Lauren Southern denied entry to UK, purportedly over criticism of Islam

People who violently act against your principles



Spoken against vs Acted against - Past vs Past

Speaking against vs Acted against - Present vs Past

Speaking against vs Acting against - Present vs Present

Well, I suppose I see them as equally bad but in different ways. Those who act violently, assumingly against other people or myself, have obvious problems. But those who speak act my principles are likely trying to persuade the majority of the population to eventually act against my principles.


Likely to Speak against vs Likely to Act against - Future vs Future

Not to be pedantic but how likely is the entire group to act against my principles in the future, as opposed to just an individual from the group? I suppose it doesn't really change my above answer. If an entire group is speaking against my principles then it's towards the same ends as those who are already acting violently. The end result for me will be the same.

I know you're currently thinking "That's a load of bullshit. Violent actors are worse." But there's a reason "Freedom of Speech" gets the first set of protections in the Constitution and that's because speech can be just as powerful and transformative as action.

A more thought provoking question is this "Who is worse - those who speak against my principles or those act violently in favor of my principles?"
 
You don't have to wait. He is one of biggest snowflakes in WR, and biggest one that got modded.
He deletes posts and threads that are completely tame.
As a mod that's his purview. Doesn't mean you still can't talk about what you want to talk about. Just means the topic may not stay around long or you might get dubs. I've had them, of course at the time I was in a genocidal humour, but hey it was against the rules.

No beef with Pan
 
A more thought provoking question is this "Who is worse - those who speak against my principles or those act violently in favor of my principles?"
You're right, good question.
 
Amazing how some people are trying to spin this as the authorities caring about us and doing what's in the national interest. If that was the case then why was this creature allowed in?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ird-attacker-named-in-italy-as-youssef-zaghba

Already known to the authorities.
Flagged on a terrorism database.
Had previously been apprehended trying to enter Syria to fight for ISIS.
Told authorities he was going to be a terrorist.
Shortly after arriving in the UK made good on his promise and murdered 8 people in London Bridge terror attack.
 
It seems you may be more familiar with her than I am so would you indulge me and share where you’ve heard her advocate for the forced removal of all Muslims from the west?

I've never heard her say that so it's a good thing that I didn't say that she said it. I said that she doesn't think Muslims belong in the West because their beliefs clash with the value system. That's where the humor and irony lie.

Where did you hear this "forced removal of all Muslims" thing?
 
If anyone cares what actually happened, here are the details without any spin.

https://www.theknifemedia.com/world-news/canadian-writer-lauren-southern-denied-entry-uk/

Canadian writer and presenter Lauren Southern was denied entry into the United Kingdom on Monday, after being stopped by the British Border Force while traveling on a bus from France. The British Home Office said Southern’s presence in the U.K. “was not conducive to the public good.” Southern said she was held and questioned under Schedule 7 of the U.K.’s Terrorism Act of 2000, which allows a person to be questioned for up to six hours. Southern posted a U.K. government document on Twitter that said she was “not under arrest on suspicion of committing a criminal offence.”

The British Home Office confirmed to The Knife that Southern was “refused Leave to Enter the UK by Border Force in Coquelles this morning (Monday 12 March)” on “policy grounds that her presence in the UK was not conducive to the public good.” The Home Office did not respond to an inquiry as to why Southern was determined to be “not conductive to the public good.”

Southern has described herself as a “national capitalist” and “libertarian nationalist,” according to an interview on the Rubin Report. She is described as “right-wing” by outlets including Fox News.

Following the decision to deny her entry, Southern tweeted that she was “officially banned from the UK for ‘racism,’” adding that she was “doing fine.” Southern said she was denied entry for materials she had distributed on Feb. 24 in Luton, England, which she said a government document described as “racist” and “a threat to the fundamental interests of society and to the public policy” of the U.K.

Southern said the materials in question were posters that were part of a “social experiment” in which they distributed posters that said, “Allah is Gay, Allah is Trans, Allah is Lesbian, Allah is Intersex, Allah is Feminist, Allah is Queer, Allah is All of Us,” Fox reported. The network also reported that Southern’s “experiment” was in response to a Vice article, “Was Jesus gay?”

Southern had originally been scheduled to meet with two people in the U.K. on Sunday: Martin Sellner, leader of Austria’s Identitarian Movement, and American author Brittany Pettibone.

Pettibone and Sellner were also stopped and “refused Leave to Enter and Admission respectively at Luton Airport on Friday 9th March,” the Home Office confirmed. They were detained and removed from the U.K. on Sunday, and flew to Vienna.

Sellner, a member of the Generation Identity (GI) group, had been scheduled to speak at a free speech rally at Hyde Park in London. GI is a pan-European activist group that describes itself as a “non-violent youth movement” that aims to foster “open” discussion of immigration policies and to “stop the Islamisation of Europe.” Its stated goals include “preserving ethno-cultural identity,” having national governments “regain sovereignty over border policy,” and engaging in “development work” in Africa to “create options for people to remain and to develop in their own homeland” and discourage immigration to Europe, among other goals.

Pettibone had been scheduled to meet with GI member Tommy Robinson, who is also the founder of the U.K. movement English Defense League. Southern had said in a video posted to Twitter on Mar. 10 that she also planned to meet with Robinson. A letter posted by Robinson that appears to be from the Home Office called him a “far right leader whose materials and speeches incite racial hatred.”
 
I'm not looking to get into a debate about Islamic Immigration with my post. I asked a specific question, or series of questions as I broke it down in my previous post. I'm not looking to argue with you about a subject neither of us will see eye to eye on. I'm just curious on your opinion as it informs me how you view action vs speech.

No problem. The post I was responding to was an absurd reduction of your point to "those who want to slaughter me." Your post was more philosophical in nature.
 
I know you're currently thinking "That's a load of bullshit. Violent actors are worse." But there's a reason "Freedom of Speech" gets the first set of protections in the Constitution and that's because speech can be just as powerful and transformative as action.
I think violent actors are worse in the sense that they give you no option to choose. At the very least with speech, you have the option to refute it.

Violence kills the body, Speech can kill the mind and spirit but at least one offers the chance of redemption or salvation depending on whether you're the speaker or the listener.
 
She has stated that she does not want a group of people (Muslims) in the West because their beliefs clash with the value system. Hence the humor and irony of her being denied access to a country because her beliefs clash with the value system of the country she was trying to enter.

Of course, if people want to spot reduce her position to "things like Pakistani rape gangs" then I suppose they could. They'd be wrong about her position but they could certainly make that choice.
Definitely agree with this post. Although the UK is being ridiculous denying Southern entry, it's definitely political pushback telling the U.S. that, "Hey, we're a pro-Muslim country and if you say anything bad about Muslims you will not be allowed in to feel our terrible weather or eat our horrible food!".

The incubation period of 10-20 years ladies and gents. The U.K. is going to be a forever changed. I'd say in 25 years full Shariah Law in London and surrounding areas.
 
You are either naive or dishonest. Either way you are wrong. The danger of white supremacism is in no way or form comparable to Islamic extremism.
You know what is worst? Islamic extremism kills much more Muslim than Christians.
Muslims should be more concerned with Islamic extremism than any of us. They should the ones rallying against it. But you know why they won't? Because if they do this they become apostates which are fair game and according to Islam should be killed. Ex-muslims live in fear, hiding from their own relatives.

I'm neither naive or dishonest - I'm framing the question in a more openly honest way.

The question was about groups of people who might wish to slaughter me, ie do me harm. To me, the threat of violence from white supremacists is certainly as great, if not greater than the threat of violence from random Muslims.

Of course, the idea that Muslims are not rallying against Islamic extremism is wrong. They are, both here and abroad. Here's an example from a year ago. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...acks-uk-nichtmituns-not-with-us-a7792876.html

You can google it to find other examples of both individuals and organizations speaking up against extremism.
 
(I'm rolling my eyes pretty hard right now.)

I'm not the one crying about Muslims.

Why would you call me a pussy? Are you flexing your keyboard muscles before your mom brings your pizza pockets down to the basement for you?
Because you are a pussy and an dishonest one at that. What's your previously banned username?
 
Because you are a pussy and an dishonest one at that. What's your previously banned username?

You're really showing your conservative reasoning here.

I've never had another username. I've never been banned because I don't act like an Internet tough guy and wouldn't say anything online that I was afraid to say to a person's face.
 
I think violent actors are worse in the sense that they give you no option to choose. At the very least with speech, you have the option to refute it.

Violence kills the body, Speech can kill the mind and spirit but at least one offers the chance of redemption or salvation depending on whether you're the speaker or the listener.

You have the option to defend against violence as well.

This isn't a race thread but you have only to look at the racial history of this country for plenty of examples of where anti-someone speech resulted in legal, extralegal and codified violence against those someones. So, from my perspective, the difference between speech against my principles and violence against my principles is a difference of when the violence occurs, not if. And by violence, I don't exclusively mean death. The exclusive use of force granted to the government is no less a use of force just because it has the blessings of the society behind.
 
I've never heard her say that so it's a good thing that I didn't say that she said it. I said that she doesn't think Muslims belong in the West because their beliefs clash with the value system. That's where the humor and irony lie.

Where did you hear this "forced removal of all Muslims" thing?

It seemed you were inferring that as you drew a parallel between her supposed stance and the official UK policy prohibiting her entry. Since she apparently is not advocating for such a policy (at least as far as you or I know), I don’t think your argument works on the level you’re making it.
 
The brits are funny in that way. They banned Tyler the Creator a few years ago for violent rap lyrics.
 
You have the option to defend against violence as well.

This isn't a race thread but you have only to look at the racial history of this country for plenty of examples of where anti-someone speech resulted in legal, extralegal and codified violence against those someones. So, from my perspective, the difference between speech against my principles and violence against my principles is a difference of when the violence occurs, not if. And by violence, I don't exclusively mean death. The exclusive use of force granted to the government is no less a use of force just because it has the blessings of the society behind.
Well said. I can agree with targeted speech against a demographic being a problem the more pervasive it's allowed to become.

Much like Jews historically being blamed for some many societal ills in Europe and the eventual outcome that resulted at various points in history. When society or the government don't step up to speak out against these things its becomes viewed as acceptable, expected, "right" in the righteous sense.

We can probably name various racial or social groups undergoing this sort of thing right now, and not just Muslims.
 
It seemed you were inferring that as you drew a parallel between her supposed stance and the official UK policy prohibiting her entry. Since she apparently is not advocating for such a policy (at least as far as you or I know), I don’t think your argument works on the level you’re making it.

Well that's a poor inference on your part since "denial of entry" is nothing like "forced removal from county". And since I specifically stated her supposed stance and it didn't include anything about removing Muslims (only that they didn't belong in the West because of differing beliefs and values), it seems more like an example of you creating and arguing against strawmen and not what's actually written.

My argument works just fine when you limit your interpretation of it to what my argument actually was. Of course it won't work if you're going to layer in your own misconceptions first.
 
Back
Top