Barred from entry to the UK

[Bombastic Penguin]

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.

I know a family friend who had to deal with the proverbial, power-tripping customs officer at the border. To paraphrase, he told them "Fook America! Canada is the greatest country in the world" and he was barred fro entering the United States. A man expressing his beliefs restricts him from entering the "Land of the Free". Do you not see the inconsistency, or lack of logic in 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.

I already know this.

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?

Done in the heat of passion.

 

[Architect]

I know a family friend who had to deal with the proverbial, power-tripping customs officer at the border. To paraphrase, he told them "Fook America! Canada is the greatest country in the world" and he was barred fro entering the United States. A man expressing his beliefs restricts him from entering the "Land of the Free". Do you not see the inconsistency, or lack of logic in such a system?

I see. You consider this anecdote to be some sort of typical measure of the border control system. On a sceptic site. How very peculiar.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

I see. You consider this anecdote to be some sort of typical measure of the border control system. On a sceptic site. How very peculiar.

I thought we were in agreement that what you say can get you barred from foreign countries. Unless you want this to turn into "customs stories from hell" thread, you can go have a look at the ridiculous reasons people have been barred from foreign countries.

 

[Architect]

You seem to be having some difficulty following the way this forum works. A thread is posted, in this case about the banning of Savage (and presumably the others) from the UK. You, in turn, are meant to post cohesive arguments and back up claims such as - say - reasons for refusing entry with sources and evidence. I'm sorry, but shouting about Freedom of Speech in the US isn't particularly relevant or helpful, likewise it doesn't really matter if your granny's next-door neighbour's dog was once refused entry.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

You seem to be having some difficulty following the way this forum works. A thread is posted, in this case about the banning of Savage (and presumably the others) from the UK. You, in turn, are meant to post cohesive arguments and back up claims such as - say - reasons for refusing entry with sources and evidence.

You must have forgotten the arbitrary nature of human beings, or the evidence that I provided about Britain's inconsistencies for that matter.

I'm sorry, but shouting about Freedom of Speech in the US isn't particularly relevant

More strawmen. I made a sardonic comment about corpses rolling, and somehow you interpret my discussion with Lonewulf about Founding Fathers and libel to be out of place to my discussion the other members. Remember that one thing leads to another.

Time for a drive across the mountains. Care to join me comrade?

 

[Architect]

But you haven't actually provided any meanignful evidence, just a couple of clippings from the Guardian and a picture apparently taken in a completely separate third country. If you wish to make a case that Britain exercises an inconsistent approach to the banning of individuals from entry to the UK then you really need to analyse the lsit, look at previous examples, and then draw structured conclusions.

You might also wish to stop taking us OT by hand-waving on issues such as Freedom of speech for citizens of the USA and UK/EU as it has nothing particularly to do with the OP.

As I said, this is a sceptic site. You're required to back up arguments with hard sources when challenged.

 

[Bombastic Penguin]

But you haven't actually provided any meanignful evidence, just a couple of clippings from the Guardian and a picture apparently taken in a completely separate third country. If you wish to make a case that Britain exercises an inconsistent approach to the banning of individuals from entry to the UK then you really need to analyse the lsit, look at previous examples, and then draw structured conclusions.

You might also wish to stop taking us OT by hand-waving on issues such as Freedom of speech for citizens of the USA and UK/EU as it has nothing particularly to do with the OP.

As I said, this is a sceptic site. You're required to back up arguments with hard sources when challenged.

Roger captain we are now entering the circular argument spectrum.

Let's go over what evidence I have posted:

1) A video of the Luton protest in which police where guarding the bat ***** insane Islamic fundies. I then I posted an article which clarified that only two people, unrelated to the anti-war muslims, were arrested for public offenses.

2) I exemplify the UK's inconsistency by referring to the incident of the fifteen year old protesting against Scientology.

3) Granted that there are Islamic fundamentalists on the immigration ban list. This is still a different spectrum in relation to UK citizens.

4) To further exemplify inconsistency in their anti free speech laws, I bring up Sharia law being integrated into tribunal courts. Now isn't that peculiar? The hate filled, violence inciting poison that is religion, is being integrated into the UK judiciary system.


5) Those pictures were just supposed to give an idea of the kind of protests Islamic fundies are carrying out in Britain. I made the mistake of inserting an unrelated picture at the end, but in the end we learn from our mistakes. We need mistakes


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

Article 10 provides the right to freedom of expression, subject to certain restrictions that are "in accordance with law" and "necessary in a democratic society

The sweet taste of irony drops ever so succulent from its sugar canes. The law of the UK is the law of the land.


Drench yourself with the nectar of skepticism young lass, but stray from thought though that the nectar isn't twoofer kool aid.

Thy nectar make a proficient ego augmenter, yet one if defined themselves not by the headings of a forums.

For this forum be of skepticism like ye man who caught a big trout to champion fisherman.

Lay the bullets on me brother and let the acid course through your veins!

 

[Lonewulf]

The sweet taste of irony drops ever so succulent from its sugar canes. The law of the UK is the law of the land.


Drench yourself with the nectar of skepticism young lass, but stray from thought though that the nectar isn't twoofer kool aid.

Thy nectar make a proficient ego augmenter, yet one if defined themselves not by the headings of a forums.

For this forum be of skepticism like ye man who caught a big trout to champion fisherman.

Lay the bullets on me brother and let the acid course through your veins!

Does anyone understand this? I read gibberish.

 

[Architect]

He's trying to make out the the ECHR freedom of speech clauses are secondary to national law, completely overlooking the fact that the only restrictions arise from incitement to commit crime (specifically racial and religious hatred). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm including Holocaust Denial (German and Austrian law) in these categories.

He also seems to be suggesting that there are widespread issues about funamentalist Muslim protests which would cross the religious/racial hatred line, in particular the use of a double-standard, but this is based on no more than a few news clippings rather than any competent analysis of such incidents.

Perhaps the clincher for me is his belief that Sharia law has somehow been adopted into the UK legal systems. Clearly he has problems with what he describes as " hate filled, violence inciting poison that is religion", so I suspect that he's just got a beef about Islam. And the fact that he's wrong about Sharia Law's place in the UK legal systems (note the plural, Penguin doesn't even seem to know we have different regimes across the home nations) doesn't inspire confidence either.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


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



Well, atleast they're consistent

Apparently another unrelated article.

...snip...

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.

...snip...

Again nothing you have posted has shown any type of inconsistency in how we treat people trying to get into this country.

 

[Architect]

And, on the basis that the Penguin appears to be such a support of the Founding Fathers and US generally, I just felt I had to highlight just how they had banned dangerous criminals from their own country:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3678694.stm

 

[Lonewulf]

He's trying to make out the the ECHR freedom of speech clauses are secondary to national law, completely overlooking the fact that the only restrictions arise from incitement to commit crime (specifically racial and religious hatred). For the avoidance of doubt, I'm including Holocaust Denial (German and Austrian law) in these categories.

He also seems to be suggesting that there are widespread issues about funamentalist Muslim protests which would cross the religious/racial hatred line, in particular the use of a double-standard, but this is based on no more than a few news clippings rather than any competent analysis of such incidents.

Perhaps the clincher for me is his belief that Sharia law has somehow been adopted into the UK legal systems. Clearly he has problems with what he describes as " hate filled, violence inciting poison that is religion", so I suspect that he's just got a beef about Islam. And the fact that he's wrong about Sharia Law's place in the UK legal systems (note the plural, Penguin doesn't even seem to know we have different regimes across the home nations) doesn't inspire confidence either.

So basically, he's wrong on everything. How dare you say that? How dare you engage in British jingoism?!

Next you're going to say that we should set up colonies once more, and that Britain is far greater than any other country in the world!

 

[Architect]

So basically, he's wrong on everything. How dare you say that? How dare you engage in Scottish jingoism?!

Next you're going to say that we should set up colonies once more, and that Scotland is far greater than any other country in the world!

Corrected for accuracy.

 

[Architect]

So basically, he's wrong on everything. How dare you say that? How dare you engage in British jingoism?!

Next you're going to say that we should set up colonies once more, and that Britain is far greater than any other country in the world!

 

[Cuddles]

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.

You appear to be struggling rather severely with reading comprehension. I implied nothing of the sort. In fact, I didn't imply anything at all, I stated my point extremely clearly - if you are not in the UK then you do not have any rights in the UK. Do you think UK laws magically apply in other countries or something?

I'm really not sure how much simpler I can put this. If you are in the UK, UK law allows you the right to free speech, subject to certain limitations. If you are not in the UK, UK law does not allow you the right to free speech because UK law does not apply. Complaining about UK law as it applies to people who are not in the UK is incredibly stupid, because it doesn't apply to people who are not in the UK.

Does that help you at all? Or should I try to restrict myself to words of one syllable?

 

[Lonewulf]

Corrected for accuracy.

Meh, Scotland is just England in a dress, with bagpipes, and with a funny accent.

 

[Ian Osborne]

Meh, Scotland is just England in a dress, with bagpipes, and with a funny accent.

Not to mention, salty porridge, red genital hair and drunks on trains who tell you their life story...

 

[Skeptic]

Not to mention, salty porridge, red genital hair and drunks on trains who tell you their life story...

I'm afraid to ask how you found out about the second item on the list.

Still, you're right. Last time *I* was in Scotland, a drunk on a train told me how much he suffered all his life due to his red genital hair, while crying salty tears into his porridge.

 

[Basilio]

"hypocritical"?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

You know, since the Conservatives are hot to hop on the boycott bandwagon - apparently there's a boycott KFC meme because they dared convert some shops in the UK to halal - maybe they'll myopically focus their attention on England's part in the barring of Savage and boycott English.