It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The UK has hit rock bottom - detaining a US citizen because she was to interview Tommy Robinson

page: 8
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


Either way, banning people from entering the UK for criticizing Islam is the going rate.


en.m.wikipedia.org...

If you go through the list you’ll also find extremist Islamic preachers who are also banned from entering.

This is not a binary thing in which “Islam gets free reign and anti-Islam is punished”, and it is not at all some sort of State persecution nonsense that is portrayed abundantly.




posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o




So they were detained because they planned on saying things, that could have possibly led to violence?
Or specifically because they were going to criticize a religion, which may have led to violence?

In either case, who gets to decides what kind of speech falls into that category? The ones being violent?


The government, those who have the monopoly on violence, decides on these matters.


We live under common law.

You cannot build the justification of a law from nothing.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




If you go through the list you’ll also find extremist Islamic preachers who are also banned from entering.

This is not a binary thing in which “Islam gets free reign and anti-Islam is punished”, and it is not at all some sort of State persecution nonsense that is portrayed abundantly.


I'm not sure how that makes it any better. Banning people for their views and speech is ludicrous, statist nonsense.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: RAY1990




We live under common law.

You cannot build the justification of a law from nothing.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RAY1990

I'm actually bothered more about human decency, one of the things that irks me most is human morality and above that cowardice.



That's good, and you are hitting on the right cuprits spot on already.


Those guys don't give a toss for much anything, decency being the first victim, and they certainly don't give a toss for free speech...except when they blather, so it's not too hard to know where they are coming from.
Most people in Britain are familiar with the football yobbos, most of them are usually well off, well ogranised across the UK...and abroad, and not as often potrayed, simple street thugs. They go right through from football violence, demonstration distruption, racism, and neoconservatism/fascist.
You can smell them coming, but they don't represent the vast majority of people in Britain, and they never will.
edit on 12-3-2018 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I disagree, slightly.

If people wish to spout hatred in their own nations, then that is fair enough to me.

But come on Les, if people believe they have some sort of natural/divine right or entitlement to spout their divisive hatred in a completely different country, that is just asinine, imo.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: RAY1990




We live under common law.

You cannot build the justification of a law from nothing.


I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.


Quite a lot when you are talking about laws that govern hate speech.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: RAY1990


Lot's of words with not a bean of understanding about this actual case.
Brittany Pettibone is not someone who runs around preaching hate.

The danger is obvious - when you push 'hate speech' to include questions, challenges, cultural and political debate then you have an enabling mechanism for fascism.

It seems she was handcuffed, driven 30 miles to a prison and detained there for 3 days.

I agree that those who just want to incite violence should be stopped. This is not the case here.


So is this a different Brittany Pettibone then from, the one who does podcasts with white supremacists then?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
a reply to: LesMisanthrope


British Gymnastics said that Smith had subsequently admitted to an independent panel that his behaviour was in breech of its standards of conduct.

That panel decided to suspend Smith for two months after taking into account another incident in June, in which he posted a zoomed-in photograph of a 16-year-old gymnast’s leotard-clad bottom on Instagram along with the comment “my sport has its moments” and a smiling emoji.


1) “British Gymnastics” and an “Independent Panel” are NOT the State...

2) Breeching “Standards of Conduct” comes with consequences in EVERY SINGLE PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE WESTERN WORLD!

3) Did you ignore the questionable behaviour he displayed on his Instagram page regarding a 16yr old girl, which was also “taken in to account”???



Basically, you’re still living in a fantasy!

Either way, banning people from entering the UK for criticizing Islam is the going rate.


Its not exactly an uncommon practice for a country to refuse entry to foreign citizens, for all kinds of ridiculous reasons.

Here's an example of people who have been denied entry to the US for some really bizarre reasons.


For tweeting

In 2012, two British tourists were kept in a cell for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles and jokingly tweeting that they planned to "destroy America" and "dig up Marilyn Monroe" during their holiday there. Authorities clearly didn't realise that "destroy" is slang for "party".



For writing a research paper on drugs

In 2007, Andrew Feldman, a Vancouver professor, was denied entry into Blaine, Washington, after a border agent discovered he'd written an academic paper about taking L S D in the Seventies.



For being well travelled

Last year Niels Gerson Lohman, a Dutch writer, was denied entry to the US at the Canadian border after officials found stamps from Muslim countries, such as Yemen and Malaysia, in his passport.



For depression

Ellen Richardson, a wheelchair-bound Canadian, was refused entry last November due to being hospitalised for clinical depression the previous year. The decision forced her to miss a 10-day Caribbean cruise from New York.



For being Yusuf Islam

Muslim singer Cat Stevens, who changed his name to Yusuf Islam, was refused entry in 2004 on "national security grounds". Colin Powell, secretary of state at the time, later apologised.


traveller.com.au
edit on 12-3-2018 by Subaeruginosa because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I disagree, slightly.

If people wish to spout hatred in their own nations, then that is fair enough to me.

But come on Les, if people believe they have some sort of natural/divine right or entitlement to spout their divisive hatred in a completely different country, that is just asinine, imo.


Yes, it might even be comforting for the vast majority of people to have the state decide which speech you can and cannot listen to, but such an instinct is wholly totalitarian.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Denied is one thing, being banned is another.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




I disagree, slightly.

If people wish to spout hatred in their own nations, then that is fair enough to me.

But come on Les, if people believe they have some sort of natural/divine right or entitlement to spout their divisive hatred in a completely different country, that is just asinine, imo.


Yes, it might even be comforting for the vast majority of people to have the state decide which speech you can and cannot listen to, but such an instinct is wholly totalitarian.


What about being able to listen to people from Iran.
Is restricting that totalitarian?



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:31 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Well, the State are elected to decide these things, in all nations (with representatives)...

Furthermore, I can see no valid reason against banning/denying a foreigner a platform to profit from hatred and dividing the citizens of a nation they have no ties with.

It benefits nobody whatsoever, except the hate-monger.

After amassing monetary gains and a larger following, for simply breeding division on another’s soil, they can then piss off back to the comforts of suburbia in white-picket fence State, US of A?
100% unaffected by what they can potentially rile up?



No. Just no.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




What about being able to listen to people from Iran.
Is restricting that totalitarian?


I'm not sure what that means.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




What about being able to listen to people from Iran.
Is restricting that totalitarian?


I'm not sure what that means.


If stopping one person from entering a country is totalitarian as it restricts free speech, then is stopping an entire population of a country not even more so.

Think of all those voices we can't listen to.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Hazardous1408




Furthermore, I can see no valid reason against banning/denying a foreigner a platform to profit from hatred and dividing the citizens of a nation they have no ties with.

It benefits nobody whatsoever, except the hate-monger.


There are plenty of valid reasons.

For one, you won't be able to know what they are arguing, crippling your own arguments against them.

Two, these things are best destroyed in open debate. Hate speech laws in Weimar Germany, the banning of Nazis and Hitler, did not turn out to well in the one instance it should have.

Three, their persecution gives them a platform, even legitimacy. In Hitler's own words, it made them stronger.

Four, censorship discredits truth.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




If stopping one person from entering a country is totalitarian as it restricts free speech, then is stopping an entire population of a country not even more so.

Think of all those voices we can't listen to.


Yes, refusing someone entry because of what they say is totalitarian. Refusing someone entry because they come from a failed state or from one that implements state terrorism is quite different.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot




If stopping one person from entering a country is totalitarian as it restricts free speech, then is stopping an entire population of a country not even more so.

Think of all those voices we can't listen to.


Yes, refusing someone entry because of what they say is totalitarian. Refusing someone entry because they come from a failed state or from one that implements state terrorism is quite different.


So a specific ban based on the actual risks someone may pose is totalitarian.

Yet a blanket ban based on the country of origin, that takes no account of the individual isn't

9.9 on the mental gymnastics.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Hazardous1408




Furthermore, I can see no valid reason against banning/denying a foreigner a platform to profit from hatred and dividing the citizens of a nation they have no ties with.

It benefits nobody whatsoever, except the hate-monger.


There are plenty of valid reasons.

For one, you won't be able to know what they are arguing, crippling your own arguments against them.

Two, these things are best destroyed in open debate. Hate speech laws in Weimar Germany, the banning of Nazis and Hitler, did not turn out to well in the one instance it should have.

Three, their persecution gives them a platform, even legitimacy. In Hitler's own words, it made them stronger.

Four, censorship discredits truth.


1) That’s what twitter and Facebook are for. These people’s arguments are widely accessible, otherwise there would be absolutely no way for the Home Office to even judge these cases.

2) Nazis were not foreigners inciting hate in another’s nation, and banning individuals from entering a country is nothing akin to persecuting homegrown citizens.

3) It isn’t persecution. And Hitler said lots of things. (See 2 for more).

4) Platform refusal is not necessarily censorship either. That would all be dependent on the entire ideology being forbidden, but seeing as there is a myriad of these groups already here in the UK, censorship is a rather extreme term to use in this particular discussion.



posted on Mar, 12 2018 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot



So a specific ban based on the actual risks someone may pose is totalitarian.

Yet a blanket ban based on the country of origin, that takes no account of the individual isn't

9.9 on the mental gymnastics.


Speaking is considered an "actual risk" where you live, but coming from a state that sponsors terrorism isn't? Good god, how far the maggots have travelled



new topics




 
79
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join