Fascist Barrett scores hit with great & good of NUIG

by Curious Fri Oct 15, 2004 23:37

Would Barrett have gotten a response like that if what happened in UCD didn't happen?

Nope.

So the AFA have turned someone who would normally be booed off the stage into a victim. Well done lads.

by migrant. not of the ethnics I live with. - foreigner. guirri. Fri Oct 15, 2004 23:57

On the anniversary of the execution of the only democratically elected head of state, Lluis Companys, in Europe in the XX century, it is ironic to read that Justin Barrett ( né Slavin) author of proscribed literature, fêted in hate websites, has at last found an audience in his "homeland", and moved them to such eloquent moral relativism not only in Ireland but further afield.

But it doesn't make it ok.

Just because his german ideological forebears thought planting vegetables on roundabouts was a good idea, does not excuse what Justin and friends still deny happened.

Lluis Companys was just one example.
a VIP one. There were millions more. And until Justin and friends admit that, then no-one is going to be fooled by reposturing now.

The "original sin" of the alliance between fascist, ultra catholic Barret/Slavin and neonazi ilk is then compounded by an unpardonably high incidence of race attacks on the island of Ireland, considered in demographic and population density terms.

These really are bad people. But not the first bad people to be applauded in a university debating chamber. History is filled with such politicians, but not with, you know, boring, little known, catalan interest, awaiting full official recuperation, executed yet technically all quite legally, elected, democratic head of state of a wide coalition of left parties, forgotten his name.

your dark night Mr barret/slavin
but his day.

by Remember 36 Sat Oct 16, 2004 03:06

Nice to see there are some dissenting minds in Galway as well.

by Thomas Davis Sat Oct 16, 2004 06:04

Not sure whether preventing a debate in a university is a good idea or not. It might be best to keep it confined to university, and prevent it from spreading into the real world.
If Barrett and co. are kept busy on the college circuit it might keep them from influencing the general public, most of whom are oblivious to what goes on in the land of academia.

by Normal Guy Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:08

Poorly researched debate, esp referring to MTQ as JB's future coalition partner? FG kicked Dana into touch. They consistently fought for personal freedom, divorce, contraception, yet the Socialiast continually strive from centralised decision making and not allowing free enterprise to flourish. To associate FG with JB is as inaccurate as associating FG with RBB - another self appointed spokesman with an agenda.

by tim Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:09

I cant stand the guy,but given the way hes been treated and the fact that indymedia seem to be trying to gag him and intimidate him I'll vote for him next time he runs on an issue I can live with that he supports,

SO MUCH FOR YOUR WEBSITE AND CONTRIBUTORS AND FREE SPEECH, did you ever read animal farm

by fed up with AFA arrogance Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:28

By their hyprocracy these radical leftists have exposed their intolerent character and intellectual bankruptcy.
The great lesson for us all is that as long as you only listen to people who think like you you’ll dig your own hole so deep that it’ll be too late to climb out.
The conceit and wrong headed arrogance that motivates them will be their greatest misfortune. Talk about playing with fire!

by - Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:06

yes, it's on the sylabus of the Irish Dept. of Education English course, if you're Irish chances are you've read Animal Farm, it's not such an acheivement, it's only about 200 pages, and the animated cartoon version is broadcast on British TV at least once a year.

"Did you understand Animal Farm?" might be a better question. Rosemary Dana Scanlon won't share a platform with Justin Slavin Barret.
oink oink oink!

by UCD student Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:27

The socialists showed themselves up for what they really are...instead of allowing someone their constitutional right to express their opinion, they tried to beat him up, thus giving his ideas more publicity...MUPPETS..you also gave UCD, where most you probably diddn't even go, a bad name to both the forign students in the audience and a national radio host, and now it's blasted around the entire country that we are a college of thugs.

This must be why the cops thought it nessicary to have two riot squad vans in the carpark for an anti-coke protest the next day....it's clear they think were a bunch of thugs who attack people we don't like.

The hypocracy of people like this is now plain for all to see, as a good journalist once said, "when you look at these groups you think, thank God for the establishment".

If you want to attack people do it outside, and keep your scumbag friends out of my college.

Let's compare who's more dangerious here, a one mane facist who will never get elected to anything and who's opinions the vast majority of Irish people reject, or a bunch of thugs tho tries to beat the crap out of someone who tries to speak at a peaceful debate...and who also knocked out some poor guy who was completly uninvolved as he treid to get out of the fighting???

you midddle class rich kids are just as agresssive as any scumbag in a white tracksuit.

grow up

I'm sick of these people drowning out speakers at whatever debate I seem to be at there, also I'm disgusted that these people now control our students union and have their partisan Bias take up 90% of the freshers guide and I'm even more sickened that I HAVE TO PAY THESE PEOPLE A WAGE through the registration fee to put forward views I don't agree with!

What kinda twisted *blank* have we got running our college when they think a soft drink is evil but attacking a tiny defenceless man is not??????

This is setting a very dangerous precedent does this mean we have the right to attack any visator whos’ views we don’t agree with?

Can I punch Par Rabbite or a member or Republicans abroad if they come for a debate?

Also guys " no platform for facists"get over it!

You don't want facists to have a platform I happen to think anarchists and socialists are just as dangerious but I have confidence that if your allowed to express your views people will make an intelegent decision.

The idea of a protst to prevent someone expressing their constitutianl rights is stupid!

B4 this most people would probably have laughed at Barrets views (like they did at the sheer stupidity of Aines) but now people want to hear him and he's on every radio station...YOU GOBSHITES you prevented him from taking a platform with 200 people and gave him a platform of 4million.

WELL DONE, now have a wash and get with reality.

by ren Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:35

To above poster claiming indymedia was trying to gag barret, its seems you have absolutely no understanding of the concept behind indymedia, in fact by contributing you have in your own way become part of indymedia. There is no central indymedia brain writing all the stories, people from all sorts of groups contribute, just like you did there with your enlightened comment.

So many people who come here and complain about indymedia have absolutely no idea what they are complaining about. Try clicking on the 'about us' button up there on the top left of the page. If you disagree with the stance taken by a group then say so, but to blame indymedia for the actions of contributors is a mistaken assumption, after all you are a part of it now, muahaha there is no escape.... fellow drone.

by UCD student Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:39

I'm not blasting Indymedia, I just realise that the scumbags who attacked Barret and the ones who supported them by bringing them to our college happen to look at this site alot.

by UCD student Sat Oct 16, 2004 13:44

"anti fascist activists"...no it's pronunced S-C-U-M-B-A-G...ie someone who attacks a completly defenceless person.

by UCD student Sat Oct 16, 2004 14:06

Now you know why the Irish people dont' trust you enough to put you in charge of our country, your a bunch of thugs who think it's "elite" to allow someone their constitutional rights.

The present government and it's "alternative" may piss me off at times but at least they don't literally scare me like you guys do.

THANK GOD FOR TEAR GAS, RIOT SQUADS AND WATER CANNONS, as long as they exist we'll be safe from the likes of you.

by Arts Student Sat Oct 16, 2004 15:07

'UCD Student' you are a ranting idiot and probably a FF or FGer.

Barrett is a bigot, he abuses his 'freedom of speech' to whip up racism, this has to be opposed. 'UCD student' you say that foreign students will be frightened away from UCD, well do you not think that foreign students will be more affraid of fascists orgainsing in UCD which would see attacks on ethnic minorities? Across Europe when facists have gained even a small foothold in colleges and in communities it has lead to vicious attacks on ethnic minorities, left activists and trade unionists. Recently in Greece, Sweden and Belguim students have been stabbed, assaulted and hospitalised by fascists just because they were active in left wing politics, is this what you want in UCD?

As for the Coke protest. The students in UCD on TWO occasions voted to boycott Coke, because of their brutal anti union policies. To have the college authorities then award an honourary degree to a leading director of Coca Cola is an insult of the highest order to the students in UCD.

by UCG student Sat Oct 16, 2004 15:14

". These pomposities were, almost without fail, rapturously received."

Much like the pomposities contained in this report.

"He asserted that the implementation of the constitution would mean the debasement of any kind of continuity between the contemporary Irish state and that conceived of in the 1916 proclamation of the republic, an assertion put to dramatic effect by Barrett’s tearing up of a wad of paper representing the proclamation, much to the delight of the great and good of the Lit ‘n’ Deb."

I fail to see how that act was 'to the delight' of the people in attendance when the first speaker to reply to him ridiculed it.

"The irony that the questioning of the right to speak of an agent in league with active fascist militants was attacked so harshly, in the aftermath of widespread sympathy with the argument that the only acceptable means of interaction with ‘the terrorists’ is through carpet-bombing, needs little extrapolation."

Is the irony of someone defending a platform for Islamo-fascists Al Qaeda but decrying the same for uber-Catholic Barret lost on you? What about the irony of one lunatic extremist hanging himself with the rope the internet gives him decrying the idea that a platform for another one will lead to the same thing?

by UCD Student Sat Oct 16, 2004 15:39

Arts student I am not a member of any party and never have been in FF or FG.

The coke ban was a waste of money it's still on sale 2ft from the door!
I have penty of reasons not to drink coke besides HR abuses and I think if you made the case that they were mistreating workers and encouraged a boycott it would have been better and wasted less of our money.

I didn't say I don't find Barret offesnive, but Irish people don't take people like him, or the SWP seriously, they just don't like ANY extreme.

I'm just saying that (1) trying to deny someone their constitutional rights and (2) trying to attack someone is not on.

I don't like most socialists policies..does that mean that I can attack an SWP member speaking at a debate...of course not.

by Michael Hennigan Sat Oct 16, 2004 17:37

Barrett is given a platform to air some of his views because of the 'media profile' he developed in the 1990's as a prominent member of Youth Defence League- a group that was modelled on violent direct action 'pro-life' groups in the US. The group received attention here because of intimidation at womens' clinics.

I don't believe that he should be given a platform to promote himself. However, if he is invited to address a public forum because of his notoriety, it only serves his purpose by violently opposing him.

Barrett should simply be given no public platform unless he can satisfactorily prove that he has had no past association with apologists for some of the greatest crimes against humanity, in the twentieth century.

This issue is far from a minor one. The German Government asked its Constitutional Court to outlaw the National Democratic Party (NPD) referred to in the Irish Times article below. German security agencies accuse the NPD of inciting racial violence.

Extract from Irish Times article; 11th October 2002

Mr Justin Barrett, the chief spokesman of the No to Nice campaign and a leading figure in the Youth Defence anti-abortion group, has close contacts with an extreme right-wing party in Germany which the authorities there believe has "Nazi characteristics".

Mr Barrett has attended conferences and spoken at an event organised by Germany's National Democratic Party (NPD). Two years ago he attended an NPD rally in the Bavarian city of Passau as a representative of Youth Defence. His name appears as one of the "honorary guests" at the event in Die Deutsche Stimme (The German Voice), the NPD party newspaper. The NPD described the rally, the largest by the party to date, as a day of national resistance. It was held in May 2000, and over 6,000 party members attended.

Other honorary guests included an Italian right-wing extremist and a former Nazi SS officer, who received a standing ovation.

Last month, when allegations about his links with the German organisation were first made in a Sunday newspaper, Mr Barrett threatened to sue it. He also threatened legal action against other media organisations, including The Irish Times.

Yesterday however, senior figures in the NPD and its youth wing confirmed his involvement.

"Justin Barrett was an honorary guest at our event in Passau. I invited him. He sat with the delegates," said Mr Holger Apfel, the deputy leader of the NPD. "We have been in contact with his group since 1996. We are friendly with his Youth Defence organisation."

When this was put to Mr Barrett, he declined to confirm or deny that he attended the event.

"That will be dealt with by the High Court," he said. "This is a smear campaign started by that gutter newspaper the Sunday Mirror and obviously The Irish Times is now working on it as part of this campaign by the Yes side."

The Irish Times has learned that in addition to his NPD contacts, Mr Barrett has a long-standing relationship with the party's youth organisation, the Young National Democrats (JN), a recruiting ground for the NPD. Mr Sascha Rossmüller, leader of JN, said he had been in contact with Mr Barrett "for several years". Youth Defence "shares many important interests" with the JN and is "an important part of our international network", said Mr Rossmüller. Other organisations in the network include the National Front in Britain and Italy's extremist group, Forza Nuova. The German government applied two years ago to the country's highest court to have the NPD banned. The government argues that the party poses a threat to democracy.

by UCD Student Two Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:35

"I'm disgusted that these people now control our students union and have their partisan Bias take up 90% of the freshers guide and I'm even more sickened that I HAVE TO PAY THESE PEOPLE A WAGE through the registration fee to put forward views I don't agree with!"


Do you vote in SU elections? Do you call meetings with your class? Do you attend SU Council?

One think seems clear from your ranting, the SU is not there to represent your opinion, it is there to represent democratically recieved mandates, which you have obviously never tried to pass or argue for or against.

By the way, what the fuck did the SU have to do with anything that happened at that debate?

by Terry Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:40

"Poorly researched debate, esp referring to MTQ as JB's future coalition partner? "

Huh? Poorly researched comment, surely this is a reference to De Rossa, of Labour, how would Fine Gael go into coalition with Barrett who isn't elected to anything.

by Terry Sat Oct 16, 2004 18:49

http://www.ucdsu.net/newswire.php?story_id=245

by eeekkk Sat Oct 16, 2004 19:17

.

by jamesmactaffe Sun Oct 17, 2004 17:17

'' ". These pomposities were, almost without fail, rapturously received."

Much like the pomposities contained in this report.''

Duh, clever play on words there, UCG student. Yes, because my report, clearly, was rapturously received by the Lit 'n' Deb audience, over 24 hours before it was written. You need to work on your writing technique.

'' "He asserted that the implementation of the constitution would mean the debasement of any kind of continuity between the contemporary Irish state and that conceived of in the 1916 proclamation of the republic, an assertion put to dramatic effect by Barrett’s tearing up of a wad of paper representing the proclamation, much to the delight of the great and good of the Lit ‘n’ Deb."

''I fail to see how that act was 'to the delight' of the people in attendance when the first speaker to reply to him ridiculed it. ''

That act was 'to the delight' of the audience in much the same way as a child finds delight in a puppet show, or a monkey is entertained by shiny things. The fact that one speaker picked on its silliness to punctuate his own two cents on the issues means nothing.

'' "The irony that the questioning of the right to speak of an agent in league with active fascist militants was attacked so harshly, in the aftermath of widespread sympathy with the argument that the only acceptable means of interaction with ‘the terrorists’ is through carpet-bombing, needs little extrapolation."

Is the irony of someone defending a platform for Islamo-fascists Al Qaeda but decrying the same for uber-Catholic Barret lost on you? What about the irony of one lunatic extremist hanging himself with the rope the internet gives him decrying the idea that a platform for another one will lead to the same thing? ''

I'm confused. Who's defending Al Qaeda? I view authoritarian religious fundamentalists of any creed with much the same level of disdain.

A shame, however, that the discourse of the debate in question failed to deviate from the realms of extremely loaded and nebulous terminology, terms dictated by the cultural commisars of the US ideological apparatus.

Amusing to note that the term 'terrorism' was originally coined to connote policies employed by states to keep errant populations and classes in line by means of repression, intimidation and brutality. Amusing also to note that the United States is the only country to have been convicted of international terrorism before an international court (in the 1980's for its proxy war in Nicaragua).

Whatever you think of the issue of 'no negotiation with terrorists' vs. 'no platform for fascists' is irrelevant to appreciating the contradictions and incoherency of the UCG students' outlooks in that regard.