Justin Barret 'Attacked' while attending UCD debate.

by Peter Thu Oct 14, 2004 16:40

Taken from ucdsu.net


What REALLY happened

An account of last night's debate and the arguments surrounding it
Already, all sorts of far-fetched claims have been made on this site about last night’s L & H debate. We need a bit of accuracy.

Firstly, I will AGAIN explain why Barrett should not have been invited to speak at the debate. Justin Barrett is an out-and-out fascist. He is a close ally of Forza Nuevo in Italy and the German NDP, two neo-Nazi organisations involved in racial violence and terrorism. He has a track record of violence himself. In the early nineties, Barrett and his followers in Youth Defence attacked political meetings of their opponents with hurleys and baseball bats. His political philosophy is openly anti-democratic.

We don’t argue that Barrett and his ilk should not be invited to speak simply because they hold racist views. Aine Ni Chonaill also holds racist views, but we did not argue that she should not be a speaker at the debate. The crucial point is that Barrett is a dangerous, violent man. Any time he has been granted any space to organise politically, he has used violence, and will do so again if granted the slightest opportunity. With any other political group on campus, from the Anarchist society to the Young PDs, it is possible to oppose their ideas by persuasion. You can go along to their meetings and raise criticisms; if you really want to, you can stand beside them while they leaflet, handing out your own flyers. This is not possible with Barrett – he and his kind will give anyone who tries to do so a savage beating.

To judge by last night’s debate, and subsequent posts on this site, Barrett’s defenders refuse to understand this fundamental distinction. It has been claimed, outrageously, that his actions are no different from those of left-wing protesters. As these people know well, the only violence that has occurred at left-wing protests has come from the Gardai. The Irish left has consistently used non-violent direct action, NOT violence. These tactics have sometimes involved breaking the law – that’s what civil disobedience means, and that was what “terrorists” and “thugs” like Gandhi and Martin Luther King, among others, also did. If you cannot tell the difference between blocking a road or occupying a building on the one hand, and smashing someone’s face in with a hurley stick on the other, you clearly are too clueless to be involved in this discussion.

These people can obviously afford to be relaxed about the whole subject because it doesn’t affect them in any way; THEY will not be the targets of fascist violence. People with a different colour skin take a different view. To judge by the excited discussion on Irish far-right websites, neo-Nazis clearly saw last night’s debate as a test: if Barrett was able to speak in a relatively safe environment, it would encourage them to organise elsewhere. This comes in a context where racist violence has increased since the citizenship referendum. The far right would clearly love to carve out a political space like that enjoyed by their comrades elsewhere in Europe, who have used this space to organise violent attacks on foreigners and political opponents.
So, onto the debate itself. At the beginning, myself and Aidan Regan attempted to bring forward a motion to withdraw the invitation to Justin Barrett. We were told that this was unconstitutional, so we tabled a different motion, deploring the invitation. The speakers from the L & H took a self-righteous line, claiming that it was their duty to facilitate discussion. This might be taken seriously if there was a shred of sincerity in their attitude. Given that one of the leading members of the society, Barry Glynn, thought it would be “hilarious” to publish an article in the University Observer asking students “what ethnic minority do you hate the most?”, we can dismiss the idea that the L & H have any kind of grown-up, responsible attitude to the issue of racism and fascism. Clearly, they see it all as a joke; inviting Barrett was just another prank.

The motion was narrowly defeated. The debate proceeded. The quality, even by the society’s low standards, was risible; a succession of pompous speakers offered their views, their ignorance matched only by their arrogance. It was clear that none of them had any personal experience of racist bigotry, nor ever expected to – hence their flippant tone.

It should be noted that when Aine Ni Chonaill spoke, nobody interfered with her. This emphasises the distinction between people who advocate racist views, disgusting as they are, and outright fascists attempting to organise violence. When Justin Barrett rose to speak, a number of activists from Anti-Fascist Action (AFA) stormed the stage. By the by, none of the activists were UCD students, but I have no intention of denouncing their actions. AFA have been involved in anti-racist campaigning for many years; while the luminaries of the L & H are busy pontificating about racism, AFA have been out in the streets preventing the far right from gaining a foothold. Obviously, they had no intention of allowing Barrett to win such a symbolic victory. The L & H auditor adjourned the debate.

It has been claimed by some that there was violence. I certainly did not see any violence; what I saw was a crowd of people surround Barrett, occupy the stage, and block him from speaking. As someone who has been around UCD a few years, I must confess to a cynical attitude to these claims of violence. Two years ago, students blockaded the Vet building when the Minister for Education visited. The protest was entirely peaceful, yet ludicrous claims were made at SU council and in the college press about violence; supposedly, the Minister, and even the SU President, were assaulted by protesters. Needless to say, no evidence was ever offered to back these claims. Earlier this year, anti-racist campaigners attempted to peacefully block Michael McDowell from speaking in UCD, in protest against deportations of asylum-seekers. It was claimed in the national press that the Minister and several Gardai had been assaulted (the claims seemed to come from the Minister himself). When responsible journalists contacted the Gardai and the College services, these claims were dismissed; no assaults had taken place. Yet these lies continue to circulate. It seems that attempts to smear the left with false claims of violence will happen again and again; as far as conservatives are concerned, “violence” means “any protest to which we object” (or perhaps “anything which disturbs the contented enjoyment of our privilege”). We can probably expect the claims about last night to snowball, til we hear that knives were pulled on Frank Kennedy, or Justin Barrett was shot in the leg, or some other absurdity.

It has been said by some that because the motion tabled by myself and Aidan was defeated, it was “undemocratic” to prevent Barrett from speaking. I’m afraid I don’t accept that a group of individuals, however large, has a sacred right to make a decision about something that doesn’t affect them. The vast majority of people in last night’s audience were white, middle-to-upper class students. They will not be the ones who suffer if fascists are allowed to organise. They will not be the ones getting their faces smashed in by racist thugs because of the colour of their skin. Their views are not the last word on the subject. Before the debate, we were told by activists from Residents Against Racism that every immigrant to whom they had spoken did not want the debate to go ahead. As far as I’m concerned, THEY are the only ones whose views count.

Finally, there has already been talk of the Students’ Union “disgracing itself”. This is clearly nonsense, since last night’s protest was not organised by the SU. A protest can only be called by the SU with a mandate for SU Executive or SU Council, neither of which obtained. I happen to be a Union officer, but I protested against Barrett in a personal capacity.

Last night’s debate showed one thing – that the L & H is an menace. It cannot be trusted to behave in a grown-up, responsible way.

Discussion on far-right message boards since the debate was called shows that neo-nazis regard last night as a humiliating defeat. The L & H have been prevented from handing fascists a propaganda coup, and every democratic, anti-racist student should be delighted.

by Me Thu Oct 14, 2004 16:49

The above post refers to Aine Ni Chonaill holding rascist views. This is typical of those who do not want any debate on the immigration situation in this country. Those who request a coherent and legalised immigration system are branded racist. Perhaps the poster could quote the racist views he alleges Aine Ni Chonaill holds?

by Michael Hennigan Thu Oct 14, 2004 17:16

Re: 'Likewise, I resent Irish people who desert their country in hard times to make a fast buck off the Yanks.'

Nice try at balance!

Those ingrates who left during the Famine and afterwards should have stayed for the the soup too. How selfish of them!

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 17:45

"It should be noted that when Aine Ni Chonaill spoke, nobody interfered with her. This emphasises the distinction between people who advocate racist views, disgusting as they are, and outright fascists attempting to organise violence."

Actually, the reason for this is less than obvious. One of the "gifts" of liberalism has been the feminisation of society. A lot of this has been achieved - not solely by the advancement of females themselves - but by the demonisation and dehumanisation of males.

Thus, the stormtroopers of the AFA sat on their hands for Aine but erupted into pyschopathic violence for Barrett - a male. Presumably - they just don't have the bottle to accuse Aine of the same.

The same effect was observed by the emergence of Pauline Hanson in Australia whose views on immigration got her elected, despite the usual hysterical over-reaction to a call for immigration controls that people wanted (as opposed to the dictat approach that they did not).

Consequently, the Ozzy Government stole her policies and she lost her seat. If "she" had been a "he", she may not have come out of it alive.

For further research someone who was slaughtered by the extreme left - see anything about Pim Fortuyn whose (racist, hate filled, etc etc) party is now led by - wait for it - a Muslim female.

And this is the rub - the policies remain exactly the same. Ever hear of her? Hear her called "far right"? heard calls for her to be silenced? heard of her getting death threats?

Thought not.

by annon Thu Oct 14, 2004 17:59

I was there, Aine started off given a moderate speech about the right of a nation to determine their immigration policy.

Then she lept into ethnic minorities.

"...and the nigerians."

She did an impression of a Nigerian speaker after he had left the hall.

Not only that, but an L and H speaker delivered a series of racist jokes before the whole thing started.

During the course of the debate one person in the Asylum process was so offended he left the room...

by tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk Thu Oct 14, 2004 18:11

if you weren't kicked in the head and set upon by a gang of thugs, dont go saying that on the radio. & if you were kicked in the head, till almost unconscious, (sounds like a race hate or anti gay attack) do you really think going on RTE is the way to deal with it?

rather than making a proper statement to the Gardaí Siochana supported by doctor's statement and photographs of your injuries?

A process which normally uses up all those initial valuable hours when you were on the Radio, slandering several groupings and organisations and "crying wolf".

You have enemies now Justin. In a few days when we finish off with Agent Smith and the Home Office of the UK we may turn our attention to "little old you".

You are an apologist for those who confiscated the property of my brethren, cancelled the citizenship of my brethren, tattood identification numbers on my brethren, used my brethren as slave labour and then murdered by brethren. And just to think you probably worry about big black men.

tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk tsk.
Do you have the phone number for the internet provider of your sites?

by Acid Thu Oct 14, 2004 18:19

I support my actions 110%. If a far right wing party like the Imigration Control Platform want to debate then I have no objections. They (did) will only make themselves out to be idiots. But not Nazis. Never never never!

by hs - sp Thu Oct 14, 2004 19:27

it's obviously a dangerous tactic to take and could win barret some sympathy, but then every tactic is a little dangerous. If he is really linked to Fourza Nouva fuck him, last year i watched a documentry on a bunch of FN supporters attacking a social centre, they killed one person, pretty much for being a suspected leftist. Justin can take a little jostling if he's hanging around with murderers.
But again activists must be careful not to play into his hands.

http://italy.indymedia.org/features/antifa/

by hs - sp Thu Oct 14, 2004 19:39

we should make the point again and again this is what justin barrets allies are.

Justin Barrets friends... ...democrats?

by Tom Wintringham - Anti Fascist Action Thu Oct 14, 2004 19:43 afa at ireland dot com

Statement regarding Justin Barrett debate at UCD on 13th October 2004

Anti Fascist Action (AFA) wishes to state that we are the organisation which prevented the fascist Justin Barrett from speaking at an 'Immigration Debate' in University College Dublin last night. A number of other people attending the event also joined us in preventing a platform being granted to Barrett.


AFA has a policy of 'No Platform' for fascists, which means that anyone attempting to organise fascist or racist political groups will not be permitted to do so. We believe in political and ideological opposition to the far
right, and have been active in Ireland for the past 12 years.

The 'No Platform' policy relates to ANYWHERE fascists may attempt to organise
or spread their repugnant views. It is quite humourous to hear spokespeople for debating societies attempting to claim UCD as an ideological asylum where the likes of Justin Barrett can claim sanctuary. This is not the case.

We would also like to clarify regarding a young male member of the audience who spoke at the end and claimed he was an innocent student who had been assaulted. As a result of AFA monitoring and information received over several years we know for a fact that this bonehead is a member of a 'National Socialist Black Metal' band calling itself 'Ketzer'. He is a frequent contributor to the openly Nazi 'Stormfront' website.

[ENDS]

AFA Website:
http://www.geocities.com/irishafa/news

More information from: afa@ireland.com

by Theo Thu Oct 14, 2004 20:36

That display of vioilence last night was an absolute disgrace. I was there and I have never been so disgusted in my life. I do not like Justin Barrett or his views. I think he is the lowest form of being, not even human, a complete shame on the human race. But saying that to persecute the man for his views (no matter what they are) to threaten him with physical violence proves that those individuals are just as low down and pathetic as him. HE was invited to the university for a debate. THOSE thugs who attacked him and others were NOT.
I know there were protests and that is perfectly understandable but there was a vote taken on whether he should have been allowed to speak or not and the majority ruled. Not letting him speak, makes you every bit as fasict as him. this idea of im right you're wrong there is no room for anything different. Don't get me wrong he is a deplorable creature but you violated free speech, the principles of democracy and civilised behaviour. there was a man unconscious on the floor beside me and I was petrified as thugs started climbing over desks towards him. Most of all those individuals (apart from some anarchists) were not from the university. If you do not wish to hear him speak than you should not have come to the univeristy and soiled it with your barbarianism and primitive behaviour. Once more the fact that afterwards people were attacked and threatened proves my point that those people who acted in such a manner are not 'in the right' they are nothing but animals and I hope they never disgrace us again my coming back to UCD. THey make me sick, I hope they never some back.

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 20:54

So basically Theo your problem is with the sacred ground of the university being soiled when the problems of the real world turn out to more passionate then a student 'debate'. Let the fascists organise and beat people outside the campus, you won't see it will you?

Wake up, these people are not about debate, they are not about providing you with entertainment. Stopping Hitler ended up costing over 50 million lives why give them another chance.

by Green Thu Oct 14, 2004 20:59

I was listening to the Joe Duffy Show today during which the the fracas at UCD was discussed. What I heard made disturbing listening. Agroup of self appointed thugs jumped on to a public platform and attempted to assault Justin Barret. Afterwards they assaulted a member of the audience who while attempting to escape fainted.

These actions have no place in any civilised and just are not acceptable. They coarsen political debate and make any attempt at political persuasion impossible.

by hs - sp Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:04

A nasty violent group, and I could have found alot more. So remeber when feeling sympathy for justin, excatly what his friends and allies are doing every day (and are probably right now),
kicking the living shit out of anyone who happens to be different (foreign, black, asian, gay, jewish, or even just for dressing differently)

https://www.irr.org.uk/cgi-bin/news/open.pl?id=224

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/04/25/milan.nazis/

https://www.irr.org.uk/cgi-bin/news/open.pl?id=5460

http://www.ict.org.il/spotlight/det.cfm?id=541

https://www.irr.org.uk/cgi-bin/news/open.pl?id=225

http://www.irr.org.uk/europebulletin/italy/extreme_right_politics/2004/ak000002.html

https://www.irr.org.uk/cgi-bin/news/open.pl?id=228

https://www.irr.org.uk/cgi-bin/news/open.pl?id=6094

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:07

The 'member of the public' was one of a pair of boneheads (Nazi skinheads) that got into a punch up with protesters at the same time (not after) others were occupying the stage. Boneheads for the dumb are infamous for their attacks on immigrants and responsible for countless murders in Europe. If you look like a green then these are the sort of people who would take delight in kicking you to death down some dark alley.

'green' if your too lazy to do any proper research go and watch the first five minutes of 'Saving Private Ryan'. That was what was required last time these guys were allowed to organise. If you want to avoid it being your children in the firing line next time cop yourself on.

by Theo Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:15

this is not about the university this is about vicious thugs attacking a man. I completely believe that barrett is probably a vicious violent thug too but that is still no justification. the people in that room wished to hear him speak so he could hang himself. but those animals attacked him instead.i completely condone those people being beaten up outside too. I dont believe in violence of any kind. he should have been let speak. they had no right to take that from him. It was what we wanted. to hear him make an ass out of himself.instead they've just made him a martyr.how stupid are they?all they're doing is giving him a greater platform to speak on because now he can show everyone his label of victim too.
they were wrong there is no doubt in my mind over that and there are a lot of people who think so too. those thugs turne the debate into a violent fraca. this is not going to be frogotten easily and he wont let it be. they just damaged their own cause.

by hs - sp Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:21

This is the original mirror article on Barrett, sorry for cutting and pasting but i'm not sure if it's on the web. If anyone has a link a kind editor could delete this.


Fascist Link of 'No to Nice' Chief
by Francis O Donnell

No to Nice campaign frontman Justin Barrett's neo-fascist links are revealed today in the Irish Sunday Mirror.

No to Nice campaigners sometimes like to compare European integration with the creation of the 'Fourth Reich', even though some European political allies are fans of the Nazi's Third Reich.

Barrett has attended a number of conferences and rallies in Italy held by the neo-fascist Forza Nuova party as well as being an 'honour guest' at German Nazi party NPD's 'National Day of Resistance' rally in Passau in May 2000.

In recent months, both the Forza Nuova and NPD have come close to being banned by their respective country's parliaments for their extremist race hate views.

Barrett also fronts Ireland's Youth Defence, the anti-abortion group which funded the establishment of the Precious Life anti-abortion outfit, which operates in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Precious Life has threatened doctors with 'direct action' and is headed by ex-Orangeman and Loyalist Jim Dowson. Dowson, 35, has a conviction for a firearms offence and his heavily tattooed arms indicate his loyalist politics. Barrett himself admits that 70,000 euro was given by Youth Defence to Precious Life for office furniture.

Barrett extols his extreme views in his book "The National Way Forward". In this 200 page rant, he expresses opinions on everything from Jewish influences in the US to his ideas for Irish reunification that includes the expulsion of Northern Protestants. The book is only available for order on extreme right-wing websites.

The Forza Nuova party has a membership which like to wear fascist uniforms and give Nazi-style salutes. The shadowy multi-millionaire former terrorist Roberto Fiore leads it. Fiore only returned to Italy in 1997, having fled to London in 1980 after the Bologna railway station bombing which claimed the lives of 85 people. He ran the Armed Revolutionary Nuclei organisation, two of whose members were found guilty of the bombing.

Barrett shared a platform with Fiore at a rally of flag-waving Italian fascists at the Hotel Miramar on July 21st 2001 in the Italian city of Civitanova. At the rally, Barrett and Mario Di Giovanni, Youth Defence's representative in Italy, and their fascist colleagues voiced their support for Catholic fundamentalist revolution. They also took time out to condemn McDonalds restaurants.

The meeting took place under a heavy police presence as the blackshirted Forza Nuova members are renowned for their violence. Two of the group's members were found guilty of bombing a left-wing paper in 2001 and Fiore openly gives support to fascist football hooligan gangs.

The Forza Nuova website has a link to the Youth Defence homepage. A link to the NPD and the English Third Position are also contained.

When Barrett was questioned about the all-expenses four-day trip to a Forza Nuova conference in Milan in November 2000, he said: "My Italian is appalling so I don't really understand what the other speakers are talking about."

He was also at the 2000 Passau rally as guest of the NPD. Its leadership comprises of the unrepentant Nazi, Udo Voigt, and the former Red Army Faction terrorist turned Nazi, Horst Mahler. Last month German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder condemned the NPD for using violence to establish "foreigner free" zones in eastern Germany.

At the Passau event 40 people were arrested due to violent activity and the meeting was in a hall built by the Nazis for SS rallies. Also present at the event were representatives of the Spanish fascists, Forza Nuova and Irish-based Derek Holland, leader of the English Third Position.

Holland helped found the International Third Position with Fiore while he was in London. Another founder of the group was Nick Griffin who now leads the British National Party.

Gerry Gable, editor of the UK magazine Searchlight, which is dedicated to reporting on the activity of the far right, believes that these meetings have been used to strengthen links between far right leaders. Mr Gable said: "These meetings take place on two levels. Firstly, they are a rally for members of the extremist parties involved. They are also events where international speakers, called honoured guests, get to speak. This allows the leaderships of various groups to come together to discuss tactics and policy making."

Many far right European groups have recently become more vocal on the abortion issue and Gable believes that is why Barrett's experience has been sought. "After recent meetings they have formed what they call the International Anti-Abortion League. Campaigns around single issues like abortion or European integration, allow these people to get more people involved in their groups. The contacts also allow Fiore to expand his International Third Position empire and spread its ideology. This ideology revolves around ultra Catholicism, racial purity along with more unusual concepts for the far right such as environmentalism." he added.

The ITP believes each ethnic group should have its own country and attempts to form a multi-cultural society are against the will of God. To back up these concepts, Fiore and other developers of the International Third Position draw upon strict Catholic teaching and the thinking of the ultra-Catholic thinker GK Chesterton as well as dictator Benito Mussolini and the 1930s Spanish fascist, Jose Antonio Primo de Rivera. These ideas fit in with Barrett's threat that he would "make immigration an issue" in the Nice referendum.

The Irish Sunday Mirror investigation found that links between Barrett's Youth Defence group and the European far right have existed for years. The No to Nice campaign also uses the offices of Youth Defence, which has picketed hospitals and had members arrested on a number of occasions. The offices are also home to Barrett's Mother and Child Scheme. Barrett admits "the core of the No to Nice campaign are dedicated pro-lifers who have been with us for many years."

One of Youth Defence's founders shared a flat with the lead singer of the Nazi rock band Celtic Dawn in the early 1990s. During this period, members of Youth Defence also contributed articles to the National Front/International Third Position magazine Candour.

People first became aware of Barrett's nasty views when he ran for a Union of Students in Ireland election in 1992 as a candidate from Athlone RTC. Barrett at this time was called Justin Slevin; he changed his name some years later. Barrett, a member of Young Fine Gael at the time, dropped out of the election halfway through due to lack of support.

Youth Defence's relationship with the European extreme right has also been cemented by the visit of a group of Forza Nuova students, led by the 25-year-old Marco Gladi, to Ireland last year to 'study' with Youth Defence.

In the late 1980s the ITP's founders attempted to enlist the support of Colonel Gaddafi. Holland and Griffin visited Tripoli. But Gaddafi's foreign minister decided against supporting them.

However Taoiseach Bertie Ahern at the end of last year's Nice referendum said that he thought some of the No to Nice Campaign's funding was possibly coming from Youth Defence's extremist Anti-Abortion friends in the US. The Dail has since implemented a law that makes funding from abroad for referendum campaigns illegal.

Sunday Mirror (Irish Edition)- 29th September 2002

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 21:23

Bit of a feudian slip there theo ie "i completely condone those people being beaten up outside too"

Justin may have got more PR out of this then he would have otherwise. But that is not the issue. Fascists are not about public opinion, they are about creating enough terror so that the majority of the public puts their head down and shuts ups.

Fascists have NEVER come to power in a free election, they get the support of a hate filled minority and use them to terrorise the rest of you into silence. You let them organise then they terrorise you and you will shut the fuck up - it is the camps for those who don't. So don't let them organise.

by historian Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:03

The boasting of AFA thugs is just as bad as the shite that comes from the fascists. They are exactly the same type of people who Goebbels said made the best Brownshirts - former Communist thugs.

As for this shite about if this was done in Germany in the 30s Hitler would have been stopped. Crap. Hitler was aided in his climb to power by the actions of the extreme left which through the Stalin Hitler pact also allowed Hitler to embark on total war.

We don't need you assholes to protect us. You represent no-one. Fuck off.

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:13

Who said anything about Hitler,the communist party or the 30's Tony/Historian? Fascism is not all about Hitler and anti-fascism is certainly not all about the communist parties.

by Tony Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:15

Question for you self annointed, bitter, shallow and otherwise unbalanced outcasts.

1. Germany, the 1930's, the Weimar Republic

2. Ireland Celtic Tiger 2004

The economy, societal similarities, cultural values and political parties compared and the potential for World War:

Discuss.

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:22

Who said anything about Hitler,.... or the 30's Tony/Historian? Fascism is not all about Hitler ....

But you have a point, there is not serious theat of those loons coming to power under current conditions. That doesn't stop them attacking people though. So unopposed they get to maim dozens and kill a few. Should we celebrate or stop them?

by Theo Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:30

Let me put this very simply for you, because you obviously don't understand.
fascism is defined as ''an authoritarian and nationalist political movement'' emphasis on authoritarian. therefore anyone who does not have the same opinions are oppressed and persecuted like those thugs were doing..so... yes by definition those thugs are every bit as fascist as he is...pretty ironic don't you think.
we live in a democracy so free speech must be upheld. It is in debating forums like last night where idiots like him can voice their pathetic racist opinions and the public can hear and laugh.
history lesson for you dear, the main reason for hitler's rise to power was not his racist opinions (which were quite the norm at the time ie.refusal of giving a gold medal to a balck athlete to won it in the olympics held in germany in the 1930s) IT WAS ECONOMIC PROBLEMS... hitler offered a solution to the weimer republic when democracy was failing and inflation was near 1000%. do you see a replica of these circumstances today?? do you see people starving on the street calling out for an answer? no. those were the conditions for hitler's rise to power as well as the fear of communism.
they are not being replicated there is no fear of fascist parties gaining control.only violent idiots like those thugs oppressing people's right to free speech...no matter how terrible it is what they have to say. Everyone wanted to listen to what he had to say so they could laugh and he would lose even more credibility and be pushed further and further from having any control of power.
im sorry about that slip. I hate violence and i think it was disgusting beating those people up and shoving them down the stairs (some of them were my friends, who had nothing to do with barrett or his minions)
so listen...this is not the economic disaster of the 30s it is a different time and we are a different genreation of people.
those thugs acted like thugs...no more and no less. they weren't protecting anyone if anything they were oppressing someone...(I still cant stand barrett, but they were very wrong)

by historian Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:42

Well said theo. "Anti-fascist" thugs are every bid as bad as fascist thugs - to whom I have seen absolutely no evidence linking Barrett. It is also a fact that totalitarian socialism is every bit as much a threat to democracy as fascism but no-one (and nor should they) tries to prevent meetings held by extreme left groups. The least they should do is show the same respect to others.

by George Thu Oct 14, 2004 22:55

Theo "Who said anything about Hitler,.... or the 30's ... Fascism is not all about Hitler ..."

The makes another point for me, the arrogance/stupidity of students. I was there last night and the idea that the students were capable of putting any sort of 'light bulb' argument which would have won over the fascists is laughable. They were fucking idiots, one treated us to a blend of soft racist jokes and goes at the Dublin working class, another no one could work out what the fuck they were on about. Even if the boneheads were paying any attention to you you'd have won few points.

Your debating society is a sad joke sand pit that a lot of protected kids get to play in till Daddy sorts them out with a job. Not a problem if you were not so stupid to provide an organising space for a load of thugs who you are so obviously blindly unaware of. But of course no problem for you lot, as endlessly pointed out your not likely to be targets.

As for the rest I've dealt with it - the danger is not just them coming to power - its what happens when you allow 10 or 20 of them to get organised and go on the rampage. I suppose you'll then 'tut tut' as you read your morning papers. HS has given you examples from Italy but I suppose you've not bothered to follow the links as you think you already know all there is to know,

by Theo Thu Oct 14, 2004 23:10

personally i feel its probably more dangerous letting idiots like you and those thugs to get organised. So far I have not seen barrett attempt to oppress anyone's right to free speech like you, you mindless, warped bone head. the L&H is a highly respectable organisation and not everyone has daddy's money to live off, in fact looking around there last night and knowing a lot of the people i couldn't see anyone in that position. maybe the reason that you're so bitter and twisted is because you resent you suspect have daddy's money.
The point of university is to expand your mind and educate yourself, not for meer entertainment, I sugest you seek some education yourself because you are in desperate need of picking up a dictionary and reading the deffiniton of facism and democracy.
If some of those debates were weak well let me tell you why...that guy ross. he desperately did not want to have to take part in that debate. he did not harbour any of those views which he had to argue. He is very much for more relaxed laws on asylum seekers and for more immigration. but yet he had to do that debate and he left with his girlfriend petrified of being attacked from idiots like you and no there is no daddy's money from him. we work our way through college.

by Lina Fri Oct 15, 2004 07:51

I cannot decide who I despise more - the fools that are justin Barrett and his cronies or the utter "right on" morons that attack people for having different views to theirs.

It is just as facist to attack someone for voicing a different opinion as it is to spout the crap that Barrett comes out with.

No doubt if it was an asylum seeker attacked by Barrett and co. the right on brigade would be up in arms and jamming the phones of liveline.

by agreed Fri Oct 15, 2004 09:52

Society doesnt need idiots who think thay have the right to beat up anyone who disagrees with them.

What can protection do innocent people have from mob justice?

by Michael Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:42

What about lefties who's vision of a brighter future includes a period of dictatorship by the Party before we all live in peace and harmony together? Will anyone who disrupted Barret's speech go and disrupt speeches by the SP, the SWP, the Sparts... [insert name of cult here]?

by historian Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:54

You hit the nail on the head. Maybe if these self-appointed guardian angels sat and listened to debates and read some history they might learn a bit more. As you say, the totalitarianism of the left is every bit as bad as the right. In fact in quantative terms, socialism has cost many many more lives than fascism. Of course Trotskyists will claim that this was nothing to do with them but anyone familiar with the ostracisation and bullying that took place in the Militant/Sp at the time it split would have a good idea of what they would be like in power. People who will act like that in a free society would not hesitate to lock uo, ban , torture and murder their internal opponents given the opportunity.

by howdy Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:38

Theo the nazi got what he deserved and hopefully will have the common sense not to come back here again. You speak about violating his right to free speech but if shitheads like him get to speak then they may end up influencing people and the sooner his kind are stamped out the better. now i'm sick of listening to people defending that fucker so let it drop unless you are speaking out against him the last thing the world needs is for barret to get any more support veiled or not.

by Theo Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:45

would ya ever just shut up brendan and go to your lecture. you know im right and that extremist leftists are not the way, they are just as dangerous of not more as they are physically oppressing people's right to free speech and social liberties. I dont appreciate oppresive, thugs coming in and threatening people and attacking them in the name of a better world. their idiotic actions speak for themselves I just pray that they never come back because they are not welcome.

by Moderate Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:00

I commend the actions of the AFA in depriving Mr Barrett a public platform. It is imperative that the far right not be allowed gain a platform in this country.

Similiarly, I believe that the AFA-like organisations should be equally vigiourous in opposing the actions of the supposed far-left. Groups such as the SWP, SP, the Anarchists, Sparticists, support the complete overthrow of society, and athough these groups differing in the implementation of such change, if these groups were successful it would result in the obvious murder of tens of thousands.

All revolutionary groups must be outlawed, and deprived the chance to air their views. Just as Spain, Germany, Argentina, Chile, Italy and Turkey's history's highlight the danagers of fascist or proto-fascist regimes, so too do the histories of Cuba, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Mongolia highlight the danagers of any form of far-left ideology.

We must oppose the advocates of revolutionary change in all elements of society. The murder of a person on account of their creed, colour, religion or economic background is equally despicable.

Just because the far-left have not had the chance to implement their disgusting ideologies in this country, doesn't mean we should allow them the chance to organise and spread their creeds of hate.

Imagine Justin Barrett in power.

Now imagine, a similar far left bigot.

The centre must hold. Oppose the extremems. Far left and far right - united in hate, must be opposed by one and all!

People of the world, united, against the criminals of extreme political ideologies!

by historian Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:01

These chaps clearly follow Lenin's dictum to Gorky that :"Intellectuals are shit", to be beaten, tortured and locked up. To paraphrase that oft quoted poem of Niemoller:

First they came for the right wing Catholics, but I said nothing.

Then they came for the PDs, but I said nothing,

Then the Fine Gaelers, and the FFers, and the Labourites and the Shinners, but I said nothing.....

That's the way it will be if these neantherdal leftist thugs take power.

by Michael Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:22

What ideas are so corrupt (corrupting?) that they should be censored from a college debate? It's not like the college publication society decided to let Justin have a weekly column in their newspaper, then deny readers and other contributors a right to reply. A debate is a place where people can air their views, while other people pick them to pieces.

And another thing... people have been making the point over and over that Justin is a fascist cause groups he's supported or who's meetings he has attended are fascists. I've attended meetings, demos and protests with people who believe all sorts of crap I don't support.

by . Fri Oct 15, 2004 12:51

tune into livelies again today for more of the same

by Paul Moloney Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:08 paul_moloney at hotmail dot com

Even though it's been required reading on the Inter/Junior Cert for years, it seems the message still hasn't sunk in.

P.

by jeff Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:27

Hoping to see those who wear the good guy badge in action at the next Communist Party of Ireland meeting. They are undemocratic elements that are also in need of a good shit kicking.

We need you people soooo much, because it is imperative that you do our thinking for us. Thanks.

( irony, by the wa-hey!)

by Michael Hennigan Fri Oct 15, 2004 13:42

Michael wrote: And another thing... people have been making the point over and over that Justin is a fascist cause groups he's supported or who's meetings he has attended are fascists. I've attended meetings, demos and protests with people who believe all sorts of crap I don't support.


The rally of the German National Democratic Party which Barrett attended wasn't exactly a case of a guy on a loose end filling his time.

If any of us who are Irish residents were to attend a political event in Germany, we would have to go to some bother to get there and surely enquire about the outfit who invited us.

The German Federal Government has tried to ban the NPD.

by veteran Fri Oct 15, 2004 14:44

No doubt the people who broke up a debate and allegedly assaulted Barrett had among them some who were in Trinity for Jorg Haider's visit.

If you're reading, did it make you feel big to yell "Nazi cunt" at an elderly woman who lost her family in the Holocaust, simply for the crime of believing in debate and dialogue rather than the fist? Was it fun to drown out her account of that loss by yelling the names of the concentration camps?

Own up. The fist and the boot are not valid tools of politics. Whether it's done by fascists or communists, whether it's vigilantism or thuggery, we do not argue our differences with our knuckles.

If Barrett organises racist violence, then get him prosecuted - if you don't have the evidence, then look harder. If he's as vicious and evil as you all say, it shouldn't be hard to find a prosecutable offence. Find it and use it: it's more effective than violence.

There's a very simple bottom line. Everyone has the right to free speech and free association, unless you can prove that they'll use it to deprive others of their rights. If you don't have the proof, you don't have the right to deny him his rights. Full stop. Doing so means you engage in repression and indefensible vigilantism. You're not the police - stop thinking you are.

by thoughtful Fri Oct 15, 2004 14:48

Since the sole purpose of the AFA is to deprive the public of the right to free speech, should they be allowed free speech.

to my knoweldge, they are the only active force of censorhsip in the country, the only real opponenents of free speech.

should we give free speech to thos who wish to deny it to others?

by jeff Fri Oct 15, 2004 14:51

...I would tell him what he wanted to hear. This might explain why Mr. Barret hangs out at these dodgy meetings. But hey, believe it or not, it is his right.

People who think it is alright to give Justin Barret a kicking are dill holes that deserve the same. You all moan about free speech, and the police and the system and the media denying you that, yet you turn around and think it is alright for Mr. Barret to have the same done to him. Show me any actual record of him saying I hate blacks, etc. You won't find it.

You won't find any actual convictions for race hate, incitment, etc, on Mr. Barret's part either. Mr. Barret's crowd are a group of old kooks and weirdoes, and are quite enjoyable to watch if one is fond of freak shows. Personally, I think freaks are awesome.

It seems you people need to invent enemies, because ( thankfully) there are no real scary psycho bootboy redneck scumbag Neos stomping about for you to launch your noble wee crusade against.

Stick to real issues like welfare, Israel Palestine, judicial reform. These are real meat and bones issues, not the fantings of some Catholic traditionalist who is only five foot four. If the guy was genuinly interested in recruiting young people, the last thing he'd be doing would be parading rosary beads about the place- in my experience, this is a number one turn off for youth today in Ireland.

For me personally, though, it is a turn on. As I said, I love freak shows. Now get a life, you dour windbags.

by Voice of Reason Fri Oct 15, 2004 15:19

Given that anyone on this site who cant win an argument resorts to calling everyone else Nazis, should we expect the AFA to go knocking on doors, kicking the shit out of suspects?

by jeff Fri Oct 15, 2004 15:37

The policy of no platform drives the Nazis underground. Rather than defeating such organistations, they are actually disguised. Thus, it took me some google searching to locate one group, (lets call them Strumpetfart, out of respect to Indymedia's no links policy,) and read their message board.

There seems to be quite a few of these tosspots. My contention; it is important that such are exposed for the loony psychos that they are. This is not achieved by battering people- this is where they play the ' poor little me' card, and make the likes of AFA look like arseholes.

I would suggest non partisan coordination with the cops, intelligence gathering, something like that. Keeping fascists underexposed is very dangerous.Mushrooms are kept in the dark, and are fed shit, thus they bloom. Nazis are the same. A bit of thinking, ground work, etc, rather than delivering a beating, and relying on ones emotions might go a lot further to actually defeating Nazi groups. I cannot elaborate any further because I have a brutal hangover today, but I will say that giving Justin Barret a beating probably won him support, and that was very stupid.

I still am undecided as to whether he is actually a Nazi, I still feel he is an traditionalist Catholic. I have been reading strumpetfarts message board,though, and I am frankly a bit disturbed at their seemingly informal warmth towards the guy. They freak me out because they more than likely are bent on coordinating illegal activities towards ethnic people, and if there is actually any any reciprocation on Mr. Barret's part , then that needs to put on the record.

Hopefully,it is a case of extremists gunning for a traditionalist the same way communists might vote for Michael D. Higgins due to the lack of what they see as a viable alternative. I am definitly first and foremost against no platform as a policy out of the principle of free speech.

More often than not I come across as racous, arrogant, mad, immature, and prone to delusions of pranksterisms and mirth. Just this morning I have had another posting censored by the editors of this site! However my hangover is compounding my necessity to get a bit serious,and I am begining to have moral needlings in this area.

As I said, I am frankly shocked at strumpetfarts gunning for Mr. Barret. A wee Malaysian girl has just walked by, she looks so cute in her little hijab. Assholes from Strumpetfart would like to hurt her, instead of leaving her alone to do her medicine degree( they all do medicine; stereotype or not, them Asians are damn clever people). I feel creeped out. I'm going home to bed.

Many things I will write and many dour people will not get. Thats fine by me. But I don't want strumpetfart to hurt the Malaysian girl.

This is where I put in that quote by Nietzche about staring into the abyss, and monsters, etc, but my hangover has wiped that famous quote clean from my memory. You get the picture.

by Anti Nazi Fri Oct 15, 2004 15:46

'Leftwing' SU president Fergal Scully has released a statement on the SU website condemning the anti racist protesters while not condemning the bigotted views of Barrett and Ni Chonnaill. This is an absolute disgrace.

Scully has already failed to mobilise against the honourary conferring of a Coca Cola director. Now he has taken this disgusting position on the L&H protest. How much longer can the left in UCD give this man support?

by Moderate Fri Oct 15, 2004 15:49

Both are opponenets of free speech and democracy.

Therefore both should be eliminated!

If we cannot hear Mr Barrett speak, why shouold communistts, anarchists and other proto-left revolutionaries be allowed to preach their ideologies of hate?

by AFA Member Fri Oct 15, 2004 16:46

Well if you think that AFA should be denied free spech then its always open to you to defend Barett at metings. Why dont you stand up for him physically?

by Oisín Fri Oct 15, 2004 17:12

The AFA took away any chance of the college media/SU from critising Barret because they didn't allow him to speak. They turned what could have be a good example of why you should fight against Facists into the fight against those who oppose free speech/democracy. The H&L were giving Barret the rope to hang himself but you gung-ho muppets took it away. The sooner you methods of fighting facism go away the better.

by AFA Member Fri Oct 15, 2004 17:20

You are a rightwinger who has a lot in commom with Barett . You have made this clear in previous posts. AFA stoped Barett and will continue to implement its no platform policy. You are the muppet if you think that people cant check your previous posts.

by veteran Fri Oct 15, 2004 17:32

I really want to know. Why exactly do you see yourselves as the ones who are charged with the task of silencing undesirables?

If a nonpartisan group calling itself Defence of the Right to Speak (let's call them DRS) decided that AFA represented a grave threat to freedom of speech, would they be right in exceeding the boundaries of the law by assaulting AFA members at meetings?

Would DRS be right to take the law into their own hands and decide that AFA constitute a serious threat? Would you support them if they decided to use force to prevent antifascist rallies?

by AFA Member Fri Oct 15, 2004 17:34

Bring them on. You are just being silly. There is a difference betwen Baret and others.

by bemused Fri Oct 15, 2004 20:11

was "Slavin" too slavic sounding?
Is there some unhappy family break-up story lurking there, or some other sign of personality disorder?
Any clues?
( & where is this site? sorry if it's a "no-no" link- edit it straight away if it is)
194.116.10.212/fieri/pagInterna. cfm?liv=52&pag=servizi&id=132

by hs - sp Fri Oct 15, 2004 20:37

something that has been going through my head the last 2 days after hearing Barret on countless of interviews all over the airways, today on newstalk he wasn't challenged at all for example when asked why he was stopped he said, that these people (afa) believe anyone concerned with immigration is a fascist, and a fascist by definition can't have free speech, this was simply accepted no mention of his connections etc.

But my point is, I agree in principle with your no platform policy, especially after seeing what skinheads look like!!! But in this case it seems rather than take barret away from a platform the action has ironically given him one, in fact more than one on both local and national radio. So while preventing him speaking to 100 intellectual students (not much of a threat there!) you've indirectly given him access to tens if not hundreds of thousands, where he also got a free run.

Any thoughts on that from afa?

by Observer Fri Oct 15, 2004 22:49

Free speech?

by anarchist - anarchist Sat Oct 16, 2004 02:04

The hypocrisy of people and their willingness to defend some free speech while looking the other way as racist attacks are commited, etc., is astounding.

"Veteran" (of what?), don't you understand that fascists are a grave threat to freedom of speech (or at least they'd like to be) and that's one reason why AFA attacked them.

So why don't you replace DRS with AFA and replace AFA with Justin Barret in your little sentences (included below) and see how your logic works out?

Who gave them the right to silence others?

The truncheon and gun are the main tools of politics and are used constantly by the government, while its "civilised" politicians talk about "rights". We are against politics, because it is only lies. Fists and boots pale in their wake. We only defend ourselves and our friends.

Halfwit said:
"I really want to know. Why exactly do you see yourselves as the ones who are charged with the task of silencing undesirables?

If a nonpartisan group calling itself Defence of the Right to Speak (let's call them DRS) decided that AFA represented a grave threat to freedom of speech, would they be right in exceeding the boundaries of the law by assaulting AFA members at meetings?

Would DRS be right to take the law into their own hands and decide that AFA constitute a serious threat? Would you support them if they decided to use force to prevent antifascist rallies?"

by afa supporter Sat Oct 16, 2004 04:26

Ireland is an ultra conservative racist country. It's no wonder that fascists like Barrett get moral support from the idiot liberals.

by FED up with AFA arrogance Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:02

WHY don't you leave it if you find so unpleasant?

Most Irish WORKING CLASS would support Barrett If exposed to his ideas. It's radical leftists like you whom they'd really despise.

You should be glad of the protection the liberal society bestows on to you. You take much for granted.

by George Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:01

Yeah this myth that the working class is racist but the middle/ upper class is not is popular with both fascists and liberals. But in UCD the reverse was obviously the case, lots of toffy noised students cracking racist jokes, making comments about working class 'scum bags' and cheering on Barrett. And same with Galway from the report posted here. There are working class racists and fascists of course but thats not where Barretts support was coming from at all.

by Theo Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:38

Gerge you obviously have a very large chip on your shoulder.
I dont remember any jokes at the cost of the working class at that debate and never never be so audacious to presume that everyone in college is middle class or that people in college rely on daddy's money...
university is open to everyone no matter what class, it isnt amount money its about the state of your mind and whether you can achieve the necessary points, thats why there are no fees and why there are grants for people below a certain income level.
All your doing is showing how small and poluted your mind is.

by .:. libertarian Sat Oct 16, 2004 14:03

we are very glad of the rights won by our predecessors and forebears for which they fought often giving their lives against fascism, nazism, totatalitarian communism, authoritarian theocraticism, et cetera...

They are "our rights".

From their inception as bill of rights in Paris to their acceptance at the first International through the dawning of the modern age to the universal declaration of Human Rights and so on. Every second generation at least "our rights" have been vindicated and expanded. Emancipation has come though opposed by the centre majority and vehemently opposed to the point of military action by the "far right". Suffrage likewise has come not without struggle. Self Determination was started by over fifty nations not without struggle and in opposition of the imperialism supported by teh "right". Pacifism has survived every war often in a prison cell. Your working or social conditions were not won, nor defended by any on "the far right". So before you lecture any Libertarian on "being glad of the protection liberal society bestows us", you ought reflect on how, why and by whom that liberal society was founded and is maintained in constant opposition to the worst tyrannies.

Orwell, reflected on this libertarian dilema when writing his parable of stalinism "Animal Farm", he had just completed other works in which he treated upon experiences "shooting fascists".

As for these laughable class analogies, what pray tell qualifies a member of the Irish upper class? Why are you so sure are to be found on an ugly campus in Stillorgan? Is it their toffee nosed accents? Is that really enough?
These are middle income children sitting their degree courses and practising prejudices, postures and behaviour which they think will serve them through their chosen careers. Yet they are not at any further guilded stage of professional incorporation, so in reality, "in the grown up world" they are kids, playing and flirting with each other and an imagined importance to society.
I for one will never be lectured on the rights of expression by someone who has only read Animal Farm in the last five years, nor has never known their country at war, nor has never known their nightclubs without condoms. Or thinks class is about what shoes you wear or the colour of your suit be it track or not.

by ... Sat Oct 16, 2004 14:07

...because i remember some fool from the L&H up on the stage / platform making a bunch of racist jokes at the start of the night, all of his impersonations of racists had dublin working class accents so thats probably what george was getting at.

while i'm here saying that class has nothing to do with getting into college is either a symptom of stupidity or willfull ignorence. Kids from working class backgrounds are more likely to have to work while in school, are less likely to get a bedroom to themselves to study for exams, are a hell of a lot less likely to go to private or grid schools (which have the highest acceptance rates for university). Thats without even going into the fact that schools in working class areas are more likely to be underresourced etc etc. No matter what the 'state of your mind' is you won't get far if you can't get a decent 2nd level education or don't have the time or facilities to study for exams.

by L and H Drop Out Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:24

Theo, it might be worthwhile removing your head from your arse for a brief moment.

Despite snowballing claims about leftist violence that are serving as usual only to detract from the arguments the no platform crowd were advancing prior to the event. Something very distrubing was occuring in that debate, which has been pointed out by numerous sources.

On the night the L and H promoted and created an atmosphere where no serious debate on immigration could take place. Jokes targetting racial minorities were what presupposed any debate, much to the smirking glee of the majority of the L and H.

Dare anyone from the L and H tell me that what occured was a serious debate. It was the usual morans, whose insincirity and desire for self promotion will always over ride any concern expressed by others of the dangers of legitimising racial hatred.

While people were shocked at Aine Ni Chonails impersonation of the Editor of Metro Eireann, I'd like to remind people that this sort of racial slur was first carried out on the night by the L and H Correspondance Secretary, who poked fun at Chinese and Nigerian minority communities in Ireland. As usual, no one in the L and H realised that such humour, is racist and highly insensitive.

When objections were raised to the suggestion by this person that all racists were working class, the whole theatre laughed at the poor person who so astutely pointed out this ironic twist.

As the racial slurs heightened, one prominent anti-racism campaigner raised more objections. A person who I have since found out has done more to advance the interests of those who are weakest and most threatened in our society, than any debating fool, was called 'the bride of Frankenstein' by this posh knob in the L and H.

This was my first experience of the L and H, and my last. It confirmed for me many of the prejudices people have about the society, prejudices I tried to ignore, but they are now a very firm reality.

by veteran Sun Oct 17, 2004 00:07

I do understand that fascist theory seeks to silence dissent. I don't think Justin Barrett qualifies as a fascist, though. He's an unpleasant person and I disagree completely with his beliefs, but I'm not sure he can be classified as a fascist - authoritarian and extremely conservative, and xenophobic to boot.

But I don't think that attempting to silence these people is the right course of action. The reason I call myself veteran is because I was a witness to the Haider controversy, being involved with the society at the time. I saw Helen Szamuely called a Nazi cunt by people purporting to be on the side of right. Nobody who witnessed that abuse being piled upon an elderly woman came away with a good image of the protesters that night. Attempting to forcibly silence people whose arguments you find offensive smacks of what can probably be best described by the law paper prepared in college by a prominent Blackshirt. The title was "Forcibly Dosing Subversives With Castor Oil On The Part Of Fascism Cannot Be Considered An Act Of Violence".

Like it or not, the police are the ones charged with keeping peace and upholding law. If you think they're not doing it right, then try to change it through democratic means - but don't use some ridiculous disagreement with the concept of parliamentary democracy to justify vigilantism.

The reason I gave DRS as an example was because I don't agree with the use of violence to silence unpleasant voices in politics. Full stop. If AFA want to hold a rally, fascists shouldn't try to stop it - but the cookie crumbles both ways. It was wrong to bar Sinn Fein from having a voice by imposing a broadcast ban, and it's wrong to do it to anyone unless there's a serious risk that otherwise they'll impinge on the rights of others.

"The truncheon and gun are the main tools of politics and are used constantly by the government, while its "civilised" politicians talk about "rights". We are against politics, because it is only lies. Fists and boots pale in their wake. We only defend ourselves and our friends."

God, I don't even want to deal with this one. But I will. The truncheon and gun are not the main tools of politics. When was the last time a politician in this country told you to vote for him or he'd shoot you? When was the last time a count centre was told to hurry up the counting under threat of beatings? The truncheon and gun haven't been features of Irish political life for decades.

Where's this constant use of truncheons and guns? I've been digging to try and find some actual figure on how often guns are used, and I'm having no luck. I'd assume that you mean "constantly" as being at least a hundred times a day for baton use and ten times a day for guns, yes? After all, that's only twice a year for each garda's baton and about the same for those with guns?

So we're looking at 36,500 uses of a baton per year, and at least 3, 650 bullets fired at innocent people. Something tells me that's not quite right...you might want to find some figures.

Let's not try and twist this debate into some sort of judgment on the efficacy of Irish policing and the existence of the current political system. If you don't like the current provisions for hate speech, then lobby your TD. Argue through AFA that a change is needed. But don't take the law into your own hands by deciding what is and isn't okay for people to say in public.

Finally, don't call me halfwit. I pay the respect to others that I expect to receive, and I'd like to see that reciprocated. If you disagree with my arguments, then say so, but don't try and turn this into an ad hominem attack on my intelligence. Even if you think my arguments are foolish, don't be silly enough to assume that I must be foolish too.

by oldby Sun Oct 17, 2004 14:46

AFA, what a great job you've done.

By using voilent means to prevent freedom of speech you have-

1. Not given myself and many others the opportunity to see, first hand, what a deplorably racist creature Justin Barret is.

2. Evoked sympathy for Justin by giving him reason to get on the radio and complain about not being allowed to speak.

3. Indirectly given Justin a far greater 'podium' to talk on by pushing him out of an L&H debate and onto national radio.

4. Tarnished your own name with labels such as 'thugs'. and pushed many people away from you and the causes you fight for.

The 'right wing nazis' you talk about will undoubtably be pleased with your obviously well thought out plan.

Good work.

by ironboundjonny - myself Sun Oct 17, 2004 16:15

Is it right to beat up muslims because you don't like their ideology?
Is it right to beat Politicians up New Labour,conservatives libdems etc, because you don't like their beliefs or politics?
You either want free speach or you don't want free speach .Afa can be very fascist in their attempt to suppress freedom of speach.Personally i would like to see fascist,communist and capitalist organisations closed down .

by gnjngjnjn Sun Oct 17, 2004 16:29

Because he's Turkish. When they finished terrorising this man's family they went and attacked his Indian neighbours.
No-one has written defending his right to live in peace in this land and raise his children free from this type of attack.
Two nights before a man is jostled and prevented from taking a stage to articulate xenophobic policies that find their true expression in attacks such as the first.

There have been over fifty comments defending his right to incite others to attack the first man and his home.

The hypocrisy and moral relativism really is disgusting.

by L and H Drop Out Sun Oct 17, 2004 16:37

Damn right, the moral fucking relativism of a lot of people posting on both indymedia and the UCD SU site is totally disheartening.

Those that are leaping to the defence of Barrett are sickeningly quite in their condemnation of the racist antics of the L and H on that night.

by oldby Sun Oct 17, 2004 18:53

Most of us who found the actions of AFA disgraceful arent trying to defend Barret.

The point you seem to be missing is that you got no where by forcing Justin out of the debate.

In fact as I said before you pushed him out of a theatre containing about 250 people, and on to national radio with thousands of listeners.

Maybe next time you might actually consider THINKING about what you want to achieve and how to best achieve this instead of rushing in like violent headless chickens.

by Timothy Mon Oct 18, 2004 02:57

The key question in this debate is whether or not you agree with a no platform policy.

Forget Barrett and the debate in UCD for a minute, do people support a no platform position for fascists or not?

On the question on the working class being more racist that the middle class. This is utter bollocks. where racists and fascists gain their support is not from the working class but from elements of the middle class and the completely brutalised and downtrodden in society, not the working class. This has always been the case, for example Hitler's base of support was the small buisiness owners and the poverty stricken long term unemployed, Hitler had negligable support among the working class.

by veteran Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:38

This is not a debate about whether or not racial violence is acceptable - I would have thought that didn't require debate. For what it's worth, I do abhor racial violence. I find Justin Barrett and Aine Ni Chonaill thoroughly offensive. And I willingly condemn attacks of the sort described.

However, this is a debate on whether or not AFA were right to do what they did - not about racial violence. I don't think they were right, for the reasons I outlined. I think it's counterproductive and dangerous, aside from being an unjustifiable assault on the right to free speech.

Racial violence is a side issue in this - the vast majority of us find it horrific and wouldn't dream of defending those actions. What we are debating is whether AFA had the right to silence someone else.

And one final note - I was talking to an acquaintance from the L&H yesterday and was given an account of what was done to the guy at the back. Apparently, two AFA members jumped him and banged his head repeatedly against the desk, before dragging him into the walkway and kicking him unconscious, and finally throwing him down the stairs.

Can anyone from the AFA deny this treatment? And don't bother telling me he's in a National Socialist band - finding someone's views objectionable is no excuse for beating the hell out of them.

by Theo Mon Oct 18, 2004 11:10

I completely agree with homer, I do not believe that you can prove which 'class' is more racist. It is based on the individual, their interests and their experiences. For example I know a security guard working in Heathrow airport who has declared his racist nature to me time after time based on his experiences with immigrants and asylum seekers in Britain.
Also by attacking him you have made him a marytr and given him more sympathy and publicity than he could have dreamed of. You're gonna end up starting a war. He is gaining support and sympathy and is coming off not as extreme as rumour had let it be known. While those thugs are being known as just that.
Bad move boys Bad move!!!

by gareth Mon Oct 18, 2004 14:20

physically attacking people like this lends them an air of legitimacy and martyrdom i think most of us would rather they could not lay claim to. violence should only ever be used in self-defence.

by Anti Nazi Mon Oct 18, 2004 15:27

If you have a look at the 'stormfront' website you will see postings by members of 'Celtic Wolves' saying that the far right needs to organise and target UCD, 'especially foreign students foreign workers and reds'. these were put up BEFORE the Barrett debate.

Do you think we should just sit back and wait until fascits boot boys have attacked their first Erasmus student or Chinese worker before we oppose them?

by historian Mon Oct 18, 2004 16:15

I cannot beleive an AFA supporter is recommending that we look at the Stormfront site!! My god, would you trust us like not be be transformed into "boneheads" by the force of their arguments and the logic of their position?

Having said that, anyone who does will see that is is quite apparent that the "Celtic Wolves" (probably some comic book guy character wanking himself off in his bedroom) had nothing to do with the Barrett meeting and that other idiots are slagging them off because they were not there to defend Barrett. Two things being clear from that - there is no link between Barrett and the largely imaginary Nazi "scene" nor does Barrett appear to be engaged in courting them.

Think about it - if old Justin had been a fascist and knowing that the meeting was likely to be attacked would he not have turned up mob handed?

by Anti Nazi Mon Oct 18, 2004 18:06

He did have his own 'mob' there were several known nazi's in the audience

by ian corcoran Tue Oct 19, 2004 18:20 ian at iancorcoran dot com

As an irish resident based here in australia, i wouldn't like to see the struggle against the Pauline Hanson One Nation party discounted despite the present coalition government using her policies.

Whilst not fascist, her attempts to establish membership in working class suburbs failed miserably in victoria due to direct action against her public meetings. Grass roots organisation & suport of angry local youth managed to shut here down here in 98. In particular the dandenong meeting also saw media hesteria surrounding a one nation member recieving a well placed kick up the arse from an angry youth.

The main outcome was the beginning of the end of one nation from there on in.

The platform: No free speech for fascists has to be stuck to esp in regard to world events.

by Declan Gallagher - anti nazi league Wed Oct 20, 2004 15:50

justin barrett is facist, just like johnny adare in the north he has been involved in such organisations as the NF and BNP. If given the slightest bit of a platform facist exploit it to get more power. when organisations such as the ANL and AFA prevent them from speaking they use the free speech argument, where they claim they have the right to free speech like any other political organisation

this is simply not true! while people who orgin from moderate politics on the left and right have the right to free speech facists don't becuse they will take away the right for any one else to speak against them once they get enough support.

on the subject of debate here i agree that barrett shouldn't have been even invited and the organisers of the debate are mere childish pranksters who will most likly grow up to be the next michael ó leary; denis ó brien or tony ó reilly. on the actions of the AFA i think that they should have gone about it in a different manner. they should have written up a leaflet opposing the invitation of Barrett and called a meeting to organise action againt the debate taking place becuse they was no way that they were ever going to get the co-operation of the meetings organisers.

last year the trinity college debate team invited the BNP's youth organiser at leeds university to speak. the anl and other organisers who opposed the visit protested ahead of the visit to the extent that the meeting was canncelled because the facist organiser was too afraid to come to ireland. that's the results you get with organisation and the only way to smash facism - prevention.

by Anti-fa Wed Oct 20, 2004 15:55

Aren't you even a little bit embarrassed to be commenting on something that you clearly don't know the first thing about? I mean lecturing others in public about their mistakes when you haven't the foggiest about what actually happened??? Fact: the meeting was only learned about a day or so in advance, leaving little time for any meetings to be held to organise against it. Fact: the SWP/ANaL were nowhere to be seen in UCD. So lecturing the people who did the work is just bullshit Fact: The SWP never have anything to do with physically stopping fascists. They wave lolipops at them and then claim the glory when AFA and others actually do something about it. Fact: The ANL does not exist, be honest and just use the SWP name.

by FF Wed Oct 20, 2004 16:12

“the SWP never have anything to do with physically stopping fascists”

And you think you have?

Attack on Barrett….deemed to illegal by many…..carried out in the name of a war against evil……done pre-emptively….. Nothing to done with neo-conservatism then?

by veteran Wed Oct 20, 2004 20:25

Firstly, it would be advisable for people to learn how to spell the word fascist. Secondly, the right to free speech should only be curtailed when there is a clear risk that that freedom will be used to effectively deny someone else's rights. Barrett is at no risk of being elected or getting a sympathetic hearing from the vast majority of Irish people. I've had enough of these comparisons to Hitler - circumstances are totally different. Firstly, is Barrett anywhere near as extreme as Hitler? No. Is Ireland going through a crippling recession and a constitutional crisis? No. Is the far left a serious player in politics? No, despite the hopes of some on these boards. So don't bother with comparisons - they're invalid.

If there's going to be a debate on immigration, then all sides must be represented - even the ones we find distasteful. Ignoring Barrett stinks of the kind of attitude that led to the banning of Sinn Fein from the airwaves. Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it go away.

The idea that "the organisers of the debate are mere childish pranksters who will most likly grow up to be the next michael ó leary; denis ó brien or tony ó reilly" is rather odd - because someone believes in listening to all sides, they're automatically childish?

Finally, the cancellation of Tony Wentworth of the BNP in Trinity last year had nothing to do with a fascist being "scared to come to trinity". If you'd actually bothered to come to the debate on the right of free speech and its limits - surely a fairly important one for those who are concerned about fascism - it would have been quite clear that the Senior Dean of the college used his powers to ban the society from bringing such a guest, on the grounds that he didn't want to have to deal with all the hassle it caused him. Don't flatter yourself that a handful of people muttering about him scared Wentworth into staying at home.

by Anti-fa Wed Oct 20, 2004 21:50

"Barrett is at no risk of being elected or getting a sympathetic hearing from the vast majority of Irish people."

No, but there are a lot of steps in between here and there and they all involve violence against the weak.

"If there's going to be a debate on immigration, then all sides must be represented - even the ones we find distasteful."

If you want to represent "all sides" then you'd have to include every person on the island. No two people share the same politics exactly, nor the same views on immigration. The idiot children who put on this debate decided to include the two most deranged and distasteful individuals in the land as an important 'side' in the debate. A 'side' that has no support, never having polled better than 2.4% in an election.

"because someone believes in listening to all sides, they're automatically childish? "

No they are childish because they chose the most obnoxious, hateful and dangerous views as an important side in the debate. They did this, not because they thought that these individuals on the far right had anything interesting to say, but for the purpose of causing a fuss, getting noticed and pontificating about 'freedom of speech' to the media.

"Senior Dean of the college used his powers to ban the society from bringing such a guest, on the grounds that he didn't want to have to deal with all the hassle it caused him. Don't flatter yourself that a handful of people muttering about him scared Wentworth into staying at home."

Eh, veteran, you seem to be missing something. Who was going to cause the fuss that persuaded the senior deal to ban the fascist? I'd say that the "handful of people muttering" might have had something to do with it, don't you? That and the fact that every time a bona fide fascist comes to Dublin, his meetings are shut down.

by Tony Thu Oct 21, 2004 00:00

Anti-fa

Is it not you that is missing something?

Did it escape you that the topic was immigration and (dare I add) immigration alone?

Or are you just another one of those idiosyncratic people that cannot intellectually disassociate criticism of immigration policy in any format, by anyone - whatever the forum - without bursting a blood vessel and seeing dancing nazi symbols before your eyes?

On account of the fact that not everyone gets their say as you ably point out - those at the finer ends of the debate normally do and most people find cause and rationality - somewhere near the centre ground.

It's extraordinary that the AFA does not see itself at a highly polarised end of the spectrum itself where it, ipso facto - shares more in common with "fascists" than it does with the overwhelming majority of people who reject extremes on any issue, unless they are truly suffering, desparate or concerned.

I make this statement and I defy you to reject it.

When immigration policy is amended to a policy that Irish people are comfortable with - Barret and his support base will completely disappear.

And not one, so called "anti-facist" measure will be required.

Or is that what you are afraid of?

by Luo Gang - AFA Thu Oct 21, 2004 20:44 sagarmatha at eircom dot net

After reading the anti-AFA diatribes of the smug and self-righteous armchair intellectuals that seem to come out of the woodwork to denigrate the work of others, I feel the need to add a few points. This whinging is nothing new, as those who prefer self-indulgent intellectualising to constructive argument have always dogged the heels of progressive struggles, whining and seeking attention. As always, the passive acceptance of racial attacks as “a reality of life” can be contrasted with the vocal and affected outrage that was vented at the denial of free speech to a fascist.

The idea that philosophising can somehow be treated in a vacuum independent of the realities of the street, ignores the effects that allowing fascists to organise produce. Furthermore, the sad delusion that allowing Barrett to speak so that he can be exposed by the superior intellects of the L&H society is quite laughable. AFA members were there and we heard all we need to know about the debating skills of most of those in the society. Also, given the high numbers of middle class exponents for Barratts right to speak, we could never be sure that all would be unsympathetic. Daddy’s workforce might not prove to be so troublesome if there were gangs of fascist brownshirts around to beat them up.

Also, while the L&H might think it a thrilling “wheeze” to invite along a fascist to give the meeting some kind of balance, would the society hold a similar debate on violence against women, inviting along a couple of unapologetic rapists to likewise put their case? Naturally of course, women in the crowd would as a consequence feel somewhat nervous of the prospect that some of their like-minded friends may be sitting around them. This is essentially what happened with several non-whites at the meeting who feared attack from Barrett’s friends, themselves leaving the meeting early.

Few among us in society are stupid enough to believe in unrestricted freedom of speech. Most of us are aware of the quote, made by Hitler himself when safely ensconced in power in Germany. Feeling confident enough to offer up the secret of his success, he was to boast:

“Only one thing could have stopped our movement – if our adversaries had understood its principle and from the first day had smashed with the utmost brutality the nucleus of our new movement.”

How often do you have to be told?

by Tony Thu Oct 21, 2004 21:06

Tell us as often as you like so long as your vigilantes are chained up.

If any foreigner had been attacked in the manner that Barrett was - I wonder would you excuse that as legitimate protest too.

by veteran Fri Oct 22, 2004 14:50

Because I for one am sick of the constant offensive assumption that because someone's in a debating society, they must automatically be stinking rich and have piles of money at home. I find it thoroughly offensive. Many of my friends worked their asses off through the college year in order to be able to afford to go to college, and they happened to enjoy debating. Anyone who decides that their hobby marks them off as being spoilt rightwing rich kids can fuck off right now. We're not all rightwing, we're not all spoilt, and by no means are we all wealthy.

Anyone who preaches tolerance and then automatically classifies someone as a rightwing rich kid for nothing more than enjoying debating is guilty of discrimination. You can't deny someone's points by making up some false characteristic and then ignoring them based on that.

by Voice of Reason Fri Oct 22, 2004 14:56

"people who orgin from moderate politics on the left and right have the right to free speech facists don't becuse they will take away the right for any one else to speak against them once they get enough support."


I see. So does that remind you of anyone else?

by student Fri Oct 22, 2004 16:10

Statement from the Students Union President concerning events at last week’s immigration debate.

There have been a number of serious allegations made against union officers and employees concerning these events. I would like to assure everyone that I am taking these allegations made very seriously indeed.



In that regard I am moving to set up an independent internal review of the role if any of the sabbatical officers or paid employees in the events leading up to, during and after the events of the last weeks immigration debate. When the findings of this review are presented to me I will make a decision on the course of action I will take in line with the constitution of the students union.

I would also like to express my feelings that, in the light of the real fears that students of racial minority have due to the increase in racial attacks in this country and in the light of the university's dignity and respect policy, it is unacceptable to invite someone like Justin Barrett to speak on this campus and also unacceptable to have members of the L and H allegedly making racist jokes or comments at debates. It is quite clear that students of racial minority would not have felt comfortable participating in this debate for fear of potential repercussions so therefore it is totally unacceptable that events with known racists and fascists speaking should be allowed to occur on this campus.

by Porky Fri Oct 22, 2004 16:57

An 'internal review' is to be set up to punish the left wing exec and staff officers. this is yet another capitulation to the right wing by Scully

by UCD Fri Oct 22, 2004 17:00

If this report doesn't mean Weafer gets the boot it's no less than a whitewash

by ucdsu member Fri Oct 22, 2004 17:05

This inquiry should not go ahead. The right wing hacks, bouyed up by getting a majority on council and angry after a year out of power, want blood.

What we need to do is not be setting up inquiries but re-establishing a bit of left wing activism in order to challenge these rightwingers.

by Luo Gang - AFA Fri Oct 22, 2004 21:26

Ah yes, that old chestnut. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising saw those who rebelled sink to the Nazis level. Also, the French resistance was no better than the Nazis that invaded. It works like this, the fascist attacks the non-white national as a means to terrorising her/his ethnic group, the anti-fascist attacks the fascist to halt the process. The methods might be the same but all-importantly the agendas are different. It was Hippocrates that once said, “For extreme illnesses, extreme treatments are most fitting”

Also, on the question of the class make-up of debating societies, this isn’t blind prejudice, we can tell by the accents.

by Resess Fri Oct 22, 2004 21:30

Surely if Mr Barrett could be linked to any kind of lawbreaking he’d be prosecuted.
All the other analogies you use are seriously self-flattering and more than a little far fetched !!

by Tony Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:15

Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, the Warsaw Ghetto uprising saw those who rebelled sink to the Nazis level. Also, the French resistance was no better than the Nazis that invaded

Analogies from WW3. How contemporary and useful in Ireland 2004.

Any chance of a couple of parables from the bible for good measure?

Would you also care to point out in any source - anywhere - a section of facist theory devoted to attacks on people of specific races. And I mean that specific.

Otherwise you may simply admit that it is you that wildly attachs the "facist" tag on anyone who talks in anything but glowing terms about immigration.

by long memory Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:24

Today we're trying to make "everyone happy" and celebrate our lovely big family of a nice cup of tea and good sandwich for all.

well Tony what can we do for you?
bible quotes?
careful study and qoutation of the Fash core texts?
no I got it .- an apology.

Dear Tony,
We got you all wrong, Fascists may spend an inordinate amount of time not mentioning the legal mechanisms inherent to their favoured type of social organisation by which many millions of people were stripped of their citizenship, tatooed with identification numbers, sent to camps, used as slave labour, fed on 900 calories a day, and murdered, but this is only because you are in complete denial, and have attached a sentimental devotion to the losing side of world war two. You really are nice people behind it all. And most of you are not directly related to the theft and murder of many of our forebears on account of you not being in any traditional sense "aryan", since let's be honest you're mostly "taigs".

by Fhu Sat Oct 23, 2004 17:02

Is this how you’d attempt to smear 80% of the electorate who didn’t buy your nonsense?
Sad, and very, very stupid!

by Tony Sat Oct 23, 2004 20:52

So - another question goes unanswered, that is, unless cartoon attempts at slander count.

by M.K. - Blitz Fri Oct 29, 2004 13:50

The whole point of this debate is the politics of refusing fascists to speak in public, a strategy I wholeheartedly endorse. If you let them gain respectability, we know where that road goes. As for assaulting nazis who wear uniform, or individuals with clear links to nazi/fascist organisations, I have no problem with that. Here in Norway we beat the shit out of the nazis all through the 90s, and though they used guns and explosives in retaliation, in the end they disappeared as a coherent force. Nazism/fascism always result in the weak getting the shit kicked out of them, and if we who are strong do not physically oppose those who seek to damage the weak, then we are nothing more than just another bunch of spineless fucking liberals. You cant fight fascism through debates, its been tried and it failed.

by M.K. - Blitz Fri Oct 29, 2004 13:59

"It's extraordinary that the AFA does not see itself at a highly polarised end of the spectrum itself where it, ipso facto - shares more in common with "fascists" than it does with the overwhelming majority of people who reject extremes on any issue, unless they are truly suffering, desparate or concerned."

I do not know how things are in Ireland, but in Norway direct action against fascists is supported by a majority of the people. The same goes for direct action against capitalism and the US foreign policy. Most people out in real life understand that sometimes you have to take the battle to the enemy, and truly, fascism IS the enemy. A lot more people than you think agree with me.

by observer Fri Oct 29, 2004 14:00

Good point comrade - but you were actualaly combatting REAL fascists. Have you ever seen or heard or read Justin Barrett? He is not a nazi in the Norwegian sense and he does not have guns and explosives. There are such beings here in the loyalist groups but AFA are strangely reticent about taking them on even though 90% of the serious racial attacks in Ireland are carried out by them not to mention their long history of fascist violence against Catholics and republicans and Protestant working class people who crossed them.

As for the people claiming the mantle of the French Resistance and the Warsaw Ghetto for AFA. Give me a break!! Talk about delusions of grandeur. Attacking some puny defenceless Catholic right winger is not the same as taking on the Wehrmacht and the Gestapo.

by Observing Fri Oct 29, 2004 14:13

Shit point "Observer". AFA Ireland are not "strangely reticent" about takin on fascists/loyalists wherever they can find them as resources allow.

What are you suggesting you moron, that AFA march down the Shankhill and attack everybody? Do something yourself instead of constantly whinging about the effectiveness of AFA.

by Observer Fri Oct 29, 2004 14:38

How will I make this easier for you to understand?

How about: AFA are a bunch of cowards who are afraid of loyalists but very brave when it comes to tackling old men deleivering election leaflets and mammy's boys talking about Catholic Ireland.

by Badman Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:13

From the current issue of Social Worker

"THE PHYSICAL attack on Justin Barrett at the L & H debate was a futile act and has only served to discredit the left in UCD.

In order to combat racism and the extreme right we need to build movements that are democratic and involve hundreds of students not the type individual
conspiratorial actions like that which took place at the debate.

We are concentrating on building broad anti-war activity in UCD. Contact 087 2995167"

I especially love the bit where the SWP preach about democratic movements. I also remain mystified as to how 'broad anti-war activity in UCD' is related to the rise of racism and the potential for fascism in Ireland? Anybody?

by Artur Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:17

Only said this because they are too scared to get involved in anything that might involve direct action.
And this on top of Thatcher's Children - why don't they just go and join the Labour Party and have done with it.

by evenbadderman Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:23

Oh great. Not being content to getting involved with militant islam the SWP are now linking up with the right-wing catholic fundies.

by Getting sick of it now Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:24

Those posts about Loyalists are from character who also posts as 'Fingallian', and other names, and makes it his mission in life to bad-mounth AFA on whatever site he can. Oddly enough he has never made him self available to discuss issues in person. That is not a threat BTW, just genuinely curious to know what winds his clock.

On another thread he started on about 'crack dealing non-nationals', as a basis on which to attack AFA. Same story here about loyalists. Now this Fingallian knows well what is in the public sphere about AFA exposing various Loyalists as actual fascists, etc. Indeed the weekly newspaper produced by the political party he supports printed all this stuff, implying general endorsement. This is Sinn Féin BTW, which has members supportive of AFA, as do plenty of other parties and political viewpoints. So what yer man's problem is is anyone's guess.

Undoubtedly he will be back soon with some other gripe. How about "The floods in Clonmel - what has AFA done about it?"

by observer Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:49

You guys really have issues! Anyone who disagrees with you has to be the same person!

by Jo Take Fri Oct 29, 2004 15:56

This specimen obviously thinks he knows AFA inside out i.e "AFA are a bunch of cowards who are afraid of loyalists " -wonder where he done his research -the school playground by the sound of it.

What is more sinister is his sneaky insiniuations of AFA as touts - Interesting -wonder what his real game is.

by barry Fri Oct 29, 2004 21:52

I thought that factionalising, backstabbing, self publicity and generally making a mountain out of a molehill was an exclusive preserve of us republicans (as well as being reduced to attacking pathetically soft targets on occasion), but youse boys seem to have it down to a fine art.
The only extreme far right organisations in this country who are attacking immigrants are the bloody loyalists.!!! Their links with the far right in the UK are well documented and even boasted about. That you are running about congratulating yourselves for striking a huge blow against facism by giving a smurf a clip around the ear is frankly embarassing.
Barret is simply a hangover from Irelands orthodox Catholic conservative past. He is now in danger of being made look like an intellectual being persecuted for his beliefs.

To hear this talk about the war on facism is pathetic. These brave boyos are doing SFA in the fight against facism , they sound more like football hooligans with a smattering of politics as a justification.
In October 2000 Turkish socialist prisoners who are fighting a real FASCIST regime were brutally massacred while on Hunger strike in an Ankara prison. Some of the prisoners , young girls of 19 were doused in chemicals and then set on fire. Others were crushed with bulldozers, gassed, shot ,beaten and tortured to death. As we speak 117 Turkish prisoners have been martyred both by these brutal methods and in an ongoing 4 YEAR hungerstrike. These people have consistently pleaded for Irish people in particular to help their cause given our own political history. They even made a recent appeal to this website and not one of you AFA bollockses even paid a blind bit of notice.
Bertie Ahern, John Bruton and other political and business interests in his country are especially keen to bring the facist Turkish regime into the EU, that means PROVIDING FASCIST MURDERERS WITH A POLITICAL PLATFORM !!!! Do the AFA have any views on this, are they going to do anything to help these TRUE ANTI-FASCIST FREEDOM FIGHTERS or are they quite happy to slap smurfs and OAP's and then brag down the pub to their mates about how they taught "the fash" a lesson.

by Harry Fri Oct 29, 2004 23:18

You have a fair bit in common with the loyalists, don't you? Drug Pushers Out.

by Barry Sat Oct 30, 2004 00:38

Harry, forgive me but I am totally bewildered by that last..em..comment. What do you mean ?

by barry Sat Oct 30, 2004 03:27

This whole UCD thing has just degenerated into name calling and sneering. I'll admit that I've been a bit sneery myself so I apologise to anyone out there who is truly politically motivated and not just out to give someone a kicking.

I think that the consensus amongst most people is that the decision to physically attack that prat at a university debate was wrong.

I agree with the argument put forward by the anti-fascists that far right extremists such as we have in mainland Europe and the UK have to be confronted, yes physically. I witnessed an attack by the far--right in a nightclub in Norway a number of years ago and its ferocity left me shaken (im not that easy shaken-it was disgusting).
That anarchists and leftist groups have to confront these trash is not only right, but a matter of their own physical survival in many cases.
The justification for using physical force in this instance cannot be upheld.
Justin Barret does not come anywhere close to these animals. He is simply an oul fashioned little bollocks. Anyone with half a brain could methodically take his daft theories apart with little difficulty (theres a 9 year old girl next door to me who could physically take him apart).
I admit that it is a bit of a tall order to expect a tiny group with scant resources to take on the loyalists, especially given their resources and police, army and state backing. (anyway there are already tried and trusted ways of defending against those scum)
Given that outside of these circles, no organised physical force right exists I simply dont see the need or justification to apply the methods of the anti-fascist groups to a non-existent problem (I'm not talking about petty racism I mean real fascism)There simply is no organised right outside of loyalism. That is why I have tried to suggest constructive alternatives . I accept that peoples hearts might be in the right place (at least you arent beating up asylum seekers), but it could be construed that you are inventing an enemy rather than confronting one. Within conspiratorial groups it is often easy to get carried away with the ideology and lose sight of how your actions can be viewed by the wider public, republicans can be guilty of that as well sometimes .
All I will say is think about it, there are more frightening things on this earth, things we must confront, than Justin Barret.

by Seriously fed-up Sat Oct 30, 2004 11:58

"That anarchists and leftist groups have to confront these trash is not only right, but a matter of their own physical survival in many cases."


Oh right. So we're back in the thirties and the Reichstag is on fire. Could have fooled me.

by afa supporter Sat Oct 30, 2004 19:49

I'm only replying to you because you seem to be genuine but also condescending. Let's be clear on a couple of things - Barrett is a fascist, his book, which I've read, is a classic fascist Third Positionist text. His links with German and Italian fascists are well documented. AFA targeted him because he has publicly stated that his aim is to set up an extreme right wing organisation. The AFA action was aimed at making this as difficult as possible. The fact that Dana refused to share a platform with Barrett in Galway proves that we have had some success.
If you bother to read the AFA website you will see that nowhere do we claim that there is an 'organised physical force on the Right'. We aim to do what we can to ensure that it remains so. When there was an organised nazi Blood and Honour group in Dublin in the 1980’s it was AFA who put them out of business.
You appear to have an interest in the Turkish Hunger Strikes. For your information people who are also members of AFA were involved in organising the very successful support group set up to highlight the Turkish Hunger Strikes.
Barry, hopefully you are not just an imaginary activist in cyberspace, hopefully you actually get off your arse unlike most of the contributors to this debate.

by Barry Sun Oct 31, 2004 05:37

. Thanks for having the courtesy to respond in a sensible manner. I will attempt to do the same from now on (i said attempt). Lets just say we agree to disagree on a number of issues. Deep appreciaton to all who have supported the Turkish Death Fast martyrs. Sound. As for this Barret character I am heartily sick of him by this stage. Next time you see him hit him one from me the little Blueshirt bastard.( hows that for a bigger u-turn than Gerry Adams) slan agus oiche mhaith.