Last I checked the ACLU has no power to interpret law.

It don’t make a damn difference how they may want to re-write it, They are neither of the three branches.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa, you quote today’s population ratios for future demographics. Do you have the inability to foresee what can change in the future years with current trends?

Your young population explosion is predominately Muslim. Your dying off population is Christian. You seem to think that, despite the obvious stats over the past few years, the ratio of a Muslim to Christian citizenry will not change.

Then you also say “it’s not all about Christianity vs Islam”. Perhaps you’d like to point out any Muslim dominated nation’s government that bears any relationship to a western nation’s government. (they have their own ideas of a Muslim democracy…) Let’s pick the best case, and most modern “western capitalist type” Muslim nation, albeit small, the UAE. Think this is a similar system to the UK? Do you also believe that a nation with a high ratio of Muslims will not also attract jihad movements to function among their midst?

If you pick the worst case scenarios, you can then face the possibility that a Muslim dominated electorate can vote in representatives like Hezbollah or Hamas… as they did in Palestine. Not necessarily based on waging jihad, but on welfare programs…. again as in Hamas.

Or you can also witness Pakistan, who desperately wants their own brand of democracy, but cannot control the jihad movements that fester within their borders.

As your demographics change, the thrust of your legislation will… just like a Shariah legal system would not have been thought of a decade ago. It is a different value system because of the level of devotion to the religion.

Today, you are not bothered by a single woman, banning individuals with no criminal background, and no ties to terror groups, simply because you agree with her. Tomorrow, when that office is occupied by someone you don’t agree with, you may not appreciate that power being in the hands of one individual.

We have a similar problem with the power now vested in an unelected individual called the Treasury Secretary.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

Two and a half million muslims is still proportionally a small number compared to over 60 million. In recent years – the UK has seen a big influx from eastern Europe. Plus also Britain has immigration from all parts of the world like India which is mainly Hindu. So whilst I believe the Uk is too crowded and needs to have a policy of neutral immigration (those coming in match those going out) – I think limited immigration based on skills, ability to speak English and have those coming in respect the laws of the country – is a bonus.

So it’s not all about Christianity vs Islam – we should leave that to the history books. Like other previous ethnic groups I would expect in time that the growth via childbirth will tail off. In my experience not all those who are muslim are fundamentalist who push their religions on others. There are also muslims who are ‘westernised’ or moderate. And some who are counted as muslim by birth but doesn’t follow the religion. With any luck religions will all die – but that is wishful thinking. When there was an influx of people coming from the Carribbean – people like Enoch Powell warned of rivers of blood. Again this was unpleasant racist exaggeration – like the rubbish the BNP spout.

Of course there will be tension – but there are also benefits. The US has had plenty of clashes involving race and religion – and that was a country built on immigration. I guess I would worry more to the point of hysteria when the muslims turn up in their version of the Mayflower and forcibily claim the land rather them being one section of many races & creeds that are on the whole comin in through legal immigration.

However I believe that those people who are not citizens – are basically guests within a country and therefore the expectations on them are actually higher to behave. So if a guest misbehaves – preaching hate – etc – then I have no problem with deportation or refusal for them to return.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

You’ll notice rockybutte didn’t come back….it’s another liberal changing his/her screenname to comment. He is actually Alan Walter:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/16/no-honeymoon-for-obamahillary-in-muslim-world/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/02/17/obamas-state-dept-praises-venezuela-vote-enabling-hugo-chavez-to-be-presidente-for-life/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/17/bushs-real-mission-accomplished/
http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/03/28/leave-a-light-on-tonight/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Gaffa, maybe we have another Colonialist vs Queen’s English problem. Let me repeat my sentence:

INRE Lennon and Nixon’s attempt to deport him by using narcotic charges.

Nixon may have been wanting to deport him for election purposes, but what he used was narcotic charges. By that same reasoning, Al Capone was convicted on tax evasion, not racketeering.

And it wasn’t pot, it was “downers” or barbituates. Was it right? No. But the point is Lennon had recourse thru the American courts to prevent it from happening.

I repeat, just what recourse does anyone on Smith’s “list” have as recourse for her personal opinion that their political views – not criminal past or associations with designated terror groups – POLITICAL VIEWS render them unfit to visit England?

INRE your demographics, the UK is on track to be home to Europe’s largest population by 2050 with your migration growth. Islam is Britain’s second most popular religion. Your Muslim population is rising 10 times faster than the rest of your society.

The population multiplied 10 times faster than the rest of society, the research by the Office for National Statistics reveals. In the same period the number of Christians in the country fell by more than 2 million.

Experts said that the increase was attributable to immigration, a higher birthrate and conversions to Islam during the period of 2004-2008, when the data was gathered. They said that it also suggested a growing willingness among believers to describe themselves as Muslims because the western reaction to war and terrorism had strengthened their sense of identity.

Muslim leaders have welcomed the growing population of their communities as academics highlighted the implications for British society, integration and government resources.

~~~

There are more than 42.6 million Christians in Britain, according to the Office for National Statistics, whose figures were obtained through the quarterly Labour Force Survey of around 53,000 homes. But while the biggest Christian population is among over-70s bracket, for Muslims it is the under-4s.

~~~

Professor Peach said that the high number of Muslims under the age of 4 — 301,000 as of September last year — would benefit Britain’s future labour market through taxes that would subsequently contribute to sustaining the country’s ageing population. He added, though, that it would also put pressure on housing and create a growing demand for schools. “I think housing has traditionally been a difficulty because the country is simultaneously short of labour and short of housing. So if you get people to fill vacancies in your labour force you also need to find places for them to live,” he said.

Not only will the young growing Muslim population support your aging Christian population, but they will also assume leading roles in government to reflect your demographics.

What will their politically correct criteria be for political beliefs? By the nature of their religion, will it be different than yours? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Maybe you’ll be long dead and gone, and don’t care what your grandkids live in. Who knows. But once you allow politic beliefs as the threshhold for who can and cannot visit, you open a serious can of worms.

You really should do some homework on the Netherlands….

Like or Dislike: 0  0

@MataHarley

Gaffa… INRE Lennon and Nixon’s attempt to deport him by using narcotic charges. You will remember that it was also the US judicial system that thwarted that event from coming to fruition. He had, and used, the American system for legal recourse.

In the case of Jacqui Smith, who does one appeal to when a single entity points the finger at you merely because she doesn’t like what you believe, and not for any substantial criminal wrongdoing or ties to designated terror groups?

Surely you are not so niave to believe the reason they wanted Lennon out was primarily because of him using cannabis four years earlier in London? Does the US try to eject every foreigners on such things? The FBi had a big old file on him due to his political views. The cannabis was just a convenient excuse. Maybe Jacqui Smith can find some parking ticket violation on Michael Savage – if that’s the smoke and mirrors game you would rather governments play.

Plenty of Home Secretaries rulings in the past have been overuled by the judicary or by parliaments in the past. And let’s see how Mr.Savage goes by suing her.

All it takes is a majority population taking over control of the government via the vote…

What are you refering to here? Are you saying that Muslims will become the majority in the UK? Btw Britain’s demographics – like a lot of countries – have been every changing since (and probably even before) the Roman times. Stricter and better Immigration control – yes. Scaremongering and exaggeration – no thanks.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Apparently there is at least *one* Brit that finds this government “banning” for thought offensive.

It is a state’s prerogative to decide who it wants to come to its country. That is, after all, what a visa system is for. But those banned from entry used to be people who were likely to cause public disorder or who had criminal records. In the 1960s there was a row when George Raft, the Hollywood actor, was refused entry because of his alleged links to organised crime. Now we are more likely than not to ban someone for what they think.

~~~

The Government claims Savage engages in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence. But is not the real reason he is barred because he preaches dislike of other groups rather than violence against them?

Home Office officials say Michael Savage, real name Michael Weiner, holds abhorrent views on immigration, Islam, rape and autism, which have caused great offence in America. That may be so. But are we now banning people because we don’t like what they think or say; or are we accepting that anyone who responds violently to a view of which they disapprove can effectively veto other people’s right to free speech?

Now we learn that Savage may sue the Home Secretary for defamation. He said he was outraged that he had been named alongside hate preachers and a member of Hamas.

He said: “For this lunatic Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary of England, to link me up with skinheads who are killing people in Russia, to put me in (the same) league with mass murderers who kill Jews on buses is defamation.

“I thought this was a joke or a mistake.” He has a point. Jacqui Smith said the people who were banned were those whose views the country ‘would not tolerate’.

But who is she to make that decision? While it is the job of the Home Secretary to ensure the security and safety of the nation, it is not for her to decree what we should hear and to whom we should listen.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Rockybutte#9… There is no “ideological exclusion provision” clause in the Patriot Act. Instead, you are picking up the ACLU’s personal language of interpretation.

Section 411 of Title IV:

(a) Grounds of Inadmissibility.–Section 212(a)(3) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3))

“(IV) is a representative (as
defined in clause (v)) of–
“(aa) a foreign terrorist
organization, as designated by
the Secretary of State under
section 219, or
“(bb) a political, social
or other similar group whose
public endorsement of acts of
terrorist activity the Secretary
of State has determined
undermines United States efforts
to reduce or eliminate terrorist
activities,”;

(iii) by adding at the end the following new
subclauses:
“(VI) has used the alien’s position
of prominence within any country to
endorse or espouse terrorist activity,
or to persuade others to support
terrorist activity or a terrorist
organization, in a way that the
Secretary of State has determined
undermines United States efforts to
reduce or eliminate terrorist
activities, or…

These are very specific and is not “ideological exclusion”. It addresses those that are known to have lent support, endorsement and/or money to terrorist causes.

The ACLU, with their usual drama, interprets this as:

The United States government is denying visas to foreign nationals whose political views the government disfavors. Once used to bar suspected Communists from entering the country, the practice of “ideological exclusion” was resurrected by the USA Patriot Act. Ideological exclusion violates Americans’ First Amendment right to hear constitutionally protected speech by denying foreign scholars, artists, politicians and others entry to the U.S.

I would suggest you read thru the Patriot Act instead of depending on ACLU conflated summaries, designed specifically to misinform those that depend on others instead of reading the source themselves.

In the case of Ramadan, the Washington Independent story you linked, he contributed to a Swiss charity that was found to be funneling money to what was a designated a “designated terrorist organization”…. perhaps after the fact and not to his knowledge. That data can be sussed out after the fact and remedied after further investigation. But until you know, if you have contributors to jihad, either via recruitment or cash, you stop them at the border until you know more.

Make note, this type of “exclusion” is based on ties to designated terrorist organizations … and that compares to exclusion of scumbag anti-gay activists and a sensational talk show host … because someone doesn’t like what they think ….how?

Oddly enough, I have yet to hear from the ACLU any comment or opinion on Jacqui Smith’s British policy that does exactly what they erroneously accuse the Patriot Act of doing.

Gaffa… INRE Lennon and Nixon’s attempt to deport him by using narcotic charges. You will remember that it was also the US judicial system that thwarted that event from coming to fruition. He had, and used, the American system for legal recourse.

In the case of Jacqui Smith, who does one appeal to when a single entity points the finger at you merely because she doesn’t like what you believe, and not for any substantial criminal wrongdoing or ties to designated terror groups?

You say that’s her job, and that’s okay with you because you share her dislikes. And what happens when one gets the job who *does* like those who preach killing infidels and jihad? All it takes is a majority population taking over control of the government via the vote… Yes… just like the US and the progressive/Euro-socialist movement here today.

Larry W: But I listened also to his show on Monday night. Never have I heard such hate-fomenting speech on broadcast media.

Congratulations. You listened to Michael Savage on one evening, and now you’re an expert on Michael Savage? Do give me a break.

I’ve listened off and on for years. Savage goes over the top in delivery many times, and sometimes I agree… others I don’t. It’s irrelevant. Savage has a right to say what he wants on his radio show, and he’s not espousing nor supporting terrorism.

And while you may be offended that he compares Obama to Hitler. Why do I doubt you minded that comparison when your side did it to George W. Bush over the past eight years?

Fact is it’s less a comparison to Hitler in ideological beliefs as it’s a comparison to Hitler’s ability to rise to power based on a movement that mesmerized a nation… much to it’s horror later. And that is a valid point.

On the flip side, your liberal pals compared the past POTUS to Hitler because of what they tired to pass off as similar policies. Obama is the one who is rapidly making anti-constitutional moves, seizing of unprecedented powers for the executive branch, and government intrusion into the private sector’s world. Not the much maligned Bush, but your own hero, Barack Obama. Sooner or later you’ll admit that. My problem is trying to figure out if you actually like that brand of governing. I know there’s a conservative side to you on some issues, but you constantly veer into the political correct arena of arguments.

And to clarify your point about Fox News and Savage, he has not been “banned”. He is simply not invited. There is a difference between mandated policy that prohibits his appearances, and them chosing to invite him to appear. Perhaps you will point out where Fox has publicized a “ban” policy on Savage.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

FWIW – First, the white house went after Rush trying to quelch freedom of speech. Then the U.K. goes after Dr. Savage by not allowing him into the U.K. Do we see a pattern yet? Savage is a TALK SHOW host, as is Rush. When before has a government ever gone after a talk show host?

If this doesn’t scare you folks, then maybe it should! (I don’t know who this Rush person is so I did nothing…..I don’t know who this Savage person is…………………)

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Savage’s views are perfectly in tune with what is currently propelling the BNP to popularity, then again, so is Richard Littlejohn(a famous right-wing commentator), who is not as irritating as Savage, but pretty close to him in earnesty and shares his talent for putting the finger straight into the festering wound to pop the abscess for a hearty grossing out of everyone who dares and cares to look.

You see, a lot of people don’t like the Nazi side of the BNP, but the situation is getting so desperate that people are beginning to seriously consider the BNP as a protest vote in absence of anything else, since apart from less reasonable ideas, their current major theme is totally spot on about what is wrong with the UK — people know the BNP as a remedy may be crap, but their diagnosis is spot on, and not the usual pack of lies that professional policians spout. Most of those ‘swing’ voters are ex-Labour voters btw and the BNP is to the left of the political spectrum with policies that are straight out of the old Labour book of ideology.

However, the biggest weapon Labour has against the BNP is the racist/nazi phobia which conveniently labels everyone who does not agree with the Labour worldview as socially unacceptably. This one-size-culls-all weapon is rapidly blunting, the peasants are no longer afraid and have started to talk about the issues loudly and openly, so, Labour have started to take heads and stick them on a pike in order to wave about and try and scare people into silence again — this time Mr. Savage’s trophy scalp is shown around, as a warning to any right-wing journualist/commenter to keep being ‘nice’ or else.

It’s the usual way of the left, first no-one wants to restrict speech really, just the bits that are causing ‘problems’ and can’t be legally stopped(how inconvenient), then people learn to read between the lines in newspaper reports and the next thing you know is that ‘no-one is going to build a wall’ either, as Honecker once promised so convincingly, just before the barbed wire and the death traps were put up at the border.

—
Btw, it doesn’t matter whom the US bans, two wrongs to not make a right, they add up at best, but most of the time, they multiply.

Like or Dislike: 0  0