it is just me or do you think ‘porn’ whenever you see her ugly visage?
The ban will stay because i can’t see him winning and what cort is going to be judging this :P
The reasoning behind this ban is brainless and babyish. I don’t need protecting from opinions, and no one has the right to claim protection from ‘hurt feelings’.
This fuels extremism, because my right to challenge this guy has been taken away, as has his right to change his opinion.
Has she paid all that money back you? Until she does, I hardly think she should be taking the high ground over anyone
How anyone can take anything this thieving, lying, smug @*&%!^&*! seriously is beyond me. She has zero credibility and should get t the end of the dole queue where she belongs, jackboots and all.
This doesn’t make any sense to me – Smith allows vile homophobe dance-hall artist to enter the UK to perform gigs, why should this guy be barred. Don’t get me wrong I think his pond life lee
I am completely uninteristed in the inconsistent bleating of the woman who should herself be banned from holding high office.
I wonder – did she deliver her latest public missive from her huge four bedroom house in Redditch where her husband lives, her children go to school and is therefore so obvioulsy her second home (allowing her to abuse the expense system shamelessly) or from her sister’s spare room which is apparently her main residence?
Smith might be many things, but she has also barred a broadcaster who is offensive even to many US conservatives. Savage speaks to many hundreds of thousands of people on his networked broadcasts, which tell his followers that all gay people “rape childrens minds” and routinely encourage verbal, if not physical, assault on a variety of minority groups. If this is the current litmus test of free speech, then it says much about the paucity of liberal thought.
“Free speech” is oft chanted, mantra-like, by those in majority groups with little or no experience of discrimination. One wonders whether they actually even consider what things might be like on the other side of their equation. And it’s worth remembering that the free speech movement as it developed from the 19th century through to the 1960′s campus radicalism was aimed at permitting intellectual discourse and disagreement. It was never about letting hysterical demagogues have unlimited space to peddle disinformation.
Even so, those gay people who do believe that Michael Savage is a paragon of free speech are of course entitled to do so. Unlike Savage himself, the gay community can tolerate diverse viewpoints. However, to fully understand the implications of taking the “free speech” stand, then it is also important to find out where the commitment to free speech reaches its limits. If Savage can cite free speech to verbally attack gay people on the radio, then can street preachers in the town centre do the same? If they encourage a crowd to regard passing gay people as sick and deviant, is that their free speech entitlement? What if your local gay club is picketed by religious extremists or the political far right – do they too have a right to freedom of speech? What about if they picket your local gay youth group, handing out “burn in hell”-type leaflets to vulnerable teenagers questioning their sexuality? Does the right to free speech still apply?
Lee is right to call the Home Secretary to account on the reggae star. She permitted Bounty Killa, an artist who has never apologised to gay people for profiting from tracks which advocate maiming and killing gay people, to perfom in London last year. My advice here is to keep your eyes open for flyposters round town, gig leaflets and so on. If you suspect that one of the infamous homophobic performers is touring, then drop a line to OutRage! or the Black Gay Mens Advisory Group.
I also have little time for Ms Smith. The Home Office’s record on gay asylum seekers fleeing persecution and possible death in Iran leaves a lot to be desired… however, as the article states, this is nothing to do with ‘free speech’.. it about an ‘entitlement’ to come here, (which no-one other than British Citizens have)
People can be, (and often are) stopped from entering the US and they do not even have to give a reason. It’s the same here. I do think it’s good to make a stand against allowing these undesirables to come here… It is only a pity that she/the government isn’t more consistent in it’s policies.. :-(
Ian – all of what you’ve said is true, however personally I feel her message may have been better coming from someone not taking a few minutes out from cooking their expenses claims to make a short statement to the press.
As far as I’m concerned, she’s a disgrace and should have stood down in favour of someone who hadn’t behaved like a crooked old scrounger.
Here here Ian! Regardless of Jacqui Smith as an individual, if a person chooses to use ‘free speech’ to hysterically discriminate and spread hatred then they should most certainly have the privilege of entering our country taken away from them. It should be a privilege and we should be seen not to tolerate it! If every country took a stand to show intolerance to this act of spreading hatred then perhaps they would need to temper or re-think their actions and opinions.
Here here Ian! Regardless of Jacqui Smith as an individual, people who use ‘free speech’ to discriminate and spread hatred in this way should most certainly have the privilege of entering our country taken away from them. If more countries took a stand and showed an intolerance for this act of hatred then perhaps they would be forced to temper or rethink their discriminatory standpoint.
Now they are out of power in the US maybe the steeple-jacking (look it up under Joel’s Army/dogemperor) fundamentalist lobby are stepping up their export of hatred against gays around the world.
I certainly don’t want them coming into my backyard spreading their hatred, poison and defamatory remarks about gays and others generally. You don’t invite people into your home that are going to trash the place.
I totally, totally agree with Ian Laughlin on this. You said it much better than I’ve ever managed to.
And even if this sort of thing isn’t a direct threat to any of us confident, empowered types, there’s a lot of vulnerable kids out there, and it’s them that I think of any time a subject like this comes up.
Could we not just deport Jacqui Smith under this legislation I am sure her husband would enjoy the continental porn.
What if a foreigner threatened to assassinate the national leader of any country or any political figure for that matter? Under the free speech mantra, should that person be allowed entry into a country? Saying and doing are two different things. As much as I detest hate speech, I’m uncomfortable with any government getting involved with suppression. If you recall, Margaret Thatcher suppressed IRA broadcasts in the UK and look what happened. It emboldened them to commit more violent crimes. Smith has given Savage and Phelps far more prominence than they deserve.
Any sign of that money back yet?
Jackboot Jaqui is not fit to decide who should be allowed to come into the UK. She has had her nose in the trough like the other greedy pigs who are in parliament. The only regret that they have is getting exposed. Many people are banned from entering UK merely on the grounds of their ‘social stantding’. That is Labourspeak for being poor. But we all know that Labour will let anyone in if they are rich (Saudi businessmen, terrorists, Albanian criminals etc).
It’s a difficult one – where should free speech end? Should free speech end? If there is a limit – who decides who decides? While I have no objection to someone being barred from entering this country, the rules governing this should be open, transparent and applied consistently; preferably also in a way that minimises the chances of naff publicity.
However, i’m always concerned that when limits of free speech are placed, it’s usually by the middle-class intellectual minority, and usually ends up pushing stuff they don’t agree with underground, where it usually rears its ugly head in ways we don’t like, usually violently. It would be better if we could have more openness, debate etc to educate people, rather than forcing outward consent to the popular view of the day but not actually winning hearts & minds.