Hey folks,

firstly for those that don't know

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8035114.stm
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6225382.ece

I've been having an interesting conversation with a few folks regarding this and whether the dude justifies the ban.

Personally I'd never heard of the guy before I read his name in the news reports, I've since gone and had a look around his site and wiki article and listened to a few of his shows (for as long as I could stand them).

From my point of view the guy is an idiot, still, to ban him from the UK for his views, well...I think that's a bit over the top if I'm honest. I highly doubt he's the sort of person that leaves america much anyway but to take the step to ban him along with such interesting characters is not the sort of action I would have expected. I'm not overly bothered by it either...but from a free speech point of view I'm not that comfortable with it, but if we are going to ban islamic/muslim race hate speakers the governments does need to be consistent and ban the other end of the spectrum to remain to be seen neutral.

Anyways, what do the few UK folks think about the ban and also his fellow countrymen (and women ). I'm kinda looking for some varied opinions here and thinking about massassi's demographic ranging from un-employed mexican's to police officers to nuclear physicists I think I should be ok

I'm totally against this practice of outright banning people from entering the country because of their views. The same thing happened with those GOD HATES FAGS, a completely unique American brand of crazy and this government has no idea what to do with them. This just highlights the weakness of the government.

If their views are stupid, vile, and unfounded then the government should have a ****ing spine and say so! But they should be allowed to express those views, so we can see for ourselves their stupidity. Put him on Question Time, or Newsnight, and he'd be ripped to shreads.

I had similar issues with the arrest of Abu Hamza. What had he actually done? He had said some pretty vile things, but I'm firmly against the idea that you can go to jail for saying anything. Exposing, undermining, and mocking fanaticism is a much more powerful tool than trying to suppress it.

I'm more afraid of the Terrorism Act 2000 than I am of Al-Qaeda.

Wow, I didn't know the title of the leader of the KKK was called "Grand Wizard". That's pretty fruity.

Michael Savage is a nutjob. He's pretty vitriolic against anything left.

yay freedom.

owait

Americaaa-owait

....

So it's widely known that England is not a free country?

Duly noted.

Have you not noticed the Nanny State control of the UK in the past few years?

I was under the impression that people over there call it a free country.

Perhaps I am mistaken.

Yeah, it's pretty crap of late. The only thing I can chip in Re: Abu Hamza is he was inciting hate, which while you'd think is protected by free speech goes on to impinge on other people's right to not have people be dicks. So then free speech is negated.

Very crap analogy: pulling a trigger isn't a crime, but if done near people can very much be one, whether loaded or not.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael "Savage" Weiner is actually just a performance artist making fun of conservatives--like a Stephen Colbert without the wink.

Check out his wikipedia page... he used to hang out naked with Allen Ginsberg.

Y'know they should probably round up all the BNP members and kick them over the edge at Dover before they start banning all these foreign nutjobs that don't even have a foothold here.

well, i kind of think the UK is a bunch of hand wringing ninnies for this, but on the same note i also think savage is an idiot if he presumes his "freedom of speech" extends to every country in the world. and incidentally this will probably only do good things for his ratings amongst his current audience. and i swear to god! if obama tries to apologize to anyone over this!!!



i dont think you actually have the right to not have people be a dick... i could be mistaken though.

It's called section 5 of the Public Order Act.

It mainly boils down to "don't be a dick or we'll arrest you". It's to do with causing harm or offence I think - I can't remember the exact wording.

Ninja Edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harassment,_alarm_or_distress

wow...

Wow?

It makes perfect sense to me and that particular law doesn't apply north of the border.

This is dumb. Savage is a raving lunatic, but he's mostly a harmless raving lunatic. In America we draw the line at inciting violence. I don't care much for the alternative of drawing the line at inciting hatred.

It makes perfect sense to me also, and I'm living far to the west across the water.

I believe Savage was the one who literally put out a call to kill homosexuals on his radio show

wow, the right not to be "offended" ...that brings a few choice images to mind...



ect...

OFFENDED [/SIZE]

He's being used as a figurehead.

Would be more interesting if it was Michael Moore.. they should band him from all countries, including the US.

South of England is full of these apparently.

I don't like this kind of thing either and I wish we had freedom of speech enshrined here in the same way the Americans do.
But as far as I know, America has its own personae non grata as well, every nation has the right to block unwanted foreign nationals from their country if they want to.

I think Abu Hamza's case might be more to do with his incitement to murder non-Muslims than his general ***-hattery.

There are not only good sides to "Freedom of Speech". It can be, and is, pushed to negative extremes. It is not right to do what those fools from Westboro do, and walking around, hands in the air innocently, chanting "Freedom of Speech" does not excuse their behavior. Inciting hatred, and not only in the form of violence, is not putting free speech to good and proper use. Denounce someone who has done something wrong. Denounce your leaders for unjust behavior. Inciting people to hate homosexuals or people of other ethnicity, or to treat them in any other way then as equal men, is barbaric, villainous and downright unacceptable. Freedom of speech is a form of peaceful anarchy, in a sense. No authority, no bounds. Yet, I for one believe that there are limits.

Freedom was never given with the purpose of impede on another's lifestyle.

The whole point of freedom of speech is that there is no 'good and proper use'.



Yes, another horrible law. If you hate gays, you should be allowed to say so. If you hate people that hate gays, you should be allowed to say so too.

Inciting hatred and promoting violence are two very different things.



Urgh, this 'Nanny state' a pretty pathetic UKIP-style blanket term to cover all manner of things. Whining about 'broken Britain!!' in the most fatalistic terms is worthless and only contributes to directionless apathy.

And it is apathy that is more dangerous than fanaticism, continually making concessions to the most abstract of concepts. Even immigration debate is than issue that has been diverted by the right as a discussion over 'The British Way of Life!' and crap like that, and the government has acquiesced to this. The BNP used to be a ****ing joke, a band of thugs and hooligans, but now they are a very real reality and a very real danger.

And that is why I think the whole american concept is flawed.

The key difference with Britain is that there is no constitution (beyond the Magna Carta), there is no enshrined right to 'freedom of speech', there is no separation of church and state and there is no separation of church and state. There is a state religion (though, in practise, the nation is far more secular than America).

In particular, I point to the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006

and a whole slew of individuals have been prosecuted under this act. I point to one sterling book of intolerance








And that's only the sections where the Bible is specifically calling for violence and hatred against other religions and groups of people. This quite clearly violates the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, and it is far more offensive and vitriolic than Michael Savage.

If Michael Savage is to be banned from the UK, then so should the Bible.

But it's the only way, really. If you start puting limits on it, no matter how particular those are, these will be abused as well.

It's a sign of the times, it seems. This same discussion is everywhere, also in the Netherlands. Ever since a politician and a filmmaker were killed for their opinions (unprecedented events in our country pre-2002), the whole country has been talking about freedom of speech, and in a lot of cases redefining its meaning.

Our current Christian democrat government pleads that freedom of speech should follow the rules of common decency - that it is not meant for insulting people, etc. The liberals (both left and right wing liberals) generally think that freedom of speech cannot be redefined. (Myself I'm always thinking of artists as a good example; they criticize society by provoking them and showing people's true nature.)



Yeah, over here we had the same discussion about immigration and 'The Dutch way of life'. I guess it's all nothing new and it just shows that history is always repeating itself.

A few months ago the British wouldn't let Geert Wilders in, when he flew in to London.

Now don't get me wrong, Wilders may be a total mooncalf, he's a right wing extremist who makes me ashamed of my nationality. He's a nutcake, and he's said some pretty extreme stuff. He said Muslims should tear up their Qu'Ran if they want to live in the Netherlands, because he thinks it's an evil book that compells muslims to violence. And he wants to 'send home' criminal immigrants. Stuff like that.

He's made a bull**** little propaganda flick called 'Fitna'. He was going to show it in England when they stopped him at the airport. I've seen it, it's nothing more than a collage of muslims terrorist clips, larded with Qu'Ran quotes. It proves nothing, it just associates and tries to provoke a feeling of fear of muslims. You can probably find it on YouTube.

Now this may all be in very bad taste, but he's done nothing. He doesn't incite to violence, he's just being a right wing populist little ********. But! He's still a member of the Dutch parliament, and as such I think it's a bad move on Britain's part. My guess is they're probably afraid for terrorist attacks if they let Wilders do his thing.

Is Fitna the one with the naked woman with various Arabic writings over her body? Or is that the guy that was murdered?

Yeah, that's the guy who was murdered. It was called 'Submission'.

I disagree - section 5 is a bloody brilliant law. A bunch of idiots outside your house making a racket - disorderly. Police can say "shut and shift along":

Response (a) "sorry officer, we'll move somewhere more remote" gets a "thanks lads, on your way"

Response (b) "yeeeah whatever you PIG (etc. etc.)" gets a "right, back of the van then!"

It's a nice simple catch all offence (as in it gets you a night in the cells and slapped wrists) that police can use (with discretion and yes that's another can of worms) to simply stop people acting like dicks.

If you're harassing someone then you're in bother, plain as.

I suppose what I'm thinking is this: suppose for argument's sake that I'm muslim. I walk past a KKK ****tard saying to a crowd "we should kill all muslims and send their bodies back home". That's not just offensive, it makes you scared. You have a right to walk the streets not scared of that. Laws like the pulic order act are great for that.

'Catch all offences' will never be used with discretion. Police will gladly use whatever power they are granted, and then some, as we've seen with demonstrations recently.

My brother in law and my best mate are both bobbies: they're not all thugs

5 oh! **** THA PO-LICE!

Am I doing it right?

I think people here in the States are taking "Freedom of Speech" too far these days. People are saying really stupid **** on both "sides". I mean this... ...if this is true, wow.

People, shut the **** up all ready!

Freedom of speech applies to stupid people too. Fortunately, you too have the right to tell them they're stupid. Banning stupid people from staying stupid things will just keep them stupid.

If there's no such thing as a stupid question, what type of questions do stupid people ask?

Do they just get momentarily clever when they use a question mark?

Shut up stoopid D:

people who spew hate are always going to be around and are going to find ways to "spew hate" weather you curb the first amendment or not. if the only point of a law that limits freedom of speech is so that you dont have to SEE the hatred then to me its not anywhere near worth it.