Gert Wilders is welcome to the UK!

[Darat]

In what way is Geert a "trouble maker", hell if your against foreigners make trouble you ought to deport all those Muslims threatening to cut the heads of the infidels and critics of Islam.

You mean non-UK citizens? Well of course we should, and we do, or we should convict them and if found guilty of breaking the law we should imprison them, and we do.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

And how does he make trouble? All he does is speak. It is other people who are doing the actual making of trouble. Once you start categorizing speaking as making trouble, you are indeed on your way to curtailing free speech.

I can't see how that follows, since his speech is not being curtailed at all and of course I have never suggested that his speech should be curtailed or even interfered with in any manner.

 

[Darat]

I do not support Arcade 22, who seems to be outed himself as a bigot; but in the US you can strip a naturlized citizen of his Citizenship under certain circumstances and then deport him. Generally this is done only for serious criminal offenses; Probably the most famous example was Lucky Luciano, The Mafia boss,who was stripped of his citizenship and then deported to Sicily.
Being able to be stripped of your citizenship is one of the two distinctions between a "born" citizen and and a naturalized one,the other one being inablity to hold the offices of President or Vice President.
I presume the UK has similiar laws in place.

I don't know if we have anything similar - I shall have a look....

ETA: We do apparently have something similar - at least since about 2003, but it appears it can only be applied to people with dual nationality so it may not be that effective. (That's from a very quick search through the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 - so I may quite well be reading it wrong.)

 

[Ziggurat]

I can't see how that follows, since his speech is not being curtailed at all and of course I have never suggested that his speech should be curtailed or even interfered with in any manner.

No, you haven't proposed curtailing his speech, you've just provided the flawed rationale (unpopular speech is "making trouble") which, if accepted, can pave the way to such restrictions.

 

[funk de fino]

No, you haven't proposed curtailing his speech, you've just provided the flawed rationale (unpopular speech is "making trouble") which, if accepted, can pave the way to such restrictions.

Unpopular is different than inflammatory or blatant lies.

 

[Ziggurat]

Unpopular is different than inflammatory

Only by degrees.

or blatant lies.

Aside from libel and slander, which have their own laws covering them, why should we give anyone in government the power to decide what are lies and what are not? Why should any government action, other than possibly telling the truth, be the remedy for lies?

And that's not the reason the Home Office opposed Wilders anyways.

 

[funk de fino]

Only by degrees.

It's enough here.

Aside from libel and slander, which have their own laws covering them, why should we give anyone in government the power to decide what are lies and what are not? Why should any government action, other than possibly telling the truth, be the remedy for lies?

And that's not the reason the Home Office opposed Wilders anyways.

If the lies are told in order to be inflammatory. For example holocaust denial.

 

[geni]

In other words, the Home Office believes in granting a "heckler's veto".

Um no. As annoying as Unite Against Fascism are they not what the home office is worried about.

In terms of his particular legal rights, you are probably correct. But if you think this issue won't have any effect on freedom of expression, I think you are wrong.

Hasn't so far.

And how does he make trouble? All he does is speak.

He's a memeber of the Dutch parliment.

 

[geni]

Aside from libel and slander, which have their own laws covering them, why should we give anyone in government the power to decide what are lies and what are not?

Because the alturnative causes consititional issues. If you can't decide what is a lie the no lieing to the house rule becomes a problem.

Why should any government action, other than possibly telling the truth, be the remedy for lies?

Because we kinda found fraud and insider tradeing make a mess of the market.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No, you haven't proposed curtailing his speech, you've just provided the flawed rationale (unpopular speech is "making trouble") which, if accepted, can pave the way to such restrictions.

All the lube in the world couldn't help your slippery slope.

 

[Darat]

No, you haven't proposed curtailing his speech, you've just provided the flawed rationale (unpopular speech is "making trouble") which, if accepted, can pave the way to such restrictions.

No I haven't.

 

[Ziggurat]

Um no. As annoying as Unite Against Fascism are they not what the home office is worried about.

They aren't the "hecklers" in this scenario, so I'm not sure why you thought this statement contradicts what I said.

He's a memeber of the Dutch parliment.

Last time I checked, laws passed by the Dutch parliament didn't really have any effect on what happens in the UK. You cannot honestly be pretending that this conflict is about his legislative voting record.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because the alturnative causes consititional issues. If you can't decide what is a lie the no lieing to the house rule becomes a problem.

That too is not a restriction against lying, it's a restriction against lying under oath.

Because we kinda found fraud and insider tradeing make a mess of the market.

In neither case is speech the primary problem, but rather action. Speech may facilitate the action, but without the action, there is no crime.

 

[Ziggurat]

It's enough here.

Why?

If the lies are told in order to be inflammatory. For example holocaust denial.

In other words, you believe the American protections of freedom of speech are too robust.

 

[geni]

They aren't the "hecklers" in this scenario, so I'm not sure why you thought this statement contradicts what I said.

They are by far the most likely group to turn up and heckle.

Last time I checked, laws passed by the Dutch parliament didn't really have any effect on what happens in the UK.

Well they are a EU memember. There is the who geographical proximity thing and it's not that long in comparative terms since we last had to take millitry action agaist them.

You cannot honestly be pretending that this conflict is about his legislative voting record.

Not relivant to disproving your "only speaking claim.

 

[geni]

That too is not a restriction against lying, it's a restriction against lying under oath.

MPs are not under oath when it comes to lying.

In neither case is speech the primary problem, but rather action. Speech may facilitate the action, but without the action, there is no crime.

It's entirely posible to cary out fraud with no posertive action other than speach.

 

[Ziggurat]

They are by far the most likely group to turn up and heckle.

The term "heckler's veto" is an idiom, and it signifies more than literal hecklers. Once again, the UAF are not the ones I was referring to.

Well they are a EU memember. There is the who geographical proximity thing and it's not that long in comparative terms since we last had to take millitry action agaist them.

You have yet to say what he has done other than speaking which is at all relevant to the UK reaction to him.

 

[Ziggurat]

MPs are not under oath when it comes to lying.

And in general it is legal for them to lie. Whether it is termed "under oath" or not, the prohibition is rather constrained, is it not?

It's entirely posible to cary out fraud with no posertive action other than speach.

I do not believe you are correct, but if you are, this should be amenable to proof by example. Can you give one?

 

[geni]

And in general it is legal for them to lie. Whether it is termed "under oath" or not, the prohibition is rather constrained, is it not?

Since goverments tend to have majority in the commons it would be posible for them to back the prohibition with expulsion. Was part of the reason Garry Allighan was expelled (the other part was gross contempt).

I do not believe you are correct, but if you are, this should be amenable to proof by example. Can you give one?

Talk someone into makeing a credit payment to your account under false pretenses. Strictly speaking advance-fee fraud only requires speach and no posertive action.

 

[Ziggurat]

Talk someone into makeing a credit payment to your account under false pretenses. Strictly speaking advance-fee fraud only requires speach and no posertive action.

Even in such a case, though, speech alone is insufficient. What you've essentially done is established a contract which you then violate. It is your failure to satisfy the contract, and not simply your speech, which constitutes fraud.