Barred from entry to the UK

[Lonewulf]

The U.S.? Have tight Visa restrictions? Naw, the let everyone in that wants to get in, don't they?

 

[drkitten]

What can be construed as slander or libel is so broad it makes Benjamin Franklin's corpse spin.

Really? That's funny, then, that he didn't take the opportunity to criticize it when he had the chance. "Libel" has been around in English common law as a named tort and as a criminal offense since the 1500s. By the 1700's, most people used "sedition" instead of "libel" for the criminal offense, but it was hardly controversial. Indeed, the "Alien and Sedition Acts" (1798) were limitations on free speech that were passed by the Founding Fathers themselves less than ten years after the Constitution was written.

I believe, in fact, that Washington himself signed that one into law.

 

[Philip]

The U.S.? Have tight Visa restrictions? Naw, the let everyone in that wants to get in, don't they?

The US does have unreasonably tight visa restrictions, but anyone that wants to get in can get in if they're willing to do it illegally. Of course, a similar situation exists in the UK.

 

[cwalner]

I'll betcha they [USA] wouldn't like it if we [UK] shipped our resident loudmouthed nutters over the pond.

Not so sure about that, I seem to recall you guys trying that in the 1700's. Your loudmouth nutters are our Founding Fathers.

 

[Brainster]

Hmmm...

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

http://vodpod.com/watch/1550994-audio-wow-shocker-michael-savage-said-something-crazy-goodasyou

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Linky.

About the problem of the Jews:



Linky.

Very mainstream.

I did not say Weiner was mainstream, I said he was not that far outside the mainstream. And if Britain actually banned people for saying bad things about the Jews, it would be a remarkably smaller country.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

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.

I'll have to be more specific then.

The big three are:

1)Thomas Jefferson

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate."

2)Thomas Paine

"It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect — that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice."

Benjamin Franklin:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Thomas Jefferson opposed John Adam's sedition and, Thomas Paine would have been put to death, due to being charged for libel under the crown. The man who defended the French revolution does not strike me as the type of man who would support defamation laws.

As for harassment, it depends on how one defines harassment. If Alex Jones was in my face with a megaphone, I wouldn't be castigating him for what he's saying.

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

Dear sir, I oppose these type of limitations for myself and others.

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

Atleast you encourage inquiry

Well, at least you're consistent.

I love it when they're feisty.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

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.

Your implication being that UK citizen enjoy free speech while outsiders do not. Regardless of it being xenophobic and hypocritical, it doesn't hold any water.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/may/20/1?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

A policewoman later read him section five of the Public Order Act and "strongly advised" him to remove the sign. The section prohibits signs which have representations or words which are threatening, abusive or insulting.

The teenager refused to back down, quoting a 1984 high court ruling from Mr Justice Latey, in which he described the Church of Scientology as a "cult" which was "corrupt, sinister and dangerous".

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

You can't have a discussion on carpentry without bring up the hammer.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

You can't have a discussion on carpentry without bring up the hammer.

And what happened after that incident?

 

[Architect]

The Penguin is steadfastly ignoring anything which cuts across his poorly researched but strongly held views, so don't hold your breath for a cogent response.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

And what happened after that incident?

Not jailed, and not relevant. What applied to him didn't apply to the Islamic fundamentalists.

The Penguin is steadfastly ignoring anything which cuts across his poorly researched but strongly held views, so don't hold your breath for a cogent response.

I tend to do that with non-sequiturs. Especially ones that reek of British jingoism.

Nappy time my love.

Bombastic Penguin, it's against the rules of the public forums here to personalize the argument -- that is, to personally attack the arguer instead of the argument he or she is making. The last sentence of this post does exactly that. It is unrelated to the point you're making and to the topic at hand, appended merely to insult your opponent. Posts containing such attacks will normally be edited or removed from the thread (I haven't done so in this case for instructional purposes) and infractions given. This can (if repeated) lead to additional disciplinary action. Please review Rule 12 of your Membership Agreement.

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

 

[Typicallucas]

I support banning hate-mongers.

 

[Lonewulf]

I tend to do that with non-sequiturs.

A lot of those quotes you've made of founding fathers (especially the one by Thomas Payne) isn't even directly related to the idea of free speech, even accepting this off-the-topic subject matter.

Not to mention that you've backpedaled from "the founding fathers" to three specific ones...

Especially ones that reek of British jingoism.

"British jingoism"? Do you even know what "jingoism" means? Considering that you've been acting this way around me, I can only assume that you're indicating that I'm engaging in this jingoism. If so, how so?

If anything, I'd accuse you of U.S. Jingoism, but even that would be incorrect. But I've exhibited no such symptoms anymore than you have.

 

[Architect]

I tend to do that with non-sequiturs. Especially ones that reek of British jingoism.

Yes, I can imagine that having your preconceptions challenged does cause you upset. However, this is a site for sceptics and if you don't like your ideas and notions being held up to the light then I suggest you head elsewhere.

 

[Lonewulf]

I wonder if Bombastic Penguin will deal with Dr. Kitten's post above. I'll quote it for ya, even, Penguin:

Really? That's funny, then, that he didn't take the opportunity to criticize it when he had the chance. "Libel" has been around in English common law as a named tort and as a criminal offense since the 1500s. By the 1700's, most people used "sedition" instead of "libel" for the criminal offense, but it was hardly controversial. Indeed, the "Alien and Sedition Acts" (1798) were limitations on free speech that were passed by the Founding Fathers themselves less than ten years after the Constitution was written.

I believe, in fact, that Washington himself signed that one into law.

Have anything to say?

 

[Darat]

Not jailed, and not relevant. What applied to him didn't apply to the Islamic fundamentalists.

...snip...

Well in that you are right since "the Islamic fundamentalists" were arrested, charged, brought to trial, found guilty of various crimes and imprisoned whereas that did not happen to the person in your article.

However that seems to have nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is, to remind you, about the UK barring non-UK citizens from the UK for a variety of reasons.

 

[Darat]

Granted some of the "Founding Fathers" were English however they did not form the government of what is now the UK so I am struggling to see what relevance they have in a thread about the UK not allowing non-UK citizens into the UK....

 

[rwguinn]

Granted some of the "Founding Fathers" were English however they did not form the government of what is now the UK so I am struggling to see what relevance they have in a thread about the UK not allowing non-UK citizens into the UK....

It's part of the "You are worse than we are" argument..
Frankly, I don't see the problem. Every country does it, and if they are happy with it, so be it. I fully supported the US decision not to let Arafat in back in the 60's and 70's.
And I also agree that different rules apply to people already there as opposed to those wheo merely wish they were there. (even if they got there illegally.)

 

[ixolite]

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

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

And what exactly has a demo held in Pakistan to do with the UK and barring Savage from entry to the UK?

Where you took the pic from:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19291_Muslim_Protesters-_God_Bless_Hitler&only

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

isn't even directly related to the idea of free speech

You'd have to be some sort of special to think that those quotes did not encompass free speech. I remember them being pretty big on that.

Not to mention that you've backpedaled from "the founding fathers" to three specific ones...

There is no backpedaling. There is only an issue of semantics

Considering that you've been acting this way around me

Perhaps it's your sexual charisma, or your enchanting blue eyes.

I can only assume that you're indicating that I'm engaging in this jingoism.

I'd never do that to you

If anything, I'd accuse you of U.S. Jingoism

I'm not really a fan of the US. I'm only a fan of esoteric old men that died a couple of centuries ago.

Well in that you are right since "the Islamic fundamentalists" were arrested, charged, brought to trial, found guilty of various crimes and imprisoned whereas that did not happen to the person in your article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/10/two-arrested-army-protest-luton

Two people, neither of whom is believed to be connected to the anti-war protest, were arrested for public order offences.

Well, atleast they're consistent

However that seems to have nothing to do with the subject of this thread which is, to remind you, about the UK barring non-UK citizens from the UK for a variety of reasons.

[/quote]

It falls under the category of freedom of speech. One will sooner or later point out Britain's inconsistencies in this. Either way it doesn't really matter, since the conclusion is: If you bolster civil liberties then avoid the UK.

I wonder if Bombastic Penguin will deal with Dr. Kitten's post above. I'll quote it for ya, even, Penguin:



Have anything to say?

I hope you do remember what happened to those acts, and the reason for their demise.

And what exactly has a demo held in Pakistan to do with the UK and barring Savage from entry to the UK?

Where you took the pic from:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19291_Muslim_Protesters-_God_Bless_Hitler&only

Absolutely nothing.

 

[Architect]

It falls under the category of freedom of speech. One will sooner or later point out Britain's inconsistencies in this. Either way it doesn't really matter, since the conclusion is: If you bolster civil liberties then avoid the UK.

Let's be clear here. This thread is about the UK - and other sovereign states - having the power to refuse entry to those foreign nationals who they consider undesirable. The US does it, France does it, hell I'm sure that even the Swiss do it. You have failed to post any cogent or cohesive argument as to what is wrong with such a system.

As a bit of hand-waving, you've taken us into "Freedom of Speech" territory. Ironically, however, freedom of speech for EU citizens and residents is, in fact, enshrined in ECHR subject to certain restrictions regarding crime (principally religious and ethnic hatred). You've not responded to this point, of course, as it's rather inconvenient for your argument.

Then, to top it all, you post a picture of an anti-Israel protest from a non-European third country. Was this a deliberate attempt to mislead, or just some half-arsed research?