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

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?

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?

“It is a complex situation and trying to blame people or communties isn’t the answer. Blame is with the politicians”

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.

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.

Ravi – it is this thinking that they must be at fault which is causing some of the problems. Integration is a two way street

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?

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.

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.

“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?

To achieve inclusion means that people cannot be treated as alien. It is a two way street.

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.

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.

Surely an unfair smear – non!

“Hence you can see why vocal right wingers need to be kept under control.

What do you mean?

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!

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yep..absolutely..

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.