Anti-gay preacher linked to Orlando has Australian visa revoked. - Polidicks

[QUOTE]An Islamic preacher who has said homosexuals should be put to death has left Australia. British-born Shia cleric Sheikh Farrokh Sekaleshfar lectured near Orlando, Florida in April and was being widely quoted in the wake of Sunday's killing. He was visiting Australia as a guest of Sydney's Imam Husain Islamic Centre. Media reports on Wednesday said Sheikh Sekaleshfar left the country after [B]Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull ordered a review of his visa.[/B] Australia's immigration minister Peter Dutton said he had officially revoked Sheikh Sekaleshfar's visa and that it would be "very difficult, if not impossible for him to return" to the country. Source: [url]http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-36431916[/url][/QUOTE]

He shouldn't be allowed in any civilized country.

Good. Cunts like that can fuck off to whatever backwards shithole they crawled out of. It's one thing to have those opinions, nobody can force any beliefs on him. But to actively proclaim and encourage others to kill gays is not acceptable.

As long as hes just using a right granted to every westener to promote his views through free speech, I don't see what the problem is.

you could argue that it's kind of wrong to silence him like this but on the other hand, do we really want people like him inciting hate and bigotry in our countries?

He's not a citizen and he is suggesting killing people so honestly I don't see the problem with kicking him out.

[QUOTE=The fox;50525410]As long as hes just using a right granted to every westener to promote his views through free speech, I don't see what the problem is.[/QUOTE] I'm of the opinion that peoples rights of not being harassed and discriminated against should come before other peoples rights to harass and discriminate.

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50525496]I'm of the opinion that peoples rights of not being harassed and discriminated against should come before other peoples rights to harass and discriminate.[/QUOTE] Am afraid it's either free speech or nothing. Eitherway you take it may or will lead to some consequence that we must learn to live with.

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525522]Am afraid it's either free speech or nothing. Eitherway you take it may or will lead to some consequence that we must learn to live with.[/QUOTE] Free speech almost always ends at the point of incitement to violence. That has always been the traditional limits on free speech in England (originally to deal with people trying to incite murders of grain speculators), and has been in much of the world. And in reality free speech isn't unlimited, you don't have a right to write defamatory lies about people. You can't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. You can't lie to a court. Free speech advocates need to think more carefully about what they're advocating I think. [url]http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/the-empirics-of-free-speech-and.html[/url] [url]http://anonymousmugwump.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/the-empirics-of-free-speech-and_29.html[/url] These two blogs are as far as I am concerned some of the best things I have read on free speech (hopefully he will hurry up and finish the third). [QUOTE][B]The argument that certain kinds of speech are harmful is overstated by some but by no means entirely invalid. [/B] There are normative positions we should adhere to that have a radical impact on free speech and public policy. The argument from infallibility, coupled with the incompetence of the state, is the strongest argument in favour of free speech. The language that is used by both free speech advocates and detractors is misguided. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Why have taken so much time writing out potential negatives of free speech? There are two reasons. First, [B]people need to have a sense of humility when talking about this issue.[/B] Yes, free speech is good (see Part 1) but its not a clean, cut good that should be spoken about without regard to the evidence. Even when talking about things like pornography, video games etc., there is a lot of research – and it doesn’t always support what you would’ve necessarily thought. I have given my reasons above for siding with positions which are more amenable to free speech but I have been unable to do this consistently in this Part... [B]Talking about Charlie Hebdo, ‘offense’ and ‘blasphemy laws’ is too easy.[/B] In a debate with terrorists or fringe left people, that might be valuable. I can understand the desire to respond to the constant attacks on free speech with people like Will Self. But in a debate where people broadly agree that free speech is good, it means you’re not really testing your position if you ignore these complex issues. There is so much room for legitimate nuance. Talk about RTLM, the statistical differences in the studies on video game usage, umugandas and Becker’s model of discrimination.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525522]Am afraid it's either free speech or nothing. Eitherway you take it may or will lead to some consequence that we must learn to live with.[/QUOTE] then take the consequences? no nations on earth have absolute freedom of speech so all countries must be facing those consequences. You make it sound ominous but its really not "absolute freedom of speech or ministry of truth and jack boots on muddy cobble stones under the neon glare of the telescreen's omnipresent gaze." Its not black and white like you make it out to be.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;50525381]He shouldn't be allowed in any civilized country.[/QUOTE] then how do you expect him to become civilized

I just found the censoring any kind of speech just because by some people consider it hate speech, is bad. I do understand that some peoples expression (sometimes harrassment) can do harm to other's peoples feeling. However I do still belive cencoring is dangerous that people will easily exploit for their own benefits. That's not the point of freedom of speech, anyone should have rights to have/say their opinions or ideas without the fear to be concerned, no matter what. If there is something we should be more careful of with speeches is spreading wrong facts, and not bad/cruel opionons. ...But then again, this is just my opinion about freedom of speech, that is most likely irrelevant in todays world.

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525668]I just found the censoring any kind of speech just because by some people consider it hate speech, is bad. I do understand that some peoples expression (sometimes harrassment) can do harm to other's peoples feeling. However I do still belive cencoring is dangerous that people will easily exploit for their own benefits. That's not the point of freedom of speech, anyone should have rights to have/say their opinions or ideas without the fear to be concerned, no matter what. If there is something we should be more careful of with speeches is spreading wrong facts, and not bad/cruel opionons. ...But then again, this is just my opinion about freedom of speech, that is most likely irrelevant in todays world.[/QUOTE] This isn't banning things because it hurts feelings. It's banning it because they are telling people to kill people. As Orlando demonstrates these words do more than hurt feelings.

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525668]I just found the censoring any kind of speech just because by some people consider it hate speech, is bad. I do understand that some peoples expression (sometimes harrassment) can do harm to other's peoples feeling. However I do still belive cencoring is dangerous that people will easily exploit for their own benefits. That's not the point of freedom of speech, anyone should have rights to have/say their opinions or ideas without the fear to be concerned, no matter what. If there is something we should be more careful of with speeches is spreading wrong facts, and not bad/cruel opionons. ...But then again, this is just my opinion about freedom of speech, that is most likely irrelevant in todays world.[/QUOTE] I somewhat share you view on truth but it faces the same issue of potential abuse so its not preferably imo. eg state declares that evolution is false then punishes people for saying it, scary. Best solution is to limit it so peoples freedoms are protected (specifically freedom to not be discriminated against valued above freedom to discriminate) and make sure you have several branches of government which can oppose any kind of abuse and make sure all people are represented. Difficult problem to solve I guess.

[QUOTE=The fox;50525410]As long as hes just using a right granted to every westener to promote his views through free speech, I don't see what the problem is.[/QUOTE] Advocating genocide is not a valid expression of free speech

[QUOTE=343N;50525659]then how do you expect him to become civilized[/QUOTE] Come now, has he really been seizing the opportunity thus far? If you can't integrate with western democracy and thus avoid infringing the rights of others, then you should see this coming. [QUOTE=Shakma;50525668]I just found the censoring any kind of speech just because by some people consider it hate speech, is bad. I do understand that some peoples expression (sometimes harrassment) can do harm to other's peoples feeling. However I do still belive cencoring is dangerous that people will easily exploit for their own benefits.[/quote] This isn't necessarily the same as incarceration, which would be a step too far. This is prudential revocation, and can apply for inadmissibility or ineligibility, and usually involves law enforcement. He is always welcome to renegotiate the terms of his visa through an attorney.

[QUOTE=The fox;50525410]As long as hes just using a right granted to every westener to promote his views through free speech, I don't see what the problem is.[/QUOTE] A country may grant its people the right to free speech. But national borders are not a democracy. Would you willingly invite a bigot into your own home?

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525668]I just found the censoring any kind of speech just because by some people consider it hate speech, is bad. ... However I do still belive cencoring is dangerous that people will easily exploit for their own benefits.[/QUOTE] Nobody is being censored here? He's exercising his right to free speech, the Australian government is exercising their right to revoke his visa - he's still free to say whatever-the-fuck disgusting shit he likes.

If a group of radical religious people can suffer drastic consequences for praising/encouraging hateful actions there it's only natural that the consequences are extended to all groups doing the same thing. Kudos to them for being consistent and doing this in a formal way that's not over the top (especially compared to France and how they'll throw in prison anyone who says this kind of thing, treat them as subhumans and basically go on witch hunts).

This is no different from the way Canada bars the WBC and known members of hate groups from entry into our country.

[QUOTE=Shakma;50525522]Am afraid it's either free speech or nothing.[/QUOTE] only a sith deals in absolutes

[QUOTE=Blind Lulu;50528973]Man fuck off with this shit. There is no country in the world that has absolute free speech. Inciting violence on a group of people should not be a right.[/QUOTE] Where were all you people when we were in another thread a few weeks ago debating an anti-LGBT hate preacher in the US telling high school kids they deserved to be raped?

[QUOTE=PsiSoldier;50526411]Nobody is being censored here? He's exercising his right to free speech, the Australian government is exercising their right to revoke his visa - he's still free to say whatever-the-fuck disgusting shit he likes.[/QUOTE] If a government puts someone into prison for speech, that person might still be free to say whatever they want (from their prison cell), it does not mean they weren't targeted--and punished--by a government for their speech. That does not mean they weren't effectively censored. The Austrian government is suppressing this person's ability to spread their (awful) message in Australia by effectively banning them from being in Australia.

[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;50525381]He shouldn't be allowed in any civilized country.[/QUOTE] certainly not any that are secular and have functional justice systems or utilities or free speech or... basically western society, because he's basically advocating for a dismantling of such because his book says we're doing bad

This was a stunt for votes by Turnbull, he's not at all approve of gay rights, strong anti Muslim views I'm pretty she, or at least he's playing on the terrorist angle for votes.

Malcolm Turnbull is a fucking hypocrite for acting like he's even remotely on the side of the LGBT community

[QUOTE=Flyingman356;50531913]Malcolm Turnbull is a fucking hypocrite for acting like he's even remotely on the side of the LGBT community[/QUOTE] yeah im sure that not being entirely cool with gay marriage or whatever is just the same thing as wanting gay people to be killed [editline]16th June 2016[/editline] the left have been so obnoxious since Orlando to be honest. Yeah, its pretty shitty that people aren't fans of gay marriage. Doesn't mean they're somehow thinking the same thing as wanting to kill gay people [editline]16th June 2016[/editline] [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436567/islam-homosexuality-muslims-gay-rights-westernization-gay-times-magazine[/url] [QUOTE]It isn’t surprising that most gay spokespeople and publications lean left. For historic reasons — principally the political Right’s opposition to gay rights — most gay spokespeople continue to think that the political Right is the sole locale from which anti-gay sentiment can come. For many years Pat Robertson was their worst nightmare. But Pat Robertson just wanted to stop gays from marrying. He didn’t call for people to throw us off high buildings... The most cursory look around the Muslim world would have been useful. But not many people paid attention. The organized “gay media” and “gay community” took their eyes off their left flank, even while that was exactly the door through which the real bigots came. Because when rampant homophobia returned to Western societies, it came not from the “patriarchy” but from another “minority” group. The same story is replaying itself across the Western world. A poll released in Britain in April found that 52 percent of British Muslims want homosexuality to be made illegal in Britain. That’s not just “not on board with gay marriage” or “not entirely hot with civil partnerships.” It’s wanting gays to be locked up. In Britain. In 2016. When it comes to real, as opposed to cake-based, homophobia, we aren’t looking at a Muslim-minority problem. We’re looking at a Muslim-majority problem. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Flyingman356;50531913]Malcolm Turnbull is a fucking hypocrite for acting like he's even remotely on the side of the LGBT community[/QUOTE] No matter how homophobic he is, I don't think he wants LGBT people to die

He's clearly doing this to win left-wing brownie points in the leadup to the election and I think he's full of shit, considering his government's refusal so far to legalise gay marriage please tell me where the fuck I said he wants LGBT people to die