Feiglin banned from entering UK

[Scurrilous]

Likud member receives letter from British Home Office informing him he will not be allowed to enter country. Feiglin says in response, 'Seeing that renowned terrorists are welcomed in Britain in open arms, I understand the UK's policy is aimed at encouraging and supporting terror'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3517462,00.html

<snip>

"After banning senior IDF officers from entering Britain, an Israeli political figure has now been banned as well. Moshe Feiglin, a member of the Likud Central Committee and a former candidate for the party's chairmanship, recently received a letter from the UK's Home Office informing him that he would not be allowed to enter the country.

According to the letter, in light of his previous remarks and calls to launch a war against the Palestinians, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith has decided to inform him that he should be excluded from the country. "Your presence would not be conducive to the public good," the letter said.

Feiglin, who was convicted in the past of inciting to mutiny, thought at first that the letter was a joke or a forged document, but was later approached by a British journalist who informed him that the letter was reliable.

In response to the letter, Feiglin sent a response to the British government, clarifying that he had never intended to visit the country."

[subsuelo]

1. Good for Britain

Next start banning George W. Bush and Dick Cheney then I'll be impressed

[hifalutin]

2. I read one poster's response...

Israel should make Feiglin Ambassador to Great Britain.

[subsuelo]

16. and give a right wing racist a stamp of approval?

I hope you would not agree with doing so but maybe I assume too much

[Scurrilous]

3. Dear Mr Feiglin: Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s letter

I am writing to advise you that following the London bombings in July 2005, the Home Secretary announced a list of particular activities that would normally lead to a person being excluded or deported from the UK on the grounds that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. The list of unacceptable behaviours covers any non-UK national whether in the UK or abroad who uses any means or medium including:

-writing, producing, publishing or distributing material;

-public speaking including preaching;

-running a website;

-using a position of responsibility such as a teacher, community or youth leader

To express views that:

-foment or justify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs;

-seek to provoke others to terrorist acts;

-foment other serious criminal activity or seek to provoke others to serious criminal acts;

-foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The Home Secretary has considered whether, in light of this list, you should be excluded from the United Kingdom. After careful consideration, she has personally directed that you should be excluded from the United Kingdom on the grounds that your presence here would not be conducive to the public good. She has reached this decision because you have used your position to propagate views which foment and provoke others to serious criminal acts and also foster hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK. This has brought you within the scope of the list of unacceptable behaviours.

The Home Secretary notes that you have made the following statements:

"In order to declare that we are right, we have to declare war. War now! It’s not the Arabs who are murdering mothers, but those merciful people who gave weapons to the murderers. It’s not the Arabs who are burning babies, but the peaceniks that recognised the justice of the Arabs cause. It’s not the cruel people who are bombing us, but the merciful people who showed them mercy. War now! A holy war, now."

– "War Now" article by you, quoted on Channel 7 Israel National website

"The Christian world is faced with two options: it can fight against terror, which means fighting against Islam, or it can surrender and be gradually overcome by the waves of the modern Moslem Jihad… Arabs are not sons of the desert but its father. They created the desert — everywhere they come vegetation stops and the wind blows everything away."

— Extract from an article by you quoted on the "Israel Science and Technology Homepage"

"The basis of Islam is not the quality of mercy but of justice. If Christianity bridges the gap between sin and morals by automatic benevolence and absolution (that over long periods were sold by clergy), Islam does this in a far simpler way — it abolishes both benevolence and morals… Their holy Muhammed is strong, cruel and deceitful."

In expressing such views, it is considered that you are seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK, you would continue to espouse such views, which would not be conducive to the public good in the UK.

In light of these factors, the Home Secretary is satisfied you should be excluded from the UK on the grounds that your exclusion is conducive to the public good. You are advised not to travel to the UK as you will be refused admission on arrival. Although there is no statutory right of appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision, this decision is reviewed every three years.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of the Secretary of the State for the Home Department

http://www.thejc.com/home.aspx?ParentId=m11s18&SecId=18&AId=58606&ATypeId=1

[bemildred]

4. Charming fellow. nt

[Scurrilous]

28. Yep. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

20. Looks like it was a very sound and well thought out decision. n/t

[Looking4Light]

5. I wonder if they'll ban Raed Salah

Arab leader denies temple ever existed
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x203956

[LeftishBrit]

9. He almost certainly*would* be banned from entering Britain; not that he's likely to try

I think we can survive the disappointment of not having him visit!

[pelsar]

6. the guys a real POS...so?

i can think of a very very very very long list of people who have said and done much worse....i expect the UK to follow through with their policy to include others

...or is this just a israeli/jewish thing?

[hifalutin]

7. I remember a time when the Brits

had backbone and nobody could push them around.
That is no longer the case however because they now have to kowtow to a segment of their population that is very anti Israel and must not be offended, or else.
What a sorry state of affairs!!

[LeftishBrit]

10. Not an accurate description

This has nothing to do with 'kowtowing' to an anti-Israel section of the population; and much more to do with Britain being paranoid, possibly justifiably, about letting hate-talkers into the country, after the July 2005 bombings. This is mostly applied to Muslim hate-preachers, as I said in another post (I'm sure that Raed Saleh *would* be denied entry), but the government do feel that they have to apply the rule to others to show their consistency. Mind you, if they were totally consistent, they would have to ban Ian Paisley and the like!

There's always been anti-Israel, and indeed anti-semitic, sentiment in some parts of the British establishment; but this is not greater at government level now than in the past.

'I remember a time when the Brits had backbone and nobody could push them around'

When? I don't remember any such time, unless you're going way back in history to when the Brits were an imperial power and did the pushing around ourselves. We certainly let ourselves get pushed around by Ronnie Reagan! And I would say that we were more susceptible to Arab anti-Israel pressures before we got some oil of our own.

[hifalutin]

11. Oh I go back

further than that, to the days if WW11.
I remember what it was like to have bombs and rockets fall near your house and to run to the nearest air-raid shelter and seeing the destruction all around when the sirens stopped blaring.

From the letter.....

'In expressing such views, it is considered that you are seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the UK.

The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK, you would continue to espouse such views, which would not be conducive to the public good in the UK.'

They could have just told him to keep his big mouth shut!

Also from what I read in the British newspapers you already have more than enough hate preachers in your midst without adding more.

[LeftishBrit]

12. Are you British by origin then? From where?

I agree that Britain played a strong role in WW2; but don't forget that we did appease Hitler for too long beforehand. Of course, America and the Soviet Union took even longer.

As regards hate-preachers, yes, we do have too many (any is too many); but frankly it's my impression that -at least outside Northern Ireland - we have far less trouble with religious extremists (Christian and Muslim combined) influencing the political process here than you do in America, mainly with the Christian variety.

[hifalutin]

29. Sorry, I almost

missed you post.
Nottingham, many moons ago.

[LeftishBrit]

31. I was born and grew up in London..

and have lived in Oxford most of my adult life.

Nottingham is a great place.

[LeftishBrit]

8. The Brits do ban quite a few people...

It's not just an Israel/Jewish thing, and in fact is most commonly applied to Muslim 'hate-preachers'.

I agree, however, with those who suggested Bush and Cheney as suitable for banning.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. I would have thought folk with criminal convictions were routinely banned...

How does it work in the UK? Here if someone has a criminal conviction, they're likely to not be allowed to enter the country....

Yuck, I just read the quotes that were the basis for him being barred, and think they fell well within the bounds of hate-speech. People can complain all they like about it, but the UK is well within its rights to bar him and anyone else who incites hate like that. After all, I'm sure there's enough homegrown hatemongers to deal with, let alone having to worry about imported ones...

Yeah, Bush and Cheney should be well and truly up the top of any ban list. It's a shame that in cases like theirs politics comes before common-sense and consistancy...

[eyl]

14. interesting that they're apparently OK

with this guy, then

Earlier this month, British authorities granted permission to Ibrahim Mousawi, chief foreign new editor for Hizbullah's Al-Manar television station in Lebanon, to enter the UK to participate in a number of political events.

Accused of anti-Semitism and incitement, and recently banned from entering Ireland, his television station aired a 29-part "documentary" in 2004 in which it depicted stereotypical Jews hatching a plot for Jewish world control and domination.

Following the 9/11 attacks, Al-Manar alleged that 4,000 Jewish employees did not turn up to work at the World Trade Center that day and that the attack was masterminded by Israel.

I also find it interesting (and disturbing) that (as per the JPost article above) the ban cannot be appealed.

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Why do you find it disturbing that the ban can't be appealed?

Did you see the quotes from that guy? I don't see why anyone would think that the UK should grant him entry...

[eyl]

18. It has nothing to do with his specific beliefs

If the ban can't be appealed - and remember, this is ultimately a ban on the basis of speech, objectionable as that speech may be - there's no recourse if you believe you've been banned inappropriately (not to mention what happens if you get banned in error)

[bemildred]

19. It has everything to do with his specific beliefs.

And he has no rights whatsoever to enter Britain, nor is this a criminal process. You can argue they should not allow this other weasel you point out in too, but that's really up to the British. They don't owe either one a thing.

[eyl]

22. So you're OK

with the idea the government can refuse to let you enter on the basis of your speech - and not give you any chance to contest their argument?

EDIT: Just to clarify - by "it", in my previous post, I was referring to the lack of any appeal, not to the decision to bar entry itself.

[bemildred]

23. That depends on the government.

I'm completely OK with the idea that a government can exclude any foreign nationals that it wants to. They all in fact do do this all the time. It is the most elementary power of a sovereign nation to decide who may visit and who may not.

I'm completely not OK with the idea that a government can exclude it's own nationals without due process, or any other of its legal residents.

[eyl]

24. I'm not saying they don't have a right to do this

I'm saying there should be an option to challenge the decision, if only because the government may make a mistake (i.e. not "we banned you even though what you said/did was actually innocous", but rather along the lines of "we banned you even though it was someone else who did it")

[bemildred]

25. He has no legal rights that are violated here.

If you want to come into my house, and I say that you may not, do you have a right to appeal? No you don't. That is the principle at stake here. The only thing interesting here is that they went out of their way to tell him that he is persona non grata. I presume that is a combination of the statements he has made and/or some bureaucrat with an axe to grind, unless he somehow previously indicated an interest. They did explain their reasons, and even that is more than they are required to do. He can try to make it a political issue, which would be no surprise, and I see no reason to think that he will accept it quietly, but he has no right of appeal, anymore than if you try to enter any other country and they decide to put you back on the plane.

[Looking4Light]

26. True

Your legal rights at any country's border are next to nothing.
I understand there are mechanics that make a living by putting people's cars back together after they've been taken apart by inspectors at a US-Canada border. Inspectors don't need a warrant or anything to take your car apart.

[bemildred]

27. Now you've got the idea. nt

[Dick Dastardly]

30. All countries have that right and its perfectly OK

[Crunchy Frog]

32. If I'm not mistaken...

Does not the state of Israel bar some people from entering the country on the basis of their speech or political affiliation?

[eyl]

33. If it does

do you think they should be able to challange that determination?

[LeftishBrit]

21. I don't think we should have let him in either

There are always people who slip through the net. E.g. foreigners who commit serious crimes while in Britain are generally supposed to be deported after serving their sentences; but quite a few haven't been, out of sheer incompetence and lack of coordination among the authorities.

In general, countries' decisions to allow or prevent entry are not easy to appeal. You can appeal against deportation; but not easily over not being allowed to enter in the first place. At least, that's true in the UK.

[Englander]

17. Among the Settlers

>snip

Indeed, some of the leading ideologues of the settlements, far from supporting the idea of a Jewish democracy, hope to establish a Jewish theocracy in Israel, ruled by a Sanhedrin and governed by Jewish law. Moshe Feiglin, a Likud activist who lives in a West Bank settlement and heads the Jewish Leadership bloc within the Party—he controls nearly a hundred and fifty of the Likud central committee’s three thousand members—believes that the Bible, interpreted literally, should form the basis of Israel’s legal system. “Why should non-Jews have a say in the policy of a Jewish state?” Feiglin said to me. “For two thousand years, Jews dreamed of a Jewish state, not a democratic state. Democracy should serve the values of the state, not destroy them.” In any case, Feiglin said, “You can’t teach a monkey to speak and you can’t teach an Arab to be democratic. You’re dealing with a culture of thieves and robbers. Muhammad, their prophet, was a robber and a killer and a liar. The Arab destroys everything he touches.”

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/31/040531fa_fact2_a?currentPage=4