Foreign hate-mongers entering the country

[sparkindarkness]

Now this has been something of an issue being batted around at the moment since Geert Wilders and the crazy Rev Phelps have both recently been denied access to the country.

Now we could have an argument about freedom of speech

We could have a debate about whether local freedom of speech (protecting the rights of our citizens) means we have to let the world dump their crazies over here to mouth off

We can even have a debate about EU rights in the case of Geert Wilders.

However, these have been batted around already - I'm going to have an argument about the argument.



See, all of these arguments are being made now. Why now?

We have been refusing access of radical islamic preachers into the UK for years now. No-one cracked their teeth. We have DEPORTED radical and hateful islamic preachers for the venom they have spewed.

This is not a new thing. Keeping our foreign preachers of hate has been happening for some time now - only it never pinged anyone's radar then. It never concerned anyone then. It never made anyone splutter out outraged protestations of free speach and oppression etc. Why is that? It's not a matter of severity. Phelps is pretty up there when it comes to extreme hate speach



Because that's the thing kiddies. If you let in Geert Wilders spitting venom about muslims. If you let in Rev. Phelps inciting violence against gays. Then you are going to have to let in radical preachers who are going to be preaching hate against you and yours as well. It's both or neither here. Either you have freedom of speach or you don't. Either you refuse access to hate speakers or you don't.

Comments

*wanders in from friendsfriends*

[birdsflying]

And, as I have pointed out to many people, we don't, in the UK, have a constitutional right to freedom of speech. But yes - you sum up my side of the argument nicely! Hooray! :)

*wanders off out of your journal again*

Re: *wanders in from friendsfriends*

[seryan.livejournal.com]

we don't, in the UK, have a constitutional right to freedom of speech
Even if you did, as I like to point out to people, freedom of speech includes the freedom not to listen, whether this is by using The Wonderful Off Button, leaving the speaker's venue, or just not giving them a platform.

Re: *wanders in from friendsfriends*

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Indeed, in particular we don't have to be a sounding board for the world's lunatics to come and spread their idiocies.

I love how some groups interpret "free speech" to mean "you've got to repeat what i say REALLY loudly - oh and you can't criticise it"

Re: *wanders in from friendsfriends*

[seryan.livejournal.com]

I love how some groups interpret "free speech" to mean "you've got to repeat what i say REALLY loudly - oh and you can't criticise it"
This is when I exercise my right to free speech, specifically, the right to point and laugh.

Re: *wanders in from friendsfriends*

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

Welcome :)

We don't have a cosntitutional right, but we do have rights to freedom of speech enshrined elsewhere - for example the human rights act which enshrines the Euuropean Convention on Human Rights

Howeve, freedom of speech is not unqualified - not anywhere. And people inciting hate can and, indeed, should be told to shut their traps.

Above all we certainly don't have a duty to play host to other nation's hate mongers. If a british citizen chooses to say such venemous things - well, such is their right, within reason and limits. But that doesn't mean we have to roll out the welcom mat to people expressly coming here to spread poison

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

No country is required to allow in assholes. Though with the pEU you might not be allowed to do that in the future if they're coming from a pEU member

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

This is my stance on the matter

If Phelps were a British national then I would be content for him to say whatever he felt he need to - so long as it didn't cross the lines of inciting violence and criminal acts.

The idea that freedom of speech requires to allow any foreign hatemonger into the country to spread their poison bemuses me. We have no duty to Phelps to allow him entry into our nation. He has no "right" to be here. And if we find his speech and actions objectionable, we have no duty to allow him access to express them

However, I would have let in Mr. Wilders - even though I find his venom extremely offensive - we have the right to deny entry to arseholes - not to prevent our own arseholes from speaking. We are European - with every passing year in tiny increments, the Union is resembling a nation state of its own. The EU will not prevent us from keeping out foreign arseholes - it will merely extend the number of arseholes we consider our own.

While that is definitely an unpleasant side, I'm not against European nationhood nor, in general, do I consider EU members to be foreigners to the same degree I consider non-Europeans.

[logophilos.livejournal.com]

I'm really conflicted about the Phelps thing, because on one hand, keeping him out sends a message that his kind aren't welcome. On the other, Phelps has been one of the most powerful forces driving people towards a more tolerant, moderate Christianity, simply because he *is* so vile.

The way I look at it, no one's free speech is being impinged - just the forum. No one's stopping these people saying anything. They're just being told to say it somewhere else.

Having said that, I don't trust the British government to make judgement calls like this. It should not be in their hands. A government making decisions about what speech is or is not offensive, is a very dangerous thing, and the current British government has a very poor record on human rights and fundamental civil liberties. It looks bad, whatever the reasoning.

[sparkindarkness.livejournal.com]

He is an amazing force AGAINST homophobia because even the homophobes can't stand him.

Exactly. We don't owe him a place. he can say what he wantys - but he's just not welcome here and has no place here.

I don't trust the British government to tie their own shoe laces. Sadly. Them getting it right occasionally only underscores the terrible amount of wrong they've managed