Anti-gay preachers Fred Phelps and Shirley Phelps-Roper banned from Britain

[Muezzin]

The Home Secretary has banned two extremist anti-gay preachers from entering Britain, a move that follows a decision to refuse entry to Geert Wilders, the Dutch anti-Muslim MP.

Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who belong to the US Westboro Baptist Church, were planning to come to the UK to protest outside a performance of a youth play called The Laramie Project, which recounts the death of gay university student Matthew Shepard who was killed in Laramie, Wyoming, in October 1998.

It was due to be performed at Queen Mary's College in Basingstoke, Hampshire, tomorrow.

The pair have been known to picket US soldiers’ funerals, holding up banners with phrases such as "God Hates Fags" because they believe that their deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are punishment for America’s tolerance of gays.

Their exploits, and that of their sect as a whole, were exposed in 2007 by Louis Theroux, the TV documentary-maker.

Confirming their ban, a UK Border Agency spokesman said: "The Home Secretary has excluded both Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the UK.

"Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behaviour by inciting hatred against a number of communities.

"The Government has made it clear it opposes extremism in all its forms.

"We will continue to stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country.

"That was the driving force behind the tighter rules on exclusion for unacceptable behaviour that the Home Secretary announced on October 28 last year.

"The exclusions policy is targeted at all those who seek to stir up tension and provoke others to violence regardless of their origins and beliefs."

As well as Mr Phelps, 79, and Shirley, 51, any other church members who try to enter Britain are also likely to be stopped, the agency said.

The move comes after the ban on Mr Wilders entering the UK last week for his extremist views on Islam. Despite being informed of the exclusion in advance, the Dutch MP made the trip to London anyway and was deported under the media spotlight.

Peter Tatchell, from gay rights group OutRage!, said that he disagreed with the decision to ban the Phelpses and Mr Wilders, but loathed their views.

"The Phelpses are odious, homophobic bigots. They give Christianity a bad name," he said. "Objectionable though they are, I don't agree with them being banned. But since the Home Secretary banned the Dutch MP Geert Wilders at least she is being consistent by also banning these Christian preachers of hate."

It emerged that the pair were due to enter the UK to launch their demonstration when they made an announcement on their website.

"God hates the Queen Mary’s College, and the fag-infested UK, England, and all having to do with spreading sodomite lies via The Laramie Project, this tacky bit of cheap fag propaganda masquerading as legitimate theater," it said.

Source

To pre-empt any political sensitivities - I think this 'preaching' is, well, retarded. There's legitimate debate and there's being a git.

[The_Prince]

funny no islamophobes are complaining, more funny all the newspapers arent making their commentaries and editorials about free speech bla bla bla. bunch of hypocrites!

[Uthman]

Savvy.

[fairandbalanced]

funny no islamophobes are complaining, more funny all the newspapers arent making their commentaries and editorials about free speech bla bla bla. bunch of hypocrites!

Seeing as how the article is dated 2-19 and seeing as how today is 2-19 and considering that the US is 8+ hrs behind the UK and considering that most of the American "Islamophobes" were still asleep when the deicsion was reported...it seems to me you are imbuing at least American "Islamophobes" with the power of precognition. Even the British "Islamophobes", it seems to me, should be allowed to have a cup of coffee or tea and a biscuit or two when the get up in the morning before they get their "Islamophobic" juices going. I will be sure, however, to tell all my "Islamophobe" friends when I go to the local "Islamophobe" meeting tonight.


Now..as to the Home Secretary's action....it is transparantly an action taken in response to criticism of the Wilders banning, in order to suggest they are even handed in their approach and not cowed by Lord Ahmed. It won't fool anyone. I can imagien the Home Secretary at a meeting saying, "Find me someone else to ban...NOW!" :D

The two chaps involved sound like knuckleheads but their banning is also a violation of free speech.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Uthman]

The two chaps involved sound like knuckleheads but their banning is also a violation of free speech.

They did incite hatred though, so they were in violation of the law.

[The_Prince]

Seeing as how the article is dated 2-19 and seeing as how today is 2-19 and considering that the US is 8+ hrs behind the UK and considering that most of the American "Islamophobes" were still asleep when the deicsion was reported...it seems to me you are imbuing at least American "Islamophobes" with the power of precognition. Even the British "Islamophobes", it seems to me, should be allowed to have a cup of coffee or tea and a biscuit or two when the get up in the morning before they get their "Islamophobic" juices going. I will be sure, however, to tell all my "Islamophobe" friends when I go to the local "Islamophobe" meeting tonight.


Now..as to the Home Secretary's action....it is transparantly an action taken in response to criticism of the Wilders banning, in order to suggest they are even handed in their approach and not cowed by Lord Ahmed. It won't fool anyone. I can imagien the Home Secretary at a meeting saying, "Find me someone else to ban...NOW!" :D

The two chaps involved sound like knuckleheads but their banning is also a violation of free speech.

your boring me with your sillyness. yes, islamophobes are so pathetic they attack on the same day, you want to play the game of oooooooooo IT JUST HAPPENED, i have seen many many islamophobes start their attacks, articles, videos, on the VERY SAME DAY of the event, so dont try your silly games.

both you and i know there wont be the same reaction, so dont try to 'buy time' because its not going to happen. its a simple case, you guys are bunch of hypocrites, you know yourself, dont try to hide it, just admit it and move on because your excuses simply make you look more stupid than you already are.

[fairandbalanced]

They did incite hatred though, so they were in violation of the law.

Oh, I don't know...seems to me everyone above the age of 21 already has a formed opinion re. homosexuality. Now...if they sponsored a children's TV show or something and used cute talking animals to spread hatred...well that would be different, wouldn't it. :sunny:

Do you have even the slightest doubt this is a poltical gesture?

[Muezzin]

Oh, I don't know...seems to me everyone above the age of 21 already has a formed opinion re. homosexuality.

Everyone above the age of 21 already has a formed opinion re. race, but skinheads don't require their own TV show in order to violate the same British law.

And rightly so.

[Uthman]

Greetings fairandbalanced,

if they sponsored a children's TV show or something and used cute talking animals to spread hatred...well that would be different, wouldn't it. :sunny:

I guess so. In principle, I suppose it would still be illegal.

Do you have even the slightest doubt this is a poltical gesture?

Oh, I'm sure it was a political gesture to, as you say, show consistency in their approach. The fact remains (according to the article at least), however, that they were planning to engage in activities that violate the law i.e. inciting hatred against homosexuals. For that reason, I think the decision made by the Home Office was justified.

Regards

[fairandbalanced]

Everyone above the age of 21 already has a formed opinion re. race, but skinheads don't require their own TV show in order to violate the same British law.

And rightly so.

Seems a slippery slope we are on. What if a couple of skinheads are tossing back a beverage at a dining establishment and make racist comments to the waitress..perhaps they should be sent somewhere too. Who knows, they might be so persuasive as to permanently corrupt her.

What about some former POW who still hates the Japanese?

Who will be left? Social workers?

[Muezzin]

Seems a slippery slope we are on.

Just as well that this is British rather than American law. You're not bound by it.

What if a couple of skinheads are tossing back a beverage at a dining establishment and make racist comments to the waitress..perhaps they should be sent somewhere too. Who knows, they might be so persuasive as to permanently corrupt her.

Only if she reports it.

What about some former POW who still hates the Japanese?

In the UK?

Who will be left? Social workers?

Appeals to ridicule are strawmen in bad makeup.

[Uthman]

Greetings,

What if a couple of skinheads are tossing back a beverage at a dining establishment and make racist comments to the waitress..perhaps they should be sent somewhere too.

If they reside in Britain, then prison would be that ideal 'somewhere' in my opinion.

Regards

[fairandbalanced]

Just as well you're American..

This is true. I don't think we get it. Mein Kampf is not even banned here. It's that pesky Bill of Rights.


.

In the UK?.

There were many thousands at one point (from Singapore, Hong Kong and the like). Of course, most would have passed on and I am pretty sure the Home Secretary won't be deporting any veterans.

Appeals to ridicule are strawmen in bad makeup.

Perhaps...but it seems there is no limit....and the obvious arbitrary nature is troubling.

Good luck with the bannings. Maybe it will improve the trafic situation in London. :D

[Muezzin]

This is true. I don't think we get it. Mein Kampf is not even banned here. It's that pesky Bill of Rights.

It's not banned here either.

But for comedy, I'd rather read some Douglas Adams.

There were many thousands at one point (from Singapore, Hong Kong and the like). Of course, most would have passed on and I am pretty sure the Home Secretary won't be deporting any veterans.

Violators of this law would not be deported, they would simply be imprisoned.

But yes, in practice veterans would not be affected as a matter of policy.

Perhaps...but it seems there is no limit....and the obvious arbitrary nature is troubling.

Well, if you would like to critique the British legal system, you could just make another thread in which to do so. Such a topic is conspicuous by its absence, come to think of it. :p

Good luck with the bannings. Maybe it will improve the trafic situation in London. :D

We all wish.

[NazariteofEhyah]

Yes, God has an opinion on homosexuality. And humanity has his. Some humans tolerate homosexuality, and some don't. It boils down to choice and free will. You can decide to be for or against homosexuality, and you can decide to speak of it as evil or not to be inclined to say anything about homosexuality. Jesus clearly says that we are to Love our neighbours, despite any differences. If you don't love your neighbours whos a homosexual or fundamental Christian, then your a hyprocrite. It's a matter of choice. Follow the commandments of God and respect your neighbour, or break them in defiance of the Will of God. I'd rather keep to them, and not judge homosexual or the hard line Christians.

[Keltoi]

The American in me isn't comfortable with banning speech. I'm well aware of who these people are. I've personally seen them in action. I find it to be a disgusting scene. However, I don't believe banning such speech is the answer. If people find such views to be hatred or disgusting, the people will ostracize and ridicule such speech. I think what is happening in the UK gives too much power to the government when it comes to monitoring and censoring speech.

[Izyan]

I wonder if you guys would feel the banning was justified if it was an Imam instead of a preacher. I am fully aware of who Phelps is. I think most Americans are. The funny thing is is because we let him put on his little dog and pony show he has made himself a cariacture of himself and margainalized. What the UK has essentially done is made his a martyr there like Wilders.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Similar to what Izyan says, I think this will raise the Phelps' profile just as Wilders' profile was raised.

I'll leave a decision about whether this is justified to those of a more legal mind than me, but my gut feeling is: let them come in and show how dumb their views are, and let us all judge for ourselves.

Peace

[glo]

I wonder if you guys would feel the banning was justified if it was an Imam instead of a preacher. I am fully aware of who Phelps is. I think most Americans are. The funny thing is is because we let him put on his little dog and pony show he has made himself a cariacture of himself and margainalized. What the UK has essentially done is made his a martyr there like Wilders.

I agree with you.

I said a similar thing in the Wilder's thread and I take the same stance with Phelps.

Rather than prevent them from entering the country, we should invite them in and show their true colours publically. Let the public make up their own mind ...

[czgibson]

Greetings,

As can be seen from the two posts above, glo and I sometimes appear to share the same brain...

:D

Peace

[glo]

Greetings,

As can be seen from the two posts above, glo and I sometimes appear to share the same brain...

:D

Peace

Great minds, and all that ... :D

[glo]

Greetings,

As can be seen from the two posts above, glo and I sometimes appear to share the same brain...

:D

Peace

On a more serious note, it makes me wonder whether this shows an anxiety in our government not to let certain thoughts and ideas enter into our society (Not that in this age of technology and communication that can be achieved by preventing somebody from entering the country).

After all, societies often guard themselves against outside influences by making those very influences illegal, thereby at least slowing their spread ...

Is preventing certain ideas from entering society not the very opposite to the sentiments of democracy???

Any thoughts?

[Izyan]

On a more serious note, it makes me wonder whether this shows an anxiety in our government not to let certain thoughts and ideas enter into our society (Not that in this age of technology and communication that can be achieved by preventing somebody from entering the country).

After all, societies often guard themselves against outside influences by making those very influences illegal, thereby at least slowing their spread ...

Is preventing certain ideas from entering society not the very opposite to the sentiments of democracy???

Any thoughts?

And this mind set is so foreign to us Americans. As long as you aren't advocating violence like let's kill all albinos you can say what you want.

[glo]

And this mind set is so foreign to us Americans. As long as you aren't advocating violence like let's kill all albinos you can say what you want.

Yes, I can understand that.

Being a post-war German myself, I grew up with the idea that protecting society from certain, harmful ideas can be morally the right thing to do - and if necessary you do that by disallowing the voicing of such ideas in the first place.

I am not saying it's right or wrong. Given Germany's recent history I guess it was an understandable position to take ...

Now I live in the UK I wonder how and if the same principles should apply here.

[AntiKarateKid]

Yes, God has an opinion on homosexuality. And humanity has his. Some humans tolerate homosexuality, and some don't. It boils down to choice and free will. You can decide to be for or against homosexuality, and you can decide to speak of it as evil or not to be inclined to say anything about homosexuality. Jesus clearly says that we are to Love our neighbours, despite any differences. If you don't love your neighbours whos a homosexual or fundamental Christian, then your a hyprocrite. It's a matter of choice. Follow the commandments of God and respect your neighbour, or break them in defiance of the Will of God. I'd rather keep to them, and not judge homosexual or the hard line Christians.

[Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/B]

Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Seems as if you have a disagreement with the inspired writers of the gospel... by the way there's more where this came from.

[glo]

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Seems as if you have a disagreement with the inspired writers of the gospel... by the way there's more where this came from.

This goes back to those threads in which we discuss how Christians read and understand the Bible.

As NazariteofEhyah said Jesus' command to love our neighbours means just that - to show love and respect to all.
Spreading messages of hate and blaming certain groups of people for all ills of society is not the way to love ...

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

This goes back to those threads in which we discuss how Christians read and understand the Bible.

As NazariteofEhyah said Jesus' command to love our neighbours means just that - to show love and respect to all.
Spreading messages of hate and blaming certain groups of people for all ills of society is not the way to love ...

Peace

What do you define as spreading hate? That is a very relative phrase.

Is spreading hate telling people that God in the Bible abhors homosexuality and absolutely forbids it? That He even destroyed a city for practicing it.

Or is it saying Gays are committing evil and disgusting acts?


I am saying the former but to some the former leads to the latter statement logically.

[NazariteofEhyah]

[Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."[/B]

Jude 7, "Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

Seems as if you have a disagreement with the inspired writers of the gospel... by the way there's more where this came from.

Pardon me, I have not suffered at your response. In actuality you've given God's opinion and yes the Lord did say "Consecrate yourselfs and be holy, because I am the LORD your God. Keep my degrees and follow them. I am the LORD who makes you holy" Leviticus 20:7.

However, you may have overlooked Scripture. For it is said in the New Testament "These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the fulfilment of the ages has come. So, if you think that you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fail. No temptation has seized you except what is common to man. And God is faithful: he will not let you be tempted beyond what you can bear. But when you are tempted, he will also provide a way out so that you can stand up under it" I Corinthians 10:11-13. NIV.

Yes, The LORD has given His Decree. We know of the perversions that were commited in defiance of the LORD. None the less, we have the choice whether or not we indulge in pagan revelry and perversion. We have examples. We have been warned through Israel's history. Let me say, if God knew that Adam and Eve would bite the apple, would we deprive us of free will. No, why then we would be robots and completely systematic. We could not appreciate Him for who He is, the LORD GOD. As per the beforementioned reference we can only be tempted by acts that are common amongst men, but with the right warning we can avoid causing offence, as we would fail in keeping ourselves with His Commandments. So, no one is to be overconfident, for anyone can sin without premeditiation. God will not contradict His Contenance. For the faithful fruits, He will give us the free will and options to become free from selfish indulgence.

Further to this "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuaive words, but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power, so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom, but on God's power" I Corinthians 2:4-5. NIV. Jesus demonstrated Deities faithfulness to His faithful. We need to only depend on Him, with our faiths and not the reasoning of men, which is not the reasoning of the LORD.

More wisdom, " He who covers over an offense promotes love, but whoever repeats the matter separates close friends. A rebuke impresses a man of discernment more then a hundred lashes a fool" Proverbs 17:9-10. NIV.

What does Kind Soloman's wisdom say? Simple we shouldn't view homosexuality as repugnant despite that the LORD decrees against it. For we are to tolerate such people, for they are beyond our power. They are for the dealing of the LORD. If a homosexual accepts the warning, our love for him will increase ten fold for he has faith in the the LORD GOD, who has allowed him to revert from heathenism. If a homosexual persists, then he will face the consequences.

Lastly "Blessed are those who hunger and thrist for righteousness, for they will be filled" Gospel of Matthew 5:37. NIV.

The LORD doe's not want us to be judgemental hyprocrites. For faith's sake it simple isn't righteous to judge or to take it upon ourselves to act His Decrees. Read Matthew 7.

[NazariteofEhyah]

This goes back to those threads in which we discuss how Christians read and understand the Bible.

As NazariteofEhyah said Jesus' command to love our neighbours means just that - to show love and respect to all.
Spreading messages of hate and blaming certain groups of people for all ills of society is not the way to love ...

Peace

Many act without proper consideration. Jesus command is final and absolute. Contradicting the Ten Commandments and Him is paramount to rejecting the LORD altogether.

[NazariteofEhyah]

What do you define as spreading hate? That is a very relative phrase.

Is spreading hate telling people that God in the Bible abhors homosexuality and absolutely forbids it? That He even destroyed a city for practicing it.

Or is it saying Gays are committing evil and disgusting acts?


I am saying the former but to some the former leads to the latter statement logically.

I would define "hatred" as literally take His Will into your OWN hands. Which your not meant to. Since, I believe those who accure Him so deserve to be directly answerable to Him, not us. We didn't issue Homosexuals an ultimatum to comply. He did.

[Muezzin]

Greetings,

Similar to what Izyan says, I think this will raise the Phelps' profile just as Wilders' profile was raised.

I'll leave a decision about whether this is justified to those of a more legal mind than me, but my gut feeling is: let them come in and show how dumb their views are, and let us all judge for ourselves.

Peace

Well, denying Mr Wilders' entry was arguably a violation of his free movement as an EU citizen, within the EU.

Phelps... immigration-wise is a little more justified, since he's not guaranteed entry anyway.

Also, in light of some of this group's escapades, I think people have a right to bury and mourn their dead relatives without having to endure the slogans of extremist nutjobs blaming it all on the existence of gays.

But that's just me.

[Izyan]

Well, denying Mr Wilders' entry was arguably a violation of his free movement as an EU citizen, within the EU.

Phelps... immigration-wise is a little more justified, since he's not guaranteed entry anyway.

Also, in light of some of this group's escapades, I think people have a right to bury and mourn their dead relatives without having to endure the slogans of extremist nutjobs blaming it all on the existence of gays.

But that's just me.

You're right they do. That's why here he can protest all he wants as long as he's a certain amount of distance away from the grave site as to not disturb mourners.

[Muezzin]

You're right they do. That's why here he can protest all he wants as long as he's a certain amount of distance away from the grave site as to not disturb mourners.

Oh?

Still, they're acting like jerks. Granted, that's not a reason to keep 'em out of the country, but I can't say I'm particularly sorry that they're not allowed in.

[NazariteofEhyah]

Oh?

Still, they're acting like jerks. Granted, that's not a reason to keep 'em out of the country, but I can't say I'm particularly sorry that they're not allowed in.

Despite their view's beening unpleasant. The more and more of them that I hear and see, the more tolerant and self-controlled I become. Actually these people are examples of what people should not become. If they were allowed entry in the country, they would preach hatred.