immortalpuppet Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 This is my point, in the US people see the protests and dont do a great deal to stop it happening or to challenge them. I cant see a protest going that untroubled in the UK to be honest. So maybe this is one of the reasons they will not be allowed in. I am a very placid person but i can honestly say that i would probabaly resort to violence if i saw these people on one of their many crap protests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 They have managed to get away with alot in the states because most of the adults in WBC are highly qualified laywers and know their rights and how the law will protect them. Although this has not stopped people "drive by" throwing things at them during their rallies, or the 300 strong biker gang bloking the WBC protests view of a service funeral. In fact they were chased off of a college campus nby over a thousand students once. Good times. If they came to the UK it would be a different story. Like the Iraqi interrogator said to one captured American trooper "You are not in Geneva now my friend." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 This is my point, in the US people see the protests and dont do a great deal to stop it happening or to challenge them. I cant see a protest going that untroubled in the UK to be honest. So maybe this is one of the reasons they will not be allowed in. I am a very placid person but i can honestly say that i would probabaly resort to violence if i saw these people on one of their many crap protests. Sorry forgot to mention that a family of a dead serviceman who sued the WBC actually won their case and I think it was in the region of $5+ million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John 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. 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. I agree with MDO !!!! They should be stopped, its not just down to freedom of speech IMO. By all means say how you disagree with something, we all do that on a regular basis on here, but once you have said your point off view allow others theirs. But turning up at funerals and the like, that steps way over the line of freedom of speech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Yes, freedom of speech comes with responsibility, but that boundary of responsibility should be with individual and the law - not the state. Errr hang on Albert. The state makes the laws and upholds them. The two are inextricably interrelated. It's like complaining that the UK used terror legislation to seize the assets of KSF. Why shouldn't they? Convenient and works = "Job Done" sticker. The IOM can't complain. I seem to recall a certain Roly gagged by draconian legislation that was never, ever meant to be used in that way. Pot, kettle and so forth. Now that same UK legislation is being used to keep these extremist nutters out. Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Yet another case of bigotry dressed up as religion, when will you lot learn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Sorry forgot to mention that a family of a dead serviceman who sued the WBC actually won their case and I think it was in the region of $5+ million. Let them speak and take the money off them! Give it to an AIDs charity. Rather than letting them say they are 'persecuted' bankrupt them if they say anything actionable. They may not love gays or soldiers but I bet they have an intimate realtionship with their own back pockets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Sorry forgot to mention that a family of a dead serviceman who sued the WBC actually won their case and I think it was in the region of $5+ million. Let them speak and take the money off them! Give it to an AIDs charity. Rather than letting them say they are 'persecuted' bankrupt them if they say anything actionable. They may not love gays or soldiers but I bet they have an intimate realtionship with their own back pockets. If only AG had thought of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 24, 2009 Author Share Posted February 24, 2009 Yes, freedom of speech comes with responsibility, but that boundary of responsibility should be with individual and the law - not the state. Errr hang on Albert. The state makes the laws and upholds them. The two are inextricably interrelated. It's like complaining that the UK used terror legislation to seize the assets of KSF. Why shouldn't they? Convenient and works = "Job Done" sticker. The IOM can't complain. I seem to recall a certain Roly gagged by draconian legislation that was never, ever meant to be used in that way. Pot, kettle and so forth. Now that same UK legislation is being used to keep these extremist nutters out. Works for me. Because laws that restrict civil liberties and freedoms in a liberal, democratic state should only be seen as temporary measures or extraordinary to the problem of terrorism. It is very wrong when those laws are used for purposes they were never brought in for. In any case, the incitement to hatred laws I wouldn't consider as terrorist laws, as far as I am aware they were never brought in for to prevent terrorism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Referring back to Dutch guy thread again to avoid retyping situations in which curtailment of free speech can be justified: Click here to be enlightened These guys are not expressing their opinion. They are presenting as fact information that is blatantly false in a way deliberately calculated to cause great distress to those of who they disapprove (e.g. almost anyone who is not them). There are enough bigots in the UK already, thanks very much - no need to import them! I'm sorry, but the usual liberal 'thin end of the wedge' argument doesn't wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Referring back to Dutch guy thread again to avoid retyping situations in which curtailment of free speech can be justified: Click here to be enlightened These guys are not expressing their opinion. They are presenting as fact information that is blatantly false in a way deliberately calculated to cause great distress to those of who they disapprove (e.g. almost anyone who is not them). There are enough bigots in the UK already, thanks very much - no need to import them! I'm sorry, but the usual liberal 'thin end of the wedge' argument doesn't wash. The UK already has laws against incitement and racial intolerance. If, given somebody's track record, they seem likley to commit those offences in the UK I have no problem with banning them. It's not a free speech issue, it's a public order issue. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted February 25, 2009 Author Share Posted February 25, 2009 The UK already has laws against incitement and racial intolerance. If, given somebody's track record, they seem likley to commit those offences in the UK I have no problem with banning them. It's not a free speech issue, it's a public order issue. S Incitement to what though, hatred? I just don't see how banning people is justified simply because we don't like what they will say and do. If they then come over and then break laws then maybe arrest them. But they are no threat, yet are treated as such. If anything they seem absolutely ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitantDogOwner Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 The UK already has laws against incitement and racial intolerance. If, given somebody's track record, they seem likley to commit those offences in the UK I have no problem with banning them. It's not a free speech issue, it's a public order issue. S Incitement to what though, hatred? I just don't see how banning people is justified simply because we don't like what they will say and do. If they then come over and then break laws then maybe arrest them. But they are no threat, yet are treated as such. If anything they seem absolutely ridiculous. If the WBC turned at a servicemans funeral with their "God loves IEDs" and "Soldiers are Satans Sex Puppets" I would be incited into some Old Testament hatred. Like someone said before it would be for their own protection. Nothing like pissing off the entire Armed Forces of an entire nation to shorten your life span. Especially when there only 60-70 of you. They wanted to come to the UK to cause strife and misery with their twisted version of Religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Their version of religion is no more twisted than virgin birth, female genital mutilation, circumcision, original sin, refusal to allow contraception, murder, suicide bombing, eternal damnation, etc; do you see my point? All religion is twisted, let them in to have their say. I thinnk people will ignore them, no publicity in being ignored is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted February 25, 2009 Share Posted February 25, 2009 Their version of religion is no more twisted than virgin birth, female genital mutilation, circumcision, original sin, refusal to allow contraception, murder, suicide bombing, eternal damnation, etc; do you see my point?All religion is twisted, let them in to have their say. I thinnk people will ignore them, no publicity in being ignored is there? The problem will be the likes of the Sun Newspaper etc, who would have them on the front page of their paper, so they would achieve a goal in getting publicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.