Named and shamed: the 16 barred from UK

Originally posted by octotom


I can understand being barred from entering a country because you have felonies and things of that sort, but people being banned from entering a country because of there views on things is a bit extreme, in my opinion anyway.
...............

Goes to show towards which side countries like the UK are leaning to, and how much 'freedom of speech" means to them...

BTW, don't they allow Islamic extremists entering the UK when they have advocated violence?

I guess Michale Savage, and anyone who wants to visit Britain, or even British people with more conservative points of view better start going to an indoctrination camp so that they are taught unequivocally to follow the party line to the letter or else...

I wonder if Ms Smith has called for indoctrination camps for such people who do not believe in the same things that she, and her party does....

[edit on 6-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by Kram09


It is very possible. It would make sense it would be like saying "These people here suffered because they believed views that we don't like. If you take these views then you to might suffer". It is quite a good way of subtly warning people to think and do as told without actually stating that they are persecuting beliefs.

-Cauch1

reply to post by octotom


They didn't have a problem letting in the folks who blew your subway up. But if your a Conservative.. or you speak out against gay marriage.. well by the Queens best pair of undies you ain't getting in son!

I see where the British place priority.

reply to post by ElectricUniverse


Sorry to say this as I usually agree with what you say in many threads and topics. (and welcome back I missed you) BUT

Why is this news? Every country in the world does this including Brasil and the USA! I have personally witnessed an old man and his old wife being dragged (yes dragged) out of the line for a passport check in Dubai (yes Dubai) because he had forgotten to take the removable Israeli visa and entry stamp out of his passport.
I have visited the USA on many many occasions and been subjected to the nazi grilling the homeland security braindead sense of humour failed jumped up headcase thought was appropriate.

Free speech applies to me and mine in my own country and so it should for every person in every country. BUT what is allowed in one does not mean it should be allowed everywhere. If I were to get out my Bible and start reading in Saudi for instance the thought police would pick me up in minutes, same goes for other places with a sandy outlook.

As an earlier poster said the country is like your house, who is in can say what they like give or take common decency (use of the N word for instance). But to let people in with whom you fundmentally disagree just so they can disagree with you in public is stupid. No-one does it, so this is not news I am afraid.

And as far as our american friends are concerned try burning a US flag in the street and then lecture about free speech. You don't have to disagree with someone with words if they do it on your property you can shoot them instead quite legally. Free speech indeed.

OK rant over normal service will be resumed after these messages....

reply to post by Rockpuck


Unfortunately what you are saying is so true. Like I said before we have degenerates in this that mock fallen soldiers at their funerals. Soldiers that have fought and given their lives for this country. Muslim Preacher Mocks Fallen British Soldiers It is disgraceful what they are doing to this once glorious country. New Labour is turning out to be even worse than Old Labour. Brown and his lackies better watch out come the election they will be out so quick that his eyes will be spinning in his gormless, slack-jawed face. That is if they don't suspend voting rights before then. Which is just the sort of thing that they would do. Anyone that is against party doctrine is in danger of being locked up. We'll just have to keep our eyes peeled and knives sharp (as we can't have a gun to defend ourselves).

-Cauch1

Defend the rights for people who condemn soldiers who fight and die for their country. Yeah mate, good idea.

Ok, i agree SOME of these bans are a bit extreme. The hate preacher is a different kettle of fish, this may be external writers stating this, and aren't aware, but this was the guy happily standing pubicly shouting death to UK, trying to incite people into his violent and corrupt regime.

Personally, i'd rather he wasn't recruiting in this country. as for the others banned, i don't know the full story of them, so won't comment. The UK government is too busy trying to keep everybody else happy, treading on eggshells. It's about time they put their foot down and made an example that threats against the country and it's people won't be tolerated.

reply to post by invisibleman11


I agree with most of what you're saying but I dont think you can say its the peoples fault if we get shackled up into a slave nation. We're already there anyway. The fact is these government idiots have used over 3000 new laws since labour came to power in 1997 to build a legal brick wall around us so that we can't do anything about it. We have to seek permission to protest and we are given designated areas to carry out that protest. We're likely to be beaten up by the cops anyway. We cant use the Internet for this kind of thing because we will get arrested for incitement. The media portray protesters as wholly out of work bums and the majority believe what the media say. Anything we do that is contrary to Government can and will be used against us and finally, since the 50's we've been disarmed because we're aparently too dangerous to own firearms. If you want to come here and start a revolution, i'm right with you there at the front of the Q (But you'll have to dodge all the Security cameras on our streets and airports before you get here.

Hmm seems to me it is all about freedom of speech and you have it as long as you are within Britain’s guidelines for what they feel is correct. Maybe they should have a list of banned books too?

So I guess the 100,000s of registered pedophiles, sex offenders etc are welcome hehe…

This is only some kind of political ploy IMHO.

Most of you here leave me puzzled.
You are saying that this is control. Well, yes it is, as it should be.

You are being control freaks in wanting to control their right to do as they please with their own country.

Why exactly should your brand of control trump theirs?

Do tell me, exactly why should anyone have the right ot enter a country that he is not a citizen of?
How did he get these rights?

Why should the UK lose the right to say who may and may not enter?
Why does it have to have certain "approved" reasons only?
What does it matter what their reasons are?

Is the UK a sovereign country or is it not?

Originally posted by octotom


I can understand being barred from entering a country because you have felonies and things of that sort, but people being banned from entering a country because of there views on things is a bit extreme, in my opinion anyway.

My fear is that this is just the first step in the governement(s) controlling us, and telling us, what we can think, say, and how we can act. Some may view the UK's banning of some people as a good thing, mainly because they don't agree with them, but it truly is not.

No matter how out there or ridiculous a person's view on something is, we should stand up and defend someone else's right to free speech or else, when it becomes the time for our personal view to be outlawed, there may be no one left to be on our side and defend us when we want to say how we feel.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have to say, living in the UK myself, i do like the whole freedom of speech thing in the USA. Here, you can be arrested for expressing annoyance at something via swear words, regardless of what the situation is.

"Thats right, i'll hit you with my police baton, but don't you dare express yourself!"

reply to post by OhZone

You are being control freaks in wanting to control their right to do as they please with their own country.

No one is questioning Britian's soverignty or ability to do something like this. They can do what they want, just like any other country can. That doesn't mean that what they've choosen to do is the right thing though. From the comments that I've read, people are in favor of banning criminals, people who have actually commited a crime. But, Great Britian in banning certain people because of their own personal beliefs--something that really doesn't hurt someone. That belief may "hurt your feelings" but, you'll get over it, something that someone can't do who's been raped or murdered. If the only harm done is someone's feelings getting hurt, they need to grow up a little instead of putting hedge around that thing that "hurt" them, which prevents them from maturing.

Banning people from coming into a country simply because they hold a certain viewpoint is bad because in the end, that same governement can outlaw any critical, negative, or different viewpoint because it's not what the government wants. By banning certain thoughts, you don't do your public a service either because, they never hear opposing views and get to think for themselves. In effect, if enough speech control is done, the citizenry quickly becomes an entity that doesn't think or do anything for itself, and relies on Big Brother to do everything for them.

Noticed in this time of expanded tolerances, how intolerant everyone is becoming. Guess this means humans only have so much tolerance in them, and when they become more tolerant towards one behavior, like punishing rape victims, you become less tolerant towards another, like free speech.

reply to post by octotom[/url]

I wonder if you would still hold this view if you were a survivor of the Nazi Death Camps and people denied their existence and continually spread the lie that they [the Nazis] did not in fact kill millions of Jews, Gypsies, Homosexuals or the mentaly infirm?

Murder She Wrote -- Not

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

Then why not charge him with a crime? Or are such quaint customs as due process and trial by jury no longer practiced in Britain?

The problem with this justification is that it's not the reason given by the Home Secretary:

From the source article:

"This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

Nothing about committing a crime, but simply "fomenting hatred" and dubious hand-waving about potential threats. No trial, no jury, just summary judgment and prior restraint.

There are millions upon millions of truly violent and dangerous convicted criminals in this world, guilty of far worse crimes than any Mr. Savage is accused of, who have not been banned from the UK. Why they are welcomed while Mr. Savage is barred is the true crux of the matter.

Arguments that this is somehow about "crime" and not about politics are specious and utterly unconvincing. Even the Home Secretary isn't bothering to float such a ruse.

But this isn't just about Michael Savage, nor any of the other decidedly unpleasant people (some of whom, by the way, have been convicted of serious crimes and may thus quite reasonably be barred from entry) the Home Secretary has seen fit to banish from the kingdom.

It is more a matter of whether law or despotism govern the nation.

Freedom For Sale Or Rent

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.

Granted, "freedom of speech" isn't absolute. But where it is restricted, a civilized nation does so through legislation and due process, not through arbitrary decrees and summary judgment.

We most certainly have similar problems here in the U.S., problems which in their own turn also need to be challenged and -- hopefully -- rebuffed. Our government officials routinely deny visas to non-citizens for political reasons, actions which are more commonly and properly associated with authoritarian dictatorships than "free societies".

Rationalizing and accepting abuses of power only invites more of them.

The UK is, of course, free to govern its affairs as it sees fit. But it is nonetheless discouraging to see it go down a path so infamously trodden by far lesser regimes.

I expect better from the UK, and I would hope its citizens do too.





(Just my personal opinion, nothing more.)


[edit on 5/7/2009 by Majic]

Originally posted by OhZone

Do tell me, exactly why should anyone have the right ot enter a country that he is not a citizen of?
How did he get these rights?

Why should the UK lose the right to say who may and may not enter?
Why does it have to have certain "approved" reasons only?
What does it matter what their reasons are?

Is the UK a sovereign country or is it not?

I agree, but to make a public list of only 16 banned from the country based on ideals is a ignorant political ploy. There are 100,000s of people who should be banned from entering the country and Britain should do just that, but you tell me what is their point with this small list based on freedom of speech?


[edit on 7-5-2009 by Xtrozero]

I would hardly surmise this to be 'breaking news'. This has been going on in countries across the globe for quite some time.

For all their gallantry and touting of 'FREEDIMSASPIECH', the Americans here fail to acknowledge that their country has been perpetuating this sort of nonsense for decades. Cat Stevens anyone? I even saw some GERMANS going on about 'loony Brits' banning freedom of speech...

The US has some of the most draconian and oppressive border checks of ANY nation I've visited as a world traveller. In fact, I boycott travel to the US on account of my experiences with Homeland Security.

Last time I visited, I was subject to random searches and had 00s of £s of property destroyed including a brand-new suitcase. What did they find? A pile of clothes...When I inquired as to their reasoning, and if any restitution was forthcoming, I was rudely dismissed and shunted away brutishly.

What foreign readers may fail to acknowledge in stories such as these is the sheer vitriol of British cynicism that, effectively, makes things look a LOT worse than they are (not that they aren't bad...).

I've travelled the globe, and these notions that Britain is some Orwellian oppressive nightmare state are THOROUGHLY premature.

THAT notwithstanding, I am incredibly concerned about the sheer and inexorable decline in liberty in this country - a country that has always been at the forefront of freedom and libertarianism. If I came into administration, I would try this Labour cabinet as traitors. They have broken countless centuries of British law and trodden all over the constitution of the nation.

I disagree with this banning completely, but it does not surprise me and it is NOT some quintessentially NuLab British idea. Kinda sad the Phelps' were banned; I totally disagree with them (if you catch my drift...) but they're... eccentric and interesting - and some would say they have a solid theological case to put forward.

Then again... what does Westminster matter? Apparently even proud Britain is to be dragged down into the EUSSR

Originally posted by AshleyD
Have fun, UK. Those 16 people aren't missing much.

[edit on 5/5/2009 by AshleyD]

I just wish there was more people who thought along those lines.
We would have even less idiots trying to get in.

reply to post by OhZone


I agree with you completely here. If we were to go over to another country, and they said will you adhere to our laws and you said no, will they let you in? of course not. But yet what people are saying here is that they should be.

Ok, freedom of speech and all that jazz.. but have a bit of common sense, this means you can discuss people in a proper manner. Prejudice and simple scaremongering/direct threats aren't intelligent discussion. If you can back up your prejudices eg. i hate gay people because blah blah blah (can't really think of a particular reason how you could back that up) then fair enough.

a degree of control when it comes to these issues is required. This doesn't equate to a 'nanny state'.. although for OTHER reasons that is what the UK is becoming..

reply to post by fritz


Yes, I probably would still hold my view. While it may be wrong, and it may "hurt my feelings" or tick me off, people should have the right to say whatever they want, no matter how loony, or wrong it is. Unless someone is doing someone physical harm by their statements, it's nothing to flip about. We don't go around censoring the Flatearthers do we?