|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 6, 2009 21:06:50 GMT -5
1) Of course the British government can ban whoever it wants. That doesn't mean the justification is any good, though. Duly noted. This is a preventative measure, not punishment or blame. "We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control." Yeah, no. |
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on May 6, 2009 21:15:24 GMT -5
"We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control."
Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's in the Phelps M.O. to provoke as much as possible. The WBC exists solely to drive the same nasty, bigoted shite home again, and again, and again. As much as someone attacking them is wrong, if they stand around provoking it deliberately, they're hardly blameless.
And, whilst maybe a side issue, Phelps et al don't actually have some innate right to visit any country, for any reason.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 6, 2009 21:31:39 GMT -5
"We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control." Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's in the Phelps M.O. to provoke as much as possible. The WBC exists solely to drive the same nasty, bigoted shite home again, and again, and again. As much as someone attacking them is wrong, if they stand around provoking it deliberately, they're hardly blameless. And, whilst maybe a side issue, Phelps et al don't actually have some innate right to visit any country, for any reason. It strikes me as hypocritical for any country that claims to support certain rights, on principle, to then deny temporary entry to foreigners who merely want to protest. It's the Phelps' money; let 'em waste it. And what's more, you're right: Phelps and his people are attention whores of a kind rarely seen in real life. When they're ignored by passers-by, they tend to pack up their little circus and go home pouting. They're elated when people confront them. The best way to deal with them is to suck it up and ignore their bullshit. |
|
|
|
Post by doomie 22 on May 6, 2009 21:42:41 GMT -5
"We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control." Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's in the Phelps M.O. to provoke as much as possible. The WBC exists solely to drive the same nasty, bigoted shite home again, and again, and again. As much as someone attacking them is wrong, if they stand around provoking it deliberately, they're hardly blameless. And, whilst maybe a side issue, Phelps et al don't actually have some innate right to visit any country, for any reason. It strikes me as hypocritical for any country that claims to support certain rights, on principle, to then deny temporary entry to foreigners who merely want to protest. It's the Phelps' money; let 'em waste it. And what's more, you're right: Phelps and his people are attention whores of a kind rarely seen in real life. When they're ignored by passers-by, they tend to pack up their little circus and go home pouting. They're elated when people confront them. The best way to deal with them is to suck it up and ignore their bullshit. Which is exactly why the British government was wrong to ban them from their country. The fifteen minutes of fame the Phelps are sucking out of the controversy caused by the decision is fifteen minutes more than they deserve. I've always believed that the best argument against fundy religion is the words of the fundies themselves (the existence of FSTDT is compelling evidence); letting the Phelps carry out their theatrics unheeded makes them look like the raving lunatics that they are. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 6, 2009 21:43:01 GMT -5
And what's more, you're right: Phelps and his people are attention whores of a kind rarely seen in real life. When they're ignored by passers-by, they tend to pack up their little circus and go home pouting. They're elated when people confront them. The best way to deal with them is to suck it up and ignore their bullshit. Which is kind of difficult for grieving friends and family at a funeral. Or anyone attempting to access whatever they happen to be trying to block access to. Or anyone with an ounce of human decency within earshot. I have no doubt that were I to encounter Fred Phelps in person, I would hurt him. Severely. And I would not feel an ounce of guilt for such an act. The man deserves far worse than even my twisted mind can manage to come up with. |
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on May 6, 2009 21:45:45 GMT -5
"It strikes me as hypocritical for any country that claims to support certain rights, on principle, to then deny temporary entry to foreigners who merely want to protest."
I'm distinctly inclined to agree with you there. It is hypocrisy of a kind, yes, but it's also kind of a government's job. Protecting it's citizens. Looking at the list, it's mostly the terrorist sympathiser types, bans which are fairly uncontroversial. Phelps and Savage are a mite different. True, they are unlikely to directly foment terrorist acts per se, but they're also a pair of shite-goblins, whose finest hours have generally revolved around sticking a verbal boot into whichever group was weak enough to take it, and marginalised enough that they could almost get away with it. Then there's the added complication of the simple-minded knuckle dragging cockwipe who likes the sound of these chaps and decides that perhaps Jebus has decided that well turned out fella down the street could do with a right good fucking kicking (cf: Paediatrician/Paedophile and the glorious Sun newspaper, and the BNPs apparent move toward religious/Christian iconography). Lastly, of course, one could argue that by taking this action, GB government saves the listed the bother of being prosecuted for being a bunch of shit-tongued arsepipes once they decide to release their verbal slurry upon the Great British Public (tm). In a way, one could argue that by this action, Britain is actually protecting these wankers from themselves.
In all honesty, though, if you can find me a single country with a functional Goverment that will let absolutely anyone in, at any time, to say anything, I will give you my piano, one of my legs, and my wife. It's hypocrisy after a fashion, yes, but it's also a fairly sensible approach.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nutcase on May 6, 2009 22:00:09 GMT -5
Which is kind of difficult for grieving friends and family at a funeral. Or anyone attempting to access whatever they happen to be trying to block access to. Or anyone with an ounce of human decency within earshot. For my own part, if a relative died, I wouldn't give a rat's ass about a small band of protesters across the street. Let them rant. They'll be there 15 minutes, then leave out of shear boredom. No one would talk to them or even scowl in their direction. There'd be other business at hand right then, far more important than gratifying those people. Well, that's rather unfortunate. If you sow the wind, you'll reap the whirlwind. |
|
|
|
Post by Yaezakura on May 6, 2009 22:44:51 GMT -5
Well, that's rather unfortunate. If you sow the wind, you'll reap the whirlwind. One could make a rather solid argument that in this case, I'd be the whirlwind.  |
|
|
|
Post by szaleniec on May 7, 2009 1:20:44 GMT -5
I was familiar with that one - wondering if this was going to inspire a dedicated God Hates The UK site. |
|
|
|
Post by wmdkitty on May 7, 2009 2:42:03 GMT -5
"We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control." Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's in the Phelps M.O. to provoke as much as possible. The WBC exists solely to drive the same nasty, bigoted shite home again, and again, and again. As much as someone attacking them is wrong, if they stand around provoking it deliberately, they're hardly blameless. And, whilst maybe a side issue, Phelps et al don't actually have some innate right to visit any country, for any reason. IOW, Phelps is an IRL troll. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on May 7, 2009 2:50:45 GMT -5
Yeah, let's blame the victims for trying to protect people they love from the sheer verbal venom that is Fred Phelp's voice.
I support Britain's banning of the Phelps clan.
|
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 7, 2009 6:13:52 GMT -5
I think he's gone far beyond inappropriate when he and his group hit funerals and cause more grief and cause anger and rage in people there. He's ruining what is supposed to be an already tragic moment and making it worse/ Those common decency standards I mentioned would not have been sufficient to stop him from protesting near - not at; his peeps are outside on a public thoroughfare - a variety of funerals. With the exception of Kansas, where Phelps lives, the states where he picketed were slow to make laws against funeral protests. One could almost say they were...um...dragging their feet. It was only when Phelps expanded his picketing activities from the funerals of gays and AIDS victims to those of service members (and eventually disaster and murder victims) that various law-makers finally started, y'know, making laws. In fact - and here's a fun Phelps story for ya - Ol' Fred was on speaking terms with both Al Gore and Bill Clinton, and he had won several awards for his work in civil rights litigation, and...AND...he was belting out sermons on teh ebil gays, all at the same time, in the late 1980s. So apparently, his anti-gay rhetoric, even at funerals, had also been acceptable enough for the vast majority of people to ignore - until he set his sights on "normal folks" and even "heroes." Did the basic definition of decency change that fast, or are the standards you advocate merely applied hypocritically by law-makers and the public at large? I believe those standards were always there. BUT, there was no national spotlight for him, no one heard of him prior to this. I'm fairly certain any funeral he protested was upsetting people more, but there was not a mass knowledge of it, just a small group here and there that was pissed off. I hope you really don't think people 'accepted' that bullshit, aside from what few people loved him. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 7, 2009 6:16:42 GMT -5
Oh there is no doubt that law-makers can be hypocritical and that the majority of people may not be interested in something until it directly affects them. That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that it isn't worth pursuing because the majority of people behave in stupid and hypocritical ways, right? Maybe, except that such people can no longer rightly appeal to community (or common) decency standards as their guide for what is acceptable and what isn't. According to their own standard - or at least according to what they were willing to tolerate - funeral picketing was okay for nearly a decade. Then it wasn't, not because those people suddenly felt the hot burn of conscience for having allowed and perhaps even condoned picketing at the funerals of gays and AIDS victims, but because Phelps and his crew began picking on people who mattered. As proof, I offer the Patriot Guard Riders. There's nothing wrong with what they do, but I have to wonder why, with all their rhetoric about allowing people to grieve in peace, they only offer their services at military funerals.Some families are entitled to 'protection,' but others - the families of gays and people who died of AIDS, for example - are still pretty much on their own. In other words, this vaunted standard...isn't. And the very second we - and by 'we', I mean anyone who professes to love freedom - allow the goal-posts to be moved based solely on the popularity of certain speakers (or their targets), and yet still call this protean thing a standard, we endanger all speech. We make all speech to conform with majority whim. As I heard, all the PG riders are former soldiers, so yeah, that might be a reason why they only do it at soldier funerals |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on May 7, 2009 6:20:33 GMT -5
"We'll prevent you from speaking on our soil because someone else may be so offended by your words as to attack you - but that's not at all like blaming you for others' lack of self-control." Not to put to fine a point on it, but it's in the Phelps M.O. to provoke as much as possible. The WBC exists solely to drive the same nasty, bigoted shite home again, and again, and again. As much as someone attacking them is wrong, if they stand around provoking it deliberately, they're hardly blameless. And, whilst maybe a side issue, Phelps et al don't actually have some innate right to visit any country, for any reason. It strikes me as hypocritical for any country that claims to support certain rights, on principle, to then deny temporary entry to foreigners who merely want to protest. It's the Phelps' money; let 'em waste it. And what's more, you're right: Phelps and his people are attention whores of a kind rarely seen in real life. When they're ignored by passers-by, they tend to pack up their little circus and go home pouting. They're elated when people confront them. The best way to deal with them is to suck it up and ignore their bullshit. So GB's try at preventing violence there by banning Phelps and his butsechs fearing klan is bullshit? Would you also agree deporting foreigners that cause trouble and banning them is wrong? Or is it just because GB won't stand back and wait for the 'kid to put his hand in the blender' before stopping it? |
|
|
|
Post by dudely on May 7, 2009 8:19:44 GMT -5
There's free speech and then there's being a dick.
You can oppose gay marriage and even just gays in general without inciting hatred. Canada has free speech but up here, if you're intentionally hateful, you can be arrested. All those posters they carry around saying "God hates fags"? Yeah they can't do that up here. They've protested, but we make them tone the hell down.
|
|
