In 2008?
First, Americans often really don’t grasp just how different the U.S. is in its protection of free speech, compared to nearly every other country in the world. What seems like a “weak sauce excuse” to you is seen as a legitimate concern to the governments of most other countries.
In the time period in which Uygur originally landed on the UK’s list, he was already hosting his radio/streaming program, The Young Turks. Did he say things, or espouse ideas, which the UK decided weren’t awesome? Probably; he’s made his living by hosting a political talk show. His Wikipedia entry also indicates he had a history of making sexist blog posts in the early 2000s, and he was a denier of the Armenian genocide, a view which he did not walk back until 2011.
Did he try to enter the UK and was denied in 2008? If so, how come he’s only making a big stink about it now? A bit sus, don’t you think?
If not, then it’s clearly up to Shabana Mahmood now, when it matters; and she specified her reasoning, which was the same.
It came up because he was blocked entry to the UK this week, as per the Reuters article in a post yesterday.
2008 is (maybe) relevant because @Alessan 's link shows a UK “exclusion list,” of which some people were publicly named as being on that list in 2008, though it is not clear to me, now that I look at that article again, that Uygur was on that list in 2008. The cite in Uygur’s line in that article links to the same Reuters article; it looks like he was only added to the Wikipedia page this week.
Right, but if it’s true that he was actually prevented from bypassing the requirement from needing a visa (note, that’s not the same as being “blocked”, that’s just not being given special permission to enter without a visa as citizens of some countries usually are) since 2008 then the narrative he is currently peddling - that he tried to go to England and was surprised to find himself blocked by the “Zionist” controlled UK government due to his recent comments on Israel - is in fact total bullshit.
I mean, the fact that the narrative Cenk is trying to paint is total bullshit should never be a surprise to anyone, but I didn’t expect him to be quite this transparent about it.
As I noted in my post (which I was editing while you were replying, I think), it’s not at all clear that Ugyur was on that list as far back as 2008. The Wikipedia article notes that sixteen people who were on the “banned list” were publicly named by the UK Home Office in 2008; the cite link goes to this archived article, with those names, and Uygur is not in that list of 16.
And, as I noted in my edit, Uygur’s name was added to the Wikipedia article two days ago. So, it’s entirely possible that he had no idea he wasn’t going to be allowed free entry until now. We also don’t know for how long he’s been on the UK’s list.
In that case, this comment would stand:
Other than, I suppose, this being “clear”, due only to the confusion over the 2008 date.
In a free and open society, if the state is going to ban a particular individual from entering, it should at least be able to articulate a specific reason why. Saying, in effect, “you know what you did” is an authoritarian move.
Before I accuse England of being authoritarian, I will reflect that my country, the United States, disallows entry on such criteria as Not White Enough.
I agree w your point. But …
There’s a difference between why the government decided, what they tell the public, what they tell the subject, and what the subject tells the public. All 4 of those things can be different for reasons both fair and foul. And only the first one really matters.
I know that I don’t know the facts of the case. Does anyone who can be relied upon to speak the whole truth?