Tools Of Any Trade In A Song, Fun!
ChatterBank2 mins ago
already playing the race, people like her make my blood boil, you can bet she would like nothing more then to make britain an islamic country..
/said that before coming to Britain she believed 'freedom of expression is a fundamental human right that's cherished here'.
She now feels that this right does 'not apply to ethnic minorities, particularly Muslims and Palestinians like myself'.
No best answer has yet been selected by fender62. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.Judging from recent events, it seems minority groups are overly tolerated on what they say & do here in the west, and in the UK probably more so. It isn't supposed to be a free-for-all to do anything, or to incite as you wish. (Nor is it tolerable to arrive knowing there are freedoms here unavailable in the nation that you or your ancestors left, and decide to fight to change here to be similar to the culture you got away from. That's a lack of gratitude and a lack of respect.)
Besides getting involved in this country inconveniencing citizens here by protesting at actions in your native country, is inappropriate, since this country doesn't have control over what others do elsewhere. Protest at your native country or simply discuss with friends while here. Or write to your MP if you wish.
National security seems a good reason to remove terrorist supporters, which, by her comments reported in the DM, she appears to admit to. One suspects the appropriate investigation was made by authorities before any decision was made. If not we'll see the whistle-blower evidence in due course.
Straightforward application of the law - visa revoked because she supported a terrorist organisation
Daily Mule has dressed it up as God knows what..
I am an external at that very university ! she would be end of first year. There has been a case on conflict of Human Rights and support for banned organisatiions....
the judges said, no conflict: banned organisations stay banned: next!
This is yet another example of freedom of speech not entitling you (falsely) to shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre.
Active and visible support of a proscribed organisation in another country is only going to lead to conflict with that country's authorities, and usually, authorities win, because they have power on their side.
That does not mean necessarily that the authorities are right, but it does mean that you need to exercise caution when you are a guest in another country, and should be concentrating on abiding by their rules in order to remain.
It's no use flaunting free speech privelidges and then moaning when they get you into trouble.
naomi - //
//Active and visible support of a proscribed organisation in another country//
Hamas is proscribed in this country. //
Apologies, I did not make myself clear - I meant 'another country' as in the UK, the country the lady is living in, possibly temporarily, for the duration of her studies, as opposed to her country of origin.
She'll probably still be in the UK to finish her degree courtesy of immigration lawyers.
But good news; meanwhile over the Channel they are not so accomodating;
'Police have shot dead a man believed to have used a petrol bomb in an arson attack on a synagogue in Rouen in northern France, according to Gérald Darmanin, the interior minister.
Officers intervened when smoke was spotted in the vicinity of the city’s synagogue at about 6.45am.
A police source said the officers were threatened by a man armed with a knife and an iron bar. One responded by shooting him dead.
Darmanin said: “In Rouen, national police officers neutralised an armed individual manifestly wanting to set fire to the city’s synagogue early this morning. I congratulate them for their prompt reaction and courage.”
The Times today.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.