UK Now Barring People From Entering Country For Right Wing Views

A

AAAintheBeltway

People in the US generally have no idea how repressive the UK has become. It's bad enough their leaders openly insult our President, even as they demand a trade agreement. Now they appear to have adopted a policy of harassing and refusing entry to anyone on a list of right wing commentators and journalists.

The latest victim is Lauren Southern, an internet celebrity who has just finished a project detailing the horrors faced by whites in South Africa. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/12/lauren-southern-banned-uk-terror/

These are people who have committed no crimes, are clearly not part of any terrorist networks and whose activities would clearly be protected by the First Amendment here, even in California. The UK is filled with terrorists, child sex grooming gangs, no go zones and out of control crime, yet they can devote the resources necessary to track and detain people for voicing views that are out of step with official policy on immigration? A policy that is quite unpopular with a significant percentage of their own citizens. They let terrorists come and go freely, they support them on government assistance, yet they cannot protect their own citizens form being run down or stabbed. It is mind-boggling.

I draw two lessons from this. One, we must become more aggressive in challenging the growing internet/social media censorship here. Their goal is to delegitimize a wide range of opinions on topics from immigration to gun control. The easiest way to do that is simply to deny people with contrary opinions a platform.

Two, we really need to go slow on a trade pact with the UK. They are becoming a country that is unrecognizable to many of us. They have no respect for basic freedoms. The current lax rules governing travel by UK citizens to the US really need to be tightened up as well.
 

Yeah, Mav was correct but only because it was a movie.

Like Shitebart is only correct in it's own fantasy world.

The sooner Shitebart UK is proscribed the better. The do nothing useful, just fodder for nipplestrokers like AAA.

Lauren Southern is just a pretty face outrage monger that lonely horny AAA loves from a distance because he is hideous (inside for certain, probably ugly as shit in other ways).


Seems she had been making a living off bullshit.

"A Patreon representative informed Southern by email last Thursday that her account was being banned because some of her actions were “likely to cause loss of life” but didn’t elaborate further on any specific actions that prompted the ban.

Patreon is a popular crowdfunding platform used by independent media creators, including CANADALAND, that allows “patrons” to pledge support via recurring payments."

"Likely to cause loss of life."
 
Last edited:
My reply is after each one of your points, below. To see all comments, click “more” tab.


AAAintheBeltway said:
People in the US generally have no idea how repressive the UK has become. It's bad enough their leaders openly insult our President, even as they demand a trade agreement. Now they appear to have adopted a policy of harassing and refusing entry to anyone on a list of right wing commentators and journalists.
The Royals do seem to be hands off on everyday issues. I share your perception the UK is under assault by Leftist ideology. I would like the Royals to risk getting dirty and help defend their country against a mutual enemy. This enemy can’t beat us economically or millitarily, so they are going after us culturally and politically. Democracy is under attack from outside forces and it is time to defend ourselves.

The latest victim is Lauren Southern, an internet celebrity who has just finished a project detailing the horrors faced by whites in South Africa. http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/03/12/lauren-southern-banned-uk-terror/

These are people who have committed no crimes, are clearly not part of any terrorist networks and whose activities would clearly be protected by the First Amendment here, even in California. The UK is filled with terrorists, child sex grooming gangs, no go zones and out of control crime, yet they can devote the resources necessary to track and detain people for voicing views that are out of step with official policy on immigration? A policy that is quite unpopular with a significant percentage of their own citizens. They let terrorists come and go freely, they support them on government assistance, yet they cannot protect their own citizens form being run down or stabbed. It is mind-boggling.
It appears the entity that controls the Left has a methodology they apply on a global scale. They understand how to effectivity utilize the media and get their politicians elected. From there, they implement legislation that is contrary to the interests of the target country and it’s people.

I draw two lessons from this. One, we must become more aggressive in challenging the growing internet/social media censorship here. Their goal is to delegitimize a wide range of opinions on topics from immigration to gun control. The easiest way to do that is simply to deny people with contrary opinions a platform.
Disagree on denying people with contrary opinions a platform. Although the entity that controls the Left uses our freedoms like a virus to safely propagate anti-country and anti-culture rhetoric, clamping down on free speech would mean a decisive victory for them. It would be the end of our Democracy.

Two, we really need to go slow on a trade pact with the UK. They are becoming a country that is unrecognizable to many of us. They have no respect for basic freedoms. The current lax rules governing travel by UK citizens to the US really need to be tightened up as well.
More...
The UK and the US have strong historical and cultural connections. The are a primary ally, and losing them or diminishing our relationship with them, only leaves the both of us more vulnerable to our competitors.

As the saying goes, freedom isn’t free. We are doing our part in sounding the alarm regarding the ongoing attack on our Democracy and reminding those who take for granted our freedoms what life is like for citizens in countries that do not have our freedoms.

We must also encourge people to become more involved in the defense of our ideals and to spread the word.
 
Slartibartfast said:

Yeah, Mav was correct but only because it was a movie.

Like Shitebart is only correct in it's own fantasy world.

The sooner Shitebart UK is proscribed the better. The do nothing useful, just fodder for nipplestrokers like AAA.

Lauren Southern is just a pretty face outrage monger that lonely horny AAA loves from a distance because he is hideous.


Seems she had been making a living off bullshit.

"A Patreon representative informed Southern by email last Thursday that her account was being banned because some of her actions were “likely to cause loss of life” but didn’t elaborate further on any specific actions that prompted the ban.

Patreon is a popular crowdfunding platform used by independent media creators, including CANADALAND, that allows “patrons” to pledge support via recurring payments."

"Likely to cause loss of life."
More...


Ok, you managed to attack three people in one post. This is one of my major issues with the left: constant ad hominem attacks. Let’s talk about the issues please.

What I’m hoping from you is a rebuttal to my and the op’s points.

I offer you a free “mulligan” regarding a personal attack on me, however!
 
maximumpossiblesuffering said:
Ok, you managed to attack three people in one post. This is one of my major issues with the left: constant ad hominem attacks. Let’s talk about the issues please.

What I’m hoping from you is a rebuttal to my and the op’s points.

I offer you a free “mulligan” regarding a personal attack on me, however!
More...

Shut up you fucking idiot. :)

arse-licker.png


I can do educational.
 
>>Disagree on denying people with contrary opinions a platform. Although the entity that controls the Left uses our freedoms like a virus to safely propagate anti-country and anti-culture rhetoric, clamping down on free speech would mean a decisive victory for them. It would be the end of our Democracy.<<

This is a tricky issue but one that can be solved. The problem now is that social media platforms have a statutory protection from libel claims, based on the concept that they cannot possibly check every post, video etc for libelous material. However, they have started to abuse this protection and their monopoly status by kicking people with unPC views off their platforms. In may cases, eg Youtube, they put them out of business by either banning them entirely or demonetizing them, ie they don't get any more ad revenue. Twitter has been particularly egregious and one-sided. They allow all sorts of hate speech by the left, black radical and muslim extremists but punish those on the right on specious grounds.

There is no right of appeal, no independent body to review their actions and no way even to challenge the accuracy of the grounds for banning. The bias is made evident by whom they have chosen to assist in this censorship, eg the Southern Poverty Law Group, a notorious leftwing slime machine that has amassed a fortune by convincing rich jews that the KKK are steps away from coming for them.

The obvious solution is to treat them as a public utility. Your electric company cannot refuse to serve you because of your views; neither should these monopolists. The argument that they will suffer because advertisers do not want to be associated with some sites or posters seems totally specious. Their very size and growth show that the effect is minimal.

A less satisfactory alternative would be to provide some sort of independent review board. The problem is deciding who would staff it and what the grounds for reversal would be. It's entirely predictable that it would become politicized and would just create another layer of problems.
 
AAAintheBeltway said:
>>Disagree on denying people with contrary opinions a platform. Although the entity that controls the Left uses our freedoms like a virus to safely propagate anti-country and anti-culture rhetoric, clamping down on free speech would mean a decisive victory for them. It would be the end of our Democracy.<<

This is a tricky issue but one that can be solved. The problem now is that social media platforms have a statutory protection from libel claims, based on the concept that they cannot possibly check every post, video etc for libelous material. However, they have started to abuse this protection and their monopoly status by kicking people with unPC views off their platforms. In may cases, eg Youtube, they put them out of business by either banning them entirely or demonetizing them, ie they don't get any more ad revenue. Twitter has been particularly egregious and one-sided. They allow all sorts of hate speech by the left, black radical and muslim extremists but punish those on the right on specious grounds.

There is no right of appeal, no independent body to review their actions and no way even to challenge the accuracy of the grounds for banning. The bias is made evident by whom they have chosen to assist in this censorship, eg the Southern Poverty Law Group, a notorious leftwing slime machine that has amassed a fortune by convincing rich jews that the KKK are steps away from coming for them.

The obvious solution is to treat them as a public utility. Your electric company cannot refuse to serve you because of your views; neither should these monopolists. The argument that they will suffer because advertisers do not want to be associated with some sites or posters seems totally specious. Their very size and growth show that the effect is minimal.

A less satisfactory alternative would be to provide some sort of independent review board. The problem is deciding who would staff it and what the grounds for reversal would be. It's entirely predictable that it would become politicized and would just create another layer of problems.
More...

This reminds me of Politifact and other “politician truth checking services”. They use subjective criteria to determine whether a politician is telling the truth or not. This subjective evaluation changes either by design or unintentionally depending which side they are talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top