US 'hate list' DJ to sue Britain

[Patricius Maximus 236]

He's banned from entering the country, his ehm.. views ain't censored as far as I can see..quote>

No but without him coming to the country his views will not be known. Most people would not have ever heard of him if this list had not been published. Another mistake by an incompetant government. As it happens most of the public would regard most of the people on this list as nutters. But that is not a valid reason for curtailing their freedom of speech in this country.

We once had MP's who would say "I abhor everything you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it". However this current lot of morally bankrupt communist inspired dictators would make Stallin blush.
quote>

I do agree with you, that, from my observations of the British government¹, they do not have any conception of rights, especially the Home Office. I don't know if they choose not to recognize them or if they are incapable of doing so. The UK appears to be on a track, however slow or fast, towards a totalitarian state.

Again, you are missing the point.

His human rights HAVE NOT been limited. The right to travel to a foreign country IS NOT a human right.

His freedom of speech has not been limited. He did an interview on the BBC this evening. Clearly you have been shown to have been wholly inaccurate in your above rambling and are now trying to waffle to cover the mistake.quote>

Not freedom of speech, but freedom of movement. A state banning entry because of a person's political views, no matter if it is construed as 'spreading hatred', would be a sign of it being a totalitarian or pre-totalitarian state. I don't know about you, but I support freedom of movement and travel across the world, and I believe that no one should be deported from a country unless they were a criminal, which as far as I know these people were not.

Bannng someone from entering the country because the government doesn't like some things he's been saying.

...yeah, that ain't kosher. What crime has he comitted? None. quote>

Well put, Duke.

Quite an embarasing track record though for a nation at the center of enlightenment theory.quote>

Enlightment theory and the British government? Humbug. They don't go together.

Do you even read what you have typed. That entire statement in inherently flawed. You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about. I fail to see you continue with this arguement, it has been proven to be wholly flawed. quote>

I do not believe that supporting freedom of movement and expression is an inherently flawed and nonsensical argument. Just because someone disagrees with someone else does not say anything about their argument, and as Hym pointed out, let's discuss the issues at hand.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Of course he will now try to go there.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Not freedom of speech, but freedom of movement. A state banning entry because of a person's political views, no matter if it is construed as 'spreading hatred', would be a sign of it being a totalitarian or pre-totalitarian state. I don't know about you, but I support freedom of movement and travel across the world, and I believe that no one should be deported from a country unless they were a criminal, which as far as I know these people were not.quote>

Actually countries reserve the right to deny entry to anyone they believe will break the laws of that country or influence others to do so. The idea of freedom of movement between countries is flawed, your right to gain entry to a foreign country is determined by that government and the border control laws and restrictions they have in place.

These people aren't in the country.....so I have no idea where the deportation point factors into this.

[Shadow Assassin 336]

The UK has the right to ban anyone they deem a threat to the 'public good' The UK government has the legal right to prevent anyone from entering the country that has previously issued provocative statements. quote>

Sure, that might be their right, but that just sounds like "If you're not going to play along with us, we'll just ban you." It's all subjective. It might well be for the public good, considering the touchy subject of Islam, but don't people have the right to at least make an opinion on this guy if he makes the rounds in the UK?

This problem lies with the Home Secretary (or whatever she's called), for even releasing this hate list in the first place.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

These people aren't in the country.....so I have no idea where the deportation point factors into this.quote>

Naturally, since they couldn't get in.

The idea of freedom of movement between countries is flawed, your right to gain entry to a foreign country is determined by that government and the border control laws and restrictions they have in place. quote>

That is your view, which I happen to believe is flawed, and puts the state, as well as yourself, on the slippery slope to totalitarian government, which I'm not sure you would like or not. Lastly, deportation was not the right word to use, but I'm sure you get the idea that I am trying to express.

[belfastuniguy 18]

Sure, that might be their right, but that just sounds like "If you're not going to play along with us, we'll just ban you." It's all subjective. It might well be for the public good, considering the touchy subject of Islam, but don't people have the right to at least make an opinion on this guy if he makes the rounds in the UK? quote>

Given his views on Islam, which he has openly expressed in America, its pretty safe to assume his 'speeches' in the UK would cause tension and problems. Islam is an incredibly sensitive issue in the United Kingdom. The list also includes members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both of these people have openly expressed views that if said in the UK would break the law. THAT is why they are banned.

This is hardly unique, it happens all the time in various countries around the world, including the United States.

[fukuda 351]

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

If you actually read the articles you will see the published list is for a 5 month period. Older and still existing lists remain

quote>

If it's a 5 month period, maybe your government should spend less time making (and then justifying) it's international gaffs and more time "protecting" it's citizenry...whatever deluded form this protection takes.

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

What ensures this is not a personal vendetta against some perceived wrong of someone in the UK foreign ministry? quote>

Becuase no one individual determines who is added to the list. Consultation occurs with the Home Office, UK Police forces and of course the Office of the Prime Minister.quote>

And you know this how?  I thought the FOI request was because this information, and thus the descision making process behind it, was not readily available in the public domain.  I call foul.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?quote>

We live in one at the moment. That is to say that the people have not had the democratic choice of an election to chose the person to lead parliment.

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

I didn't know they kept out animal rights activists as well. Sounds like a fair trade to me.

It's a tempest in a teapot. The authorities have just played into Savage's hands, and it'll help his ratings coming in May 'sweeps' month, which boosts his billing rate for advertising.

[sarcasm] You mean there's a monetary aspect to this story? Who knew?[/sarcasm]

How embarrasing for the UK, even though they are within their rights. How conveniently lucrative for Savage. I'm just sure it's been his lifelong dream to visit London, and this is causing him no end of emotional distress.

quote>

You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. I can see the point of such a list, to keep extremists of any stripe out of their country, but the publication just reeks of a PR move. It was the same with the Dutch MP earlier this year: their (incompetent) home secretary got to kick someone accused of hate speech out, ie. took a firm stand on something without the risk of offending anyone in her own country, and the MP, Wilders, got to fly to Britain on a plane full of journalists, had some lovely pictures of himself taken as he was escorted off Heathrow, and then got to fly back to collect his five seat gain in the opinion polls.

Very little of actual substance was going on at any stage. For all the chest beating about free speech and babble about totalitarianism, very little is going on now.

[BurroDiablo 222]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: fukuda

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?quote>

We live in one at the moment. That is to say that the people have not had the democratic choice of an election to chose the person to lead parliment.

quote>

Don't be so dramatic. He can be shifted by an election, suffice to say he will be shifted by an Election.  Gordon does not wield absolute and overbearing power over us, he wields about as much power as a bowl of Cornflakes.

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: fukuda

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?quote>

We live in one at the moment. That is to say that the people have not had the democratic choice of an election to chose the person to lead parliment.

quote>

Don't you have a parliment that you need to, you know, pass all legislation through to get it made into law?

Hardly call it a dictatorship if that's the case.

[davidaiow 2]

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

Originally posted by: fukuda

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?quote>

We live in one at the moment. That is to say that the people have not had the democratic choice of an election to chose the person to lead parliament.

quote>

You and David have some of the stupidist views. I'm with Belfastuniguy in this one.

When you vote- you vote for a party. Not a Prime Minister. It is like America is it not? The people vote for the party and the party chooses the best person to lead them. Or have I got this wrong? I don't think I have.

I think that there is nothing really wrong with this list. As has been said it is FOI and I think that the people against this are completely over-reacting.

To say we live in a dictatorship is completely silly. If enough people wanted to, we could have this government on its heels right away. Fact is, they aren't doing that bad a job really. They are making the best of a bad situation. It is or parliment that holds the power not our Prime Minister.

Stop covering up your flaws with pathetic rambings and trying to scaremonger people. We have the media for that, thank you very much.

[Boggy1 45]

It's not a Dictatorship; because Gordon Brown does not hold all of the power in this country with an iron fist rule. But our current Government is externally-undemocratically elected. It is internally democratically elected; the MPs could easily dispose of Brown if they had a vote of no confidence.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

Originally posted by: davidaiow

Originally posted by: Merlin of Flyote

quote>

When you vote- you vote for a party. Not a Prime Minister. It is like America is it not? The people vote for the party and the party chooses the best person to lead them. Or have I got this wrong? I don't think I have.

I think you have in that:-

At the last election Tony Blair said he would serve a FULL term. People voted on that basis. They voted for Tony Blair to lead the Labour party. He has since handed over power to Gordon Brown without any say so from the public. That's not democracy in my book.

I think that there is nothing really wrong with this list. As has been said it is FOI and I think that the people against this are completely over-reacting.

Everything is wrong with this list, I don't need my servants telling me who I can see or listen to in a real life face to face situation in perhaps London or perhaps even my home town. It is my choice as the governments master to make that decision.

To say we live in a dictatorship is completely silly. If enough people wanted to, we could have this government on its heels right away.

How? The only option we have is to wait until the next election to vote for somebody else. That's not right away. At least I'm exercising my freedom of expression, which it would seem, these people on the list are being limited from doing.

 

Fact is, they aren't doing that bad a job really. They are making the best of a bad situation. It is or parliment that holds the power not our Prime Minister.

Good job/bad job that's debatable we have a larger deficit now, than all previous governments for the last 300 years.

Borrowing got us into this debt, borrowing will get us out. Yeh right. This party has learnt nothing.

Yes accepted that parliment holds power, but the prime minister is in control of the largest party and with the use of whips can control the way that party votes. That is an enormouse power in the hands of one person. A power that you or I will never have.

quote>

You may agree or not as the case may be, clearly some people don't, but I have as much right as anyone to put forward my views, indeed as do you. I don't tell you to stop your ranting and raving, be so kind as to not tell me that either.

[hym 358]

Again: Discuss the issues, not each other.

[Zezug 6]

When you vote- you vote for a party. Not a Prime Minister. It is like America is it not? The people vote for the party and the party chooses the best person to lead them. Or have I got this wrong? I don't think I have.

- In the US, we don't vote for the party we vote for the person unless I really misunderstood 1) the ballot or 2) what you meant

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Both of these people have openly expressed views that if said in the UK would break the law.quote>

Hold on a second here. Do you mean to say that in the UK it's actually against the law to say hateful things about groups of people?

Originally posted by: davidaiow

When you vote- you vote for a party. Not a Prime Minister. It is like America is it not? The people vote for the party and the party chooses the best person to lead them. Or have I got this wrong?quote>

That's how it works in the UK. That's not how it works in the US. We vote for individuals, not parties. People do often vote for an individual based on their party affiliation, but it's still the individual they're voting for.

Last fall, the ballot I filled in (under the president/vice president slot) involved electors for "Obama and Biden", "McCain and Palin", "Nader and Gonzolez", and "Barr and Root" - not "Democratic","Republican", "Green", and "Libertarian" (though the candidates from each party are all put in the same row, and what party they're from is noted).

[Shadow Assassin 336]

Hold on a second here. Do you mean to say that in the UK it's actually against the law to say hateful things about groups of people? quote>

Smacks of nanny-stateism, doesn't it?

I mean, all those groups have to do is just go squealing to someone in power, "He said hateful things about me", and they're pretty much bound to do something about it, and then they wheel out the "for the public good" excuse...

The thing is, where to draw the line? There's the whole issue of freedom of speech and everything.

To be honest, we don't know absolutely everything about this situation, apart from what the media has told us about why this guy's being kept out of the country. And the media does have a bit of a track record of cherry-picking information. There's got to be more to this situation than what's being reported...

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[earwax_man 18]

"He has described the Islamic holy book the Koran as "a book of hate" and questioned cases of autism"

That's so wrong

[davidaiow 2]

Thanks for clearing the American vote thing up guys. I think that is pretty similar to how it is in the UK- the fact that really we are voting for the leader under the pretence of a party alignment. Or perhaps my grasp of politics (which isn't great I admit) is way off.

Anyway. I think that as far as that man is concerned- I have as much right to dismiss your views as you dismiss everyone elses. It seems we agree.

I for one am content with the choices our elected government has made. I think that the list is one step towards what the people of this country want and that is honesty about criminals. There are many people who want list of sex offenders, those who want lists of criminals living in their area. This list is just giving people the awareness they want and the government has every right to deny potentially dangerous individuals into our country.

Although I'm the first to stand up to those who over-react, action is necessary to a degreein the current policitcal climate I guess. If people were that bothered about this man they would protest, and like many othere have said on here- the internet removes many international barriers anyway. I think the internet is the new place for people to fight over civil liberties. As soon as the internet gets majorly sensored- that is when I have a problem as this is a global tool.Not a national one. We have no right to say what othere cultures should do. Americans have no right to tell us what to do in our own country. We don't tell them what to do in ours.

Again sorry for my ramble. 

[david1314 44]

Originally posted by: davidaiow

Or perhaps my grasp of politics (which isn't great I admit) is way off.quote>

Originally posted by: davidaiow

You and David have some of the stupidist views.quote>

...dignified...

Care to elaborate, or were you speaking in third person?

It is difficult to defend a view without knowing what to defend.

[Merlin of Flyote 8]

I don't think any Americans have said what we can do in our own country. I'm glad you are now clear as to who you vote for.

I am British, English even, I wan't my rights upheld, including the right to see these people if I so desire. Something nobody has in Britain is a right not to be offended. There is no such right. If people are offended by the views of others tough. That's what freedom of expression is about, as said in parliment many years ago:-

I abhor everything you say, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it.

That means anytime, anywhere, by anybody.

[yamaneko 2]

Originally posted by: Zezug

When you vote- you vote for a party. Not a Prime Minister. It is like America is it not? The people vote for the party and the party chooses the best person to lead them. Or have I got this wrong? I don't think I have.

- In the US, we don't vote for the party we vote for the person unless I really misunderstood 1) the ballot or 2) what you meant

quote>

In the UK, people vote for the representative of their district, who is expected to vote for the party leader as PM.  In fact, prudence and a six-week election season dictate that the opposition parties maintain shadow cabinets so upon change in party, the new Cabinet is fully stocked. 

In the United States, we have a two-tier system.  In the first tier, called "the primaries", the political parties determine by their own rules who will participate at the party convention.  The selection of delegates to that convention is governed by each party's rules, which are somewhat arcane and confusing.  About 80% of Democratic and 93% of Republican delegates are apportioned by the results of what we call "primary elections". and the rest are "super-delegates".  The existence of "super-delegates" made for an interesting side-show during the last weeks of the primaries, especially among Democrats.

Democrats prefer proportional representation by Congressional district, weighted by the number of Democratic votes for President obtained in the previous election.  Republicans consider the whole state and tip the representation a bit toward their winning candidates.  If a campaign wins 32 delegates, it can fill those seats any way it pleases so while delegates in 48 of 50 states are not constrained to vote for their named candidate, doing so without permission would be a breach of faith.

This makes our campaign season go on for many months.  Obama's campaign started in February 2007, and he was a latecomer.  We will see if Sarah Palin's 2012 campaign actually started in Iowa in October, 2008 when she chose to speak in Democratic-leaning Iowa when she could have done more good for the McCain-Palin campaign in Indiana or North Carolina.  (We will also see if certain states move their primaries from January 2012 to December 2011.)

(By the way, for Americans upset that Savage was banned from Britain, the US banned Pierre Trudeau, who later became PM of Canada.)

[toxicpiano 125]

maybe we should have a UK politics thread, the way this one is going

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The UK is not a dictatorship or totalitarian state. That is simply ridiculous and probably comes from the same mentality that the US is slipping into socialism, communism, or fascism (take your pick, they can't decide). quote>

So you say that, the government ownership of large stakes in several of the world's largest banks, a pending majority stake in GM, and a pending takeover of an entire healthcare industry, doesn't qualify as socialism. What would qualify?

Maybe it's not socialism until they actually admit it? Have we reached a point where the people can't see it for themselves?

Communism and fascism are both socialist systems, the argument is over which flavor of socialism we're actually building here. That we're on a socialist drift is no longer in question.

[hamsterTK 93]

The guy is definetely a dick whose on the fringe then but I don't condone this kind of thing either.

speaking of free speech, seems even more words are censored on this site. yay

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Maybe it's not socialism until they actually admit it?quote>

Well it is the world's longest river, so that could take a while.

Communism and fascism are both socialist systems, the argument is over which flavor of socialism we're actually building here. That we're on a socialist drift is no longer in question.quote>

Well, nowhere in "change we can believe in" was it ever specified that it was change for the better.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Sure, that might be their right, but that just sounds like "If you're not going to play along with us, we'll just ban you." It's all subjective. It might well be for the public good, considering the touchy subject of Islam, but don't people have the right to at least make an opinion on this guy if he makes the rounds in the UK? quote>

Given his views on Islam, which he has openly expressed in America, its pretty safe to assume his 'speeches' in the UK would cause tension and problems. Islam is an incredibly sensitive issue in the United Kingdom. The list also includes members of the Westboro Baptist Church. Both of these people have openly expressed views that if said in the UK would break the law. THAT is why they are banned.

This is hardly unique, it happens all the time in various countries around the world, including the United States.quote>

Well, number one, I happen to believe that banning "hate speech" is a great violation of freedom of speech, and with the government suppressing any expression they deem to be hateful, there is no freedom of speech being recognized by that government. However, I am not one to argue with facts. Hate speech is illegal in the UK, although it should not be.

Secondly, I do not believe that the reason given by the government was the reason you outlined. Were they not banned for "fostering hate and extremism"? As far as I know, they weren't banned because of their hate speech that would have been illegal if said in the UK, just for "fostering hate", which, as far as I know, is not in itself a crime.

Originally posted by: fukuda

Yet again this is a case of a communist inspired dictatorship acting against the best interests of the people that it cares nothing about.quote>

Ever been in a real dictatorship?quote>

Have you, or anyone else that has replied here? Living in a dictatorship is not necessary to know the characteristics of one, although I must say that the UK is not a dictatorship. A dictatorship requires a dictator. In Britian, who is he?

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Both of these people have openly expressed views that if said in the UK would break the law.quote>

Hold on a second here. Do you mean to say that in the UK it's actually against the law to say hateful things about groups of people? quote>

To my knowledge, yes. Horrid, isn't it?

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The UK is not a dictatorship or totalitarian state. That is simply ridiculous and probably comes from the same mentality that the US is slipping into socialism, communism, or fascism (take your pick, they can't decide). Terry Jones, oops, I mean Gordon Brown is no Mussolini and the UKers having voting control of their representation.quote>

A Mussolini is not necessary for the genesis of a fascist state, and for the record, I do believe that the United States does have the necessary characteristics of a fascist economy, at least in the banking and auto industries. It takes time to complete such a transition. The US, however, does not have a fascist political system. I would also like to remind you that every state that has been considered fascist is different. The US is no exception.

However, the United States may be bankrupt by the time it can turn fascist, but it is definently on that track, and they are riding a fast train.

Originally posted by: earwax_man

"He has described the Islamic holy book the Koran as "a book of hate" and questioned cases of autism"

That's so wrong quote>

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

The UK is not a dictatorship or totalitarian state. That is simply ridiculous and probably comes from the same mentality that the US is slipping into socialism, communism, or fascism (take your pick, they can't decide). quote>

So you say that, the government ownership of large stakes in several of the world's largest banks, a pending majority stake in GM, and a pending takeover of an entire healthcare industry, doesn't qualify as socialism. What would qualify?

Maybe it's not socialism until they actually admit it? Have we reached a point where the people can't see it for themselves?

Communism and fascism are both socialist systems, the argument is over which flavor of socialism we're actually building here. That we're on a socialist drift is no longer in question.

quote>

It is not socialism. It is fascism. Also, you could call them socialist systems, but I feel this too generalizes the specific ideology of socialism, which itself has many variants. I prefer to use the term authoritarian or totalitarian, depending on the degree of the drift.

Lastly, I do not believe that the government, at least under the current proposal, would take over the healthcare industry. There is still a choice between the government and private insurers.