La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm Only just come across this story. Do you think banning them from entering the UK is the right thing to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 There is no question that these sick, twisted individuals should be banned from the UK. Having seen several programs about the hate and bile that these so called "Christians" peddle makes me sick. For info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_baptist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UMP3AK5jwo I hope that these sickos are on the wrong end of a extreme beating. Soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I agree that they should not be allowed entry to the UK. The case is far clearer cut than that of the Dutch MP who was recently denied entry. See discussion in that thread These people spread blatant and malicious lies wherever they go. They are ignorant attention whores of the highest order. They are the shining example why, in limited circumstances, free speech can and should be curtailed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Any members of the government invited them to the IOM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I dont think the British public would be as calm as the yanks, it suprises me how any of the protests have not been targeted by drive by yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I this the 'God Hates Fags' lot that appeared on Louis Theroux? If so I think they should be commended for their strong anti smoking stance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I don't think they should be excluded on these grounds, and I didn't think that idiot Dutchman should have been excluded either. I imagine that both sets of bigots were absolutely delighted by the exclusion decisions. Our commitment to free speech should be robust enough to deal with this sort of person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I don't think they should be excluded on these grounds, and I didn't think that idiot Dutchman should have been excluded either. I imagine that both sets of bigots were absolutely delighted by the exclusion decisions. Our commitment to free speech should be robust enough to deal with this sort of person. What he said. These people might be complete idiots with abhorrent views - but this could have been policed and freedom of speech maintained, and if any laws broken people then arrested and/or excluded. Yes, freedom of speech comes with responsibility, but that boundary of responsibility should be with individual and the law - not the state. 'Freedom of speech' is not 'Freedom to say only what I want to hear'. Once we start getting selective about free speech, all of a sudden we'll find ourselves at the start of a very thin wedge, with the state deciding what people can or cannot say, or who can or cannot come here to say something. There has already been far too much state abuse of laws in the UK (e.g. anti-terrorism) to unfairly attack others (including KSF and dog walkers!). The state should not be interfering in these cases, it should be left to the police to interpret whether any laws have been broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 The issue is not if you personaly think they should be banned but the right to free speech, as someone else stated thier views are no worse than some that are allowed to speak. It is your choice if you wish to listen to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
immortalpuppet Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I saw this from a different perspective, not allowing them in for thir own saftey. Thats just my weird thoughts though i suppose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 The issue is not if you personaly think they should be banned but the right to free speech, as someone else stated thier views are no worse than some that are allowed to speak. It is your choice if you wish to listen to them. I agree. I think that it is a bit worrying that people can get banned from entering another country simply because they will say hateful things. I hate homophobia and it needs to be challenged but silencing others is not challenging them and denies freedom of speech, and in this case freedom of movement. It is your choice if you want to listen to them, it is your choice to follow them or argue against them. If they did come here they would be swamped by anti-Westboro protesters denouncing their Church. I would rather see that. I am not keen on these anti-hatred laws, and I think the law against 'incitement to religious hatred' is most concerning. I mean, how does that work in practice? If I got a group of people round and denounced Islam or Christianity would that fall under the law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 I saw this from a different perspective, not allowing them in for thir own saftey. Thats just my weird thoughts though i suppose. From speaking to several of my friends and fellow servicemen, I get the impression that the WBC would be dead by the end of the day. No lose to humanity if it happened mind you. Freedom of Speech is okay, the dishonor of fallen serivcemen and abuse of their families takes the piss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 They sound an abhorrent group. But I also find it abhorrent that some Public Servant sitting in an office decides when to allow and when not to allow freedom of speech (terrorism is another issue). It is a potentially slippery slope to allow decisions like this to be made by the bureaucracy. Who decides, and on what grounds, what is acceptable and what is not? I am concerned that through my lifetime, particularly in the last few years, I have witnessed a gradual erosion of liberties we used to take for granted. As Voltaire said: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" The best way to deal with people like this IMO is to give them enough metaphorical rope to hang themselves rather than turning them into 'victims and martyrs'. I suspect that this type of decision is fuel for the BNP and their paranoid ilk. The more we hide the despicable the more it flourishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Freedom of Speech is okay, the dishonor of fallen serivcemen and abuse of their families takes the piss. It takes the piss no matter what funeral they are protesting at. They picketed funerals of people who have died of AIDs. Pretty sick stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.