h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Can someone spell out *really clearly* what we have to afraid of if these lunatics come here?

Obviously its Scotland. I don't really understand the culture properly there.

I just can't imagine in London that they would be anything other than dismissed as crazies and idiots.

>>Free speech, we should all know by now, does not apply when one is
speaking about Jews. Austria criminalises Holocaust denial. I'm not
sure hether Germany does the same. I honestly don't know how any
country with pretensions to civilisation can countenance such a law.
I certainly don't know how it squares with the convention on human
rights, as it seems to fly in the face of the right to freedom of
expression.<<

Interesting statement. Can you link it to the teaching of creationism

Anyone is free to espouse creationism, and to teach their children creationism if they wish. That's free speech.

However, there should be legal barriers in place to prevent anyone from teaching creationism to OTHER PEOPLE'S children in a school science lesson, and especially doing so while being funded by public money.

Also - However, there should be legal barriers in place to prevent anyone from teaching holocaust denial to OTHER PEOPLE'S children in a school history lesson, and especially doing so while being funded by public money.

It's certainly unusual to make criticisms of the actions of the state of Israel without being accused of anti-semitism.

Back on topic - We're not talking about suppressing these homophobic loonies' right to free speech. Only about witholding the privilege of entry into Britain.

Noggin

Bans on entry are far from unusual.

"Can someone spell out *really clearly* what we have to afraid of if these lunatics come here?"

I don't know anything about the specifics of what they're trying to do here, but I am broadly aware of what they do in the US.

In America, they have what is (to my mind) a peculiar fetishisation of "free speech" which both gives it undue priority and misunderstands what's important about free speech. In allowing these lunatics to protest in the most vile way at funerals and other events, they're in effect prioritising freedom of "speech" above other rights and freedoms - the right to privacy, the right to family life, the right to grieve for the death of a beloved son/brother/husband/partner/father/friend (etc. and so on).

For me, free speech is primarily a political right, and the requirement for a right to free speech can be met satisfactorily without granting a blanket right to free speech on each and every possible occasion. In other words, if I'm allowed to talk about my views, run a website, organise a protest, stand for election, whatever, then my rights to freedom of speech have been met, even if I'm not allowed to protest at stranger's funerals.

As for "afraid", well, I'm not sure that's quite the right word. I just don't want those people over here behaving in that manner. If they want to come over for a holiday and meet standard immigration requirements, then that's fine. But my sense of UK culture is that (unlike the US) we don't allow appalling behaviour (regardless of the cause) justified by the fig leaf of "free speech".

Yes but that's the US. All kinds of nasty churches have gained political power there.

It has nothing to do with our culture..where they will almost certainly laughed at as idiots and nutters.

I think its pathetic that we should be too afraid to let theses nutters in. Its very unBritish.

Freedom of speech is, like any right, is only a right to the point where it infringes the rights of others. So I'm with Otto on this one.

Noggin

One of those ises is superfluous.
Noggin

I'm not with Otto I'm with trusting the vast majority of British people treating these people with the contempt they deserve.

And I would rather no families here have to go through having these people shouting hate at them while they are burying their loved ones - can't really seeing anyone laughing that off.

Those people are disgusting, not funny eccentric nutters, and we have the opportunity to not let them come here to cause pain and hurt thnks to our immigration policy. I don't see why we should let them - they can say what they like but we don't have to have them sying it *here*.

Okay so how about facing up to the nutters already here?

Many religions here are full of hate for homosexuals.

People are happy enough for Islamists to attend funerals at Wooten Basset. And for the teachers at the school to turn a blind a eye to my former partner's child be driven to such severe breathing difficulties by the bullying from the children of bornagain Christians that she had to go to hospital.

Yeah lets have it all out then. With the nutters already here.

"there should be legal barriers in place to prevent anyone from teaching holocaust denial to OTHER PEOPLE'S children in a school history lesson, and especially doing so while being funded by public money."

I would agree with that, as far as it goes. But that's not what's at issue. David Irving didn't try to teach Holocaust denial in a public school. He served a prison term in Austria in 2006 for giving a couple of speeches.

"We're not talking about suppressing these homophobic loonies' right to free speech. Only about witholding the privilege of entry into Britain."

Indeed. Entry to our country is not their right. I see no reason to grant them the privilege, and absolutely no reason why witholding it should require any explanation or justification to anyone.

I'm coming more around to the idea that we deny them entry..so long as we can export the ones already here..that cause such deep unhappiness with their vicious homophobic views.

Try telling that to the average person..and you'll get..'Oh what are you making such a fuss about?'

So your argument is that as we already have hatemongers here we should let more in?

We can't deport people (where to?) for being homophobic however despicable we find their words. However, we don't have to let known peddlers of bile come here. I don't see any relationship between horrible people who are already here, and those who want to come. h

I just don't see in the greater scheme of things it makes an iota of difference to let these few nutjobs in if we resolutely refuse to face up to the lots already here.

But yeah it might make a nice media story to exclude them.

Nice media story? It would make a difference if it were your relative's funeral they decided to protest at once they were here - you'd wonder why they had been allowed in.

I've already spoken about the bornagains in my locality who utterly destroyed my relationship with my former partner..that wasn't on the news..but yeah if people are more concerned by these high profile nutjobs that make a good story go for it.

So because you were treated badly and your suffering wasn't reported in the press, nothing should be done to prevent others being treated badly?

I am struggling to follow your argument here Effers - I can see you are distressed at how you have been treated by religious extremists but I don't understnd why you are so dismissive of other people being protected from such extremism.

>>
I'm coming more around to the idea that we deny them entry..so long as we can export the ones already here..that cause such deep unhappiness with their vicious homophobic views.
>>

I think you're missing the point Effers. I don't think anyone in this thread thinks it's ok for people to behave in vicious homophobic ways. The issue is one of sovereignty. There is a difference between your homophobes and the US ones. They're citizens of different nation states. And those nations states all have protocols for allow or excluding non-citizens. There is no Terra Nullius left, nowhere to send your homophobes. That's the point - you take responsibility for yours and the US can for theirs.

Of course the homophobia in the UK already should be addressed. Why would that even be part of the argument?