No freedom of speech in England.

[Oafman]

Abdullah Qadri Al AhdalAhdal
Yunis Al Astal
Wagdy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim
Safwat Hegazi
Nasr Javed
Samir Kuntar
Amir Siddique
Gholam Reza Aghazadeh
Mohammed Al Deeni
Yusuf al-Qaradawi
Omar Bakri Muhammad
Omar bin Laden
Mohammad Ali Jafari
Ibrahim Mousawi

When are the members of this list going to be allowed access to the US, that they may practice their freedom of speech?

Not any time soon, seeing as US border guards are too busy denying access to Cat Stevens, because his new Muslim name sounds a bit terroristy, and handing out a lifetime ban to a 17 year old who called Obama a pr***.

And then there's this:
More than 20 British Muslim families denied entry to US, claims London imam Ajmal Masroor

 

[Chesterton]

The details are important.

Should the US allow e.g. Daesh recruiters entry to try and influence the population in their favour?

That would be a ban on their freedom of speech, surely? You can't tell them what to say or think, right?

You know as well as I do that your country applies a totally different set of rules in terms of freedom of speech to citizens than it does to non-citizens who want to enter the country and have their speech heard. So do we. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous.

Our general policy regarding enemies is to capture or kill them.

 

[Chesterton]

Really, Google is your friend. This person many or may not be distinguished, but with 0.1% of the vote he was not elected. And as I understand it the arrest was for public order offences, not for quoting Churchill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...me-ministers-words-Islam-campaign-speech.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weston_(politician)

This was already addressed.

 

[MrSpikey]

He's not forbidden from the country, he's just got delayed getting into the white house, so he threw a fit and left.

It's probably not a good idea to let a terrorist there. Just saying.

He was denied entry at one stage.

Who is it that determines what "terrorist" behaviour is? Permissable freedom of speech is then only freedom of speech as long as it isn't terrorist freedom of speech. Isn't that defined by the government?

Imagine that. Giving money to terrorists is a no-no.

Reagan seemed to get away with it without any major consequences.

Oddly enough there is a small difference between the two lists of people... one group is denied entry because of what they've done, the other because of what they've said.

Geller etc were coming to address meeting of groups considered to be domestic terrorists.

Huh. Did you ask him what it felt like to order the murder of civilians?

No, it didn't come up. Do you wonder the same things about the leaders of your own country whose have ordered the deaths of civilians on a scale incomparable to anything the IRA could dream up?

 

[TerranceL]

He was denied entry at one stage.

And?

Who is it that determines what "terrorist" behaviour is? Permissable freedom of speech is then only freedom of speech as long as it isn't terrorist freedom of speech. Isn't that defined by the government?

He chose targets for the military wing of the IRA. You act as if all he did was talk.

Geller etc were coming to address meeting of groups considered to be domestic terrorists.

Source where the group she was coming to speak to were arrested for being domestic terrorist?

No, it didn't come up. Do you wonder the same things about the leaders of your own country whose have ordered the deaths of civilians on a scale incomparable to anything the IRA could dream up?

Well atleast you're now ok with admitting he called for the death of civilians.

PROGRESS!

 

[MrSpikey]

And?

He chose targets for the military wing of the IRA. You act as if all he did was talk.

I must have missed the bit where he got convicted of that. But obviously, I'm sure your knowledge of the subject is superior to that of the UK security forces.

Source where the group she was coming to speak to were arrested for being domestic terrorist?

I didn't say arrested, I said considered. Some info here, along with some info on the actual arrests and convictions of individual members (Google is your friend for more) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League#Association_with_violence

Well atleast you're now ok with admitting he called for the death of civilians.

PROGRESS!

I didn't say Gerry Adams, I said the IRA. Civilians were killed by all sides in that conflict. No comment on the civilian deaths by your own country over the years?

 

[Armoured]

I must have missed the bit where he got convicted of that. But obviously, I'm sure your knowledge of the subject is superior to that of the UK security forces.



I didn't say arrested, I said considered. Some info here, along with some info on the actual arrests and convictions of individual members (Google is your friend for more) :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Defence_League#Association_with_violence



I didn't say Gerry Adams, I said the IRA. Civilians were killed by all sides in that conflict. No comment on the civilian deaths by your own country over the years?

So... in the same post... you are defending Gerry Adams because he wasn't convicted as you are taring someone as a terrorist because they are "considered" one? Consistency FTW!

 

[MrSpikey]

So... in the same post... you are defending Gerry Adams because he wasn't convicted as you are taring someone as a terrorist because they are "considered" one? Consistency FTW!

I said Adams was not a convicted terrorist, despite numerous lengthy investigations into such matters.

I said others were under investigation for terrorist related matters - "considered" so by the police, and indeed, members of the Government (rightly or wrongly). Some individual members have been convicted of such offences since it's inception, yet the organisation continues to protest while under these investigations.

I haven't called for this organization to be banned. Our citizens have the right to protest until their cause is designated beyond the legal pale, a watermark that should be set extremely high.

The citizens of other countries don't have the automatic right to come here and potentially further inflame an already febrile situation. I can't think of any country worldwide which has such an automatic right.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

While I don't agree with him, I do find what happened to him to be sad.

If employers do not want to hire him because of his views that's on thing, but he shouldn't be kicked out of Uni for his views.

Agreed. I do think their judgement on the social work was accurate though. But outright kicking him out for a social media post has nothing to do with the amount of work and time he has put in to his education.

Also let's just put this in the air now: What you say has consequence, but you have the freedom to say it as a basic right. How another party, job, university, or whoever responds to such is not taking away your freedom.