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.
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.
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
What?!?!?!
Inciting people to violence is yes.
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.
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?
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.
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.
originally posted by: Steveogold
a reply to: UKTruth
as if thats ever going to happen
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.