That's right, keep the rubbish out. Of course, they are anti-Muslim.

But getting rid of the rubbish already in the country seems to be much harder.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/26/far-right-bloggers-banned-entering-uk

Aahhhh.

The Grauniad, upholder of free speech, applauds the exclusion of two citizens of the USA, who wished to attend an approved gathering of a legitimate organisation.

Have they condemned the UAF (Unite against Fascism) another legitimate organisation who dress the same as the EDL, use the same tactics as the EDL and are more fascist than the groups they condemn.

Yes, these people are openly anti-Muslim. But that does not constitute an offense under the law, unless they openly urge others to commit 'hate crimes'. Guilty without trial, a very British decision these days - brought on by conforming to the ridiculous pronouncements of the unelected Brussels bureaucrats. Poitical correctness leads to leftist fascistic rule.

Would you allow them in, HB, if they're considered likely to do something 'conducive to a breach of the peace'?

Sometimes one has to take action BEFORE things happen, if one can identify the occasion.

It is easy to point to Islamist agitators already in the UK, such as Anjen (Give me your benefits jizya) Choudrey, who is currently organizing Muslim vigilante squads. The objective measure however is who does the UK currently allow in? For example the antisemitic preacher who condones wife beating

http://news.sky.com/story/1106292/preacher-who-backs-wife-beatings-let-into-uk

The next point to consider is who are the people behind the campaign to ban the 'far right' bloggers from the UK .Consider Greater Manchester crime commissioner Tony Lloyd recently phootgraphed shaking hands with Khaled Meshaal, a leader of the terrorist organization Hamas, who evidently believes passes the sniff test, but argues Spencer and Geller do not.

Of course the hypocrisy stinks to high heaven. any authority which allows conspicuous double standards to persist puts itself into disrepute. One final thought, it does not matter how many times leftists or even the MSM repeat an assertion, that alone does not demonstrate it's truth. As a challenge I would ask anyone to find any quotes by either Pam Geller or Robert Spencer which can reasonably be viewed as inciting hatred. I would have no difficulty doing so for the likes of anti-gay, antisemitic Imam Yusef Al Qaradawi, who Ken Livingstone invited to speak in London. I wonder what Voltaire would have made of it all.

P.S Here is the reaction of the excluded.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/06/20130627-065115.html

What a shame. 2 nasty little Islamophobes don't get to visit the UK. Free speech issue? Hardly, given their incessant and accessible content on their respective websites. Best of all it removes the chance of Tommy "what's my name-today" from meeting his new financiers now that Alan Ayling/Lake has taken his millions to UKIP.

Yeah a real nasty piece of work isn't he.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/410718/EXCLUSIVE-Charity-rejects-6-000-donation-to-dying-child-over-EDL-links

Yeah a real nasty piece of work isn't he.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/410718/EXCLUSIVE-Charity-rejects-6-000-donation-to-dying-child-over-EDL-links

Yes.

See his wrap sheet for more graphic details of what a nasty little street brawler/petty criminal/failed football thug etc Tommy "too many names to keep up with", really is. Notwithstanding the grandstanding charity activities.

Pamela Geller's bus advertisements were right on.

So much for freedom of speech in the UK.

So much for freedom of speech in the UK.

Freedom of speech does not include freedom to cause trouble.

There are two distinct questions here, well three, I suppose.

First, how do you keep out the people you don't want in?

Second, how do you get rid of the people you want to kick out?

Third, how do you handle the troublemakers who are your own nationals?

It's no good being soft-handed with any of these people, whatever side they're on. They'll simply take advantage. Don't let them come in, kick them out if they misbehave, and give them stiff jail sentences (real jail!) if they're our own nationals.

And DON'T pay attention to foreign bureaucrats or bleeding-heart liberals from other countries.

IB, broadly I would agree with your latest post, but this should be an even-handed treatment - both extreme left, extreme right, extreme religionists and others with a single-subject agenda that attracts the lunatic fringe being included.

Unfortunately the PC people who seem to control these things do not accept that extremists such as the UAF (Union of Anti-fascists), jihadists and anti-globalisationists are as bad as the far right. I have seen the UAF in action, I have seen Islamists who will not allow men and women to mix in public meetings. These are as anti-British (the British culture) as any Yaxley-Lennon - probably more so. But they are allowed to impose their ideas and their opponents are gagged.

The pendulum has been forced far to the left, with weird groups such as anti-fox-hunting legislation for no good reason except to stick pins into the privileged by the townies, anti-vivisectionists, anti-cheap energy (coal and gas) to destroy more of the countryside with expensive windmills, and dozens of other stupid ideas. This has to stop - we should not be dictated to by the sandal-wearing bearded freaks of this world any more.

So much for freedom of speech in the UK.

Freedom of speech does not include freedom to cause trouble.

There are two distinct questions here, well three, I suppose.

First, how do you keep out the people you don't want in?

Second, how do you get rid of the people you want to kick out?

Third, how do you handle the troublemakers who are your own nationals?

It's no good being soft-handed with any of these people, whatever side they're on. They'll simply take advantage. Don't let them come in, kick them out if they misbehave, and give them stiff jail sentences (real jail!) if they're our own nationals.

And DON'T pay attention to foreign bureaucrats or bleeding-heart liberals from other countries.

I think HB has answered some of your post but my comments are...

1. Why does the UK seemingly have no problem with allowing hate filled Islamists in the country but denies entrance to a couple of people that "might" say something against those same hate filled Islamists? Not exactly even handed.

2. How do you get rid of those you don't want? Take the keys away from them to the house the UK government is providing and escort them to the nearest point of entry and wish them Bon Voyage.

3. The trouble making own nationals can be handled by your court systems. If they breaik the law, throw them in prison.

Unfortunately the US does none of the above, except allowing anybody and everybody to enter the country...particularly if they are loony left wingers.

HB and Chuck, I did say 'whatever side they're on', which actually covers your main objection.

The trouble with your own nationals is that, usually and preferably, you have to wait for them to break the law before you can do anything about them. The damage is already done.

There is a nasty thing called preventive detention which is used in wartime, but it would be difficult to justify using that to any extent in peacetime. (You could use it for paedophiles, though).

Laws against extremists would have to be carefully thought out. Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, though often a pain in the neck, are invariably peaceful and well-behaved (and full credit to them), and should not be discriminated against.

P.S. I wear sandals but have never had a beard. But I don't wear a collar and tie either, which is even more eccentric in this part of the world.

What a shame. 2 nasty little Islamophobes don't get to visit the UK. Free speech issue? Hardly, given their incessant and accessible content on their respective websites. Best of all it removes the chance of Tommy "what's my name-today" from meeting his new financiers now that Alan Ayling/Lake has taken his millions to UKIP.

I think you will find this thread is largely about double standards regarding the treatment of those purported to be of the far right and those who are Islamist hate preachers. I also note you ducked the chance to find anything written by either Robert Spencer or Pamela Geller that you consider to be inciting hatred, neither has been tried let alone convicted of any offense, therefore to even subscribe to the premise for which they were barred entry I think concrete examples are required. Finally, do try to stop using that hackneyed old cliche Islamophobia, it is nothing more than Orwellian doublespeak intended to depict the rational as irrational.

Incidentally, the following link makes a nonsense out of what the home office quotes as an example of unacceptable speech, the ideas therein are in complete agreement with those of quoted Islamic scholars. Indeed the quote taken from the link was made by none other than Mohammed al-Arefe who was admitted to Britain only last week. Do you consider it hate speech and do you consider his admission to the UK appropriate? A yes or no would suffice.

http://frontpagemag.com/2013/robert-spencer/britain-bans-freedom-fighters/

Devotion to jihad for the sake of Allah, and the desire to shed blood, to smash skulls, and to sever limbs for the sake of Allah and in defense of His religion, is, undoubtedly, an honor for the believer. Allah said that if a man fights the infidels, the infidels will be unable to prepare to fight.

No, Dan.

No, Dan.

No it's not hate speech or no he shouldn't be allowed into UK.?

Sorry!

Yes, it's hate speech, and No, he shouldn't be allowed into the UK.

I would hardly consider it a free speech issue since the people are not even citizens of the UK. The UK citizens can speak about the situation in their own country.

I would hardly consider it a free speech issue since the people are not even citizens of the UK. The UK citizens can speak about the situation in their own country.

Are you saying only citizens of the UK have freedom of speech in the UK?

No, I said "I would hardly consider it a free speech issue". The issue is more relevant to who they let into the country and under what conditions. I would think if they got into the UK, they would be able to express themselves as freely as anyone else.

The UK has decided not to let them in, however.

And the reasons for not letting them in?

They are not criminals running from the law. The UK is quite likely to give such people asylum.

They are not seeking to overthrow the UK government.

They are not seeking to carry out any criminal act on UK soil.

They are merely visiting the country in order to observe, and maybe support, a legitimate gathering of people with a certain (legitimate) political viewpoint. The Border Control people let in all sorts of people who do express views that will not comply with various public order and security issues, but these two personalities are barred. The Border Control should be concentrating on the hndreds of thousands of illegal immigrants in the country, rather than excluding two citizens of a friendly country.

Let them talk, don't make them martyrs.

This decision is idiotic, and I can't believe that people are celebrating it.

Free speech is always the first casualty.

I want to hear them so I can decide, I don't want you deciding what I can and cannot hear.

Who are you to judge that?

Incidentally some of you may remember this young lady from an abysmal docu she did on Thailand a couple of years ago. I cannot stand her presenting style but I forced myself to watch this.......

We're needing more of these types of documentaries to really show up the nutters on both sides.

Incidentally some of you may remember this young lady from an abysmal docu she did on Thailand a couple of years ago. I cannot stand her presenting style but I forced myself to watch this.......

We're needing more of these types of documentaries to really show up the nutters on both sides.

Interesting piece, though she really is a Lorraine Chase type ! ('Wafted from paradise?"!)

Bottom line extremism at either end of any spectrum is based on ignorance, wilful ignorance and agenda-driven bigotry. Mercifully contained to small sub-groups who are intent on grooming others, particularly others who will do the heavy lifting. Classic chickenhawk stuff.

I have a personal loathing of extremism and the misery it brings with it, but I have an even greater loathing for its cheerleaders and advocates, so banning Spencer and Geller from the UK is the right thing to do. If you want to hear their opinions they are readily accessible but a publicity stunt notionally in support of a murdered British soldier is designed to be provocative and seeks to crank up tension and stoke extremism on both sides. As your film clip underlined what these cheerleaders seek to do is to groom vulnerable types (whether they be unemployed white working-class or disillusioned muslims) to do their dirty work. This notion of grooming really sums up how extremists work, whether they be Irish nationalists, muslim radicals or anti-muslim street thugs. Focus on a couple of themes that might resonate with your chosen group and weave a whole fabrication of simple answers to every problem. "Brits out", "crusaders out", "muslims out" are all trite little sound bites but do little to actually address the issue.

Not every Muslim is a Mohammed Atta , not every Jew is a Baruch Goldstein , not every Irishman is a Joe Brennan. Extremists of whatever ilk have to be combated but not in a way that aids their cause via mindless over-reaction and demonization. Not easy, not quick, and often not pretty. But it's a whole lot better than falling for the extremist grooming and their simplistic cant.

We'll agree to differ again, let them in, let them talk. As that documentary demonstrated once they are put in front of a camera they make clowns of themselves. All of them.

As I said already, Free Speech is always the first casualty and there are far too many people celebrating this denial of Free Speech. Inch by inch we're losing.

You're the same guys that would happily quote:

" I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it "

In the one breath then take this anti-free speech position with the next. It's absurd......and dangerous.

Let them talk.

Pat Condell always gets it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz267A6jhbw&feature=youtu.be

15 month old Question Time from Dewsbury. However appropriate still IMO

Pat Condell always gets it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz267A6jhbw&feature=youtu.be

That's muted on my computer.

15 month old Question Time from Dewsbury. However appropriate still IMO

David Starkey was spot on.

I liked the bit, where i audience member said something about putting financial pressure on China and Russia. David Starkey almost choked. I put on my FB page re the audience member. "Where has he been these last 5 years?"