Renton 17825 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Do you think Canadian government would let the B.N.P. do a talk in Canada? In which you have your answer. I don't know but I wasn't asking the Canadian government, I was asking you. Answer if you can/are willing, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17825 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 When I pointed out that I thought most extremists were pricks in that thread, Danny's response was "Pick a side." You know I was being tongue in cheek. Are you being tongue-in-cheek throughout this thread too btw? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. Problem is, where do you draw the line? Who makes that decision? When does censorship then cross over into the mainstream? etc. Not as simple as you're making it out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 I have no trouble reconciling my beliefs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest alex Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 I have no trouble reconciling my beliefs. Just problems stating them? To be clear, what are your views? Rather than what you think the Canadian government might do in a hypothetical situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Case closed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manc-mag 1 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Danny B in tatters here tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Danny B in tatters here tbh. You do live vicariously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Case closed. Not really, this is covered in UK law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Case closed. Not really, this is covered in UK law. What an ambiguous reply. Ambiguous replies are generally the product of a defeated entity, Fop being a case in point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Case closed. Not really, this is covered in UK law. What an ambiguous reply. Ambiguous replies are generally the product of a defeated entity, Fop being a case in point. Its because I haven't got time at work that I haven't given a full response. There are laws in the UK that are designed to stop people preaching hate. These should be used. Its not hard or ambiguous Stevie...well maybe for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renton 17825 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Its because I haven't got time at work that I haven't given a full response. There are laws in the UK that are designed to stop people preaching hate. These should be used. Its not hard or ambiguous Stevie...well maybe for you. Preaching hate, or saying things you don't agree with? In case it has escaped your attention, Galloway is an elected member of parliament in this country, and he certainly hasn't been banned from speaking here. Do you think he should be arrested for his views? And how exactly is he preaching hate anyway btw, enlighten me? What a fucking dull place you'd like to live in, where anyone who takes an alternative view to the centre-right you happen to support should be censored. Thankfully we still live in a free society and not Dannyland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Do you think Canadian government would let the B.N.P. do a talk in Canada? In which you have your answer. ok first off it's not for what he says or might say that has got him in hot water over here, it's the fact he went in to Gaza and "aided" Hamas, a recognized ( incorrectly imo they were democratically elected) terrorist gov't. So the short answer is....Yes they would let the BNP do a talk, this is not so much about freedom of speech as it is about just how fucking clueless my gov't is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tooner 243 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 (edited) Ban the lot imo. These people are all trouble makers in my eyes. As I say they wouldnt even consider letting certain groups from the other end of the spectrum in, why should it be any different for him. Cue the hand wringing. So you're contradicting your earlier views about the BNP then. Thanks for clarifying. Who then should make the decision who should be allowed to speak and who shouldn't? The law courts? The government? The Intelligence agencies? The media? What you're suggesting is contrary to any notion of living in a free country, you'd be better suited living in China tbh. Case closed. Not really, this is covered in UK law. What an ambiguous reply. Ambiguous replies are generally the product of a defeated entity, Fop being a case in point. Its because I haven't got time at work that I haven't given a full response. There are laws in the UK that are designed to stop people preaching hate. These should be used. Its not hard or ambiguous Stevie...well maybe for you. indeed there are Danny, however you misunderstand those as was shown in the post in the Luton anti-war demo..... here it is QUOTE(Danny B @ Mar 17 2009, 09:06 AM) QUOTE(Renton @ Mar 17 2009, 03:57 PM) I'm fairly sure freedom of speech was quite high on their agenda Leazes. It's a tradition and right I strongly associate with this country, don't you? I'm fairly sure quite a few would turn in their graves at some of the stuff that has been said in this thread too, especially considering the regime they were fighting. Surprised you can't see this. Well, actually, I'm not. Freedom of speach as long as it is legal Renton, that is what you appear to be glossing over. What they are doing is illegal, if I racially abused them I would be locked up, they are inciting hatred and should be punished. Its not hard. could you make out something other than "free palestine" and "allah akbar" in the video? from Wiki, but also found in the act itself(section 29J) "The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J: Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system." so you see the law that stops preaching hate also has a caveat within protecting the public's right to make their own minds up, and voice those opinions without prejudice. Edited March 26, 2009 by tooner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 They did have other signs much worse than those on the video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Danny completely and utterly taken to the cleaners in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 not really parklife but if it makes you feel better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stevie Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Danny completely and utterly taken to the cleaners in this thread. Utterly in the latter parts of the thread, not just taken to the dry cleaners actually gagged and pushed in to one of the washers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Park Life 70 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 Danny completely and utterly taken to the cleaners in this thread. Utterly in the latter parts of the thread, not just taken to the dry cleaners actually gagged and pushed in to one of the washers. Set on a hot and long cycle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Douggy B 0 Posted March 26, 2009 Author Share Posted March 26, 2009 What you lot need to understand is that whilst I am at work I cannot always post in graphic detail because: A: I dont have time B: You don't know who is listening. Firstly on the case of the protesters, there were banners calling UK soldiers butchers and rapists. This is inciting hatred whichever way you look at it. Secondly I would catagorise GG in the same bracket as the BNP for the following reasons: He plays on fear and ignorance to win votes in poor areas His views on English muslims who want to fight English troups (he refuses to condemn this). His rhetoric is delivered in a rabble rousing manner which I believe is capable of motivating disaffected muslims to strike at this country. Just because he is a MP doesn't mean he is any less dangerous than the BNP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3206 Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 On the one hand I believe in freedom of speech as a right. On the other hand george Galloway is a detestable cock. I think Canada should let him in then we should refuse to have the cunt back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fop 1 Posted March 27, 2009 Share Posted March 27, 2009 On the one hand I believe in freedom of speech as a right. On the other hand george Galloway is a detestable cock. I think Canada should let him in then we should refuse to have the cunt back. Why do you think they won't let him in? Look what happened to Portugal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snakehips 0 Posted March 31, 2009 Share Posted March 31, 2009 From SKY News: A judge has declined to overturn a Canadian government ruling banning Respect MP George Galloway from entering the country. Skip related content Related photos / videos Canada Upholds George Galloway Ban Canada blocked Mr Galloway from entering the country on national security grounds earlier in March, saying he provided money to Hamas, a banned terrorist organisation in Canada. Federal Court Justice Luc Martineau denied a request for an emergency injunction to allow the British MP in to begin a speaking tour of Canada. Mr Galloway is well known for his ardent opposition to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Earlier this month, he was awarded an honorary Palestinian passport in a secret meeting with prime minister Ismail Haniyeh, a senior Hamas figure. Canadian immigration minister Jason Kenney has said those who support, promote and help terrorist organisations should not visit Canada. A spokesman for Mr Kenney said Canadian border officials made the decision on the grounds Mr Galloway was a national security threat. The government declined to overturn the decision because of his financial support for Hamas, Alykhan Velshi said. In a letter to Mr Galloway, the government said he had delivered humanitarian goods to war-torn Gaza and gave $45,000 (£31,500) to Hamas. Judge Martineau said in a written ruling he is not willing to exempt Mr Galloway from Canada's immigrations laws. Tour organiser James Clark said the British MP will not attempt to enter Canada because he has no intention of breaking the law. Instead, he said Mr Galloway will deliver video speeches to the Canadian cities Mississauga, Ontario, Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa this week from a studio in New York. Mr Galloway has denied suggestions he supports terrorism, insisting he gave money and aid to help the people of Gaza, not for terrorism. "I am not a supporter of Hamas," he said. "But I am a supporter of democracy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now