Barred from entry to the UK

[Lucky]

Anyone who's claiming this threatens free speech should give the matter some logical thought.

It's plain impossible to impose any kind of effective censorship over individuals or opinions, now everything is freely accessible over the internet - and no way is that what the government's trying to do. If you want to know what a hate-preacher of any persuasion has to say, you can read his website, watch his broadcasts/podcasts, order or download his books and speeches.

By slamming the door in the face of hate-preachers, the government is making a point - that they and their 'message' are not welcome, and they will get no help from us in promoting this 'message'. It's purely symbolic - government propaganda, if you like - and in this case I'm in favour of it.

Not only have most or all of these people openly carried out in other countries what would be criminal acts here (incitement to racial hatred and violence etc.), there's good reason to suppose these activities are the reason for their applications to come here.

All countries have border controls. Foreigners do not have an automatic right to visit this country or any other. If anyone is seriously suggesting we're under an obligation to allow vile and dangerous bigots into our home to preach hatred, advocate violence against British citizens (including racial and religious minorities, women and gays), and run terrorist recruitment campaigns, I'd like to hear some justification.

The public naming is a stupid gimmick, though.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It's easy to say "We should wipe out all the Muslims!" and then say, "Hey, I'm a shock jock, I'm expected to call for genocides on a daily basis", but you know, you have to be pretty stupid to expect there to be no consequences for your words. Wasn't there a certain Don that found that out?

And I have a counter question: Why not? What's the point of allowing him into Britain anyways? If he entered the UK, what would he likely do there?

Even for a radio DJ, he can be pretty out there...but how much worse is he than Ann Coulter? Or Sean Hannity? Why ban him specifically? It seems pretty arbitrary to pick on Savage.

Before this controversy, had he expressed any interest or desire in going to England? Has he ever even been there in his life?

Fred Phelps and his family may be another story because they have gone to foreign nations and various Muslim clerics have influence and power over British citizens but Savage? Does anyone in Britain even know who he is? And does he have the power to incite violence in anyone in the UK?

 

[Architect]

Let's go backto the previous poster's point. Has Savage, for all his indignation, spoken about thebanning of those from groups he has a "problem" with such as Muslims or -as I suspect - is this just about him? Because that's an important point, suggesting as it would some hypocrisy on his part.

 

[Skeptic]

My problem is that "incitement" is so broadly construed as to mean nothing more than "speech we don't like". EVERY criticism of ANY group can be said to "incite hatered" towards them. Where does one draw the line? In the USA the line is clear. In the UK, it seems, the line is drawn wherever the government feels like drawing it at the moment.

 

[Lonewulf]

My problem is that "incitement" is so broadly construed as to mean nothing more than "speech we don't like". EVERY criticism of ANY group can be said to "incite hatered" towards them. Where does one draw the line? In the USA the line is clear. In the UK, it seems, the line is drawn wherever the government feels like drawing it at the moment.

"We should wipe out 100 million Muslims" is just "speech we don't like"? There's nothing about it even remotely objectionable?

I don't want to live in your world, if there that's considered normal conversation material. Then again, maybe it is...

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

Sigh, let's go over the definition of free speech, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech

Freedom of speech is the freedom to speak freely without censorship or limitation.
You'll also find:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+speech

free speech
n. The right to express any opinion in public without censorship or restraint by the government.

In other words, the consequences cannot be government related.

It's a good thing that I have evidence of the British government being consistent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXA-uQj0zfo&feature=related

http://highvolumemedia.com/thebullh...otests/Britain-DanishEmbassy-b-2006-02-03.jpg


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060215Pakistan03.jpg

http://highvolumemedia.com/thebullh...otests/Britain-DanishEmbassy-a-2006-02-03.jpg

I didn't include any Danish or Israeli flag burning (due to lethargy), so you'll have to use your imaginations.

ALLAH AKBAR!

Edited for Rule 4 violations.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[Lonewulf]

And yet, even in the Free Speech capitol, the United States, there are limitations to free speech.

You want people to accept your limitations, but demand that others not have their own limitations, because... well, let's see why? Is there a reason to do so, or is it arbitrary?

Or are you consistent in your absolution, and demand that we remove such things as harassment, slander, libel, etc. off the books?

 

[Darat]

Sigh, let's go over the definition of free speech, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free+speech



In other words, the consequences cannot be government related.

It's a good thing that I have evidence of the British government being consistent:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXA-uQj0zfo&feature=related

[qimg]http://highvolumemedia.com/thebullhorn/WarOnTerror/Denmark/ImagesOfMuhammadCartoonProtests/Britain-DanishEmbassy-b-2006-02-03.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20060215Pakistan03.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://highvolumemedia.com/thebullhorn/WarOnTerror/Denmark/ImagesOfMuhammadCartoonProtests/Britain-DanishEmbassy-a-2006-02-03.jpg[/qimg]

I didn't include any Danish or Israeli flag burning (due to lethargy), so you'll have to use your imaginations.

ALLAH AKBAR!

Any evidence that any of those folk weren't UK nationals or carried out such protests (that would have come to the UK security agencies and government's attention) prior to being allowed to visit the UK?

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

And yet, even in the Free Speech capitol, the United States, there are limitations to free speech.

That's, I'm on the "The founding father are rolling in their graves" side of the table.

You want people to accept your limitations, but demand that others not have their own limitations, because... well, let's see why? Is there a reason to do so, or is it arbitrary?

You're going to have be more specific than that. For starters, please tell me what are my limitations?

Or are you consistent in your absolution, and demand that we remove such things as slander, libel, etc. off the books?

Yeah pretty much. What can be construed as slander or libel is so broad it makes Benjamin Franklin's corpse spin. The infamous Danish cartoons could fit under this category, unless you want to use the parody cop-out.
How about defamation against Scientology, or other wooish bs?

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

Any evidence that any of those folk weren't UK nationals or carried out such protests (that would have come to the UK security agencies and government's attention prior to being allowed to visit the UK)?

Probably, but my point was about Britain's double standard to free speech.

 

[Darat]

Probably, but my point was about Britain's double standard to free speech.

You can only conclude it is a double standard if you can provide or have such evidence.

 

[Darat]

My problem is that "incitement" is so broadly construed as to mean nothing more than "speech we don't like".

...snip...

This may be the situation in your country but thankfully this is not the case in the UK.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

You can only conclude it is a double standard if you can provide or have such evidence.

Somewhere between the pictures, legally-binding Sharia tribunal courts, and the police protecting those Muslim protesters with the cheerful placards, I don't find myself at a loss for evidence.

British law enforcement are at a loss for courage though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-lwSe2llg

 

[Darat]

Somewhere between the pictures, legally-binding Sharia tribunal courts, and the police protecting those Muslim protesters with the cheerful placards, I don't find myself at a loss for evidence.

...snip...

Yet you haven't provided the evidence.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Probably, but my point was about Britain's double standard to free speech.

Are you aware that arrests were made? Perhaps not enough, and maybe not soon enough, but IIRC, a muslim student was jailed for chanting 'bomb, bomb USA, bomb bomb UK' at a demo.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

Yet you haven't provided the evidence.

Well if you wish to plug your ears and shout lalalalal to the previous, then I can offer some more.

http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/02/13/uk-double-standard-on-free-speech/

http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=718

 

[Darat]

Well if you wish to plug your ears and shout lalalalal to the previous, then I can offer some more.

http://www.themindoftefft.com/blog/2009/02/13/uk-double-standard-on-free-speech/

...snip...

That link doesn't show any double standard since this was a non-UK citizen barred from the UK, just like the people on the list this thread is about.

http://womensgrid.freecharity.org.uk/?p=718

Your second article one has nothing to do with barring people from the UK (the article is also factually incorrect but there are other threads to discuss it's factual mistakes).

 

[Cuddles]

Well if you wish to plug your ears and shout lalalalal to the previous, then I can offer some more.

You appear to be missing the point. This thread is about people who are not in the UK being prevented from entering the UK. They have no right to free speech in the UK, since they are not in the UK. For some strange reason you keep bringing up examples of people who are in the UK as if that is in any way relevant.

The simple fact is that every single country in the world treats its own citizens differently from those of other countries. This should be obvious to everyone old enough to have learned that there are other countries. Hopefully it is now obvious to you too, so you will no longer feel the need to make bizarre claims of double standards while giving examples of completely different circumstances.

 

[Lonewulf]

That's, I'm on the "The founding father are rolling in their graves" side of the table.

While the founding fathers were cool and all, even they (or at least, some of them) supported the limiting of speech. See John Adam's Presidency, and notably, the restriction of speech against the government.

Apparently even some of the founding fathers felt that there were times we should restrict speech. While I might not agree with restricting speech against the government, I fail to see why I should allow harassment.

You're going to have be more specific than that. For starters, please tell me what are my limitations?

What's hilarious is that you ask this, when in the next paragraph I list some examples. Jump the gun much?

But if you're going to start with a position of ignorance, what can I say? Wikipedia is always up and running.

Yeah pretty much. What can be construed as slander or libel is so broad it makes Benjamin Franklin's corpse spin. The infamous Danish cartoons could fit under this category, unless you want to use the parody cop-out.
How about defamation against Scientology, or other wooish bs?

Well, at least you're consistent.

 

[Architect]

Let's go backto the previous poster's point. Has Savage, for all his indignation, spoken about thebanning of those from groups he has a "problem" with such as Muslims or -as I suspect - is this just about him? Because that's an important point, suggesting as it would some hypocrisy on his part.

Let me repeat this, principally for the Bombastic Penguin as he's been so vocal on what he believes wrongly to be freedom of speech.

There is nothing to suggest that Savage has stood up for the others on the list. Rather it's a "me me me" attitude. So he's not really worried about restrictions on freedom of speech, just his own. How's that for great double standards, eh?

Secondly, Freedom of Speech is guaranteed in Europe under ECHR subject to a straightforward exclusion for those who are wilfully inciting crime (notably religious or ethnic). So you can quit all that sanctimonious "founding fathers" guff.

And to round it off, actually all we've done is say "you're not welcome here, b***** off". You'll find that the US (all hail the founding fathers) have rather tight Visa restrictions too, and I'll betcha they wouldn't like it if we shipped our resident loudmouthed nutters over the pond.