96 1 min 13 yrs

As you may know by now,  Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders was prevented from entering the UK today, care of the decree from Jackboot Smith our Islam-loving Home Secretary.

OK – so WHAT do the British people think?

The left-wing Guardian has a poll. 83.8% of readers think Wilders should be allowed into the UK.

The right-wing Dail Mail has a poll. 85% of readers think Wilders should be allowed into the UK.

Left and right – Brits favour free speech and yet in the face of all of this, the Government resolutely refuses to allow it to happen. Our neo-fascist Home Secretary should be deported – she in unfit to occupy any office of state.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

96 thoughts on “IN TOUCH WITH THE BRITISH PEOPLE ?

  1. Absolutely agree. What also annoys me is hypocritical idiots like Lib Dem Chris Hume saying he totally values free speech but that he also agrees with the decision to ban him as ‘hate’ speech is not allowed.

  2. ummm…ever get the feeling you’ve been locked in a deep cellar with Ms Smith’s plump legs straddling the exit??

  3. Pete

    Too true. All the supporters of the ban have been queing up to say they believe in free speech but….

    Wouldn;t it be refreshing at least if one of them was honest enough to say "Actually I don’t believe in free speech".

    Bernard

    It’s too early in the night to be informing us of your erotic dreams ๐Ÿ™‚

  4. I fully support the government policy of banning extremists and limiting free speech in that regard. All top nations engage in this policy including Australia and the USA. The person who should have been expelled today was that dickhead "Lord" Ahmed. He was the one inciting racial hatred yesterday. So saying today was actually a victory for free speech and a victory with respect to the spotlight on the issue Wilders wished to raise.

  5. Alison

    Well that’s the trouble when you support giving govt. the power to control the expression of opinions. You can’t guarantee they will exercise that power as you would wish.

  6. Colm,

    Huhne is particularly hypocritical, a liberal who does not support free speech. I heard him on the BBC earlier today – just totally cringeworthy.

  7. I heard Chris Huhne on Today defending the ban on Wilders. Huhne had a good record on civil liberties, but this destroys it.

    Jacqui Smith has caved in to threats of muslim riots. It’s as simple as that. Wilders visited Britain a few months ago with no difficulty.

    I wonder who Lord Ahmed will want to exclude next? The Israeli ambassador maybe? Now that they have tasted power they will be back for more, that’s for sure.

  8. Countries can deny entry to whom they please, but can an EU nation deny entry to a government representative of another?

    I don’t know this particular dude. Wha thas he said that has them upset with him?

  9. Still not safe Alison. After all, that could mean a ban on those who supported and advocated Israel’s recent actions for example ?

  10. David – neither you or Colm can have a go at the Lib Dem since neither of you are free speech ‘purists’.

    Mahons: He is facing charges in his own country by his own government of inciting racial hatred.

  11. Alison

    Rubbish. I am an absolute believer in free speech Find an example here on ATW where I have called for any opinions to be banned.

  12. Colm: Why are you so cranky. Can you explain to me why we value free speech, define it’s purpose?

  13. Alison,

    I have a go at the Glib-Dems all the time ๐Ÿ˜‰ Quite fun really, watching these wolves in lambs clothing defend tyranny.

    I support free speech for all but terrorists. I think that is quite a balanced view.

  14. Alison

    I am cranky because it is something I feel strongly about. You imply that David and I are hypocrites about free speech but speaking at least for myself , I am not. I genuinely believe anyone should be free to express whatever opinion they wish, and of course they also have to be prepared to recieve fierce verbal brickbats in response. You may think differently which is fine, but unless you can prove I have advocated some forms of censorship , don’t claim that I have.

  15. Mahons –

    Wilders is the leader of the ‘Freedom Party’ in the Netherlands, which has six members of the Dutch Parliament and he’s one of them.

    He made a short film called ‘Fitna’ which is all over the web and cobbles together footage of islamic violence and various imams calling for death to the infidels – etc.

    Wilders was invited by Lord Pearson to present his film in the House of Lords. This is the letter he was sent by the British government the other day:

    Dear Mr Wilders

    The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Secretary of State is of the view that your presence in the UK would pose a genuine, present and sufficiently serious threat to one of the fundamental interests of society. The Secretary of State is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.

    You are advised that should you travel to the UK and seek admission an Immigration Officer will take into account the Secretary of State’s view. If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security, you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19. You would have a right of appeal against any refusal of admission, exercisable from outside the UK.

    Yours sincerely,

    Irving N. Jones

    On behalf of the Secretary of State for the Home Department

    As you can see, it’s non-specific on the grounds of his expulsion. This is because the Home Secretary’s charge is a nonsense and doesn’t stand up.

    The Home Secretary’s charge is a sop to Britain’s muslim population ahead of a general election that the Labour Party will lose and it’s desperate to shore up any support to mitigate the slaughter.

    Note particularly the line:

    If, in accordance with regulation 21 of the immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2006, the Immigration Officer is statisfied that your exclusion is justified on grounds of public policy and/or public security, you will be refused admission to the UK under regulation 19.

    A cynic would suggest that ‘the’ Immigration Officer has been primed, tapped up, briefed and prepared in such a political fashion since Wilders’ bar was assured.

    I’ve been saying for years that this Labour government is an exlicit threat to our British liberties. It’s taken their destruction for others to look in front of their nose to realise it.

  16. All of us advocate forms of censorship. Including you and including on this site. Unless you are seriously going to tell me you don’t have an issue with racist language or say..anti islamic poetry?

  17. Censorship is indeed a fact of life Alison and we do indeed all exercise it. But to stop Wilders from entering the UK is reprehensible whilst allowing Al Queda supporting scum in. Labour values.

  18. Mahons: Wilders recently announced his plans to join forces with the neofascist Belgian party Vlaams Belang. I am not sure what charges were brought about by his own government and on what basis, though Fitna his film was a part of the issue – but it was specifically these charges of racism that raised the ‘alarm’. If you are really interested I suggest you check out the blog Harrys Place which has a very full lowdown on the whole argument. Ironically he was here to propose banning the Koran so the debate on the merits of offering him a platform were debated by the House of Lords a few times who invited then uninvited him themselves. Finally they said let him come over. "Lord" Shithead, I mean Ahmed, suggested he would rally 10000 angry muslims outside Parliament and our HS decided to step in to the fray.

    IN the end the film was shown tonight anyway at the Lords, the debate went ahead without him and Wilders got a free press with him on the plane. An issue that would have sunk into obscurity was turned into headline news.

  19. David

    Yes I am geeting to be a cranky middle aged man, and Aliosn’s accusations are aging me by the hour.

    Alison

    "All of us advocate forms of censorship. Including you …

    PROVE IT !

  20. Colm: Are you denying you had an issue with Tom’s anti Islam poem to the extent you suggested it be removed or that you have not been on this site arguing about the use of the word paki. Because seriously Colm, if you do I will think you a lying twat.

  21. >>A cynic would suggest that ‘the’ Immigration Officer has been primed, tapped up, briefed and prepared in such a political fashion since Wilders’ bar was assured.<<

    That seems true enough. There is no way they would have left it up to the discretion of the immigration officer after such a public warning had been served.

  22. Alison

    Do you understand the difference between strongly dissaproving of something to the extent of suggesting that someone should have been ashamed to say it which I freely admit to having done, and actually saying they should not have been ALLOWED to say it, which I have never done.

    If you don’t understand the difference then you are a stupid twat!

  23. Lord Ahmed’s proposed rallying of 10,000 muslims outside Parliament is proof that Britons no longer have control of their country and that the government will ride up the backsides of the volatile muslim minority in fear of violent reprisal. Wilders is a brave man who deserves to be heard.

  24. Do you understand what ‘advocating a form of censorship’ is Colm. In relation to that poem issue it stands. You wanted the poem removed you got it. And to the other issue are you also going to tell me that restricting speech which causes offence e.g by deeming it racist, as you have done here, is not also advocating censorship. Whether or not I agree with you on the latter, you are still not a free speech purist Colm. So stop pretending you are.

  25. Alison

    "restricting speech which causes offence e.g by deeming it racist, as you have done here…

    What planet are you on. I have never done anything of the sort. You really don’t understand the difference between opinion and dictat do you ? You are just a liar. You keep repeating the lie that I have called for the restriction of speech . I haven’t and you have not and will not be able to prove it.

  26. The dhimmis Smith and Miliband had to deport Wilders because the UK’s paymaster (Saudi Arabia – ยฃ12 billion of sharia money) would have taken his money out thus laying waste to all that which had not been laid waste by Brown. Saudi Arabia is now Gordon Brown’s boss.

  27. Yes you have. We were talking about advocating forms of censorship. It’s you who doesn’t get the argument here. And no you are not a free speech purist Colm. I chose those words very carefully (ha)

  28. Alison

    I guess there are only so many times you can ask someone to prove their claims and watch as they so clearly and repeatedly fail to do so as you have, no matter how ‘carefully’ you choose your words.

  29. ATW BNP debate August 2007 is a great example. It deals pretty much entirely with racism with you at the helm. Along with that poem you have acknowledged. You are not a free speech purist Colm. And you haven’t even the intellect tonight to understand what the point on that is. David got it earlier on. But I guess that is what comes of you going off half cocked.

  30. Oh dear Alison, don’t you feel embarrassed at your failure to substantiate what you accused me of. Instead you flounder around trying now to desperately backtrack claiming you meant something more subtle and ‘intellectual’ in your claim that I was not a free speech purist. Perhaps you need to gain the intellect to understand the difference between believing in someones speech and believing in free speech.

    I have not gone off half cocked. I simply called you out on your lie about me and you have not been able to prove otherwise. Let me put it to you as basically as I can. I AM A FREE SPEECH PURIST

  31. I’m neither lying nor backtracking. Start at the beginning of the thread and pay attention this time. For tedium! And no you are not a free speech purist Colm. No matter HOW LOUD YOU SHOUT IT.

  32. He’s that Tory bloke who quit his seat and caused a by-election over the 90 day detention business isn;t he ?

  33. >>And to the other issue are you also going to tell me that restricting speech which causes offence e.g by deeming it racist, as you have done here, is not also advocating censorship.<<

    Calling, or "deeming", something racist is not censorship and is not advocating censorship. How could it be?

    As far as I remember, Colm has never advocated censorship on this site. I seem, however, to recall you not only promoting censorship but actually practising it here, Alison, when you censored certain commenters you didn’t approve of.

  34. Alison

    You could very easily win this argument by finding a comment of mine where I have advocated specific censorship of a particular viewpoint or expression. Go on , there’s a challenge for you.

  35. You haven’t dealt with them when they were pointed out to you in the context of this ‘debate’ of free speech purism Colm. I very clearly expressed my point and have given two examples, the poem and allegations of racism.

    The right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations which you yourself would be hard pushed to wholly dismiss, of which racism and race laws form a part. You are therefore not a free speech purist (none of us really are). As I said right back at the start of the debate before you lost it.

    The point is this: if you have the right to Freedom of Speech and then for whatever reasons are pressured into not using that right, then it is not "free" and it is also pointless to define it as such. Governments are forever attempting to limit what constitutes "Freedom of Speech" as are groups and individuals – including you – they go about it in different ways, advocating FORMS of censorship.

    Framing speech as racist is one such way. You are therefore not a free speech purist. And I chose that term right at the start very specifically. So no back tracking from moi. A clearly maintained point of view throughout.

    Nowwhere in this thread have I ever counted myself as a free speech purist so Noel’s point is rather pointLESS. In point of fact I have put up posts on this site arguing against free speech for lunatics, such as those who picket soldier’s funerals in America.

  36. Alison: Just because you support stifling free speech in certain circumstances doesn’t mean others do. Colm says that he doesn’t agree. So, he doesnt.

    Why is it that people always insist that their convictions are shared by others. Isn’t it enough that you hold the conviction?

  37. Alison

    I condemned Tom’s poem which advocated the herding of Muslim men women and chidren into Mosques and burning them or drowning them all at sea. I thought it was reprehensible and shamefull and told him he should be ashamed of having advocated it. He accepted it had been posted in anger and withdrew it. I at no point demanded that he should not be even permitted to say it. We both exercised free speech.

    I said Paki was a derogatory and offensive term with a history much worse than using ‘jock’ or ‘taffy’ but at no point did I say that people should be prosecuted for using it in speech. I do not seek to ban someone from using any terms or expressing any opinions but I will exercise my freedom of speech to tear into them if I feel the wish to do so I have no power to censor and do not want it but can only persuade people to change their views.

    You are honest in advocating some censorship – such as with the funeral pickets -and it is perfectly valid to hold that view but I do not and I just wish you would acknowledge that rather than claiming that in some sly way that I do.

  38. Colm

    I have never once mentioned you banning anything or anyone.

    If you have the right to Freedom of Speech and then for whatever reasons are pressured into not using that right, then it is not "free" and it is also pointless to define it as such. That is where free speech purists would differ from you. Pressure is applied by defining something as racist, shutting down broader points when narrowly focusing on language or labelling, or indeed indirectly pressuring someone to remove, say, their poem. It is pressure, slight or great, that leads people to self-censor Colm. Which is just as bad. You have cheerled some corkers so no I do not believe you are a free speech purist.

    Secondly on legislation or proscribing speech. I asked you right at the start to define free speech. You didn’t. So it is hard to argue with you over the limitations >governments< apply in this argument. But the right to freedom of speech is not absolute in any country and the right is commonly subject to limitations.

  39. Patty: I’m not dishonest. You pretend to support free speech when it suits you and stifle it when it suits you also. You often censor ‘offensive’ threads. And you will stick up a post slamming, say, Daphne without even opening the comments. Then when you’ve made your point you delete the post and make like it never happened.

  40. Alison: You are very confused about free speech. Free speech doesn’t mean that I personally have to be anybody’s doormat.

    For simplification purposes, imagine this is my site. You (or Daphne) are free to speak your minds. I do not legally prevent this.

    But, I am also free to delete your comments.

    Preventing someone from speaking or writing in the public square – that is preventing free speech.

    But a private university (or website) as every right to prevent whomever they like from speaking or writing.

  41. Now I’m confused. It’s a bad thing that the Dutchman was refused entry whilst Jihadists and Texans are. If people didn’t like was he was saying, they could tell him ti sod off. It’s the so called Lord who threatened Parliament with a mob that’s the real problem here.

  42. Alison: And, do I really need to point out that both you and Daphne have posting privileges here?

    Practically speaking, were either of you to have something that you really wanted to say – something that I unjustly censored through deletion – you could post it yourself!

  43. Patty, I have no problem with your regular abuse of blogging etiquette, the ignorant posts that consistently reflect badly on American conservatism or your ongoing personal attacks on all women at atw (except typhoo).

    Your basic lack of politesse and general good wit reflect a long line of poor breeding with an inbred tendency towards a tightly clenched ass with little appreciation, or comprehension, for actual fact.

    You’ve never been a doormat, Patty. Play that pity party with your LA girlfriends and your backdoor boys on atw. You’re a third rate, prima donna bitch who regularly gets raked over the coals for a basic lack of intellectual fortitude.

    You can’t take the heat, never could, when the ladies call you on your bullshit, you crawl back into dank corners or scream foul rather than own your positions, words or lies. You never own your shit, Patty.

    No one here is surprised with your content, censorship, closed posts, deleted posts or faux put upon attitude.

    You’re David’s California trailer trash contribution to the UK discussion of political affairs. Long may you turn your simple version of American conservatism into another European joke.

    Long reign the old simple queen.

  44. Daphne: I don’t really think our personal squabble is of much interest to anyone except perhaps ourselves.

    But, I am interested in addressing your (and Alison’s) understanding of "free speech."

    You see, I think it is a gross misunderstanding of the concept of "free speech" to think that a comment deletion, or even a wholesale banning of a person from a website is somehow a violation of free speech.

    It is a gross misunderstanding because anyone can start a website of their own and say whatever they like. There is no law preventing this. There is no curtailment of free speech.

    Also, both you and Alison seem to think that you have been censored by me because I deleted Daphne’s personal insults. But, both you and Alison can post here at any time. To claim that you have been somehow "censored" is ridiculous.

  45. Alison

    Let’s go back to the beginning of this thread where for some bizarre reason despite us all being in agreement against the ban you chose to say that neither David or I were in a position to criticise the Lib Democrats. Why ?. Even if I was a very censorious person I would still have every right to attack a political decision or viewpoint I disapproved of. Your stateemnt simply made no logical sense regardless of my stance on free speech.

  46. It made no logical sense because you simply don’t understand the point about free speech purism Colm and I’ve outlined it plainly a couple of times now. You seem more fixated on the fact I have said you are not a free speech purist and less interested in understanding what that is.

    We discussed free speech purism after a rally I attended a few years ago on the matter which I found fascinating on a few levels. Not least because I came away understanding that everyone in that room viewed it distinctly and saw limitations when challenged. I understood then that all speech is limited or censored directly or indirectly. I am simply being honest now about my appraisal of what we call "free" speech.

    You can say what you like Colm about that libtard of course. I didn’t say you could not. But I find it rather ironic you attacking liberals on free speech credentials. The result of >self censorship< and/or government legislation which has actually arisen precisely OUT of self censorship (decrying racism etc) contributes to that very issue. And you above all here have cheerled a few of those pointless time wasting threads fixated as you have been on someone’s words. At the end of the day they are just words. But we self censor them because of that kind of atmosphere where words are somehow seen as weapons and we must protect people from feeling hurt by decrying racism. We create the atmosphere to self censor and then eventually… we legislate that by various means. A liberal policy in which we have all played a role. Hence why I said right back at the start noone truly believes in free speech. There is no "free speech" anymore Colm. Not for a long while. And you are certainly no free speech purist. Had you been you would be the last person to be fixated with people’s poems to the extent that they wind up self censoring.

    I made a singular remark which you jumped all over with a vengeance so I have attempted to clarify it for you. Several times. You haven’t once addressed the issues so I’ll assume this a pointless discussion. It has certainly become tedious..

  47. Give up your waffling Alison. You will simply never win an argument with me on the topic of free speech. Even Noel and Patty both noted that you were wrong in your claims about me. Now you have just become embarrassing, claiming that simply to disagree with someones words is a form of censorship. No it isn’t. Flipping hell, do you want us all just to say nothing more than nice fluffy agreeable things to each other.

  48. Colm –

    No that is not what I am saying at all. I never said you did not believe in free speech did I. I said purist for a specific reason as I said to you yesterday.

    My ‘waffling’ is simply answering your irritation at not being the full "free" speech champion you so clearly think you are and defining my take on the issue and why I don’t believe you are. I.O.W: answering YOU.

    That you don’t like what I am saying, do not understand the term ‘purist’, cannot see your own tendancy toward the liberal self-censorship or want to bastardise my argument into something else is your problem.

    And if you need others to come in and stroke your ego over it without equally grabbing the balls of the issue then good luck with that also.

    You don’t even understand what self censoring is or how it has comes about. How it is relevant to this Wilders discussion and Islam or our current newspaper industry. How it creates the very legislation and attitude and atmosphere you get so irked about.

    Have you the ability to think beyond being so ever so miffed for even a short while. This is not about your ego Colm so next time don’t waste my time challenging my points if you cannot be arsed to actually argue them properly and are simply more concerned with your fucking reputation as ATWs arbitrating golden boy (or rod).

  49. Alison, if your term "free speech purism" means only the refusal to criticise anyone for fear it will create an atmosphere where the person being criticised will "self-censor" (!), then it means nothing and is useless.
    (at least I think "But we self censor them because of that kind of atmosphere where words are somehow seen as weapons and we must protect people from feeling hurt by decrying racism" means something like that…)

    A person who edits his own words is not censoring himself; we all do it all the time while we speak, and mostly it is just being sensible. It’s nonsense to call this censorship and even more absurd to blame it on the person who caused the other guy to change tack simply by pointing out to him the error of his ways, as was the case with Tom.

    This "free speech purism" is just a lump of smoke disguised as a concept, probably coined by some neurotic partisans to vilify their opponents with the charge of "censorship".
    Should fool very few.

  50. Noel –

    At least David gets it.

    It’s not even my term. Any argument over free speech will eventually boil down to the nuts of bolts of how you define free speech in pure terms.

    Not the refusal. The fixation. The fixation with language within the context of racism is a modern thing and is an entirely liberal construct around speech.

    It makes a mockery of the term "free speech" and it certainly made me chuckle to see Colm charge the liberal with guilt with what is after all only the natural progression of self censorship within those sorts of racial constructs.

    As for fooling few it seems to have fooled various governments into creating relevant legislation over the decades. It has also brought us to a rather ugly situation where to speak your mind over ‘race’ here(Islam) results in quick self censorship.

    If Tom’s poem had been over the Bible and christians I doubt Colm would have gone hell for leather with his little fixation which resulted in Tom withdrawing, censoring and then apologising for his "free" use of language. His poem was no worse than the visual parallels Wilders draws.

    Fixation fixation.

  51. Alison

    You really can’t stop lying can you. If you think I would have had no objection to someone posting a comment on wanting to slaughter Christian men women and children then go ahead, keep saying whatever crap comes into your head. I do not favour defending Muslims over others. 2 of the other fiercest arguments I had on here were about comments mocking the death of a Christian (De Menenez) and a remark about Jews expressed by Bernard. You are just annoyed because I didn’t allow you to get away with your original lie about me at the beginning of this thread. However feel free to carry on with the lies I guess there is little point in continuing to debate with someone who is perfectly content to make up crap as she goes along.

  52. You’re losing it Alison. You made a false claim about me , couldn’t back it up with any evidence and end up having to resort to wailing about my ‘fucking ego’

    Learn to let go when you’ve lost an argument.

  53. Yes of course I did, in Alison’s make believe world, where Colm acts as a censor,only defends Muslims and posts his views just to stroke his own ego.

  54. >>If Tom’s poem had been over the Bible and christians I doubt Colm would have gone hell for leather with his little fixation which resulted in Tom withdrawing, censoring and then apologising for his "free" use of language.<<

    Maybe not. But Tom’s decision to withdraw his poem is not (self-)censorship, and Colm’s criticim of the poem has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with free speech one way or the other.

    Tom was entilted to post the poem, and Colm was entitled to say what he wants about it (and knowing Colm, I doubt if his words were nearly as hard as the words of the poem, but the point is irrlevant). Both were therefore exercising their rights to free speech. If Tom decides on reflection that he made a mistake and withdraws the poem, that’s his decision, and is again an example of him exercising free speech. Are you honestly suggesting that Colm’s commitment to free speech is somehow less "pure" because he dared criticise Tom’s poem???

    Whether criticism is based on charges of racism or anything else is also irrelevnat. If someone feels so intimidated by popular opinion or political correctness to change his tone or his statement, that is his own business. Political correctness works only because people choose to acknowledge it.

  55. Purism as in wholly unfettered free speech.

    I made a succint remark and stand by it.

    I have argued throughout this thread about >advocating forms of censorship< – in that infamous case shaming someone relentlessly into self censorship and by Colm’s own admission. Colm fully admitted to the issue with regard to self censorship. It’s back up there on the thread. Noone can truly call themselves a believer in "free speech" if they do NOT believe someone has a right to express themselves however they so wish and should then be stigmtised and shamed into removing it and apologising for that free expression.

    Colm could easily have simply stated the use of language was abhorrent to him, the charge against Islam not valid, proven why, debated and moved on. The point was he did not. The fixation with the expression turned into a mini witch hunt until Tom literally felt he had no choice but to withdraw the remark. That isn’t "free" speech.

    Free speech and liberally esconced race challenges are entirely born out of same thing. Forced self censorship and then latterly Labour’s invoking them into laws. This is all the basis on which much of this Wilders debate has come to rest. They have come about through a whole bunch of relentless modern attacks on racially based "free" speech issues born of fixation and stigma about the language we choose to adopt. (Islam not being a race simply further complicates the issue)

    Political correctness works only because people choose to acknowledge it by stigma of self censorship. If speech were truly free then they would not be so inclined. Modern debate has truly nose dived particularly around this debate precisely because people are now too afraid to voice and criticise.

    And it is muslims, who fixate on what is said, like like Colm against Tom, waving around placards requesting people use their free speech ‘politely’ ‘without offending’ and ‘apologise’ or desist from uttering what they view as a racial attack. Which in the end is subjective. Until people shut up or withdraw. That ain’t free speech!

  56. Alison

    Can you answer a simple question with a simple Yes or No answer. Did I seek to prevent Tom from even being allowed to post that poem ?

  57. Alison

    Ok you choose to blatantly lie in your answer to my question, but if you repeat the question you want me to answer as I am not sure which one you are referring to, then I at least will attempt to give an honest answer.

  58. Colm – that appears to be your stock answer to any reponse you do not like. It’s at the start of the thread just behind your ego. You haven’t bothered to argue anything so far so you can at least be bothered to find the question.

  59. Alison

    It’s the stock answer because it’s the correct answer. Time and again I ask you to prove allegations against me and you just repeat them not prove them. You have now in the last couple of comments clearly stated that I tried to ensure that Tom should not even be permitted to post the comment that I disagreed with.

    Now you may live in a different world, but I like to think that if someone makes a specific claim about another commenter here they should have the evidence to prove it, otherwise we might as well just post whatever fantasy accusations we like about each other.

  60. colm your question is nonsense. you cannot predetermine what someone will write on a blog and premptively ban it unless you know they will be posting it. in this domain once it is written you could attempt to censor it or have it removed by any means. both fall in to the boundaries of free speech.

  61. RC

    Of course I cannot predetermine what someone will write on a blog, but neither did I demand that it be censored or removed. I objected to it and thought it was horrible. I also believed it was uncharacteristic of Tom a thoughtful man who I admire. I made my feelings known but I am no different to anyone else here in that that is all I can or wish to do. I have no power to censor anyone and do not want it. Tom could have chosen to say "Stuff you Colm I’m proud of what I wrote" and moaning stubborn git that I can be , I would have accepted his choice but instead he listened to my argument and chose to retract it. That is what free exchange of views is all about CHOICE!

  62. Alison – you are barking up the wrong tree on this one, and I admire Colm for sticking to his guns.

  63. Than you Mahons.

    You, Noel, Patty!. Alison will accuse me of rounding up a posse against her ๐Ÿ™‚

  64. No it is simply your stock answer. I have justified my initial observation, which I stand by, and presented examples to back it up, as requested. Of which Tom, a notable incident, was one clear one within the frame of my whole argument. And I have bothered to lay it all out here for you and you freely agreed what you did for which you now frame me a liar. I also note with interest you never picked up David on his agreement with my overall point. So. I conclude. You just don’t like it. But here’s the thing. I am no longer interested in arguing with your stupid ego. I have wasted enough of my time. In future I suggest your stock response to any of my observations to be ‘so what’. Preferably at the start. That would save us both a lot of fucking time arguing over something which clearly is of no real interest to you whatsoever.

  65. Yes I know it provides you succour in the righteous belief you have won some argument. But you didn’t even present one.

    And I should add that requiring someone’s approval for something Colm merely adds to the whole ego thing.

    I don’t need or require back up on this issue because I quite simply know I am right regards the whole Tom affair. I took way too much interest in that protracted censoring crap of yours on and off line to ever view you as some real arbiter of free speech.

    RC,

    Exactly. You could then take it a step further and look at what Colm did. He is no free speech purist. A simple enough remark and a sound enough argument within the context of free speech. I am not barking up the wrong tree. I am pissing all over Colm’s ludicrous and pathetic claim to be a free speech purist. Utter twaddle.

  66. You have justified nothing Alison. You have posted about 20 comments here on this point but not one shred of genuine proof that I tried to censor anyones opinion. That’s all I asked and you couldn’t do it.

    However I will agree with you that it would of course save a lot of time if we say whatever we want about each other without being challenged or substantiating it which clearly is the commenting ethos that you prefer.

  67. Alison – barking or pissing strike me as activities one should engage in with more discretion, and less animosity.

    You are simply wrong in your characterization.

  68. alison I don’t know the context of the tom issue but I have read your arguments here and fully agree with you about self censoring, the leftwing drive towards it and modern free speech. which is not free. if a posse is what one requires then congrats for your honesty earlier on, for arguing this so soundly. and sticking to your guns also.

  69. Alison

    Are you going for a record of distortions and lies ? I don’t require or seek anyones approvals for my arguments. I didn’t secretly e mail Mahons Noel and Patty asking them to back me up. They freely chose to comment here with no instructions from me.

    No you are not barking up the wrong tree, just inventing one that isn’t there.

    I am a free speech purist. I believe anyone should be free to post whatever opinion they wish, and yes that includes my freedom to respond verbally however I wish to. If you think that statement is false and I don’t practise what I preach PROVE IT.

  70. Colm – My first comment contained no animosity. Your comment was full of fucking ego and the ensuant thread the same.

    You acknowledged my "shred of proof" you baffoon. You haven’t presented any argument. You haven’t answered any questions.

    Next time stick your tongue out and write "ner ner ner ner ne neeeerrrr" and get it endorsed by Mahons as some distinction of an "argument". Would work about the same.

  71. "I am a free speech purist. I believe anyone should be free to post whatever opinion they wish. and yes that includes my freedom to respond verbally however I wish to"

    ROFL!!!

    You are not. And I did. Did you bother to read my arguments on the notion of free speech ‘purism’ at all?

  72. Alison

    On a future thread why not just claim that Colm is a paedophile who mugs and rapes old women and sells crack to schoolkids , it’s Ok you don’t have to prove any of it,just keep repeating it over and over. That’s the Alison method isn’t it.

  73. Alison

    On a future thread why not just claim that Colm is a paedophile who mugs and rapes old women and sells crack to schoolkids , it’s Ok you don’t have to prove any of it,just keep repeating it over and over. That’s the Alison method isn’t it ?

  74. I think I finally now realise what you mean by ‘Free speech purist’ . Someone who has no criticism or objection or disagreement with any opinion whatsoever. It’s a different definition than mine, but yeah according to your definition, I am no free speech purist.

  75. "All of us advocate forms of censorship. Including you and including on this site. Unless you are seriously going to tell me you don’t have an issue with racist language or say..anti islamic poetry?"

    Right at the start. Your freedom to respond amounted to fixating on someone’s expression until they censored it. Your freedom to respond was an advocation of and preference for a form of censorship on someone else’s free expression. You weren’t happy until you had achieved that aim and now you want to claim my reposted argument above is false. that you are a free speech purist. Ha! You may be a defender of the notion of free speech, but a free speech purist, the whole fucking crux of my initial remark, you sure ain’t Colm. You most assuredly are not.

    As for the proof I laid out for you and which you agreed with and now dispute a lie. On that basis I already assumed you are smoking crack Colm.

    "Someone who has no criticism or objection or disagreement with any opinion whatsoever."

    Thank you! An argument. Except you were not criticising objecting or disgareeing with his ‘opinion’ Colm. What opinion anyways? You were simply criticising objecting and disgreeing with his right to express it and made it your business to ensure that he removed it.

    Ha!

    Now. Dismissed. Mind you don’t hit your head on your strap on hard-on, sorry ego, on the next thread.

  76. Alison

    I never agreed with your claims about the Tom issue. The claim that is , that I ‘forced’ him into self-censorship I did not demand that he withdraw it or that it be removed from the site. That is a lie. I objected to the sentiments and Tom in response to listening to my objections later withdrew his belief in those views. I don’t even think the actual poem was removed but I accept that I can’t be sure if he actually did that.

    PS – I love the fact that you so coyly refer to it as an anti-Islamic poem. Makes it sound so much tamer than what it actually was. A call for the deliberate mass murder of a whole population of men women children and babies. I also remember that it didn;t bother you one bit. You were more annoyed at my objections to it. Says a lot about your values Alison.

    However this whole thing actually started when you claimed that David and I were in no position to criticise the Lib dems. That was a stupid and false thing to say. We are all in a position to criticise whatever we want. I just don’t understand why you felt the need to make that remark.

  77. I thought it said a lot about your values. That you would assume Tom someone he clearly was not. Had it been anyone else I may have agreed with you. But a single remark to that effect would have sufficed. What you did was flat out hateful and mean and protracted. It was the *lengths* you went to that end which discredit your attempt to make this some mere expression of your own right to free speech. The kind of revolting small minded crap we see played out every day in the press vilifying someone and further diminishing people’s ability to feel free expressing themselves. The whole thrust of my argument the last 24 hours. A petty little witch hunt over a man’s words and character who was notably angry but certainly not some kind of nasty closet little racist.

    I said you pursued him with that express aim, not that you had it banned. Are you honestly going to flat out lie now and say your intention was nothing other than humiliating him for his words and a fixation on that expression. You really are going to lie and suggest it was not your express objective to hammer it home until he either apologised for his apparent "free" expression. No apology for free speech isn’t it? This is precisely the kind of fixation attitude that pushes free speech into a corner whereby it is not acceptable to freely express yourself any longer. Precisely the kind of mitigating self censorship that started out decades ago and has resulted in the climate of PC crap we see today at best or at worst legislating the protection of people’s feelings via hate speech laws. And that was why I made the remark. That noone here is fully "free speech", we all self censor because of precisely these anti free speech social norms which you were waving at Tom with gusto.

  78. Oh Alison in wonderland, what a topsy turvey world you live in. You paint a picture that I engaged in a hateful mean and protracted vendetta against Tom which is just not true, but then again I guess that’s just a matter of perception. I don;t consider that I did that at all. However let’s look at this from another angle

    Let’s picture a scenario. Someone comes onto ATW and posts a comment saying that they are so full of hatred for Israel that they would love nothing better than to see every Jewish man woman and child wiped off the face of the earth and that nothing would give them more pleasure than to drive every Jew into the sea and watch them drown or see them burn to death in their synagohues. Another commenter registers his disgust at these remarks in the strongest possible terms.

    Who is Alison going to support and how is she going to react ?

  79. It was certainly protracted. It was mean and spiteful, not hateful, over a man who hardly deserved it at any rate. The protracted and petty mindedness of it got you the result you wanted. It is one thing registering your contempt for the remarks. As I already said Colm, but I assume you cannot read. I would have agreed with you had it been anyone else or may have told Tom to quit. But he wasn’t around and you went apeshit over his comments without even addressing the man! But one or two remarks about it was insufficient for you anyway. With such a fixated focus on the nature of the language there and elsewhere on these discussions on ATW, what else were you doing it for Colm if not to ensure naughty Tom etc did not ever express himself like that again? So therein I refer you to my comment above. Which you have barely addressed!

    I’m not in wonderland, I can assure you, i’m in hospital. When I get another chance I will return to the thread. You still haven’t answered my question, so frankly yours can wait.

  80. I can’t answer your question becuase despite asking you to repeat it you haven’t and I am not a mind reader. I honestly do not know which question you want me to answer.

    Despite our differences , I do hope your hospital visit is not for something serious but whatever it is, I hope it all works out fine.

  81. The only way this can be settled is if someone links to the thread where Tom posted his poem.

    If the thread shows that Colm "tried to prevent Tom from being allowed post the poem", then Alison is right.
    If it’s clear that Colm didn’t try to prevent that, then Alison has been wrong all along and Colm is right.

  82. It was a really long time ago Noel, when you were in short pants, but I will try and Google it and will meekly eat humble pie nd self-flagelate myslef if is shown that I did what Alison claims.

  83. >>will meekly eat humble pie nd self-flagelate <<

    Colm, well, I hope you at least don’t take back what you wrote here. That would after all be self-censorship and would mean Alison’s fixating on your formulation would have robbed you of your free speech and her of her purity.

Comments are closed.