Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    26 Mar '18 23:29
    This really isn't anything new. The UK isn't a free country but rather functions as a nanny state that seeks to moderate the liberty of the people at every corner. It is all about producing an artificial harmony.

    You can't have people going around riling folks up and trying to increase European consciousness and nationalism:

    A far right Canadian activist who claimed 'Allah is gay' said she was slapped with a lifetime ban from coming to the UK after she was accused of distributing racist material.

    Lauren Southern came under fire in February after she was caught handing out leaflets in Luton that proclaimed 'Allah is a gay God' and 'Allah is trans.'

    Although the 22-year-old said it was only a 'social experiment', she was detained in Calais when trying to re-enter the UK on March 13 and was questioned over the posters.

    In a video posted on Thursday, Southern claimed that she received a lifetime ban from coming to the UK, stemming from the leaflet incident.

    ...

    In the video Southern explains she wanted to see 'what would happen if we played the role of an LGBT social justice warrior activist and set up a stall to celebrate LGBT diversity within the Islamic community.'


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5544219/Canadian-far-right-activist-claimed-Allah-gay-gets-lifetime-ban-coming-UK.html

    Lauren Southern eventually went on to point out that the UK is basically enforcing blasphemy laws at the behest of the Muslim minority.

    Imagine if Christians were so violent and ready to erupt that it legally silenced atheist speakers! Can you? Can you imagine that?

    The fun bonus question on the tip of everyone's tongue... What good is this "freedom" if it is entirely selective in who gets to use it? What good is this 'democracy' if ti is constantly engineered by elites?

    Liberal democracy is a big joke these days.
  2. Joined
    07 Feb '09
    Moves
    138630
    26 Mar '18 23:33
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This really isn't anything new. The UK isn't a free country but rather functions as a nanny state that seeks to moderate the liberty of the people at every corner. It is all about producing an artificial harmony.

    You can't have people going around riling folks up and trying to increase European consciousness and nationalism:

    [quote]A far right Can ...[text shortened]... cracy' if ti is constantly engineered by elites?

    Liberal democracy is a big joke these days.
    Freedom of speech and expression are gifts that should be used wisely.
  3. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 00:45
    Originally posted by @mghrn55
    Freedom of speech and expression are gifts that should be used wisely.
    Would you care to elaborate?

    Is this something like... Free speech should not be offensive? Could you state your views for us?

    Because it sounds like this would amount to not allowing people with offensive views to speak freely.

    But let me know what you mean.
  4. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 01:141 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This really isn't anything new. The UK isn't a free country but rather functions as a nanny state that seeks to moderate the liberty of the people at every corner. It is all about producing an artificial harmony.

    You can't have people going around riling folks up and trying to increase European consciousness and nationalism:

    [quote]A far right Can ...[text shortened]... cracy' if ti is constantly engineered by elites?

    Liberal democracy is a big joke these days.
    I thought you were all in favor of restricting foreigners from coming into your country if they cause damage to the social fabric IYO?

    How come the UK "isn't a free country" when it does the same thing as you desire?

    From the article:

    'Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.'

    What is your objection to that principle?
  5. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 01:23
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    This really isn't anything new. The UK isn't a free country but rather functions as a nanny state that seeks to moderate the liberty of the people at every corner. It is all about producing an artificial harmony.

    You can't have people going around riling folks up and trying to increase European consciousness and nationalism:

    [quote]A far right Can ...[text shortened]... cracy' if ti is constantly engineered by elites?

    Liberal democracy is a big joke these days.
    Here's an example where the UK convicted an atheist of ""religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress" for leaving anti-religious materials in a prayer room at an airport. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/03/militant_atheist_found_guilt_o.html

    One of the materials was " included one showing a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of "no nails" glue" so it's not like you falsely imply that only anti-Muslim materials are frowned upon.
  6. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 01:34
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    I thought you were all in favor of restricting foreigners from coming into your country if they cause damage to the social fabric IYO?

    How come the UK "isn't a free country" when it does the same thing as you desire?

    From the article:

    'Border Force has the power to refuse entry to an individual if it is considered that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good.'

    What is your objection to that principle?
    I have zero qualms with nations controlling their borders. To be completely honest, I have zero qualms with a nation deciding to not admit someone into their nation because they feel that they would simply aggravate tensions and because they do not agree generally with the principles of that society.

    You have very penetrating insight on this one, and know me well!

    The thing is:

    (1a) Britain generally claims to be a free and democratic society. I do not think that any country which actively regulates its freedom can frontload this idea of them being free and democratic.

    (1b) Britain definitely renounces itself as an ethnostate, does it not? That means that they have, in lieu of that, some sort of civic nationalism. Civic nationalism makes sense when it is based on something.

    What would British civic nationalism be based on?

    The operation of a managerial nanny state that does not guarantee any great amount of freedoms or distinguish itself in any way?

    (2) There is obvious hypocrisy. There are plenty of Muslism who enter the UK that have extreme and radical views that violate the egalitarian principles by which the liberals want to remold the UK.

    (3) There is already a massive illegal immigration problem in the UK that makes border security a joke as it is:

    Recent research claimed that there could be as many as 1.1 million illegal immigrants in the UK. However, these figures were published by a lobbying group who favour greater control over immigration. In 2005 the UK’s Home Office released a survey which suggested that there were between 310,000 and 570,000 illegal immigrants in the UK at that time. Research carried out in 2009 on behalf of the Mayor of London gave a figure of up to 863,000.


    http://www.aboutimmigration.co.uk/how-illegal-immigrants-enter-uk.html

    But they are going after Lauren Southern?

    Lauren Southern who basically represents classic Western sensibilities and attitudes, and is now being barred for an opinion that the bulk of British people would have held in the 1960s, and perhaps a significant amount of British people still hold.

    Why?

    Because she offends Muslims by juxtaposing their values with LGBTQ people.

    Pretty fantastic!
  7. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 01:36
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    Here's an example where the UK convicted an atheist of ""religiously aggravated intentional harassment, alarm or distress" for leaving anti-religious materials in a prayer room at an airport. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2010/03/militant_atheist_found_guilt_o.html

    One of the materials was " included one showing a smiling Christ on the cross next to ...[text shortened]... ails" glue" so it's not like you falsely imply that only anti-Muslim materials are frowned upon.
    Everybody knows, based off of the riots that have happened in Europe, based off of the elevated levels of violence in Asian neighborhoods & among the Muslim population throughout Europe, that this was the real reason that he faced charges:

    Others featured Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise who are told, "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins."
  8. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 01:38
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I have zero qualms with nations controlling their borders. To be completely honest, I have zero qualms with a nation deciding to not admit someone into their nation because they feel that they would simply aggravate tensions and because they do not agree generally with the principles of that society.

    You have very penetrating insight on this one, and ...[text shortened]... e she offends Muslims by juxtaposing their values with LGBTQ people.

    Pretty fantastic!
    No, "classic Western sensibilities" do not include intolerance of other religious views. The UK is well within its legitimate powers to bar foreigners who want to preach religious hatred.
  9. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 01:391 edit
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    Everybody knows, based off of the riots that have happened in Europe, based off of the elevated levels of violence in Asian neighborhoods & among the Muslim population throughout Europe, that this was the real reason that he faced charges:

    Others featured Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise who are told, "Stop, stop, we've run out of virgins."
    No, "everybody knows" no such thing. You're making it up:

    Harry Taylor admitted leaving the images in the Prayer Room, but argued that he had a right to challenge the view of others and to try to persuade people of faith to convert to atheism, just as people of faith had a right in law to evangelize him. He also cited childhood mistreatment at the hands of Christian Brothers, while growing up in Dublin, as the reason why he had become so "strongly anti-religious".

    Harry Taylor is now on bail awaiting sentencing on 23 April. Religiously aggravated offences carry a potential seven-year prison term.

    The National Secular Society have supported Mr Taylor. They claim that new laws dealing with "religiously aggravated offences" amount to a blasphemy law in another guise.

    Terry Sanderson, president of the society, said: "This is a disgraceful verdict, but an inevitable one under this pernicious law. It seems incredible in the 21st Century that you might be sent to prison because someone is 'offended' by your views on their religion . . . Mr Taylor struck me as slightly eccentric and he acted in a provocative way, challenging the necessity for the prayer room. He didn't cause any damage and he didn't harm anything, nor was he threatening or abusive.Yet he might still end up behind bars because some Christian has decided they are offended. In a multicultural society, none of us should have the legal right not to be offended. This law needs to be re-examined urgently."
  10. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 01:44
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    No, "classic Western sensibilities" do not include intolerance of other religious views. The UK is well within its legitimate powers to bar foreigners who want to preach religious hatred.
    But it isn't intolerance. It is legitimate criticism of the poorer points of Islam that have only become relevant in the last decades due to their utter incompatibility with Western sensibilities!

    Moreover, I thought there was something about how white people are racist, white privilege dominates everything, and that we have been terribly prejudiced against other people's. Or is that not a part of Western values and heritage? That's not a thing suddenly?
  11. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 01:47
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    No, "everybody knows" no such thing. You're making it up:

    Harry Taylor admitted leaving the images in the Prayer Room, but argued that he had a right to challenge the view of others and to try to persuade people of faith to convert to atheism, just as people of faith had a right in law to evangelize him.[b] He also cited childhood mistreatment at the ...[text shortened]... f us should have the legal right not to be offended. This law needs to be re-examined urgently."
    I think that it actually has nothign to do with christianity; Terry Sanderson, the president of this National Secular Society, has simply very cleverly shifted the entire thign to being about Chrsitianity because that is the only angle from which this can be argued!

    Look at what just happened to Lauren Southern -- the target of her critique was Islam, and she has been barred for life.

    Have you heard of outspoken atheists being barred from visiting the UK? Never. It is people who have a specific issue with Islam that get barred.

    So why would someone ever consider drawing attention to the fact that part of the pamphlet targeted Muslims? It'd be the oppoiste of trying to achieve National Secular Society goals.

    Clever attempt at spinning this but the spokesperson for that organization is hardly going to be reliable in a case like this. But it was clever of you -- very lawyerly.
  12. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 02:11
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    I think that it actually has nothign to do with christianity; Terry Sanderson, the president of this National Secular Society, has simply very cleverly shifted the entire thign to being about Chrsitianity because that is the only angle from which this can be argued!

    Look at what just happened to Lauren Southern -- the target of her critique was ...[text shortened]... n is hardly going to be reliable in a case like this. But it was clever of you -- very lawyerly.
    It's typically dishonest of you to deny the facts and spin it to fit your own preconceived positions. But the story refutes your claims; somehow I doubt that Liverpool jury were all or significantly Muslim.
  13. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 02:16
    Originally posted by @philokalia
    But it isn't intolerance. It is legitimate criticism of the poorer points of Islam that have only become relevant in the last decades due to their utter incompatibility with Western sensibilities!

    Moreover, I thought there was something about how white people are racist, white privilege dominates everything, and that we have been terribly prejudiced a ...[text shortened]... her people's. Or is that not a part of Western values and heritage? That's not a thing suddenly?
    "Allah is a gay God" and "Allah is trans" is a " legitimate criticism of the poorer points of Islam"???

    Not even you can believe such BS. It was simply inflammatory rhetoric by a foreigner meant to stir up religious hatred.

    Well, I should have said religious intolerance is not part of "classical Western sensibilities" since the Enlightenment. That does not mean that the West hasn't had segments of the population that preach religious hatred like you and Ms. Southern; a whole Western nation was consumed by such ideas in the period 1933-45.
  14. Seongnam, S. Korea
    Joined
    03 Jun '17
    Moves
    19412
    27 Mar '18 02:18
    Originally posted by @no1marauder
    It's typically dishonest of you to deny the facts and spin it to fit your own preconceived positions. But the story refutes your claims; somehow I doubt that Liverpool jury were all or significantly Muslim.
    The head of the National Secular Society has little to nothing to do with that case. WE know why the charges would have been brought because it follows a pattern.

    Which brings us back to the OP:

    It follows a pattern of the UK disrespecting freedom of speech and disliking the right wing which points out the failures of their immigration policy. It is a politically motivated attack on someone who isn't a racist. It's one thing to ban a Matt Heimbach or a David Duke that is clearly associated with extremism and can be entering for no real good purpose, but this has been extended to a Canadian who doesn't remotely fit the description of extremist.

    It has also comically showed how LGBTQ and Islam cannot coexist peacefully... and the British government has ZERO idea what to do about it.

    What should the British government do about it, Marauder?

    What do you think about the British government banning Ms. Southern?

    I am curious about your opinions on the actual topic as opposed to just attacking me. This isn't about me, after all. It's about other people, and it's about the ideals that should govern a country. So what are those ideals, Marauder, when it comes to issues of freedom of speech..?
  15. Subscriberno1marauder
    Humble and Kind
    In the Gazette
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    39965
    27 Mar '18 02:19
    On the whole, I think Mr. Taylor, a citizen of the UK, was treated rather harshly; it's not like he drew a swastika on a synagogue.

    On the other hand, Ms. Southern treatment was to be expected for a foreigner coming into the country with the intent to start trouble by fanning the flames of religious hatred.
Back to Top