbh; keep em in the dark and feed them sh1t, and they keep growing...

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Exposed?

Proven lies about the Holocaust, Hitlers role in it and an attempt to favourably compare Allied actions during the war like Dresden to Axis ones like Auschwitz which is what he does.

He calls Ann Franks diary a forgery ffs.

Thats what I don't feel falls under the 'freedom of speech' bracket. And you know the rest.

People may disagree with the no free speech for Nazi's line, but don't pretentend you don't understand it.

I started with "If I didn't know any better". i.e., if I was a student that didn't spend much time looking into certain aspects of history I would wonder what's with your intolerance.

If I just saw this attitude I would become far more interested in finding out why this guy is being censored by people who claim to be supporters of freedom of speech. You will do much more for your cause if you go to the session to argument and destroy the guy's message with valid and well constructed argumentation.

By censoring and threatening him you are giving him the image of the oppressed underdog.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Look, I 100% understand yourself and Corianthian on this. I have appointed myself a moral guardian and censor here and that is not a particularly good thing. There are dangerous potential outcomes to my approach here.

But I will make a stand on Nazi's and holocaust deniars who do so to sanitise the Third Reich with a view to increasing the possibilty of the fourth and feel quite justified in doing so. It as an extraodinary danger requiring extraordinary response.

Someone mentioned Justin Barratt. A dangerous little twerp, but a different league to Irving. I would not defend denying him a platform.

My final word to Corinthian. Much as I hate to clash swords with a fellow Gaiman fan, your condescending tone towords me and the 'plebs' does you no favours.

But if you look at it this way. In February 2008 David Iriving was given a platform to a potential 4 million citizens. He aired his views over 20 or so minutes. In the months subsequent, we have not seen one iota of evience that his appearence has brough Ireland more to the far right. In fact since the economic crisis began, the scene has been ripe for all kind of mad anti immigrant nut jobs to air their prejudiced greviences about the credit crunch, and whos fault it was. In reality, not even Aine Ni Chonaill and her "pressure group" the Immigration Control Platform have appeared.

I have not seen or heard of the rise of any Neo Nzi activity on Dublin's streets, nor have I heard of any clandstine plans for marches or rallys !

The wonderful thing about history is hindsight. I am always open to new views on the scale of the holocaust....but I will never deny it. There is unequivocale proof that it occured, and it is vital that we learn about it. It is highly unlikely that there will be any "fourth reich". So I suggest you dont loose any sleep over Iriving's appearence ata debate, which may not even be that well attended

brianthebard

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't say this to stir shít, but I wonder if you actually studied the holocaust or fascism at university df, because if you had you should be familiar with the fact that those sort of questions are still asked in academia. No one here who said they don't want Irving to visit Galway are saying the holocaust is beyond revision. But it is beyond negation.

Also to say that Germany Austria and others will not allow the holocaust to be revised is nonsense, holocaust denial laws are not holocaust no you can't research and question the facts laws.

regards free speech, one of the "compelling" arguments for bringing him to the uni was so that the collective could berate him and his views. There was no question of debate, or of considering his opinions. Why would there be? at no point did the yes side say his views should be heard because they are equally valid as a real historian. That's because they are not.

DeVore

Ironically if you silence him by force, you do a great deal more to revive the ideals of the Third Reich then that muppet ever will.

DeV.

DeVore

DeVore wrote: »

Ironically if you silence him by force, you do a great deal more to revive the ideals of the Third Reich then that muppet ever will.

DeV.

QFT.

When I was in UCC this exact same debate kicked off. I think anyone who doesn't realise that silencing the voices of those that we disagree with is tantamount to fascism has a deluded sense of freedom.

nesf

Ironically if a big song and dance wasn't made about the man then the vast majority of the country wouldn't even know he was speaking in NUIG again. I've never understood why groups that want to prevent the spread of a particular viewpoint, give said viewpoint so much free publicity.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

brianthebard

What did you say about adult responses before? Also if you did then you know that most of your own argument is invalid.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

nesf wrote: »

I've never understood why groups that want to prevent the spread of a particular viewpoint, give said viewpoint so much free publicity.

As far as radical groups such as the ANL-SWP are concerned, it increases memberships, gives them a platform, sells papers.

As to how organizations like the ADL benefit; some such Norman Finkelstein has been very critical, and so have subsequently been targeted politically.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You have dodged this one, so I'll ask again. On the basis he is not an academic and is not presenting a paper to academics, what 'academic inquiry' and 'academic freedom' are you trying to protect?

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

As far as radical groups such as the ANL-SWP are concerned, it increases memberships, gives them a platform, sells papers.

As to how organizations like the ADL benefit; some such Norman Finkelstein has been very critical, and so have subsequently been targeted politically.

So its those greedy commies and crazy Jews? :rolleyes:

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

So its those greedy commies and crazy Jews? :rolleyes:

Yes, let's oversimplify everything as clichés.

Is Finkelstein a sane Jew then? Maybe Stalinists are more altruistic than those money-grubbing Trots?

Zynks

OhNoYouDidn't, your views are too intolerant.

At least respect the fact that UCG students have freely decided to invite Irving to speak, and he has freely accepted. It is not your call if this should go ahead or not.

Your freedom goes as far as it doesn't undermine other people's rights. All the people involved are adults that are capable of making their own minds, and don't require censorship nor babysitting.

It really is that simple.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

mountainyman

Freedom333 wrote: »

Hi there, I'm a newbie to all this, but I thought that it would be a good place to have views aired on the matter. If you weren't already aware, David Irving is a historian of sorts, a definite Holocaust denier, and a definite anti semite. He has written numerous book on the second world war, focusing primarily on the Nazi Party and it's leaders.
He has been invited to speak in NUI Galway this year. It was decided by vote by the student body that he should be allowed come to speak. I'm wondering what you guys think about it. Will anyone be going there, be it to listen or protest?

I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. Show Irving up for the liar and lunatic that he is.

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which goes back to my original point. There is no actual academic reason for him to be there, rather this is controversy for its own sake. Some jumped up twerp in the debating club is using college funds to invite this guy over to create a name for themselves relying on the fact that misguided 'liberals' will defend this Nazis right to propagandise.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yet you still refer to him as having academic legitimicy.....

No Free Speech for Nazis.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

P. Breathnach

mountainyman wrote: »

I believe sunlight is the best disinfectant. Show Irving up for the liar and lunatic that he is.

The problem with that is that it can be very difficult. To take him on, one needs to be familiar with his work, with other work dealing with those times, and have knowledge of any lies he told about what is in primary sources that he says he has inspected. And then be able to deal with any lies he chooses to tell on the day.

Much of the work of refuting or disproving what Irving has said has been done by historians or journalists. I am not sure that the average, or any, member of the Lit & Deb is equipped to take Irving on, nor is it a reasonable burden for any of them to undertake.

Truth is more important than free speech. If you allow free speech to somebody who has been shown to be a liar, then you should also ensure that there is somebody present who is well-equipped to challenge what he says. I think it is incumbent on the Lit & Deb to invite and give equal speaking rights to a serious Irving critic.

Het-Field

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which goes back to my original point. There is no actual academic reason for him to be there, rather this is controversy for its own sake. Some jumped up twerp in the debating club is using college funds to invite this guy over to create a name for themselves relying on the fact that misguided 'liberals' will defend this Nazis right to propagandise.



Yet you still refer to him as having academic legitimicy.....

No Free Speech for Nazis.

Debating societies are reputed to be a bastion of liberal discourse. The validity of one's arguments are irrelevant. As far as i am concerned people like Joe Higgins, Richard Boyd Barrett, and Jackie O Conner have got things completely wrong. At one point the former leader of the CPI (a Stalinist), was allowed speak in UCD. There were no protests, and his ideology is one of the greatest failures of all time. However, that doesnt mean that they shouldnt be heard. If NUIG wished to employ him as a lecturer, I would be concerned, but a private society wish to give him 7 mins of speaking time. What is wrong with that. His presence, more than his words will have a lasting effect(but in reality it will be soon forgotten like his Late Late Show appearence)

I dispise the manner in which you condemn "liberals" who purport to confer a right for Irving to air his views, and a right for students to listen to those views. I assume that you view yourself as some kind of liberal. But you cannot be a liberal if you cannot agree to free speech all round.

No Free Speech for Fascists is a savage hypocracy

OhNoYouDidn't

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You are entirely missing the point. I have said before that I have no problem with extremists, alleged or otherwise. I have a problem with convicted Nazi's who happen to be proven liars. If you think that makes me a fascist, well I hope the weather is better on your planet than it is here.

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

But you will not get a fiery and vigorous public debate in the UCG debating society. Thats the problem. The chap is discredited, has been debunked and disproven yet carrys on with the same old lies. Its far deeper than ahorrent opinions unfortunatly. The only purpose his visit serves is some student hack gets to make a name for himself.

OhNoYouDidn't

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Truth is more important than free speech.

Amen to that.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If you allow free speech to somebody who has been shown to be a liar, then you should also ensure that there is somebody present who is well-equipped to challenge what he says. I think it is incumbent on the Lit & Deb to invite and give equal speaking rights to a serious Irving critic.

Which they won't because the object of this excercise is not a serious exploration of his views or the broader idea of holocause revisionism, its some 'mad' student hack creating as much controversy as possible.

There is no legitimate academic reason for this Nazi to speak.

O'Morris

P. Breathnach wrote:

Truth is more important than free speech.

I think freedom is far more important than truth. I'd much rather live in a country in which everyone believed the world was flat than live in a country where people are prevented from expressing their opinions.

P. Breathnach wrote:

If you allow free speech to somebody who has been shown to be a liar

Has David Irving been shown to be a liar? What did has he lied about in the past?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.