Free Speech Dead In UK? [W:394]

[Wiggen]

------------------
I don't know anything about Spencer, but Geller is vitriolic in the extreme.
Anyway, if the Brits don't want certain people in their country, so be it.
US radio host Michael Savage was banned a few years ago.
Unjustifiably, in my view, but again, Britain can do as they wish.

I agree. No country is compelled to allow hate mongers and rabble rousers into their nation. I'd feel better if the UK deported the radical muslims, however.

 

[Gardener]

Were that the case, which it isn't, then if they were foreigners they wouldn't be allowed in either. If you look at that list of people banned from entering Britain you'll see that the many of them are Moslems. Different standards applying? I dunno. And neither do you.

That some Muslims have been banned from entering Britain has little bearing on the consistancy of the precedence established for banning poeple. If the bar is set in two different places, people will still be banned. It is only the perception of what is considered "extremist" that is skewed.

 

[Grant]

Neither are some US Bans :shock:

You seem to get the idea that Britain is just as bad as the United States in denying free speech, but it is not only these two countries. It is happening in Canada, Scandinavia, The Netherlands, Australia and so on. It only seems that it is accelerating in the UK and many Brits seem to support this idea in order to keep the peace.

That this couple are not being allowed entry because it would not be “conducive to the public good“ is code for Muslims would riot and cause a great deal of damage. If the subject was anything else these two people would be allowed entry with no problem at all. We can see who controls the agenda in the UK but other countries should fight back against this trend and defend free speech while they still can.

 

[Grant]

I agree. No country is compelled to allow hate mongers and rabble rousers into their nation. I'd feel better if the UK deported the radical muslims, however.

It seems many of the radical Muslims were born there.

 

[Grant]

Has nothing to do with free speech...but security and sovereignty of a nation. Funny how you dont complain about the 10s of thousands of people who are barred from entering the US...

It has everything to do with free speech, but the Brits are obviously worried about the consequences of free speech.

Obviously Geller and Spencer should have held their talks in the UK a decade or more earlier.

 

[Fisher]

First, I think a nation has a right to have different standards for visitors as opposed to citizens. Second, I suspect that these folks' apparent association with the EDL is probably the biggest factor i.e. if they were giving a lecture at Oxford I doubt they would have been banned. Third, some of the UK's limits on speech seem so murky and capricious, I am not sure how everybody there doesn't end up in trouble at some point.

 

[Grant]

Adam Choudary is British.. born in Welling London.. hardly an import of extremists as this whole thread is about.

Yes, but the British government tried to prevent Chodary fom enetering Britain as well.

After leaving a television station where he said "I will not return to Britain unless I want to go there as a visitor or as a tourist", he was detained by Lebanon's general security department and held in a Beirut prison.[14] Several days later, Bakri was excluded from returning to Britain by the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, on the grounds that his presence in Britain was "not conducive to the public good." Choudary condemned the decision as "outrageous", demanded to know what Bakri had done to justify the ban, and claimed that ministers were inventing rules to ensure that Bakri could not return.[15] In November Choudary was deported from Lebanon, along with three other followers of Bakri, and returned to the UK. Along with the three other deportees, he claimed that they were there to help Bakri set up a madrasah, and blamed the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for orchestrating their deportations.[16]

Anjem Choudary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That phrase "not conducive to the public good" seems to crop up quite often.

 

[PeteEU]

Yes, but the British government tried to prevent Chodary fom enetering Britain as well.



Anjem Choudary - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That phrase "not conducive to the public good" seems to crop up quite often.

Did you actually read your link? It was Omar Bakri Muhammad that was banned, not Choudary...

Omar Bakri Muhammad = Syrian asylum seeker.
Anjem Choudary = UK citizen.

You do understand the difference right?

 

[PeteEU]

It has everything to do with free speech, but the Brits are obviously worried about the consequences of free speech.

Obviously Geller and Spencer should have held their talks in the UK a decade or more earlier.

Okay... so you also are against the ban Canada has on Galloway, and the many thousands of people from Europe who are banned on going into the US? People like a teenager who sent an email to Obama saying he was a bastard (or something similar).. people like Cat Stevens.. and so on.. You are against the banning of these people yes? And of course until recently you were also against the ban against aids suffers right?

 

[PeteEU]

First, I think a nation has a right to have different standards for visitors as opposed to citizens.

Okay... I smell a double standard incoming.

Second, I suspect that these folks' apparent association with the EDL is probably the biggest factor i.e. if they were giving a lecture at Oxford I doubt they would have been banned.

Wrong. It is their views that are not deemed acceptable, and not who they are linked too. Their entrance into the UK could cause unrest because of their views, and the UK has every right to say no. Just as they have banned American criminals from entering the UK... or should the UK allow them in as well based on "free speech"?

Third, some of the UK's limits on speech seem so murky and capricious, I am not sure how everybody there doesn't end up in trouble at some point.

LOL they are far more open than the US. Freedom of speech is actually protected in the UK, unlike in the US.

Also this has nothing to do with free speech.

They were denied entry because of the UK does not want them or their like into the country. It is no different than the many 10s (if not 100s) of thousands that are denied entry to the US..But I doubt you will complain over that will you?

Okay lets take another example.. Cat Stevens.. denied entry into the US. How is that any different than these two being denied entry into the UK? Where is Cat Stevens freedom to say what he wants? The ironic part, was that he was trying to get into the US for business, where as these two were trying to get into the UK for political reasons.

And that is where we come to the massive double standard from many Americans and at least one Canadian.. There are far far more people banned from the US based on random political views (hence free speech) than the UK has ever banned. In fact I would almost claim that if you took all the countries in Europe, and their "banned" lists and combined, then you would not get near the amount the US bans for political reasons.

 

[Grant]

Okay... so you also are against the ban Canada has on Galloway, and the many thousands of people from Europe who are banned on going into the US? People like a teenager who sent an email to Obama saying he was a bastard (or something similar).. people like Cat Stevens.. and so on.. You are against the banning of these people yes? And of course until recently you were also against the ban against aids suffers right?

George Galloway was allowed into Canada and greeted at the airport by his supporters.

Aids sufferers? Please don't wander off

Who are these many thousands of people banned from the US?

Here is a list and they seem to be crime related rather than anything relating to free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_barred_or_excluded_from_the_United_States

 

[Grant]

Wrong. It is their views that are not deemed acceptable, and not who they are linked too. Their entrance into the UK could cause unrest because of their views, and the UK has every right to say no. Just as they have banned American criminals from entering the UK... or should the UK allow them in as well based on "free speech"?

Their views are not deemed acceptable by whom? Who would cause unrest? Every country has the right to bar criminals but the views held by these two journalists are hardly criminal.

LOL they are far more open than the US. Freedom of speech is actually protected in the UK, unlike in the US.

Free speech is acceptable in the UK if it is government approved then?

Also this has nothing to do with free speech.

By denying them to speak it would seem it has a great deal to do with speech and the freedom thereof.

They were denied entry because of the UK does not want them or their like into the country.

LOL! Well that seems good enough then. A simple 'we don't like you' will suffice!

It is no different than the many 10s (if not 100s) of thousands that are denied entry to the US..But I doubt you will complain over that will you?

Why mention thousands? If there is a specific case you want to complain about start a thread.

Okay lets take another example.. Cat Stevens.. denied entry into the US. How is that any different than these two being denied entry into the UK? Where is Cat Stevens freedom to say what he wants? The ironic part, was that he was trying to get into the US for business, where as these two were trying to get into the UK for political reasons.

Cat Stevens was supporting the murder of innocent people. Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These people have never suggested such a thing.

And that is where we come to the massive double standard from many Americans and at least one Canadian.. There are far far more people banned from the US based on random political views (hence free speech) than the UK has ever banned. In fact I would almost claim that if you took all the countries in Europe, and their "banned" lists and combined, then you would not get near the amount the US bans for political reasons.

This is a thread about two American speakers being barred from the UK for non-specific reasons and you are expecting others to comment on thousands being denied entry to the US as well? Why? Moral equivalence? Why can't you try to stay on topic?

 

[Fisher]

Okay... I smell a double standard incoming.



Wrong. It is their views that are not deemed acceptable, and not who they are linked too. Their entrance into the UK could cause unrest because of their views, and the UK has every right to say no. Just as they have banned American criminals from entering the UK... or should the UK allow them in as well based on "free speech"?



LOL they are far more open than the US. Freedom of speech is actually protected in the UK, unlike in the US.

Also this has nothing to do with free speech.

They were denied entry because of the UK does not want them or their like into the country. It is no different than the many 10s (if not 100s) of thousands that are denied entry to the US..But I doubt you will complain over that will you?

Okay lets take another example.. Cat Stevens.. denied entry into the US. How is that any different than these two being denied entry into the UK? Where is Cat Stevens freedom to say what he wants? The ironic part, was that he was trying to get into the US for business, where as these two were trying to get into the UK for political reasons.

And that is where we come to the massive double standard from many Americans and at least one Canadian.. There are far far more people banned from the US based on random political views (hence free speech) than the UK has ever banned. In fact I would almost claim that if you took all the countries in Europe, and their "banned" lists and combined, then you would not get near the amount the US bans for political reasons.

All BS. The American press can print whatever they want; the British press cannot, especially when it comes to the Royal family. The US allows people like the President of Iran in all the time because of the UN.

 

[Hard Truth]

England never had free speech. The USA also has a long history of banning entry to foreigners with certain political viewpoints.

 

[Hard Truth]

Despite the First Amendment, though, the U.S. government has resorted to ideological
exclusion in many different eras, and for many different reasons. Early in
the 20th century, the government excluded advocates of anarchism. During the
Cold War, it excluded suspected communists. During the Vietnam era, it excluded
peace and anti-nuclear activists. Contrary to the principles of free speech,
people were barred from the country not for what they had done but for what they
thought and said.

For many years after the Second World War, the government was able to bar foreign
writers and scholars by invoking the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act....

Among the many distinguished people excluded
under the law were Argentine novelist Julio Cortazar; Palestinian poet Mahmood
Darwish; British novelist Graham Greene; Pierre Trudeau, who later became Prime
Minister of Canada; and Mexican writer and Nobel Laureate Carlos Fuentes.....

More and more names were added to the list
of those barred from entering. Colombian novelist and Nobel Laureate Gabriel
Garcia Marquez; Italian playwright Dario Fo; British writer Doris Lessing; Chilean
poet and Nobel Laureate Pablo Neruda.....

Over the last six years, the Bush administration has revived the practice that history
discredited. Once again, our government is excluding foreigners not because
they present any threat to national security but simply because they have
espoused ideas that the government doesn’t agree with. Once again, the government
is focused not on conduct but on words, thoughts, and beliefs.

The list of the excluded is already long. Those who have been barred from the
country include Swiss Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan; South African human rights
advocate Adam Habib; Nicaraguan historian and activist Dora Maria Tellez;
Bolivian historian Waskar Ari; Basque writer Iñaki Egaña; Greek economist John
Milios; and British hip-hop artist M.I.A.

RECENT IDEOLOGICAL EXCLUSIONS
DR. HALUK GERGER
Turkish journalist, writer, and political scientist
Oct. 1, 2002
JOHN CLARKE
Canadian Organizer for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty
February 2002; Spring 2004
CARLOS ALZUGARAY TRETO
Cuban Scholar and Former Ambassador to the European Union
2003
SHEIKH AHAMAD KUTTY and SHEIKH ABDOOL HAMID
Canadian Muslim clerics
September 11, 2003
KARIM MEZIANE
Physicist
September 2004
TARIQ RAMADAN
Islamic Scholar and Author
July 2004
61 CUBAN SCHOLARS
October 2004
ROLAND SIMBULAN
Filipino Professor, National Chairman, Nuclear-Free Philippines Coalition
(NFPC)
October 2004

DORA MARIA TELLEZ
Nicaraguan Scholar and Former Minister of Health
January 2005
KALBE SADIQ
Indian Shia Cleric and vice-president of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board
March 17, 2005
FERNANDO RODRIGUEZ
Bolivian Human Rights Lawyer
March 2005
MIRZA MOHAMMED ATHAR
Indian Shia Cleric, Chief of All India Shia Personal Law Board
June 2005
VICENTE VEREZ-BENCOMO
Cuban scientist
November 2005
YAHYA IBRAHIM
Canadian Islamic Scholar (teaching in Australia)
December 19, 2005
WASKAR ARI
Bolivian Aymara Indian Scholar
Expedited H1-B visa application pending since June 2005
Student visa was cancelled by State Dept as H1-B was pending
LEONIDA ZURITA VARGAS
Bolivian Adjunct/Alternate Senator Leonida Zurita Vargas, Coca farmer leader
February 20, 2006
JOSE BOVE
French Activist/Farmer
February 2006

59 CUBAN ACADEMICS
Denied visas for March 2006 conference
RENÉ ORELLANA
Bolivian Vice Minister of Water
April 2006
M.I.A. (Maya Arulpragasam)
British Hip Hop Artist
Around April 2006
IÑAKI EGAÑA
Basque historian, publisher and writer
March 26, 2006
74 SOUTH KOREAN ACTIVISTS
June 2005
ZAKI BADAWI
Egyptian Islamic scholar and community activist
July 13, 2005
20 IRANIAN PROFESSORS
August 4, 2006
MOHAMMED SALAMA
Professor of Comparative Literature and Arabic
June 20, 2006
SAIF AL SHA’ALI
Doctoral Student at Claremont University
Aug. 23, 2006
FOUR EGYPTIAN MUSLIM CLERICS
Hamdi Salama, Ayman Al Wahab, Sami Faraj, and Zain Alabedeen
Sept. 20, 2006

PURSHOTTAM RUPALA
Aide to Chief Minister Narendra Modi and Bharatiya Janata Party spokesman
Aug. 23, 2006
KAMAL HELBAWY AND ABDEL MONEM ABOU EL FOTOUH
Members of the Muslim Brotherhood
Oct. 18, 2006
FAZLUR RAHMAN AZMI
South African Muslim Cleric
Oct. 20, 2006
ISMAIL MULLAH
South African Imam
Sept. 22, 2006
ADAM HABIB
Executive Director of Human Sciences Research Council
Oct. 21, 2006
PAK GIL-YON and KIM MYONG-GIL
North Korean ambassador to the United Nations
Nov. 2006
MAHMOUD ZEITOUN
Canadian University Student
March 15, 2007
RIYADH LAFTA
Iraqi medical professor and epidemiologist
April 20, 2007

Report from October 2007
http://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/safefree/the_excluded_report.pdf

 

[PeteEU]

All BS. The American press can print whatever they want; the British press cannot, especially when it comes to the Royal family.

The British press can print whatever they want about the royal family.. they choose not too, because they have made a deal with the royal family to self censor so they can get access to royal events. That is no difference than the US media self censoring on tons of things...hell most did that in the lead up to the Iraq war... putting on blinders so not to upset the US government.

The US allows people like the President of Iran in all the time because of the UN.

Dude... diplomats vs ordinary people.. The US cant deny diplomats access to the UN... but they can deny ordinary people access to the US.

 

[PeteEU]

George Galloway was allowed into Canada and greeted at the airport by his supporters.

He was banned at first... goes against your whole premises.

Aids sufferers? Please don't wander off

OH? Then you deny that the US denied entry to anyone with HIV for 20+ years?

Who are these many thousands of people banned from the US?

Ever heard of the no fly list? There are over 500k people on that list and many of them are non US citizens.

Here is a list and they seem to be crime related rather than anything relating to free speech.

List of people barred or excluded from the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hardly the full list.

 

[Grant]

England never had free speech. The USA also has a long history of banning entry to foreigners with certain political viewpoints.

Why not share this long history by supplying a link.?

 

[alexa]

That this couple are not being allowed entry because it would not be “conducive to the public good“ is code for Muslims would riot and cause a great deal of damage.

No, I don't think this is the reason. I would suggest it is just as it says. Since Woolwich there has been several attacks on mosques and on sites EDL whooping it up and calling for one of Friday when people were there at prayers. Last Friday a mosque had a poorly made bomb which thankfully harmed no one.

These people are hate spreaders wanting to egg on a group from which almost certainly the mosque attacks come from. Geller and Spencer do not need to say kill someone, they just need to spread their hate and lies. That is what will motivate their minions. One rule for all keeps them out.

 

[Hard Truth]

Why not share this long history by supplying a link.?

See post #40

 

[PeteEU]

Their views are not deemed acceptable by whom? Who would cause unrest? Every country has the right to bar criminals but the views held by these two journalists are hardly criminal.

The UK has the right to ban anyone entry to the UK based on what ever reason they deem fit. In this case, they deemed them unfit to enter the UK because it was not good for the country which is one of the criteria they can use. Is it a "stupid" criteria.. well yea, but at least it is a public transparent criteria. Like it or not, the comments and views of these two people are disgusting and frankly beyond confrontational.

Free speech is acceptable in the UK if it is government approved then?

LOL seriously? This comes from a country where showing a boobie on tv is a bad thing and you can get fined for it.. big time. Hey that is free speech too you know! A country where every swear word or words not considered sanitary are BEEPed...

By denying them to speak it would seem it has a great deal to do with speech and the freedom thereof.

No one denied them the right to speak... they denied them entry to the country. They can still speak to the EDL... via Skype for example.

LOL! Well that seems good enough then. A simple 'we don't like you' will suffice!

That is what the US does...constantly...

Why mention thousands? If there is a specific case you want to complain about start a thread.

LOL there are 500+k people on a secret no fly list, where people on it cant even get an answer to why they are on it...

Cat Stevens was supporting the murder of innocent people. Cat Stevens' comments about Salman Rushdie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia These people have never suggested such a thing.

Did you actually think this one over? You claim that Cat Stevens was banned because he supported... aka used his voice and words .. aka free speech to say something you disagree with... and you support this ban. And yet when it is two Americans who do exactly the same thing... say things that a lot of people disagree with... and are banned from the UK, and that is bad?

Admit it.. you only agree with the banning of Cat Stevens because he is a Muslim.

This is a thread about two American speakers being barred from the UK for non-specific reasons and you are expecting others to comment on thousands being denied entry to the US as well? Why? Moral equivalence? Why can't you try to stay on topic?

I am staying on topic. You are trying to avoid it, since you realize that you got caught with your pants down, since your own country or your favorite country are banning far far more people that you even realized for secret reasons and even more vauge reasons like.. "your name sounds like that of a terrorist"

TSA Stops Babies Whose Names Match No-Fly Lists | Fox News

And that has also happened when flying into the US. I remember a case of a 3 year old Moroccan child who was denied entry into the US because his name was similar to that of a wanted terrorist.

So just admit that you not only lost this argument but did not even know how bad it has become in the US.

 

[Fisher]

Why not share this long history by supplying a link.?

Here is a link to some. Note that they were not banned because of the speech alone. Cat Stevens was refused entry because of similarity to is Islamic name to someone else connected with terrorism, a problem that was resolved. He played at the Steven Colbert thing on the mall a few years back

 

[Grant]

He was banned at first... goes against your whole premises.

How so? In this case justice was done and Galloway allowed to enter. If someone with no criminal past is denied entry only because of their views, with those views not advocating violence or racism, than I am against it. Freedom of speech is essential to any free society and when it is denied in Canada, as has happened, I'll speak out against it. The same holds true in any democracy.

In this case the argument seems to be that because the Americans have done it the Brits can do it also. I don't buy that. When the Americans do it, or Canadians or Australians do it, lets speak out. Defending free speech when no one is offended is the easiest thing to do. It becomes a little tougher though when it puts you at risk. This risk is what other people took before us, and often died for it to be established and kept..

 

[Grant]

See post #40

I did, thanks.

 

[Grant]

Here is a link to some. Note that they were not banned because of the speech alone. Cat Stevens was refused entry because of similarity to is Islamic name to someone else connected with terrorism, a problem that was resolved. He played at the Steven Colbert thing on the mall a few years back

t seems he was barred as a result of his views, which encouraged and rationalized killing anyone who 'insults' Islam.
Cat Stevens Yusuf Islam Calls For The Murder Of Salman Rushdie - YouTube

Cat Stevens Gives Support To Call for Death of Rushdie