22 People Barred From Entering The U.K.

[tropicsgoddess]

The U.K. has released a list and reasons why these 22 people are barred from entering the country. Why? Because they foster extremism and hatred and it's no surprise to see certain names on the list like Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper among others. Some say it's repression of freedom of speech, but for me personally, the less assholes like them around the better. Here's the links:

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Internatio...ory?id=7504715

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8033060.stm

The List in Detail

[Pedersen]

Some say it's repression of freedom of speech, but for me personally, the less assholes like them around the better.

Allow me to quote from the BBC (your final link):

MICHAEL ALAN WEINER (ALSO KNOWN AS MICHAEL SAVAGE)

Controversial daily radio talk-show host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

His views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism have caused great offence in the US.

That is just one example from the list. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: These people are being banned from entering the UK not just for having controversial views, but also for wanting to tell others those same views. This is the very definition of repression of freedom of speech.

Would the world be a better place if assholes like this did not exist? I'll actually argue "not necessarily". After all, Galileo was an asshole in the eyes of almost everybody who heard of his work. Same for Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Christopher Columbus, etc. Also the same for Benito Mussolini, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Admin, etc.

As a species, humanity needs these assholes. We have a hard time figuring out what's right; not just now, but long term. We need them to show us the extremes, so that we can learn what to do and what not to do. Each of those people has taught us something, both about ourselves and how we should behave.

Right now, at this point in history, we seem to be struggling to forget everything that we've been taught by these people. We need them more than ever before, just to try to fix what is going wrong. Yes, that's right, we even need Fred Phelps and his ilk. I despise them, loathe them, and think that they get nothing right. Even still, we need them to help us understand "Try not to be that guy."

Personally, I hope the UK gov comes to its senses. With the increasing nanny state of both it and the US gov, though, I doubt it will.

[crazylegs]

Inciting others to commit acts of racial hatred, or religious hatred are illegal acts in the UK, by preventing those people access we are preventing them from commiting crimes.

The Human Rights Act is not an absolute law, there are caveats and conditions,

For example - Freedom of Expression

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

Bold is what is relevant and the underlined part more so. What the law makers have recognised is that your freedom of expression does not give you the right to act in an illegal, offensive manner. Essentially the rights of one do not trump the rights of many.

I think it is very important to ensure that those who would have a detrimental effect on society do not enter the country.

[MystyGlyttyr]

Listening to Michael Savage's show (I don't want to, I ride with someone who does), he is quite outspoken about the various, um, sorts of things he wishes would happen to certain people and groups of people. His contradicting words on homosexuals particularly...sometimes he says he has gay friends and all, other times he's all but calling for the firebombing of San Francisco. I've always been privately amazed that no one here in America has tried to nail him for hate speech. (P.S., I don't necessarily disagree with everything he says, but even though he has some good points, he puts them in an extremely nasty way). So I guess the only thing about Michael Savage being on the list that surprises me is that Great Britain has gotten around to it first.

(Savage is also apparently planning to sue...someone...over this list. He was railing about it mightily on his show Tuesday night. I was trying not to listen though so I can't recall all the details.)

[Evandril]

That is just one example from the list. It really doesn't matter how you slice it: These people are being banned from entering the UK not just for having controversial views, but also for wanting to tell others those same views. This is the very definition of repression of freedom of speech.

No, that's not a restriction of freedom of speech...They can say whatever they want, they just not welcome in the UK because of it. It's like if you have a person you find incredibly rude...should they be welcome in your house? Same idea, just done to extremes

[Boozy]

Now wait a minute, here.... why is it the responsibility of the UK government to protect free speech rights for non-citizens? The people they are barring from entering the UK are not citizens. They hold no rights to free speech in the UK until they step foot on UK soil. Which they are prohibited to do.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a border control issue. They have the right to decide who they do and do not want in their country.

[Pedersen]

Bold is what is relevant and the underlined part more so. What the law makers have recognised is that your freedom of expression does not give you the right to act in an illegal, offensive manner. Essentially the rights of one do not trump the rights of many.

To me, that's extremely bothersome. Why? "freedom of expression does not give you the right to act in an offensive manner". By that logic, someone can claim someone else is acting offensively, and get them legally punished. I provided a number of examples as to why we should allow offensive expression. Every one of those people (both good and bad) engaged in offensive speech.

To me, abridging speech on the grounds that it offends someone is extremely bad. I'm glad you can live with it, and apparently do so happily. I cannot.

Now wait a minute, here.... why is it the responsibility of the UK government to protect free speech rights for non-citizens?

For the same reason that the US gov should protect the rights of prisoners who are not US citizens: It's simply the right thing to do.

This isn't a freedom of speech issue, it's a border control issue. They have the right to decide who they do and do not want in their country.

I like how it can be so easily relabeled as just a "border control" issue. Call a spade a spade, please. They are being prohibited from entry specifically to prevent them speaking their opinion to people in the UK. If that's not an attempt at restricting freedom of expression, then I don't know what is.

The UK has every right to deny someone entry into their country. But when they start stating they're doing it because of someone's opinions possibly being expressed inside their borders, I'm going to call it what it is: Restriction of expression. More simply, an attempt at censorship.

ETA: An import sidenote: Everybody has the right to freedom of expression (I believe this is true, even if their local government does not). No one has the right to require someone to listen to it. Ignore them. Walk away from them. But they have to have the ability to speak their mind, even if it is to an audience of none.

[crazylegs]

To me, abridging speech on the grounds that it offends someone is extremely bad. I'm glad you can live with it, and apparently do so happily. I cannot.

I can for one reason, and one reason only.

I have seen first hand the absolute devastation that occurs to someones life when homophobic/racist comments are used, a constant barrage of abuse that under your utopia would just slip over the abused. People lose their self confidence, their self esteem, they become a mere husk of a person; they withdraw from society, from their normal day to day routine. All this because another person is allowed to issue forth their poisoned words...?

Thing is, yes people can walk away but what aboout those that follow their victims, who protest at funerals, who ensure their victims *do* hear their views. How do we protect those people?

[Evandril]

I like how it can be so easily relabeled as just a "border control" issue. Call a spade a spade, please. They are being prohibited from entry specifically to prevent them speaking their opinion to people in the UK. If that's not an attempt at restricting freedom of expression, then I don't know what is.

The UK has every right to deny someone entry into their country. But when they start stating they're doing it because of someone's opinions possibly being expressed inside their borders, I'm going to call it what it is: Restriction of expression. More simply, an attempt at censorship.

So if you deny someone access to an area to speak, you are denying them the right TO speak? I know the media and the internet are totally restricted in the UK, so going there in person would be the only way for them to get their message across... You will *very* rarely ever hear me restrict someone's right to free speech...but free speech does NOT include free access to any place you want to speak at.

ETA: An import sidenote: Everybody has the right to freedom of expression (I believe this is true, even if their local government does not). No one has the right to require someone to listen to it. Ignore them. Walk away from them. But they have to have the ability to speak their mind, even if it is to an audience of none.

And if they follow you? Since restricting their access is wrong, good luck finding a place to get away to...

[AFPheonix]

Savage is perfectly welcome to speak, Britain isn't stopping him from speaking. He just doesn't get to have a visa to come over. No one has a right to travel across foreign borders. It is a privilege that can be revoked for any reason said foreign government sees fit.

I am very amused that he's bitching about first amendment rights when that is found in a document that pertains to the US, not necessarily other parts of the world. Besides, it's not as if UK citizens are restricted from hearing his ideas or his show, they have access to them through the internet.
Every country is allowed to regulate who is allowed to come into their borders. The US exercises that right pretty often. The No-Fly list is an example of that. We've also denied visas to people like Cat Stevens and Amy Winehouse. There is nothing illegal or repressive about it.

Now, if Michael Savage just had unpopular ideas, that would be one thing. But the man is a racist, homophobic idiot. This is just an example of his show, for those who haven't heard it. He also tends to bash Islam. Here's one of many quotes you can find of his show on that topic:

Savage's shouted anti-Muslim attacks included: "I don't wanna hear anymore about Islam. I don't wanna hear one more word about Islam. Take your religion and shove it up your behind. I'm sick of you."

"What kind of religion is this? What kind of world are you living in when you let them in here with that throwback document in their hand, which is a book of hate. Don't tell me I need reeducation. They need deportation. I don't need reeducation. Deportation, not reeducation."

“Make no mistake about it, the Quran is not a document of freedom. The Quran is a document of slavery and chattel. It teaches you that you are a slave."

He's a peddler of hate and stupidity. This is a man who regularly compares liberals to fascists and nazis on his show.
How's that for a non-sequitur? Having said all that about him however, I support his right to say what he wants. I also support the right of others to react to it however they want, as long as said reaction is carried out legally. Foreign governments are included under that umbrella. The first amendment only guarantees his freedom from molestation by the government of the country of which he is a citizen. Since it does not apply to private entities or citizens, or foreign governments, he gets to deal with the consequences of his utterly contemptible words and actions.

As an aside, The way Neil Conan handles him when he threw a shitfit on Talk Of The Nation Tuesday made me pee my pants with laughter.

[Pedersen]

I have seen first hand the absolute devastation that occurs to someones life when homophobic/racist comments are used, a constant barrage of abuse that under your utopia would just slip over the abused. People lose their self confidence, their self esteem, they become a mere husk of a person; they withdraw from society, from their normal day to day routine. All this because another person is allowed to issue forth their poisoned words...?

Congratulations. You've witnessed some of the horrors of humanity. I've gotten to live at the receiving end of it. It took me until I was 31 years old, and out of high school for 13 years, before I managed to realize that I didn't deserve the raft of shit I was given by the other students in high school for being myself. I'm not one of the ones who would be victimized due to gender, skin color, religion, etc. Nope. I was just the outcast. The person it was acceptable to beat, step on, insult, and generally thrash for fun. The person that, if I dared to defend myself, would be punished for doing so, even though I didn't start it.

My wife is another of those outcasts. She was overweight throughout her school years. She's been out for a good 15 years now, but she still can't shake what happened to her. She still can't stop beating herself up over the crap that got spewed at her.

And I still believe in the right to freedom of expression as one of the most important rights we have as human beings. To me, this is not an issue about a right that is "granted" by the government. It is about a right that is supposed to be guarded by the government. We all have it, whether or not the government wishes to agree. It's inherent. Built in. The government doesn't get to say whether we have it or not. That doesn't mean the government agrees with me. But it is what I believe.

We have to deal with consequences of it. For instance, organizations exist which have agendas I very much disagree with (NAMBLA, for one). However, they have the right to voice those agendas. I have the right to ignore them, and even refuse to do business with them in any fashion.

But they have the right to say it. To steal one of the most abused quotes of all time: "I disagree strongly with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Voltaire.

So if you deny someone access to an area to speak, you are denying them the right TO speak? I know the media and the internet are totally restricted in the UK, so going there in person would be the only way for them to get their message across... You will *very* rarely ever hear me restrict someone's right to free speech...but free speech does NOT include free access to any place you want to speak at.

Interesting. You equate two very different concepts in your post. On the one hand, I state this:

The UK has every right to deny someone entry into their country. But when they start stating they're doing it because of someone's opinions possibly being expressed inside their borders, I'm going to call it what it is: Restriction of expression. More simply, an attempt at censorship.

And on the other, you state that I believe that people should be able to go anywhere they wish and say anything they want. Quite the opposite. Since it was missed, I'll state it again:

The UK has the right to deny entry to any one, for any reason. When they start stating that they are denying entry based on the voiced opinions of that person, they are practicing censorship. They still have the right to deny entry. But they are still censoring. Call it what it is.

And if they follow you? Since restricting their access is wrong, good luck finding a place to get away to...

Perhaps you would benefit from re-reading my post, and telling me, where exactly, I said that you had to listen? Or that you had to allow them to follow you? Or that you had to give them open access to everything?

ETA: An import sidenote: Everybody has the right to freedom of expression (I believe this is true, even if their local government does not). No one has the right to require someone to listen to it. Ignore them. Walk away from them. But they have to have the ability to speak their mind, even if it is to an audience of none.

I didn't. Don't say I did. In fact, I went so far as to say that they may well have no audience. But they still have to be allowed to speak their mind. Doesn't mean you have to listen. Doesn't mean you have to accept harassment.

[AFPheonix]

And on the other, you state that I believe that people should be able to go anywhere they wish and say anything they want. Quite the opposite. Since it was missed, I'll state it again:

But they're not preventing him from speaking his piece. He's still more than welcome to spew all the racist, homophobic, misogynistic, and downright idiotic shit he does on a daily basis. He just doesn't get to do it on UK soil. That's hardly censorship. It's crowd control in the event he says something stupid in their country and starts a riot.

[protege]

He just doesn't get to do it on UK soil. That's hardly censorship. It's crowd control in the event he says something stupid in their country and starts a riot.

Similar to what many US towns do with the Klan. Those idiots are heavily guarded...because they *want* to start a riot. Think about it. They spew their racist trash, someone gets offended, attacks...and inadvertently *reinforces* the Klan's message of hatred. That's why many towns do not want the Klan, or similar groups around.

However, you get a group like the ACLU, who insists that they have a right to spew that shit. They will gladly sue a town, county, or state because the Klan's rights are being "violated."

Sorry, I don't buy that shit. What about the rights of society at large? Shouldn't we be spared having to deal with a bunch of sheet-wearing idiots? Call me crazy, but I can think of many groups (blacks, Jews, Catholics, to name a few) that would agree that the Klan and similar groups should be censored.

[Seshat]

To me, that's extremely bothersome. Why? "freedom of expression does not give you the right to act in an offensive manner". By that logic, someone can claim someone else is acting offensively, and get them legally punished. I provided a number of examples as to why we should allow offensive expression. Every one of those people (both good and bad) engaged in offensive speech.

It's a tricky one. It really is.

I think, however, that Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, et al, are different from the Klan members and some of the others mentioned in this thread.

Galileo Galilii just stated what he believed to be truth. He didn't try to get others to hurt people for his truth.
Nor did Martin Luther, Martin Luther King, Ghandi, even Socrates.

Offense: fine. Especially the type of offense that opens eyes. "But it moves!"
Harassment: not fine.
Incitement to riot: DEFINITELY not fine.

I think that's the difference. I think that's where my personal line is drawn.

[Rapscallion]

Hmm - twenty-two people from the extreme edges of both sides of the political divide. Actually, more than two sides, but...

Part of me worries that this is the thin end of the wedge, whereby it gives a tool to want-to-be dictators. The majority of me thinks "fuck 'em". We're talking about people who have shown that they consider the laws of the UK to be worthy of contempt by their actions over time.

Something the UK signed up to a while ago is the EU convention on human rights.

Article eleven states:

Article 11

Freedom of expression and information

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions
and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless
of frontiers.

2. The freedom and pluralism of the media shall be respected.

I can see that one causing some trouble in that.

However, that's for citizens of the EU, as far as I can tell. Not got time to go through all the cobblers in there.

I was always taught that the definition of freedom of speech in the UK was that you were allowed to say anything you wanted as long as it didn't infringe a law. The laws involved are usually pretty solid and the sort of things you don't want to happen - inciting hatred to ethnic or sexual groups for example.

Rapscallion