philosophy professor banned under new hate laws

[cockneyrebel]

Wrap it up anyway you like, this is a person who encourages terrorism.

So would you have been happy about the UK government banning Nelson Mandela from coming to the UK?

 

[Sorry.]

I wonder what these 'particular beliefs' are, and if anarchism is one of them...

 

[Donna Ferentes]

A policy intended to strike with terror those against whom it is adopted

And can you show me that the individual involved does this?

 

[cockneyrebel]

Also as there is a strong case the the war against Iraq was against international law do you think Tony Blair whould be banned from the UK?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Also as there is a strong case the the war against Iraq was against international law do you think Tony Blair whould be banned from the UK?

The law only applies to non-citizens, I believe.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

And can you show me that the individual involved does this?

"We are a threat both economically and philosophically."

You threaten someone so you can be thier friend don't you!

 

[cockneyrebel]

But surely bob would support it on principle nonetheless?

Also I'd like to know whether he would have been happy about Nelson Mandela being banned. Thatcher labelled him a terrorist after all.

 

[sihhi]

Not as such, but if they advocated breaking the law to get thier way.

The entire invasion of Iraq was a well organised operation in breaking the law-
Even Kofi Annan admitted this.

I despise the anti-humanist ALF movement.
But it is patronising to assume that British people are so thick as to not be able to reject this professor's positions by themselves.

Same as with Louis Farrakhan back in 2002 when the government went to the Court of Appeal to enforce the ban (first put in in 1986) on him not being allowed to enter Britain.

Prof's comments are somewhat bizarre:
"It's very fascist. It's becoming a police state" ??

 

[Loki]

This really stinks.

Yes it does Don't agree with all his views but he's hardly coming over with a suitcase full of semtex.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

"We are a threat both economically and philosophically."

You threaten someone so you can be thier friend don't you!

That's not really close enough to "terror", is it Bob? In fact it's nowhere near. Neither an economic nor a philosophical threat has anything to do with violence.

It's not people like this chap that worry me, Bob, it's people like you. I'm not kidding.

 

[In Bloom]

Prof's comments are somewhat bizarre:
"It's very fascist. It's becoming a police state" ??

Bizzare, but hardly surprising, looking at his site, he does have pretty shit politics. A lot of that "veganarchy" shit

 

[nino_savatte]

Quite. While certain people are slapped with a ban from entering the country, other killers are allowed entry. I'm thinking of Pinochet here who, while he was eventually arrested, was a ruthless, cold hearted killer who was often allowed to wander London's department stores to his heart's content.

 

[nino_savatte]

Yes it does Don't agree with all his views but he's hardly coming over with a suitcase full of semtex.

Exactly, I'm no friend of the ALF either.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

But surely bob would support it on principle nonetheless?

Also I'd like to know whether he would have been happy about Nelson Mandela being banned. Thatcher labelled him a terrorist after all.

State organised terror is slightly different in reality even if it shouldn't be. However having said that you've still got to prove that the war was illegal etc.

Banning someone is not the same as killing them, unless you think the ed murdered ern?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

That's not really close enough to "terror", is it Bob? In fact it's nowhere near. Neither an economic nor a philosophical threat has anything to do with violence.

It's not people like this chap that worry me, Bob, it's people like you. I'm not kidding.

The balance between individual freedoms and the state is a precarious one, we merely dispute the point at which it rotates about.

 

[JonnyT]

Just out of interest, if, say, an academic who spoke in favour of black-bloc tactics (also compared to terrorism by certain politicians & media pundits) was banned from the country, would your response be the same? (mostly directed @ Bob)

- Jonathan

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Just out of interest, if, say, an academic who spoke in favour of black-bloc tactics (also compared to terrorism by certain politicians & media pundits) was banned from the country, would your response be the same? (mostly directed @ Bob)

- Jonathan

Umm, pass

*goes to read up on black-bloc tactics*

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The balance between individual freedoms and the state is a precarious one, we merely dispute the point at which it rotates about.

We do. But in order to debate it properly you have to be able to define your terms a bit more tightly and a bit more accurately than you have. It's precisely when people start lobbing round the word "terrorist" and applying it to all and sundry that the mistakes and overreactions (to put it kindly) always occur. Similarly with the related concept of taking serious actions "just in case" (like shooting dead suspects on the Tube).

 

[sihhi]

Bizzare, but hardly surprising, looking at his site, he does have pretty shit politics. A lot of that "veganarchy" shit

He does himself no favours really with his over-the-top stuff.

 

[Sorry.]

State organised terror is slightly different in reality even if it shouldn't be. However having said that you've still got to prove that the war was illegal etc.

Banning someone is not the same as killing them, unless you think the ed murdered ern?

and Mandela?

 

[rebel warrior]

Bush can visit. Ariel Sharon is a 'man of peace' too - he is welcome to visit -after all, he has only killed a few thousand Palestinians.

But University Professors - like Tariq Ramadan and now this chap - they are the ones to ban from entering. They are the real threat to 'civilisation' and 'freedom', after all. For weapons, they use words - which is a lot worse than using guns and bombs.

 

[cockneyrebel]

Bob I repeat:

Also I'd like to know whether he would have been happy about Nelson Mandela being banned. Thatcher labelled him a terrorist after all.

And I'm talking about when Mandela was part of the resistance of the ANC under apartheid.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

We do. But in order to debate it properly you have to be able to define your terms a bit more tightly and a bit more accurately than you have. It's precisely when people start lobbing round the word "terrorist" and applying it to all and sundry that the mistakes and overreactions (to put it kindly) always occur. Similarly with the related concept of taking serious actions "just in case" (like shooting dead suspects on the Tube).

Then provide a definition, it's easy to rubish someone's contribution when you make none yourself.

Did mandela advocate violence/destruction of property? If so yes he should/would have been excluded.

 

[FreddyB]

The state doesn't like this mans ideas so the state prevents him from entereing the country. How fragile a position must they feel they occupy to perceive the need to prevent their citizens from being exposed to ideas.

How long I wonder before the propsed ban on viewing violent porn is extended to viewing unsavoury ideas.

 

[sihhi]

and Mandela?

One of Young Conservatives' favourite anticommunist posters.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Then provide a definition, it's easy to rubish someone's contribution when you make none yourself.

I'm not the one calling for people to be banned, Bob.

Did mandela advocate violence/destruction of property? If so yes he should/would have been excluded.

Dear God. Have you heard of apartheid, Bob? Do you really think it was wrong to wrong to use violence against it?

Incidentally, I don't like this very much:

violence/destruction of property

Do you really think they're comparable? Can you not tell the difference between breaking a window and breaking a skull? Do you really think that somebody who damages property is a "terrorist"? Do you have any idea what sort of regimes have used the term "terrorist" as widely as that?

 

[tobyjug]

Then provide a definition, it's easy to rubish someone's contribution when you make none yourself.
.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000011.htm
PART I
INTRODUCTORY
Terrorism: interpretation. 1. - (1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/govprotect/legislation/atcsa.html

 

[laptop]

On the one hand, it seems possible to me that Clarke barred this guy as a defence against the accusation that these new rules are somehow anti-Muslim.

On the other, on balance those who care about freedom of thought should probably thank him for making it clear how much this is about freedom of thought and - I hope - stirring up academics.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

(b) involves serious damage to property,
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

These two clauses at least are dreadful misuses of the term "terrorism".

 

[laptop]

Oh, and the Home Office definition - lifted as I recall it from the FBI - is a deeply political document in itself and can and should be challenged as a definition of "terrorism".

It covers threatening to picket a waterworks...