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

a reply to: Hazardous1408

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.

What?!?!?!

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.

That was an example, not my argument.

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

persecution |ˌpərsəˈkyo͞oSH(ə)n|
noun
hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of race or political or religious beliefs: her family fled religious persecution.
• persistent annoyance or harassment: his persecution at the hands of other students.

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.

censorship |ˈsɛnsəʃɪp|
noun [ mass noun ]
1 the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security: the regulation imposes censorship on all media | [ as modifier ] : we have strict censorship laws.

2 [ count noun ] (in ancient Rome) the office or position of censor: he celebrated a triumph together with his father and they held the censorship jointly.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
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

Inciting people to violence is yes.

Glad to know you feel its OK to judge people collectively.

You are very fond of mentioning the Nazis. Guess by your logic they aren't that bad, as they applied laws to whole groups of people rather than individuals.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What?!?!?!

Erm... What?


You said (paraphrasing);
“You wouldn’t know their arguments”... right?

So I said (paraphrasing);
“Well that is an impossibility because the arguments they make are well documented and available to read. How else would the UK Home Office (who deal with bans/entry denials) be able to make such rulings without access to “the arguments” of people refused?”


And your response to that is “what?”...
What? How did it not sink in to your brain quite easily?

It was a very straightforward comment.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Inciting people to violence is yes.

If you could give me one example of any violence incited by these banned people, you might have a point.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Erm... What?

You said (paraphrasing);
“You wouldn’t know there arguments”... right?

So I said (paraphrasing);
“Well that is an impossibility because the arguments they make are well documented and available to read. How else would the UK Home Office (who deal with bans/entry denials) be able to make such rulings without access to “the arguments” of people refused?”


And your response to that is “what?”...
What? How did it not sink in to your brain quote easily?

It was a very straightforward comment.

No offence, but censoring people because you can still find their content on Facebook is frightening.

Actually...Depending on the time of your arrest and seeing a judge you could spend 3 days in lockup without charge.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

Inciting people to violence is yes.

If you could give me one example of any violence incited by these banned people, you might have a point.

How many terror attacks on the US were committed by people from countries on the banned list?

Just gonna pop in because I can't help but to think of a specific quote that comes to mind.

"lock her up! lock her up! lock her up!"

There. That feels better.

a reply to: UKTruth

as if thats ever going to happen

a reply to: UKTruth

I don't find Brittany Pettibone credible.

Has she provided any official documentation from her purported detention?

I did see on twitter she said something about a list of reasons the UK government gave her in a document, but she has not provided any documentary proof of what she is claiming.

a reply to: ScepticScot

How many terror attacks on the US were committed by people from countries on the banned list?

So no one incited violence then, contrary to your initial remarks? I wonder why they got banned.

a reply to: UKTruth


This is insanity, and a clear example of an authoritarian police state.

What was she charged with?

a reply to: UKTruth

God save the queen. Honestly if you wanna say something stupid or provocative that's your right, what next? do we lock up climate scientists because they advocate clean energy? do atheists demand the pope be removed from office? It's bonkers-people have a right to say what they wanna say even if you don't agree with their worldview.

Unless you come from Russia 'i'll have a slice of pizza with extra tetrachlorodibenzodioxin please.'

a reply to: soberbacchus


Here's some other MSM sources

www.msn.com...

torontosun.com... e344032c-4b79-4a54-9728-ffcc6a22f033

a reply to: ScepticScot


Terror attacks? This isn't about terrorism. She's accused of "racism" not terrorism. Very big difference.'

Banning one is common sense. The other is simply someone's arbitrary opinion of another person's point of view.

While we're moving goal posts, changing subjects and generally avoiding the topical subject: What ever happened to the extremist left denouncing Louis Farrahaakhahn? Since he and his NOI cult holds extremely racist views and engages in all sorts of bigoted speech...provably.

The attempts to silence view points is spreading worldwide.

At this point all countries are involved.

Unless someone has a place beyond politics and if so i would not brag about it.

They call it "the web" for a reason.

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.

Oh dearie me, you really need to do some more research on the people who you seem to like so much.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

How many terror attacks on the US were committed by people from countries on the banned list?

So no one incited violence then, contrary to your initial remarks? I wonder why they got banned.

Promoting white supremacy seems to pretty much cover it.

originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: UKTruth

as if thats ever going to happen

You're right. False associations are the number one weapon in the liberal arsenal. They are not about to give it up.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: ScepticScot

How many terror attacks on the US were committed by people from countries on the banned list?

So no one incited violence then, contrary to your initial remarks? I wonder why they got banned.

Promoting white supremacy seems to pretty much cover it.

Can you source where Brittany Pettibone is promoting white supremacy. An actual source please with her advocating it, not some bs opinion.