https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907

"harry" wrote in message
...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907



Why? Was he going to do some DIY?

--
Adam

harry wrote:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907

Just done it.

ARW wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907



Why? Was he going to do some DIY?

Yes.

You do realise, don't you that it does not matter which way you go, the more
people add to the totals of both the more likely it is to get another
debate?

If you really do want him here, then just keep quiet.
brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
Remember, if you don't like where I post
or what I say, you don't have to
read my posts! :-)
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907

In article , Brian-Gaff
writes
You do realise, don't you that it does not matter which way you go, the more
people add to the totals of both the more likely it is to get another
debate?

If you really do want him here, then just keep quiet.
brian

That you don't want him banned does not mean you want him here.
--
bert

"ARW" wrote in message
...
"harry" wrote in message
...
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114907



Why? Was he going to do some DIY?

He's doing a DIY "run for president"

I bet there aren't any other candidates funding themselves

tim

"Brian-Gaff" wrote in message
...
You do realise, don't you that it does not matter which way you go, the
more people add to the totals of both the more likely it is to get another
debate?

If you really do want him here, then just keep quiet.
brian


I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is ridiculous

tim

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:17:54 +0000, tim..... wrote:

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

tim

Ditto. Signed.

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want, including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political spectrum it comes from.

On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

On 12/12/15 17:54, Tricky Dicky wrote:
If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want, including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political spectrum it comes from.

Yep. We might even have to put up with Billy Bragg, Russell Brand, and
the like...

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?



Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?



Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.
Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.
Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.
We rounded up Germans and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open
the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want
to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?

Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.

We'll see...

Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.

Like hell they were.

ALL that was banned was SOME commercial transactions with Iran.

Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.

There were **** all Japs in Britain and no concentration camps at all.

Even the yanks didn't put them in concentration camps either.

We rounded up Germans

Only some of them. Your royals were never rounded up.

and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

Not with the ones in Britain you didn't.

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him being
banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.
--
Graeme

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him being
banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find their
views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if ever
there was one.

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him being
banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find their
views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if ever
there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

--
Please note new email address:

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 12:38:25 +0000, charles wrote:

In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

Politicians are constantly trying to "convert others" to their particular
causes. How is that in breach of the law?

On Sunday, 13 December 2015 08:18:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open
the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want
to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?

Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.

We'll see...

Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.

Like hell they were.

ALL that was banned was SOME commercial transactions with Iran.

Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.

There were **** all Japs in Britain and no concentration camps at all.

Even the yanks didn't put them in concentration camps either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nese_Americans



We rounded up Germans

Only some of them. Your royals were never rounded up.

and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

Not with the ones in Britain you didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchi...nternment_Camp

You really are brain dead Wodders aren't you?

On Sunday, 13 December 2015 08:18:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and open
the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't want
to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?

Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.

We'll see...

Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.

Like hell they were.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield


ALL that was banned was SOME commercial transactions with Iran.

Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.

There were **** all Japs in Britain and no concentration camps at all.

Even the yanks didn't put them in concentration camps either.

We rounded up Germans

Only some of them. Your royals were never rounded up.

and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

Not with the ones in Britain you didn't.

Cursitor Doom wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find their
views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if ever
there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being
banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find their
views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if ever
there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:23:00 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

There is a difference between "finding views objectionable" and illegal
actions inciting racial hatred and/or violence under the Racial and
Religious Violence Act 2006 (or similar offences under other legislation).

Since Trump is not in the UK, he cannot be in breach of UK law.

If we are talking about controversy over repeated statements that, were
they made in the UK, would be in breach of the law then it would not seem
inappopriate to deny the person entry to the country, whether they be
uttered by religious leaders or politicians or what nationality they are.

Similarly, if the person was allowed entry, and went on to make illegal
statements in a public context, they should be prosecuted and/or
deported. Again, regardless of their profession or national origin.

On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 16:23:00 +0000, Timothy Murphy wrote:

Cursitor Doom wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

Of course. They're by definition calling for extreme violence! Trump
isn't; not to *any* degree.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 13 December 2015 08:18:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and
open
the
door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is
the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the
political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to
torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and
that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't
want
to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so
he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does
him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?

Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.

We'll see...

Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.

Like hell they were.

ALL that was banned was SOME commercial transactions with Iran.

Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.

There were **** all Japs in Britain and no concentration camps at all.

Even the yanks didn't put them in concentration camps either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intern...nese_Americans

No news. Those weren't concentration camps, ****wit.

We rounded up Germans

Only some of them. Your royals were never rounded up.

and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

Not with the ones in Britain you didn't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutchi...nternment_Camp

Not a concentration camp either. And few of the krauts
who happened to be in Britain when the war broke out
didn't end up there, particularly the jews who had been
kicked out of Germany or who had left because they could
see how things were turning out for them like Einstein etc.

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, 13 December 2015 08:18:40 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"harry" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 12 December 2015 21:34:57 UTC, Mike Lander wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 12/12/15 18:33, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 12 Dec 2015 09:54:09 -0800, Tricky Dicky wrote:

If Donald Trump cannot be banned, that will set a precedent and
open
the door to hate preachers and other undesirable scum we do not
want,
including some that we have taken years to get rid of. The law is
the
law and applies equally to extremism whichever end of the
political
spectrum it comes from.

applause

I've seen one theory that The Donald(tm) is actively trying to
torpedo
his own campaign. The logic is that he realises he can't win, and
that
it's costing him far more than be bargained for, but he doesn't
want
to
lose face by standing up and saying that, then withdrawing - so
he's
trying to be forced to withdraw, so he can claim that it's external
forces.

The flaw, of course, is that he would have to believe that it does
him
less damage to do this than to just say "I'm out"

Or perhaps he is using his campaign to get the unthinkable on the
agenda, so people start talking about it. Stalking horse?

Or he believes in the ban on Muslims he proposed. Tad radical I know.

Not at all.

We'll see...

Iranians were banned from the USA quite recently.

Like hell they were.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/26...iel-greenfield

That is nothing even remotely like banning all Iranians from the USA, bigot
boy.

ALL that was banned was SOME commercial transactions with Iran.

Japanese were rounded up and put in concentrations camps.

There were **** all Japs in Britain and no concentration camps at all.

Even the yanks didn't put them in concentration camps either.

We rounded up Germans

Only some of them. Your royals were never rounded up.

and put them in concentrations camps too in WW2.

Not with the ones in Britain you didn't.

On 13/12/15 16:23, Timothy Murphy wrote:
Cursitor Doom wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find their
views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if ever
there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

Not unless they broke the law, no.


--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

Racial or religious hatred?

--
Please note new email address:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

Not unless they broke the law, no.

I guess that Trump would have broken the UK law.

Conversely, is there a UK law that forbids you saying
you hope IS takes over Syria and Iraq?
I doubt if an Imam would get away with saying that in a sermon.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

Racial or religious hatred?

Saying that the US shouldn’t allow any moslems into the
country because of the risk some of them pose isn't racial
or religious hatred, its just a very conservative approach
to risk. The same approach that saw the US not allow
Japanese completely freedom of movement after Pearl
Harbor and what Britain did with SOME Germans in WW2.

"Timothy Murphy" wrote in message
...
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

Not unless they broke the law, no.

I guess that Trump would have broken the UK law.

Guess again. Farage hasn't either.

Conversely, is there a UK law that forbids you
saying you hope IS takes over Syria and Iraq?

Nope. Or even cheering after 9/11 either.

I doubt if an Imam would get away with saying that in a sermon.

Doesn't mean that its illegal to do that.

In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

Racial or religious hatred?

Saying that the US shouldn’t allow any moslems into the
country because of the risk some of them pose isn't racial
or religious hatred, its just a very conservative approach
to risk. The same approach that saw the US not allow
Japanese completely freedom of movement after Pearl
Harbor and what Britain did with SOME Germans in WW2.

but there isn't an official war between the USA and all moslems - is there?

--
Please note new email address:

"charles" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Rod Speed wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in
him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny
if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because
he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

Racial or religious hatred?

Saying that the US shouldn't allow any moslems into the
country because of the risk some of them pose isn't racial
or religious hatred, its just a very conservative approach
to risk. The same approach that saw the US not allow
Japanese completely freedom of movement after Pearl
Harbor and what Britain did with SOME Germans in WW2.

but there isn't an official war between the USA and all moslems - is
there?

Doesn't matter if there is an official war
or not as far as what is legal to say.

The cold war wasn't an official war and it was perfectly legal
to say that the USSR had got Burgess and MacLean to spy etc.

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , charles
wrote:

Saying that the US shouldn't allow any moslems into the
country because of the risk some of them pose isn't racial
or religious hatred, its just a very conservative approach
to risk. The same approach that saw the US not allow
Japanese completely freedom of movement after Pearl
Harbor and what Britain did with SOME Germans in WW2.

but there isn't an official war between the USA and all moslems - is there?

I sometimes wonder why the US didn't just declare war on Afghanistan in
2001 or whenever it was that they refused to hand over bin Laden etc.

Because that would be an act of war given that the US had not been attacked
by Afghanistan.

That way anyone they picked up could have been treated as a
prisoner-of-war, much easier than the limbo at Guantanamo.

Timothy Murphy posted

Conversely, is there a UK law that forbids you saying
you hope IS takes over Syria and Iraq?

It's hard to say. The following story suggests that there is, although
it is confounded by the fact that the accused pleaded guilty. He may, of
course, have had good financial reasons for doing so. And it is always
hard for an outsider to evaluate these cases, because we are never
allowed to know exactly what the accused actually wrote.


"Edinburgh man jailed for two years after posting pro-ISIL images on
Facebook

At Edinburgh Sheriff Court today, 34-year-old Mourad Mosdefaoui was
sentenced to two years imprisonment and made subject to the notification
requirements of Section 45 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 for a
period of 10 years after posting pro-ISIL images on Facebook, and being
found in possession of a forged Belgian identification card.

Mr Mosdefaoui, originally from Algeria but resident in Edinburgh at the
time of the offences, pleaded guilty to the charges on 23 November 2015.

In September 2014 and March 2015, the accused posted messages on his
Facebook account in support of the terrorist acts of the Islamic State
of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS).

The messages amount to encouragement of support for a proscribed group
and may be inferred to encourage acts of terrorism generally.

The Facebook activity came to the attention of Police Scotland, and on 8
July 2015 his address in Edinburgh was searched.

[snip]

Lindsey Miller, procurator fiscal for organised crime and counter
terrorism, said: €œSocial media is a critical tool for ISIL, both in
their attempts to radicalise and recruit new members, and in the
spreading of their propaganda.

€œMosdefaoui repeatedly posted comments in support of ISIL and its
leader on a public Facebook page, and was dealt with swiftly by
prosecutors as soon as the offences came to light.

€œWe will continue to work closely with police and the intelligence
services to ensure that Scotland has a robust line of defence against
the spread of such damaging ideologies.€�


http://www.scottishlegal.com/2015/12...d-for-two-year
s-after-posting-pro-isil-images-on-facebook/

--
Les

In article , charles
writes
In article , Rod Speed
wrote:


"charles" wrote in message
...
In article , Cursitor Doom
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 08:21:50 +0000, News wrote:

In message , tim.....
writes

I don't want him here, I just think the idea of banning him is
ridiculous

Agreed, and agreed. I don't think the petition will result in him
being banned, but I signed because of the message it sends.

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

It's isn't, I suggest becasue of his views, per se. It's because he's
attempting to convert others - in breach of the law.

There is no breach of the law involved.

Racial or religious hatred?

He is not promoting hatred of Muslims by saying those not already in the
USA should not be allowed to enter until the powers that be in the USA
understand what is going on - or words to that effect. A pretty feeble
statement IMO
--
bert

In article , Timothy Murphy
writes
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

It's extremely anti-democratic to ban someone just because you find
their views objectionable. That's the road to irreversible tyranny if
ever there was one.

Would you ban jihadi imams?

Not unless they broke the law, no.

I guess that Trump would have broken the UK law.

Conversely, is there a UK law that forbids you saying
you hope IS takes over Syria and Iraq?
I doubt if an Imam would get away with saying that in a sermon.

IS has openly attacked and killed UK citizens without justification. Any
UK citizen who supports them is IMO guilty of treason. ISTR the death
penalty still applies or has it been repealed?

--
bert

Rod Speed wrote:

I guess that Trump would have broken the UK law.

Guess again.

According to
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/racist_and_religious_crime/
"Parliament has passed legislation aimed at outlawing crime
where the offender is motivated by hostility or hatred
towards the victim's race or religious beliefs (actual or perceived)"

I would have thought if Trump made the same utterances in the UK
he would be in serious risk of arrest.

There are fairly strong laws limiting freedom of speech in the UK
and in most EU countries,
and there is nothing like the US First Amendment in the UK
in general support of free speech.

Equally, an Imam supporting IS in a sermon could well be arrested
for behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin