Sunday, January 7, 2018

Tagged under: ,

A Fatal Attack in Dundalk, Racism and Irish Republicanism

Dieter Reinisch takes to task those purported republicans promoting anti-migrant sentiment in the wake of a murderous attack in Dundalk.





Photo Credit: Wikimedia.org

A stabbing by an Egyptian teenager that left a Japanese man dead and two Irish men injured has reignited debates on immigration in Ireland. Irish Nationalist sentiments all too often turned into anti-Muslim racism as news spread that the attacker was a former asylum seeker to the United Kingdom who migrated to Ireland through the British North. People considering themselves as Irish Republicans were not immune to this. But is the ideology of Irish Republicanism even compatible with racism?

In the past two days, since the fatal attack in Dundalk, a rural town in the Republic of Ireland, just south of the inner-Irish border, sections of the Irish population have used anti-migrant sentiments to attack Muslims and asylum seekers, preferably online.

The racist and anti-immigration backlash is an abhorrent but commonly observed phenomenon in the aftermath of such attacks. This is not even stopped by the fact that the Irish police has found no evidence that links the recent attack in Dundalk to international Islamic terrorism.

The past years have seen a rise in Neo-fascist and racist activities in Ireland. British First activists are frequent visitors to Ireland and a small bunch of people aimed but horribly failed to establish an Irish-branch of the German anti-Muslim movement Pegida.

The timing for this racist outburst might be surprising. While the years of the Celtic Tiger brought a huge number of cheap labourer, particularly from Eastern Europe but also from the Philippines, the number of refugees applying to Ireland are low in recent years. In 2016, there were 2,245 applicants in Ireland, a decrease 32% from 2015. Those who arrive are usually well-integrated.

Nonetheless, over the course of the past two days, observers criticising racist outbursts in the aftermaths of the Dundalk attack have been met by racist bigotry. The racist abuse thrown towards an Irish academic for tweeting an anti-racist message is disgusting.

Some users use the anonymity of the Internet even to go that far to link their anti-British attitudes with sectarianism and anti-Muslim racism, calling for “Troubles 2.0” – however, this time their supposed enemy is not Britain and militant Loyalism but migrants:



In their world-views, the people fleeing poverty and war in their own countries are the new settlers bringing with them a new Plantation. The migrants are equalised with British colonialists in the 17th century. What is forgotten – or rather ignored – is the fact that the majority of the people fleeing to Ireland nowadays are fleeing social, political, and religious oppression and poverty in former British (and French) colonies themselves.

While all sorts of trolls use Social Media and online platforms for spreading their racist worldviews, it is most disappointing to see publicly known members of Irish Republican organisations voicing similar opinions on political forums in the past days – but also before at other occasions.

The developing of racist, right-wing, or anti-Semitic expressions is not a new phenomenon among Irish Republicans. While Irish Republicans remember the fight of their comrades for the Spanish Republic, many Irishmen fought also on the side of Franco. One of the figures in the Irish Republican pantheon, Seán South was an outspoken anti-Semite. Nonetheless, these politics could never take hold of the movement as such.

To be sure, Irish Republicanism has always been more anti-imperialist than Nationalist. In an interview I conducted with former Irish Republican prisoner and Blanketman Tommy McKearney, he told me that the Nationalist rhetoric came into the movement in the early 1980s when Sinn Féin started contesting elections. According to McKearney, in a populist move, the Sinn Féin leadership started to departure from a Republican position in order to embrace a broader Nationalist constituency and gain votes from the SDLP. (Interview with Tommy McKearney, Monaghan, 5. August 2015) In other words, while post-1981 Sinn Féin is characterised by constitutional (Left-)Nationalism, pre-1981 Provisionals were driven by anti-colonial Republicanism.

While many readers might disagree with that analysis, it’s fair to say that Gaelic Nationalism is not a foundation pillar of Irish Republicanism. Gaelic Nationalism made its way into Irish Republicanism from the late 19th century onwards. The Gaelic Revival was in line with the similar National cultural resurgence in other European countries such as Germany, Italy, and the Slavic regions in the Habsburg monarchy. It was later popularised by the writings of 1916-leader Patrick Pearse. Nationalism truly played its role in the anti-colonial struggle.

However, while nationalism played and still plays its part in the Irish separatist movement, it was not there from the beginning and, thus, it is not characteristic of the ideology of the movement. While individual Republican activists use Gaelic Nationalism to justify their anti-migrant and racist parochialism, they shall be reminded that Irish Republicanism itself is a “foreign” ideology, originating in North America and France and brought by Presbyterians from Pennsylvania and Paris to Ireland. The man remembered as the founding father of Republicanism in Ireland, Theobald Wolfe Tone, was himself a descent of 16th century French Presbyterians. Moreover, the founder of Irish Marxism, James Connolly, was born in Scotland, and the first Chief-of-Staff of the Provisional IRA, John Stephenson alias Seán MácStiofáin was English. I wonder if these activists would throw their racist bigotry at these men as well if they would have been their contemporaries.

The American and French revolutions are the two most progressive events in pre-industrial human history. It was these two events that sparked the flame of Irish separatism for the decades and centuries to come. On 14 July 1789, the populace stormed the Bastille, replacing the tyranny of “Lex Rex, Rex Lex” with the slogan of “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” This slogan is as progressive as inclusive – right-wing Nationalism and racism, on the other hand, are reactionary and exclusive.

The first Republican organisation on the island of Ireland was the Society of the United Irishmen. Seán Ó Brádaigh was not only the first Editor of An Phoblacht after the reorganisation of the Provisionals and one of the masterminds behind Irish federalism, he is also a Historian of early Republicanism in Ireland. In his biography of the Irish rebel Robert Emmet, he writes:

The United Irish movement represents a coming together of various progressive forces at a period in human history which is now regarded as one of the pivotal epochs in the development in civilization. The American War of Independence and the French Revolution were concerned with national rights and human rights. The groundwork for these changes was prepared by thinkers and writers who proposed a change in our view of people and their place in the world ... Irish separatism was always a strong force in itself and it continued to assert itself, sometimes at great cost, over the centuries. The leaders of the United Irishmen were people who infused this Irish assertion of identity with the ideas of democracy, republicanism and the rights of man. They thus put the Irish freedom struggle into the mainstream of progressive forces in the world. 

Irish Republicanism has over the centuries resisted all attempts to be removed from its place among the “progressive forces of the world.” During the 1930s, Irish Republicanism resisted to be taken over by Fascism; again, in the 1970s, it resisted the embracing of sectarianism. Today, Irish Republicanism must fight anti-immigration and anti-Muslim sentiments within its ranks and Irish society.

Racism, Fascism, and sectarianism are not only incompatible with Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, since the birth of Irish Republicanism, they are even used to weaken and eventually diminish its progressivity. Again, Ó Brádaigh explains: 

Irish Republicanism first flourished among the Presbyterians of Ulster and Belfast in particular. They found common cause with their Catholic neighbours and were joined by equally idealistic members of the established church. Belfast became known as “the Athens of the North” during the 1790s because of the lively debates and discussion about all the new ideas. Athens was “the cradle of democracy” and Belfast could have become another cradle of democracy. Instead of that, the generous human ideals of the United Irishmen were suppressed and silenced and the flames of sectarianism were fanned, until the “Athens of the North” became a cauldron of bigotry. 

These are the challenges Irish Republicanism faced in the 1790s and these are the challenges it faces today. Irish Republican activists and the leadership of their organisations need to understand that they will only achieve what they aim for if they deliver it for all people on the island of Ireland.

In another speech commemorating the founding of the First (All-Ireland) Dáil Éireann on 21. January 1919, the same Seán Ó Brádaigh said:

We are children of Ireland, but we are also, as Irish Republicans “enfants de la patrie” because the school of Irish Republicanism is a Franco-Irish school and we have all been there. Liberty, Equality, Fraternity are noble ideals which still inspire us and for which we still struggle, both North and South of the British-created border.

The understanding of French influence in Irish Republicanism has resisted all attempts to drag Irish separatism from French Republicanism towards right-wing Nationalism in the past 225 years. It is the duty of the various leaderships of contemporary Republican organisations to educate their activists and future generations in these ideals. Irish Republicans need to fight racism and xenophobia actively in their communities because only a progressive and inclusive Republican movement can call itself the true heir of Wolfe Tone.


Dieter Reinisch is an accomplished author and political activist.

Follow Dieter Reinisch on Twitter

@ReinischDieter




48 comments :

grouch said...

what utter codswallop. if i was a racist id tell u to go back to germany and breed as many little germans as u can before the muslims mess up that once great country.

plenty of irish republicans are well aware of kalergi plan, and will handle being called anti-semitic and racist by academic eunuchs.

are the people who protested outside balbriggan garda station over african gangs racist or just parents concerned for the safety of their kids.

the man in the following clip has his face pixelated for fear of p.c. german fascists and not any muslim dude;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b71Jm4RkVS0


and finally, welcome to ireland:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MZQm9OwEKI

DaithiD said...

RIP Yosuke.

You yourself were accused of fascism and Nazism for comparing Muslim women to bin bags over Christmas AM. I wonder if this articles author would of also included people like you in the anti-Muslim surge that is always the first concern after incidents such as this? Not many of those smeared have a platform and the intellect to defend themselves like you did, they are just expected to accept being insulted by educated types when their kids are raped or stabbed.

DaithiD said...

This is the tweet the author thinks supports his argument :

“After years of vicariously living off events elsewhere while longing for an event of their own to call 'Islamic Terrorism', Ireland's vibrant racist community now feel empowered to reproduce Eurabian memes & refugee myths with a profound sense of local ownership #Dundalk”

He claims that opponents of Islam want terror attacks to happen so they can exploit them politically.What a disgusting smear, worse than any supposed racist outrage listed here. It makes me furious this is what they try to make others think of us, I now think such people need to have a window on the consequences of trying to isolate and ultimately endanger an already terrified people. It might temper such bullshit in a more effective and immediate way than debates (which they typically no platform diverse thinkers from anyway).

AM said...

DaithiD,

I was unaware that I was accused of fascism and Nazism.

I did not compare Muslim women to bin bags but made use of a meme to pose a challenging question to a religion which so depersonalises women that it has them dress in something that looks similar to a bin bag.

Dieter is right to raise concerns about the very bigoted attitudes that right wing nationalists are hoisting before migrants. However, there are very serious concerns on the part of people who are not bigots and which need to be addressed. Critique and opposition must never be labelled or dismissed as racism or Islamophobia simply for the purpose of silencing it. I don't believe Dieter is seeking to do that.

DaithiD said...

This is some of the replies you got, can’t find the Nazi reference at first glance, although you equate Trump with Hitler on occasion so perhaps that suffices with your comparison to him?

“...
I think you are ascribing a sophistication that doesn't exist. "Look muslims are rubbish" is just straight up racist.

The Burkha is more cultural than religious. Plenty of Muslims don't wear them. But again even the use of "dresses like a bin bag" "forces by their religion" is a Paisleyesque broad stoke bigotry all to common to Norn iron in relation to Catholics. You should know better

The repeat was on purpose. humour is based on pretending to confuse people with bin bags. Reducing humans to rubbish. Laughing with fascists is never fun and You were part of a conflict where sectarianism was used to dehumanize The other. Like Farage and Trump.

Sophistry. The only possible defence for that cartoon is of it were posted by a Muslim in a Muslim country where it is an act of tranagression and bravery. Posted by someone living in a Judeo Christian society it is pretty close to punch style depiction of people as monkeys.

It is not about cultural relativism it is about the dynamics of power. There is no speaking of truth to power when posted by a white male in a predominately white Christian country. The effect is what matters. And in this case the effect is increase in isolation of minority

Nonsense. Spreading fascist propaganda is fascist even if you aren't. Fascism thrives on marginalizingand blaming minorities. This wave of fascism is targeting muslims. People in Burkhas don't look like bin bags. It is that simple

... “

DaithiD said...

Ps I meant Muslim women attire, not the people themselves I know what you meant I mistyped. See how rumours can start though.

AM said...

DaithiD,

I think they were a reasoned response but wrong. I think the two people make the criticisms come from an Irish Labour Party background and the urge to censor in that party has long been strong. It was a big advocate of Section 31 and I guess their response might have been instinctive. But I didn't find them vile or obnoxious

grouch said...

i want this person deported immediately-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQhP_VehDw

DaithiD said...

AM, reducing your 40-odd years of activism etc to one tweet , to imply you are a racist isn’t reasoned. And that type of haranguing would scare less intellectually sound people, even if it didn’t cow you. Still, I think your tweet would of landed you in the “wave of bigotry” they claim is occurring in the West.

grouch said...

and i hope the swedes deport her pal -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85BKDj_1vVU

Valeria said...

Dieter : LIONS never lose sleep over the opinions of SHEEP! Life is too short to be ruled by stupid people ( sheep) even if they're Republicans.

AM said...

DaithiD,

I think their point was entirely different. They made it quite clear that I was not a racist. What they had difficulty with was the meme I used. I don't think their argument was particularly strong but that doesn't mean it wasn't reasoned.

grouch said...

valeria, ur pretty stupid if u think republicans rule, anywhere. when parts of dieters homeland are no go zones, youll realise then its too late for lions. nows the time for lions, not pussies. now google ernst zundel if u want to know what a german lion is.

Simon said...

Excellent post Dieter. Timely and welcome.

DaithiD said...

Sorry AM I misread it, they were indeed calling the meme not yourself those terms. That makes your defence even better in retrospect as it was a trickier subject than I realised.Although it does raise an interesting side consideration for me: if a genuine new-Nazi did re- teeet, does it then become racist (for example)? If a 1m non-Nazi retweet it innocently,and one to spread a race agenda, does that constitute an surge of hate? It’s very close to SJW territory , allowing only certain groups access to forms of expression.

In my defence I was fully pissed reading it , beer shares some of my blame.

DaithiD said...

Grouch, even David Irving doesn’t stand by much of Ernst Zundel research these days. They both got conned by Leuchter taking samples from the Gas chamber walls incorrectly which then led to spurious conclusions. It was debunked because he recorded the samples being obtained on video at the time. So when you say check him out, what years vintage do you mean ?

Barry Gilheany said...

I don't agree totally with the author's creation of a binary divide between Irish nationalism and republicanism as signifiers like Gaelic games and culture do migrate between them. But there is much to reflect on how nationalism/republicanism and easily lapse into nativist, if not racist, discourse. Speaking off which I find Grouch's comments to come straight from the playbook of UKIP and Britain First.

AM, what aspect of community standards for TPQ has Grouch not violated. I can have honest political disagreements with anyone but i object to sharing space with racists who use Trumpian expressions such as "No go areas" for non-Muslims and who call for white races to outbreed Muslims.

AM said...

Barry,

you are free to share space with Grouch or not. It is not a choice we are going to make for you. Don't know what you are concerned about as you seem to be far enough in front in the exchange

grouch said...

"It is the duty of the various leaderships of contemporary Republican organisations to educate their activists and future generations"

i would like u all to educate urselves in the following very relevant topics, and not let urselves be 'educated' by cultural marxists -

cultural marxism
the frankfurt school
kalergi plan
yinon plan

and most of all watch hellstorm by kyle hunt. the german people went through hell but all u guys who let hollywood shape ur picture of the past and watch the history channel and discovery wont find out about it there.

daithi, im wary of irving, and some 'truthers' are double agents. it was/is always the way. NOBODY has debunked holohoax but certain ones who own all the media and banks wont give up trying. remember - they own the media and have an army of pseudo scientists, pseudo historians and pseudo victims at their disposal. also look whos literally standing on our shores and welcoming the refugees in (and yes, the country theyre from dusnt take in any!)....
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=red+ice+zionist+refugee

also, anthony, what exchange??? that was barrys first comment. dieter shud 'educate' his own country before he lectures us irish who are trying not to end up in the mess those guys are in. and what a mess it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQv-EWq9bG0


remember how our uncles and grandfathers behaved when they went to england in their droves, not like the above anyway.

finally, colonel gadaffi (rip) predicted this invasion.

grouch said...

barry, trump wasnt the first to come out with 'no go areas' - nice try though. on the subject of outbreeding, i hope muslims outbreed white races IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES! once again , nice try. as for objecting to sharing space - grow up, this is the net, its not as if we're tied together on a bungee. finally, heres my friend the israeli ex minister telling me im not anti-semitic -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKeLLlaws8

as for ukip and britain first, a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day, but keep doing ur best to portray people who are showing up the refugee crisis for what it is as fascists, conspiracy theorists or whatever as its a tactic that is rapidly backfiring.

DaithiD said...

Grouch, another of the key revisionist suppositions for a time was that due to the amount of coal it took to incinerate one body, it would be impossible to have used it to reduce millions to ash. They had ariel photographs from the allies that were absent the mountains of coal needed.The problem was a misunderstanding of how the furnace operated, and the bodies acted as a torch for the next ones, reducing the estimated amount of coal needed.

Along with the gas chamber error I also mentioned, these were key planks that were argued with certainty by people claiming their only interest was the pursuit of truth. These have now been accepted as flawed, yet other reasons were found by people to revise the Holocaust.

Instead of seeking out analyses that support your thesis, why not try looking over the Internstional Red Cross’s reports on that era?

I know brutal propaganda was used by the allies after the war (E.g. the image of a bulldozer moving mountains of corpses was staged by the British to get images for the event) , German women were mass raped after the war by the soviets. All these anncdotes demonstrate is that no side emerged clean from the war, and casualties were still taken after it supposedly ended. It doesn’t build towards such a dramatic conclusion such as it never happening. Still , it shouldn’t be illegal to hold these views, and you should be allowed to advance them where you chose.

grouch said...

daithi, the coal wasnt an issue. as for the bodies acting as a torch for the next one that is false and in fact the opposite is the case. thats like ur theory of steel ropes on another thread. im surprised u brought up the red cross - their figures for amount of people killed in con camps ww2 are about one 20th of 6 mill. but why trust the red cross, i stick with the jews and their figures for pop of jews in 1930s and 40s and 50s.
World Almanac, 1929, pg. 727 -- 15,630,000

National Council of Churches 1930 -- 15,600 ,000March 24, 1933,
Jewish newspaper Daily Express -- 14,000,000 Jews worldwide
World Almanac, 1933, pg. 419 -- 15,316,359,
["The estimate for Jews in the above table is for 1933, and is by the American Jewish Committee"World Almanac, 1936, pg. 748 -- world Jewish population = 15,753,633
World Almanac, 1938, pg. 510 -- world Jewish population = 15,748,091, with 240,000 in Germany
American Jewish Committee Bureau of the Synagogue Council, 1939 -- 15,600,000
World Almanac, 1940, pg. 129: World Jewish Population -- 15,319,359
World Almanac, 1941, pg. 510: World Jewish Population -- 15,748,091
World Almanac, 1942, pg. 849: World Jewish Population -- 15,192,089 ("Jews include Jews by race not necessarily by religion")
World Almanac USA, 1947, pg. 748: World Jewish Population -- 15,690,000World Almanac, 1949, pg. 289:
World Jewish Population -- 15,713,638Statistical Handbook of Council of Churches USA 1951 -- 15,300,000

'That all property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which consequently is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples. An orthodox Jew is not bound to observe principles of morality towards people of other tribes. He may act contrary to morality, if profitable to himself or to Jews in general.'

Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat, 348

Barry Gilheany said...

I do not agree either with banning Holocaust denial or anti-immigrant, anti-refugee except when they form part of violence against other people and communities. The murder of Jo Cox MP and the Charlottsville incident are examples of just where the bigotry and prejudice that Grouch expounds can lead to. With free speech comes responsibility.

AM said...

Barry,

to the extent that I have read what he says, Grouch does not seem to be advocating violence against anyone. When John Coulter advocates a nuclear strike on Iraq, we permit that type of comment. The primary responsibility that comes with free speech is the responsibility to speak freely, otherwise the concept does not merit the description. Free speech did not kill Jo Cox. A racist bigot did.

grouch said...

gilheany, ur a nutter and im not reading ur comments anymore. im defending people not attacking them. u are a typical truth bender and try to insult and demonize people who are defending themselves - which is part of ur psychopathology. u are the one using the gift of free speech to endorse violence and mutilation of millions of defenceless children on another thread here - all in the name of 'rights.' im not anti-immigrant and im not anti-refugee. what i am is anti kalergi, anti DELIBERATE DESTRUCTION OF EUROPEAN NATIONS by the global elite. personally i think people who call the extermination of 4-5 million gaels on this island in the 1840s victims of a famine, are the biggest holocaust deniers on the planet and should be made to eat potatoes for the rest of their lives. especially the 'historians' who say it is a wonderful food full of all the vitamins and minerals a person needs to survive. id put all them historians on a boat to the blasket islands with a few bags of spuds and tell them to get on with it.

Simon said...

AM, the concept of Free Speech necessarily has its limitations. There is no such thing as absolute Freedom of Speech. I agree with you that if someone is racist or inciting violence the other parties to a discussion can refute that and make a mockery of the racism or incitement to violence.

Unfortunately, many individuals are not astute enough or are too ignorant to see the weaknesses in a racist or inciteful argument. Often, those delivering the counter-argument may not be as sharp as the racists, leaving the valid argument lost and the uninitiated or the nascent bigot more ignorant as a result.

If the person has some standing in a group and holds a disproportionate degree of influence it may persuade the impressionable. Often, reason goes out the window because of who the speaker is.

I am in favour of allowing open discussion but would caveat that with two concerns.

One, if the speech interferes with or threatens someone else's more important rights I would be in favour of preventing it or not publishing it.

Two, the impressionable or the bigot can be disproportionately influenced by racist or inflammatory speech and it can have a domino effect. If this effect isn't mitigated and is fueled by media or political leaders it can damage people's lives through the creation of a violent movement. Often a novice racist has heard the theory from another racist.

As the world shifts to the right it is no surprise that elements of Republicanism shift to the right also. It has been seen before.

I don't think Grouch was inciting violence and that is where Barry has the opportunity to, as you say, be "ahead in the exchange".

However, sometimes freedom of speech has its limitations for a greater good. What we have to be careful against is abuse of the right to express opinions and also and perhaps even more so, draconian censorship. Abuse of freedom of speech can be as dangerous as Censorship. A balance is needed and I think you mainly get it right.

I would be very much against unjust censorship but I can accept censoring views that cause harm through misinformation or incitement. Which is the concept of Freedom of Speech.

Often the media employ subtle censorship or strangle other voices that are not in their millionaire owners' interests.

The bogeyman of the violent Muslim is much like that of the violent Irish immigrant of the 1970s and 1980s. A creation of the imagination. Someone's uncle bombed England. Whether Republican or Muslim. Whatever you think of the violence, it doesn't mean all Irish or all Muslims wanted that violence. Although, it is often portrayed as such.

Jello Biafra said "Don't hate the media, become the media". Your platform for alternative views is vital in this world of the voiceless.

AM said...

Simon,

such arguments have no purchase with me. The writer should never search for the boundaries to freedom of expression: that is the task of the censor.

It is also premised on a belief that some people are just not up to being exposed to ideas and that others therefore decide what is to be heard or not heard, read or not read, said or not said. A "we need an elite to decide what the proles can read" type thing.

The "valid argument" - validity is in the eye of the beholder. Demonstrate the validity of the argument by asserting its supremacy over the counter argument rather than suppress the counter argument.

There must be absolute freedom of opinion which is not the same as saying anything goes. If Grouch advocates that Barry be killed, it will not feature here. But if he has an opinion that the Holocaust is used very specifically to advance the interests of a murderous regime, he should be free to express that opinion. Is David Irving a lying swine? Of course he is but should he be jailed for it? No. Should we be denied by some censor the right to hear him and make up our own minds? Deborah Lipstadt did more damage to Irving than jailing him ever did.

What "more important rights" should allow for censorship? And how can we measure their importance if we are denied the means to discuss them? And where would such an argument not be used to suppress all matter of critique? Is religious opinion more important than the freedom to mock it?

Unjust censorship? Is there just censorship? No more so than just torture.

Freedom of speech means the right to get it wrong, even to lie and misinform. It is never neat and tidy. But once we start suppressing what we label false then we are into the realm of describing everything we don't like as fake news and censoring it.

Simon said...

AM, "There must be absolute freedom of opinion which is not the same as saying anything goes." I fail to see a difference. Someone has to decide what goes over the line and every individual has a different opinion on what that is. Something acceptable to one person can be unacceptable to another. Whoever decides what crosses the line is the censor.

"Unjust censorship? Is there just censorship? No more so than just torture."

If you prevented someone writing on this site, maliciously or without basis, that another person was a paedophile would that not be censorship? Would stopping that be unjust? Preventing injustice is an example of why somethings cannot be broadcast at all.

What if someone at the BBC wanted to broadcast an imminent nuclear attack for a laugh? Should this be censored? Or allowed?

"What "more important rights" should allow for censorship?" Right to privacy, right to life, right to a fair trial. Should someone spill someone's closely guarded secrets online and ruin that person's life or relationships. Or, if someone incites murder or names a person as a paedophile online.

"If Grouch advocates that Barry be killed, it will not feature here." Why decide to censor that? Is it to prevent another individual killing Barry or because of its lack of taste?

Protection from slander would not be as weighty a right as right to life but it is important also.

I think with the right to mock religion beliefs a lot comes down to intention. Much mocking is done to provoke a response. Some isn't but some is simple trolling. Often to provoke or ignore the risk of violence.

"A "we need an elite to decide what the proles can read" type thing."" I am not saying people are not up to ideas I am saying it is a downside of allowing absolute freedom to say what you wish. An impressionable person is more likely to fall for the type of Troubles Part 2 meme that was included in Dieter's piece. I wouldn't censor it no.matter how much it annoyed me. I am purely pointing out the downsides.

Look at the Flat Earth Society. No harm there. I wouldn't censor it but there's no doubt ignorance is part of it. Ignorance of physics, geography etc.


grouch said...

simon, u broke the waffleometer there. yaaaaaaaawn.

grouch said...

hey simon wiesenthal, no englishman wud compare the paddy of 70s and 80s (of which i was one) to the muslims. also, i worked with indonesian muslims in a sweat shop in sydney 20 years ago - one of the finest people i have ever met. ive worked in factories, building sites, printers, taxis and done a dozen jobs u wudnt do. i live in the real world. bag of spuds for you too.

AM said...

P/1

Simon,

I fail to see a difference.

The difference Simom has been alluded to you earlier where you refer to the use of violence. If someone has an opinion that violence is justified they should be free to express that opinion. If they intentionally incite A to kill B then the ground beneath them shifts from expression to incitement. Then there is the problem of what they are being incited to do. Should the opinion that states should be free to use torture be censored? Not at all. How can we understand that torture is wrong without hearing the argument for it? Do we allow the censors to make that call for us?

If you prevented someone writing on this site, maliciously or without basis, that another person was a paedophile would that not be censorship?

Not at all. We do it when necessary without censoring, more often than not to prevent libel action. Censorship is the practice of suppressing views that we don't wish others to hear because we don't approve of them: when we seek to attack not only the right to speak but the right to hear. TPQ never adopts that approach.

What if someone at the BBC wanted to broadcast an imminent nuclear attack for a laugh? Should this be censored? Or allowed?

This is akin to the old argument of the censor about the right to shout "fire" in a crowded cinema.

The freedom of expression is invariably venue related. I can express whatever view I wish about religion but I should not be permitted to walk into the homes of believers or their places of worship, or at their wedding. There are rules and procedures within the BBC which prohibit that type of behaviour. To label it censorship is misjudged. Don't forget Orson Welles.

All the examples you give do not fit the the catergory of censorship. The protections you call for exist but are limited. Right to life would allow censorship of advocates of abortion because others feel it violates the right to life; no one could advocate capital punishment; right to privacy etc are protected in other ways enshrined in law that are not censorship. You seem to think that every denial of the ability to speak is censorship. I don't think you would be censoring me if you prohibited me from saying Grouch should be killed tomorrow morning.

If Grouch advocates that Barry be killed, it will not feature here." Why decide to censor that?

This underscores the point. There is no censorship involved. We are not preventing the mere expression of opinion but not facilitating incitement to kill.

AM said...

P/2

Simon,

We try to be guided by AC Grayling:

Free speech is fundamental because without it one cannot have any other liberties. One cannot claim or exercise one’s other liberties, or defend them when attacked; one cannot defend oneself when accused, or accuse those who do one wrong; one cannot have democracy in which information views and policies are expressed, debated and challenged; one cannot have education worth the name, if there are things that cannot be said; one cannot express one’s attitudes, needs, feelings, responses, anger, criticism, support, approval or beliefs; one cannot ask all the questions one needs to or would like to; and for all these reasons, without free speech one would be in a prison made of enforced silence and averted thought on important matters. .

And because we are not anything goes merchants we are also guided by Grayling when he says:

Because it can do harm, and because it can be used irresponsibly, there has to be an understanding of when free speech has to be constrained. But given its fundamental importance, the default has to be that free speech is inviolate except … where the dots are filled in with a specific, strictly limited, case-by-case, powerfully justified, one-off set of utterly compelling reasons why in this particular situation alone there must be a restraint on speech. Note the words specific strictly limited case-by-case powerfully justified one-off utterly compelling this particular situation alone.

Censorship is always wrong. I guess it is like torture which is always wrong whereas force is not always wrong, even when the force might be more deleterious to the target than torture.

Simon said...

AM, it seems we are more or less on the same page with the fundamentals. Freedom of speech at times has to be constrained. My use of the word "Censorship" maybe confused matters.

AM said...

Simon,

finding it difficult to be an absolutist of any kind in a world that is not black and white, I am never comfortable with absolute positions on anything. The best we can do is hug the safety rule of principle while knowing that our grip on it is precarious.

grouch said...

intersting survey carried out on muslim students in germany

https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/01/german-study-almost-one-in-three-muslim-students-would-fight-and-die-for-islam/#.WlY4hA_iO98.twitter


is this u simon

http://ripostelaique.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Antifascistes-pro-immigr%C3%A9s-homos.jpg

Simon said...

"is this u simon"

I can't see any reason to deny it. ;)

AM said...

I think it is me Grouch and if not then I envy them ... I would have thought god loved all her children equally

DaithiD said...

AM, I think your instinct on the benefits of exposure to arguments we don’t agree with is correct. I believe it’s proved in the Islam debate in the West now, those who want to marginalise opinions that would of been liberal only 30 years ago end up advocating for burka’s because they can’t grasp the other view isn’t Nazi or racist in and of itself, thus trying to convince people they are something they are not has little effect. Now movements that deal with this issue more honestly than their opponents are the fastest growing movements in politics.

Grouch the 9/11 debate you also coincidentally viewed as a Jewish conspiracy , well remembered. With all this lying and killing they do, its about time someone did something about them right?

grouch said...

he/she/it does Anthony, especially the innocent and defenceless children. he/she/it mite be cross though with some of his/her/its children who harp on about rights for gaylords/trannies/deviants (as in the man/boy love crowd) but in the same breath then endorse the destruction of a child and butchering and selling on of that innocent childs body parts for profit. but he/she/it is probably cross with me too for my own sins but he/she/it knows i am putting up a fight like its 1916 for his/her/its innocent children here this year. God loves you Anthony, and so do i for what its worth, as i do everybody here, even batty gillhooly. daithi, i personally will take care of them on my own, so dont worry. fair play to me.

AM said...

Grouch,

I often wonder why many of those who claim to love god so much are so filled with hatred for many of their fellow humans. I can't imagine a god that loves all his creatures equally thinking refugees are somehow children of a lesser god.

grouch said...

to me God dusnt think any of his children are lesser than others, there is one God, not a God believing in children of any lesser God. i dont hate refugees either, but i do try my best not to hate those behind the current mayhem on planet earth. i think ul find that people who vociferously campaign against refugees arnt full of hate either, some are, but they are nutters. we all know nuters, theyre in every grouping. the refugee crisis is all planned. it is all about destruction. thats why people get freaked.
this is a fascinating/shocking/what the fuck did i just see/dose of reality of a clip and its nothing to do with any of the above and everything too. i came across it earlier and im still trying to get my head around it. this is a very honest man who worked in dublin 11 years ago in banking sector talking only a few months ago. it deserves a thread all on its own. this is realpolitik and realbanking and realmedia all in 13 minutes. the mind boggles - we dont have a media Anthony and the following is proof becuz i guaranteee u 99.9% of population havent heard this story yet. i hope trump watches it and calls us a shithole too becuz that is what we are and the shitheads are in control. they are all traitors who are doing the elites bidding on all issues.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=P8MD-7u2UDw

AM said...

Grouch,

one of the problems with religion is that so many of faith manage to convince themselves that the hatred they hold is actually love. And they always seem to ascribe their opinions to god as well. Which is why the phrase was coined that we know god is on our side when he hates the same people we do.

The question of immigration has to be addressed, not exploited. Population movements either internal to a country or from without invariably are disruptive. If they disrupt bigotry I don't mind. If they disrupt society then I have a social responsibility to mind. It is not because they are foreign that I will mind but because society has an obligation not to overload its infrastructure: whether those people are from Romania or Irish returning from America, the problem is the same. I embrace technical solutions to such problems not racist ones.

grouch said...

Athony, i grant u that - there are many problems with religions. its not easy - but u must try and distinguish righteous anger from hatred. its good/natural to be angry about some things. as for the phrase u quoted, ud be surprised how many religious people wudnt go along with that. once again - religion is not easy - i mean - one of Jesus own disciples betrayed Him, the people who He preached to screamed for His crucifixion!!! this place is not easy Anthony!!! and yes parts of the OT freaks me out but the NT heals.
on immigration etc, im pleading with u to consider the fact that those promoting mass immigration/ open borders are THE ULTIMATE RACISTS - we have been manipulated into believing it is about immigration only, and that we have to have a pro or anti position on it. - we arnt allowed discuss THE REAL reasons why peoples are forced into immigrating. thats why i put up that clip above. its the banks Anthony. now i hate quoting a former national front leader, and my enemies will delight in the fact im quoting him, and come back and try and score points, but heh, guess what, i dont give a shit, he is speaking the truth on this occasion, and his suggestion at the end is the simple truth and it is MORALLY right. it is the banks. he says it all nicely in the following exchange with a horrible aul hag who dusnt give a fuck about the likes of u or me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmDuPccLON4

AM said...

Grouch,

few tell you they hate and rather disguise it in the language of righteous anger.

Who decides what is right other than ourselves? And ourselves have to be societally constrained otherwise we don't have a society and in its place Thatcher's individuals all doing their own thing. Law and society cannot determine morality but it can set bounds on behaviour including behaviour that some might think moral such as refusing to provide a woman with the morning after pill.

The holy books can't decide for us because your two bibles are supposed to be the word of god, immutable and inerrant, yet we have one bothering you and the other leaves you ok. If one is not the word of god why not the other.

If the NF guy is right then cite him in support of your arguments but with the proviso that a broken clock too is right twice a day.

But like the bible do you cite him less because he is right and more because he articulates your own prejudices? I haven't looked at your video so can't presume one way or the other.

Conspiracy theories about Jews and banks have no purchase with me. My experience is that when the two words are linked it is for the purpose of smearing the Jews.

Anti-Semitism is no better than Muslim hating.

grouch said...

thats okay Anthony - i know where u stand. once again, here is my israeli friend, an ex-minister no less, explaining in very simple terms, why i am not anti-semitic, and why good people, like urself, fall into the trap of using that term.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBtNJF06E6Y

you say someone is articulating my own prejudices - this is another trap u have fallen for whereby anyone who counters the monlithic liberal/consumer/globalist political viewpoint is someone who is 'prejudiced' 'racist' a 'xenophope' or whatever. as for the stopped clock - this is precisely why i used that term. but saying that fair play to him and in fact maybe his clock is ticking after all, even if he dusnt acknowledge that churchill was sticking his mickey in young men while hitler was winning medals on the field of battle during ww1.

as for the bible - many times ive read u here saying u refuse to read it - so i cant really argue with you, but do hope before u pop ur clogs u mite read one of the evangelists. also, i certainly hope im not the only one who gets freaked out by parts of OT.


as for conspiracy theories about jews and banking - well check out the federal reserve if u have the time. its not a secret anymore. neither is their control of media and hollywood - in fact they openly brag about it. finally, the biggest smearers of the jews are the zionists - they are who im talking about, not amy winehouse or the jew who used to cut my hair in sydney who also taught me how to haggle at the bondi market.

"it is essential that the sufferings of the jews become worse...this will assist in the realisation of our plans...i have an excellent idea...i shall induce anti-semites to liquidate jewish wealth...the anti-semites will assist us thereby in that they will strengthen the persecution and oppression of jews. the anti-semites shall be our best friends."
Theodor Hertzl, founder of zionism in 1897.

people called u and me terrorists, sectarians, anti protestant, anti-british etc etc etc. and now im a muslim hating anti-semite etc. water off a ducks back horsebox!. i am just an irish republican who sees the big picture.

DaithiD said...

Grouch, at least you could agree there are many bullshitters in this field (from whatever side), If your conclusions are true, and you have developed such a level of deduction uncommon to most.Why would by all measures, a genius, a man with a theory of everything no less, be working in sweat shops?
I’ve said before I knew Dr Nick Kollerstrom fairly well for a time (via UCL Stop the War soc), and he was an obviously gifted man.His pedantry managed to change the official report by U.K. govt’s timeline on the 7/7 attacks in London (even if you don’t agree with his ultimate conclusion on a false flag, it’s impressive). I’m not asking about qualifications,I’m asking does your gift manifest elsewhere in other fields perhaps like Nicks?

grouch said...

better men than us worked/work their whole lives in sweatshops. i have one gift - bullshitting. on another note - dolores o riordan r.i.p. very sad news daithi.

grouch said...

in dublins fair city.........

https://scontent.fdub4-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/23658915_1559981547419063_4582980036923083861_n.jpg?oh=bb0032fe5b7f2a2a76256188324cbd5a&oe=5A96EBD2



this gang, called the pesties, have been creating havoc for months now in west dublin, media is doing their best to keep it out of the news but last weekend 100, yes i said 100 of them went on the rampage. they are mega violent, mega criminal and sadly mega welcomed. media has been referring to them as a 'teenage' gang (lmfao). but even they are having to call a spade a spade (pardon the pun) and are now saying they are predominantly african. welcome to the jungle folks. btw, the tranny in the foto a few posts above and the pro abortion leftie Soros funded antifa traitors want the open border policy pushed full steam ahead now and some are telling us to prepare to embrace a population of ten million in the next thirty years.(see article below) ur being fucked over ireland and ur kids will be dealing with the above thugs kids in no time. the above thugs will never work a day in their lives. have a think about things PLEASE.

http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-population-forecast-1970782-Mar2015/

slan old ireland, u were a beaut and it was a privivlege to grow up in you, slan.