Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: jackdanson on May 05, 2009, 11:03:47 AM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090505/wl_uk_afp/britainimmigrationmideastrussiasexualityneonazi (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090505/wl_uk_afp/britainimmigrationmideastrussiasexualityneonazi)
Brief: Britain banned a bunch of people their country for no reason other than speaking their mind. (glad to see talk show hosts got lumped in with skinhead murderers)
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a savage fan, but this seems like overkill.
"This is the driving force behind tighter rules on exclusions for unacceptable behaviour," she added.
Anything to protect the state eh?
-
Not that I agree with this list particularly - but would anyone be upset if the British govt had banned "bunch of people their country for no reason other than speaking their mind" (in some cases it is clearly a bit more than that) if the list hadn't included Savage?
Plenty of people on that list who only 'speak their mind' who wouldn't find many supporters, nor would many want them in the US. I'm thinking of Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Yunis Al Astal and Amir Siddique, Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal and the Phelps.
Anyway - what might have put Savage on that list?
(This does look like an exercise in producing 16 people from a wider list who aren't all extremist Islamic preachers)
-
There's a difference between speaking one's mind and open incitement to violence, but that's a distinction that appears to, by the day, to be disappearing...
-
Rather than allowing free speech and engaging these people in head-on debates Britain takes the coward's approach and bans these people. It's like a child sticking their fingers in their ears while yelling "la la la I won't listen and you're not allowed in my yard". If you accept what socialist Britain is doing then you'll have to accept the end of the 1A for us, and if Obama gets his way it will be the end of any speech that is not "PC".
There's a difference between speaking one's mind and open incitement to violence,
If there was never an "open incitement to violence" there would never have been The American Revolution.
-
That's kinda my tedious point. The original post described it as banning for speaking your mind. Lists of undesirables are hardly anything new, I believe you lot generally won't let anyone from here in if they have a criminal conviction.
I doubt this list would have attracted much comment had it not included Savage, so there must be a (real or perceived) difference between Savage and the others and it's not to do with only speaking your mind.
Anyway, I'm wondering how similar this list is to your own? I'd be very surprised if you weren't denying access to certain individuals. Probably a good number of people on this list, not even including the ones whose criminal convictions would already bar them. 'Cowardly'?
-
I doubt this list would have attracted much comment had it not included Savage, so there must be a (real or perceived) difference between Savage and the others and it's not to do with only speaking your mind.
Yes, there is a difference, he isn't proposing violence. I honestly don't know of the Islamic clerics, so I couldn't tell you whether or not they propose violence. As far as I know, the U.S. hasn't stopped non-violent, far left wing, europeans from coming into our country.
As pointed out by the quote I highlighted, they aren't banning people based off of there potential to cause violence, they are basing the bans off of the peoples' belief system.
-
Who are the REAL "extremists?" That's the question of the decade.
Is it a talk jock like Michael Savage, who although he deals in raw candor that many love and many love to hate, does not incite to violence? Or is it a government--I mean Britain's--that imports trouble and responds by banning kitchen knives, fingernails, and innuendo and putting surveillance cameras every ten feet, the same government that thinks the real trouble is "British heritage?"
-
They're banning anyone who "causes trouble."
Never occurred to them, I guess, that they are causing trouble by their own policies. I keep forgetting, of course: government only solves problems, never causes them.
-
Is it a talk jock like Michael Savage, who although he deals in raw candor that many love and many love to hate, does not incite to violence?
I believe it was Savage who boasted of smearing door knobs at a Republican office with mucus when he had a bad cold during the 2000 election.
-
Peer into our progressive future as a country.
-
Peer into our progressive future as a country.
I think you're there already.
No fly lists? I hate Father and Son too, but Cat Stevens ain't a terrorist.
-
I believe it was Savage who boasted of smearing door knobs at a Republican office with mucus when he had a bad cold during the 2000 election.
You are mistaking the manic-depressive, right wing Michael Savage for the oleaginous, queer Dan Savage.
And it was Gary Bauer's campaign in 2000.
"Stalking Gary Bauer"
http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A13970
Naked, feverish and higher than a kite on codeine aspirin, I called the Bauer campaign and volunteered. My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I would go to Bauer's campaign office and cough on everything--phones and pens, staplers and staffers. I even hatched a plan to infect the candidate himself. I would keep the pen in my mouth until Bauer dropped by his offices to rally the troops. And when he did, I would approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.
...
I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn't time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn't all it should be--I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had--but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn't manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary's hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.
So, as much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men--we will put anything in our mouths--I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack.
Dan Savage is still allowed to travel to the UK.
-
Not really sure there is a problem here - these people want to come to our country and our government has told them they cant, and I dont really disagree with anyone who is actually on that list being banned (even Wilders, whose objection to being banned was entirely hypocritical).
Why should we let the likes of Phelps come here, unless he is to be a plaything of the mob?
-
Their country, remember? They don't have to let ANYBODY in.
Since these people are not citizens...
-
Micro for the win.
Chris
-
No, they don't have to let anybody in.
But isn't it amazing who they DO let in?
And who "they," doing the letting, are?
It says volumes about what Britain has become.
Are we in the USA a whole lot better? I'm not saying we are.
-
Their country, remember? They don't have to let ANYBODY in.
Since these people are not citizens...
Of course. And I don't have to like their selection either. I just view it as another step towards banning "hate speech". (which will eventually come to mean anything that doesn't agree with what the nanny-state propagates)
-
I am a little bit ticked that they would ban the Savage. Because the attention just feeds his megalomania. ;/
-
we barred farley mowat for goodness sakes. and we wanna whine about their choices?
-
I am a little bit ticked that they would ban the Savage. Because the attention just feeds his megalomania. ;/
I figured that any talk show host would enjoy it. One or two might be wondering what they have to do to get on the list. I'm curious as to what Savage might have done.
No fly list is interesing. 16 people on it pre 9/11, was apparently over 400 by Nov 2001. 60 Minutes claimed in 2006 that the list contained 44,000. Chertoff claimed in 2008 that there were 2,500 on the list, with another 16,500 subject to extra scrutiny but allowed to fly. That's in, out or within the US.
-
Their country, remember? They don't have to let ANYBODY in.
Since these people are not citizens...
Sure, it's their choice who they let in. And we're free to criticize when they make fools of themselves over who they choose to exclude.
-
I can't wait to see who they add to the list.....Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Miss California, fistful.....
....but then, I can see their reasons for fistful.... =D
-
They blocked Geert Wilders. "No truth, please, we're British."
Ms Smith is just another Euro-crat who is part of a coven that is tyrannizing the EU.
-
Ag's characterisation of the Wilders issue is absolutely accurate. Hypocritical.
He calls for restrictions on the beliefs, speech and religious practice of others and cries that free speech is his right.
There's nothing truthful about Geert's film either. Hateful propaganda, and yes, I've watched it and analysed how horribly out of context his quotes from the Quran were. Shoddy propaganda designed to inflame the idiot but carefully steps away from actual incitement. Like all of his ilk.
-
I guess insularity goes with islands.
-
Not a classic response from you. Needed a peppering of supposedly inciting quotation marks and veiled references to upcoming unpleasantness.
-
I figured that any talk show host would enjoy it. One or two might be wondering what they have to do to get on the list. I'm curious as to what Savage might have done.
He was sued by CAIR for saying, uh, something, I don't know what. The only violence I've heard him incite is his perennial announcements that every shyster ACLU lawyer should be drowned at the bottom of the ocean, or something like that.
And who could disagree with dead lawyers? :laugh:
-
And who could disagree with dead lawyers? :laugh:
I wouldn't.
But I'd be eyeing a Harvard Law Review and waiting for an opportunity to split open zombie lawyer skull with it.
(It's 3am)
-
You can be arrested and prosecuted - even imprisoned - for merely saying the wrong thing in many euro provinces now. And we are not speaking of "threats against" or related spoken words. Merely the wrong expressed opinion or question. It has been that way for awhile.
-
Hasn't a person been tried in Austria for saying the Holocaust was not a very important event, in historical terms?
-
Hasn't a person been tried in Austria for saying the Holocaust was not a very important event, in historical terms?
David Irving. 'Revisionist' (in the actual dirty sense, not the commonly meant dirty sense) historian. Holocaust denial laws. Naturally the Germans and the Austrians are sensitive about the subject, but I can't support such laws.
As you can see above I was awake until the early hours, which has given me some time to think.
My initial reaction was the usual one to the 'I'm never going there, it's a statist nanny etc...' - check your own eye first. Then had the same reaction as Micro - we get to decide who we let in and who we don't. That's what the US government does, and on a grand scale.
Savage though. Well, he's quite right to be upset. He does not belong on a list of murderers and inciters of violence. Neither do the Phelps though. They are perceived undesirables, a category into which the US govt lumps all Britons with a criminal conviction.
Wilders is clearly a hypocrite and nasty little man, but I'd let him in too although I have issues with those who use freedom of speech as a defence when they advocate the removal of such rights from others.
Which brings me back around - I'm not sure many of you would like anti-US figures who stand for everything you oppose popping in and out of the country as they see fit, going where they like and saying what they like. Your No-fly list is huge. So criticise us equitably, Yusuf Islam (Cat Stevens) may have made the list in error (along with many others), but he was still deported. We seem to have imposed a ban on a man who does not deserve it. I can't see how we are worse than you.
-
David Irving. 'Revisionist' (in the actual dirty sense, not the commonly meant dirty sense) historian. Holocaust denial laws. Naturally the Germans and the Austrians are sensitive about the subject, but I can't support such laws.
No, it's not him I mean.
I mean Le Pen.
Here. (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-23235520.html)
He said: "If you take a 1,000-page book on World War II, the concentration camps take up only two pages and the gas chambers 10 to 15 lines. This is what one calls a detail."
I can sort of understand Holocaust denial being banned (though of course I disagree), but Germany and Austria have long gone beyond that. Germany's Office for the Protection of the Constitution is especially a joke.
-
Iain, in the case of what Wilders is talking about, the unpleasantness isn't "upcoming," it's there, right in your face, and I don't need to "veil" it. You know perfectly well what you are about against in Britain, and I don't need to be so cruel as to remind you of what is going on. You can block the messenger, but you can't block the reality. Your scepter'd isle has lost its sceptre, and your policies are governed by fear. What bothers me is not the decline of Britain but that your decadence is infectious.
7/7, baby.
-
Oh I know what the problems are.
They will not be solved by vicious propaganda, quote mining and banning of religious freedoms.
If Wilders is your answer, your "truth" then you're asking spectacularly wrong questions. "[Y]our policies are governed by fear" - which is exactly what Wilders seeks to promote. Banning the Quran is precisely that.
-
I am not championing everything Wilders says, I am asking why you, as a nation, are afraid to let him in among you to speak his mind and engage in honest debate. You speak of "vicious propaganda" and "banning of religious freedoms." Is that what you see in Holland? Or, rather, in certain obvious pockets of Britain itself these days?
Ban the Koran? No. Ban "British heritage?" Is that your counter-proposal?
-
before we got telling the brits what to do we might wanna look at ourselves
Mowat published a denunciation of "the destruction of animal life in the north Atlantic" entitled Sea of Slaughter in 1984. In 1985, as a part of the promotional tour for this book, Mowat accepted an invitation to speak at a university in Chico, California. However, U.S. customs officials at Lester B. Pearson International Airport in Toronto denied Mowat entry to the United States. They wouldn't tell him why specifically, but did tell him that it was because of a security file about him that indicated he should be denied entry "for violating any one of 33 statutes" (which ranged from being a member of the Communist Party to being a member of several other radical groups). The result was a media circus, which brought worldwide attention to Mowat. The negative publicity eventually forced the Reagan Administration to decide that Mowat was free to visit the U.S., but Mowat, peeved by being initially refused, declined. Mowat speculated on the reasons why he was refused entry to the U.S. in his 1985 book, My Discovery of America.
-
Words. Mouth. Don't.
I think I said above that I don't support not allowing Wilders in, although I find his hiding behind free speech to more than a touch slimy.
Wilders doesn't want honest debate. His film was designed to inflame, whilst he could plausibly claim that he never incited.
http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=11592.msg207453#msg207453 - that's my analysis of the Quranic quotes as Wilders presents them, and their entirety and context from an online edition of the Quran. Quote mining is obvious when this is done.
-
Inflammation is the natural consequence of untended injury. Governments do nothing or do the wrong things, then wonder why tensions are rising.
I don't think the issue is quotes, it's actions.
I'm not saying only the UK is guilty of ignoble reticence; the whole western world is.
-
Can we ban Savage from the States, too?
-
I am not championing everything Wilders says, I am asking why you, as a nation, are afraid to let him in among you to speak his mind and engage in honest debate. You speak of "vicious propaganda" and "banning of religious freedoms." Is that what you see in Holland? Or, rather, in certain obvious pockets of Britain itself these days?
Ban the Koran? No. Ban "British heritage?" Is that your counter-proposal?
No. The problem with Wilders is that he is a hypocrite, calling for things to be done to others and yet objecting when those things are done to him. He doesnt want a debate (because lets face it his livelyhood depends on him maintaining his views), much less an honest one any more than Phelps does - he wants the oxygen of publicity, either as the victim or as the politician telling people "like it is".
As for whether he should be let into the UK, thats a matter for us - not him, and not you. Personally, the more I think about it the more convinced I am that they were right to ban him.
-
How exactly is Wilders a "hypocrite?"
Is it your business? Yeah, and you're welcome to it. But grouping Savage with the rest of that crowd is pure leftist politics, nothing more.
-
Looked at a Brit internet forum and if it was typical, it seems quite a few Brits were not at all pleased with banning Savage.
At least a few stalwarts opined that perhaps Britain needed to start deporting aliens - including illegal aliens - who preached violent jihad against Britain.
Wonder if they're headed for gaol now for expressing that hateful opinion. ;/
-
Is this the same Michael Savage who very recently said that U.S. Navy ships were "nothing more than floating brothels," and also said the Navy was now merely a welfare program? I am really tired of hearing people, especially conservative talkers, defend him as if he were on our side. Actually, I wouldn't mind so much if they decried the British policy on its merits, but at the same time, they should clearly state that Michael Savage is nothing more than a nightly rage-fest, with no redeeming content.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=pqT&q=michael+savage+navy&btnG=Search
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5274
-
Is hypocrisy a sensible reason to exclude someone from a nation?
-
Is this the same Michael Savage who very recently said that U.S. Navy ships were "nothing more than floating brothels," and also said the Navy was now merely a welfare program? I am really tired of hearing people, especially conservative talkers, defend him as if he were on our side. Actually, I wouldn't mind so much if they decried the British policy on its merits, but at the same time, they should clearly state that Michael Savage is nothing more than a nightly rage-fest, with no redeeming content.
Savage can be very interesting when he waxes historical. The rest of the time, he seems to be on a vendetta against all the restaurants in San Fransicko (as he calls it) for their poor quality food, service, etc. Or on some other tangent.
-
Savage can be very interesting when he waxes historical. The rest of the time, he seems to be on a vendetta against all the restaurants in San Fransicko (as he calls it) for their poor quality food, service, etc. Or on some other tangent.
=D He's always ranting about some "ethnic" restaurant he's been going to for years, but which he'll never patronize again.
-
Savage is a hateful little savage most of the time. Despite the fact that there is some agreement in our politics, I've no use for him.
-
Is hypocrisy a sensible reason to exclude someone from a nation?
Yes.
-
Is hypocrisy a sensible reason to exclude someone from a nation?
Someone else, yes. Just so long as it doesn't happen to me. :laugh:
-
Hypocrisy should include concealing the real reasons behind someone's exclusion. It's pretty obvious why Savage is persona non grata in Britain these days.
But like the guy in Crank High Voltage he will just grow stronger through the U.K.'s governmental lightning bolts.
-
changed mind
-
But like the guy in Crank High Voltage he will just grow stronger through the U.K.'s governmental lightning bolts.
Yeah, like I said, it makes him more of a legend in his own mind. And, sadly, in the minds of others.
-
Ah.... my first post.
Well, I consider the study of the West's collapse through self doubt, and Europe's descent into darkness a specialty of mine. Look, here's the deal. I'm not making the case the US is that much better off than the UK or the Netherlands, in terms of free speech right now, but so far we haven't gone quite to the level Europe has in stifling free speech. (Though look at the Patriot Act and the MIAC report.... it's clear our politicos have designs on us)
Here is the thing: Europe literally has suppressed the speech of those on the political right by American standards. Wilders probably could be a Republican in the US Congress (oddly enough, probably just a moderate one) but, he is for lowering the ammount of social welfare in the Netherlands, lowering taxes, making it easier to start a business, closing the borders, and encouraging Muslims to leave. He looks at his nation's culture and heritage as something worth preserving, and is afraid of those who want to replace it. He also is wary of big government. He generally is skeptical of international orgs, and believes Western culture is superior to Islamic culture.
Sounds like a USA Republican to me. Problem is, in Europe, they don't want any of those philosophies or opinions I just mentioned to take root. I look at that, and to me, Britain's action has little to do with preventing violence and much to do with stiffling a political viewpoint.... I wonder how long until that MP, Daniel Hannon is prosecuted for being Eurosceptic, conservative, etc. He caused a huge uproar with calls to be stripped of his status for criticizing England's health service.
The ultimate result of Europe's actions is the following. Europe has no right wing really. And, American left-wingers are attempting to stifle the right in the USA using the force of law, and have fooled themselves into believing it's not a violation of the 1st Amendment.
-
It looks like Britain is retracting the policy. And he's still whining about it.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1200636/Alan-Johnson-ditches-Jacqui-Smiths-wanted-list-blunder.html
-
Naked, feverish and higher than a kite on codeine aspirin, I called the Bauer campaign and volunteered. My plan? Get close enough to Bauer to give him the flu, which, if I am successful, will lay him flat just before the New Hampshire primary. I would go to Bauer's campaign office and cough on everything--phones and pens, staplers and staffers. I even hatched a plan to infect the candidate himself. I would keep the pen in my mouth until Bauer dropped by his offices to rally the troops. And when he did, I would approach him and ask for his autograph, handing him the pen from my flu-virus-incubating mouth.
...
I went from doorknob to doorknob. They were filthy, no doubt, but there wasn't time to find a rag to spit on. My immune system wasn't all it should be--I was in the grip of the worst flu I had ever had--but I was on a mission. If for some reason I didn't manage to get a pen from my mouth to Gary's hands, I wanted to seed his office with germs, get as many of his people sick as I could, and hopefully one of them would infect the candidate.
So, as much as it pains me to confirm a hateful stereotype of gay men--we will put anything in our mouths--I started licking doorknobs. The front door, office doors, even a bathroom door. When that was done, I started in on the staplers, phones and computer keyboards. Then I stood in the kitchen and licked the rims of all the clean coffee cups drying in the rack.
And this man was not charged with a crime?
-
Sounds like a USA Republican to me. Problem is, in Europe, they don't want any of those philosophies or opinions I just mentioned to take root. I look at that, and to me, Britain's action has little to do with preventing violence and much to do with stiffling a political viewpoint.... I wonder how long until that MP, Daniel Hannon is prosecuted for being Eurosceptic, conservative, etc. He caused a huge uproar with calls to be stripped of his status for criticizing England's health service.
From what I read the average Jacques and Gillian in Europe isn't all that "left," it's the Eurocratic class that sits atop the people like a flatulent elephant.
-
And this man was not charged with a crime?
He is a Gay ManTM, and therefore can get away with all sorts of crimes and hijinks that a straight man can not.
-
We in America just have to accept that nearly all of Europe is lost. We were fortunate to get out from the influence of Europe and idiotically got back into it by backing the English and French in WWI, had we just stayed out of it there wouldn't have been the rise of the Nazis or epic rise of the Soviets to being a world power. We in America must accept that our time dealing with Europe must come to an end. Oh sure we can still carry on business but to understand or attempt to understand European culture should come to an end. And being to welcome Western Europe as an Islamic Caliphate and call it a day. Yes we have masses of culturally and mentally diseased socialist traitors in our country masquerading as Americans but a collapse of our nation is coming and we should rather spend our time preparing for the day when we have spent storing food and ammo for the coming cleansing by nature, to look upon the marauding hordes of socialist scum bent on raping and murdering(think Katrina) and know they are not worth preserving, protecting, feeding, or helping in any fashion whatsoever. So as to allow nature to take its course allowing them to starve themselves with their unAmerican values so we might rise above their worthless ashes and rebuild the U.S. anew and properly set it on the course our founding fathers intended. We have allowed, nay encouraged, the weak and useless to breed and breed prolifically they have filling our prisions, draining our coffers through welfare, and now rather than waste giving money to the salvation army or red cross, better are we to arm ourselves and prepare for the day we have to feed ourselves.----Now wouldn't it be rather scary if I thought like this(I don't, I assure you). I'm finding it harder and harder not to with everything going on around the world. And with what is happening in my country, the U.S..
We'll either hit and wall and it will all fall apart, or we won't. Lets stay out of Europe's business, well lets help the Swiss remain free from the idiotic outset of their French populace bent on ruining the great country. And lets not let Europes opinion affect us, they'll all be Muslim soon enough.