Rally For Life (04-07-2009)

Taxipete29 · 05-07-2009 2:10pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

It's funny (or would be, if it wasn't such a serious issue) how the pro life crowd are ever so proud of us Irish not having abortions. When the reality is, we effectively do - as long as you have the money to get on a plane to England.

I abhor the Youth Defence and their tactics, but equally I have little respect for the SWP - they were the ones who blocked David Irving from speaking when I was at college. When asked about it the response was "We support the right to free speech, but no free speech for fascists.".

Fascists being defined as such exclusively by the SWP of course.

Guys like David Irving should never be given a platform from which to spout their racist and antisemetic views.

Ultravid wrote: »

Yep. Much hatred and venom I saw yesterday from the pro-abortion activists.

I dont know anyone who is pro-abortion. They are pro-choice and there is a huge difference. As stated earlier there is alot of merit in the pro-life stance, but people are and always should be allowed to decide for themselves.

Do those who support these kind of protests not realise that they are every bit as bad as those they are complaining about. Forcing your opinion on people, no matter what side of the arguement you come down on, is just wrong. If this was a protest in response to some political movement to legalise abortion I would understand, but it obviously wasnt.

Taxipete29 · 05-07-2009 2:14pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?p=7051419
If you pro life gentleman can stop patting each other on the back for a minute or two - what do you think of the above? There's one of your fellow pro life compatriots urging people to join the march....and....oh

Here's what he thinks about abortion and rape:

Now this is the thing guys: If you're going to march with people like this, you might get nazi salutes thrown at you. And you really can't complain much about it.

Its people like this that makes most normal people hate the pro-life brigade and its why they will never be a serious political force in this country, thankfully.

Ultravid · 05-07-2009 2:14pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

If you pro life gentleman can stop patting each other on the back for a minute or two - what do you think of the above? There's one of your fellow pro life compatriots urging people to join the march....and....oh

Here's what he thinks about abortion and rape:

Now this is the thing guys: If you're going to march with people like this, you might get nazi salutes thrown at you. And you really can't complain much about it.

Your post is a badly constructed rabbit hole, and down it I shall not go. I'm a Catholic who strives to love God and my fellow man: those who are already born, and those waiting to be born. Abortion is a modern day hollocaust, therefore we won't be silent about it nor will we allow it into our country.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 2:19pm

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Guys like David Irving should never be given a platform from which to spout their racist and antisemetic views.

Freedom of speech, except when it's something you disagree with?

Free societies have no right to criminalise opinions and arguments, no matter how idiotic they may be. Silencing someone like Irving only gives credence to his views and increases his support base.

The sheer irony of wanting to silence dissenting voices in relation to Nazi apologism....

And who decides what we can say and what we can't? You? The government? It's ok to publish cartoons offensive to Muslims, and defend them under the banner of free speech, but Irving isn't allowed dispute the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz? (this is what he was previously sentenced to 3 years in jail for).

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 2:21pm

Ultravid wrote: »

Your post is a badly constructed rabbit hole, and down it I shall not go.

There really is no point in trying to engage some people in debate is there?

Dennis the Stone · 05-07-2009 2:23pm

Ultravid wrote: »

Yep. Much hatred and venom I saw yesterday from the pro-abortion activists.

Plenty of hatred and venom from the Pro-Life activists also, with liberal sprinklings of of 'f*gg*t' and even 'n*gg*r.' Those guys were just full of love.

Taxipete29 · 05-07-2009 2:42pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

Freedom of speech, except when it's something you disagree with?

Free societies have no right to criminalise opinions and arguments, no matter how idiotic they may be. Silencing someone like Irving only gives credence to his views and increases his support base.

The sheer irony of wanting to silence dissenting voices in relation to Nazi apologism....

And who decides what we can say and what we can't? You? The government? It's ok to publish cartoons offensive to Muslims, and defend them under the banner of free speech, but Irving isn't allowed dispute the existence of gas chambers at Auschwitz? (this is what he was previously sentenced to 3 years in jail for).

This is guy who denied the Holocaust, was found guilty of this crime in Austria. Then tried to recant his beliefs. Upon arriving in the UK once again decided to adopt the denial argument. A real true believer :rolleyes:

Its not a crime here to deny the holocaust, it is in Austria, obviously.

I have no problem with free speech. I have no problem with dissenting voices. Let them speak. It only furthers the argument that they are ridiculous in the extreme. But to say that protesters have no right to respond to him being allowed to speak is in itself restriction of personal freedom.
You see, holes in both arguments.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 2:54pm

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This is guy who denied the Holocaust, was found guilty of this crime in Austria. Then tried to recant his beliefs. Upon arriving in the UK once again decided to adopt the denial argument. A real true believer :rolleyes:

I am in no way trying to defend his character - his views are rephrehensible in my opinion.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Its not a crime here to deny the holocaust, it is in Austria, obviously.

I have no problem with free speech. I have no problem with dissenting voices. Let them speak. It only furthers the argument that they are ridiculous in the extreme. But to say that protesters have no right to respond to him being allowed to speak is in itself restriction of personal freedom.
You see, holes in both arguments.

I would like to point out I never once stated that protesters have no right to respond. They have no right to deny him the opportunity to speak - which was what happened in the Irving case - they openly stated "No free speech for fascists"

I don't see the holes in the argument - he should be allowed speak, and people who oppose him should also be allowed speak - and challenge him on points, question him, ask for proof, and produce their own proof showing him to be wrong. That's how you show him up - engage him in open debate, show his mistakes for all to see.

Taxipete29 · 05-07-2009 3:07pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

I am in no way trying to defend his character - his views are rephrehensible in my opinion.

I would like to point out I never once stated that protesters have no right to respond. They have no right to deny him the opportunity to speak - which was what happened in the Irving case - they openly stated "No free speech for fascists"

I don't see the holes in the argument - he should be allowed speak, and people who oppose him should also be allowed speak - and challenge him on points, question him, ask for proof, and produce their own proof showing him to be wrong. That's how you show him up - engage him in open debate, show his mistakes for all to see.

I dont wish to drag this thread off-topic too much. I agree with you about the best way to oppose people like him. The problem lies in the fact that alot people like him have a problem with free and open debate as they realise they will lose their argument.

Fascism does not lend itself to free and open debate. Opposition and freedom of expression are not allowed. Why should people allow anyone who does not prescribe to the notion of free speech the right to speak under that freedom. The argument that its because we are supposed to be bigger than that does not wash with me.

Ultravid · 05-07-2009 3:11pm

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I dont wish to drag this thread off-topic too much. I agree with you about the best way to oppose people like him. The problem lies in the fact that alot people like him have a problem with free and open debate as they realise they will lose their argument.

Fascism does not lend itself to free and open debate. Opposition and freedom of expression are not allowed. Why should people allow anyone who does not prescribe to the notion of free speech the right to speak under that freedom. The argument that its because we are supposed to be bigger than that does not wash with me.

As an aside, I remember not long ago certain folks calling for ALIVE! newspaper to be banned. Not so good. It's a good free catholic newspaper covering all sorts of topics. When I start hearing about banning newspapers it worries me a little.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 3:19pm

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Fascism does not lend itself to free and open debate. Opposition and freedom of expression are not allowed.

Exactly - which is when I hate to hear people opposing free speech invoking some sort of right to censor people they consider to be fascists.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Why should people allow anyone who does not prescribe to the notion of free speech the right to speak under that freedom. The argument that its because we are supposed to be bigger than that does not wash with me.

Because we're not fascist. That's it really. By silencing people, we're just giving those with sinister motives and agendas more fuel for their fire.

Fascist speaker says "Jews control the media and government - they'll jail you for daring to express an opinion they don't agree with", people consider him to be a loon, then fascist speaker gets jailed for holocaust denial, people start to wonder...

Another huge issue for me in this regard is - who decides? Who gets the power to decide what's acceptable and what isn't? Apparently the SWP believe they do, Anti Fascist Action also think they do. I don't remember signing over my right to decide to them, but they seem to think I did.

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 3:43pm

Freedom of speech, except when it's something you disagree with?

The idea of the No Platform for Fascists approach is a very old one, going back to the Battle Of Cable Street in the U.K in 1936 (When Mosley was stopped from parading) and the days of the A.C.A/Blueshirts in Ireland (When left-wing republicans stopped them have meetings on a weekly basis)

I think the No Platform approach should apply to Youth Defence, as it does to the Immigration Control Platform. Why?

1) Justin Barrett spoke at neo-nazi rallies listed as a Youth Defence speaker. The group never attempted to fix the damage this did. He also wrote a bizarre book around the time of the Nice Treaty which he sent to journos speaking about the 'coloureds' and the risk immigration presented. It was clearly a racist rant from a lunatic.

2) Youth Defence have opposed peoples right to free-speech by attacking various protest groups. They famously attacked student protesters with hurls and pool cues. No Platform is therefore a direct response to a group who feel they can stop people protesting through force. Youth Defence, at this moment, are best engaged with via democratic means like counter-demos and public debates. Ask Coir why they share an Office with Y.D (Remember them, they were the 'THE E.U WANTS AN ARMY FULL OF GAY MEN TO TAKE ALL OUR FREEDOMS AND KILL ALL TEH BABIES AND MAKE OUR FLAG BLUE AND HERES SOME MONKEYS ON A POSTER!!!1' idiots) and they've no response. Such groups are easy to dismantle in debate, and sometimes (like yesterday) they show themselves as the religious obsessed right-wing 'movement' that they are.

3) Youth Defence occupied medical centres that were offering medical advice to women wishing to travel. Thus they are willing to use direct action tactics to stand in the way of womens rights. Taking direct action tactics to stop THIS accuring may, in the future, be neccesary.

I think the general feeling from the Antifascist movement in Ireland is that so long as Youth Defence play by the rules and leave the hurley sticks in the back of the van (I didn't see any yesterday, well done!) they are best ignored. That counter rally yesterday was not called by Anti Fascist Action, although obviously people did attend to show solidarity.

Justin Barrett, fundamentalist christian and a fascist to boast.
Google him for all sorts of goodies.

----

As for Stormfront, you'll find quite a lot of support for Youth Defence and groups like the Immigration Control Platform over there, hardly surprising. As I said before giving Youth Defence have a track-record for shaking hands with fascists (or travelling to all corners of Europe to talk to them!) its no surprise they've made some ugly supporters at home too.

Someday it won't be 'Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' , but 'Hello Choice, Goodbye Father' on posters, and we'll be the ones sticking them up.

Taxipete29 · 05-07-2009 3:43pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

Exactly - which is when I hate to hear people opposing free speech invoking some sort of right to censor people they consider to be fascists.

Because we're not fascist. That's it really. By silencing people, we're just giving those with sinister motives and agendas more fuel for their fire.

Fascist speaker says "Jews control the media and government - they'll jail you for daring to express an opinion they don't agree with", people consider him to be a loon, then fascist speaker gets jailed for holocaust denial, people start to wonder...

Another huge issue for me in this regard is - who decides? Who gets the power to decide what's acceptable and what isn't? Apparently the SWP believe they do, Anti Fascist Action also think they do. I don't remember signing over my right to decide to them, but they seem to think I did.

We are going arond in circles here. We both believe in free-speech and while I dont necessarily agree with shouting down guys like Irving so they cant speak I respect the right of others to do so.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 3:51pm

Taxipete29 wrote: »

We are going arond in circles here. We both believe in free-speech and while I dont necessarily agree with shouting down guys like Irving so they cant speak I respect the right of others to do so.

Fair enough, it's a point we disagree on. I just can't get my head around the idea of claiming to believe in free speech but being ok with others having that right denied to them.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 4:02pm

PrivateEye wrote: »

1) Justin Barrett spoke at neo-nazi rallies listed as a Youth Defence speaker. The group never attempted to fix the damage this did. He also wrote a bizarre book around the time of the Nice Treaty which he sent to journos speaking about the 'coloureds' and the risk immigration presented. It was clearly a racist rant from a lunatic.

Certainly, he's a whackjob. And the more he's allowed to speak, the more he exposes himself as such. Nobody is defending Justin Barrett or his beliefs, hell when he ran for European Parliament in 2004 he got about 2% of the vote. Allowing him to rant and foam at the mouth about things, and letting the people decide for themselves worked. You seem to be seizing on him as an excuse to retaliate in kind though.

PrivateEye wrote: »

2) Youth Defence have opposed peoples right to free-speech by attacking various protest groups. They famously attacked student protesters with hurls and pool cues. No Platform is therefore a direct response to a group who feel they can stop people protesting through force. Youth Defence, at this moment, are best engaged with via democratic means like counter-demos and public debates. Ask Coir why they share an Office with Y.D (Remember them, they were the 'THE E.U WANTS AN ARMY FULL OF GAY MEN TO TAKE ALL OUR FREEDOMS AND KILL ALL TEH BABIES AND MAKE OUR FLAG BLUE AND HERES SOME MONKEYS ON A POSTER!!!1' idiots) and they've no response. Such groups are easy to dismantle in debate, and sometimes (like yesterday) they show themselves as the religious obsessed right-wing 'movement' that they are.

Exactly - if they're so easy to dismantle in debate, why feel the need to use force against them? It's simply not for you to decide. If YD are engaging in illegal activities (such as the attack with hurleys and pool cues), they should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. But it's still not an excuse to retaliate in kind.

PrivateEye wrote: »

3) Youth Defence occupied medical centres that were offering medical advice to women wishing to travel. Thus they are willing to use direct action tactics to stand in the way of womens rights. Taking direct action tactics to stop THIS accuring may, in the future, be neccesary.

Again - it's the place of the State and the Gardaí to prevent this - not some self styled vigilantes, masquerading as an anti fascist group whilst enjoying employing the same tactics fascists have used.

PrivateEye wrote: »

I think the general feeling from the Antifascist movement in Ireland is that so long as Youth Defence play by the rules and leave the hurley sticks in the back of the van (I didn't see any yesterday, well done!) they are best ignored. That counter rally yesterday was not called by Anti Fascist Action, although obviously people did attend to show solidarity.

Justin Barrett, fundamentalist christian and a fascist to boast.
Google him for all sorts of goodies.

He is a basket case, but much like the pro choice lobby is not exclusively defined by the SWP, Anti fascist movements and so on, neither is the pro life lobby exclusively defined by Justin Barrett.

PrivateEye wrote: »

As for Stormfront, you'll find quite a lot of support for Youth Defence and groups like the Immigration Control Platform over there, hardly surprising. As I said before giving Youth Defence have a track-record for shaking hands with fascists (or travelling to all corners of Europe to talk to them!) its no surprise they've made some ugly supporters at home too.

Someday it won't be 'Hello Divorce, Goodbye Daddy' , but 'Hello Choice, Goodbye Father' on posters, and we'll be the ones sticking them up.

I'll be honest, I don't really get the last line?

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 4:14pm

Certainly, he's a whackjob. And the more he's allowed to speak, the more he exposes himself as such. Nobody is defending Justin Barrett or his beliefs, hell when he ran for European Parliament in 2004 he got about 2% of the vote. Allowing him to rant and foam at the mouth about things, and letting the people decide for themselves worked. You seem to be seizing on him as an excuse to retaliate in kind though.

I doubt Justin is superman and able to wield a dozen hurleys or pool cues against a few feminists is he? Youth Defence are rotten at the core, look at the track record of such assaults. I've linked to a record of such attacks somewhere in this thread already, and have also added the quote from the German neo-nazi organisation who invited him to speak.

neither is the pro life lobby exclusively defined by Justin Barrett

Yep, its a fine diverse grouping of individuals

Rally for Life
Contact us on 01 873 0465

Family First
60a Capel Street
ph: 873 0465

Youth Defence
60a Capel Street
T: 8730463

Truthtv
60a Capel Street
Dublin 1
T: 8730465

Coir
60a Capel Street
Dublin 1
T: 87330465

That is the pro-life movement in Ireland, one building of lunatics. One that never really went to to much trouble to distance itself from Justin, a man the NDP in Germany have admitted to inviting to rallies, and they also said they've been in contact with Y.D since about 1996.

I'll be honest, I don't really get the last line?

Father, you know the lads in the collars. Fair few of them there yesterday.

We obviously disagree in relation to anti-fascism. Personally I dont condone the physical aspects of that movement unless 100% neccessary (I think an example would be stewarding a meeting at risk from a group like Youth Defence, Youth Defence did attack meetings in this country in times gone by...with, you guessed it, hurleys!) but by and large I agree in relation to allowing the law to deal with them, in fact if the police would keep more of an eye on such groups there'd be no need for direct action against them, ever. By and large debating them in public and countering their actions is the best route to go.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 4:27pm

PrivateEye wrote: »

I doubt Justin is superman and able to wield a dozen hurleys or pool cues against a few feminists is he? Youth Defence are rotten at the core, look at the track record of such assaults. I've linked to a record of such attacks somewhere in this thread already, and have also added the quote from the German neo-nazi organisation who invited him to speak.

Of course not. I have no love of YD or their tactics, this is one of the reasons why it pains me to see people advocating using these tactics, even if it is against them. But this "reductio ad Barretium" fallacy has no place in the abortion debate. Simply saying "Justin Barret and YD support pro life. Justin Barret is evil, hence supporting pro life is evil" does not make it so.

PrivateEye wrote: »

Yep, its a fine diverse grouping of individuals

That is the pro-life movement in Ireland, one building of lunatics. One that never really went to to much trouble to distance itself from Justin, a man the NDP in Germany have admitted to inviting to rallies, and they also said they've been in contact with Y.D since about 1996.

PrivateEye - I just want to say, I actually agree with you in a lot of respects. But you do seem to have a slight obsession with YD and Barrett. Pointing out their flaws and associations with lunatics/fringe groups doesn't really impact on the actual debate of pro life versus pro choice - and it shouldn't.

PrivateEye wrote: »

Father, you know the lads in the collars. Fair few of them there yesterday.

Ah ok.

PrivateEye wrote: »

We obviously disagree in relation to anti-fascism. Personally I dont condone the physical aspects of that movement unless 100% neccessary (I think an example would be stewarding a meeting at risk from a group like Youth Defence, Youth Defence did attack meetings in this country in times gone by...with, you guessed it, hurleys!) but by and large I agree in relation to allowing the law to deal with them, in fact if the police would keep more of an eye on such groups there'd be no need for direct action against them, ever. By and large debating them in public and countering their actions is the best route to go.

I too am disgusted by the YD antics, and it's worrying that they don't seem to face the full force of the law. They need to have more of a presence at such events I think, and be more willing to arrest YD members who are breaking the law. But I'm far too afraid of giving thos power to groups that claim to fight fascism.

And can you clarify for me, who exactly are the ones who will be deciding what's fascism and what isn't, who will be silenced and who won't?

Dennis the Stone · 05-07-2009 4:34pm

It's great to see that Youth Defence got their message to the world:

:pac:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090704/tuk-thousands-attend-pro-abortion-rally-e1cd776.html

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 4:37pm

The issue here is that this was a 60A Capel Street rally, if you know what I mean. The reason I'm constantly bringing up Barett and Youth Defence is because yesterday was merely another Youth Defence publicity-grab. It wasn't some broad pro-life march. I can understand how complicated the issue is and why people do find themselves on that side of the fence, but I don't think such people s hould ever attend Youth Defence rallies. In fact, most pro-lifers I know (I go to Maynooth, so its a good few :pac:) didn't attend because of YDs involvement.

And can you clarify for me, who exactly are the ones who will be deciding what's fascism and what isn't, who will be silenced and who won't?

There is a distinct difference between the right to free speech and the right to organise. Racist comments and ideas should be challenged and opposed, but a distinction must be drawn between this and incitement to violence/active recruitment to fascist organisations.

.....This does not necessarily mean that all fascists should be prevented from exercising the right to free speech. There may be occasions, for example, on which members of fascist organisations do not pose a threat as 'recruiters', and are therefore best ignored. Others, such as the revisionist historian David Irving for example, actively recruit people to fascist organisations and should therefore be denied the chance to exercise their right to organise......

Racism - while being an obnoxious set of beliefs - is not fascism. Therefore we do not oppose the right of racists to free speech. We do, however, believe that racists should be actively challenged and opposed on all occasions. The task is not to prevent racists from speaking but to defeat their arguments by putting forward a strong alternative.

I've taken that from a position paper on anti-fascism and anti-racism. As I said before, personally I'm opposed to a physical approach on almost all occasions. I think if enough attention is put on such groups then maybe, as you said, it'll be the state that deals with them.

D.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 4:47pm

PrivateEye wrote: »

The issue here is that this was a 60A Capel Street rally, if you know what I mean. The reason I'm constantly bringing up Barett and Youth Defence is because yesterday was merely another Youth Defence publicity-grab. It wasn't some broad pro-life march. I can understand how complicated the issue is and why people do find themselves on that side of the fence, but I don't think such people s hould ever attend Youth Defence rallies. In fact, most pro-lifers I know (I go to Maynooth, so its a good few :pac:) didn't attend because of YDs involvement.

Ah right, well that's fair enough. YD are a nasty bunch, and I think the name change to "Coir" in order to oppose Lisbon shows they may be aware of how the average person feels about them.

I can understand pro lifers not attending a march due to the presence / heavy involvement of elements such as YD, the stormfront loon I posted the link to, and so on (though there's also an aspect of allowing groups like this to hijack contentious issues). In a similar vein, I wouldn't be inclined to join a pro choice march (though my stance on abortion is pro choice) due to the heavy presence of extremist groups on the other end of the spectrum.

PrivateEye wrote: »

There is a distinct difference between the right to free speech and the right to organise. Racist comments and ideas should be challenged and opposed, but a distinction must be drawn between this and incitement to violence/active recruitment to fascist organisations.

.....This does not necessarily mean that all fascists should be prevented from exercising the right to free speech. There may be occasions, for example, on which members of fascist organisations do not pose a threat as 'recruiters', and are therefore best ignored. Others, such as the revisionist historian David Irving for example, actively recruit people to fascist organisations and should therefore be denied the chance to exercise their right to organise......

Racism - while being an obnoxious set of beliefs - is not fascism. Therefore we do not oppose the right of racists to free speech. We do, however, believe that racists should be actively challenged and opposed on all occasions. The task is not to prevent racists from speaking but to defeat their arguments by putting forward a strong alternative.

I've taken that from a position paper on anti-fascism and anti-racism. As I said before, personally I'm opposed to a physical appraoch in almost alloccasions. I think if enough attention is put on such groups then maybe, as you said, it'll be the state that deals with them.

D.

But it still doesn't tell me who is going to be deciding for me. I don't want anyone deciding for me - I'm able to listen to what is said and make up my own mind. It's not for any "anti fascist action" group to take that right away from me by deciding they know better than I do what I'm allowed listen to / think / believe.

Het-Field · 05-07-2009 4:52pm

In fairness, Anti Fascist Action has it's fair share of thugs. Anybody who was in UCD in 2004 would know that, and many (including myself) saw it first hand.

Barrett is not even relevant anymore. He slithered under a rock after he was attacked in UCD, and has not been heard of since. His Euro Campaign in 2004, and the second Nice Referendum finished him in the eyes of any right thinking people, and Youth Defence have appeared to give him a wide birth since then.

The march yesterday is irrelevant. Very little coverage was given to it. The issue is not going to be on the table anytime soon.

MikeC101 · 05-07-2009 4:59pm

Het-Field wrote: »

In fairness, Anti Fascist Action has it's fair share of thugs. Anybody who was in UCD in 2004 would know that, and many (including myself) saw it first hand.

Barrett is not even relevant anymore. He slithered under a rock after he was attacked in UCD, and has not been heard of since. His Euro Campaign in 2004, and the second Nice Referendum finished him in the eyes of any right thinking people, and Youth Defence have appeared to give him a wide birth since then.

The march yesterday is irrelevant. Very little coverage was given to it. The issue is not going to be on the table anytime soon.

This was the immigration debate, Het-Field? Where Barrett was punched? I was a UCD student at the time, but wasn't there at the actual debate. The smug justifications for their actions from those responsible at the time was pathetic, to say the least.

Extremists who consider themselves the sole arbitrators of what we should be allowed hear are just as bad as the fascists they claim to be fighting against.

Het-Field · 05-07-2009 5:40pm

MikeC101 wrote: »

This was the immigration debate, Het-Field? Where Barrett was punched? I was a UCD student at the time, but wasn't there at the actual debate. The smug justifications for their actions from those responsible at the time was pathetic, to say the least.

Extremists who consider themselves the sole arbitrators of what we should be allowed hear are just as bad as the fascists they claim to be fighting against.

Here here !

Yep it was the Immigration Debate. Barrett was not punched, it was a really minor scuffle. But it was still an assault, and I recall Joe Duffy being subject to some physical action The aptmosphere in the lecture theatre that night was sheer poison. I had missed Ireland play the Faroe Islands to come along and see it on the grounds that Fireworks were promised.

Since then the UCD extreme left have been totally discredited.

PrivateEye · 05-07-2009 7:14pm

Anyone have a link to a gallery from yesterday?
I've only seen two (galleries) on Indymedia and 2 pics in our Photography section.

Ultravid · 05-07-2009 7:44pm

BigMentalDisease wrote: »

It's great to see that Youth Defence got their message to the world:

:pac:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090704/tuk-thousands-attend-pro-abortion-rally-e1cd776.html

That's complete nonsense. Is it some kind of joke?

If not it further confirms the corruption and anti-life agenda of the secular media. It happens a lot:

Other examples:

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/may/07051705.html

and

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=31831

Tommy T · 05-07-2009 7:45pm

turgon wrote: »

Says the guy at a youth defence march.

Tommy T, there is enough merit in the pro-life side than to have to go to marches organised and solely associated by religious nut-cases.

Youth Defence are a sick group. Kudos to Private Eye for all the bits and pieces. Last year here in Cork they came in on a Euthanasia discussion in the CUH hospital being given by doctors and threw so much abuse it had to be called off. The Gardai were called as well.

Yeah, they may stand for the unborn rights. But the irony is that they are willing to trample everyone else's rights just to be heard.

Yesterday's march was organised brilliantly. We all took the extreme provocation on the chin and just smiled, sung and swayed past them... No trampling on anyone's rights and defednig the unborn baby...

turgon · 05-07-2009 7:51pm

Tommy T wrote: »

Yesterday's march was organised brilliantly. We all took the extreme provocation on the chin and just smiled, sung and swayed past them... No trampling on anyone's rights and defednig the unborn baby...

As well, of course, as publicizing Youth Defence's Family First's TruthTV Coir's new Lisbon campaign.

Tommy T · 05-07-2009 7:51pm

Het-Field wrote: »

Tommy T

The people who I assumed attended the counter demonstration are not "LIBERALS". They are socialists. Liberalism and socialism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. There is really no such thing as a "lefty liberal", as there "liberalism" doesnt extend to free marketeering. Furthermore, in a historical context, liberals never had "abortion" at the forefront of their mind.

Plus it galls me when the likes of the SWPers, Labour Youth, Choice Ireland etc call themselves "Libertarians". They are not, they are communist/socialists who believe in the woman's right to choose on the single issue of abortion. Most dont believe in free sppech, they dont believe in free markets, and they have wet dreams about excessive government regulation.

So please, dont call them liberals.

I take onboard what you say. However in Ireland during the 1980's many pro Abortion people spouted the 'Liberal Agenda' and as its top priority was access to abortion in Ireland.

I agree with you that they in no way conform to the internationally recognised orthodox Liberalism...

turgon · 05-07-2009 7:53pm

Tommy T · 05-07-2009 7:57pm

Het-Field wrote: »

More ignorance.

True feminists. Countess Markievez, Mary Harney, Liz O Donnell, Mary O Rourke, Niamh Breathnach, Maire Geogeghan Quinn. Under the eyes of THESE luminaries, women have partaken in the initial realisation of Ireland as a Republic, Gay Rights, Free Third Level Education (still a hot and dubious topic), the Good Friday Agreement, and in Harney, the first true female leader in the Dail.

Beating from the sidelines doesnt make you a "feminist". Ivana Bacik gives a bad name to Liberalism and feminism. I suggest OP that you read up on the realities of these two political positions.

Not ignorance at all... Whether genuine Feminists or not those named were at the forefront of the Irish feminist/Abortionist movement...

Rally For Life (04-07-2009)

Comments