Fred Phelps and daughter banned from entering UK

[arkitect]

Well whaddayaknow?
Jacqui does something right… :)

I didn't realise these c**ts now want to spread their hatred beyond the borders of the US. In fact I didn't even think they had passports. Scum.

A father and daughter from a US church which has called for homosexuals to be killed, have been banned from entering the UK by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church had urged protests against a play being put on in Hampshire.

Queen Mary's College in Basingstoke is staging The Laramie Project, a play about a man killed for being gay.

The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms".

A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.
BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7898972.stm)…

[és:]

It's about time she did something worthy of praise. Well done, Jacqui.

[BoyBach]

Terrible news. Now who am I going to throw my steel-capped boots at?


EDIT: Oh, and for the record, the pernicious parasite that is Jacq(boot) Smith has never, and will never, do anything right.

[yg17]

Too bad we can't ban them from entering the US, forcing them to live in the Atlantic Ocean

[Rt&Dzine]

In case anyone is unfamiliar with these hate mongers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church

They are not affiliated with any known Baptist conventions or associations.

[leekohler]

Too bad we can't ban them from entering the US, forcing them to live in the Atlantic Ocean

As much as I despise these people, they have a right to speak. It works both ways, you know. As an artist, I've been astonished at the censorship I've run into abroad. If I were ever to leave the US, freedom of speech is what I would miss most. This is probably the most valuable right we have in the US. Do not underestimate it's worth.

[brad.c]

As much as I despise these people, they have a right to speak. It works both ways, you know. As an artist, I've been astonished at the censorship I've run into abroad. If I were ever to leave the US, freedom of speech is what I would miss most. This is probably the most valuable right we have in the US. Do not underestimate it's worth.

Well said. The tacit truth is that it's tough to tolerate intolerance.

[rdowns]

As reprehensible as these people are, not allowing them into the country to speak is a slippery slope. Who else will they ban from entering the country?

[leekohler]

Well said. The tacit truth is that it's tough to tolerate intolerance.

It is- but I want the same right to speak they have. If I want it, there are certain things I have to put up with.

[és:]

As reprehensible as these people are, not allowing them into the country to speak is a slippery slope. Who else will they ban from entering the country?

Anybody intent on inciting hate, like the guy that made Fitna. Freedom of speech only goes so far.

[leekohler]

Anybody intent on inciting hate, like the guy that made Fitna. Freedom of speech only goes so far.

We have different ideas of what "freedom of speech" entails.

That said, Britain is free to do what it likes, but I'm free to disagree as well.

[és:]

We have different ideas of what "freedom of speech" entails.


What do you mean by 'we'?

[leekohler]

What do you mean by 'we'?

Obviously, you and I. ;)

[és:]

Obviously, you and I. ;)

:D

I didn't know if you meant our respective countries and laws surrounding free speech.

[leekohler]

:D

I didn't know if you meant our respective countries and laws surrounding free speech.

Well, that too. A film I was in was banned in the UK after one screeing there. I was shocked. When I was at the Berlin International Film Fest for another film, we talked to several distributors who told us they loved the movie, but doubted they could get it past the censorship laws in certain countries, like France and the UK. It was a cold slap. Very much not something I'm used to.

[Rt&Dzine]

"US church which has called for homosexuals to be killed"

Does that cross the line of free speech? But I'm not sure if they actually call for the murder of homosexuals or not.

[leekohler]

"US church which has called for homosexuals to be killed"

Does that cross the line of free speech? But I'm not sure if they actually call for the murder of homosexuals or not.

Here it doesn't. But in many other places it might. You can find that statement all over the web for certain wacky churches. They haven't been shut down or anything.

[és:]

Well, that too. A film I was in was banned in the UK after one screeing there. I was shocked. When I was at the Berlin International Film Fest for another film, we talked to several distributors who told us they loved the movie, but doubted they could get it past the censorship laws in certain countries, like France and the UK. It was a cold slap. Very much not something I'm used to.

Censorship of films is an entirely different thing than free speech, though. Even by international law and human rights standards.

Strange though, it seems that only a handful of films were ever banned in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_Kingd) - all 20 years old or much more and since allowed to be released - bar one or two. Interestingly enough, less than in the US. Unless that information is wrong, of course. Although, I did check with the BBFC site and there seems to be very few.

[leekohler]

Censorship of films is an entirely different thing than free speech, though. Even by international law and human rights standards.

Strange though, it seems that only a handful of films were ever banned in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_Kingd) - all 20 years old or much more and since allowed to be released - bar one or two. Interestingly enough, less than in the US. Unless that information is wrong, of course. Although, I did check with the BBFC site and there seems to be very few.

I don't know how it works. Perhaps they don't always list them. I know ours was not permitted to be shown after the one screening. And I fail to see how anything in that movie violated human rights. Like I said, I can only speak from my own experience.

[és:]

I don't know how it works. Perhaps they don't always list them. I know ours was not permitted to be shown after the one screening. And I fail to see how anything in that movie violated human rights. Like I said, I can only speak from my own experience.

'm not sure if I should ask, but what movie was it?

[yg17]

Censorship of films is an entirely different thing than free speech, though. Even by international law and human rights standards.

Strange though, it seems that only a handful of films were ever banned in the UK (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_banned_films#United_Kingd) - all 20 years old or much more and since allowed to be released - bar one or two. Interestingly enough, less than in the US. Unless that information is wrong, of course. Although, I did check with the BBFC site and there seems to be very few.

A small handful of those banned in the US were banned for copyright or other legal reasons, not censorship though.

[leekohler]

'm not sure if I should ask, but what movie was it?

I PM'd you. Let's keep this family friendly. ;)

[chrmjenkins]

As Lee stated, they have a right to speak. Rewarding them with attention by banning or otherwise restricting them will only serve to embolden them.

[és:]

As Lee stated, they have a right to speak.

They do. They just don't have the right to hate speech. That's why they are banned from Canada and the UK.

Saying whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want isn't a right that you get anywhere. Not in America, not in Europe and not in any country.

Just because these extremist bigots exist (albeit whilst being monitored by the Anti-Defamation league and classed as a hate group by the SPLC) in your country, it doesn't mean what they do or say is in the realms of 'free speech' as described by the human rights laws or conventions.

Jacqui Smith, a person whom I'm no fan of, is within her rights to stop the incitement of hatred and even violence.

[jonnyb]

As Lee stated, they have a right to speak. Rewarding them with attention by banning or otherwise restricting them will only serve to embolden them.

Their disgraceful picketing of funerals is something that should be stopped surely? A family's right to bury their dead in peace beats someone's right to free speech in my book.

The right of a group of people to be protected from violence by banning someone from inciting that violence also trumps free speech too.

[floyde]

As reprehensible as these people are, not allowing them into the country to speak is a slippery slope. Who else will they ban from entering the country?

They had previously banned dutch MP Geert Wilders (http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/12/cowardly-british-government-sends-wilders-back-home/) because of his controversial film about Islam.

[és:]

They had previously banned dutch MP Geert Wilders (http://freethinker.co.uk/2009/02/12/cowardly-british-government-sends-wilders-back-home/) because of his controversial film about Islam.

Something I also support.

[floyde]

Something I also support.

Why? It is just a film. Everyone has a right to disagree with its content and just ignore the guy. I know I would.

[leekohler]

Something I also support.

I don't. But again- you all can do what you want.

Why? It is just a film. Everyone has a right to disagree with its content and just ignore the guy. I know I would.

Exactly.

[fivepoint]

As much as I despise these people, they have a right to speak. It works both ways, you know. As an artist, I've been astonished at the censorship I've run into abroad. If I were ever to leave the US, freedom of speech is what I would miss most. This is probably the most valuable right we have in the US. Do not underestimate it's worth.

+1
Well said, Lee.



Something I also support.

You CAN'T be serious. Freedom of speech really holds no value with you, does it 'es?

[BoyBach]

Freedom of speech only goes so far.


But surely if free speech is anything, it's the right to offend?

[és:]

You CAN'T be serious. Freedom of speech really holds no value with you, does it 'es?

:rolleyes:

That's about as disingenuous as me saying 'You can't be serious, honesty and truth really hold no value for you, do they 5p01nT'.

But no, I don't think that the man should be allowed to preach his lies and extremism here. It's a shame you seem to like lies and propaganda so much (see, it's easy to be slimy).

But surely if free speech is anything, it's the right to offend?

Offending is great. I'd defend free speech to the death. I'm just not prepared to accept lies, propaganda, hate speech and incitement of hatred and violence.

It might just be my warped sense of morality, but I dislike these things. If only I was a Christian, maybe that would have taught me some values ;)

[fivepoint]

Is this not a contradiction, 'es? I'm seriously asking.

Offending is great. I'd defend free speech to the death.

I'm just not prepared to accept lies, propaganda, hate speech...

Or is the free speech you'd defend to the death, just the speech that 'es has pre-approved not to include any lies, propaganda, or hate speech? Is that any one person's right to judge?

[leekohler]

But no, I don't think that the man should be allowed to preach his lies and extremism here. It's a shame you seem to like lies and propaganda so much (see, it's easy to be slimy).

Many times "lies" and "extremism" are subjective. People can (and indeed do and have) say the same thing about things that I wish to express. I would much rather people be allowed to speak their minds, no matter how much it might offend me. If I want the same thing, it's goes with the territory.

[fivepoint]

Many times "lies" and "extremism" are subjective. People can (and indeed do and have) say the same thing about things that I wish to express. I would much rather people be allowed to speak their minds, no matter how much it might offend me. If I want the same thing, it's goes with the territory.

Thank you, Lee. You expressed what I was TRYING to say. So much of speech is subjective and changes as the world changes.

Several hundred years ago uttering suggestions that blacks are equal to whites would have been considered an pure propaganda, an extreme lie and hate speech towards whites.

[és:]

Is this not a contradiction, 'es? I'm seriously asking.

Depends if you have any regard for facts, international law and human rights conventions.

I guess it helps if you actually know what 'free speech' and 'freedom of expression' actually mean. Give me a few minutes and I'll drag it all up for you.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

The act of censorship is always worse than what is being censored. A case of Fred Phelps being censored just shows us how bad censorship is.


As much as I despise these people, they have a right to speak. It works both ways, you know. As an artist, I've been astonished at the censorship I've run into abroad. If I were ever to leave the US, freedom of speech is what I would miss most. This is probably the most valuable right we have in the US. Do not underestimate it's worth.

Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't seem to be much better.
http://usefularts.us/2008/08/18/reclusive-disturbed-woman-convicted-of-online-obscenity/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article838305.ece

[MacNut]

In the US the klan can use hate speech and protest outside anywhere they like. They can't be silenced no matter how much we might not like what they are saying. They are protected by free speech just like everyone else. The only thing you can't do is something that can cause physical harm like yell fire in a theatre without being a true threat.

[MacNut]

Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't seem to be much better.
http://usefularts.us/2008/08/18/reclusive-disturbed-woman-convicted-of-online-obscenity/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article838305.eceThose are cases of indecency, "we" don't like nudity in this country. Yes it is a double standard but that is how it is.

[leekohler]

The act of censorship is always worse than what is being censored. A case of Fred Phelps being censored just shows us how bad censorship is.




Unfortunately, the U.S. doesn't seem to be much better.
http://usefularts.us/2008/08/18/reclusive-disturbed-woman-convicted-of-online-obscenity/
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/article838305.ece

That right is constantly under attack, you're right. Both of these cases are awful. They need to be appealed and the verdicts struck down.

Those are cases of indecency, "we" don't like nudity in this country. Yes it is a double standard but that is how it is.

No- it's not "how it is". Both of these cases were wrongly decided, and I doubt will pass constitutional muster when challenged.

[iJohnHenry]

Home-grown idiots have to be endured, but in this case, your country, your rules. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/thumbsup.gif

[XnavxeMiyyep]

You support this:
In the US the klan can use hate speech and protest outside anywhere they like. They can't be silenced no matter how much we might not like what they are saying. They are protected by free speech just like everyone else. The only thing you can't do is something that can cause physical harm like yell fire in a theatre without being a true threat.

yet are also ok with this?
Those are cases of indecency, "we" don't like nudity in this country. Yes it is a double standard but that is how it is.

Free speech like everyone else! (except when there's nudity! (or stories about nudity in the second case)) :confused::confused::confused:




That right is constantly under attack, you're right. Both of these cases are awful. They need to be appealed and the verdicts struck down.
Max Hardcore has the money to fight and will do so. Karen Fletcher is not so lucky.


No- it's not "how it is". Both of these cases were wrongly decided, and I doubt will pass constitutional muster when challenged.
We can only hope.

What we need is a legal death of obscenity.

[Prof.]

New Law: Freedom of speech does not apply when it is used for hate speeches

kthnxbai

[leekohler]

New Law: Freedom of speech does not apply when it is used for hate speeches

kthnxbai

That's a can of worms you don't want to open, Prof.

[MacNut]

You support this:


yet are also ok with this?


Free speech like everyone else! (except when there's nudity! (or stories about nudity in the second case)) :confused::confused::confused:





Max Hardcore has the money to fight and will do so. Karen Fletcher is not so lucky.


We can only hope.I don't like it but that is how it is, I wish we could swear or have nudity on TV.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

New Law: Freedom of speech does not apply when it is used for hate speeches

kthnxbai
In other words:

New Law: Freedom of speech does not apply when it hurts my, or others', feelings :(

[MacNut]

New Law: Freedom of speech does not apply when it is used for hate speeches

kthnxbaiWhat is hate speech, this food is horrible I hate it? does that count?

[iJohnHenry]

No, that's hate cuisine. :p

[Gelfin]

I am all for freedom of speech, even for someone as vile as Phelps, but honestly if you put me in the position of approving or denying the visa of a foreign national requesting entrance to my country for the express purpose of staging a specific and disruptive demonstration, I don't think I would be anywhere near the boundaries of propriety in stamping it "denied."

[garybUK]

It's fine saying they have 'freedom of speech' but i'm sorry, that's in the USA they SHOULD NOT be allowed to bring that to our country and think they can get away with the same treatment, the US is very quick to jump on people not conforming to their standards.

I like to think this country is tolerant (or becoming more tolerant) towards homosexual persons (like myself). I do hold hands walking down the street and have never felt vindicated or stared at, though Manchester has a big homosexual population.

Good on the UK for standing up to these monsters, go back to where you came from and continue your hate there. What business do you have here? I may go and see this now, thanks for the free promotion of this play!! :D

P.S.
(I have been to the US many times and love it there and have many friends there) but where is your freedom when you are a homosexual? in the USA :( (An outsiders observation).

[chrmjenkins]

No, that's hate cuisine. :p

You can't have your hate and eat it too.


Terrible, I know.

[joelovesapple]

They should come over here whilst banned, so that I can slaughter them all. Bastards.

[MacNut]

It's fine saying they have 'freedom of speech' but i'm sorry, that's in the USA they SHOULD NOT be allowed to bring that to our country and think they can get away with the same treatment, the US is very quick to jump on people not conforming to their standards.I didn't hear all this outcry when Madonna went to live there.:D

[Rt&Dzine]

It's fine saying they have 'freedom of speech' but i'm sorry, that's in the USA they SHOULD NOT be allowed to bring that to our country and think they can get away with the same treatment, the US is very quick to jump on people not conforming to their standards.

Good on the UK for standing up to these monsters, go back to where you came from and continue your hate there. What business do you have here?


Good point. We in the USA often assume everyone must abide by our definitions and laws. I admit that I'm ignorant about UK law and am curious about your reaction.

[Counterfit]

I don't like it but that is how it is, I wish we could swear or have nudity on TV.
You can, just not on broadcast TV before 10pm. Cable channels edit content voluntarily, which is stupid for the most part.
but where is your freedom when you are a homosexual? in the USA :(

New England. ;)

[CalBoy]

I am all for freedom of speech, even for someone as vile as Phelps, but honestly if you put me in the position of approving or denying the visa of a foreign national requesting entrance to my country for the express purpose of staging a specific and disruptive demonstration, I don't think I would be anywhere near the boundaries of propriety in stamping it "denied."

Americans don't need a visa to enter the UK though; this is a preemptive ban on Phelps entering the country for something he might say.

I think he should be allowed to protest wherever he wants, just like anyone else. However, he is trying to enter a different country so they do have the right to determine their own standards for entrance.

I'm just troubled because of this particular standard. If you're a homophobe you can't enter? What if you deny the Holocaust? Advocate for LSD usage? Think the Crown has outlived its usefulness?

Now if he had some prior bad standing in terms related to international travel (a bad passport or a suspicion of being a criminal leader, for example), then I think it would be fair to prevent someone from entering.

For now, I wonder when my opinion on something will get me banned from the UK.

[Rodimus Prime]

I am rather disturbed by this tread.

That people who in other treads scream freedom of speech (I believe some of you posted in prop 8 supports being made very public) and said that is freedom of speech and yet the same people here support limiting free speech in a much stronger manner.

Now others I am impressed by (lee for example) who stand by there belief even when it goes against them.

Just though I point that out. I see this is going baddly for UK. Freedom of Speech is exactly that. The laws are set up so the government can not limit speech and rules are same for everyone. Not well if we do not agree can not happen.

You have people who think Gay and homosexuality is very wrong. Like it or not nothing is wrong with that belief and they should be allowed to say it is wrong.
The flip side of that coin is people who believe that it is ok and a very good thing nothing is wrong with that belief. you want to preach that so be it.


I agree with Lee. Free speech comes at a price and a good price to pay.


What the UK is doing is a very VERY slippery slop. There reasoning is very poor and will come back to bite them. Everyone should be treated freely and not be differently under the law. Here is a case they are being treated differently. What if he just wanted to go over to visit and do nothing else. Unless they have proof they do not have a case but something that will blow up in their face.

[Gelfin]

I'm just troubled because of this particular standard. If you're a homophobe you can't enter? What if you deny the Holocaust? Advocate for LSD usage? Think the Crown has outlived its usefulness?

I am only speculating, of course, but I do not think the issue was his views as such. It's not as if homophobia is a strange, unknown phenomenon in the UK. I suspect it was not beliefs but behavior, specifically his known intent to disrupt public events and harass their attendees.

He keeps his shameless nuisance behavior just enough on the legal side of the line that he won't be arrested here, but I don't see why any nation should be required to play gracious host to that sort of thing when they know that's the only purpose for his visit and they have the choice.

[CalBoy]

I suspect it was not beliefs but behavior, specifically his known intent to disrupt public events and harass their attendees.

Well he can always be denied the protest permit if the authorities deem him to be a threat to order. I'm sure American cities have done such to him if he's done half of the stuff his Wikipedia page says he's done.

He keeps his shameless nuisance behavior just enough on the legal side of the line that he won't be arrested here, but I don't see why any nation should be required to play gracious host to that sort of thing when they know that's the only purpose for his visit and they have the choice.

I agree, it is their choice. I'm just not very comfortable with that choice. If this was an American decision against a foreign speaker/protestor, I would be much more upset.

[jonnyb]

People should be allowed to express their opinions, even if they are distasteful. However, people should not be allowed to say 'kill group X or it's OK to be violent against group Y'.

We should keep those people out of a civilised country until they can learn to conduct themselves according to our standards.

[Gelfin]

What if he just wanted to go over to visit and do nothing else. Unless they have proof they do not have a case but something that will blow up in their face.

Proof like conducting an interview with the Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/4678943/Westboro-Baptist-Church-justifies-UK-picket.html) wherein they state specifically that that is the purpose of their visit?

[FX120]

This is hardly anything new to the UK, they've got a rich history of banning people from visiting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7695317.stm

"Conducive to the public good", what a great reason...

[Gelfin]

This is hardly anything new to the UK, they've got a rich history of banned people from visiting:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7695317.stm

"Conducive to the public good", what a great reason...

Okay, let it not be said I don't correct myself on new evidence. That's a more pernicious pattern of discriminating on the basis of opinions alone than I am comfortable with.

Except Martha Stewart, of course. She should be deported and forced to live in international waters on a nicely appointed raft made of festive gourds.

[garybUK]

In terms of legality here, if you are a UK/EU citizen then you would be allowed the freedom to speak and protest like these morons want to do. If it becomes inciting hate then i believe you can be arrested. But in terms of allowing someone passage into the UK to behave in this manner, uh-uh no!

[és:]

Many times "lies" and "extremism" are subjective. People can (and indeed do and have) say the same thing about things that I wish to express. I would much rather people be allowed to speak their minds, no matter how much it might offend me. If I want the same thing, it's goes with the territory.

Lee, I'm well aware of the importance of free speech. I'm not some moron who hasn't looked into these things or is ignorant of their importance. I just know that there is a difference between free speech and freedom of expression and saying anything you like, where you like, when you like.

I agree with Chomsky when he says 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." This doesn't mean people can say what they like, when they like and where they like.

Anyway...

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Things like hate speech, defamation, obscenity and the sorts are not free speech. At the end of the day I've got no problem with this guy having an opinion, any opinion that he likes, I've got a problem with him inciting hatred. I've got a problem with these things because they are against the law.


Home-grown idiots have to be endured, but in this case, your country, your rules. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/thumbsup.gif

Your country, too.

Many times "lies" and "extremism" are subjective. People can (and indeed do and have) say the same thing about things that I wish to express. I would much rather people be allowed to speak their minds, no matter how much it might offend me. If I want the same thing, it's goes with the territory.

Lee, I'm well aware of the importance of free speech. I'm not some moron who hasn't looked into these things or is ignorant of their importance. I just know that there is a difference between free speech and freedom of expression and saying anything you like, where you like, when you like.

I agree with Chomsky when he says 'If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." This doesn't mean people can say what they like, when they like and where they like.

Anyway...

From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Things like hate speech, defamation, obscenity and the sorts are not free speech. At the end of the day I've got no problem with this guy having an opinion, any opinion that he likes, I've got a problem with him inciting hatred. I've got a problem with these things because they are against the law.


Home-grown idiots have to be endured, but in this case, your country, your rules. http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/thumbsup.gif

Your country, too.

The laws are set up so the government can not limit speech and rules are same for everyone.

This is wrong. It's wrong to say it about the UK and it's wrong to say it about the US.

You have people who think Gay and homosexuality is very wrong.

That's fine. Nobody is stopping anybody thinking whatever they want.


Everyone should be treated freely and not be differently under the law.

They are. Britain has the finest legal system in the world.

Unless they have proof they do not have a case but something that will blow up in their face.

They made it abundantly clear what they were going to do.

[iBlue]

Wow, probably the first thing Jacqui Smith has done that I agree with. Has anyone heard the weather report from hell yet?

Those people do nothing but incite hatred. Slippery slope or not maybe it's a good idea that people who notoriously instigate hate and trouble like that are not allowed in to do it. They made it clear what their purpose was for coming here and I think saying "no" was a good decision.

[és:]

Wow, probably the first thing Jacqui Smith has done that I agree with. Has anyone heard the weather report from hell yet?

Those people do nothing but incite hatred. Slippery slope or not maybe it's a good idea that people who notoriously instigate hate and trouble like that are not allowed in to do it. They made it clear what their purpose was for coming here and I think saying "no" was a good decision.

Somebody get this woman a stiff upper lip! She's earned it.

[firestarter]

I'm just troubled because of this particular standard. If you're a homophobe you can't enter? What if you deny the Holocaust? Advocate for LSD usage? Think the Crown has outlived its usefulness?

What if you're a singer with a muslim name (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/22/usa)?

What if you're gay or have taken drugs (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/books/20memoi.html)?

Is the US the land of the free, or the land of hypocrisy?

[SactoGuy18]

By the way, even conservatives in the USA won't associate with these people (for LOTS of obvious reasons!).

[skunk]

People should be allowed to express their opinions, even if they are distasteful. However, people should not be allowed to say 'kill group X or it's OK to be violent against group Y'.Such incitement can and should be dealt with if and when it happens. Preemptive banning is entirely wrong.

We should keep those people out of a civilised country until they can learn to conduct themselves according to our standards.Which "civilised country" and what "standards" are you referring to? :confused:

[jonnyb]

Such incitement can and should be dealt with if and when it happens. Preemptive banning is entirely wrong.


I disagree. As others have said Phelps has been quite explicit in saying what he intended to come here to do. As a nation I think we're quite entitled to say 'No thanks'


Which "civilised country" and what "standards" are you referring to? :confused:

Ours. The UK. No, before you roll your eyes too far in the back of your head, I wouldn't go as far as to say we're quite there yet but it's what we aspire to. Those standards, believe it or not, have come along quite a bit to the point where the majority of us can get along without calling each other n****r, queer, ****** etc. So, basic standards of civil behaviour I guess I mean.

Do you want to come to the UK - sure, but leave your 'kill fags' placards at home.

[yg17]

Is it necessarily censorship though? Countries have the right to deny anyone who isn't a citizen entry for any reason, don't they? These guys aren't citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore do not have the guaranteed right to set foot in their country. It would be one thing if the Phelps klan were UK citizens and were denied re-entry, but seeing as how they're not, and they're only trying to go over to start ***** and spread hate, I can understand why the UK would deny them a visa, and I don't think I would call it censorship.

[skunk]

Ours. The UK.How does starting an illegal war, invasion and occupation stack up against using intemperate and hateful language, I wonder, in the general scheme of things?

[jonnyb]

How does starting an illegal war, invasion and occupation stack up against using intemperate and hateful language, I wonder, in the general scheme of things?

I attempted to pre-empt this response in my previous answer. I agree that there are many things that might stop one from describing the UK as a civilised country.

[és:]

How does starting an illegal war, invasion and occupation stack up against using intemperate and hateful language, I wonder, in the general scheme of things?

You could say the same about rape and murder, to be fair.

[Rt&Dzine]

Would we want to let in, for instance, a Muslim group whose intent is to picket at a Christian event with the message 'Christians should be killed'? And this group also protests at the funerals of Iraq veterans and Christians with their hate agenda.

I'm not making a statement one way or the other about the Phelps case. But I'm just wondering if we would feel the same.

[skunk]

I attempted to pre-empt this response in my previous answer.I know. Better luck next time, eh? :)

[mactastic]

I'm a little late to this party, but I would have to say that while I will shed no tears if the Phelps klan is kept off Her Majesty's shores, I think it's a terrible idea to ban people because you don't like their ideas, or because you think they might commit a crime.

Let him speak, and thus prove himself the fool. As it stands, he'll now be able (rightly or not) to claim that he is being persecuted for his beliefs. And nothing sustains religious nutters like a belief that they are being persecuted for their beliefs.

[és:]

I think it's a terrible idea to ban people because you don't like their ideas

Me too.

or because you think they might commit a crime.

Does that count for all crime (the answer being 'of course not') or just this one?

[CalBoy]

What if you're a singer with a muslim name (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/22/usa)?

What if you're gay or have taken drugs (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/books/20memoi.html)?

Is the US the land of the free, or the land of hypocrisy?

I am disgusted by both of those incidents.

However, I am sadly very aware of how hypocritical the US is. :(

[Arran]

Is it necessarily censorship though? Countries have the right to deny anyone who isn't a citizen entry for any reason, don't they? These guys aren't citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore do not have the guaranteed right to set foot in their country. It would be one thing if the Phelps klan were UK citizens and were denied re-entry, but seeing as how they're not, and they're only trying to go over to start ***** and spread hate, I can understand why the UK would deny them a visa, and I don't think I would call it censorship.


Sort of like if Ahmadinejad said he wanted to land in the USA and address the American people. Give us all a good chastising 'n' stuff. Tell us where we're going wrong.

Think of the cost (to us U.S. taxpayers) of just policing that sort of "free-speech" visit. No thanks!

Edit - I see Rt&Dzine @ 76 beat me to the point! Must type faster.

[mactastic]

Does that count for all crime (the answer being 'of course not') or just this one?
I'm not sure what you mean? I don't dispute that it is within the rights of the UK to keep Phelps from visiting; but I don't think it's a particularly good idea to base that disallowance on a vague suspiscion that he may commit some kind of crime -- particularly one that would be in plain view and easily observable if he does it.

AFAIK, Phelps is no dummy. He's very well informed on how far he can push his free speech rights in this country. That's why he wins so many lawsuits, because his antics goad other people into overreacting and infringing on his rights. I would imagine that he is similarly informed about UK law. IMHO, he is unlikely to actually break any laws.

[Gelfin]

Sort of like if Ahmadinejad said he wanted to land in the USA and address the American people. Give us all a good chastising 'n' stuff. Tell us where we're going wrong.

Think of the cost (to us U.S. taxpayers) of just policing that sort of "free-speech" visit. No thanks!

Edit - I see Rt&Dzine @ 76 beat me to the point! Must type faster.

Yeah, we'd certainly never allow something like that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html). And in the process we would totally miss out on the comedic gold of being informed that, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

[Rt&Dzine]

Sort of like if Ahmadinejad said he wanted to land in the USA and address the American people. Give us all a good chastising 'n' stuff. Tell us where we're going wrong.

Good example in response to my question. Many were very upset that Ahmadinejad was allowed a speaking engagement in the U.S. (Although the circumstances were somewhat different.) Islam fundamentalists are very similar to Christian fundamentalists.

[és:]

I'm not sure what you mean?

Well, you said that that you thought it was terrible idea to ban people because you think they might commit a crime. I was just interested if you think that should be the case for all crime.

[skunk]

The political health of a country can be gauged by how well it deals with issues of freedom of speech, not by how well it avoids them. The exercise of free speech is only criminal in very rare circumstances. A healthy society has no fear of allowing its freedoms to be tested.

[Arran]

Yeah, we'd certainly never allow something like that (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/24/AR2007092401042.html). And in the process we would totally miss out on the comedic gold of being informed that, "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals, like in your country."

Gosh. I didn't know that. Not only do I need type faster, I need to research better too. :o

[iBlue]

The political health of a country can be gauged by how well it deals with issues of freedom of speech, not by how well it avoids them. The exercise of free speech is only criminal in very rare circumstances. A healthy society has no fear of allowing its freedoms to be tested.

But this isn't a particularly healthy time for society. Things are bad and people are angry enough about the state of things without some hateful biggots saying that it's our own fault for being tolerant of homosexuality and whatever else they like to condemn/blame. They want to come and wind people up. Normally I might not be a fan of censorship but I sort of appreciate that their hate message and the trouble it is likely to bring is just not welcome.

[EricNau]

I think it's a terrible idea to ban people because . . . you think they might commit a crime.
That's essentially the job of the U.S. CBP, no?


I fully support the right of countries to restrict access to those who they deem harmful to their society. Every citizen of every country is deserving of their fundamental rights as a citizen, but that's not to say that every person is entitled to travel to any nation they choose.

Their nation, their rules for admittance and citizenship.

[skunk]

But this isn't a particularly healthy time for society. Things are bad and people are angry enough about the state of things without some hateful biggots saying that it's our own fault for being tolerant of homosexuality and whatever else they like to condemn/blame. They want to come and wind people up. Normally I might not be a fan of censorship but I sort of appreciate that their hate message and the trouble it is likely to bring is just not welcome.I sort of appreciate it too, but it's a very slippery slope. How much better if they come here and fail to garner the support they anticipate?

[bartelby]

How much better if they come here and fail to garner the support they anticipate?

Would they notice, or care, if they did fail?

[EricNau]

I sort of appreciate it too, but it's a very slippery slope.
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Just be glad you're on the side without Phelps. :p

[és:]

The line has to be drawn somewhere. Just be glad you're on the side without Phelps. :p

Ach! We've got our own crazy bunch here :D

[davidjearly]

As Lee stated, they have a right to speak. Rewarding them with attention by banning or otherwise restricting them will only serve to embolden them.

Not quite. I would rather they were not given the platform to spread their religious hatred. If that's what you guys do in the US, that's fine. Just don' complain when we don't fall into line with your ideals.

To me, the right to live life free from hatred and religious bile is of greater importance than the freedom of expression.

Saying whatever you want, whenever you want, wherever you want isn't a right that you get anywhere. Not in America, not in Europe and not in any country.

Just because these extremist bigots exist (albeit whilst being monitored by the Anti-Defamation league and classed as a hate group by the SPLC) in your country, it doesn't mean what they do or say is in the realms of 'free speech' as described by the human rights laws or conventions.

Jacqui Smith, a person whom I'm no fan of, is within her rights to stop the incitement of hatred and even violence.

Spot on.

[CalBoy]

I sort of appreciate it too, but it's a very slippery slope. How much better if they come here and fail to garner the support they anticipate?

That's my thinking exactly, skunk.

Nothing destroys martyrdom like apathy.

[Burnsey]

A father and daughter from a US church which has called for homosexuals to be killed,

How could a religion be so hate filled :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

Well, you said that that you thought it was terrible idea to ban people because you think they might commit a crime. I was just interested if you think that should be the case for all crime.
Yes. If you have evidence that they are going to commit a crime, that's a completely different scenario than if you just have a gut feeling that they might possibly look or sound like they're up to something nefarious.

If the UK gov't has evidence that Phelps plans to violate their law while on their soil, by all means keep him out with heads held high. Otherwise, let him in, let him make a fool of himself, and deny him to opportunity to claim to any like-minded folks in the UK that he is being persecuted for his religious beliefs. Like I said before, giving these kinds of people reason to cry persecution is likely to have far more wide-ranging ill effects than any potential crime he may commit.

Phelps is a lawyer. Most of the members of his family are lawyers. He knows the law, particularly as it relates to free speech issues, extraordinarily well. His goal in life is to be as offensive as possible under the law, goad his targets into overreacting, then suing them for millions. I'm no UK law expert, but I wouldn't be surprised if Phelps sued over being kept out of the country.

[és:]

Yes. If you have evidence that they are going to commit a crime, that's a completely different scenario than if you just have a gut feeling that they might possibly look or sound like they're up to something nefarious.

If the UK gov't has evidence that Phelps plans to violate their law while on their soil, by all means keep him out with heads held high..

Well, then we're all in agreement that this was the right thing to do?

[mactastic]

Well, then we're all in agreement that this was the right thing to do?
I haven't seen anything approaching evidence that he was planning to break the law. Have you? :confused:

[maestro55]

I have rather mixed idea about this news. As pointed out this is a slippery slope. My thoughts have always been the same for their actions in the United States. I am 100% against what they are saying. Frankly I think they are nutcases but I would usually defend their right to say their crazy things because in my mind the 1st amendment is extremely important. However, we have a category known as hate speech and they fall under that. Their words put hate and fear in people and that is a problem. So the question comes should we deny people's right to speak their minds because others commit terrible crimes? As long as they are not doing physical harm should we ban them from a country or try to shut these nuts up?

[JG271]

Is it necessarily censorship though? Countries have the right to deny anyone who isn't a citizen entry for any reason, don't they? These guys aren't citizens of the United Kingdom and therefore do not have the guaranteed right to set foot in their country.


Of course, the government can deny them for any reason they like. I think the issue here is wether that reason is good enough. If there is a danger of sparking violence, then they could be banned in my opinion. Personally, I don't think we can just forget that these people exist. There is no point Jaqui Smith trying to filter out people with extreme views simply because they are offensive to such a massive amount of people.

Let them come. I'd rather that they come and be faced with protests their entire journey, like I am confident they would be. I'd rather be able to say that we as a country have rejected their vile views by publicly displaying our objection.

You could say that by acknowledging their right to protest this school play we promote controversy and attention, but I think that will just reinforce the views of many Brits that homosexuality is a totally natural and acceptable part of life. It'll let people know what a sad and hate filled group of people the Phelps are, and to be honest, if they came here to the UK, I would hope that they get treated like the scum that they are!

[mactastic]

That's essentially the job of the U.S. CBP, no?
Yep. He looks too muslim, so lets keep him out. That's how it's supposed to work right? I'm sure you'd be fine with it if you'd spent a bunch of money, taken time off work, made plans for someone to watch your house while you were on vacation -- only to be sent back after a trans-oceanic flight because some customs inspector thought you looked a little suspicious, despite a complete lack of evidence?

No hissy fit, right? You'd happily get back on the plane and fly home saying "well, they have a right to deny me entry on whatever grounds they feel justified using"?

I fully support the right of countries to restrict access to those who they deem harmful to their society. Every citizen of every country is deserving of their fundamental rights as a citizen, but that's not to say that every person is entitled to travel to any nation they choose.

Their nation, their rules for admittance and citizenship.
I've fully agreed that Britain has the right to handle this however they wish. I just disagree with their method, which is my right.

[63dot]

That's a can of worms you don't want to open, Prof.

Hate speech is still protected in all forms in the United States. US protected speech can even, at times, ask for illegal activity, such as using marijuana for medical purposes in some states. This won't bring out the riot cops. :)

When and if Phelps asks for any violent actions against any group, which I have not heard of him doing anywhere, then he loses his freedom of speech. While I don't agree with Phelps, he states he believes gay people will go to hell, but he was a lawyer and knows the constitution. Asking or prodding anybody to violence is a crime and not protected by freedom of speech.

People who often protested against W in these past 8 years in DC were tolerated as their freedom of speech is protected. But if any of those protesters were inciting violence and laid out vocal plans to attack government installations at certain places and certain times, this falls into the territory of an inchoate crime and loses protection under freedom of speech. You can yell into a crowd that you want to impeach Bush, but you can't say, "OK, at 3 PM, all of you within listening distance get your guns and start shooting all republicans in sight as a way to protest the President."

People say Phelps incites violence against gays. I know Phleps is a bigot and may believe in his mind that he may want to do violence against gay people, or maybe he wants to convert gay people to Christianity, but how do we know what he is thinking? It's only when he incites violence in a statement, heard by at least one other person, against any person or group that he crosses the line. He has not, to my knowledge, done this.

And the law is not black and white, as he could tell an interviewer that sometimes he may get frustrated and want to do violence against a gay person, and that could be taken as a non-violent statement. But yelling over a bullhorn to attack gay people, again with at least one witness, is a crime in all states, whether Model Penal Code states, or non-Model Penal Code states, such as California.

The act to incite violence has to be voluntary, overt, and clear and convincing. Otherwise, our country can say just about anybody with a grudge is inciting violence and start locking people up. This is not what we want lest we become no different than a Communist China during the 1960s or Nazi Germany during World War II.

In America, we have to tolerate unpopular, yet non-violent beliefs. If you want to overthrow the President, ask people to vote or run for office, but not go out and do acts of violence for one's end purpose.

[garybUK]

ate speech is still protected in all forms in the United States. US protected speech can even, at times, ask for illegal activity, such as using marijuana for medical purposes in some states. This won't bring out the riot cops. :)

.... [cut]

In America, we have to tolerate unpopular, yet non-violent beliefs. If you want to overthrow the President, ask people to vote or run for office, but not go out and do acts of violence for one's end purpose.

Thats all very well and good but he was denied entry to the UK, whatever your rules are back there they aren't the same here and shouldn't be expected to be the same. You can't goto another country and expect the same rights it's not going to happen. We have to protect our own and that's what the government has done. Sorry but as a non UK/EU citizen then this guy has no right to come here and do this.

[Queso]

Not a good idea IMO, and typical of the current Home Office. Phelps is widely known in this country, but seen as a cross between a comedic figure and a complete fruitcake. There would have been a media circus, and a lot of anger, but most would have laughed at him as they have done before. He could then have gone back and launched another godhateswhatever.com website and looked even more pathetic than he currently looks.

[skunk]

The key issue with both democracy and freedom of speech is that of TRUST. You simply have to trust your fellow humans to do the right thing. If you don't, all is lost anyway.