Trinity SP take a stand against the BNP coming to Trinity

by mystryman Mon Nov 03, 2003 20:51

Who is Kenna?

by Acid Mon Nov 03, 2003 21:33

I'm completly against fascism and racism, but wouldnt preventing someone from the BNP speaking at a DEBATE be against freedom of speach? I would support a protest and picket outside but not letting someone speak (at a college debate of all things), be a bit narrow minded? You have to let people decide for themselves what's right and wha's wrong. Educate them and let them know what the BNP really stands for. Lowering yourself to their level by not giving them a choice, almost sounds like your contradicting yourselfs being against fascism. I dont think this is the answer.

by smash BNP Mon Nov 03, 2003 21:48

Fascism is not like any other political ideology. It is the clear goal of fascism to smash democracy and in particular the workers movement. They are not interested in polite debate, they are using this platform to set up a fascist organisation in Ireland which would see the targetting of left activists, progressives and ethnic minorities. Look around Europe, this is the case. In England they have instigated race riot in cities like Oldham.

They should not be allowed speak and we should shut down that meeting by whatever means necessary.

by Adolf Hitler - National Socialist Workers Party of Germany Mon Nov 03, 2003 22:15

"Only one thing could have broken our movement - if the adversary had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed, with the most extreme brutality, the nucleus of our new movement."
-Adolf Hitler

by Reinhard Mon Nov 03, 2003 22:36

Worry not the SP and Mick Barry will decide for us who is Facist and who is not.

by Sammy Mon Nov 03, 2003 22:37

That one group positions itself as the ultimate arbitor of who is entitled to free speech is a disgrace. It is unacceptable that groups use violence and intimidation to supress the views of others . FREE SPEECH IS NOT A PRIVIEGE TO BE GRANTED BY FINTAN LANE

by breda Mon Nov 03, 2003 22:40

after the reichstag fire Adolf Hilter took the opportunity to restrict the free speech of a range of opponents. That is the nucleus forming that should have been resisted. Reactionarys come in all shapes and sizes

by pasionaria Tue Nov 04, 2003 01:59

a more recent epic was the !river of blood speeches" by enoch powell in the uk, papers at the time reported in the huge level of racist violent attacks.

no platform for nazis, this is how they organise

by Gerbil Tue Nov 04, 2003 02:28

And communists have killed way way more people than Hitler ever did. Communism spreads hatred too, hatred of anyone who can be arbitrarily declared an "enemy of the people". You only have to read the hatefilled ranting on this site to see that if we're banning fascists then we should also ban communists. We already have had numerous warnings from history about the consequences of both ideologies.

It's amazing that communists come here deciding who can speak and who cannot, and justifying their position by qoting from Hitler.

Free speech is free speech for everyone, not just those you agree with.

Can you get that into your thick skulls you communists?

by Marc Mulholland Tue Nov 04, 2003 10:56

My understanding of traditional 'no platform', as articulated in the 1920s and 1930s, was opposition to mobilisations of fascist strength - often in paramilitary form - on the streets. Often fascists would deliberately march through strong socialist, communist or jewish areas. They were being directly intimidatory, intending to express fascist strength. No platform was a response to direct intimidation in a period of incipient civil war. Democracy was genuinely fragile, and militancy was appropriate in its defence.

Whether or not 'no platform' was required then, the odd BNP ideologue being engaged in orderly debate now is hardly the same. Democracy is not under threat. Most observers will just see (probably correctly) intolerance and fanaticism on both sides if anti-fascist activists, most of whom are self-proclaimed 'revolutionaries', obstruct free speech.

by Jo Take Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:03

"Gerbil" - you pondlife

"It's amazing that communists come here deciding who can speak and who cannot, and justifying their position by qoting from Hitler."

"Communists come here" - from where, sneaked over from Moscow?

"Free speech is free speech for everyone, not just those you agree with. " - ever hear of libel laws? or Section 31?

"Can you get that into your thick skulls you communists" - Manners, now.

Every time some right wing slimebag is invited over to speak by clossetted aristos in Trinity the bleating starts about "free speech" and "democracy" and how the anti-fascists are as bad (worse usually) than the nazis. All I can say is that if the BNP are to be allowed to speak here for the entertainment of a few future boss students then I should be allowed my right to protest as well by showing these scumbags what I think of them and by preventing them a platform to spread their poison. The BNP are seeking the illusion of respectability and are being accomodated by certain College Societies. They might not be interested in the credibilty given to the BNP by speaking at such meetings, only thriving on the great buzz of publicity, but each small succour the BNP finds lenghens its fangs.

So have your "freedom of speech" and sit on your arses moaning and whinging about "communist" opposition, neo-liberal opposition to dissent has extended to welcoming nazis who talk their jargon, maybe you are happy for the company.

No Pasaran!

by pc Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:23

what is the title of the debate who else is speaking

what was the previous debate with yerman haider like as a debate is there a recording transcript of that ?

by Durriti - none Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:25

This crop needs to be niped in the bud, the BMP coming to speak in Dublin. Every single person with a brain should show them basterds what we really think of there race hate. Free speach my hole, what would you do if it was your family they were burning out of thir homes, yes you would defend yourself, like everyone of us should do if they get to speak. Remember the day of no blacks, no dogs, no irish. Nazi are Nazi and should be treated like the verman they really
are.
I'm sure AFA would agree with me, the only people fighting the fash on the ground in Ireland.

by Moi Tue Nov 04, 2003 13:00

"the odd BNP ideologue being engaged in orderly debate"
Now that IS a joke. While I agree that they are "odd", I doubt that what they are about is "orderly debate". If they got a bit of power they would impose heavy censorship on anyone not as right wing as themselves, and anyone who objects to them is likely to be assaulted or murdered.

by Far away from here Tue Nov 04, 2003 14:06

Jo Take,

The 'bleating' (as you call it) about free speech only starts when you communists start baying for censorship.

"All I can say is that if the BNP are to be allowed to speak here for the entertainment of a few future boss students then I should be allowed my right to protest as well by showing these scumbags what I think..."

Yes, you have this right. It's a free country.

"...and by preventing them a platform"

No. You have no right whatsoever to stop anyone from speaking.

What makes you think that you have the right to say who shall speak and who shall not? Who gave you this right? (Yourself, perhaps?) Just because you don't like what someone has to say doesn't mean that you are right, and indeed it highlights the weakness of your position that your only argument is "Shutup".

Freedom's great, ne c'est pas?

by Far away from here Tue Nov 04, 2003 14:12

by smash BNP:

"They are not interested in polite debate...

...They should not be allowed speak and we should shut down that meeting by whatever means necessary."

Outstanding, simply outstanding. Well done!!

by mannerly pumpkinhead Tue Nov 04, 2003 16:25

It is absolutely amazing to look at some of the attitudes of people upon this thread. Any members of the Trinity Socialist Party or indeed the Socialist Party in general are hardly what you would call evil Stalinist murderers. They find what happened in the former Communist states abhorrent and without vindication. As a socialist I acknowledge that Stalin killed far more people than Hitler did. Does that mean that I'm not allowed to be a left-winger? Does that mean I should not stand up against the violence and hatred that is indulged upon by the far-right? The fact is that fascists look to gain power by manipulating the working class through propaganda, lies and violence, stretching as far as murder. Through the rise of the WNP in Northern Ireland as of late, we have seen these trends get increasingly more polarised. This pathetic liberal notion of "free speech for all!" does not apply to those who wish to provoke others and incite them to racial hatred and violence upon their fellow man. I think a hell of a lot of you need to wake up and grow up.

by Jo Take Tue Nov 04, 2003 18:30

“Far away from here” – I have the “right” to prevent the spread of race hate by any means necessary”. Who “gave” me this right?, well unlike some, I do not believe that rights are there to be “given” (who do you think “gives” rights anyway, your Fuhrer?) . Any and every right won by the people throughout history has had to be fought for and won against the venom and reaction of the elite. Racism and fascism has always been used by the rich to divide people by seeking to allocate blame for exploitation onto the weakest sections of society. Sadly, there have always been those seduced by this filthy doctrine as asylum seekers are easier targets than multi-national corporations.

By allowing the BNP a platform, their current slime towards respectability is facilitated. The end product is always the same, siphon off support from people towards the disgusting and cowardly policies of the BNP, which will lead to race hate and violence, much more than the targeted violence resulting from the smashing of organised violence . It is amusing that people are wringing their hands over a few nazis being denied the red carpet to spread their hate while the very same elements were foaming at the mouth over the peaceful protests by anti bin-TAX protestors.

All of you working yourself up into a lather over "free speech" for the BNP are fooling nobody with your pseudo-liberal concern for democracy, we know your agenda, different shit still stinks the same.

by lone gunman Tue Nov 04, 2003 19:38

going by your belif that rights are to be taken[which they are] and you seem to be wanting a fight.Be careful that the Right group dont kick your ass in self defence.Personally I would like to see the whole bunch Brown and Red up against a wall and shot.They are both violent,bankrupt failed ideals that belong in the garbage dump of history.

by HEYRICH Tue Nov 04, 2003 20:35

WHO DECIDES WHO IS A FACIST, FINTAN ?????

by Pete Tue Nov 04, 2003 21:11

"Kenna" refers to Shane Kenna - their man in Trinity. As a Labour member i am against the No platform stance.

We cant just shut up those that dont agree with us. I believe we should argue with them inside the debate and win people to our points of view. Protesting never does much its just a bunch of hippes led by a guy who thinks he's "Che Guevara" (in this case Kenna), this isnt going to stop the Phil from inviting others right wingers over you know!

by Trinity hack Tue Nov 04, 2003 21:24

It might not stop the Phil from issuing invitations to fascists every time some hack wants a bit of publicity but no-platform protests have a good record of stopping fascists from actually speaking in Irish universities.

See under repeated attempts to get David Irvine a platform at "debates" organised by university societies.

So fair play to "Kenna" if he is trying to put something together in that fine tradition.

by Shane Kenna - Trinity Socialist Party Tue Nov 04, 2003 21:26 socialist_tcd at hotmail dot com

The argument as to whether the B.N.P, N.F, or any other rag-tag Nazi organisation has the right to propagate their vicious views is one that provokes much discussion.

Often, when campaigning or leafleting, the argument is put forward that we live in a democratic society, and as such, the fascists have a legitimate right to organise. However, things are not quite as simple as that.Is it really true to say that everyone has freedom of speech? I believe in freedom of speech, but not when that freedom is used in a way that discriminates against whole communities.

For decades working class people have fought to build up a democratic society; the right for everyone to vote; the right to join a trade union; the right to assemble; the right to freedom of speech, the list goes on.

If the B.N.P are allowed a legal platform, everything we and those workers before us have built up through the decades risks being destroyed. The B.N.P will do its best to smash our democratic rights and organisations, and limit media freedom.

Our "NO PLATFORM FOR THE B.N.P" argument is not a question of taking democratic rights away from people we disagree with, it is just the fact that the B.N.P abuse their right to freedom of speech. Additionally, the B.N.P use these benefits to inflict violence and death on anyone who challenges their "ideal" of "racial purity",

There is a proven link between allowing the B.N.P a platform and the incidence of racist attacks; this is all borne out by events in the area around the B.N.P "ex" headquarters in welling south London, where attacks have escalated in the past two years, culminating in the murders of Rolan Addams, Rohit Duggal and Stephen Lawrence.

As Caitlin Morgan, Co-presenter of Naked City, said "freedom is being able to walk down the street without getting your head kicked in"

In effect, the B.N.P pose a threat to democracy as we know it, a fact proven by their attacks not only on ethnic communities, but also on homosexuals, left-wing organisations, and even the disabled.

In Germany before the war, Hitler used the process of democracy to gain power, and then systematically dismantled the democratic system. It is on this basis that the B.N.P should be denied a platform, and the responsibility lies with all of us to achieve this.

I wont really bother with our Labour friends comments. It seems I know the guy, however I raise this in response to his comments 1. Do you really think lobbying works 2. Why are you against protesting?

We cant lobby Wentworth, I have outlined reasons above. Protesting has been essential to winning the rights we have today for the past century. Without protests, and heroic actions of our working class we wouldnt have a trade Union movement (They would be turning in their grave if they could see its leaders and the betrayel of their party)we wouldnt have the rights to stand up against our bosses and so on.

I can also confirm that we have taken up this issue and intend to lead a major campaign against this Nazi speaking in our College. We believe that the vast amount of students are against Wentwoth's twisted views and ideas tied with the case I have outlined above, as such we dont believe he should have a platform for racial hate.

Finally I can assure you that I am most certainly not a Hippie, and I dont think I am Che Guevara!!

by Lebor Gabala Tue Nov 04, 2003 21:37

Stop talking in these stupid outloded 19th century terms. We are not to corral people into classes. We all share the same aspirations. People who talk about the "working class" betray their own privileged backgrounds.

by matt Wed Nov 05, 2003 09:46

So how many of us belong to your family?

by weeler Wed Nov 05, 2003 15:05

"I would defend the right of the party to ban counter revolutionary parties - but only counter revolutionary parties. ...The bosses parties such as Fianna Fail etc, would never accept socialism and would use all means to destroy it and revert back to Capitalism. This scenario cannot be allowed."

you might say you're just as bad as them..
commies fascists capitalists all the fucking same.

(A):)

by Me Wed Nov 05, 2003 16:05

"We all share the same aspirations."

Who is this we - then? I hope I don't share the same aspirations as Michael O'Leary.

by jeff Wed Nov 05, 2003 16:11

...especially when white English trash want to "loike, debate, innit, y'know." Lone gunman, fair comment about shooting the red and brown.They are scum.

But failed lefty Marxists have no right to tell me what I should and should not listen to. Especially the SP/SWP gang, with their fairy tale beliefs of " Everything would have been fine in Russia, but Stalin ruined everything, lifes not fair, only our utopian beliefs will work, especially because our movement contains, er, so many vibrant people."( yeah, right, doctors, lawyers, engineers, and top CEOs, the creme de la creme, oh no, sorry, they can't join, evil capitalist lackeys).

Here is the score. I want to listen to a wacko. I want there to be people there to politly contradict him on points. No dreadlocked fool can tell me, Geoff Dolan, the greatest individual in the world (I have a solipsist weltanschaung), what to do. So now, have a protest, by all means, but let the rest of us do our thang, man...

by Pablo Montana Wed Nov 05, 2003 16:58

"As a Labour member i am against the No platform stance"
Yep you idiots never change. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco all could have been stopped if it wasn't for these idiots and their 'noble' concepts. Well my friend the fascist jackboot doesn't recognise 'noble' concepts.
As for those deniers of the existance of the working class - get a job, then tell me there is no working class you half witted guffawing upper class w*nker.

by Magneto - Labour Wed Nov 05, 2003 17:14

I support the No Platform policy, the SP are right this time. Go along to the organising meeting in Arts Block, TCD on Thursday at 1 pm (called by the SY) to oppose the BNP.

by Marc Mulholland Wed Nov 05, 2003 21:12

I find the ultra left's attitude to fascism in Ireland very curious. One speaker from the BNP (note: BRITISH NP) is hardly likely to lead to pogroms in Dublin. He will come out with his racialist twaddle, sure. But ethnic hatred is not the preserve of travelling English men.

It hopefully has not escaped Indymedia's attention that 100s have died in Ireland in the last decades because of sectarian hatred. Is this less reprehensible? Yet the Socialist Party not only supports platform for the demagogues of bigotry, but they share these platforms! (Billy Hutchinson anyone? Or do you really believe that he has broken all links with paramilitarism?) Before you say that sectarian violence is different because of the national question, do well to remember that nationalism was hardly foreign to fascist parties in the inter-war era.

The good thing about traditional marxist analyses of fascism was that it was concrete. It recognised that fascist ideas barely exist. They are a mish-mash of second-hand ideas. One cannot seriously identify a fascist programme distinct from the various late nineteenth and early twentieth century currents of ultra-nationalism, pseudo-scientific racialism and militarism.

Fascism was a historical form, a movement of peoples. Its danger was in mobilising a section of the masses against democracy. To fight fascism was to fight not so much an ideology (for it had no ideas unique to itself) as a phenomenon.

Out of context, fascist 'ideas' are malicious but by no stretch of the imagination a threat to democracy. They might well inspire individuals to violence, but so can most others. In this country, it is nationalism and unionism that moves people to kill. Little tykes who celebrate Hitler's birthday are an absurd near irrelevance.

To oppose platform to loyalism, or indeed republicanism, would be absurd. Peter Hadden was quite justified, at least in principle, in speaking on a platform with Hutchinson. But if you can 'permit' platform to these voices (not that you have any choice in the matter) then why get worked up into a macho rage about stray waifs and cast-offs from Britain?

It was right to engage with Hutchinson, but it's cloud cuckoo land to believe that the BNP were, are, or will be more dangerous than the paramilitaries. 'Anti-fascist' activism is a purile spin-off from the rrrrevolutionary antics of the British ultra-left. The Irish left, who know a thing or two about real inter-communal violence, should be too embarrassed to impersonate.

One last point; Johnny Adair was a whole lot less dangerous in his 'fascist' incarnation (those halcyon days when militant denied him 'platform' at Coleraine in the mid-1980s) than in his later UDA commander role. But do ultra-lefts deny 'platform' to loyalists or republican killers? No, you find someone even more of a political non-entity than yourselves and pretend you're re-fighting the Spanish Civil War. No pasaran indeed!

by Queens SWSS Wed Nov 05, 2003 22:21

When you were a socialist in Queens. Now you pontificate from an ivory tower, denegrating young people with a 'have a go' attitude. From the comfort of Oxford University.

In Dublin and Belfast - racist attacks are increasing exponentionally - in the North we have just had an al-Queida scare, and Muslims have been burnt out of their homes. In Dublin racist attacks continue. Some idiot young-conservative wannabes invite a fascist party - the BNP to Dublin, whose existence in towns in England lead to increased attacks on black and asians and ultimately to Stephen Lawrence's death.
You lambast people who want to organise against such human-filth.
I remember when you quoted Trotsky to people. Now all you do is post and web-log presumably for material for another OUP Book. Hope your brothers disown you.

To those who want to organise against the BNP - you are 100% right. Crush them when they are small. For the banner 'No Pasaran' to be raised we would have waited too long for them to show their true colours.

by Marc Mulholland Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:25

Let me assure SWSS (writing from non-Ivory Tower QUB about non-Ivory Tower TCD) that my bothers (and sisters, parents, friends & colleagues) have no responsibility for my opinions, nor me for theirs. I expect they would certainly disagree with me on this subject. No matter - they do not own me and thus are not required to disown me.

SWSS astutely points out that my ideas have changed. Well spotted. For more on this hithero guilty secret, see http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Mulholland.html.

SWSS seems to making an interesting point when she / he argues that 'For the banner 'No Pasaran' to be raised we would have waited too long for them to show their true colours.' I quite agree that it is matter of perspectives. I would contend that the conditions for mass fascist mobilisation against democracy, as existed in the inter-war period, no longer exist. I don't believe that the 20% hard-right constituency in most European countries are potential bases for fascism in this era, though there are other causes for concern. I think the left would do well in this period to defend the norms of democratic values by observing them.

Dave Renton, an SWP member, has written interestingly on these topics (he would disagree with me). Indymedia readers might like to see a book review by Chris Brooke at http://www.voiceoftheturtle.org/show_article.php?aid=136

Finally, terms such as "human filth" and "maggot" have a rather unpleasanty fascist tenor (Hitler compared jews to maggots). I'm not suggesting that SWSS is a fascist, but we should be careful not forget the humanistic and fraternal traditions of the left.

by Jo Take Thu Nov 06, 2003 12:46

Marc Mulholland- Your arrogance and pompousness no doubt derives from your academic career closeted in Oxford University. As you preach to us in Ireland from that renowned centre of struggle you feel the need to point out the B in BNP stands for british. Well it is a weight off my mind that we will not be experiencing pogroms in Dublin then.

You hope that it “has not escaped Indymedia's attention that 100s have died in Ireland in the last decades because of sectarian hatred”. Only an arsehole could inject such an incredibly naïve and offensively sweeping statement to back up the jaded old SP / PUP fling. I have no sympathy for the PUP as I believe they are still the same old loyalist reactionaries dressed up in socialist clothing, well pyjamas. That the SP were over eager to embrace them as a measure of some fictional cross-community alliance is an indication of the SP’s blindness to old faults of new allies, not quite the same as sharing a platform with the BNP.

Thanks for the hackneyed history of fascism; “Fascism was a historical form, a movement of peoples. Its danger was in mobilising a section of the masses against democracy”. Movement of peoples is was not, it was the counter-reaction of the recently impoverished middle classes sponsored by the industrial and military bloc. You are using the usual neo-liberal bullshit that “fascism was a threat to democracy then but not now” to sneer at those fighting to prevent fascism gaining a toe-hold into “democratic” politics. What is democracy then? This corrupt Government who believe they can manipulate legislation to exploit the tax-payer because they got something like 35% of votes in a turnout of 58%?, The thousands of victims of race attacks by fascists in England every year do not show up on your radar except as “an absurd near irrelevance”, but then what you don’t experience obviously matters nothing.

Is your fear of “macho rage” an indication that you believe those physically opposing fascism are too rough for your genteel take on fascism? As for the Irish left “should be too embarrassed to impersonate” the left in England/Scotland/Wales, are you saying that physical anti-fascism is their property alone and that all others are impersonators? You stink of little England. It may have escaped you in University but in every single country which is facing right wing resurgence sections of left have organised under the no platform policy.

As for your analogy of Adair being “a whole lot less dangerous in his 'fascist' incarnation”, words fail me, that scumbag has always been a danger and if his community had sorted him out when he was not as powerful but as dangerous as he could be within his smaller power base, we would not be in the position where a committed fascist vies for leadership of the UDA. As for denying loyalists a platform, I don’t see the PUP/DUP/UUP/DUP trying to hold too many public meetings in the south, they know how welcome they are.

Nobody thinks they are reliving the Spanish civil war by the way despite your juvenile sneer. I can give you the translation for “no pasaran” if you are confused.


No Pasaran!

by Marc Mulholland Thu Nov 06, 2003 14:02

Hello Jo Take,

I think my pomposity & arrogance pre-dates Oxford. Perhaps SWSS Queens remembers.

The point about sectarian casualties was not made in order to defend SP - PUP dialogue. It was to point out that the NF / BNP etc are not the foremost purveyers of ethnic strife in Ireland, not ever likely to be. You appear to be consistant, at any rate, in implying that loyalists - and indeed the DUP - should be denied platform as de facto fascists. What about the IRSP and Sinn Fein, or did their military wings never engage in sectarian violence? As I say, I think it would be unreal to argue for 'no platform' for any of these groups, but it's hardly rational to suggest that white power groupuscules are the uniquely henious danger.

Naturally I deprecate racial violence. I'm suggesting that 'no platform' is not the appropriate response at this time to such outrages. (I seem to remember that the Scottish Militant once opened formal dialogue with some 'neo-Nazi' youths, to good effect). You have not convinced me otherwise, except that I would doubt your ability to discuss ideas sensibly with anyone. Perhaps heckling and scrapping is your forte.

You're right to say that 'No Platform' is not the preserve of English ultra-left groups. I accept the point.

On Adair. Your words certainly do seem to fail you. Do you have a preference for non-fascist loyalist leaders? Or are all loyalists fascist? I don't know what you're arguing.

No Pasaran - "They shall not pass". I admit that joke didn't really come off. Oh well.

by jeff Thu Nov 06, 2003 14:19

...give up. Yes, you are one of the few intelligent contributors to this debate, but one must remember, the far left, as well as the far right, they are a bit like, well, born again Christians. In their belief structure, that is. Except born again Christian are way more polite.

More polite, that is, than the self rightous, good guy badge wearing fools, who have done nought but personally insult you.

Mr. Mullholland, I commend your dignity in debate, and, in a sense, I am glad you did contribute, you let these fools show themselves up for what they are. For your own sake, negate inviting them to read this book or that book; Pearls should never be Cast before Swine.

We live in a free society. Well done to Trinity Phil for organising the freak show. Polite contempt for the idiots on this thread who are unable to argue without having to reduce themselves to namecalling. Do any of you people actually know any of the Trinity Phil. " Closeted Aristos" might sound like a more pedantic insult, but, really, you are just the same as the psycho bigots who would "ask" you (ie;tell you)to buy An Phoblacht in many a pub in Ireland before the Peace Process kicked off. Retards.

by Jo Take Thu Nov 06, 2003 16:37

Oh dear;you really want to stay off the topic; the “no platform” basic argument is directed to prevent fascists organising in public, to keep them in the sewers. You keep bringing republican/loyalism into the equation as if they should both be lumped in with the BNP and opposed in the same manner. Republicans have had a long history of involvement in anti-fascism (including Frank Ryan and Sean Russell before you start) and republicanism is at core a progressive libertarian philosophy, so what’s there to oppose?. Loyalism, I would describe as neo-fascism and should be opposed (and is) for the similarities it shares with fascism, (sectarianism, division, state terror), however, there are loyalists who are in no way right wing and some would even describe themselves as left wing. As you reminded us, (thanks), Ireland has experienced de facto civil war and it is idiotic to imply that anti-fascists should oppose loyalism and republicanism equally, how many republicans have been members of the BNP/NF, whoever? Loyalism has faced physical opposition by anti-fascists whenever it has sought to associate itself publicly with fascism be it the Appprentice Boys/C18 link-up or the BNP’s constant overtures to the UDA/LVF.

As for Jeff, your kiss-assing of Marc was more coherent than the rest of your rant; “…. self rightous, good guy badge wearing fools, who have done nought but personally insult you” followed by the following;

“Swine”,….. “idiots on this thread who are unable to argue without having to reduce themselves to namecalling”, … “psycho bigots”…… “Retards”

Well done Jeff, you really put us on the run there.

by hs - sp Thu Nov 06, 2003 16:59

just on the point of facisim existing or not, it is obviously a mish mash of ideas. But it does nevertheless exist, they are very opportunistic and will say pretty much anything. To give my own experience, I live in a city on the eastern coast of Sicily. Obviously before going any further we have to acknwoledge the fascist tradition here and its massive support under mussolini and even after. But at the same time a nazi (rather than traditional AN ex facism) group named forza nouva did not exist here three to four years ago. They came with one or two and lots of money. Now They have three public offices and the city is regulary covered in racist and anti jewish posters, very expensive posters too. They often do stalls on the street, first it was with about 30 to 40 people and a massive police escort. now they are more regualar. on the bad side two social centres have been attacked a couple of times in the last year. One was an attempt to burn one down and in another a bunch of skinheads went on a rampage. A 15 year old kid was hospitalised by the same bunch of skinheads. And during the summer a dozen or so skinheads went marching through the centre of town barechested one day and beat up an alternatively dressed kid and his girlfriend.
They are not particulary big and there have been worse manifestations but there growth has been massive, as far as I'm aware forza nouva are growing at the same rate in other parts of Italy.
They are a racist and sectarian party, very very catholic. Unfortunately their symbol and what has become the symbol of Italian nazi's is the celtic cross and they are busying hijacking Irish culture and music, and their "che guevara" figure is bobby sands. Obviously they never bothered to read anything he wrote! But they are growing and they will say anything they think is popular. For example in the north they support the US war (anti muslim) but in the south they oppose it (anti american). A no platform policiy obviously would be much more difficult here as it can involve actual violence. A peaceful picket on their offices would almost certainly end in violence, there have been blockades to prevent them marching but thats all so far. But they are nasty and although we all agree there should be freedom of speech should people be free to encourage racist attacks? Obviously Ireland doesn't have the same political and social history but it doesn't take so many fascists and and some money to poster etc. At first they all get taken down but later... people get used to it.

by Michael O'Brien - SP Thu Nov 06, 2003 17:32

His observations in Sicily get to the heart of the matter.

What better way to discourage the isolated and badly organised neo nazis in Ireland than to show them that we will respond to any attempt to give them a platform. The fact that it is a BNP member being invited to Ireland is neither here nor there. You can't rule out their call forn an all white 26 county Eire appealing to a few blue shirted scumbags. Sure you had their leader Nick Griffen on Marriane Finnucane going on about his West Cork heritage.

The invitation to speak in TCD is a slap in the face to any refugee or asylum seeking who has suffered racial abuse or worse since coming here.

I'd like to ask Marc at what point you would draw the line and apply no platform?

After 6 million corpses the debate about the right fascism to have a platform is over as far as the SP is concerned

by Marc Mulholland Fri Nov 07, 2003 10:26

I'm boring poor Jo Take as I can't match his / her wit and acuity, so I'm inclined to leave the thread, having made my point. But Michael asked a specific, and civil, question.

I tend to think that incitement to racial hatred and potential disturbance of the peace is best left to the law of the land. I believe, tiresome as it is to even have to make this point, that we do live in a democratic if obviously imperfect state.

I can conceive of limited applications of 'no platform' as a tactic; perhaps if racists persistently organised meetings & activities in areas of high immigrant settlement with the effect of demoralising and disempowering them. One might act to disrupt such activities. My preference would be for the use of public order legislation in these situations by a democratically mandated government. If anti-fascists generally observe democratic norms, the legitimacy of whatever exceptional measures is enhanced.

There is a rationale for using anti-democratic methods in defence of democracy. The left should have mobilised for civil war rather than acquiesce in the rise of Hitler. The use of state powers to ban paramilitary formations, had they been applied vigorously and equitably, would have been justified. In the incipient civil war stage, 'no platform' might have been an effective general strategy (I'm not sure about this).

I define democracy as a state in which governments are restrained from arbitrary power by regular elections to renew or terminate their sovereignty. (Or something similar - it is probably a good working assumption that the Allied Occupation of Iraq is self-limiting, though the left needs to maintain a watching brief). Governments that determine their own fitness to rule - whether fascist or Bolshevik - open up the potential for catastrophic experiments in ideology. Certainly the Socialist Party has not abandoned this anti-democratic heritage. It should.

I'm also do not forget the millions of innocent dead. Despite this, I do not think it is usually appropriate to harass the Communist Party in Ireland, except in debate. The same applies also to parties that harbour holocaust deniers (though to defend the genocide in a speech is incitement, and should be, indeed is, illegal). The really dangerous Holocaust deniers, of course, are these days to be found in certain Mosques, whilst it is a repulsive predilection of the left to compare the activities of the Israeli Defence Force to the Shoah.

I quite agree that hs made a valuable comment.

by jeff Fri Nov 07, 2003 17:35

What was incoherent about my rant. I said I believe in freedom of choice. Instead, all Take can do is throw in some sarky comment about my sarkiness about everyone elses sarkiness. And unlike Provos, I don't seek to have anyone "on the run."

" Republicanism is at heart...libertarian..." So you are telling me Sinn Fein I.R.A, with their belief in a "32 county Democratic SOCIALIST Republic" are libertarian. Libertarianism is where the left right spectrum seem to collide, that is, freedom of choice in personal issues (divorce, drugs, consensual adult sex, etc) but also freedom in the economy. This means minimal taxation, NO free healthcare, NO dole. You get the picture. Libertarianism is the core philosophy for decadent Oxford Tories.

Och, aye, nigh, you really had me on the run, there, bhoy. Ach, but, no, I can't run! I've just been kneecapped!

Mr. Mullholland,

While I agree with you on certain issues you raised, you say it is wrong for the left to compare the IDF to the Shoah? Possibly, they are not using gas. They are regularly shooting people, including women and children, and foreign observers. Not even the Serbs seemed to do this with such regularity. In fact, the Serbs let international observers into Racak in Kosovo, something the Israelis do less in the West Bank. What about those settlements? Thats ethnic cleansing, pushing people off their land, defence or no defence against terrorists. Their actions are making more terrorists.

Anyone who does not agree with me, do not reduce yourselves to going "Ugh, spelling mistakes". I know I have made them, this is simply a rant I have posted on indymedia, not a fecking phd in Atomic phsyics. Now, loosen up.

HP,
God points, you cited a relevent case study, that is, Sicily. But is it not possible in Sicily, that "Our Thing" can be a paid to pay some a visit to those thugs that bait up that kid. There needs to be an understanding that freedom of speech is one thing but baiting children is another. If the cops don't do shit, then it's time for "Charles Bronson; Death Wish". Why arn't the SP out baiting Skins. The truth is they couldn't storm a phone box, it is easier to intimidate the "closeted aristos" of Trinity college.Any contentious political gathering should have a couple of snipes on the roofs. Pretty soon boneheads would be mash heads, it would be great.

Let people give all the speeches they want. If the say End Immigration, fine. If they say, lets help end immigration by killing people, tonight!, well then that is NOT freedom of speech, that is incitement. NAMBLA, for example, are not freeedom of speech, they are inciting each other to be pervs.

by Jasper Fri Nov 07, 2003 18:28

Now i know what educated adults do when bored - act like children.

by omega supreme Fri Nov 07, 2003 20:16

There seems to be alot of comments that the BNP are Fascist (or "fashs" for the really trendy lefty of today) but from reading the BNP manifesto and site I don't think that works out.
1 They don't advocate the corporate state.
2 They don't advocate dictatorship.
3 Nick Griffin can be removed as party leader.
4 They don't have groups of street fighters.
5 No expansionism.
6 The Bnp are an ethno centric party where as Mussolini was a known Critic of Racially supremacy and not too anti - jewish both unusual traits in the the 20's 30's 40's.

Maybe the Lefties are just jealous that the BNP are actually from the working class, have larger appeal to the working class (and all Classes) , partake in constructive street level politics, and completely edge out the Loony Left.
Oh sorry the BNP are just like the Fascists were in the 20's 30's and 40's!!!!!!

by logface Fri Nov 07, 2003 20:55

"They don't have groups of street fighters."

Maybe not officially. But they still lend support to hardline Neo-fascist groups. See the help that was given to the WNP in Northern Ireland when they were first starting up. Then see the racist attacks that have been occuring here. If you honestly believe that the WNP are not a fascist party, look at their history. They are nazis in neo-liberal fancy dress, comrade.

by Big Man on Campus - Uni of East Anglia Sat Nov 08, 2003 02:08

Mulholland, freedom of speech should be restricted in your case.

by Jasper Sat Nov 08, 2003 02:32

On a more serious note, stigmatising the BNP (i.e. labelling them "Nazi BNP") - or in fact any grouping that is right of the increasingly narrow centrist political spectrum of the UK - is surely going to mark them out as extremists and outcasts, and thus attractive to the disaffected in society. History tell us that such people look toward those on the outskirts of the political system to change that system if it does not work for them (National socialists, communists, Italian Fasicsts...) Bringing those on the edges into the political system, assimilating and then subsequently negating their support base is surely the best way of minimising their influence. Otherwise, we could find our attacks leading the BNP and other such parties to the very door of that which we abhor.

by angry liberal Sat Nov 08, 2003 15:07

I attended the demonstration against Haider in Trinity when the phil invited him to speak and what got on the news?The hypocrisy of those who tried(not succeeded)to stop him speaking.What they have to say should be held up to the light of argument,we all know it is ridiculous,scare-mongering crap so if some ass wants publicise what a tool he/she is then let him/her.We would be as bad as he is and this argument that facism is different is groundless.Do we believe in democracy or not?We have to accept differences no matter how much they sicken us,they thrive from making classes in which some people are defined as DIFFERENT and derserving of discrimination.Those of you who advocate preventing him speaking listen to yourselves.Have a silent protest,get a petition,even better argue with him during the debate.We have freedom of speech so fucking use it.

by spanky Sat Nov 08, 2003 18:37

ok we let him speak them we put him on a ferry back home (sounds like Irish immagration policy).

by Big John Sat Nov 08, 2003 19:22

Yes, we must bear in mind what 'angry liberal' said about how these things are portrayed in the media, and we must ensure that our opposition is clearly seen to be against his right-wing arguments. We should see the publicity surrounding this affair as an opportunity to promote our own analysis of race relations issues, rather than only seeing the presence of a bnp spokesperson as a threat, remember that we are the ones who are on the side of social justice, and that the bnp and their fellow travellers have a very dubious past which they don't want highlighted.

It is their record, their past associations and behaviour which we should be putting the spotlight on. For starters we could remind people about the support the british far-right has given the loyalists. We could also point out the connections they have with particular instances of violence, including football hooliganism. I'm sure that's only the tip of the iceberg.

But having said all that we should also make the point that the fact he was invited is a sad reflection on those who like to think of themselves as 'intellectuals' that they invite someone whose message and level of argument is so far removed from intelligent discourse and is a thinly disguised diatribe of misinformation and hate mongering.

The same people who invited this nutter are the ones who will tut-tut and will try to portray US as the ones who are narrow-minded. Maybe we also need to examine the role THEY play in Irish society. They are the same people who intend to go on and become high flyers in politics, business and journalism, where they will continue to look down their noses at the rest of society.

by Big Man on Campus - Uni of East Anglia Sat Nov 08, 2003 22:42

First of all, the BNP is not just a group that is "right of the increasingly narrow centrist political spectrum of the UK," to make an assertion like that is naive. The BNP is a party of violence and thuggery, it engenders a spirit of xenophobic pugnacity amongst the disenchanted and disenfranchised. We need to close off these kinds of outlets for frustration and open up more constructive doors for the people who believe the status quo is inadequate.

Monkeys will skate on the frozen surfaces of Hell before we can assimiliate groups like the BNP into the mainstream - their very existence is founded on their extremist nature.

by Joker Sat Nov 08, 2003 22:53

Last post is cool and reflective

"yearly debate on the politics of the far right on November 20th."

So this is a regular thing, 'yearly' infact. In the intrest of fainess and balanced argument do they have a 'far-left yearly debate'? The negative would be disturbing for the future as yer man says.

But then again maybe they just want to enact the fight between Wittgenstein and Popper out, with the whitey as Popper.

by 50 Cent - G-Unit Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:44 50cent at g-unit dot com

Wasn't assimilating the NSDAP into the German governing coalition in January 1933 (so that the elite coterie surrounding Hindenburg - Papen, Meissner, von Gayl, Schleicher - could tame the Nazis and "negate"(?) their support base) exactly what paved the way to the enactment of the Enabling Law? It seems to me that Jasper thinks like a 1930s oligarchic East Prussian Junker.

by Obie Thrice - D-12 Sun Nov 09, 2003 13:23 obie.thrice at d-12 dot com

I wonder if Jasper's Rankean view of the world as a Prussian Junker extends to a belief that, in the words of Ranke himself, 'all ages are immediate to God'? if so, does this apply to the years 1933-45 during which Hitler held power?

by simcon Sun Nov 09, 2003 22:36

Ok facts:
The BNP are not Nazis they are Nationalists. Nazis are National Socialists.
The BNP are not fascists and are not against Democracy.
Ironically the BNP are pro-Democracy while the idiotic Marxists posting here are anti-Democracy.

Too true any representative from the BNP which is a legitimate legal party should be allowed to be heard, just as much as anyone else should.

I think you will all realise that whenever somebody says that the BNP should not be 'allowed' to be heard it is because the person stating this is anti-Democratic and is in fact a dangerous Marxist.

If you value free-speech listen to the BNP and make up your own mind. Don't let the few deny you your rights for these ARE your rights.

In my opinion having gone through college and Uni I would say the least likely person to understand how the world really works is a student because they only have an opinion and not a complete understanding.

Here's to a free-speech sensible and extremist free world.

by joker Mon Nov 10, 2003 12:51

While the BNP may not be overtly fash, they are the thin edge of that wedge, as were the NF. Ultra-National parties always are. The repectability and acceptability that 'loving ma nation' gives the more un-communal of us lets them get away with acts of violence directed at others with cosmetic, philosophical or other diffrences than the national norm, which is part of the 'loving ma nation' mindset, for instance, all irish are drunks, you are not drunk, so its ok for me to beat the shite out of you cos your not irish.
I would'nt vote for them, I would'nt encourge anyone to vote for them & i would'nt want them living next to me and my kids.

by nopasarán Mon Nov 10, 2003 14:16

Free speech for fascists is the freedom for them to organise racial pogroms and stir up hatred against minorities. NO PLATFORM FOR FASCISTS

by omegasupreme Mon Nov 10, 2003 19:31

No platform for fascists eh!!! seems pretty irrelevent seeing as the BNP arent fascist and it is a tread about the BNP talking in trinity.
And has for nazi ethnic cleansing, did Pol Pot former COMMUNIST dictator of Cambodia not try to wipe out all the light skinned Cambodians, pretty screwed if your albino then arent you.

(I'm not trying to justify or deminish the nazi atrocites here, they were repulsive, just trying to make light of the fact that some of the people who are opposing the democratic BNP are of an even more twisted ideolage after all if Hitler had killed every single jew and gypsy in the world he still would have millions to go to catch up with Stalin never mind Mao)

by bnparefascists Mon Nov 10, 2003 21:36

Ask anyone that lives in Oldham about the role they have played in stirring up racial hate and the role they played in attacking minorities in the area. The BNP like to give the image of being a party that is democratic and stands in elections, but this is a facade. They are a fascist organisation that denies the holocaust and believes in a white Britain through involuntary repatriation. They have an expressed wish to smash democracy and the workers movement. They should not be tolerated. Those who are in any doubt should seriously go to British IMC and ask them.

by Chris Henry - SP Queens Tue Nov 11, 2003 12:59 h1320403 at qub dot ac dot uk

I don't usually post on this, but I think I'll make an exception for once. Tony Wentworth, the BNP youth organiser and the speaker at Trinity, was handed the post after his predecessor, Mark Collett, was expelled for making public pro-Hitler and pro-Nazi comments. However, I emphasis the word "public". Wentworth has since been very careful to hide his National Socialist tendancies, but there they remain. In an interview with "Wales on Sunday", he stated that the Holocaust was "an irrelevance", and that Stalin was responsible for the deaths of millions more. So Stalin was. But as a socialist, I do not support Stalin, nor Hitler. To quote the death tolls caused by Communist dictators does not make me want to shy away from the left-wing; I do not support these people and i shudder to think that anyone would defend them.

Wentworth is also responsible for taking photographs of socialists that have since appeared on the website "Redwatch", a prominent site dedicated to the violent intimidation and destruction of the left. Linked to incredibly dangerous ultra-right groupings (such as Combat 18), it is far removed from the official line that the BNP would like us to believe.

Wentworth is also responsible for attacking a member of the anti-Nazi league in Salford University, punching him in the face. Subsequently, Wentworth was banned from all SSU facilities. The student in question did not wish to be named as he was too frightened of Wentworth and his cronies, and did not press charges for this reason.

This is the type of person you liberals are defending. This is the man you want to let speak in Queens, a man who promotes violence in regard to anyone who disagrees with him. He is a racist, and flirts with the ultra-right on a regular basis. In conclusion, get your heads checked - the only way to stop fascists is to stop them organising. That is the way it was done in the 1980s, and this is the way it will be done now.

by Chris Henry - SP Queens Tue Nov 11, 2003 13:00 h1320403 at qub dot ac dot uk

Apologies, he is speaking in Trinity, not Queens. My typo.

by omega supreme Tue Nov 11, 2003 19:52

I visited this red watch website and yes it would be intimadating, for the people on it BUT I also noticed on the site that it makes the offer that has soon as pictures phone numbers and addresses of right wingers stop being distributed by those who oppose them red watch will be closed down. on Wentworths links to the site I can't comment (lack of information).
You describe Wentworth as " a man who promotes violence in regard to anyone who disagrees with him."
But then say "the only way to stop fascists* is to stop them organising" (* By which I presume you mean the democratic BNP) Does this not stink of Hypocracy!
As for the ANL member he punched I seriously doubt Wentworth wasnt prevoked.

by Damien Carton Tue Nov 11, 2003 22:12

From looking at that site I don't think much of the capabilities of the right, it does not take much work to put together such a list.
Most of the photos on that site seem to be of people on demos, who I assume did not mind their photos being taken, and are obviously up front about their left-wing politics. Most of the people named are reasonably well known, some of them have even stood for election. We should not allow ourselves be intimidated by sites like that, I think the extreme right are more reluctant to be open about their politics. We should continue to expose these neo-nazis, whether they are the bullheaded 'combat 18' types or their 'bnp' {thugs in sheeps clothing) associates. We should meet them head on, underneath their posturing they are basically cowards.