Wednesday, May 06, 2009

The UK’s ‘banned list’ and pre-emptive retribution

The Government has released the names of some of the people who have been barred from entering the UK over the past five months for such offenses as fostering extremism or fomenting hatred. They include a number of ‘Islamic extremists’, a few ‘white supremacists’, a ‘homophobic church’ and a ‘US radio host’.

Cranmer is not sure why only 16 were named out of the 22 who were excluded between October ‘08 – March ’09. It is reported that ‘the public interest was against naming’ the remaining six. Perhaps it is a little recompense to the democratically-elected Dutch MP Geert Wilders whose democratic credentials have been thoroughly and unjustly trashed by being refused entry to the UK along with those who have indeed incited violence and murder.

But Cranmer is more than a little irritated that the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith said that ‘coming to the UK should be a privilege’.

It is rather a pity that it has ceased to be so. EU ‘nationals’ are at liberty to come to the UK to abuse social provision with impunity. Coming to the UK is no longer a privilege; it is a manifest right for millions of people who owe absolutely nothing to Britain and are obliged to respect nothing of her history, culture or traditions.

Some people on this list have broken no law. Of course, freedom of speech has limits: incitement being a very obvious one. But when Ms Smith talks of the law-abiding among these people who have ‘clearly overstepped the mark’, it becomes clear that the interpretation and application of statute law is no longer the boundary by which guilt is determined. There is a ‘mark’ which may be ‘overstepped’ before one has actually broken the law.

The Home Secretary explains that she will not allow people into the UK ‘who are going to propagate the sort of views... that fundamentally go against our values’. The ban, she insists, ‘enables people to see the sorts of unacceptable behaviour we are not willing to have in this country’.

But the problem is that it does nothing of the sort. It is impossible to discern any coherent set of ‘values’ from the Labour’s banned list, other than those with which the Home Secretary herself happens to disagree. People are now excluded not because of what they have done but because of what they may do. It is now an offence to be ‘likely to stir up tension’.

There is no doubt that some on this list are among the most odious and repugnant of humanity, yet being odious and repugnant is not a crime. Those from the Westboro Baptist Church may exist beyond the fringe of social acceptability, but there are those who might assert that homosexuals do the same. This is not (before Cranmer is besieged by abusive emails) a plea for their admission – for theirs is not a cause of love but a controversy of self-righteousness. But the Government line does not run straight.

Individuals are usually barred from entering the UK because his or her presence ‘is not conducive to the public good’. The Government supports freedom of expression, ‘but believes it needs to be exercised responsibly’. They will therefore ‘continue to oppose extremism in all its forms’.

But to oppose extremism in all its forms must (as Cranmer has said before) prevent the Pope from entering the UK. What are ‘our values’ when even Tony Blair refers to the orthodox Christian beliefs as ‘extremist’?

Pope Benedict is certain to be welcomed to the UK on the occasion of the beatification of Cardinal Newman. Yet he was judged to have tarnished his office with a distinct whiff of anti-Semitism when he reinstated a prayer calling for the conversion of Jews; this was reinforced when he lifted the excommunication on the Holocaust-denying priest Richard Williamson; and then there was the ‘Islamophobia’ of his Regensburg address in 2006, when he quoted a Byzantine emperor who described Islam as ‘evil and inhuman’; And he has said that homosexuality is a ‘strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder’; he refers to heterosexual marriage as ‘correct living’, and repudiates ‘a legal form of a kind of homosexual marriage’; he asserts that abortion is a grave sin; he stokes ‘xenophobia’ when he states that European multiculturalism is ‘fleeing from what is one's own’; and he opposes gender equality in the workplace.

How can such a man whose preaching and beliefs are so antithetical to ‘our values’ be permitted to set foot in New Labour’s New Britain?

One might hope that Parliament would one day admit a few philosopher-rulers, for the politicians have entered the realm of defending liberalism by illiberal means. The moment the Home Secretary espoused the line that the UK’s liberal democracy should be defended by banning all the hate-filled, nasty, illiberal foreigners, she actually found herself in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with Geert Wilders, though doubtless quite unable to see it.


Anonymous Ben said...

It would appear that the filter is applied to people wishing to visit the UK, not those intending to stay...

6 May 2009 at 08:11  
Blogger Laurence England said...

Did you notice that Dr Philip Nitschke, meanwhile, it at liberty to come here for 7 days, even though his stated objection is to 'help' as many people die as possible.

6 May 2009 at 08:34  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

I draw your attention to the inclusion on the list of Mike Savage whose views are readily available on You Tube so that we may conveniently see from what it is, that the Home Secretary seeks to "protect" us.

As far as I can see Mr Savage expresses himself in trenchant terms. He does. for example, when discussing Islamic Fundamentalism link readers who choose to follow them to the videos of beheadings so that we can see exactly what is done by those he castigates. It is strong polemic but nothing worse than convicting his opponents by their own actions.

Similalry he plainly does not approve of same sex marriage or abortion and challenges those who do. Is this now unsayable in the U.K.?

I think he is being excluded for two reasons.

He does trenchantly link up the various interest groups that comprise the modern radical movement and calls on all who oppose them to wake up to what is being done to Society by the incremental advancement of that clear "progressive agenda".

He also serves as a convenience because if Ms Smith includes one or two conservative figures on the list she hopes to demonstrate to the Islamic sector of the New Labour constituency that she is being in some way "even handed".

This is a watershed issue for anyone who holds to the traditional Enlightenment value that " I disagree profoundly with what you say but will fight to the death for your right to say it".

Voltaire may have been french but his principle has become a bedrock of the Anglo- sphere view of free speach - until the 60's radical views of Sal Alinski and Gramski infected the body politic.

If Mike Savage is banned for "hate speech" then can we admit Michael Moore who plainly made much money "hating" George W Bush and the NRA?

6 May 2009 at 08:35  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Before Smith starts preventing foreign hatemongers setting foot on British soil maybe she should start ousting a few proven foreign hatemongers already poisoning British soil?

Or is that too much to ask?

6 May 2009 at 08:41  
Blogger Demetrius said...

It was always going to turn out nasty when the Romans started recruiting all those German and Balkan Auxiliaries. Now it is going to get even rougher. Our problem is that the local Poles do not like the idea of all those Gurkha families coming to stay.

6 May 2009 at 10:05  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Why is it that hatred is considered the most heinous vice? What if people come here to stir up greed, or anger, or lust ... or most deadly of all, apathy? That would have excluded most of the G20 leaders who arrived last month.

Just why are crimes motivated by hate more villainous than those motivated by lust, greed, envy etc?

6 May 2009 at 10:08  
Anonymous the recusant said...

This Home Secretary as bad as she is, at least has the excuse of being a dyed in the wool socialist. What improvements can we expect from Cameron’s choice to replace her, the odious Alan Duncan. In what way will an openly militant homosexual man who, on television has expressed a desire to kill young women because of their Christian beliefs, be any improvement on this Emily's List supporting feminist.

You may skit at the possibility of Labour banning the Pope; Duncan will carry it through if anyone will.

6 May 2009 at 10:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

You have hit the nail on the head: ‘But to oppose extremism in all its forms must (as Cranmer has said before) prevent the Pope from entering the UK. What are ‘our values’ when even Tony Blair refers to the orthodox Christian beliefs as ‘extremist’?’

There are in fact two lists of people that New Labour classify as undesirable. They are headed Internal Undesirables and External Undesirables.

Some of the names on the External List have been published on the BBC’s website. Although I am surprised that Rocco Buttiligione is missing. You may remember that this was the brave Italian politician who applied to become an EU commssioner. He was rejected for expressing orthodox Christian views.

The names on the Internal List are headed by Mr Harry Hammond an elderly Christian, violently assualted by thugs in Bournemouth town centre for preaching. He was then arrested, convicted under the Public Order Act 1986. He died shortly after. New names are being added daily to this list and the victims are being brought before tribunals for daring to wear the Cross of Christ; refusing to preside over Civil Partnerships; daring to express Christian views on marriage on the radio, refusing to preside over adoption cases which are clearly against God’s will, daring to utter orthodox Christian views on sexuality – and the list goes on. Each, fresh, new, victim caught in the socialist state machine whets its appetite for more.

We complain to our priests – who in turn shrug their shoulders and are heard to say, ‘You are not in a position to speak out…’ the implication being that the fear of losing our jobs and homes should silence us.

We are viewed as sheep – only fit for shearing - when we were meant to be God’s young British lions. What has become of us? Why is there so much fear in Chistain hearts? Are we not ashamed? Have we not become a nation of cowards? For Shame is the cloak that we wear and fear is the badge of our paralysis.

And yet there is still a remnant left in this nation who have securely sealed the Word of God in their hearts; every evening they are upon their knees offerring prayers like sweet-smelling incense and drenching their pillows in tears.

6 May 2009 at 10:50  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 May 2009 at 10:51  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 May 2009 at 11:11  
Blogger McKenzie said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 May 2009 at 11:18  
Blogger Bryan said...

It is rapidly becoming more of an honor to be banned from Brittan, than a privilege to visit.

Though I would prefer that some sense of common decency would return to the Government; I must say that I would be deeply honored to be banned for my "extremist" orthodox Christian beliefs.

Not that things are better in the US, mind you. Here, orthodox Christians, along with military veterans, are labeled Domestic Terrorists by our own Department of Homeland Security.

6 May 2009 at 11:20  
Anonymous Right Disgoosted said...

It occurs to me that one of the most alarming aspects of this 'government's' behaviour is their absolute disregard of the British public. It's as if there never will be another election; or as if this 'government' believe they will win it should there be one. There must be some precedent for getting rid of them.

At this point they don't even care about negative response from countries traditionally allied to us! The US headlines I've seen on this story are quite contemptuous. Good, I say. at least they've seen fit to respond to something that's going on 'across the pond'!!!

6 May 2009 at 12:11  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

The only reason the Pope will not be refused entry to Britain is because there are millions of Roman Catholics in this country who vote Labour.

They might be just a teeny bit put out - some to the extent that they might change the habit of a voting lifetime and withdraw their support from the Government.

6 May 2009 at 12:48  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Who knows, Your Grace? There may be a plot to arrest the Holy Father when he steps onto British soil.

In fact those of the liberal left whose accuse him of crimes against humanity (millions of deaths in Africa blah blah blah)are honour bound to try, if they have the courage of their convictions.

Or are they as we all suspect, nothing but a bunch of pompous windbags puffed up with their own importance.

6 May 2009 at 13:41  
Blogger Rt. Hon. E.B. said...

If Labour can put these people on a list banning them from the UK (even though many haven't actually broken any law) and then tried to have the Gurkha 'men of honour' deported perhaps we can put such delightful figures and institutions like the EU, Bono and Al Gore on this list

While deporting Gordy, Lord Mandy, Ms. Jackboot and Ms. Harperson for being enemies of the state.

All in the name of the 'Tolerant' Nu-Labour social engineering project of course :p

6 May 2009 at 13:57  
Blogger Dr.D said...

"The ban, she insists, ‘enables people to see the sorts of unacceptable behaviour we are not willing to have in this country’."

I think she is absolutely correct here. Look around you. Look at the wide spread evidence of radical izlam, considered fully acceptable. izlam is catered to at every opportunity to the great disadvantage of indigenous Brits. Look at every effort to support traditional British history, morality, society being scorned and suppressed because of Political Correctness that stands logic completely on its head. Everyone who speaks objective truth is shouted down; those who speak utter nonsense are praised. Those are the people who are accepted and acceptable in modern Britain.

Yes, she is quite correct about the kind of people who are welcome in modern Britain. It is just not the kind that have been welcome in the past, because Britain has changed greatly.

6 May 2009 at 17:02  
Blogger St Bruno said...

Just a little quote from British history. I can’t remember who said that history repeats itself but, I suppose, if you looked hard enough, evidence for any theory could be found.

Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world,
the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to
all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their
merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron
teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation,
and only their name remaining; that many countries,
which were once as the garden of God,
are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many
once numerous and powerful nations are vanished
from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury,
the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind.

John Wesley (1703-1791)
The Doctrine of Original Sin, Works (1841), ix. 205.

6 May 2009 at 18:36  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

St. Brino,

After that disclosure no doubt John Wesley's name will be added to Ms. Smith's list, for saying rude things about you know who.

He won't be allowed into Ireland either, after their new blasphemy law comes into force.

Lucky for him he doesn't do so much travelling these days as he used to.

6 May 2009 at 19:11  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

St. Bruno,

Sorry I spelt your name wrong. No offence meant.

6 May 2009 at 19:12  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I wonder if previous voices against national socialism will ne quietly edited out and removed from libraries !!

you never know ID cards thought crime , noy upholding the christian faith

6 May 2009 at 20:13  
Blogger ZZMike said...

St Bruno: Good quote. No doubt, Mr Wesley's books will be burned this evening in the public square. Too bad we didn't know about this earlier - we could have had the burning on May Day.

More than a few writers around that time saw the menace for what it is. Montiesquieu, for one, ca 1750:

That a moderate Government is most agreeable to the Christian Religion, and a despotic Government to the Mahometan.

THE Christian religion is a stranger to mere despotic power. The mildness so frequently recommended in the gospel, is incompatible with the despotic rage with which a prince punishes his subjects, and exercises himself in cruelty.
-- Spirit of the Laws, Book XXIV, Chapter III

It is a misfortune to human nature, when religion is given by a conqueror. The Mahometan religion, which speaks only by the sword, acts still upon men with that destructive spirit with which it was founded.
-- Spirit of the Laws, Book XXIV, Chapter IV

(Those Chapters are quite short. The copyright having expired some years ago, it may be found online.)

6 May 2009 at 20:24  
Anonymous not a mouse said...

Such a silly ban, anyway: empty words as usual.

This government has proved itself incapable of controlling illegal immigration - anybody can get into Britain if they want to, and they can stay - with or without the help of the euSSR. Seems to me the only really unwelcome ones are those who uphold Christianity and traditional values.

6 May 2009 at 21:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Smith is covering her backside over the banning of Mr Wilders. 'Look see how he is not an isolated case, we've banned all these other nasties too'.

The Fatherland is grateful for your vigilance Smiffy.

There is an Old Testament promise I look forward to ' longer will the churl be called liberal'


7 May 2009 at 00:50  
Blogger ZZMike said...

I've just now read the list.

"Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour ..."

By Merlin's Beard! We simply cannot have "unacceptable behaviour" in Merry Old England!

I look forward when legions of football fans are deported across the Channel.

7 May 2009 at 01:44  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7 May 2009 at 03:42  
Anonymous len said...

As George Orwell said" If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear"

7 May 2009 at 18:34  
Anonymous no nonny said...

The other thing about this is how it applies the froggie-euro system: Guilty Until Proved Innocent. Thereby, the Burden of Proof lies on the Accused, instead of the Accuser.

Horrible. The perfect instrument of Oppression - isn't it? In prosaic terms: we have to spend all day proving we had a shower this morning, just because our enemies say we smell as if we didn't. No time to get a good job done.

And maybe that's one reason why there's so much slander about, unhder this regime: they presume that system is right. Pragmatism is now 'clever' - and the end justifies the means.

7 May 2009 at 22:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Here's my opinion...ehem..
Islam is the most backwardly-mobile revolution circulating the flat expanses of Allah's Earth.
If it continues to expand at this rate (Islam) then the outcome will be one of these 2.

1:The world will be converted to Islam.

2:Evolution will override the simplistic teachings of the Koran.

Unfortunately bloodshed will play it's part along the line...

8 May 2009 at 02:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older