The UK has released a list of people who are barred from the country for "propagating views" that "fundamentally go against our values" according to the Home Secretary, Jacqui Smith.
I am seriously mixed up about this.
First, I read Fred Phelps is not allowed into the UK.
Undeniable satisfaction.
Second, a voice of moderate rational argument from Inayat Bunglawala:
By the time I read (at the bottom of this BBC article) that Martha Stewart had been denied entry to the UK because of her insider trading deal I was positively upset. This is dangerous, ridiculous, populist nonsense.
I've already quoted an excerpt, but this bears repeating:
Even worse, the standard is vaguely defined as a contrariness to values. 'Fundamentally' is overused and is just as woolly as 'reasonable' and 'actual'. It's a dangerous word - you understand if someone is described as wrong. If they're described as fundamentally wrong, your understanding hasn't changed - but the describer has added nuance to how wrong the person is.
I do not think that the United Kingdom should have a monarchy.
It's a personal view. It crops up in conversation occasionally. I'm not an activist, but if the subject comes up I can get quite passionate about it. I don't know if I've ever changed anyone else's mind, but I may have done. I may have propagated my views.
(I don't want to go off on the explanation, but here is a part of it in a nutshell - I think that the monarchy is a remnant of a time when we were not self-governed. The institution serves no useful purpose. Any minor purpose it does serve, it would be better as the duty of an elected representative. Even if we are now completely democratic, the monarchy and the royal family form such a grand part of our national identity that their cultural primacy skews it, deforms it, so that we are not modern or rational in our thinking about our place in the global community, or about our role as individuals in a global society...like I said. Part of the explanation.)
Anyway.
If, because the United Kingdom has a monarchy, we can safely assume that is a value or belief the United Kingdom holds...and I am against it.
I am against one of the values of the United Kingdom.
Am I fundamentally against it?
Well yes. You'll have to work hard to change my mind on the matter.
So...what now?
The satisfaction I felt when reading that Fred Phelps was barred from the UK is exactly the sort of feeling this announcement is designed to give. What it's not designed to achieve is the feeling that if I disagree with what the government feels is a cultural value (fundamental or otherwise) I can have myright (sorry) privilege to enter the UK removed.
So, Jacqui Smith - I am against the monarchy, and I've told people about it.
Can I come in?
I am seriously mixed up about this.
First, I read Fred Phelps is not allowed into the UK.
Undeniable satisfaction.
Second, a voice of moderate rational argument from Inayat Bunglawala:
“If they step over the line and break the law, it's at that moment the law should be enacted, not beforehand...If people are keeping their odious views to themselves, that's their business. We should not be in the business of policing people's minds."
I feel unease. That's absolutely true. And as far as I know, Fred Phelps, to run with an example, has not broken any laws in the United Kingdom. He is a notorious, vocal bigot with views many people find abhorrent. The fact remains that he has not broken any law in the United Kingdom.By the time I read (at the bottom of this BBC article) that Martha Stewart had been denied entry to the UK because of her insider trading deal I was positively upset. This is dangerous, ridiculous, populist nonsense.
I've already quoted an excerpt, but this bears repeating:
I understand there have been attempts under UK law to prevent the instigation of hatred on racial or religious grounds, with varying levels of success or moral objectivity, but this particular quote rings with a dangerous tone of protectionism. If entering the UK is a privilege, there is a standard. This isn't a hint, this is precisely what the government is saying.“Coming to this country is a privilege. We won't allow people into this country who are going to propagate the sort of views... that fundamentally go against our values.”Jacqui Smith - Home Secretary
Even worse, the standard is vaguely defined as a contrariness to values. 'Fundamentally' is overused and is just as woolly as 'reasonable' and 'actual'. It's a dangerous word - you understand if someone is described as wrong. If they're described as fundamentally wrong, your understanding hasn't changed - but the describer has added nuance to how wrong the person is.
I do not think that the United Kingdom should have a monarchy.
It's a personal view. It crops up in conversation occasionally. I'm not an activist, but if the subject comes up I can get quite passionate about it. I don't know if I've ever changed anyone else's mind, but I may have done. I may have propagated my views.
(I don't want to go off on the explanation, but here is a part of it in a nutshell - I think that the monarchy is a remnant of a time when we were not self-governed. The institution serves no useful purpose. Any minor purpose it does serve, it would be better as the duty of an elected representative. Even if we are now completely democratic, the monarchy and the royal family form such a grand part of our national identity that their cultural primacy skews it, deforms it, so that we are not modern or rational in our thinking about our place in the global community, or about our role as individuals in a global society...like I said. Part of the explanation.)
Anyway.
If, because the United Kingdom has a monarchy, we can safely assume that is a value or belief the United Kingdom holds...and I am against it.
I am against one of the values of the United Kingdom.
Am I fundamentally against it?
Well yes. You'll have to work hard to change my mind on the matter.
So...what now?
The satisfaction I felt when reading that Fred Phelps was barred from the UK is exactly the sort of feeling this announcement is designed to give. What it's not designed to achieve is the feeling that if I disagree with what the government feels is a cultural value (fundamental or otherwise) I can have my
So, Jacqui Smith - I am against the monarchy, and I've told people about it.
Can I come in?
I agree with you mostly.
Although their is a president to be made for not being let into a country. We do it all the time. Papers not in order, no visa, dubious explanation of reasons for arriving at border control, arriving with too much lingerie in your luggage. It's done all the time.
I myself have been refused entry, and given 2 days to clear my stuff and get out, as the guy at passport control disagreed with my paperwork. Although many might say "not letting sevitz in anywhere would be a good thing".
So every country has a "value" that allows you in or not. It varies from country to country. America wont let people fly OVER the country, if they are on some arbitrary list. I think, because you've had a British passport, you've never really dealt with customers officials and visa's as much as everyone else. Although getting into the USA you probably have a better idea now.
It's just that you only really hear about the high profile people not let into the country. People are denied and turned away all the time. You just don't hear about it.
Now whilst, you are also right, one should be arrested for illegal actions, not illegal thoughts, it is common to not allow people in with criminal records. So no different for Martha Stewart than a drug dealer. I guess the theory goes, you don't want people moving around after commit crimes to make it easier to reoffend.
It's also true that you may not want to let people in who may incite other people. They banned an anti vivasectionst a few years ago when I was dating J who worked on medical research. I full backed this. If you suggest and encourage people "to kill scientists involved in animal research" I'm not sure you should be allowed in. If the it's estimated allowing you might cause other people harm, treat the same way you'd treat any toxic material. With caution, carefully and occasionally only.
I sound like I'm not agreeing with you, although I am. I just don't think the system is as dire as you might feel. It's always a value judgement, and it's going to always be a value judgement, here, there and everywhere.
The real question is how do we objectively asses the right values, and not use it as a kludge for cheap politics.
I think Adrian's analysis is useful because it's more nuanced and thoughtful than anything government officials have said on this. Particularly with something like death threats, protecting the threatened person's safety is a higher concern than respecting the right to free movement. However, that's an far less likely scenario, so I'm with Stuart. I believe in the principle of the First Amendment in the U.S. (I know the UK doesn't have a direct equivalent, which is obviously relevant to this. The U.S. doesn't fully respect this principle, which is also relevant.) My belief is very nearly absolute.
For me in this example, the government is partially saying that citizens aren't capable of a) recognizing the offensiveness to norms by someone like Phelps and/or b) incapable of refraining from acting against those words. But how better to demonstrate that such beliefs are outside of a society's values than to let the morons air them?
With your view on monarchy, which I share, sometimes the potentially moronic view outside the norm is not moronic and society may change for the better from not holding on to values for the sake of values.
I think, Adrian, that part of my unease lies with the fact that this list is outside of the rule of law. If someone has a criminal conviction or a known and proven affiliation with a terrorist organization then they will face obstacles entering most countries, and yes, this is a standard, but it is a transparent one, based in law and its violation.
Even, in the case of your lingerie lady, in the evasion of immigration law.
If this is a non-transparent process, it is open to abuse without public scrutiny. The sudden declaration of an undesirables list, however palatable at first, is cause for worry for me. A non-entry list based on law - incitement to murder, in your anti-vivisectionist example - is understandable.
Tony you raise some interesting points - the government's judgement on the population's ability or inability to decide for itself whether to agree with or take criminal action against a fringe opinion is also embedded in this announcement.
I agree totally. The non-entry list should be based on law, the law should be public.
The same should go for America's no fly list, which seems even more arbitrary.
There does still remain a question of what happens when the law fails. As it does all the time. Since law to be just cannot be absolute. Because the law is a slow moving target and reality changes much quicker. (The anti-vivisectionist would not have been something people considered 30 years ago)
I'm in favour of a doucebag list that prevents entry to category one douchbags. I write the list.