|
13 Feb 2009, 00:45
|
#1
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Dhimmitude in the UK
Shouldn't we be fighting for Freedom in the UK instead of Iraq?
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 01:51
|
#2
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
I noticed before how the British we're willing to limit freedom of speech and freedom of expression to appease the easily offended. But today it was taken a little bit too far in my eyes, when a parliament members of a fellow EU-country, and a economic and military ally, was banned without any legitimate reason to prevent some silly Powerpoint-ish documentary that noone actually cares about from being shown.
The reason given is that he (or his movie) is a threat to the public security and public harmony. However, this is not based on Wilders his personal behaviour, nor has he ever been convicted for hate speech or anything. Seeing the movie that he wanted to show, which is legally available in the UK and actually quite factual, that cannot be the reason either. So the problem doesn't actually lie with him, but somewhere else. Most likely it was to appease the easily offended, to avoid the protests that your lovely 5th column Lord threatened with. So it seems that when British Muslims threaten to get offended when someone, who they dislike, enters the same country (!) as them, the British government pisses their pants, and use every illegitimate action they can think of to appease the to be offended Muslims.
A little while later a spokesman for the British Home Office declared that it's being done in line with their policy to prevent all forms of extremism. And this members of the Dutch parliament clearly is an extremist, judging by the claims of the British Muslim community. This all just seems a little bit weird to me, as non-offended Muslims threatening and trying to force the hand of the government to take illegitimate actions to limit someone elses freedom, simply because they hate both dialogue and freedom of speech, seems a bit more extreme to me, then allowing a by the parliament invited person to show a readily available documentary.
It's all quite sad. Not nessesarily for Wilders, nor for the nearly offended Muslims, but for the little less Great Britain. Where people seem to have lost faith in the power of, and are slowly nibbling away their freedom. To satisfy the ever so intolerant amongst them.
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Last edited by Alessio; 13 Feb 2009 at 02:22.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 02:29
|
#3
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
As a certain Dutch artist said before:
The easily offended, the overly sensitive, the insencere hypocrites who feel too offended to even hold a dialogue, are the ones that actually threaten society. They are the ones that should be arrested. Not the passioned people who open their mouths.
unless you're aiming for a society of fear and mediocrity.
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Last edited by Alessio; 13 Feb 2009 at 02:52.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 08:19
|
#4
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
I'm pretty sure we banned him because he's dutch
__________________
hi
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 10:09
|
#5
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessio
illegitimate
|
Define please.
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 12:14
|
#6
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
Define please.
|
Considering the grounds on which the decision rests, conflicting with the fundamental freedoms of the European Union.
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 13:59
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 31
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
[quote=Alessio;3164903]
So the problem doesn't actually lie with him, but somewhere else. Most likely it was to appease the easily offended, to avoid the protests that your lovely 5th column Lord threatened with. So it seems that when British Muslims threaten to get offended when someone, who they dislike, enters the same country (!) as them, the British government pisses their pants, and use every illegitimate action they can think of to appease the to be offended Muslims.
QUOTE]
This is the point! The UK acted out of fear.... It seems that most people are getting scared to offend the minority groups who are nowadays easily offended. Its sad that they rather just ignore constitunional law then offend a group who shouldnt even be offended.
Freedom truly lost this battle.
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 19:34
|
#8
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
Its sad that they rather just ignore constitunional law then offend a group who shouldnt even be offended.
|
Much as personally I disagree with the government on this it has to be said that it does no one on my side of the argument any good to start making crazy statements like this.
It is very annoying when you people clearly know nothing of British law and make assumptions on EU law with no evidence.
EDIT - also, while i am on this - could Holland please stop electing morons to parliament? It would help a lot.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 20:21
|
#9
|
Evil inside
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 3,631
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Alessio confuses the freedom to speak with the freedom to spread hate and incite to violence.
__________________
<Germania>but you called Fury a bully, and that is terribly unfair
<Hicks>Occassionally individuals do things without Executive consent
<Dreadnought>You cant whois on Eclipse server without a registered nic, which mr ****stirrer doesnt have.
<Almeida> well i like to grow fat myself too, and when i have enough ships then i can engage in big battles
<Nantoz> Zhukov for Lord Protector!
<Jakiri> (Windows)XP was fine on release
|
|
|
13 Feb 2009, 23:35
|
#10
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
hell its easy to upset muslims, if i was a muslim i would be upset too.
but im not so im not upset
funny enough it means they are lesser ppl than the rest by default in their own opinion. they should sit down and be thankfull for the privilage of beeing in a safe country and shut the hell up or go back to the shithole they came from.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 00:33
|
#11
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 31
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov
Alessio confuses the freedom to speak with the freedom to spread hate and incite to violence.
|
The guy is a moron but he does not spread hate and incite to violence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
It is very annoying when you people clearly know nothing of British law and make assumptions on EU law with no evidence.
|
So the UK doesnt have a constitutional document , whatever.... different system.
Fact is the uk does acknowledge freedom of speech:
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights .The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.
About the guy being a moron, i agree. But this was just plain wrong.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 01:02
|
#12
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
Fact is the uk does acknowledge freedom of speech:
|
No. The UK does not.
The UK does 2 things.
I know that idiots would rather life was simple but proper governance is complicated.
The Uk
1) has adopted and accepts the right to freedom of expression within the law (by adopting article 10 of the ecrh by statute in the Human Rights Act 1998) - a qualified right
2) has many common law constrainsts, built up over centuries, which phohibit restrictions on freedom of expression
The UK does not accept free speech because in the legal system of England & Wales you would be mad to. Rather than making free speech a positive legal right we prohibit restrictions on feedom of speech where necessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
|
fascinating stuff. these declarations and international treaties are worthless and non binding
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
|
again, riveting, but irrelevant
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
The ICCPR recognizes the right to freedom of speech as "the right to hold opinions without interference. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression".
|
As irrelevant as quoting an irrelevant document is; there is still a point you miss here. No sane person has ever argued that the right to freedom of expresion is unqualified.
selectively quoting is the last refuge of an idiot
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
Furthermore freedom of speech is recognized in European, inter-American and African regional human rights law.
|
AGAIN - i am utterly fascinated but you have repeated the same utterly irrelevant point 3 times now. A friend of mine is the head of state of a very small nation, he is a friend and i like him a lot, but what laws he has are irrelevant when i think of what laws the uk should have
there are what? 192 members of the UN? if all of the 191 other members had a law and the UK was the only country that did not have that law; then when it came to thinking about whether or not the uk should have that law, the fact that 191 other countries had decided one way - would still be irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
About the guy being a moron, i agree. But this was just plain wrong.
|
that is your opinion. it is certainly not legal fact within the sovereign United Kingdom.
I am a supporter of freedom of expresion.
BUT
I will lose my patience.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 03:42
|
#13
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 846
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
did you get upset yahwe?
UK got no balls anymore
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 12:46
|
#14
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 31
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
selectively quoting is the last refuge of an idiot
|
ahh well, thats why i still go to school......
Anyway, it was wrong...and you know it!!
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 14:28
|
#15
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
While i can't quote the exact cases/statute, there was almost certainly a legal basis for stopping Mr.Wilders from entering the country, given that people such as scientologists (!) have been refused entry to Britain. In terms of restricting freedom of speech this is one of those situations where people don't apply human rights law very well and absurd conclusions result.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
ahh well, thats why i still go to school......
Anyway, it was wrong...and you know it!!
|
Legal facts don't care about right or wrong.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 15:48
|
#16
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 31
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokken
Legal facts don't care about right or wrong.
|
well you can always question the way laws are interpreted.... but still whether legal facts care about right or wrong or not, it STILL doesnt change the fact it was wrong and stupid...
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 19:12
|
#17
|
mz.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 8,587
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
"But if we ignore all your arguments for a moment, then it quickly becomes apparent that I am right, and you are wrong."
__________________
The outraged poets threw sticks and rocks over the side of the bridge. They were all missing Mary and he felt a contented smug feeling wash over him. He would have given them a coy little wave if the roof hadn't collapsed just then. Mary then found himself in the middle of an understandably shocked family's kitchen table. So he gave them the coy little wave and realized it probably would have been more effective if he hadn't been lying on their turkey.
|
|
|
14 Feb 2009, 20:30
|
#18
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 31
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mzyxptlk
"But if we ignore all your arguments for a moment, then it quickly becomes apparent that I am right, and you are wrong."
|
Read this and see what i mean.
telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 05:19
|
#19
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
Obviously he should have been let in, it was probably thinking they were being helpful, but naturally its just given him credibility. The news this morning was quite funny, talking about he risked his life to tell it like it is. Because these islamofascists mad mullahs will start a war over anything, they just can't help themselves. You invade their countries, set up and fund several illegal dictatorships and blanket the region in US bases and they take it personally. They should be banned, or something.
|
in all fairness there are some dead dutch men.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 11:27
|
#20
|
BlueTuba
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 6,339
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Justafox
Read this and see what i mean.
telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/philipjohnston/4604985/Whatever-happened-to-free-speech.html
|
I did say there were people applying the law in an absurd way here. While our government is absurd, there is no doubt that the law is most likely on their side here. Given the choice I'd have let him have his trip to the house of lords but this time the law didn't see it that way.
__________________
"Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life."
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 13:00
|
#21
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
It is very annoying when you people clearly know nothing of British law and make assumptions on EU law with no evidence.
|
I never mentioned British law, because I know very little of that. I’m not an expert on European law either, but I can make a decent educated guess.
I was aiming at the free movement of services from the Treaty establishing the European Community (freedom of speech won’t help you much when trying to get across the border).
According to article 49 EC and the non-exhaustive (!) list of article 50 EC the fundamental freedoms mostly aim for economic activities. And more specific for this case: services that “are normally provided for remuneration, in so far as they are not governed by the provisions relating to freedom of movement for goods, capital and persons.” Even tourists are covered under this definition. It is a shame that the treaty does not specifically mention European parliament members, but it should be kept it mind that it might not have been the intention to leave them out and the above mentioned definition is already being interpreted in a broader sense. I’m confident that if Wilders would argue that he went to the UK to promote his movie (which he did) it would be within the framework (?) of the European law, however, their doesn’t seem to be any (European) case law on this unprecedented situation yet.
Unsurprisingly, the arguments given by the British government, the basis on which Wilders was refused access to the country, were directly taken from this treaty. “The provisions of this chapter and measures taken in pursuance thereof shall not prejudice the applicability of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action providing for special treatment for foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.” Article 46 and 55 EC.
I took the liberty of assuming that by chosing this wording they also chose to use the same interpretation as the European court (an interpretation which is shared with the free movement of persons). The case refers to the Schengen treaty, however, that treaty stays within the framework of the EC treaty and uses the same legal definitions. In case C-503/03 the European court mentioned the following:
Quote:
44. The Community legislature has nevertheless made reliance by the Member States on such grounds subject to strict limits. Article 3(1) of Directive 64/221 states that measures taken on grounds of public policy or public security are to be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Article 3(2) states that previous criminal convictions are not in themselves to constitute grounds for the taking of such measures. The existence of a previous criminal conviction can, therefore, only be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy ( Bouchereau , paragraph 28, and Case C-348/96 Calfa [1999] ECR I-11, paragraph 24).
46. Consequently, according to settled case-law, reliance by a national authority on the concept of public policy presupposes, in any event, the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society ( Rutili , paragraph 28; Bouchereau , paragraph 35; and Orfanopoulos and Oliveri , paragraph 66).
|
Since his exclusively personal conduct or his (non-existing) criminal record doesn’t demonstrate the existence of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to the requirements of public policy affecting one of the fundamental interests of society (conditions which have to be interpreted in a strict matter), as he’s a calm debater from the Dutch parliament, who condmens violence on a regular basis and stays within the boundaries of the law, as mentioned in my second post, it is quite possible that the decision of the British government is conflicting with European law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by G.K Zhukov
Alessio confuses the freedom to speak with the freedom to spread hate and incite to violence.
|
No, you do. Did you know that the Dutch prosecutors have already stated that his statements are not excessive and fall within the boundaries of the public debate? After researching his statements they decided not to prosecute him and afterwards case law has already been formed based on that decision. However, some civilians appealed to the decision, forcing the prosecutors to let a judge bend over the case regardless of their own interpretation. And I honestly do support the decision to let a judge give some clarity on the matter.
It seems however that idiots like you and from the Labour Party do not even care about justice or even truth. Legal and democratic principles are meaningless to you. And in your case I know why. It’s because you’re a hateful and prejudiced communist pig.
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
Last edited by Alessio; 15 Feb 2009 at 14:20.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 13:33
|
#22
|
Lucky
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: -
Posts: 3,830
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Wilders party would now get 25 seats in parliament. i need to get out of this country, as soon as possible.
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 13:36
|
#23
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
When will the next elections be? Next year in 2010?
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
15 Feb 2009, 13:55
|
#24
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessio
it is quite possible that the decision of the British government is conflicting with European law.
|
yes that is possible. It's also possible that they acted within EU law.
I do think the government were very silly on this and I do consider it worrying
__________________
hi
|
|
|
18 Feb 2009, 06:57
|
#25
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue
Obviously he should have been let in, it was probably thinking they were being helpful, but naturally its just given him credibility. The news this morning was quite funny, talking about he risked his life to tell it like it is. Because these islamofascists mad mullahs will start a war over anything, they just can't help themselves. You invade their countries, set up and fund several illegal dictatorships and blanket the region in US bases and they take it personally. They should be banned, or something.
|
Fortunately Iran will soon have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them so that they can set things to right. Oh happy day!
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
Last edited by dda; 1 Nov 2009 at 18:03.
|
|
|
19 Feb 2009, 03:16
|
#26
|
p1mp
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 178
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
why worry about politics?
i just wanna nuke and go
__________________
ReBorn-Fury- Wolfpack-1up- Newdawn-DLR- NFI-Apprime-
*CEO of the Forest fan club
|
|
|
20 Feb 2009, 07:41
|
#27
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 8,476
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
talking of dumb British laws noone has mentioned this yet (it passed)
|
|
|
20 Feb 2009, 08:19
|
#28
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodrog
talking of dumb British laws noone has mentioned this yet (it passed)
|
I was trying to pretend it was all a horrible dream.
__________________
hi
|
|
|
25 Feb 2009, 17:27
|
#29
|
deserves a medal
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,211
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
__________________
"I have with me two gods, Persuasion and Compulsion."
|
|
|
25 Feb 2009, 20:05
|
#30
|
I am.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 6,580
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alessio
|
errr...
that's just country bashing / Not that I feel particularly threatened or damaged in anyway but what on earth made you think that was relevant???
__________________
hi
|
|
|
1 Nov 2009, 17:59
|
#31
|
USS Oklahoma
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,500
|
Re: Dhimmitude in the UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yahwe
No. The UK does not.
The UK does 2 things.
[I know that idiots would rather life was simple but (gratuitous insult please edit out) ] proper governance is complicated.
The Uk
1) has adopted and accepts the right to freedom of expression within the law (by adopting article 10 of the ecrh by statute in the Human Rights Act 1998) - a qualified right
2) has many common law constrainsts, built up over centuries, which phohibit restrictions on freedom of expression
The UK does not accept free speech because in the legal system of England & Wales you would be mad to. Rather than making free speech a positive legal right we prohibit restrictions on feedom of speech where necessary.
[This is the same approach taken in the U. S. Constitution which prohibits the government from infringing on freedom of speech especially in the context of political debate.]
fascinating stuff. these declarations and international treaties are worthless and non binding
again, riveting, but irrelevant
As irrelevant as quoting an irrelevant document is; there is still a point you miss here. No sane person has ever argued that the right to freedom of expresion is unqualified.
selectively quoting is the last refuge of an idiot ( a bit ad hominem)
AGAIN - i am utterly fascinated but you have repeated the same utterly irrelevant point 3 times now. A friend of mine is the head of state of a very small nation, he is a friend and i like him a lot, but what laws he has are irrelevant when i think of what laws the uk should have
there are what? 192 members of the UN? if all of the 191 other members had a law and the UK was the only country that did not have that law; then when it came to thinking about whether or not the uk should have that law, the fact that 191 other countries had decided one way - would still be irrelevant.
that is your opinion. it is certainly not legal fact within the sovereign United Kingdom.
I am a supporter of freedom of expresion.
BUT
I will lose my patience. (Speaking of irrelevant)
|
__________________
Ignorance is curable, stupidity is not.
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:32.
| |