Free Speech in the UK

[Aexodus]

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.

[TheDarkKnight]

England is allowed to make a decision on who they let into the country, is it not?

[athanaric]

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.

[TheDarkKnight]

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.

[Aexodus]

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.

[TheDarkKnight]

It's not affecting you directly, and it's not affecting someone who is fully subject to the laws of England. Hence why it is a non-issue.

Does the English government have the right to restrict someone from entering the country? Yes...or no.

[Aexodus]

It does affect me, it's a repression of the political right wing, meaning any future government is more likely to be the status quo as the debates are not being had, they are being stopped for no reason other than their opinion.

As for hate-speech, it seems ludicrous that hundreds of Islamic state fighters are returning to Britain, yet someone is deported because they don't like mass immigration and challenge 'wrongthink'. A liberal democracy can't exist without freedom of speech.

As someone who is apparently being protected by this, I don't think the police were right to deport these people. It acts only in the public interest of a certain kind of people, but not me. Apparently normal people don't matter anymore.

[NosPortatArma]

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.

[athanaric]

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.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

They key surrounding this is the UK has no written constitution, nor permanent precedent (Kept intentionally so) in regards to the parameters of our 'free speech'. Thus allowing it supposedly to be a 'flexible' tool for maintaining stability and unity in the country and one that can accommodate a 'changing world' (Is how its defendants would argue- i would say more its a huge flaw and part of a larger problem in the UK's current political structures) I know I've banged on about it for quite some time now on these forums, but the Conservative government's 'snoopers charter' (deemed illegal by the EU in its current form) which was implemented under the guise of anti-terrorism...and yet contributed nothing towards actual security (Being disparaged by SIS and the Police for creating 'needle in a haystack' syndrome- as well as their current moves to regulate the internet should be incredibly worrying to liberals (in the traditional sense) of both left and right.

This latest spate is exactly in this same tradition, in regards to the clamp-down on 'radical'/far/Conservative/whatever your interpretation of the political spectrum right-wing speakers coming into the country, i could make a tentative proposal that might be a bit dull. But as i'm sure we've all noticed, the UK is incredibly divided currently, brexit having ripped open a fair few divides, which have effectively 'overturned' the traditional mechanism of British stability- the Two-Party block (Parliaments two main parties being channels for blocking smaller 'radical' groups or indeed subsuming them within their broader church- the interwar period is a good case study as it saw this with how Labour blocked any real communist growth, and the Conservatives essentially squeezed out any potential fascists upsurge) is fracturing as those groups within that umbrella are at each others throats publicly- something that when it happens is usually done in private, which is exacerbating the existing and arguably what was growing social dissatisfaction, which is also based on issues surrounding the economy, growing wealth divides, stagnating wages, underemployment et al- the usual UK systemic structural issues, all already exacerbated by austerity. This is quite frankly a toxic mix for stability. The so-called 'student riots' showed a taste of how close things were bubbling, the died down, but that has set the potential tone now. There have been Islamic terrorist attacks, but also 'far-right' terrorist attacks in recent years- while not of course being the norm, i think the potential for a wider-spread 'student riot' from such a group isn't something that can be discarded if things get much worse- and lets be honest- things are going to get much worse, even if everything else is someone frozen, the way the Conservatives handled brexit and moronically made it a 'one party' issue- taking sole ownership of it, and thus all the attendant consequences not only further divided things, but has pretty much guaranteed the next few years will be incredibly unstable politically- feeding the social issue side of things.

UKIP in a way did a rather good job of channeling a potentially violent situation into something 'legal' by taking the traditional rights backlash against the 'modern' rights/centers neoliberalism and funneling it into parliamentary channels, and at the same time did a terrible job- because it highlighted publicly once again the issues with FPTP (supposed to give stability above all) as being undemocratic. Its subsequent very public death shifted its voters back to the Conservative and Labour parties, but its unsure of if it'll 'stay that way'- and for a government who currently was heavily betting that it would benefit from UKIP's death, needs to, to break its minority status, and also is in fear of another more effective UKIP coming in on the scene which will splits its voting core again back to the 'Coalition days'- Where remember that Coalition could have gone to Labour or the Conservatives (Labour iirc actually had 'more' seats individually) and furthermore the Conservative party looks very likely it will collapse over brexit- a 'new right' party would be a disaster- both for its party-politic aspirations, but also in the wider frame for the UK's 'Two-Party' stability system and subsequently for social stability.

A quick summary of the current issues i know- but when you take that into account, particularly with i assume the reason being the growth of both Islamic AND radical-right terrorism as legitimization for such a crack down/switch to a stricter interpretation of the UK's 'Freedom of Speech' you can rather see why this has happened.

Do i feel its the right-way to go? No. Because i feel there is an element of the party-political in this (Much as there is in the attempted re-drawing of Parliamentary constituencies currently), but also because i'm a firm believer that idiots across the political spectrum should be given a platform to be laughed off of. Then again from a state perspective, having radical speakers come in from abroad (when your struggling to deal with your own 'home' versions) to such a charged social environment is the 'better safe than sorry step' if you are worried about stability.

And lets face it, that is what the British states primary concern has been throughout its history- Parliament was not as seen in its European or US peers the result of a 'revolution from below', but a 'switch from the top'- designed to curtail, bloc, stem or if all else fails, control radical changes to the established order by acting as said funnel- stability and continuity being seen as key over democratic representation/voicing. And i'm not yet sure enough of which side i fall on this 'stability' vs 'democracy' to voice if this is a bad thing or not, its worked thus far (Wars of the Coalition, the Post-Napoleonic instability, Industrial revolution, Interwar period, Cold War) to allow the UK to function- but its the age old adage, and indeed what my post is technically about thats key- is the 'security' worth the cost to freedoms? I'll get back to you on that .

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.

Honestly brexit and the current right-wing interpretation of what that means and will be, which May has been forced into thus far, would have meant the end of Europeans travelling freely without ideologically-based restrictions anyway- so in that term, this was always going to happen. You have a vocal minority on the right in the UK who alas do see 'European' culture as being very different from 'British' the two not being similar beyond a superficial level. Go figure how that works though, but a key argument is surrounding political and social culture (and arguably an ignorance of history).

[HannibalExMachina]

where even Karl Marx was once given a platform

how many threads to we need where people whine about sane people not giving racists a platform?

[athanaric]

Yeah because labelling criticism of Islam and Muslim behaviour as "racist" and blocking the critics worked so well for the UK, right?


I agree @ Dante, the Tories have an amazingly authoritarian streak, even more so than other "Western" conservative parties (especially compared to the GOP). This is really worrying, but the problem is that Labour isn't really better from what I've heard, plus they have all this Marxist and (anti-native) identity politics going on.
I think it's high time Britain had a proper constitution. The argument against such a move has become pretty hollow in light of all the political scandals of recent times.

[TheDarkKnight]

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.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

I agree Dante, the Tories have an amazingly authoritarian streak, even more so than other "Western" conservative parties (especially compared to the GOP). This is really worrying, but the problem is that Labour isn't really better from what I've heard, plus they have all this Marxist and (anti-native) identity politics going on.
I think it's high time Britain had a proper constitution. The argument against such a move has become pretty hollow in light of all the political scandals of recent times.

I think again in regards to the UK's political system's set-up Labour as the second largest party, like the Conservatives is a 'broad church' for a plethora of differing view points, united by essentially being 'left-wing' (Their MP's and constituent factions ranging from 'centre' to radical left). The Conservatives are the same basically being united overall by being 'right-wing' but of various factions and shades of blue. So essentially on a theoretical basis stability is achieved by all these groups compromising and trying work out their differences...and then having to confront the other party too- so there's a 'two check' system in a way that tends to result in very similar outcomes.

It is worth noting though for instance that on the vote for if Internet Service Providers should be required to store each users internet history and goings on (a key component to Snoopers) that out of the then 232 Labour MP's 225 were absent, not saying yes- or no. This it seems was the 'compromise' agreed by most. So they are not technically 'in favour' of such invasions of privacy, but then neither are they as the Liberal Democrats- who have steadfastly opposed it and voted against such measures. Is though abstaining/ not engaging good enough for the citizenry though? No, not all. But again this is because our system favours stability over a myriad of perspectives.

In terms of Marxism in the Labour party, i would not believe all you've read mate. Corbyn's Labour are no more Marxist or communist than Reese-Moggs and his cronies are fascist. Its spin being peddled by the Conservatives to try and undermine Labour, which effectively has backfired- Labour having a 7 point lead in the polls now despite everything. Remember again that Labour like the Conservatives is a broad-church party and who while you may have individual members who are marxist-leaning (John McDonnell being one arguably) or members who are socialist (In the British political sense- which it seems might be slightly different to the European as the NHS is socialist for instance)- they overall due to how the consensus works (With many in Labour being 'so-called' Blairites- basically centre-left, center and indeed center-right, but representing the working class in their view) Labour is essentially socially-democratic- as seen by their 2017 Manifesto. None of the policies there are remotely marxist, they are the type of policies that actually have cross-party support in terms of nationalization with 54% of Conservative voters now actually being in favour of nationalizing energy, water, rail etc. (For the numbers- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a8251911.html). Even if Corbyn was privately a rabid communist under the current system he could not really put anything overly radical into practice as it would have to be agreed by a majority in the Labour party to be implemented- something that just cannot happen due to how things work as i've said.

Indeed remember we have the Conservatives currently 'stealing' policies from Ed Millibands Labour they in 2015 deemed 'Communist' such as a cap on rents. So i wouldn't put any stock in calls that Labour are 'marxist' due to the way party consensus is constructed in the UK.

Now saying that, and this leads onto your next point, there is currently an issue with party consensus- Brexit essentially ripping apart the consensus- Labour seem to have a tenuous alliance as Corbyn proved in 2017 he was electorally pretty damn good for Labour. May meanwhile has failed to secure a similar unifying mandate and thus the Conservatives are quite publicly ripping one anothers faction apart. This is feeding into the social tensions and divides too. So indeed i would argue that a proper constitution is indeed needed and a revamp, as your quite right that recently the 'stability' side of FPTP has been found severely wanting- particularly as there seems now to be a longer term trend towards it delivering merely a minority government.

[NosPortatArma]

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.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It is certainly a step backwards for western values and the exercise of fundamental freedoms in the UK. I suppose it is an effective way to control thought within the county - simply deport those who hold contrary views. Certainly that is not the behavior of a despotic government, but an enlightened liberal regime. What, I wonder, is considered online hate? I'd like to see some of the evidence used to justify the actions the government took. I've seen users of this forum called racists for citing studies from reputable sources which might show, for example, that certain ethnic groups are responsible for a disproportionate amount of crime.

We've seen similar behavior from Universities in the United States (mostly the ones renowned for their progressive liberal values of inclusion and tolerance like Berkeley) ban conservative speakers from coming to campus for completely fabricated reasons or imposing harsher than normal requirements to host conservative speakers citing 'security concerns.' At least the American problem with the heckler's veto is normally contained in the college campuses. Thank god for the 1st Amendment.

Following Conservative activists online, as Gen. Chris suggests, is unfortunately no longer a guarantee that you will still be able to have access to their media. Many giants like Google, YouTube, and Twitter often censor conservative media outright citing racism where it does not exist or burying conservative media beneath age restrictions and other filters including PragerU, which is not racist or hateful in any way.

Leftists think they can just name whatever they want to name racist and this gives them the justification to censor the content or remove it, often times without even viewing or understanding the material. Intellectual bankruptcy and culture war at its finest. Even if the activists were outright advocating racist policies (say they were behaving like many South African politicians who I am sure would be welcome in the UK for example) and I am not saying that they were, why is it better to ban them from stepping foot in the country to conduct their speaking events or what have you than to confront them and demonstrate how bad their ideas are? Why not prove them wrong in the marketplace of ideas? I think I do it quite effectively and I have no problem with engaging people with racist beliefs and challenging those beliefs.

[Aexodus]

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.

[mongrel]

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?

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.

[Aexodus]

I wasn't talking about Tommy Robinson, I was mainly referring to Lauren Southern, on issues such as-

-Mass immigration (we never asked for it)

-Islam (it needs reformed, foreign (Saudi) money coming in to build mosques must be stopped, and salafism and wahabbism should be illegal in my opinion)

-Transgender and transracialism (Southern herself is registered as a Pakistani male to show how stupid the current system around it is)

And when did I mention Tommy Robinson aside from the OP? This thread isn't really about him.

[mongrel]

I wasn't talking about Tommy Robinson, I was mainly referring to Lauren Southern, on issues such as-

-Mass immigration (we never asked for it)

-Islam (it needs reformed, foreign (Saudi) money coming in to build mosques must be stopped, and salafism and wahabbism should be illegal in my opinion)

-Transgender and transracialism (Southern herself is registered as a Pakistani male to show how stupid the current system around it is)

And when did I mention Tommy Robinson aside from the OP? This thread isn't really about him.

She aligns herself with Tommy Robinson, a fraud and a violent racist habitual criminal. What part of the case for banning her under sch 7 are you finding difficult?

And what you mean you didn't ask for mass migration. Every Empire citizen was British until Jim Callaghan stuck his oar in to appease the racist element of the trade union movement (anyone who has lived through the 50s or 60s would know it was a myth that the left approved of migration).Did the British Empire need your permission? Of course we are making it harder for non-EU people to enter. Things are different with the EU , but again Poland and Romania aren't Muslim countries.

Thread thread lacks substance and seems to be a duplicate of the other Southern thread.