FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

Discuss the sport you love with other motorsport fans

Just as it says...
#90978
From BBC.co.uk:

Anti-gay preachers banned from UK

Fred Phelps has been banned from entering the UK along with his daughter

A father and daughter from a US church which preaches hatred of homosexuals have been banned from entering the UK by Home Secretary Jacqui Smith.

Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the Westboro Baptist Church had urged protests against a play being put on in Hampshire.

Queen Mary's College in Basingstoke is staging The Laramie Project, a play about a man killed for being gay.

The UK Border Agency said it opposed "extremism in all its forms".

A spokesman added: "Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

'Punished by God'

"The government has made it clear it opposes extremism in all its forms.

"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

Members of the extreme anti-gay Westboro Baptist church picket the funeral of Lance Cpl Matthew Snyder in March 2006
The church's pickets of military funerals have outraged Americans

The Westboro church's website advertised the picket which was set to take place on Friday, proclaiming: "In merry old England they plan to further enrage the living God by putting on the farce known commonly as The Laramie Project.

"We will picket them, and see if they actually believe those lies they tell about how tolerant and accepting Brits are."

Hampshire Police said they were aware of the planned protest and officers were monitoring the situation.

The church was unavailable for comment on whether it expected UK-based members to carry out a protest at the college.

Members of the group - based in Topeka, Kansas - have denounced homosexuality for years and have in the past targeted the funerals of Aids victims.

In 2007, the church was told to pay $10.9m (£5.2m) after its members cheered a soldier's death as "punishment" for US tolerance of homosexuality.


I don't know how much everybody on this forum knows about the United Kingdom, but, like the United States, civil liberties are being needlessly and disgracefully eroded away by corrupt politicians. Last week, you may have heard, Geert Wilders was banned from entering the U.K. as well.

Now, I don't agree with absolutely anything Phelps has to say - far from it: I think religion is a blight on human civilisation and needs purged off our planet. Nor I am completely in agreement with Wilders' comments either. That said, in the Western world we are meant to have freedom of expression. It is the key thing which differentiates us from oppressive regimes in, say, Zimbabwe. Moreover, tens of millions of our ancestors have died for the relative freedoms we enjoy in the West; so rather than seeking to obliterate them, we should be doing our utmost to defend them. It really is scandalous that in the 21st century, the freedoms we enjoy in the West are not only being attacked by the likes of religious fanatics, but from people within our own culture. Further, has it never occurred to politicians in the U.S. and U.K. that banning things or cutting off communication with particular groups doesn't work. Look at Cuba. Look at Iran. Before the U.K. banned Wilders from entering, most people had not heard of him or his film. If he were allowed into the country, nothing would have been said about Wilders or his views, and people still would not have known about either. It's the same with this guy Phelps. I've only heard about him because of what I saw in the news today. Now I am fully aware of who he is and the despicable views he holds. We have got stop clamping down on freedom of speech and banning people whose views with which we don't agree. They are futile and self-defeating acts.
#90980
is this the w***er who has just said god hates Australia and is punishing Australia with the bushfires and floods because of Heath Ledger portrayal of a gay cowboy?
#90982
That Phelps lot picketed funerals of American troops who died in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, and that is just the tip of the iceberg with them! They are simply disgusting humans and I sure as hell don't want them anywhere near here.

I'm not getting too into the whole freedom of speech can of worms though... I just think it cannot apply to some people (e.g. Hitler)!!!

is this the w***er who has just said god hates Australia and is punishing Australia with the bushfires and floods because of Heath Ledger portrayal of a gay cowboy?


Sounds like the type of thing they'd say. Arseholes.
#90989
The best way to deal with lowlifes like Phelps is to have free and open debate with them. When up against any kind of intelligent person, people would see their homophobic arguments would fold like a deck of cards in hurricane.

All the U.K. has done today is give Phelps exactly what he wanted. His foul views are now being talked about up and down the country and he's turned himself into some kind of martyr whose right to freedom of expression has been suppressed.
Last edited by McLaren Fan on 20 Feb 09, 00:15, edited 1 time in total.
#90997
The best way to deal with lowlifes like Phelps is to have free and open debate with them. When up against any kind of intelligent person, people would see their homophobic arguments would fold like a deck of cards in hurricane.


If you watch the Louis Theroux documentary (i do recommend it), you'll see just how ignorant they are... it's beyond belief!
#90998
Bring back hanging, he can then be let into the UK... so he can be hung!
#91018
The best way to deal with lowlifes like Phelps is to have free and open debate with them. When up against any kind of intelligent person, people would see their homophobic arguments would fold like a deck of cards in hurricane.


If you watch the Louis Theroux documentary (i do recommend it), you'll see just how ignorant they are... it's beyond belief!

I'm not talking about Phelps' cronies...
#91055
The best way to deal with lowlifes like Phelps is to have free and open debate with them. When up against any kind of intelligent person, people would see their homophobic arguments would fold like a deck of cards in hurricane.


If you watch the Louis Theroux documentary (i do recommend it), you'll see just how ignorant they are... it's beyond belief!

I'm not talking about Phelps' cronies...


Erm, ok? Then what have i missed here? Cause it seems like you were referring to that lot there... :-?
#91061
McLaren Fan, people like Phelps are NOT open to rational arguments whatsoever - they only spew pure hatred.

Consider the laws in Britain:
In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act 1986 prohibits, by its Part 3, expressions of racial hatred. "Racial hatred" is defined as hatred against a group of persons by reason of the group's colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. Section 18 of the Act says:

A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—

(a) he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or

(b) having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.

Offences under Part 3 carry a maximum sentence of seven years imprisonment or a fine or both.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A. That Part says, "A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred." The Part protects freedom of expression by stating in Section 29J:

Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.

The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986. The amended Part 3A adds, for England and Wales, the offence of inciting hatred on the ground of sexual orientation. All the offences in Part 3 attach to the following acts: the use of words or behaviour or display of written material, publishing or distributing written material, the public performance of a play, distributing, showing or playing a recording, broadcasting or including a programme in a programme service, and possession of inflammatory material. In the circumstances of hatred based on religious belief or on sexual orientation, the relevant act (namely, words, behaviour, written material, or recordings, or programme) must be threatening and not just abusive or insulting.


Thus, Phelps would break the law in Britain as soon as he opens his pie hole. Can you imagine the publicity a trial against him on those grounds would create incl. diplomatic problems between the US and Britain? Better he'd never get into such a situation in the first place by preventing him from entering the country...
#91065
Erm, ok? Then what have i missed here? Cause it seems like you were referring to that lot there... :-?

What I'm saying is that if you had Phelps versus any rational person with an ounce of brain matter in a debate, none of the audience would be fooled by Phelps' delusions. They would laugh him out of the building.

In terms of the legal position, I'm not entirely sure it's as simple as that. I don't know myself, but I've a friend who has got a law degree, so I'll ask him about it.
#91178
My friend did a bit of research for me on the matter. The legal position isn't quite as clear as The Public Order Act of 1986 suggests. There are several other pieces of legislation from both the United Kingdom and the European Union which are also relevant. The sum total of things is whether or not Phelps' comments are based in any kind of rationality and argued coherently. So, if Phelps couched his remarks by saying something like, "It seem to be... on the basis of", he would probably be within the law. However, remarks such as, '"God hates the Queen Mary’s College, and the fag-infested UK, England, and all having to do with spreading sodomite lies via The Laramie Project, this tacky bit of cheap fag propaganda masquerading as legitimate theater"', have no rational basis whatsoever and have one purpose only: to incite hatred against homosexuals, and this could spark trouble. So, the government were well within the law to prevent Phelps entering the country. My friend did acknowledge, though, it could be argued that it might have been better to have ignored the law this time round and allow Phelps into the county, not giving him the P.R. coup he wanted.
#91355
Erm, ok? Then what have i missed here? Cause it seems like you were referring to that lot there... :-?

What I'm saying is that if you had Phelps versus any rational person with an ounce of brain matter in a debate, none of the audience would be fooled by Phelps' delusions. They would laugh him out of the building.

In terms of the legal position, I'm not entirely sure it's as simple as that. I don't know myself, but I've a friend who has got a law degree, so I'll ask him about it.


So what your saying is.. you'd rather see him come in, and get laughed out than get banned because it gives him more credit?

    See our F1 related articles too!