Dutch "Anti-Islam" MP barred from UK visit.....
Discussion
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article57...
One rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
One rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
911motorsport said:
Y
Y the topic?Because if we are serious about dealing with extremist views, the worst way to do it is to allow one a platform and the other not.
I was wondering if there was something else about this man that I had misunderstood.....
Look, anyone who describes themselves as an anti-anything is in my mind a little mentalistic; I just believe in treating nutters equally!
dr.pepper said:
Just a little late to the party....
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
oops.....http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
article only appeared this afternoon on the Times Website; it said "yesterday" in the first sentence.
Apologies all round.....I will take my ass over to that thread right away...
Martial Arts Man said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article57...
One rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
Didnt wotshisface hook and a few others go to jail for spouting their opinions?One rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
Once again as a nation we have supressed one person's freedoms so that we don't have to deal with 10,000 criminals causing rampage across central London.
The chap should have the right to show his flick, and civilised demonstrations within the law could be facilitated by MetPol. Clearly this decision announces to the world that there could be no civilised lawful protest by those who would wish to Fatwah this dutchman.
It might be 'proportionate' and is certainly 'cost effective' - but at the end of the day is unfortunately nil but State censorship of a point of view that is disliked and not wanted. At least it isn't putting the BiBs on offer in a no win situation.
Once again the official version of the truth is that there is no view by Zanu-Labour's suppression of freedoms dressed up as upholding personal freedoms, whlst condoning teh threat of third-world stylee mob rule.
The chap should have the right to show his flick, and civilised demonstrations within the law could be facilitated by MetPol. Clearly this decision announces to the world that there could be no civilised lawful protest by those who would wish to Fatwah this dutchman.
It might be 'proportionate' and is certainly 'cost effective' - but at the end of the day is unfortunately nil but State censorship of a point of view that is disliked and not wanted. At least it isn't putting the BiBs on offer in a no win situation.
Once again the official version of the truth is that there is no view by Zanu-Labour's suppression of freedoms dressed up as upholding personal freedoms, whlst condoning teh threat of third-world stylee mob rule.
Martial Arts Man said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article57...
One rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
Aye, an eleventyseven page thread full of bigoted pish... do keep upOne rule for one, one for the other.........what's new in Labour's Britain eh?
As a true believer in liberty and free speech I believe Immam Hook and his Islamist pals to have as much right to an audience as this right-wing loony or anyone else.
I think to justify his barring as a matter of national security is a little spurious. It seems to me that the only person mentioned in this artice that should have had a quiet word in his ear is Lord Ahmed and his threats to mobilise the Muslim rent-a-mob. Without he interference of the Home office or Ahmed, this Dutch fella would have most likely flown in, shown his film and gone home again without registering on the collective consciousness.
Now though, another martyr (sort of) has been created for the right wing; another reason for their type of voter to fear the UK's Muslim citizens.
These type of moves by the powers that be are simply short sighted and counterproductive. This man's cause has received far more attention that it deserved.
Have I missed anything?
MAM
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff