Source: UPI
According to United Press International, two members of the notoriously anti-gay Phelps clan/church have been denied entry to Great Britain.
Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, who belong to the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas, were planning to come to Britain to protest outside a performance of “The Laramie Project,” the Times of London reported Friday.
Phelps is well known in the United States for his vicious hatred of gays. He and his family form the bulk of Wesboro Baptist Church and frequently picket the funerals of soldiers, GLBTs and AIDS victims. They were apparently hoping to do something similar at the performance of The Laramie Project when they were blocked from entering the country.
“The Home Secretary has excluded both Fred Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper from the U.K.,” a Border Agency spokesman said. “Both these individuals have engaged in unacceptable behavior by inciting hatred against a number of communities.”
Peter Tatchell of the gay rights group OutRage! did not agree with the Home Secretary, believing that even people as bigoted as the Phelps’ deserve to be heard.
The Phelpses are odious, homophobic bigots. They give Christianity a bad name,” Tatchell said. “Objectionable though they are, I don’t agree with them being banned.”
Restrictive actions taken by countries where free speech is (and has always been) far less potent than in the United States are often used by anti-gay groups here to paint a frightening picture of the future. In that scenario, equality for GLBTs is connected with repression of the right to present dissenting views.
No doubt this incident will provide more fuel for some to make that argument, even though we are certain Phelps and his daughter will be able to re-enter the US without incident where they can continue to say whatever they want.
I think this was a stupid, short sighted move by the Home Secretary. We’ve banned people who might upset Muslims and now those who might upset those of us in the LGBT community. But where will it end? People who might upset the Government? People who might upset conservatives? LGBT campaigners?
I hate what WBC stands for, but I believe what has happened is another step towards destroying liberty in the UK.
I agree with Tatchell. Live and let live. The answer to the problems of free speech is always more free speech. And letting people like the Phelpses be heard is the best way to expose them for the idiots they are.
I would be for criminalizing KKK style ranting insane fear mongering (not excluding religions) aimed at a minority.
I think verbal attacks on mourners at funerals (or picketing gay plays in the name of God) is an emotional atrocity. Free speech or not, that is just not OK.
Good for GB.
I agree, Devlin.
Phelps is not “worshipping”, or expressing “opinions”.
He’s harassing people & deliberately inciting violence, which he has no right to do.
It’s time to stop enabling him.
I can understand David’s concern, where anti-gays will claim that they’ll be censored as Phelps was. But another important thing to remember is that even among anti-gay groups the Phelps’s are considered embarrassing and atrocious, and take things too far.
So some might say, “If ENDA is passed then we’ll be censored the way Phelps was when he tried to go to the UK!” But then they’ll be forced to admit what the Phelps’s intents were: not to “preach the Gospel” and “express Christian disagreements with sinful behavior” but to protest outside a movie theatre carrying signs that say “God Hates Fags” and “AIDS = God’s Gift.” And then those anti-gay Christians that are the “moderates” would have to explain that they don’t go to the extremes the Phelps’s do but yes, they would still be censored. Fancy footwork would ensue.
And I’m with Devlin about protesting funerals. There is a line. I can’t imagine the devastation such an act would have wreaked upon the family of my friend, who was gay and committed suicide last year. Free speech?? Acts like that are pure harassment!
Right on everyone, it is harassment. A friend of mine debated Phelps-Roper on a radio station one time and he could not believe her viciousness. There’s a simple solution to this, these people need to sue these people out of existence. You can’t travel around the country and world if you have no money. Plain and simple.
Not all speech is free. We are given opportunities to utilize freedom, but ALSO own it and take responsibility for it.
And there is some speech that ISN’T free and is used for the purpose of incitement to ANOTHER purpose.
Speech that does harass, threaten, incite violence and assault. libel or slander: speech that in any way has the likelihood of leading to something harmful, then the person who insists on doing so, does so at THEIR own risk.
Even by being banned or forced to shut up.
The Canadian example that is so often cited by our dissenters, is distorted.
What they DON’T say and leave out, is that Canada, being responsible for the health and safety of it’s citizens, DOES see a link in what a particular minister has said, and the risks of actions being taken against gay people.
Some speech IS virile that way.
The Bible is VERY straight forward on what it says about ‘men laying with men’, but EVERYTHING else that is typically said about gay people is gravitas and fear and violence inducing.
Canada realized that certain bias in speech leads to bias crimes that can and has cost their country a lot in hospitalization, incarceration, lost productivity and so on.
So if they put the fear of censure, if not God into someone with a virulent style, that ONLY targets gay people, then that is a common sense approach to teaching people about responsibility and that their country won’t pay for their lack of restraint.
We see every day the costs to real lives regarding virulent speech. The commercials in support of Prop. 8. The execution of Lawrence King among others.
The speech that gay people not only have no value, but are dangerous has real consequences.
Look at the results of anti liberal rants on the mind of one old man in Knoxville, TN.
Words have power.
The Phelps know that. But Britain doesn’t have to put up with them on a regular basis, we do.
And now they won’t put up with them at all. We still have to.
The Phelps’s are an example of sound and fury. But the passage of Prop. 8 (and similar state laws all over the country) signified something.
That as a country fearsome speech has cost us, and some have paid dearly.
Even with their lives, THEIR freedom.
So.
I think education on EXACTLY what the line is, and who REALLY pays is important on the discussion regarding not so free speech.
Past debates on free speech here have been pretty lively. My own view is that speech, including that of the Phelps brand, should be as unrestricted as is absolutely possible. But what they do at funerals seems a far cry from simply exercising free speech.
Using the law to make someone act like a decent human being when they are not already so inclined is ineffective at best. I’m not saying that restrictions are not at times a necessary evil (mainly when the rights of one are infringing on those of another), but it’s the worst remedy. However, if a society maintains the rights of a Fred Phelps to rant and rave, the rights of the average person to freely exchange ideas and register dissent, etc, are probably pretty safe as a byproduct.
It’s a complicated one, and Britain doesn’t have quite the same tradition as the US. I’m honestly not sure what I think of this.
A Dutch MP was also recently prevented from entering Britain, in his case due to his extremest views about Muslims. What’s interesting is that he was travelling to Britain on the invitation of a group of British MPs. The Home Secretary still thought it was a bad idea.
TRiG.
I don’t care about using the law to make someone act like a decent human being. I care about using the law to protect people from those who don’t act like decent human beings. What I see as the real problem in these free speech debates is where we draw the line between what is protected speech and what isn’t. My own personal standard has always been that harassment (when it falls under the legal definition of harassment) should not be protected. And if GB refuses the Phelps entry based upon their statement of intent to harass, I don’t have a problem with that.
What we really need is a dialogue between religious leaders of all faiths as to why Phelps’ behavior is not acceptable, and the ways in which that behavior intersects with the actions and activities of people of all faiths across the board.
A friend pointed out to me that the British have denied entry to many prominent individuals over the years, including Paul Robeson, Shostakovich, Louis Farrakhan, rapper Busta Rhymes and Martha Stewart.
The United States has refused entry to British rapper MIA, writer Margaret Atwood, singer Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islam), Irish activist Bernadette Devlin McAliskey, and many others because of their views. The U.S. kept Charlie Chaplin out of the country for many years because of his political views. Under the Bush administration, the U.S. regularly restricted access to our shores for academics and journalists who opposed the administration’s foreign policies, including professors at Notre Dame and the University of Nebraska. The Bush administration also denied entry to a gay couple from Canada who filled out their customs forms as a family.
And we still bar individuals who are HIV positive.
So anyone who claims that the Phelpses are victims of LGBT intolerance is grossly ignorant of the reality of modern immigration law and practice.
Furthermore, another friend points out to me that in the documentary “Fallen From Grace,” two of Phelps’s children endorse domestic terrorism on camera.
It’s perfectly legitimate, imho, for a nation to deny access to persons who are known to support illegal violence.
Margaret Atwood was denied entry to the US? I must look that one up. She’s a children’s author, and a very good one.
TRiG.
Well, I didn’t find what I was looking for, but I did find another reason to like Margaret Atwood.
She boycotted an event in Dubai.
TRiG.
As someone said on another blog today, Britain needs to pass a Bill of Rights, especially the one that protects the freedom of speech of its citizens.
The Human Rights Act is a step in that direction, no? And British citizens can take their government to the European Court of Human Rights if they feel the need.
TRiG.
Look what I found!
It’s their style.
TRiG.