Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Are you claiming that Steve 'condones' the content of their speeches and may even be so inclined towards them that he would seek out such lectures? 'I'm sure you have your reasons..', perhaps if you're so sure you'd like to spell them out plainly and without innuendo.

That's not so much a disconnect between words, rather a deliberate distortion. You are aware that people can support a person's right to speech without agreeing with what they say? That is the basis of free speech, not just allowing what you agree with to be heard.

You are aware that people can support a person's right to speech without agreeing with what they say?

So there should have been nothing wrong with allowing the US bloggers in to speak their mind, if people like Hamza get to speak theirs.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

So there should have been nothing wrong with allowing the US bloggers in to speak their mind, if people like Hamza get to speak theirs.

Abu Hamza was found guilty of numerous charges concerning promoting racial hatred and soliciting murder and was imprisoned. He got to speak his mind and then he faced the consequences. Of course if these bloggers would prefer to spend some time at her majesty's pleasure then I'm sure that can be arranged.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Are you claiming that Steve 'condones' the content of their speeches and may even be so inclined towards them that he would seek out such lectures? 'I'm sure you have your reasons..', perhaps if you're so sure you'd like to spell them out plainly and without innuendo.

That's not so much a disconnect between words, rather a deliberate distortion. You are aware that people can support a person's right to speech without agreeing with what they say? That is the basis of free speech, not just allowing what you agree with to be heard.

Steve claimed that nothing the Muslim cleric said was as offensive as what Geller/Spencer have said. The cleric defended Al Qaeda and their former leader, stating that they are victims of smear campaigns and the theology that guides them is not as bad as it seems. He was rebuked and sanctioned by the Saudi religious establishment, which is like the Westboro Baptist Church distancing themselves from someones anti-gay poster at one of their bulljive rallies. A Saudi media channel, which he attacked, have stated that he needs a mental health exam. But according to Steve, nothing he has said is offensive.

And yes, I did lay down the innuendo pretty thick, possibly too much, but prior to that he accused me of racism and anti-muslim bigotry. All because I pointed out that a dude thats too hard core for his fellow Saudi clerics is roaming around London. I picked out that one dude, and only that dude, out of nearly 2 billion Muslims and I'm accused of bigotry.

 Mr Hyena wrote:


But not enough class to be above picking and choosing who gets special treatment.

Show me where the law has been broken and due procedure ignored, and your statement becomes valid. Otherwise, it's simply a hapless distortion and irrelevance to the point I made.

That point being that it is one thing to deny undesirables access to our country before they enter. It is another to illegally deport undesirables without attention to the due law and process.

I think our countrys gov't is doing its best to keep hatemongers out and im all for a multiracial and multicultural society. Shame other countries didnt feel the same back in the eighties when funding the i.r.a and their bombing campaigns over here. Still, more peace less war friends.

I dont blame the UK for keeping the hate mongers out because the same government insures free speech for its own citizens. Every country has a right to refuse entry to foreigners and if the people seeking entry are virtually gauranteed to cause a problem why would you let them in?

Vmw1971 wrote:
Shame other countries didnt feel the same back in the eighties when funding the i.r.a and their bombing campaigns over here. Still, more peace less war friends.

As someone who lived in Northern Ireland during the Trouble let me just say that would be a gross oversimplification of one aspect of the time, and ignores the less than noble conduct that all sides engaged in.

Lets hope those dark days remain a distant memory.