Great Britain recently published a list of 16 (and growing, slightly) people that they have banned from entering their country. Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith, stated that she thinks "it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here [in Britain]...Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country."
Really? You think it's okay to just ban someone from your country because you as the government don't agree with the things they say? Is that how you do it? And what are these rules that you live by? Stifling freedom of speech? Excluding whole avenues of thought? That sounds kind of extremist to me.
And wouldn't this also mean you should be rounding up citizens now living in Great Britain and kicking them out of the country? You think there aren't racist, skin-heads living and hating in England? You think there aren't religious nuts or Muslim extremists living amongst your population?
I understand that half of the guys on this list are murderers and terrorists, but the other half are Americans that are extreme in one way or another (except for left wing extremists, they're okay). And believe me, I don't agree with most of the people on this list, mostly because I'm not a religious nut or a member of the KKK, but I still think they have the right to voice their opinions in my country. We entertain foreign dictators and other undesirable people in the US all the time. I don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to come over here and be allowed to buy a coffee at Starbucks and catch the latest cheesy action flick. I would be outraged if the US came out with a list that excluded people from legally entering the country. As so many left-wing commentators like to say, we're better than that.
That said, Britain can do whatever they want, but why stop at sixteen, or twenty-two, or 2000; there are millions of people that think way these people think, and are just as vocal about their causes. I didn't see Osama bin Laden's name on the list, or Sean Hannity, or Fidel Castro. Come on, now. They couldn't come up with a better, more comprehensive list than these sixteen names?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
The United States needs to start a list just like this one, and you know who should be the first name on it? President Barack HUSSEIN Obama. He BOWED to the Saudi king! Did you see that? He BOWED to the Saudi king.
Oh, and New Zealanders. Except for the two guys from Flight Of The Conchords. I kind of like them.
I know; tell me about it. Saudi princes don't even bow to the Saudi king. WTF.
Hussein in the membrane/Hussein in the brain!
Doesn't the US have a similar list though? I thought Boy George, M.I.A., and Cat Stevens were denied entry at some point.
You have a theme going there with the musical artists. Other than the Boy George thing (which was kind of weird), they had to do with possible connections to terrorist groups. I'd guess that the FBI gave them the choice of being interrogated for the next three days or going back to the place they came from. And we all know how gentle the FBI is when interrogating terrorist.
I'm sure the US has a bunch of watch lists that contain the names of major and minor criminals. If these singers were considered major criminals they probably would have just been arrested. But as possible, minor criminals, I don't see the point in denying them entry as long as they have the right paperwork.
Hey hey hey, it's no good closing the barn door after the just-saying-things-which-are-offensive horse has bolted! Any reasonable person can see that having people say bad things in your country makes your country bad. It's like cooties.
It's true that there is no such right as free speech in the UK. The minister is charge of this embarrassment is a very typical New Labour MP, who made this announcement on a morning magazine-style TV program. She has obviously chosen a list to tick as many boxes as possible, while giving a good soundbite.
Even if Savage is successful in his defamation lawsuit in the UK, it's not clear that he would then be allowed to enter the country. If I were him I'd be buying a ticket to the UK right away.
It's just an odd kind of thing to come out with, this list. Dr. Savage will probably win because he doesn't like to let go of these sorts of things, and the fact that this Home Secretary woman came up with the list all on her own only makes it worse. It's not even like the entire English government approved it.
Heh, I just realized it was Michael Savage on the list, not Dan Savage as I originally thought. I'd been thinking up to that point "Wow, England must really not like self-professed gays who write sex advice columns."
At least it wasn't Fred Savage, the greatest actor of all time.
Yeah, as you can see from the comments below the article (and from Peter's statement above), even the British feel this "list" is a little bit out there. That said, there is not absolute freedom of speech in America. For example, you cannot yell "Fire!" in crowded theater if there isn't one.
Post a Comment