Page 1 of 56 12345678910112651 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 1534

Thread: Free Speech in the UK

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,436
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Free Speech in the UK

    The UK is beginning to set a new precedent of banning what it apparently considers illegal opinions. Just recently, 3 right wing activists were detained and deported by UK border police for being anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, 'peddling online hate', and overall not being 'Conducive to the public good'. But what is so dangerous about an opinion?

    Nick Lowles, chief executive of the anti-racism campaign group Hope Not Hate, says there has been a shift in who the UK government considers to be a threat. He says that "during the last two to three years the government has taken a very strong position against hard-line neo-Nazis, extreme Holocaust deniers, banning many who've attempted to enter the UK." "What's new about the banning of Generation Identity activists such as Martin Sellner, Brittany Pettibone, and their increasingly alt-right friend Lauren Southern, is that the government has signalled that it's going after 'softer' targets on the hard right," says Lowles.
    "These are people who have huge reach on social media, they are peddlers of online hate, and as our recent State of Hate report highlighted, the online reach of right-wing hate preachers can have disastrous consequences."
    So the government is re-adjusting its sights, previously set on new-Nazis and Holocaust-deniers, expanding them onto conservatives and other right-wing opinions.

    Martin Sellner, a prominent Austrian member of Generation Identity, had planned to give a speech at Speaker's corner today, where even Karl Marx was once given a platform. That speech was instead given by Tommy Robinson.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 


    All this looks like is a government crackdown on dissenting opinions on the European mass migration experiment we are currently experiencing. These aren't seen as citizens with a voice, they're being treated like dissenting subjects that need to do as told.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Nope. There is nothing to suggest dramatically that his heart is giving out. His heart attack is a testament to how well he can recover from something like that.

  2. #2
    TheDarkKnight's Avatar Compliance will be rewarded
    Civitate Patrician Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The good (not South) part of the USA
    Posts
    11,335
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    England is allowed to make a decision on who they let into the country, is it not?
    Last edited by TheDarkKnight; March 18, 2018 at 02:27 PM. Reason: Terrible English on my part
    “Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”
    ---President Goodbrain on the American Revolution

  3. #3

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    England is allowed to make a decision on who they let into the country, is it not?
    It's not an England problem though, it's a UK problem. Scotland is just as hypocritical and illiberal. It's this hypocrisy and the double standards employed that make the whole issue stink. They have no issue with LGBT activists handing out leaflets calling Jesus gay etc. (in good faith, to be fair), but when others copy that action and just replace "Jesus" with "Allah", it's suddenly declared "racism" (because didn't you know, Allah is a race. I swear I met somebody recently who identified as Allah) and cited as grounds for denying entry.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    England is allowed to make a decision on who they let into the country, is it not?
    It's undemocratic actually, i'd say, insofar as the group of citizens who would like to listen to the foreigner are denied that for no other reason that some people find their views offensive. Of course a country has a right to decide who comes into the country or not, but that should never be decided by wheter a foreigner's speech is "good or bad". that some find it offensive ought not be relevant when deciding who can enter. Free speech allows citizens to have views other citizens find offensive, and i see inviting a speaker as just an extension of someone's free speech. Free speech has its limitations of course, as defined by law, and that's the same standard that ought to be applied for foreign speakers. wheter you are a citizen or not really shouldn't make a difference for if you are allowed to say something.
    To take a somewhat unrelated example which i think follows the same logic, it's like business-customer discrimination. My view is, if you have a business, you have an obligation to treat customers by the same standards, and not subject them to your arbitarary personal views. Otherwise you should not be in that business. Similarily, if a country is in the business of allowing people to enter, the standards applied for potential entrants should be the same, and not determined by some arbitrary manner when some people feel "offended". This is what is meant by rule of law, not men. If it's actual hate speech, or incitement to violence, or anything else illegal, then yes obviously they should not be allowed in. But to deny entry because of controversial opinions is setting a very, very dangerous precedent of the majority (or more likely a vocal and influential minority) using the force of government to supress those they disagree with.

  5. #5
    TheDarkKnight's Avatar Compliance will be rewarded
    Civitate Patrician Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The good (not South) part of the USA
    Posts
    11,335
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by NosPortatArma View Post
    It's undemocratic actually, i'd say, insofar as the group of citizens who would like to listen to the foreigner are denied that for no other reason that some people find their views offensive. Of course a country has a right to decide who comes into the country or not, but that should never be decided by wheter a foreigner's speech is "good or bad". that some find it offensive ought not be relevant when deciding who can enter. Free speech allows citizens to have views other citizens find offensive, and i see inviting a speaker as just an extension of someone's free speech. Free speech has its limitations of course, as defined by law, and that's the same standard that ought to be applied for foreign speakers. wheter you are a citizen or not really shouldn't make a difference for if you are allowed to say something.
    Thank you for being the only one to actually answer my question.

    It's not just that they considered it offensive though. It's the fact that they feared their rhetoric will lead to violence. Which it can.

    And before people start down the road of "But what about the [insert another group here]", I would agree with barring them as well.

    The British provided a good enough reason to not allow them into the country. If the people want to hear the banned ones speak, they can go to them. Nothing is stopping them from that. Or even better...just follow them online.
    “Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”
    ---President Goodbrain on the American Revolution

  6. #6

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    Thank you for being the only one to actually answer my question.

    It's not just that they considered it offensive though. It's the fact that they feared their rhetoric will lead to violence. Which it can.

    And before people start down the road of "But what about the [insert another group here]", I would agree with barring them as well.

    The British provided a good enough reason to not allow them into the country. If the people want to hear the banned ones speak, they can go to them. Nothing is stopping them from that. Or even better...just follow them online.

    you're welcome.

    again, I would want the same standards to foreign speakers as is applied to citizens. If a citizen speaks, wholly within the law, and it causes violence, then the wrongdoing is entirely on the part of those who started the violence. No one has a right to get violent because someone else said something legal. People who cant control themselves are the ones to blame, and that's what the police are for. I think any civilized country should afford foreigners the courtesy of being free to speak within the law. again this is setting a very dangerous precedent, whereby a vocal minority can shut down any debate by threatening violence. That goes entirely contrary to the notion of free speech. Rather than limiting free speech, we should be arresting those who start violence over legal speech. Such people have no place in civilized society.

  7. #7
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,436
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    The British provided a good enough reason to not allow them into the country. If the people want to hear the banned ones speak, they can go to them. Nothing is stopping them from that. Or even better...just follow them online.
    What, I wonder, is this 'online hate', this 'racism' as described by the letter of deportation given to Lauren Southern. I'd love to know. 'Racism' is an entirely subjective term nowadays, with as Severus said it being applied to anything they disagree with. And being Islamophobic is not, under any circumstances racist. Banning someone for criticism of an ideology, an idea, is terrifyingly tyrannical.

    Lets all just remember what exactly Southern was banned for. Being provocative isn't hate speech. Islam isn't a race. Muslims should be capable of not engaging in violence against people who do this, it's the religion of peace remember? And if they do it's them that are the problem, not Southern. As we have seen, handing out similar leaflets about Jesus had absolutely no backlash from Christians. Why? Because of t o l e r a n c e. Something clearly lacking in Luton's salafist and wahabbist community.

    So no, the police haven't given a sufficient reason for deportation. Indeed, these three far right "hate peddlers" are also suing the British government now, it seems.

    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Nope. There is nothing to suggest dramatically that his heart is giving out. His heart attack is a testament to how well he can recover from something like that.

  8. #8
    Ygraine's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Posts
    1,606

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    England is allowed to make a decision on who they let into the country, is it not?
    The people should be able to choose - not corrupt officials with underlying agendas.


    A little more on topic, I find this UK-attitude quite ironic because at the same time they have allowed entry to hundreds of imams who preach hatred openly. The more I see these double standards the more I feel that the so called "alt-right" has a point.

    We have a slightly similar situation in Sweden, where government sanctioned "internet watchdogs" go after for example elderly people who simply quote the quran when pointing out fallacies and how incompatible that religion is with our western values - but at the same time PC-politicians/officials post friendly photos on themselves where they shake hands with known extremist hate preachers who they welcome to our country.
    (2nd position - Gameplay Mods-category - 2016 Modding Awards.)

  9. #9

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
    The people should be able to choose - not corrupt officials with underlying agendas.
    So what? Set a separate poll for every person at the border? Give the citizens the responsibility to vote a thousand times a day and if a persons vote isn't reached, sorry, you gotta wait in customs until tomorrow? Maybe you'll get to start your business trip or vacation then?

    You know how the fundamentals of a government for a country with a large population works right? Whatever the differences between those countries are, you do know this, don't you?
    One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
    -Neil deGrasse Tyson

    Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.

  10. #10
    Dante Von Hespburg's Avatar Sloth's Inferno
    Civitate Magistrate

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,978

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
    The people should be able to choose - not corrupt officials with underlying agendas.


    A little more on topic, I find this UK-attitude quite ironic because at the same time they have allowed entry to hundreds of imams who preach hatred openly. The more I see these double standards the more I feel that the so called "alt-right" has a point.
    I think though another perspective would be that your acting as if the two things are independent of one another in regards to the UK context (I'm not informed enough to speak on Swedish affairs alas). The solidifying of legislation in regard to 'hate speech' and its increase in parameters was entirely due to the issues in the early 2000s of Iman's and radicals openly preaching hatred (and technically acting in a 'grey area' regarding the law). Which naturally a fair few people found incredibly distasteful- as you yourself have said here. The issue being with the clamp down on this is that the UK and generally 'western states' over the last few decades avoid creating legislation which openly penalizes one specific group due to various factors such as history, electoral feeling, social stability, international reputation and the basic 'tenants' of a democratic state to name a few.

    This means that 'hate speech' to stop such things was expanded to include new areas and that has as we have seen now penalized both left and right, muslim, atheist, christian etc. The flip side is that in the UK you no longer get Iman's preaching publicly 'hatred' without fear of the law. So what i'm saying is essentially you can't have one without the other, and there are always consequences to increasing the powers of the law to combat specific threats- because the powers are always created and implemented and indeed interpreted in a general way as they can never be 'specific' but by necessity are broad- allowing for both serious and controversial statements from all parties to potentially fall under them.

    You either have free-speech and indeed allow 'whacko's' and people with viewpoints we ourselves find horrific to say disparaging things about the west and spread hatred, and at the same time allow for the radicals on the right and left to also do the same about other issues- or you opt for as the UK did 'social stability' by curtailing it all. Its not a one or other scenario- and structurally never can be for a state which espouses 'western' values. I find it interesting (Though have yet to decide if its a 'that's bad' or is something truly serious) that from the outset of terrorist activity (of any kind) the 'west' is always assured 'we will not let them change us- western society is open and will always be so etc etc'- but the reality is, that yes it does change things- people sacrifice freedoms and privacy they had before in return for the promise of greater security- and like you've argued here essentially, are happy when one is dealt with, but when the same power is used to prevent expression in other areas, are (rightfully) annoyed and complain. Overall the 'War on Terror' has fundamentally changed western society in a way that seeps into other areas actively (though equal application of laws created to combat specific issues within that context) or passively (In legitimizing an already growing culture where privacy is a commodity not a right- data sharing etc and one that has increasingly been invaded by states and private bodies).
    Last edited by Dante Von Hespburg; March 23, 2018 at 11:09 AM.
    House of Caesars: Under the Patronage of Char Aznable

    Proud Patron of the roguishly suave Gatsby


  11. #11

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Ygraine View Post
    The people should be able to choose - not corrupt officials with underlying agendas.


    A little more on topic, I find this UK-attitude quite ironic because at the same time they have allowed entry to hundreds of imams who preach hatred openly. The more I see these double standards the more I feel that the so called "alt-right" has a point.

    We have a slightly similar situation in Sweden, where government sanctioned "internet watchdogs" go after for example elderly people who simply quote the quran when pointing out fallacies and how incompatible that religion is with our western values - but at the same time PC-politicians/officials post friendly photos on themselves where they shake hands with known extremist hate preachers who they welcome to our country.
    The people aren't foreign Nazi sympatisers. Let the government do it's job in sweeping up dodgy foreigners. Britain was slack in the past and paid the price in having to deal with terrorism and extremism as a result.

    Dante Von Hespburg has , and not for the first time, explained in the most excellent and repworthy way how important these laws are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post
    Nazibabe video
    Well some foreigner turns up, locals recognise the blatant religious harassment and the the Police ask her to stop. Hardly remarkable.
    Last edited by mongrel; March 23, 2018 at 12:56 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  12. #12
    Mithradates's Avatar Campidoctor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hungary
    Posts
    1,565

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    Well some foreigner turns up, locals recognise the blatant religious harassment and the the Police ask her to stop. Hardly remarkable.

    "foreigner" = fellow commonwealth citizen
    "locals" = ummat al-Islamiyah, the Islamic Community
    "religious harassment" = promoting lgbt rights
    "ask her to stop" = gets barred from the country for life

    "Nazibabe " = Nazism. another word you do not know what it means.


  13. #13

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Mithradates View Post

    "foreigner" = fellow commonwealth citizen
    "locals" = ummat al-Islamiyah, the Islamic Community
    "religious harassment" = promoting lgbt rights
    "ask her to stop" = gets barred from the country for life

    "Nazibabe " = Nazism. another word you do not know what it means.

    Get it right. Britons are commonwealth citizens too, as is Nazibabe. She is unarguably not given leave to remain in the UK, the population of Luton unless there is evidence to the contrary obviously do have that right.

    Locals. If they live in Luton they are local. Tommy Robinson lived in Luton and or the nearest prison. He ain't Muslim

    I fail to see how one can promote LGBT rights which is entirely in the gift of Her Majesty's government, by use of religious harassment against passers by who have no power to do things. Why not Westminster? Besides the only known sexual encounter, if that is what you can call it , the Almighty could arguably had is that with Mary mom of Jesus, a female, although Asherah, Queen of Heaven, is linked with Him. So no , has nothing to with LGBT rights. Does she mix with people like Gok Wan or Peter Thatchell, no just the ex-BNP football hooligan and fraud known as Tommy Robinson and a freind of the serial racial harrasers of Britain First. Show me a picture of her campaigning for a genuine LGBT group.

    The people of Luton didn't ban her from the country. The police did.Any more lies of yours to burst?

    Racists love Nazibabe. She used to beg money from them on Patreon until a change of policy meant she is forced to work a little harder to shake money out of racist pockets. Like stripping for odious old men, it is not the most ideal way for a woman to make a living , but I suppose some people have no pride.
    Last edited by mongrel; March 23, 2018 at 03:11 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  14. #14
    TheDarkKnight's Avatar Compliance will be rewarded
    Civitate Patrician Moderator Emeritus Content Emeritus Administrator Emeritus

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    The good (not South) part of the USA
    Posts
    11,335
    Blog Entries
    8

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Of course it is a double standard. I'm not disagreeing with that.

    However the government identified these three as problematic and turned them away. I see no problem with that. They have no rights as non-citizens (though the one from Canada might have some...not sure on the specifics there) so there is nothing illegal about this. Their rights to free speech haven't been violated as they don't have any under English law, I imagine.

    It's a non-issue.
    “Our Army manned the air, it rammed the ramparts, it took over airports, it did everything it had to do. And at Fort McHenry, under the rockets’ red glare, had nothing but victory. When dawn came, the star-spangled banner waved defiant.”
    ---President Goodbrain on the American Revolution

  15. #15

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Gen. Chris View Post
    Of course it is a double standard. I'm not disagreeing with that.

    However the government identified these three as problematic and turned them away. I see no problem with that. They have no rights as non-citizens (though the one from Canada might have some...not sure on the specifics there) so there is nothing illegal about this. Their rights to free speech haven't been violated as they don't have any under English law, I imagine.

    It's a non-issue.
    It's actually a pretty big issue for us Europeans, including UK citizens, because a) we're used to travelling freely and without ideologically-based restrictions between European countries, and b) because it's one of many symptoms of the authoritarianism inherent in European and British bureaucracy and the general suppression of criticism of Islam under the guise of keeping the peace.
    But maybe someone privileged enough to have been born in the USA, one of maybe two or three countries worldwide that actually have free speech, may struggle to understand this.

    By the way, the word you're looking for is "British". The UK has not yet been dissolved, so England is not an independent country.

  16. #16
    Aexodus's Avatar Persuasion>Coercion
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    NI
    Posts
    6,436
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    As a British citizen, I find it egregious when someone who holds similar views to me on certain issues, is denied entry to the country because of those views. Especially when it's done to a commonwealth citizen subject to the crown. At the end of the day, where does it leave people like me with similar relatively conservative opinions, when the government is doing its best to quell those opinions. The government should have no mandate to regulate politics, except when it directly calls for violence. But so far, I haven't seen evidence of that Fromm these people, which is where my indignation, and many others' comes from.

    So there's a double standard, but it's a non-issue at the same time... right.
    Patronised by Pontifex Maximus

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    Nope. There is nothing to suggest dramatically that his heart is giving out. His heart attack is a testament to how well he can recover from something like that.

  17. #17

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    As a British citizen, I find it egregious when someone who holds similar views to me on certain issues, is denied entry to the country because of those views. Especially when it's done to a commonwealth citizen subject to the crown. At the end of the day, where does it leave people like me with similar relatively conservative opinions, when the government is doing its best to quell those opinions. The government should have no mandate to regulate politics, except when it directly calls for violence. But so far, I haven't seen evidence of that Fromm these people, which is where my indignation, and many others' comes from.

    So there's a double standard, but it's a non-issue at the same time... right.
    Tommy Robinson is a fraud and a violent habitual criminal, I 'm surprised he found time out of the nick to help out. You have similar views to him, you say?.........In what way?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aexodus View Post
    Muslims should be capable of not engaging in violence against people who do this, it's the religion of peace remember? And if they do it's them that are the problem, not Southern. As we have seen, handing out similar leaflets about Jesus had absolutely no backlash from Christians. Why? Because of t o l e r a n c e. Something clearly lacking in Luton's salafist and wahabbist community.
    Name the Muslims threatening violence against these no marks? Name the Muslims saying that Jesus is gay? As Jesus is revered by Muslims this would be blasphemy and we know where Muslims stand there. If atheists are saying Jesus is .... then you should be bothered about them. Asd for Christians not being bothered not true, we used to have blasphemy laws but the state removed any legal mechanism to adress that issue now. Are you suggesting we have them back? I wouldn't mind, I 'd have fun with that.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/d...00/2499721.stm.

    Organised Islamophobia calls for violence against Muslims and MPs ( they killed one MP remember) on a daily basis, They should be all locked up.
    Last edited by mongrel; March 18, 2018 at 06:07 PM.
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post

    Organised Islamophobia calls for violence against Muslims and MPs ( they killed one MP remember) on a daily basis, They should be all locked up.
    Respectfully, no they should not, because thoughts are not crimes. Now, should they then take the next step of organizing concrete steps of fomenting violent attacks against Muslims, they should absolutely be stopped by law enforcement, arrested, and tried for their crimes of attempted violent acts/crimes.

    Organizing violent crimes against groups based upon their religion is as outrageous as silencing the speech of those who criticize those same people without calling for violence against them.
    Last edited by Pontifex Maximus; March 18, 2018 at 07:21 PM.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by Séverus Sñape View Post
    Respectfully, no they should not, because thoughts are not crimes. Now, should they then take the next step of organizing concrete steps of fomenting violent attacks against Muslims, they should absolutely be stopped by law enforcement, arrested, and tried for their crimes of attempted violent acts/crimes.

    Organizing violent crimes against groups based upon their religion is as outrageous as silencing the speech of those who criticize those same people without calling for violence against them.
    It's rare to see a former EDL, Britain First or Pegida UK commentary that doesn't have followers call for harm to be inflicted on Muslims and or MPs
    Absolutley Barking, Mudpit Mutt Former Patron: Garbarsardar

    "Out of the crooked tree of humanity,no straight thing can be made." Immanuel Kant
    "Oh Yeah? What about a cricket bat? That's pretty straight. Just off the top of my head..." Al Murray, Pub Landlord.

  20. #20

    Default Re: Free Speech in the UK

    Quote Originally Posted by mongrel View Post
    It's rare to see a former EDL, Britain First or Pegida UK commentary that doesn't have followers call for harm to be inflicted on Muslims and or MPs
    Those followers should be arrested, not the speaker. If the speaker directly advocated for criminal activity, he should be arrested.

Page 1 of 56 12345678910112651 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •