At Last! Government grows some balls and stands up to fash nutter
- Thread starter Zachor
- Start date
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Le Pen was allowed in, despite udo's party arguing at the time that he shouldn't be. Of course people pointed out to them at the time that this sort of action would be turned on against all 'extremists' once a precendent was set.
elbows
Well-Known Member
Dunno, but I presume we've often banned people who are spouting 'enemy propaganda' in a time of war. This may be a no-brainer during things like the 2nd world war, but when you get long drawn out conflicts in which our state has an interest, and with members of the population supporting the different sides, things can get far messier.
Gerry Adams voice being banned on TV was an interesting example of a related phenomenon. Censorship is usually more subtle in the west these days, but they clearly arent beyond extreme measures sometimes.
Probably not because Zionists in the main are not racist nutters who want to exterminate their neighbours.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
"Peace will come when they [Palestinians] start to love their children more than they hate us."
Maybe not word-for-word, but precisely the sentiment expressed by Golda Meir. Dehumanising goes on on both sides.
Agree with you in all conflicts there is the danger of dehumanisation.
I don't think this was a good idea. I would have prefered to see him go to London Univesity and have the shit debated out of him. A big protests against his views outside the University as well would have also been valid.
However is the guy actually a terrroist? Is he advocating killing people? If this is the case and he is proven to be advocating and funding murder then I can understand him being banned, if he is talking shit and this is being spun by newspapers to seem even worst then I can't see that a reason to ban him.
We banned, Gert Wilders, now this Guy and the bloke from nation of Islam. Yet we let in Chinese political leaders, George Bush, Pinochet, Israeli government ministers and Le Pen.
There is something fucked up about that... probably because it is playing to the crowd.
However is the guy actually a terrroist? Is he advocating killing people? If this is the case and he is proven to be advocating and funding murder then I can understand him being banned, if he is talking shit and this is being spun by newspapers to seem even worst then I can't see that a reason to ban him.
We banned, Gert Wilders, now this Guy and the bloke from nation of Islam. Yet we let in Chinese political leaders, George Bush, Pinochet, Israeli government ministers and Le Pen.
There is something fucked up about that... probably because it is playing to the crowd.
cesare
shady's dreams ♥
And there was me thinking they were doing quite a good job of that in Gaza.
I won't hijack the thread too much with my comments on Operation Cast Lead but it was and is in no way an exterminationist action it could be quite reasonably argued as self defence.
<Whoops I've just seen the time I'm off. Political arguing time over until tomorrow>
audiotech
wav, aiff, mp3, ogg, flac
Fuck me! I'm amazed. I come back on here expecting to be called a cunt for putting up this thread and to my surprise there are people who actually agree with me on it. Is it possible that the Left on U75 has woken up and smelled the coffee re clerical fascism?
No you cunt.
Calling for some caliphate is not fascism. More like utopian nonsense and unlikely to garner much support amongst the one billion Muslims in the world, who it should be said, have a wide variety of views, from peaceful reformists to social conservatives.
He's been barred from the country on the grounds of his opinions. Not because of anything he has done or plans to do, but because he holds an opinion that the state disapproves of. Would you be so keen on this if it happened to somebody you agree with?
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
the green ink is a nice touch, i must remember that one.
Idris2002
Stay Alive in '25
Louis Farrakhan was also persona non grata back in the '80s, wasn't he?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He was yes, and there was a bit of fuss at the time due to the exceptional nature of the ban.
Fedayn
Well-Known Member
After all firing flechette bombs into civilian areas, firing white phosphorous shells into school playgrounds are classic and historically recognised acts of self defence....
Idris2002
Stay Alive in '25
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Rockall?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Not "in the main", but can you deny that there are a significant minority of Jabotinsky's heirs who are very much "racist nutters" who'd like nothing better than to "exterminate their neighbours" if it helped to achieve their (at the risk of being Godwinesque) fantasy of a "greater Israel"?
rioted
redundant
dylans
overlord of all acorns
What ever happened to free speech. They should have let the Dutch guy in and this guy too. If you disagree with what he has to say. Argue with them, explain why you disagree. im so sick of this knee jerk "ban him" mentality. Who are this government to decide who I can listen to and what views people can express.
The falklands.
Freedom of speech in this country begins and ends in speakers corner. If it means the freedom to go round making inflammatory, hateful, insulting comments about peoples race, religion and sexuality, I certainly dont care for it. Its overrated. If you want freedom of speech fuck off over to turtle island they love it there.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Not just the 80's, the 90's as well.
Udo Erasmus
Well-Known Member
The thing is that the only anti-semitic quote that people produce from Mousawi is a fake and was attributed to him by a member of AIPAC ( well known militant pro-Israel zionist lobbying group in the states).who posed as a journalist & whose newspaper was forced to admit that the quote was untrue
If people check out the video that I linked to earlier of Mousawi's last speech in Britain they will see that there is nothing inflamatory, he is quite urbane and sophisticated & actually speaks against racism and for tolerance, but also states uncategorically that people under occupation have the right to resist.
But it is very easy without paying attention to facts to just present anyone who is muslim as a raving fanatic murderous nutter.
dylans
overlord of all acorns
People have to get over this idea that we need protecting against the views of people whose views some may find offensive. Free speech means the right to offend and its important because when we start relying on the state to decide who is and isnt entitled to freedom of speech we are on a slippery state to dictatorship where the likes of Jaquie smith tell us what to think and what to say. Who decides what is offensive? Smith? The police? Who? It is a totally subjective decision based on ones personal values and politics. I for one want to think for myself, listen for myself and decide whether someones views are valid based on what they say not what on what the state has decided for me.
Personally i find the dutch guy Wilders views offensive but i defend his right to say things that i find offensive because the wider issue of freedom of expression is much more important than my need to be protected against his offensive views. We can not have freedom of speech only for those we agree with. Freedom of speech must be universal or it is worthless.
It doesnt mean that we have to be passive in the face of those we disagree with or whose views we obhore. We can argue, reply, write , demonstrate, in other words we can use our right to free speech to disagree with those whose views we oppose. But simply letting the state ban those it deems offensive is always wrong, because if they can ban Wilders and they can ban Mousawi then they can ban you and me too.
Personally i find the dutch guy Wilders views offensive but i defend his right to say things that i find offensive because the wider issue of freedom of expression is much more important than my need to be protected against his offensive views. We can not have freedom of speech only for those we agree with. Freedom of speech must be universal or it is worthless.
It doesnt mean that we have to be passive in the face of those we disagree with or whose views we obhore. We can argue, reply, write , demonstrate, in other words we can use our right to free speech to disagree with those whose views we oppose. But simply letting the state ban those it deems offensive is always wrong, because if they can ban Wilders and they can ban Mousawi then they can ban you and me too.
Similar threads
