The Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, has published a list of 16 individuals that she has banned from entering Britain "in order to make clear what behaviour would not be tolerated in the UK."
The list includes two members of the horrible Phelps family (Fred Waldron Phelps Sr and Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church infamy), Abdullah Qadri al-Ahdal, Yunis al-Astal, Samir al-Quntar, Stephen Donald Black, Wadgy Abd el-Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Erich Gliebe, Mike Guzovsky, Safwat Hijazi, Nasr Javed, Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), Artur Ryno, Amir Siddique, Pavel Skachevsky and Michael Alan Weiner (aka Michael Savage).
Of course, not all these people have made statements about homosexuality.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Posts: 2,418
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Mood: None
We have no obligation whatsoever to allow individuals who are neither British Citizens or Nationals or Citizens of Overseas Dependencies into the UK, although they are generally given free entry. We are free to exclude those whom we suspect would commit disagreeable acts in the UK if allowed entry.
Fred
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
•
Posts: 2,418
Threads: 41
Joined: Oct 2008
Reputation:
0
Mood: None
fjp999 Wrote:Obviously every country can decide who to allow entrance into a country but to bring out a declaration of a ban against someone for their non-criminal speech???
And where exactly does one draw the line on "disagreeable acts"?
I dont follow Michael Savage but cant imagine him even speaking acts worse than the chavs everyone is on about in these bullying posts???
I guess the banning of film and books and other media is soon to follow. Again, just trying to understand banning a non-criminal activity of speech...
Her Majesty's Government is free to draw the line on 'disagreeable acts' wherever it sees fit. Whilst I believe in the right of freedom of speech, I am very doubtful as to whether foreign nationals have any right to free speech within the UK.
Fred
Life is what happens while you are busy making other plans.
•
Interesting point, Frank. To the best of my knowledge, I can access the words of any of these people, should I have the need or the desire. I feel a conflict in how best to respond. On the one hand I agree that people should be allowed to express a point of view and let their ideas stand or fall by strength of reason and argument. However, I also know I am strongly antipathetic to the way some people need to spread their ideas around like a plague.
Pretty much every country decides who is allowed in or not. Members of my own family were turned round by immigration officials in the USA last summer and put on the next plane home for far less comprehensible reasons. At least the people on the "unwanted" list are being told not to bother saving months of their earnings to come on holiday to the UK in the first place!
•
[COLOR="Purple"]Yeah, I guess there are folk refused entry for many a reason... recall recently South Africa refused entry of the Dali Lama to an established, fully reported Peace conference. Because of the refusal many speakers declined to take part and the Peace conference was cancelled.
I studied film and was shocked that Britain had a strong history of banning certain films. I tried to find the same thing in the USA but could NOT find more than one that was banned nation wide and that was brought to the Supreme Court for copy-write violations. There have been states banning films but nothing in the lines of Britain.
So, yeah, good point marsh, anyone can access those banned bodies words so how important is the body?
Has our modern form of communications show how backwards our governments are?[/COLOR]
•
expressing a point of view that is against what the government there thinks it is right ) !!