More silencing of voices and about the ban on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from coming to the UK:
Shooting the Messenger
Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park, London was once renowned for being the embodiment of freedom of speech where anyone could appear and speak about anything. In recent years, Islamist speakers have flocked to Hyde Park to deliver their rants and rampages.
A British convert to Islam declaimed there, “I do not believe that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. The West doesn’t really believe in that freedom either. No one is free to say exactly what they want.”
The British authorities have come around to agreeing with him. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been informed that they are banned from the United Kingdom.
The letter to Robert Spencer informs him, in Orwellian language, that the Home Secretary believes that he should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.”
Some figures whose presence is conducive to the public good include Abu Qatada, an Al Qaeda figure who has yet to be deported, and Anjem Choudary, who helped inspire the recent bloody murder of Lee Rigby.
MP Keith Vaz, who led a march calling for a ban on Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,” called for the ban on Spencer and Geller. And the British government has complied.
While every Islamist leader from around the world has found asylum and taxpayer-funded homes in the UK, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are too dangerous to allow into Londonistan.
A Wikileaks cable revealed that fear of offending Muslims convinced British governments to grant asylum to Islamist leaders. And now fear of offending Muslims has convinced the British government to keep out the people warning of the danger.
Instead of banning the terrorists, the UK has banned the messenger.
FT, Via comment notification, I found only the following disappeared comment to this blog post:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Cost Of Giving Offense":
Since the first amendment, apparently, has no jurisdiction in the blogging world, I recommend suspending the posting privileges of the odious eider and others of his obnoxious ilk. If an anti-Muslim individual may be silenced, why not purge and henceforth exclude the snide, truculent, most unwelcome prattle of a sneering seditionist?
Either we accept the expression of every kind of thinking, or we become little Hitlers each ruling his own domain with an iron hand. I see no middle ground.
-------------> Katharine Heartburn
Posted by Anonymous to Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans at June 27, 2013 at 8:48:00 AM EDT
FBI’s bus ads taken down over Muslim/terrorist stereotyping
After a wave of criticism from politicians, advocacy groups and the public, 46 bus ads featuring photos of wanted terrorists will be taken down within the next few weeks, officials said Tuesday.
The “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad was criticized for promoting stereotypes of Muslims and painting a broad brush against one group....
Isn't that group jihadist terrorists? No longer are we allowed to picture them for fear of offending Mohammedans? Sheesh.
I think the UK simply wants to prevent Spencer from setting off the sand-monkeys. It is far cheaper to keep Spencer out of the UK than to have to spend a ton of money to rebuild entire neighborhoods that the SMs have burned to the ground. It really doesn't take much to set them off, you know.
Of course, what the UK has lost ... or rather, given up, is far more precious than any run-down neighborhood. It goes back to the UK's immigration policies and their failure to listen to the common sense warnings of Enoch Powell.
Thus ... the Brits deserve whatever befalls them in the future. IMO, it is a lost civilization.
More people need to speak up louder. In this case, since Western governments no longer wish to defend their citizens freedoms, it seems the squeakiest wheel gets the oil.
Britain, Britain. When or will you ever learn? Considering that was the tiny nation that stood up to Germany, this is pretty poor. I'd expect France to do this, not England.
But it is easier. There is good reason the phrase 'shoot the messenger' exists. Ignore the problem, and it goes away, right? Wrong. But a forest fire can be ignored at first. Once its so big you can't ignore, you also cannot put it out without much destruction. England seems to want to wait for that. Fine, go ahead, led your nation be taken over... but don't expect our sympathy when it does.
Though America needs to take a hint too!
I'm all for free speech, even insulting and crass speech. I'm so blunt by nature I'd be a hypocrite not to. Same for freedom of faith. However, if these guys are calling out to murder people... lets at LEAST let the FBI monitor them! Apparently, until it was banned here, it helped to foil MANY terrorist acts. Freedom of religion comes under the law. And the law does state you CANNOT call for immediate violence! Yello, Feds, you forgot that extremely helpful clause?
Why England of all places is having the issue I have no idea. They're rights are much more lax, they're country has a state religion, or just about, they are stubborn-necked people, and courageous people. Or were. They didn't take anything from anyone. That was Briticism in short (which we Americans inherited). Why then, are they of ALL people, so willing to give up without a fight?
To me, that is the most worrying thing. Britain of 60 years ago would never have done this, if history is any proof. How then have they fallen so fast? And what does that say for us, who had all of Britain's pluck? I hesitate to say that our government has fallen that far. But, how much longer before it does?
Wildstar, In answer to your comment Britain of 60 years ago would never have done this, if history is any proof. How then have they fallen so fast?, please watch THIS SHORT VIDEO. Demographic reality!
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere earlier today, because applies just as well here:
Since the first amendment, apparently, has no jurisdiction in the blogging world, I recommend suspending the posting privileges of the odious eider and others of his obnoxious ilk. If an anti-Muslim individual may be silenced, why not purge and henceforth exclude the snide, truculent, most unwelcome prattle of a sneering seditionist?
Either we accept the expression of every kind of thinking, or we become little Hitlers each ruling his own domain with an iron hand. I see no middle ground.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
There were several comments here earlier.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened to them and why?
FT,
ReplyDeleteI have no idea about the comments you mentioned because I've barely been near the computer today. I'll check my email.
More silencing of voices and about the ban on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from coming to the UK:
ReplyDeleteShooting the Messenger
Speakers’ Corner at Hyde Park, London was once renowned for being the embodiment of freedom of speech where anyone could appear and speak about anything. In recent years, Islamist speakers have flocked to Hyde Park to deliver their rants and rampages.
A British convert to Islam declaimed there, “I do not believe that absolute freedom of speech is a good thing. The West doesn’t really believe in that freedom either. No one is free to say exactly what they want.”
The British authorities have come around to agreeing with him. Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller have been informed that they are banned from the United Kingdom.
The letter to Robert Spencer informs him, in Orwellian language, that the Home Secretary believes that he should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that “your presence here is not conducive to the public good.”
Some figures whose presence is conducive to the public good include Abu Qatada, an Al Qaeda figure who has yet to be deported, and Anjem Choudary, who helped inspire the recent bloody murder of Lee Rigby.
MP Keith Vaz, who led a march calling for a ban on Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses,” called for the ban on Spencer and Geller. And the British government has complied.
While every Islamist leader from around the world has found asylum and taxpayer-funded homes in the UK, Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are too dangerous to allow into Londonistan.
A Wikileaks cable revealed that fear of offending Muslims convinced British governments to grant asylum to Islamist leaders. And now fear of offending Muslims has convinced the British government to keep out the people warning of the danger.
Instead of banning the terrorists, the UK has banned the messenger.
It is a tragic day for Western civilization.
FT,
ReplyDeleteVia comment notification, I found only the following disappeared comment to this blog post:
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The Cost Of Giving Offense":
Since the first amendment, apparently, has no jurisdiction in the blogging world, I recommend suspending the posting privileges of the odious eider and others of his obnoxious ilk. If an anti-Muslim individual may be silenced, why not purge and henceforth exclude the snide, truculent, most unwelcome prattle of a sneering seditionist?
Either we accept the expression of every kind of thinking, or we become little Hitlers each ruling his own domain with an iron hand. I see no middle ground.
-------------> Katharine Heartburn
Posted by Anonymous to Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans at June 27, 2013 at 8:48:00 AM EDT
Upon taking a second look, the comment above was posted to THIS RELATED BLOG POST.
ReplyDeleteDhimmitude in the extreme:
ReplyDeleteFBI’s bus ads taken down over Muslim/terrorist stereotyping
After a wave of criticism from politicians, advocacy groups and the public, 46 bus ads featuring photos of wanted terrorists will be taken down within the next few weeks, officials said Tuesday.
The “Faces of Global Terrorism” ad was criticized for promoting stereotypes of Muslims and painting a broad brush against one group....
Isn't that group jihadist terrorists? No longer are we allowed to picture them for fear of offending Mohammedans? Sheesh.
I think the UK simply wants to prevent Spencer from setting off the sand-monkeys. It is far cheaper to keep Spencer out of the UK than to have to spend a ton of money to rebuild entire neighborhoods that the SMs have burned to the ground. It really doesn't take much to set them off, you know.
ReplyDeleteOf course, what the UK has lost ... or rather, given up, is far more precious than any run-down neighborhood. It goes back to the UK's immigration policies and their failure to listen to the common sense warnings of Enoch Powell.
Thus ... the Brits deserve whatever befalls them in the future. IMO, it is a lost civilization.
More people need to speak up louder. In this case, since Western governments no longer wish to defend their citizens freedoms, it seems the squeakiest wheel gets the oil.
ReplyDeleteBritain, Britain. When or will you ever learn? Considering that was the tiny nation that stood up to Germany, this is pretty poor. I'd expect France to do this, not England.
ReplyDeleteBut it is easier. There is good reason the phrase 'shoot the messenger' exists. Ignore the problem, and it goes away, right? Wrong. But a forest fire can be ignored at first. Once its so big you can't ignore, you also cannot put it out without much destruction. England seems to want to wait for that. Fine, go ahead, led your nation be taken over... but don't expect our sympathy when it does.
Though America needs to take a hint too!
I'm all for free speech, even insulting and crass speech. I'm so blunt by nature I'd be a hypocrite not to. Same for freedom of faith. However, if these guys are calling out to murder people... lets at LEAST let the FBI monitor them! Apparently, until it was banned here, it helped to foil MANY terrorist acts. Freedom of religion comes under the law. And the law does state you CANNOT call for immediate violence! Yello, Feds, you forgot that extremely helpful clause?
Why England of all places is having the issue I have no idea. They're rights are much more lax, they're country has a state religion, or just about, they are stubborn-necked people, and courageous people. Or were. They didn't take anything from anyone. That was Briticism in short (which we Americans inherited). Why then, are they of ALL people, so willing to give up without a fight?
To me, that is the most worrying thing. Britain of 60 years ago would never have done this, if history is any proof. How then have they fallen so fast? And what does that say for us, who had all of Britain's pluck? I hesitate to say that our government has fallen that far. But, how much longer before it does?
-Wildstar
Wildstar,
ReplyDeleteIn answer to your comment Britain of 60 years ago would never have done this, if history is any proof. How then have they fallen so fast?, please watch THIS SHORT VIDEO. Demographic reality!
"Psycho" Geller and Robert Spencer, her cabana boy speaking at an EDL rally.
ReplyDeleteImmediate thoughts:
1. This passes on the fringe right for constructive speech.
2. What could go wrong?
I'll repeat what I said elsewhere earlier today, because applies just as well here:
ReplyDeleteSince the first amendment, apparently, has no jurisdiction in the blogging world, I recommend suspending the posting privileges of the odious eider and others of his obnoxious ilk. If an anti-Muslim individual may be silenced, why not purge and henceforth exclude the snide, truculent, most unwelcome prattle of a sneering seditionist?
Either we accept the expression of every kind of thinking, or we become little Hitlers each ruling his own domain with an iron hand. I see no middle ground.
-------------> Katharine Heartburn
L'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace.
ReplyDeleteWhat maters giving offense if it is free, hmmm?
ReplyDeletePat is great! :)
ReplyDelete