My comment at the New York Times article on this: [LATER: published here]
I have been reading Spencer for many years, and seen him in action in many videos. He is absolutely NOT a "racist", "Islamophobe", "bigot", or whatever slur one wishes to throw at him. He is extremely well-read on Islam and he presents his views clearly and cogently in books and on air. I have never once seen or read of any view of his which would be deemed "hate" speech or incitement to violence.
He repeatedly says that what concerns him is: freedom of speech; freedom of conscience and equality of sexes and minorities.
In caving in to pressure to ban him, Theresa May is giving in to those truly who are truly violent and intolerant. It is those people who would have reacted to Spencer’s presence by violent acts against him.
Spencer brings a message; about violent Islamism. He's banned.
The violent Islamists, by contrast, are free to enter the UK and to preach their hate and incitement to violence. Muhhamed al-Arefe, who preaches wife-beating and other violence, has just been admitted to the UK.
So it seems that: if you advocate these violent jihadi acts, it's fine for you to enter the UK. If you oppose these violent jihadi acts, you're not welcome.
Shame on Theresa May for this decision.
BTW: why is it that the right to “freedom of speech” has to be couched in terms of "not creating free speech martyrs"? Can't those people framing it in those terms have the guts to say that it simply IS a matter of free speech? No need to apologise for that.
Petition here.
I'm interested to note that most of the comments, especially the "Readers' Picks", are against the banning of Spencer and Geller.
LATER: A snarky piece in the New York Times. Check out the Twitter to-do between Spencer and the Hope Not Hate crowd. Actually, I think that Spencer needs a better line in mockery. I'm afraid the tussle with HNH would be awarded to HNH on points.
The article says that EDL head Tommy Robinson is "claiming that Winston Churchill was “a outspoken critic of Islam.”". Well Churchill was an outspoken of Islam. I submitted following comment:
@"... claiming ..Churchill was “a outspoken critic of Islam.”"...
Churchill WAS an outspoken critic of Islam. From his "The River War", Vol II, 1899, p 278:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either asa child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
I have been reading Spencer for many years, and seen him in action in many videos. He is absolutely NOT a "racist", "Islamophobe", "bigot", or whatever slur one wishes to throw at him. He is extremely well-read on Islam and he presents his views clearly and cogently in books and on air. I have never once seen or read of any view of his which would be deemed "hate" speech or incitement to violence.
He repeatedly says that what concerns him is: freedom of speech; freedom of conscience and equality of sexes and minorities.
In caving in to pressure to ban him, Theresa May is giving in to those truly who are truly violent and intolerant. It is those people who would have reacted to Spencer’s presence by violent acts against him.
Spencer brings a message; about violent Islamism. He's banned.
The violent Islamists, by contrast, are free to enter the UK and to preach their hate and incitement to violence. Muhhamed al-Arefe, who preaches wife-beating and other violence, has just been admitted to the UK.
So it seems that: if you advocate these violent jihadi acts, it's fine for you to enter the UK. If you oppose these violent jihadi acts, you're not welcome.
Shame on Theresa May for this decision.
BTW: why is it that the right to “freedom of speech” has to be couched in terms of "not creating free speech martyrs"? Can't those people framing it in those terms have the guts to say that it simply IS a matter of free speech? No need to apologise for that.
Petition here.
I'm interested to note that most of the comments, especially the "Readers' Picks", are against the banning of Spencer and Geller.
LATER: A snarky piece in the New York Times. Check out the Twitter to-do between Spencer and the Hope Not Hate crowd. Actually, I think that Spencer needs a better line in mockery. I'm afraid the tussle with HNH would be awarded to HNH on points.
The article says that EDL head Tommy Robinson is "claiming that Winston Churchill was “a outspoken critic of Islam.”". Well Churchill was an outspoken of Islam. I submitted following comment:
________________________
@"... claiming ..Churchill was “a outspoken critic of Islam.”"...
Churchill WAS an outspoken critic of Islam. From his "The River War", Vol II, 1899, p 278:
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries, improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either asa child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyzes the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step, and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it (Islam) has vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.”
_______________________
