Should Trinity have cancelled the Nick Griffin talk?

K-9

steelcityblues wrote: »

Given the likes of Stalin and Chairman Mao from history, it is also dangerous for left wingers to think fascism is solely a right wing concept.

Not being smart, but yeah, extremes tend not to be good examples to follow!

Morlar

K-9 wrote: »

Not being smart, but yeah, extremes tend not to be good examples to follow!

Is this a left wing only observation ?

steelcityblues

sensibleken wrote: »

no it isnt. that is just one aspect of it. Facism is a complicated political ideology that cannot be defined in one sentence. Neither can communism, capitalism or any other socio-economic system

Stalinism, Maoism, Nazism and Facism were all totalitarian. Stalin was no more a facist than Himmler was a communist.

That pretty much means he is in the same general bracket as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc.

K-9

Morlar wrote: »

I can not think of any examples of the right wing suppressing freedom of speech in Ireland or the UK for that matter in recent years.

There may have been some islamic hate speech cleric calling for violence or wiping out a race of people or something like that otherwise no examples spring to mind.

SF was the one I was thinking of, though it's a few years.

Considering the Tories are just back in power, give them time!

sensibleken

steelcityblues wrote: »

That pretty much means he is in the same general bracket as Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, etc.

If you want to. Im not going to get into the absurd debate that Stalin was a facist

K-9

Morlar wrote: »

Is this a left wing only observation ?

:D

In the interests of pcness, I include Hitler and Mussolini. There I Godwinned it.

ejmaztec

K-9 wrote: »

SF was the one I was thinking of, though it's a few years.

Considering the Tories are just back in power, give them time!

It must grieve them, the Lib-Dems poking their noses in all the time and holding back the Reich.

K-9

ejmaztec wrote: »

It must grieve them, the Lib-Dems poking their noses in all the time and holding back the Reich.

"It's just a temporary little arrangement" to quote Albert Reynolds and the PD's!

desertcircus

mikemac wrote: »

Mike 1972 wrote: »

On the other hand it has been shown time and time again that given the opportunity Griffin & his ilk would not have hesitate to use the ultimate form of censorship against their opponents.

Assasination?

It's the other side who are experts at that

Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn both criticized multiculturalism and mass immigration and both were killed

Well, if we're going to go down that road...

Fortuyn was murdered by an animal liberationist so isn't relevant here, while van Gogh's murder should probably be weighed against the actions of Anders Breivik.

Morlar

Can anyone point to Irish or UK examples from recent years of gangs of Right wing thugs threatening violence in order to prevent freedom of expression ?

That would be an equivalent example of a Right Wing oriented attempt to suppress freedom of expression that I was looking for.

Morlar

desertcircus wrote: »

Fortuyn was murdered by an animal liberationist so isn't relevant here,

Fortuyn was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign [5][6][7] by Volkert van der Graaf. In court at his trial, van der Graaf said he murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" and targeting "the weak members of society" in seeking political power.[8][9

desertcircus wrote: »

while van Gogh's murder should probably be weighed against the actions of Anders Breivik.

No, it should not.

Badgermonkey

Millicent wrote: »

I don't recall that one. Do you have a link handy?

The sites specifically making reference to Boyd Barrett's objection to Irvings visit are an unsettling assemblage of deluded guff merchants on the far left / far right - Stormfront, Indymedia, Socialist Workers Party and Irvings own site. :eek:

It would seem UCC banned him from campus primarily for security reasons. UCG's ban was more ideological in nature.

Interesting (if misguided imo) piece by the director of UCC's Irish Centre for Migration Studies

http://migration.ucc.ie/irving.htm

Badgermonkey

listermint wrote: »

Does it really matter? Sure he hasnt been allowed speak in any UK university since 2007. No one cares for the ramblings of a nitwit.

Im all for free speech. he can go stand on a soap box on O Connell Street. But why give him and more advertising than is warranted by giving a public stage at one of the leading colleges in the country.

It begs belief !

Think you've got that all wrong.

The publicity always stems from the militant fringes attempts to deny the man an opportunity to demonstrate to those in attendance what a fool he truly is.

If he were allowed attend these on-campus debates, press and public interest would surely diminish with every passing event.

Johro

Duke Leonal Felmet wrote: »

So I was right then. Lefties have denied freedom of speech. Must I qualify that with bigot as well?

You've lost me. I pointed out there are bigots on both sides. No more, no less.

Dudess

Chairman Meow wrote: »

Freedom of speech works both ways.

It does indeed... yet many advocates of it seem to be concerned more about the rights of people who say hateful things, rather than those people at whom the hateful things are directed.
Bigots should be able to air their views, but not just in front of any audience.

marienbad

Dudess wrote: »

It does indeed... yet many advocates of it seem to be concerned more about the rights of people who say hateful things, rather than those people at whom the hateful things are directed.
Bigots should be able to air their views, but not just in front of any audience.

No one is forced to listen Dudess !

sensibleken

Morlar wrote: »

Can anyone point to Irish or UK examples from recent years of gangs of Right wing thugs threatening violence in order to prevent freedom of expression ?

That would be an equivalent example of a Right Wing oriented attempt to suppress freedom of expression that I was looking for.

The EDL

Dudess

marienbad wrote: »

No one is forced to listen Dudess !

Are you saying they're entirely avoidable in this world of ever expanding mass communication? You know that's not true.

Morlar

sensibleken wrote: »

The EDL

When / where did the EDL try to suppress freedom of speech ?

Is it in any way shape or form similar to what we are talking about here ?

sensibleken

Morlar wrote: »

When / where did the EDL try to suppress freedom of speech ?

Is it in any way shape or form similar to what we are talking about here ?

you said freedom of expression, specifically against expression of islam, and it has been far far more violent than this. but its friday night so im off to the pub

Morlar

= no.

My name is URL

Nick Griffin - "We don't want your type round here"

Pseudo-liberal opponents - "We don't want your type round here"

They're like chalk & a different colored chalk

Dudess

My name is URL wrote: »

Nick Griffin - "We don't want your type round here"

Pseudo-liberal opponents - "We don't want your type round here"

They're like chalk & a different colored chalk

Even though I don't disagree with Griffin speaking, and I can't stand hardline left-wingers, one group advocates tolerance, the other advocates hate, so I don't think what you're saying is accurate. Just my opinion.

marienbad

Dudess wrote: »

Are you saying they're entirely avoidable in this world of ever expanding mass communication? You know that's not true.

I am not sure I understand your point. If you are saying his message is unavoidable due to ever expanding communication, then yes I agree with that statement. This is even more reason not to ban him from a forum where there will be at least some modicum of opposition. All this fiasco has achieved is to bring his name and ideas to the forefront and encourage the curious to visit his and similar sites.

Education not censorship is surely the answer Dudess.

StaticNoise

Damn, I pressed the wrong button.

As much as I despise him, his party, and what they stand for, I am of the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, regardless of how they present it. However, even though I stand for that, I find it hard to respect anyone who creates and promotes hatred. In a free society he should be entitled, and is entitled, to share his message and debate it, but it's very difficult to stomach it.

billybudd

StaticNoise wrote: »

Damn, I pressed the wrong button.

As much as I despise him, his party, and what they stand for, I am of the belief that everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, regardless of how they present it. However, even though I stand for that, I find it hard to respect anyone who creates and promotes hatred. In a free society he should be entitled, and is entitled, to share his message and debate it, but it's very difficult to stomach it.

why though? most people know what his mandate is and they either agree or dont, i dont think people who inspire hate and segregation should be tolerated. if this is freedom of speech then i dont want freedom of speech, i dont really want some idiot pumped up on heat speil attacking someone of a different race just because of free speech. The BNP has no place in Ireland

StaticNoise

Billybudd, I'm totally in the same boat as you.

That's where I find it difficult: I don't believe he has the actual right to talk, but if we are to be democratic, everyone has a right to a platform. However, as he causes hatred and is downright inhuman, it's hard to justify the platform.

He shouldn't have a right to speak, by any means. Absolutely not. Yes, we shouldn't allow anyone who is just downright wrong. But, despite the fact that anyone in their right mind knows he is a piece of filth, as are the followers, shouldn't we allow freedom of speech?


If its not clear enough, he's a disgusting piece of trash, and the party members are the same, and anyone who lives this vile agenda in life. Words cannot really describe how awful they really are.

Yahew

billybudd wrote: »

why though? most people know what his mandate is and they either agree or dont, i dont think people who inspire hate and segregation should be tolerated. if this is freedom of speech then i dont want freedom of speech, i dont really want some idiot pumped up on heat speil attacking someone of a different race just because of free speech. The BNP has no place in Ireland

What about class hatred, should we ban marxists etc.? if not, why not?

Custardpi

How exactly is allowing Griffin to take part in a debate giving him a platform? If the proposal was to allow him to simply come out & rant for 20 minutes & then leave without taking questions I could understand the anger but this is just ridiculous. This result will simply embolden BNP supporters who will see this as evidence of "persecution". The best way to defeat wrong ideas is to debate them vigourously & show why they're wrong.
When Griffin appeared on Question Time he demonstrated the idiocy of the UAF et al who opposed his presence by demonstrating what a complete moron he was ("I can't explain why I used to believe those things", etc). If you believe that he shouldn't be allowed to take part in a debate then what you're actually saying that you don't believe the opposite point of view (ie: anti-racist) is strong enough to win an argument against the lightest of intellectual light-weights (& that's probably even a flattering description of the average BNP member), which probably means you're not really against racism & bigotry at all but have simply chosen to hang your bigotry & intolerance on the "trendy" side of the debate.

billybudd

Yahew wrote: »

What about class hatred, should we ban marxists etc.? if not, why not?

You’re assuming there is freedom of speech, there is not, not on boards.ie and not in everyday life, it’s the reason why an old man is in jail as we speak.

as for Marxists etc it has nothing to do with life, how about individual ideals where you mind your own business and aspire to be better in life and free from propaganda, Hitler was given a platform for his hatred and it resulted in millions of deaths and the very same for other notorious leaders throughout history that bludgeoned they’re way to prosperity at the expense of human beings.

RichieC

mikemac wrote: »

Yet they welcome anarchists like Noam Chomsky

The student societies and liberals love him I suppose

Comparing the most cited living author (8th of all time) to a holocaust denying fascist now are we?

makes you seem really bright. :pac:

EarlERizer

"Freedom of speech" (just watch what you say) - I'm all for freedom of speech and the right to express opinions n all that liberal shyte but that doesn't mean we're obliged to roll out the welcome mat & give it a platform!

The BNP is a comedy of errors really,however,in recent years they have gained alot (and continue to do so) of support across a broad spectrum of the British people ,that said, I doubt it was on their manifesto and more to do with the fear factor of Al Queda/Islamist fundamentalism/Muslim Extremists/War on terror hyped tripe the Tories & Labour governments have drowned the people with.

That and the one sided liberalism of the politically correct way of life where people have to shut up & put up with thier country catering to everyone else's ideals & way of life at the expense of their own.

On the homefront,one thing I find amusing about the BNP is the blind support the 'loyalist' / 'Unionist' of NI give to them,the bootboy BNP supporters "no surrender to the IRA" type stance on Ireland yet by their very name British NATIONALIST Party and their 'ideals' you would think they had more in common with Irish Nationalists i.e. Sinn Fein, United Left Alliance and such.

Anyway, as for Nick Griffin talking at TCD , It wouldn't have bothered me,they've hosted some eyebrow raising guests in their time,it's sad they they gave into the protesters and/or others as I would have liked to have heard what he'd have come out with and the reactions to his speech.

I think with recent revelations as to him & his associates antics (recently exposed in a Panorama special on BBC) it's probably a better idea he stays at home and tidys his own yard anyway!

Just wondering.........Did they ever make a Carry on BNP ?

AhSureTisGrand

biko wrote: »

People say they support freedom and democracy but refuses the right to speak for others.

"Some animals are more equal than others".

If he shared his views here you would ban him

Yahew

billybudd wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

What about class hatred, should we ban marxists etc.? if not, why not?

You’re assuming there is freedom of speech, there is not, not on boards.ie and not in everyday life, it’s the reason why an old man is in jail as we speak.

as for Marxists etc it has nothing to do with life, how about individual ideals where you mind your own business and aspire to be better in life and free from propaganda, Hitler was given a platform for his hatred and it resulted in millions of deaths and the very same for other notorious leaders throughout history that bludgeoned they’re way to prosperity at the expense of human beings.

I have no idea what your counter argument about Marxism is since what you are saying makes no sense, and is grammatically poor.

You did mention Hitler getting a platform ( presumably in Weimer Germany because he took a platform in Nazi Germany) and I could retort Karl Marx, or Lenin - both spouting class hatred in democracies. Or any Marxist. So why are they allowed to speak?

LeixlipRed

EarlERizer wrote: »

Irish Nationalists i.e. Sinn Fein, United Left Alliance and such.

Captain Picard Facepalm.

The ULA are a collection of left wing socialists. Who are not nationalists and have about as much in common with the BNP as you and I would have with each other. Christ on a bike there's some retarded stuff in this thread.

LeixlipRed

Yahew wrote: »

I have no idea what your counter argument about Marxism is since what you are saying makes no sense, and is grammatically poor.

You did mention Hitler getting a platform ( presumably in Weimer Germany because he took a platform in Nazi Germany) and I could retort Karl Marx, or Lenin - both spouting class hatred in democracies. Or any Marxist. So why are they allowed to speak?

We're allowed speak because we're right

billybudd

Yahew wrote: »

I have no idea what your counter argument about Marxism is since what you are saying makes no sense, and is grammatically poor.

You did mention Hitler getting a platform ( presumably in Weimer Germany because he took a platform in Nazi Germany) and I could retort Karl Marx, or Lenin - both spouting class hatred in democracies. Or any Marxist. So why are they allowed to speak?

I didnt have an argument for or against marxism, my grammar maybe poor but if you bring petty insults into an argument then you are really not worth my time.

Yahew

billybudd wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

I have no idea what your counter argument about Marxism is since what you are saying makes no sense, and is grammatically poor.

You did mention Hitler getting a platform ( presumably in Weimer Germany because he took a platform in Nazi Germany) and I could retort Karl Marx, or Lenin - both spouting class hatred in democracies. Or any Marxist. So why are they allowed to speak?

I didnt have an argument for or against marxism, my grammar maybe poor but if you bring petty insults into an argument then you are really not worth my time.

Why not try and rephrase your reply?

What did this mean?



as for Marxists etc it has nothing to do with life, how about individual ideals where you mind your own business and aspire to be better in life and free from propaganda,

billybudd

Yahew wrote: »

Why not try and rephrase your reply?

What did this mean?



as for Marxists etc it has nothing to do with life, how about individual ideals where you mind your own business and aspire to be better in life and free from propaganda,

When you apologise for publicly belittling me, then I will certainly rephrase my answer.

Yahew

billybudd wrote: »

Yahew wrote: »

Why not try and rephrase your reply?

What did this mean?



as for Marxists etc it has nothing to do with life, how about individual ideals where you mind your own business and aspire to be better in life and free from propaganda,

When you apologise for publicly belittling me, then I will certainly rephrase my answer.

What? You have a duty to phrase things grammatically in life, in real life - in meetings, debates etc. Asking people what they mean is hardly an insult.

nlgbbbblth

Pherekydes wrote: »

No, everyone is not a racist.

As for Griffin, if he were a Boards poster, how long do you think it'd take him to get himself permasitebanned?

Just remember, there is no freedom of speech.

If Griffin posted on Boards he probably wouldn't be banned.

But the other members who'd justifiably call him a "w*anker", "prick", "bastard", "c*nt" would be

:rolleyes:

Fozzydog3

I voted no , half yall including myself cant quote a single word the bloke ever said , and I disagree with him (I am told) but so what ? what makes me so special ?

Dudess

marienbad wrote: »

I am not sure I understand your point. If you are saying his message is unavoidable due to ever expanding communication, then yes I agree with that statement. This is even more reason not to ban him from a forum where there will be at least some modicum of opposition. All this fiasco has achieved is to bring his name and ideas to the forefront and encourage the curious to visit his and similar sites.

Education not censorship is surely the answer Dudess.

I agree with the above, but I was responding to your assertion that nobody has to listen to hate-mongers - I think that's disingenuous, when they're often unavoidable. The "Switch it off if you don't like it" argument is valid in my opinion a lot of the time, but in this case, when we're talking about groups having hate churned out against them... "nobody is forcing them to listen" is completely dismissive, and shifts responsibility to them, rather than the originator of any hate-filled sentiments.
The "freedom of speech" thing just seems a bit "Hey, look how tolerant I am" at times. It's a joke how far some people go to defend "freedom of speech" - they think they're being really progressive, but they just look moronic. E.g. defending the Fred Phelps crew - er, no... I'd be more concerned really with the families of the dead people whose funerals they picket. As I asked: why, for the "freedom of speech" knights in shining armour, are the free speech rights of hate-mongers more important than the rights of those at whom their bile is directed?
Let ****-wits speak, absolutely, but don't accuse those who fight them back of advocating censorship... a tad ironic anyway, no? Seeing as they're also only exercising their freedom of speech.

St.Spodo

Freedom of speech is a nice concept with which most will agree, but cancelling his invitation isn't a violation of his right. People just don't want to be associated with a Nazi. Also, no one has a right to make hate speeches. I won't be losing sleep over poor aul' Nick Griffin being banned. Fúck him.

orourkeda

St.Spodo wrote: »

Freedom of speech is a nice concept with which most will agree, but cancelling his invitation isn't a violation of his right. People just don't want to be associated with a Nazi. Also, no one has a right to make hate speeches. I won't be losing sleep over poor aul' Nick Griffin being banned. Fúck him.

Some people do. Thats the whole point.

EarlERizer

LeixlipRed wrote: »

Captain Picard Facepalm.

Christ on a bike there's some retarded stuff in this thread.

There sure is! ........ but I think most of it is posted just to wind up the anally retentive readers .

"Captain Picard Facepalm" lol brilliant!

steelcityblues

If most people don't want to be associated with Griffin, then there is little danger in letting him speak.

marienbad

Dudess wrote: »

I agree with the above, but I was responding to your assertion that nobody has to listen to hate-mongers - I think that's disingenuous, when they're often unavoidable. The "Switch it off if you don't like it" argument is valid in my opinion a lot of the time, but in this case, when we're talking about groups having hate churned out against them... "nobody is forcing them to listen" is completely dismissive, and shifts responsibility to them, rather than the originator of any hate-filled sentiments.
The "freedom of speech" thing just seems a bit "Hey, look how tolerant I am" at times. It's a joke how far some people go to defend "freedom of speech" - they think they're being really progressive, but they just look moronic. E.g. defending the Fred Phelps crew - er, no... I'd be more concerned really with the families of the dead people whose funerals they picket. As I asked: why, for the "freedom of speech" knights in shining armour, are the free speech rights of hate-mongers more important than the rights of those at whom their bile is directed?
Let ****-wits speak, absolutely, but don't accuse those who fight them back of advocating censorship... a tad ironic anyway, no? Seeing as they're also only exercising their freedom of speech.

Sorry Dudess, but I just cannot accept this at all, it is so wrong. One cannot go far enough in defending the principle of freedom of speech as long as it is done within the law. With that caveat there can be no exceptions -Fred Phelps Fred West Hitler Stalin Chomsky Stopes Malcolm X are all entitled to say (and write) what they like as long as they stay within the law.

The emotional argument you are using is just meaningless. We cannot have it both ways.

And what is ironic about accusing you of advocating censorship ? Now if I tried to prevent you advocating censorship that would be ''a tad ironic'', no ?

feel free to say anthing you like to me in reply;)

Freddie59

Leftist wrote: »

Nah, ban him, his kind are dangerous.

Because their viewpoint is unacceptable to a liberal minority?

Leftist wrote: »

People are easily swayed,

Because their viewpoint is unacceptable to a liberal minority? And they're looking for some fair play for the oppressed indigenous population?

Leftist wrote: »

just look at the amount of people on here that hate foreigners highlight the scams operated by many foreigners - with the tacit support of aforementioned liberal minority in this country.

There. That about covers it.

Jake Rugby Walrus666

Bloody foreigners coming in and shagging up the joint.
And now the Nazis are coming to fu<k us.

Bring back the Catholic Church that's what I say!