I think as events regarding postal voting in Birmingham have shown an issue the Labour Party needs to address is the importation of dubious political ‘practices’ from the sub-continent.
Minor Hijack
I have a question for all people who agree with refusing Wilders entry. Since Wilders claims to have visited the UK a couple of weeks ago, there must (one asumes customes is not based one randomness) be something special about this visit that makes it just too risky to let him in; the movie (ahem) screaning.
So here is the question: when is an event so public that a government starts to imeddle with who attends?
Is having drinks with Lord Pearson alone allowed? Speaking with a group of parlementarians over lunch? Or dinner? A meeting for UKIP members? 30 people in a personal home whathching on a big screen tv? 30 people in a movie theatre that is ootherwise used as a regular cinema? 30 people in the house of lords?
Importation? We’re perfectly capable of home-grown corruption, thank you very much.
Švejk, thanks for your explanation.
I must admit, I still don’t see the danger in letting people speak their minds, including Wilders. The UK seems to think that there may be riots if Wilders speaks … so what? If so, just arrest the rioters and move on.
I disagree with Wilders regarding whether the Koran should be sold in the Netherlands … but then I disagree with the Dutch government about whether Mein Kampf should be sold in the Netherlands. I don’t like the philosophies in either book, but let a thousand flowers grow. Weren’t the Dutch lawmakers ever kids? Making ideas and the books they are written in illegal just makes kids want to read them all the more.
All the British government has done is the same thing, make the banned ideas more popular. Wilders must be loving it, all the free publicity. The Brits thought they could keep this from becoming an issue by banning him … and what have they done? Catapulted the issue onto the front page all over the world, and looked foolish into the bargain. Well done all, Westminster. At least you’ve exposed to the world your craven surrender to the forces of ignorance … when ideas are outlawed, only outlaws will have ideas.
I think most European governments have a much more interventionist philosophy than you find in America and banning the expression of unpopular ideas is considered their right and their duty.
About 1994 a Muslim imam, in the southern Spanish town of Marbella, was sentenced to jail for saying the Quran allowed “beating your wife in moderation and as long as it did not leave marks” or something to that effect, I do not remember the exact quote.
I found it outrageous. He was not even prompting anyone to beat their wives but even if he was, so what. It is the person who beats their wife who is responsible of the crime. The only case where I could find him responsible is if he witnessed a husband and wife quarelling and he encouraged the husband to beat her and that resulted in the husband beating her. Then yes. But he was only interpreting what the Quran says. It is ridiculous.
Saying “Kill the Jew” in the middle of an altercation where those inflamatory words might cause violence should clearly not be protected speech.
Saying in a book or article “the Jews (or Arabs) are the cause of the problems of our country and they should be expelled” should clearly be protected speech, no matter how much we may dislike it.
Saying statements like “Hitler said all Jews should be exterminated” or “The Quran says you can beat your wife lightly” should be punished is beyond idiotic. But that is included in the definition of a nanny state.
What’s so dodgy about a £5 note?
Five bob = five shillings = 25pence.(there used to be a 5 shilling coin, the crown)
There used to be a 10 bob note = 10 shillings =50pence.
So logically, if you had a 5 bob note you would be bent, crooked.
Get off my lawn you kids!
I have no problem with Canada barring the door to anyone it feels is disruptive, or even just a nuisance. And I feel the UK has the same right. People who aren’t subjects of the UK don’t have any right to enter it, and the government can keep them out for any reason it wants. I’ll grant the provisions of the EU may mean the UK is brushing up against a treaty it has with the Netherlands, but Canada has no such agreement with anyone so we’d be on firm ground. And frankly, I’m inclined to say the UK has to look out for itself and bend the EU provisions if need be.
The prevailing opinion in the thread seems to be that this admits some sort of weakness on the part of Western society. I disagree. I think it admits that Western societies don’t necessarily want to put up with assholes. If you’re an asshole and I expect that allowing you into my home will disrupt my family’s home and harmony, I will not invite you into my house. That’s not an admission of weakness in my family, it’s an admission that I don’t want you in my house because you’re an asshole. I am willing to tolerate jerks up to a point for the sake of friendly relations - I will allow my father-in-law’s girlfriend to come over despite her being a despicable shit - but there does exist an asshole limit I won’t go over. That’s not my problem, it’s the asshole’s problem. What the UK government is saying here is “This guy is above our asshole limit.”
I think there’s some validity to this point, though. That a country has the right to bar someone doesn’t mean it should.
Still… P.J. O’Rourke once wrote of a visit to Miami (Ohio) University where he visited the student paper, and they were wrestling with the question of whether to print a letter from a white supremacist in the school paper. The students were split between those who felt the freedom of speech trumped everything and that the letter must be run and those who felt it was offensive to minorities. Wrote O’Rourke in obvious wonder, “It never occurred to anyone to just throw the letter away because it was a peice of shit.”
Wilders is, basically, a peice of shit. Will the UK really miss out?
That’s quite a fine attitude. So, treaties should be respected when they work in our favor and not when they don’t. So why would Canada complain about another country not abiding by the terms of a treaty when it was in its favor to do so?
What’s the point of having any treaties then? Society is but a treaty among individuals that we will not steal or injure each other. You mean it is ok to break that when it is in my favor?
If the UK did not want to abide by the terms of the treaty they should not have signed it in the first place. But they have obtained concessions from other countries in exchange for their acceptance and now the only ethical thing to do is abide by the terms of the treaty. And if they do not want to be part of the EU they can withdraw into their little island and make pudding all day long.
I find your position selfish and uncivilized.
Except that western society is based on the principle of free speech. That is our mutual contract and we should respect it always, not only when it suits us.
And except that at times in history you could “be an asshole” by proposing racial equality, gay rights, abortion, etc.
And except that you have a right to your home but if it is a time share then you do not have the right to dictate to others who are also owners. Or if you rent your home out under certain conditions you cannot go later and say “no cats allowed”. And except that you could not say “no blacks allowed” even before renting it out.
Every country is going to push a treaty to the limits without breaking it. That’s the way contracts work. That’s why we HAVE contracts.
Please tell me where I suggested the government of the UK should stop anyone from saying whatever they pleased.
You will find, you see, that I said absolutely nothing of the sort. Mr. Wilders can say whatever he likes, as far as I’m concerned.
Or you could be an asshole by preaching racist screeds against Muslims. You are free to say whatever you like, no matter if I agree with it or not. What you aren’t free to do is to do it in someone else’s home without their consent.
I would never suggest the owner of a building can’t go into it. If Mr. Wilders became a Canadian citizen, for instance, he would be free to enter and leave Canada as he pleases. But I don’t want him coming into Canada in the first place and if he announces he’s going to I’ll write my MP and ask he be kept out.
Could the UK simply withdraw from the EU if it wanted?
He could always travel to Ireland and drive over the border to the UK.
He’s going to need a car.
Of course - but is it going to do something so fundamentally drastic as that because of not wanting one Dutch tit coming to make trouble? The easiest way to deal with any fall out from this is to take it to the courts and let them make some stern admonishment in a good five years or so when everyone’s stopped caring about it.
But I agree (with everyone else it seems) that the whole principle of free speech is to allow people to say what they want even when you don’t like it. Deeming certain view points unacceptable and verbotten does not aid public discourse. A similar example is where the ban on giving the BNP any platform to speak is working completely in their favour - the best way to deal with them is let them spew their irrational gibberish (I’ve read some of their stuff, to the majority of people it would be perceived as that after the initial populist appeal to race tensions wears off) so people can realise for themselves what nutbags they are and how they shouldn’t be taken seriously as a party. Furthermore, if people hear the BNP and DON’T dismiss them, that’s okay - unfortunate, but okay in a supposedly pluralistic democracy.
I too have no objection against free speech, but this doesn’t mean we have to let an undesirable shit stirrer into our country.
As I’ve said, if they were going to let him speak over here, they should have given him a milk crate to stand on and pointed him in the direction of Hyde Park.
No. People and countries who deal in bad faith and who keep pushing the limits are universally considered assholes and shunned. And if members of this board they will be banned.
That doesn’t make any sense. If you don’t want to let him in that means you are most definitely NOT for free speech. Being only in favor of free speech which you do not object to is NOT being in favor of free speech.
And, as has been said, the UK has treaty obligations.
I’m sure a smart chap like Mr Wilders has heard of that thing called ‘the internet’. He doesn’t even need to leave his house to express his opinions.
The UK already in the 70s banned the Danish artist Jens Jørn Thorsen from entering the UK, because he was working on a pornographic or erotic Jesus movie. France merely enacted a law prohibiting the movie from being filmed on French soil. While the Danish ambassador’s home in Madrid was attacked with fire bombs and his car burned down. All this is very much just a déjà vue.
I had never thought of that argument but now that you mention it I an sure the state of West Virginia can prohibit entry to citizens of other states and tell them to get a computer and get on the Internet instead. :rolleyes:
I believe we have had a lot of rainfall since then.