ICP POSTERS REMOVED IN GALWAY.

by Aine Ni Chonail Tue Oct 22, 2002 16:33

Do something! Stop them!

by Ray Tue Oct 22, 2002 16:59

I'm too busy ripping down Fianna fail posters. I find Fianna Fail are much more effective in their attacks on refugees (not to mention their attacks on other workers), so I'm concentrating on them.

by Aine Ni Chonail Tue Oct 22, 2002 17:28

Ray

But my posters result in physical attacks on refugess.

by Aine Tue Oct 22, 2002 17:42

thanks lads! We'd have had to go around taking them down ourselves otherwise. And theres a couple of other racist groups that want to make sure that you know they promote racism Fine Gael (Enda "Nigger joke" Kenny especially wants to be remembered to you), Fianna Fail. They said to me, "Aine",they said, "would you let those lads and lassies doin all the fine poster cleanup work for youse lot, would you let them know that we're racist too? Dey're a bit tick and havent copped demselves on yet, so mebbe you could make it obvious for them."

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 09:08

If you want attention you're going to have to play in the big leagues.
Sure, you could put up a few posters. And there's an outside chance that someone will see one of those posters, and decide, because of your poster, to go out and attack someone. But let's get real - what are the chances of that?

Fianna Fail (and the PDs) on the other hand - now they've got real power. Because they're in government, when they say there are too many refugees coming in, it gets all over the papers. And they don't have to hope that their (much more widespread) propaganda will lead to attacks somewhere - they can carry out the attacks themselves. They can force refugees to live in substandard accomodation, out in the back of beyond, with only a few quid a week to live on. And if that's not enough, they can throw refugees into jail, and deport them back to countries where they face death or torture.

Face it Aine, you're an amateur. You're not even organised to carry out attacks yourself, on refugees or anyone else. You have to rely on putting up a few pathetic posters and hoping that somebody, somewhere will listen. I don't have time for amateurs.

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:03

He can't even take on ameteur satirists now.

Ray, the fact remains that the propaganda of the ICP does stir up racist hatred and adds to the atmosphere which results in physical attacks on immigrants.

some ff & fg & pd politicians have used the race card, i have participated in pickets of their clinics. & distributed leaflets & PUT UP posters attacking them. if ff or fg or pd put up racist posters we would take them down.

ff & fg & pd were not set up to keep immigrants out of ireland; the icp was. it was specifically founded as a racist organisation

yes capitalist govts the world over implement anti-immigrant la\ws. does this mean you lot see the world as being fascist?

what is your point?

enda kenny is an ignoramus who told a racist joke. only a very special class of moron would on the basis of this suggest that no platform should be applied to fg.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:13

But you've argued that its right to take down ICP posters because they contribute to an atmosphere of racism, and they may provoke racist attacks.
Fianna Fail, the PDs, and Fine Gael have all done a lot more to contribute to an atmosphere of racism than Ni Chonaill ever did. And the government don't just put up posters that may, somehow, somewhere, contribute in some way to attacks on refugees. They attack refugees directly every day, by attacking their living conditions, imprisoning them, and deporting them. John O'Donohue and Michael McDowell have been much more dangerous to refugees than the ICP.

No Platform for the Minister for Justice!
Take down Dail reports whenever you see them!
No mercy for Charlie Bird, 'reporter' and distributor of racism!

by very fucking bored with this one Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:16

Ray & Pat

Just stop. Set up your own buletin board.
Swap e-mails, have pistols at dawn...
But take it somewhere else. It is getting beyond a joke.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:28

I think I've said all there is to say on this (yeah, yeah, I know, I reached that point last week) Here's a brief restatement to print out and keep -
Freedom of speech is an important element of democracy, because it allows unpopular views to be heard.
Fascists should be recognised as an exceptional case, because they don't try to win arguments, just use force to drive their opponents off the streets.
The ICP haven't physically attacked anyone.
Therefore the ICP aren't fascists.
Therefore they should have the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else.

And that's it from me, on this subject at least.

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:36

"But you've argued that its right to take down ICP posters because they contribute to an atmosphere of racism, and they may provoke racist attacks."

yes they do. they specifically call for immigrants to be kept out of ireland. this encourages thugs who already have racist feelings to go a step further & attack someone.

"
Fianna Fail, the PDs, and Fine Gael have all done a lot more to contribute to an atmosphere of racism than Ni Chonaill ever did. And the government don't just put up posters that may, somehow, somewhere, contribute in some way to attacks on refugees"

do you really believe this?

"They attack refugees directly every day, by attacking their living conditions, imprisoning them, and deporting them. John O'Donohue and Michael McDowell have been much more dangerous to refugees than the ICP. "

they do the same to irish people apart from the deporting bit. but if you believe this why don't YOU apply no platform to mcdowell?

again its just more of your juvenile sophistry.

i presume very bored is you ray. you are trying to get met to agree to pistols t dawn. i know you have had you eyes adapted to see better in weak light. you have also been training, shooting apples off the heads of your west brits, ok so you shoot low occasionaly.

by pat c Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:41

i laugh! my sides hurt!

many times i've suggested we agree to disagree but ray just won't have it.

even in his fair enough he has to restate his credo.

as for 'very bored': why not write something yourself instead of whinging & whining?

retards like you make me puke

by still very fucking bored Wed Oct 23, 2002 11:52

That is exactly the exciting, incisive level of debate that has made this discussion over posters, across three threads and three weeks, the best thing to happen on indymedia for a long long time.
Cut by your razor sharp wit and intellectual aplomb, I with draw my request for you to stop.
I would feel so much less optimism for the future of the Irish left without you. Please keep up the good work.

by Limerick1919 Wed Oct 23, 2002 14:33 [email protected]

Why not take down ICP Posters and put them back up in three/four weeks time thus earning them a big hefty fine for failing to take down their shite.

by Mags Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:04

Good one Limerick 1919 - it has been thought of all right:)

Ray - reluctant as I am to get back into this it should be pointed out that the argument IS NOT about violence, but you seem to be claiming it is. For example the BNP don't fight for the streets now, they run for councils, etc. and are doing quite well at it too. Does this make them 'non-fascist' I wonder? The correct argument is about the political ideologies involved - not the tactics used to implement ideas. You seem to view fascism through some undeveloped prism depending on definitions from the 1930s, you have no idea at all of the fascists' Euro Nationalist strategy.

I say 'seem to' repeatedly as I know you will come back and deny what you said previously.

by Ray Wed Oct 23, 2002 15:22

But I think this has moved beyond the "You must really be a supporter of Aine Ni Chonaill" namecalling, and there are some important points here...

To start with, I think the crucial thing* that distinguishes _fascists_ from right-wing or racist parties is the physical component. I really haven't been following the BNP closely enough to know if they've given that up completely, or to say if they can still be described as fascists.

A recurring theme in many of the AFA articles I've read over the years is that, in the fight against fascism, elections and laws are a distracting sideshow. Fighting fascism is ultimately about fighting for control of the streets, and if you don't clear _them_ from the streets, they'll do it to _you_. What's more, I've always understood your position to be that, while racism and fascism often go hand in hand, fascism is not simply an extreme form of racism. (All stuff that I agree with)

Has your definition of fascism changed? Is there now a 'Parliamentary Road to Fascism'? What do you think are the defining features of fascism now? Should the 'No Platform' policy apply only to fascists? If yes, why? How do we identify them? If no, then who else should we apply that policy to?

*crucial when we're discussing when to implement a 'No Platform' policy at least.

by james Wed Oct 23, 2002 16:46

RAY –you are a plonker incestuous

1Freedom of speech is an important element of democracy, because it allows unpopular views to be heard.
2) Fascists should be recognized as an exceptional case, because they don't try to win arguments, just use force to drive their opponents off the streets.
30The ICP haven't physically attacked anyone.
Therefore the ICP aren't fascists.
40Therefore they should have the same rights to freedom of speech as anyone else.
5) And that's it from me, on this subject at least.

Reply to:
1) Freedom of speech is not enshrined in our democracy. Why do liberal twats take some absolutist notion of freedom of speech? Why do you believe/serve in an absolutist notion of democracy? HUGGY BEARS indeed. Most people voices cannot be heard. The likes of Hitler/le PEN came out of democracy. What’s more important than freedom of speech is issues of who has control and/or means of speech be that vocal/imagery/information/media et al.

2) Who told you fascists don’t try to win arguments. Come on!

3) The ICP aren’t going to physically attack anyone, unless their politically stupid. Others will do that for them if needs be. The purpose of ICP is to establish ideas that that 'problems' in society can be reduced to a level of race. This includes notions like racial attacks are a result of too much immigration. One which the established political partys have/may reduce to as well. THE ICP is a PLATFORM/BREEDING GROUND/PROMOTION for RACIST ideas.

You don’t have to physically attack someone to be even a self confessed fascist.

4) Q : so if they were seen to physically attack someone would you then deny them freedom of speech. Wouldn’t be too hard to get around that one now would it. It’s usually illegal in non-official war situations to physically attack someone. Should/Do acts of physical violence exclude one from freedom of Speech in theory or more importantly practice.

5) Thanks for the PLATFORM

by Andrew Wed Oct 23, 2002 17:09

If it's OK to organise to physically attack the ICP because of the ideas they promote what about the PD's. Or Fianna Fail, Fine Gael. What about Sinn Fein (lots on the left used to call them fascists). What about the SWP for that matter? In Ireland physical fights between left groups don't happen but they are a feature of the left in other countries. I get nervous when the left starts rubbishing 'democracy' in general because that path in the last century led to Kronsdadt and then the gulags.

This is the reason for making a fuss about where you draw the line in terms of physical confrontation. Fascists are not simply right wingers who have nasty policies. They are right wingers that use physical force to smash their opposition and attack those sections of society they scapegoat for the problems of capitalism. It is this policy of PHYSICAL ATTACKS that justifies 'no platform' and marks them off from the likes of the ICP.

by Come of it Wed Oct 23, 2002 21:54

"Taking down racist posters leads to the gulag".
Young man, (actually you're old enough to know better) you are a liberal!

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 11:11

The idiotic part of some of the 'replies' like that above is that anyone who stands for free speech is a liberal. This is weird in two ways

1. Liberals generally have no problem with censorship in many areas. Indeed the liberal approach on this question is precisly the same 'take down the posters' one except they want the Gardai to do it for them. Liberals in general supported Section 31 (OK some exceptions). It's quite stupid to accept and hold up liberals as the highest defenders of free speech when really this is something that sections of the left have a much stronger claim to.

2. Even if it were true, so what. Liberals wear clothes and breathe air - does this mean we have to suffocate naked to 'prove' our revolutionary credentials. This argument is also the mirror image of the stupid 'liberal' one that anyone who advocates the use of force against fascism is themselves a fascist. So if you like we could just start to bounce the stupid 'your a liberal' 'your a fascist' argument off each other till we get to 100 posts.

Or you could try and answer the question above. If suppressing those who say things you disagree with is OK where do you draw the line? My answer is simple, I draw it between those who organise violence against their opponents and those who do not. What is yours?

by Come off it Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:14

Because you treat someone removing a racist poster as an attack on free speech. "I have rights, you have rights, racists have rights, etc".

It may have slipped you attention but there have been racist murders in Dublin and a climate of racism whipped up by Aine Ni Chonnail is a factor feeding into this.

If someone therefore takes down one of her odious posters, this is not the start of the Moscow show trials. Even someone with a quarter of a century's exposure to the debilitating influence of anarchist politics can surely see this?

If it's a choice between a racist's formal right to free speech and destroying the poison of racism on a liberal can plump for the former.

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:27

- Because you treat someone removing a racist poster as an attack on free speech. "I have rights, you have rights, racists have rights, etc".

Yes, racists do have rights. And it important to stress this. You don't lose your right to free speech because what you're saying is unpopular, or because some committee somewhere decides its bad.

- It may have slipped you attention but there have been racist murders in Dublin and a climate of racism whipped up by Aine Ni Chonnail is a factor feeding into this.

Yeah, and every time a political commentator talks about the 'flood' of refugees, they feed into it. And every time the Minister for Justice talks about illegal immigrants, he feeds into it. And every time the Minister for Finance talks about how much is being spent on refugees, that feeds into it. And every time people say they have nothing against genuine refugees, but there are too many economic migrants exploiting the system, that feeds into it.

Why single out the ICP? Why not apply the same No Platform policy to EVERYONE who 'feeds into the climate of racism'? Seriously, why not?

- If it's a choice between a racist's formal right to free speech and destroying the poison of racism on a liberal can plump for the former.

Oh, its only a 'formal' right - that's okay then. And how could I have failed to realise that taking down ICP posters will destroy the poison of racism. Tell me, is that everywhere, or just in Ireland?

Where do you draw the line? When do you decide that its not enough to argue against those you agree with, that you must try to silence them too?

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 12:47

Again most if not all liberals actuially agree with those who favour the removal of such posters as a way of countering racism. This is why we have an incitement to hatred act for instance. This pretence that liberals support free speech (outside of the context of Kevin Myers right to wind us all up) has no basis in reality. The strongest defenders of free speech have always come from the libertarian left rather then the liberal centr or right.

A second point - you raise the issues of racist murders and suggest the ICP contribute to the climate in which they occur. There is some truth in this but why stop there. We know that over 2000 people died as a result of Fortress Europe in the 7 years ending in 2001. If we can stop such murders by stopping people expressing opinions then surely it is the likes of FF, FG, PD's and Labour, all of whom were in power in that period, you should go after.

So tell us, where do you draw the line?

by Red Star Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:03

You Anarchists always yes always capitulate in the end and join up with the Liberals.

Look at Spain. You always moan about betrayal in the Civil War there. But Anarchists led the Betrayal didnt they? They went into a coalition government in Barcelona.

You rotten commies! Dont you dare deny speech to the falangist. Hes just waving hello with his bayon.. aarrghhhh!

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:19

Red Star, I can see your having real problems following this argument so I'll explain this again real slowly. The Falange in Spain both before and after the Spanish revolution physically attacked the left and others they disagreed with. They were fascists. As already stated many, many times anarchists in general support a no platform position for fascists.

Aine is however not after you with a baynot (well maybe in your dreams but I'd rather not go there!). As far as we can tell the ICP are not (yet?) fascists, that is they are not involved in attacking people or as far as I'm aware aiming to do so in the future. Hence this anarchist is arguing that a No platform policy is not appropiate in relation to the ICP.

Now if you want you can address this argument but please, please spare us your posturing about how to deal with actual fascists as there is no disagreement there. I think this has been explained about a dozen times already but I don't mind doing it once more for you as you are so obviously special.

(BTW the only sizeable opposition from the left in Spainto the republican government was the large sections of the anarchist movement that opposed colaboration - as such what happened tells us about different aspects of anarchism rather then about anarchism).

by Red Star Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:26

It is true about Anarchists going into a Coalition Cabinet, why don't you answer that?

How could they go around breaking the law if they were part of the government which enforced the law.

Some Anarchists may not have been corrupt but whta about those in the coalition?

by Pat c Thu Oct 24, 2002 13:46

Andrew

I think I have said all I want to on No Platform & the ICP. Lets just agree to disagree.

Spain

The vast majority of anarchists in spain fought against both the fascist uprising & the later moves by both the national & regional republican govts to neuter the revolutionary movement.

yes, some anarchists went into a coalition govt. but the majority stayed true to thrir principles .
even when some of their own members were being hunted & shot in barcelona , they held the line against the fascists. hardly the action of collaborators.

the same is true of the POUM, a "marxist" party with some trotskyist leanings. its leaders went into coalition govt but the rank & file acted in the same manner as the majority of anarchists.

by Wacky Name Thu Oct 24, 2002 14:01

In the past the wsm have supported those who denied David Irving the right to free speech. Can you tell me why was this? Do you classify Irving as a fascist and if so why? Has he ever claimed to be a fascist? Is he a member of any fascist organisation? Has he attempted "to drive their opponents off the streets and terrorise the population" ? Has he "been organising racist attacks, or attacks on trade unionists or lefties"? Or is the "fascist bad, organised racists ok" ideal a perfect excuse for the liberal left to avoid confrontation yet again?
Another question. Are the BNP fascist now that they no longer attack physically attack opponents?

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 14:03

Red Star you are barking up the wrong tree here, most modern anarchists and most anarchists outside Spain at the time opposed the collaboration with the republicans that involved 4 CNT members accepting ministeries. A significant minority of anarchists inside Spain at the time (eg Libertarian Youth with around 100,000 members) also opposed any form of collaboration.

If your actually interested in all this you can read shit loads about it at the link below. I'm from the platformist tradition, this means in the Spanish case I'd identify with the anti-collaboration program of the Friends of Durruti. You can read their 'Towards a Fresh Revolution' at http://struggle.ws/fod/towardsintro.html

On the other hand there was no significant Leninist opposition to collaboration which was after all the policy of the Communist Party. There were around a dozen trots operating under the name of the 'Bolshevik Leninists' but otherwise the only thing close to a Leninist 'opposition' of any size was as Pat points out the POUM which had around 10,000 members. Its leadership was also part of the government though.

by Zane Gray Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:06

I wonder if you would have found anything as interesting in the KGB archive. No platform for socialists.

From IMC Vaults. Top Secret

- I don't know what the procedure is here, but a couple
of people have mentioned being short-staffed at the moment,
so I'm volunteering to help cutting posts and articles
that don't match the guidelines.

I'm the guy who's been giving out to people for cutting
and pasting articles, which some here may disagree with,
so if you don't want to give me that kind of power, that's
fine. Whether or not you want me hiding articles, I'd
like to suggest expanding the editorial guidelines to
explicitly state that articles may be removed if they're
not original or relevant. (Since this is a relatively
subjective judgement I'd understand if posts weren't
hidden for this reason very often, but I think its worth
explicitly stating what kind of material should be on
the newswire)

BTW, I'm an anarchist, and ex-member (still supportive)
of the WSM.

Ray

by Confused Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:13

So after Socialists for Michael Lowry (cf Socialist Party gaffe in Dail) we have Anarchists for Aine Ni Chonnaill.

What a merry dance does Indymedia provide...

by Manuel Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:17

Andrew states that there were loads of anarchists against collaboration and "Libertarian Youth with around 100,000 members"
He points out that the Troskyist Left was tiny:
"There were around a dozen trots operating under the name of the 'Bolshevik Leninists' "

in other words in 1936 in a revolutionary situation the anarchists had hegemony... and blew it.

Nuff said

by Ray Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:19

Daring spy Zane Grey posts (at great risk to his life no doubt) a message that anyone could read if they joined the IMC editorial list.
How can I live this shame down? All of my secrets have been revealed!

by Andrew Thu Oct 24, 2002 15:46

H'mm new use of that word hegemony I'm not familar with. Or else the author imagines that Spain at the time of the revolution simply consisted of anarchists without a republican , leninist or social democrat in sight. Not to mention Franco and his mates. Lesson - don't use big words unless
1. You understand them
2. You understand the history of the period you are applying them to

Also glad to see the 'socialists for censorship' school of argument is as complex as ever. Hey Hitler supported censorship so you guys must be 'socialists for Hitler'. Well that certainly sorted things out, didn't it.

Seriously some people (like Pat and Mags) have put forward a resonably detailed argument for suppressing the ICP. I don't agree with them but at least they are capable of making such an argument