Banning odious people from coming here
It’s always a surprise when the Labour government acts even handedly. I wrote a few weeks ago that if the government was going to stop al-Qaradawi from coming here, they should do the same with right-wing Israeli politicians. Now, according to the Jewish Chronicle, the home office has indeed banned the Likud deputy leader, Moshe Feiglin, from coming here. Feiglin, incidentally, not only wants to turn Israel into a theocracy, but also says that the Land of Israel should only be for Jews. Nice. Well done Jacqui Smith. No surprise in seeing that little bigot Archbishop Cranmer supporting his cause.
Over at Harry’s Place Mr T has posted re this, arguing not the contrary exactly (he has no objection to him being banned) but wondering why it doesn’t happen more often…
Mr Pickled Politics,
His Grace is honoured.
However, you refer to him as ‘a little bigot’.
How, precisely, do you define the term ‘bigot’?
Is Moshe Feiglin conductive to the public good? No. Are his views abhorrent? Yes.
I am still uneasy though about banning people on grounds of free speech. We should give them a choice: they can visit Britain if they are prepared to defend their views in a British court of law. I doubt that Qadarawi and friends would turn up after that.
Cramner makes a good point on his blog when he says that on this basis we will have to ban a great deal of people from the UK.
Also, why did Feiglin even receive this letter? Do we send them out to everyone?
Lee John Barnes:
Yes, because opposing someone who wants a war against Islam is the same as mass deportations and murder. Nice to see that the top minds of the BNP retain their firm grasp of reality.
Lee John Barnes:
You got me Lee. I suppose my Qaradawi-supporting views were plain for all to see in my first ever post for Pickled Politics:
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1331
Let me just go and get my Hamas coffee mug.
Is that true Sunny/ Rumbold? Are you a Qaradawi supporter and apologist for Hamas Islamo-Fascism? Or was that just a fleck of commentary spittle?
Feiglin’s views are pretty vile, but I’m a bit baffled that he’s been banned given that he wasn’t planning to visit in the first place. I’ve not heard of that happening before. Has Smith taken pre-emptive strikes against anyone else in the same way?
Blimey - with that list of gripes as below you sound like you are in the BNP.
I could have written that list.
I can get you a BNP coffee mug - would you like one to go with your Hamas one.
If you can get an New Labour, Ken For Mayor, IDF and an Al Qaeda mug then you can have a nice set for your kitchen cabinets.
“I could bring up Livingstone’s grovelling before Irish terrorists in the 1980s, or his support for dictators in Latin America, or his backing of the authoritarian Hugo Chavez. But I will leave you with the memory of his staunch backing for, and entertaining of, Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Dr. Qaradawi is “the chief scholar of the website IslamOnline, which endorses the execution of homosexuals - who it describes as “sick perverted and abonimable”; and which blames rape victims who dress “immodestly” for sex attacks, and outlines the conditions under which a husband can beat his wife.”
Qaradawi He also supports the murder of Israeli civilians and lauds their killers as martyrs.
By supporting Qaradawi, Livingstone has betrayed homosexuals, Jews, women and most of all moderate Muslims, who have to struggle for the limelight while men like Qaradawi are embraced by Livingstone.”
Your silence speaks volumes.
Clearly, you define as a ‘bigot’ anyone who happens to disagree with your own view. Ad hominem attacks are the refuge of the ignorant.
And if you had bothered to read His Grace’s post correctly, you would appreciate that you have either fundamentally misunderstood his view, or purposely misrepresented it to conform your own particular bigoted perspective.
The issue was never one of support or otherwise for Mr Feiglin, but one of criticsm of the Home Secretary for her hypocrisy and double standards. But maybe the argument was too nuanced for you to grasp.
Why not read the article and engage the brain to see what I’ve said. If anyone can’t understand what I wrote, its not my problem.
Cramner makes a good point on his blog when he says that on this basis we will have to ban a great deal of people from the UK.
Funny that, wasn’t Cranmer against al-Qaradawi coming here? He has no standards, except when it comes to Muslims. And its not surprising, given these are the kind of comments that get posted and left on his blog.
Wasn’t Cranmer re-publishing the Danish cartoons recently on his blog? I thought he was pro-free speech?
I made this point in my CIF article - al-Qaradawi has not said anything illegal in this country that he can be prosecuted for. That is the only standard worth applying, right?
Your silence speaks volumes.
Don’t get too chirpy Cranmer, I was away and couldn’t answer your point. Hence the ’silence’.
The issue was never one of support or otherwise for Mr Feiglin, but one of criticsm of the Home Secretary for her hypocrisy and double standards.
Yes we know the doublt standards existed in the past. And they were mostly directed at odious Muslim activists rather than people like Feiglin. I’ glad now that the home office is trying to balance it out, though its a bit late.
I’d be interested in hearing where you draw the line on who should or shouldn’t be allowed to come here.
His Grace awaits your definition of ‘bigot’.
And, while you’re at it, proof that ‘Cranmer (was) re-publishing the Danish cartoons recently on his blog’
And, if you possess the intelligence to understand, there is a prominent disclaimer that any comments upon His Grace’s blog do not imply his agreement with them. It is perfectly possible to engage in DIALOGUE with people with whom one does not agree. If you prefer your monologue, that is a matter for you.
And as for: ‘When it comes to muslims, I would myself be an ethnic cleanser if I had the power’
If you bothered to read anything of His Grace’s opinion, you might understand his assertion that Muslims are not an ethinic identity. And there is nothing anywhere that would support your suggestion that he is in favour of the ‘ethnic cleansing’ of anyone.
Now then, if all that is too much for you to take in, please begin with your definition of ‘bigot’.
As far as I’m concerned, I have no problem banning Mr Feiglin for having extremely dubious views, but if Miss Smith genuinely believes that hoards of bloodthirsty Orthodox Jews, inflamed by his words will descend upon Luton (Bradford’s a bit too far away from North London)and put it to the sword, then she needs a serious reality check.
And those are the implications behind the ban.
Chairwoman,
I agree. The idea that we have to be protected from foreign firebrands ’cause we’re stupid, seems to me to be a tad condescending.
The problem is, perhaps, that these folk speak only to their own communities. I would like them exposed as the bigots that they undoubtedly are.
I am all for freedom of speech, so I am against professional bigots taking over inter ethnic debate. Which seems to me to be the name of the game.
The CPS also ruled that there was not enough evidence to prosecute individuals on the Charles de Menezes case on on the grounds of insufficient evidence. Which doesn’t mean we should accept that nothing criminal happened there. So, no, it is not the only standard worth applying.
You see where I am getting. Al Qaradawi is very explicit - quote after quote - that he believes that civilians are a fair game in suicide bombings, and homosexuals should be exterminated. This is not just a nasty opinion, or something I disagree on, or something we should tolerate for the sake of freedom of speech, it is criminal in this country, and the fact is, that he was not allowed this time around. Is it because the previous ruling on Al Qaradawi was made before we had our version of suicide bombings, and inciting suicide bombings on civilians is perhaps you know, inciting muder?
It is worth nothing as well that your infamous CiF article is about letting people like Qaradawi. I usually think your CiF articles are spot-on, but that one, has to be in my view, one of your worst.
… IN.
Chairwoman - what about his words inspiring people to give money to hoards of people who will put the West Bank to the sword? His words here can elicit great sums of money to further his ideals abroad.
Much like Qaradawi doesn’t accept putting people to the sword here but in Israel he does.
Thus they come here for support to further aims in the I/P issue.
Does it matter where people are being put to the sword if people are promoting that somewhere people are put to the sword.
And, if you possess the intelligence to understand, there is a prominent disclaimer that any comments upon His Grace’s blog do not imply his agreement with them.
I have plenty of commenters who disagree with me on here. But I don’t tolerate imbeciles who talk about ethnic cleansing and mass extermination. So if someone posted comments praising Hitler etc you’d happily publish them would you?
you might understand his assertion that Muslims are not an ethinic identity
Who said it was an ethnic identity? It’s still an identifiable group of people. Jews aren’t a distinct race as such either, unless you think black Ethiopians and white Americans are the same race. I don’t know why stupid people like yourself keep pushing this discredited line of thinking. If someone vowed to wipe out all Americans or Israelis, would you sit there pontification about how it was fine because it wasn’t an ethnic identity?
If you don’t know the definition of a bigot, I suggest getting a dictionary.
Ravi - that is besides the point. The BNP have said plenty of odious things that I believe they should be prosecuted for. But they’re not only an ‘acceptable’ political party but allowed to exist. So that is the standard we apply, whether we like it or not. I didn’t like the Charles De Menzes ruling but I have to accept the decision.
Avi - As I said, I am quite happy for him to be banned for being a loathesome twat, but the Home Secretary was explicit in that she was banning him for inciting violence here, in the UK.
It is that with which I am taking issue.
It’s always a surprise when the Labour government acts even handedly.
Chance will be a fine thing.
JPost
Oh HP already covered this.
Mousawi told the New Yorker that Jews are ‘a lesion on the forehead of history’.
He was invited at the behest of the “Stop the War coalition”. What lovely balanced people!
Chairwoman,
The government is affeared that the likes of you and I will hear these firebrands and rise up, en masse, and smash them to bits.
Quite apart from that being a ridiculous idea, it is a ridiculous idea.
I agreed with Sunny that Qaradawi should have been allowed into the UK, although for somewhat different reasons. The guy is apparently very ill. Allowing an ill man in for treatment is somewhat different from allowing him to hate speech.
It would also have highlighted, quite neatly, what separates tolerant folk from idiots. It would have made him look the fool he, apparently, always was.
So, I think pulling up the drawbridge was not the best of advice.
Yep..absolutely..
Hi Sunny.
It’s disappointing to see you denouncing people because of comments left on their blog. This kind of thing is all too common among bloggers. To say that Cranmer “published” that stuff about ethnic cleaning is pretty unfair.
Can you spot the problem with this topic? The title of this post is “banning odious people from coming here”. The problem of you continuing to use this subjective term, is that you are labeling everyone you detest and abhor as “odious”, without discriminating whether they are guilty of inciting violence and hate crime - and thus should be prosecuted by our laws - or just making an odious opinion which in fact is protected by freedom of speech.
And so, your CiF article was about letting “odious” Al Qaradawi IN, because other “odious” people were let in. Again, besides the problem of not being objective on the “odious” part, it seems flawed that you defend in that CiF article that the government should be more consistent by letting all odious people in, rather than preventing all “odious” people from getting into this country. I am glad that the goverment decided to do the opposite, and be more consistent by following the latter. This which is what you allude in this post, but it is totally different in my view of what you were defending in CiF.
I suggest that rather than using the deceptive “odious” term, it is fundamental to draw a line between what is odious but accepted by freedom of speech, and what is odious but criminal/hate crime/inciting violence. And apply that standard to everyone. To me that line, as I said before, is advancing any cause by murdering and/or using violence against civilians.
Chairwoman - It is probably an equalising effect following the Qaradawi ban to show she is being even-handed!!
However you raise an interesting point and I wonder if she would be willing to explain her reasoning more.
Which would no doubt raise a bigger storm!
a story which seems to be slipping by largely unnoticed is the BNP asking for Muslims to apologise for the heroin trade thus smearing an entire community.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=528953&in_page_id=1770&ito
Hence you can see why vocal right wingers need to be kept under control.
It is interesting how vocal the right wing has become with their nasty finger pointing. What is sad is the quiet acceptance of this.
I wonder if HP, Liberal Conspiricy etc. will speak out against this. Too much to hope for I guess. Nice to see Melanie is also quiet on this subject!
What do you mean?
Read the article I linked to. The BNP is blaming Muslims for the drugs trade and wants them to apologise.
Surely an unfair smear - non!
It will backfire on their faces. It is a dirty smear and needs to be dealt with, no doubt.
I got confused because I don’t consider the BNP as ‘vocal right wingers’, as much as I don’t consider progressive liberals as communists. Extremists are in a league of their own.
And Avi, this may sound naive, but I don’t think the BNP is any threat to multiculturism and race relations in this country, because every action they take - like the one you pointed out - makes them and people who think like them as completely retarded.
The biggest problem right now are radical groups who seem to breed and multiply in communities who are completely alienated from mainstream. I understand that some people here tend to calibrate their moral compasses by looking at where the Sun/tabloid newspapers/right-wing blogs point to, and fiercely defend the reverse… but this hardly helps our vision of living in harmony, where religion, race and ethnicity is not an issue.
Ravi - agreed but in order to counter such a move, then it cannot be by making everything a minority believes in to be alien to Britishness.
To achieve inclusion means that people cannot be treated as alien. It is a two way street.
Avi, but doesn’t the fact that there are gazillion of different ethnic-religious groups living in this country
without any problems (you wouldn’t know that by reading the tabloids) demonstrate the the few who do not… are in fault?
I mean, when MCB vehemently protests the government decision to deny the visa to someone who has called for suicide bombing civilians and the execution of homosexuals, doesn’t this show how alienated some groups are from mainstream?
The BNP’s tactics are really what one would expect- I expect that India will be told to apologise for the heavy winds in the South recently, being the fault of all those Hindu vegetarian extremists passing wind excessively and deliberately directing the environmental impact on to the South coast of Britain.
I am sure to be regarded as naive with the following- having been brought up here my whole life, there has been a gradual, but palpable positive change in British outlook towards non-Caucasians who call this home. Sure, there is xenophobia, but things are changing gradually. I don’t think revolutions are particularly useful and do think constant, quiet everyday action is the way forward. So, let the BNP continue to be comical in their corner- no need to give any validity to their view by being the ‘offended minority’. The parents of that poor girl were much more able to counter the BNP than anything you or I could have said.
Ravi - it is this thinking that they must be at fault which is causing some of the problems. Integration is a two way street and people have to feel part of society. Just because the focus is on Muslims and not you then don’t feel integrated as some of the values of Asians are accepted.
In order to achieve integration needs dialogue, mutual understanding and outreach.
The problem with your argument is that it isn’t the few who are being treated as at fault but the entire community.
The way to win hearts and minds is to listen to the communities. To integrate means to be heard and understood.
So you said. But my point is that if the majority of ethno-religious groups (some of which are Muslim) are able to integrate, then it means that there is little evidence that one side (mainstream) is resistant to integration. After all, this is a very tolerant country and committed to multiculturism.
So I ask you. What are the reasons why a few ethno-religious groups are completely alienated? Which seem to be spoiling it for the rest of us?
Ravi _ I don’t have all the answers but surely it is better to try and engage than just sit back and let things get worse.
People can become alientated because they feel they don’t have a voice or their opinion isnb’t being heard.
How often do Govt ministers actually talk to grassroots organisations? Rarely - they simply lecture at events they choose.
So people who feel they are not being heard then start becomming alienated.
Yes the country is very tolerant and yes they are committed to multiculturalism. But at the end of the day Blair and his cronies didn’t do anything to help the situation - how can a bunch of politicians never say they are wrong but everyone else is.
It is a complex situation and trying to blame people or communties isn’t the answer. Blame is with the politicians who used Muslims as whipping horses for their own nasty agendas in the Middle East and left the scene with many broken promises.
Blair is still playing this game with his many jobs all of which are less than successful. Peace envoy my arse - he has achieved nothing.
So much for integration being a two-way street, uh?
Surely you can’t keep parroting that line, and say that communities who are alienated are free of blame.
Ravi - It is a two way street. But politicians are accepting a role of leadership and thus need to lead. How many cabinet ministers have visited those communities? How many have tried to engage and bring them into the political process?
They have simply used them as a vehicle for promoting the idea they are different.
The communities are to blame - I have said many times that Muslims need to reach out more. But the overriding responsibility is for government not to engage in the kind of rheotic it has.
Are the comments of Woolas, Straw, Blears etc. any better than those of the MCB? I think not and in many cases they are worse.
You simply want to blame the communities which makes it easier for people to feel better about themselves. But these communities have been deprived for years of essential funding and people willing to listen. So is it any suprise they are alienated when noone speaks to them but rather speraks at them. Crucial difference.
Tell me how many events have Cabinet Ministers attended at the grassroots level for minorities? When going to war did Blair bother to engage with the grassroots Muslim community? No.
George Bush at least tried. Blair and his ministers didn’t bother. Did Straw try to have a debate with Muslim women over the veil? No he went to some controlled interfaith bash where he wasn’t likely to be challanged upon his perception. Woolas was quite nasty to a lady who tried to debate with him his governments policy. Blears told Muslims they should get used to stop and search in a rather arrogant way.
Ian Blair refused to and refuses to still discuss the Forest Gate raid and alos who in his force is leaking information about Muslims to the Murdoch Press. as Commissioner of the Met wouldn’t this worry you?
There is a long list here and I suggest you try seeing how many Govt Ministers try to positively engage with a community they say is alienated.
So tell me who are the Muslims at grassroots supposed to engage with and talk to? Woolas, Straw, Blair, Blears, whom?? Most won’t talk to them.
Why is it that the US Embassy is making such efforts and the leadership of this country isn’t? Strange eh?
The person who runs this blog is the odious one.
For your information, Moshe Feiglin has already stood trial for his words in Israel. And he could have avoided the show by accepting the offer to become a Member of Knesset. But he chose to back up his words.
He also is AGAINST a theocracy. That is why the religious parties actually oppose him. He wants the country run on Jewish VALUES, not Jewish LAW.
If you don’t understand the difference, ask. Don’t condemn the man because of your ignorance.
99% of the time he condemns the Israeli government for following policies which he feels (as most Jews worldwide feel now) that are bringing about the destruction of Israel.
1% of the time he mentions Muslims. To Moshe, the problem is the Israelis, not the Muslims.
If you don’t get it, do some reading.
He respects the Muslims. He wants them to leave Israel alone, and he wonders why the world thinks that by slicing Israel in 1/2 (again) that peace will suddenly break out all over the world.
Is this a crazy concept? The Muslim world has 59 countries, and well over 1000 times more land than Israel, but it is Israel that must cede more land in order to make peace. This is a STUPID concept.
But, hey, wasn’t it jolly old England that willingly took upon itself the legal obligation to settle Jews throughout it’s mandate of “Palestine”? Wasn’t it England that ILLEGALLY cut off 77% of the land immediately and gave it to the Hashemite CLAN and called it TransJordan? And of course, they ILLEGALLY said Jews could NOT live there.
Then wasn’t it England which slammed shut the gates of what was left of the Mandate area to Jews, and left the Jews at the mercy of Hitler.
Since we know what type of mercy Hitler had, I say that this makes England an accessory to the Genocide of the 6 million Jews murdered during WWII.
The way I look at it, the English don’t like any Jew that actually wants to SURVIVE with his head held high.
And that’s why you can’t stand Moshe Feiglin. Because he’s telling you that what’s ours is ours, and that’s it.
And that’s how it’s going to stay.
And by the way, it appears that it won’t be much of a problem for you, but England will certainly be a theocracy (under sharia law) in the not too distant future.
I’m sure you’ll find your way to New York then, won’t you?
feiglin is a total and utter scumbag and, as a religious jew and a religious (albeit peculiarly by the usual standards) zionist i think his presence here is not conducive to the public good, for all sorts of personal reasons, not least his ability to raise money for things i 1000% disagree with.
i think the UK is entitled to define “not conducive to the public good” any dam’ way it wants. same as the pub can decide it doesn’t want you to wear trainers, a hoodie or sport visible tattoos. the UK is also entitled to use its policy and interpret it any dam’ way it wants. it may choose if it wishes, to send diplomatic messages by refusing entry to this or that person - for example disapproval of the policies of a foreign government or appeasement of a local pressure group. both are equally valid and the aforementioned local pressure groups are free to lobby the government about it.
however, if you are expecting a consistent and clear policy based on principle to be applied without fear and favour across the board, then i have to say you’re going to be waiting a long time. diplomacy simply doesn’t work like that - this is ideological cloud-cuckoo land. thus, it is consistent with UK policy on the illegal settlement of the west bank to refuse entry to the feiglin excresence and it is consistent with UK policy on the right of sovereign self-defence to allow IDF generals to enter - or to refuse it on the grounds of specific disapproval, or apply it selectively or whatever, or allow firebrands like al-qaradawi to enter provided they don’t make any speeches, or to ban the likes of farrakhan altogether. it’s up to the home secretary and if you don’t like it, lobby her. however, remember she will be making decisions on the basis of political expediency, not your high-minded principles.
b’shalom
bananabrain