howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 February 2009
20:3015297big story today about a far right politico trying to visit the UK to give a speech to the house of lords.
not let in, as his views are seen as unacceptable.
what a strange world, we let in anyone from the new improved enlarged european union to nick UK jobs, but someone who has some rather odd ideas is banned.
what was all that about freedom of movement from our politicos of all persuasions?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 February 2009
20:5015304correct howard,its double standards.
12 February 2009
22:1815310I think we should let in all the clearly violent and anti-British hook-handed, back-pack wearing, hatred-festering anti-Christian and unafraid to say it bods and keep out the democratically elected but idealistically unpopular europeans. What do you say?
Brian Dixon- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
12 February 2009
22:2015311yeah let them all in then deport them to the good old usa.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
12 February 2009
22:5015313exactly my point bern.
attacks on british jews reached ridiculous proportions during the recent unpleasantness in gaza.
reason?
the hate brigade preaching rubbish to gullible young muslims.
it is common knowledge that the jewish hierarchy attacked israel over the bombings and demanded that they stop.
the moment the dutch nutter was bundled back onto a plane, another strike was going on about foreign labour being imported to fill jobs that british workers did not have the opportunity to even apply for.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
13 February 2009
08:3315324I think the government is right to exclude people like this Mr Wilder guy and I dont care if he is an elected member of the Dutch parliament. He is a purveyor of hate and instability. The Americans do this kind of thing all the time without any fuss and its quite the norm. We have had extremist Muslim preachers banned from entering too so at least HM Government are consistent.
I dont think it is a free speech issue really. If you incite racial hatred with your free speech then you are abusing your privilege. You are in affect scuppering your own right to having that luxury of free speech.
I also once again call into question this whole UKIP Party existence. I just dont get them at all. Its on their invitation that this Wilder came here. Recently you may remember me talking about Nigel Farage, the UKIP leader enjoying the financial benefits of life in the European Union while at the same time trying to belittle and scupper it. It seemed a weird remit at the time. Likewise inviting Wilder is also a weird thing for a party that pretends/aspires to be mainstream. But some commentaors have described UKIP as no better than the BNP recently, and I wonder..is there a link?
13 February 2009
09:4715332If exclusion is going to be a policy it has to be unequivocally inclusive. we cannot ban an apparently non-violent democratically elected MP who has offensive views and allow in obviously hatred-inciting and violent people of a different race for fear of being acused of racism.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
13 February 2009
13:3615344I may disagree with what he says but I have no right to stop him saying it and we should not exclude him from the UK accordingly.
I prefer to hear and discover my enemies than to send them underground to spread their bile in secret. We can use reasoned argument in the first case but would have no defence in the latter.
13 February 2009
14:2915351keep your friends close, and your enemies closer................
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
13 February 2009
16:4615357Having someone with what we hope are minority views addressing the House of Lords is probably the best way to limit them to a minority audience.
Nice to see that BarryW, Bern and I have all found something in common.
Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
13 February 2009
19:1715389interestingly our press were united in saying that our leaders had scored an own goal with the short shrift given to the dutch politico.
the grauniad were the first to see the obvious, his speeches are so risible that the one thing that they would not stir up is hate.
13 February 2009
19:1815390OMG...........................
This was regarding Chris Ps post. Do you know, I have just realised that reads Crispy.....doh!!
Guest 675- Registered: 30 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,610
14 February 2009
11:1815439Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
Richard Armour
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,695
14 February 2009
17:5215469Denying a platform enhances notoriety and has led in this case to thousands of people seeking out his odd little film on the internet thus ensuring it has reached a much wider audience than he would have got if he had been allowed in.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
14 February 2009
20:5515479all the main newspapers have expressed that view.
i also remember when the IRA were banned from espusing their cause on the tv.
it suddenly made those cringeworthy dullards adams and mcguinness interesting.
14 February 2009
21:3915482I rather like Adams, think he as undervalued as a politician on the whole and he did conrtibute, behind the scenes, massively to the peace process. i know, it's not believable, but its s fact. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Context is all.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
15 February 2009
07:4715488I agree that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter - and that applies the World over.
Rhodesia under Ian Smith was the most civilised country in Africa; the black people were the best educated, the best housed, best fed, best employed, received the best medical treatment, lived without aparthied, but to a great extent, lived without the vote as well.
Due to Harold Wilson's vindictiveness and intransigence, agreement was never reached, so a terrorist war was started and eventually terrorists won - Mugabe.
He won because he had a better terrorist organisation than anyone else - he still has and there were a few of them at that time.
I'm sure that with hind-sight, Rhodesia would have had a black government by 1990, but not a terrorist government and all the people - black and white would have lived with mutual respect and been so much better off.
Terrorists are terrorists by the methods they use, but will appear freedom fighters to some.
Roger
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
15 February 2009
09:0915497Roger
unless im mistaken in the days of Rhodesia and ian smith there was strong
apartied
white only areas,
am i wrong?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
15 February 2009
10:3415505No Keith not at all. Aparteid was in South Africa and was not introduced into Rhodesia.
15 February 2009
11:4615513Rhodesian issues just go to show how complex these things are........under Ian Smith there were many good things developed, balanced by the reduced opportunities for the native population to thrive politically and financially. People were better off in terms of benefits and less well off in terms of parity. When Mugabe took power the good developments disappeared, whites who understood the farming were turfed off the land, people who did not yet have the experience to thrive tried and failed to maintain growth, and thugs became standard on the streets and in the political houses. It all seems to be a good argument for evolution rather than revolution. Time to develop can reap benefits, even if the status quo (sorry!) seems unfair.
