Friday, May 8, 2009

U.K. bans 16 based on beliefs... (as if we really need the Socialist States of the U.K. anyways)

The U.K. has issued a list of 16 individuals who are banned from entering the U.K. Contained on the list, well your usual mix of miscreants.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/16-banned-from-britain-named-and-shamed-1679127.html
-------------------
"Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, former Ku Klux Klan grand wizard Stephen Donald Black and neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe are also on the list released today.

Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky, the former leaders of a violent Russian skinhead gang which committed 20 racially motivated murders, are also banned from coming to Britain. Both are currently in prison.

Making up the rest of the 16 named by the Home Office today are preachers Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Safwat Hijazi and Amir Siddique, Muslim activist Abdul Ali Musa (previously Clarence Reams), murderer and Hezbollah terrorist Samir Al Quntar and Kashmiri terror group leader Nasr Javed."

"Also named are American Baptist pastor Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who have picketed the funerals of Aids victims and claimed the deaths of US soldiers are a punishment for US tolerance of homosexuality."

----------------------------------

Oh, and one Michael Savage. Yes, that's right. Michael Savage. Why? It appears that the clown the have in charge of the Home Office - Home Secretary Jacqui Smith - has decided that, "This is someone who has fallen into the category of fomenting hatred, of such extreme views and expressing them in such a way that it is actually likely to cause inter-community tension or even violence if that person were allowed into the country," Ms Smith told BBC Breakfast.

Savage responded, "For this lunatic Jacqui Smith ... to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses, is defamation," Savage said on his show, excerpts of which were aired on BBC radio on Wednesday.

"As a result of this, I am going to sue her."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/savage-response-barred-shock-jock-vows-to-sue-1679928.html

Yes, causes inter-community tension. Kind of like millions of illegal immigrants sneaking into the country and stealing jobs and benefits from its tax paying citizens while committing hundreds of thousands of crimes against its population and then being jailed at the citizens' expense. I suppose that might cause inter-community tension. Kind of like a country being defrauded by corrupt politicians who are destroying it at the expense of those who elected them on false promises. I suppose that might cause inter-community tension too.

I have a better idea. perhaps the U.K. could concentrate on getting rid of the cancer in its midst. By that I mean the swelling muslim population that has already been responsible for acts of terror and is planning many more. The same population that wants to override U.K. law with Sharia law (a cruel set of rules that strips women and non-muslims of any rights whatsoever). Yes, perhaps the U.K. could concentrate on the log in its own eye, before trying to get the speck out of it's neighbors eye.

Certainly a country has the right to ban anyone it wants to. But it is in who it bans that tells the world who it accepts. Clearly, to ban a talk show host - who is not a gang member or a murderer or a terrorist organizer like the vast majority of the list - tells the world that if there is one thing the U.K. fears, it is the free exchange of ideas among its people. Perhaps they should mind the store b/c their people are already angry at the abysmal job the government has been doing. And if they are worried about outside voices coming in and stirring the pot with a little truth, they should be worried more about the millions of angry voices among their citiens for whome they have ruined life with taxes upon taxes upon taxes.

5 comments:

  1. what does this have to do with socialism?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I mean, I'm not a socialist, but I think "authoritarian" might be a better way to describe the government's behavior here, which I agree is quite uncalled for.

    I'm not trying to be picky, I just like to use proper terms to help prevent confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  3. this is interesting...

    "
    Despite Mr Savage's trenchant views, rival broadcasters have leapt to his defense and even civil libertarians and the Council for American-Islamic Relations have spoken out against the ban. . . .

    Jameel Jaffer, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, told the San Francisco Chronicle that the move showed countries were prepared to 'use their borders as a weapon of censorship'.

    'While some of these people may express views that others find disagreeable, often the cure is worse than the disease,' said Mr Jaffer. 'It also deprives the citizens of that country of their ability to hear dissenting views.' . . .

    Ibrahim Hooper from the Council for American-Islamic Relations said it would just give the presenter a bigger audience.

    'As a matter of principle, we don't support such bans. They tend to be selective, in that only popular speech is allowed and unpopular speech is not allowed,' he said.
    "

    ReplyDelete
  4. I hate that Savage is suing, but he is one of the few people that is willing to stand for what he believes in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/borisjohnson/5304788/Michael-Savage-poses-no-risk-to-British-security-so-why-wont-MPs-say-so.html

    ReplyDelete