Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3
Phelps clan barred from entering Britian
I Read This
November 12, 2018, 18:06:52 EST *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Lupinia Hosting Community, which hosts I Read This, is supported by donations!  Please contribute if you're able, click here for details.
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
Author Topic: Phelps clan barred from entering Britian  (Read 12492 times)
Aeron
Political Commentator
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53

What?


« on: February 20, 2009, 16:24:21 EST »

http://www.kansascity.com/637/story/1044016.html

Ha.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2009, 09:11:01 EST »

Unfortunately there isn't really free speech in Britain these days.  Recently several people have being banned from entering who hold controversial views.  I'm beginning to wonder if they'll let me back in.

Knowing the competence of the Border authority they'll probably ban Michael Phelps rather than Fred Phelps anyway.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2009, 09:20:39 EST by Current » Logged
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2009, 10:56:54 EST »

To be fair, "freedom of speech" has always been short for "freedom of non-subversive, not excessively inflammatory speech with a semblance of intelligence in it".

It's not even a question of shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, it's rather that standing on a street corner shouting insults at passersby is (and always has been) a great way to meet policemen. Calling for anti-social behaviour is (and always has been) a great way to meet inmates and/or secret service men.

And so it should be.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2009, 12:37:11 EST »

My issue is the dishonesty with which this kind of stuff gets discussed.

They really aren't advocating hate, they just, well, they're actual traditional american Christian literalists.  I find it insane that they are banned, yet england allows Sharia law to be thrumped around with impunity.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2009, 13:38:16 EST »

To be fair, "freedom of speech" has always been short for "freedom of non-subversive, not excessively inflammatory speech with a semblance of intelligence in it".
Not really.  For many years subversive, inflammatory and stupid speech has been perfectly permissible across Western European and North America, and many other places too.

it's rather that standing on a street corner shouting insults at passersby is (and always has been) a great way to meet policemen. Calling for anti-social behaviour is (and always has been) a great way to meet inmates and/or secret service men.
There is a difference though between the subversive and inflammatory and the incitement of violence.  The latter is very sensibly a crime.

There is also a difference between judgment and pre-judgment.  Banning someone from entering a country because of something they have not yet done is pre-judgment.
Logged
wodan46
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1469


« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2009, 14:08:13 EST »

I find it insane that they are banned, yet england allows Sharia law to be thrumped around with impunity.
Because they aren't shoving it into other people's faces in the most rude possible way?
Logged

The plural of "anecdote" is "anecdotes". Not "data".
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2009, 18:36:58 EST »

They really aren't advocating hate, they just, well, they're actual traditional american Christian literalists.  I find it insane that they are banned, yet england allows Sharia law to be thrumped around with impunity.

Wait, wait, wait... "GOD HATES FAGS" and "FAG = ANAL SEX = <insert skull and crossed bones>" aren't advocating hate? Wanna run that one by me again?

And, technically, Sharia isn't advocating hate. It's just the idiots who want it implemented would also be tightening restrictions in places. Not to say it isn't oppressive, just that it doesn't advocate hate.

it's rather that standing on a street corner shouting insults at passersby is (and always has been) a great way to meet policemen. Calling for anti-social behaviour is (and always has been) a great way to meet inmates and/or secret service men.
There is a difference though between the subversive and inflammatory and the incitement of violence.  The latter is very sensibly a crime.

There is also a difference between judgment and pre-judgment.  Banning someone from entering a country because of something they have not yet done is pre-judgment.

But it's not: they've said what they're coming into the country for. They've released statements to the press about it. And they'll do exactly what they've said, if the past is any indication.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
joshbrenton
Active Libertarian
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 365


« Reply #7 on: February 24, 2009, 00:12:53 EST »

Unfortunately there isn't really free speech in Britain these days.  Recently several people have being banned from entering who hold controversial views.  I'm beginning to wonder if they'll let me back in.


Too true. I recall hearing that Geert Wilders was banned from entry into Britain as well. What the hell is wrong with letting people who have other viewpoints speak? If they're wrong, you get the chance to question and challenge them.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #8 on: February 24, 2009, 02:05:08 EST »

No! I never would have guessed that a man quoted as saying "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam." and "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'" would have been seen as a potential hazard!
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Ihlosi
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 232


« Reply #9 on: February 24, 2009, 04:46:03 EST »

If they're wrong, you get the chance to question and challenge them.

Did rational arguments ever work against demagoguery? In a battle between the two, I'd bet my money firmly on the latter.
Logged
Current
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3141


« Reply #10 on: February 24, 2009, 07:00:49 EST »

Something people seem to be accepting here is that it is reasonable to have laws against hate speech, it is not.  The problem is how can perceptions of hate be fully removed from any form of political opinion.  For example, if you disagree with me on some subject you may "hate what I stand for".  How different then is that from hating me?  (This is the differentiation Geert Wilders makes below).

Really the important thing is incitement to violence.

But it's not: they've said what they're coming into the country for. They've released statements to the press about it. And they'll do exactly what they've said, if the past is any indication.
If they break the law while protesting they can be arrested and extradited when they do.

No! I never would have guessed that a man quoted as saying "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam." and "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'" would have been seen as a potential hazard!
Although I don't agree with the views of Geert Wilders he does discuss the subject somewhat rationally.  In his film he does not advocate violence.  There was no reason to deny him permission to visit the UK.

If they're wrong, you get the chance to question and challenge them.

Did rational arguments ever work against demagoguery? In a battle between the two, I'd bet my money firmly on the latter.
It may not work on the supporters of such demagoguery.  However, it's almost unnecessary for the rest of the population to even go as far as arguing.  Phelps and his family are a walking comedy show.
Logged
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2009, 08:00:34 EST »

Something people seem to be accepting here is that it is reasonable to have laws against hate speech, it is not.  The problem is how can perceptions of hate be fully removed from any form of political opinion.  For example, if you disagree with me on some subject you may "hate what I stand for".  How different then is that from hating me?  (This is the differentiation Geert Wilders makes below).

Really the important thing is incitement to violence.

Claiming that it's impossible to be a moderate Muslim is incitement to violence; it's conflating every Muslim with the London Underground bombers. Claiming that gays will end civilisation is an incitement to violence. I shouldn't have to explain that one.

But it's not: they've said what they're coming into the country for. They've released statements to the press about it. And they'll do exactly what they've said, if the past is any indication.
If they break the law while protesting they can be arrested and extradited when they do.

So, if a guy has a knife at your neck, it's not a crime? He hasn't actually injured you yet, so it's pre-judgement to think that he will, in fact, slit your throat.

No! I never would have guessed that a man quoted as saying "I don't hate Muslims. I hate Islam." and "there is no such thing as 'moderate Islam'" would have been seen as a potential hazard!
Although I don't agree with the views of Geert Wilders he does discuss the subject somewhat rationally.  In his film he does not advocate violence.  There was no reason to deny him permission to visit the UK.

See my first paragraph.

If they're wrong, you get the chance to question and challenge them.

Did rational arguments ever work against demagoguery? In a battle between the two, I'd bet my money firmly on the latter.
It may not work on the supporters of such demagoguery.  However, it's almost unnecessary for the rest of the population to even go as far as arguing.  Phelps and his family are a walking comedy show.


Hardly. You might laugh at such displays, but your gay friends are much less likely to. Nor are your American friends. Phelps is taken seriously by a lot more people than you might otherwise think.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Heq
Trouble
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1391



« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2009, 15:25:35 EST »

Wodan, while I will grant you Sharia law is not as overtly rude, it is just as offensive to the concept of human dignity, and it is more disgusting that the English courts back it.  Granting saction and support to oppress is contemptuos, and as awful and loud as Phelps is, they aren't actually smashing someone in the face or keeping them under house arrest.

Med, I would take the more aggressive stance of saying that this should not be a legal issue, rather, one should be prepared to back up one's mouth.  Maybe this is just one of those pussy city-kid things I don't get, but I would say you should just circle the word that if he gets punched in the mouth it will be tried under the "he had it comin'" doctraine.
Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell
Medivh
Pundit
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3466


Power-mad elf


« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2009, 19:50:55 EST »

Which works fine, until you get a group like the KKK. Then it becomes an all-out riot/war. Something that no-one sane wants happening.
Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my way
I'm gonna serve it to you
And that ain't what you want to hear
But that's what I'll do
-- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

So what you're telling me is that LTV's fudge factor means more than it's independent variable?
Yes...
Andrei
Political Analyst
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 472


« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2009, 22:33:05 EST »

Quote from: Current
For many years subversive, inflammatory and stupid speech has been perfectly permissible across Western European and North America, and many other places too.
Not really. If you don't believe me, go out on the street and walk around until you see a policeman or patrol car and start shouting "Cops are homosexuals!", adding any degree of profanity you deem apropriate.

After you make bail, come tell us how it worked out.

What do you think laws against "disrupting the peace", "disorderly conduct" or "outrage" are for if not for getting people to shut up when they should.

Quote from: Current
There is also a difference between judgment and pre-judgment.  Banning someone from entering a country because of something they have not yet done is pre-judgment.
Meh... no different from a restraining order. They've done dumb stuff before and the English government put them under restraining order from their entire population.
Logged

He looked severely at me for awhile, then, grabbing his moustaches, he said:
- Boss, with all due respect, you are naive and pedant.

"Alexis Zorba", by Nikos Kazantzakis (translation mine)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!