WPA2 Hack Latest News: How Secure is your Wi-Fi?
from our new coalition? click here
What "evidence" of weak leadership is there in this story?
Sometimes I wonder just what goes on in some peoples' heads.
I posed a question for discussion FE, is that not what this Forum is about? You are very quick to jump in with both feet at times.
You have castigated people for supporting 9/11 conspiracy theories in the past which is one of the ideals this person professes to support and which appears trivial compared to other issues he supports.
If the article is factually correct, should this person be allowed into UK?
You did indeed pose a question for discussion, and I asked you what you were talking about. If that didn't fit with your idea of how your thread would go I'm sorry, but if you don't want people to question you then don't start threads like this.
I repeat - what 'evidence' of weak government leadership is there in a man being allowed to enter the country on a speaking tour?
"If the article is factually correct, should this person be allowed into UK?"
Yes, he should. I invite you to tell me why someone should be refused entry because of things he has previously said that we might not like. If he breaks a UK law whilst he's here we have the ability to revoke his permission to enter.
If you want a discussion without me joining in please say so - don't make silly comments about jumping in with both feet, just because you don't like being questioned.
To answer the questions you posted for debate.
I do not believe this is evidence of week leadership and I do believe he should be permitted into the country.
We must be open to other views and allow those views to be expressed. It is our tolerance that sets us apart from the fanatics and fundementalists that are doing much harm to Islam.
Only if speakers actually break our laws should they be excluded.
...The UK Border Agency said: “Each case is considered on its own merits. When assessing a visa application, we will consider the previous conduct of the individual and we will ensure the UK does not provide a platform for the promotion of violent extremism...
So this low-life gets a visa to visit the UK and my sister-in-law's application from Kenya was turned down. I went to the appeals hearing in Sutton on Friday and was told she was turned down to visit her sister (my wife) here. She is a nurse, has raised 4 kids and has led an impecible life.
I can understand your obvious frustration, but to be perfectly honest it's pointless drawing comparisons between one visa application and another unless you know the full facts - and we don't.
I'm sure you're right when you say your sister-in-law has led an impeccable life, but that's not the point - her visa application has obviously been refused for a reason, and we cannot know what that reason was.
The man you call a low-life might refer to you and me in the same terms - to him we're the low-life. His opinion may be worthless as far as we're concerned, but that doesn't mean we should automatically exclude him from visiting our country. If we did, we might be placing ourselves at the level of those countries who rule by edict, rather than by democracy. If Zakir Naik preaches racial hatred or promotes terrorism whilst he's here his visa can be immediately revoked.
Let's see what happens.
I see mysoginism is now catergorised as a crime up there with terrorism, lol.
...I'm sure you're right when you say your sister-in-law has led an impeccable life, but that's not the point - her visa application has obviously been refused for a reason, and we cannot know what that reason was...
Her visa application was refused due to a technicality. The appeal procedure takes about four months.
The extensive and complex application form runs to 11 pages, with 192 questions. It cannot be completed by most Kenyans without extensive assistance. So my wife returned to Kenya in order to help her sister complete the form and the application procedure. When her sister's application was turned down my wife returned to join me in the UK. So we then appealed.
The judge informed me at the appeal hearing that because my wife was in Kenya when her sister applied for the visa the appeal was null and void. Had my wife been in the UK at the time of the application the appeal could have been approved.
...The man you call a low-life might refer to you and me in the same terms - to him we're the low-life. His opinion may be worthless as far as we're concerned, but that doesn't mean we should automatically exclude him from visiting our country. If we did, we might be placing ourselves at the level of those countries who rule by edict, rather than by democracy. If Zakir Naik preaches racial hatred or promotes terrorism whilst he's here his visa can be immediately revoked...
I'm sure he does consider ordinary law abiding Westerners as low-lifes. The main difference between us is that all I would like is for the visa application system to be fairer to someone like myself who was born in England, has worked here all my life and has paid extensive taxes and NHI and would like my in-laws to visit. Whereas the likes of Zakir Naik, when he states,”Every Muslim should be a terrorist.”, by definition would condone or promote the blowing up of innocent civilians.
As to whether his visa will be revoked if he preaches inflamatory sermons remains to be seen. He could, of course, do this not within earshot of our authorites. Or alternatively we have seen what happens when undeserving miscreants shout out about their human rights being infringed.
Even more frustrating for you that your wife's sister was turned down on a technicality, and even more reason for you to feel the way you do about Zakir Naik's visit.
Nevertherless, I'm sure that if you reflect about fairness you might agree it would be patently unfair to grant visas preferentially, simply because someone has a sister whose husband was born here and paid taxes here. The thing about fairness is that it must be applied in all directions - visa granting has to be done according to a set of rules, or there would be total chaos, and even more accusations of unfairness.
I'm quite sure that all Zakir Naik's utterings will be within earshot of our authorities - The Home Office will make sure of that.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.