TRINITY NEWS

Est  1953

towards some revival of the collegiate spirit,

which modern conditions tend to discourage

!

HEAD TO HEAD: NICK GRIFFIN’S VISIT TO TRINITY

“We need to stop Griffin, and weneed to do it ourselves”

MANUS LENIHAN

OWEN BENNETT

A POLITICAL CLASSIS DICTATING ÁRAS

FUTURE THE MODERN ideal state is generally consid-ered to be a liberally democratic one, a socialinstitution in which the basic liberties of freespeech, property rights and other fundamentalrights of man are guaranteed by means of socialcontract. Few can meaningfully argue againstthe superiority of this political philosophy rela-tive to its alternatives. Encouraging such free-dom is bound to have some distasteful results,with the possibility of citizens lawfully explor-ing and promoting views many of us would con-sider undesirable. But this must be regarded as anecessary evil, an unavoidable social cost stem-ming from the fundamental principle of free-dom which our states are built upon. As such,it is regrettable that a section of Trinity Collegehas protested against the impending visit ofNick Griffin. Is such behaviour not incompat-ible with the freedoms we so readily support?

Essentially, the main arguments put forth bythose opposed to Griffin’s visit are riddled withmoral hypocrisy. These people argue that Grif-fin should not be allowed to speak at the Philowing to the hateful and inflammatory natureof his views (a position clearly incompatiblewith the principle of free speech). Admittedly,no rational agent could ever meaningfully sup-port the BNP’s views regardi ng race and gender.But if he is clearly wrong in what he believes, asmany of the anti-Griffin camp are quick to pointout, surely he can be easily brushed aside in thestructured, uncompromising world of the de- bating chamber? In the chamber, Griffin’s weak-nesses can be exposed, and even an orator ofmediocre skill could humiliate him to the pointof ridicule. In this context, it is surprising thatthe anti-Griffin camp is not actively encourag-ing his visit to Trinity. If he is wrong, then thereshould not be anything to fear when he debates.

Moreover, since Plato founded the Academyin Athens over two thousand years ago, univer-sity has always been considered a forum for theexchange of ideas and thought. To prevent Grif-fin from expressing his views, Trinity would betaking a massive step backward. In effect, the

college would be reverting to a time of archaiccensorship, where views which are incompat-ible with the status quo are suppressed. Such astate of affairs cannot be allowed to occur, evenif we must allow this very morally warped manto grace the grounds of the college.

The BNP is a party which evidently inciteshatred and fosters intolerance. Regrettablyhowever, they are not alone. This week, theSocialist party is set to explore the possibilityof physical protest in response to Griffin’s im-pending visit. This is hugely ironic. On the onehand the party criticizes Griffin for inciting ha-tred, yet on the other it encourages its membersto actively prevent his coming here - an obviousact of intolerance. Physically protesting againstGriffin’s visit is most definitely not the answer. Itwill undoubtedly foster more anger and will actas ammunition for the far-right who play on thehypocrisy of liberals and socialists.

One final point which, owing to their ideol-ogy, the anti-Griffin camp has conveniently brushed over, is the nature of the debate theBNP leader is actually engaging in. The mo-tion of the Phil debate is “This House believesimmigration has gone too far”. Many will agreethat this is a moot point. There are a number oflogical arguments which can be made on bothsides of the motion. Clearly then, someone likeGriffin, who is so passionately of the belief thatimmigration has gone too far, should be giventhe opportunity to champion his case. If he ismisguided, as is so adamantly believed, then hewill easily be defeated. It’s that simple.

As such, while Griffin is clearly an individualwith a warped moral compass, it is absolutelynecessary that he is not prevented from fulfill-ing his invitation to speak at the Phil. In thistime of momentous economic and social change,Trinity must, at all costs, uphold its position asa bastion of free-thinking and liberalism. Anymeasures which diminish that, such as prevent-ing Griffin from debating, would constitute avery dark day for the college.

SOME PEOPLE are telling me that everyone,no matter how disgusting, has the right to free-dom of speech. Others say not to worry, thatGriffin is just a “psycho” who will be “exposed” by the Phil when he speaks.

I think both positions are naïve and compla-cent.

We should not make heavy weather over theright to free speech for a man who has only everabused that right to attack the most vulnerablepeople in his society - who uses his freedom tolimit that of others. It’s a question of prioritizingprinciples. Of course, state repression would seta dangerous precedent. That’s why we have todo it ourselves.

Secondly, I don’t believe that, to quote a recentUniversity Times editorial: “The core principle ofdemocratic society is that in free, unhindereddiscourse the best ideas carry the day.” Griffin isan articulate, intelligent man who has spent allhis adult life making presentable and convinc-ing the ideas of his neo-Nazi roots. He will al-most certainly be opposed by a body of predom-inantly white, economically privileged studentswho are very distant from the issues and willcarry no authority to the huge audience the Philhopes to achieve by live-streaming the debate.

That’s not the issue, though. If the Phil weresomehow to convince the very best of speakersto share a platform against Griffin, I’d still op-pose the event. If they cancelled the live-stream-ing, I’d still oppose the event.

Ireland’s committed racists are currently atiny, isolated few without public support. Forsuch people it is very encouraging if a far-rightleader speaks in an institution like Trinitywithout anybody making a determined standagainst him. The far-right won’t have to botherachieving popular support and setting up meet-ings, when groups like the Phil are willing to

 bypass that requirement for them for the sakeof the headlines.

The website of a tiny laughing-stock of a rac-ist group based in Kilkenny and Limerick has been abuzz with excitement since the news broke. While in Ireland , Griffin is to be invitedto speak on their weekly video blog, and if hedoes, it will be the biggest audience they’ve everhad.

Utopian ideas about the best ideas winningthe day and free debate deciding conflicts un-fortunately have no basis in history. They alsoprove to be tragically inadequate once the far-right organises itself; violent attacks against im-migrants, LGBT and left-wing activists followlike clockwork.

If Griffin speaks, nobody will care what issaid on the podium. The message will be clear:he can organize and publicize and inspire, andpeople are not willing to stop him. Trinity, Dub-lin and Ireland are “soft on fascism”. This is avalidation of the ideas of a tiny number of iso-lated wannabe fascists in Ireland, in Dublin andpossibly on campus who currently lack confi-dence and organisation.

On the other hand, what a message it wouldsend out if instead of being met by a quiet de- bate or by a row of passive placards, Griffin wasopposed by a determined and organized masscampaign that was not going to let him speak,no matter what.

Let’s have a debate on immigration sometime by inviting actual immigrants along, rather thanthinly-disguised fascists with other motives.Meanwhile, over the next few weeks, let’s con-vince these people that there’s no point tryingto organize here. Let’s do that not by dressi ng insuits and coming up with clever speeches, but by standing in solidarity and not giving an inch.

20 

EDITORIAL

“Preventing Griffin wouldconstitute a dark day for college”

AS A sanguine seven line up for the President’s job, theprocess of electing Ireland’s next head of state will at lastenter the realm of democratic choice.

The public can now reclaim the reigns of the race fromthe political monopoly that is the presidential nomina-tion process. The method of selecting presidential candi-dates - while a transparent process - remains a bastion ofthe political class dictating public choice.

This does not mean to say that the race for the Árashas so far been opaque. All seven candidates have beenin the media spotlight to varying extents - but not for the benefit of the public. It is to the members of the Oireach-tas, Dáil and the councils that their electioneering has been directed.

And it is exactly these members to whom the publiccan attribute the self-proclaimed “biggest comeback inIrish political history”. David Norris’s words on the  Late

 Late Show have proven to be no hyperbole, and his nomi-nation has been hailed as a positive signal to progressionof Irish democracy, not least by Norris himself: “ThankGod for democracy, democracy was vindicated here.”

 Indeed, the transition from gay rights activist topresidential candidate over the course of 30 years is justone facet of a transitory Ireland. It is hard to believe thatuntil only 18 years ago, archaic legislation such as thecriminalisation of homosexual acts remained in force.

Yet the Senator’s 11th-hour struggle for support - whilesuccessful - has shown a fundamental flaw in Irish de-mocracy. Despite widespread public backing, the elector-ate has so far been a mere onlooker to Norris’s bid for thepresidency.

Furthermore, the successful nomination of the SinnFéin candidate casts an air of doubt over those hailingNorris’s nomination as the advent of Liberal Ireland. It isonly after the race began in earnest last Wednesday - as acampaign for the benefit of the electorate - that questionsare being asked about the propriety of his candidacy.

Now that the race for the Áras has passed to the Irishelectorate, it is the responsibility of the media to act asa channel for public scrutiny. While the public may nothave had a direct say in the selection of the seven candi-dates, they may now call on the press to provide the nec-essary exposure, interviews and evaluations. A rigorousapproach to the election is entirely appropriate for anindividual who is, after all, to be our national incumbentand representative.

COMMENTS BY a university employee regarding the“underhanded” tactics of the Students’ Union is just oneexample of the mutual mistrust that exists between stu-dents’ and workers’ organisations in Trinity.

The comments were made in reference to a librarysit-in that took place in Michaelmas Term last year, dur-ing which it is also claimed staff felt “intimidated”. Thisnewspaper does not wish to condone nor condemn theprotest by the Students’ Union. Yet, it is these very ac-tions which prevent university employees, particularlythose belonging to workers’ unions, from co-operating inthe student interest.

It should be remembered that both students and staffare facing a common challenge. The fiscal situationshould promote unity, not division, between the twogroups in this university.

!

CHALLENGES CALL

FOR UNITY BETWEEN

COLLEGE UNIONS

ings, when groups like the Phil are willing to

TRINITY NEWS