• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

UK 'least wanted' list published

kai

kai

ragamuffin
The names of some of the people barred from entering the UK for fostering extremism or hatred have been published for the first time. Islamic extremists, white supremacists and a US radio host are among the 16 of 22 excluded in the five months to March to have been named by the Home Office.
Since 2005, the UK has been able to ban people who promote hatred, terrorist violence or serious criminal activity.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK 'least wanted' list published
 
misanthropic_clown

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
I actually think releasing the names is counter intuitive, as it will simply arouse curiosity about these people. Publicity, good or bad, is the last thing they should be getting.
 
kai

kai

ragamuffin
misanthropic_clown said:
I actually think releasing the names is counter intuitive, as it will simply arouse curiosity about these people. Publicity, good or bad, is the last thing they should be getting.
Click to expand...


If they are banning them we should know why dont you think? and we cant really know why if we dont know who.

I never heard of this Weiner guy :)
 
misanthropic_clown

misanthropic_clown

Active Member
kai said:
If they are banning them we should know why dont you think? and we cant really know why if we dont know who.

I never heard of this Weiner guy :)
Click to expand...

Since when was our government ever really free with information? This is probably the lamest place to start.

I do see your point, but I don't really see any public interest in knowing who is on the list that wouldn't be catered for by the media coverage surrounding an active denial of entry into the country if a person on this list attempted to enter the UK. I think there is a danger that some people will look at the beliefs of these people, see them as being oppressed and thus be inspired to do harm in the name of the cause.
 
kai

kai

ragamuffin
misanthropic_clown said:
Since when was our government ever really free with information? This is probably the lamest place to start.

I do see your point, but I don't really see any public interest in knowing who is on the list that wouldn't be catered for by the media coverage surrounding an active denial of entry into the country if a person on this list attempted to enter the UK. I think there is a danger that some people will look at the beliefs of these people, see them as being oppressed and thus be inspired to do harm in the name of the cause.
Click to expand...


yeah i get your point.
 
YmirGF

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I see Freddy and his daughter made the list. One can only wonder how long it will be before GODHATESENGLAND.COM will be born. (Canada got hers several years ago... so we are a bit ahead of you folks still.)
 
tomspug

tomspug

Absorbant
So... the only people on this list are outspoken Christians, Jews and Muslims? That doesn't sound like targeting at all!
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
Kind of ridiculous, actually. The list.

Of course, we wouldn't let Bobby Fisher back unless it was in handcuffs. Even more ridiculous.
 
N

Nepenthe

Tu Stultus Es
gnomon said:
Kind of ridiculous, actually. The list.

Of course, we wouldn't let Bobby Fisher back unless it was in handcuffs. Even more ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Heh. Now I have this mental image of a handcuffed Fisher running away from airport security wearing this:
knight.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: kai
Ukonkivi

Ukonkivi

Member
A terrorist violates the rights of others.
A racist had the right to be a racist.

And fighting fascism and anti-immigration bigots by tightening immigration against them, is rather ironic is it not?

I've got bigger fish to fry. And limiting freedom of expression is it's own disagreeableness.
I agree more with a racist who doesn't agree with any form of Authoritarian than a some white nationalist hating authoritarian.

And again, I've got bigger fish to fry than petty things like disagree with minority groups like white nationalist who deserve equal treatment as anyone else. I'd rather just get rid of borders period, being an extreme anti-nationalist.
And if you're not for hate speech, you're not for free speech at all.

An authoritarian who fights for political correctness is still an authoritarian. And is just as disagreeable as any other authoritarian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top