David Irving to speak in NUI Galway

nesf

The Corinthian wrote: »

This is actually the point although it is very easy to just fall into the trap of debating endlessly and pointlessly with a bunch of middle class kids who still think that the proletarian revolution is round the corner.

Which is why generally I don't get involved much in online arguments about Irving or Palestine etc.

Zynks

Het-Field wrote: »

He didnt end up in jail for being a "liar". He ended up in jail as a result of he PC brigade in Austria, who are attempting to make amends, in a silly and stupid way. People like Deborah Lipstadh, who had beaten Irving in a libel case even spoke against his imprisonment, despite her utter contempt for the man.

Yes, I remember that. And even if the jail term was justifiable (not arguing either way on that), the idea is that once you pay your time, you are entitled to a fresh start.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's the work of all who are involved in philosophic thought, and is an ongoing process. It would take too long to explain.

At a relatively simplistic level, it can be easier to decide what constitutes a lie, and a lie in inimical to truth.

I love philosophy, but your attempt to use it to reason that you know what the truth is and therefore Irving should be gagged is laughable.

I think it is clear enough that gagging Irving would be wrong. I will now try to exit this discussion re-quoting my earlier comment that was largely ignored.

Zynks wrote: »

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.

Peace!

P. Breathnach

The Corinthian wrote: »

Then you would not oppose that he be forced to publicly defend his views against suitably qualified academics in open and public debate?

That's almost what I said in my first post. It's disingenuous to put it as if you have just winkled it out of me in argument. The detail on which I would cavil is that he merits the attention of "suitably qualified academics". That could imply more standing than he has or deserves: Irving is not an academic; he is an energetic amateur.

The flaw in such an argument is that if 'truth' is more important than free speech then you cannot research the matter. Correction, you can research the matter only so far as you are allowed, with material that would support an official (a.k.a. 'truth') view, but that's about it.

You are constructing a false dichotomy. I never said that any idea of truth should obviate the right to free speech. The principal justification for freedom of speech is that it can assist the search for truth. But free speech is debased when it is confined to some people only, or when people are given more opportunity to speak than those who disagree with them, or when questionable claims are not subjected to fair challenge.

Truth is a higher ideal than freedom of speech.

In the interests of truth, are you prepared to acknowledge that you distorted my position?

P. Breathnach

Zynks wrote: »

I love philosophy, but your attempt to use it to reason that you know what the truth is and therefore Irving should be gagged is laughable.

I never said or suggested that Irving be gagged. I never said or suggested that I know the truth (although I am happy to say that I value truth and truthfulness).

If you wish to debate with me, you should deal with what I say.

nesf

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's almost what I said in my first post. It's disingenuous to put it as if you have just winkled it out of me in argument. The detail on which I would cavil is that he merits the attention of "suitably qualified academics". That could imply more standing than he has or deserves: Irving is not an academic; he is an energetic amateur.



You are constructing a false dichotomy. I never said that any idea of truth should obviate the right to free speech. The principal justification for freedom of speech is that it can assist the search for truth. But free speech is debased when it is confined to some people only, or when people are given more opportunity to speak than those who disagree with them, or when questionable claims are not subjected to fair challenge.

Truth is a higher ideal than freedom of speech.

In the interests of truth, are you prepared to acknowledge that you distorted my position?

*gets out the popcorn*

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That could imply more standing than he has or deserves: Irving is not an academic; he is an energetic amateur.

Better that than to imply academic snobbery.

In the interests of truth, are you prepared to acknowledge that you distorted my position?

Well, I suppose so on the first point, although in fairness your meaning did not come across as well as in your clarification, so it was not intentional.

As for the second point, I'd have to think on it and TBH I've already frittered away far too much time on this thread, so I'll concede it by default.

OhNoYouDidn't

The Corinthian wrote: »

Toys out of the pram time, I see.

Take from it what you want, you will anyway.

You are the only person who has resorted to personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation of others positions.

nesf

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You are the only person who has resorted to personal attacks and deliberate misrepresentation of others positions.

Throwing around statements like "defending Nazis" isn't exactly accurately representing people's positions either mate.

bonkey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I appreciate its a cliché, but I think this is apt.

When they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;

And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;

And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
up

But when they came for the Holocaust denialists and Nazi supporters, you didn't speak up because you were cheering them on from the sidelines...

OhNoYouDidn't

bonkey wrote: »

But when they came for the Holocaust denialists and Nazi supporters, you didn't speak up because you were cheering them on from the sidelines...

Correct. And making no apologies for it.

dresden8

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Meanwhile he should not be afforded the very free speech he wants to remove.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Good man. Lucky I believe in free speech so won't report that one.

Apparently your commitment to free speech is quite conditional upon your own whims.

Anyway, if people weren't jumping up and down about Irving he wouldn't have been invited to speak, and even if he was, nobody would be interested in attending.

Your anger, ire and call to action have at least guaranteed him an audience and when he gets shuffled out the door for his own safety you have confirmed his status as a martyr, proving you have something to hide or the people shouldn't be allowed to hear his dangerous truths, or such.

Well done.

(You're not an agent provocateur promoting the event are you?)

bonkey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Correct. And making no apologies for it.

So when it comes down to it...in your form of the cliché, it should have ended like this...

"And then they came for me, it didn't matter whether or not there was anyone left to defend me, because the crowd baying for my blood from the sidelines was loud enough."

I find the wide-reaching implications of your attitude as repellant as Irving's, to be honest. I will, however, always stand up for your right to air your repellant view publically, so that I have the chance to point out just how repellant it is.

OhNoYouDidn't

bonkey wrote: »

So when it comes down to it...in your form of the cliché, it should have ended like this...

"And then they came for me, it didn't matter whether or not there was anyone left to defend me, because the crowd baying for my blood from the sidelines was loud enough."

Its got nothing whatsoever to do with the volume of the crowd. You make it sound like I'm the first person to advocate direct action against Nazi's.

bonkey wrote: »

I find the wide-reaching implications of your attitude as repellant as Irving's, to be honest. I will, however, always stand up for your right to air your repellant view publically, so that I have the chance to point out just how repellant it is.

Which was why I made it very clear in an earlier post that I am reluctant to take that stance and explicitly limit myself to Nazis. There is nothing at all wide reaching about my stance.

Reading what has been posted makes the debate a lot more fluid....

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which was why I made it very clear in an earlier post that I am reluctant to take that stance and explicitly limit myself to Nazis. There is nothing at all wide reaching about my stance.

So no problem with Falangists or Fascists then?

DeVore

Perhaps I'm the only one not slinging poo from their dugouts but I have a genuine question for OhNoYouDidn't.


You clearly consider that there are topics you will physically intervene to stop the debate of (I hate to state your position but that seems to be clear to me from your posts).

That is, you seem clear about that from the comment: "Correct. And making no apologies for it. "

Ok. Presuming that is accurate (and please correct me there if it isnt), but does that extend to all of us or is it just this topic or topics you consider sufficently outrageous which can be opposed thus.

I'll explain further.

I have strong views on what should and shouldnt be said in public, civil conversations. This site reflects those views by and large. Lets presume I have a bee in my bonnet about topic X (I cant think of a good example off hand but lets pretend).

Person Y is coming to give a talk on X and I vehemently oppose it. Do you think its acceptable for me to physically disrupt that talk?

If we fill in "revisionism" for X and Irving for Y then obviously you seem to agree.
But what if its "I.D. being taught instead of genetics" for X and me for Y do you still agree?


So I guess my basic question is: Do you think its acceptable for me to physically disrupt a talk promoting the teaching ID in school instead of genetics.

What if its a "NAMBLA" style organisation preaching love between man and boy?

I'm trying to get an idea from you of where the boundaries are.

I'm genuinely interested in your answer as I think it might enlighten us (and , god forbid, you ) about your stance.

DeV.

RDM_83

Every country has laws that curtail freedom of speech (libel etc) because if we have freedom of speech we should have freedom to lie?

Anyway point is this discussion is in the Irish context and their is some pretty restrictive legislation on the books so all the philosphy is irrelevant

Below is taken from offences against the state act (1939) still applicable, that impacts pretty massively on your freedom of speech, also any garda above the rank of superintendent's opinion counts as evidence.

the expression "treasonable document" includes a document which relates directly or indirectly to the commission of treason; the expression "seditious document" includes—

[GA] ( a ) a document consisting of or containing matter calculated or tending to undermine the public order or the authority of the State, and

[GA] ( b ) a document which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the government functioning under the Constitution is not the lawful government of the State or that there is in existence in the State any body or organisation not functioning under the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as being the government of the country, and

[GA] ( c ) a document which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the military forces maintained under the Constitution are not the lawful military forces of the State, or that there is in existence in the State a body or organisation not established and maintained by virtue of the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as a military force, and

[GA] ( d ) a document in which words, abbreviations, or symbols referable to a military body are used in referring to an unlawful organisation;


ps I think he should be allowed to speak (i just hope the society aren't paying too much)
and to level comparisons between Chomsky and Irving relies on somebody not reading that wikipedia link nothing on it is in anyway similar to the controversies involved in Irving

bonkey

DeVore wrote: »

I have strong views on what should and shouldnt be said in public, civil conversations. This site reflects those views by and large. Lets presume I have a bee in my bonnet about topic X (I cant think of a good example off hand but lets pretend).

Person Y is coming to give a talk on X and I vehemently oppose it. Do you think its acceptable for me to physically disrupt that talk?

This would be in line with the "wide-ranging implications" that I was hinting at, which ONYD seems to believe doesn't exist.

The base justification of ONYD's stance can be one of two things:

"If I feel strongly enough about something, its acceptable for me to act on it as I see fit"

or

"I anyone feels strongly enough about something, its acceptable for them to act on it as they see fit."

The latter of these, to be honest, would justify the very things he's complaining about, and could pretty-much serve as justification for just-about anything.

If Irving feels strongly enough about his position, then its ok for him to talk about it
If ONYD feels strongly enough about Irving, then its ok for him to advocate anything up to and including physical actions against Irving.
If someone else feels strongly enough about ONYD, then its ok for them to do whatever they like to ONYD for taking that position...

...and so on and so forth.

The alternate is that we elevate either ONYD or this particular issue on to some sort of pedestal and say that they are a "special case" and that they somehow deserve special consideration. I dislike pedestals.

conlonbmw

Zynks wrote: »

And who decides what the truth is? Would you mind explaining the process?

The truth is decided by whomever wins.

Blair Bush and Mugabe are all lairs and mass murrrderrers, yet all are allowed to exist.

The Nazi's only killed a fraction of the people christianity has.

Over half the people murdered by Nazi's were not Jews.

Do I need to list Colonization issues.

P. Breathnach

conlonbmw wrote: »

The truth is decided by whomever wins.

That's not true.

Zynks

OK, have to comment on this bit (more interesting than the main discussion going on)

RDM_83 wrote: »

Every country has laws that curtail freedom of speech (libel etc) because if we have freedom of speech we should have freedom to lie?

Libel is not a restriction of freedom to speech, it is about verifying if you have abused your rights by infringing someone else's rights. Yes, we have the right to lie. Don't politicians do it all the time? It becomes an issue when what you say unfairly causes harm, distress, offense, etc. Basically the limits of your rights start where the next person's start. That is not curtailing, that is common sense for an operational society.

RDM_83 wrote: »

Anyway point is this discussion is in the Irish context and their is some pretty restrictive legislation on the books so all the philosphy is irrelevant

Below is taken from offences against the state act (1939) still applicable, that impacts pretty massively on your freedom of speech, also any garda above the rank of superintendent's opinion counts as evidence.

the expression "treasonable document" includes a document which relates directly or indirectly to the commission of treason; the expression "seditious document" includes—

[GA] ( a ) a document consisting of or containing matter calculated or tending to undermine the public order or the authority of the State, and

[GA] ( b ) a document which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the government functioning under the Constitution is not the lawful government of the State or that there is in existence in the State any body or organisation not functioning under the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as being the government of the country, and

[GA] ( c ) a document which alleges, implies, or suggests or is calculated to suggest that the military forces maintained under the Constitution are not the lawful military forces of the State, or that there is in existence in the State a body or organisation not established and maintained by virtue of the Constitution which is entitled to be recognised as a military force, and

[GA] ( d ) a document in which words, abbreviations, or symbols referable to a military body are used in referring to an unlawful organisation;

In a democratic country that has a history of colonisation, threats of foreign nations and paramilitary organisations, these seem like reasonable safeguards to me.
They might be an issue if the government ws being run by irrational, power-freaks....hmmmm, wait!

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not true.

In my experience that is true. The winners tell the story their way and it normally sticks. I can't think of any cases where that isn't the case, except where generations later there is an official revision, like Australia with the Aborigines, America with the native Indians, Brazil on Paraguay, and so on.

The Corinthian

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's not true.

Indeed. The truth is not decided by whomever wins, however what becomes the official 'truth' is generally decided by whomever wins.

Ever read Caesar's Gallic Wars?

Pandcoa

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Which was why I made it very clear in an earlier post that I am reluctant to take that stance and explicitly limit myself to Nazis. There is nothing at all wide reaching about my stance.

So who then decides who are Nazi's? The government? You? If you are determined and deceitful enough you can just dismiss people as Nazi's who may just hold a view contrary to you. I'm sorry, but your stance IS far reaching, potentially dangerous in any society and the first step towards the suffication of free speech. You take it upon yourself to be judge and jury, well we are adults and we do not need babysitting from supposed "higher intellectuals", the man is pathetic but he has an unalienable right (not a need given by a majority) to voice his opinions. I thought we were past thinking that if can silence someone, then nobody will hold views contrary to yours.

OhNoYouDidn't

bonkey wrote: »

The alternate is that we elevate either ONYD or this particular issue on to some sort of pedestal and say that they are a "special case" and that they somehow deserve special consideration. I dislike pedestals.

I think a committed Nazi holocaust denier being invoted to speak in a state university with taxpayers funds is a special case.

bonkey

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I think a committed Nazi holocaust denier being invoted to speak in a state university with taxpayers funds is a special case.

Exactly my point.

Are you saying that belief in a special case by anyone can justify what they believe is merited...or are you saying that you get to do this for your special cases?

OhNoYouDidn't

Pandcoa wrote: »

So who then decides who are Nazi's? The government? You? If you are determined and deceitful enough you can just dismiss people as Nazi's who may just hold a view contrary to you.

But thats not what I am doing here, although I acknowledge the risk here.

Pandcoa wrote: »

I'm sorry, but your stance IS far reaching, potentially dangerous in any society and the first step towards the suffication of free speech.

Absolutely. Which is why I say, yet again, no free speech nor Nazi's.

Pandcoa wrote: »

You take it upon yourself to be judge and jury, well we are adults and we do not need babysitting from supposed "higher intellectuals",

This isn't a 'higher intellectual' thing at all. If anything its the polar opposite.

Pandcoa wrote: »

the man is pathetic but he has an unalienable right (not a need given by a majority) to voice his opinions.

I disagree. Freedom of speech is limited and IMHO this man has cashed in is free speech chips and should noe be afforded a platform to try and create the fourth reich.

Pandcoa wrote: »

I thought we were past thinking that if can silence someone, then nobody will hold views contrary to yours.

This is not about me disagreeing with someone. I have repeated my position that Nazi's are the only people I will try and silence. This is about a proven liar attempting to sanitise the Nazis.

OhNoYouDidn't

bonkey wrote: »

Exactly my point.

Are you saying that belief in a special case by anyone can justify what they believe is merited...or are you saying that you get to do this for your special cases?

I believe that silencing Nazi propaganda is an end that justifies the means.

I have said more than once that I see the risks in my position and understand peoples concern in what is me advocating vigilantiasim, but I think its important enough to take a stand. I would not consider it approproate to silence anyone other than Nazi's like Irving.

I am a student in NUIG and this won't go ahead as a socialist group (They were invoved in the Bertie fiasco.) will basically make attempts to attack him on the night under the pretence of a blockading from entering the hall. I heard them in Smokies discussing how they were going to "smack him up".:rolleyes:

These guys are giving NUIG a seriously bad name.

OhNoYouDidn't

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I believe that silencing Nazi propaganda is an end that justifies the means.

I have said more than once that I see the risks in my position and understand peoples concern in what is me advocating vigilantiasim, but I think its important enough to take a stand. I would not consider it approproate to silence anyone other than Nazi's like Irving.

I hope you get just treatment by the guards if you attempt to attack somebody unprovoked.

OhNoYouDidn't

Deleted User wrote: »

I am a student in NUIG and this won't go ahead as a socialist group (They were invoved in the Bertie fiasco.) will basically make attempts to attack him on the night under the pretence of a blockading from entering the hall. I heard them in Smokies discussing how they were going to "smack him up".:rolleyes:

These guys are giving NUIG a seriously bad name.

But not the guys in the debating society who invited this Nazi along knowing full well what happens everywhere he tries to speak?

The Corinthian

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

I believe that silencing Nazi propaganda is an end that justifies the means.

I have said more than once that I see the risks in my position and understand peoples concern in what is me advocating vigilantiasim, but I think its important enough to take a stand. I would not consider it approproate to silence anyone other than Nazi's like Irving.

Roffle, I expect the irony that the Nazi justification for silencing people was identical, is probably lost on you. I'd laugh if you were silenced because someone considered it an "appropriate" measure where the "end justifies the means".

Oh, and you never answered my earlier question; Nazis only or would you widen the scope to include, say, Falangists or Fascists?