The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

undesirable people

The home office here in england has just published a list of undesirable people who are banned from entering this country, they include a famous right wing American talk show host and a certain Mr Phelps.
This sort of raises interesting issues, the first one being should you ban someone from entering a country simply because you don't like what they say?
The other issue is that according to the home office the famous right wing radio talk show host would be be treated no differently than other extremistist and would be under constant serveilance by security services if he were an English national.
The question being why aren't these right wing extremeists under constant surveilance by American secret services?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mthoreau on May 16, 2009 at 11:05pm

Actually, most of us really are pretty dim.

Not all though.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Creature on May 17, 2009 at 12:01am

Statistic? Also, what's the standard? And, does that somehow mean that the rest of the world is excused from stupidity?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 17, 2009 at 1:42am

Everything needs to be clarified and spoon fed to you doesn't it ? The point Karl, is the ease with which the British public rolls over and takes it up the ass from the government without the slightest whimper of protest. The point Karl, is that if you're prepared to swallow the ASBO and say thank you for the scrotum burn it leaves on your chin, then in relative terms, everything you have said is not surprising in any way whatsoever. Like I said, you have the country you deserve. Bad food, boy bands, flat beer, blanket censorship, bad pornography, ugly strippers, window taxes, television licences and more surveillance cameras per capita than Washington DC. It even to took "dumb Americans" to really show you what punk was - a vile creature like Malcolm McLaren could only have ever been spawned in Britain, and only the British can really believe the crap that punk was born there. You have also taken all the humour and sarcasm out of a flippant comment I often make - that I'd rather visit Iraq than England. You are the last gasp of a failing state. It couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sean on May 14, 2009 at 10:38pm

I am disappointed to see so many free-speech hating facists on this forum.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 15, 2009 at 12:28am

It's a no brainer innit ? Atheism being a perennial favourite of the type of free speech that's the first to be suppressed. Though I wouldn't call them "fascists". They're just mouths on autopilot that don't think. The kind of people that through the best of intentions, allow fascism to take hold.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mthoreau on May 15, 2009 at 8:43am

As an American living in America I can tell you with confidence that the lunatic fringe of the right hasn't totally excluded its self from the mainstream political dialouge. The quality of political dialouge in the United States is definately not on par with what I've experienced of British politics, but none-the-less the right to be a beligerent idiot is an important one.

The word "Freedom" gets used by both the Right and the Left in different ways and I'm not going to go into a detailed analysis. Generally speaking, our government tends to be more in favor of civil liberties than your average working man (Bush/Cheney reigime aside!). Noam Chomsky has some pretty insightful things to say about why a country as free as the U.S. can be so socially backwards.

Regardless, a lot of people view Atheism as a form of "extreminsm" and I imagine that a lot of Americans wonder why people like you and me aren't under surveilance. As an American, I would be much happier if there was no Fred Phelps or Michael Savage. However, I still believe that they should be able to speak freely even though I believe they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING worthwhile to contribute.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 15, 2009 at 10:14am

However, I still believe that they should be able to speak freely even though I believe they have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING worthwhile to contribute.

Now there's a mission statement for MySpace corporate - a raison d'etre even.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl on May 16, 2009 at 4:24pm

Actauly Felch isnt your version of the ASBO more like your fictionalised account of how free speech works in america? With the public impossing their will, no?
Shame it doesn't work in practice isnt it?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Karl on May 16, 2009 at 4:37pm

If you really want to know about asbo's you can learn all about them here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Social_Behaviour_Order

although they have nothing whatever to do with banning orders which is what are used to keep undesirable people out of the country.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Creature on May 16, 2009 at 9:26pm

Um.....that's the link Felch linked us to and quoted from...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Фелч Гроган on May 17, 2009 at 2:16am

Don't expect Karl to either read or comprehend, you fascist.

http://www.statewatch.org/asbo/asbowatch-concerns.html

From an original remit of tackling low-level nuisance behaviour such as vandalism and abusive neighbours, local authorities and police forces have found ASBOs to be a hugely effective tool for quashing many other challenges to authority. Here environmental and political protesters, in particular, have found themselves subject to temporary orders and other powers introduced under the Anti-social Behaviour Act. Protesting now appears to be both an anti-social and potentially criminal act. As is sarcasm for an 87 year-old great-grandfather in Liverpool, taken to court for breaching the ASBO banning him from shouting, swearing or making sarcastic comments to his neighbours.

You Merkins that whine about a Nanny state really have no idea...