David Irving (Fascist and Holocaust denier) to speak at NUIG

by Lenny Sun Jan 25, 2009 19:22

Do you really think sane, rational people will take his views seriously? I'd much rather see someone more interesting speaking, but if he's coming let his nonsense by shown in public for what it is.

by Edward Horgan - PANA Sun Jan 25, 2009 20:45

I agree that sane and rational people will not be swayed or influenced by David Irving.

It is the insane and the Irratoinal people I am worried about. This racist who calls himself a historian should not be given a respectible platform to propagate his views. There is a danger also that anti Jewish feelings may be stirred up over the Gaza issue. Irrational people may have difficulty separating their views on Israeli acts of genocide against the Palestinian people, and the Holocaust genocide perpetrated against European Jews by the German Nazi regime, with a lot of help from millions of other European people.

There are plenty of credible accademic historians who could debate these issues. The NUIG society who are inviting this individual seem to be more interested in pursuing their own interests rather than promoting justice. They are doing this in the name of "free speech" as were the UUC society in the past, when this individual is known to abuse the privilidge of free speech.

by lulu Sun Jan 25, 2009 22:14

It's a debate he's doing, rather than a lecture, & there should surely be competent historians who can show up his nonsense.

by Joe Moore - Cork Anti Racism Network Sun Jan 25, 2009 22:37 mapuche at eircom dot net 087 2994796

Because of opposition to Irving in Cork, the invitation to him by the UCC Philosophical Society was withdrawn. The debate however still went ahead. The student society supported the right of free speech to all, including Nazis like Irving. Cllr. Mike Barry, Socialist Party opposed this position.
On the night however a number of Irving supporters turned up at UCC. They left when their presence was objected to by anti fascists present.
Irving states on his web site that he paid a private visit to Cork shortly afterwards and met with supporters. As a result racist and anti immigrant stickers are appearing regularly around the city.
The reason Irving speaks at college debates is to recruit to racist and fascist groups. He should not be dismissed as a crack pot.
His proposed visit to Galway should be opposed, just as his invitations to Cork were.
Nazis like Irving should not be allowed free speech, if they ever succeeded in gaining power, free speech would be immediately denied to all democratic organisations.
We cannot afford to forget the lessons of history.

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Mon Jan 26, 2009 04:51 uniteblasian at gmail dot com

This man is an affront to minorities everywhere, the mere fact that we in Galway allowed him to come makes me ashamed to be from this county. However, opposition of the likes Galway has never seen before will be put in place from this moment onwards, the fascist racist thug will be stopped from speaking, I am calling on all those willing to help to stop Irving and his supporters from entering NUIG. Come to Galway and do not allow another disillusioned youth feel his racist views are not creditable just because a bastard like Irving has been given a respectable platform to speak from. Fair play to the Socialist Party, all you others outraged by these circumstances please join us in NUIG, you are more than welcome.

by Con Carroll Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:51

like Haider of Austria, Irving has nothing to contribute
these so called liberals and the right to free speech would turn anyone stomach
we are not talking about assholes talking about opposing beef to Libya
we are dealing with scum who deny that fascists murdered people
in the memory of Bob Doyle other anti fasctists activists oppose Irving

by Cactus Col Mon Jan 26, 2009 11:29

Refusing an offer by Irving to speak at a debate, or not inviting Irving to speak at a debate, is not a denial of free speech. Irving has plenty of platforms available to him where he can promote his ideas and beliefs.

The NUIG's Literary and Debating Society's members have not struck a blow for free speech. By allowing Irving to debate they actually go some way to endorsing Irving's beliefs as being somewhat legitimate.

by ed Mon Jan 26, 2009 15:11

Can the people trying to prevent him from speaking not see that they are the fascist ones by denying this man the right to FREE SPEECH in an open free and SO called DEMOCRATIC society, i mean i know nothing about this guy but all these people trying to shut him up really makes me want to hear what he has to say and im sure i won't be the only one feeling like this. Anyway there is more important things that should be stopped and are happening right now like THE GENOCIDE IN PALESTINE, The War in IRAQ, or AFGHANISTAN, or closer to home the great CORRIB GAS ROBBERY!!made possible by our own currupt NAZI POLITICIANS!! the but you people would rather waste your time, energy and resources on shutting up this guy?? Wake TF UP!!!

by Moshe Mon Jan 26, 2009 16:07

"It is the insane and the Irratoinal people I am worried about."

There are plenty of insane and irrational people who have sided blindly with Hamas, an organisation that is backed by holocaust-denying Iran and is dedicated to the destruction of the State of Israel and the genocide of the Jews, which they claim deserves recognition as the democratically elected government of Gazans. These insane and irrational people also paraded outside the Israeli embassy calling upon the Israeli ambassador to be expelled from Ireland and claimed the IDF were guilty of war crimes for firing on Hamas terrorists who werel launching rockets from Palestinian civilian areas at Israeli civilians inside of Israel. These same insane and irrational people compared Alan Shatter TD to Dr. Goebells because he defended Israel as it defended its people from genocidal Hamas terrorists.

These same insane and irrational people have campaigned against the War on Terror since 9/11, campaigned against defeating the Taliban, campaigned against the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, campaigned against Iraqi and Afghan democracy and compared President George Bush to Hitler.

I am sure these same insane and irrational people will soon be comparing President Obama to Idi Amin or Mobutu.

David Irving is the least of our worries when the likes of George Galloway, Anjem Choudary and other left-wing or Islamic extremists who are apologists for heinous dictators and terrorists such Fidel Castro or Osama Bin Laden spout their hate speech against civilised liberal democratic society.

by Anti-Fascist Mon Jan 26, 2009 16:51

This is a childish provocation of the Left. This is a stunt by reactionary anti-left elements at the University to show how anti-freedom speech the left is. Fine Geal types no doubt.
Never the less he should not be given a platform regardless of weather it plays into the hands of the childish stunt or not.
People DO take neo-nazi idiots seriously and and we shouldn't bank on him being treated as a joke by everyone.

by Democratic majority Mon Jan 26, 2009 17:22

No one has mentioned the fact that the idea of bringing Irving to Galway was put to a vote, after a debate with speakers from both sides arguing their case. Does this clear, democratic mandate mean nothing? Is it acceptable for a violent minority to forcibly stop a public meeting, that was approved by the students, from going ahead? What gives random lefties from across the country the right to tell intelligent students 'you have voted against what WE think, and if you try to hold this meeting we will FORCIBLY stop it from happening'?

The hypocrisy of people here is astounding.

by James Mon Jan 26, 2009 18:19

Is it for the shock value?

Are they being all big and clever by pushing the boundaries?
Those boundaries have been pushed in the past. Perhaps they should study it.
Mr. Irving's discredited rants are not opinions.
The Holocaust was a real event, verifiable by evidence, and the victims were also real.

How can supposedly educated people give a platform to this guy?
If they want to test free speech, let him get a megaphone and start a public debate on the street.

"Was there a Holocaust or not" is a provocative title, but for informed debate, and further education, what people REALLY need to debate is "how the hell do so many people end up going along with the crazed plans of warmongers and imperialists" . Because, for damned sure, that's a debate that's needed in today's world.

by Kirk Mon Jan 26, 2009 18:45

I was at a debate last year on the introduction of Sharia Law in Ireland at UCD hosted by the L&H and the invited speaker was Islamic extremist Anjem Choudary, notorious for his praise and support for the 9/11 attacks, the 7/7 bombings, attacks on Israel and for advocating the introduction of Taliban style Islamic Law in Europe and the United States.
Where were the protestors then? I didn't witness a single socialist or anti-war demonstrator speaking out in protest.
Does a tired old fool like David Irving deserve more outrage than lunatics who advocate the overthrow of Western civilisation and return to the Middle Ages and are quite prepared to kill millions?
The silence in regard to Islamic fundamentalism is deafending particularly when left wing protestors can be seen marching in solidarity with Hamas and Hizbollah at anti-Israeli protests.

by Pamela Mon Jan 26, 2009 19:37

Differing points of view, different interpretations are normal and healthy, and where extreme, need to be talked over, but hardly in the adversarial theatrical manner of a College debate.

However, there should be no platform given to a supposed 'historian' who deliberately falsifies the 'evidence' upon which he bases his books and talks. This man has already been dragged through the courts and shown to be dishonest in his work.
He twists quotes and documents to fit his pre-set conclusions, rather than looking at the evidence and going from there.

It may give these students in Galway a bit of excitement and controversy, but deliberate lies, systematic deception are the enemies of education, and people like Irving should be left to find their own platform. Giving him an audience is worse than foolish.

by Socialist Society NUIG - Socialist Party Mon Jan 26, 2009 21:26 socialist at socs dot nuigalway dot ie

No Platform for David Irving

Last Thursday, the Literary and Debating Society (Lit & Deb) ran the debate ‘That This House would allow David Irving to speak at this house’. The debate ended with a vote: 100 v. 63, to invite Irving. David Irving is scheduled to come to NUIG on 19th March.

Irving is a convicted Holocaust denier, racist and fascist. He was jailed for a year in Austria in 2006 and has been banned from Canada, Australia and Austria. He has spoken for or supported the British National Party (BNP), the National Front and the National Alliance, all extreme right-wing, racist and fascist organisations.

The debate on the night was not an abstract debate on free speech; it was a practical decision as to whether Irving should be given a prestigious platform for his views. At the debate, we argued that not only do Irving’s sham theories not deserve a prestigious university platform; they do not deserve any platform. We argued that he knows that his ideas are wrong; he has intentionally misrepresented sources for the purpose of spreading his racist, anti-Semitic views. Furthermore, Irving craves the respectability of a university platform and will use it to recruit people to fascist organisations.

Speakers correctly asserted that where Irving speaks, statistics show a spike in race-hate attacks. According to LGBT campaigner, Phelim Mac Cafferty: “It is a fact that when fascists are allowed to speak, racist and homophobic attacks, violence and intimidation increase. And there is a world of difference between defending free speech and choosing to provide a platform for fascists.” If Irving speaks, it is likely that there will be a spike in race-hate attacks in Galway. It is obvious that those affected by these attacks have the right to stop Irving.

Some aspects of the pro-invitation vote were the entertainment factor of ridiculing Irving and the publicity the debate would get. These are not genuine arguments when we are dealing with the rights and welfare of minorities.

The debate and our position raise a whole array of questions:

Q. Having lost the debate, are we just being sore losers?
A. This was not just any debate. The result of Irving speaking could well be the organisation of fascists and the carrying out of attacks in Galway. This is not an abstract possibility. In Britain, where the BNP gets organised there have been higher rates of race-hate attacks. It’s not absurd to think that once a group sets up it would start to carry out its programme. We believe that we have a right to stop this happening. Had we won the debate, the other side would also have had the right to protest.

Q. What form would ‘blocking’ take?
A. Although not decided, there are some basic ideas for how to block a Fascist. This is not done by death threats or individual violence. These are ineffective and counter-productive. The most effective way to block is to mobilise hundreds of students, school students, members of immigrant and gay communities etc. to physically block Irving. In UCC, a protest of 600 stopped Irving from speaking – nearly twice the amount that would fit in the Kirwan Theatre.

Q. If we block Irving, won’t we try it with everyone we disagree with?
A. Of course not. People ask where we draw the line when denying someone a platform. We answer: ‘Simple. At fascism.’ We may disagree wholeheartedly with Mary Harney or Brian Cowen or immigration control campaigners, but we do not deny them a platform. We may protest outside, but we go in and debate. With Irving it’s quite simple – he’s a self proclaimed fascist, so we deny him a platform.

Q. Can’t we just make Irving look like a fool?
A. There is no debating with fascism and Holocaust denial. According to the Judge in the Lipstadt trial, Justice Gray: Irving’s “numerous mistakes and egregious errors are not due to mere ignorance or sloppiness: on the contrary, it is obvious that they are calculated and deliberate.” The main aim of Irving and co. is not a rational debate. It’s the securing of some respectability in the eyes of the public and more importantly using NUIG as a platform to meet prospective followers.

Q. Fascism doesn’t have a foothold in Ireland. What’s there to worry about?
A. First of all, for fascists it doesn’t matter whether they have a mass following or a democratic mandate, they start their programme of attacks whenever they get a group of thugs organised. Secondly, there is a basis for fascism to grow in Ireland. The small groups of thugs currently active are sure to benefit from economic crisis and growing alienation from mainstream parties. Racial tensions in Ireland are on the increase, with African taxi drivers, Chinese restaurants and travellers regularly targeted. Similar conditions led to the rise of the BNP in Britain, who now have 37 councillors and a London Assembly member.

Q. Is speaking in NUIG really such a big deal for Irving?
A. Irving is not just any wrong historian - his website sells Hitler and Nazi memorabilia! For the last few weeks his website, his newsletter and the on-line forums of his supporters have tracked the NUIG debate closely. On the website there is also a column dedicated to ‘where Mr. Irving has spoken’. For Irving and his supporters, getting to speak in NUIG is not just a big deal; it’s an opportunity to recruit.

Yet no one is saying that on 19th March the crowd in the Kirwan would turn into a platoon of frog-marching Nazis. 99% of people listening would reject Irving’s ideas outright. In the debate, Irving’s opposition would undoubtedly win in terms of votes, but Irving would be the real winner. While Lit & Deb retire to Paddy’s Bar, Irving and his followers would be on the prowl for new recruits. After all, Irving is a charismatic speaker with a unique ability to present blatant lies as facts. Even if only three or four join up with a small fascist group in Ireland that would be a success for Irving.

What would Lit & Deb do if they see fascist thugs attacking immigrants and minorities? Stop and debate with them?

The visit of David Irving is not just an issue for Lit & Deb and not just for students in NUIG. Immigrants, travellers, gay people, socialists and trade unionists have the right to protest and the right to block Irving from speaking.

What is actually done is not just for the Socialist Party to decide. We hope to build a campaign, reflective of all affected, over the next months. It will be this campaign (to which all will be invited) as a whole that will decide what we do in the run up to and on March 19th.

Socialists, anarchists, trade-unionists and all other anti-fascist campaigners from across the country are invited to come to Galway on March 19th to join in the protest against Irving. Contact socialist@socs.nuigalway.ie for more information.

by aha Mon Jan 26, 2009 21:33

Someone quote something this dude said and expose him on his record if he is to be exposed as a facist...otherwise your on a witch-hunt folks.......now how just is that?

by Miriam Mon Jan 26, 2009 21:49

“If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all,”

by gazasympathiser Mon Jan 26, 2009 21:51

Everybody who is against the mass murder of Palestinian civilians by the IDF is insane and irrational.

How silly of us, we should all pack up and go home. (Not)

That's what you war-crime-denying, phosphorous and DIME bombing zio****s would love.

Don't hold your breath.

Shatter was on this morning about the incest case in Roscommon.

Did he give a flying f**k about the hundreds of Palestinian kids who had been deprived of their human rights PERMANENTLY?

What a hypocrite, inhuman and lying propagandist who cares more about animals than people.

As for the so called war on terror, Obama is dismantling it, and soon there will be no carpet (bomb) for Israel to hide its war-crimes under anymore.

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Tue Jan 27, 2009 09:04

Moshe, everything you are shocked at is evidence of the fact that you must ne a neo-con, so kindly fuck off. To evreyone talking about the debate that will take place with Irving, the wheels are already in motion, the old fart will probably be ignored its the rat-infested scum who worship him that we will be waiting for, come down you heathens, come to NUIG and lets see you support your modern-day hitler. THIS REVOLUTION WILL BE TELEVISED.

by Ted Ryan Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:54

As Gaza struggles to feed the homeless refugees of the recent bombardment it becomes clear that the greatest current abuser of Holocaust victims is undoubtedly the Apartheid State of Israel. It similtaneously uses their painful legacy to protect itself from scrutiny whilst ignoring their simple daily needs.

It is reported in YNet News that " Sad news is pouring in from Israel's Holocaust survivors on International Holocaust Remembrance Day. According to the Foundation for the Benefit of Holocaust Victims in Israel, some 60,000 of the 230,000 Holocaust survivors living in the Jewish state are counted amongst the poor and needy. "

Incredibly, the aged citizens of the rogue state of Israel , who survived the horrors of the Holocaust, now feel the need to stockpile food in fear that the economic downturn could kill them. Meanwhile, Israel swaggers around Gaza killing hundreds and maiming thousands, using the memory of these people's suffering as a badge of immunity from prosecution under international law. Bear in mind that this is a first world country with the most powerful army in the region enjoying billions of dollars in handouts every year from the USA. Whilst Israel stomps aound the Middle East proclaiming it's status as the only democratic state in the locality, its elderly citizens are poor and scared without even the money to buy new clothes. Holocaust survivors living in Europe enjoy far better social conditions than their Israeli counterparts who are being forced to live in poverty whilst the Apartheid State squanders it's riches on fake wars designed at consolidating it's violent hegemony.
According to one holocaust survivor, "I have a sister who still lives in Hungary and doesn't want to come to Israel," he said. "She has free healthcare there, and she also gets free medication. The State of Israel was established thanks to the survivors' money, and I don't have enough money right now even for all the medications that I need. I don't even remember the last time I bought underwear and a shirt."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3662375,00.html

by Jolly Red Giant - Socialist Party / CWI Tue Jan 27, 2009 14:05

“Without Hitler, the State of Israel probably would not exist today. To that extent he was probably the Jews' greatest friend.” (David Irving)

by aha Tue Jan 27, 2009 14:51

“Without Hitler, the State of Israel probably would not exist today. To that extent he was probably the Jews' greatest friend.” (David Irving)

And this makes him a facist?.

This is not facism, this is a fact. The Jewish people were without a country to call their own. After Hitlers demise, the allies, mainly the UK and US, gave the Jewish people part of Palestine. Israel needed a country and the Allies needed a base to control the middle east from. I do not agree with this cource of history but it hapened, and to this regard I for one can 'see' how Hitler was indeed the 'Jews greatest friend'. Im sure Hitler wouldent be happy about this outcome because he wanted to see the complete inihilation of the whole jewish race and he diddnt plan this to happen but it did...... Can someone quote something that this Irving fello said that is so unsavory,

I saw him on the Late late sho with pat the plank when ther was such a rucus over in Galway and the only objectionable thing I found in that interview was that he disputed the numbers of Jewish victims quoted as being exaggerated. And he also objected to the Jewish lobby 'owning' the word 'holocaust'- that it should be applied elsewhere also.....mabey Palestine for instance??

by cap Tue Jan 27, 2009 15:48

When Irving says Hitler was a friend to the Jews he's not just referring to Israel: "If you look at his career, both in detail and in general, Hitler was the person who protected the Jews,”

"I don't think there was any overall Reich policy to kill the Jews. If there was, they would have been killed and there would not be now so many millions of survivors. And believe me, I am glad for every survivor that there was."

When asked if the Jews bore responsibility for what happened at Auschwitz: “The short answer is yes.”

More on jews "They don't recognise the fact that it's just possible that they are the architects of their own misfortune, to use that wonderful phrase. They are so arrogant, they won't accept this. Every time some rich Jew dies, [they say in his obituaries he was] the noted philanthropist. He won't go down in history as being a noted philanthropist, he'll go down in history as being a Jew, and the non-Jews see the Jews and say ‘well how have they made all their money? From us.’ And that's one reason to dislike them. It's human nature.”

On women and black people: "But if there is one thing that gets up my nose, I must admit, it is this — the way… the thing is when I am down in Torquay and I switch on my television and I see one of them reading our news to us. It is our news and they’re reading it to me. If I was a chauvinist I would say I object even to seeing women reading our news to us.
But now we have women reading our news to us. If they could perhaps have their own news which they were reading to us, I suppose [laughter], it would be very interesting.
For the time being, for a transitional period I'd be prepared to accept that the BBC should have a dinner-jacketed gentleman reading the important news to us, following by a lady reading all the less important news, followed by Trevor McDonald giving us all the latest news about the muggings and the drug busts…"

On slavery: “nicely stratified system, with the white on top followed by the coloureds followed by the blacks and the slave labour on the bottom,”

Sources: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/profiles/david....html

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/David_Irving

So, still think he's not a fascist?

by estrema Tue Jan 27, 2009 16:28

i cannot believe that people can be so short sighted.... it isn't AGAINST david irving that people voted for his freedom of speech, it was voted FOR the rights of minorities to feel safe on the streets of galway.
do you not understand that this man, as a nazi sympathizer believes that women, people of ethnic background and disabled people are lesser beings?
how could you? this isn't a t.v. show, this is real life.

real people are at danger here.
people from minorities are feeling real fear.
people may be hurt through the actions of 100 controversy-thirsty students.

you may not be effected, but minorities will.
how dare you think you have the right to put their safety in your hands.

so while you talk on and on about his right to free speech, where are their rights to feel safe?.
A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT YOU HAVE DENIED. hope you are happy.

by ! Tue Jan 27, 2009 17:51

The morons of the "socialist society" don't seem to recognize the painfully obvious irony, that they are behaving like fascists. i have a phraze for you Oppo-sames!

Stifling dissent and suppressing peoples right to think differently to you is not very revolutionary is it?

If you disagree with Irving debate him but, attempting to take away his right to freedom of speech through intimidation makes you no better than neo- Nazi thugs!

What we'll we be forbidden to question next
The official story of 9/11?
Man made Global warming?
Zionism?

Does no-one remember the wise words of Voltaire:
"I don't believe in what you say, but I will die for right to say it"

Perhaps Noam Chomsky:
"If you don't believe in freedom of speech for everyone, you believe in it for no-one!"

by Bewildered Tue Jan 27, 2009 18:15

David Irving is loathsome and disgusting but why do his crack pot opinion arouse such indignation when there is a gallery of more loathsome grotesques on the loose in Ireland?

We still have a religious organisation in this country that systematically covered up the sexual abuse of young children in its care, that oppressed and enslaved young women who had pre-marital sex or had babies outside of wedlock, that intimidated and silenced those who dissented against its narrow nationalist theocratic right wing politics that dominated the Irish state for decades banning contraception, divorce, abortion and persecution homosexuals and inflicting misery on the people of Ireland.

We have a political party in Dail Eireann which was for more than 30 years the political mouth piece of extremists who wanted to overthrow democratic government in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland by killing innocent people and threatening to kill more innocent people if they didn't get their way.

We have radicals who want to overthrow parliamentary democracy, confiscate private property, silence political dissent and establish a totalitarian state on the lines of discredited economic and social theories and have allied themselves with religious fundamentalists who have come to Ireland as part of the vanguard of a global network of religious fanatics who want to overthrow modern civilisation and establish a global empire based on their intolerant brutal primitive religious beliefs.

by Areopagitica Tue Jan 27, 2009 18:15

Has anyone here ever actually read anything that Irving wrote?

And I don't mean selective "quotes" that you read in a newspaper, which are not always that reliable. For example, how many times have you read that Ahmedinejad wants to "wipe Israel off the map," even though he never mentioned the words "wipe off" "Israel," or "map"? But still everyone believes that's what he said.

I haven't read Irving either, but I have listened to a few of his highly entertaining lectures on the internet, particularly the one on Churchill. In those lectures at least, I didn't hear him say anything that could be fairly categorised as being either "fascist" or "anti-semitic." And I doubt very much that he wants to "recruit" anyone to anything, except to buy his books.

But has anyone ever wondered why it's considered necessary to jail someone for questioning a historical event? Imagine jailing historians for questioning the official version of the Famine. Oh, I forgot. There isn't an official version of "The Famine." But perhaps, we should have one. So then anytime a historian questioned the official number of people who died (let's say two million), we could lock them up for being "Famine deniers." We could extort billions from the English, and then build Famine museums all over the world, instead of giving it to the survivors. And we could commit war crimes with impunity, because anyone who wasn't sympathetic towards our suffering would be afraid of being smeared as "anti-Irish."

Seriously, we should be far more worried about the mendacious warmongering leaders in power today in Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. today than about any historian, who as far as I know hasn't advocated the killing of anyone. If anyone deserves to be boycotted, it's those mass murderers.

Nevertheless, denying freedom of speech to anyone, even if we abhor their views, would set a dangerous precedent. If we value freedom, we should heed the words of Evelyn Beatrice Hall: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

by Owen - sp (personal capacity) Tue Jan 27, 2009 21:50

I dont think those fond of quoting Chomsky above "recogise the painful irony" that he was in part paraphrasing the earlier "Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently" argument of Rosa Luxemburg. This month marks the 90th aniversary of her brutal murder at the hands of fascist thugs.

For those liberals fond of collecting high sounding quotes on free speech, this one is a little more relevant given Irving's history of the period

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

(Martin Neimoller)

there is a strong association between economic crisis and the rise of far-right political groups, that is why it is especially neccessary today to make a stand on this issue. Irving has made it his life's work to try and rehabilitate the image of the Nazi's and willfully distort history in the process. Furthermore, he has been actively trying to forge links with neo-nazi's around europe, including in ireland. He is not a harmless eccentric scholar trying to sell books as some of the comments imply. He should be given no platform for his repulsive views.

by Areopagitica Wed Jan 28, 2009 03:34

"In Ireland, they first prevented David Irving from speaking,
And I didn’t speak up because everyone said he was a fascist...

Finally, they prevented me from speaking, but by that time there was nobody left to speak for me."

If, or probably when, President Obama comes to Ireland, will you try to prevent him from speaking? I doubt it. Yet he represents the Wall Street crooks that have caused the economic mess in which fascists apparently thrive.

If David Irving is allowed to speak in Galway, do you really think that some of his listeners are going to head straight down to Eyre Square after the lecture to beat up someone who looks different?

Let him speak, and when you have heard what he has to say, then feel free to challenge him. Otherwise, as Einstein apparently said, "Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."

And let's not waste precious time and energy harrassing easy targets like David Irving and begin fighting the real enemy of humanity - criminal elites who fund both left and right and threaten us all with poverty, tyranny, and endless wars.

by Michael - Human League Wed Jan 28, 2009 05:56

But we are living in the land of Saints and Scholars of which there is no such thing as free speech .........

Let Mr Irvine Speak all he wants to speak , however dont ''Bank on it '' , pardon the pun .....

No Doubt Some Little Nerd will Stir The T Pot in order to add flavour....

Who Gives A Toss..........

by clog man Wed Jan 28, 2009 07:07

If he comes it will provide an occasion for those active young men in their Doc Martins boots to dance with the elegance of stomping elephants and save us all from fascism. Can they do the quickstep, a Kerry reel or the walls of Limerick?

by Gavan Gray Wed Jan 28, 2009 09:54

So strange to see the power that this crackpot holds, that he can so easily manipulae the minds and actions of the closeted Irish racists and xenophobes, stirring them to violence while the scholars, priests and family members around them stand powerless to counteract the undeniable influence of his honeyed words.

Dear Lord, any of you who attended higher education should tear up the degrees they gave you as you're a sorry lot wholly unfit for academic interaction of any kind. The idea that there are people who would try to physically block the man from accepting an invitation rather than listening to him speak and then using their numbers to simply show the widespread level of disdain for his views is shameful in a nation once noted for its intellectuals.

As noted above, one wonders how many marched to physically block access to the Dail by the Ambassdor of a nation currently condemned for gross human rights violations and probable war crimes. Not for you the moral sacrifice of confrontation with a high level diplomat and their Gardai protection, instaed seek out the most fringe-dwelling, social pariah against whom to mount a campaign. By God, you're fearless in your resolve to tackle such odds.

The above quote regarding standing up in defense of the Reich's victims spoke to the virtue of doing the right thing while in the majority and sure to suffer for your moral resolve. Restricting the rights and physically intimidating a relatively powerless minority (no matter how offensive) is lock-step in the mentality that drove the people of Germany to don their brown shirts. The Jews of that era were viewed as rabble-rousing communists, instigating violence based upon lies and deceit. Then as now, some chose to meet them with physical rather than intellectual challenges.

Irving is (from what I know of him) both a blatant racist and misogynist and surely loathsome for those traits alone to the vast majority of us. He has been discredited for knowingly using falsified sources and for twisting history to suit his personal beliefs. That aside he is an established historian who has produced works recognised as valuable contributions (particulalry to the history of WWII) by some of the major figures in the field. He should be accurately classified as an historian with racist and extreme political views rather than simply the latter.

The funny thing about history is that its very hard to support, let alone prove, outright falsehoods in the face of the documentary evidence. Surely the historians of Ireland, the students let alone their teachers, have enough confidence in their ability to show up the distortions and innacuracies Irving is championing?

A supporter of Israel's current policies stated in a recent thread here that the historical record needs to consider views from both sides of any situation and see what of them is justified by the evidence. This by no means requires a compromise to be reached. one side might be wholly delusional and in such a situation can surely be shown as such.

The evidence is against him. Logical, rational argument is against him. Even the emotional context of simple human compassion and decency is surely against him and yet people seem to fear that somehow he can overcome this factors and triumph rather than he and his views being exposed for what they are.

Numerous Jewish writers have written of the Israeli state manipulating and abusing the Holocaust for political gain. foremost among them is possibly Norman Finkelstein, a man who would certainly have been tarred as an anti-smetic Holocaust denier had he not been Jewish himself. His views were supported by people such as Raul Hilberg, possibly the most prominent documentarian of the Holocaust. Irving goes further than them by saying that this manipulation occured during, and even before, the Holocaust itself by those who sought to establish the Israeli state and thus the historical record is tainted. This step is the difference between being a highly respected scholar and acquiring immediate jail time in some European countries. Any country that prides itself on honest education should oppose such artificial and one-sided restrictions being imposed on any field of academic enquiry.

Given that amateur sites such as the Nizcor Project provide ample argument against Irvings beliefs, career historians should have no trouble highlighting the flaws in his views and yet it is argued that intellectually crucifying Iriving by laying waste to his falsehoods and illogic will instead somehow legitimize him and make his views more popular.

The majority of those likely to sympathize with the man already know of him. Those who do not will be far more likely to be drawn to someone whose views were "too extreme" to be heard rather than the man publically humiliated for being unable to prove or justify any of his outlandish claims to an open-minded and polite gathering of scholars.

by estrema Wed Jan 28, 2009 13:32

the thing is that i dont think a lot of people would be unhappy with david irving coming to speak. but he publicised the fact that he is speaking.

it is not his presence that people are afraid of. it is other people of a racist nature who will be 'inspired' by these events to commit crimes against ethnic groups.

if you want to hear him speak then go to hear him speak. but he wont be the only voice to speak on that night. and it wont be anybodies fault if his is drowned out.

by Cormac - Ecosoc Wed Jan 28, 2009 14:13

“If we do not believe in freedom of speech for those we despise we do not believe in it at all,”

With all due respect Miriam the issue here is not one of free speech. If David Irving wishes to come to speak in Galway let him book a hotel room and put up posters for it like anyone else might. This is a calculated decision by the Lit and Deb to provide a prestigious forum for a bigoted pseudo-historian with a record of extreme right wing organising and manipulation of historical evidence.

Your tax money will go to pay this man's hotel, his food and his flights while he is here in Galway. Freedom of speech is one thing, state subsidy of fascists quite another. No one is arguing that this man's books be burnt or his propaganda be removed from internet fora. The shrill righteousness of the freedom of speech advocates here obscures the real issue. Lit and Deb invited him to stir up controversy, to gain notoriety and to make some cheap debating points at the expense of the social and intellectual integrity of the university.

Shame.

by . Wed Jan 28, 2009 14:14

Is not so much that David Irving will be pushing his lies (and he knows them to be lies),

but that there are receptive and uncritical minds out there.

As long as people live in a bubble that things like the Holocaust, are just 'things that happened in the past', not to disturb their cosy little substitute for reality, this man has a market.

When everybody wakes up to the fact that facism is an idea, not a person, and that it didn't die with Hitler in the bunker, they'll have to start using that filter in their minds to screen out the bull$hit of other people's dodgy agendas.

by Gavan Gray Wed Jan 28, 2009 15:11

Well, clearly we can rest easy now that the thought police are here to determine which ideas are too dangerous for those of us with sub-par minds to be exposed too.

Should his presence act as the spark for violent acts commited by others the blame will (almost certainly) lie with the perpetartors and the responsibility for preempting or responding to it with the Gardai.

Similarly, should he sway others to outlandish beliefs the repsonsibility for educating such people to alternate modes of thought lie with their family, friends, teachers and colleagues.

In neither case is a self-appointed 'decency police' required to safeguard the public good.

The more I see of these views the clearer it becomes that the invitation extended to Irving is not simply justifiable, but rather a sorely needed test of our tolerance. With luck they can perhaps follow it up with similar invitations to Israeli settlers, Islamic extremists or Army of God types.

As with any socially unacceptable ideology, driving them underground only encouarges them to turn to more and more extreme forms of activity. In too many cases this.....persecution is too harsh a word......alienation, from larger society has resulted in increased militancy and eventual violence. As Alex Schmid wrote back in 1982 it is better to allow messages to be sent by print than by bombs and words will always be far, far cheaper than lives.

So long as such people manage to adhere to the social guidelines we have established as a community and nation there is absolutely no need for boorish tactics such as shouting down opinons or physically barring passage. Those who engage in them will no doubt soon realise that the main body of the community is capable of showing its disdain for more than one target at a time.

by . Wed Jan 28, 2009 17:29

Yup, in the long term, the hard job, is to raise people's awareness, so that people like Irving find no fertile ground.

That's no easy task.
Education in this country, and many others does not focus on developing the powers of critical thinking.
It's either dogma or just teaching people enough to fulfill the needs of the economy.
Of course, when the economy goes down the tube, there will always be those who can make something for themselves by telling others that, it's the fault of immigrants, or people of a different religion, skin colour etc.

Thankfully, due to lots of different campaigns, as society we have been making inroads into tackling racism and other forms of bigotry, but there's more to do.

I think Irving will welcome the publicity, and pose himself as some sort of oppressed missionary. Hopefully he is beaten down with honest dignified truth, rather than shouted down, because, to be honest, that's a Pyrrhic victory.

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Thu Jan 29, 2009 02:25

When the wanker was meant to come to UCD, supporters of his went around Dublin believing they had a new-found respect and promptly kicked the shit out of my cousin who is Pakistani. To all you liberals, take your hands out of your holes and look at the reality on the ground, facsism is rife more than ever before, Irving will use this platform to prove to people that scum like him are now more acceptable due to the growing resentment against immigrant for supposedly taking our jobs. I know full wel that of the 40 or so posts on this article so far, about 2-3 of you are neo-nazi scum, so come down to NUIG when your Messiah is preaching and lets see you get the respcet you so badly crave. You will be stopped.....by any means necessary.

by estrema Thu Jan 29, 2009 11:29

you think that the gardai are going to be present after the debate is over and done with. its the weeks after that the danger will be present. where will they be then?

by Areopagitica Thu Jan 29, 2009 12:21

Christopher Hitchens, in The Atlantic Monthly on David Irving’s “Churchill's War”:

"I would not consider as qualified in the argument about Churchill anybody who had not read Irving’s work. In those pages one may read, without the veil of discretion or constraint that descended like a thick velvet curtain after 1945, what Churchill’s colleagues and subordinates really thought about him at the time."

Mr Justice Gray, closing the libel trial of David Irving vs Penguin Books in April 2000:

"As a military historian Irving has much to commend him.

"For his works of military history Irving has undertaken thorough and painstaking research into the archives. He has discovered and disclosed to historians and others many documents which, but for his efforts, might have remained unnoticed for years.

"It was plain from the way in which he conducted his case and dealt with a sustained and penetrating cross-examination that his knowledge of World War Two is unparalleled. His mastery
of the detail of the historical documents is remarkable.

"He is beyond question able and intelligent. He was invariably quick to spot the significance of documents which he had not previously seen.

"Moreover he writes his military history in a clear and vivid style.

"I accept the favourable assessment by Professor Watt and Sir John Keegan of the calibre of Irving’s military history."

Prof. Norman Finkelstein, every one of whose aunts and uncles perished in Nazi Germany, and the author of The Holocaust Industry, speaking at Yale on October 20, 2005:

"Ok, if you ask me what I think of David Irving... listen, young man, I can give you the politically correct answer and say, "He's terrible, he's this and he's that." Personally, I don't like the fellow. I think he is a Nazi.

"However, I have to be fair. And I want you to listen. Fairness means: A) I'm not an authority on the topic on which he writes. Mostly on military history, on the German side, during WW2. Number two, historians who are authorities on him have given mixed ratings. Gordon Craig, one of the leading historians on Germany in the US who writes regularly for the New York Review of Books, wrote, "His contributions are indispensable." I can't change that. I cannot say Gordon Craig is wrong. You know why I can't do it? Because I'm humble enough to say: I-Don't-Know.

"John Keegan, one of the leading military historians in the UK, when he testified in the Irving-Lipstadt trial, he testified on his side, on Irving's side, as being a good historian. So I can only report to you what other historians have said. And so in the book, in The Holocaust Industry, I wrote that Gordon Craig said that his contributions, his meaning Irving's, are indispensable and that became "Finkelstein says Irving is an indispensable historian." Well, I didn't say it. And I just don't know.

"What I do know is that ... I totally agree with John Stuart Mill. One of the things Mill says in On Liberty, he says that the most useful person in society, in trying to uncover ideas, is the devil's advocate because the devil's advocate is always trying to find holes in your argument and trying to find errors in your facts. Now, the devil's advocate is a devil. That's why he or she is called a devil's advocate but he or she serves the useful purpose of trying to find errors in your reasoning, errors in your facts. That is to say, as Mill puts it, he or she, even if he or she is a devil, he or she is trying to help you find the truth. Now, maybe his or her motives are evil, insidious, malicious or wicked but it makes no difference because by looking for errors in your arguments he or she is helping you -- unwittingly no doubt -- but helping you to find truth. And so I think, and I can imagine how it's going to be distorted, I think people like David Irving serve a good function in society.

"You know, ... a few months ago for a film I was making ... a British documentary, I went to visit Raul Hilberg, the leading authority in the world on the Nazi Holocaust, and I talked to him of this whole issue of the Holocaust deniers because Hilberg says "I think they're useful, they're good."

"That's the world's leading authority on the topic. And I asked him, "Well, how are they useful to you?" And he says, "You know why they're useful?" He says, "They ask all the questions that everyone else takes for granted, that nobody else thinks to ask."

"And I thought to myself, "If the world's leading authority bar none on the Nazi Holocaust is not terrified of these Holocaust deniers and isn't out to suppress them, who am I to say they shouldn't have the right to speak?"

"Mill says at one point in On Liberty, "Even if the world is in the right, dissenters ... still probably have something to contribute to truth, a small piece." I think that's true. And that's my view on the topic. I think among rational people that won't even be considered controversial.

"To let the devil's advocate speak... who would even challenge that? Again, it's one of the peculiarities of discussion when we come to this topic. The level of mental hysteria it evokes, is really terrifying."

by Salla Thu Jan 29, 2009 17:40

To Vigilante Socialist and all other posters who are opposed to allowing David Irving speak in Galway, all I can say is that as a member of an ethnic minority myself I do not agree that David Irving will make any difference to my day to day life here in the midlands of Ireleand...I get racially abused anyway regardless of whether or not this'historian' speaks.

I have studied in detail the Holocaust and as a former student of NUIG (I did not graduate) I intend to be at the debate and I intend to participate....and I will be be angry if anyone attempst to stop this 'Historian' speaking AND prevents me from responding.

I think you are all giving people far too little credit for their intellegence and to those intending to travel to stop a debate SHAME ON YOU. You should be able to arge the facts like you have done here. I am often stopped from speaking my mind from Bigots already living in Ireland and I wish not to be prevented on this occasion.

by shaner - wizzum Thu Jan 29, 2009 18:39

While I am sympathetic to people's libertarian impulses and the degree to which they take the principle of free speech seriously, this guy should not be entertained, debated with, or given a platform from which to promote his views. It is not just that his views offend me, you or anybody. It is not just that he is an idiot, or a racist or wrong. It is because he is a revisionist, a holocaust denier, and because he is active in neo-nazi circles and his "historical" "works" are key texts for nazi skinheads and the like to recruit with, organise around, and most importantly justify physical attacks on jews and other minority ethnic people. There is a direct correlation between Irving's public appearances and attacks by thugs on vulnerable members of minority groups and between his writings and the setting up of neo-nazi cells. Irving does what he does because he is a Nazi and because he wants to encourage nazis to do what nazis do. It is because of the direct threat to people's lives that he poses that he should not be given a platform. I took part in an action in the late 1980s in TCD which sabotaged a David Irving debate organised by the "Philosophical Society" and I am very proud of it, I would do it again at the drop of a hat. This man intends his work to be used a seeds from which to grow a nazi movement. However pathetic that may seem, it is nevertheless a real threat to people's lives. Well done all you anti-fascists.

by anti-fascist Thu Jan 29, 2009 22:17

To all the middle class liberals / toffs speaking on this thread, I respect the high esteem with which you hold free speech, but, No platform can be given to people who attempt to recruit people to fascist organisations. If these recruitment drives are not opposed we run the risk of having organised groups of the fash running around our streets mob-handed in years to come. NO PASARAN

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Fri Jan 30, 2009 00:09

To those trying to take the higher ground, my cousin was paki-bashed, let Lit'n'Deb bring him down, I will be waiting on the concourse that day for those wankers who support him, FOR AS LONG AS I AM A STUDENT OF NUIG, NO FASCIST FUCKS WILL BROADCAST THEIR HATE AGAINST NON-WHITE PEOPLE ON THE SAME CAMPUS. This is is not about freedom of speech, its about David Irivng and his ilk, and them alone, they shall not get a platform. Everyone who is against him coming down please join us, it is your fight just as much as it is ours.

by No wolves in Ireland Fri Jan 30, 2009 13:52

Anti Fascist Action and members of Anarchist Youth routed a planned meeting of Nazi bonehead gang, the Celtic Wolves in Dublin city centre yesterday. What was planned as the first meeting in Dublin this year for these sad tossers ended in utter humiliation as anti-fascists first evicted them from their meeting point in a city centre pub and then proceeded to beat them up and down O'Connell Street.

No wolves in Ireland

by Keep BNP and their likes out of Ireland Fri Jan 30, 2009 14:06

Lone fascist racist nutter made an appearance today at 2.30, confronted by a number of women he widthrew. Later that evening a more sinister element appeared with threats to lone camera woman and promises to return with kerosene having maintained a presence outside cathedral from aprox 8pm till 11.30 they promised to return later...

May 2006: Nazi BNP attempts to recruit at time of Afghan hunger strike

May 2006: Nazi supporters hit camerawomen during Afghan hunger strike

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Fri Jan 30, 2009 19:35

I am a fucking minority, I'm half-Irish, half-South Asian, I have had to deal with and grow up eith racism all my life, I will not allow some fascist fuck come here and tell me that those bastards who bullied me were right and that they should be respected. Freedom of speech is not fucking unlimited, should we allow paedos to explain their love of buggering at any given debate? The climate is far too delicate at the moment for some moron to come here and try to create divisions between us all, STAY THE FUCK OUT.

by Gerard Cassidy Fri Jan 30, 2009 19:37

It seems to me that there are two issues here. Principle and Tactics.

On the matter of principle there should be no need for debate....
Freedom of Speech dictates that Irving should be allowed to speak. That this is debated or that the Socialist Party can produce a seemingly Stalinist statement appalls me. Seeing that there are people posting here who think they can invest in themselves the authority to decide who is allowed to speak or who is "objectively Fascist" (whatever that means: the term fascism has become a term of abuse, rather than valuable analysis) is saddening. The principle should be particularly clear to anarchists, who do not want to invest anyone, themselves included, with the power to determine such fundamental matters as who is allowed to speak.

To get to tactics: I find it all the more shocking that people describing themselves anarchist back such a position. If the principle is established that some authority has the right to prevent speech (And that's what the Socialist Party Statement does) then anarchists and activists in general will be the first targets(May Days Barcelona!).

Furthermore, even if they gain the authority to silence others, what criteria do they use (Read Moshe's contribution on this forum to see my point!)? Can it really be argued that Irving or the BNP are more dangerous and have caused more harm than Tony Blair, George Bush, Tsipi Livni or yes Mary Harney(HSE) et al?

It's interesting that the statement should quote the case of Lipstadt! This is the same women who described Jimmy Carter as an anti-Semite following the release of his book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid'. A somewhat transparent attempt to prevent legitimate speech used often by zionists the world over!!!

Witness too how Campus Watch operate in the US when anyone critical of Israel is invited to speak (Please read up on the case of Norman Finkelstein). The NUIG Socialist Party are behaving as if reading the text books of these people.

No one is arguing that fascism shouldn't be opposed or that the racist attacks in our society can be tolerated but to use this as a reason to deny Irving or anyone else a right to speak is a serious 'own goal ' by the left here. Also, it is hardly the case that "fascists" are what bar the way to effective organizing.

The slogan used by so called Socialists is often "No Pasaran". The slogan was made famous by Delores Ibarruri or 'La Pasionaria' during the Spanish Civil War. It was the same La Pasionaria that described the Anarchists and Poum workers in Barcelona as a 'Fascist' plot against the Republic following the fighting in May Days 1937 when the Stalinists took over in Barcelona.

The Irony of this should be considered by many readers of this forum and many of the so called Anti-Fascists in NUIG and around Ireland!!!!

by shea Fri Jan 30, 2009 19:44

free speach works both way's if he can say somthing you can say something back and a the end logic wins. plays books film's etc have been done on peodo's state of mind, desires etc through art. it's the act that's illigal.

by SMash Fri Jan 30, 2009 22:44

The term Socialist Society in NUIG is a misnomer.

It consists of a single active member.

I find it amusing how the anti-Irving crowd are as middle class as they come but try to portray the pro-free speech crowd as a bunch of rich kids.

by kickoutthejams Fri Jan 30, 2009 22:51

"It is unclear whether it was Lit & Deb who approached Irving or if it was Irving who offered to speak. If it was Irving's offer, it shows how intent he is to speak, especially on prestigious university platforms. In March 2008, the UCC Philosoph invited Irving but the debate was cancelled due to protests and the campaigning of the Stop Irving Campaign (see http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86405)."
I take it you paid no attention during the debate.
The auditor clearly stated that Lit and Deb approached Irving first.

"Other significant developments since the UCC event have been the economic crisis, deepening disillusionment with the mainstream political parties and the recent Israel-Gaza conflict. Each of these, in their own way, will be an assist to Irving and his Fascist supporters."
So you support the suspension of rights by claiming it's the times we live in.
Funnily enough, a claim often used by fascists.

"At the debate, the Socialist Society (with other socialists and anarchists) argued that Irving should not be given a platform for his views, especially a prestigious platform where his views could be seen as respectable or credible."

"Over the coming weeks, the Socialist Society in NUIG along with the Galway branch of the Socialist Party will seek to build a campaign of all those affected by the visit of Irving. And on March 19th, we will be calling for all anti-fascist activists to travel to Galway to resist Irving's visit.This Fascist recruiter must not be allowed to speak and build in our city!"
You took part in a democratic debate, it didn't go the way you wanted it to, and so you ignore the will of the vote.
Hmm, fascism you say?

by Antifa Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:00

As a working class anarchist I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Trotskyists and Leninists in the fight against the fash. I agree completely that Stalinism is a vile philosophy, but in the event of a showdown with the fash the debate on Anarchism versus the state-orientated 'left' MUST not be a cause of division.

by kickoutthejams Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:04

"As a working class anarchist I will stand shoulder to shoulder with Trotskyists and Leninists in the fight against the fash. I agree completely that Stalinism is a vile philosophy, but in the event of a showdown with the fash the debate on Anarchism versus the state-orientated 'left' MUST not be a cause of division."

Anarchists against free speech? Whatever next, free market socialists?

Sorry, that is an oxymoron. Anarchy means "without rule" and they are supposed to be against any forms of authority. And yet you advocate blocking a man who has differing beliefs to you.

by antifa Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:26

As an Anarchist I would be committing an act of hypocrisy by supporting free speech for the fash. These are people who propose ORGANISING to impliment policies of Ethnic cleansing, border controls and forced 'repatriation' of immigrants, ideologies which, perfectly contradict the creation of a society 'without rule' the link below provides an example of an Anarchist viewpoint on organised Fascism.

http://www.wsm.ie/story/841

by kickoutthejams Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:39

"As an Anarchist I would be committing an act of hypocrisy by supporting free speech for the fash."
No, you are opposing your own professed politics.
If you are against authority, then you should be against the blocking of someone due to their political beliefs. Surely you see the denial of free speech as a form of coercion.

T"hese are people who propose ORGANISING to impliment policies of Ethnic cleansing, border controls and forced 'repatriation' of immigrants, ideologies"
Right, so we are going to stoop to their level? They seek to deny rights so we will do that to them?

" which, perfectly contradict the creation of a society 'without rule' the link below provides an example of an Anarchist viewpoint on organised Fascism."
So because you, as a professed anarchist disagree with those who seek to impose a totalitarian state.
Do you not see this as another form of authority, because I sure do.
Sebastian Faure defined anarchism as the "negation of the principle of authority" and yet you seek to impose your authority on others.

by Antifa Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:54

I can appreciate how you see the opposition to fascist organisation as contradictory. But to me as an Anarchist I see a clear distinction between the right of Fascists to organise and the right of people to spout Racist bullshit. The latter, no matter how repulsive it is to me HAS a right to be aired as I am a true beliver in free speech, the former? NO CHANCE!

by kickoutthejams Fri Jan 30, 2009 23:59

"I can appreciate how you see the opposition to fascist organisation as contradictory. "

"But to me as an Anarchist I see a clear distinction between the right of Fascists to organise and the right of people to spout Racist bullshit."
I take it you're not a student at NUIG.
If Irving starts trying to recruit for a skinhead gang onstage, then Lit and Deb can immediately pull the plug on him and have him removed.
Him going to talk about the Holocaust is a whole different kettle of fish.,

"The latter, no matter how repulsive it is to me HAS a right to be aired as I am a true beliver in free speech, the former? NO CHANCE!"
You're not actually a believer in free speech as you seek to have it curtailed. The only time free speech can be curtailed is in a case of overt incitement to hatred. QUestioning the amount of Jews killed during the holocaust (saying millions died but not 6 million) is not explicit incitement to hatred.

by Antifa Sat Jan 31, 2009 00:14

I think our viewpoint on the issue of free speech is pretty much the same here bud ! on the issue of incitement to hatred, Irving publicly stated that, on his trips to germany that his mission was to steer promising young men in the right direction.
To me, a textbook incitement to hatred.

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 00:21

"I think our viewpoint on the issue of free speech is pretty much the same here bud ! on the issue of incitement to hatred, Irving publicly stated that, on his trips to germany that his mission was to steer promising young men in the right direction.
To me, a textbook incitement to hatred."

We cannot deny people human rights (such as the right to free speech) based on what they might do.

Irving was not invited to NUIG to recruit for skinhead gangs.
He will be invited to speak on the holocaust. He will not be permitted to recruit for neo-nazi groups.

by Antifa Sat Jan 31, 2009 00:34

Firstly,for the record, Skinhead and Neo-nazi are not interchangeable terms! I fully believe that Irving's mission in life is to recruit. Just because he choses to do this by trying to pretend that the Holocaust never happened is irrelevant. lets see what happens in march?

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 00:45

"Firstly,for the record, Skinhead and Neo-nazi are not interchangeable terms!"
I never said they were. I used them in two seperate sentences.
ALthough I am usually amused by how often people rush to point out the SHARPS as examples of good skinheads, despite their numbers who are rabidly homophobic (and why many anti-discrimination skinheads refer to themselves as redskins/reject the label of SHARP altogther)

"I fully believe that Irving's mission in life is to recruit."
This country does not have laws that revolve around your beliefs, no matter how fervent they are.

"Just because he choses to do this by trying to pretend that the Holocaust never happened is irrelevant. lets see what happens in march?"
Yet again, you cannot breach someone's rights because you percieve them to have an agenda.
I always thought anarchists would be against pre-emptive punishments but clearly not.

by Antifa Sat Jan 31, 2009 00:56

I am against pre-emptive strikes! The guy runs around europe recruiting for the fash and continues to do so, its way too late for a pre-emptive strike in any case!

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:00

And you think that showing the students of NUIG that his ideas and logic are wrong will help his case?

by Antifa Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:12

I know this is going off on a mad tangent! Sharp recreated itself to provide an alternative for young skinheads to neo-naziism without being alligned to any broader political ideology. Homophobia was publicly denounced at this juncture by those who sought to keep young skinheads away from the fash while respecting their political apathy........now,back to Irving!

by Diggy - Socialist Party (personal capacity), FEE Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:14

It seems some people here are still unsure about Irvings fascist credentials and past, or else are deliberately trying to confuse the issue by posting comments by right wing establishment members that compliment Irving. Here are the mans political beliefs straight from the horse's mouth:

'I belong to no political party. But you can call me a mild fascist if you like. I have just come back from Madrid.…I returned through Germany and visited Hitler’s eyrie at Berchtesgaden. I regard it as a shrine'

”Ridicule alone isn’t enough, you’ve got to be tasteless about it. You’ve got to say things like “More women died on the back seat of Edward Kennedy’s car at Chappaquiddick than in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.” Now you think that’s tasteless, what about this? I’m forming an association especially dedicated to all these liars, the ones who try and kid people that they were in these concentration camps, it’s called the Auschwitz Survivors, Survivors of the Holocaust and other liars, A-S-S-H-O-L-E-S. Can’t get more tasteless than that, but you’ve got to be tasteless because these people deserve our contempt'

http://www.adl.org/Holocaust/irving.asp

Or perhaps this charming little rhyme he taught to his infant daughter

'I am a Baby Aryan
Not Jewish or Sectarian
I have no plans to marry an
Ape or Rastafarian'

Hitchens, Christopher. "Churchill Take a Fall", The Atlantic Monthly, April 2002.

Here's some more on his lack of academic standing and his use of forgeries to promote his agenda:

'Not one of [Irving's] books, speeches or articles, not one paragraph, not one sentence in any of them, can be taken on trust as an accurate representation of its historical subject. All of them are completely worthless as history, because Irving cannot be trusted anywhere, in any of them, to give a reliable account of what he is talking or writing about. ... if we mean by historian someone who is concerned to discover the truth about the past, and to give as accurate a representation of it as possible, then Irving is not a historian'

http://www.holocaustdenialontrial.org/trial/defense/evans/6

'The Jews are the architects of their own misfortune, but that is the short version A-Z. Between A-Z there are then 24 other characters in intervening steps'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/29/secondworldwar...ation

Seen enough? This man is an out and nazi, and fascist thugs have exploited his 'works' in the past on their posters, flyers etc to try and give themselves a respectable image. He must not be allowed to speak, a man like this has no interest in an academical debate, he will use his platform to spread hate, insult the memory of the millions of innocents who died at the hands of the Nazis, and of course try to recruit more mindless drones to join the tiny fascist groups that exist already. The free speech question is a humbug, free speech is a hard won gain that Irving and his skinhead pals would do away with straight away if they ever came to power. Also, his ideas advocate violence and mass murder, thats incitement to commit violence and deprive others of their rights, which has nothing to do with freedom of speech. If I went out on the streets and called for people to murder gardai, would the bourgeois liberal posters here come out and defend my platform to call for the murder of gardai? I somehow doubt it. Lets see a big turn-out on the 19th comrades, No platform for fascists!

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:17

SHARP is a subculture and not a coherent and centralised group.

As such, it cannot become anti-homophobic as there is no driving force.
Certain members may be, but not the movement.

by Antifa Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:20

'And you think that showing the students of NUIG that his ideas and logic are wrong will help his case?'

The students will make up their own minds, either way,that is none of my concern. My interest in this issue is simple - preventing Fascists organising in our communities.

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:31

Yet again, those who defend free speech (a cornerstone of any democracy) are accused of being liberal and middle class.
It seems social liberalism is now an insult.

Rabble rabble rabble.

And actually yes, I would defend your right to speak before Lit and Deb on why we should murder gardai.

Freedom of speech is something men like Irving would most likely seek to do away with. Are we going to give him this victory, by curtailing free speech and our way of life because of him?

There seems to be a lot of references to Judge Gray's ruling in the libel case, maybe people should also hear what Lipstadt (the defendant in the case) has to say:

""I am not happy when censorship wins, and I don't believe in winning battles via censorship... The way of fighting Holocaust deniers is with history and with truth,""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4733820.stm

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 01:35

"The students will make up their own minds, either way,that is none of my concern. My interest in this issue is simple - preventing Fascists organising in our communities."

You do not see a difference between protecting free speech of those who talk bollocks and stopping them from organising?

Him getting up and talking in front of Lit and Deb is not organising fascists.
What do you hope to achieve by blocking him from speaking in NUIG?

By turning it into a media circus you are giving him more publicity, as happened with UCC where he ended up on the Late Late show and spoke to an even wider audcience.

by shea Sat Jan 31, 2009 02:19

ian paisley is a bigot and a fasist who has insited murder in this county and has been more deviseive and done more dammage to this country in the second half of the 20th century than any other man. he was on the late late show tonight paid for by the tax payers. why weren't you out protecting us tonight.

i'd be against you though, bit more consistant, as mush as i detest paisley, i value free speech as more than humbug.

by Areopagitica Sat Jan 31, 2009 09:46

"Other laws and administrative regulations emphasize Israel as a Jewish apartheid state. Israeli ID cards indicate whether the holder is Jewish or not and Jews in Israel may not marry non-Jews. Non-Jewish Israelis cannot purchase government-owned land. Many Arab villages in Israel are not zoned as residential areas, as a result of which they have no access to public services such as electricity and water. The disqualification of most Arab Israelis from military service reinforces discrimination as regards social benefits, education and the like."

Lasse Wilhelmson, "Zionism - more than traditional colonialism and apartheid"

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20editorials/2004%20...n.htm

When the few brave warriors against racism here have saved Ireland by preventing the evil demagogue Irving from recruiting hordes of gullible students to an already burgeoning neo-nazi movement, I trust that they will then devote all of their fine intellects, noble sense of justice, and boundless energy to saving the rest of humanity from the infinitely more significant menace that the racist expansionist state of Israel poses to world peace.

And then perhaps future generations might remember that in Galway on March 19, 2009, an initial battle was won in their righteous struggle for a world free of racism.

by Fred Johnston Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:51

The anonymous (as always) 'Diggy' misspells his way through a rant against Ian Paisley which, apart from being inaccurate, is arguably legally actionable. Paisley was nothing if not honest and fervent in his beliefs, whether we agreed with them or not, and his home-ground constituents elected him time and again, many of them farming Catholics, because he did what he said he'd do. Down here in the Republic, mind, our politicos were busy taking funny-money from developers, opening tax shelters, and taking their own people for fools. Give me Paisley any day. And I'm a Catholic. Regarding Irving: yes, his views are surely obnoxious and offensive, but does that give us the right to bend the right to free speech and prevent him from speaking? Can behaving like fascists douse the flames of nastiness? I doubt it. What I find equally interesting is, as I have read, the reluctance of NUI students involved to permit us to know who voted for Irving and who didn't; as I believe, a secret ballot was conducted. Perhaps I misread. But wouldn't it be ironic if the future leaders of our country were already, mere children, learning to act like true-blue Fianna Failers and refuse to have the courage of their convictions? No one would deny that Irving's 'views' are repulsive. But he's already been on RTE's 'Late Late Show.' So why do the little darlings at NUI Galway shy away from letting us know how they voted in relation to his visit? A cautious eye being kept on future careers in the real world?

by shea Sat Jan 31, 2009 15:15

think that was me you were talking about, accept my spelling is shit. don't know what age you are, you seem to look at paisley through rose tinted glasses. he made a carear out of wipping up tensions. some that resulted in murder, peter tayors docomenteries loyalists and provos give a very good insite into the man. or maybe truth is relitive. but from my knolawdge he has done things that other posters on this tread have accused irvine of wanting to do. but thats not justification for protecting people from free speech i agree with you on allowing irvine speak and paisley to speak, censorship or taught crime dosn't work.

by Starstruck Sat Jan 31, 2009 17:50

An interesting debate as always when this topic comes up.
However there are a few harsh realities that must be dealt with,.
In Ireland,we are lucky not to have an organised fascist movement.
This cannot be allowed to change,particularly with tougher economic times ahead and a settled migrant population for the first time.
In countries like Germany,Italy,Spain and much of eastern Europe,it is a full time activity (and often an extremely dangerous one) keeping fascist organisations in check-
This is often done by using force,as that is what it has come to,they are that large and widespread.
Knife attacks and beatings on AntiFa members are commonplace as the Nazis wish of course not to be stopped and are p[repared to use horrific brutality to achieve their aims.
I would wonder how many of the posters opposed to a No Platform policy would actively engage against fascist organisations at this scale?
Who would want to?
Despite well constructed points and thought out libertarian arguments,the simple reality is that this situation can simply not be premitted to develop here,it must be cut at its "currently) very weak roots.
It could happen here.
Some of these posters should travel to the countries mentioned and talk with migrants,ethnic minorities and many of the other sections of society fascists target and maybe they will then wake the fuck up to how peivileged a position we currently occupy and why we must stop any attempts by these monsters to spread their cause and create a fascist movement here.

by Cormac - Ecosoc Sat Jan 31, 2009 17:56

Free speech is no more than a secondary issue here. You might defend Irving's right to speak Fred but would you invite him to the Western Writers' Centre? I think not.

The Lit and Deb did not just decide to let Irving sell his wares in the 'marketplace of ideas', they decided to advertise for him and help him with distribution costs. That is irresponsible, immoral and thoroughly reprehensible.

Fascism is not just another ideology. It means physical attacks on ethnic minorities, homosexuals and leftists. As such it must be opposed.

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 18:21

"Some of these posters should travel to the countries mentioned and talk with migrants,ethnic minorities and many of the other sections of society fascists target and maybe they will then wake the fuck up to how peivileged a position we currently occupy and why we must stop any attempts by these monsters to spread their cause and create a fascist movement here."

I have lived in some of the countries where Nazism was an ever present threat, including ones where neo-nazi parties were in the political mainstream.
Take Belgium for example, where Vlaams Belang are a surprisingly strong party. Or France with the Front National.
Few people I knew there supported Vlaams Belang being censored as they felt that it was in the defence of groups like Vlaams Belaang that we need to preserve hard fought freedoms such as that of free speech.
I was also a trade unionist and socialist out there so I was one of those who they felt needed to be targeted.
Have you ever visited the countries and spoken to these migrants, ethnic minorities and other targets? I honestly doubt it.
Have you ever been the target of these? Or are you just going to get angry on other people's behalf.

I find it amusing how often those who defend free speech are portrayed as little rich kids when those who seek to impose censorship are usually seem to be middle class parents who are anxious to ensure little Oisín and Sorcha aren't subjected to unPC thoughts.

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Sat Jan 31, 2009 20:40

I have the balls to say how I voted, I voted against him, I spoke at the debate in opposition alongside Derek Doyle from UCC, I don't need to mention my name, people know me for who I am and what I care about.
Kickouthejams, you sound surprisingly familiar, are you a member of Labour Youth by any chance?
About us being middle-class or richkids, I grew up in a working-class environment, My Dad from a working class Irish family in Birmingham and my mum from a Pakistani family in Birmingham also. I grew up and lived with racism everyday through my school years in Galway, so I say now to all of you, as one of the leading activists on NUIG's campus, that wanker and his supporters will not just stroll onto the campus, they will be met with resistance by any fucking means necessary, I swear my life by it. Never mind hiding behind computer screens and arguing, stick your fucking necks out and argue against the nazi scum like I did and will do again. I RESIST THEREFORE I EXIST.

by kickoutthejams Sat Jan 31, 2009 21:06

"Kickouthejams, you sound surprisingly familiar, are you a member of Labour Youth by any chance?"
Aye, we know one another.

"About us being middle-class or richkids, I grew up in a working-class environment, My Dad from a working class Irish family in Birmingham and my mum from a Pakistani family in Birmingham also. I grew up and lived with racism everyday through my school years in Galway,"
Maybe I experienced it differently as I experienced fascism face to face based on my political choices rather than my ethnicity, but it is a strange experience to come face to face and be in school with not just people who were racist, but bona-fide neo-nazis who's greatest regret was that Hitler lost control of Flanders.

"so I say now to all of you, as one of the leading activists on NUIG's campus, that wanker and his supporters will not just stroll onto the campus, they will be met with resistance by any fucking means necessary, I swear my life by it."
But J. you took part in the debate and spoke as to why he shouldn't come. The students voted in favor of allowing Irving to speak.
Are the SWP/Socialists etc going to unilaterally decide who/who can't speak before Lit and Deb?

" Never mind hiding behind computer screens and arguing, stick your fucking necks out and argue against the nazi scum like I did and will do again. I RESIST THEREFORE I EXIST."
Ah now, J. you know I am perfectly willing to argue face to face.

by Fred Johnston Sun Feb 01, 2009 03:19

Dontcha just luuv guys (above) who say 'I don't have to mention my name, people know who I am.' etc. No we don't, brother. You anonymous guys all read the same. As for the other joker above him again: we are not discussing the Western Writers' Centre, we are discussing the Bright Young Things of NUIGalway. As for Ian Paisley, I suggested more than once bringing him to read in Galway over the years in various spots and the idea was ridiculed. Anyone with any further queries on the Western Writers' Centre, direct them to members of our Board, not to me - or you can do what has become common practice, just send your criticisms anonymously to The Arts Council. That's usually the last resort of the politically challenged and neurotically envious in Galway. Otherwise, stick your opinions high up where the sun doesn't shine.

by Vigilante Rebel - Socialist Sun Feb 01, 2009 08:12

Fred, fair enough, I am Joseph (Yousuf) Loughnane, people know who I am for the various protests and demonstrations I am involved in, I didn't mention my name before because I know about 9-10 people commenting on this article, both for and against Irving.

C. - yes I argued against him and yes a vote was taken, but up to 50 people could not vote, who when asked told me that they would have voted against him coming down. If LitnDeb are to bring fascists onto NUIG's campus, no, we will not decide who they can bring down, but yes, we will be as vocal as we want to be in opposition to their choice. The auditor said himself that we have the right to protest, but I think people are only realising know that his invitation will stir up bigotry and give him the respectability he craves so there will be much more than just words....
I have met neo-nazis, on the streets of Bradford and in Dublin, and facing them with youtr beliefs, which are much the same as yours C., and also having non-white skin, makes you a direct target of their hate. Invite him all you want, just don't expect him to be able to speak.

by Gavan Gray Sun Feb 01, 2009 09:27

I would expect that the debating society has the power to restrict access to the event by self-confessed trouble-makers. You're already well aware of the distinction between protest and disruption of events so don't be coy.

Given that you claim to know many of the people posting here I'm wondering how you'd take it if they decided to take a page from your book and whenever they saw you began shouting over any conversation they saw you having. Who knows, maybe you'll start a trend.

You also seem to be a little unsure about your name. It wouldn't be that you are merely flying the Arabic one for fashion and holding on to the other to avoid any actual prejudicial treatment?

Why is it thought taht you can't simply show Irving up in a debate itself? Do you feel he's likely to be more intelligent than you? More charming? More physically alluring? You still haven't explained your inability to counteract his words with either rational argument or emotional appeal...

But then, I can't help but get the impression its not about him as much as it is establishing your "rebel" identity. That being the case, a rational discussion is clearly pointless. Shouting down an old man, inciting division and bad feelings and disrupting the peaceful meeting of opposing points of view is apparently what gives you your kicks. Well, you'll certainly earn yourself a reputation for it, though not the one you aspire to.

by kickoutthejams Sun Feb 01, 2009 13:07

"C. - yes I argued against him and yes a vote was taken, but up to 50 people could not vote, who when asked told me that they would have voted against him coming down."
It was stated beforehand that it would be a student vote. I can understand this as it will a debate for a student society and to allow non-students to vote in a student debate would run the risk of people being bussed in to swing the vote, be they pro-free speech or neo-nazis. Not a representative way of student life.

"If LitnDeb are to bring fascists onto NUIG's campus, no, we will not decide who they can bring down, but yes, we will be as vocal as we want to be in opposition to their choice."
Protesting is grand, as I said at the debate, I am in favour of free-speech. However, after the debate you told me that Irving wouldn't get to NUIG. Protesting and blocking are two seperate things.

" The auditor said himself that we have the right to protest, but I think people are only realising know that his invitation will stir up bigotry and give him the respectability he craves so there will be much more than just words...."
Irving has spoken at universities before and he once enjoyed a fairly respected status which went out the window when he started spouting his bollocks. Regardless of where a person has spoken, it does not confer upon them status. Lit and Deb has had some controversial figures speak in the past which did evoke this outrage.

"I have met neo-nazis, on the streets of Bradford and in Dublin, and facing them with youtr beliefs, which are much the same as yours C., and also having non-white skin, makes you a direct target of their hate. Invite him all you want, just don't expect him to be able to speak."
Fair enough Joe, ( sure just say Cian on this, I used J. before as I was unsure whether or not you'd want your name used) But being in school with lads like this, your ethnicity is no protection given that they would know political views/sexual orientation/religion etc.

by Gavan Gray Sun Feb 01, 2009 15:26

My post above moved into the area of personal attack. It was uncalled for and unneccesary so apologies for that.

Nothing further.

by Starstruck Sun Feb 01, 2009 16:16

"Have you ever visited the countries and spoken to these migrants, ethnic minorities and other targets? I honestly doubt it."
I have been active with antifascist groups in several european cities,including Hamburg and London where a rreal NeoNazi threat is present and people fear for their safety and often their lives because of these boneheads.
It is clear you believe this to be some obscure debate rathe rthan something that is happening in the real world.
You cant debate with a bonehead when he comes into your shop with a knife.
As I said before get real-the NO Platform policy is necessary and will be carried on.
We will not allow these people to recruit for their hatred,it would mean disastrous consequences for even more victims of their ideology.

by kickoutthejams Sun Feb 01, 2009 17:06

"I have been active with antifascist groups in several european cities,including Hamburg and London where a rreal NeoNazi threat is present and people fear for their safety and often their lives because of these boneheads."
Did you live there? Or go out there to help out.

I encountered extremely few people who were afraid for their lives. THere were far more gangs than just boneheads/neo-nazis and being WASP was no guarantee against attack. Brussels is a city where 1/3 of the population are foreigners and I never saw this ever present fear you seem to speak of. Same in France.

"It is clear you believe this to be some obscure debate rathe rthan something that is happening in the real world."
GIven that I attend NUIG and live in Galway, I assure you that I believe this is happening in the real world. However, it is because this is happening in the real world that I do not want to see civil+political rights eroded.

"You cant debate with a bonehead when he comes into your shop with a knife."
Allright, I admit I never had to deal with a bonehead armed with a knife, but had my run ins with Neo-Nazis. At any rate, what are you advocating here?

"As I said before get real-the NO Platform policy is necessary and will be carried on."
Are you a student in NUIG? If not, you, in fact, are the one who needs to get real.
Deciding who and who can't speak before students is incredibly patronising. I trust that the students of NUIG are intelligent enough to sift out fact from fiction.
Furthermore, I trust that Lit and Deb will find a strong opponent to Irving
What exactly are you so afraid of here? That Irving will convince people in the audience? That he will use hypnosis to convert people into stormtroopers?
As you said yourself, get real. Irving will not be going up to do a rant, he will be in a debate. THe rights we have in this country were all hard fought for. Doingn away with them is exactly the kind of thing men like Irving seek to do.

"We will not allow these people to recruit for their hatred,it would mean disastrous consequences for even more victims of their ideology."
As a socialist and a trade unionist, I would be one of the people targeted by these people, as happened in Belgium.
You don't seem to see the distinction between debating and recruiting. Are you familiar with the NUIG Literary and Debating society? I assure you that they would not allow Irving to pass around recruitment sheets during the talk.

by kickoutthejams Sun Feb 01, 2009 17:18

"Cian, even one of the proposition wanted there to be a hand count to decide whats the outcome."
Ah now Joe you know that's what McDonnel was advocating.
He wanted a premptive handcount before the actual ballot to see the lay of the room. He did not advocate a handcount instead of a ballot, it would be impractical anyway given that there were around 300 people present. I would have supported this too, simply to see how the audience felt by a show of hands. Then again, there needed to be a secret ballot etc (although most of us knew who voted what)

"Protesting and blocking are becoming the same thing. Now is not the fucking time for semantics, look at Waterford Crystal, what happened there was fantastic and needs to happen more. France has seen some magnificent protests while Greece takes the cake for sheer numeber and militantism. Gone is the time of apathy and doing things the way people say, mass numbers will move against anything that tries to divide or seperate us. Of course, what happened in Iceland, was amazing also."
Blocking someone who is coming to speak for another society is not something that sits well with me. Protesting is something I agree with, but Irving will be coming to speak to Lit and Deb. I would be extremely annoyed if someone interfered with an event that I organised and blockaed their entrance. WHat is needed is not to silence men like Irving but to ensure people do not follow him. Call him on his rubbish. Question his methods. Expose him before NUIG.
You're a very intelligent man Joe. You could do a lot of good by protesting outside the event, ensuring the students know what he stands for, and then debating with him once he enters the hall.

"If he speaks, it means he will be given time to talk where no one can speak over him, and he can accept questions, essentailly speaking"
And he will have opposition who will be able to call him out on his bollocks, in front of NUIG. I look forward to seeing this happening (assuming he gets in)

," LitnDeb are giving him legitimacy by applying such procedures to his racist rants, let him go to shop street and espouse his shite there, just don't fucking step on our campus."
I'd be much, much more worried about him going to speak on Shop Street than in NUIG. THe reason being in NUIG he can be debated and questioned. For him to rant on Shop Street would be like the audio-version of his books; unchallenged, unopposed and no logical arguments. Far better for him to be argued with.

"Neo-nazis hate you more if you espouse socialist views with brown skin, two reasons to beat you up is what they say."
Meh they disliked me enough for:
A) Being a foreigner in Belgium (DEY TURK OUR JERBS!)
B)Being a socialist/trade unionst
C) Being a Catholic and following Catholic social teaching
D) Standing up for students they victimised.

Although granted they would have hated me more had I been non-white.