Banned from the UK
- Thread starter bjj hero
- Start date
At first I agreed with this policy but then I remembered I believe in Free Speech. The government shouldn't be trying to protect us from hearing offensive speech. This sets a precedent for further supression of freedom of speech. I like America's policy where only speech that incites IMMINENT violence can be prosecuted.
I wouldn't mind if a country banned entrance to people with violent histories.
I wouldn't mind if a country banned entrance to people with violent histories.
Thing is, there's already people in the UK that spout much worse violence inciting hate speeches than the people on this list.
First things first: THIS IS NOT EXILE. These people are being denied the right to enter a country they are not already in, not being kicked out of it. Exile is illegal in the UK, and if any government tries to push through anything that changes this, they will be swiftly reminded that those being exiled will become illegal immigrants in another country. And before you say it, deportation is not exile, exile is being forcibly removed from your native land, or the one you happen to have citizenship in.
Second, contrary to popular belief, the slope is not that slippery. In fact, the slope has a mu of 0.99 (sorry, mechanics reference). Sure, this is indeed a form of censorship. Are you suggesting that all censorship be removed? In which case, I'm pretty sure the watershed would have to go, and your poor children would be exposed to all kinds of filth.
Third, have you seen British comedy? We poke fun at every nation, ethnic group or stereotype within our grasp, and of course, ourselves too. With that in mind, to be censored in the UK you have to have said something pretty horrendous (or be a muslim, whichever).
Oh yes, and freedom of speech? Darling, we may have freedom of the press, but freedom of speech is quite a different matter. And yes, we are so weak-willed as to be persuaded by mere words. But you are too. Don't tell me you've never been persuaded by an advert. And don't tell me there isn't still indoctrination in the Bible Belt, because there is. There's indoctrination in Britain too, it's called faith schools, and when I am Prime Minister they will be the first thing to go.
Oh, and you lot don't even have freedom of speech either, how easy is it to be unpatriotic? At least Britain gets to keep one form of freedom: the right to self-loathing.
Second, contrary to popular belief, the slope is not that slippery. In fact, the slope has a mu of 0.99 (sorry, mechanics reference). Sure, this is indeed a form of censorship. Are you suggesting that all censorship be removed? In which case, I'm pretty sure the watershed would have to go, and your poor children would be exposed to all kinds of filth.
Third, have you seen British comedy? We poke fun at every nation, ethnic group or stereotype within our grasp, and of course, ourselves too. With that in mind, to be censored in the UK you have to have said something pretty horrendous (or be a muslim, whichever).
Oh yes, and freedom of speech? Darling, we may have freedom of the press, but freedom of speech is quite a different matter. And yes, we are so weak-willed as to be persuaded by mere words. But you are too. Don't tell me you've never been persuaded by an advert. And don't tell me there isn't still indoctrination in the Bible Belt, because there is. There's indoctrination in Britain too, it's called faith schools, and when I am Prime Minister they will be the first thing to go.
Oh, and you lot don't even have freedom of speech either, how easy is it to be unpatriotic? At least Britain gets to keep one form of freedom: the right to self-loathing.
I dont think I mentioned exile. Good caps lock though.teacupthesauceror said:
You are right in saying that there is no freedom of speech. Think the American constitution protects you? Go and shout bomb in an airport or look at the shit storm around flag burning. There has been violence over the latter.
Where ever there are poor people, there will be chavs, so its an impossible dreamsky14kemea said:
yes they can do this for very obvious reasons. say there's a muslim extremist who decides he wants to come into your house and treat it like home. your not going to let him in, despite the fact he hasnt commited any crimes. he has no actual right to be let in, so its well up to you to tell him to hit the road.
I didn't read all of this - has there been any mention of this guy who has come to the UK to talk about Euthanasia recently? From Australia? Dr Philip Nitschke. There was some controversy about him being let it, he is roaming the country telling people that they should kill themselves, and selling them his kit which helps them do it. He's telling them what drugs to get and how to get them, and his machine helps sort out the dosage. I think he was selling exit bags as well.
Generally I'm pretty open minded but I'm afraid I've been affected by these issues and I think it's sick. I'm all for free-speech, but surely by aiding people in the way that he has been doing he is contravening British Law.
One thing I have a massive problem with, I'm not sure if this guy is advocating it, but certainly I think the guy in Switzerland is, is Euthanasia for people with mental disorders. I find that so sickening. Illnesses like depression and bi-polar are treatable conditions which sadly can lead to temporary thoughts of suicide, and to think that people would want there to be the option for people, who when they are feeling vulnerable, might be convinced that there are options, and that it is a viable choice, for them to kill themselves is really shocking and upsetting.
Generally I'm pretty open minded but I'm afraid I've been affected by these issues and I think it's sick. I'm all for free-speech, but surely by aiding people in the way that he has been doing he is contravening British Law.
One thing I have a massive problem with, I'm not sure if this guy is advocating it, but certainly I think the guy in Switzerland is, is Euthanasia for people with mental disorders. I find that so sickening. Illnesses like depression and bi-polar are treatable conditions which sadly can lead to temporary thoughts of suicide, and to think that people would want there to be the option for people, who when they are feeling vulnerable, might be convinced that there are options, and that it is a viable choice, for them to kill themselves is really shocking and upsetting.
You're entitled to your opinion but if I was suffering with only had a year of agony and disability to look forward too Id want to end it. Likewise if I knew Id become little more than a vegetable unaware of my surroundings and unable to care for myself. Im all for quiting while Im ahead. Quality not quantity.fedpayne said:
England is becoming a very mixed raced country and the government is only trying to protect everyone for the greater good.
Yes, I have even met one of them. Fred Phelps (...He and his "church" protested at my school...), the guy is a dumbass and a terrible person.bjj hero said:
And what if your condition was not terminal, or you didn't have the capacity to understand the situation. Fair enough, I'm sure there are situations where it would be acceptable, but what if you're capable of going to these lectures. I'm reasonably sure it won't be comatose people going to these things.bjj hero said:
That's what those of us who have taken classes in debate call a "slippery slope argument." In layman's terms, you may as well be arguing that it's "only a few steps from making speeding illegal to making it a hanging crime."SirSisyphus said:
On the other hand... well, just look at all the people in this very thread who are using this news item as an opportunity to advocate barring and, in some cases, even exiling pretty much any person or group they personally have a beef with! And they would never realistically think it could be done if they hadn't heard about this list. Perhaps the post that claimed this was trying to set a precedent isn't as crazy as it first sounded.
I say! Good show, old bean.bjj hero said:
A government should be able to let in their country whoever they like. After all, they're in charge.
Zac Effronbjj hero said:
Cos he is constructed from play-dough by Disney Corp.
And cos i hate him
And cos my country wouldnt be big enough for his eyebrows AND his ego
bjj_hero said:
You didn't mention it, but others have implied it. And thanks, I take pride in my capslocking.
They won't allow "hate mongers" in, but Prince Whatever his name is runs around dressed as a Nazi for halloween.
Another prince tries to pass himself off as the bloody unibomber (anti modern building speech.)
But an American who has never committed a crime and has never actually tried to incite a riot is on the list because he speaks as he believes. I don't agree with the man, but saying someone can't come to your country for WORDS.
Apparently the people that wrote the list have forgotten the phrase "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."
Another prince tries to pass himself off as the bloody unibomber (anti modern building speech.)
But an American who has never committed a crime and has never actually tried to incite a riot is on the list because he speaks as he believes. I don't agree with the man, but saying someone can't come to your country for WORDS.
Apparently the people that wrote the list have forgotten the phrase "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me."