UK Refuses to allow Alt-Right Activists In

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-k-bars-entry-to-two-far-right-activists-1520883756

And then they complain about being persecuted for not being allowed in...

Even though their intentions were to go in and complain about immigration!

Guess what! You wanted to tell the UK to not let foreigners in cause they will ruin the country? Well, they are doing that, starting with you!

Can the Right-Wing please stop relying on blatant hypocrisy? "We're pro-life by firebombing doctors" "We hate violence in games, so here kid, have a gun, not a video game" "We're pro-freedom of speech, except when its by blacks, gays, or women""Its ok to call for exterminating Jews, but dont you DARE call me a Nazi!" "We're pro-freedom of religion, unless its not my religion"

Just fucking stop.

Edit: Im not having this paywall issue, but sorry for those who do. Most sources however seem to be right-wing and tabloid ones that are ofcourse getting mad at the UK. I dont care to endorse right-wing conspiracy sources.

Edit2: How bout FoxNews as a source? The article managed to stay objective enough. Though I dont like supporting Fox'News' either.

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2018/03/12/right-wing-journalist-lauren-southern-denied-entry-to-uk-purportedly-over-criticism-islam.html

My favorite part was her tweeting about lying on official government documents.

That's gonna go well.

Catnip1024:

Saelune:
Can the Right-Wing please stop relying on blatant hypocrisy? "We're pro-life by firebombing doctors" "We hate violence in games, so here kid, have a gun, not a video game" "We're pro-freedom of speech, except when its by blacks, gays, or women""Its ok to call for exterminating Jews, but dont you DARE call me a Nazi!" "We're pro-freedom of religion, unless its not my religion"

See, Saelune, it's perfectly possibly to set a thread up to not be an out and out flame war that will get rapidly locked.

But this sort of paragraph doesn't exactly bode well.

On topic, I dunno because you referenced a paywalled source.

I wont be silenced when bad people are doing bad things. And you arent helping prevent a 'flame war' either.

Try googling "brittany pettibone" if my link doesnt work for you. Much of the results I get are about this topic.

Argh, I wouldn't give a cent to the WSJ if they offered me unlimited amount of content. But just going on the tweets of those people, it sounds like they got exactly what they were claiming other people should receive in spades despite being less openly racist and clinically retarded.

So, hey ... always good to have a unicorn chaser of people getting exactly what they scream for and no one else. It's like an axe murderer that accidentally breaks their neck trying to claim another victim.

Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

UK Government logic. We should totally aspire to this level of governing.

Vendor-Lazarus:
@salune

First of all, don't conflate Alt-Right with Far-right. You are only embarrassing yourself.

Secondly, Paywalled source.. At least include a non-paywalled one. Or better yet, a right-wing one and a left-winged one.

Thirdly, what does your bile-filled spiel and rant at the end have to do with the news?
Especially as it doesn't contribute anything when the exact same applies to the far-left?

...
Fourther on. I don't see how starting a discussion in bad faith will lead to anything productive being put fourth.
I'm not comfortable remaining in such a hostile environment as this thread and being singled out for vitriol.
It'll come down to yay-sayers only in the end.

I am not embarrassing myself amongst anyone who doesnt already hate me for being LGBT.

My main issue with these people is he hypocritical defense they have. Their intentions were to criticize immigrants but got stopped at the door, and then acted like victims. Its like if someone endorses free speech being upset cause someone else said mean things about them.

Bad faith? What is bad faith to you? The right has lost any good faith I had for them long ago.

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!

Which high profile, foreign, and known-to-government-officials rapists have been let into the UK?

Warhound:
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

1. Words can have a significant destabilizing effect upon society especially when they're thinly veiled propaganda aimed at nothing more than getting people to abandon their logic in favor of anger at "the other."

2. Most (all?) European countries including the UK have laws against hate speech that these people regularly would be breaking if they resided there.

Warhound:
UK Government logic. We should totally aspire to this level of governing.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather have a government that doesn't let in a few assholes who lied on their official forms instead of one that purposely tries to ruin our economy by starting trade wars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vendor-Lazarus:
@salune

First of all, don't conflate Alt-Right with Far-right. You are only embarrassing yourself.

Considering the large amount of overlap between the two especially in the US, you're the one looking foolish with this statement.

Vendor-Lazarus:

Secondly, Paywalled source.. At least include a non-paywalled one. Or better yet, a right-wing one and a left-winged one.

See, the fact that a source is left-wing or right-wing doesn't make it any more or less reliable. If you require a source that fits your bias in order to understand a story, that's not exactly Saelune's problem.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Thirdly, what does your bile-filled spiel and rant at the end have to do with the news?
Especially as it doesn't contribute anything when the exact same applies to the far-left?

Saelune is calling out what she sees as hypocrisy that is evidenced by the subject matter of the story. It's just "mean things" no worse than anything said by the people featured in the topic.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Fourther on. I don't see how starting a discussion in bad faith will lead to anything productive being put fourth.

*"Further on, I [...]"

If we're nitpicking, why not go the whole way. Saelune saying things that might have hurt your feelings in the OP doesn't mean the discussion is in bad faith. That's a poor excuse to cover whatever reason you don't feel like engaging.

Vendor-Lazarus:
I'm not comfortable remaining in such a hostile environment as this thread and being singled out for vitriol.
It'll come down to yay-sayers only in the end.

No where in the OP you was any one singled out for vitriol, unless, of course, you identify as one of the hypocritical right-wingers Saelune is talking about.

Saelune says

My main issue with these people is he hypocritical defense they have. Their intentions were to criticize immigrants but got stopped at the door, and then acted like victims. Its like if someone endorses free speech being upset cause someone else said mean things about them.

Nope. They don't criticise immigrants.
They criticise MASS immigration policies. They criticise open border policies.

Vendor-Lazarus:
@salune

First of all, don't conflate Alt-Right with Far-right. You are only embarrassing yourself.

The far right are part of the alt-right. All in all, that makes being part of the alt-right rather more embarrassing than people who are neither alt- nor far-right conflating the two.

Saelune:

Vendor-Lazarus:
@salune

First of all, don't conflate Alt-Right with Far-right. You are only embarrassing yourself.

Secondly, Paywalled source.. At least include a non-paywalled one. Or better yet, a right-wing one and a left-winged one.

Thirdly, what does your bile-filled spiel and rant at the end have to do with the news?
Especially as it doesn't contribute anything when the exact same applies to the far-left?

...
Fourther on. I don't see how starting a discussion in bad faith will lead to anything productive being put fourth.
I'm not comfortable remaining in such a hostile environment as this thread and being singled out for vitriol.
It'll come down to yay-sayers only in the end.

I am not embarrassing myself amongst anyone who doesnt already hate me for being LGBT.

My main issue with these people is he hypocritical defense they have. Their intentions were to criticize immigrants but got stopped at the door, and then acted like victims. Its like if someone endorses free speech being upset cause someone else said mean things about them.

Bad faith? What is bad faith to you? The right has lost any good faith I had for them long ago.

You know what the difference between some guest speakers and an immigrant is?

Do you want to guess or shall I tell you?

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know what the difference between some guest speakers and an immigrant is?

Do you want to guess or shall I tell you?

The guest speakers aren't significantly harmed by being denied entry.

Maybe related to one MP being shot, stabbed and killed here by one of them recently for daring to care about the lives of refugees, and the rise of far-right terrorist plans the police have foiled alongside the actual branding of certain main groups as terrorists, because, well, when you plan for organised violence and murder, then no you don't get the "it's only opinions brah" defense while screeching about the evils of communism like it's the damn 70s or antifa because God forbid somebody's oppressed windows are unjustly discriminated against in the great glass apartheid that totes overshadows any other suffering anywhere because the paranoid pundits deem your fears to be so and let's not forget the all powerful college students who rule this world somehow because Goddamn, those pundits just have a way with words, don't they? And editing. Time to wake up and stop huffing that corporate-mandated glue. Ah fuck, who am I kidding? Ignorance and confirmation bias is a huge juicy market and always has been. Selling scapegoats to the scared, reaping hate between the snared

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

UK Government logic. We should totally aspire to this level of governing.

Did they let the rapists in intentionally, or accidentally?

Surely you're not conflating all immigrants with rapists. Presumably, there's a mechanism for separating immigrants with a known criminal record from immigrants with a clean record. If such a mechanism exists, it would have had to fail for the criminal in question to be allowed into the question.

Did it fail in the scenario you refer to? Or did the person commit the crime after being let inside the country? Because either scenario makes your comparison a little wonky.

RikuoAmero:
Nope. They don't criticise immigrants.
They criticise MASS immigration policies. They criticise open border policies.

Look; anti-immigration activists always say that they're criticising illegal immigration, or lax border security, or something that sounds like a reasonable complaint. But when it comes down to brass tacks - i.e. actual policy suggestions - their proposals always seem to boil down to accepting less brown people.

Look at the immigration bill Trump tried to pass by tying it to DACA. It would have cut all legal immigration in half, disproportionately affecting visas that are assigned to immigrants from Africa and South America. Trump and Farage and the rest of the immigration hawks talk about how they're only concerned by the illegal immigrants, the "bad dudes" - but when it comes down to it, they just want to reduce immigration as a concept. Their actions betray their motivations. They don't want to regulate or secure the immigration system. They just want to keep the brown people out.

I mean, look at this tweet from this Pettibone person. She made sure to include photos of the three of them just so that everyone on Twitter would know that they were white. They're just racists, dude.

Vendor-Lazarus:
First of all, don't conflate Alt-Right with Far-right. You are only embarrassing yourself.

I'm confused. Are you saying that Brittany Pettibone is a member of the alt-right and not the far right, or that she's a member of the far right and not the alt-right?

The pair seem to be a self-identified identitarians. That would put them in the same boat as Richard Spencer, who I understand is essentially considered part of the alt-right.

Vendor-Lazarus:
Thirdly, what does your bile-filled spiel and rant at the end have to do with the news?
Especially as it doesn't contribute anything when the exact same applies to the far-left?

Not to patronise either of you, but Saelune is just venting as to the apparent hypocrisy of members of the alt-right/white nationalist identitarian movement.

Everyone gets annoyed at guys who are like "gay people are depraved and immoral and Muslims can't be allowed to serve in Congress, but let's vote for a guy who gropes teenagers," or "people who do not denounce bigotry may as well be bigots themselves, what no I'm not going to denounce Louis Farrakhan." Hypocrisy is frustrating and should be avoided.

In this case, a pair trio of foreign nationals trying to enter Britain to give a speech calling for fewer foreign nationals entering Britain were themselves held up at the airport and prevented from entering Britain. The irony is palpable. I mean, I can really palp that shit. Put it in a juicer and palp it right up into a delicious irony smoothie, that's how palpable this irony is.

Pseudonym:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know what the difference between some guest speakers and an immigrant is?

Do you want to guess or shall I tell you?

The guest speakers aren't significantly harmed by being denied entry.

And this is part of what Southern and the other two are arguing against. The idea that EVERY wannabe immigrant is going to be "significantly harmed" if they're not allowed into the UK, and the signalling by people like yourself about just how awful it is that that these poor poor people are going to suffer so just open the damn floodgates already, never mind the consequences!

bastardofmelbourne says

I mean, look at this tweet. They made sure to include photos of the three of them just so that everyone on Twitter would know that they were white. They're just racists, dude.

Yes...that's the ONLY reason that they put up photos. The ONLY reason anyone puts up photos of themselves is to show what skin colour they are.

Look; anti-immigration activists always say that they're criticising illegal immigration, or lax border security, or something that sounds like a reasonable complaint.

And pro immigration activists always say that they're criticising racism, or something that sounds like a reasonable complaint.

But when it comes down to brass tacks - i.e. actual policy suggestions - their proposals always seem to boil down to accepting less brown people.

So they're racist for policies that when, boiled down, say less brown people. Got any sources on that?

In this case, a pair of foreign nationals trying to enter Britain to give a speech calling for fewer foreign nationals entering Britain were themselves held up at the airport and prevented from entering Britain.

Yes, that's what they were going to do. Just give a talk. NOT the same thing at all as immigrants, who would LIVE in the country.

RikuoAmero:

Pseudonym:

Here Comes Tomorrow:
You know what the difference between some guest speakers and an immigrant is?

Do you want to guess or shall I tell you?

The guest speakers aren't significantly harmed by being denied entry.

And this is part of what Southern and the other two are arguing against. The idea that EVERY wannabe immigrant is going to be "significantly harmed" if they're not allowed into the UK, and the signalling by people like yourself about just how awful it is that that these poor poor people are going to suffer so just open the damn floodgates already, never mind the consequences!

Fair enough, 'significantly harmed' is fairly vague, so I'll explain myself a bit. I wouldn't claim that anyone who isn't allowed entry into a country will be bodily harmed or anything like that. I do firmly believe that the likes discussed in the OP wouldn't care if they were. I also believe that the extend and harm of immigration is being rather overstated by terms like 'mass immigration'. That is a bit besides the point though. All I meant to say was that not being allowed to visit somewhere is still quite trivial compared to being denied living somewhere you wanted to. Both are justifiable in some cases though. The whole thing still seems besides the point though. A better analogue to what happened here is not immigration but barring of hateful islamic preachers from entry. Or maybe the barring of turkish government officials from campaigning for votes in the Netherlands. I don't know what to think of such cases, or of this case. I can see why you want to keep such people (radical islamists or alt-righters) out of your country, and a country doesn't really have to allow anybody in if it really doesn't want to, but maybe you should allow them in to speak regardless in the name of free speech or something like that.

RikuoAmero:
Yes...that's the ONLY reason that they put up photos. The ONLY reason anyone puts up photos of themselves is to show what skin colour they are.

In that context, what else does the photo add except to show us what colour their skin is?

Do people append selfies of themselves to every tweet they send out? Actually, they probably do. God, the internet sucks.

RikuoAmero:
And pro immigration activists always say that they're criticising racism, or something that sounds like a reasonable complaint.

But...?

RikuoAmero:
So they're racist for policies that when, boiled down, say less brown people. Got any sources on that?

...because it's racist to rig your immigration policy to let less brown and black people in? Do I need a source for that?

With Trump's bill specifically, the argument that it was aimed at merit-based immigration made no sense. It wouldn't take the visas from the visa allocation programs that it would end and then distribute them in a merit-based fashion; it would have just reduced the overall number of visas issued, specifically by cancelling two ways of getting a visa that are disproportionately used by people from African and South America.

That's racist. It's a manipulation of the system to try and exclude people from undesirable countries. The bill died an ignoble death in the Senate, because he couldn't even get his own party behind it, but the fact that this bill was what Trump wanted tells you a lot about what his actual priorities are.

So this is basically saying that the British boarder control is working as intended. I'm honestly shocked but really this shouldn't be news, this is what the British people have been asking for for years now, keeping out the unwanted foreigners whilst letting in the ones we do want. We don't have the stupid free speech laws that America has, you arn't ok here handing out racist material, I know from the experiences of family members that racism will be prosecuted here.

I also find it funny reading their comments about being kept out by the UK government for being right wing. The current UK government is the Conservative Party, our right wing party. I'm sure the government didn't detain you for holding the same opinions as the government.

bastardofmelbourne says

In that context, what else does the photo add except to show us what colour their skin is?

Do people append selfies of themselves to every tweet they send out? Actually, they probably do. God, the internet sucks.

Why is it you think that this is most definitely the reason for the selfies? I can agree, pragmatically speaking, there really was no reason for them, but why is it that you think it's to white-signal?
Not everything has to do with racism. Just because someone tells a story about something bad happening to them and posts a photo to go with it, it doesn't mean that they automatically are making it about the colour of their own skin.

And thank you for the sources on Trump's bill.

Avnger:

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!

Which high profile, foreign, and known-to-government-officials rapists have been let into the UK?

bastardofmelbourne:

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

UK Government logic. We should totally aspire to this level of governing.

Did they let the rapists in intentionally, or accidentally?

Surely you're not conflating all immigrants with rapists. Presumably, there's a mechanism for separating immigrants with a known criminal record from immigrants with a clean record. If such a mechanism exists, it would have had to fail for the criminal in question to be allowed into the question.

Did it fail in the scenario you refer to? Or did the person commit the crime after being let inside the country? Because either scenario makes your comparison a little wonky.

I would say Roman Polansky is pretty well known, I figured a pair such as you two would know about a well known child rapist from hollywood, what with metoo and what not.

And I didn't say all immigrants are rapists, apparently reading things I didn't write is pretty easy huh? I need to learn that skill, seems useful for online forums.

Warhound:
I would say Roman Polansky is pretty well known, I figured a pair such as you two would know about a well known child rapist from hollywood, what with metoo and what not.

When did Roman Polanski visit the UK (after fleeing the US, that is)?

Warhound:
And I didn't say all immigrants are rapists, apparently reading things I didn't write is pretty easy huh? I need to learn that skill, seems useful for online forums.

Yeah, when you say the UK government is letting in rapists, not everyone is going to immediately assume you mean one specific rapist that's spent most of their life avoiding places the US can extradite from.

Warhound:

Avnger:

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!

Which high profile, foreign, and known-to-government-officials rapists have been let into the UK?

bastardofmelbourne:

Warhound:
Letting in literal rapists? A-OK!
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

UK Government logic. We should totally aspire to this level of governing.

Did they let the rapists in intentionally, or accidentally?

Surely you're not conflating all immigrants with rapists. Presumably, there's a mechanism for separating immigrants with a known criminal record from immigrants with a clean record. If such a mechanism exists, it would have had to fail for the criminal in question to be allowed into the question.

Did it fail in the scenario you refer to? Or did the person commit the crime after being let inside the country? Because either scenario makes your comparison a little wonky.

I would say Roman Polansky is pretty well known, I figured a pair such as you two would know about a well known child rapist from hollywood, what with metoo and what not.

Cute snark there mate. When all you say is "rapist," Polanski doesn't usually spring to mind because when was the last time you actually heard anything about him specifically; it's been years personally. I know the internet alt-right loves to keep hit lists of liberals for their daily 2 minute hate, but the rest of us don't do anything of that sort. I have more going on in my life than remembering off the top of my head every single person ever indicted/accused/convicted of rape and/or sexual assault. If that's what you picked up as the meaning of #MeToo, it must have gone well over your head.

When did Polanski visit the UK for a public event after being indicted for rape? (This is an honest question. I truly have no idea if/when this happened).

tldr: Source up or shut up

Warhound:
Letting in people who say mean things? Fuuuuck off!

Like U.S.A border officials not letting Canadians enter the country to assist to anti-Trump protests? Pretty much the same (if not exactly).

Warhound:

I would say Roman Polansky is pretty well known, I figured a pair such as you two would know about a well known child rapist from hollywood, what with metoo and what not.

You come across as very smug there. However, as the saying goes, pride comes before a fall.

As far as I am aware, Roman Polansky has not set foot in the UK since his conviction. This is largely because he fears being extradited to serve out his sentence. Thus whether the UK would deny him entry or not is rendered moot.

RikuoAmero:

And this is part of what Southern and the other two are arguing against. The idea that EVERY wannabe immigrant is going to be "significantly harmed" if they're not allowed into the UK, and the signalling by people like yourself about just how awful it is that that these poor poor people are going to suffer so just open the damn floodgates already, never mind the consequences!

Okay, but let's consider the reality about these folks denied entry, not nebulous complaints you have about other people.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue countries can assess immigrants on a case by case basis for whether they should be allowed in. It might consider risk of persecution they might face, criminal records, skills they have, etc. And if you want to go abroad and give a speech calling for immigration control on that sort of basis, that's absolutely fine - bring the debate.

On the other hand, these cheeky young fellows are part of or heavily associated with an umbrella movement which is unambiguously about racial and cultural purity, blocking immigrants they don't consider sufficiently white European (/European heritage, in US terms). Which we might, and probably should, generally consider racism.

Let's not pretend that these guys are all morons. Some have enough brainpower to have developed perfectly good techniques for blurring the lines between "reasonable" and "racist". Then add tactics of playing the victim card with things like "free speech" whenever someone spots the turd they've dropped in the swimming pool and objects. As for other alt-righters, if they want to facilitate such people by strategically failing to notice, turning a blind eye to, or crypto-supporting the more ethically challenged assertions...

Warhound:
I would say Roman Polansky is pretty well known, I figured a pair such as you two would know about a well known child rapist from hollywood, what with metoo and what not.

Of course I know about Roman Polanski. But I'm not aware of any recent visits he's made to the UK.

Warhound:
And I didn't say all immigrants are rapists, apparently reading things I didn't write is pretty easy huh? I need to learn that skill, seems useful for online forums.

I know you didn't say that. That's why I said "surely you're not conflating all immigrants with rapists."

It may be hard to believe after several tours in the irony-laden battlefields of the Internet, but I was being sincere. I considered that interpretation of what you said to be absurd, so I dismissed it. Which led to the thrust of my post; what exactly were you saying? Your subsequent reference to Roman Polanski has only left me more confused.

She likes hanging out with the daft boat guys that shoot flares at NGOs like Doctors Without Borders trying to mount rescue operations in the Mediterranean.

She has quite literally tried to kill people. But no, the Brits want to keep her out because of "her opinions".

I kinda envy Britain for their commitment towards antifascist policy. Wish we had that in Germany. Our hatespeech laws are fairly lax and don't really help much in the war against far right propaganda.

Okay guys, knock it off. Either talk about the topic at hand, or don't post at all. Keep it civil.

Saelune:
I wont be silenced when bad people are doing bad things. And you arent helping prevent a 'flame war' either.

Try googling "brittany pettibone" if my link doesnt work for you. Much of the results I get are about this topic.

My suggestion would be more to keep the OP to the point, personally. There's no point throwing in a bucket of other grievances, otherwise every thread becomes the same.

Anyway, now that I actually have a link - well, if Wilders, as a legitimate politician, is banned from entering (or at least was at one point), then I don't know what they expect.

Agema:
The far right are part of the alt-right.

God, that's a bizarre statement.

They may be two overlapping circles on a Venn diagram, but neither one fits neatly within the other.

UK is a big fucking nanny-state anyways, shouldn't surprise anyone.

Same place that wants to block porn, ban carbonated beverages for people 16 and under, and doesn't let you buy spoons.

This behavior is contemptible. Just look at Southern's tweets on what they asked her. If she wanted to run over immigrants with a vehicle? That one should be the other way around with recent stuff in the UK.

They're fine banning some Canadian girl who hurt some Muslim fee-fees even though Islam isn't a race. But they're A-ok with letting grooming gangs have free access to kids.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5777071/telford-abuse-grooming-sex-gangs-victims/

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/britains-worst-ever-child-grooming-12165527

Mirror:
August 2016 The Sunday Mirror reports that the problem is continuing outside underage discos in the town but some complaints provided by volunteer street pastors are not properly logged.

September 2016 MP Lucy Allan calls for a public inquiry but police and council officials in Telford write to Home Secretary Amber Rudd saying this isn't necessary.

Clearly their priorities are correct!

Maybe get off of twitter, stop getting butthurt over people saying mean things on the internet, and actually go after the real perpetrators of violence in your fucking country.

So why do two people get modded for calling out the OP on being overly hostile? What am I missing here? The posts that got mod wrath were less toxic than the OP by a country mile, yet Saelune remains untouched. As Catnip pointed out its just blatantly setting up a massive flame war and handing out a warning, suspension or ban for pointing that out is completely ridiculous considering no one else was punished.

Whoever is in charge of moderation in the R&P subforum should get switched out. The overall tone here isn't exactly friendly and I'm totally guilty of contributing to that but the style of moderationt these past few months has also made it worse instead of making it better. This thread being the perfect example.

OT: The parallel you're drawing is totally flawed. When talking about Europe the right and far right generally opposes immigration with the intent to remain inside the country, and Lauren Southern wasn't planning on making Britain her home AFAIK. You've built up a far right boogeyman who says that any immigration, no matter who, from where and how long they're planning to stay should be completely banned. That boogeyman does not exist. Not even Le Pens proposed border laws are that harsh. You're arguing against a strawman and its not going to help because everyone is busy looking at what the actual far right are doing and how they will react to this.

Additionally it is pretty dodgy to not allow activists in the country because someone - who knows who exactly - decided the message is "undesirable" when the UK has allowed literal terrorists to return and enjoy full state benefits in the past. Fighting for IS and coming back = totally fine, saying controversial things about the gender pay gap on some university campus = stay the fuck out of the country.

I would probably gag if Lauren Southern walked past me in the street but your reasoning here is really shoddy. But whatever, its another opportunity to score a really cheap and short "gotcha!" point on your ideological opposition. The alt-right loves to do this too, by the way - when you take two steps back both ideologies begin to look much the same in terms of tactics and productivity.

No as a progressive I disagree with this.

Currently, I am helping out a candidate for Governor of a state who is well known and has won multiple peace prizes. He also has various controversial opinions and was even on Fox News.

Should he also be denied by Thersa May for his positions?

What about regular progressives. If a US progressive wanted to go to a J. Corbyn rally, should they be denied?

Yes, the left-wing has an advantage in companies and countries boycotting XYZ, but the REAL people who have an almost absolute advantage are centrists, neoliberals, and people close to the center.

Soon censorship will come for all of us.

Gergar12:
No as a progressive I disagree with this.

Currently, I am helping out a candidate for Governor of a state who is well known and has won multiple peace prizes. He also has various controversial opinions and was even on Fox News.

Should he also be denied by Thersa May for his positions?

What about regular progressives. If a US progressive wanted to go to a J. Corbyn rally, should they be denied?

Yes, the left-wing has an advantage in companies and countries boycotting XYZ, but the REAL people who have an almost absolute advantage are centrists, neoliberals, and people close to the center.

Soon censorship by will come for all of us.

My main issue here is the hypocrisy of the people banned. They advocate banning people from entering other countries, but when they are on the recieving end suddenly they seem opposed to such a thing. Wonder why?

It would be like if a woman who opposed abortion got upset when she is barred from getting an abortion herself and said something like "How DARE they restrict my right to choose!?"

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked