Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: thames_sider who wrote (27820)	4/30/2002 8:03:00 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Respond to of 281500

UK court upholds Farrakhan ban Tuesday, April 30, 2002 Email this article The British government has won its legal bid to continue a ban on controversial black U.S. political leader Louis Farrakhan from visiting the UK. The High Court quashed the 16-year ban, to the dismay of the government, after Farrakhan appealed against it. But on Tuesday, the Court of Appeal said Home Secretary David Blunkett's decision to maintain the ban was correct based upon his assessment of the risk that Farrakhan's "notorious opinions" might provoke disorder. The three judges said: "In evaluating that risk the Home Secretary had had regard to tensions in the Middle East current at the time of his decision." The judges, who had been told that Farrakhan was well-known for making anti-Semitic and racially divisive views, allowed the appeal and refused permission to take the case to the House of Lords. Blunkett said in a statement after the ruling: "I am very relieved that the view taken by successive Home Secretaries has been vindicated and the Home Secretary's right to exclude someone from the country whose presence is not conducive to good public order has been upheld. "This has been a long haul but I am pleased with today's ruling which makes clear that the Home Secretary is both best placed and democratically accountable for these decisions." Minister Hilary Muhammed, Farrakhan's representative in the UK, said: "Obviously we are disappointed but we are not excessively surprised. "Very seldom do black people enjoy good news from any court anywhere to be found. We have to live with bad news on a daily basis." He said that an appeal was being considered. "We will continue to fight this injustice because we believe faith and justice is on our side. We have to fight for what is our due right." Lord Janner of Braunstone QC, chairman of the Holocaust Educational Trust, told the Press Association: "I am delighted that the law has acted justly, realising the damage that Farrakhan could have done to Britain, particularly now at a time of political unrest in the Middle East, Europe and here. "With our local elections next week, the BNP do not need encouragement from the likes of Farrakhan." Farrakhan, 68, is the leader of the Chicago-based Nation of Islam, the published aims of which include "the regeneration of black self-esteem, dignity and self-discipline." He has been seeking since 1986 to enter Britain to address his followers who have set up their own UK branch. Successive Home Secretaries have refused permission but in October last year Mr Justice Turner ruled that then Home Secretary Jack Straw had failed to give justification for excluding Farrakhan from the country in 2000. Monica Carss-Frisk QC, representing Blunkett, told the Court of Appeal judges that the right to freedom of expression enshrined in the Human Rights Convention did not apply in a case involving a decision on whether to allow a non-national into the country. She said: "The Home Secretary was entitled to conclude that Mr Farrakhan is well known for expressing anti-Semitic and racially divisive views, particularly at a time of political unrest in the Middle East. "To allow him into the country would pose a significant threat to community relations and public order and was therefore contrary to the public good." Nicholas Blake QC, representing Farrakhan, told the court that in the years since the first exclusion order was made, his client had achieved a status as a spiritual and political voice of the African-American community in the U.S. Blake said Farrakhan was not a fascist sympathiser, a holocaust denier or a supremacist seeking to liquidate other religions or races. He said Farrakhan had not only targeted Jews in his speeches but had also "said unkind things about whites, Catholics and gays." He added: "It is absurd to say that this is a man who is a rabble rouser. He has never been convicted of any disorderly conduct as neither has anyone who attended his meetings."

To: thames_sider who wrote (27820)	4/30/2002 10:34:36 AM
From: TimF	Respond to of 281500

I think that number 1 - Aggression, is a large enough difference in degree to be a difference in kind. Even when Israel did attack first it was in response to armies massing against them and in most of the wars they did not attack first. I think 2 is also a difference in kind. Hunting down terrorists and killing them is not just a difference in degree from setting off bombs in pizza places. 3 - Again a difference in kind. Iraq signed on to an obligation that Israel has not signed on to. 4 - A difference in kind again. Israel is and has been an ally with formal security agreements and a long history of friendly relations. Iraq was someone we briefly cooperated with. 5 - Here you might have a point if you are talking about the human rights of the Palestinians but its a massive difference of degree and in many cases a huge difference in degree amounts to a difference in kind. I would not say that the US was a totalitarian country in the 20th century despite things like the internment of Japanese Americans. The level of freedom was at least indirectly covered by human rights, but your right it should have been explicitly stated. If your friend is continually beating and cheating on his wife, would you excuse him because he's better than the rapist living over the road? No, but if you catch the rapist trying to rape someone you might shoot them to prevent it. You shouldn't shoot cheaters or even someone who is mildly abusive on one or two occasions (and if the domestic abuse is serious and almost constant, or threatens the abused persons life and health in a serious way then you are putting the abuser on the same level as the rapist and I think that Israel is not even remotely close to Iraq in this regard). Tim