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.

 

Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2009 @ 11:10 AM
link   
I get the impression that some people here think that this is a new phenomena. Every nation has a policy on who is and is not allowed into their country and have done for years. I don’t particularly like Labour’s record on civil liberties but this isn’t a new Orwellian scheme to control the population.

Here’s a more detailed list of who has been banned since October, the majority have a history of inciting violence if not actual involvement with violent acts. This isn’t about loony ideas or ridiculous views.

news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on May, 5 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   
So basically, if you have an opinion you are not allowed in the UK. It's like the poster above says, this has been a policy in many countries for years.

I can understand the Phelps being barred from entering. They are serious nut cases. Also the terrorists. No problem with that.

BUT.

What I'm more concerned about is the six not named. I recon Geert Wilders is on there, a liberal politician from my country. Now he's a guy that likes to kick the ass of our establishement and the (mainly) leftwing cabinet. He also has some outspoken views of the Islam. But you cannot say that he preaches hate.

He was refused entry in Britain before because the Muslim leaders in Britain said they would mount protests in the streets of London. Basically Labour would loose a big part of their voters. This means that at least partially, this list is politically motivated. That does not mean 1984 has arrived (that happened a couple of years ago) but it is a sign that current leadership will do a lot to keep in charge. Similar stuff is happening here in Holland.

That is the part of this that worries me.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Majic
Or Well, That's How It Goes

Thank goodness the Ministry of Truth is so heroically protecting the mental hygiene of the proles from dangerous ideas.

Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime is death.

Less thoughtcrime is doubleplusgood!




Soliciting for murder as Savage did is not a thoughtcrime, it is a technical, real, crime.

People always throw around these silly arguments when talking free speech, but even in the fatherland of free speech, the good ole' USA, it's not absolute. Fire in a crowded theatre etc. When you actually call for someones death, and say you will supply the bullets, that's an incitement to murder, not just some good ole' free speech.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandroid
I think every country has a right to ban certain people if they wish especially if they have a valid reason. I wonder why the UK does not ban a couple of those hate spewing clerics. If they look hard enough they will find a few from each mainline of Abrahamic tradition. Hate is out.


Probably they don't also ban the radical (not all) muslim clerics because the UK PTB are gutless and afraid ...



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:43 PM
link   
From article:


"Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.


Wow. Yet they coddle those seeking to impose Sharia in certain districts and desiring to run their own courts and tip toe around radical Islamic protesters. Go figure. Have fun, UK. Those 16 people aren't missing much.

[edit on 5/5/2009 by AshleyD]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Isn't this the same gal whose husband charged Pornos to the UK Taxpayers?

Talk about Mental Hygene!

V was Right!!



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


It's censorship.

If a person is wishing to break the laws of a country, they shouldn't be permitted entry. But just because an opinion is seemingly against national sentiment (and who decides that? I didn't, the people didn't. The Government did) that shouldn't be grounds to refuse them entry.

People should be permitted to express their opinion, however much a government might not like it.

I wouldn't like a gay-hate preaching nutter coming here to talk, but rather than refuse them entry, we should allow them to enter, and then make our opinion of them clear directly to them and their misguided followers through organized protest and media debate.

Simply barring them from entering does nothing, allowing them entry and showing them how their opinion is not widely supported would do a lot more to educate people and encourage debate.

There are several "clerics" in this country openly inciting violence (which is illegal), and they should be removed. But we shouldn't be refusing entry to others that our government doesn't agree with, we should allow people in to talk, and the moment they say something illegal, they can be arrested and deported, then refused entry.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Just so everyone knows, Michael Savage is an alias, his real name is Michael Weiner.

Announcer voice: "Savage on the radio!"

Announcer voice: "Weiner on the radio!"

See the difference?

Hopefully the UK has both names on record so he can't Weiner his way out of this one! Oh my, I crack myself up!



[edit on 5-5-2009 by pluckynoonez]



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by TruthMagnet
 


Yes it is the same woman.

And to RubberBaron your country is anything but the fatherland of freedom of speech your constitution that states that all men are equal was written with the benefits of slave labour. You don't need to reply I get rather tired of having to repeat this argument.

-Cauch1



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 05:10 PM
link   
The NWO/ E.U. Dictatorship of the U.K. does not have the right to ban free speech nor does it have the right to stop people with different views from entering the country. In fact it doesn't have the right to Govern as is clearly evil and populated by Traitors.

The UK has allowed The President / P.M. of China into the country . It has allowed Islamic Preachers and Communists in. But now if you believe that there is too much immigration or that the Government is corrupt you will be barred.

I am happy that the Dictators are showing themselves as Dictators. When the U.S.A. & U.K. are fully oppressed it is likley that the uprisings will occur and history has shown us that the free people will win. Then these evil creeps will be held to account.

There are plenty of police , military and intel that will not allow our hard fought freedoms to be taken so that a bunch of greedy cretins can benefit. Some people cant be bought and it is likley that these people will join the free people.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
The U.K as well as the USA seems to be targeting right wing views for destruction. i'm in favor of all speech I don’t even think extreme Islamic groups should be barred from extreme forms of speech...its not right to ban free thought. This is further evidence that major superpowers are trying to push a leftist global government, if you’re going to ban "extreme speech" why not target the left right and in between? It’s very disturbing that they are targeting one form of thought. If they had banned someone that was extremely in favor of gay rights the outrage would have caused the burning of London, but bully the guy in the minority and it’s considered a progressive move forward. Absolutely disgusting


who cares what type of thing you like. If you don’t like it no one forces you to listen. I don’t like polka music so I don’t listen to it, I don’t like the MSM so I don’t watch it I don’t like carrots so I don’t eat them. When a government bans speech or certain thought it is an extreme sign of tyranny and things to come. They don’t ban extreme Islamic groups from protesting and spreading their view, a specific group and ideology that have attacked western culture, and that’s fine...but instead they attack right wing views and censor those views. its freaking ridiculous, you people are going to be at fault for your own slavery and shackles, views like censorship are self defeating and will prove most suicidal in the end...will you be so happy when they start infringing on your point of view???

The only free speech I fear is the kind that’s against it
F$!% 1984



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 07:45 PM
link   
We should have free speech, period. My mom always told me that words don't physically harm you, but I guess the minions running the UK think otherwise... if that wasn't already apparent by their lack of resistance against the actual real violence committed in Gaza earlier this year.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by octotom
 


Free speech doesn't mean anything anymore in this country apparantly. Look if someone is promoting physical violence then fine, ban them as that is no longer simple free speech, it's inciting violence. If however they're just saying pathetic and hateful things, well let them in. They're disgusting for preaching hate but in the end free speech includes things you don't want to hear.



posted on May, 5 2009 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by mandroid
I think every country has a right to ban certain people if they wish especially if they have a valid reason. I wonder why the UK does not ban a couple of those hate spewing clerics. If they look hard enough they will find a few from each mainline of Abrahamic tradition. Hate is out.


I guess it comes down to what you or the UK think is a "valid reason."
There are actually 22 people on the list, but the Gov't refuses to publish 6 for "state reasons."

Here's the reasons"

Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal: Preacher engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs fostering hatred which might lead to violence.

Yunis Al Astal: Preacher engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Stephen Donald Black: Set up Stormfront, a racist website. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by promoting serious criminal activity and fostering hatred, which might lead to violence in the UK.

Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim: A prolific speaker and writer. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to commit terrorist acts.

Eric Gliebe: Has made web radio broadcasts in which he vilifies certain ethnic groups and encourages the download and distribution of provocative racist leaflets and posters. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred.

Mike Guzovsky: Leader of a violent group and actively involved with military training camps. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Safwat Hijazi: Television preacher engaging in unacceptable behaviour by glorifying terrorist violence.

Nasr Javed: Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.

Abdul Ali Musa: Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting and glorifying terrorist violence in furtherance of his particular beliefs and seeking to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Fred Waldron Phelps Sr. and Shirley Phelps-Roper: Pastor of the Westboro Baptist church and his daughter. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to intercommunity violence in the UK.

Samir Al Quntar: Spent three decades in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky: Leaders of a violent gang that beat migrants and posted films of their attacks on the internet. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting serious criminal activity and seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts.

Amir Siddique: Preacher engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fomenting terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs.

Michael Alan Weiner (also known as Michael Savage): Controversial daily radio host. Engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

www.guardian.co.uk...

All banned for thinking and speaking out on their beliefs.

jw


[edit on 5-5-2009 by jdub297]



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by jdub297

All banned for thinking and speaking out on their beliefs.

jw

[edit on 5-5-2009 by jdub297]


Hey i'm a massive supportor of free speech including despicable views like racism. However when you try and incite terrorist acts that is a whole other matter as we're talking about people dying. There is a line.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:41 AM
link   
reply to post by RubberBaron
 


Savage did not make that threat, Michael Reagan did.

As to your view on this topic, just don't complain when the thousands of cameras in the UK pick up some aberrant behavior on your part and decide to imprison and then export you. Like you said, it's their house, not yours!



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 02:54 AM
link   
I love to see how all these high-minded liberals are all gleeful about Savage being banned from the UK.

Liberals with their relative morals. Free speech is a right, they say, until they meet a speaker they don't agree with. Then it's OK to persecute and deny rights because the liberals have no solid morals. It's all a wash of gray... basically make up new beliefs to fit each temporary situation.

Hypocrites.



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
I have listened to his reply to the Home Secretary. and I feel an injustice has been perpetrated against him. It is appalling that somebody who speaks his mind on politics should be banned from entering the UK



So if he is being banned from entering the UK for speaking out on government policy over there; where does that leave the rest of us, who are very vocal about our discontent? Also, what happened to 'Freedom of Speech'?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Jacqui Smith is, along with many others in the UK government, a megalomaniac.

Why are they even bothering to tell us who is on this list? Is it just to say, conform to our views or you won't be allowed in this country?



posted on May, 6 2009 @ 05:22 AM
link   
The US the Fatherland of Free Speech? Since when?

This whole argument about inciting violence seems skewed when put forward by a government that used falsehood and exaggeration to try to gain backing for an illegal war.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join