Deport all who 'spit hate' - Major

[Sarge]

Too bad he's not in power anymore

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/articles/PA_NEWA21848461122279557A0?source=PA%20Feed

Deport all who 'spit hate' - Major

25 July 2005

People who "spit hate" at the British way of life should be deported, Tory former Prime Minister John Major said.

Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture.

"There seem to be many people who, for reasons that are irrational, dislike the Anglo-Saxon way of life," he said.

He called for heavier penalties for those who incited violence at this "particularly sensitive time".

"Always difficult to balance this against freedom of speech but I think, at the moment, it is justifiable to protect the public," he argued.

Mr Major added: "As far as those who literally spit hate at our country and there are some of them - they spit hate at our country and they incite - I personally would be prepared to deport those where it is clear that what they are doing is causing civil unrest and may cost other people, as a result of that, their lives."

He also called for more CCTV cameras to deter the threat and the use of intercept evidence in courts. Interviewed on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme, Mr Major urged the Government to consult widely over new anti-terror legislation.

"They are going to have to carry people with them at this moment," he warned.

He also defended the controversial shoot-to kill policy that led to the death of Jean Charles de Menezes.

"I rather prefer the expression shoot to protect rather than shoot to kill - I think that is a more accurate description of what happened."

[Spaceman Spiff]

Amen. Wish we had the balls to do the same here.

[Fred Jones]

I have to agree with the author that those who dislike our country or dislike being here should just leave. Those that don't live here and feel this way should not be allowed in the country. The borders should be more restrictive than they are now.

[Ancalagon the Black]

I think it could well be a requirement of a tourist or student or work visa. Traveling in a country is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to restrictions.

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

I think it could well be a requirement of a tourist or student or work visa. Traveling in a country is a privilege, not a right, and is subject to restrictions.

what about people that are citizens and live in the country

"Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture."

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Liberty

what about people that are citizens and live in the country

"Mr Major spoke of the "uncomfortable reality" that many terrorists were born or lived in the UK but had been taught to hate its culture."

That's a thornier issue. It's out of the question in the US, where such speech is protected by the Constitution. And where would you deport them to?

[Prosperity]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That's a thornier issue. It's out of the question in the US, where such speech is protected by the Constitution. And where would you deport them to?

I know in the UK parliament can basically change laws in whatever way they see fit, but don't they still have to abide by the precedents set by the English Bill of Rights? (I know that originally it only applied to Parliament, but hasn't it spread to every UK citizen?)

[Destino]

I disagree with everything that John Major said. Deporting people for causing "civil unrest" is NOT the same as saying "encouraging terrorism." Had he said something like "encouraging terrorism" then it would be easier to agree. Vague language leaves in doubt what exactly a deportable offense would be. Not to mention this would set a precedent for deporting citizens, which is easily one of the more dangerous ideas I’ve ever seen come out of a western leader.

Also his "shoot to protect" thing is complete and total trash. It is what it is, you don’t think of a shot to the head as a protect shot. I'd rather leaders spent time accepting the ugly reality of what is needed then putting lipstick on pigs so we can all feel better about things. I think we spend way too much time using soft language as is, I can’t support any more of it.

[Spaceman Spiff]

John Major doesn't take any crap. props given to him.

[Ancalagon the Black]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff

John Major doesn't take any crap. props given to him.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He was Thatcher's b!tch for years!

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

He was Thatcher's b!tch for years!

From what I know, Thatcher didn't take much crap either. Regardless, I'm with him on this one. I wish we had the balls to do this.

[Ryman of the North]

Destino if shooting an idiot in the head means he cannot detonate his bomb then it is shooting to protecty and I totally agree with it. if some moron doent stop when the cops say stop then F him.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Ryman of the North

Destino if shooting an idiot in the head means he cannot detonate his bomb then it is shooting to protecty and I totally agree with it. if some moron doent stop when the cops say stop then F him.

Yeah, but I'm sure he had "feelings" or "rights" or something like that...and you know, we have to pay attention to how these terrorist groups feel, nevermind the fact they want to bomb trains and planes and kill people, that shouldn't come into play. they're humans too, we need to treat them like that because, after all, they have feelings, just like you and me.

:jerk:

[MaddogCT]

Originally posted by Ryman of the North

Destino if shooting an idiot in the head means he cannot detonate his bomb then it is shooting to protecty and I totally agree with it. if some moron doent stop when the cops say stop then F him.

Hope the moron isn't deaf. But then again thats HIS fault right?

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

That's a thornier issue. It's out of the question in the US, where such speech is protected by the Constitution. And where would you deport them to?

ALL SPEACH is protected by the Constitution. And that is not a bad thing.

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff

From what I know, Thatcher didn't take much crap either. Regardless, I'm with him on this one. I wish we had the balls to do this.

To do what? Be Thatcher's b!tch or circumvent the constitution?

:logo:

[Sarge]

Originally posted by MaddogCT

Hope the moron isn't deaf. But then again thats HIS fault right?

ALL SPEACH is protected by the Constitution. And that is not a bad thing.

Exactly. Now you're catching on!

Not all speech

[MaddogCT]

Originally posted by Sarge

Exactly. Now you're catching on!

Not all speech

Not funny.

Ironic how you can applaud a man wanting to deport people for simply talking bad about the country they are in and then use that same speech to talk bad about the country you are in.

If you are for what this person is suggesting, you have then become to THIS country what that man is talking about in his.

See:

Article [i.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

:logo:

[Sarge]

Originally posted by MaddogCT

Not funny.

Ironic how you can applaud a man wanting to deport people for simply talking bad about the country they are in and then use that same speech to talk bad about the country you are in.

If you are for what this person is suggesting, you have then become to THIS country what that man is talking about in his.

See:

Article [i.]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

:logo:

muslim imans are exercising a little more than "free speech rights", not that England goes by the First amendment anyway.

As for our First Amendment, it's easy to read the basic Amendment, but you have to read the positions and arguements made by the Fathers as well to see what they really meant, not what the Supreme Dorks have interpreted.

Have a look at what Madison, Father of the Constitution, said in regard to freedom of the press

''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity.

And here's his viewpoints on free speech

''But, although the rights of free speech and assembly are fundamental, they are not in their nature absolute. Their exercise is subject to restriction, if the particular restriction proposed is required in order to protect the State from destruction or from serious injury, political, economic or moral.''

So you see, not all speech is protected. The courts have never determined (sedition aside) what exactly is restricted, but I think you'll agree that rousing people up against the West in general and our way of life is destructive

[Ancalagon the Black]

Of course not all speech is protected. Beyond the "'Fire!' in a crowed theater" example, there are countless others. For example, if I'm holding a gun, and I say, "Give me all your money," I cannot then claim that I am merely exercising my free-speech rights.

However, all political speech is protected by the First Amendment. Definitely.

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

However, all political speech is protected by the First Amendment. Definitely.

Even that is debatable. The Sedition Acts were used sucessfully in the 50's to go after the Commie movement/party that was trying to take root in America.

[MaddogCT]

Speech is about context.

No. You cant yell fire in a crowded theater. But you can if there is a fire. Meaning, the phrase is not illegal, but causing an

unnessary panic is.

Saying "Give me all your money" in and of it self not a crime. If it were, there would be a lot of actors in jail. Plus a few kids trying to buy a Big Gulp together. And besides, the man doing the robbery is not being arrested for talking, but robbing.

So, we have gone from Sarge applauding a former British official, who wants to deport people for even speaking againt the west. To Commies of the 50's........only on Extreme Skins.....

I don't know too much about the "red scare" of the 50's. But I do know its called a scare and not an infiltration. The lives and careers of so many people were ruined by "leaders" like McCarthy and Cohn. McCarthy learned his craft well, (guilt by inuendo) but that came crashing down when he came up against a man who was a better lawyer than he was a lier.

Here is a link to the actual exchange:

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/welch-mccarthy.html

A lot of websites group Welsh and McCarthy's comments into single paragraphs.

:logo:

[Tommy-the-Greek]

At times of War the Constitution goes on the back burner till the crises is over. Lincoln and Rooselvelt are examples. The real problem is that this is a totally different kind of war.

We are not talking about free speech here. We are talking about those who incite terrorists to action. The hate spewing Iman's should be deported.

I believe the Brits and the US should create internment camps to gather information from the Iman's and terrorists prior to deporting them.

Now what critera should be used for said internment is the real question.

[du7st]

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo

At times of War the Constitution goes on the back burner till the crises is over. Lincoln and Rooselvelt are examples. The real problem is that this is a totally different kind of war.

We are not talking about free speech here. We are talking about those who incite terrorists to action. The hate spewing Iman's should be deported.

I believe the Brits and the US should create internment camps to gather information from the Iman's and terrorists prior to deporting them.

Now what critera should be used for said internment is the real question.

Wow - I am not sure how you can start with such dead on premises and such terrible conclusions.

You said it yourself: "the real problem is that this is a totally different war." Exactly how long are we supposed to put the Constitution "on the back burner"? Indefinitely? There will never be a clean cut victory so you leave no other option.

Sure it will start with deporting the worst of the worst radicals but where will it lead to when more bombs go off?

Every time something bad happens some people seek greater and greater legislation. How much power is enough for our governments? Are their powers really that lacking today?

[Prosperity]

Is anyone really comparing the war on terrorism with the civil war? There is no comparison this is nowhere near as bad of a situation as back then, not to mention we are a generally more civilized nation now. So please let's not use the excuse of how Lincoln stomped the Constitution to why it should be ok to do it now.

[Destino]

Originally posted by Spaceman Spiff

Yeah, but I'm sure he had "feelings" or "rights" or something like that...and you know, we have to pay attention to how these terrorist groups feel, nevermind the fact they want to bomb trains and planes and kill people, that shouldn't come into play. they're humans too, we need to treat them like that because, after all, they have feelings, just like you and me.

:jerk:

First of all he wasn't a terrorist if you can trust the papers and the british government. Second no one at all is concerned with a dead mans feelings. The fact that a person who didn't need to die was killed is a tragedy, and if you have any decency you'd see that.

Not saying the cops acted wrongly, but that doesn't mean the outcome was good or positive in any way. Sometimes a situation sucks, a cop now has to have a needless death on his conscience and a family is left destroyed.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Originally posted by Destino

First of all he wasn't a terrorist if you can trust the papers and the british government. Second no one at all is concerned with a dead mans feelings. The fact that a person who didn't need to die was killed is a tragedy, and if you have any decency you'd see that.

Not saying the cops acted wrongly, but that doesn't mean the outcome was good or positive in any way. Sometimes a situation sucks, a cop now has to have a needless death on his conscience and a family is left destroyed.

So wait...just because you're a citizen means you're not a terrorist?