UK Refuses to allow Alt-Right Activists In

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Catnip1024:
God, that's a bizarre statement.

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

The alt-right not only has a highly substantial component of white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-nazis/fascists, but it was those guys who invented the term for themselves.

So what's your problem here? I honestly don't know.

It seems that an acknowledged and warned (by the soon-to-be retiring head of counter-terrorism no less) growing far right terrorist threat is conveniently ignored just to play the sides and freezepeach game, predictably;

http://www.businessinsider.com/david-anderson-report-britain-get-tougher-on-far-right-terror-threat-2017-12?r=UK&IR=T

http://time.com/5180682/far-right-terrorism-on-rise-uk-hope-not-hate/

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43200966

http://www.presstv.com/DetailFr/2018/02/27/553775/UK-police-far-right-attacks

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/07/britain-first-leaders-convicted-of-anti-muslim-hate-crimes

Wouldnt be surprised if there's more to this we don't know yet. Unlike the US, we actually acknowledge threats regardless of political platform, while some people are still sane enough here to treat Britain's First as an icy joke at best. And that is already with a quite conservative government in power. If even they are getting cold feet with this crap, then it's not an abstract matter of "sides" presenting itself here anymore, and pretending otherwise dilutes any context; whether that's intentional or not. Clutch those pearls harder though, sure wouldn't hear anyone moaning if it was a Muslim hate preacher.

Saelune:

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!?"

As has been explained by myself and others, they are against MASS IMMIGRATION, which is a far different thing to entering a country for a short time to make a speech and conduct an interview: essentially a business trip.

To correct your analogy: it would be like if a 22 year old woman who campaigned against legal abortions up to and including just hours before birth (don't know if that has actually been made legal anywhere, but hey, I wouldn't be surprised if some pro-abortion activists would actually want that...) and that was made available to teenage girls with no requirement of contacting parents...was prevented from getting an abortion herself.

The way you try to frame what Southern actually campaigns for, you're boiling it down to a completely false dichotomy: either mass, basically unrestricted immigration or none at all, as if those are the only two options a person could be on this topic.

Whitbane:
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

...please tell me you're not using the Sun and the Mirror as your only sources. They're tabloid rags dude, they go for sensationalism not facts. I suppose they would be our equivalent to Breitbart and its ilk

Pallindromemordnillap:

Whitbane:
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

...please tell me you're not using the Sun and the Mirror as your only sources. They're tabloid rags dude, they go for sensationalism not facts. I suppose they would be our equivalent to Breitbart and its ilk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43391605

Educate thyself.

Agema:

Catnip1024:
God, that's a bizarre statement.

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

The alt-right not only has a highly substantial component of white nationalists, white supremacists, neo-nazis/fascists, but it was those guys who invented the term for themselves.

So what's your problem here? I honestly don't know.

My problem is, that saying "The far right are part of the alt-right." is blatantly inaccurate. If anything it's the other way round. It's more accurate to state that they are two often overlapping groups with distinct differences. Ones more concerned with internet clicks, for a start.

I mean, sure, they are all dicks. But at least lets label the dicks correctly.

Catnip1024:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43391605

Educate thyself.

The assumption being that the UK government would allow these people permanent residency if they knew they were going to commit a crime? If they had evidence of such felonies past or planned, they would and should stop anyone regardless of race. I'm pretty sure the UK has such customs duties.

In fact I'm damn near certain the UK, much like Australia, actively refuses long term residency (via denial of visa) for felons. I think you can visit? In Australia they actively demand surety that you'll leave. Like a bond that will be returned to you once you leave.

My uncle, due to "crimes" listed by the government doing the People Power Revolution against Marcos, had to pay surety to temporarily stay in Australia and his travel visa was set at less than 90 days. And as far as I'm aware we directly lifted that straight from the UK and added it as to customs and regulation.

Unless you can prove that is not the case.

I don't know why you guys are shitting the bed/crying loads about this. Theresa May changes her mind more often than I change my pants, and I shower three or four times a day. Tomorrow she'll have them round for tea; the day after they'll be swinging from a gibbet. Following day, back for tea! She's like a chaos god that can't make up its mind.

The only evidence you need to acknowledge the "alt right" is exactly the same as the "far right" i.e. white supremacist, fascist is the frequency they will ignore all crimes unless they are committed by an nonwhite individual. Nearly 100,000 adults raped every year, numbers covering children are harder to confirm as many of the victims have no one to report to/aren't believed. Yet those who "care" only bother to speak out when the criminals are nonwhite.

Avnger:

Warhound:

Avnger:

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

bastardofmelbourne:

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.

Not my fault you don't apparently read the news.

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.

Today I learned that NBC is alt-right, and considering that he was in the news a few months back its not too hard to keep track of. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/how-weinstein-scandal-could-change-life-roman-polanski-n820146

But please, tell me further dear Apologist how only the alt-right keeps track of child rapists.

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

After his conviction he fled the US to the UK (not a short flight, and wasn't stopped at the airport) stayed there for a full day, then left for France and later sold his stuff in the UK.

Warhound:

Avnger:

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.

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.

Not my fault you don't apparently read the news.

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.

Today I learned that NBC is alt-right, and considering that he was in the news a few months back its not too hard to keep track of. https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/sexual-misconduct/how-weinstein-scandal-could-change-life-roman-polanski-n820146

But please, tell me further dear Apologist how only the alt-right keeps track of child rapists.

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

After his conviction he fled the US to the UK (not a short flight, and wasn't stopped at the airport) stayed there for a full day, then left for France and later sold his stuff in the UK.

That was also...*checks watch*...40 goddamned years ago. Before the time of quick mass media. And he already had a house there. And he fled there after a day to avoid extradition. And he8s never been back, or been to any other country that's likely to extradite him.

So yeah, Britain should keep the gal out who's ideology has already gotten one MP killed and who joined a boat crew to drown refugees and harass Doctors Without Borders with flare guns.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
The assumption being that the UK government would allow these people permanent residency if they knew they were going to commit a crime? If they had evidence of such felonies past or planned, they would and should stop anyone regardless of race. I'm pretty sure the UK has such customs duties.

In fact I'm damn near certain the UK, much like Australia, actively refuses long term residency (via denial of visa) for felons. I think you can visit? In Australia they actively demand surety that you'll leave. Like a bond that will be returned to you once you leave.

My uncle, due to "crimes" listed by the government doing the People Power Revolution against Marcos, had to pay surety to temporarily stay in Australia and his travel visa was set at less than 90 days. And as far as I'm aware we directly lifted that straight from the UK and added it as to customs and regulation.

Unless you can prove that is not the case.

Are you replying to the wrong post?

The poster I replied to was doing the thing where they reject entire major stories based on the linked source. I provided them another source.

I wasn't assuming anything or implying anything, as far as I was aware.

Catnip1024:

Pallindromemordnillap:

Whitbane:
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

...please tell me you're not using the Sun and the Mirror as your only sources. They're tabloid rags dude, they go for sensationalism not facts. I suppose they would be our equivalent to Breitbart and its ilk

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-43391605

Educate thyself.

The article you linked largely talks about people's reaction to a trafficking ring, not mentioning scale or extent, not does it go into the races of the perpetrators, preferring to offer sympathy to the victims. It does not in fact back up any of the claims put forth by the Mirror. Swing and a miss dude, try educating yourself first

Catnip1024:
Are you replying to the wrong post?

The poster I replied to was doing the thing where they reject entire major stories based on the linked source. I provided them another source.

I wasn't assuming anything or implying anything, as far as I was aware.

Well that's kind of dumb, because that article doesn't actually back up at all what the other poster said.

Warhound:
After his conviction he fled the US to the UK (not a short flight, and wasn't stopped at the airport) stayed there for a full day, then left for France and later sold his stuff in the UK.

That was forty years ago. What on earth does it have to do with this?

altnameJag

So yeah, Britain should keep the gal out who's ideology has already gotten one MP killed and who joined a boat crew to drown refugees and harass Doctors Without Borders with flare guns.

Clarification on the MP killing thing please? Nothing comes to mind. I honestly can't recall Southern calling for the deaths of politicians.

I can agree though that the boat thing is something worthy of debate.

However, I do have to point this out though. None of that is what the UK authorities cited as their reason for barring Southern. Granted, we (as in the public) only have Southern to go on, I will admit...but what Southern shows is paperwork from the authorities that apparently she "admitted" to handing out racist material a few days ago, and this refers to her setting up a stall saying that Allah is a gay god. Her stated justification being that if its okay both socially and legally to advocate that the Christian god is for gays, then surely there ought to be no problem with saying the same for Allah.
You have to understand that (going on Southern shows us) that THAT is the cited reason for the barring. Not her ideology supposedly getting an MP killed, or what she did regarding boats.
It was her suggesting that Allah, the God of Islam, is for homosexuals.

Catnip1024:
My problem is, that saying "The far right are part of the alt-right." is blatantly inaccurate.

No, it's accurate.

It seems to me you're trying to manufacture some nit-pick that the far right must be entirely represented within the alt-right, but that is not necessary to the meaning supplied.

For instance, it would be unexceptional to point out Russia is part of Europe... and yet part of Russia is also outside Europe. One can say that liberals are part of the British Conservative party voter base without necessarily denying liberals also support other parties. And so on.

Warhound:
After his conviction he fled the US to the UK (not a short flight, and wasn't stopped at the airport) stayed there for a full day, then left for France and later sold his stuff in the UK.

That's more than a little desperate.

The world of 40 years ago did not have the sort of airport security, modern checking and communication systems, etc. that it does now and very different laws and border controls; it is not remotely reasonably comparable.

I don't know how old some of you guys are, but I whether some of you under 30 might really struggle to understand quite how things worked in an era before the computer and telecommunications explosion of the 80s/90s.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your write to say it."

Not a fan of Southern, but barring her (or anyone) from entering the UK for the stated reasons is absurd.

RikuoAmero:

You have to understand that (going on Southern shows us) that THAT is the cited reason for the barring. Not her ideology supposedly getting an MP killed, or what she did regarding boats.
It was her suggesting that Allah, the God of Islam, is for homosexuals.

If Southern has any record of expertise in theology, and particularly Islamic theology, we might be happy to see the argument put forward cogently and intelligently in a appropriate medium.

But that was incredibly obviously not the case, was it?

She's shit-stirring. Who can seriously argue other than that she's shit-stirring for her to head off to a town notable for a relatively high Muslim population distributing leaflets phrased in the most inflammatory way possible, based on negligible knowledge and weak argumentation of the subject matter?

How stupid do you think we here, and the British authorities, are to not see that for what it so plainly is? I don't think for a minute you're stupid enough to not see, and to not understand it was plainly less innocent than you make out.

Hawki:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your write to say it."

Not a fan of Southern, but barring her (or anyone) from entering the UK for the stated reasons is absurd.

Heres the thing, these people -should- be saying "I dont like that you're keeping me out, but I support your right to choose who can enter". Since, ya know, they are anti-immigration.

Saelune:

Hawki:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your write to say it."

Not a fan of Southern, but barring her (or anyone) from entering the UK for the stated reasons is absurd.

Heres the thing, these people -should- be saying "I dont like that you're keeping me out, but I support your right to choose who can enter". Since, ya know, they are anti-immigration.

Visiting a country isn't the same as immigrating to it.

Hawki:

Saelune:

Hawki:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your write to say it."

Not a fan of Southern, but barring her (or anyone) from entering the UK for the stated reasons is absurd.

Heres the thing, these people -should- be saying "I dont like that you're keeping me out, but I support your right to choose who can enter". Since, ya know, they are anti-immigration.

Visiting a country isn't the same as immigrating to it.

Do you think these people give that distinction to others, particularly if they are non-white or Muslim?

Saelune:

Hawki:

Saelune:
Heres the thing, these people -should- be saying "I dont like that you're keeping me out, but I support your right to choose who can enter". Since, ya know, they are anti-immigration.

Visiting a country isn't the same as immigrating to it.

Do you think these people give that distinction to others, particularly if they are non-white or Muslim?

Um, probably?

Southern has expressed views on immigration to Europe, I've never heard her call for reductions in tourism/visits.

Hawki:

Saelune:

Hawki:

Visiting a country isn't the same as immigrating to it.

Do you think these people give that distinction to others, particularly if they are non-white or Muslim?

Um, probably?

Southern has expressed views on immigration to Europe, I've never heard her call for reductions in tourism/visits.

Um probably not. Straight up racists like them have no desire to allow any freedom to non-whites and non-Christians. If you think otherwise, then you are falling into their ploys.

Why are people so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to racists but never those who stand up to them?

Why would people who say things like "Get out of our country" bother adding the caveat of "Unless you're just visiting"?

Saelune:

Why are people so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to racists but never those who stand up to them?

Why would people who say things like "Get out of our country" bother adding the caveat of "Unless you're just visiting"?

"You people." Thanks.

And I would stand up for people who stand up to racists, but that's not the issue here. I'd rather Southern and co. be allowed to visit the UK and have people "stand up to them" rather than barring any kind of discourse.

And people wouldn't say "get out of our country unless you're just visiting" because I doubt that visiting is the issue. Tourism is usually a boon for a country's economy. Immigration is a boon only if it's managed correctly.

Hawki:

Saelune:

Why are people so willing to give the benefit of the doubt to racists but never those who stand up to them?

Why would people who say things like "Get out of our country" bother adding the caveat of "Unless you're just visiting"?

"You people." Thanks.

And I would stand up for people who stand up to racists, but that's not the issue here. I'd rather Southern and co. be allowed to visit the UK and have people "stand up to them" rather than barring any kind of discourse.

And people wouldn't say "get out of our country unless you're just visiting" because I doubt that visiting is the issue. Tourism is usually a boon for a country's economy. Immigration is a boon only if it's managed correctly.

You're defending shitty people being shitty. As are many other people here. It is tiring, it is frustrating. Bad people are protected while they shit all over good people, and that is not ok. And then people who call out those bad people get criticized for it as if opposing racists is racist...its not.

People want to talk down to those who fight against their bullies as if the bully was the victim.

People are standing up to them even though they are not allowed in the UK. People like me. Hell, the UK itself is standing up to them, to protect the rights and well-being of their non-white and Muslim criticizes. Anti-immigrants talk big about countries taking care of their own first, well the UK is. If anti-immigration people want to stand for their views, then they need to accept this. Instead they make hypocritical statements that show they are full of shit.

Anti-immigration people never care about managing it correctly. They complain about people taking jobs they dont even want to do. Immigrants often help the country they immigrate to. The US is a country of immigrants, and the UK, well, the UK turned countries into countries of immigrants.

Saelune:
You're defending shitty people being shitty.

No, I'm defending freedom of speech. This coming from a person who's already "been shitty" by resorting to epiphets such as "you people."

Saelune:
Bad people are protected while they shit all over good people, and that is not ok.

And barring people from entry into a country IS okay?

Saelune:
People want to talk down to those who fight against their bullies as if the bully was the victim.

If people want to engage in discourse with Southern and co., I'd applaud them.

I don't applaud barring people from entry into a country for the flimsy reasons given here ("endangering the public good").

Saelune:
People are standing up to them even though they are not allowed in the UK. People like me.

You live in the UK?

Standing up to people is easy when you're not doing it face to face.

Saelune:
Hell, the UK itself is standing up to them, to protect the rights and well-being of their non-white and Muslim criticizes. Anti-immigrants talk big about countries taking care of their own first, well the UK is. If anti-immigration people want to stand for their views, then they need to accept this. Instead they make hypocritical statements that show they are full of shit.

Yes, and? Who's looking out for the tenants of democracy and freedom of speech?

Saelune:
Anti-immigration people never care about managing it correctly. They complain about people taking jobs they don't even want to do. Immigrants often help the country they immigrate to. The US is a country of immigrants, and the UK, well, the UK turned countries into countries of immigrants.

Yes, and how did the British Empire's immigration to other countries work out for the native populations? Or the westward expansion of the United States for the native Americans?

Before you put words in my mouth, no, modern day immigration is in no way a 1:1 parallel of empire building, but it is a lesson in history why you'd want to control your borders.

Agema says

She's shit-stirring. Who can seriously argue other than that she's shit-stirring for her to head off to a town notable for a relatively high Muslim population distributing leaflets phrased in the most inflammatory way possible, based on negligible knowledge and weak argumentation of the subject matter?

How stupid do you think we here, and the British authorities, are to not see that for what it so plainly is? I don't think for a minute you're stupid enough to not see, and to not understand it was plainly less innocent than you make out.

So let's say a friend of mine goes and puts up the exact same stand (just changing the word Allah for God or Jesus) outside Westminster Cathedral (for those who don't know, it's basically the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, and as all people ought to know, the RCC isn't exactly keen on homosexuality). The same low level arguments are made that God is a gay god.
Should this friend be barred from the UK? No, you'll say. You'll probably want to cite freedom of speech. You'll point out that Roman Catholic people and Roman Catholic priests aren't known for being violent towards homosexuality or the thought of their god being homosexual in the UK.

Now...when Southern does it with regards to Islam and its God...hmm...the argument about Southern saying something inflammatory here only works when you acknowledge that this means that, following this logic, that Muslims are the ones who would be turning violent and all over a stand that to be honest isn't seriously suggesting that their god is gay, or pro-gay.
The barring of Southern and the reason cited by the UK authorities is a not-so tacit admission from the UK authorities that Muslims are somehow inherently violent and bigoted against homosexuals.

Now who would you want in your country? A 22 year old from Canada who is basically poking fun at a religion...or a religion that according to the authorities will turn deadly violent at this blasphemy?

Hawki:

Saelune:
You're defending shitty people being shitty.

No, I'm defending freedom of speech. This coming from a person who's already "been shitty" by resorting to epiphets such as "you people."

Saelune:
Bad people are protected while they shit all over good people, and that is not ok.

And barring people from entry into a country IS okay?

Saelune:
People want to talk down to those who fight against their bullies as if the bully was the victim.

If people want to engage in discourse with Southern and co., I'd applaud them.

I don't applaud barring people from entry into a country for the flimsy reasons given here ("endangering the public good").

Saelune:
People are standing up to them even though they are not allowed in the UK. People like me.

You live in the UK?

Standing up to people is easy when you're not doing it face to face.

Saelune:
Hell, the UK itself is standing up to them, to protect the rights and well-being of their non-white and Muslim criticizes. Anti-immigrants talk big about countries taking care of their own first, well the UK is. If anti-immigration people want to stand for their views, then they need to accept this. Instead they make hypocritical statements that show they are full of shit.

Yes, and? Who's looking out for the tenants of democracy and freedom of speech?

Saelune:
Anti-immigration people never care about managing it correctly. They complain about people taking jobs they don't even want to do. Immigrants often help the country they immigrate to. The US is a country of immigrants, and the UK, well, the UK turned countries into countries of immigrants.

Yes, and how did the British Empire's immigration to other countries work out for the native populations? Or the westward expansion of the United States for the native Americans?

Before you put words in my mouth, no, modern day immigration is in no way a 1:1 parallel of empire building, but it is a lesson in history why you'd want to control your borders.

I didnt say you people. And you're defending people who do say you people, referring to Muslims and non-whites. However, the groups I am disparaging are...racists. But thanks for proving my point of people treating people who oppose racists as if that is in turn racist.

If there is actually a good reason, and ethnicity and religion is not it. Stopping people from pushing racism however, is fine. Heres the thing, I am fine keeping out/kicking out rapists and murderers. People like Trump however seem to think rapist and murderer are synonymous with all foreigners, and that is bigoted BS.

Then applaud them. You arent.

I am more inclined now, since its better than here these days, brexit aside. And I can make the same claim to you.

What democracy? Neither the US nor UK are democracies. And fuck freedom of speech. These days 'freedom of speech' is code for bigotry. If its only purpose is to defend bigots, then it is not good. Besides, we dont even have freedom of speech as bigots use it. We already have tons of restrictions on what we can and cannot say. And the UK doesnt even have freedom of speech like the US does anyways, and they havent burned down yet.

Pick a side. Either you have to let everyone in, in which case you oppose these people, or a country can pick in choose, in which case you oppose these people. Thats the point everyone defending them keeps missing.

RikuoAmero:
None of that is what the UK authorities cited as their reason for barring Southern.

Hawki:
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your write to say it."

Not a fan of Southern, but barring her (or anyone) from entering the UK for the stated reasons is absurd.

As a point of order...

The British state, like any state on the planet including whichever you live in (if not the UK), reserves the right to refuse admission to non-citizens on very broad grounds. Of course, sometimes this is controversial. However, most people refused under such grounds aren't popular social media arseholes with extensive personal platforms and supportive media to whine like babies when it happens to them, so we don't notice most occasions.

The law pretty much runs as follows (selected relevant passages):

The Home Secretary has powers to exclude or deport non-UK citizens on the grounds that their presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good
...
The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK citizen whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:-
Writing, producing, publishing or distributing material
Public speaking including preaching
[etc.]
...
To express views which the Government considers:-
Foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts
Foster hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK
Advocate violence in furtherance of particular beliefs
[etc.]

Firstly, what this means is you cannot be officially refused entry to the UK for "racism". You are refused entry for behaviour deemed "not conducive to the public good", such as, oh, let's say pamphlets or public speeches aggravating inter-community friction.

Unarguably, Southern had every intention of carrying out politicised activities that can be considered inciting inter-community disharmony under the above. Equally unarguably, Southern had also carried out such actions previously. However, the government is not required to supply an exhaustive legal explanation in an exclusion document. If you want to see and test the full justification for exclusion, you can carry out a legal challenge to the exclusion. But a prior instance of activity breaching guidelines is sufficient to get the point across in the short term.

* * *

One might argue that the exclusion criteria are vague and leave a lot of arbitary power in the hands of the state. This can be generally debated in terms of freedom of speech. This is important, because a lot of people want to talk about "freedom of speech" without really considering what it entails. For instance, try as I might I struggle to find many alt-righters getting upset when similar laws are enacted and powers utilised by states when used to exclude, say, Islamic preachers. If you genuinely love your free speech, that means you have to accept the right of Saudi Arabian Wahhabists coming to your country to freely preach setting up a Caliphate (assuming they don't stray into overt calls for violence, as the normal line where free speech is reasonably curtailed).

If you wish to curtail such people whilst following Western values of all being equal before the law, you either have to accept a few white nationalists are going to end up banned too, or admit you're actually in favour of state-sanctioned speech permissions favouring whatever ideology you believe in.

Saelune says

You're defending shitty people being shitty. As are many other people here. It is tiring, it is frustrating. Bad people are protected while they shit all over good people, and that is not ok. And then people who call out those bad people get criticized for it as if opposing racists is racist...its not.

Because it is only when we have the freedom to offend that we are, well, free. I've dealt with shitty people being shitty towards me my whole life. However, not once in my life have I wanted government authorities to step in and deal with the situation. I've been mocked for being fat, for being religious, for later being an atheist etc.
I survived ALL of them. At no point was there any danger to my life.
I dealt with shitty people, and so should you be able to, Saelune. You are, in my own honest opinion, a shitty person who flings shit at people (and so am I)...but I would defend your right to say it.
Can you extend to me the same courtesy?

People are standing up to them even though they are not allowed in the UK. People like me. Hell, the UK itself is standing up to them, to protect the rights and well-being of their non-white and Muslim criticizes.

Be very careful about what it is you are saying here, Saelune. You are essentially saying the UK government should protect Muslim people from hearing the suggestion that their god is gay/pro-gay.
Essentially a blasphemy law.
What rights of Muslims were being violated when Southern put up her "Allah is gay" stand? How is their well being threatened?

Agema:

One might argue that the exclusion criteria are vague and leave a lot of arbitary power in the hands of the state. This can be generally debated in terms of freedom of speech. This is important, because a lot of people want to talk about "freedom of speech" without really considering what it entails. For instance, try as I might I struggle to find many alt-righters getting upset when similar laws are enacted and powers utilised by states when used to exclude, say, Islamic preachers. If you genuinely love your free speech, that means you have to accept the right of Saudi Arabian Wahhabists coming to your country to freely preach setting up a Caliphate (assuming they don't stray into overt calls for violence, as the normal line where free speech is reasonably curtailed).

If you wish to curtail such people whilst following Western values of all being equal before the law, you either have to accept a few white nationalists are going to end up banned too, or admit you're actually in favour of state-sanctioned speech permissions favouring whatever ideology you believe in.

My biggest issue lately with the alt-right and all its supporters who defend them is the constant and BLATANT reliance on hypocrisy to defend any and every point.

'Freedom of Speech' has been so raped and defiled and used as a shield for them. So quickly cited when people call them Nazis and bigots and want them to stop preaching their hate, but never applied to those they oppress. Why dont Muslims get to use freedom of speech to practice their religion? Why dont LGBT people get to use it to be themselves?

Why is it ok for bakers and doctors to tell LGBT people to go away, and ok for countries to tell Muslims and non-whites to get out, but suddenly we must all roll out the red carpets for bigoted White Christians?

Its bullshit.

'Freedom of Speech' is a two way street. Dont be surprised if you get wrecked when you try to take up both lanes.

@RikuoAmero: 'Freedom to offend'? So you support my freedom to call others Nazis and bigots, particularly when they support Nazi and bigoted views?

Saelune:
I didnt say you people. And you're defending people who do say you people, referring to Muslims and non-whites.

Defending the right to say something isn't the same as defending the person saying it.

Saelune:

Then applaud them. You arent.

Who's to applaud in this thread?

All that's been done is keeping Southern out of the UK. I can't applaud that. If she'd been let into the UK, and allowed to debate (or at least been allowed to speak so others could speak in response to that), THEN I could applaud someone in the context of this scenario.

Saelune:
And I can make the same claim to you.

I'm not making the claim of standing up. You did.

Saelune:

What democracy? Neither the US nor UK are democracies.

Officials are elected by the public to represent the public's interest in open elections.

Semantics aside, they're democracies.

Saelune:
And fuck freedom of speech. These days 'freedom of speech' is code for bigotry. If its only purpose is to defend bigots, then it is not good.

Problem is, far too many people are punished for saying things when they aren't bigots, and they aren't saying bigoted things. Remember James Damore for instance?

Saelune:
Pick a side.

Why? Why do I have to "pick a side?" As partisan as politics are, the world isn't binary.

Saelune:
Either you have to let everyone in, in which case you oppose these people, or a country can pick in choose, in which case you oppose these people. Thats the point everyone defending them keeps missing.

No, that's a false dichotomy.

There's a middle ground between letting everyone in, and applying sensible restrictions. I'd be very concerned if my country (or any country) let in confirmed terrorists. But actions speak louder than words, so I shouldn't be pleased to see people barred from coming into a country on the basis of those words, provided those words aren't inciting harm. Southern came to the UK to, what, hand out leaflets saying "god is gay?" Juvenile, sure, but hardly a threat to national security.

Agema:

The British state, like any state on the planet including whichever you live in (if not the UK), reserves the right to refuse admission to non-citizens on very broad grounds. Of course, sometimes this is controversial.

I agree, but is it fair to say that there's good grounds for barring Southern? Per the article you list below, I don't think her intended actions really fall under those examples.

Agema:
If you genuinely love your free speech, that means you have to accept the right of Saudi Arabian Wahhabists coming to your country to freely preach setting up a Caliphate (assuming they don't stray into overt calls for violence, as the normal line where free speech is reasonably curtailed).

If you wish to curtail such people whilst following Western values of all being equal before the law, you either have to accept a few white nationalists are going to end up banned too, or admit you're actually in favour of state-sanctioned speech permissions favouring whatever ideology you believe in.

Believe me, I don't want a caliphate being formed anytime soon, but if the person you mention here wasn't inciting violence directly (which would be a hazy line in this case), then I'd be iffy about barring him. The tenants of a democracy have to apply to citizens equally. And while I have little love for white nationalists either, they have the right to spew their views. Doesn't mean I have to listen to them though.

Agema says

The British state, like any state on the planet including whichever you live in (if not the UK), reserves the right to refuse admission to non-citizens on very broad grounds.

Something I agree with by the way. However, this does NOT mean that I won't criticise the UK government whenever they apply it in a situation that I honestly think is wrong, which is what I think Lauren Southern's case is.
This is just how I treat freedom of speech. I may not agree with what you (general you) say, but I will defend your right to say it. However, I will not silence myself if I honestly disagree with you and want to make myself heard.

Of course, sometimes this is controversial. However, most people refused under such grounds aren't popular social media arseholes with extensive personal platforms and supportive media to whine like babies

Why are you saying she is whining like a baby? Because she is speaking out about being refused entry into the UK? What if it was a quote unquote refugee?
I find it odd that complaining about what one thinks is an injustice becomes 'whining' once one becomes a public figure with a following.

Unarguably, Southern had every intention of carrying out politicised activities that can be considered inciting inter-community disharmony under the above.

Again, this works and, assuming this somehow ends up in court (I honestly don't know if Southern is going to legally challenge this), only if the UK makes the admission that Southern's stand of "Allah is gay" would make Muslims turn violent.

One might argue that the exclusion criteria are vague and leave a lot of arbitary power in the hands of the state.

It does.

For instance, try as I might I struggle to find many alt-righters getting upset when similar laws are enacted and powers utilised by states when used to exclude, say, Islamic preachers.

Of the Islamic preachers who are allowed into the UK and who are complained about by the alt-righters...how many directly advocate violence...as compared to Lauren Southern who merely said that the Islamic god is gay?

If you genuinely love your free speech, that means you have to accept the right of Saudi Arabian Wahhabists coming to your country to freely preach setting up a Caliphate (assuming they don't stray into overt calls for violence, as the normal line where free speech is reasonably curtailed).

Thing is...they often do call for violence. Even if they didn't call for outright violence, think about what a Wahhabist Caliphate would be like to homosexuals. If I were a homosexual living in the UK, I'd be alarmed at calls and preaching for such. How come the UK government isn't stepping in to stop "hatred which may lead to intra community violence in the UK", I'd be asking.

If you wish to curtail such people whilst following Western values of all being equal before the law, you either have to accept a few white nationalists are going to end up banned too, or admit you're actually in favour of state-sanctioned speech permissions favouring whatever ideology you believe in.

I don't agree that Southern is a white nationalist.
Either way...is what Southern did the same as a Wahabbist preacher calling for a Caliphate? One is a not-so-serious jab at the theology of a religion, the other is calling for the setup of a new political regime that would, without a doubt, persecute homosexuals violently.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked