Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Here we go again: Cheap publicity stunts by cheap people

Options
  • 29-11-2004 6:41pm
    #1
    chewy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭


    the so called law society is doing the most original thing... its inviting a right nutter-wing to a debate hurrah, and proudly publising it too, I hope we get on Joe Duffy too there thinking...

    MOTION: That This House Believes The Government Should Place Stricter Controls on Immigration VENUE: Boole 2, UCC DATE/TIME: Wednesday 1st December, 7.30p.m. LawSoc join with An Chuallacht this week in celebrating the 'Spraoi Cois Laoi' festivities by staging a once-off, bi-lingual meeting. Áine Ní Chonaill, outspoken leader of the far-right Immigration Control Platform, will propose a motion "That This House Believes The Government Should Place Stricter Controls on Immigration". In opposition is Cllr. Toireasa Ferris (Sinn Féin, daughter of Martin Ferris TD). Ironically, Sinn Féin were among the most vocal opponents of Ní Chonaill's presence at a Philosoph meeting last year. The speakers will present their cases in Irish. However, PMT and contributions from the floor (including points of information) may be made in either Irish or English. A professional interpreter will be present on the night to provide Gaeilge/Béarla and English/Irish translations, which will be available to members of the audience through headphones. Given the logistical exigencies of such a project, we move to the surrounds of Boole 2 for the night.

    a load of crap, imbeciles with bow ties


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,978 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I cant imagine a more perfect stage for a riot. Ban-Provo plus nazi nutjob in two languages. Brilliant.

    Mike.


  • Options
    #3
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    chewy wrote:
    the so called law society is doing the most original thing... its inviting a right nutter-wing to a debate hurrah,

    Good Lord. Yu mean they're not picking a bunch of self-congratulatory hacks who all espouse the same view, and getting some of them to put a weak argument they don't believe in as an attempt to have two sides in a debate.

    They're actually picking people who believe in the side they're going to argue, and who are acknowledged spokespersons for their chosen cause

    The INHUMANITY!!!
    and proudly publising it too, I hope we get on Joe Duffy too there thinking...
    Well, I see they've already conned you into spreading the word about their devious plan, so clearly it works.

    I mean..you know what they're up and you still are helping spread the word.

    jc


  • Options
    #4
    magpie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,643 ✭✭✭magpie


    I cant imagine a more perfect stage for a riot. Ban-Provo plus nazi nutjob in two languages. Brilliant.

    Lol. And interestingly they're both Gaeilgoirs. Must be something about the language that encourages extremism.


  • Options
    #5
    chewy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭chewy


    wel I dunno would at all possible to get somebody "reasonable" on the anti-immigration side... is theres any possiblilty that there is (now that i write this im not sure that there is) a difference between wanting controls on immigration and just being plain racist as she is?

    I did think of the implications of me going on about would be to there advantage thank you bonkey, I just thought it would get coverage anyway...


  • Options
    #6
    bonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 15,443 ✭✭✭✭bonkey


    chewy wrote:
    wel I dunno would at all possible to get somebody "reasonable" on the anti-immigration side...

    Sure it would. But I guess the merit of doing so would depend on the purpose of the debate.

    F'r example, it has been noted by more than one poster here and on other forums that we shouldn't discourage the overt racists from coming here and trying to spread their message. Why? Because there are enough people with enough information to be able to tear their arguments apart.

    Sure...it will boil down to who you believe, but at least after a good humdinger with both sides putting their best foot forward (so to speak) there can be no claim that one side or another was unfairly disadvantaged because their chosen "heavyweight" speaker was prevented from speaking or somesuch.

    Why give them a cross to play martyr on? Someone else could do with the wood.
    is theres any possiblilty that there is (now that i write this im not sure that there is) a difference between wanting controls on immigration and just being plain racist as she is?
    I would hope so. I want controls on immigration, but I don't think I'm particularly racist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    chewy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,254 ✭✭✭chewy


    theres control and then there's controls


Advertisement