Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(BBC)   United Kingdom to Pamela Geller; "Go be racist somewhere else"   (bbc.co.uk) divider line 38
    More: Cool, Pamela Geller, English Defence League, Woolwich, Jihad Watch, Magna Carta, select committees  
•       •       •

3718 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2013 at 3:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-26 04:10:51 PM  
4 votes:

Arkanaut: coeyagi: zenferret: What "race" is muslim, tardmitter?

The vast majority of Muslims are brown, including Arab, Persian or Indonesian, and of course, incarcerated-black-man-ian.  So, "Go be racist [about brown races] somewhere else" applies.

I suspect zenferret is trolling (or being pedantic) but there does need to be a better word for discriminating against someone's religion.  "Islamophobe" is a bit too long to be catchy.


"Bigot" covers all the bases pretty well.
2013-06-26 07:49:36 PM  
3 votes:
What farkin' "RIGHTS" are all you bigot apologists talking about!?

She has the right to stay in the USA and say whatever the hell she wants.  There is no "right to travel into a foreign country" in anyone's legal or moral code anywhere.  The USA routinely keeps activists and malcontents and whackos out from both the left and right sides of the political spectrum because they CAN!  Show up at the border and tell them that you're there to "Occupy Wall Street" and there's a pretty good chance they might tell you to turn around and go home.  Other countries routinely do the same for travelers from the USA and from elsewhere.  Google "activist denied entry" and enter the name of pretty much any nation and you'll find Phelpses not welcome in Canada, UK peaceniks not welcome in the USA, radical Egyptian Muslim clerics not welcome in the UK and many many more such examples.

That some people in this thread need this spelled out makes me believe they are either morons or, more likely, that they are willing to seize on any rationale, no matter how flimsy, in order to make their case that bigots are granted the ability to spew hate in as many public forae as possible.
2013-06-26 04:11:05 PM  
3 votes:

Corvus: Corvus: "It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.

You mean the Monarchy that has no codified protected rights?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Key_ st atutes_and_conventions
It's a long list, so here are a few choice entries:
English Bill of Rights, 1689
Scottish Claim of Right Act, 1689
Representation of the People Acts, 1918, 1928, 1982
Human Rights Act, 1998

And before people go on with the "It's not really a monarchy" stuff I deal with every thread. Yes it is a Monarchy that allows a democracy. Yes if the Monarchy one day said "Hey you guys can't do that anymore with your democracy", they might not get their way and their would be lots of going back and forth. But technically the Monarchy is still in charge.

Charles I tried to impose direct royal authority over Parliament. He had his head cut off. James II argued with them (over religion, but it brought the political issues back to the fore). He died in exile. Under the aforementioned Bill of Rights, Parliament has the right to depose the monarch if (s)he says anything along the lines of "you guys can't do that any more with your democracy". It's us that allows them to stay, not the other way round, and they're fully aware of that.
2013-06-26 03:23:04 PM  
3 votes:
She was ideological kin with Breivik, he cited her as a huge inspiration. She actually defended him.
2013-06-26 07:39:39 PM  
2 votes:
A thread like this is great for differentiating between Liberals and Progressives. A true liberal type will uphold the rights of douchebags to speak their minds because they understand such tolerance is necessary to preserve their own free speech rights. Progressives don't give a fark, they just want the government to step on the neck of anyone that offends them, no matter the cost.
2013-06-26 04:41:01 PM  
2 votes:

spongeboob: What is going on this thread, half the respones seem to be directed to posts that aren't on this page?


Troll copy-pasted a huge wall (several seconds of scrolling worth) of crypto-racism. That shiat tends not to stick around.
2013-06-26 03:37:25 PM  
2 votes:
I wish we could dump all the EDL retards in a thunderdome with all the crazy jihadists and let 'em kill each other. The world would be such a better place.
2013-06-26 03:31:11 PM  
2 votes:

Corvus: "It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.

You mean the Monarchy that has no codified protected rights?


And before people go on with the "It's not really a monarchy" stuff I deal with every thread. Yes it is a Monarchy that allows a democracy. Yes if the Monarchy one day said "Hey you guys can't do that anymore with your democracy", they might not get their way and their would be lots of going back and forth. But technically the Monarchy is still in charge.
2013-06-26 03:29:14 PM  
2 votes:

Isitoveryet: oh man that's got to sting, hopefully enough to cause tears.

or at least a strongly worded tweet.

/good.


Considering that her only "job" seems to be staying perpetually outraged on the internet I don't see why she'd cry. Hell, the UK basically just wrote the next two weeks of her blog for her. Since they did all the work, she can simultaneously pin herself back up on her cross and go on vacation.

/ I'm aware of the irony of the metaphor
2013-06-26 02:32:30 PM  
2 votes:

Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.


I like our ways better, frankly.  It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said:  Their country, their rules.
2013-06-26 02:24:52 PM  
2 votes:
There are reasons I love that country (those countries?), and that is one of them.
2013-06-26 02:15:34 PM  
2 votes:
good for them. she is a truly vicious c*nt.
2013-06-27 02:50:08 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: Halli: Not getting to enter a foreign country is an oppression?

Absolutely.


It's worth pointing out that according the UN declaration of human rights, everyone has (or should have) the right to travel within a country (13-1) and to leave a country (13-2).  There is no recognized human right to enter a country, because countries obviously have the power to restrict entry.

So no, I'd have to say that restricting entry to foreigners is not by itself oppression, although there are circumstances where it can be pretty oppressive, for example blocking entry to someone with a career/residence/family within the country.  That's obviously not the case here, however.
2013-06-27 11:08:09 AM  
1 votes:

jjorsett: Exactly. When your opinions get you targeted by government, you've entered the realm of 1984. Long live Big Brother!


"When you buy a canary, you've entered the realm of Jurassic Park."

"When you check into a hotel, you've entered the realm of The Shining."

Seriously, are we talking about 1984 the actual novel, or just the vague dippy impression of 1984 that everyone has from hearing other people say vague dippy things about 1984?  They won't print my letter to the editor?!  How Orwellian!  That's just like 1984, where everyone is continually monitored by cameras in their homes and the hero is arrested by secret police and has his face strapped to a rat cage before they electrocute him.

Pretty much every country has laws against selected modes of speech, like disinformation, incitement, or libel.   None of this is like 1984, because 1984 is not some dippy little novel about a government censoring disinformation, incitement, or libel.  This is like 1984 in the trivial sense that they both involve a government.

Nine times out of ten, invoking 1984 is an instant losing argument.  It just makes people think that you haven't actually read the book, and that you have a huge persecution complex.
2013-06-26 06:54:28 PM  
1 votes:

Craptastic: Oh, I'm just asking questions, why are you trying to oppress me?


HELP HELP I'M BEING REPRESSED BY DIA'S TROLLING OOBLECK!

RELEASE THE BIDEN
2013-06-26 06:53:41 PM  
1 votes:
Dancin_In_Anson:

You are the kind of person whose lack of "tolerance" will come to no good end.

I doubt it.

Hopefully it will scare you out of you totalitarian ways.

Hopefully you'll stop justifying bigotry under the guise of "free speech." I also doubt this.
2013-06-26 06:20:09 PM  
1 votes:

djRykoSuave: I'm opposed to the "islamization" of America for the same reasons I'm opposed to the "Christianing" or "hinduing" of America.


OK I'll play a round:

How exactly is America in danger of becoming "Islamisized?"
2013-06-26 05:56:05 PM  
1 votes:
Actually the Magna Carta never covered Jews which were more the subject of the Edict of Expulsion in 1290.  But Ms Geller should have told us that.

Why she and a Christian Arab like "Spenser" (of the same boutique church as Darrell Issa) are associated with a morphed neo-Nazi group is a rather strange story.
But then, the US refused entry to the EDL's counterpart, so the US and UK are on the same page, even if we don't have "football hooligans" yet.
2013-06-26 05:46:37 PM  
1 votes:

whidbey: They actively want their bigoted views to be accepted by others.


Gee no shiat? LOCK EM UP!

Farking fascist.
2013-06-26 05:39:20 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: whidbey: It wasn't just "speech." It was intent to act on utter pure bigotry. .

TFA: Two prominent US bloggers have been banned from entering the UK, the Home Office has said.

They were due to speak at an English Defence League march in Woolwich

Yeah...gotta stop that hateful speech. Glad to hear you support that.


Again , they're acting on it. They actively want their bigoted views to be accepted by others.

People like you, apparently. since I don't hear you condemning either of them.
2013-06-26 05:33:48 PM  
1 votes:
upload.wikimedia.org
What happened to you? Buffy, was such a good show.
2013-06-26 05:28:05 PM  
1 votes:

Dancin_In_Anson: cameroncrazy1984: There are reasons I love that country (those countries?), and that is one of them.

Because suppression of speech that you don't like is a good thing.


It wasn't just "speech." It was intent to act on utter pure bigotry. .

But glad to hear you support that.
2013-06-26 05:07:06 PM  
1 votes:

I Ate Shergar: Charles I tried to impose direct royal authority over Parliament. He had his head cut off. James II argued with them (over religion, but it brought the political issues back to the fore). He died in exile. Under the aforementioned Bill of Rights, Parliament has the right to depose the monarch if (s)he says anything along the lines of "you guys can't do that any more with your democracy". It's us that allows them to stay, not the other way round, and they're fully aware of that.


And the monarch can choose and get rid of the prime minister.

I am not saying "can do anything" by "in charge" I just meant the head of the political system and wields power more (technically) than people realize.
2013-06-26 05:04:11 PM  
1 votes:
The world would be a better place if she packed up her tits and permanently moved to Israel.
2013-06-26 05:03:22 PM  
1 votes:

I Ate Shergar: Corvus: Corvus: "It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.

You mean the Monarchy that has no codified protected rights?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom#Key_ st atutes_and_conventions
It's a long list, so here are a few choice entries:
English Bill of Rights, 1689
Scottish Claim of Right Act, 1689
Representation of the People Acts, 1918, 1928, 1982
Human Rights Act, 1998

And before people go on with the "It's not really a monarchy" stuff I deal with every thread. Yes it is a Monarchy that allows a democracy. Yes if the Monarchy one day said "Hey you guys can't do that anymore with your democracy", they might not get their way and their would be lots of going back and forth. But technically the Monarchy is still in charge.

Charles I tried to impose direct royal authority over Parliament. He had his head cut off. James II argued with them (over religion, but it brought the political issues back to the fore). He died in exile. Under the aforementioned Bill of Rights, Parliament has the right to depose the monarch if (s)he says anything along the lines of "you guys can't do that any more with your democracy". It's us that allows them to stay, not the other way round, and they're fully aware of that.


I am sorry I meant "Constitution"
2013-06-26 04:17:41 PM  
1 votes:
external.ak.fbcdn.net

Not surprised to see her as a commentator on Fox.
2013-06-26 04:15:40 PM  
1 votes:

Arkanaut: I suspect zenferret is trolling (or being pedantic) but there does need to be a better word for discriminating against someone's religion. "Islamophobe" is a bit too long to be catchy.


There's no need.  These people ranting about Muslims will give you the same earful of derp about Mexicans, Chinese and "urban" youths.  Ask Pamela Geller how she feels about George Zimmerman, or voter ID, or bilingual classes, or affirmative action.  Racist is a perfectly good word for these people, although xenophobic might be a bit more accurate.
2013-06-26 04:05:06 PM  
1 votes:

comslave: "Muslim" is not a race.


Bigot, racist, look, we're splitting hairs here.  Yes, it's not a race.  But as I said earlier, Islam is predominantly practiced by brown people (Arabs, Persians, Indonesians, incarcerated African Americans, etc), so one could say that they meant "Go be racist [towards brown races] somewhere else".
2013-06-26 04:04:31 PM  
1 votes:

Smeggy Smurf: Off with their heads!  Oh wait, that's an islamic thing.


Yep. No other group in history has ever used decapitation as a show of power. Only Muslims.
2013-06-26 04:04:03 PM  
1 votes:

partisan222: also, a few multicultural nations that seem to have had their stuff together for hundreds of years: Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, India, China, Peru, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico.


Also, the United States.  Virtually everyone here is from somewhere else, and most of us speak imported languages.  A third of the country has Spanish names (like COLORADO,) a big swath in the middle has french names like Des Moines, and the rest is a jumble of German and Dutch and English.  We've been multilingual and multicultural since day 1---despite the rantings of the tard squad and their weird belief that white people just popped out of holes in the ground and the USA was Mayberry until brown people arrived in the 1970s.
2013-06-26 03:59:44 PM  
1 votes:

Xcott: armoredbulldozer: If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path, especially The American Dream.

That's like saying, "if we don't get rid of computers, they'll destroy the Internet and the information age."

Immigration is act 1 of almost every American Dream in the country.  That's why all of our major languages are imported from foreign countries like England and Spain.


Hating immigrants is a time-honored tradition in this country. People get here, settle in, and then start hating on anyone else who comes here.
2013-06-26 03:52:42 PM  
1 votes:

Super Chronic: Diogenes: Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.

I like our ways better, frankly.  It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said:  Their country, their rules.

This and this.  I like our way better -- let her speak, and let the demonstrations outside be so raucous that they leave people thinking "is this really what I want to be a part of?"  Now she and the EDL get to claim they're being oppressed.


That's a good theory. More likely it will be a like Tea Party rally, where anyone who comes to counter-demonstrate gets libel from Fox News coverage and probably a kick to the stomach from a cop too (Im from Chicago, so I only know how Chicago cops treat non-right wing extremist protesters)
2013-06-26 03:34:29 PM  
1 votes:
Stop Islamization of America is better known as Start Making-Up-Words in America.
2013-06-26 03:27:34 PM  
1 votes:
"It's embarrassing for this so-called land of democracy and freedom of speech," he said.

You mean the Monarchy that has no codified protected rights?
2013-06-26 03:23:15 PM  
1 votes:
oh man that's got to sting, hopefully enough to cause tears.

or at least a strongly worded tweet.

/good.
2013-06-26 03:11:53 PM  
1 votes:

Diogenes: Marcus Aurelius: If only we had a law in the US covering hateful bigotry.

I like our ways better, frankly.  It's messier, but in the end I think is more honest.

That said:  Their country, their rules.


And I'm pretty sure the US can deny an entry visa to pretty much any foreigner, for any reason. (Except Cubans because commies.)

// they could also say "because terrorism AND IT'S A SECRET", which shakes out to the same thing
2013-06-26 02:44:44 PM  
1 votes:
Do we have to let her back in?
2013-06-26 02:29:15 PM  
1 votes:

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Why couldn't she get stuck in a Moscow Pakistani airport without a passport?

 
Displayed 38 of 38 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report